A harlot is someone who sells her body for money. We see the harlots of golf on display at all of golf's major tournaments.
They use their bodies as billboards for commercial advertisement. The hats, the shirts, they are like Nascar vehicles plastered with the logos and names of the companies that have contributed to the player's participation. Instead of being streetwalkers, these guys are course walkers. But the difference, in terms of commercial substance, is negligible. At least the street harlots charge reasonable prices. I'll bet these golfers are banking sizable chunks of change for allowing their bodies to be used as business sign boards.
Golf is supposed to be a gentleman's game but this commercialization of the sport cheapens it. If an NFL player showed up to play wearing, say, a sporting goods company's logo on his helmet, he'd be tossed and fined and possibly suspended. The other major professional sports similarly ban such crass commercialism. If the players want to enter into private contracts with companies to shill their goods off the field, that's something else again.
The harlots of golf ought to be limited to the logo on their golf bag, if that. They can certainly afford to buy shirts and hats that aren't emblazoned with their sponsor's company symbols.
At least Tiger Woods is a little too classy to wear a blinking neon Nike logo on his back. He has a difficult enough time hitting the fairway as it is.
Hello HenryM.
I am not sure about whether advertising on clothing qualifies someone as being a 'harlot'.
But I object to the practice of advertising on any goods without permission of the prospective owner of those goods. I take great delight in allowing salespeople to go through all their sales-pitch with me only to find that the one stipulation I make before a purchase is that all advertising is removed from the goods.
If I am feeling particularly mischievous, I Sometimes go through a process of explaining that I might make an exception, ‘if'‘ the seller is willing to pay me for walking around with their advertising attached to my apparel (or other goods). However, my price for this service has always been way beyond that which they are willing to concede.
I did purchase one car where the salesman was quite happy to make new number plates without the makers name on them.
The most offensive advertising of all must be that of the stonemasons, who have the morbid cheek to engrave their names on the gravestones that they produce. I don't often have the need to purchase such things, but when I do there is always the caveat that they will not get paid if their name appears on the finished gravestone.
I cannot imagine how manufacturers think they can get away with free advertising on their goods. Yet, there it is, on almost every item of clothing, and on most other goods as well.
Anyway, thanks for the post, as it is not often such minor irritations in life have a chance of being aired in public.
Best wishes
Bill
That's me, Bill... tilting after minutiae, minor irritations, & miniscule mundanities. When I'm not posting, I enjoy watching autumn leaves drop and clouds scud.
Hi Henry and Bill,
I did not know about the tomestons but another one I've found is the fishing shows on television. They have the sponsors logos all over their shirts. Again it's akin to NASCAR but the fishing shows seem to be less fishing and mostly commercial endorsements about their products.
I like NASCAR and fishing but I see what you mean and it's very annoying. ..mountain.
