- Location
- London
did they do anything for you?
Outrage as naked bike ride is uploaded to porn site
- Thread starter PeteXXX
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Who exactly is outraged? The riders, at their loss of image rights, or the users of the site, at being short changed with pictures of hideous misshapen cyclists.
Time Waster
Veteran
The term unacceptable in the definition of pervert or perversion is a very vague term. For example looking at naked women is acceptable and unacceptable depending on context.
Looking at naked women in paintings in an art gallery is fully acceptable but drilling holes into women's changing rooms to see them naked isn't. You can not say any looking any nakedness is completely acceptable without context. And by context I include location and media. If it objectivises women then in these times it's unacceptable. Page 3 is out I'm afraid.
Looking at naked women in paintings in an art gallery is fully acceptable but drilling holes into women's changing rooms to see them naked isn't. You can not say any looking any nakedness is completely acceptable without context. And by context I include location and media. If it objectivises women then in these times it's unacceptable. Page 3 is out I'm afraid.
- Location
- London
agreed with a fair bit of that, apart from the drift into condeming "objectivation" full stop - you appear to have posted in a full circle.
Art galleries? Not entirely sure what you point was. They are full of paintings of old of what might be termed objectification for the delectation of contemporary viewers who in truth knew sod all and cared less about mythology, which supposedly gave them a free pass. I have long thought of posting a thread for a gallery of favourite art gallery ludicrous gratuitous tits and ass male and female nudity pics. A fair old few in the National Gallery. Manchester Art gallery has a spectacular one.
As for "objectivation", which you seem to condemn outright, it's everywhere and entirely natural. All ways.
Don't suppose you saw the autobiog doc on Joan Collins? She has some interesting views.
Anyways - if folk cycle down a public street in full view of folk of all genders ages and beliefs, I think I'm entitled to look, not touch, in anyway I want. And of course they may be photographed. And those pics might end up anywhere.
For the record, very few of the ride partipants would I be interested in "objectifying" - someone from another cycling place, known to some in this thread I think, has been on this at least once. Have no wish to see them.
Last edited:
Time Waster
Veteran
I think that you have "tastes" in what you objectify imho why objectivising someone is not acceptable. I'm only guessing based on where we're posting, a guess on the other place and demographics that you'd not be objectivising men, overweight/ugly/older women but the more attractive women. Imho that's your thin end of the wedge in society's problems with treatment of women. Just because it's commonplace or feels "natural" doesn't make it right imho of course. We have different opinions on this (and art too).
- Location
- London
I plead quilty to certain tastes.
We're all individuals.
The reference to the other place was about a bloke by the way.
And you probably don't know anything much about my sexuality.
If you think women of whatever persuasion don't objectify themselves, others male and female, I fear you are somewhat out of touch.
"objectivation" in certain circumstances can sit perfectly easily with valuing people as people.
I think Joan Collins might take issue with you on this.
Maybe I will post that gallery thread after all sometime - for art lovers/lovers of kitsch, students of repression, hypocrisy, class bias etc etc.
Those paintings are also interesting for changing mainstream views of physical beauty through the ages.
Last edited:
- Location
- London
Out of interest, anyone on here ever been on this ride?
Alex321
Veteran
- Location
- South Wales
I've already stated in this thread that I have done the Cardiff one almost every year.
Alex321
Veteran
- Location
- South Wales
It is. But you have to remember that the definition also includes "abnormal".
Even if it is unacceptable, that doesn't necessarily make it perverted, it also has to be "abnormal" - though the drilling holes in changing rooms or cameras in shoes or bags for "upskirting" are pretty abnormal (and certainly unacceptable - even illegal) I think.
But looking at porn sites - some find that unacceptable, for various reasons (including "objectification"), but it is hard to suggest it is abnormal. There simply wouldn't be the vast number of porn sites around if it weren't fairly normal to want to do so.
But even within porn there is "mainstream" porn, depicting fairly normal sex, and there are sub-genres dedicated to various fetishes, many of which most people would agree are perverted.
- Location
- London
ah sorry - brainfog - may be back with the odd question.
