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

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Best makes mum is a social worker type person thing - can't remember precisely - and I remember her saying that there was a direct correlation to people who watch extreme pornography and their propensity to commit sexual offences - and prolonged habitual use of pornography leads to more 'extreme' tastes > though whether than then relates to the above I'm not sure...

A bit like serial killers often are cruel/kill animals when they're kids etc.

Makes sense.

I think there was a documentary a while back looking at some men in their early twenties who wanted to try and ween themselves off porn - they were watching hours a day and unsurprisingly found it almost impossible to form relationships with women.

DonDaddyD

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You seem to have very little respect for men in general and their ability to distinguish between right and wrong, which suggests any discussion here, with the heavily dominant male membership, is utterly pointless.

I note your retraction of this comment and thank you for that, but I think that the views I have expressed on here have been anything but disrespectful.

Truly disrespectful attitudes towards men are the ones that frequently come from women, but men too, when they say that men have needs and urges that can only be met by free access to provocative images of women or regular sex, so we shouldn't expect them to curb those impulses even if it may be causing discomfort to other people. It is disrespectful to say that women are naturally better at childcare/housework/cooking/shopping, and it is ok to treat men as incompetent children when they make mistakes or choose to do it a bit differently. It is disrespectful to say that men have less emotional intelligence than women, so should be excused being unkind or thoughtless. It is disrespectful to say that women are foolish for walking alone at night because any man is a potential rapist, so women should not trust men as a group not to rape her.

I don't think it is the slightest bit disrespectful to do as I have done, and put forward my opinion in (what I hope has been) an articulate and measured way. It is completely respectful to assume that although the men reading this post will not have the experiences and perspective that I do, that they may be able to understand what and why I am posting, and even if they don't agree, will be able and willing to think about it carefully, and may be open minded enough to change their opinions a little.

But if you think that I have been disrespectful because I have steadfastly held my position despite many men telling me that I am wrong, and that I have had the balls to come onto a male-dominated site and put out some views that I acknowledge may well be uncomfortable and challenging to men reading them, then seriously, mate, you can take a running jump.

I have my faults, many of them I'm sure conflict with your opinion. But +1 for saying this.

JT wrote:

PS. Your boyfriend does look at porn and he does get turned on by pictures of particularly attractive women. That does not make him a bad person or a mysogenist and it certainly doesn't mean he cares for you any less.

Not cool. What has her boyfriend got to do with this? Maybe they watch sexually explicit content together or get up to the ultimate freaky, things that would make you tremble. What's between Velo and her boyfriend really isn't any of your business and you shouldn't be using him as an attack on her.

And her point, the point, is that whatever they do it's most certainly enjoyed with a level of mutual respect. That's her point no? Be visually attracted all you want, but the woman you are staring at isn't an object she is a person who deserves respect and not to be demeaned as you have just tried by going after her boyfriend to attack her.

A little bit too low a blow I think... I didn't like that one bit.

RJS wrote:

I suspect more people than you think don't get much out of porn.

After Ms DDD gave birth I pretty much stopped watching porn. Think about women differently now.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Best makes mum is a social worker type person thing - can't remember precisely - and I remember her saying that there was a direct correlation to people who watch extreme pornography and their propensity to commit sexual offences - and prolonged habitual use of pornography leads to more 'extreme' tastes > though whether than then relates to the above I'm not sure...

A bit like serial killers often are cruel/kill animals when they're kids etc.

Makes sense.

I think there was a documentary a while back looking at some men in their early twenties who wanted to try and ween themselves off porn - they were watching hours a day and unsurprisingly found it almost impossible to form relationships with women.

Indeed.

S'not ideal for women either who feel that's what they should be aiming for/ competing with.

You wonder if the influx of porn is related to all those girls/women who go out getting 'lashed' dressed up as hookers. You know, the ones you see on crimewatch uk 14, falling over their stripper heels in their own vomit in the centre of Wolverhampton. Presumably it is.

clarkey cat

is this a 'state of the nation' thread now... because if so, I'm off.

dhope

clarkey cat wrote:

is this a 'state of the nation' thread now... because if so, I'm off.

Think it jumped the shark a few pages back

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder if the influx of porn is related to all those girls/women who go out getting 'lashed' dressed up as hookers. You know, the ones you see on crimewatch uk 14, falling over their stripper heels in their own vomit in the centre of Wolverhampton. Presumably it is.

No, the influx of porn is due to the ease of which it is accessible on the internet. The rise of hardcore porn is a result that we have become desensitised to the softcore stuff which is everywhere. Television X is just boring these days.

Women wearing whatever clothes they choose, even the revealing stuff, I'd argue is mostly down to the ever evolving view of women in society and the fact that it is now generally accepted that women can wear what they want for them and not for the approval of men.

veronese68

I know a doctor that said one of his colleagues was on a conference about fertility and such like that told him there were many cases of couples not being able to conceive because they were unaware of some basic facts. To the point that they didn't know a facial or a pearl necklace wouldn't get a girl pregnant.
Well they were doing it like in the movies.

clarkey cat

facial or a pearl necklace

go on.... :P

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder if the influx of porn is related to all those girls/women who go out getting 'lashed' dressed up as hookers. You know, the ones you see on crimewatch uk 14, falling over their stripper heels in their own vomit in the centre of Wolverhampton. Presumably it is.

No, the influx of porn is due to the ease of which it is accessible on the internet. The rise of hardcore porn is a result that we have become desensitised to the softcore stuff which is everywhere. Television X is just boring these days.

Women wearing whatever clothes they choose, even the revealing stuff, I'd argue is mostly down to the ever evolving view of women in society and the fact that it is now generally accepted that women can wear what they want for them and not for the approval of men.

Babestation got mentioned by Andrew Neil in the introduction to a piece on This Week the other day. I think the line was something like "...Now... it's late... Babestation late [slightly raised eyebrow]..." Not sure what he was trying to hint at but I don't think either party benefitted from the mention.

@Veronese: Underestimate the stupidity of people at your peril.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder if the influx of porn is related to all those girls/women who go out getting 'lashed' dressed up as hookers. You know, the ones you see on crimewatch uk 14, falling over their stripper heels in their own vomit in the centre of Wolverhampton. Presumably it is.

No, the influx of porn is due to the ease of which it is accessible on the internet. The rise of hardcore porn is a result that we have become desensitised to the softcore stuff which is everywhere. Television X is just boring these days.

Women wearing whatever clothes they choose, even the revealing stuff, I'd argue is mostly down to the ever evolving view of women in society and the fact that it is now generally accepted that women can wear what they want for them and not for the approval of men.

Babestation got mentioned by Andrew Neil in the introduction to a piece on This Week the other day. I think the line was something like "...Now... it's late... Babestation late [slightly raised eyebrow]..." Not sure what he was trying to hint at but I don't think either party benefitted from the mention.

@Veronese: Underestimate the stupidity of people at your peril.

Andrew Neil's a weird one.


I was talking to a guy the other week who was once a lawyer or barister or something (some legal bullsh!t). Anyway, he was working on some job regarding improper content on one of those babestation channels - which basically involved him having to watch the output every night on video to make sure nothing 'banned' was seen or said...

Said it was what put him off law.

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

@Veronese: Underestimate the stupidity of people at your peril.

I know, I shouldn't be surprised but I often am. I guess I'm as daft as anyone.

Cleat Eastwood

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about all the women cyclists who find those threads mysoginistic and sexist?

Ah theres where your argument falls down; most women even spell misogynistic - let alone know what it means.

rjsterry

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about all the women cyclists who find those threads mysoginistic and sexist?

Ah theres where your argument falls down; most women even spell misogynistic - let alone know what it means.

They might remember to put all the words in the sentence though :P

Cleat Eastwood

hehe - i misspelled 'can't' and the br uber generalissimos must have deleted it.....thats my story and i'm sticking to it.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

Women wearing whatever clothes they choose, even the revealing stuff, I'd argue is mostly down to the ever evolving view of women in society and the fact that it is now generally accepted that women can wear what they want for them and not for the approval of men.

Ever heard of Slutwalk?

Veronese68 wrote:

I know a doctor that said one of his colleagues was on a conference about fertility and such like that told him there were many cases of couples not being able to conceive because they were unaware of some basic facts. To the point that they didn't know a facial or a pearl necklace wouldn't get a girl pregnant.
Well they were doing it like in the movies.

I heard a similar story about a couple who were trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant. The doc asked how often they were getting busy, any abnormal discharge, blood in the semen etc. They answered all of the questions and everything seemed OK but when the doc asked her if there was any pain she said yes. The doc examined her and she appeared to be hymen intactus and it turned out the hubby had always used the tradesman's entrance.

I can't remember where I heard that (hopefully not my fevered imagination!), but it wasn't porn related, just really bad sex education.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You seem to have very little respect for men in general and their ability to distinguish between right and wrong, which suggests any discussion here, with the heavily dominant male membership, is utterly pointless.

I note your retraction of this comment and thank you for that, but I think that the views I have expressed on here have been anything but disrespectful.

Truly disrespectful attitudes towards men are the ones that frequently come from women, but men too, when they say that men have needs and urges that can only be met by free access to provocative images of women or regular sex, so we shouldn't expect them to curb those impulses even if it may be causing discomfort to other people. It is disrespectful to say that women are naturally better at childcare/housework/cooking/shopping, and it is ok to treat men as incompetent children when they make mistakes or choose to do it a bit differently. It is disrespectful to say that men have less emotional intelligence than women, so should be excused being unkind or thoughtless. It is disrespectful to say that women are foolish for walking alone at night because any man is a potential rapist, so women should not trust men as a group not to rape her.

I don't think it is the slightest bit disrespectful to do as I have done, and put forward my opinion in (what I hope has been) an articulate and measured way. It is completely respectful to assume that although the men reading this post will not have the experiences and perspective that I do, that they may be able to understand what and why I am posting, and even if they don't agree, will be able and willing to think about it carefully, and may be open minded enough to change their opinions a little.

But if you think that I have been disrespectful because I have steadfastly held my position despite many men telling me that I am wrong, and that I have had the balls to come onto a male-dominated site and put out some views that I acknowledge may well be uncomfortable and challenging to men reading them, then seriously, mate, you can take a running jump.

I have my faults, many of them I'm sure conflict with your opinion. But +1 for saying this.

Agreed.

DonDaddyD wrote:

JT wrote:

PS. Your boyfriend does look at porn and he does get turned on by pictures of particularly attractive women. That does not make him a bad person or a mysogenist and it certainly doesn't mean he cares for you any less.

Not cool. What has her boyfriend got to do with this? Maybe they watch sexually explicit content together or get up to the ultimate freaky, things that would make you tremble. What's between Velo and her boyfriend really isn't any of your business and you shouldn't be using him as an attack on her.

And her point, the point, is that whatever they do it's most certainly enjoyed with a level of mutual respect. That's her point no? Be visually attracted all you want, but the woman you are staring at isn't an object she is a person who deserves respect and not to be demeaned as you have just tried by going after her boyfriend to attack her.

A little bit too low a blow I think... I didn't like that one bit.

And agreed again!

JT, you're coming across badly here.

And EKE - re Slutwalk - I assume you mention it because it perfectly supports what DDD said?

I don't think I've ever agreed with DDD so regularly. Fatherhood's changed you, dude.

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

And EKE - re Slutwalk - I assume you mention it because it perfectly supports what DDD said?

Yup.

supersonic

The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.

Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?

EKE_38BPM

supersonic wrote:

The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.

Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?

DDD - See what you've done!

What is to stop someone saying: "Campag is more expensive than Shimano. Look at the tits on that!" Just to get around the rules?

supersonic

In the issues of fairness, you must mention SRAM if posting about Shimano and Campag. Even if it is crap ;-)

Do Campag parts have tits though? Never really looked. Though the wheels must have nipples.

nicklouse

supersonic wrote:

In the issues of fairness, you must mention SRAM if posting about Shimano and Campag. Even if it is crap ;-)

Do Campag parts have tits though? Never really looked. Though the wheels must have nipples.

Their hubs used to have nipples.

But back to the original question it was to do with site filters. Many school and business policies blocked sites on the amount of swear words. The filtering of images does not quite work as "well".

But as with anything if it gets out of hand press the report button.

nicklouse

supersonic wrote:

In the issues of fairness, you must mention SRAM if posting about Shimano and Campag. Even if it is crap ;-)

Do Campag parts have tits though? Never really looked. Though the wheels must have nipples.

Their hubs used to have nipples.

But back to the original question it was to do with site filters. Many school and business policies blocked sites on the amount of swear words. The filtering of images does not quite work as "well".

But as with anything if it gets out of hand press the report button.

jonny_trousers

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't think I've ever agreed with DDD so regularly. Fatherhood's changed you, dude.

Hasn't it just? He's an even bigger hypocrite than he was before! All quotes from this thread alone:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Have I posted in those threads? Yes. Do I laugh? Yes. But I don't for one second ignore what they are or the negative effect on the website.

I don't think velocestrapture is wrong on this one.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Jaysus how fit are you? Pics or it didn't happen.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I posted a picture of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead in the girls in lycra thread, yes. Would I post a picture of a woman taking a pee while sitting in a toilet or a woman enjoying a session in the doggy position as has been posted in Girls in realistic situations thread? No.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I watch porn, yes.

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's when images get into showing the rear view of a woman standing with the top tube between her legs and the bike seat suggestively pointing towards... that I would say is when they've gone too far (for this website).

There are other places to enjoy that sort of thing. Which I unashamedly do.

DonDaddyD wrote:

And before you all start calling me a hypocrite and reminding me of the time I referred to that girl that pissed me off as a "bint". After my baby was born I went through a revelation and started thinking about sex, women, porn differently (seriously I don't watch porn anymore, that's amazing as it was a preferred genre).

DonDaddyD wrote:

After Ms DDD gave birth I pretty much stopped watching porn. Think about women differently now.

Astonishing!

Yep, far too much time on my hands and yes, I really do need to get a life, but I'm afraid DDD's sudden standing-up-for-the-oppresion-of-women routine thoroughly got on wick. Ladies: you do realise DDD is only encouraging you to burn your bras so he can get a look at your tits, right?

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to take part in DDD's "Guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't" thread.

t.m.h.n.e.t

What

itboffin

Did he say nipples ?

and it's not even 7am yet i'm shocked and applaud, you wait until points of view here about this ...

msmancunia

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't think I've ever agreed with DDD so regularly. Fatherhood's changed you, dude.

Hasn't it just? He's an even bigger hypocrite than he was before! All quotes from this thread alone:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Have I posted in those threads? Yes. Do I laugh? Yes. But I don't for one second ignore what they are or the negative effect on the website.

I don't think velocestrapture is wrong on this one.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Jaysus how fit are you? Pics or it didn't happen.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I posted a picture of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead in the girls in lycra thread, yes. Would I post a picture of a woman taking a pee while sitting in a toilet or a woman enjoying a session in the doggy position as has been posted in Girls in realistic situations thread? No.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I watch porn, yes.

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's when images get into showing the rear view of a woman standing with the top tube between her legs and the bike seat suggestively pointing towards... that I would say is when they've gone too far (for this website).

There are other places to enjoy that sort of thing. Which I unashamedly do.

DonDaddyD wrote:

And before you all start calling me a hypocrite and reminding me of the time I referred to that girl that pissed me off as a "bint". After my baby was born I went through a revelation and started thinking about sex, women, porn differently (seriously I don't watch porn anymore, that's amazing as it was a preferred genre).

DonDaddyD wrote:

After Ms DDD gave birth I pretty much stopped watching porn. Think about women differently now.

Astonishing!

Yep, far too much time on my hands and yes, I really do need to get a life, but I'm afraid DDD's sudden standing-up-for-the-oppresion-of-women routine thoroughly got on wick. Ladies: you do realise DDD is only encouraging you to burn your bras so he can get a look at your tits, right?

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to take part in DDD's "Guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't" thread.

