Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

velocestrapture

Monkeypump wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).

I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though. As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.

I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.

So, "guilty until proven innocent" and (more) massively sweeping generalisations in one sentence. Bravo.

And reading your subsequent posts (especially on subconscious ownership of boobs) just makes me think you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, and in fact the issue being examined here is just a very fortunately timed excuse for you to vent. Perhaps that is unfair, but since we're going by impressions gained on a web forum, that's the conclusion I've come to.

Would you care to identify the sentence in which I have apparently made "massively sweeping generalisations", and put forward your opinion as to why you consider them to be "massively sweeping generalisations", instead of, er, making massively sweeping generalisations about my posts?

Also, any rational reason why using a possessive pronoun to describe something should be interpreted in any way apart from that the writer was implying ownership would be useful too.

I would also like to avoid making ad hominem attacks, but without any reasoned argument in your posts to counter, it is not easy.

After reading all of your contributions to this thread, my opinion is that you are unfairly generalising about the collective male attitude on the GiL/etc threads. It's insulting to the majority, even if it's accurate for the minority.

You have an almost militant attitude and demand that we accept your POV, because as males we can't possibly understand what it's like to feel unwelcome here, and therefore as a woman who does feel unwelcome you must be correct in your assessment of our misogynistic motivations to keep this as a boys club.

As a self confessed lurker rather than poster, it's impossible to know how much of the other content you read. However, I find it difficult to believe you have made any effort to make a balanced judgement of other members. This just makes your judgemental comments even more insulting.

Feel free to continue the personal attacks as you see fit. I'm not trying to trade points with you. It is simply my opinion that the more you labour the point, the more you make assumptions, the less seriously I can take you. Pedantry isn't helping your cause either.

OK. So if you do fancy debating any specific points of my argument, just let me know, yeah?

DF33

[/quote]I would also like to avoid making ad hominem attacks[/quote]

Is that causing trouble on a Jewish holiday?

Only asking, like.

shedman

If you Google 'Girls in Lycra' this thread is number one hit..................... Just sayin' :? Stop the circus :?

mattshrops

I have to confess to being more of a lurker than a poster too. First off agree or disagree with velocestrapture -I havent seen any personal attacks by her, and fair play for reasoned argument and for having the balls to be the lone voice. (quite frankly she kicked most of yo' ass)
Obviously i'm male so i cant speak for how those threads make women feel. I do want cycling to be inclusive and am concerned that some women(some?) are not happy about them. Personally i might have a flick thro' if i'm bored, started off fairly ok -but some of the comments and more recently some of the pictures have become a little distasteful. Put that together and you get the start of a complaint about them. Seems fairly obvious -keep pushing the boundaries and......

Having said that i dont really care if they're here or not.But i do care if women are being made to feel unwelcome.
It might be helpful if more women posted to give their opinion. (you dont have to get in a big discussion if you dont want to- just yea or nay.)
not sure if my ramblings are of any use to anyone.
OH p.s. the main reason i often stick to lurking is the sheer number of argumentative d1ckheads who would disagree with anything just for the sake of it.

pdstsp

^^^^^ Exactly

alanp23

So having followed this since Sunday without saying anything...

Its now Wednesday having all started on Friday and we have a number of threads now discussing this and I dont think that there is any further new opinion going to emerge.

The mods or whoever owns this site need to define the set of rules that apply to the Cake Stop. They need to be clearly understood by everyone and then everyone can decide if they want to abide by them or go elsewhere.

I dont personally care what the rules are, but I will study them carefully and then decide if I want to be part of a community that lives by these rules. (and then people can judge me )

So, here is a simple question (and its directed to the mods).

Who is defining these rules and when are we going to see them in action?

velocestrapture

I agree that this thread has gone off track as far as discussing what rules and changes should be put in place (mea culpa) and will try to stick on-topic. As JT suggested, if people want to discuss the whys and wherefores, perhaps another thread could be started.

One point I would like to make regarding the proposed changes to the rules -

If there is to be one thread permitted for posting provocative images, I assume it will be given a name other than "Girls in ...". Or is it only the male hetrosexual tastes that will be permitted space?

bompington

velocestrapture wrote:

If there is to be one thread permitted for posting provocative images, I assume it will be given a name other than "Girls in ...". Or is it only the male hetrosexual tastes that will be permitted space?

