Log in:  

Register

BoB's gone, here's why

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderator: Irondan

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 14:50

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
All of what you said is true. You really did neglect to point out that Hincap had a Horse face! :rolleyes:


Naw, women don't necessarily mind a horse face. Look at My Little Pony Schleck and all his "fans."
Far more concerning that Jawge had a brain growing out of his leg.
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,545
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 15:04

Beech Mtn wrote:
Glenn_Wilson wrote:
All of what you said is true. You really did neglect to point out that Hincap had a Horse face! :rolleyes:


Naw, women don't necessarily mind a horse face. Look at My Little Pony Schleck and all his "fans."
Far more concerning that Jawge had a brain growing out of his leg.

ROFLMAO
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,308
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 17:47

nowhereman wrote:
Libertine Seguros wrote:This is not a black and white issue the way you want to claim it to be. There is a middle ground between Victorian-style puritanism that you sarcastically bewail with your exaggerated censorship photo-cropping as if this is some kind of human rights issue, and the thread that's been removed. Nobody's saying you're wrong to enjoy those photos. Or even to post them, believe it or not. Just that, if the site wants to increase its focus on women's cycling and wants itself to be taken seriously in its attempts to promote women's cycling, then it's counter-productive to have the main focus on women on the board to be the BoB thread. They're not saying you can only crop photos to ensure we don't see women in figure-hugging lycra, or only riding side-saddle, or whatever you want to claim. They're not going to censor, say, race photos since the site is about bike racing. Saying the BoB thread is "celebrating" rather than "objectifying" the women doesn't wash, because let's face it, what pray tell is it about these women that you are celebrating?

Celebrating their Beauty. Their Grace, the tie in they bring to the activity/sport we all love. You can say whatever you want. As a man I love women, and everything they bring to the sport. From the racers, to the Beauties that simply pose next to a bike. Offended by these shots? I'd argue hyper sensitivity, jealousy, envy? All unfortunate emotional reactions. But hey, CN needs credibility, so ithe "owners"will argue that this is a necessary move, so that women won't feel objectified. Take it from me, and I was the one who kept this thread going til y'all pulled the plug. I'm happily married, my wife just laughs at my search for new photos(she's not thin skinned or insecure about this issue) but my sole effort has been to Celebrate the Beauty of the women we watch race and ride, and pose with bikes. And to celebrate some of the tenacious female beauties that ride with in our local clubs, whether it's a superficial beauty or an inner beauty. Their ferocious tenacity and resilience is their beauty. If this thread is closed for the stated flimsy reasons, so be it. It was a fun run. And no matter what, 4.5 million hits speaks louder than any political correctness. This town was big enough for all of us, [b]you just chose to take the easy way out, and make it a whole lot smaller.

I have absolutely nothing to do with the management of the site nor the decision to remove the thread, no need for the second person. I didn't have any problem with the thread existing, but I really don't get the outrage at its non-existence either. Lots of threads have been closed or nuked over the years, some more offensive than others. It's not the "you are no longer allowed to find women attractive" chopping block that some people are claiming. You're still allowed to find women attractive. You're still allowed to post the photos in question, I'd wager, given some of the images posted on other threads at times. The site owners simply don't want a dedicated thread solely for it anymore, for whatever reason.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,988
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

31 May 2016 18:17

LS: It's not the "you are no longer allowed to find women attractive" chopping block that some people are claiming.
neatly put. +1
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 04:33

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Beech Mtn wrote:
Glenn_Wilson wrote:
All of what you said is true. You really did neglect to point out that Hincap had a Horse face! :rolleyes:


Naw, women don't necessarily mind a horse face. Look at My Little Pony Schleck and all his "fans."
Far more concerning that Jawge had a brain growing out of his leg.

ROFLMAO

Women attract men based on their looks (ability to procreate), men attract women based on their power and wealth (ability to provide). We have made some progress beyond this but it is still there. In most countries of the world at this point in time intelligent women and men have found a way around it, but still it is biology plain and simple. I like to look at pretty women, I have no problem with women who like to lust after powerful men.
User avatar Hugh Januss
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,625
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 00:33
Location: socal

01 Jun 2016 04:44

Looks are exemplary of ability to procreate? "Looks"? As one generic universal look? I think you've cleared the bar set by many on both sides (but mostly the defenders) in terms of cliched, naturalized and ahistorical absurdity. Cosumption of images as tantamount to fantasy and the propensity to aggression was moderately inspired as well.

Maybe the posters whose only skin in the game is oldish, white, and mostly married might want to consult with contemporary times? Rightly or wrongly, at least to confirm that there are more developed positions.

Never mind the blatant sexism that follows. In the contemporary world there are more (let's not say many) women of power who are interested in men of "good breeding genes" and other more unconventional qualities because those women can breed and earn on their own terms. And are often highly accomplished at mostly non-gendered levels. That doesn't make them immune to the exponentially increased monetisation, philosophical polemics, multiple economies and multiple impositions that might be said to constitute or override their own sexual subjectivity.
Last edited by aphronesis on 01 Jun 2016 05:33, edited 2 times in total.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,453
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

01 Jun 2016 05:02

aphronesis wrote:Looks are exemplary of ability to procreate? "Looks"? As one generic universal look? I think you've cleared the bar set by many on both sides (but mostly the defenders) in terms of cliched, naturalized and ahistorical absurdity. Cosumption of images as tantamount to fantasy and the propensity to aggression was moderately inspired as well.

