First of all, shameful that you would lump all women into the "I'm so insecure about my body, I would never visit a website that shows pretty women." category.
I can see that I need to leave my signature "on" even after my first post in a thread, so that you can read the second part of it.
I did not specify why anyone would object, and what you are suggesting was not in my mind at all. The phrase that comes to mind is "the objectification of women". You may have encountered that phrase before, and if not, you can google it for what it means.
As for your claim that I am lumping all women together, I did not specify any quantifier (e.g., "all", "some", "one", etc.). I did not mean "all"; I meant "some".
If Gene has any serious doubt about the effects of such pictures, he could do a poll of the female members of this site and ask them what they think of such pictures being officially displayed here. I would guess that he would find that many would say that they do not care, and many would really not care. But of those who do care, I would expect that the vast majority would prefer not to have such pictures. Since this site is about "pursuing the truth" and "rigorous testing" (see
main page at the top), I suggest it be done in order to determine who is right about this in an objective manner.
That's stereotyping. Women love media stars just as much as guys do, even if they are in bikinis.
Now, tell us who is stereotyping? Since you seem to think that the lack of an expressed quantifier necessarily means "all", you must mean "all". And if not, then you should not be making such a mistake in reading my earlier post.
And they are not at all shy about female bodies, look in the pages of a Cosmo for God's sake.
This, in case you forgot is a media based website, not just A/V electronics. Movies and videos are reviewed here as well as receivers and speakers.
And is that picture a movie or video? If not, it is irrelevant.
That said, I'm sure there have been pictures of tight shirted super hunks on here as well as a posed shot of of Ms. Munn. We didn't force her into a sexy bikini shot.
Who said she was forced into it? The issue is not how the shot was made, but its desirability on a site whose purported function is a discussion of audio and video equipment and relevant media.
She's a media star and a great talent.
Yes, we see the talent that is displayed.
And she's proud of that, which is why she's in a bikini for press pictures. So basically, she doesn't have an issue with the picture, we don't have an issue with the picture, and women, as evidenced by their love for Cosmo and Elle and other magazines of the ilk, don't have a problem with it.
You really need to reread your own first sentence about stereotyping.
I think a poll should be taken of the female members of this site on their opinions of this matter. Of course, I do not think that any should be forced to participate in such a poll, though that will mean that those who prefer to keep their opinions to themselves will not be represented.
So that only leaves you that has problem with it.
You like jumping to conclusions, don't you? Very few people have participated in this thread, and even fewer have expressed any opinion on this subject. And yet you imagine that you know how they
all feel about it!
You might wanna call Dr. Phil.
Oh and what the picture conveys is a high quality video reproduction of content that is arguably nice to look at at. Which is half the reason we buy AV receivers. /end rant.
I suspect that most people do not have half of their motivation for buying an A/V receiver as being for seeing video content. I suspect that for most, the primary motive for getting an AV receiver has something to do with sound that accompanies the video content that they watch with other gear.
At this point I may as well ad, since pornographic movies are media that is relevant to the audio/video equipment discussed at this site, why are those images prohibited? There is also a
rule stating "3) No foul language", and yet foul language is a significant portion of the dialog of many films made these days. Yet somehow these things are not regarded as appropriate for this site. (Just to be clear, I am
absolutely not suggesting that such rules should be abandoned; I merely mention them as a demonstration that being a part of mass media does not automatically make something appropriate for a site like this one. So even if the picture were from a film, that would not automatically make it appropriate here.)
I will add, yet again, that I did not start on this subject based upon the mere fact of the one picture, but in response to the suggestion that it be a common occurrence here. I personally think it would be a bad idea, and I suspect that, if a poll were conducted, a significant percentage of women would say that they find it off-putting to have such images on a site like this one, and I suspect that a significant percentage would also have no problem with it. (Additionally, I suspect that the percentage of women who have a problem with such images would tend to go up if they were a common part of this site; for example, on every page, instead of merely being occasionally present.) If I am right about that (and I have already suggested a possible test), the question then is, is having the pictures worth alienating a significant percentage of women who might view this site? Is whatever is gained from having them worth whatever is lost from having them? I don't think so, though you may disagree. Of course, as for what will actually happen, that is going to depend upon the opinions of those running this site, not you or me.
