You only have to look on the Mirror website to see how the misogynists see this..

RIDE of his life (snigger)

The Playboy Mansion has seen more than its fair share of action over the years. (action, fnarr)

how to thrill the ladies (go on my son)

scantily clad models (phoar)

audience of buxom beauties parading (hubba hubba)

enjoy a splash with the saucy stunners (bet she’s a goer)

a selection of gorgeous glamour girls (etc etc etc)

Can’t blame Singletrack for not wanting anything to do with that, and disappointed that Danny thought it was a good idea, he deserves all the criticism he gets.

If no one speaks out about something then it is taken as accepted

Except its not. Read the thread on here which was long before the tweet. People will form their own views. The opinion of a MTB magazine IT bod isn’t going to change anything.

You only have to look on the Mirror website to see how the misogynists see this..

RIDE of his life (snigger)

The Playboy Mansion has seen more than its fair share of action over the years. (action, fnarr)

how to thrill the ladies (go on my son)

scantily clad models (phoar)

audience of buxom beauties parading (hubba hubba)

enjoy a splash with the saucy stunners (bet she’s a goer)

a selection of gorgeous glamour girls (etc etc etc)

Can’t blame Singletrack for not wanting anything to do with that, and disappointed that Danny thought it was a good idea, he deserves all the criticism he gets.

So you went over to the Mirror’s website to confirm what you already knew? That tabloid newspapers are on a seaside postcard level of maturity. Ironically, this is exactly the type of nudge nudge wink wink, you wouldn’t get in Playboy.

STW made the right choice.

I’d just like to point out that the Playboy Mansion isn’t the same thing as the magazine Playboy.

If Playboy makes you think of, world renown paedophile/necrophiliac, Mr Saville, then I would love to see the mental gymnastics that got you to that conclusion.

Yeah that’s a bit of hyperbole – but there is definitely a slightly creepy aspect to a very rich, powerful 88 year old man who lives in a mansion full of “barely legal” girls dressed in bunny outfits.

No?

Ironically, this is exactly the type of nudge nudge wink wink, you wouldn’t get in Playboy.

I bow to your expertise here

Its not a surprise given what mark said on that thread

Its not a surprise some men disagree
They probably dont want their daughters to work for Hugh though

No I didn’t have to go there to confirm what I already knew, but to use it as an example as to how the video will appear to the knuckle draggers.

It is ironic that you won’t get nudge nudge wink wink in Playboy, because that is exactly how the video is being received by the looks of the comments on Danny’s page, regardless as to how much research they do into women’s sexual liberation.

I’d just like to point out that the Playboy Mansion isn’t the same thing as the magazine Playboy.

This is the first in a new series of posts, where Dez points out two things that are different.

Next week, Dez points out that a pineapple, and the assassinated president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, are in fact, different.

Seems a bit odd to come out in opposition to this – if you don’t like the vid, then just don’t publish it – no need to draw attention to the matter with a statement.

I appreciate STW is a business, and the owners have the right to decide whatever they wish to promote, but surely it’s best to go with whatever is the views of your demographic, and if you’re unsure then just don’t comment on the matter?

So far on Youtube it’s been viewed by 703,585 people of which 7,843 have voted on it.

98.15% of these votes are thumbs up (7,698) and 1.85% (145) are thumbs down. This is fairly indicative of the video, on the whole, not causing too much offence. Content wise, compared to the average hip hop video it’s pretty tame.

Granted it’s not Danny’s best work, but this is probably due to the fact that they presumably had a limited time on the location for the shoot, and so couldn’t be as ambitious as previous projects.

Given all the events that are going on around the world, there are far more controversial and important issues to highlight, than a relatively harmless video on Youtube.

Crap video, good riding poor camera work and editing, right decision by the Singletack gods not to promote it.

The sort of thing 14 year old teenagers would snigger over in the late eighties as Adam w said and no place in thie year 2014.

Well done stw.

Next week, Dez points out that a pineapple, and the assassinated president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, are in fact, different.

Ah, you git! I’ll have to think of a new one now 🙁

The sort of thing 14 year old teenagers would snigger over in the late eighties

Why can’t 14yr olds snigger over it now?

This is fairly indicative of the video, on the whole, not causing too much offence

No this is indicative of the fact that people who watched it liked it
I suspect you get the same figure for Top gear or football.
I would not conclude that 99% of the general population liked them based on that
I would also not base anything on you tube likes
We have no idea how many declined to watch it because of the setting

Given all the events that are going on around the world, there are far more controversial and important issues to highlight, than a relatively harmless video on Youtube

pointless whatbouterry

So far on Youtube it’s been viewed by 703,585 people of which 7,843 have voted on it.
98.15% of these votes are thumbs up (7,698) and 1.85% (145) are thumbs down. This is fairly indicative of the video, on the whole, not causing too much offence.

Democracy by YouTube votes – is this the beginning of the end?

FWIW I’m not remotely “offended” by it – I just think it’s misogynistic crap and I’m happy that STW feel likewise.

Given all the events that are going on around the world, there are far more controversial and important issues to highlight, than a relatively harmless video on Youtube

Yes. like THIS!

Will it lead to a new feature?
“We are NOT showing this Wednesdays”
It would be interesting to have seen the reaction if the video had been at a beach with 10x more flesh on display but in a more natural habitat.

