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

SteppenHerring

lost_in_thought

@EKE --

NB: I haven't read all the posts very thoroughly, forgive me if this has been discussed but I haven't noticed it.

I think it's great that you find 'athletic women' attractive, but the pictures you've posted are demeaning in my book. They ignore the women's sporting prowess and achievements, and turn them into a pair of boobs or a nice a*se. Both seem like accidental exposures, which a photographer catering to lecherous men has deliberately taken. That has a 'hiding in the bushes' (peeping tom) feel to it, which is creepy.

Also, do you think they're really excellent posting fodder in a thread where almost all of the forum's female posters are saying they find the pervy pictures offensive?

Say you like athletic forms, then post this:



See the difference?

supersonic wrote:

If anyone finds a pic objectionable, or think it has broken da rulez, please flag it for moderation.

In the meantime, anyone got any pics of fit birds?

That comment, to me, is pretty darn out of line. You're essentially saying 'hey if you want to moan about something everyone's fine with then go ahead if you must, poppet. However, I, as a representative of BR's moderators like the 'fit birds', and am therefore not interested in anything that doesn't support my view. Basically, if you're offended, GFY.'

Nice.

supersonic

No, I am not saying that, the last bit was a joke, as the following posters realised. I have deleted plenty of pics before. If you find pics you don't like, report them.

lost_in_thought

supersonic wrote:

No, I am not saying that, the last bit was a joke, as the following posters realised. I have deleted plenty of pics before. If you find pics you don't like, report them.

And as a representative of BR's moderators, do you think making light of people's objections to such things is a totally awesome idea?

People wonder why this site is a sausage-fest........

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

@EKE --

NB: I haven't read all the posts very thoroughly, forgive me if this has been discussed but I haven't noticed it.

I think it's great that you find 'athletic women' attractive, but the pictures you've posted are demeaning in my book. They ignore the women's sporting prowess and achievements, and turn them into a pair of boobs or a nice a*se. Both seem like accidental exposures, which a photographer catering to lecherous men has deliberately taken. That has a 'hiding in the bushes' (peeping tom) feel to it, which is creepy.

Also, do you think they're really excellent posting fodder in a thread where almost all of the forum's female posters are saying they find the pervy pictures offensive?

Say you like athletic forms, then post this:



See the difference?

supersonic wrote:

If anyone finds a pic objectionable, or think it has broken da rulez, please flag it for moderation.

In the meantime, anyone got any pics of fit birds?

That comment, to me, is pretty darn out of line. You're essentially saying 'hey if you want to moan about something everyone's fine with then go ahead if you must, poppet. However, I, as a representative of BR's moderators like the 'fit birds', and am therefore not interested in anything that doesn't support my view. Basically, if you're offended, GFY.'

Nice.

I doubt if the two pics I posted were taken by a bloke in a bush. More likely a professional photographer at the side of the track or at the sidelines respectively and (s)he probably had a press pass.
Maybe female athletes should dress like Fatima Sulaiman Dahman has to to prevent the powers that be in Yemen stoning her to death?
As I said previously:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

So where DO you draw the line?

Watching a women's sporting event and thinking "She's fit": Fine
Going to a women's sporting event to see fit women: Not fine

Seeing a female cycle commuter and thinking "She's fit": Fine
Chasing a female cycle commuter on the road to shout out that I think she's fit: Not fine

Seeing my girlfriend dressed in lycra as we're going out for a ride: Fine
Asking my girlfriend to dress in lycra for bedroom athletics: None of your business!

EKE_38BPM wrote:

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.

supersonic

But it is OK for you to put words into my mouth and say GFY? Or was that a joke?

I suggest if you do have a complaint, then you do it in a manner that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite.

But as you have complained, I will remove the comment and apologise for any offence it may have caused.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

@EKE --

NB: I haven't read all the posts very thoroughly, forgive me if this has been discussed but I haven't noticed it.

I think it's great that you find 'athletic women' attractive, but the pictures you've posted are demeaning in my book. They ignore the women's sporting prowess and achievements, and turn them into a pair of boobs or a nice a*se. Both seem like accidental exposures, which a photographer catering to lecherous men has deliberately taken. That has a 'hiding in the bushes' (peeping tom) feel to it, which is creepy.

Also, do you think they're really excellent posting fodder in a thread where almost all of the forum's female posters are saying they find the pervy pictures offensive?

