Log in:  

Register

BoB's gone, here's why

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

Moderator: Irondan

Re:

30 May 2016 15:48

Alpe d'Huez wrote: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.
i didn't know this.
imo it makes the decision to take the thread down even more praiseworthy.

And imo it's pretty much a nobrainer.
Who cares that you or i liked the thread.
The point is there are people who might take offense from it, and legitimately so. Of course we shouldn't take down everything people take offense from. But in this case the concerns are fully legitimate.
You cannot keep a straight face and say "YES" to the sexualization of women.

Here's some reading about that:
https://books.google.pl/books/about/Girls_Gone_Skank.html?id=eO7tAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
Instead of advancing women's social and professional empowerment, popular culture trends appear to be backsliding into the blatant sexual exploitation of women and girls at younger and younger ages. This study investigates the effects of mass marketed sexual images and cultural trends on the behaviors and attitudes of young girls and describes many ways in which young girls are increasingly taught to go to outrageous lengths in seeking male attention.
Topics include the powerful effects of cultural phenomena such as revealing fashions, plastic surgery, and beauty pageants in influencing teen and preteen girls to willingly participate in and promote their own sexualization. These chapters also explore other cultural factors contributing to this early sexualization of young girls, including absentee parenting and material overindulgence. Later chapters focus on the sexual representations of females in the mass entertainment media, focusing specifically on how popular magazines, television programs, films, and the Internet prey upon, promote, and reinforce young girls' physical and sexual insecurities.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,505
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

30 May 2016 15:59

sniper wrote:The point is there are people who might take offense from it, and legitimately so. Of course we shouldn't take down everything people take offense from. But in this case the concerns are fully legitimate.
You cannot keep a straight face and say "YES" to the sexualization of women.

Surely taking offense from the clinic and many of its threads are also legitimate (to some)?

As for your last sentence, change women to humans and I'll say hell yeah. What's the problem?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

30 May 2016 16:05

Netserk wrote:
sniper wrote:The point is there are people who might take offense from it, and legitimately so. Of course we shouldn't take down everything people take offense from. But in this case the concerns are fully legitimate.
You cannot keep a straight face and say "YES" to the sexualization of women.

Surely taking offense from the clinic and many of its threads are also legitimate (to some)?

apples and oranges.
The Clinic addresses fraud and cheating.
If frauds and cheats or supporters of frauds and cheats are offended by that, well so be it.

As for your last sentence, change women to humans and I'll say hell yeah. What's the problem?
If you don't see potential problems, I won't try to convince you.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,505
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

30 May 2016 16:09

The clinic slanders potential innocent riders. You really don't think it's legitimate if riders take offense from that? Really?

The point is that even if some do take legitimate offense from something, it doesn't mean the automatic response should be deletion.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

30 May 2016 16:36

Netserk wrote:The clinic slanders potential innocent riders. You really don't think it's legitimate if riders take offense from that? Really?

if you voluntarily partake in a maffia-like business, then don't look weird if you're being suspected of fraud.

The sexualization of women in the media, what's good about that? I can't think of anything.
Scrunitizing a fraudulous enterprise like pro-cycling, otoh...
As I said, apples and oranges.

The point is that even if some do take legitimate offense from something, it doesn't mean the automatic response should be deletion.
I said exactly this in my pre-previous post.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,505
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

30 May 2016 16:40

You stressed that it depended on the legitimacy of the offense taken, which I disagree with.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

30 May 2016 16:59

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.
Last edited by Merckx index on 30 May 2016 18:47, edited 4 times in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,110
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

30 May 2016 16:59

sniper wrote:
And imo it's pretty much a nobrainer.
Who cares that you or i liked the thread.
The point is there are people who might take offense from it, and legitimately so. Of course we shouldn't take down everything people take offense from. But in this case the concerns are fully legitimate.
You cannot keep a straight face and say "YES" to the sexualization of women.


I am purposely provoking debate here, but at least one culture (or certain elements of that culture) dictate that women that are not totally covered are offensive. Does this mean that all women in all parts of the world should wear burkas as not to offend those who share this belief?

