Housekeeping: A Quick Word About TTAG’s “Booth Babe” Pictures

Bobbi from ammotogo.com (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

Several TTAG commentators were a little “creeped out” by a recent picture of an NRA Ambassador. They considered the image and my remarks evidence that I’m a “creeper.” (urbandictionary.com: “A person who does weird things, like stares at you while you sleep, or looks at you for hours through a window.) I removed the comments because they violate TTAG’s no-flaming policy. But I consider the protests serious enough to elevate the discussion to this separate post, where I can suspend the no-flaming policy. That way readers can have their say on TTAG’s “booth babe” pictures, no holds barred. First, let me state my position . . .

I make no apologies for being an admirer of the female form. Nor do I consider it inappropriate for a man to publicly, respectfully remark on a women’s physical appeal. I have three biological daughters and one ex-step daughter. I would not be offended if a blogger drew attention to their beauty.

Don’t get me wrong: I understand personal boundaries. All of the women in these pictures are above the age of consent and gave their permission to be photographed. I have never asked any of them out on a date. I’m not saying I wouldn’t under certain circumstances. I’m saying I haven’t.

Some readers question the presence of these images on a gun blog. All of the women are part of the firearms community. I consider that reason enough to include them. But again, I see nothing wrong with occasionally diverting attention away from technology and politics towards the simple pleasure of enjoying the existence of attractive women.

The Truth About Guns is your website as much as it is mine. I respect your opinions and value your feedback. I will take all your comments under careful consideration. Please remember, though, that life is too short and precious to allow political correctness to cloud our normal human reactions to the things that make us happy. IMHO.

comments

  1. avatar Scott says:

    Girls with nice guns….what’s not to like?

    1. avatar Felix says:

      What’s not to like? I’ll tell you what’s not to like.

      The attitude that women who show off their bodies are dumb by definition, too stupid and slow-witted to think for themselves.

      The idea that the only way any woman would pose for a photographer is if she has been brainwashed.

      The insulting party-line philosophy that only feminazis have the one true path to the future for all wymin.

      It’s all part and parcel of the statist mindset that only the elites know what is good for everybody else. That’s the true insult to women AND men, and that’s what’s not to like.

      1. avatar LKLI says:

        There are two different cases here.

        There are pictures of “booth babes,” such as the one at the top of the post, of models who have been hired to draw attention to different booths and products. They usually are dressed a certain way – in the interest of drawing attention and in particular the male gaze.

        There is nothing wrong with that, or of posting pictures of those women doing their jobs.

        The other case is that of posts such as this one, Tanya Gorin, which in addition to having a relatively creepy caption, fails to mention that she was a damn good NCAA shooter despite that being infinitely more relevant here at TTAG than RF’s “prowliness”.

        Of course she posed for the picture of her own accord – but that doesn’t mean that she immediately discards any expectation that folks might respect her for what she’s good at and worked hard to be good at – which is to shoot competitively at the NCAA level.

        Particularly on a firearms blog, you’d think we could respect that talent and her looks. But I could be wrong.

        1. avatar EPThorn says:

          Ding!

      2. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Precisely. The last thing the Internet needs is more white knighting manginas. They enable feminism, which enables gun control and other statist bullcrap.

        1. avatar sam says:

          +1000

        2. avatar Tray says:

          I’m genuinely curious about how feminism enables gun control.

      3. avatar tom rkba says:

        Felix: grow up and grow a pair. You have fallen for the bullshit of philosophy out of control. Go back to your “women’s study” class and parrot that crap back to people who will agree with you. I doubt you understand these women know what they are doing and are fine with it.

        1. avatar Max says:

          I don’t think his post says what you think it does. Re-read it without the knee-jerk reaction. Of course, I could be wrong too.

        2. avatar Felix says:

          Well, there you go, proof positive that some people still think of women as someone they have to protect and shield from the big bad world.

          If these women were exploited unfairly, they are quite free to take matters into their own hands and tell RF to take down the story, or consult a lawyer.

          But leaving the decision to them implies that they are fully responsible and capable adults. You telling RF he is exploiting them is just the opposite. If you said “RF, I hate these pictures”, that’s your business. But instead, you presume to speak for these women, with the implication that they cannot take care of themselves and need your manly protection.

          Grow a pair, indeed. Perhaps you need to shrink your perception of your own down to something less than head-sized. I doubt the reality matches.

        3. avatar MMGG says:

          tom, I think you need to reread Felix’s post. In fact, I think you need to read it for a first time.

      4. avatar JeremyR says:

        All men are attracted to women by their appearance. Conservative men prefer smart women. We want a gal who can handle a gun, know when to shoot, how to shoot and where to shoot. We want a woman who is our partner in life. Liberal men want em dumb. A girl who will believe that the baby they just created is a mere blob of cells and not a human. A woman who will obey orders, and be their slave.
        That is why we have so many lazy liberals on welfare. They are too stupid to work and succeed.

        1. avatar Tray says:

          Source on that?

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      Felix, though I can agree with a couple of your comments (re feminists and liberal statists), I think you are otherwise too up tight about being appreciative and complimentary regarding attractive women. It’s as if you are denying your humanity.

      Maybe it’s been too long for you.

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        Sometimes a picture of a woman is simply a picture of a woman. Why complicate things?

        1. avatar MMGG says:

          I think that’s actually pretty much what Felix was saying. To sum up his point: women are adults capable of making competent decisions about their lives. If they don’t want to be photographed and have their attractiveness complimented, they are free to refuse or complain about it. The attitude that there is something wrong with a woman posing for a picture and enjoying it (and the complements and attention it brings from men) is what is really sexist because it implies that the woman is a victim of some sort or a helpless pawn who lacks the agency of an adult. It is infantilizing and disrespectful.

