Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.

DonDaddyD
DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
edited March 2012 in Commuting chat
Why are threads like Girls in:

Lycra Shorts
Knitwear
Rainwear
Realistic situations
Short skirts

Allowed to be prevalent on this website but then they prevent you, by some margin, from swearing?

Yes OK, a picture of breasticles and the word fuck aren't directly comparable but both are considered adult. I just don't get the rationale for having one and not the other.

Powers that Be and Mawds, please explain
Food Chain number = 4

A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
«134567…16

Comments

  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Because the (not naked) human body shouldn't be considered offensive, but certain words should?

    There is also (rightly) a limit on just what is allowed to be shown
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • lostboysaint
    lostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    bails87 wrote:
    Because the (not naked) human body shouldn't be considered offensive, but certain words should?

    There is also (rightly) a limit on just what is allowed to be shown

    F**k off!

    :wink:
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    lostboysaint wrote:
    bails87 wrote:
    Because the (not naked) human body shouldn't be considered offensive, but certain words should?

    There is also (rightly) a limit on just what is allowed to be shown

    F**k off!

    :wink:
    Keep talking like that and I'll get my boobs out! :P
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • jonny_trousers
    jonny_trousers Posts: 3,588
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are threads like Girls in:

    Lycra Shorts
    Knitwear
    Rainwear
    Realistic situations

    Allowed to be prevalent on this website but then they prevent you, by some margin, from swearing?

    Yes OK, a picture of breasticles and the word fark aren't directly comparable but both are considered adult. I just don't get the rationale for having one and not the other.

    Powers that Be and Mawds, please explain

    It probably comes down to advertiser's stipulations. In the days when I used to hang out at Men's Health I remember swearing in the forums suddenly being hugely restricted just when a whole new method of advertising was implemented. No one seemed to care about the sheer number of tits on display (and I'm not just talking about 90% of the contributors).
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    edited February 2012
    :oops:
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    bails87 wrote:
    Because the (not naked) human body shouldn't be considered offensive, but certain words should?

    There is also (rightly) a limit on just what is allowed to be shown
    What about all the women cyclists who find those threads mysoginistic and sexist?

    In the 'Realistic Situations' variant there was a picture (it did make me laugh) of a woman head down, kneeling and a man standing behind her holding her foot in the doggy position.

    I mean come on, how is swearing any worse?
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    In the 'Realistic Situations' variant there was a picture (it did make me laugh) of a woman head down, kneeling and a man standing behind her holding her foot in the doggy position.

    I mean come on, how is swearing any worse?
    Cos that picture was quite suggestive but not explicit, and swearing is.

    Careful what you wish for DDDDD; you're asking for consistency on censorship and there's only way that can go. Heck - maybe the mods didn't even realise that there's a soft porn channel on BR until you flagged it up for them.
  • TheStone
    TheStone Posts: 2,291
    Are you trying to get those threads removed?
    exercise.png
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    CIB, the mawds do know, at least one (editor in chief, I think) has posted in a few of them...
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Girls in Rainwear is the most offensive - do none of them understand the concept of layering? :lol:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • cooldad
    cooldad Posts: 32,599
    What this thread needs is some boobies
    booby-b.jpg
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    CIB, the mawds do know, at least one (editor in chief, I think) has posted in a few of them...
    Owz it go? Whooosh.

    :)
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    It would only sexist if someone posted a boys in lycra thread and that was banned when the girls in lycra thread was allowed to stay......
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • clarkey cat
    clarkey cat Posts: 3,641
    thanks for reminding me DDD - I haven't checked in on Aggieboy's contributions for a while! Off there now :D
    Dolan Mythos
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    I think girls in Lycra has lost it's way. Realistic Situations is the funniest (most funny, most funniest). Knitwear the most risque. Rainwear is just not my thing really.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    clarkey cat wrote:
    thanks for reminding me DDD - I haven't checked in on Aggieboy's contributions for a while! Off there now :D

    You could say Aggie's your porn broker.


    I'll let myself out.
    _
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Sketchley wrote:
    It would only sexist if someone posted a boys in lycra thread and that was banned when the girls in lycra thread was allowed to stay......

    *strokes imaginary beard thoughtfully
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • clarkey cat
    clarkey cat Posts: 3,641
    Ah - that's better.
    Dolan Mythos
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    12 minutes? That some kind of record?
    _
  • clarkey cat
    clarkey cat Posts: 3,641
    Yes I think it is actually... I really took my time over this one.
    Dolan Mythos
  • SimonAH
    SimonAH Posts: 3,730
    Premature ejaculator seeks Female age 18 - 27

    Must have good figure, tight buttocks, perky breasts and full ....omigod....never mind.
    FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
    CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
    Litespeed L3 for Strava bits

    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  • itboffin
    itboffin Posts: 20,072
    Rolf F wrote:
    Girls in Rainwear is the most offensive - do none of them understand the concept of layering? :lol:

    Layering ....? DDD perhaps you like to explain to the group
    08032009226.jpg
    Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
    Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
    Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
    Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.
  • EKE_38BPM
    EKE_38BPM Posts: 5,821
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    It would only sexist if someone posted a boys in lycra thread and that was banned when the girls in lycra thread was allowed to stay......

