The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
mikem said:
Eh ? Its not the replies I get here its the grief I get from other Mendip cavers.
Horrified By " Cavers of Facebook "
- Thread starter The Old Ruminator
- Start date
Eh ? Its not the replies I get here its the grief I get from other Mendip cavers.
Ian Adams
Active member
Mr Old Ruminator,
You are highlighting the age old problem of subjective perception (ie. In this case, what is acceptable in one person?s eyes, may be unacceptable in another). There will also be ?circumstances? surrounding each event that different people will give different amounts of credit to.
An easy example;
On a club trip we had a relatively newbie with us who was studying at university (I can?t recall the exact subject head but it was geology/mining relating).
As a requirement in his study he was obliged to enter a mine and take samples ? presumably to ?study?, ?write about? or do whatever the university dictated was required. During the trip to a mine he took off his back pack, removed a mineral hammer (and some small tools) and proceeded to begin taking some samples.
None of us on the trip knew in advance he was going to do that and his action caused a reaction. One of the group objected strenuously and reacted badly to his actions whilst another said ?I couldn?t give two hoots? (I think that was the exact phrase). A discussion took place and the student said a couple of things;
1) I am only taking samples from an area that is not overt
2) I am only interested in the rock, not any formations
3) I am only doing what the miners did (removing rock)
4) It is a requirement of my degree
Our group then ?deliberated? as to what to do. This included suggesting taking rock from the floor (which he rejected and said it had to be in situ)
All of the following occurred to me (whilst the ?discussion? was heating up);
?Who am I to say what is or is not acceptable??
?Is he doing anything wrong??
?Am I a Policeman??
The lad objecting to the actions would not stand down and the lad giving ?no hoots? would not stand up ? both were intractable.
So ?. to your point ?.. I have seen (some of the) pictures you refer to and also read many of the comments attached. It is immediately clear many folk were not concerned with the effect on the formations/surroundings. It was also clear that some (yourself included) were concerned.
There are also many additional ?pictures? of feckless young ladies in a far lesser states of dress (in caves etc.) scattered across the interweb. I also know for a fact there is a book published full of them (probably the esteemed Mr Oldham will have a copy). There is a whole forum just for the Paris catacombs which is littered with tasteful/tasteless females in full (posed) nudity.
What does it all mean?
Well, it?s an issue that will stay with us (folk of the underground) for time and memorial. The best we can (probably) hope for is tolerance of each other?s wants and views.
The BCA could issue a statement with regards to its own position (and advice) but I doubt it would be even seen by the foreign cavers that frequent the forum you have identified.
In the end, It doesn?t stop people like you (and me, and ?a.n.others?) continuing to make an effort to preserve features (notwithstanding the naked feckless lasses of the world)
Ian
You are highlighting the age old problem of subjective perception (ie. In this case, what is acceptable in one person?s eyes, may be unacceptable in another). There will also be ?circumstances? surrounding each event that different people will give different amounts of credit to.
An easy example;
On a club trip we had a relatively newbie with us who was studying at university (I can?t recall the exact subject head but it was geology/mining relating).
As a requirement in his study he was obliged to enter a mine and take samples ? presumably to ?study?, ?write about? or do whatever the university dictated was required. During the trip to a mine he took off his back pack, removed a mineral hammer (and some small tools) and proceeded to begin taking some samples.
None of us on the trip knew in advance he was going to do that and his action caused a reaction. One of the group objected strenuously and reacted badly to his actions whilst another said ?I couldn?t give two hoots? (I think that was the exact phrase). A discussion took place and the student said a couple of things;
1) I am only taking samples from an area that is not overt
2) I am only interested in the rock, not any formations
3) I am only doing what the miners did (removing rock)
4) It is a requirement of my degree
Our group then ?deliberated? as to what to do. This included suggesting taking rock from the floor (which he rejected and said it had to be in situ)
All of the following occurred to me (whilst the ?discussion? was heating up);
?Who am I to say what is or is not acceptable??
?Is he doing anything wrong??
?Am I a Policeman??
The lad objecting to the actions would not stand down and the lad giving ?no hoots? would not stand up ? both were intractable.
So ?. to your point ?.. I have seen (some of the) pictures you refer to and also read many of the comments attached. It is immediately clear many folk were not concerned with the effect on the formations/surroundings. It was also clear that some (yourself included) were concerned.
There are also many additional ?pictures? of feckless young ladies in a far lesser states of dress (in caves etc.) scattered across the interweb. I also know for a fact there is a book published full of them (probably the esteemed Mr Oldham will have a copy). There is a whole forum just for the Paris catacombs which is littered with tasteful/tasteless females in full (posed) nudity.
What does it all mean?
Well, it?s an issue that will stay with us (folk of the underground) for time and memorial. The best we can (probably) hope for is tolerance of each other?s wants and views.
The BCA could issue a statement with regards to its own position (and advice) but I doubt it would be even seen by the foreign cavers that frequent the forum you have identified.
In the end, It doesn?t stop people like you (and me, and ?a.n.others?) continuing to make an effort to preserve features (notwithstanding the naked feckless lasses of the world)
Ian
Brains
Well-known member
Conservation issues are of course a very important point, but as far as far as scantily clad models go it should be noted that much of Europe has a very relaxed view of nudity and casual exposure of flesh and form. The UK is quite hung up by such things, while America is positively puritanical. It is not that long since posting a Renaissance nude painting, or even an image of the Venus de Milo would get you a FB holiday unless the nipples etc. were pixellated out. The users of the FB group in question are multi-cultural from many areas of the world, which may include hot climates and different attitudes to conservation....
Stripping off in a UK cave is usually a response to a body / cave mismatch, whereas in other areas it may be a response to overheating and dehydration. Of course the idea of being naked in inappropriate places has been used over the years to sell calendars of caves, farms, cars, and for the danger thrill seekers jam making (that stuff is like molten lava!).
Stripping off in a UK cave is usually a response to a body / cave mismatch, whereas in other areas it may be a response to overheating and dehydration. Of course the idea of being naked in inappropriate places has been used over the years to sell calendars of caves, farms, cars, and for the danger thrill seekers jam making (that stuff is like molten lava!).
pwhole
Well-known member
I think objecting to someone taking legitimate mineral samples from an actual mine is pretty weird, frankly, and I've taken plenty of illegitimate samples (from the floor). Incidentally, if anyone needs a 10kg lump of the Deep Rake main vein with an inch-thick rib of galena in it, please take it off my hands - it's outlived its usefulness as a paperweight
Without having seen any of these photos (I'm not on facebook) I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but if folks are posing naked on formations, is there a problem - as long as they don't break them? Apart from some very minor body-oil/fluid transference I would have thought naked would be the best way to 'physically' experience the scene, if you wish to - from a conservation perspective at least. It can be healthy to be naked, mentally and physically. Just as long as they're completely naked and not wearing hiking boots. And a beard.
Without having seen any of these photos (I'm not on facebook) I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but if folks are posing naked on formations, is there a problem - as long as they don't break them? Apart from some very minor body-oil/fluid transference I would have thought naked would be the best way to 'physically' experience the scene, if you wish to - from a conservation perspective at least. It can be healthy to be naked, mentally and physically. Just as long as they're completely naked and not wearing hiking boots. And a beard.
pwhole
Well-known member
Hahahahaha. Really? It's a pity the lighting's not better as it would have been a really nice shot if so. Well if they're mostly like that then I don't have any issue at all - from a conservation perspective. A bikini (or swimming trunks) is far more practical than a caving suit for a swim if the water's clean and warm enough.
We clearly just need to invest more in water heating and filtration in UK caves
We clearly just need to invest more in water heating and filtration in UK caves
2xw
Active member
I'm not sure anyone really objects to nudity, everyone has nipples.
I don't like the lecherousness of how these images are often shared and commented on though. It always seems to be the same blokes who I'm sure would be mortified if they realised how it makes them look.
I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Facebook/the internet works. You might well see a nice picture and share it with your friends to nudge wink wink phwoar over, but sharing that sort of content to 25,000 people repeatedly makes you look like the sort of person who sits on a bench in the park with their hands deep in the pockets of a baggy coat.
I don't like the lecherousness of how these images are often shared and commented on though. It always seems to be the same blokes who I'm sure would be mortified if they realised how it makes them look.
I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Facebook/the internet works. You might well see a nice picture and share it with your friends to nudge wink wink phwoar over, but sharing that sort of content to 25,000 people repeatedly makes you look like the sort of person who sits on a bench in the park with their hands deep in the pockets of a baggy coat.
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
I did a Withyhill trip with the late Paul Deakin many years ago. The lady in the group stripped stark naked for Mr Deakins's photos.
The rotter never sent me copies. On another matter, there were sadomasochistic images being taken in Box Mine. If you like that sort of thing no problem with me but naked men were being chained to the cranes. The latter very delicate. No, the issue is with the complete disregard for conservation. The photo shown above is technically awful but not particularly bad re conservation. Another set was far far more blatant. As I warden for FCQ and Reservoir Hole I would be happy to accompany a photographer and lovely lady model for " art " shots. I could then keep an eye on things myself. Er, the stal I mean.
The rotter never sent me copies. On another matter, there were sadomasochistic images being taken in Box Mine. If you like that sort of thing no problem with me but naked men were being chained to the cranes. The latter very delicate. No, the issue is with the complete disregard for conservation. The photo shown above is technically awful but not particularly bad re conservation. Another set was far far more blatant. As I warden for FCQ and Reservoir Hole I would be happy to accompany a photographer and lovely lady model for " art " shots. I could then keep an eye on things myself. Er, the stal I mean.
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
I will risk copyright infringement. This is a crop from one of the worse ones. Up to you to decide if you think she cares not a toss about conservation.
bbbbbb by Nicholas Chipchase, on Flickr
bbbbbb by Nicholas Chipchase, on FlickrPeregrina said:
The Calendar you refer to was produced by a university caving club as a fund-raising effort. (In a similar vein to the W.I. one.)
We did have a visiting group at the Hut once who were a bible-study group from Nottingham. After they left we couldn't find the calendar so I emailed them to ask about it - they had taken it down but carefully put it down flat on top of one of the high cupboards where it couldn't be seen - so we retrieved it and restored it to its rightful place of honour.
Then we had a polite email from one of the group saying she'd accidentally left her bible behind at the Hut and please could we post it back to her - so we did and didn't charge her postage. So there's Christian goodwill for you.
ZombieCake
Well-known member
A million apologies Mr. OR. Wasn't aimed as any sort of sleight. My typography was, well, not the best on reflection. I'm just not a fan of facebook and other sleazy data harvesting sites and their attitude, and well, shot from the hip about the organisation and not the people. BTW I can also be called a BDM, but for other reasons.
ZombieCake
Well-known member
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
ZombieCake said:
Page 43 in Kama Sutra I think.
royfellows
Well-known member
ZombieCake said:
Her choice of lamp spoils it.