    3. avatar Tom Stearns says:

      To heck with them if they can’t take a joke, or the sight of a pretty young woman.

  2. avatar benny says:

    I say keep em coming. i really dont see why attractive women at A FREAKING GUN CONVENTION do not belong on A FREAKING GUN FORUM.

    but this is my view and worth exactly what you paid for it…

  3. avatar designczar says:

    I’m a woman, and I don’t think you should change a thing.

  4. avatar Bob's yer uncle says:

    You might be gay if… You don’t like booth babes.

    1. avatar Rebecca says:

      I *am* gay, and I love the booth babes! Too bad they’re all straight and under-fed. 🙂

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Works for me.

      2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Mebbe some of ’em ain’t…

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        Rebecca, you win the interwebz today!

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Yup

  5. avatar Rydak says:

    The hell is not to like about booth babes? Thats what they were hired to be there for. Have you ever seen a 300 fat slob booth babe, who was hired for her personality? I didn’t think so.

    They are eye candy and they know it, in many cases they are also serious members of the firearms community who happen to also be attractive and the pres of the company asks them to be point woman for the booths for obvious reasons.

    Rock on Rob!! (Loose some of the anti-police crap though….just saying)

    1. avatar Bruce B. says:

      What is more empowering to a woman than a honking big pistola? And if she remains totally feminine while holding it? Well how cool is that? Ladylike and lethal.

      Personally, I love the depiction of women as attractive, desirable, but firmly in charge of their own safety and that of their loved ones. Not barefoot in the kitchen, but armed and dangerous. Take that you stereotypes.

      And Rydak, I used to consider myself very pro LEO, used ta was one, but maybe if the LEs on this blog, and elsewhere, would quit pissing down their leg every time they thought about one of those oh-so-hazardous encounters with a CC permit holder, we’d quit viewing them with so much suspicion. After all how many other citizens do you interact with on the street that you KNOW have already passed a background check?

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Well I like LEOs as long as they’re doing the right thing, or if they’re buying me drinks. I usually have positive interactions with people, and I usually have positive interactions on TTAG.
        If I wanted to be popular, I would have been a firefighter.

        And I know that a lot of folks I’ve met on the street could not pass a background check.

      2. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        I don’t check this site as much as I would like, but I don’t recall any stream of comments from LE posters about hating or fearing CC permit holders. I certainly don’t hate or fear them myself, and when I meet one on duty I generally treat them better than average- not that I treat anyone poorly, but I can’t help but be pleased to meet someone who cares enough to take responsibility for their own safety and cares enough to do it within the law (this is independent of what I think of said laws, which is another topic).

        Perhaps you meant that LE you’ve met in person, or heard about, have had problems with permit holders. I can’t answer for them, but I think those of us who post here are generally in favor of good folks who carry. I even encourage people I meet on calls to arm themselves and learn their Constitutional rights. Of course, you could just as easily have meant exactly what you said, and I just missed the posts you’re referring to.

        I have to admit, there are a few in my department who don’t see things my way, but the worst I’ve heard about is a verbal over-reaction to an Iraq vet who had serious PTSD. I heard this while having a very pleasant, calm, and profanity laced conversation with him, and I apologized on behalf of my department for his experience.

        1. avatar Bruce B. says:

          “Of course, you could just as easily have meant exactly what you said, and I just missed the posts you’re referring to.”

          There have been a discouraging number of LEO posters that have expressed all these “concerns” about CC as it makes their job so much more dangerous. I find that attitude discouraging, wrongheaded, and downright embarrassing. Law abiding armed citizens should be little or no threat to a policeman with a modicum of respect for the public he is supposed to be serving.

          Sounds like you’ve got that attitude. Be glad to buy you a beer and swap war stories. Could tell you about back when we still rode triceratops on patrol.

      3. avatar JC says:

        Agreed although I don’t think RF is anti police person, he is anti police state. There is a difference. I would bet he respects a great many individual law enforcement officers. What he is concerned about is the militarization of the police and the corresponding rise in potential for use as a tool of control by a runaway government.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Not all heavy folks are slobs… Just sayin’.

    3. avatar 1freeman1776 says:

      I gave up respect for badge wearers when they stopped being “peace officers” and became “law enforcers”. Didn’t help any that the justice system was prostituted into the legal system. They are enemies of the american way of life just as surely as islamists are.

    4. avatar Blehtastic says:

      If a company has to advertise their product using the beauty of a woman, rather than the functional beauty and elegance of their product, chances are good that their product sucks.

      I’ve never gotten the draw of girls with guns, or girls with cars. Guns and cars fire up that part of my brain that solves problems, does math, figures out how things work and how they can work even better. Being turned on by a hottie is just distracting. I guess it distracts some people into just buying whatever, but it makes me just leave and go look up your products online, if I even bother, since you were too rude to just talk to me about them at the booth.

  6. avatar jwm says:

    All consenting adults, what’s the problem?

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Yes. And I will also agree with whatever Aharon says later.

  7. avatar John Fritz says:

    Complaining about pictures of pretty girls because… really?

    I think we all have bigger fish to fry.

  8. avatar Mina says:

    Real women love real men. Real men love attractive women.

    Everyone else – well – why do we care about their opinions? LOL 😀

    1. avatar Clay says:

      ok, that was funny.

  9. avatar Josh in NC says:

    Keep it coming, Rob! No probs here. Would love to see a couple of threads with nothing but a slide show of pics of the many booths! (And the booth babes, too..!)

  10. avatar Matt in FL says:

    {Shrug}

    Tempest in a teapot.

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I say embrace your inner creepiness. You’ll grow as a person in the end.

  12. avatar JPD says:

    I reviewed some of your past booth babes. Also, this brings to mind common comparisons or comments in other posts.

    So far, IMHO, your comments have never crossed into “disrespectful” territory.

