To those who contribute to the "Girls in..." threads...

pauldavid

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

dirtymonkey1985

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.
Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

+1 to that. There are far more important things to worry about in life than a few women in knickers

iainment

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

Banter's fine, but these threads aren't about banter. They're about making crude observations about "norks", and whether the subjects of the pictures pass muster sexually. If I was in a pub and others started going on about this sort of stuff and other crude ooer stuff I'd say something to them. There is a time and place after all. I just don't think this is the place for this type of stuff.
Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.

Pip pip.

dirtymonkey1985

'Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.'

That right there is another way of describing banter. That's all it is, an opinion.

Trickyh

I think its a clever ploy by those commuters to get us in there and liven the place up a bit Personally, before all this BS started, I didn't even know we HAD a commuters section :shock:

iainment

dirtymonkey1985 wrote:

'Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.'

That right there is another way of describing banter. That's all it is, an opinion.

Banter is only ok if both sides see it that way.There still is the point about whether something is offensive - there's a fine line between that and acceptably put opinion. And I think the Girls in threads cross the line. They're offensive, vulgar and crude. They demean the women being portrayed and just encourage the worst sort of desensitising language about women. They also tell us a lot about those who post on them.

pauldavid

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

Banter's fine, but these threads aren't about banter. They're about making crude observations about "norks", and whether the subjects of the pictures pass muster sexually. If I was in a pub and others started going on about this sort of stuff and other crude ooer stuff I'd say something to them. There is a time and place after all. I just don't think this is the place for this type of stuff.
Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.
Pip pip.

Others will decide you are right, and nobody wants to take away your right to an opinion. Once that opinion is aired though, vote with your feet and don't bother with that particular thread again.

On another point. If you butted into my private conversation in a pub to "say something" because you overheard something that you didn't like I would happily tell you to sling your hook.

There is a time and place for these things. And I think cakestop is it. If it were in road beginners or training then it would be wrong and the moderators would be right to move it somewhere else (cakestop) which is for all matters other than any serious cycling chat

Poop Poop

iainment

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

Banter's fine, but these threads aren't about banter. They're about making crude observations about "norks", and whether the subjects of the pictures pass muster sexually. If I was in a pub and others started going on about this sort of stuff and other crude ooer stuff I'd say something to them. There is a time and place after all. I just don't think this is the place for this type of stuff.
Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.
Pip pip.

Others will decide you are right, and nobody wants to take away your right to an opinion. Once that opinion is aired though, vote with your feet and don't bother with that particular thread again.

On another point. If you butted into my private conversation in a pub to "say something" because you overheard something that you didn't like I would happily tell you to sling your hook.

There is a time and place for these things. And I think cakestop is it. If it were in road beginners or training then it would be wrong and the moderators would be right to move it somewhere else (cakestop) which is for all matters other than any serious cycling chat

Poop Poop

But if your "private" conversation was loud enough to be effecting those around you it wouldn't be private would it? And if what you said was offensive I'd have the right to ask you to pipe down surely.

jonny_trousers

Trickyh wrote:

I think its a clever ploy by those commuters to get us in there and liven the place up a bit Personally, before all this BS started, I didn't even know we HAD a commuters section :shock:

Please, liven away, but do realise that it was actually only a very, very small number of Commuting Chat regulars who began this. Commuters like tits too, you know!

dirtymonkey1985

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

Banter's fine, but these threads aren't about banter. They're about making crude observations about "norks", and whether the subjects of the pictures pass muster sexually. If I was in a pub and others started going on about this sort of stuff and other crude ooer stuff I'd say something to them. There is a time and place after all. I just don't think this is the place for this type of stuff.
Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.
Pip pip.

Others will decide you are right, and nobody wants to take away your right to an opinion. Once that opinion is aired though, vote with your feet and don't bother with that particular thread again.

On another point. If you butted into my private conversation in a pub to "say something" because you overheard something that you didn't like I would happily tell you to sling your hook.

There is a time and place for these things. And I think cakestop is it. If it were in road beginners or training then it would be wrong and the moderators would be right to move it somewhere else (cakestop) which is for all matters other than any serious cycling chat

Poop Poop

But if your "private" conversation was loud enough to be effecting those around you it wouldn't be private would it? And if what you said was offensive I'd have the right to ask you to pipe down surely.

You would. But he'd also have the right to tell you to sod off.

Cleat Eastwood

iainment wrote:

dirtymonkey1985 wrote:

'Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.'

That right there is another way of describing banter. That's all it is, an opinion.

Banter is only ok if both sides see it that way.There still is the point about whether something is offensive - there's a fine line between that and acceptably put opinion. And I think the Girls in threads cross the line. They're offensive, vulgar and crude. They demean the women being portrayed and just encourage the worst sort of desensitising language about women. They also tell us a lot about those who post on them.

Friend I couldnt disagree more about the pics, you see what you want to see and the images are not created by the forumites - its more a case of look what I've come across (no pun intended), i'll share it with others. But the langauge yes, people have absloute control over it. And I was just looking through some DDS's post (he inadvertently started this whole thing) and two of his comments are

"Has anyone asked the OP if he felt the other guys ball bag smack against his own as they double teamed her from either side?

As a hetro male I don't think I could ride a tandem with another male..."

and

"And then one day some posh Wife/Mum bint who looks and speaks (LiT) like Liz Hurley knocks you off you bike. So later that day you knock one off in her..."

That to me is utter f*cking sexist shite, to reduce a woman to 'her' and talk about 'knock one off in her" - it says more about him than it does about the forum.

Should the thread he posted in be banned, no, all it means is, for me, if ever I read a post by him I'll know what an total and utter self deluded middle class (and by his own description Alpha male) pr*ck he is.

And one objecter to the girls in.... calls a receptionist 'the office bike' and this from a guy who wants more 'conservative' controls on the forum.

pauldavid

iainment wrote:

dirtymonkey1985 wrote:

'Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.'

That right there is another way of describing banter. That's all it is, an opinion.

Banter is only ok if both sides see it that way.There still is the point about whether something is offensive - there's a fine line between that and acceptably put opinion. And I think the Girls in threads cross the line. They're offensive, vulgar and crude. They demean the women being portrayed and just encourage the worst sort of desensitising language about women. They also tell us a lot about those who post on them.[/quote]

I can't imagine how the poor girls who are being demeaned feel about how they are portrayed, after all none of the pictures on any of those posts are posed are they??

And yes, it tells us that the people who post on these threads are attracted to women.

What I find amazing is that at no time do we ever hear from any girl that has been involved in a photo shoot of this kind saying how demeaning it was ( and why would we, they have chosen to take this route as a career move and been payed for posing for the photos) but only from people like yourself who have taken it on themselves to start a moral crusade for no reason other than having more time on your hands than you know what to do with.

Congratulations sir, you have become the latest in a long line of people to become a professional campaigner/complainer.

jordan_217

...They're about making crude observations about "norks",

:shock: You said 'Norks'.

I'm more offended by Ezy Riders lack of decals than any of the 'Girls in...' threads.

pauldavid

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

pauldavid wrote:

iainment wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

This 'what would your daughter think' theme has appeared several times and I'm quite frankly finding it baffling. Is the suggestion that as soon as you have a daughter you are supposed to banish any sexual urges from your mind and body? Wtf have your sexual desires got to do with your daughter? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Not that urges are banished but that perhaps perspective is altered by having a child.
Would I be happy for my daughter to have pics like these taken and displayed in this way - no. Would I be happy for her to know I looked at them - no.
That's all.

I have a daughter. I also find women attractive. Why should having a daughter have changed in any way what I may or may not find attractive.

Would I choose for my daughter to have pictures like these taken and displayed- no.

Would I be ashamed or angry if she had pictured like these taken and displayed- no, she will make her own mind up as to whether that is right or wrong for her.

Would it be naive of any member of my family(daughter,wife) to believe that I wouldn't look at a picture of an attractive young woman in a short skirt-absolutely.

I was originally drawn to this site because of cycling but found cakestop to be much like a good local pub with like minded people who talk about everything from politics to attractive women, much like my local pub and am really struggling to see how anybody can be offended by something they can easily choose not to look at. It is easily possible to visit cakestop daily and look at many other threads without the need to enter any thread that is obviously not for you. I know this to be true as I do it myself in several sub forums, picking out only the threads that interest me from the headline.

It seems to me that there is a group of people within this forum that are not able to tolerate anything that doesn't suit their own morals/ethics and would like to take away the choice of anyone else who has a different opinion.

There was a time when this forum was a fabulous source of cycling information/assistance for everyone and also an enjoyable place to enjoy a little social banter. I think it is sad that this appears to be coming to an end because we can't tolerate each others likes and dislikes and simply avoid threads that we know are not for us.