    *strokes imaginary beard thoughtfully
    As you stare off into the distance, imagining boys in lycra, thats not your beard you're stroking.
    FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
    FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
    FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees

    I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!
  • velocestrapture
    velocestrapture Posts: 168
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are threads like Girls in:

    Lycra Shorts
    Knitwear
    Rainwear
    Realistic situations

    Allowed to be prevalent on this website but then they prevent you, by some margin, from swearing?

    Yes OK, a picture of breasticles and the word fark aren't directly comparable but both are considered adult. I just don't get the rationale for having one and not the other.

    Powers that Be and Mawds, please explain

    If you want a serious answer, it is because the objectification of women for the male gaze is seen as more culturally acceptable than the use of obscenities. We have a cultural attachment to seeing the female body as something that is available and intended for public scrutiny. That it is a form of entertainment to analyse women's sexual appeal and availability in a way that is never really directed at men. You are right not to understand the rationale. There is no logic or reason for it, but it does act as an indication of how women and their role in society is perceived.

    I disagree with Sketchley. I suspect that there would be a significant and vocal complaint if there were a thread of pictures of men in semi-naked and sexually provocative poses, and I would place a large bet that none of the objectors would be accused of being humourless, jealous, uptight, or sexually repressed in the way that women are treated if they object to the same sort of images of women.
  • cyclingprop
    cyclingprop Posts: 2,426
    In practice I am pretty sure a 'Girls in' thread is NSFW, so best to avoid... whereas swearing may come up everywhere. While not te worst thing in the world swearing is probably objectionable to someone in the office. And not having it on the screen is easier than having to explain c***.
    What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?
  • jonny_trousers
    jonny_trousers Posts: 3,588
    velocestrapture wrote:
    I disagree with Sketchley. I suspect that there would be a significant and vocal complaint if there were a thread of pictures of men in semi-naked and sexually provocative poses, and I would place a large bet that none of the objectors would be accused of being humourless, jealous, uptight, or sexually repressed in the way that women are treated if they object to the same sort of images of women.

    I'll take that bet please. I honestly think we've mostly moved on in this respect. If the pictures of said scantily clad men were put there deliberately to provoke then perhaps, but on any female dominated forum you will see just the same objectifying and overt lusting-over as you will at any male dominated one, such as this place. Go look and see if you don't believe me. And you know what, I really don't think it's a bad thing. It's pretty shallow, sure, but it's intent is essentially harmless, whether it's girls fawning over Robert Pattinson at Cosmo or lads getting all hot and bothered over lycra-clad-lovelies here.

    Now, be a good girl and leave the thinking to the men, eh? Milk two sugars for me please sweetheart.

    PS. The last paragraph is so blatantly ridiculous it is meant as a very childish joke and I trust it causes no offence.
  • cyclingprop
    cyclingprop Posts: 2,426
    Jonny_Trousers wrote:

    Now, be a good girl and leave the thinking to the men, eh? Milk two sugars for me please sweetheart.

    [

    In your beer? MTFU ;)
    What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?
  • clarkey cat
    clarkey cat Posts: 3,641
    I'd be offended if there were pictures of naked men on this website. Its comparing apples and oranges... or more specifically, bananas and melons. Wahey!!!
    Dolan Mythos
  • velocestrapture
    velocestrapture Posts: 168
    Jonny_Trousers wrote:
    velocestrapture wrote:
    I disagree with Sketchley. I suspect that there would be a significant and vocal complaint if there were a thread of pictures of men in semi-naked and sexually provocative poses, and I would place a large bet that none of the objectors would be accused of being humourless, jealous, uptight, or sexually repressed in the way that women are treated if they object to the same sort of images of women.

    I'll take that bet please. I honestly think we've mostly moved on in this respect. If the pictures of said scantily clad men were put there deliberately to provoke then perhaps, but on any female dominated forum you will see just the same objectifying and overt lusting-over as you will at any male dominated one, such as this place. Go look and see if you don't believe me. And you know what, I really don't think it's a bad thing. It's pretty shallow, sure, but it's intent is essentially harmless, whether it's girls fawning over Robert Pattinson at Cosmo or lads getting all hot and bothered over lycra-clad-lovelies here.

    Now, be a good girl and leave the thinking to the men, eh? Milk two sugars for me please sweetheart.

    PS. The last paragraph is so blatantly ridiculous it is meant as a very childish joke and I trust it causes no offence.

    There is a difference between sites such as Cosmo that are specifically aimed at women, and this one, which is aimed at people interested in a particular sport, and which just happens to be male dominated. You would only go on Cosmo expecting to see such threads, whereas I come on here to chat and learn about cycling. Honestly, the number of threads objectifying women makes this site feel quite hostile to women. Typing this post, I have thoughts going through my mind along the lines of "Great, I know that many of the men on this site like posting pictures of semi-naked women to perve over in public, just how much of a hostile reaction am I going to get by pointing out that this makes women posters feel uncomfortable and disrespected?".

    Besides, my bet was not about threads with pictures of semi-naked men being posted, but the lack of hostility that a man would receive if he objected to it.
  • velocestrapture
    velocestrapture Posts: 168
    And just to test the theory. Phwarr, look at these boys in lycra: :P :wink:

    why-bike-shorts-should-be-black.jpg?w=500&h=333
This discussion has been closed.

Categories