|
knieveltech
Apr 4, 2007, 4:28 PM
Post #2 of 53
(2014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
Uh...hot sauce?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 4, 2007, 4:32 PM
Post #3 of 53
(2002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
women of climbing is okay, but the kids of climbing calender is kinda creepy. So some shots and the little girls looked way more grown up that they should have (assuming that this is the same one I was months ago).
|
|
|
|
|
mowz
Apr 4, 2007, 6:18 PM
Post #4 of 53
(1890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1495
|
Huh. All i could see was the cover and I didn't see anything "bad".
I guess I'll have to take your word on it, but then again, isn't it the reader's perspective that affects what is being portrayed?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 4, 2007, 6:26 PM
Post #5 of 53
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Googled "kids of climbing" and looked around the site a little bit. Most photos are okay, but there are a few that bother me. This is one that stuck out for me:
She just looks a little so "sensual" for a kid of her age.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Apr 4, 2007, 6:30 PM
Post #6 of 53
(1846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i agree with that assesment - ah bit like the pagent moms have found the great outdoors - all in all it's just a way to make money
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 4, 2007, 6:36 PM
Post #7 of 53
(1834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Hmmm, I'm just noticing that that was from the 2006 calender, and that was the one we were discussing so long ago. The 2007 doesn't look like itd be as bad, but the previews don't show the photos as close up.
|
|
|
|
|
al_piner
Apr 4, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #8 of 53
(1745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 142
|
I guess everybody focuses on something different because the first thing I noticed in the pic above is that I won't let my kids climb that high without a rope or helmet .
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Apr 4, 2007, 10:45 PM
Post #9 of 53
(1721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
al_piner wrote: I guess everybody focuses on something different because the first thing I noticed in the pic above is that I won't let my kids climb that high without a rope or helmet .
1.)She's leading, see the know at waist level.
2.) Bitch has my shoes.
3.)Bitch also stole my mascara and quite possibly has bigger na-na's than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Apr 4, 2007, 10:47 PM
Post #10 of 53
(1719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
al_piner wrote: I guess everybody focuses on something different because the first thing I noticed in the pic above is that I won't let my kids climb that high without a rope or helmet .
She might have a rope, but I was thinking the same thing about the helmet. Well not the same thing since I don't have kids, but kinda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pylonhead
Apr 4, 2007, 10:56 PM
Post #12 of 53
(1695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 283
|
al_piner wrote: I guess everybody focuses on something different because the first thing I noticed in the pic above is that I won't let my kids climb that high without a rope or helmet .
Well, she's got a harness on, so I suspect she's got a rope.
The first thing I noticed is that she climbs way harder than I do.
I think you've got to look into that picture pretty hard to find something other than a kid cranking on the rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
fancyclaps
Apr 4, 2007, 11:11 PM
Post #13 of 53
(1674 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210
|
OH GOD, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Apr 4, 2007, 11:40 PM
Post #14 of 53
(1629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
What is kinda creepy is that on that site:
1) all the climbers (in the "Meet the Climbers" section) are female except for one.
2) the site and all photographs are by JM Cassanova
A coincidence I'm sure, but still.....
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 5, 2007, 12:27 AM
Post #15 of 53
(1563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
"Women of climbing" isn't for pervs, just horndogs who like ADULT breasts. Which would be like, all men.
The "kids of climbing" calendar has always disturbed me, especially that photo. She's like, 10. 11? Definitely in elementary school. As such, she should not be wearing a bikini top and full face-paint in print like that. It's creepy. And I am not jealous of her "na-nas" because even I have bigger breasts than a 5th grader.
We discussed this in the ladies' room some time ago. The decision was split but as I recall the majority of posters, and women, were a bit put off by the images of teen and tween girls.
(This post was edited by climbsomething on Apr 5, 2007, 12:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tallmark515
Apr 5, 2007, 12:40 AM
Post #16 of 53
(1552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2006
Posts: 281
|
I agree, it's definetly creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Apr 5, 2007, 4:52 AM
Post #17 of 53
(1413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
No way, Mo. she's like 15 or 16.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Apr 5, 2007, 12:22 PM
Post #18 of 53
(1393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
brent_e wrote: No way, Mo. she's like 15 or 16.
And that 's the problem, you take these young girls, toss a ton of makup on them and make them look older and thought of as sexual beings (and while its okay for a 15 year old boy to jack off to an image of a 15 year old girl, I don't like the idea of 30+ year old men doing that too).
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Apr 5, 2007, 1:03 PM
Post #19 of 53
(1385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
granite_grrl wrote: (and while its okay for a 15 year old boy to jack off to an image of a 15 year old girl, I don't like the idea of 30+ year old men doing that too).
What about 30 even? :tinfoilhat:
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Apr 5, 2007, 1:15 PM
Post #20 of 53
(1377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
I'm more concerned about the creepy, spandex suite wearing, unic cartoon character that's in the border of every photo.
|
|
|
|
|
uhoh
Apr 5, 2007, 1:20 PM
Post #21 of 53
(1371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 2281
|
brent_e wrote: No way, Mo. she's like 15 or 16.
This doesn't bode well for 'biner.
"Officer, I swear! Dude told me he was 18!"
|
|
|
|
|
dripdry
Apr 5, 2007, 1:39 PM
Post #22 of 53
(1365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 196
|
Why does everything talked about in this forum seem to come back to your na-nas?
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Apr 5, 2007, 1:44 PM
Post #23 of 53
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
I do remember the discussion we had in the ladies room. I believe the majority of women were somewhat creeped out by the photography. the poses are adult like.
I have climbing pics of my daughter and she looked like the 11 year old she was a the time. These girls look like the pageant girls............enough said. it's sad because, seeing kids climbing, enjoing themselves, huge smiles, it's such a great thing..........they don't need to be tarted up.
|
|
|
|
|
snoangel
Apr 5, 2007, 5:45 PM
Post #24 of 53
(1319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2004
Posts: 1715
|
granite_grrl wrote: Googled "kids of climbing" and looked around the site a little bit. Most photos are okay, but there are a few that bother me. This is one that stuck out for me: She just looks a little so "sensual" for a kid of her age.
Ok people. Listen up. I was there with Laurel, her father, JM and others the day this pic was taken. We were in Bishop and it was at least 80F all day. Everyone was wearing next to nothing. Laurel chose her own clothes for the shoot. And as far as make-up, I don't recall her putting anything more than a bit of lip balm on. She is European/Asian mix and naturally has this coloring. Perhaps it looks creepy to others, but let me tell you, there is nothing creepy about this pic.
Plus, she climbs harder than most people I know.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Apr 5, 2007, 5:52 PM
Post #25 of 53
(1316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
So I can drool shamelessly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
