Babes thread kybosh.

[Martin318is]

okay - at this point I will make the obligatory warning.

This thread may well serve a purpose and have some value, however, that completely dissolves if people descend into aggressive argument and personal attacks.

Please refrain from making this conversation about individuals and instead stay on the topic of the demise of the BoB thread and the ramifications of such.

Put another way - please play the topic (ball) and not the man/woman or there will be consequences in terms of infractions and or suspensions as per normal forum moderation.

 

[M Sport]

That is patently ridiculous logic.

It is clearly open to discussion because we are right here discussing it now.

You don't have a conversation of this type inside the thread itself or you end up destroying the thread anyway. You open a new thread to discuss it. TFF has done this (and other people have created other threads to express their own interpretations of the issues)

No, his logic was actually correct.

The correct way to discuss closing the thread would have been for the moderator to open a discussion thread here BEFORE locking the BOB thread.

So my vote goes to re-opening it. Just an absolutely ridiculous decision to close it anyway, seriously what was he thinking?

 

[Roland Rat]

I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

Ok, I have to disagree with this.

Before I start, let me point out that I don't really care what happens to the BoB thread, it was a mild amusement for a few minutes every now and then, and even then more for the comments and competition to see who had found the latest pic as much as the pics themselves. If the people viewing just wanted to see naked women, it's not too difficult to find that on the internet now, is it? So I'm not full of "self-righteous rage". In fact, this thread has been more amusing than the BoB thread so I'm quite happy!

Anyway, it seems you are taking out on the BoB thread your views on society as a whole. Yes, parts of society do objectify women, but you cannot possibly complain that the BoB thread would cause the forumites who read it to alter how they act to women out on the road. Firstly, their opinions on women will already be formed by society as a whole, this is a microscopic spec compared to what is seen for the rest of the day. Secondly, the people viewing are, have been or have an interest in cyclists/cycling. If there's one part of society that you should not be concerned about, it is this part.

Furthermore, you complain that the BoB thread would influence the way women are seen. Do you have any proof of that, or is it simply your opinion? And if that is the case, perhaps you should start a campaign to ban those who are guilty of this in far more visible forums, I suggest you start with trying to ban the following:

- Daniel Greiger and all who model on his Cycling Passions Calendar http://www.cyclepassion.com ;
- Liz Hatch
- Julie Krasniak
- Vicky Pendleton
- Hanka Kupfernagel
- Willow Koerber
- Heather Irmiger
- Veronica Andreasson
- Mona Eiberweiser
- Fabienne Heinzmann
(and that is the 2011 line-up alone).

And there are many quotes from some of the above stating that they are happy to do this as it raises the profile of professional womens' cycling. As someone above mentioned, even the BoB thread made many people more aware of womens' cycling.

Finally, on the point of the BoB thread influencing the way women are seen, IMO the current banning and reaction to it will influence the way women are seen in a much more negative light. Look at TFF's response as evidence of this. If women are to react like this, by trying to shut down anything they do not agree with (when it is not offensive), you will find they will start to be excluded from other areas. For example, how many men on a winter training ride would start to complain and exclude women if the presence of a woman meant they could not enjoy the usual banter that comes along with a standard winter training ride? Again, not offensive banter, but the usual banter.

Again, I don't really care what happens to the BoB thread but I think your accusing it of influencing how women will be perceived, rather than accepting it as something that you do not like but is simply mild amusement for others, is misguided.

 

[Martin318is]

No, his logic was actually correct.

The correct way to discuss closing the thread would have been for the moderator to open a discussion thread here BEFORE locking the BOB thread.

actually no,
What you are saying would certainly be correct if a permanent action such as deleting a thread was carried out. But this action is not permanent.

Locking a thread merely stops any new entries from being added. In a case such as this one, the locking allows for a further discussion without the distraction of more items being added that may or may not bias the outcome of said discussion.

 

[Straßenrennen]

My girlfriend liked babes on bikes.... it was one of the few things we can talk about while im browsing the forums! The lookalike thread is also a big hit with her, not sure the gnomes will take off thou.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

Some would think you are being quite rude and condescending right now

Imagine that, a PC preacher who shows a lack of self awareness...who'd a thunk?

Past that, your reasoning, and logic are terribly flawed. You want to control how I view and think about women. You are no better than those who impose Sharia law. Your position is ignorant of human genetics and based on a bias that you cannot see past. Please fix yourself before coming in here and trying to tell me what I think and how I should go about thinking it.

 

[HL2037]

Imagine that, a PC preacher who shows a lack of self awareness...who'd a thunk?

Past that, your reasoning, and logic are terribly flawed. You want to control how I view and think about women. You are no better than those who impose Sharia law. Your position is ignorant of human genetics and based on a bias that you cannot see past. Please fix yourself before coming in here and trying to tell me what I think and how I should go about thinking it.

I certainly do not want to control how you think. I just say that I am happy if CN, as a serious cycling site, chooses not to help promote a view of women which is in my opinion degrading. I said that I think it belongs on other parts of the internet, don't get why that is so provocative to you.

