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

msmancunia

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Those Assos ads, ridiculous though they may be, do not exclusively sexualise women. I mean, who the hell would cycle like this?



All pretty harmless, though. We are all human, humans like looking at and associating themselves with pretty things.

But, the second photo isn't aimed at women - it's aimed at men, in a "if you buy this from us you can look like this too....". Show 100 women that, and then a picture of George Clooney in a dinner jacket, and I can guarantee you at least 90% will go for George.

velocestrapture

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You have every right to make your point, but what you do not have the right to do is to make assumptions about every male visitor to this site's attitude towards equality or sexism simply because we do not share your view of the severity of those particular threads.

What is your reason for thinking I am "making a bit much of it" then? You say that you do not share the view of the women who have posted about the "severity of those particular threads". You probably don't, because as a man, you are not directly affected by the issues that flow from them. However, by saying that I am "making a bit much of it", rather than "hang on, I didn't realise that this could be an issue for some women", you are implying that our feelings of discomfiture are unreasonable, and that the reasonable perspective is your (male) one.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

NSB wrote:

I think you're making a bit much of this velocestrapture

What if she is? When you and Rick go all 'lefty' on us complaining about how we aren't 'Dutch' enough do we dismiss you by claiming you're simply making too much of it or do we acknowledge and engage in meaningful discussion?

Clearly velocestrapture wants to discuss it in depth and is doing so in a constructive manner. It irks me when people disagree with something choose to dismiss the person as 'simply making a bit much of it' and yet when they have an axe to grind enjoy the benefits of their discussions taking up a whole day.

Once again, you just pick one little bit of my post and take it out of context. I'm not even entirely disagreeing with Velocestrapture. I just think its a bit much to call for censorship. Not because I disregard his/her opinion, but because censorship kills forums.

Btw, feel free at any point to start engaging in meaningful discussion :P

DonDaddyD wrote:

The pictures do objectify women, they aren't welcoming to women and the comments compound on these things. 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.

lol, you can't have it both ways, DDD. You enjoy and participate in these threads but still want to agree with Velo?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

WTF, DDD?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

WTF, DDD?

He does seem to be a tad conflicted about this. Imagine if miniDDD had been a girl - it'd be like some group therapy session.

DonDaddyD

NSB wrote:

lol, you can't have it both ways, DDD. You enjoy and participate in these threads but still want to agree with Velo?

And

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

WTF, DDD?

He does seem to be a tad conflicted about this. Imagine if miniDDD had been a girl - it'd be like some group therapy session.

And

JZed wrote:

DDD - have you contributed to the Girls in...threads?

Many times, yes. I posted pictures of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead.

The point is the line. I'm not as hung up about sex and sexuality as others, I will freely talk about 'doing it' and preferences because that's how I am wired. It is not taboo for me and I will never get social misgivings around this subject. But where does promoting and adminring sexuality become perverse objetification and misogyny? In the past I've flirted with LiTs, she is both intelligent and attractive, but even I can see the dot that's actually a line the closer I get to it. I know where respect must be upheld even if I do tend to throw decency out the window and if or when she says stop, I would.

Yes, girls in lycra on road bikes are one of the great visual pleasures of life. But while enjoying that truism we have to be careful not to go so far in exploring our enjoyment of this as to forget the feelings of the people we are admiring. It amounts to having fun at someones expense and that isn't cool.

velocestrapture

DonDaddyD wrote:

I just don't want to see them when I'm reading about bikes!

Ms Mancunia and velocestrapture, both of you echo the above point of view. Where do you stand on a advert like this?



Now, as juvenile and as sexually open as I can be (and it does irritate me that some prudish and poe face users on here shirk at and treat as taboo sexual comments/discussions/topics and yet advocate the existence of the 'Girls in...' threads), I agree with your point and have long since said that a lot of women bike related adverts are created by men for men to be sold and used by women and the Assos 'boob-bib' demonstrates this. But it does signify a problem with your stance, where do you draw the line? If the Girls in thread kept to topic and showed pictures of sexualised women in lycra or bikes or both would you still find it as abhorrent?

mm wrote:

The number of posters... in the girl in threads is actually quite small compared to the total number of readers of BR.

Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean that it should be tolerated if it causes offence even to a minority group.

NSB wrote:

I think you're making a bit much of this velocestrapture

What if she is? When you and Rick go all 'lefty' on us complaining about how we aren't 'Dutch' enough do we dismiss you by claiming you're simply making too much of it or do we acknowledge and engage in meaningful discussion?