Say you like athletic forms, then post this:



See the difference?

supersonic wrote:

If anyone finds a pic objectionable, or think it has broken da rulez, please flag it for moderation.

In the meantime, anyone got any pics of fit birds?

That comment, to me, is pretty darn out of line. You're essentially saying 'hey if you want to moan about something everyone's fine with then go ahead if you must, poppet. However, I, as a representative of BR's moderators like the 'fit birds', and am therefore not interested in anything that doesn't support my view. Basically, if you're offended, GFY.'

Nice.

I'd assumed EKE was just trying to provoke, but on reflection, yeah +1. +1 on the response to supersonic too. Way to take the issue seriously. :roll:

EDIT: Must type faster. Anyway, I get that it was a joke, but in that context, it gives the impression that complaints might not be taken seriously.

Paulie W

supersonic wrote:

But it is OK for you to put words into my mouth and say GFY? Or was that a joke?

I suggest if you do have a complaint, then you do it in a manner that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite.

But as you have complained, I will remove the comment.

LIT has indeed put words in your mouth but they included 'poppet' and 'gfy'!

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

....um, huh, yeah but... COME ON!

There is nothing remotely sexual or sexually attractive or even provocative about her in that photo. I don't even like the photo a D600 can get better colour resolution than that. Lit, scientists cannot explain why but it's long been understood that in our species, in some cultures moreso than others, men are attracted to bums and boobs (for no good reason they serve no real purpose sexually). So it's likely that any photo of an athlete that a man is going to think 'phwoar' is likely to express those things. Attraction for women is achieved in other ways but Linford's lunch box certainly did the rounds.

Now, I'm not calling for the widespread banning of any images that hint, even remotely, at being sexual but there are times when said images can go too far and outside the context. The Liz Hatch (who is now a model) or Brazilian netball players are fine for me, they were both particpating in sport. 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.

lost_in_thought

EKE_38BPM wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

@EKE --

NB: I haven't read all the posts very thoroughly, forgive me if this has been discussed but I haven't noticed it.

I think it's great that you find 'athletic women' attractive, but the pictures you've posted are demeaning in my book. They ignore the women's sporting prowess and achievements, and turn them into a pair of boobs or a nice a*se. Both seem like accidental exposures, which a photographer catering to lecherous men has deliberately taken. That has a 'hiding in the bushes' (peeping tom) feel to it, which is creepy.

I doubt if the two pics I posted were taken by a bloke in a bush. More likely a professional photographer at the side of the track or at the sidelines respectively and (s)he probably had a press pass.

Not what I'm saying. For clarity, bold text, and it certainly seems like whoever took those photos knew they were catering to the pervy crowd, not the interested in sports crowd.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Maybe female athletes should dress like Fatima Sulaiman Dahman has to to prevent the powers that be in Yemen stoning her to death?

Where'd you get that from in my post? Is VP dressed in a burkini?


The rest is all good, though!

supersonic

I think the problem is one of blurred lines. With swear words we have filters, and a pretty well defined line between words allowed, and words that are not. Pictures are much more subjective.

Of course we could blanket ban all threads of this nature. But if we kept them, but limited to athletic type shots, couldn't the poster still be accused of objectification?

clarkey cat

supersonic


I'd like to post some pictures of my wife breastfeeding.

May I?

clarkey cat

I'm joking of course.


I don't even know if my wife was breastfed.

DonDaddyD

supersonic wrote:

I think the problem is one of blurred lines. With swear words we have filters, and a pretty well defined line between words allowed, and words that are not. Pictures are much more subjective.

You think the picture of the woman in the doggy position, hands clasped and man standing behind her is subjective?

Chapeau... because I can't think of anything else to say to you.

Of course we could blanket ban all threads of this nature. But if we kept them, but limited to athletic type shots, couldn't the poster still be accused of objectification?

I think you should be able to expect adults to understand the distinction between good natured attaction/objectification - see Bauge in the other thread, yum - and outright perverse sexual objectification.

We all like to look, we acknowledge this. There is a social line. Women sitting on toilet knickers around the ankles in a real life situation... not so much.

clarkey cat

You think the picture of the woman in the doggy position, hands clasped and man standing behind her is subjective?

Linky please.

supersonic

You think the picture of the woman in the doggy position, hands clasped and man standing behind her is subjective?

What makes you think I think that? I have not seen such a photo on this site, and if there is one and you object, please report it. I may be here a lot, but I don't look at everything! My comment was a general one about how what many may describe as perfectly ok as being nothing of the sort other people. Some pics of course are more black and white, but a lot 'in the middle' could be viewed either way and, even ones that most would pass, others may find objectionable.