I think the "Hand Pump" suggestion a while back is by far the most appropriate

jonny_trousers

mattshrops wrote:

OH p.s. the main reason i often stick to lurking is the sheer number of argumentative d1ckheads who would disagree with anything just for the sake of it.

You're wrong

Holyzeus

velocestrapture wrote:

If there is to be one thread permitted for posting provocative images, I assume it will be given a name other than "Girls in ...". Or is it only the male hetrosexual tastes that will be permitted space?

Nothing to stop anyone starting a thread now along the lines of "Hot male bods" is there?
I do keep an eye on the various threads and agree some of them have crossed the line, that said if you dont like it dont look at them (like i'd be doing with a Hot Male Bods thread BTW!!)
I feel the only way this is going to go now is with a complete ban, the mods simply have too much to do as it is

thekickingmule

Holyzeus wrote:

Nothing to stop anyone starting a thread now along the lines of "Hot male bods" is there?

I believe there is in some parts of the forum. Isn't there a forum for females somewhere? I'm not certain what's in there as I'm not a female. So I don't go in there :roll:

Holyzeus wrote:

I do keep an eye on the various threads...

I bet you do


I've no idea how this has gone on for 22 pages, and I cba reading them all. I'll just presume those against these kind of threads are going to leave the forum? That seems like the simplest idea to me...

Monkeypump

velocestrapture wrote:

OK. So if you do fancy debating any specific points of my argument, just let me know, yeah?

Do you think there's room on that soapbox for anyone but you?

Monkeypump

thekickingmule wrote:

I'll just presume those against these kind of threads are going to leave the forum? That seems like the simplest idea to me...

No, they're going to try to force change in line with their views.

jonny_trousers

velocestrapture wrote:

Bad luck! Do write again. I am interested to read opposing views, even if it is only to shore up weaknesses in my own argument!

Ok I'll have another go at it, but like most other people here, I'm growing a little bored of the topic now (that's not to say it's any less relevant) and I'm more than a little disappointed in myself for getting so involved when I thought I'd learnt the hard way years ago that there is little point getting argumentative on the internet. I did get overly wound up on one or two occasions and I'm afraid I mostly directed that at you so apologies for saying anything unnecessarily rude.

The quotes below are from posts a few pages back. Here goes...

velocestrapture wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Now, none of that is to say I do not believe there are far too many men out there who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, verbally or physically, but I feel it is a much deeper issue than the ease of access to softly erotic pictures that causes them to behave in that way (we can discuss it in another thread if you would like).

I would be happy to discuss this further on another thread, if you want to start one. I bet you don't though.

The above accusation annoyed me yesterday; today... meh! I could easily start the thread, but I honestly don't think the time is right. I don't think we would get the discussion the topic deserves as everyone is growing tired of it now and we are hitting saturation point. I'll make you a deal, though: if you begin the thread I will add to it. Or, if you want me to begin the thread in a few weeks time, drop me a PM and I promise I will do so.

velocestrapture wrote:

As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.

In the broader perspective I agree with you, but where those particular threads are concerned, you really need the men, like Greg66, who are only now complaining about them to answer why they haven't stepped in before, as not only do I see them as being pretty trivial, but I assumed that any offended, intelligent, modern woman either had the metaphorical balls to step in and make complaints herself or had the sense to just walk away with the shake of a head, and perhaps to join in one of the many other forums here where no such threads exist.

velocestrapture wrote:

I would like to make it very, very clear that I do accept that there are many men who would never abuse a woman, and who do treat women as equals. I also think that it is fair to say that those men simply do not have the awareness of the negative way in which women are treated, either because they don't really believe that their male friend or colleague would behave in an abusive way, and brush it off as them joking or engaging in 'banter' when they do hear them saying abusive things, or that they have never been confronted with the consequences of abuse, and so have never though through the true implications of abusive behaviour. What is also clear, though, is the fact that when someone, especially a woman, tries to raise a point about male behaviour that is identified as problematic, the majority of men will, whether consciously or not, try to shut down the complaint, either by denying the problem exists, or saying the complainee needs to alter her behaviour to make the problem go away.