Clearly velocestrapture wants to discuss it in depth and is doing so in a constructive manner. It irks me when people disagree with something choose to dismiss the person as 'simply making a bit much of it' and yet when they have an axe to grind enjoy the benefits of their discussions taking up a whole day.

The pictures do objectify women, they aren't welcoming to women and the comments compound on these things. 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.

I do not see that advert as being directed at woman. As a woman, it puts me off, rather than encourages me from buying that product. It is far more sexualised than the equivalent male advert. I strongly suspect that it is designed with the men who might visit the website to look for male clothing in mind rather than any potential female customer, which is a further indication of how women are sidelined in this sport.

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

msmancunia

DonDaddyD wrote:

When I was on the train this woman stared at me so much it gave me an erection and then I got self concious that everyone was staring at me.

Maybe you should have disguised your problem by putting your helmet over your erm....

jonny_trousers

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You have every right to make your point, but what you do not have the right to do is to make assumptions about every male visitor to this site's attitude towards equality or sexism simply because we do not share your view of the severity of those particular threads.

What is your reason for thinking I am "making a bit much of it" then? You say that you do not share the view of the women who have posted about the "severity of those particular threads". You probably don't, because as a man, you are not directly affected by the issues that flow from them. However, by saying that I am "making a bit much of it", rather than "hang on, I didn't realise that this could be an issue for some women", you are implying that our feelings of discomfiture are unreasonable, and that the reasonable perspective is your (male) one.

Well first off you are muddling me up with someone else as I never said you were "Making a bit much of it", and secondly, if you are suggesting that, as a man, I am incapable of empathising with women, or listening to what they have to say, then there is absolutely no point in you trying to make your point to the vast majority of us here - as we are mostly men.

Personally I don't think your feelings of discomfiture are either reasonable or unreasonable. I feel they are yours to express in any way you see fit. I think you would be better served simply ignoring those threads if the site owners are happy with them - as they clearly are - and investing your time in creating and contributing to the kind of threads that you do enjoy. What I do find unreasonable is you suggesting that because two other women in this thread have expressed discomfort where those threads are concerned (although I think you are perhaps signing them up to your cause without really listening to what either of them has said), that all women find such postings offensive to the point where they should be banned - my guess is most would find them purile and childish, but would decide it's just boys being boys. The kind of sexual harassment described by MsMancunia is completely unacceptable, but I see no cause and effect between the locker room style "Girls in..." threads and men actually behaving like pricks in the real world.

velocestrapture

rjsterry wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

but I am not suggesting that you have to go out and start campaigning against FGM or even write to your MP in protest about all the funding that is being pulled from women's refuges in the UK.

Well honestly, I think my time would be better spent doing that than complaining to BR. If I were to do something about the Girls... threads, it would be to report the posts to the mods as I have done with other posts that I've thought unacceptable, but in this case, the mods have already given their tacit acceptance of the threads. TBH, I didn't even know the knitwear and rainwear threads existed, and the lycra thread is known more by reputation than anything else.

Why do you feel it is not a good use of your time to tackle the sexism that is around you, rather than that in which you are not directly involved? Is it because it is difficult or uncomfortable to tackle something that you are/may have been complicit in condoning?

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

NSB wrote:

lol, you can't have it both ways, DDD. You enjoy and participate in these threads but still want to agree with Velo?

And

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

WTF, DDD?

He does seem to be a tad conflicted about this. Imagine if miniDDD had been a girl - it'd be like some group therapy session.

And

JZed wrote:

DDD - have you contributed to the Girls in...threads?

Many times, yes. I posted pictures of Liz Hatch and Lizzie Armistead.

The point is the line. I'm not as hung up about sex and sexuality as others, I will freely talk about 'doing it' and preferences because that's how I am wired. It is not taboo for me and I will never get social misgivings around this subject. But where does promoting and adminring sexuality become perverse objetification and misogyny? In the past I've flirted with LiTs, she is both intelligent and attractive, but even I can see the dot that's actually a line the closer I get to it. I know where respect must be upheld even if I do tend to throw decency out the window and if or when she says stop, I would.

Yes, girls in lycra on road bikes are one of the great visual pleasures of life. But while enjoying that truism we have to be careful not to go so far in exploring our enjoyment of this as to forget the feelings of the people we are admiring. It amounts to having fun at someones expense and that isn't cool.