I think you should be able to expect adults to understand the distinction between good natured attaction/objectification

Expect, yes, but it happens.

So how would you personally like the issue you have raised to be resolved?

greg66_tri_v2.0

supersonic wrote:

I have not seen such a photo on this site

Women in realistic situations thread in Cakestop, IIRC.

At least, that's what Itboffin told me.

supersonic

Ah, the Cakestop. 99.9% of my time is spent in the MTB section and here. But the Road area is left to other Modmins, so I wouldn't have seen them.

Again will come down to people reporting said posts where an admin will look into it.

However this will not stop them being posted... which is the issue. Do we say "no more pics of women?". Ban all such threads? Allow threads in certain areas where reader discretion is advised (but still subject to rules?). Or keep the threads, and rely on a reporting scheme? This is where we come back to the subjective view of some pictures.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Does that (reporting = regulation) mean that if you had a forum populated by perverts and knuckle draggers, such that they were able to create a thread filled with proper hardcore porn but no one reported it, they'd be left to their own devices? Surely there must be more proactive moderation.

supersonic

Not at all, some Mods look through certain sections and will cull posts or threads without any reporting. Most are done this way (I'd guess 99% looking at our stats), but of course things can and are missed, or what a Mod finds ok, a reader may not: hence the report allows the full team to look at something.

Unfortunately the admin and mod team are not all carbon copies of each other lol, so some things may be done differently from one to another.

jonny_trousers

lost_in_thought wrote:

People wonder why this site is a sausage-fest........

Not just a suasage-fest, but a clam-party too by the looks of things:

viewtopic.php?t=12779529&highlight=sex

hmbadger

lost_in_thought wrote:

supersonic wrote:

No, I am not saying that, the last bit was a joke, as the following posters realised. I have deleted plenty of pics before. If you find pics you don't like, report them.

And as a representative of BR's moderators, do you think making light of people's objections to such things is a totally awesome idea?

People wonder why this site is a sausage-fest........

I'm not sure I've ever agreed with lit before, but I do here, and with the other objectors. The number of men who just don't get this sort of thing is staggering. Attitudes are pretty mild however compared to the (very well known) football forum that I frequent. The misogyny there is unbelievable.

itboffin

supersonic wrote:

If anyone finds a pic objectionable, or think it has broken da rulez, please flag it for moderation.

hmmm i find your avatar slightly worrying but "dont you open that trap door ....!"

PS. what's up with the smilies ?

supersonic

Lol, would have Boni, but I am getting fat ;-)

Ah smilies, the website deveoper is hopefully going to fix it:

viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12811707

Not something I know how to do I am afraid.

itboffin

Greg66 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I have not seen such a photo on this site

Women in realistic situations thread in Cakestop, IIRC.

At least, that's what Itboffin told me.

You cad G66

in other real news ... this morning whilst crossing the road to work I spotted someone i thought i knew aka LiT and i'm not ashamed to say it was the legs I looked at first, cracking pair of pins (purely cycling interest honest guv) anyway needless to say It wasn't LiT and i made a sharp turn in the other direction, which i'm sure looked in no way creepy weird and pervy unlike you G66 you disgust me, in a semi non ghey way - never confused.

Hello LiT ;-)

tailwindhome

My 2 cents

'The Girls in' threads have got out of hand and no longer seem to be a bit of fun a la Page 3* but have drifted towards the posting of images which seem to me to be unsuitable for a public forum.

I rarely venture into cakestop any more.



*I appreciate not everyone will agree with that description of Page 3 but there you go.

rjsterry

itboffin wrote:

semi non ghey

:?

itboffin

rjsterry wrote:

itboffin wrote:

semi non ghey

:?

Hey wot goes on tour stays on tour eh eh nudge nudge wink wink

supersonic

TailWindHome wrote:

My 2 cents

'The Girls in' threads have got out of hand and no longer seem to be a bit of fun a la Page 3* but have drifted towards the posting of images which seem to me to be unsuitable for a public forum.

I rarely venture into cakestop any more.



*I appreciate not everyone will agree with that description of Page 3 but there you go.

I went and had a look in Cakestop (purely as part of my job): 320 pages! More than I thought!

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

itboffin wrote:

semi non ghey

:?

It's his way of saying bi-curious.

He has issues. He knows this, because his probation officer has told him time and time again. :twisted: