[Closed] That Maxxis "babes calendar" article...

Well it's not at all is it? Which is the point. I thought we'd already done the difference between nudity and objectification?

so you can look at naked people/people in sexy poses and not objectify them

BTW my Morissette lyrics seem to have been recognised as expected, but I'm disappointed nobody recognised the Jam lyric I threw in on page 25 (or if they did nobody acknowledged it)

Not going to post any more about the calender in this thread, it's like bashing one's head against the wall and it looks like Dan is just trolling at this point. Hope my comments made some people think a little bit, for a couple of seconds.

yes perfectly acceptable aracer and it might be promotional in workshops then if you dont like it in a workshop take it up with the workshop manager.
also lets not forget that we are but one country and our values are often at odds with other parts of the world.
So a global brand may upset a few in the uk, but please the majority of their market

[quote=poah ]so you can look at naked people/people in sexy poses and not objectify them

Wow, so David is a sexy pose? well you've certainly made me re-evaluate both that statue and what I consider sexy.

[quote=poah ]

Which is perfectly acceptable?

Totally

So why no blokes wandering round the pits, why the tight lycra? Is there no objectification going on there?

molgrips. Not intentional if i did.

One argument seems to be that having pictures of semi clad women in the world propagates sexist attitudes by their mere existence. The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern. They seem very similar arguments in structure to me.

Perhaps i'm not explaining it very well.

Do you see what I mean though or not?

And yes, its not just a few pictures but its far less than in the past. As for this calendar, so far as I'm concerned the context is fine. If it was ads in singletrack or other magazines then that would be very different. Its not. Its a specific calendar to raise money for charity and is no different to any number of others.

aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

its about men racing
yes women race too and are very good at it, but its fan base is predominantly male.
men who like to look at women.
hence no men in lycra in the pits.

comt to a mx race, or enduro, or track days, or rally, rallycross, etc etc
you will see the target market for the calendar

So why no blokes wandering round the pits, why the tight lycra? Is there no objectification going on there?

but you just said that you can look without objectifying.

Did it get sent around as promotional material? Is it going to be displayed in public? If so, it's not the same as private viewing.
Posted

Sent out - No. There was a link to a site which said you might want to buy the calendar as part of a charity fundraising effort which had no wimmin on show - though there were a couple of silhouettes.

Displayed in public? - I doubt it and only if an individual set it up in a public area. So if they did, its not maxxis' doing and there is plenty of other opportunity to do the same.

So it is private viewing, so far as Maxxis is concerned anyway.

aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

don't think aracer undertands much TBH

999

1000!

[img] [/img]

Congratulations to El-bent. Who'd have thunk a thread started so late in the year would have made 1,000 posts?

The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern.

By your own (flawed) logic - your vocal objection to the article referred to in the OP is an attempt at banning and censorship of such articles.

Congratulations to El-bent. Who'd have thunk a thread started so late in the year would have made 1,000 posts?

The speed getting there has to give added bonus points.

What about cheerleaders, acceptable or not,
[img] [/img]

David........... Eyes up David.........david..............DAVID!

David's clearly not evolved.

Grum, no, because its a completely different context. I'm responding to an opinion piece. I'm not saying her opinion is not valid, I'm just saying I disagree. Adele is asking for a permanent hiatus in publication.

^^Whoopi Goldberg is shaking her booty all over Beckham's back up there^^

Grum, no, because its a completely different context.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

And there we go again. Don't use those links if you don't know what they mean.

It's not special pleading, its actually different.

It isn't different at all. You just want it to be.

cheerleaders are totally acceptable and I think David is simply following his instincts, nothing wrong with checking out how a woman looks, its natural

cheerleaders are totally acceptable and I think David is simply following his instincts, nothing wrong with checking out how a woman looks, its natural

Agreed. It goes both ways...

[img] [/img]

I aint gonna read all that,but i will say if your a normal male and you dont like looking at girls your a liar

Actually grum, your logicalfallacy 'accusation' is both incorrect and a strawman.

Bingo.

Do you honestly not see the difference between responding to a published article, writing the article in the first place, and asking for someone to stop doing something legal?

You should stop using words when you don't understand what they mean.

It's really pointless arguing with someone who thinks its ok to make things up and pretend people have said things they haven't.