For the record, I have never posted a picture in any of the "Girls in" threads but admit to enjoy looking at the pictures and don't consider that there has been anything pornographic as far as I can see.

RIP Bikeradar

Banter's fine, but these threads aren't about banter. They're about making crude observations about "norks", and whether the subjects of the pictures pass muster sexually. If I was in a pub and others started going on about this sort of stuff and other crude ooer stuff I'd say something to them. There is a time and place after all. I just don't think this is the place for this type of stuff.
Ultimately others will decide what is permissable here but that doesn't take away my right to express an opinion.
Pip pip.

Others will decide you are right, and nobody wants to take away your right to an opinion. Once that opinion is aired though, vote with your feet and don't bother with that particular thread again.

On another point. If you butted into my private conversation in a pub to "say something" because you overheard something that you didn't like I would happily tell you to sling your hook.

There is a time and place for these things. And I think cakestop is it. If it were in road beginners or training then it would be wrong and the moderators would be right to move it somewhere else (cakestop) which is for all matters other than any serious cycling chat

Poop Poop

But if your "private" conversation was loud enough to be effecting those around you it wouldn't be private would it? And if what you said was offensive I'd have the right to ask you to pipe down surely.

Regardless of how loud my conversation may be in a pub, if I haven't asked you to join in yes it is private. You could ask what you liked, I can't say how much notice I'd take or whether you would appreciate my response.

rozzer32

Well basically iainment has shown he can't take any banter.

Maybe go have a chat with these people, they may sympathise with you.

http://www.thewi.org.uk/

iainment

To sum up the responses to my posts - you guys can do anything you want as you don't believe your behaviour has any effect on other people and anyway if it did you're just a killjoy with an agenda if you call this out.

OK now I get it.

Pip pip.

jonny_trousers

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Trickyh wrote:

I think its a clever ploy by those commuters to get us in there and liven the place up a bit Personally, before all this BS started, I didn't even know we HAD a commuters section :shock:

Please, liven away, but do realise that it was actually only a very, very small number of Commuting Chat regulars who began this. Commuters like tits too, you know!

What I meant to say is, commuters can admire pictures of particularly attractive women with exceptional physiques without it causing them to treat women, as a gender, without the respect they are entitled to, too.

rozzer32

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Trickyh wrote:

I think its a clever ploy by those commuters to get us in there and liven the place up a bit Personally, before all this BS started, I didn't even know we HAD a commuters section :shock:

Please, liven away, but do realise that it was actually only a very, very small number of Commuting Chat regulars who began this. Commuters like tits too, you know!

What I meant to say is, commuters can admire pictures of particularly attractive women with exceptional physiques without it causing them to treat women, as a gender, without the respect they are entitled to, too.

So you saying that as we post in Cake Stop we must of course give women no respect???

iainment

rozzer32 wrote:

Well basically iainment has shown he can't take any banter.

Maybe go have a chat with these people, they may sympathise with you.

http://www.thewi.org.uk/

What banter? No one has actually bantered with me on here. What they have done is try to belittle my point of view. That's what I can't take. Telling me to go to the WI isn't banter - it's just cheap point scoring with a subtext.

But banter - good humoured exchanges - I can take.

Just because you label exchanges as banter doesn't mean that they are.

jonny_trousers

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

And I was just looking through some DDS's post (he inadvertently started this whole thing) and two of his comments are

"Has anyone asked the OP if he felt the other guys ball bag smack against his own as they double teamed her from either side?

As a hetro male I don't think I could ride a tandem with another male..."

and

"And then one day some posh Wife/Mum bint who looks and speaks (LiT) like Liz Hurley knocks you off you bike. So later that day you knock one off in her..."

That to me is utter f*cking sexist shite, to reduce a woman to 'her' and talk about 'knock one off in her" - it says more about him than it does about the forum.

Should the thread he posted in be banned, no, all it means is, for me, if ever I read a post by him I'll know what an total and utter self deluded middle class (and by his own description Alpha male) pr*ck he is.

And one objecter to the girls in.... calls a receptionist 'the office bike' and this from a guy who wants more 'conservative' controls on the forum.