    Rock on………

  13. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I don’t mind.. The wife on the other hand.. 😉
    Keep em coming!

  14. avatar CJ says:

    Considering how many pictures of DiFi you’ve made us look at I think it’s only fair that you post heavy on the booth babes.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Ha!

    2. avatar Eric_in_NOLA says:

      True Dat – I still have night terrors.

  15. avatar RKBA says:

    If they don’t want to look, they don’t have to.

    Only progressives insist you live by their standards.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Now thats not true. Just ask anyone who has been hassled (or tacked) for not attending church or wearing the “wrong” length hair.

      Or maybe that IS progressive. Hmmm…

      1. avatar RKBA says:

        Exactly.

        I am a live and let live person.

        I like to leave people alone, and wish for the same in return.

        Within reason, of course.

  16. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Um… let us consider a few salient points:

    – these women are integral to the NRA convention;
    – you are covering the convention;
    – you are presenting them as they are – not providing costumes or such;
    – in keeping with TTAG’s mission statement, they would appear to be relevant to the fun, danger and culture of guns;
    – politically correct is for the “differently brained;”
    – no coercion or misdemeanor would appear to have occurred;
    – a numerically significant population appreciate these captioned ‘photos;
    – noone has a right to not be offended.

    In short, rock on!

  17. avatar Accur81 says:

    Bring on the babes, especially Michelle V.

    1. avatar Carry.45 says:

      Thank you! And this isn’t quite the question of the day I requested about the glock booth babe with tats.

  18. avatar Loyd says:

    I haven’t seen anything out of line so far from RF & Co. We’ve all come to expect a little eye candy from TTAG’s convention coverage. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  19. avatar Jim Barrett says:

    RF – you’ll hear no complaints from me on this issue. If women are willing to come to a show such as the NRA one or the Shot Show, then they have essentially given their informed consent. If you wish to depict pictures and make commentary on them, then who are we to object?

    1. avatar Tray says:

      Really? Attending a convention is implicit consent to be photographed?

  20. avatar DrVino says:

    I like guns. I like cars. I like guitars. I like women. At one point or another, all three have been advertized with the assistance of buxom beauties in one degree of undress or another.
    Nevertheless, the combination of babe and gun/car/guitar has NEVER potentiated my excitement over or the desire for the object being advertized.
    It may for some.
    You can argue objectification and exploitation all you want, but sex sells. That is why the ‘babes’ are at all sorts of trade shows.
    And in the final analysis, maybe it’s not the ‘babe’ but the consumer who is being exploited….

  21. avatar DrVino says:

    Comment disappeared….Bummer…… It was poignant and erudite….

  22. avatar Nazgul says:

    I’m sure that the ladies working at the various booths are fully aware that the guys will be looking at them; and that it’s not an issue to them. Anyway, the Nazgul is pleased to see something different on TTAG. It’s more fun to read about this topic compared to the usual / daily attacks upon our civil liberties being orchestrated by the Progressives.

  23. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Uh, the role of a “booth babe” is actually a job. Why should anyone be insulted or offended if you show pictures of people doing their job? It’s not like they were under duress or forced to be a booth babe….

    Now, if you called the NRA Ambassador a booth babe, well that’s a different story.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Hell, the NRA Ambassador wearing a dress shirt and vest was far better looking than almost all of the booth “babes”.

  24. avatar Bill F says:

    Keep ’em coming but make us a promise–no DiFi swimsuit shots.

    1. avatar Mamba says:

      Ugh…too early in the morning here, there went my breakfast.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Ewww.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Oh
        Just threw up in my mouth a little….

  25. avatar Jericho941 says:

    Yeeeeah, since the comments were deleted, I see nobody is getting the point, including RF. It wasn’t the pic. There’s nothing wrong with “admiring the female form” or pics of booth babes. That’s not what I find objectionable. It’s the accompanying comments about them that I find disrespectful and often creepy. RF’s “on the prowl”? Prowlers. Are. Creepy.

    Other times, though, it has been the pic, like RF’s tendency to link to a collection of bikini photos apropos of nothing, or to a model’s site on a post about a model who was shot dead.

    I completely understand liking to look at women in bikinis. It’s one of my more enjoyable pastimes. However, I also don’t drop those pics in completely unrelated threads, especially threads talking about a woman who is dead. How much more disrespectful can you get than to go, “Yeah, she’s dead and that sucks but here’s BOOBS.”

    And commenters aren’t blameless either (hurr hurr chest/vest). I like looking at beautiful women. Some of the things I like about them are breasts. I do not comment about their breasts because I am not a tasteless boor with no idea what an appropriate compliment is.

    And I definitely don’t talk about them as if they are just a place to shove my junk with comments like “sometimes the journey is the destination.”

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Couldn’t have put it better myself and I stand with my original comment; creeper.

      Just so I understand; if your comment disagrees with RF’s point of view it is a flame and gets deleted? Kiss the ring or have your comment deleted? Apparently there isn’t enough room for the freedom of speech in here.

      1. avatar thatoneguy says:

        They’re models dude. They get paid to tale of their clothes, get photographed and have them uploaded to the internet for all to see. It’s what they do. Deal with it. Nothing “creepy” about any of it.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I do not comment about their breasts because I am not a tasteless boor with no idea what an appropriate compliment is.

      So anyone who doesn’t act like they’re from the 1700’s is “a tasteless boor”? In that case, I’ll take your insults as a compliment (despite the fact that I didn’t leave a single comment on any of those posts). People like you who want to live by rules of centuries long forgotten are just as bad as people in the Middle East insisting that they should still follow the laws or 7th century savages.

      1. avatar Jericho941 says:

        It’s ironic that you claim to be a modern man with an evolved sense of propriety in defense of reducing women to objects to be leered at, and spoken of as nothing more than aesthetically pleasant furniture.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Nice utter fabrications. I guess when you don’t have a leg to stand on, you need to start making stuff up. Nowhere does saying people (of both genders) have every right to talk about what they find pleasing or displeasing about the opposite gender mean that women are objects.