I maintain that I do sense a bit of rage in this thread. I think it is out of proportion.

Comparing me to fanatic sharia supporters is ridiculous. I am against all kinds of oppression. And no, closing a thread on a discussion forum is not oppression.

 

[Anonymous]

I certainly do not want to control how you think. I just say that I am happy if CN, as a serious cycling site, chooses not to help promote a view of women which is in my opinion degrading. I said that I think it belongs on other parts of the internet, don't get why that is so provocative to you.

I maintain that I do sense a bit of rage in this thread. I think it is out of proportion.

Comparing me to fanatic sharia supporters is ridiculous. I am against all kinds of oppression. And no, closing a thread on a discussion forum is not oppression.

You confuse the functional effect with the base reasoning. The reason women wear burkas under Sharia law is so that the sinful lust of the eyes by men can be controlled. Functionally, that oppresses women. However, the base reasoning is the same as yours. You find the lustful viewing of females "degrading." So do they.

As I said in another thread, you leave me with two real options:
1. I can stop finding women sexually attractive, especially their breasts and vaginas. If I just stop feeling aroused by those things (even when fully covered), you will be happy.
2. We can impose Shariah Law, and cover you with burkas so that our eyes will not lust.

Sorry, but the first is physiologically impossible considering that there is an innate chemical reaction necessary for the continued survival of our species at work. Good luck turning off that switch.

All we are left with is the burka. It is the only option truly under our control.

 

[HL2037]

You confuse the functional effect with the base reasoning. The reason women wear burkas under Sharia law is so that the sinful lust of the eyes by men can be controlled. Functionally, that oppresses women. However, the base reasoning is the same as yours. You find the lustful viewing of females "degrading." So do they.

As I said in another thread, you leave me with two real options:
1. I can stop finding women sexually attractive, especially their breasts and vaginas. If we just stop feeling aroused by those things (even when fully covered), you will be happy.
2. We can impose Shariah Law, and cover you with burkas so that our eyes will not lust.

Sorry, but the first is physiologically impossible considering that there is an innate chemical reaction necessary for the continued survival of our species at work. Good luck turning off that switch.

All we are left with is the burka. It is the only option truly under our control.

You don't really read what I write, do you? I don't care if you like to watch soft porn with bikes.

But I don't think it should be on CN. Because that sends out the signal that cycling is mostly for men and that women do not belong in cycling except half naked on a poster in a workshop.

See I don't mind porn. But I don't see what it has to do with cycling.

 

[krebs303]

TFF do you think the burka has ever stopped a man from fantasizing what was underneath? I think not, hence the term "he undressed me with his eyes"
You can't change human nature

 

[Anonymous]

I certainly do not want to control how you think. I just say that I am happy if CN, as a serious cycling site, chooses not to help promote a view of women which is in my opinion degrading. .

***cough***

 

[Ferminal]

Because that sends out the signal that cycling is mostly for men and that women do not belong in cycling except half naked on a poster in a workshop.

I don't know if we can read that much into it.

The argument is a fundamentally social one as TFF describes, as much as you try to say it's "purely about the position of women in cycling". If it's so counter-productive to women in cycling, then it's because it's counter-productive to women in general. There are no exclusive properties (or are there?) of cycling whereby the supposed "negative effect" of the way they are (were) portrayed in BoB would be significantly amplified.

Most men would have been exposed to such images their entire life, I'm not sure how suddenly seeing them on a cycling forum or next to a bike would trigger a switch causing their attitude towards women to deteriorate.

The argument that this is a cycling site is a non-issue, given that there is an entire forum dedicated to non-cycling discussions.

I was an infrequent visitor to BoB, only looking when I saw it on the index and bored enough to enter. Always gave me a good smile (as the gnomes on bikes thread also does) to see how the ladies and bikes interacted to form the perfect picture. Again, not sure how seeing female and bike in harmony is bad.

 

[Anonymous]

You don't really read what I write, do you? I don't care if you like to watch soft porn with bikes.

But I don't think it should be on CN. Because that sends out the signal that cycling is mostly for men and that women do not belong in cycling except half naked on a poster in a workshop.

See I don't mind porn. But I don't see what it has to do with cycling.

1. It wasn't porn, and your characterization as such is telling.
2. One thread does not a "signal that cycling is mostly for men and that women do not belong in cycling" make.
3. Sorry, but the hundreds of other threads that have nothing to do with women and bikes suggest that cycling is about much more, and does not exclude women.

 

[Anonymous]

TFF do you think the burka has ever stopped a man from fantasizing what was underneath? I think not, hence the term "he undressed me with his eyes"
You can't change human nature

No, my point is that you cannot change human nature.

 

[red_flanders]

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

Some would think you are being quite rude and condescending right now

 

[bobs nob]

I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

And WE are self righteous? I am not sitting here complaining that the sun rises in the east and demanding something be done about it.

If you can't handle the way men view women, then I pity your existence. I have no problem with the stereotypes a great many women have of men: simple minded, wrong head does all the thinking, beyond any heavy lifting generally useless. To an extent it's true and I like being in on the joke.

Do you seriously think that one thread is going to change the view others have of this site? That's a straw man which gives you comfort in closing it down. I really don't care. The flaming is what this site has a negative reputation for, not the pg-13 adolescence of one thread. You wanna see how a LOT of other men who don't come here view women? I can give you one free website that would curdle you tea. Yours is a foolish phony argument.

fwiw: Leave b.o.b. locked. Let that be your stamp on the forum.

 

[bobs nob]

***cough***

ffs, +++cough+++ is note nearly strong enough, what an incredibly inane excuse. One person, and one mod get to dictate the content of the forum for no other reason than they didn't like it.

 

[bobs nob]

***cough***

ffs, +++cough+++ is not nearly strong enough, what an incredibly inane excuse. One person, and one mod get to dictate the content of the forum for no other reason than they didn't like it.

 

[red_flanders]

ffs, +++cough+++ is not nearly strong enough, what an incredibly inane excuse. One person, and one mod get to dictate the content of the forum for no other reason than they didn't like it.

I'd be surprised if it were really one mod here folks. One mod taking the bullet, yes. One mod with no other pressure or support? That would be strange.

 

[Anonymous]

I posted this in the "Modestly Dressed Women" thread, and will do so here for clarity of purpose:

its funny its always the unattractive women who hate stuff like this they are not liked or lusted after by men so on some level they are bitter and jealous of attractive women and hate men looking at them. its all about bitterness and jealousy no less no more that is the truth they can say otherwise but it is so transparent and total b.s.

That is not what I am saying at all. It has nothing to do with attractive or unattractive. It has to do with some women believing that because of their opinion of what is and is not appropriate behavior for a man, they have the right to deem something "offensive" and unworthy of viewing.

Women should have equal everything. Pay, opportunity, you name it. What they do not have the right to is attempting to counter act basic human male instinct, not only because it is impossible to overcome, but also because they should busy themselves with their own foibles.

It is the same reason I detest the anti-homosexual crowd. My sexuality is mine. There will always be human beings who go out of bounds on ANY human emotion or endeavor, WOMEN INCLUDED. Trust me, it is not limited to SEX. Humans exceed healthy bounds in terms of greed, lust, pride, gluttony, envy, anger, and sloth. We all do to a greater or lesser degree in one or more of those. There are those who go to extremes in terms of those human frailties. Does that mean everyone should be branded? Those of us who have viewed that thread have been deemed as having "demeaning" attitudes to women. I would suggest that is as offensive as any tit shot. Just because I look at a woman and experience a release of chemicals that is pleasurable (biological necessity for continuing the species) DOES NOT mean that I believe women only serve to as eye candy. It DOES NOT mean that I believe that women hold a lower place in society. It DOES NOT mean that I believe women are inferior intellectually. It DOES NOT mean that I think only ugly women dislike anything. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I ENJOY THE WAY WOMEN LOOK! ****ING SUE ME!

 

[Anonymous]

I'd be surprised if it were really one mod here folks. One mod taking the bullet, yes. One mod with no other pressure or support? That would be strange.

you suggesting there is a moderator omerta going on

 

[Anonymous]

I'd be surprised if it were really one mod here folks. One mod taking the bullet, yes. One mod with no other pressure or support? That would be strange.

No, there is a difference of opinion on the issue, and instead of dealing with it fairly and appropriately, 180mm chose to enact his vision of what is and is not appropriate, and then use the lame and transparently dishonest excuse that another mod could open it back up if they so choose.

I wrote him regarding this, and to be honest, the ONLY person who should open the thread again is 180mm. He won't because of his biologically ignorant view of human sexuality, but that is his choice. He is a mod and we aren't. He has the power to impose his view of morality on everyone who visits here. Pretty soon, we'd better find out his political leanings because he has the ability to impose what is and is not acceptable there too. Slippery slope that censorship. He doesn't like the fact that I see larger sociological significance to his actions, but I assure you that censorship is not enacted by people who agree with the speech in question. Problem is that the subjectivity of human opinion make imposition of such things selfishly short-sighted, and the attitude is dangerous IMO.

That is all I have to say about this though. I think my views are clear for everyone. If any of those who disagree want to discuss by PM, feel free to contact me.

 

[Roland Rat]

 

[Frank71]

I regard the BoB threat as a celebration of one of the Creator's (or nature's) nearest to perfect accomplishments, in a cycling milieu.
I see it as an escape for many male cyclists and fans (probably also some females) from our sometimes dreary and stressed daily routines. It provides proof that, notwithstanding all the ugliness in life, there is still beauty out there.
It also alleviated the darkness when our heroes fell (Contador, Armstrong etc. -take your pick).
Although some pics can only be regarded as trashy, there are many more that, in my humble view, are real works of art (to each his own I guess).
Cycling should be fun, even in cycling forums, and the BoB threat is just that for many of us.
Yes, when the boundaries to soft porn is transgressed, moderation should take place.
However, to lock the threat goes way over the top.