Maybe the posters whose only skin in the game is oldish, white, and mostly married might want to consult with contemporary times? Rightly or wrongly, at least to confirm that there are more developed positions.

Bla bla bla. Looks=attraction. Quite useful for procreation, no? The rest of your absurdity I don't even feel the need to respond to.
What does "cosumption" even mean?
User avatar Hugh Januss
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,625
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 00:33
Location: socal

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 05:06

Hugh Januss wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Looks are exemplary of ability to procreate? "Looks"? As one generic universal look? I think you've cleared the bar set by many on both sides (but mostly the defenders) in terms of cliched, naturalized and ahistorical absurdity. Cosumption of images as tantamount to fantasy and the propensity to aggression was moderately inspired as well.

Maybe the posters whose only skin in the game is oldish, white, and mostly married might want to consult with contemporary times? Rightly or wrongly, at least to confirm that there are more developed positions.

Bla bla bla. Looks=attraction. Quite useful for procreation, no? The rest of your absurdity I don't even feel the need to respond to.
What does "cosumption" even mean?


Wasn't my term or post. All images in your world are commodities. Unless you've got some crayon drawings on the fridge. You look. You consume.

Useful but not definitive. The majority out there are homely. So can you work your point a little more? You're saying BoB was promoting human procreation?
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,453
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 05:15

aphronesis wrote:
Hugh Januss wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Looks are exemplary of ability to procreate? "Looks"? As one generic universal look? I think you've cleared the bar set by many on both sides (but mostly the defenders) in terms of cliched, naturalized and ahistorical absurdity. Cosumption of images as tantamount to fantasy and the propensity to aggression was moderately inspired as well.

Maybe the posters whose only skin in the game is oldish, white, and mostly married might want to consult with contemporary times? Rightly or wrongly, at least to confirm that there are more developed positions.

Bla bla bla. Looks=attraction. Quite useful for procreation, no? The rest of your absurdity I don't even feel the need to respond to.
What does "cosumption" even mean?


Wasn't my term or post. All images in your world are commodities. Unless you've got some crayon drawings on the fridge. You look. You consume.

Useful but not definitive. The majority out there are homely. So can you work your point a little more? You're saying BoB was promoting human procreation?

Image
User avatar Hugh Januss
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,625
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 00:33
Location: socal

01 Jun 2016 05:21

I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,453
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

01 Jun 2016 12:24

aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,214
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 12:46

Scott SoCal wrote:...
I'd also offer this; women who are adversely affected by pictures of pretty girls on bicycles are likely having problems with a wide range of modern cultural/self image issues and that they are a tiny fraction of females roaming the planet. My opinion of course.
sounds legit!

Scott SoCal wrote:Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.
if that's what keeps you going...
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 12:54

Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,308
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 13:03

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?


Probably.

I'm considering starting a thread; Moustache of Interest

Image
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,214
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 13:07

Scott SoCal wrote:
Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?


Probably.

I'm considering starting a thread; Moustache of Interest

Image

You should.

There used to be a web site called fat chicks in party hats. I wish that was still around.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,308
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 13:08

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?


Pretty much.

@Scott, I'm not the one who can't argue my case cogently.

What, ah, do think these millenia old cosmetics were for. Are you saying gender and sexual rights were equivalent in Egyptian, Phoenecian and Roman times? Good stuff.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,453
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

01 Jun 2016 13:36

aphronesis wrote:
Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?


Pretty much.

@Scott, I'm not the one who can't argue my case cogently.

What, ah, do think these millenia old cosmetics were for. Are you saying gender and sexual rights were equivalent in Egyptian, Phoenecian and Roman times? Good stuff.

I don't know about all that because it is well above my pay grade. I'm not afraid to admit I might not be the "deep thinker" here. AnyWho check this out. https://web.archive.org/web/20050828001343/http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com/
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,308
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

03 Jun 2016 20:18

Glenn_Wilson wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
Glenn_Wilson wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:I always defer to those who have a point but can't define it. And are handy with internet cards. Cute picture. So, explain "looks" again. Is it power, security, physical arrangement or some ratio of those and others? Or are you saying the unattractive don't procreate--especially without the help of media enhancement? Or if you're saying that "intelligent men and women" obviate these circumstances (whichever they are) well, it's not clear. Or I guess that maybe even generally unattractive people should define and orient themselves toward commercially defined standards of attractiveness? Aim for the best?


Making a meal of this one are you? Just remember, in this life, there's an ass for every seat.

I thought he was trying to point out that even ugly folks get it on. No?


Pretty much.

@Scott, I'm not the one who can't argue my case cogently.

What, ah, do think these millenia old cosmetics were for. Are you saying gender and sexual rights were equivalent in Egyptian, Phoenecian and Roman times? Good stuff.

I don't know about all that because it is well above my pay grade. I'm not afraid to admit I might not be the "deep thinker" here. AnyWho check this out. https://web.archive.org/web/20050828001343/http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com/


I don't even want to know how you found this site :D
patricknd
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,280
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 18:51
Location: houston texas

Previous

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Back to top