          In fact, isn’t it your religion that says women must be subservient to men?

        2. avatar Bruce B. says:

          More PC bull****. Finding a woman attractive, or even (GASP!)! sexy, does NOT objectify her.

          I love women that can carry on a conversation about, like, interesting stuff – ride their own motorcycle, not just “bitch” (Now there IS a degrading term.), shoot the eyes out of an attacker at 30 feet, stay with me on a hike through the woods, AND give me bedroom eyes in a bikini.

          Strong, intelligent, independent, empowered, and sexy.

          What part of that makes her “just an object”?

          (And we men are obsessed with hooters, ’cause we don’t have any, and they are just SO cool. Hooter envy.)

        3. avatar Jericho941 says:

          Totebag, I’m an atheist.

          “I guess when you don’t have a leg to stand on, you need to start making stuff up.”

          Like me being some kind of fundie who has a problem with women? You’re not even trying.

        4. avatar Jericho941 says:

          “More PC bull****. Finding a woman attractive, or even (GASP!)! sexy, does NOT objectify her.”

          No, but taking a picture of one -who isn’t there to model- and basically saying “Hurr hurr I’d sure do her” does.

  26. avatar LKLI says:

    Jericho941 is spot on. The issue is one of appropriateness. Everything in its right place, so to speak.

    If a woman wants to come to a firearms website to read about firearms news and politics, without having to deal with stereotypical sexist bullshit, she should be afforded that opportunity.

    It lowers the quality of serious discussion for the site, and speaks to the maturity of its writers – one could easily have the same articles without the “hurr hurr I liek women” stuff, and it would not in any way affect the quality of the site as a firearms blog.

    As it stands, these remain the sort of things that turn women away from the firearms community – being gawked at for their looks rather than respected as fellow firearms enthusiasts.

    It is one thing to capture the NRA convention as it is – booth babes included. But when you make posts such as the one about DeAnna, you’re telling a modestly dressed woman that her looks are more important than where she’s from, who she is, and what sort of firearms she likes to shoot.

    It’s like, here we are at the NRA convention and here’s a picture of some guy. He might actually be a real person, with thoughts and interests and opinions, but who cares – let’s stare at him instead because “sometimes the journey is the destination.”

    You could have asked her how she ended up as an ambassador for the NRA convention, but again – to you she is only as important as her looks.

    If you want to take these pictures for your own personal use, by all means, go right ahead.

    But if you’re going to include them as befitting the level of discussion here among the “Armed Intelligentsia,” at least treat those women who are there as enthusiasts rather than eye candy as people, not meat.

    1. Thumbs up on this comment!!

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Wow, you must have a very miserable marriage to be so bitter about people looking at attractive girls.

      1. avatar Jericho941 says:

        You must be very frustrated in your mom’s basement if the context of babes on a gun blog changing is a threat to you.

  27. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Honestly, I’ve only seen two so far that make me go “Oh, wow” and they’ve both been very conservatively dressed. Keep posting what you feel like Rob. The ones I don’t find attractive I scroll right by and even the ones I do I only look at for a few seconds before moving on.

    1. avatar Jericho941 says:

      Again. Not remotely the point.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        The point is that you want to whine that men find attractive women attractive. If you’d prefer not to hang around “typical” men, then a gun site isn’t the place for you.

        1. avatar Jericho941 says:

          “The point is that you want to whine that men find attractive women attractive.”

          Thus proving that you completely missed my point, despite it being explicitly laid out.

          “If you’d prefer not to hang around “typical” men, then a gun site isn’t the place for you.”

          I prefer to hang out with men, not boys.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Ah yes, more childish insults to support your lack of a point. Go thump your Bible somewhere else.

        3. avatar Jericho941 says:

          “Ah yes, more childish insults to support your lack of a point. Go thump your Bible somewhere else.”

          No insult was intended, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Also, I’m an atheist. Apparently I need to restate my point: I don’t have a problem with women in skimpy clothing or whatever other strawman you’re so vigorously dry-humping, it’s the comments made about them and the context in which they are presented.

          But I’m sure you won’t respond to that, either. Go on and rave about those damn Puritans some more, it’s really hilarious.

  28. I always think it kind of drags TTAG down when it rolls into its annual “booth babe” mode. I think it is degrading to women to have silicone enhanced women parading around in skimpy clothing to sell firearm products.

    Further, I believe “booth babes” disrespect women shooters, etc. etc.

    In other words, it always makes those posting these pics, and the guys commenting on them, come off are pubescent high school boys.

    You stay classy, TTAG.

    1. avatar Lizerdking says:

      Seriously? silicone enhanced women in skimpy clothing? Are you looking at a different page than I?

      I saw two gals in casual attire, neither of which looked enhanced. They are now of Internet fame, perhaps they get hired for another gig to do the same thanks to the publicity.

      I’ve been to conventions where women are wearing nothing but a little body paint, some less than that.

      Welcome to a world Post 1920.

      1. avatar dshim83 says:

        As others have said, the issue is not that there are booth babe who wear skimpy clothing.

        I saw two gals in casual attire, neither of which looked enhanced. They are now of Internet fame, perhaps they get hired for another gig to do the same thanks to the publicity..

        See this is a perfect illustration of the problem. Do you think that this woman was hired by XS Sight Systems for her looks… or because she was a competitive NCAA shooter and is interested in firearms?

        I have no idea what DeAnna’s backstory is, but did it occur to you that maybe there’s more to her than her looks, and that she wasn’t hired to be eye candy but rather because she is actually invested in firearms?

        It is one thing to talk about a model, such as the woman in the picture at the top of this post. She is clearly a model, doing her job modeling – and it is not inherently inappropriate to speak of her in terms of her job.

        But as is made apparent in your assumption that these other women were hired only for their appearance and not their talent or ability – simplifying them to their appearance has the effect of minimizing who they are as people. Particularly when we are talking about firearms enthusiasts at a firearms convention, it seems a little unfair to reduce women who take firearms seriously to just their looks.

        The gun ownership community is already heavily male-dominated; we only perpetuate that stereotype when we treat women who are passionate about firearms foremost as objects of desire rather than as fellow gun owners.

        1. avatar Bruce B. says:

          “Do you think that this woman was hired by XS Sight Systems for her looks… or because she was a competitive NCAA shooter and is interested in firearms?”

          Yes.

          Both.

          Every statistic, every study, I’ve ever seen demonstrates that attractive people – make more money, get promoted faster, are considered more intelligent… And the unfairness of it all goes on and on.

          Same for taller people. And slender people.

          Welcome to the real world where everything is not fair. One of the progressives favorite whines. “That’s just not fair! There oughta be a law!”

          In the real world, where some of us live, do you REALLY think companies want their products represented by some ugly person?

          Why do think Feinstein became a politician? Couldn’t get a real job!

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          You keep talking about people only caring about her looks, are you looking at the same girl I am?

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Totenglocke, I don’t agree with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread (or at least its tone), because I think you’re missing the point that some are making.

          However, I think you’re right that some aren’t looking at the same pictures you are, and moreover aren’t reading before they type. I’m speaking of everyone on this page who has said (about any of them), “She’s a model. She’s hired to smile for the camera and look pretty and sell product.”

          The only case in which that appears to be true is the photo at the top of this page. In the cases of the other three that RF has posted this year, I don’t think any of them were hired “for their looks,” simply to smile and sell product. Tanya is an accomplished competition shooter, Chelcee actually works for the company “in the factory,” in her words, and DeAnna, well, in truth I don’t know how she got her job, but I think it’s much more likely that it’s because she knows someone than because they hired her from a modeling agency.

          At least in the cases of these three that RF posted, this renders all the “she’s a model, it comes with the job” comments irrelevant, or more accurately, just wrong.

      2. avatar Totenglocke says:

        It’s just the typical old religious fantatics whining about “Them damn kids!”, no need to pay them any attention. If they had their way women would still be forced to wear full body suits to go to the beach and wearing skirts above the knee would be a criminal offense. 1920’s is quite right. Thankfully, they’ll be dying out soon enough.

    2. avatar TS says:

      Much agreed with with Paul’s comment.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      I just love Puritans. They see filth when none of the rest of us do. They see filth in beauty, corruption in innocence.

      God help them if Robert ever starts “The Truth about Booze”!

  29. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    RF-While there a few who have voiced reservations as to either the context of the use of women’s pictures, or the “creepy” comments-The majority of us, as of this point seem to have no issue with it.

  30. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    I’ve been happily married to my lovely “gun babe” for many years. I still enjoy admiring beautiful women.”One eye never got married.”

    1. avatar g says:

      “One eye never got married…”

      I LOL’d. Don’t hate me.

  31. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

    In covering the NRA Meetings RF & Company are serving as our surrogates at an event many of us would like to experience.

    I understood the “on the prowl” comment as nothing more than a pose on RF’s part; a bit of playful hyperbole, yet rooted in the natural fact that the prospect of a huge convention filled with pretty young women and guns induces the will to…have a look around.

    Another vote for ‘Rock on!’ from this quarter.

  32. avatar Ray says:

    These are not religious fanatics, just plain old P C fools

  33. avatar JAS says:

    Part and Parcel of the whole experience. It’s the sometime use of double entendre that demeans, and usually the poster more than the poser. That’s the only problem I see.

  34. avatar Chris says:

    I think Jericho has the right idea. Although to be honest, the only image I personally have a problem with is the ‘NRA Ambassador’- she’s not a booth babe, she’s a worker who happens to be female. IMHO, to call her a ‘booth babe’ (which traditionally means someone hired for looks, not brains) takes away from the role she is filling.

    One of my good friends is a fairly attractive female, this particular female is a gun owner and goes shooting weekly so my comment that follows is based on discussions with her.

    Shooting has always been a male-dominated sport, but that’s changing. Huge numbers of women are getting into shooting, but many male shooters have no idea how to deal with them. For example- my female friend. The first gun show she went to, she was looking at some Sig pistols when the booth guy walks up, grabs her hand without asking and slaps a pink .22 revolver into it (in the process muzzling himself and lots of others), saying “How’dya like the feel of that little lady?” She went to a gun store and asked if they had a lower parts kit for an AR-15 in stock, the guy looks at her shocked and says “You know what that is?” She went to try a new shooting range that opened near us, the desk guy acted like he’d never seen a woman before, and when she asked to rent a 1911 if they had one, a random guy (who’d been staring at her ass since she walked in the door) walked up and said “Hey there, want to try shooting my Glock? It’s just like a 1911.”

    Now all of these things, to a guy, seem relatively insignificant and easily dismissible. But as my friend would explain, getting this sort of constant low-level disrespect can make the whole sport feel somewhat hostile to women.
    Now my friend likes looking at attractive people as much as anyone else, she’d have no problem with the concept of booth babes. But she WOULD have a problem with automatically writing any attractive female in the gun world off as a ‘booth babe’. And to be honest, if we as a community are going to welcome the other half of the country that’s starting to join us, we should have a problem with it too.

    Just my 2c at least 🙂

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      TL;DR – Your friend is pissed at (all? most? many?) male shooters because a handful are flat out morons (their behavior had nothing to do with sexism, it’s a lack of brain cells). Also, men should not verbally express attraction towards females around any females at any place or any time. Women though may make any comments they want about men at any time or place.

      1. avatar dshim83 says:

        Why so obtuse? Nothing in Chris’ comment said anything like “men should not verbally express attraction towards females around any females at any place or any time.” That is a complete non-sequitur.

        What his comment did note, is that for the thousands of women going to join shooting and even for those who are well versed – there is a continuous theme of low-level disrespect that women face throughout the gun community.

        Whether that’s in having the gun shop worker telling her she can’t handle anything more than a .22 or having some guy walk up to her, touch her without her permission, and slap a pink revolver in her hand at a gun show – it is a reality that we have to face directly, and not a concern that we should dismiss out of hand.

        If this were a medical conference, there would similarly be women who wish to be respected as doctors first – attractive women second.

        You say that the actions of those individuals has nothing to do with sexism…what would it take to constitute sexism for you? His friend was treated in a specific way because of her gender – booth guys aren’t grabbing men and slapping pink .22’s in their hands.

        The last thing we need to do is to get defensive about the reality of sexism in the gun community – times are changing, and we need to call people out where necessary – so as to get with the times.

    2. avatar g says:

      Chris: very reasonable observations and good points.

  35. avatar Don says:

    Why do the booth babe objectors think that calling a woman a babe is the same as calling a woman stupid? Sounds like the sexist belief that a woman can either be smart or hot, not both. One thing’s got nothing to do with the other.

    I see no problem with the booth babe posts. Nor does my girlfriend, who is both highly intelligent and a babe.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      A good point. But I think it’s the connotation. The JOB of a booth babe is to be attractive, that’s why they’re there. For the most part it doesn’t matter if the booth babe has an IQ of 150 or 80, as long as they can recite the sales pitch and answer a few questions.

      In the case of the NRA woman, she wasn’t hired to be attractive, she’s hired to show people around.

      The issue is ignoring the person’s intelligence and purpose and focusing on their body. I have no problem with acknowledging that someone is attractive, as long as it doesn’t become a definition. IE- person1 can shoot a 3″ group at 300ft, person2 won the IDPA last week, person3 is attractive and I want to have sex with them, person4 is a certified instructor… in that example any achievements or skills person3 has are ignored because their body gets focused on.
      Does that make sense?

      1. avatar Don says:

        I have the ability to appreciate someone’s physical beauty without making any assumptions about their intelligence, and the ability to appreciate someone’s intelligence without making any assumptions about their physical beauty.

        If there is a problem with connotation it is being set by people who can’t do one, the other, or neither. That includes any true objectives, and all of the booth babe complainers .

        1. avatar Don says:

          * objectifiers

      2. avatar Sota says:

        problem is you only presented 1 aspect of the overall “picture” of all 4 persons in question. you conveniently/deliberately/subconsiously (you can choose) neglected to discuss about 3 their physical characteristics and about 1 their shooting prowess.

        that says to me person 3 is attractive to you on a carnal level. the other 3 are not. beyond that there’s no other inferences or judgements that can be logically made.

        the inability or unwillingness to accept the more basic side of your humanity (the drive for reproduction) is what causes people to get their nickers in a twist. or to put it another way… the more uptight you get about a subject the more likely someone will take offense (which is their own fault, not yours.)

        1. avatar Chris says:

          I fully agree with the second part (that acknowledging ones own reproductive drive is healthy), and it is not at all my intent to be uptight.

          With my ‘4 persons’, I meant what I said. I’m NOT saying we shouldn’t appreciate or acknowledge attractiveness where it exists. I’m saying that when a girl is involved with shooting we should acknowledge her as a shooter first and an attractive female second.

          Let me flip this around- let’s say you won some regional match and TTAG covered it. And let’s say their article about you was primarily focusing on your physical fitness (or lack thereof) with your shooting as an afterthought. Wouldn’t you feel just a LITTLE miffed that they are focusing on your love handles instead of your amazing scores? Now imagine that happens ALL THE TIME. It’d get old.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I don’t think Nick’s done a 3-gun recap yet that at least one person hasn’t commented on his “out of shape-ness.” 😀

    2. avatar Bruce B. says:

      “Sounds like the sexist belief that a woman can either be smart or hot, not both. ”

      What I was trying to say. Thanks!

  36. avatar csmallo says:

    It seems somewhat hypocritical that you pull the “no flames” card out when people refer to you as a “creeper”, but leave up numerous posts calling liberals names and posts using vulgar word play on politicians names.

    Personally, I don’t really care who calls who what, but to whine about “flames” when you are the target and not step up when “libtard, Gov Chickenpooper, and low info voter” get thrown around is the sign of a coward.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Friendly, friendly advice: be careful who you call a coward. Fighting words are an incitement to… well, fight.

  37. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Personally I’m not offended. However, I’ve got to ask the question: How inclusive do you want to be? There might just happen to be some ladies (and gentlemen) that would be interested in this website’s content but aren’t comfortable with the fairly frequent pictures/comments posted that seem nothing more than a gratuitous…….. Where was I? I got distracted. Anyway, I say keep it down to a dull roar. That way this doesn’t become “TTAG for OFWG’s that used to hang Rigid Tool calendars in their garage, everybody else keep out”.

    1. avatar Rich says:

      I agree. It’s about inclusiveness. You have the freedom to post whatever pics you want on your blog, no one can stop you. But do you want a gun blog, or a babe blog? Make up your mind. Why not start a website called “The Truth About Boobs?” Quite frankly, while I love the articles, and the quality of the writing here, the gratuitousness is the one thing that has always left me a little uncomfortable. When I check up on this website, I often do so with a quick glance over my shoulder.

      You know what? I am a guy who loves and respects his wife. I am a guy who believes in keeping one’s mind pure. Criticize that if you want, but that is who I am. I can’t stop you from posting gratuitous pics, but I can stop reading. This article has given me pause to think, and I think I am going to remove TTAG from my bookmarks. In some ways I will miss it, but in some ways I will feel better about myself.

      So again, it’s about inclusiveness. If you stop posting babes, do you really think your followers will abandon your high quality articles in droves? Are people REALLY offended by a LACK of smuttiness?

      Thank you for all the great info, and I wish you well in the future.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        “I can’t stop you from posting gratuitous pics, but I can stop reading.”

        Have you actually tried not reading it, or are you just running off at the mouth?

  38. avatar Jeff W says:

    The guns are “the cake”.
    The booth babes are the “eating it too” part.
    Perfect combo!

  39. avatar Jon says:

    I live by this one rule:
    If someone wants to act a certain way, that’s their business. I could care less and I move on. If their behavior or attitude is one that I should live by their standard then we are gonna have a problem.

    That being said, I don’t post comments on the Internet that I wouldn’t say to someone if they were standing right next to me.

    In the other story, Chelcee expressed surprise at being called a “booth babe”. I commented that she may not be a booth babe but that she is still a babe. I’d like to think I was complimenting her, not insulting her. If she wants to call me a “creep” then that’s her prerogative.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Amusingly that “booth babe” is wearing a long sleeve shirt that shows zero cleavage and her most attractive feature is her eyes. But apparently even that is offensive to these Puritans.

  40. avatar Joseph says:

    RF, please, whenever you’re at a function that has booth babes, stop taking so damn many pictures of guns.

  41. avatar Joseph says:

    Considering that these women are adults, know what they’re being hired to do (look pretty and smile to sell product) and agreed to be photographed it’s an open and shut case of “meh.”

    Personally I could do without the licentious asides, you’re not selling the Ladies RF, I think that’s probably what people are taking issue with most but again as long as it’s not outright vulgar or disrespectful then… “meh.”

    If commentors don’t like it then they shouldn’t read it, see a picture of an attractive woman on a TTAG article then don’t make the jump because you might risk being offended by RF’s sexism, simple as that.

  42. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    RF If you actually spend more than 15 seconds agonizing over your BB photos or associated comments you’ve wasted your time. I enjoy reading TTAG, but honestly it ain’t like reading Spinoza. It is an enjoyable couple of minutes in my life. Then I move on to real stuff I have to do. If pretty girls liven up your day, fine. Kim du Toit was the father of gun blogging and he had his share of female’s in the mix. That makes it ok with me.

    1. avatar Bruce B. says:

      And I still miss him.

  43. avatar Shenandoah says:

    TTAG is like a very, very large circle of drinking buddies. I think people need to drop the false sense of decorum, drop the PC omg what-did-he-just-say! attitude and speak freely and openly.

    This blog, by and large, got to where it is based on the staff’s writing style and free flow of thoughts & opinions. Let’s be honest, none of us is here to read some boring, inside-the-box delivery from USA Today.

    Words like “prowling” and “creeping” are in common usage today between bros giving each other a hard time for being less than smooth with the ladies and the connotations are far removed from any sort of mistreatment of the fairer sex.

    Robert is not approaching this is any sort of disrespectful or over the line fashion. He is not vulgar nor do I think his tactics would drive away women readers. I do think, however, that having female generated articles from time to time would be a huge bonus to expand female readership.

    Robert & Co., keep up the good work, and keep this site fun.

    1. avatar Bruce B. says:

      “…having female generated articles from time to time would be a huge bonus to expand female readership.”

      A neat goal, but not just any female. Keep your high standards on content.

      (And, oh yeah. She’s got to be HOT!)
      /sarc

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Exactly.
      And while I admire a beautiful gun, I also admire a beautiful woman.
      This site is yours Robert. If folks don’t like it, they don’t have to read here.
      I think, overall, the comments from folks here are positive in regards to your question.
      Keep up the great work.

  44. avatar Jay W. says:

    Before this posting, I’ve never considered that TTAG was sexist. In hindsight, since I am also a MAWG like RF, my perspective was biased.

    Anyway, maybe TTAG needs to occasionally include some “eye candy” for its female readers?

  45. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    I love when you include the links to the hot Israeli models (even though I have to click back to finish the post) and I think you do it in good taste. You’ll always piss someone off no matter what you do, so I wouldn’t change a thing. I also would like to see the flaming policy suspended once a month so we can flame the douche bag COMMIE TROLLS.

  46. avatar Sammy says:

    I hear a lot about God given rights for self defense on this fine forum. Given that, I would suggest that the creator, be it design or logic, made women and men to be drawn to each other for self preservation. We are not drawn to unpleasant things. Being a male I find no greater beauty in life than the female form. I believe uninhibited women would second that feeling towards men. Mr. Farago has not violated any level of respect for women. On the contrary, I believe his posting of glorious works of nature to be refreshing and a high level of tribute to life. There isn’t a thing wrong with the acknowledgement of the exceptional, be it a tracking scope system or a flower at the apex of it’s (her) beauty. If you find such pictures “dirty” or inappropriate you have deeper problems than a person who can appreciate a beautiful woman with a charming smile. You go RF!

  47. avatar RKBA says:

    WWTND?

    (What Would Ted Nugent Do?)

    Just sayin’

    🙂

  48. avatar SigGuy says:

    Calm down everyone. If you had gone to the convention, these girls would’ve gotten your attention, you would’ve had the same thoughts in your head (she is hot etc.) Nobody would’ve cared and life would’ve gone on. Guess what? It happens everyday all around the world, it is completely natural, and nobody cares.

  49. avatar dwb says:

    I am pretty sure these women in the pictures can defend themselves. I feel sure that if they felt the pictures/comments were creepy, inappropriate, or unwanted they would stick up for themselves (and not allow the picture to be posted). They do not need us being their nannies.

    And yes, i have a daughter.

  50. avatar thatoneguy says:

    I really don’t understand what the problem is here. They are working, and your (our) interest keeps them employed. If I could have cut is a male model out there getting paid to walk around with my shirt off whilst women photographed me or made whatever comments they wanted I would have been all in. I’m pretty sure it would have been a much more stress free career than what I am currently doing.

  51. avatar g says:

    I don’t necessarily mind the booth babe pictures, but I see where the controversy might be. If TTAG’s mission is to be a more inclusive site for the gun owning community, the delicate art of balancing admiration for booth babes versus outright “creeper”-type comments merits a discussion.

    Female shooters are becoming a bigger part of the gun community – why doesn’t TTAG consider advertising / finding a female staff writer? I know FateofDestinee has contributed a few articles, but maybe having more regular content by a female gun owner would be helpful. It’s not that having a female writer in and of itself would automatically make TTAG more inclusive, BUT having a female writer on staff would be another person you could consult about posts that you might question, “Do you think this guys too far to the side of creeper?”

  52. avatar Labman says:

    Hey RF, I’m not offended. The ladies are there because they want to be there and are usually paid by a modeling agency to add attraction to the booths. I worked conventions for years and we always hired models. Only PC has made the human form unacceptable and frankly, I prefer the models over PC. And it beats the heck out of having to look at Obama’s sneers and glares. Girls and guns… Awesome!

  53. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Wow, left for a few hours and the comments damn near doubled. The ratio however, seems to remain the same. The greater part of those who have voiced their opinions stand by you Robert, notwithstanding those who disagree, or the ones who basically have threatened to kiss off TTAG. If one views it from a marketing point of view, you’re good. If one takes a look from the Politically Correct angle, you should burn in Hell. Speaking only for myself-I hope to find either cold beer or hot whiskey in Hades.

  54. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    You should be ashamed Robert, ashamed that miss red white & blue wasn’t crated up & sent to me like I axed. Seriously, it’s nice of you to give time to the haters, that shows your open mind. Now tell em to f off & please send more fluff, Randy

  55. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    My only issue with your booth babe commentaries RF is that they cheapen your voice.

    Back when I was single, there were two kinds of guys. The guys who could go meet women and keep company with them, and the kinds that only hung out with other guys, talked about how manly they were and never got much attention from women. I’m not supposing to know what you are actually like in person, but you sound like you would fall into the second category, which slightly detracts from your credibility as coming across as a normal guy, at least in my mind.

    It’s like the middle aged dudes with the corvettes who always talk about how women love their corvettes but the only company they keep is other corvette dudes, dudes who can’t quite afford a corvette yet, and Hooters waitresses who are required to pay attention to them as long as they are seated at their table.

    I have no idea how you can share the glory of the booth babes on this without sounding like Quagmire, but often the commentaries don’t help. For the most part i would venture a guess we’re men here and I’m pretty sure it’s (for the most part) natural law that men like to look at women, it doesn’t need further explanation.

  56. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve never seen a picture of a rifle in the Ladies Home Journal or Cosmopolitan, so in retaliation TTAG shouldn’t show any pictures of attractive women on its pages. That’ll teach ’em a lesson that they’ll never forget. It will also shut up the bed wetters who are complaining about the photographs.

    See? All fixed.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      “Bed wetters”! Excellent. And hey, bed wetters – consult a naturopath.

  57. avatar JohnO says:

    Robert,
    I wonder how this is received by many female readers, or potential readers. Women are an important and growing part of the gun culture, a trend that needs to be encouraged to help convert a largely anti-gun demographic into a pro-gun one. Are you getting any adverse comments from the deadlier sex? One also wonders how many women are put off, and leave the site forever without commenting. Something to consider.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I don’t care if we’re talking about guns, cars, economics, or pets. If a woman wants to throw a temper tantrum because men are talking about what they like or do not like in a woman, then I don’t want them around. I’d say the same for men throwing a fit about women talking about what they like or don’t like in a man. If you’re too insecure to handle people’s opinions, then you shouldn’t be interacting with other people.

      1. avatar Jericho941 says:

        It’s easy to say that when you know you’ll never have to do it.

      2. avatar dshim83 says:

        See, why do you assume that a woman would “throw a temper tantrum” over this? Would it be so unbelievable for a woman to see these posts, and think gee “it’s too bad TTAG wants to be an old boys club, I like them but its disappointing.”

        “Critique” and “throwing a fit” are entirely different responses. And plenty of competent, well adjusted women, are perfectly comfortable offering critique of sexism they perceive in a perfectly rational manner.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      When did women you don’t know and have never heard from, or of, become such a blazing concern to you? Are you contemplating surgery?

      1. avatar Jericho941 says:

        “When did women you don’t know and have never heard from, or of, become such a blazing concern to you?”

        It became a concern when I learned how hard it can be to present shooting as anything other than an old boys’ club of backwards fools, paranoid manchildren, drunken rednecks, and ticking time bombs. Y’all are doing a stellar job of reinforcing stereotypes.

        “Are you contemplating surgery?”

        No. Are you? ‘Cause I find it interesting that you feel the slightest bit of empathy and criticism of manners is a threat to your manhood.

  58. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Booth babes are OK with me. I am too old to get excited about much anymore, just my wife and fine weaponry.

  59. avatar MWorrell says:

    I find the leering and random links very creepy and juvenile. Makes me feel like the writer is so pathetically desperate and lonely that he no longer has good judgement and is trapped in the seventies. In short, a detriment to an otherwise awesome site.

  60. avatar Mike Bryant says:

    I just read the articles.

  61. I wish to show my affection for your kindness for people who should have guidance on this particular subject matter. Your personal commitment to passing the solution all through had become surprisingly functional and has constantly made many people like me to arrive at their desired goals. This helpful useful information means a great deal a person like me and still more to my colleagues. Thanks a lot; from everyone of us.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email