It isn't easy to find the line between what is offensive and what is a desirable level of freedom of expression/behaviour. I can understand how some might have found the thread offensive, as I can understand how some might have found that the thread presented women cyclists in a positive light. If we should be able to see women on the street without objectifying them, including women that are dressed scantily and are made up, why not on a cycling forum thread? After all, we are supposed to be evolved human beings. Giving in to the lowest denominator isn't always the best solution.
"This comment qualifies as a shining example of the "anyone who disagrees with my perspective is a dolt" leftist, intolerant mish-mash of shallow thinking." - Scott SoCal
User avatar frenchfry
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,279
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 14:28
Location: Bourgogne

Re: Re:

30 May 2016 19:08

Merckx index wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:If the social change you are looking for requires the undoing of perfectly natural responses between the sexes then you will be left wanting.


One way of describing the history of human civilization is precisely the undoing (or more accurately, the modulation) of “perfectly natural responses”. Why do you think it’s been so difficult for societies to overcome racism? Because it was originally a natural response, necessary when humans lived in small groups and needed to be able to identify and exclude non-kin. Racists were more likely to survive than those who did not react with fear and/or hostility towards those who didn’t look like them.

Why do you think rape has always been a serious problem? Because at one time it was a perfectly natural response of males, selected by evolution to impregnate as many females as possible. Rapists left more progeny than more gentlemanly primates.

Why do you think obesity is a serious problem? Because at one time overeating, and particularly gorging on high calorie foods like fat, and quick energy foods like sugar, was a highly successful strategy when meals might be few and far between. Gluttons were less likely to starve than those who ate moderately.

We can’t change the fact that we have drives for eating, sex, aggression, and so on. The idea is not to deny the existence of these drives, but allow them to be modified by our intelligence and collective social knowledge. We lose something in the process, but also gain something. The same large forebrain that collectively has imposed an increasing number of restrictions on our sexual desires has also made it possible to experience during sex thoughts and emotions far beyond what our ancestors knew.


Racism is a learned response so that does not belong in this discussion. Attraction is a natural response. I don't belive you or anyone else is going to have much luck unwinding or even modifying it.

From the look of things these drives are being modified at an alarming rate. Whole swaths don't even talk to each other except through electronic interaction. Virtual/hologram replacing real relationships between actual people.

Beyond that it seems you and a handful of others here have seemingly lost the ability to distinguish between the harmless and the harmful.
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,181
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

30 May 2016 20:16

Merckx index wrote:Are you serious, Alpe? You will visit the site less because the BoB thread is not there?

I didn't say leave, but yes, I will likely spend less time here. In fact, I've reached out already to Nowhereman, who posted the best of the photos, asking him what other outlets he will be using for his photos in the future. I imagine the time I spend here, will be parsed by time I spend there. I'm not going to lie and say it wasn't my favorite thread, because it was.

I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to the rest of your comments, though you do know I respect your intelligence, and opinion.

I should also note I fully agree with Scott here.
Scott SoCal wrote:If the social change you are looking for requires the undoing of perfectly natural responses between the sexes then you will be left wanting... Attraction is a natural response. I don't believe you or anyone else is going to have much luck unwinding or even modifying it.

I am a man, a heterosexual man. A man who treats women with respect. But a man never the less with that exact natural response of being attracted to beautiful women, and I'm not going to apologize for that.
From the look of things these drives are being modified at an alarming rate. Whole swaths don't even talk to each other except through electronic interaction. Virtual/hologram replacing real relationships between actual people.

I could not have said this better myself. You fully understand the bigger picture here.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

30 May 2016 20:21

You might well be a man who treats women with respect (in between leering at them on the Internet :D ) but not all men are as decent as you.

It's a bit like people who say that violent video games have no negative effect because they have never killed anyone. It's not all about a given individual (ie. In this particular case, you)

There was an interesting study recently that found that the sort of language used in lads mags (uk) was almost identical to that used by convicted rapists when asked to talk about why they raped. It's all part of a drips drip effect on the subconscious mind.
User avatar kwikki
Member
 
Posts: 1,013
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 15:47

30 May 2016 21:36

jeezus, the bunch of post that followed the bob closure had me thoroughly puzzled...

pls, forgive me if i misread, but my literal reading of the act of closing the thread was NOT about what several posting on:... more specifically, several posted about racists, gays and their rights, gender pay scale, rape etc etc

excuse me.

i do understand the minority rights issues. i do understand a parallel to 'civil/human rights. what i don't get is how the motherhood categories relate to the issue at hand ? more specifically, how the generally good and noble concerns relate to what the forum was told by a current admin:
Irondan wrote:
All,

In light of Cycling News ever expanding coverage of Women's Cycling, the thread "Babe's on Bikes" has met it's timely end.

the problen is, as i had posted already, how exactly the well intended verbiage will enhance the stated goal of the bob closure somehow promoting the female cycling ?

it all sounds to me as if some posters are are overreacting/overdoing/misinterpreting....at least wrt to the point at hand.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,434
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 01:15

Scott SoCal wrote:
Racism is a learned response so that does not belong in this discussion. Attraction is a natural response. I don't believe you or anyone else is going to have much luck unwinding or even modifying it.


That’s sort of like saying that killing and eating prey by cats is a learned response. It is, but it builds on natural tendencies to chase and catch prey. Cats could not learn to kill prey, at least not nearly as easily as they in fact do, if they didn’t have an innate drive to capture it.

Human racism certainly has a learned component, but it could not be learned if there weren’t a strong biological base to it. At its most fundamental, one has to be able to discriminate and classify certain characteristics of other individuals. Second, there has to be a concept of an out-group, the notion that, based on this classification, some members of your species are more similar to you than others. Even invertebrates like insects exhibit these behaviors, though it would be a stretch to say they have a concept of anything. But the point is, in-group vs. out-group has a very long evolutionary history. So when racism is developed, what has to be learned is who are members of the in-group and who are members of the out-group, and why.

It’s ironic that you bring learning into the discussion, because while sexual attraction is a natural response, using pictures to stimulate sexual attraction doesn’t seem to qualify as natural (I’m not aware of any other species that do it). I think you, Alpe and some others here are conflating the natural attraction that the sexes have towards each other—which I’m most definitely not trying to do away with—with the practice of using artificial images of sexual partners to substitute for real sex. I freely concede that sexual attraction frequently involves seeing women to a greater or lesser extent as sex objects—any man who denies this is either lying, gay or castrated. But substituting pictures for the real thing takes this process to its logical conclusion. A real sexual attraction is never totally about objectification, whereas looking at pictures basically is, or at least far closer.

Does that matter? Again, I think the comparison to drinking is apt. Many men can look at pictures of women they consider sexually attractive without its affecting the respect they have towards real women. I’d question whether it has no effect at all on relationships with real women, but I agree that it doesn’t necessarily lead to less respect. Another analogy might be watching violent movies and TV programs, or playing violent video games; most people can do this without turning into violent offenders themselves. We don’t ban drinking, and we don’t ban violent shows, but we understand that these activities are not always harmless, and may restrict them in certain situations.

And there is one important difference between posting online photos of women and drinking or watching TV. The potential harm is not limited to the people who actually engage in the activity, how they subsequently lead their lives. Even if it were true that no men were affected by these pictures in a way detrimental to women, the fact remains that women are aware of these pictures, and some of them--not all, but some--are adversely affected, as has been pointed out here before.

Finally, the notion that sexual attraction can’t be modified is absurd. It already has been. If it weren’t, a relatively small % of women who are the most attractive with regard to the classic evolutionary features (there has been a lot of work on this) would get most or all of the attention of males, just as happens in nature. Because sexual attraction is modified by thoughts and feelings, the actual human situation is far more complex than this.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,110
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

31 May 2016 05:57

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, you just chose to take the easy way out, and make it a whole lot smaller.
nowhereman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,434
Joined: 24 May 2010 01:42

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 06:33

frenchfry wrote:...
I am purposely provoking debate here, but at least one culture (or certain elements of that culture) dictate that women that are not totally covered are offensive. Does this mean that all women in all parts of the world should wear burkas as not to offend those who share this belief?

fair question.
This would be on the other extreme, of course.
Imo you have to look at the website, its audience, etc. They're not predominantly muslims.
They're predominantly 'western'. And in western culture sexualization of (young) women is a serious problem (*imo*), hence my respect for the decision to close the thread, as it provided tacit (albeit largely unintentional) support for said sexualization.

It isn't easy to find the line between what is offensive and what is a desirable level of freedom of expression/behaviour.
..
Giving in to the lowest denominator isn't always the best solution.
this is both very true.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,505
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 13:17

Merckx index wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Racism is a learned response so that does not belong in this discussion. Attraction is a natural response. I don't believe you or anyone else is going to have much luck unwinding or even modifying it.


That’s sort of like saying that killing and eating prey by cats is a learned response. It is, but it builds on natural tendencies to chase and catch prey. Cats could not learn to kill prey, at least not nearly as easily as they in fact do, if they didn’t have an innate drive to capture it.

Human racism certainly has a learned component, but it could not be learned if there weren’t a strong biological base to it. At its most fundamental, one has to be able to discriminate and classify certain characteristics of other individuals. Second, there has to be a concept of an out-group, the notion that, based on this classification, some members of your species are more similar to you than others. Even invertebrates like insects exhibit these behaviors, though it would be a stretch to say they have a concept of anything. But the point is, in-group vs. out-group has a very long evolutionary history. So when racism is developed, what has to be learned is who are members of the in-group and who are members of the out-group, and why.

It’s ironic that you bring learning into the discussion, because while sexual attraction is a natural response, using pictures to stimulate sexual attraction doesn’t seem to qualify as natural (I’m not aware of any other species that do it). I think you, Alpe and some others here are conflating the natural attraction that the sexes have towards each other—which I’m most definitely not trying to do away with—with the practice of using artificial images of sexual partners to substitute for real sex. I freely concede that sexual attraction frequently involves seeing women to a greater or lesser extent as sex objects—any man who denies this is either lying, gay or castrated. But substituting pictures for the real thing takes this process to its logical conclusion. A real sexual attraction is never totally about objectification, whereas looking at pictures basically is, or at least far closer.

Does that matter? Again, I think the comparison to drinking is apt. Many men can look at pictures of women they consider sexually attractive without its affecting the respect they have towards real women. I’d question whether it has no effect at all on relationships with real women, but I agree that it doesn’t necessarily lead to less respect. Another analogy might be watching violent movies and TV programs, or playing violent video games; most people can do this without turning into violent offenders themselves. We don’t ban drinking, and we don’t ban violent shows, but we understand that these activities are not always harmless, and may restrict them in certain situations.

And there is one important difference between posting online photos of women and drinking or watching TV. The potential harm is not limited to the people who actually engage in the activity, how they subsequently lead their lives. Even if it were true that no men were affected by these pictures in a way detrimental to women, the fact remains that women are aware of these pictures, and some of them--not all, but some--are adversely affected, as has been pointed out here before.

Finally, the notion that sexual attraction can’t be modified is absurd. It already has been. If it weren’t, a relatively small % of women who are the most attractive with regard to the classic evolutionary features (there has been a lot of work on this) would get most or all of the attention of males, just as happens in nature. Because sexual attraction is modified by thoughts and feelings, the actual human situation is far more complex than this.


I don't buy the notion that racism is innate. As stated earlier, it doesn't belong in this discussion.

Pictures as stimulation is of course a new development as photographs have only been around for a relatively short time. But imagery has been around as long as there's been a human condition. How does one explain the fact that cosmetics have been a global phenomenon since the beginning? Not just a handful of cultures... What do you suppose the point of cosmetics use is?

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.
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,181
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 13:26

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, you just chose to take the easy way out, and make it a whole lot smaller.


It's a shame that this is what it's come to, not just here but the culture in general. When boys can't admire girls (and vise versa)... when people have to rewire hard-wired response mechanisms then we are all in for a rough, confusing ride.
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,181
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

31 May 2016 13:33

Scott SoCal wrote:
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, you just chose to take the easy way out, and make it a whole lot smaller.


It's a shame that this is what it's come to, not just here but the culture in general. When boys can't admire girls (and vise versa)... when people have to rewire hard-wired response mechanisms then we are all in for a rough, confusing ride.

Yup no doubt. I don't want to call out anyone's intelligence on the issue but this is one of those times where the decission or reaction to an email seems a bit over the top.
Anyway since I'm the "deep thinker" here I will just mull it over for a while.

Captain Cabinets,

Trapped in Cabinets

Can he get out?

Will he get out?

Of course he will.

Captain Cabinets,

Trapped in Cabinets.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,300
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

31 May 2016 13:50

Seeing all these posts about the BoB thread and the huge importance that CN provide a steady stream of looks at personal beauty and attractiveness to Joe Public. There really ought to be a petition for CN to get Chris Froome the hell off the front page permanently. Who cares how many races he's "won." Looks are a super valuable commodity, and he ain't got 'em. Obviously fans and forum users shouldn't have to look at that. Strip all his wins for being fug, and give the jerseys to someone cuter, like Contador, Rui Costa, or Ruben Plaza.