Again, I pretty much agree with you and wonder if I have perhaps been defending something I don't have full knowledge of. I came across (excuse the pun) the "Girls in..." threads about six weeks ago and my first reaction was that I'd stumbled across a goldmine of hotties. After about three or four pages, however, I was bored and realised that if I want to look at those images, or indeed more explicit versions, then Google was my friend. I didn't ever see any abusive or sexist comments that I might have felt were out of order. Perhaps they existed, thus spoiling the pretty innocent fun of 99% of the guys essentially playing Hottie Top Trumps: "I see your blonde in lycra cycling shorts and raise you a brunette in hotpants," that kind of childish yet harmless intent. I did check the "Girls in realistic situations," thread, however, and just left after page 1 as I put it down to being the creation of a loser who was probably socially awkward with women in the real world. As I had never engaged with any of the blokes on Cake Stop I didn't feel the need to berate any of them. Had the same post appeared in Commuting Chat then I may very well have done so, and if not, would not have argued against anyone who did (with this in mind, more of us should perhaps have complained about DDD's munters-you-shouldn't-but-would-shag thread - or whatever it was he called it - so apologies for that!).

In my 18 odd years of working professionally I am proud to say that I have never once personally experienced a woman being sexually harassed by a man. I've witnessed cheeky comments being shared that could have been highly inappropriate had it not been obvious that both parties were taking part and flirting or having fun. Rather fortuitously, however, I've recently been made aware of a situation that my fiance has been involved in, which is exactly as you describe: a man making highly inappropriate comments about her and to her in front of an audience of men - I would have hoped were better than that - who either just laughed or remained silent. I went into it all in great detail in my lost post and so will not bother to do so now, but in a nutshell, she is presently working within a small group who are predominantly male. One of the men is a kind of larger-than-life character with many great qualities. Unfortunately he also something of a lech and what began as cheeky boundary pushing has quickly become highly inappropriate and uncalled for commenting on physical appearance. I knew about this several weeks ago and it made me incredibly angry as this particular individual knows me personally, so not only was he being disrespectful to my fiance, but he was to me also. My knee-jerk reaction was to call him up and ask him what the hell he thought he was playing at, but my fiance has to work with him for several more months and she did not want me to do anything that might cause an unpleasant atmosphere for her at work. Thankfully for her, she's a tough enough cookie when she wants to be and she not only has the support of her female friends within the group (who he also makes inappropriate comments about and to) should she need it, but many of her male ones too, and ultimately, I'm going to set male pride aside for now to do what feels right to her. I will end up working with this man again in the future, however, and when I do, I fully intend to let him know what I think of him.

Like you say, though, I think what is almost worse than this one, insecure, unattractive individual thinking it is acceptable to talk to a woman in such a way, is that other men I thought better of should laugh along. Much of it, I suspect, will have been embarrassment on their part as they will not have known how to react, and perhaps my fiance will have enabled them slightly by just smiling and rolling her eyes (the reaction she will have found easiest even though they were comments she could well have done without), but I honestly believe that if I was one of those men, passively viewing uncalled for comments to a woman about her appearance - even if they could in some perverse way be perceived to be complimentary - then I would have had to say something, either publicly or privately. And you are right, it's a man's duty to do so.

Getting back to the vast majority of those "Girls in..." threads, however: from what I saw of them there was nothing remotely abusive about them and certainly nothing aimed at any individual. I still maintain that the vast majority of men taking part in them will be regular, decent guys who like images of particularly hot girls and are just killing time with their online friends.

Now, on reflection I do think it is right we are having this discussion if there are female members out there who find those threads offensive (the men who do should have grown a pair and complained weeks ago). I would suggest everyone looks at them with a little perspective and understands the intent behind the posting of the vast majority of them, and agrees that a workable compromise might be met. If it is the subject matter itself that offends then I would perhaps draw attention to the fact that the vast majority of the women in the pictures will be professional models and those who are not - the athletes for example - will almost certainly have taken on mildly erotic photo shoots when it suited them to do so in the past - not to mention that the magazines associated with Bike Radar are happy to allow advertisers to use similarly mildly sexual imagery to sell their products.

roger_merriman

Holyzeus wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

If there is to be one thread permitted for posting provocative images, I assume it will be given a name other than "Girls in ...". Or is it only the male hetrosexual tastes that will be permitted space?

Nothing to stop anyone starting a thread now along the lines of "Hot male bods" is there?
I do keep an eye on the various threads and agree some of them have crossed the line, that said if you dont like it dont look at them (like i'd be doing with a Hot Male Bods thread BTW!!)
I feel the only way this is going to go now is with a complete ban, the mods simply have too much to do as it is

Such forums will always be mostly male hetrosexuals hence the number of girls in threads.

have been one or two blokes in threads but they don't last. nor do they go anywhere as close to the line most are just silly stuff, like the team all in a line etc.

