Singletrack Decide Not To Cover the Danny MacAskill Playboy Video

Yeah let’s ignore the sexism here… Nothing to see…. Those women couldn’t actually be people. Anyway they probably liked it secretly. Nothing gets a girl going like a guy on a trials bike….

Of Course they’re people, what a stupid thing to say.
No they probably did not like it and were disappointed danny did not do the loop d loop.
Danny may be good but every one knows a really long skid is the way to impress the ladies.

People (like your mum, wife, daughter, etc..) not just objects fantasy objects. Oh never mind…

Skids are cool *

*except on the trails folks

Not just no , but have you seen my mum all doll’d
Up. They are queing up at the Wednesday afternoon tea dance.

because wife beating is a barrel of laughs.

Ah so he has morals as well then just different ones lets mock him mercilessly for this as he does others he considers “offended”
Own petard and all that

That’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read and a classic misrepresentation of feminism.

Its also requires us to butcher the actual meanings of all the words used in the description such as feminism and misogyny. Its a big pile of shite basicaly

What if a mum, wife, daughter etc really wanted to be a Playboy Bunny, it was all they ever dreamed of, attracted to the lifestyle and glamour, worked hard for the opportunity but were stopped from doing so by their son, husband, brother etc because they thought it was a harmful message to be sending out that objectified women.

Would that be ok?

Own petard and all that

Someone smashing their wife in the face is appalling reading playboy is not.

So you’ve stopped then? Good. Now what about those kittens?

chip – two words for you namely ‘self’ and ‘respect’.

HTH 🙂

This is a woman who lives in the real world and acknowledges people including women are sexual beings with sex drives.

chip, I’m running out of steam a bit on this, but your understanding of the points that C_G and people are making is so weak that you’re just straw-manning in a rather dull way.

No-one disagrees that “women are sexual beings”. But the representation of female sexuality and what female sexuality is for is a fairly problematic area for many feminists, and many people would suggest that the representation of female sexual agency that Playboy and its ilk specialise in is not an especially constructive one.

That’s enough to put plenty of us off.

That isn’t necessarily either a dull or academic set of points, and indeed spending some time appreciating what female constructions of their sexuality which aren’t heavily influenced by a very male-centric concept of how women are supposed to relate to sex look like can be downright erotic. It would (I respectfully suggest) be a better use of your time this morning than bickering with actual womenz on here about whether Hugh Hefner is liberating women from patriarchal oppression by paying them to wear little ears.

🙂

Would this thread be as long if the statement had said.

“We’re not covering the new Danny M vid cos it’s a bit shit and quite tacky”?

What if a mum, wife, daughter etc really wanted to be a Playboy Bunny, it was all they ever dreamed of, attracted to the lifestyle and glamour, worked hard for the opportunity but were stopped from doing so by their son, husband, brother etc because they thought it was a harmful message to be sending out that objectified women.

Would that be ok?

Sorry mate who was talking about stopping people doing what they want to Do?

If you are a woman who does not agree with woman stripping off for the sake of being viewed by others, don’t get your kit off .

If you are a man who does not agree with women stripping off for the sake of being viewed , don’t do the viewing .

But I think you will find most societies who enforce the above rules are the most oppressive to women of all.

people including women are sexual beings with sex drives.

Phew, I’m glad we cleared that up.

You’ve completely defeated that argument that absolutely no one was making. Well done.

Here’s the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights[/url] which says women DO have the right to an education and freedom of thought. Ha!

Chip has any one in the last 6 pages objected about a woman taking her kit off?

Yes unless it’s the bunny ears you don’t like.

Find me a quote then

chip – I started work in the 70’s, in an office. Many office walls were adorned with calendars, in a prominent position, of half or mostly naked women. It wasn’t just garages or workshops that displayed these calendars. Thank goodness that’s no longer acceptable.

I personally feel that Danny Mc has lost his self-respect by having a vid shot in premises owned by an utter sleazebag. Would these women be fawning over Heffner if he wasn’t rich? Seriously?

I’m really pleased that tables have been turned and women are no longer exploited in that it’s the women exploiting the men for their … er … insert your own word here! Women such as Katie Price have made a very lucrative income so this type of work is no longer the preserve of those who’re less than bright but had big knockers.

Danny Mc is a role model cum hero for many youngsters, what kind of message is being sent by a. filming it in Heffner Towers and b. why are those women dressed the way they are? Perhaps you could explain titillation to children and explain the attire worn?

I apologise if this comes across as a bit rambled but hopefully you’ll get the gist. 🙂

Heff could be a hoot , and a joy to be around for all you know .
And if women are just out for his money who is exploiting who .

So did you find a quote, Chip?

how else do you expect woman (or men in fact) to dress when they are in a pool?

attractive people like to show their bodies off, whats the big **** deal here.

There was no titalation in that video, there was less skin on show than what you would see on a spanish beach.

so its ok for woman like Jordan to “exploit” men by getting naked and leaking sex tapes but some guy on a bike can’t cycle about a big house with a couple of woman in bikinis.

There was no titalation in that video, there was less skin on show than what you would see on a spanish beach.

Yes, because that’s the issue here.

The big deal is not the attire (get over the clothes thing), the deal is that it plays to and reinforces the idea that women should fawn over some guy riding a bike, rather than riding themselves. I want to encourage more girls to ride bikes, videos like this have the opposite effect.

Katie Price Aka Jordan is ok but Playboy bunnies are not? Mixed message C_G.

So did you find a quote, Chip?

Really! This whole thread is about the boycott of Danny’s film because of its association with playboy.
So if it is not playboys publication of naked women you have a problem with, what is it.

Is this disappointment and boycott of Danny’s films going to be an ongoing thing here or will all be forgiven in time for his next film .

There was no titalation in that video, there was less skin on show than what you would see on a spanish beach.

If you really think those two things are the same then you’re just a bit dim aren’t you.

Really! This whole thread is about the boycott of Danny’s film because of its association with playboy.
So if it is not playboys publication of naked women you have a problem with, what is it.

Still haven’t found a quote, then?

The exploited here are not the women in the video. They are most likely being paid large amounts of money and are probably quite happy about that. The video is produced by Red Bull and it has cost them money to arrange, shoot, edit and distribute. You get to watch it for free.

So what is it for?

It’s designed to attract the maximum number of eyeballs and it does this by resorting to the cheapest gag in the marketing manual – sex.

The women are not being exploited and neither is Danny. Both of those parties are probably chuckling all the way to the bank. It’s the male viewing public who are being exploited by having Red Bull pluck their basest of strings that makes them go ‘Phwoooar’.

Danny isn’t the product. The women are not the product. They are tools used to reach the product and in this case it’s you.

It’s as sophisticated as taking a logo, drawing it on a pair of tits and putting up on a billboard. THAT will get the most eyeballs on your product, guaranteed.

I can appreciate that trick – it’s incredibly powerful. The thing I find misguided about the use of that marketing tool in this case is how it is intended to target a single sex when our sport is open to both. It has used a cheap, outdated trick and in the process has managed to pretty much exclude an already under represented half of the population.

Well said Mark.

I vote to just close the thread now – it’s going nowhere.

Katie Price Aka Jordan is ok but Playboy bunnies are not? Mixed message C_G.

Not a mixed message at all, I’m happy that both KP and bunny girls enjoy a lucrative living. The key issue here is context, in other words why does Danny Mc feel the need to do his thing in that place with those bunny girls and all its connotations.

Someone smashing their wife in the face is appalling reading playboy is not

WOOSH

So you are offended by wife beating- all your “arguments” work there

If you are a woman who does not agree with woman stripping off for the sake of being viewed by others, don’t get your kit off .

If you are a man who does not agree with women stripping off for the sake of being viewed , don’t do the viewing

If you object to wife beating dont beat your wife
If you object to wife beating dont watch others do it

Own petard and all that

For the triumph of evil all that is necessary ifs good people do nothing I assume you dont want us to do nothing about the later just the bit you dont mind.

Danny Mc is a role model cum hero

Sniggers like a teenage boy

Katie Price Aka Jordan is ok but Playboy bunnies are not? Mixed message C_G.

I can see why you might differentiate people who are tiny, disposable cogs in someone else’s machine, with no real control over their promotion and very little access to the rewards of it, and someone who has come up through a similarly structured (“glamour”) industry, established themselves sufficiently to be able to take control over their own image and marketing and has made ridiculous amounts of dosh on their own terms with it.

As an aside, has an industry ever been as misnamed as the “glamour” one?

My stepdaughter who’se 14 loves this movie.
Maybe a few of you should watch it.

Agreed, well said Mark.

The thing I find misguided about the use of that marketing tool in this case is how it is intended to target a single sex when our sport is open to both. It has used a cheap, outdated trick and in the process has managed to pretty much exclude an already under represented half of the population.

I don’t agreee with that at all…. It’s a very simplistic and rather old fashioned view IMO.

In todays world, where the standard sexual orientation is accepted alongside LGBT orientations, an image of a beautiful girl is no longer limited to appreciation from the males of the species.. Many women are quite happy to appreciate the female form..

It may be Mark’s view that this is detrimental to equality of the sexes but has he actually taken the time to ask girls what they think? Or is he making assumptions based on his own out of date and out of touch views. ?

The thing I find misguided about the use of that marketing tool in this case is how it is intended to target a single sex when our sport is open to both. It has used a cheap, outdated trick and in the process has managed to pretty much exclude an already under represented half of the population.

This sort of sums it up for me…

…what’s bugging me is that this thread has ground on for seven pages of outrage. Why are we continuing to debate this? Surely our collective outrage would be better directed elsewhere – for example I give it at least fifteen minutes before someone announces yet another standard we don’t want/need just for the sake of it.

has he actually taken the time to ask girls what they think?

You mean apart from the girls that have expressed their support for his viewpoint on this thread and on Facebook and twitter?

In todays world, where the standard sexual orientation is accepted alongside LGBT orientations, an image of a beautiful girl is no longer limited to appreciation from the males of the species.. Many women are quite happy to appreciate the female form..

I’ve just asked a gay friend what she thinks of the video. Would you care to guess her answer?

It may be Mark’s view that this is detrimental to equality of the sexes but has he actually taken the time to ask girls what they think?

There’s only a few of us girlies on here! On a serious note you can just end up rolling your eyes with the sometimes everyday sexism experienced. I’m no feminist but just a little tired of people deferring to a male for a question to be answered when the female is capable of answering it. 😐

In todays world, where the standard sexual orientation is accepted alongside LGBT orientations, an image of a beautiful girl is no longer limited to appreciation from the males of the species.. Many women are quite happy to appreciate the female form..

I’ll take a wild stab at the playboy bunny meme(?) not being a big hit in the LGBT community.

I could be wrong, but kinda doubt it.