I think your view underestimates a great many men... and women.

And you're absolutely right--accepting reality does not endorse it. That's why I think it can and should be changed.

Accepting an unequal reality without any drive to change it DOES endorse it.

This is uncalled for.

incorrect.

I would have to agree unless there is history outside of the quoted thread that he is referencing, of which that should be referenced directly.

The longer this topic continues, the more I think


https://atom.smasher.org/construction...lm+%40+11%3A00

I'd bet the majority of women will tell you that they can duke it out for themselves.

First Paragraph: Dead Ball Infraction, Unsportsman like conduct on the Defense, 15 yards, automatic 1st down...

Second Paragraph: In this case, the best action is to openly inform her that she is a female chauvinist sow. She may rant, but she'll also leave and then you can freely survey the febrile women.

Actually, the point he was making was not entirely baseless. There are forms of harassment and intolerance where the aggressor claims the status of victim.

I'm not in any way suggesting that people shouldn't take harassment issues seriously. Rather, what constitutes harassment or injustice is determined by the specific facts at hand and not just by the gender, race, religion, whatever of the person making the claim. The dynamic has nothing to do with feminism per se. There are plenty of guys who do this too.

Hell, we have our own cycling equivalent. There is a reason that some posters seem to be perpetually harassed by motorists while others who ride further in the same conditions do not experience these problems.

That's just not acceptable, if I understand DrPete correctly. It doesn't matter if a woman starts the aggression, a man should know not to react to it.

Sure, and the woman should not be surprised if the rare example of maleness screws it up when he sees her walking down the street in a sheer speedo...

No, you're right. Interesting that the statement about racist jokes kicked off a ton of righteous indignation, though.

It was an over-the-top attempt at making the point that sexism is much better tolerated than other less acceptable forms of degradation. I had no intention of suggesting that there was any history of it or anything.

My apologies.

And if the majority represented everybody, you'd be on to something.

Cleaned up a few posts--really, guys, feel free to make juvenile sex jokes via PM if it's that freakin' necessary.

"freakin'" is simply a thinly disguised version of F'ing and implies male hegemony. You really really should be ashamed of yourself. Clean up your language and apologize now.

Dr. Pete,

We are not going to see eye to eye on this. Mine was one of the posts deleted. The remark was tongue-in-cheek and that sentiment was conveyed with a . Your post, for which you appologized because it WAS over the line, is still posted. Tyrrany anyone?

My belief sir, is that your standard for objectionable is, in a word, unreasonable. It's time to HTFU. Until then, I'm out of BF for a while, maybe forever. It'll give me more time to ride.

Give me a freakin' break!

a somewhat angry Bear on a Bike.

You must not be much of a tennis fan if you think Kournikova was not a good player. She won 18 titles overall, and though more successful in doubles than singles still was ranked in the top 10 in singles at one point, she won 2 grand slams and a wta championship. She was bothered by injuries through out here career but you should not discount her talent on the court just because she is beautiful.

So were you getting a lot of complaints about those posts you removed? Ever think they may have been added to lighten the thread up a bit?

Yeah, because nothing would've helped this thread more than a bunch of guys making sex jokes. I can't believe my lack of foresight.

Geez, man. Nobody here disrespects your opinion.

But they sure as heck didn't make anything worse --- especially when considering some of the personal snipes taken in this thread.

Actually, it did lighten the mood, but in doing so, belittled the good fight. I understand.

If that's the quality of the response, then the good fight seems to be doing just fine.

Seems like there was already enough fighting going on. A bit of lightening may have been a nice breather. Then the good fight could have continued.

Gentlemen:

I suggest you become a white knight and not tarry amidst the rabble and the serfs.

Join me in policing the language of BF.

For example, someone on another thread said that anyone who rubbed mismatched wheels looked like a "hipster ***".

Well I tell you what. I took the silver sword of my Righteousness and slew him for his intolerant and bigoted remarks.

I have three daughters and two granddaughters and will do whatever it takes to flog these disgusting pigs until they behave in a manner becoming of a gentleman.

And it's a hell of a lot of fun being self-righteous.

Join me.

Pete, either be a mod or a participant. I don't think it's fair for you to be both. Cleaning up a post that says "sex is good" is just ridiculous.

It is unbelievable to me that people just don't understand sarcasm. Perhaps I should put it in a long-winded and boring way: ok then..

There is a fallacious assumption at the root of all of this and that assumption is this: That there is an inherent evil involved in sexual objectification. I think this is definitely grounds for argument on several points.

Point one: Nobody can authoritatively claim moral high ground insofar as sexual standards and practices. You try to tell me you know what normal and moral is, and I bet you I can find a precedent for a human society which has done the opposite and been absolutely fine with it. Just because our society does not fetishize certain parts of the anatomy the way some African societies do (or perhaps DID) does not make our society either superior or possessing of a higher morality. Also, the voice or opinion of the majority does not necessarily require that the voice of the minority be silenced. If the larger percentage of our population believe that sex before marriage is a sin, it does not carry that we should either persecute or prosecute those who do not follow that code.

Point two: Evil is a self-defined system. Only by way of social evolution can such a concept as evil even exist. We have already established that there can be no one perfect or superior system. Therefore it stands to reason that there can be no one perfect or superior moral code.

Point three: objectification is an important part of our sexual identity. It is rooted in the lower mammal brains and has existed for far longer than we have as **** Sapiens. Yes, we have a higher cerebral brain which we tend to think "controls" the lower parts, but this is where I diverge from the current kind of thinking. I believe that certain urges are there FOR A REASON and that a healthy sexuality is crucial to the survival of our species. Perhaps we may become the first species in Earth history to become extinct due to widespread sexual dysfunction caused by a massive inconsistency between the controlling cerebral brain and the necessary animalistic lower brain functions which are required for reproduction.

Do whatever you want. Ban me. Delete my posts. Whatever. I have not even been one of those who say the so-called "crude comments" (at least none that have been mentioned here) but I will not give up my right to call for those people's right to speak freely. I also support the right for all persons to speak freely, including those who feel hurt or offended. Call me sexist? Tell you what... examine ALL of my posts and then get back to me. You might be surprised.

Personally, I don't judge people by what they say on the internet. I have been using this misinformation superhighway since 1992 and have never found all that much in common between what people say here and what the same people are really like in person.