Poll: Should the Babes on Bike thread have been removed?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should the Babes on Bikes thread have been removed?

  • Yes (I am a man)

    Votes: 21 20.2%
  • No (I am a man)

    Votes: 64 61.5%
  • No strong opinion, but I accept its removal (I am a man)

    Votes: 14 13.5%
  • Yes (I am a woman)

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • No (I am a woman)

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • No strong opinion, but I accept its removal (I am a woman)

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    104
So... I guess I'll try writing a somewhat more detailed and thought-out explanation for my reaction - or lack of same - to this whole thing.

I was never offended by that thread. Nothing wrong with admiring people you consider beautiful, and since I'm going to assume that all the women in those pictures did it voluntarily I really don't have any issues with their lack of clothing.

In some ways I found the thread somewhat amusing due to my earlier mentioned (in the "announcement thread") puzzlement about how Babes on Bikes became (naked) Babes Posing with Bikes Somewhere in the Picture.

I'm not gonna be all "This forum sucks now and I'll visit a lot less than I used to!"* about the thread's removal. I do mostly visit this forum for the cycling-talk, not for the naked people (with bikes)


*Some exaggaration may occur
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
My point, which I thought I explained pretty clearly in my posts, was that the very large number of hits, 4.5 million I think, was most likely the result of a relatively few posters visiting the thread a very large number of times. That being the case, all the dire predictions of a massive efflux of visitors from CN was likely to be overblown.
Ok so you expect that the number of no votes will correspond with the number of users who actually actively frequented the thread? Then you could have created much simpler poll: Were you a visitor of the BoB thread? :)
The Froome-Contador poll that you cite just reinforces this. There are at least 700 people who visit this site frequently enough to vote on the cyclist they prefer, yet only a small fraction of that number seem to care much about the BoB thread.
Don't be mistaken - the second most successul poll had only half of that number of votes, even though it was about highly controversial topic of Sagan's behaviour. It is rare if a PRR poll has more than 200 votes. So if you take this number of 200 votes as a representative indication of how many members typically vote on a reasonably important topic, than your 49 votes here is no longer a tiny fraction of that sample. Though in absolute terms, it is nothing. But just think - there are 90,000 registered users, but how many of them you really see discussing? I wouldn't be surprised if no more than 1,000 really post here. E.g. the traditional annual CQ game attracts only some 150 players, some of whom are even from another site. So number of really active users is... not much.
Even if you want to claim that many more will appear to vote if we give the poll enough time, that doesn't explain how the thread could average nearly 2000 hits a day unless most of the hits were from a small handful of viewers. If there were, say, 500 different forum members who browsed that thread 3-4 times every day, why aren't they voting now? If you want to argue that most of them never joined the forum, wouldn't many of them do so just to vote if they cared that much about the thread? And if they didn't join the forum because they weren't that interested in cycling, why would they visit the thread so often when pictures of women like this without bikes are found all over the internet? And if they don't care that much about cycling, how is their exodus going to affect CN marketing?
Too many questions which are difficult to answer. But being unable to find an answer does not mean that one's premise is confirmed. I have little info about how CN marketing works. But if they care about clicks/hits/views or whatever the right term is, then they clearly lost that. Not that any of us should care, mind you - it is their business, their decision.
Scott seems to think most of the viewers are intimidated from voting. I really don't see why, given that it's anonymous. Maybe we need a poll asking how many times a day on average people browsed that thread.
I don't think Scott meant being intimidated from voting, but more from arguing in the thread itself. And I think he is right that those who liked to visit BoB but did not belong to the founding members group have little incentive to voice their opinion. To give you an indication why, your own mocking of Alpe d'Huez was not very nice for example.
 
Re:

I've kind of changed my mind now. It's a shame to see that thread go because it had some golden extremely funny moments (like when someone drew a woman in MS Paint and placed it next to a bike). But it probably serves no place on this forum after all.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: Re:

Amsterhammer said:
ray j willings said:
Personally I find the BOB a bit odd and a bit of a cheap way to get titillated . Its not my cup of tea at all . If I want to get turned on in that way I look at porn.
If you think that BoB was ever intended to be a porn substitute, well, I think you have a problem.
No you have the problem. Looking at girls on bikes " BABES" its a bit weird . Its not honest. Your not being Honest . What is it about these attractive girls on bikes that gets you off " is it the pedals :D "

This thread is outdated and pathetic and should have been banned just the same way podium girls should be banned.
 
What made the thread incredible is that I (and many others I guess) am infatuated with both bikes and babes. So combining the two is like mixing the two things some of us love the most. Maybe not appropriate on this forum though.
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,169
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Sciocco said:
Why don't you guys make a subreddit or something? Hell, there may already be one.
There is, but it's labeled NSFW and you have to be 18+ to enter...
That's even better. Or they could make a SFW babes on bikes subreddit if necessary.
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
So... I guess I'll try writing a somewhat more detailed and thought-out explanation for my reaction - or lack of same - to this whole thing.

I was never offended by that thread. Nothing wrong with admiring people you consider beautiful, and since I'm going to assume that all the women in those pictures did it voluntarily I really don't have any issues with their lack of clothing.

In some ways I found the thread somewhat amusing due to my earlier mentioned (in the "announcement thread") puzzlement about how Babes on Bikes became (naked) Babes Posing with Bikes Somewhere in the Picture.

I'm not gonna be all "This forum sucks now and I'll visit a lot less than I used to!"* about the thread's removal. I do mostly visit this forum for the cycling-talk, not for the naked people (with bikes)


*Some exaggaration may occur
You have my vote for cyclingnews forum's babe of the year!
 
I've posted waaaay too much about this already because it is what it is, the owner says no more, so its gone. That's how it works.

But while I was riding today I started thinking about this post because of how the woman on the trail were dressed. The runners were wearing shorty-shorts or spanks with sports bras. The ladies on bikes were wearing bike shorts and very minimal tops (~1/2 "lady" jerseys, the other ~1/2 in something less). Even the walkers/hikers had more skin than cloth. It seems to me that active woman dress like the woman who were posted in the BoB thread. I'm not basing that statement on today only, this is pretty typical when the weather is above 70 degrees. Look through a woman's sports clothing catalog and see what they are wearing/selling (I just thumbed through one of my wife's) Disclaimer: I'm referring to the professional and armature cyclists who were posted on the thread, not the models who were selling something. We still have the woman's racing thread.

Also, in reply to the scolding from the church: I really appreciate beautiful, athletic woman, and certainly enjoy looking at them, but not once today (or ever on the trail), or when looking at the BoB thread did I become aroused as implied. I can look at someone or something beautiful and just appreciate beauty. <notice the period.
 
I didn't try putting words in your mouth. But some of these pictures definitely had the intent to somewhat arouse. I remember them quite clearly. It was among the first 100 pages at least. Can't remember anything like that surfacing in the late stages of the thread.
 
Jun 9, 2016
15
0
0
The Internet is full of places where you can get the cheap thrill of naked women, why would you need to do it on a bike forum? I certainly don't need it at all. :D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Spreading the message that being fat is perfectly okay is sowing the seeds of the next obesity crisis.
Long way to go to catch the USA on obesity. We rule that category, not even close.

Yesterday I watched to ladies at a bus stop. One was close to 400lbs and the other was 300. One was driving a handicap scooter on the sidewalk and the other was sitting on a trash bin. Maybe they should have walked to where they were going? But the good thing was they had money for the bus and food - cause they were eat McD's burgers.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
So-called body shaming could be avoided by changing the message to something like: "Nobody should be able to criticise you for not being 'sexy', but do remember that obesity is a risk factor for...".
 
Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
This article :eek:

Putting 'Muslim' into the title despite it having little or no reference to the storyline, I didn't see 'Christian Mayor' in every single title that was about Boris Johnson. And 'body-shaming' is pretty different to 'bans sexy women'. He didn't ban good looking models, but accompanying captions that effectively said if you don't look like this why do you even bother. Being a teenage girl, or boy or that matter, is pretty stressful as it is, so to have all the social pressures of looking like a model all the time, even when you just can't leads to depression, self harm and ultimately suicide. It is not the only cause, but it certainly contributes. Take it from me, who has friends affected by this. Is it really worth it to have these adverts in place of someone's wellbeing? Anorexia and bulimia don't cause themselves...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
This article :eek:

Putting 'Muslim' into the title despite it having little or no reference to the storyline, I didn't see 'Christian Mayor' in every single title that was about Boris Johnson. And 'body-shaming' is pretty different to 'bans sexy women'. He didn't ban good looking models, but accompanying captions that effectively said if you don't look like this why do you even bother. Being a teenage girl, or boy or that matter, is pretty stressful as it is, so to have all the social pressures of looking like a model all the time, even when you just can't leads to depression, self harm and ultimately suicide. It is not the only cause, but it certainly contributes. Take it from me, who has friends affected by this. Is it really worth it to have these adverts in place of someone's wellbeing? Anorexia and bulimia don't cause themselves...
this pretty much
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
I'm confused. Girls On bikes is gone but Podium Girls survives? Mixed messages. Maybe I should not mention it before every thread is looked at under the PC microscope.
Getting rid of a thread on a cycling forum concerned with a practice that is commonplace in cycling is a bit awkward, but as far as I'm concerned I'd welcome it if they get rid of podium girls from cycling all together. It's just as silly and vulgar as the BoB thread was........
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
red_flanders Non-Cycling Discussions 12
Similar threads
Photography thread

ASK THE COMMUNITY