I only read the Morning Star and vintage copies of Razzle that I keep in a hedge

Me too. Razzle keeps me up to date on the class struggle and global politics, and nothing rustles my jimmies like a Morning Star centrefold.

Well this has got legs.

As a confirmed “leg man” I approve of this. Oh….

Thought it was fine.

No nudity.

Great stunts.

Nice house.

Some women in bikinis big deal.

Get some buff guys sitting in the pool with the ladies to even it up?

Content wise, compared to the average hip hop video it’s pretty tame.

aiming high there then if that’s the point of reference you’re choosing.

Get some buff guys sitting in the pool with the ladies to even it up?

yep, that’ll solve the objectification aspect sure enough. I did note one of the commenters on FB page said that as HH’s knackers weren’t on show it was all above board and tasteful. Because octogenarian’s testes are just so gauche

Last item – Phwooar, eh? Eh? Nudge, nudge? Stunnaz in lycra, innit? Nudge, nudge. Etc ad infinitum.

Edit – Image removed after second thoughts. Just have a look for Cyclepassion images on teh interwebz yourself.

ah the Pot and the kettle are off for a chat in meeting room 1 then.

I only read the Morning Star and vintage copies of Razzle that I keep in a hedge

You live in 1985 and I think I used to deliver your copy of the Morning Star 😀

Ahh, hedge porn. Something the internet has ruined for the kids of today.

Junkyard / GrahamS – Yep, I would consider the Up / Down votes on a video to be indicative of public support for/against it – through social networking the internet is pretty fast to lynch anyone who makes a controversial statement/video etc, and this is usually reflected in the votes and comments. The fact that this hasn’t happened, despite nearly 3/4 million views shows that people on the whole aren’t bothered by the Playboy content.

The main reason I think it was unnecessary for STW to take the moral high ground and comment on the matter is that it then sets them as a target – if they’ve ever published a photo of a female cyclist in skimpy clothing, or given publicity to the Marzocchi calendars or any other promotion material from other manufacturers featuring similar content, then they’re going to look a little hypocritical. I don’t really get why the “Friday Kylie” style posts were deemed acceptable if the Playboy video isn’t?

Yeah that’s a bit of hyperbole – but there is definitely a slightly creepy aspect to a very rich, powerful 88 year old man who lives in a mansion full of “barely legal” girls dressed in bunny outfits.

No?

Erm, no. Stop trying to bring child abuse into an argument where it has no place. A low tactic.

you do know the origins* of friday kylie don’t you joey?

<edit>* i think I know, but I probably shouldn’t bet the house on it

Poor show by STW.. Danny is a great guy who loves biking and always has time for kids and fans.. Choosing to not show his video because of some scantily clad girl’s is a joke… I think someones moral compass needs a tap on the head….. with a shovel

STW Premium cancelled.

D0NK: Nope, have I missed something?

gavstorie – Member

Poor show by STW.. Danny is a great guy who loves biking and always has time for kids and fans.. Choosing to not show his video because of some scantily clad girl’s is a joke… I think someones moral compass needs a tap on the head….. with a shovel

STW Premium cancelled.

😆

EDIT – there have been plenty of warnings over the posting of scantily clad ladies so that’s a bust (fnar fnar)

STW Premium cancelled.

Now that’s what I call an overreation!

Now that’s what I call an overreation!

It’s not the first of this sordid little episode.

Nope, have I missed something?

IIRC, as is pretty usual with groups that are predominantly male, a lot of the members can’t seem to keep sex separate from the rest of life so there were a lot of threads and pics and links to pics of scantily clad ladies – on a cycling forum. Mods/STW kiboshed it but the FK thing seemed to be allowed/blind eye turned, as a bit of a compromise (dunno who came up with the idea) that practice seems to have disappeared tho, then there was A&A which I think had to be relevant to sports, but not noticed one for a while so maybe they died out aswell.

atleast I think that’s how it came about

Ahh, hedge porn. Something the internet has ruined for the kids of today.

It’s all about the dogging these days, that and Tinder.

To be fair, I did encounter a traditional paper rag in a hedge a few weeks back. Someone’s keeping the old ways alive.

Junkyard / GrahamS – Yep, I would consider the Up / Down votes on a video to be indicative of public support for/against it

Have a look on YouTube for videos of beheadings, public executions, that kind of thing. Note the large number of views and up votes on some of them.

Do they really have public support? Or is it just that they attract the kind of people that would upvote them?

If that’s too severe then try a conspiracy theory video about the moon landings or chemtrails or our alien ancestors etc etc. They get a lot of upvotes but I don’t think that reflects what people actually believe.

I find the whole Playboy thing cringeworthy…if I were STW I probably wouldn’t show a vid of it either, however uncomfortable I am with the idea of censorship.

The PB mansion belongs in a bygone era when casual racism/sexism and the wearing terrible toupes in public was almost acceptable.

cringeworthy.

Excellent wordage.

Given all the events that are going on around the world, there are far more controversial and important issues to highlight, than a relatively harmless video on Youtube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

Erm, no. Stop trying to bring child abuse into an argument where it has no place. A low tactic.

I wasn’t. Just the opposite, I criticised that as “hyperbole”.

I said an 88 year old guy who pays for 18-to-25 year old women to dress up as bunnies and hang about his house is a bit creepy, that’s all.

Naughty grandad.