>>148967468
>However you give those same cheerleaders cute/hot outfits and let them do routines that are borderline risqué and you give them a whole new tool that will draw in crowd engagement and give them something the players can't do: lust, one of the strongest primal motivators. Furthermore the players themselves will fight harder and play more aggressively if they feel the eye candy at the sidelines smiling at them are going to be impressed by their performance.
>Hot cheerleaders make the entire game better sport
this doesn't make any sense for a early 20th century conservative audience. they were all about covering women up and keeping them inside, cheerleading for that reason goes against this.
but they wouldn't do it specifically because of this because in most cultures, openly sexualizing women like this is seen as very bad. there's only a few possibilities;
1. the point is to be sexy (doubt, doesn't make sense for the sensibilities of the time and today. it also doesn't even make sense for Kim possibles time, the early 2000s. sure people were neither freaks like a century ago nor prudes like today)
2. a few people at the start wanted it to be sexy, but did it covertly, and everyone else copied them without knowing the true intention
3. it's not meant to be sexual and it's purely coincidental. what's sexual about a knee length skirt and tank top anyway? it's not like they act like strippers in the field, they do visually impressive gymnastics.