Sooner or later this was going to happen, a public forum run by a company selling magazines isn't a mens club which is what some parts of the forum do feel like.

Stone Glider

This is coming to resemble some sort of knock down, drag out knucklefest where the most obdurate are still banging on

Of course the original GiL thread did have rules:- there had to be some lycra and a bicycle in the picture, so far so simple. Which leaves the problem of ladies cycling, are we to post no picture coverage of that part of the hobby?

Again I plead, leave ill alone.

DonDaddyD

The more I think about it the I think the problem resides within the context of the threads in question.

The context of the 'Girls in...' threads was just to ogle semi naked women in provocative poses.

Had 'Girls in Lycra' kept to images like this and included images like this it wouldn't have been, visually speaking, any worse but more tolerable because the context would have danced around about cycling but most importantly wouldn't have purely been about pure outright perversion.

Of all the suggestions and supposed solutions, I think one thing is clear this isn't a place for wide spread adult/mature content. It's why there is quite an extensive swearing filter and why the minimum age requirement is 16. Therefore I don't think there is (i) a need or (ii) a reason to have a 'adults only' NSFW section.

However, what cannot be denied is that there is a sexualisation of the sport in the media. It is too apparent and too widespread to ignore or prevent discussion rising within this context. So any new policy needs to take that into consideration.

Where I think things went wrong and more or better judgement from members and moderators was needed so that 'Girls in lycra' could have been kept on topic and clean and all the spin off threads should have been removed (with any number of posts from myself - I am not blameless, just willing to accept the point that my past actions could have also made women feel marginalised and cheapened).

But in a sport involving peak physical conditions and skimpy lycra clothing you cannot prevent a sexual element from emerging. That doesn't mean that any tolerance of that should then permit widespread mass pervsion of the sexes.

Me?

1) I'd delete all the 'Girls in...' threads. There is no need for a thread purely for the posting sexual images of women.

2) I'd reinstate animations

3). I would follow through with velostrapture's suggestion here:
Velostrapture wrote: I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response.

4). I would make emphasis on this:
. Upload, post or otherwise display Content which is or promotes behaviour which violates the rights (including, without limitation, the intellectual property rights) of a third party or which is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, flaming, hateful, offensive (whether in relation to sex, race, religion or otherwise) harassing, hateful, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another’s privacy, solicits personal information from anyone under the age of 18 years, or contains any illegal content; or

5). If discussions on a particular advert, girl/guys in cycling or post your favourite cycling adverts was created then, fine. But not the mass collection of sexual/provocative images.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

As I said earlier, if the "good guys" don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs who do treat women badly, the onus is on them to demonstrate by their words and actions that they are different. There are many men who profess to acknowledge that there are, as you say, far too many men who think it is acceptable to be abusive towards women, but when it comes to them actually speaking out about it, there is nothing but a deafening silence. It therefore not irrational or illogical to say that there is a general tolerance in our society for the abuse of women, and that in failing to take a stand against it themselves, even the "good guys" are colluding in the abuse.

In the broader perspective I agree with you, but where those particular threads are concerned, you really need the men, like Greg66, who are only now complaining about them to answer why they haven't stepped in before, as not only do I see them as being pretty trivial, but I assumed that any offended, intelligent, modern woman either had the metaphorical balls to step in and make complaints herself or had the sense to just walk away with the shake of a head, and perhaps to join in one of the many other forums here where no such threads exist.

I'm not sure your interpretation of that paragraph is right; if it is, then I don't accept the point that velocestrapture/you are making.

If no women are complaining about the ogle threads, then I am not going to interrupt their silence with my complaint. They have their own minds and voices, and if there is silence I take it that they are not offended, or not sufficiently offended to speak out.

If they do raise the complaint, I evaluate it, and if I agree with it I'll say so. Which is what I've done here.

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I asked the question on page 1: why are there "girls in" threads on BR at all.

Leave aside for the time being the site t&cs, and leave aside the broader question of the extent to which these threads perpetuate a "laddish" atmosphere more generally in a forum that some find unattractive or offensive.

Do the arguments in favour amount to more than this: some (a lot of?) users like them; those users don't find them offensive/harmful; no one is forced to look at them (and thereby be offended).

Without wishing to sound like a clumsy troll, couldn't these arguments be used to justify a (say) pro-BNP thread?

Which brings me to a refinement of my initial question. Given that some people do find these threads offensive, why is it ok for them to stay? Genuinely interested to know how they can be differentiated from (say) the pro-BNP example. Is it just a question of the degree to which the pro-campers find the content acceptable?

jonny_trousers

Greg66 wrote:

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

Nah, the way I see it, she is saying that men, such as yourself, who disapprove of such threads, should have spoken up about them by now, or run the risk of blah, blah, blah, as in doing so, not only would you have been showing that not all men are the same, but that the argument against such threads would have come across far stronger from a fellow male voice rather than a female's. Ironically, the only guilt free man here, according to Velocesrapture's philosophy, is DDD in accidentally making it look as though he was speaking up about the sexual objectification of women when all he really wanted to do was post a fresh discussion whining on about how he is not allowed to swear. As an unfortunate consequence for him, however, he can never again join in any of the innocently fun threads we've enjoyed in the past where the appreciation of the female form is discussed without coming across as the hypocrite we all secretly know him to be. Still, I'm sure he'll grow to enjoy his new found role as the puritanical voice of morality.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

Nah,

I know. You had already explained what you understood her to mean.

Let's wait for her to explain it, eh?

Monkeypump

Greg66 wrote:

Given that some people do find these threads offensive, why is it ok for them to stay? Genuinely interested to know how they can be differentiated from (say) the pro-BNP example. Is it just a question of the degree to which the pro-campers find the content acceptable?

Sorry to answer with another question, but my thoughts are along the lines of "Is it reasonable that anyone is offended by those threads?"

I don't mean to say anyone has a right to judge what does or does not offend somebody else. However, the offence seems to spring from the impression that by posting, viewing or even not voicing an objection to the threads in question, we are all misogynistic, lecherous b'stards who to-a-man are unwelcoming to female members. Aside from a few exceptions, I think this is far from the truth but little effort has been made to come to a fair judgement.

The onus is not on us as posters to provide evidence to the contrary (and show that we're 'good guys' - it is already there in the various threads, if anyone would be bothered to look. Lots of banter, lots of helpful advice, plenty of good stuff to offset the silliness (and it is rarely more than that) in the GiL threads.

So maybe some of the recent GiL/etc posts have been a over the line and could cause offence - that should be addressed. There is still plenty of positive content to enjoy, if you just get involved.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I *think* velocestrapture's point is that now the point is in play, either speak up or run the risk of being "tarred with the same brush as the misogynistic sleazeballs" by virtue of sitting in silence.

Nah, the way I see it, she is saying that men, such as yourself, who disapprove of such threads, should have spoken up about them by now, or run the risk of blah, blah, blah, as in doing so, not only would you have been showing that not all men are the same, but that the argument against such threads would have come across far stronger from a fellow male voice rather than a female's. Ironically, the only guilt free man here, according to Velocesrapture's philosophy, is DDD in accidentally making it look as though he was speaking up about the sexual objectification of women when all he really wanted to do was post a fresh discussion whining on about how he is not allowed to swear. As an unfortunate consequence for him, however, he can never again join in any of the innocently fun threads we've enjoyed in the past where the appreciation of the female form is discussed without coming across as the hypocrite we all secretly know him to be. Still, I'm sure he'll grow to enjoy his new found role as the puritanical voice of morality.

I still stand by my opinion that this whole thing has DDD getting his wrist slapped for swearing as the root cause. Amongst that foremost,the posting of the original thread in the commuting section opposed to here only ever served to cause a bit of a scene.

Amazing how the hornball pervert of CC had such a sudden change of heart.

RonB

The difficulty I have now is that you seem to be asking folks to prove a negative. I have to prove that I am not a misogynistic, lecherous, unwelcoming...so and so. Well I could write a few lines on an internet forum and see if this is judged to be sufficient I suppose. The default position seems a bit extreme to say the least.

On a more positive note, who knows, when this is sorted, road section fans might be visiting the commuters a bit more often... to find out about a good set of lights for winter training or ask about tips on defensive riding/ primary position for tricky junctions. Just maybe commuters would visit the roadies to find out about some bling kit for summer rides or some ideas on improving fitness. Here's hoping.

jonny_trousers

RonB wrote:

On a more positive note, who knows, when this is sorted, road section fans might be visiting the commuters a bit more often... to find out about a good set of lights for winter training or ask about tips on defensive riding/ primary position for tricky junctions. Just maybe commuters would visit the roadies to find out about some bling kit for summer rides or some ideas on improving fitness. Here's hoping.

And we all might head over to Cake Stop to get a look at a cracking pair of norks.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ironically, the only guilt free man here, according to Velocesrapture's philosophy, is DDD in accidentally making it look as though he was speaking up about the sexual objectification of women when all he really wanted to do was post a fresh discussion whining on about how he is not allowed to swear. As an unfortunate consequence for him, however, he can never again join in any of the innocently fun threads we've enjoyed in the past where the appreciation of the female form is discussed without coming across as the hypocrite we all secretly know him to be. Still, I'm sure he'll grow to enjoy his new found role as the puritanical voice of morality.

I still stand by my opinion that this whole thing has DDD getting his wrist slapped for swearing as the root cause. Amongst that foremost,the posting of the original thread in the commuting section opposed to here only ever served to cause a bit of a scene.

Amazing how the hornball pervert of CC had such a sudden change of heart.

Yes some of my previous posts were highly questionable and I have seemingly made a massive U-turn, big whoop. Perhaps I've found a God or a new perspective or have learned something from a personal experience. I've certainly known a few drug addicts, pimps, criminals to find enlightenment or a new perspective and then spend their time preaching against the things they once participated in. So you'll understand that claims of my hypocrisy in the context of this weighs little against the gargantuan U-turns many others have made in the real World.

And still, None of your posts above, you're insults or accusations against me, does anything to strengthen your arguments for having any of the 'Girls in...' threads.

Fact is, whatever my motive, the threads are clearly a problem for some. So unless you are going to dismiss their valid objections in an attempt to simply blame me in an effort to dismiss the issue I think both of you need to focus on attacking the arguments and not the person, namely me.

As for being a hypocrite, can either of you honestly say that you have never said one thing and done another?

RonB

duh...where's a good picture of a face palm when you need one eh?

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fact is, whatever my motive, the threads are clearly a problem for some. So unless you are going to dismiss their valid objections in an attempt to simply blame me in an effort to dismiss the issue I think both of you need to focus on attacking the arguments and not the person, namely me.

I believe I have done both.

DonDaddyD wrote:

As for being a hypocrite, can either of you honestly say that you have never said one thing and done another?

Absolutely not. The only difference is when I'm guilty of hypocrisy I try not to climb onto a soapbox and crow loudly about not doing one thing when I know perfectly well that I've done it myself.

If you have done a complete u-turn and you truly are born again then hallelujah, praise the Lord and good luck to you sir! The problem is I don't think you have. I think you are the epitome of one of those guys I find myself defending in Cake Stop. I think you are a decent, regular bloke with good set of morals who never intentionally wants to hurt a soul. I think that while you do respect women, from time-to-time you enjoy releasing your inner lad and mean no harm in doing so. Perhaps we have now decided that this is not the forum for us to do that, which is a shame as where better than among a group of like minded men with a common interest in a male dominated sport/hobby (I'm not suggesting it should be male dominated, but it is). Very very few of us would ever wish to intentionally upset a female member by what we have said, but as most of the time it feels as though we are all blokes together we may occasionally overstep the mark.

Now, I'm done with my personal attacks and so unless I am questioned directly I will desist and apologies if I have hurt anyone's feelings. This is all just silly web forum posturing after all.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

And still, None of your posts above, you're insults or accusations, does anything to strengthen your arguments for having any of the 'Girls in...' threads.

Insults are just words,the accusations that you have as yet been unable to disprove still linger. You don't actually have an argument now,just a faint glimmer of credability that is fading fast.

Fact is, whatever my motive, the threads are clearly a problem for some. So unless you are going to dismiss their valid objections in an attempt to simply blame me in an effort to dismiss the issue I think both of you need to focus on attacking the arguments and not the person, namely me.

I don't dismiss their objections,in fact some have been rather interesting to read. I do wholly dismiss yours though,that is largely due to the mannor in which you went about this whole thing and the fact that,you did single handedly tear this forum apart by throwing toys out of your pram(as if it wasn't fragile enough). Publically,there was no known issue,until you decided there was one when you couldn't get your own way. That really is what this all comes down to, YOU.

As for being a hypocrite, can either of you honestly say that you have never said one thing and done another?

Who can?

Holyzeus