Forum menu
Men can (mostly) distinguish between reality and fantasy, and recognise that they cannot take real world decisions and actions based on fantasy characters.
Religion would say otherwise. 😈
claiming that the Maxxis babes are a threat to the human race is a bit daft,
No one has claimed this.
since they don't exist
But they do exist
beyond the roles played by a bunch of models.
Erm yes. That role being an annoying one in the view of some of Maxxis' customers.
lets not mention the viral video of the girls singing christmas carols whilst sitting on a sybian that seems to be going around atm
Religion would say otherwise.
Good point - the totty is just to distract us from the emergence of a Maxxis caliphate 🙂
That role being an annoying one in the view of some of Maxxis' customers.
"Being annoying" is not a crime in anyone's book as yet.
(I'm hoping ...)
Don't be a spoilsport Cougar, we are all having such fun. Closing this thread just because we are talking nonsense??
Since when is there a law against that? Banning talking nonsense will be a sad day indeed.
Don't you see the beauty of the thread going off topic? It is called evolution.
"Being annoying" is not a crime
Aaaand who said it was?
Some of us might be serving, as well as typing, very long sentences.
[quote=DrJ ]Men can (mostly) distinguish between reality and fantasy, and recognise that they cannot take real world decisions and actions based on fantasy characters.
I did think of asking for evidence for that assertion when you first made it, as you appear to be basing your argument on that, but other posters have since proved the point for me.
If some men are incapable of recognizing the calendar is fantasy, then would it contribute to them objectifying women in general?
It would seem somewhat bizarre to close the thread at this point - it has wandered and got silly, but TBH it's a lot more friendly than it was 10 or so pages ago when it probably deserved to be executed.
<resists suggesting why that might be>
41 Pages!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's only so many times a scab can be picked before it turns into something nasty and pus-filled.
Not to mention the long term effects of [s]scarring[/s] banning.
Is there a shortage of internet? Why can't the thread be left to either drift off into an existential haze? It might right itself, and return to the point in question? Do things have too stay on topic, otherwise they take a trip to a farm upstate?
It was less that the thread had drifted and more that it's been arguing about what merits a logical fallacy for several pages. From experience, the next step is full-on arguing, reported posts and bans, and it's Christmas and I really can't be ringed.
Don't be a spoilsport Cougar, we are all having such fun. Closing this thread just because we are talking nonsense??
Fair enough. Cart on. Just keep it civil or I shall be mildly vexed.
Vexed? Sounds almost exactly like s....
but other posters have since proved the point for me.
By claiming that the Maxxis babes are real?
I really can't be ringed.
Is that some sort of horrible euphemism?
Is that some sort of horrible euphemism?
Or a challenge.
Although, we would have to find out exactly what disgusting act was being described by aforementioned euphemism.
By claiming that the Maxxis babes are real?
I've seen some in the flesh
I've seen some in the flesh
Really? And were they sexually available to you, and the other event visitors? And when they left the event did they still wear their outfits while sitting in their lounges watching TV? Or were they perhaps *actresses*, who went home to their suburban houses and suburban boyfriends?
[quote=sputnik ]Don't you see the beauty of the thread going off topic? It is called evolution.Indeed. I predict that by the 3,000th post this thread will have become sentient (which is more than can be said for most of the contributors).
[quote=DrJ ]were they sexually available to you, and the other event visitors?
Are you suggesting that appearing sexually available is part of their act?
Really? And were they sexually available to you, and the other event visitors? And when they left the event did they still wear their outfits while sitting in their lounges watching TV? Or were they perhaps *actresses*, who went home to their suburban houses and suburban boyfriends?
yes really as part of my old job as a photographe and no they were not sexually avilable to me or anyone else. They enjoyed the job and went home as you said. They didn't feel objectified or felt their job was sexist which is the important part and nullifies what that woman wrote in her blog article
Are you suggesting that appearing sexually available is part of their act?
I'm not suggesting anything, just repeating what was said ages ago, with regard to the "bum sticking out" pose of one of the girls.
@poah - that's sort of what I expected. I'd also guess, from obervation of similar events, that the "punters" were quite aware that they were watching a show, and not reality.
I'm not suggesting anything, just repeating what was said ages ago, with regard to the "bum sticking out" pose of one of the girls.
[img] 
[/img]
I assume she's illustrating her tyre fitting technique?
That move can be seen at any gymnastics event. The Olympics for instance.
Tyres? Are there tyres in that picture?
Yup, the Mazi Drift .
(which is more than can be said for most of the contributors).
Ooooof!
[img] 
[/img]
OH! So thats [s]who[/s] what she had for breakfast...
They didn't feel objectified or felt their job was sexist which is the important part and nullifies what that woman wrote in her blog article
No, not at all - the writer isn't concerned for the babes themselves, she's concerned about other women and possibly herself.
Anyone else hoping for a tyre calendar for Christmas?
Nah - I've still got the redheads number 😈
Currently watching the 198x Morecombe and Wise Xmas show. Suzanne Danielle in a skimpy outfit with backing dancers in equally skimpy gear.
Wonder what the panel think of that?
No, not at all - the writer isn't concerned for the babes themselves, she's concerned about other women and possibly herself.
so **** the babes even though they enjoy what they do just because she thinks its sexist. The author needs to get a life
Where have you been poah - we did that on about page 1. Let's try an analogy (it's an analogy, not a strawman) an actor takes part in a photoshoot for an advert which promotes smoking to children. The actor enjoys what she does, so presumably there is nothing wrong with that?
Does the actor set fire to the straw man?
[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/9332486165_ff7e89c27a_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/9332486165_ff7e89c27a_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/fdFqZT ]Obviously excited to see such a great bike[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/druidh2000/ ]Colin Cadden[/url], on Flickr
Nothing wrong except that it's illegal because it has demonstrable serious health effects, whereas the Maxxis babes aren't and don't. Other than that, excellent analogy.
actor
Sexist.
.
[quote=DrJ ]Nothing wrong except that it's illegal because it has demonstrable serious health effects, whereas the Maxxis babes aren't and don't. Other than that, excellent analogy.
So it's possible for something to be unacceptable even if the actors involved enjoy it and don't have a problem doing it?
The harm and legality is irrelevant, the suggestion appears to be being made (again) that it's only the opinions of those involved in production who matter, something I was exploring.
Of course. But now you're mixing up a tyre advert with Jihadi John.
[quote=scotroutes ]Does the actor set fire to the straw man?
No, but I bet Jihadi John would
so **** the babes
What? **** them how?