Well this is what got me so riled to begin with (apart from that woman who made the sexist comments about men suggesting we are all capable of being abusive towards women simply by the nature of our gender). DDD has proven himself time and time again on the commuting forum to be the horniest, little monkey there. I don't care. I'm not offended in the slightest, but this sanctimonious bullcrap he has begun spouting is really quite astonishing. I can't be arsed looking through them again, but his post history will be littered with examples of him getting overly excited by one woman or another.

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments for the sake of it. I don't think he means any harm I just suspect he is very bored in whatever job it is he does and so he idles the time away creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but when he suddenly found himself the lone, heroic voice of extreme feminism (a role he actually found quite sexy and hoped might lead to a free-love bunk-up with a few hippy chicks) he found himself unable to back down. Since then a few other self-righteous moaners have jumped on the bandwagon (together with a few who are legitimately offended by such pictures) and it has led to... well, whatever this now is.

Anyway... Anyone else enjoying the advert on page 131 of this month's Cycling Plus advertising 'The Official Tri-UK Weekend' with the naked hottie slap bang in the middle? Phwooooar!

EKE_38BPM

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments for the sake of it. I don't think he means any harm I just suspect he is very bored in whatever job it is he does and so he idles the time away creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but when he suddenly found himself the lone, heroic voice of extreme feminism (a role he actually found quite sexy and hoped might lead to a free-love bunk-up with a few hippy chicks) he found himself unable to back down. Since then a few other self-righteous moaners have jumped on the bandwagon (together with a few who are legitimately offended by such pictures) and it has led to... well, whatever this now is.

Nail. Head.

flasher

Women have always liked to be admired, just look at the Olympians thread, these are fit, young, attractive girls, nobody is forcing them to flaunt their attractivness. When you go out with your girlfriend/wife who does she dress up for?

I always find it bizarre when folks start complaining, you know full well what is in the 'Girls' threads if you don't like it don't look, simple.

Maybe a 'Girls in burkas' thread would more suitable!

jordan_217

Anyway... Anyone else enjoying the advert on page 131 of this month's Cycling Plus advertising 'The Official Tri-UK Weekend' with the naked hottie slap bang in the middle? Phwooooar!

I concur, she be a hottie.

The girl who models a lot of the Merino base layers on Planet X caught my eye yesterday too. I thought Merino was meant to keep you warm?

CiB

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments for the sake of it. I don't think he means any harm I just suspect he is very bored in whatever job it is he does and so he idles the time away creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but when he suddenly found himself the lone, heroic voice of extreme feminism (a role he actually found quite sexy and hoped might lead to a free-love bunk-up with a few hippy chicks) he found himself unable to back down. Since then a few other self-righteous moaners have jumped on the bandwagon (together with a few who are legitimately offended by such pictures) and it has led to... well, whatever this now is.

Nail. Head.

What you're missing is that DDDDDD has just had a baby that has caused him to totally rethink his attitude to life, pr0n, women, and petrol prices too it seems. It may be that he's actually the first person in the world ever to have fathered a child, and needs to make us all aware of how life-changing the whole business is; personally I'd give it < 6 months before the pr0n reappears. Whether he admits to that or not is anyone's guess. For now we live with the WI style of Commuting Chat, until the novelty wears off at least.

Add me to the Look Away Now section; if you don't want to see pics of girls who look as if they forgot to put a vest on, don't follow links that indicate that sort of content. It's not difficult.

DonDaddyD

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Should the thread he posted in be banned, no, all it means is, for me, if ever I read a post by him I'll know what an total and utter self deluded middle class (and by his own description Alpha male) pr*ck he is.

You see normally this is where I would lose my temper, call you out from behind the PC screen and blah blah blah.

But taken with a pinch of salt (especially with that whole middle class chip you have there) you are actually quite funny in a Benny Hill sort of way. (Internet stalking is not cool and you do need to tone down the personal attacks though.)

As you were.

Johnny_Trousers wrote:

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments. I don't think he means any harm and so enjoys creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but then, past comments aside, found himself agreeing with velostrapture and others.

FTFY.

pauldavid

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Should the thread he posted in be banned, no, all it means is, for me, if ever I read a post by him I'll know what an total and utter self deluded middle class (and by his own description Alpha male) pr*ck he is.

You see normally this is where I would lose my temper, call you out from behind the PC screen and blah blah blah. But taken with a pinch of salt (especially with that whole middle class chip you have there) you are actually quite funny in a Benny Hill sort of way. (Internet stalking is not cool and you do need to tone down the personal attacks though.)

