Perhaps more the externalisation of your deep-rooted longing to be big and powerful. Don't worry, it's quite a common fantasy in the small and powerless

I wonder if your protest stems from the fact that you're sexually repressed, confused or just judgemental and happy to try and impose your moral code on everybody around you?

It's also telling that when challenged in your self appointed role as forum moral guardian you result to childish insults. Perhaps if you're that concerned you should start a poll to see whether people find that particular avatar offensive wouldn't it be interesting to see if the whole forum agrees with you?

Btw my children chose my avatar as Razors my nickname (not unusual for someone called Ray) and its also their favourite character from the tv show robot wars. Don't judge people by your own standards.

Would it be acceptable to have an avatar of Leda and the Swan?

_________________
As always help on here is free, however if you think you have saved a decent sum of money why not click the link to find out about the charity we're currently supporting? A couple of quid makes a real difference.

donnas-dream-house-charity-t52110.html

I find it a turn on. It's great.

But then again, I'm just a normal bloke, not one of those namby-pamby modern day metrosexuals who are terrified to admit they like such things for fear they'll be shot down by the thought policewomen. Is it just me but are most (notice I said "most", not "all") women's libbers ugly, fat, unable to get a bloke ... or all three?

I don't really know what you are talking about, I'm a carpenter not a psychiatrist; the picture amuses me and I like it, that's enough for a simple soul like me. I like lots of other pictures too, some of them don't even portray body parts nor skimpy items of clothing.

There's no deep seated meaning that I'm aware of: maybe with your amateur psychoanalysts hat on you can enlighten me as what you think it is that I think it represents and what I'm trying to say and what it says about what I'm trying to say. Who knows, if it sounds convincing I may even change it?

Would this be better?

_________________
One day it will all be firewood.

that is more hypnotic than dynamods avartar

Ive been in bed all day so typing is a stuggle, sick as a dog! Not good but the boobs cheered me up no end

There is really no need to be so defensive! I expressed a viewpoint, that's all. For you to condemn me for doing so would suggest that it is you who are being judgmental.

It is extremely unlikely that the whole forum would agree on anything, and I am quite sure, having read this forum for a while now, that I would be very much in a minority. That doesn't mean I do not have the right to express a viewpoint, however.

You are remarkably and uneccessarily defensive! My comments were purely in jest, in response to your jokey comment about phallic symbols. Calm down. There is no need to take it all so personally.

Would it be acceptable to have an avatar representing any rape scene?

Let me explain. For you to justify your avatar (as you do) by saying you thought it was 'just a picture' is rather like my telling you to go f**k your mother (which most people including you, I hope) would find offensive...then excuse myself by saying 'What's wrong with saying that? It's only words'. Words - and images - convey meaning in whatever context they are used. Most people would agree that some words (and some images) are more acceptable in some contexts than others.


That it pleases you is not in itself enough to make it OK as an avatar on a DIY forum, though. There exist (no doubt) people who find pictures of people or animals being baited/tortured or pictures of other acts of oppression, 'amusing', but it doesn't mean it would be OK for them to use them as a forum avatar. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying your choice of image is grossly offensive or obscene. We just draw the line in different places, it seems.

...................?

OK, I'll try, although I doubt it will resonate. Your avatar picture - in the context in which you are using it - arguably objectifies and degrades women, because it suggests that the most important thing about them is having their knickers round their ankles for your sexual pleasure. We don't even see her face, as though that's not important.The women in your pictures are reduced to a pair or knickers being taken off, or a pair of breasts being stimulated. This is a forum for supposedly professional tradesmen and women, but it actually feels more like a rather sleazy, male-only bar at times. Women decorators are greatly under-represented on this forum, a fact which doesn't surprise me, given the casual sexism which is so prevalent in it. Perhaps if the girly calendar pictures were left out, more women might contribute. I get the distinct impression, however, that most regular contributors (not to mention the moderators) would prefer to keep it very male-oriented, which is disappointing. This is the 21st century,when all's said and done!

In short, it seems odd that people should use images of their sexual fantasies as an identifier on a professional forum.
Would that be better if what?

What rubbish! How do you know in what context it is being used? Why does it objectify and degrade women? It is a titillating picture. simple. What's wrong with that? In fact, how do you know it's not a picture of a cross-dressing man taking of his knickers?

What if it was the picture of David Beckham in his pants that is currently doing the rounds? Would you object then?

I had a conversation with my friend's wife on a similar subject recently. We were sitting in his lounge having a drink when his wife suddenly jumped up and went to the window. She called us over to see the lady next door standing topless by her bedroom window. You could see her boobs clearly as she turned around and fairly slowly closed the curtains. "Blimey," my friend's wife said, "you could see her boobs. She's a lot braver than me..." A couple of hours later, they were waving me goodbye. The lady next door came out (fully dressed!) and got in her car. My friend and I were watching her and his wife turned on him and said very sternly "Having a good look are you? You pervert!" My friend and I just looked at each other! How on earth is he supposed to now where the boundaries are when his wife keeps moving them?

His wife gave him one signal: that is was ok to look at a neighbour showing her boobs, accidentally or not, and then changed the signal by calling him a pervert for looking at her when she was fully clothed.

Surely your objection to ayjay's avatar should be directed at the woman who posed for the picture because she was sending out certain signals to anyone who would look at it, rather than condemn ayjay, and probably the majority of men who have seen the picture, for enjoying it?

If this ad had featured a scantily clad female model, there would have been an uproar.

Letter to the Telegraph - I am mortally offended etc



Decorating boys and girls, decorating.

Exactly!

That's all just subjective psycho-babble to me, use of words like *arguably* and *suggests* reinforces the fact that this is just your view, so you may well see all that, but I don't.

I really don't want to enter into long and pointless discussions about something which must always remain so subjective, I'll probably change it in a little while anyway, I change my avatar pictures fairly regularly on forums, maybe this helps to reinforce my point that they mean less to me than they obviously do to you.

_________________
One day it will all be firewood.

Indeed it would. The point is that the Diet Coke TV ad, with the crowd of women ogling the [unaware] bloke through a window, is just the same in some ways as the Page Three mentality... it does women no favours! But at least there's only a few ads like that. Sexually provocative images of women's bodies are everywhere...including, it seems,on this forum, with the full endorsement of the moderators!




Please don't patronise us! It doesn't become you

This thread is getting nowhere fast and language like that (above) by bradley will possibly result in a red card from the Admin and Mods Team if it continues.

mod5


Not heard a murmour from you regarding Hitch's avatar.

personally i think it's quite presumptuous for you to assume that is a derogatory picture with soft porn intent.

when i first saw it i had to stop myself posting that i thought he was promoting gay soft porn pictures as i thought the top half was one of the "ladyboys of Bangkok".

i decided to keep my mouth shut just in case it was just meant as a fun picture with no harm intended. also realising that my perspective on the picture may differ from others and that maybe it wasn't correct for me to complain about it. the last thing i realised was that i was also on a forum that is on the whole, full of male tradesmen that offer their advise and time for free and as such i thought it polite to accept i was in the area they operation in and as on a building site, i would not walk in and ask them to stop whistling as passers by.

Ajay may be gay, he may be straight, it may be an avatar of a women or a man. it may be that he was promoting buying the correct size of knickers or they simply fall down or he may have been saying that the bloke wearing them had a beer belly and every time he bent over they fell down.

we may never know but the needs of the many out way the needs of the few.