I think you mistake privacy for being hung up about stuff, but that's a whole other thread. Agree that the context of your posts above makes a big difference from the perving in Cakestop.

notsoblue

So what do you think should happen to the "Girls In" threads, DDD?

msmancunia

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Personally I don't think your feelings of discomfiture are either reasonable or unreasonable. I feel they are yours to express in any way you see fit. I think you would be better served simply ignoring those threads if the site owners are happy with them - as they clearly are - and investing your time in creating and contributing to the kind of threads that you do enjoy. What I do find unreasonable is you suggesting that because two other women in this thread have expressed discomfort where those threads are concerned (although I think you are perhaps signing them up to your cause without really listening to what either of them has said), that all women find such postings offensive to the point where they should be banned - my guess is most would find them purile and childish, but would decide it's just boys being boys. The kind of sexual harassment described by MsMancunia is completely unacceptable, but I see no cause and effect between the locker room style "Girls in..." threads and men actually behaving like pricks in the real world.[/quote]

This is my point, I guess. I know it goes on, it has always gone on, and it always will go on - I accept that. It's childish and purile, (occasionally funny at this level) but when it gets to the extreme it objectifies women, which I don't like. So why can't it stay in the locker room which is a male environment? Why does it have to go on a mixed sex chat site and potentially make 50% of the population feel a bit creeped out?

notsoblue

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

Really having difficulty reconciling what you've said before with the above... Do you think that DDD's perving is ok, but EKE's is somehow offensive to you?

velocestrapture

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The kind of sexual harassment described by MsMancunia is completely unacceptable, but I see no cause and effect between the locker room style "Girls in..." threads and men actually behaving like pricks in the real world.

Do you really not? Don't you think that if more of the men who disapprove of such attitudes chose to speak up and pull up their friends and colleagues who do engage in sexist attitudes that there would be less men who found it acceptable to display those attitudes publicly to women in the street?

I agree that the threads are in a "locker room style", but the point is that this is not a locker room, this is a public forum where men and women go to talk about sport. I'm not saying that perving over people of the opposite sex is never acceptable, but that some thought should be put in to when it may not be acceptable, and more people, and men in particular, should be prepared to challenge it when it is over the line.

notsoblue

I think the fact that this thread has gotten to 6 pages of fairly reasonable debate makes my point about Cakestop and Commuting chat being totally different places with very little overlap between regulars.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

So what do you think should happen to the "Girls In" threads, DDD?

Nope, not me. I'm not making any suggestions. Too many people recognise my distinct frame and bike. I don't want to be chased home through London by any number of angry cyclists for closing down the "Girls in" threads...

RJS wrote:

I think you mistake privacy for being hung up about stuff, but that's a whole other thread.

I understand your right and desire to privacy. The things I hold dear and consider private are different to your own. Aspects of sex, for me, isn't one of them.

RJS wrote:

Agree that the context of your posts above makes a big difference from the perving in Cakestop.

Tell NSB that.

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

[/quote][/quote]
Interesting you said that, I remember reading/watching a documentary about porn and it was said that the problem with men watching too much porn is that they begin to associate sex and expect their sex lives to be representative of what they've watched on screen.

velocestrapture

notsoblue wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

Really having difficulty reconciling what you've said before with the above... Do you think that DDD's perving is ok, but EKE's is somehow offensive to you?

I think that DDD sails very close to the wind with regards what I find acceptable, but there is a difference between engaging in banter with someone on a personal level (particularly when posters 'know' each other through posting regularly) and putting up pictures of women to be displayed as objects. With the former there is at least an acknowledgement that you are engaging with a real person who has feelings and opinions.

msmancunia

notsoblue wrote:

I think the fact that this thread has gotten to 6 pages of fairly reasonable debate makes my point about Cakestop and Commuting chat being totally different places with very little overlap between regulars.

Very good point. Just had a quick look and don't really recognise any of the names.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So what do you think should happen to the "Girls In" threads, DDD?

Nope, not me. I'm not making any suggestions. Too many people recognise my distinct frame and bike. I don't want to be chased home through London by any number of angry cyclists for closing down the "Girls in" threads...

Er, so you enjoy, participate in, and are too much of a wuss to say anything against "Girls in", but somehow you're still on Velo's side?

Colour me baffled...

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

I think the fact that this thread has gotten to 6 pages of fairly reasonable debate makes my point about Cakestop and Commuting chat being totally different places with very little overlap between regulars.

A thread with 3 million views transcends any comparisons between regulars of one part of the forum and regulars of another.

The amount of views that thread has had problem is in excess of the number of signed up users who have posted here and/or in cake stop combined.

The thread, it's images, the messages, dennotations and connotations are there for the wider Internet so one does have to think "what does a thread like say about mens attitudes to women who ride a bike"?

DonDaddyD

velocestrapture wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

Really having difficulty reconciling what you've said before with the above... Do you think that DDD's perving is ok, but EKE's is somehow offensive to you?

I think that DDD sails very close to the wind with regards what I find acceptable, but there is a difference between engaging in banter with someone on a personal level (particularly when posters 'know' each other through posting regularly) and putting up pictures of women to be displayed as objects. With the former there is at least an acknowledgement that you are engaging with a real person who has feelings and opinions.

For 5 years that has been my singular point about my perving. Seriously.

jonny_trousers

msmancunia wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Personally I don't think your feelings of discomfiture are either reasonable or unreasonable. I feel they are yours to express in any way you see fit. I think you would be better served simply ignoring those threads if the site owners are happy with them - as they clearly are - and investing your time in creating and contributing to the kind of threads that you do enjoy. What I do find unreasonable is you suggesting that because two other women in this thread have expressed discomfort where those threads are concerned (although I think you are perhaps signing them up to your cause without really listening to what either of them has said), that all women find such postings offensive to the point where they should be banned - my guess is most would find them purile and childish, but would decide it's just boys being boys. The kind of sexual harassment described by MsMancunia is completely unacceptable, but I see no cause and effect between the locker room style "Girls in..." threads and men actually behaving like pricks in the real world.

This is my point, I guess. I know it goes on, it has always gone on, and it always will go on - I accept that. It's childish and purile, (occasionally funny at this level) but when it gets to the extreme it objectifies women, which I don't like. So why can't it stay in the locker room which is a male environment? Why does it have to go on a mixed sex chat site and potentially make 50% of the population feel a bit creeped out?

Well that is a perfectly reasonable point and one worth putting to the site admin if you feel strongly enough about it. Personally I would think it simpler to ignore - as you don't actually get to see pictures to be offended by if you don't click on them - but that's just me.

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The kind of sexual harassment described by MsMancunia is completely unacceptable, but I see no cause and effect between the locker room style "Girls in..." threads and men actually behaving like pricks in the real world.

Do you really not? Don't you think that if more of the men who disapprove of such attitudes chose to speak up and pull up their friends and colleagues who do engage in sexist attitudes that there would be less men who found it acceptable to display those attitudes publicly to women in the street?

The thing is you are making the assumption that the same men who enjoy the "women in..." threads are the same ones who shout offensive abuse at lone women cyclists and I am certain that is wrong. I would bet 99% of the men here would not stand by and allow men to intimidate a woman with the kind of remarks MsMancunia mentioned. I'm sure they would either speak out or at the very least make sure that the girl was okay after the verbal attack. I doubt very many of us, however, would tell a mate off for saying, "Cor, look at the arse on that" behind a woman's back (a verbal equivalent of those threads).

velocestrapture wrote:

agree that the threads are in a "locker room style", but the point is that this is not a locker room, this is a public forum where men and women go to talk about sport. I'm not saying that perving over people of the opposite sex is never acceptable, but that some thought should be put in to when it may not be acceptable, and more people, and men in particular, should be prepared to challenge it when it is over the line.

Please see above.

notsoblue

velocestrapture wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

Really having difficulty reconciling what you've said before with the above... Do you think that DDD's perving is ok, but EKE's is somehow offensive to you?

I think that DDD sails very close to the wind with regards what I find acceptable, but there is a difference between engaging in banter with someone on a personal level (particularly when posters 'know' each other through posting regularly) and putting up pictures of women to be displayed as objects. With the former there is at least an acknowledgement that you are engaging with a real person who has feelings and opinions.

I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, are barking up the wrong tree, and are making a bit much of it. Your reaction to EKE's post was way over the top, though probably understandable if you had no experience of his other posts on here and simply assumed that he was a regular in Cakestop's "Girl's In" threads. And then you heap praise upon someone who claims to not objectify women but then has actually participated in the threads you're complaining about and actually asked (semi tongue in cheek, hands down trousers) to see a picture of one of the female contributors to this thread because she said she had had loads of unwelcome chauvinistic attention!

Does not compute! :P

EKE_38BPM

From the lack of comment to my earlier post, I guess msmanc has no problem with where I draw the line.
I guess that I draw the line at roughly the same place as most men i.e.:
Sneaky peek: OK.
Leering, grabbing and shouting: Not OK.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I think the fact that this thread has gotten to 6 pages of fairly reasonable debate makes my point about Cakestop and Commuting chat being totally different places with very little overlap between regulars.

A thread with 3 million views transcends any comparisons between regulars of one part of the forum and regulars of another.

Its about participation. And about how different parts of this forum have entirely different tones. Velo's complaint was about the tone of the forum and the willingness or lack there of moderators to change it to one more inclusive. My point is that this thread has been pretty inclusive, unlike the type of threads Velo feels excluded from because they're full of naked women.

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

And thanks DDD, for starting this thread and for your genuine support. I actually enjoy a bit of risqué banter myself, but feel more inhibited from doing so on a site where there are pictures of semi-naked women than if they were not there. It is as if I feel I have to draw up a clear line to get men to make a distinction between the women whose pictures they are perving over, and how they interact with me.

Really having difficulty reconciling what you've said before with the above... Do you think that DDD's perving is ok, but EKE's is somehow offensive to you?

I think that DDD sails very close to the wind with regards what I find acceptable, but there is a difference between engaging in banter with someone on a personal level (particularly when posters 'know' each other through posting regularly) and putting up pictures of women to be displayed as objects. With the former there is at least an acknowledgement that you are engaging with a real person who has feelings and opinions.

I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, are barking up the wrong tree, and are making a bit much of it. Your reaction to EKE's post was way over the top, though probably understandable if you had no experience of his other posts on here and simply assumed that he was a regular in Cakestop's "Girl's In" threads. And then you heap praise upon someone who claims to not objectify women but then has actually participated in the threads you're complaining about and actually asked (semi tongue in cheek, hands down trousers) to see a picture of one of the female contributors to this thread because she said she had had loads of unwelcome chauvinistic attention!

Does not compute! :P

Quite!

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So what do you think should happen to the "Girls In" threads, DDD?

Nope, not me. I'm not making any suggestions. Too many people recognise my distinct frame and bike. I don't want to be chased home through London by any number of angry cyclists for closing down the "Girls in" threads...

Er, so you enjoy, participate in, and are too much of a wuss to say anything against "Girls in", but somehow you're still on Velo's side?

Colour me baffled...

Look, firstly I don't hold myself in such high regards as not to acknowledge that I can be, like most, hypocritical. humans are hypocrits and only those willing to lie to themselves would think overwise.

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.

Do I watch porn, yes. Would I encourage my son to do porn, no. Do you, would you?

Do I enjoy sex, I love it. Would I ever feel comfortable knowing my son thinks the same things I do, no. Do you, would you?

I don't think it's for me to decide the fate of a thread. I've never called for a topic to be deleted, I will only raise discussions about the context and it's nature.

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The thing is you are making the assumption that the same men who enjoy the "women in..." threads are the same ones who shout offensive abuse at lone women cyclists and I am certain that is wrong. I would bet 99% of the men here would not stand by and allow men to intimidate a woman with the kind of remarks MsMancunia mentioned. I'm sure they would either speak out or at the very least make sure that the girl was okay after the verbal attack. I doubt very many of us, however, would tell a mate off for saying, "Cor, look at the ars* on that" behind a woman's back (a verbal equivalent of those threads).

+1

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So what do you think should happen to the "Girls In" threads, DDD?

Nope, not me. I'm not making any suggestions. Too many people recognise my distinct frame and bike. I don't want to be chased home through London by any number of angry cyclists for closing down the "Girls in" threads...

Er, so you enjoy, participate in, and are too much of a wuss to say anything against "Girls in", but somehow you're still on Velo's side?

Colour me baffled...

Look, firstly I don't hold myself in such high regards as not to acknowledge that I can be, like most, hypocritical. humans are hypocrits and only those willing to lie to themselves would think overwise.

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.

Do I watch porn, yes. Would I encourage my son to do porn, no. Do you, would you?

Do I enjoy sex, I love it. Would I ever feel comfortable knowing my son thinks the same things I do, no. Do you, would you?

I don't think it's for me to decide the fate of a thread. I've never called for a topic to be deleted, I will only raise discussions about the context and it's nature.

Yeah, still baffled...