rcbabes
 

Is rcbabes still operating? Is there more than one girl?


As a woman LF, are you offended ?

gone
 

if its not gone it should be

dennis

do a search here
 

You'll find it...the original URL has changed, but I don't recall the new one.

rcbabes
 

Confusion has just set in. Chaos will take over shortly.

Wasn't the plane girl just on ........
 

Jerry Springer?

The hobby has been clean thus far, why do we need to have Billy Bob exploiting his girlfriend over and airplane.

The last thing I need is my wife getting upset that I have a hobby that would do "Hot Rodder" type spreads like that!

Pinball, you took the words right out of my mouth.

rcbabes
 

Stay tuned for what? If I wanted softcore porn I could sure find more interesting sites than that.

One of the things that I enjoy about this hobby is that you can share it with anyone. There's nothing offensive about it, and nothing controversial. People from all walks of life with all kinds of different backgrounds and morals can share in it.

Now some profiteer is trying to exploit pictures of women (and 16 year old girls!) with models? You know, there are enough odd fetishes out there for people to explore. I don't need anyone thinking of my airplanes as a sex prop.

I didn't really care before, but when someone mentioned a 16 year old being exploited it makes me mad.

Damn straight.
 

I agree with MikeL on this one.. I'm not a prude, I can find anything at all on the web if I want to, but if I'm looking for RC Airplanes (hint hint) I don't need any rcbabes links. And even if I WAS looking for a babe site....rcbabes is not it.

Move on.

so....
 

If you guys don't want it, then just don't go there...

Just as if you don't want porn, don't visit porn sites...

Surely you don't think that AMC is unaware of the page, right? Seems to me that posing with a model airplane is another modeling gig, possibly akin to posing with a tube of toothpaste....

I would agree that the tube of toohpaste seems to be the focus, if posed with....

But, where does the exploitation come in? I am not aware of anyone forcing this person to pose with an airplane. If she posed with a car in a car commercial, would it be exploitation then? Just curious....Is it because of the title of the site? Would it be okay if the site were "CAP232's and other fancy airplanes"?

Anyway, just don't go there, if you don't desire it...

rcbabes
 

Harmless site- not much of a site at all, actually.

"Soft Porn"??? You've got to be kidding.

A.M. has nothing to fret over- all that can be said is that she has a pretty daughter- I just wonder why she is using a JR radio?? j/k :D

- George

Why does CHobbyHorse1 keep....
 

getting his posts removed?

Is he promoting an inappropriate site according to RCU?

That should be a hint.


Cheers

rcbabes
 

In answer to your question, yes he is. This is a family site and on his page you can link to a soft porn site and that's just not allowable. He has been asked to correct the situation and hasn't so it gets closed.

Thanks
 

I figured that was the case.

Reiterates my previous posts point. We just don't need it!!!!

Cheers

rcbabes
 

I know this is off the subject of the thread, but based on the above comment, what about WWII nose art on scale aircraft. I have heard some comments to the effect that the "risque" nose art shouldn't be allowed on scale aircraft, particularly those in contests.

Any thoughts on this? (seemed like a good place to ask)

rcbabes
 

Only in the USofA. :rolleyes: :spinnyeye

rcbabes
 

I think if it's historically accurate, it should be allowed. It's part of our history and a part of the lives of those who served at that time.

rcbabes
 

You must also realize that nose art, while occasionally risque, was rarely, if ever obscene, and only intended for the eyes of flight crews.

rcbabes
 

i agree and disagree
with what some of you folks a saying
but reading what most of you are saying is that a woman modeling with a model airplane is exploitive and degrading!
come on what year we living in !
exploiting and degrading are only seen through the eyes of the viewer (being you)
i dont see anything wrong what so ever with it at all
now dont get me wrong there is a line between just ad's and filth!!
but to say that this is wrong kinda reminds me of that ol story
of two young men that go to a new flying field to fly there new fancy sky burner,only to be confronted by a group a grumpy ol men that want nothing to do with this fancy sky burner ,but just to talk cr@p about it ,and say oh that isnt a plane ,wont even look at it , for its not what there used to,
just my 2 cent's

gone
 

sounds like $5,00 dollars worth

rcbabes
 

m

rcbabes
 

If its the same site he was pitching here about 2 months ago, then there was alot more "content" than a clothed woman standing next to an airplane. There was a not-so-clothed woman standing next to alot of things, including a pile of her clothing. There were also a bunch of links to her "up and coming adult film star" website. I think that is where the moderators have just cause in removing his url postings. He's been warned several times over the last 6 months to not do it, yet he manages to try to sneak a post in with the URL. I don't know if the site remained the same, but there's nothing on there I'd really care to see. Remember, this is Marc's website, and he is ultimately responsible for the content within. He makes the rules, and enforces the rules. One of them is no porn, due to the family aspect of the site.

As for the nose art, I totally agree that if it is historically accurate, then by all means, its legit. Those were different times, with men basically going up into tunafish cans to their possible deaths, why not give them something to keep their spirits high. There definately were alot worse things painted on the noses of military aircraft in WWII than a pinup girl. The same debate comes about once a year when someone gets a pic of their German WWII plane with a swastika (sp) on it. People go all up in arms both ways, saying why they should have it, and why they shouldnt, etc etc etc. There was even a rule proposal to say that there would NOT be a deduction if the builder/pilot did not display any swastika's on the model, but I dont know how far that went.



Steve

rcbabes
 

Admit it. You're trying to drive some extra traffic to his site, aren't you? http://home.earthlink.net/~dojbofh/i...smile/tool.gif





relax. J/K. :)

rcbabes
 

War is obscene. Anyone that models a war bird is representing a machine made by man designed with the sole purpose of killing of fellow men, women and children. It doesn't really even matter who's countries craft you model, USA, USSR, Japan, Germany, they are all designed to kill. Compared to pictures of attractive fully clothed ladies with model aircraft, I'll take the ladies any day.

rcbabes
 

The US war machines were built by Americans so that we wouldn't be speaking German, Japanese or Russian as our main language today. They are beautifull in my opinion with or without the nose art. These machines gave us the freedom to love them or hate them as we so choose. To respect them we must, nose art included.

rcbabes
 

I've corresponded with Ted who owns the sites and he assured me that no explicit content or links out to it would be present on any site to which he provides a link to from RCU. A regular model posing with a plane is fine just as if any of us take pictures of ourselves holding our own planes (many would argue that itself is offensive!! just joking but you get the idea). As long as there is nothing more than what you would see on regular mainstream network tv it would be ok to link out to since it is RC related. I also told him as per our rules to not spam the rcu forums with the site or it's links. A mention every month or so (only in an appropriate forum as the clubhouse) if there was something new or some kind of news regarding the site than that would be fine (again as long as the content was not offensive as described somewhat above).

rcbabes
 

Agree with Marc. I've seen posts of guys who have their girlfriends/ wives holding their planes. Is this "exploitation"? Of course. It's all exploitation to some degree.

The models on that site are are not pushing the "family" limits, in my opinion. It could have been done a LOT worse. They are just girls posing with planes... just like your wife or girlfriend... or daughter.

As far as AM's daughter. Come on. Don't you think she feels kinda cool to be "featured" on a website?

As long as it stays at the level it's at, to each is own. If it goes too far, Marc will pull the plug on his ability to post that info here.

Mike