Spot the boat is no more!

[rbcoomer]

I like JFM's illustration, but I confess to seeing slightly differently...

Same dinner, but some of the guests opt to go outside for a cigarette. I don't smoke, so would not partake in the cigarette, but would still attend the party. More importantly, I wouldn't seek to ban them for going out for their cigarette just because I don't smoke (and may or may not find it offensive - in the cigarette example not, but some do). The STB is one thread, once a week and isn't mandatory viewing. Regular members will know what it contains and opt to read/contribute or not. Furthermore, the image isn't even in the thread, it's linked to elsewhere! There are lots of things I might find offensive in life, but others don't - I'm not seeking to ban them however

 

[longjohnsilver]

Ok, so why not have 2 STBs, one with and one without? That way no one misses out and no one needs to be offended.

 

[paultallett]

I like JFM's illustration, but I confess to seeing slightly differently...

Same dinner, but some of the guests opt to go outside for a cigarette. I don't smoke, so would not partake in the cigarette, but would still attend the party. More importantly, I wouldn't seek to ban them for going out for their cigarette just because I don't smoke (and may or may not find it offensive - in the cigarette example not, but some do). The STB is one thread, once a week and isn't mandatory viewing. Regular members will know what it contains and opt to read/contribute or not. Furthermore, the image isn't even in the thread, it's linked to elsewhere! There are lots of things I might find offensive in life, but others don't - I'm not seeking to ban them however

Totally agree.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

If you were organising a dinner for 10 friends and 2 really really don't like fish but will eat anything else and were great company and of course you wanted them at the dinner, and the other 8 had a slight preference for fish but were happy with something else (and could get fish any day of the week), would you serve fish? Of course you wouldn't.

The flaw in that argument, jfm, is that those people who are offended by bikini clad models know perfectly well that STB contains such images and yet they still choose to come to a STB thread and be offended. If they just stayed away, they wouldn't be offended. Its like a restaurant menu; some things you don't like so you don't go there. However, the argument is not just about being offended, it is really about those who say they are offended trying to impose their views on others, as was admitted by sarabande. To use your fish dinner analogy, it would be like the 2 friends at your dinner party saying not only that they don't eat fish but they don't want anyone else to eat fish either and that of course is not acceptable. Lastly does not democracy count for something? If 80% of the forum want STB to stay as it easy, why does it need to change for a thin skinned minority who need not even look at it anyway?

 

[SLC]

Ok, so why not have 2 STBs, one with and one without? That way no one misses out and no one needs to be offended.

That wouldn't solve the problem, you'd have people complaining that those that are in favour of the original STB were getting a better deal with two STB's

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Ok, so why not have 2 STBs, one with and one without? That way no one misses out and no one needs to be offended.

ljs, if we are going to cater for all tastes and be 'inclusive' we would need to have 3 STBs, one with bikini clad women for most men and a few women, one with bikini clad men for most women and a few men and one without any semi nakedness at all for the puritans amongst us

 

[Nigelpickin]

Ok, so why not have 2 STBs, one with and one without? That way no one misses out and no one needs to be offended.

But the point, (and the reason JFM's analogy misses the mark), is that Sarabande and a few others want to change the world. They don't care for STB in its current form but more than that, they don't think it should exist in its current form. Having a parallel competition would not placate them, it would just show that we have missed the point.

 

[jfm]

Ok, I'll bite....

JFM you seem to be basing your view on an analogy that fits your argument. It's nicely put and very neat but I am afraid that it does not stand up to pressure.
Now I've thrown a few dinner parties, you may even remember me from TV's Come Dine with Me, (I won) and when a guest or 'friend' has indicated that they have an allergy to a food stuff I will of course make sure that it goes nowhere near their plate, I would not change my menu but I would for them, create a substitute dish. The same would apply in one of my restaurants, allergies would be dealt with clinically, issues of taste would be managed with the delivery of broad choice.
So if you take your argument to it's natural conclusion, our host's MBY, could provide a different course for those that do not wish to partake in the fish. It doesn't mean the rest of us can never have fish again.

I would go on to say that as a guest at someones table, I would chose to be discrete about my dislikes, I would try whatever is served and politely eat around the edges if it were not to my taste. I would certainly not try to have the dish outlawed.

So a bit of a bonkers way to win the argument but hey ho.

The point is that it is not normal to be offended by the images that we have been discussing and I do not think that either Sarabande or Anna are offended.

I think that their argument is ideological, relating to objectification and exploitation and that is the only reason I have 'contributed' to the conversation. There are no analogies required, it is a simple question relating to what is appropriate in 2014. I think that a poll is a reasonable way to gauge the room and anyone not happy with the outcome can just eat around the plate, try a different course.....or go to another restaurant.

Really JFM, I don't know how you find the time! On and I am sorry that the thread was disappointing for you but I'm glad that you finally chipped in

Nigel let's "agree to disagree". You mentioned time - yup, I don't have the time to argue back. If I did, I'd have to deal with (and bust) every sentence you wrote. If this were litigation I wouldn't win in the court room; I'd just have your case thrown out. I know that's harsh, but I don't care - we've clashed before and you've said some "inappropriate" things so what goes around comes around. Goody for you in deciding that you've won the debate though, and great going on being able to read Sarabande's and Anna's minds and tell us you reckon they are not being truthful. I suspect that TV show might invite you back!

 

[jfm]

The flaw in that argument, jfm, is that those people who are offended by bikini clad models know perfectly well that STB contains such images and yet they still choose to come to a STB thread and be offended. If they just stayed away, they wouldn't be offended. Its like a restaurant menu; some things you don't like so you don't go there. However, the argument is not just about being offended, it is really about those who say they are offended trying to impose their views on others, as was admitted by sarabande. To use your fish dinner analogy, it would be like the 2 friends at your dinner party saying not only that they don't eat fish but they don't want anyone else to eat fish either and that of course is not acceptable. Lastly does not democracy count for something? If 80% of the forum want STB to stay as it easy, why does it need to change for a thin skinned minority who need not even look at it anyway?

Deleted User, with full respect, I think you've missed my point (not a criticism of you - I maybe didn't explain it well enough). No worries and I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Deleted User, with full respect, I think you've missed my point (not a criticism of you - I maybe didn't explain it well enough). No worries and I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.

Likewise with full respect, jfm, I didn't miss your point and understand it perfectly well, just I don't think it applies to this situation

 

[jfm]

Likewise with full respect, jfm, I didn't miss your point and understand it perfectly well, just I don't think it applies to this situation

Mike, scuse the bluntless, but you're having a run on not reading before replying. Your post #81 above completely missed the critical words "try to" in Sybarite's #76 above. Your anchor chain post a week ago clearly showed you hadn't really read before replying. No worries; I'm just stating my view anyway

 

[Nigelpickin]

Nigel let's "agree to disagree". You mentioned time - yup, I don't have the time to argue back. If I did, I'd have to deal with (and bust) every sentence you wrote. If this were litigation I wouldn't win in the court room; I'd just have your case thrown out. I know that's harsh, but I don't care - we've clashed before and you've said some "inappropriate" things so what goes around comes around. Goody for you in deciding that you've won the debate though, and great going on being able to read Sarabande's and Anna's minds and tell us you reckon they are not being truthful. I suspect that TV show might invite you back!

It is a bit harsh, imho, but that's fine.

But please, and for the record:
I believe that both Sarabande and Anna are being honest and showing a good deal of guts and integrity. I just don't agree and I don't think that their views are the norm. So please don't put too much tar on the brush.

I don't think that the poll wins the debate, I certainly have not been whoop whooping or high fiving.

And of course you would win if this were litigation, I wouldn't have a clue on how to win a legal argument, but what's that got to do with this?

 

[sorabain]

sooo... to make it a little topical and try to add a bit of tongue in cheek (which as far as i can tell STB was intended to be all along). Would it be alright if the model was "semi-topless" if she was breast feeding?

 

[Nigelpickin]

sooo... to make it a little topical and try to add a bit of tongue in cheek (which as far as i can tell STB was intended to be all along). Would it be alright if the model was "semi-topless" if she was breast feeding?

as long as she was being discrete
oh and she would have to be breast feeding an infant.....

 

[oceanfroggie]

Coming very late to this discussion, haven't been on here much past 9 months. But while it didn't offend me personally, when I first saw STB, I did think it was a rather silly and dated marketing ploy from an other era when exploiting middle aged men's roving eyes for pretty women was the norm in advertising. A bit old hat and rather silly. On the other hand one has to balance against extreme PC trends. STB does not doesn't bother me one way or another, but it did seem a little chavie.

 

[benjenbav]

I think STB has its origins in the sort of picture which I remember fondly as being posted on here first by John (stingo) of a delightfully pneumatic young woman's derriere as she bent to perform some notionally boat related action.

Big joke: there's a boat in this picture but you won't see it because you can't take your eyes off that firm, tanned female flesh, fnaar, fnaar.

Anyway, where was I...

Oh yes, plus olden-days newspaper competitions where a football was airbrushed out of a photo and you could win a fiver for working out its location from the directions in which the players and spectators were staring.

So, tone it down a bit; not too porno and lo and behold, Phil Space has worked out a long-running, low effort feature which brings together them as wants some very mild titillation with the OCD-ers who will compete with one another to say that not only is it a FairPrinSeeker 69 but that the release agent was applied to the mould by Dave Smith - I mean, it's as obvious as if he'd signed it, innit?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Mike, scuse the bluntless, but you're having a run on not reading before replying. Your post #81 above completely missed the critical words "try to" in Sybarite's #76 above. Your anchor chain post a week ago clearly showed you hadn't really read before replying. No worries; I'm just stating my view anyway

Sorry jfm, your bluntness is not excused. If you're going to be bloody rude at least attempt to back that up with some correct facts. My post #81 was in fact a reply to Sybarite's post #80. Maybe you should try a bit of reading before replying

 

[jfm]

Sorry jfm, your bluntness is not excused. If you're going to be bloody rude at least attempt to back that up with some correct facts. My post #81 was in fact a reply to Sybarite's post #80. Maybe you should try a bit of reading before replying

I'm beginning to struggle to care now, because you're doing it again. Sure it was technically/directly replying to 81 but if you read those few posts correctly you will see that you completely missed the critical words "try to" and posted on that mistaken basis

 

[rbcoomer]

sooo... to make it a little topical and try to add a bit of tongue in cheek (which as far as i can tell STB was intended to be all along). Would it be alright if the model was "semi-topless" if she was breast feeding?

Ok, leaving aside the equally tongue-in-cheek (& humorous?) response of Nigel's...

Whilst I'd have no problem with breastfeeding in public if that's what the individual opts to undertake, to take a photo and publish on STB would be out of context and (IMHO) wrong. If however it were published in a women's magazine advertising nipple cream, without the boat then it would perhaps be in-context and appropriate? (I'm not sure they'd need to, but that's not the same as shouldn't be allowed to)

I do agree that the infamous topless motoring calendars are outdated in the workplace by the way, but just don't get the 'offended' aspect when the content of STB is known and you have to go and look for it. I'd probably find some things offensive if I went looking! If it were compulsory reading to qualify for forum membership, then I'd accept that it was inappropriate, but at the moment I'm yet to be convinced it's anything other than one group wanting to impose their values/ideology on another? If it has to go because it isn't PC, then surely so must Christmas decorations in public places as they may cause offense to non-Christians? Do other religions boycott M&S, Sainsbury or Tesco because they put up tinsel? I thought we prided ourselves on being a tolerant society?

It's an interesting debate but the more it widens, perhaps one more suited to the lounge?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I'm beginning to struggle to care now, because you're doing it again. Sure it was technically/directly replying to 81 but if you read those few posts correctly you will see that you completely missed the critical words "try to" and posted on that mistaken basis

Sorry jfm, I'm not going to let this go because I don't think you have a right to be so downright dismissive. After all, only a couple of hours ago you were lecturing us over the necessity to keep the forum on friendly and inoffensive terms

At the risk of boring the rest of the forum sh**less, this was my post #78 in reply to Sybarite's post #76. What exactly have I misread or misunderstood?

Sybarite said this He has every right to try to impose his views

I said this No he doesn't. He has every right to express his views but no right to impose his views

What exactly have I misread or misunderstood?