Formula 1

(83 Posts)
HotBurrito1 Sun 30-Jun-13 11:51:08

Was just playing with my boys when I noticed that the telly had images of scantily clad women holding brollies over fully dressed male F1 competitors in the rain. When I say scantily clad, think leather mini skirt, bare midriff and leather halter bra -not standard wet weather clobber (at least I've never seen the like in the waterproofs section of Millets).

I never normally watch F1, so I don't know if this is usual, but I was annoyed to suddenly see this on the screen. Obviously, I can (and did) switch off. I really didn't want my boys to see the dubious message which was basically:'stand there in your bra, hold the brolly and look sexy love, whilst the men actually do something'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

libertarianj Fri 12-Jul-13 23:25:44

err i am little bit Buffy aren't you?, it is a Friday night after all? making assumptions about women not having orgasms and it being all about the man's pleasure is a seriously massive assumption to make and i am disappointed given that you have made some excellent points, you think this is an acceptable assumption to make? Again i would like to see some stats to back up this claim? If this is your own personal experience then you have my greatest sympathy, however to generalise about such a matter, is that really fair?

Well why not re-read the vitriolic and insulting abuse you just posted when you're sober, eh?

libertarianj Fri 12-Jul-13 23:54:46

well you and Scallops are the ones making assumptions about everybody and everything. All i have done is challenged that fact. I am sorry if you thought that to be vitriolic and insulting abuse, but i am kind of getting tired of this whole speaking for everyone mentality that you continue to exhibit. I do apologise for making assumptions about you being Guardian readers, that was out of order. But that's the thing, it's never nice when someone makes assumptions is it?

Thank you for your sincere apology. It is worthy of both your mentors, those great thinkers Beavis and Butthead.

<shakes head in despair>

No libertarianj, no. What we are not doing is making assumptions about everybody and everything. We are discussing social theory. That is something different. I'm sorry that you are finding this notion so difficult to grasp. I wonder, given your evident respect for stats are you able to produce statistical evidence of the rational individualistic lack of societal influence you claim to be true? No? Well that's because it's a social theory, init.

Stats and social theory are, like, unmixy things.

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:55:19

Not sure how I am supposed to produce stats for the definition of a woman's loss of virginity confused

Or as Buffy says for just discussing a theory. You don't have to agree with me. But offering up another argument and some evidence as to why you think would be the normal way to go.

This conversation is getting very bizarre (and not a little personal).

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:56:34

"why you think that" it should say

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 12:58:53

And I didn't make assumptions about women not having orgasms confused, I said that a woman losing her virginity is not based on her having an orgasm. Very very different.

scallopsrgreat Sat 13-Jul-13 13:01:16

I would like to know why you think what I said was offensive, out of interest? Feel free to ignore, though, I won't hang on with baited breath.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now