That little Chaves is cute. He can win. Wiggins is fug, so he cannot. Kloeden looked nice, back in the day. He can have Lance's wins. LA had that wonky eye and mean mouth.

Sagan used to look like Forrest Gump, back when he had short hair, but now he looks nice. Mrs. Sagan has been a good influence on him. Aru needs to stop making those fish faces when he rides. Who cares how he's racing? It looks bad, and that's important. He must learn to make cuter suffer faces. Poor old Valv looked better before he went bald. He'll have to retire and wander in the desert like Chris Horner and Levi Leipheimer.

The less said about Pippo the better. That man looks like a walking laboratory for the incubation of sexually-transmitted diseases. UCI can pop him positive, a scapegoat to be sacrificed for the image of the sport, as punishment for hideous tattoos. Doesn't this guy know nobody wants to see him nekkid? Damnit, Italians are supposed to understand the importance of looks and elegance!

What are Katusha thinking trying to get behind Zakarin? They should project a handsomer image for their brand. Kolobnev is easier to look at. Andrey Zeits is obviously the most valuable rider ever to come out of Kazakhstan. That Vinokourov looked like an angry albino when he raced.

LottoNL are just sad. These poor people are supposed to be the Dutch flagship team, but Dumoulin rides somewhere else. For years fans had to look at ten Dam's snotty, drooling faces, and this team can't even hire Dumoulin? Who's making the decisions over there? Don't they know beauty is a very important quality?

The fans will obviously revolt if they have to look at photos of ugly guys while the handsome ones are back in the grupetto. On the positive side, at least beady-eyed Cav has been replaced with Kittel. He can probably grow the sport better. And GreenEdge would be wise to get rid of Gerrans, but keep Matthews. No one wants to look at Gerro.

:rolleyes:
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,526
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re:

31 May 2016 14:03

Beech Mtn wrote:Seeing all these posts about the BoB thread and the huge importance that CN provide a steady stream of looks at personal beauty and attractiveness to Joe Public. There really ought to be a petition for CN to get Chris Froome the hell off the front page permanently. Who cares how many races he's "won." Looks are a super valuable commodity, and he ain't got 'em. Obviously fans and forum users shouldn't have to look at that. Strip all his wins for being fug, and give the jerseys to someone cuter, like Contador, Rui Costa, or Ruben Plaza.

That little Chaves is cute. He can win. Wiggins is fug, so he cannot. Kloeden looked nice, back in the day. He can have Lance's wins. LA had that wonky eye and mean mouth.

Sagan used to look like Forrest Gump, back when he had short hair, but now he looks nice. Mrs. Sagan has been a good influence on him. Aru needs to stop making those fish faces when he rides. Who cares how he's racing? It looks bad, and that's important. He must learn to make cuter suffer faces. Poor old Valv looked better before he went bald. He'll have to retire and wander in the desert like Chris Horner and Levi Leipheimer.

The less said about Pippo the better. That man looks like a walking laboratory for the incubation of sexually-transmitted diseases. UCI can pop him positive, a scapegoat to be sacrificed for the image of the sport, as punishment for hideous tattoos. Doesn't this guy know nobody wants to see him nekkid? Damnit, Italians are supposed to understand the importance of looks and elegance!

What are Katusha thinking trying to get behind Zakarin? They should project a handsomer image for their brand. Kolobnev is easier to look at. Andrey Zeits is obviously the most valuable rider ever to come out of Kazakhstan. That Vinokourov looked like an angry albino when he raced.

LottoNL are just sad. These poor people are supposed to be the Dutch flagship team, but Dumoulin rides somewhere else. For years fans had to look at ten Dam's snotty, drooling faces, and this team can't even hire Dumoulin? Who's making the decisions over there? Don't they know beauty is a very important quality?

The fans will obviously revolt if they have to look at photos of ugly guys while the handsome ones are back in the grupetto. On the positive side, at least beady-eyed Cav has been replaced with Kittel. He can probably grow the sport better. And GreenEdge would be wise to get rid of Gerrans, but keep Matthews. No one wants to look at Gerro.

:rolleyes:

All of what you said is true. You really did neglect to point out that Hincap had a Horse face! :rolleyes:
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,300
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top