Alpe d'Huez wrote:
Yes I admire beautiful women, but to me, that's a good thing, especially if I treat them with respect. Not every man looks at women with the primary intent of having sex with them. This might come as a shock to some people, but I often look at women on bikes and wonder what it might be like to, you know, ride bikes and hang out with them. Maybe start a relationship with them.
I understand that, but what does that have to do with browsing a thread with pictures of women on bikes? If you want to meet a woman who rides, you go riding. Looking at pictures is going to get you nowhere, obviously.
Or if your point was just the pleasure of fantasizing (?), I’d at least say fantasies are much richer when they involve real people. If you’re going to wonder what it would be like to be in a relationship with someone, it helps if you know something about how that person thinks and feels, which online pictures are not going to tell you.
In recent times, like over the last million views I'd guess, nearly every photo was professionally shot.
Is that supposed to make them more acceptable? Professionally shot generally means they are staged so as to emphasize those aspects of women that are most physically attractive to men, rather than show women as they normally appear in the flow of life. IOW, even by the limitations of photos, they are quite unrealistic.
Many of the photos were of women wearing regular cycling clothing, many of them were professional cyclists or amateur racers. Some were nostalgic looking. Some were of famous people. There was a pick on there of Lindsay Vonn, out on her bike cross training. I remember looking at it and thinking not that I wanted to jump on her, but that it was cool that she was serious about cycling.
Don’t have a problem with pictures like this, but I don’t need a picture to find it cool that some celebrity cycles, just as I don’t need a picture of some celebrity handing a check to a charity to appreciate that he or she supports that charity.
As I noted in the other thread as well, the vast majority of the photos were no more offensive, or of women no more or less scantily clad, than what you would see in any woman's magazine today, magazines aimed at female readers (Cosmo, Allure, etc).
This has been addressed here. It basically means that the thread wasn’t porn, certainly didn’t break any laws, that’s about it. And yes, it also suggests that many women may not find the thread objectionable. I’ll note that some polls also suggest that most Native Americans don’t find names of teams like Redskins objectionable, either. While I certainly respect their views, and that may be enough reason to allow those names to remain, it doesn’t mean that some people, and not just NAs, do find the names offensive.
I would even make the argument that nearly every one of those photos are photoshopped showing women to have perfect skin, and very thin bodies with large breasts, and thus present a dangerous view of what a women should look like and be, while photos of healthy women on bicycles is a positive thing for women to aspire to.
Yes, Red Headed Dane made that comment, too. But she also noted a trend to move from Babes on Bikes to Babes with Bikes. And I’d add, how many pictures of a woman on a bike does one have to see to get that message? There are lots of social trends that some people may find worth encouraging, and they might post a story or a picture to bring attention to that, but they don’t’ feel the need to start a thread with hundreds of pictures to make the point. IOW, this sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization for the thread, certainly not its original intent.
Yes, CN can do what they want and remove any threads they don't like. I honor that. But the thread was approaching 5 million views. It was without question the most popular thread on the entire forum. That equals traffic, which equals advertising, which equals money. And that means people like myself, and many others, are going to visit the entire website less.
Are you serious, Alpe? You will visit the site less because the BoB thread is not there? I can maybe understand people who regularly visit the site stopping to browse that thread along with other threads, but why would that thread become the primary destination of people on a cycling site? And particularly you, who obviously have a lot of interesting things to say in other threads, politics, nfl, clinic sometimes.
And as Sniper noted, those 5 million views are very telling (though I'd bet that the number of different
posters who browsed that thread was not as high as for some other threads). You don't get 5 million views for a thread that is about how healthful it is for young women to ride a bike, or that shows that athletes in another sport may ride, or that just shows professional cyclists riding. We all know what sells.