I honestly don't know how to react. 😆

Perhaps you should ask some sort of teacher of logic for some lessons?

But dan, you're suggesting such articles should be banned.

I see what you did there. But unfortunately I'm not.

So that strawman you set up just burned down.

Try again.

because its a completely different context

Don't use those links if you don't know what they mean.

say if your a normal male and you dont like looking at girls your a liar

Perhaps you should ask some sort of teacher of logic for some lessons?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]I see what you did there. But unfortunately I'm not.

Well you're calling for self censorship, which is exactly the same thing

[quote=Sancho ]aracer, i dont think you understand motorsport

My understanding of motorsport is irrelevant. Your argument appears to be that the fanbase liking something makes it acceptable and all other measures of acceptability are irrelevant - correct me if I'm wrong.

comt to a mx race, or enduro, or track days, or rally, rallycross, etc etc
you will see the target market for the calendar

Well quite, which is why I thought it worth exploring why the promotion of stuff at such events is sexist.

Did you hear the one about the magic tractor?

It went down the road and turned into a field ! 😀

The flip side is that allowing a vocal objection to affect what can and cannot be published and effect self censorship somehow isn't of concern. They seem very similar arguments in structure to me.

Ok so you're thinking that the complainers here are trying to bully people into stopping doing things that they like?

Is that why you think it's bad?

No, again I'm not. If thats whats got your goat then you've wasted 29 pages of internet.

I'm not asking her not to say anything. Shes is perfectly entitled to her opinion. I don't agree with her opinion and thought it was so polemic and OTT that it deserved a bit of a balanced response.

She on the other hand, and I'll repeat this, again, is asking for for someone to stop doing/saying/publishing something for an indefinite period.

I thought she wanted to ban it?

Ok but aside from the article, and onto calendars and smut in general - what should feminists say?

Molgrips - i'm arguing against
1. censorship
2. what I perceive as a completely over the top response to a charity calendar which i don't think the author has even set eyes on

I also seem to be in a running battle with a number of people who have taken offence far too easily (like the author IMO) about god knows what.

Some others I seem to be having a sensible conversation with...

I don't agree with her opinion and thought it was so polemic and OTT that it deserved a bit of a balanced response.

* Not to be confused with supporting you 😉

I also seem to be in a running battle with a number of people who have taken offence far too easily (like the author IMO) about god knows what.

1. You keep making things up- offence for example or banning or bullying.
2. You then deny making them up - see bullying
3. you use english words in way not used in the dictionary
4. you make up arguments and ignore the people pointing out you made them up
5. you then fail, deliberately i assume, to grasp the simple points of logic being made
6. you then use said points to incorrectly attack others.
7. you think you are being balanced in all this

HTH

a balanced response.

😆

That would be both knuckles dragging on the ground.

/bully.

what should feminists say?

Depends what type of feminists they are.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Some others I seem to be having a sensible conversation with...

HTH

Ok so censorship is the *authorities* stopping you from saying something. The author can't do that, cos she's not in a position of authority.

I can ask you not to say something, but I can't censor you. Let's just clear that up. This is NOT about censorship, because the government or law is not involved. Ok?

So tell me again - what should a feminist do when they disagree with a publication?

Molgrips - she and feminists can say whatever she/they like(s)! The language used in the article is as if maxxis tried to force her into a recycled tyre g string and offer her as a trophy at the dunstable downhill cup.

What should someone who disagrees with her opinion say?

I don't want to censor Adele, I just disagree with her or believe her.
She worked in an industry for years that exploited young woman, telling would be fashion models if they had more meat than a butchers pencil they were no good. Parties where the newest young models would be introduced to rich preditary older men. An industry that promoted and enforced the body image that you had to be stick thin,leading to probably thousand of young woman developing eating disorders.
I believe the industry she worked in to be more damaging than any calender.

I don't believe her bike tyres make her feel stupid, make her stupid.
I think she should do a regular column called "things that make me stupid" it could run and run.

Well you could say "well I thought she came on a bit strong there, she might have a point or might not"

You seemed to go quite a lot further than that, and you appeared to be defending something that is sexist, and you denied it was sexist.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]What should someone who disagrees with her opinion say?

I recommend misrepresenting everything she says in order to make your argument more effective.