They are jobs. The girls aren't being forced into anything and are actually being paid.

It's impossible to force sexism into that. Just hire and pay male models for women sports aswell if you like.

Next thing you're saying is that the muslims are right and we should cover them head to toe.

What is wrong with beatiful women? Should we pretend they don't exist? They are there cause they want to be. It's quite honestly easy work. Male models are hired for similar jobs.

I think the one objectifying is yourself, cause you are treating these woman as people without the freedom to make their own decisions. Who are you to tell them what to do?

They had male models do the grid in Mônaco. Wasn't well received.

and I was being sarcastic over the pool.

You're acting as if these girls if these girls are self employed, If they are, than one of their clients has simply decided they do not want to use them any more. If they're not self employed than of course you can't just do whatever you want. I can't work for Sony and just decide I'm going to a model on their E3 stage, If they decide they don't want models that isn't impending on my freedoms. 

You mean the same feminists who want to free the nipple... Guys come on! This is ridiculous 

Sure, there's some who want to do that sort of stuff and they wouldn't be against things that guys typically like because they're sex-positive feminists. The sex-negative feminists like Anita want to get rid of all that and shame men for liking women. That's what we're talking about.

I think there was a clash of them over a pic of Jennifer Lawrence in a sexy dress.

Needed for Formula E and NASCAR =/= needed to have a formula racing tournament altogether. Are you unable to see that distinction? I have acknowledged that NASCAR and Formula E deemed them necessary for their companies' business, but that, once again, doesn't mean they are necessary to have a Formula racing tournament. They might be necessary for their Formula racing tournament, but not necessary for each and every one of them. Do you legitimately not see the difference between those two things?

I really can't see why the telegraphic example would be more near and valid than this one... or have you registered for your self the use of not 1:1 analogy?

What has this got to do with an analogy? It isn't an analogy, just faulty logic.

Grid girls being deemed necessary at some Formula racing venues does not mean they are necessary at all Formula racing venues. Of course, grid girls being deemed unnecessary at some Formula racing venue also does not mean that they are uneccesary at all Formula racing venues , but that was never implied. Grid girls being deemed uneccesary at a single Formula racing venue is enough to show that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary to have a Formula racing tournament. As I explained, they may be necessary for some (for whatever reason), but they are empirically not absolutely necessary to have a formula racing tournament.

It's funny that you can't see that you are being the king of bring fallacies to the thread, drawing in-existent parallels and put strange shifting definitions...

You still haven't explained why you are against Grid Girls.

I thought you were satisfied enough to leave the conversation, but apparently, you still want to talk instead of doing things that are more "worth" your time...

It looks like we have different interpretations of "altogether". When you say "altogether", I saw it as "all" formula racing tournaments. As a result, I interpreted your comment as "grid girls are unnecessary for all formula racing tournaments". You could have said instead what you typed with the bolded and italicized as it would have limited the amount of misunderstanding.

So while we cleared that up, you are still wrong because you concluded your refutation before with and I quote, "This, once again, does not contradict my point - grid girls aren't a necessity". IIRC, you have also said the italicized multiple times prior to that. Because you did not offer a distinction, I have to interpret it as grid girls aren't a necessity at all. However, you ended up refuting your own conclusion with the comment that I am quoting now. You have acknowledged the fact that grid girls are necessary for certain racing tournaments.

I would also like to point to another previous comment here where you switched stances: "Once again - I haven't said that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. (I also never claimed that WEC scrapped grid girls due to declining revenue - I never said anything to suggest that). They probably do provide some financial benefit (though neither of us has any data on that). But I have shown that the possible financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. It's an option, but not absolutely necessary. Wether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact."

You claimed that the WEC example proved that the financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. Again, you didn't provide a distinction, so I had to interpret that your statement applied to all cases, not just WEC's. Later in the conversation, you acknowledged the NASCAR and Formula E still employ grid girls because they deemed them necessary to their businesses.