As you were.

Johnny_Trousers wrote:

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments. I don't think he means any harm and so enjoys creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but then, past comments aside, found himself agreeing with velostrapture and others.

FTFY.

Blimey, glad he didn't really call you out from behind your PC screen, I would have found that a bit offensive like.

Scarey though isn't he(in a non-scary in touch with his feminine side sort of way)

verylonglegs

iainment wrote:

To sum up the responses to my posts - you guys can do anything you want as you don't believe your behaviour has any effect on other people and anyway if it did you're just a killjoy with an agenda if you call this out.

OK now I get it.

Pip pip.

Using your pub example your complaint should go to the landlord. It is his business to then take possible action depending how he wants his establishment to be run.

DonDaddyD

pauldavid wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Should the thread he posted in be banned, no, all it means is, for me, if ever I read a post by him I'll know what an total and utter self deluded middle class (and by his own description Alpha male) pr*ck he is.

You see normally this is where I would lose my temper, call you out from behind the PC screen and blah blah blah. But taken with a pinch of salt (especially with that whole middle class chip you have there) you are actually quite funny in a Benny Hill sort of way. (Internet stalking is not cool and you do need to tone down the personal attacks though.)

As you were.

Johnny_Trousers wrote:

You know what I think? DDD is one of those regulars you get at any forum who simply likes to talk and create discussions/arguments. I don't think he means any harm and so enjoys creating and responding to forum threads. He can often be witty, he can put forward a good argument, but he does get carried away with himself too. I suspect what happened here is that he started that particular thread not meaning much to come of it, but then, past comments aside, found himself agreeing with velostrapture and others.

FTFY.

Blimey, glad he didn't really call you out from behind your PC screen, I would have found that a bit offensive like.

Scarey though isn't he(in a non-scary in touch with his feminine side sort of way)

My intention is not toe scare. Call me a hypocrite, fine. I won't even argue that. Rubbish and dispute what I type, again fine as I love a good e-battle. But the personal attacks and assumptions, especially when you haven't met me, don't know me and will likely never do so, are a bit overboard.

Cleat Eastwood

DonDaddyD wrote:

especially when you [.....]don't know me .

hehe how do you know I don't. I have seen Nathan Barley you know.

4kicks

I suspect this is one of those issues where (heated and heatfelt) views are already deep seated and battle lines set, but nevertheless I cant resist chucking an oar in to muddy the waters, principally because I love the sound o my own voice. .

I for one would totally support a ban on "semi-pornograhic" threads. This is despite the fact that I love P0rn. Love it love it love it. Im a happy married husband of 10 years and a father, but still love P0rn.
Depsite that Id support a ban, not getting holier than thou on anyone but..

1) Bikeradar is a biking site. What earhtly reason (apart from boosting page views and hence advertiser revenue) does the site have for hosting soft core porn

2) Theres oportunity to upset someone posting something which someone really didnt authorise, like that poor Pole Vaulter girl whos photos went round the world. Yes, some women, evey some cycling women, like to flash pink bits but that shouldnt be treated as a blanlet approval. For whatever reason BR is not regularly, nor strictly monitored. Hence no checks in place to ensure copywrite owners permission

3) "The dont look if you dont want to" argument is flawed because there may well be people on here who arent very internet savvy (probably most of you having read much herin) and could end up in the wrong place, more importantly it sets the tone foe the overall site. If its OK here then it must be OK there. Also, do you really want your 14 year old kid who will browse website finding this stuff? Honesty? Net Nanny etc works pretty well to block out specifically tagged porn site, but not these kind of photos and the attched pre-pubescent letching

4) Finally, and most importantly, the internet IS FOR PORN. Hence there are SO MANY sites you can find it. Just go there, dont present yourself with a false legitimacy and sence of decorum (..."but darling, its OK as its only a bike site", not really porn). Admit, as I do, you like p0rn and move on. Just because "my wife says theya re all lesbians that take exception" just proves there are as many types of women as there are, well, men.

We can discuss ad nauseum whether porn is wrong, whether there is a proven link between watching hard core S&M porn and non consentiual sex (there is, but no researcher has ever been able to prove CAUSALITY, ie does one watch porn to fulfil fantasies of bondage instead of doing it, or does one watch it to learn how to do it ) , but thats aslo so not the point.

End of rant. Doubt I will have changed anyones views either way but Im hoping BR mods/editorial may read this.