Come on - give the guy a break. He's admitted that he's posted in the threads in the past, he acknowleges (as have a lot of guys here) that he appreciates an attractive girl, (as all men do) and that he's grown up after having a baby. I think the point of this thread is that the Girls in... threads have started to cross a line. That "line" is different for everyone, and the problem is deciding what is acceptable, and what isn't.

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Astonishing!

Yep, far too much time on my hands and yes, I really do need to get a life, but I'm afraid DDD's sudden standing-up-for-the-oppresion-of-women routine thoroughly got on wick. Ladies: you do realise DDD is only encouraging you to burn your bras so he can get a look at your tits, right?

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to take part in DDD's "Guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't" thread.

Personally I think you struggle or are deliberately ignoring the seperation of enjoying sex, sexual attraction and sexual expression and actually being degrading to women.

I make no apologies for admiring women and the female/male form, enjoying sex and acknowledging or expressing the fact that I am attracted to certain things. I make no apologies for the "Guilty pleasure thread". For example I've seen Janine Butcher in real life, I thought she was very attractive. The character, Janine, is evil and vile. So one really shouldn't.

Furthermore not all women are forced into activities that revolve around or engage in sex (including selling it). Some choose and some enjoy watching and participating. In short you can go into a strip club, watch porn or a live show, enjoy yourself and not be degrading or derogatory to the female performer in front of you.

Clearly, many on here like and enjoy sex to varying degrees. All most are saying is that (i) there is a line and maybe this website isn't the place for the more explicit stuff. (ii) While, yes, there is nothing wrong with liking and acknowledging Nicole Cook's beauty in lycra there is no reason to be so very chauvinistic and brutally crass about it.

And YES in the past I have been a culprit of what I'm talking out against. I've acknowledged this, I make no excuses for this. Clearly I do know where the line is and you'll find I am almost never personally abusive to the women on this forum and I DON'T target their gender.

Seriously, it's about having respect for the other person in whatever activity you are doing. Even sex there should always be respect for each person involved. Even in a sub/dom, master/slave scenario.

Gizmodo

Mmmmm, thought provoking thread. I certainly have both posted in and enjoyed looking at the "Girls in ..." threads in Cake Stop (hopefully I haven't posted anything too risky) and I must agree that a few of the images are more lewd than artistic. But who gets to decide what is art and what is smut? Who gets to decide what is a swear word and what is acceptable?

I've never thought about it from the "do we want to encourage more women to participate in this forum" angle. But I have a question: in many male oriented work environments (engineering factories for example) it is still common place to have girlie calendars on the wall. Are women put off from working in such environments because of the calendar or because of the work? Does having "Girls in..." threads on here actually stop women from participating, or do they just think "boys will be boys" and not open those threads? After all, we know that there are adult channels on TV now, I've never watched any of them, but it doesn't stop me watching the other channels.

If the ladies want to start a "Men in ..." thread then I have no problem with that, I know many women who have pictures around their desks at work of male models wearing only half a fire fighter's uniform, I never thought it was degrading to men or that any man would be offended by it.

I don't have any answers, but I certainly will think more now before posting on here after reading this thread. It's a shame that this debate isn't happening in the "Cake Stop" forum.

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

Furthermore not all women are forced into activities that revolve around or engage in sex (including selling it). Some choose and some enjoy watching and participating. In short you can go into a strip club, watch porn or a live show, enjoy yourself and not be degrading or derogatory to the female performer in front of you.

How do you know if they are there as a lifestyle choice or because they have fallen on really bad times and felt they had no option? Do you do a background check and drug test them?
It's not like a free range chicken that you can check your particular choice in smut has been ethically raised.

15peter20

velocestrapture wrote:

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've been a lone voice in objecting to these threads on Cake Stop but have been predictably shot down in flames in the way velocestrapture suggests. My main gripe is that one slightly sinister, leery, nudge nudge, soft porn thread multiplied into 5 or 6 - for pity's sake, is the internet not already chock full of porn? I'm no prude, but as someone mentioned, the Cake Stop is analagous to a public cafe, frequented by anyone of any age or gender. I don't like the slightly seedy nature of these threads which remind me of school boys passing round a porn mag on the back of the bus.