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

rick_chasey

msmancunia wrote:

Calm down RC - I was taking your comments purely hypothetically - no harm done

(Never costs to make it absolutely clear, y'know, in case the gf is reading...)

msmancunia

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

Calm down RC - I was taking your comments purely hypothetically - no harm done

(Never costs to make it absolutely clear, y'know, in case the gf is reading...)

Lol - I seem to have acquired a 6ft6 MCFC supporting gentleman caller over the last few months. Not going so far as to call him the boyfriend yet, but hey ho, it's a work in progress. Next step is to get him on a bike...

jonny_trousers

Despite the themes we've been discussing in this thread, I wonder how many of us are wondering what MsMancunia actually looks like, given the attributes she alludes too? But then it's only that she's shown herself to be an intelligent woman that interests us, right DDD?

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The way this thread has turned out it so deserves a facepalm. Show 'em Jean-Luc!

I think the moral of the story is that its fine to objectify women, just not women who aren't on the forum

msmancunia

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Despite the themes we've been discussing in this thread, I wonder how many of us are wondering what MsMancunia actually looks like, given the attributes she alludes too? But then it's only that she's shown herself to be an intelligent woman that interests us, right DDD?

Picture Bet Lynch. But with more leopardskin.

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The way this thread has turned out it so deserves a facepalm. Show 'em Jean-Luc!

I think the moral of the story is that its fine to objectify women, just not women who aren't on the forum

Summed up nicely. I'm out!

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Despite the themes we've been discussing in this thread, I wonder how many of us are wondering what MsMancunia actually looks like, given the attributes she alludes too? But then it's only that she's shown herself to be an intelligent woman that interests us, right DDD?

Thank you for asking this. Velo to. I just like putting faces to the names. Honest.

It's also not fair, my face is in this thread or a thread on this website. Someone asked if I was 12? I was bloody well 27/28.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

Woah, I'm not trying to come on here.

I have a gf who I live with, and puts up with my silver-nitrate stained face (which makes me look a bit like hitler).

What more could a man want in life?

Explosion in a darkroom?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chemical-cautery.htm

Ah I see, I assumed they'd do it with heat.

MonkeyMonster

yeah, wtf with the silver nitrate staining?

edit: ahhh for your nose bleeds...

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

yeah, wtf with the silver nitrate staining?

Think the doctor under-estimated how much my nose runs...

I also have stained on the side of my index finger (where I obviously whiped it away).

velocestrapture

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.

It is not anything to do with the fact that women do not enjoy looking at the male form in the way that men do. Personally, the equivalent for me of men's fascination with boobs is a nice pert arse and firm muscular thighs. I do enjoy images of these, whether in a picture or in RL (luckily, my boyfriend is also into cycling and, let's say, is built like a sprinter rather than a climber- happy, happy me ). What I look for in choosing a partner as msmancunia says, is a much more rounded package (phnar, phnar).

The reason for the lack of equivalent pictures is more to do with the differing status of men and women in society than what women like to look at.

In our (hetrosexual) culture, it is not seen as appropriate for a man to be displayed as a sexual object to be presented for public observation and critique. Just how many times have you heard it said that "real men" don't moisturise, pluck their eyebrows, wear makeup to enhance their looks, wear other than minimal plain jewellery, care too much about the clothes they wear, or generally spend much time obsessing over their physical image and the way other people perceive them? Men who do these things are openly mocked and often called gay as a term of abuse. It is seen as being somehow demeaning for a man to adopt behaviours that are expected as a matter of course from women.

Wait ... demeaning?

It is not just a case of there being different but equivalent standards for men and women. As many people have pointed out, the comments on the 'Girls ...' threads have in some ways been worse than the pictures. There is no sense of respectfulness or reverence for the women in those pictures. In my opinion the only reason why it is seen as acceptable for such images of women to be openly discussed in public is that it is seen as acceptable for women to be publicly demeaned.

DonDaddyD

Does your boyfriend post on here?

rick_chasey

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

MonkeyMonster

but then there is the strong stereotype of the hairy, muscular and suited man being more attractive than the half naked waxed variety.
I've never fully grasped why there is such dichotomy in regards to hygiene matters. Armpits for instance. Basketball players i tihnk mostly shave/wax because of the tops they wear and it'd look funny too... but is that it? It would look funny? Women with hair legs - do they look funny... where has that come from. boffin's legs looked funny to me - actually he normally looks funny anyway but thats a different point.
Ladies grow less hair anyway - if it let to grow normally its naturally quite soft - its the intermediate stage of prickly that is what causes "grief". We live in an every increasingly "Perfect" looks society which is being driven by our cuclture but actually more by magazines and companies wanting people to buy products to fit in with what "celebrities" look like.
RIght, lunch.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

Indeed, I think it's telling that even on a more or less anonymous web forum, some of the male posters have still jumped straight for the 'comedy' category on that thread. Maybe there's also something in the fact that most of the posts will be made at work, where one's IT policy/office culture might not be as relaxed.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

Indeed, I think it's telling that even on a more or less anonymous web forum, some of the male posters have still jumped straight for the 'comedy' category on that thread. Maybe there's also something in the fact that most of the posts will be made at work, where one's IT policy/office culture might not be as relaxed.

True, but that doesn't explain the err, more close to the wind posts over on cakestop...

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

Indeed, I think it's telling that even on a more or less anonymous web forum, some of the male posters have still jumped straight for the 'comedy' category on that thread. Maybe there's also something in the fact that most of the posts will be made at work, where one's IT policy/office culture might not be as relaxed.

True, but that doesn't explain the err, more close to the wind posts over on cakestop...

None of that lot have jobs?* :twisted:

*see Greg66's theory as to why Commuting Chat is the 'best' forum.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

Indeed, I think it's telling that even on a more or less anonymous web forum, some of the male posters have still jumped straight for the 'comedy' category on that thread. Maybe there's also something in the fact that most of the posts will be made at work, where one's IT policy/office culture might not be as relaxed.

True, but that doesn't explain the err, more close to the wind posts over on cakestop...

None of that lot have jobs?* :twisted:

*see Greg66's theory as to why Commuting Chat is the 'best' forum.

You know what happens. They're pleasure browsing / pornstorming, and come across (*ahem*) a picture that will slip under the bar here, then continue on to the pictures that won't...

I've given this too much thought. Time for lunch.

bonkstrong

If the "girls in..." threads have caused an imbalance in ones moral fibre then I suggest you don't check out the latest edition to the lycra shorts threads. A link to the fix fix fix dot com website - it's definately nsfw so should be right up the unemployed alley of the benefit cheats over in the cakestop!

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

DonDaddyD

MonkeyMonster wrote:

but then there is the strong stereotype of the hairy, muscular and suited man being more attractive than the half naked waxed variety.
I've never fully grasped why there is such dichotomy in regards to hygiene matters. Armpits for instance. Basketball players i tihnk mostly shave/wax because of the tops they wear and it'd look funny too... but is that it? It would look funny? Women with hair legs - do they look funny... where has that come from. boffin's legs looked funny to me - actually he normally looks funny anyway but thats a different point.
Ladies grow less hair anyway - if it let to grow normally its naturally quite soft - its the intermediate stage of prickly that is what causes "grief". We live in an every increasingly "Perfect" looks society which is being driven by our cuclture but actually more by magazines and companies wanting people to buy products to fit in with what "celebrities" look like.
RIght, lunch.

Quite a few animals groom for hygiene and mating reasons. It's not that unusual that we would groom for similar purposes. What, how and where we groom I personally think is dictated by accepted/expected social norms.

There is also grooming for personal comfort/confidence. I keep my hair at a low length for comfort and because I think it makes me look more attractive and this makes me feel more confident in myself than having a massive unkept afro. I nair my armpits and crotch regions for comfort.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

True true. It's not necessarily clear cut though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... porn-women < SFW

(trust the guardian)

velocestrapture

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

Rubbish. You have that opinion because (for obvious reasons) you have never been in an all-female group of women when they are talking about men they find attractive.

velocestrapture

DonDaddyD wrote:

Does your boyfriend post on here?

Yes, sometimes.

velocestrapture

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

You recon? Men's cycling as a sport is far more popular than women's cycling, so you would think that there would be far more images easily available of men, wouldn't you.

But if you stick "men cycling" into google, you come up with 130,000,000 hits, and less than half way down the first page you start getting pictures that are just of clothing. There are maybe four images on the whole page that you could describe as being even vaguely sexualised.

Stick in "women cycling" and you get 165,000,000 hits. Almost all the images on the first page are of women rather than just clothing. Almost every line of photos contains a picture that is a sexualised image.

DonDaddyD

Do I know him, have we interacted? Go on do tell!

It's 'Mybreakfastconsisted' isn't it?

msmancunia

velocestrapture wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

Rubbish. You have that opinion because (for obvious reasons) you have never been in an all-female group of women when they are talking about men they find attractive.

Although I agree with you on most things, have to disagree with you on this one; cerebral for me every time.
You should see the stampede in the office here when Professor Brian Cox comes in for a start.

veronese68

velocestrapture wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

Rubbish. You have that opinion because (for obvious reasons) you have never been in an all-female group of women when they are talking about men they find attractive.

So there is the demand for it? Yet nobody sees fit to exploit the market for profit. Incredible.

DonDaddyD

Professor Brian Cox... really!?

Anyway, I think the whole "women are more cerebal" harks back to the same thing that makes it acceptable to sexualise women and make endless comments. Women look a men. It may not be as socially acceptable for a woman to wolf whistle or make comments like "wish you'd ride me like you do your bike". But they look and they think it.

I think it makes men (in general) feel secure if they believe that women don't objectify them as much as they do women. Me? I don't mind it one bit.

'Sub'.

So there is the demand for it? Yet nobody sees fit to exploit the market for profit. Incredible.

Just because there isn't demand doesn't mean that there isn't a selection of people who would look, buy and use said product. You have to look at why they wouldn't buy it. Society is too damning on women who are THAT sexually expressive to the point of willfully buying the female version of FHM. A lad buys FHM or admits to watching porn and it's what lads do. A woman buys her version of FHM and/or admits to watching porn and she's a slut forever labelled. Who wants the hassle of that, hence no market. They do though.

velocestrapture

Veronese68 wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I think the fact that the Boyz in Lycra thread is not easy to fill up with pictures of attractive men in sexy poses is indicative of the same issue that make the 'Girls ...' threads so problematic.
.

Probably more to do with a general male retinence to be seen checking out the softer end of male gay porn...

I think it might be more to do with the fact that blokes are more stimulated by the visual, whereas women are more cerebral. So there is more demand for pictures of women, and that is why when at my wife's hen do someone turned up with a mag with racy pictures of scantily clad men it was a publication for gay men because there just isn't the demand for that kind of thing from women.

Rubbish. You have that opinion because (for obvious reasons) you have never been in an all-female group of women when they are talking about men they find attractive.

So there is the demand for it? Yet nobody sees fit to exploit the market for profit. Incredible.

Magazines such as Cosmo do make money from including male centrefolds, so clearly there is a market for it. What is interesting is that those sorts of images don't make it into the mainstream media in the same way as images of women do.