What about @Otis It's raining men thread - can we keep that one?Godsbrother said:I assume that yoga pants, women you find oddly attractive, over 50+, etc. are all out of bounds too.
Joe Bryant said:Yes. Thank you.
separate political thread was one of the best moves that have ever happened.Strange move. Seems participation here is already hitting a low point. Maybe it's just all the politics stuff being gone makes it seem more dead.
Wait a second - I was actually joking but now that I think about it it has to go too as it objectives women.While we are at it can we ban the offdee scale? It will make it all worthwhile if we do.
Yep, that thread should be axed as well.While we are at it can we ban the offdee scale? It will make it all worthwhile if we do.
Well, I guess we now know you were the kid reminding the teacher that they didn't assign any homework.Wait a second - I was actually joking but now that I think about it it has to go too as it objectives women.While we are at it can we ban the offdee scale? It will make it all worthwhile if we do.
YES! I'm a hero.
You are all welcome in advance.
I agree with most of this, and especially the bold (and would add that women do the exact same thing).I don't get it.... I haven't been around here but for a couple years but I always thought of the FFA as kind of a group of guys sitting around the bar shooting the stuff. I assume that on the forum side of a subscription based FF website in the FFA you could talk about all the stuff guys in the real world talk about. This includes but is not limited to: Girls, wives, GF's, sex, Music, other sports, Life, Death, medical issues, diets, beer, drugs and all that it means to be a guy. Men talk about women and how they look. It's not wrong or right, it is just the nature of the world and men. If you get a group of them together and they aren't talking about women, my guess is they are all gay, and even then they will criticize what they wear.
I know there are women on the site that actively participate and for the most part I haven't seen anything that I wouldn't say in front of any women that would hang out with me and my friends at a bar. At the end of the day it is your website and you can do what you want with it. I don't think it will change my involvement, but at the same time I don't think it makes the forum or the world a better place or you any more deserving of praise by anyone real or imaginary.
I am resisting the urge to ask smart ### questions, so I will leave it at... Peace.
I am objectifying you because of your words so hard right now.I agree with most of this, and especially the bold.
As an aside, I found the "women over 50" thread a very positive and encouraging one - not objectification so much as "Wow, look at how amazing these women are." The "oddly attractive" thread had a similar feel. It's a shame for those to be swept up in this attempt at...well, whatever it's an attempt at.
Nice post, tootsI agree with most of this, and especially the bold (and would add that women do the exact same thing).
I looked at these threads sometimes, might have even voted (though don't remember doing so). Like someone mentioned, it was kind of interesting to see if your opinion was similar to others', and for me there was probably an added "hey, what do guys really like?" element of curiosity. I was never offended by their existence - except for the ones from the guy who never spelled "who's" correctly - but I would cringe at some of the comments. For the most part, I think they were a nice diversion for people from some of the heavier topics, and a way to have that "guys sitting around the bar" feel described above.
As an aside, I found the "women over 50" thread a very positive and encouraging one - not objectification so much as "Wow, look at how amazing these women are." The "oddly attractive" thread had a similar feel and was actually the opposite of physical objectification. It's a shame for those to be swept up in this attempt at...well, whatever it's an attempt at.
I do understand Joe not wanting "Who's Hottest" polls out there in the current environment. He's a business man and his name is attached to this site, including the forums.As an aside, I found the "women over 50" thread a very positive and encouraging one - not objectification so much as "Wow, look at how amazing these women are." The "oddly attractive" thread had a similar feel and was actually the opposite of physical objectification. It's a shame for those to be swept up in this attempt at...well, whatever it's an attempt at.
there is a strange line here that is going to be hard for @Joe Bryant to define..I agree with Krista though that sweeping up any thread where people talk about women's looks is maybe too far.
Agreed. Like lots of things here, there will be gray areas. I'm not going to try and lay down any definite rules right now. I think most of us know what I'm trying to avoid here. We'll work our way through it. Thanks.there is a strange line here that is going to be hard for @Joe Bryant to define.
Lets take something as simple as the TV show thread for Survivor. There is always talk about the eye candy on the show. This holds true for the majority of threads on tv or movies as well as numerous others.
I resent you objectifying my grammar.I agree with most of this, and especially the bold (and would add that women do the exact same thing).
I looked at these threads sometimes, might have even voted (though don't remember doing so). Like someone mentioned, it was kind of interesting to see if your opinion was similar to others', and for me there was probably an added "hey, what do guys really like?" element of curiosity. I was never offended by their existence - except for the ones from the guy who never spelled "who's" correctly - but I would cringe at some of the comments. For the most part, I think they were a nice diversion for people from some of the heavier topics, and a way to have that "guys sitting around the bar" feel described above.
As an aside, I found the "women over 50" thread a very positive and encouraging one - not objectification so much as "Wow, look at how amazing these women are." The "oddly attractive" thread had a similar feel and was actually the opposite of physical objectification. It's a shame for those to be swept up in this attempt at...well, whatever it's an attempt at.
All we have to do is limit it to women who have jobs that are dependent on their sexuality. Not sure it's a requirement to actually be in a league to post about how big and strong Ezekiel Elliott is in the Pool. In fact I'm sure it's not.Epic Problem said:So say that we drafted these individuals and let them compete in some way, shape or form. That should be ok, right?
It’s all fun and games until somebody’s hotlink url of lolcats gets replaced with a goatse picHey Joe, since we won't be posting crude or inappropriate photos on the boards now, can we please allow images to be posted in threads?
Doesn't seem to be a reason to keep this option disabled now.
What’s wrong with goats?It’s all fun and games until somebody’s hotlink url of lolcats gets replaced with a goatse pic
Well, I guess we now know you were the kid reminding the teacher that they didn't assign any homework.
She can dominate my draft any day.Maybe you haven't "been around for a while", but, the old FBG logo was a dominatrix: an attractive woman in sexual fetish gear. Hard to believe Joe wasn't comfortable with his own logo.
#youtooI understand why Joe might not want "who's hottest" on this site as a matter of it being too sophmorish or immature. However, I don't understand the implication that voting on which woman (or man) you find more attractive is inherently wrong. Are we really at a point where we can't say we prefer the physical nature of one person over another? Is it inappropriate to ask which haircut we prefer or who looked best at the Academy Awards? Certainly some of the comments that followed those posts were crude and at times inappropriate, but if that's the issue, then it needs to be stated more directly. Vilifying the act of giving an opinion on who you find more physically attractive is over the top, imo.
The goofy yellow smiley face has always been our logo. We had a shirt in the early 2000's with a comic book type dominatrix with the tagline "Dominate Your Friends". We chose not to continue that many years ago because it wasn't something I was comfortable with.Maybe you haven't "been around for a while", but, the old FBG logo was a dominatrix: an attractive woman in sexual fetish gear. Hard to believe Joe wasn't comfortable with his own logo.
. I have a FBG T-shirt with that image on the back I won the first year of the subscriber contest and still wear it proudly..Maybe you haven't "been around for a while", but, the old FBG logo was a dominatrix: an attractive woman in sexual fetish gear. Hard to believe Joe wasn't comfortable with his own logo.
So you are saying I own a valuable collectible item..The goofy yellow smiley face has always been our logo. We had a shirt in the early 2000's with a dominatrix with the tagline "Dominate Your Friends". We chose not to continue that many years ago because it wasn't something I was comfortable with.
Sounds like a collectors item, like finding old WW2 nazi stuffGood point.. I have a FBG T-shirt with that image on the back I won the first year of the subscriber contest and still wear it proudly..
It's rare. Not sure how valuable.So you are saying I own a valuable collectible item..
I'll give you $5 and a draft magazine from 2003.So you are saying I own a valuable collectible item..