Mike Laney invited me to go on an early morning flight in his wonderful, totally restored, 1956 Cessna 172. What a treat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG3i2BBMiSg
Mike Laney invited me to go on an early morning flight in his wonderful, totally restored, 1956 Cessna 172. What a treat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG3i2BBMiSg
Nice plane. Creepy, sexist, inappropriate logo. I know a lot of women aviators who would find it a turn off. But, to each their own.
Im not a woman aviator but I like it and and I asedk a lady her opinion and she liked it. Even better if it was a real painting done from a real person. The CAF has a room dedicated to preserving originals from the bombers. Ive never heard any lady complain about them.
Id like to see a poll about what other readers think.AndI may not be up to date, I spend more time thinking about mass shootings, North Korea war threat ,hurricanses , atc privitation ,airline passenger rights, gen aviation accidents, little things like that rather than a picture of a lady on a plane. And I knew a famous WASP who looked a lot like that.
Good job on putting the fancy dash gizmos in there in a way that looks professional - but leaves the original aesthetics of the panel intact.
And I think Mark is going to find himself in the very tiny minority as to the fuselage art. It's tasteful but fun. I give it a G rating as far as nose-art pinups go.
Frank,
you said the perfect word..... FUN, not to mention the nostalgia, respect to our history etc etc..... Just out of curiosity would it have been less sexist if it was a pic of Bea Arthur or Roseanne Barr instead? What about that makes it sexist? I guess I just don't understand.
Rick
I looked at the Victory Girl website. Some of this stuff I would consider soft porn. This stuff was probably considered OK during the WWII "12-O'clock High" days during the grim bombing raids of Germany with 25 percent loss of life. In those times, I guess anything that lifted the spirits a bit was OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoranch
But, times have changed. If you "don't understand" how this might not be politically correct in today's world, I guess I can't help you.
Mark,
Isn't politically correct where the voice of the very few dictate the actions of the many? I did not ask for your help, I have done just fine without you and your politically correct beliefs. I am going to continue to find sexy women sexy, guns fun and the occasional off color joke funny.
try this... This sums my attitude up perfectly.
https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
and to keep this aviation related. BEAUTIFUL airplane
Do you think artwork like this on an airplane is appropriate for Young Eagles?
Pretty sure a 10yo kid will neither notice it nor care. It’s a flying machine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Oh, great impression to make on a young girl considering aviation as a career. I'm sure the Young Eagles Youth Protection policy would have no problem with semi-naked women airplane artwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris In Marshfield
BS, Mark, if you have a valid point then make it honestly. The photo on the Cessna is a lady in a modest one piece swim suit, in no way, porn soft otherwise. Your examples are much more riskque and one is even topless. Not a valid comparison. "semi naked" is not a true desciption of the photo on the Cessna.
I doubt it young girls at EAA would think nothing about the photo, and any womens store or dept store or newspaper is going to have adds that are much more up to date.
Okay, carry on then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk
Why don't you be honest. The "Metal Mistress" -- meaning a female with whom a man has sex with on the side -- has her bare butt sticking out. Not appropriate for Young Eagles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
Ok , you dont like the name regardless of the photo. You should have said that at the start. But your claim that she has "her bare butt sticking out" is as dishonest as the rest of your post. The view of the lady on the Cessna is mostly from the front, you cant even see her rear. bare or otherwise.
You get the Shawn Spicer long nose award for that "alternate fact".
Now, this would be more like it.
p.s. Don't feed the trolls.
Well....that's one definition, but it's not the main one. The traditional meaning is "A woman who is head of the household or institution" (Webster's New World Dictionary) or "A woman who has power, authority, or ownership" (Mirriam Webster online). "Mrs" is actually an abbreviation of "Mistress."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk
But the "lover on the side" definition is probably the one implied here, as the aircraft is claimed to be the owner's noogie while away from his lawfully wedded. The young lady shown is probably no more exposed than kids see every day in TV and advertising.
Sensitivities change over time; we do have to learn to roll with them. A lot of things were appropriate in the WWII timeframe that aren't now. The EAA Museum has a collection of WWII nose art, and they have plenty of warnings posted prior to entering the area.
This particular example isn't that egregious. I'd have no problem with it on the ramp, but I would hesitate to roll it up in front of a bunch of kids for rides. My occasional friend Madam Jodhpur says the woman is not wearing enough leather, but I digress.
Ron "My safe word: 'Greenwood'" Wanttaja
Years ago, I was working on one of my books and included a shot of plane with a similar sort of name and nose art. The editor cropped down the photo to just show the name....
Ron Wanttaja
Glad you asked the question. Let me try to enlighten you. It's sexist because it objectifies women-ALL WOMEN.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoranch
Nose art practiced during WW2 is a definitive fine art form that belongs ONLY to a very small certain time, place and attitude in history. Most of it was tasteful, fun and artistic together with the underlying phrases. Some of it was not. The grandmothers, mothers, daughters and sisters of the boys who flew those adorned Warbirds were mostly offended by it but if it helped to bring them home alive then it was tolerated.
The subject on the Cessna is quite artistic in the vein of a nostalgic Vargas pinup. However, it's been grossly misappropriated, it's anachronistic appearing on a 1950's GA Cessna and it's quite gratuitous. If the subject plane here had been a warbird then it would be totally appropriate in terms of time and place with no objections.
I have no idea what you mean or suggest by saying, "respect to our history". Respect for what? A painting of a really good looking, young, scantily clad woman with big t**s? On a 1957 Cessna 172?
I have an exercise I'd like you to do: Replace the woman's head with the head of your grandmother, wife, girlfriend, daughter, or sister. Do you now want to put this picture on your own airplane? Do you understand now?
Years ago I had a dream about owning a 1929 Sikorsky S-39 flying boat. I most appropriately painted it's name on the nose, "My Wet Dream". Then I woke up...luckily.
So if I used a representation of my wife in one of her conservative formal gowns would that be ok? Because to be honest I still lust after her as she looks super hot. Just trying to find where the line of demarcation is.
Post her picture and we'll vote on it... :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoranch
Ron "Not going there" Wanttaja
Good one Ron..... I probably deserved it. Lol
I think its GREAT ! if you don't like it you don't have to look I have a 13 yo and I promise you he would notice. If you bring your kids up right this will not or should not influence they way they view women or how they treat them they will be and are exposed to things everyday at school on the cpu playing video games probably far worse than a pinup girl from the 40's (mine does not have the time to be a gamer or spend much time on the cpu he likes working in the shop welding mechaniching on his jeep and other things in the shop )( And yes he has a jeep at 13 he will be way ahead of the curve when he gets his license he already has a little tail dragger time in his logbook ) I am sick and tired of the political correctness leave me alone and I will leave you alone if what I do offends you look the other way !!!!
Sorry for the rant had to speak up we all need to every now and then or they would completely take over.
What are you talking about? No, it wouldn't be OK. I told you where the "line of demarcation" is, nothing to find. Follow the instructions of the exercise I gave you. Can you do that? And then do what Ron said, POST IT!Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoranch
So women shouldn't dress nice or God forbid a little bit sexy? Female friends of mine have said that they feel good about themselves when they know they look good. Are they objectifying themselves when they wear something that is not a burka? What about bathing suits which is the article of clothing the original post pic shows. Do you go to women and tell them they are not helping their cause because they are not wearing some old-timely full length swimwear. Let's talk about Victoria's Secret, a multi million dollar company that exists because WOMEN want to feel good, sexy and God forbid desirable. Do you write letters to them to ask them to stop selling their lacy/slinky goods. Men aren't forcing women to do this s. And as far as your 'test'. There is nothing wrong with that rendering and if that was my daughter it was HER choice I would be ok with it. It is not porn it is a painting that represents a tribute to an era.
OK, we’ve heard from the Old Boy’s Club. Any females out there who would care to opine?
Once again, what are you talking about? You're missive is so far out in left field your hypocracy and double standards are showing. Not a pretty sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoranch
Porn? Who's talking about porn? Apparently, you are.
I did. Check out post number 7 of this thread. I referrred — correctly— to those pieces of “nose art” as bordering on soft porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
You disagree?
It's quite bizarre that you think I'm in any manner agreeing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk
"Correctly"?? By whose standards? Your Elmer Gantry view of things is truly spectacular. You wouldn't know softcore porn if it walked up to you and kissed you on your......
Wife says the pinup isn't offensive, so we have one Southern Redhead's opinion to add to the sample size of the poll.
Interestingly enough, she also said she wouldn't like it if I had a pinup on my aircraft, saying "I should be enough for you" in true Southern Redhead fashion. My wicked grin immediately flashed, because if I had anything other than a WWI type plane, I'd have a version of this photo painted up:
http://www.darts-page.com/images/sherry_shock.jpg
Frank "I win the poll with my wife" Giger
The discussion here is not that the picture is offensive-which it is far from-but that it is sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
She's right of course. I had a similar situation when I first started going out with my wife to be. On a date I wore a t-shirt emblazoned with "I Was Married Once, Now I Just Lease". She let me know that it was embarrassing for her to walk beside me and that it showed contempt and disrespect towards her. It was a dumb, insensitive thing to do, I turned it inside out then threw it away when I got home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
And insulting to women, particularly women in aviation, who are making strides to break into an industry that is a notoriously "old boy's club." And, it's inappropriate for EAA's Young Eagles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Of all the things to worry about, I'd put that way down on the list.
I don't write often on forums, but this requires an exception. There is nothing wrong with the art but there is something really wrong with the PC environment that has infected America (like a lethal disease). It's come to the point where I try to do the opposite of whatever the current PC thought is. The people need to get a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk