# UK captains of industry have charity night where they sexually assault young female 'hostesses'



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

The FT went undercover at a men only charity event at the Dorchester to raise money for Great Ormond Street. 360 senior men in industry were waiting upon by 136 young women who had to be 'tall, pretty and thin'. The women acted as hostesses in tiny dresses, matching underwear and heels. Among the auction prizes were a course of plastic surgery 'to add spice to your wife'.

On the seating plan were Philip Green, Peter Jones from Dragons' Den, Tim Steiner the head of Ocado and Nadhim Zahawi, undersecretary of state for children and families.

The 'hostesses' were sexually assaulted and propositioned. The evening was hosted by David Walliams.

Article here - it's behind a paywall but you should be able to read this: Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show

Still, no harm done, because it's all in the name of charidee


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

"Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson.."
What is wrong with these people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2018)

theres a guardian story on it as well. Peter Jones has the look, I always said it. But yeah, rank. Entitled wealthy blokes with a few drinks down them. But charidee eh!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

for anyone who can't read it


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2018)

That's grim.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2018)

I've always thought Walliams was creepy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## Badgers (Jan 24, 2018)

There have been past reports on this event, just none so detailed.


----------



## JimW (Jan 24, 2018)

Christ, and of course you know it's going on up and down the land all the time at events they don't get a reporter to.


----------



## Sue (Jan 24, 2018)

Someone performing at it was interviewed on R4 this morning and said there was a section in the programme about behaviour which stated that attendees shouldn't grope the hostesses.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 125983
> View attachment 125984
> View attachment 125985
> View attachment 125986
> ...



Thanks for those.


----------



## JimW (Jan 24, 2018)

Sue said:


> Someone performing at it was interviewed on R4 this morning and said there was a section in the programme about behaviour which stated that attendees shouldn't grope the hostesses.


Full page notice it said in the article. Like when you have to make a law banning something, proof that they know it goes on. And doubtless know full well a page in the programme isn't going to stop it.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

The second article from the FT: 



> *‘A boob job for the missus’ — a night at the Presidents Club*
> 
> _Old-school approach to fundraising from three-decades-old charitable institution_
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jan 24, 2018)

> “A boob job for the missus — ten grand to get me started,” bellowed broadcaster Jonny Gould, the man in charge of whipping up the crowd into a bidding frenzy. His introduction to lot 8 was typical — a course of plastic surgery donated by 111 Harley Street clinic, whose founder, *Dr Yannis Alexandrides,* was on the guest list.



I went on a stag night with that cunt


----------



## jusali (Jan 24, 2018)

They really think they're untouchable..............


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 24, 2018)

Sue said:


> Someone performing at it was interviewed on R4 this morning and said there was a section in the programme about behaviour which stated that attendees shouldn't grope the hostesses.


They know fine well that's going to happen, and they don't give a damn, regardless of what it says in their programme. They could have hired male waiters if they were genuinely bothered. Which they're not.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

These things are nothing new. Many years ago I was regularly invited, and attended, events where much worse went on. I am embarrassed to admit I thought it was fun. Luckily I've grown up a lot now, unlike some of these men.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

Jimmy Savile also raised a lot of money for charity.


----------



## not a trot (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> "Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson.."
> What is wrong with these people.



The chance to punch Boris in the face with immunity from prosecution would have been a worthwhile auction.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 24, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> They know fine well that's going to happen, and they don't give a damn, regardless of what it says in their programme. They could have hired male waiters if they were genuinely bothered. Which they're not.



yeah - its pathetic arse covering. Severely undermined by forcing the women to sign a disclamer beforehand. Be good to see the organisers sued under employment/ health and safety law for knowingly putting their employees at serious risk of abuse.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 24, 2018)

Disgusting but not surprising.

Charity? isn't that just a way of dodging tax and getting things cheep for people of a certain type of income?

All that guff about protecting employees! Ha ha. £175 for an evening and you can get as pissed as you dare! Exploitative cunts.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

This is how they live.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> yeah - its pathetic arse covering. Severely undermined by forcing the women to sign a disclamer beforehand. Be good to see the organisers sued under employment/ health and safety law for knowingly putting their employees at serious risk of abuse.


Totally.  I can't believe that any disclaimers are worth the paper they are written on.  People can't just sign away their statutory rights.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Totally.  I can't believe that any disclaimers are worth the paper they are written on.  People can't just sign away their statutory rights.


well they can. but they can't enforce it.



Contracts of employment

as the disclaimers seem to be part of the contract (as they had to sign it to work) i expect the position would be exactly the same as the cab state here


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

GOSH are apparently returning the donations.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> GOSH are apparently returning the donations.


For the last 33 years?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 24, 2018)

I have a feelng that whoever won the bid for a course of plastic surgery for his wife is going to regret it when he sobers up, I bet telling her wil be an interesting conversation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> For the last 33 years?


not sure they've received donations all that time, i think it's gone to a range of places rather than always gosh


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I have a feelng that whoever won the bid for a course of plastic surgery for his wife is going to regret it when he sobers up, I bet telling her wil be an interesting conversation.


might need it himself after what i anticipate will be a difficult conversation.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I have a feelng that whoever won the bid for a course of plastic surgery for his wife is going to regret it when he sobers up, I bet telling her wil be an interesting conversation.


Either that, or he actually bought it for his mistress.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

'Time is up' for City sexists after hostess party fundraiser shame


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2018)

_MPs and business leaders._ Fuck me, _progress_.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I have a feelng that whoever won the bid for a course of plastic surgery for his wife is going to regret it when he sobers up, I bet telling her wil be an interesting conversation.



Shame he's probably too old to donate some useful organs to Great Ormond Street.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

It makes me wonder how many other things like this have been left off the radar, but may now be exposed because the times they are a changing. Albeit multiple decades after it was claimed this stuff had already been consigned to the dustbins of history.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 24, 2018)

I'm waiting for names to be named, if one of them is Nadhim Zahawi then his political career is pretty much fucked, Mayhem is in enough shit wthout accusations of the minister for children and families acting like Donald Trump


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I'm waiting for names to be named, if one of them is Nadhim Zahawi then his political career is pretty much fucked, Mayhem is in enough shit wthout accusations of the minister for children and families acting like Donald Trump


perhaps you should read page 1 of the thread where names are named.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not sure they've received donations all that time, i think it's gone to a range of places rather than always gosh


Whoever it's gone to will have seen the  publicity, though. The "most unPC night of the year" won't be a surprise to them.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Story of course not broken by any of the 360 men attending (this year or any other year) but by two journalists who went in as 'hostesses'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Story of course not broken by any of the 360 men attending (this year or any other year) but by two journalists who went in as 'hostesses'.


Of course the story wasn't known about for decades and sat on only  to be cynically dusted out by click-hungry editors and hero journos - who pretty much piss in the same pot. Nope, all honourable here. _MPs and business leaders_


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> Peter Jones has the look, I always said it.



Me too, but I've been told by many that he's a good bloke and I'm just imagining things.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

I've had the misfortune to read two of Walliams' books to my son and I refused to buy him another one because they are so fucking sexist. All the women are one dimensional sexist stereotypes. I really hope his career crashes and burns on the back of this


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I've always thought Walliams was creepy.


Same. Was going to type that. 



Ms Dandridge's role is the one I am finding most sickening. Posh pimp


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I've had the misfortune to read two of Walliams' books to my son and I refused to buy him another one because they are so fucking sexist. All the women are one dimensional sexist stereotypes. I really hope his career crashes and burns on the back of this


Classist too re Vicky Pollard, fucking horrendous show that was.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> For the last 33 years?



Their statement suggests they were not due money this time round and are returning past donations.

Hospital shuns scandal charity donations



> "We have had no involvement in the organisation of this event and were never due to receive money from it."
> 
> She added: "We would never knowingly accept donations raised in this way.
> 
> "All monies raised in our name go to support vital work. However, due to the wholly unacceptable nature of the event we are returning previous donations and will no longer accept gifts from the Presidents Club Charitable Trust."


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Jimmy Savile also raised a lot of money for charity.



Charity has always been a useful cover for the rich and depraved.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> GOSH are apparently returning the donations.



Surely it's better to do something actually useful with the money, rather than give it back to these scumbags to swell their rohypnol and Viagra budget?


----------



## polly (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Ms Dandridge's role is the one I am finding most sickening. Posh pimp



Really? I'm finding the men perpetrating the assault the worst.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 24, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> yeah - its pathetic arse covering. Severely undermined by forcing the women to sign a disclamer beforehand. Be good to see the organisers sued under employment/ health and safety law for knowingly putting their employees at serious risk of abuse.


They're above the law so don't hold your breath waiting. A disclaimer with no copy for one of the parties, is that legal or enforceable.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Surely it's better to do something actually useful with the money, rather than give it back to these scumbags to swell their rohypnol and Viagra budget?


Well I would have thought so but then I guess it's like blood diamonds isn't it? I'm not sure I'd want my child treated knowing that the MRI scanner had been bought using money made by exploiting and assaulting young women


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

polly said:


> Really? I'm finding the men perpetrating the assault the worst.


Maybe I mean more shocking, as that particular part feels like SSDD to me.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Well I would have thought so but then I guess it's like blood diamonds isn't it? I'm not sure I'd want my child treated knowing that the MRI scanner had been bought using money made by exploiting and assaulting young women



Well, the money was originally appropriated from workers by these rich, mostly tax-avoiding businessmen, so I think it's arguable that the money has found its way back to where it should have been in the first place.


----------



## polly (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Maybe I mean more shocking, as that particular part feels like SSDD to me.



My point is that, regardless of how badly men behave, there's always a woman whose fault it is/who's singled out for the worst of the opprobrium.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Of course the story wasn't known about for decades and sat on only  to be cynically dusted out by click-hungry editors and hero journos - who pretty much piss in the same pot. Nope, all honourable here. _MPs and business leaders_



Sturgeon thinks it is brave reporting. It speaks volumes that there is at least a perception that it still requires much bravery to expose this shit in 2018. If half as much progress had actually been made as has been claimed for recent decades, individuals wouldnt have to be so brave to confront and expose this shit.

Or perhaps FT are brave in Sturgeons eyes because they are 'savaging their own side'.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I'm waiting for names to be named, if one of them is Nadhim Zahawi then his political career is pretty much fucked, Mayhem is in enough shit wthout accusations of the minister for children and families acting like Donald Trump





> Newsnight's political editor, Nicholas Watt, said he understood that new Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi was present, but that he left early because he felt "it was a bizarre and uncomfortable event".
> 
> Mr Watt added: "It's worth pointing out that he has been to the event before - that's before he was elected an MP in 2010 - but as I understand it, he felt that the event then was completely different to the event that he attended last week."
> 
> A Department for Education spokesperson told the BBC that Mr Zahawi "attended in a personal capacity. It was not official departmental business and as such we are unable to comment further."



Hospital shuns scandal charity donations


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

polly said:


> My point is that, regardless of how badly men behave, there's always a woman whose fault it is/who's singled out for the worst of the opprobrium.


Honestly, that wasn't my intention. As should have been clear from my re wording in the next post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Sturgeon thinks it is brave reporting. It speaks volumes that there is at least a perception that it still requires much bravery to expose this shit in 2018. If half as much progress had actually been made as has been claimed for recent decades, individuals wouldnt have to be so brave to confront and expose this shit.
> 
> Or perhaps FT are brave in Sturgeons eyes because they are 'savaging their own side'.



it is of course brave as she wants at least some journos on her side.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> It speaks volumes that there is at least a perception that it still requires much bravery to expose this shit in 2018. If half as much progress had actually been made as has been claimed for recent decades, individuals wouldnt have to be so brave to confront and expose this shit.



I dont think that sentiment came out quite how I meant it, but I dont feel very coherent today so I am struggling to find the right words. I'm not moaning at victims and others for needing to be brave in 2018, and we already know from metoo and other things that all this shit has carried on in the decades it was claimed to be largely a thing of the past and incompatible with modern values.


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> These things are nothing new. Many years ago I was regularly invited, and attended, events where much worse went on. I am embarrassed to admit I thought it was fun. Luckily I've grown up a lot now, *unlike some of these men*.



And what are you doing about them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Sturgeon thinks it is brave reporting. It speaks volumes that there is at least a perception that it still requires much bravery to expose this shit in 2018. If half as much progress had actually been made as has been claimed for recent decades, individuals wouldnt have to be so brave to confront and expose this shit.
> 
> Or perhaps FT are brave in Sturgeons eyes because they are 'savaging their own side'.



tbh i bet all the people who are or have been invited have been approached by friends or colleagues and know full well what they're going to before they set foot in the place and therefore the people who might have blown the whistle have been excluded from the off.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i bet all the people who are or have been invited have been approached by friends or colleagues and know full well what they're going to before they set foot in the place and therefore the people who might have blown the whistle have been excluded from the off.



Yep, sounds right.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Surely it's better to do something actually useful with the money, rather than give it back to these scumbags to swell their rohypnol and Viagra budget?


Keeping the money validates the event and just gives them an excuse to keep holding it. If no one will touch their money they have no excuse to hold their charity auction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2018)

They'll just go underground.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> They'll just go underground.


They'll just go to strip clubs or whatever, but at least they can't pretend to be some great philanthropist, while doing it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> They'll just go underground.



A lot of this stuff already is.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Keeping the money validates the event and just gives them an excuse to keep holding it. If no one will touch their money they have no excuse to hold their charity auction.


Then just don't take it in future. They're talking about returning past donations which is fucking stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2018)

emanymton said:


> They'll just go to strip clubs or whatever, but at least they can't pretend to be some great philanthropist, while doing it.





8ball said:


> A lot of this stuff already is.



I wasn't being serious. I was just -  in passing - comparing it to the logic of  say _mobs _of w/c women demanding an end to paedos being dumped on their estates and what that might entail and the logic of stopping this.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Then just don't take in future. They're talking about returning past donations which is fucking stupid.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

It should be given to the women who had to endure that awful shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Badgers said:


> There have been past reports on this event, just none so detailed.



judging by the indie story and the ft one the event seems to take place the same day each year. i wonder what the chances are of having a picket of it next year?


----------



## kittyP (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Story of course not broken by any of the 360 men attending (this year or any other year) but by two journalists who went in as 'hostesses'.


Exactly what I was thinking 
It's beyond depressing that out of all those men that have attended over the years not one had second thoughts about it and spilled. 
Not fucking one. 
It's... GAH!


----------



## Badgers (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> judging by the indie story and the ft one the event seems to take place the same day each year. i wonder what the chances are of having a picket of it next year?


I might pop along (wearing a little black dress)

Wonder if there will be any sexual assault cases? The hotel must have CCTV even if the assaultes women do not come forward. Have the police made any statement at all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Badgers said:


> I might pop along (wearing a little black dress)
> 
> Wonder if there will be any sexual assault cases? The hotel must have CCTV even if the assaultes women do not come forward. Have the police made any statement at all?


i thought red was more your colour. the hotel will have cctv, but given their hosting of a range of other unpleasant events (hunt balls leap to mind) i think they'll be keeping any footage close to their chests unless some sort of legal application's made for it.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you should read page 1 of the thread where names are named.


I don't mean just being there I mean being direclly accused of doing something inappropriate, like trying to stick his hand up someone's skirt or making an inappropriate offer to one of the hostesses, From the description in the article he seems to be too young to be the one displaying his dick. There were 360 men there, I doubt all of them behaved as badly as some of them obviously did. I'm wondering now that it is in the open if one of these girls will come forward to level specific accusations such as I m the girl that Sir Cuntface chairman of Robbing Bastards PLC offered money to dance on the table without my knickers and I think Lady Cuntface should know that her husband is propositioning girls the same age as his own daughter.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought red was more your colour. the hotel will have cctv, but given their hosting of a range of other unpleasant events (hunt balls leap to mind) i think they'll be keeping any footage close to their chests unless some sort of legal application's made for it.



In which case the cameras were on the blink again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I don't mean just being there I mean being direclly accused of doing something inappropriate, like trying to stick his hand up someone's skirt or making an inappropriate offer to one of the hostesses, From the description in the article he seems to be too young to be the one displaying his dick. There were 360 men there, I doubt all of them behaved as badly as some of them obviously did. I'm wondering now that it is in the open if one of these girls will come forward to level specific accusations such as I m the girl that Sir Cuntface chairman of Robbing Bastards PLC offered money to dance on the table without my knickers and I think Lady Cuntface should know that her husband is propositioning girls the same age as his own daughter.


it doesn't particularly matter whether he was fucking the queen of sheba over a table - he was at the very least invited to attend and had paid for a ticket. he was complicit in everything that occurred unless - and i doubt this was the case - he has been spending the morning with his lawyer giving a statement regarding what seems to have been a conspiracy to sexually assault.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> In which case the cameras were on the blink again.


good point well made


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I don't mean just being there I mean being direclly accused of doing something inappropriate, like trying to stick his hand up someone's skirt or making an inappropriate offer to one of the hostesses, From the description in the article he seems to be too young to be the one displaying his dick. There were 360 men there, I doubt all of them behaved as badly as some of them obviously did. I'm wondering now that it is in the open if one of these girls will come forward to level specific accusations such as I m the girl that Sir Cuntface chairman of Robbing Bastards PLC offered money to dance on the table without my knickers and I think Lady Cuntface should know that her husband is propositioning girls the same age as his own daughter.


The full guest list should be available, in other words.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

Events like this are happening week in, week out, up and down the country 

I know, I’ve found myself working at several over the years, albeit none seemingly quite as bad as this one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

Credit to the FT for doing proper journalism and above all to the two women who went into this fucking rat's nest.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> And what are you doing about them?


I haven't mixed in those circles for about twenty years, and, since leaving the UK, have had no direct or indirect contact with them. Anyone making innapropriate comments or otherwise sexist comments I always challenge. I'm not sure what else I can do.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Credit to the FT for doing proper journalism and above all to the two women who went into this fucking rat's nest.



Fucking hell my mind really is on the blink today - when mentioning Sturgeons point about bravery I was completely focussed on the so-called 'bravery' of the newspaper, with no thought about the bravery of the reporters who put themselves in harms way.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Fucking hell my mind really is on the blink today - when mentioning Sturgeons point about bravery I was completely focussed on the 'bravery' of the newspaper, with no thought about the bravery of the reporters who put themselves in harms way.



Indeed, and they can't have been under any illusions at all about what they were letting themselves in for. The very fact that the job requirements specify a certain type of underwear ffs.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> theres a guardian story on it as well. Peter Jones has the look, I always said it. But yeah, rank. Entitled wealthy blokes with a few drinks down them. But charidee eh!


Doug Richards who was also one of the 'dragons' (yuck) was charged with raping a 13 year old.  Found not guilty because he 'thought she was 17', but the details he did admit to were gruesome. Usual apols for the source:
Dragon's Den's Doug Richard is CLEARED of child sex offences | Daily Mail Online


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i bet all the people who are or have been invited have been approached by friends or colleagues and know full well what they're going to before they set foot in the place and therefore the people who might have blown the whistle have been excluded from the off.



One might almost suggest that they've been trained and practiced in such behaviours and events from an early age. Schooled even.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Indeed, and they can't have been under any illusions at all about what they were letting themselves in for. The very fact that the job requirements specify a certain type of underwear ffs.


The thing I find most chilling is the policing of the women - them being nudged to interact if they weren't doing it enough, pulled out of the loos if they'd been in there too long (and some of them will have had a period to deal with), removal of their mobiles and advice to lie to their boyfriends.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

My ex used to work for an agency doing this kind of hospitality stuff. They stopped offering her work because she refused to take shit from pissed, leery punters. And of course, there's no recourse whatsoever for people fired from a temp agency for a bullshit reason, because they were never 'employed' in the first place.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

David Meller has resigned from the DfE


----------



## Badgers (Jan 24, 2018)

Please get in touch if you would like to talk to us about an event, a model or Artista Refined.

Tel: +44 (0)1488 648 763
Email: caroline@artistaevents.com


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> My ex used to work for an agency doing this kind of hospitality stuff. They stopped offering her work because she refused to take shit from pissed, leery punters. And of course, there's no recourse whatsoever for people fired from a temp agecny for a bullshit reason, because they were never 'employed' in the first place.


I can't tell you how common it is. I lost a job once because I refused to serve the coffee with my blouse undone an extra button. It was a holiday job and I was 17. My boss was 42


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> The thing I find most chilling is the policing of the women - them being nudged to interact if they weren't doing it enough, pulled out of the loos if they'd been in there too long (and some of them will have had a period to deal with), removal of their mobiles and advice to lie to their boyfriends.



That is really skin-crawly stuff, but nothing surprises me in the least, beyond the fact that this was a GOSH benefit.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> My ex used to work for an agency doing this kind of hospitality stuff. They stopped offering her work because she refused to take shit from pissed, leery punters. And of course, there's no recourse whatsoever for people fired from a temp agecny for a bullshit reason, because they were never 'employed' in the first place.


I got sacked from my first job for exactly this. Not being 'friendly' enough to the creepy men who frequented the upstairs room of the central london pub.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> My ex used to work for an agency doing this kind of hospitality stuff. They stopped offering her work because she refused to take shit from pissed, leery punters. And of course, there's no recourse whatsoever for people fired from a temp agecny for a bullshit reason, because they were never 'employed' in the first place.



Let's hope someone goes after these agencies soon.  Otherwise this is just an isolated case to be smoothed over.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i bet all the people who are or have been invited have been approached by friends or colleagues and know full well what they're going to before they set foot in the place and therefore the people who might have blown the whistle have been excluded from the off.


They don’t need to exclude people at all, in certain circles and industries this is just an entirely normalised event and behaviour. They wouldn’t consider someone “blowing the lid” because for an awful lot of the men there there was nothing to expose, they don’t view what happens as anything wrong. They get their boozy night out surrounded by pretty girls, money gets raised for charity. Where’s the harm, just a bit of fun etc etc


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Gig economy charidee corporate rape culture - welcome to Britain.


----------



## maomao (Jan 24, 2018)

Is anyone surprised that the rich and powerful are morally degenerate? How do you think they get to be rich and powerful?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They don’t need to exclude people at all, in certain circles and industries this is just an entirely normalised event and behaviour. They wouldn’t consider someone “blowing the lid” because for an awful lot of the men there there was nothing to expose, they don’t view what happens as anything wrong.



The agency person clearly knew something was wrong though, hence NDA's, removing phones etc.

 Powerful abusers always have enablers to support them; whether by supplying fresh meat or by helping sustain a system where wealth and status are more important than human decency. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would gladly sue one of these women for blowing the whistle on sick and illegal behaviour, in violation of an NDA they weren't allowed to read and were coerced into signing.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

maomao said:


> Is anyone surprised that the rich and powerful are morally degenerate? How do you think they get to be rich and powerful?



I doubt many are surprised. But no matter how obvious things like this are, those who are part of it still absolutely hate specifics coming out and individuals being scrutinised.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Powerful abusers always have enablers to support them; whether by supplying fresh meat or by helping sustain a system where wealth and status are more important than human decency.


 I'm sure Harvey Weinstein's rape team will be looking for new opportunities to use their skill set.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The agency person clearly knew something was wrong though, hence NDA's, removing phones etc.


Nah, I have to sign NDA’s for a very high percentage of the corporate events I work at, sometimes at the most innocuous and banal of things, this is nothing out of the ordinary.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> I doubt many are surprised. But no matter how obvious things like this are, those who are part of it still absolutely hate specifics coming out and individuals being scrutinised.



Good.  Blowing the lid on the whole slew of these semi-criminal industries is long overdue.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 24, 2018)

I think this indicative of our culture in general and I don't think it's exclusive to corporate bullshit events like this, although this is where the worst of it happens of course.  A woman just called LBC and made the very valid point that the same sort of groping happens to men by women at charity events where waiting staff have to be male, well toned and wear the same sort of clothes.  No one should take this sort of shit at work, or anywhere for that matter.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The agency person clearly knew something was wrong though, hence NDA's, removing phones etc.



That's cos the workers might not share the same _habitus_* as the attendees.

*hopefully I'm using the term correctly!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

maomao said:


> Is anyone surprised that the rich and powerful are morally degenerate? How do you think they get to be rich and powerful?



I'm not surprised at all, but there are still plenty who think that the people at the top of the pile got there by somehow being the best people. It's what we're taught to believe after all. It's the justification for an obviously fucked up system, the notion that these degenerates are actually the pinncales of human achievement and their ruthless exploitation of everyone else is just reward for that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nah, I have to sign NDA’s for a very high percentage of the corporate events I work at, sometimes at the most innocuous and banal of things, this is nothing out of the ordinary.



Just because it's normal doesn't mean it's OK.

And not being funny but how often do you get groped or propositioned at work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They don’t need to exclude people at all, in certain circles and industries this is just an entirely normalised event and behaviour. They wouldn’t consider someone “blowing the lid” because for an awful lot of the men there there was nothing to expose, they don’t view what happens as anything wrong. They get their boozy night out surrounded by pretty girls, money gets raised for charity. Where’s the harm, just a bit of fun etc etc


yeh. which is basically what i said, only these certain circles would have been approached: thus anyone who might have considered blowing the whistle would never have been on the list - excluded - from the off. but if they didn't think they were doing anything wrong then there'd be none of this dodgy disclaimer stuff, none of this men only business etc. people know when they're doing wrong and this lot knew very well what they were about, and that it was wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just because it's normal doesn't mean it's OK.
> 
> And not being funny but how often do you get groped or propositioned at work?



Often it will be a precaution against industrial espionage and suchlike.


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2018)

I'm starting to think I'm morally superior to the rest of the male population based solely on the fact I don't masturbate in front of women or grab their tits at any opportuntiy.  The only thing stopping me being elevated to sainthood is I buy coffee from Costa.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not surprised at all, but there are still plenty who think that the people at the top of the pile got there by somehow being the best people. It's what we're taught to believe after all. It's the justification for an obviously fucked up system, the notion that these degenerates are actually the pinncales of human achievement and their ruthless exploitation of everyone else is just reward for that.



Although to be fair we are also taught things that contradict that, such as the idea that shit floats.

And we are certainly taught plenty about hypocrisy, double-standards, power and maintaining the status quote, via practical demonstration at school and in the playground.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Although to be fair we are also taught things that contradict that, such as the idea that shit floats.
> 
> And we are certainly taught plenty about hypocrisy, double-standards and maintaining the status quote, via practical demonstration at school and in the playground.



Well school is a great place to earn that you should be obedient above all, even if the person doing the telling is a nonce or a sadist.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

ha. resignations and calls for resignations, much squirming. 
Charity dinner scandal: calls for education minister Zahawi to quit - live


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 24, 2018)

bemused said:


> I'm starting to think I'm morally superior to the rest of the male population based solely on the fact I don't masturbate in front of women or grab their tits at any opportuntiy.  The only thing stopping me being elevated to sainthood is I buy coffee from Costa.



Haha, quite.  What always gets me whenever this sort of thing is reported is the amount of people who scream about how they don't understand the rules anymore and that men are being demonised or put upon.  It's as if they think not being a creepy sex pest is a really difficult thing to achieve.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well school is a great place to earn that you should be obedient above all, even if the person doing the telling is a nonce or a sadist.



Well, that covers most of the curriculum until about age 15. 
With related clauses eg.

Do what you're told.
Stand in line.
Don't ask the wrong questions.
Don't stand out.
Tolerate boredom until the bell goes.
Demonstrate mandated gender, age and situation-specific behaviours accurately.
Dissemble.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Haha, quite.  What always gets me whenever this sort of thing is reported is the amount of people who scream about how they don't understand the rules anymore and that men are being demonised or put upon.  It's as if they think not being a creepy sex pest is a really difficult thing to achieve.



This is covered by what bees said. 
They don't see what they're doing as under the 'creepy sex pest' umbrella.

So if they are told not to be one they're bound to be confused.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Haha, quite.  What always gets me whenever this sort of thing is reported is the amount of people who scream about how they don't understand the rules anymore and that men are being demonised or put upon.  It's as if they think not being a creepy sex pest is a really difficult thing to achieve.


And then we get the barrage of stuff on Twitter explaining the rules as if it is an education they need. THEY FUCKING KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING!


----------



## steveo87 (Jan 24, 2018)

bemused said:


> I'm starting to think I'm morally superior to the rest of the male population based solely on the fact I don't masturbate in front of women or grab their tits at any opportuntiy.  The only thing stopping me being elevated to sainthood is I buy coffee from Costa.


Do you remember, albeit vaguely, when in school the teacher would teach all about (and I'm paraphrasing) "Don't be a cunt"? 
It would appear that vast swathes of the make population were off sick that day...


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well school is a great place to earn that you should be obedient above all, even if the person doing the telling is a nonce or a sadist.



Even when avoiding noncery and overt sadism, I'm pretty sure I was a fully qualified cynic by the age of 10, or 12 tops. The next phase more of a multi-decade challenge, learning to balance the cynicism and not let it lead to defeatism, indifference, hopelessness or lazy contrarianism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2018)

nah, you know whats on and what isn't, its about thinking ones social position allows no comeback. Something regularly demonstrated to be true.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just because it's normal doesn't mean it's OK.
> 
> And not being funny but how often do you get groped or propositioned at work?


I didn’t say it was OK 

My point is just that an agency being told any event personnel they sent had to sign an NDA wouldn’t raise any suspicions at all. 

As for the second question - more than you’d think. People away from work at a hotel + someone else picking up the bar bill = all sorts of behaviour.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> And then we get the barrage of stuff on Twitter explaining the rules as if it is an education they need. THEY FUCKING KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING!



It's like that Smashy and Nicey or whatever the fuck they were called and their sexist, racist talks they were doing round the country. 
If in doubt, claim that the world changed while you weren't looking and it was all innocent.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I can't tell you how common it is. I lost a job once because I refused to serve the coffee with my blouse undone an extra button. It was a holiday job and I was 17. My boss was 42



I don't know a working class woman who doesn't have a story like this. Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hospitality etc do seem to be especially bad; not least because of the often tenuous job security and lack of pastoral care for workers.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

steveo87 said:


> Do you remember, albeit vaguely, when in school the teacher would teach all about (and I'm paraphrasing) "Don't be a cunt"?
> It would appear that vast swathes of the make population were off sick that day...


I personally remember a lecture from a male teacher about how "when a girl goes bad" it is so much worse than when boys do. I must have been off for the feminist stuff n aw!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't know a working class woman who doesn't have a story like this. Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hospitality etc do seem to be especially bad; not least because of the often tenuous job security and lack of pastoral care for workers.



Entertainment, hospitality, catering, security and 'concierge service' type things. 
They all seem to have secured get-outs on most of the "not treating people like shit" rules.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

By the way in response to Polly again, most of all I meant SORRY for my utterly shite first post! Just to make that clear


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 24, 2018)

_"The boys* tucked into the girls"_

*grown men


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> By the way in response to Polly again, most of all I meant SORRY for my utterly shite first post! Just to make that clear



Like for the sheer novelty value of an unqualified apology in these halls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> By the way in response to Polly again, most of all I meant SORRY for my utterly shite first post! Just to make that clear


that shows a good spirit


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 24, 2018)

Hopefully, hopefully they'll get their comeuppance. But somehow, it won't surprise me if they don't (or most of them anyway)

A few weeks of bad publicity, contrite and contrived apologies etc etc blah blah blah, then onto the next news story.

Oh, and they'll probably be on vacation half way across the world, on some sun-kissed beach which overlooks their villas, to escape the temporary media storm. Then quietly return to face a week or so of mild embarrassment as the story by then has just become another yesterdays news item.

Ideally, though, I hope some of the hostesses will take further action against these vile lumps of skin and legal proceedings will ensue. Fingers crossed for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Hopefully, hopefully they'll get their comeuppance. But somehow, it won't surprise me if they don't (or most of them anyway)
> 
> A few weeks of bad publicity, contrite and contrived apologies etc etc blah blah blah, then onto the next news story.
> 
> ...


i think that while that might have been the case a few months back, it's possible that there will be greater repercussions than you suggest - wouldn't be surprised if peter jones departs dragons den, for instance. and for some of these people it may be their ratner moment.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, that covers most of the curriculum until about age 15.
> With related clauses eg.
> 
> Do what you're told.
> ...



_These_ people will have experienced a somewhat different curriculum to the likes of us.


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Haha, quite.  What always gets me whenever this sort of thing is reported is the amount of people who scream about how they don't understand the rules anymore and that men are being demonised or put upon.  It's as if they think not being a creepy sex pest is a really difficult thing to achieve.



I'm pretty sure if you asked them how they would respond to someone treating their daughter, sisters, mothers or wives like that they'd suggest some sort of violence.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

steveo87 said:


> Do you remember, albeit vaguely, when in school the teacher would teach all about (and I'm paraphrasing) "Don't be a cunt"?
> It would appear that vast swathes of the make population were off sick that day...



Nah. In _their_ schools they would have been taught the exact opposite...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> _These_ people will have experienced a somewhat different curriculum to the likes of us.



Indeed.  Although the aforementioned will figure in there too.


----------



## polly (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> By the way in response to Polly again, most of all I meant SORRY for my utterly shite first post! Just to make that clear



I don't think it was utterly shite and my instinct when reading the article was the same as yours (perhaps it would have been nice of me to admit that!), which is why I pointed it out really: so easy to fall into the trap of blaming the first woman who pops up (and she does sound repugnant too).


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Sorrell has withdrawn WPP's sponsorship of the Presidents' Club, pretending that this shit didn't happen when he was attending. Fucking liar


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> Nah. In _their_ schools they would have been taught the exact opposite...


yeh. if only they could be so easily othered. peter jones, for example, went to state schools.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. if only they could be so easily othered. peter jones, for example, went to state schools.



I'd put money on him being _very _significantly in the minority there.

But school and then university will be a prime location for the reproduction of this _habitus_. Sure, this process will continue afterwards and elsewhere, and yeah, those lacking this background will have to learn quickly to try and fit in.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. if only they could be so easily othered. peter jones, for example, went to state schools.


...oh, and they're "othering" themselves. That's kinda the point.


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think that while that might have been the case a few months back, it's possible that there will be greater repercussions than you suggest - wouldn't be surprised if peter jones departs dragons den, for instance. and for some of these people it may be their ratner moment.



I certainly hope you're right. I think a lot depends on if any of the women concerned do press charges. If so, then, yes, the repercussions could be more a lot more serious. Let's hope that is the scenario.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Their homepage just has a list of the charidees they have supported, no other links. I'm guessing the 'How To Contact Us' link was removed this morning:
The Presidents Club Charity

However their details are still here: 
PRESIDENTS CLUB CHARITABLE TRUST :: OpenCharities


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 24, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, you know whats on and what isn't, its about thinking ones social position allows no comeback. Something regularly demonstrated to be true.



Something made easier by the distance many of them will have been kept from ordinary folk for most of their lives, through privileged education, jobs at the family firm etc. Makes the dehumanising abuse easier. Not like them.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> GOSH are apparently returning the donations.



...The dialysis machine inside the world's largest Christmas cracker will be going back to the manufacturer </Partridge>


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> ...oh, and they're "othering" themselves. That's kinda the point.


right. which is why you posted 


chilango said:


> Nah. In _their_ schools they would have been taught the exact opposite...


and


chilango said:


> _These_ people will have experienced a somewhat different curriculum to the likes of us.


which seems to me you othering them. in many cases - although, i grant you, it's unlikely to have been most - the curriculum these people will have followed will have been the national one people here did, and the schools they've attended will have been state.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

There's now a growing list of organisations saying 'this is deplorable.... we will break all connections with this organisation... however we didn't see anything like that on *our table - oh, and we only stayed for about half an hour'*.  The early to bed myopia of the non-rapey corporatista, eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> There's now a growing list of organisations saying 'this is deplorable.... we will break all connections with this organisation... however we didn't see anything like that on *our table - oh, and we only stayed for about half an hour'*.  The early to bed myopia of the non-rapey corporatista, eh?


i wonder if anyone from specsavers was there


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

i wonder if any of these children have gone on to be hostesses at presidents club events


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> There's now a growing list of organisations saying 'this is deplorable.... we will break all connections with this organisation... however we didn't see anything like that on *our table - oh, and we only stayed for about half an hour'*.  The early to bed myopia of the non-rapey corporatista, eh?



'made my excuses and left'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'made my excuses and left'


and after the extortionate amount of money they'd paid to be there too


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Can we have predictions for the time this afternoon when Walliams give's his fee to (another) charidee? He's a slimely, creepy cunt - and also doing his own version of the 'I was only there for 4 nanoseconds' line - but his PR vassals will be pushing him in that direction. Tax write off as well probably.


----------



## JimW (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 126000
> i wonder if any of these children have gone on to be hostesses at presidents club events


Doesn't even seem much money given the numbers attending over 33 years. Cheapskate rapists too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Can we have predictions for the time this afternoon when Walliams give's his fee to (another) charidee? He's a slimely, creepy cunt - and also doing his own version of the 'I was only there for 4 nanoseconds' line - but his PR vassals will be pushing him in that direction. Tax write off as well probably.


he's in a queue as there aren't enough pr consultants to go round right now


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> right. which is why you posted
> 
> and
> 
> which seems to me you othering them. in many cases - although, i grant you, it's unlikely to have been most - the curriculum these people will have followed will have been the national one people here did, and the schools they've attended will have been state.



Yes, undoubtedly I am "othering" them too. _Distinction_ innit? 

I'd be interested in seeing whether "many" of these people attended state schools. As I said, I'd be very surprised if it was more than a small minority, and thus able to change the dominant _habitus _of the attendees.

Note also, that I'm including the "hidden curriculum" when I talk about curriculum. Though tbh even the official curriculum of independent schools is often pretty explicit in it's production of cultural capital and *coughs* "character education".

This shit isn't just "bad men" (though it is that too) it's structural.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

JimW said:


> Doesn't even seem much money given the numbers attending over 33 years. Cheapskate rapists too.


a quick calculation (20,000,000/33)/360 gives the average spend per perv per year at £1,683.50


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> Yes, undoubtedly I am "othering" them too. _Distinction_ innit?
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing whether "many" of these people attended state schools. As I said, I'd be very surprised if it was more than a small minority, and thus able to change the dominant _habitus _of the attendees.
> 
> ...


i like the way you bring bourdieu out to claim the debate from those who've not struggled all the way through his turgid tomes.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

This would be a nice (well, sort of, ) story for an investigative journalist to go further with: what happened to 'hostesses' at previous events? What was the wording of the invite to the corporate filth who attended this one? Has the recruitment agency got previous with regard to pimping women to rapey events? Have any of the companies who attended got previous with regard to behaviour at similar events? Do they themselves employ 'hostesses'?


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Of the attenddes named on page 1

David Walliams - privately educated.

Phillip Green - privately educated.

Nadhim Zahawi - Privately educated

...I could go on through other names appearfing in the reports. I might tomorrow.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i like the way you bring bourdieu out to claim the debate from those who've not struggled all the way through his turgid tomes.



I'm not "claiming the debate' 

...though, yeah, my own current academic interests are certainly influencing my contributions. Fair cop in that regard, perhaps.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 24, 2018)

> Downing Street said the prime minister was "uncomfortable" at the reports about the dinner and a spokesman added that it was "an event she wouldn't be invited to".



Good to know the heart of government is as on the ball as ever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> I'm not "claiming the debate'
> 
> ...though, yeah, my own current academic interests are certainly influencing my contributions. Fair cop in that regard, perhaps.


adjusting the terms of the debate then. 

you've prompted me to drag my copy of _distinction_ down from its hiding place and put it on the 'to read' list, so fair play to you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> Of the attenddes named on page 1
> 
> David Walliams - privately educated.
> 
> ...


i think you should do: perhaps while you do you could group by school so we can see from which bastions of the ruling class they sprang.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> Of the attenddes named on page 1
> 
> David Walliams - privately educated.
> 
> ...


might have to see what a link analysis of these people looks like... how far do the tentacles of the rapeocracy spead?


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> adjusting the terms of the debate then.



Don't we all?



Pickman's model said:


> you've prompted me to drag my copy of _distinction_ down from its hiding place and put it on the 'to read' list, so fair play to you



It's been off my shelf, and sat closed on the desk for weeks now  Can't get away with postponing it for too much longer...


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you should do: perhaps while you do you could group by school so we can see from which bastions of the ruling class they sprang.



Don't tempt me.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> This shit isn't just "bad men" (though it is that too) it's structural.


Yes it absolutely is. Let's not pretend this is only the privileged elite assaulting wc women. It goes all the way through society. A friend of mine has just told me about attending a members only dinner (so quite senior people) and her (more senior) colleague followed her into the loos, shut the door and suggested she might like to give him a blow job. This shit is endemic in a patriarchal society. These men do it _because they can. _


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Events like this are happening week in, week out, up and down the country
> 
> I know, I’ve found myself working at several over the years, albeit none seemingly quite as bad as this one.


and what did you do about any of the things you witnessed?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Fucking hell, must have been a constant clatter of chairs as these outraged fellers, mortally offended as they were, fled the venue:

David Walliams - 'I left immediately after I had finished my presenting on stage at 11.30pm
Nadhim Zahawi - 'I didn't stay long'
Lord Mendleshon - 'was only present for part of the dinner'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> Of the attenddes named on page 1
> 
> David Walliams - privately educated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Yes it absolutely is. Let's not pretend this is only the privileged elite assaulting wc women. It goes all the way through society. A friend of mine has just told me about attending a members only dinner (so quite senior people) and her (more senior) colleague followed her into the loos, shut the door and suggested she might like to give him a blow job. This shit is endemic in a patriarchal society. These men do it _because they can. _



There's a number of aspects that we could focus on in this particular incident. One is gender. Class is another. 

My contributions will no doubt largely focus on the class aspect (and on the educational side of this as I'm sure readers have noticed).

Others no doubt will contribute on other aspects/from other perspectives.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> and what did you do about any of the things you witnessed?


Honestly? I operated my desk, hit the show cues when the voice in my ear said “go” and got paid. My industry is very small, close knit and has a queue of people a mile long wanting to break in to it and take my job. I have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed. 

So yeah, that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2018)

I see that Walliams has decided he does have a comment now. Prick.

It would also be interesting to see who offered the prize of tea with BofE governor Mark Carney, given that the BBC is now saying:

"However, a Bank of England spokesman said: "The Bank of England did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described nor would it have for that organisation under its guidelines for charitable giving."
The spokesman added that the Bank will not be permitting anyone who secured the "prize" to take it up."

Someone must have offered the prize.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 126001



These historical press articles run the risk of undermining a certain excuse about historical attendance...



> Newsnight's political editor, Nicholas Watt, said he understood that new Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi was present, but that he left early because he felt "it was a bizarre and uncomfortable event".
> 
> Mr Watt added: "It's worth pointing out that he has been to the event before - that's before he was elected an MP in 2010 - but as I understand it, he felt that the event then was completely different to the event that he attended last week."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2018)

Reluctant but deserved kudos for this investigation. I'm glad they exposed these sleazeballs but I'm surprised as I imagine more than a few will be deep in the FT demographic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

a curious thing: this article

doesn't itself mention the presidents club. however, there's this at the end

suggesting the event is or has been widely known about in media circles, if they've sent photographers along.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I see that Walliams has decided he does have a comment now. Prick.



 

Well played.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> There's a number of aspects that we could focus on in this particular incident. One is gender. Class is another.
> 
> My contributions will no doubt largely focus on the class aspect (and on the educational side of this as I'm sure readers have noticed).
> 
> Others no doubt will contribute on other aspects/from other perspectives.


Suppose if you wanted an example of the way class and gender exploitation interacts, this would be it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

anyway that's the extent a search for 1) "presidents club" & charity, and 2) "presidents club" & dorchester returns


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Suppose if you wanted an example of the way class and gender exploitation interacts, this would be it.


i think there'd be an element of power in there too, not to be forgotten


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Honestly? I operated my desk, hit the show cues when the voice in my ear said “go” and got paid. My industry is very small, close knit and has a queue of people a mile long wanting to break in to it and take my job. I have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed.
> 
> So yeah, that.


yeah, "just doing my job" and "not my problem"
a cog in the machine, nice one


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Good work Pickmans.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think there'd be an element of power in there too, not to be forgotten


Absolutely. I was distracted, making sure I didn't use the word 'intersects'.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 24, 2018)

some more developments from the beeb's reporting  ...

Scandal-hit dinner organiser quits post

personally, I'm disgusted by the harassment. I always thought the best fundraising auctions were attended by couples.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _"The boys* tucked into the girls"_
> 
> *grown men




And note what followed that phrase.



> "The boys tucked into the girls," confesses my man on the inside, before adding swiftly: "after I'd left." Naturally.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

> "The boys tucked into the girls," confesses my man on the inside, before adding swiftly: "after I'd left." Naturally.


Must have been very difficult for the caterers with all these lads staying for just 5 minutes, legging it before they even got to the fish course. Why can't corporate sex offenders be more _considerate_?


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

From that same 2010 article:

Slackberry: Hornby considers guru to aid rehab



> All very grand, but the most eye catching part of the event – which is strictly for male diners – was the bevy of hostesses dressed in short black or red dresses, who entered the ballroom after dinner, to the fanfare of Shania Twain's "Feel Like a Woman". Each are paid £120 for "fetching drinks" and "socialising with" the glitzy guests.
> 
> It is quite a racy event for the conservative HSBC to sponsor, but the beauty parade seemed to be something of a hit.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Tonight's event offers guests 2 options:

1. Full 5 course meal and after dinner party

2. Carry out meal with sachet of deniability for those who wish to leave before it gets too rapey


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2018)

chilango said:


> That's cos the workers might not share the same _habitus_* as the attendees.
> 
> *hopefully I'm using the term correctly!



Ye are, ye wee Bourdieu-ite!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't know a working class woman who doesn't have a story like this. Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hospitality etc do seem to be especially bad; not least because of the often tenuous job security and lack of pastoral care for workers.



Greebo used to do Silver Service in the restaurants of a couple of "old-fashioned" West End hotels, in the late eighties and early nineties. She gave up, because she was fed up with what she called "colonel bufton-tuftons" putting their hands up her dress. Apparently the tips were usually very good from women customers, but the blokes only tipped well if they were either young, or with a woman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> he's in a queue as there aren't enough pr consultants to go round right now



Typical of Max Clifford to go and die at the wrong time.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Typical of Max Clifford to go and die at the wrong time.


Perhaps an enterprising clairvoyant could set up a channelling service?


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I haven't mixed in those circles for about twenty years, and, since leaving the UK, have had no direct or indirect contact with them. Anyone making innapropriate comments or otherwise sexist comments I always challenge. I'm not sure what else I can do.



What would have stopped you  when it was you?


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> I doubt many are surprised. But no matter how obvious things like this are, those who are part of it still absolutely hate specifics coming out and individuals being scrutinised.



Exactly, just because it's not surprising doesn't mean it's not wrong and people shouldn't be held accountable. It will never be surprising if we don't challenge it.


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Honestly? I operated my desk, hit the show cues when the voice in my ear said “go” and got paid. My industry is very small, close knit and has a queue of people a mile long wanting to break in to it and take my job. I have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed.
> 
> So yeah, that.



Do you have daughter (s)?

Worth thinking about.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

Did beesonthewhatnow have any more choice in whether to accept this work than the "hostesses"?

(I'm asking, not stating, here btw)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Perhaps an enterprising clairvoyant could set up a channelling service?


necromancer


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> Do you have daughter (s)?
> 
> Worth thinking about.




I think he was thinking about them:  I have a mortgage to pay and *kids to feed.*


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

Accepting the work is irrelevent. Standing by witnessing sexual harrassment and abuse is another.


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

Statistically it is very likely that one day your daughter will be being sexually assaulted, harrassed, abused or raped. And it is very likely that people are standing by and letting it happen when they could stop it.

Because it is easier not to do anything.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> Do you have daughter (s)?
> 
> Worth thinking about.


Kids. To. Feed. I think you should back off a bit. Up until now it has seemed pointless to speak up about these things if you are a woman because the first thing that happens is that *you* are subjected to a character assasination, rather than the men themselves. Even teenagers/children that this happens too are often described as precocious (which is precisely why men like that target them, as they know they are less likely to be believed.)  And recently we've seen people laying into women who spoke up for not doing it sooner! 

It's just a laugh. Don't be so uptight. Are you on your period?


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

And I AM stating. 

If people want things to be different then stop it when it is happening. Please. For the girls and women who are dealing with this every fucking day of our lives!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 24, 2018)

Usual apologies if it's already been covered, but looks like the original story is in front of the paywall now:


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Oh and I have totally misgendered beesonthewindow... Shiiiiiiit.


----------



## keithy (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Oh and I have totally misgendered beesonthewindow... Shiiiiiiit.



Well in case you'r in doubt I am a woman who has been sexually harrassed and assaulted and actually even raped while other men stood by and chose the easy option to do nothing. Mind their own business. Like bees describes.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 24, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Usual apologies if it's already been covered, but looks like the original story is in front of the paywall now:



Has been all day


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> Well in case you'r in doubt I am a woman who has been sexually harrassed and assaulted and actually even raped while other men stood by and chose the easy option to do nothing. Mind their own business. Like bees describes.



I didn't make any assumptions there, honestly. And #metoo


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 24, 2018)

Badgers said:


> Has been all day


Oh yeah, that was from 8:15 this morning  

Sorry, followed a Twitter thread backwards and forgot to check the times.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

The choice of music when the women come out is probably worthy of further scrutiny too.

So far I've seen Shania Twain's "Feel Like a Woman" and Power by Little Mix mentioned in press articles. 

Piss-taking, abusive, entitled scum.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Fucking hell, must have been a constant clatter of chairs as these outraged fellers, mortally offended as they were, fled the venue:
> 
> David Walliams - 'I left immediately after I had finished my presenting on stage at 11.30pm


I doubt this, even if he was genuinely in the dark about the behaviour of some of the guests, I can't believe he would skip out on what was probably a chance for free food and booze, it' s not like he has a job where he has to get up early because he is on the early shift next morning.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I doubt this, even if he was genuinely in the dark about the behaviour of some of the guests, I can't believe he would skip out on what was probably a chance for free food and booze, it' s not like he has a job where he has to get up early because he is on the early shift next morning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


>



By 2330 the hostesses had been at the Dorchester for seven and a half hours, and with the er diners for three and a half hours


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I doubt this, even if he was genuinely in the dark about the behaviour of some of the guests, I can't believe he would skip out on what was probably a chance for free food and booze, it' s not like he has a job where he has to get up early because he is on the early shift next morning.


Oh I believe he left at half elevs. Can't believe he saw nothing


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

"Right lads, the restraining influence that is David Walliams has left the building. We can get back to what we do best".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> David Walliams - 'I left immediately after I had finished my presenting on stage at 11.30pm



Odd how many people knew nothing about what sort of event they were at and yet were still in a huge rush to leave it.

Almost as if, caught off guard, they decided to blurt out two contradictory excuses at once


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Odd how many people knew nothing about what sort of event they were at and yet were still in a huge rush to leave it.
> 
> Almost as if, caught off guard, they decided to blurt out two contradictory excuses at once


The innocent explanation could be that they had another rapey event they needed to show their rapey face at that night.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> "Right lads, the restraining influence that is David Walliams has left the building. We can get back to what we do best".


----------



## D'wards (Jan 24, 2018)

Inevitably the Guardian are loving all this - there's at least 6 stories on the front page about it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 24, 2018)

Walliams creepy? Nah...



Spoiler: Not at the presidents club thing...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Odd how many people knew nothing about what sort of event they were at and yet were still in a huge rush to leave it.
> 
> Almost as if, caught off guard, they decided to blurt out two contradictory excuses at once



Just being invited to a "men-only" event for businesspeople would make me a bit suss tbh.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Walliams creepy? Nah...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fuck sake, that's a regular football boy stunt up here! I recorded a really crap spoken word/rock/electro tune about it a couple of years ago. 

There's your bird. Hahahaha. Haha haha
There's your bird. Hahahaha. Haha haha
There's your bird. Hahahaha. Haha haha
There's my bum, my pants are down. Hahaha Hahaha. 

Repeated over and over to emphasise the fucking predictable and stale nature of said bants. There were more punchy lyrics in there honest. 


/derail 
/sickburn


----------



## campanula (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> Well in case you'r in doubt I am a woman who has been sexually harrassed and assaulted and actually even raped while other men stood by and chose the easy option to do nothing. Mind their own business. Like bees describes.



It's a tricky one, Keithy. My dad  (Eric the Red) was blacklisted throughout his working life for political activism...and my entire childhood was spent moving around the north of england, (often in foster homes) because once on the list, you were fucked) ...so I dunno, consequences...  I have always been reluctant to expect individuals to try to take on a system since it is always strength in numbers and collective effort which  offers workers any real protection. Nothing ever given away but has to be taken.

Sadly, I have tended to do the same...which is why every single job I have had has ended under a cloud...and I am now an impoverished member of the precariat.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Just being invited to a "men-only" event for businesspeople would make me a bit suss tbh.



Yup, it's well suss from the off.  Its a charity event, why is it men only?  That would seem to be the obvious question. It basically just says 'legitimate excuse to leave your wife at home, wayhay lads'.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Just being invited to a "men-only" event for businesspeople would make me a bit suss tbh.


Just the name of the club should be enough to arouse suspicion these days.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 24, 2018)

I wonder where all the cash will go now? GOSH have stated they want nothing to do with it now and have returned the donations. Its bound to have been a load of money. 

Its an interesting question - is accepting the much-needed cash really an endorsement of the abhorrent behaviour on the night? Especially for a cause so worthy as GOSH. 

I think they should have stated they are severing ties with the event (which i'm certain is dead in the water now), but accepted this money. What they use it for is too important not to.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

campanula said:


> It's a tricky one, Keithy. My dad  (Eric the Red) was blacklisted throughout his working life for political activism...and my entire childhood was spent moving around the north of england, (often in foster homes) because once on the list, you were fucked) ...so I dunno, consequences...  I have always been reluctant to expect individuals to try to take on a system since it is always strength in numbers and collective effort which  offers workers any real protection. Nothing ever given away but has to be taken.


Yeah I was gonna say likely pressure on the men too. But we have the numbers now and they are being picked off one by one. About time.


----------



## Santino (Jan 24, 2018)

The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is closing down.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Yup, it's well suss from the off.  Its a charity event, why is it men only?  That would seem to be the obvious question. It basically just says 'legitimate excuse to leave your wife at home, wayhay lads'.


They seem keen to recreate an environment where men are in charge and women are there only to look pretty and be servile. _Like the good old days._


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

Santino said:


> The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is closing down.



And those who participated in or knowingly facillitated sexual abuse and harassment can expect a knock at the door from the police any minute now I'm sure


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

Santino said:


> The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is being rebranded.



FFY


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Santino said:


> The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is closing down.


I was just about to reply to D'wards post with the answer 'legal fund and payoffs prior to closing down'.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Santino said:


> The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is closing down.



Good. Was rather hard to imagine it surviving after this.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

Santino said:


> The BBC is reporting that the President's Club is closing down.


Changing its name, more like.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> FFY


The "We've learned from this, next year we will be doing background checks and scanning for recording devices" Club.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

In some kind of mad Brass Eye meets reality thing, is there a possibility that trump might hear about the closure and tweet his support, esp. given the name? Somebody should feed him the story.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> In some kind of mad Brass Eye meets reality thing, is there a possibility that trump might hear about the closure and tweet his support, esp. given the name?



Ooh! Anyone on Twitter who can tweet him about this grievous injustice?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> In some kind of mad Brass Eye meets reality thing, is there a possibility that trump might hear about the closure and tweet his support, esp. given the name? Somebody should feed him the story.



I dunno, this is being reported by newspapers and it remains an open question whether or not Trump can actually read.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

I'm sure (almost all of) the attendees will have have other exclusive clubs and "society" events where they can continue to indulge themselves in various forms of repugnant behaviour.

...but at least for the few for whom the President's Club was their main "thing" it'll be something of a blow.


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> These things are nothing new. Many years ago I was regularly invited, and attended, events where much worse went on. I am embarrassed to admit I thought it was fun. Luckily I've grown up a lot now, unlike some of these men.



I went to one years ago with a mate who got the tickets from his boss whose wife forbade him to go. It was in a hotel in Sheffield and was all for charidee. What went on makes the Presidents’ bash look like a Sunday School picnic i.e. boxing, strippers, live sex show, high-class escorts, “old-school” comedian - all very seedy. On the plus side there was a great buffet and all the drinks were free. Me and my mate were the only 20 something’s in a sea of corpulent company directors in their late 50s. Stay classy Sheffield!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> I went to one years ago with a mate who got the tickets from his boss whose wife forbade him to go. It was in a hotel in Sheffield and was all for charidee. What went on makes the Presidents’ bash look like a Sunday School picnic i.e. boxing, strippers, live sex show, high-class escorts, “old-school” comedian - all very seedy. On the plus side there was a great buffet and all the drinks were free. Me and my mate were the only 20 something’s in a sea of corpulent company directors in their late 50s. Stay classy Sheffield!


Oh.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

keithy said:


> What would have stopped you  when it was you?


I really don't know. There was an assumption that the girls gave consent, e.g. at one event the naked girls were giving men dildos and inviting them to use the dildo, they were also inviting men onto the stage and performing sex acts on the men. I doubt much of that was actually 100% consensual. Now, with the benefits of age, wisdom, and hindsight I don't imagine there was really any consent. I suspect that their actions were much more due to external pressures/financial coercion than a true willingness. But hindsight is 20:20 vision, at the time it seemed acceptable. I don't think that at all now.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jan 24, 2018)

Have we had #accidentalpartridge on this yet?


----------



## rubbershoes (Jan 24, 2018)

I can imagine that some of the people would have boasted to their wives about the posh dinner they were going to at the Dorchester, all for charity of course.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> I went to one years ago with a mate who got the tickets from his boss whose wife forbade him to go. It was in a hotel in Sheffield and was all for charidee. What went on makes the Presidents’ bash look like a Sunday School picnic i.e. boxing, strippers, live sex show, high-class escorts, “old-school” comedian - all very seedy. On the plus side there was a great buffet and all the drinks were free. Me and my mate were the only 20 something’s in a sea of corpulent company directors in their late 50s. Stay classy Sheffield!


That, minus the boxing is the sort of event to which I was invited. It was expected that you didn't say no, unless you were a "puff." Taking part was optional, but not getting drunk, not getting on the stage when invited, not acceptable. It was a male dominated, misogynistic environment.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2018)

I was invited (somewhat reluctantly I've been told ) to some charity event like this a while back. Now, given the number of high profile women involved I doubt there was this vile misogyny on display, though I heard on the grapevine the thing reeked of vulgar displays of privilege and power* from the "movers and shakers" in attendance.

I didn't go. Even with a free ticket I couldn't afford  the incidental  costs. I wouldn't have gone revenue if I could've. I bluntly refused. Much to the organisers' relief.

*My interpretation of the brief accounts of the evening that were shared with me later.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> That, minus the boxing is the sort of event to which I was invited. It was expected that you didn't say no, unless you were a "puff." Taking part was optional, but not getting drunk, not getting on the stage when invited, not acceptable. It was a male dominated, misogynistic environment.


Why did you go to more than one?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> I went to one years ago with a mate who got the tickets from his boss whose wife forbade him to go. It was in a hotel in Sheffield and was all for charidee. What went on makes the Presidents’ bash look like a Sunday School picnic i.e. boxing, strippers, live sex show, high-class escorts, “old-school” comedian - all very seedy. On the plus side there was a great buffet and all the drinks were free. Me and my mate were the only 20 something’s in a sea of corpulent company directors in their late 50s. Stay classy Sheffield!


Do you guys ever find humour in anything else besides making women feel like pieces of shit? Cutting edge, eh.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Why did you go to more than one?


Because it was an obligation. It was expected. You'd be told that there was an event, that it was going to cost you however much, and that you'd be picked up. Refusing was opening yourself up to all sorts of abuse.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 24, 2018)

D'wards said:


> I wonder where all the cash will go now? GOSH have stated they want nothing to do with it now and have returned the donations. Its bound to have been a load of money.
> 
> Its an interesting question - is accepting the much-needed cash really an endorsement of the abhorrent behaviour on the night? Especially for a cause so worthy as GOSH.
> 
> I think they should have stated they are severing ties with the event (which i'm certain is dead in the water now), but accepted this money. What they use it for is too important not to.



The event was shocking, the money raised is dirty, but it does seem a shame that charities are returning the donations, as it will not sadly undo what has happened.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

I find raffles really offputting.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because it was an obligation. It was expected. You'd be told that there was an event, that it was going to cost you however much, and that you'd be picked up. Refusing was opening yourself up to all sorts of abuse.


Worse abuse than the women suffered at said events?
Do you mean a bit of ribbing and ridicule compared to sleaze and assault?

I turned down corporate do's to strip clubs and horseracing and got called a few things, still didn't feel obligated to go, whatever they called me and however they treated me as some kind of weirdo or "puff" as you called it

Showed them up for the scum they were passing it off as normal activity
Some things are more important than fitting in and even business


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> The event was shocking, the money raised is dirty, but it does seem a shame that charities are returning the donations, as it will not sadly undo what has happened.



They should keep it.


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> I turned down corporate do's to strip clubs [..]



I was taken to a strip club a few years, it was most uncomfortable. Not at the sight of a naked lady is unpleasant it's just the overall weirdness of men sitting there looking at women they aren't allowed to touch and have to pay to talk to.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Worse abuse than the women suffered at said events?
> Do you mean a bit of ribbing and ridicule compared to sleaze and assault?
> 
> I turned down corporate do's to strip clubs and horseracing and got called a few things, still didn't feel obligated to go, whatever they called me and however they treated me as some kind of weirdo or "puff" as you called it
> ...



Having worked in a female dominated industry all my life this kind of thing has thankfully never been on my radar. But Frau Bahn spent 15 years working in a plumbing supplies place. This company got taken over by Travis Perkins and all the managers that were left, (all men, every senior woman was given the elbow, including Frau Bahn when she was pregnant), were expected to go to 'sales meetings' in Hamburg, Prague, Bologna and other places with liberal laws or lax attitudes to prostitution and strip clubs and hookers were paid for by Travis Perkins. It was verbally stated that you would find yourself out of a job if you didn't join in. As this was paid for from the company, this was money that was ultimately denied to the UK Treasury. Scummy as fuck.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Worse abuse than the women suffered at said events?
> Do you mean a bit of ribbing and ridicule compared to sleaze and assault?
> 
> I turned down corporate do's to strip clubs and horseracing and got called a few things, still didn't feel obligated to go, whatever they called me and however they treated me as some kind of weirdo or "puff" as you called it
> ...


Yep, short of risking the sack or other serious shit from bosses, being 'called a puff' isn't that great a price to pay for sticking up for your principles. I'm not after the moral highground on this, I've refused to attend a couple of things - even my own leaving do from Rochdale Council as a strip club visit was planned, but luckily not had to face any come back. But still, unless you are in a genuinely precarious position, you really are entitled to tell them to do one.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Worse abuse than the women suffered at said events?
> Do you mean a bit of ribbing and ridicule compared to sleaze and assault?
> 
> I turned down corporate do's to strip clubs and horseracing and got called a few things, still didn't feel obligated to go, whatever they called me and however they treated me as some kind of weirdo or "puff" as you called it
> ...


I wonder how long ago you were doing this. I was doing it some thirty years ago. In those days, things were rather different to much more recent times. I know now that it was wrong. Then it seemed the norm. It was assumed that since the girls were specifically employed to be nude waitresses, to be strippers, to be performing sex acts, they had consented, at least at some level. I don't doubt that there was some sexual abuse. I don't think that the girls could have gone to the police, as some of the events were organised by the police. As I said, hindsight is twenty twenty vision.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2018)

FFS this sort of shit went out of favour in the army by the 90s  even then the strippers were mostly used to ( bully the new LT and officer cadets and they don't really count as human). and even then the lads knew it was  look but don't touch . when they let women join the TA infantry those things went away immediately.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I wonder how long ago you were doing this. I was doing it some thirty years ago. In those days, things were rather different to much more recent times. I know now that it was wrong. Then it seemed the norm. It was assumed that since the girls were specifically employed to be nude waitresses, to be strippers, to be performing sex acts, they had consented, at least at some level. I don't doubt that there was some sexual abuse. I don't think that the girls could have gone to the police, as some of the events were organised by the police. As I said, hindsight is twenty twenty vision.


Over 20 years ago, it was wrong then
Lots of presuming of consent by you, still doesn't excuse it
E2A
And what was different then?? That you could get away with it?
Less "do gooders" and "namby pamby pc brigade" about?
Ah the good old days when men were men and women knew their place
Mega fucking cringe


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Over 20 years ago, it was wrong then
> Lots of presuming of consent by you, still doesn't excuse it


I haven't tried to excuse it. I have repeatedly said that I now realise how wrong it was.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I haven't tried to excuse it. I have repeatedly said that I now realise how wrong it was.


Yes you have by saying it was a while ago and "things were different" and "presumably the women consented"
When and how did it become wrong?

I edited and added more to my post you quoted


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Do you guys ever find humour in anything else besides making women feel like pieces of shit? Cutting edge, eh.



Excuse me? I was just relating my experience of an event I attended by default nearly 30 years ago - an event that wasn’t my sort of thing at all (as I think I made clear in my original post). Please don’t lump me in with the glassy eyed mysogynists for who this evening definitely was their thing. It was just a glimpse into a strange parallel universe I had no idea existed before that night.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

bemused said:


> I was taken to a strip club a few years, it was most uncomfortable. Not at the sight of a naked lady is unpleasant it's just the overall weirdness of men sitting there looking and women they aren't allowed to touch and have to pay to talk to.


I've managed to avoid ever going to one, I know I'd find the whole thing tacky and exploitative and wouldn't enjoy it.

First invitation was by my then girlfriend who offered to take me to one for my birthday; I politely declined and suggested something else (Thai meal followed by a club I think).

Second invitation (3 years ago) was when out on a pre-Christmas night organised by a customer. After a meal and a lot of drinks, a couple of the other contractors suggested we go on to a strip club. I suggested it was the shittest idea ever and if we were going back to the 70s then I'd rather go to a bingo hall or a disco. I was delighted when both the directors backed me up.

I'd done a lot of work for that customer over the years and there was mutual respect, that combined with a fair few ciders meant I felt able to speak my mind. Had I been a lot younger and less sure of myself maybe I would have been dragged along.

The first invitation was harder to turn down, she seemed a bit put out as she thought all men would jump at the chance.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Yes you have by saying it was a while ago and "things were different" and "presumably the women consented"
> When and how did it become wrong?
> 
> I edited and added more to my post you quoted


I've tried to make it clear that the situation in which I found myself was one where there was little, or no regard, for what are the obvious niceties. I've tried repeatedly to say that with hindsight that what was happening was wrong. It was at a time when I was referred to as a black bastard, a nigger and told if I didn't like it to fuck off back where I came from. It was a time when such things were considered acceptable. I was told that if I complained that I should leave my job or be sacked. Thank god none of this would be acceptable now. The abuse of the women and girls wasn't acceptable then, and is not acceptable now. But back then it was done, and a blind eye was turned to it.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 24, 2018)

keybored said:


> First invitation was by my then girlfriend who offered to take me to one for my birthday; I politely declined and suggested something else (Thai meal followed by a club I think).


 On a podcast i listen to - the Modern Mann, he did an interview with a stripper that was very interesting.

She was generally very positive about it all, but said they all dread the "Christmas Cunts"  -which are mixed groups of colleagues who turn up after their works do. She said that a lot of the women denounce the stripper's looks - "my tits are better than hers" etc, loudly in front of them.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Not all the men at this event were old, a woman on twitter who worked there made the point that many were her age or younger, 'millenial men' she said. Just worth noting they don't all have the excuse of how they missed the memo. I suspect the event had a sort of retro appeal.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jan 24, 2018)

There was an annual charity strip show by students for students when I was at Bristol Uni back in 1998 (a vet student thing iirc). I was dragged there by friends of both genders, and walked out two minutes after the student strippers came on stage. Utterly bizarre and horribly uncomfortable to be surrounded by people shouting at other people on stage to take more of their clothes off. I was also taken to a lap dancing club in New York in 1999 by a female friend. I must hold the rare distinction of making a lap dancer in a lap dancing club feel so awkward for offering me a lap dance that she actually apologised for doing so. I reassured her that she was just doing her job, and that it was I that was the odd one out in that context, not her.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Yes you have by saying it was a while ago and "things were different" and "presumably the women consented"
> When and how did it become wrong?
> 
> I edited and added more to my post you quoted


That's not excusing it and he's taken pains to point out that it was out of order. The fact is things _were_ different 20-30 odd years ago and you could find yourself pressured into situations as a youngster that a few years later as an older and wiser man you'd have more confidence in taking a stand against. That's not excusing it.


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2018)

keybored said:


> I've managed to avoid ever going to one, I know I'd find the whole thing tacky and exploitative and wouldn't enjoy it.



I didn't even know I was going there, they were taking me out for an early dinner. It later turned out the guy who took me was pretty grim - who was regaling me with tales of prostitutes he'd slept with in London. If you want to make your living sleeping with folks for cash or use the services good for you - but he's was just slimy.

His colleague was a great guy and I'll be eternally grateful for him introducing me to Five Guys burgers.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> Over 20 years ago, it was wrong then
> Lots of presuming of consent by you, still doesn't excuse it
> E2A
> And what was different then?? That you could get away with it?
> ...


Your attempts to pick a fight here are "Mega fucking cringe" to be fair.
Sticking the knife into posters who are just trying to be honest and open about their experiences isn't going to change this stuff. It's not like they're boasting about it and trying to justify the events/clubs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Not all the men at this event were old, a woman on twitter who worked there made the point that many were her age or younger, 'millenial men' she said. Just worth noting they don't all have the excuse of how they missed the memo. I suspect the event had a sort of retro appeal.


Silicon Valley has a terrible reputation for this sort of thing despite being mostly men in their 20s.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

keybored said:


> Your attempts to pick a fight here are "Mega fucking cringe" to be fair.
> Sticking the knife into posters who are just trying to be honest and open about their experiences isn't going to change this stuff. It's not like they're boasting about it and trying to justify the events/clubs.


Not looking for a fight or to stick the knife in either
Sorry for having strong opinions


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Not all the men at this event were old, a woman on twitter who worked there made the point that many were her age or younger, 'millenial men' she said. Just worth noting they don't all have the excuse of how they missed the memo. I suspect the event had a sort of retro appeal.


At most of these things companies buy a table for perhaps 10 people and invite clients and suppliers as "hospitality" so the attendees are of all working ages. Individually they won't all necessarily be loaded either. The reporting is just concentrating on the famous names.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> At most of these things companies buy _a table_ for perhaps 10 people and invite clients and suppliers as "hospitality" so the attendees are of all working ages. Individually they won't all necessarily be loaded either. The reporting is just concentrating on the famous names.


you still go to these events and love em don't you


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> you still go to these events and love em don't you


Who, me?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Who, me?


yeah you, same kind of dicks that go shooting


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That's not excusing it and he's taken pains to point out that it was out of order. The fact is things _were_ different 20-30 odd years ago and you could find yourself pressured into situations as a youngster that a few years later as an older and wiser man you'd have more confidence in taking a stand against. That's not excusing it.



20 years ago no. Things weren’t that different. Was the late 90sFFS. The peer pressure, specific milure in which these things occured, age or rank of attendees colour responce??, sure. Not having a pop at Des. The 20 years ago is crap though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> yeah you...


Start this fight with me and you're going to end up looking a bigger cunt than you do already.

I've been to loads of charity auctions; many sports clubs and companies have them but none that I've attended have been men only affairs to my knowledge. One was after a golf day that was attended mostly (maybe solely) by blokes but I don't think that was by design and there certainly weren't any strippers. I've also been on stag do's where strippers have been involved but always been uncomfortable with it. I'm that bloke who gets embarrassed on holiday when the belly dancer comes near me.

You're barking up the wrong tree with me, fucko, but bring it on if you want.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> yeah you, same kind of dicks that go shooting



*pulls-up deckchair, grabs the popcorn*


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

xenon said:


> 20 years ago no. Things weren’t that different. Was the late 90sFFS. The peer pressure, specific milure in which these things occured, age or rank of attendees colour responce??, sure. Not having a pop at Des. The 20 years ago is crap though.


Apart from him being 20 years younger, of course.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 24, 2018)

Nadhim Zahawi

_""THERESA May has backed her minister Nadhim Zahawi after he attended a sleazy charity event where women were groped - saying he “probably regrets his decision to go”.""
_
Bet he does , bet he does .... , _nudge nudge , wink wink .say no more !
_
except ...its wasn't his first time .....hes got form


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> yeah you, same kind of dicks that go shooting


I used to go shooting. There is an erroneous assumption that shooting is going out killing things. There's, IME, more people who go target and clay shooting than hunting. Don't lump us all into the same category.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Start this fight with me and you're going to end up looking a bigger cunt than you do already.
> 
> I've been to loads of charity auctions; many sports clubs and companies have them but none that I've attended have been men only affairs to my knowledge. One was after a golf day that was attended mostly (maybe solely) by blokes but I don't think that was by design and there certainly weren't any strippers. I've also been on stag do's where strippers have been involved but always felt a bit weird about it. I'm the kind of bloke who gets embarrassed on holiday when the belly dancer comes near me.
> 
> You're barking up the wrong tree with me, fucko, but bring it on if you want.


how do i look a cunt already son?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I used to go shooting. There is an erroneous assumption that shooting is going out killing things. There's, IME, more people who go target and clay shooting than hunting. Don't lump us all into the same category.


did you ever kill things or just clay shoot? (fair enough if just clay)
wannabe posh boy up there even posted his tally the other day wot wot


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> At most of these things companies buy _a table_ for perhaps 10 people and invite clients and suppliers as "hospitality" so the attendees are of all working ages. Individually they won't all necessarily be loaded either. The reporting is just concentrating on the famous names.



Yeah, buying tables for 10 or 12 is normal, I've been invited to a few charity events over the years, none have been male only, but TBH I've never asked in advance, as it's never occurred to me that such events were going on in this day & age, so I could easily have ended-up at such an event by accident.


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Apart from him being 20 years younger, of course.



Covered that in the post.

Wasn’t the touchy feely laddets new man shit for nothing. People knew?? Know. Power, group dynamics, patriarchy all that shit applied, apply.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> how do i look a cunt already son?


Calling me son for one thing. Picking fights with people who today would probably agree with you, for another.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> did you ever kill things or just clay shoot? (fair enough if just clay)
> wannabe posh boy up there even posted his tally the other day wot wot


I've never killed anything that wasn't for me to eat. I don't understand the way some go out and commit wholesale slaughter. That is so very wrong. I don't know anyone who has. 

I guess that you and I have lived in very different circumstances, and that neither of us will fully understand the other's point of view.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Calling me son for one thing. Picking fights with people who today would probably agree with you, for another.


you called me a cunt before i called you son
and maybe try less of the defending posters that can speak for themselves
e2a again, wasn't picking fights just seeking clarity

the macho in this thread is funny considering the topic


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Can we stop the bollock swinging on this thread please? On a thread like this, it's really fucking distasteful


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2018)

Tankus said:


> Nadhim Zahawi
> 
> _""THERESA May has backed her minister Nadhim Zahawi after he attended a sleazy charity event where women were groped - saying he “probably regrets his decision to go”.""
> _
> ...



She's not a fast learner is she? Back him now, fail to weather the resulting shitstorm, sack him in a week or two once some more unpleasant details have emerged. Tale as old as time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> you called me a cunt before i called you son
> and maybe try less of the defending posters that can speak for themselves


I'll defend who the fuck I want to, you gobby fuckwit. Get back in your fucking box.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I'll defend who the fuck I want to, you gobby fuckwit. Get back in your fucking box.


any need?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Can we stop the bollock swinging on this thread please? On a thread like this, it's really fucking distasteful


He started it, Miss.

But yes.


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> you called me a cunt before i called you son
> and maybe try less of the defending posters that can speak for themselves



TBF, you'd already made a pretty good job of demonstrating your cuntish self-righteousness on this thread before Spymaster even made his first comment. Calling him "son" was just the icing on the cake, or maybe the cherry on top of the icing on the cake.

You may not recognise this, but your aggressive pursuit, like a dog with a bone, of individual posters who you view as being suspect on this or other issues reflects far worse on you than on them, at least for those of us able to see through your egotistical moralising, which appears to be all about how great you are and how shit everyone else is in comparison.

Hope that helps


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

andysays said:


> TBF, you'd already made a pretty good job of demonstrating your cuntish self-righteousness on this thread before Spymaster even made his first comment. Calling him "son" was just the icing on the cake, or maybe the cherry on top of the icing on the cake.
> 
> You may not recognise this, but your aggressive pursuit, like a dog with a bone, of individual posters who you view as being suspect on this or other issues reflects far worse on you than on them, at least for those of us able to see through your egotistical moralising, which appears to be all about how great you are and how shit everyone else is in comparison.
> 
> Hope that helps


.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Thank you both


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Thank you both



You would make a good mod.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> You would make a good mod.


Ha!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Silicon Valley has a terrible reputation for this sort of thing despite being mostly men in their 20s.



This exact sort of thing, or more general misogyny? (can’t say it would surprise me but I’m more aware of the latter with people like Uber etc)


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> This exact sort of thing, or more general misogyny? (can’t say it would surprise me but I’m more aware of the latter with people like Uber etc)


Pitch your startup at this lingerie networking event and oh god tech industry really?
That's not a brilliant article but I've read about similar events. Women as accessories and eye candy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> She's not a fast learner is she? Back him now, fail to weather the resulting shitstorm, sack him in a week or two once some more unpleasant details have emerged. Tale as old as time.



Consistent. She is consistent. Gotta give her that


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> This exact sort of thing, or more general misogyny? (can’t say it would surprise me but I’m more aware of the latter with people like Uber etc)


Oh, both, it all comes from the same place. Just like the old rich boys the young rich boys seem entranced by what they can get away with.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Pitch your startup at this lingerie networking event and oh god tech industry really?
> That's not a brilliant article but I've read about similar events. Women as accessories and eye candy.



Yeah, that’s more like I might expect, and its plenty iffy, but it’s not on the scale of the Dorchester thing as far as I can tell ie. taking people’s phones, telling them not to tell their boyfriends, basically setting the scene for what happened etc.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 24, 2018)

_strong and stabiley consistent _

trump must be kicking himself not coming over this week ...

He could have booked himself into the Dorchester


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yeah, that’s more like I might expect, and its plenty iffy, but it’s not on the scale of the Dorchester thing as far as I can tell ie. taking people’s phones, telling them not to tell their boyfriends, basically setting the scene for what happened etc.


I think it's on a smaller scale. Fewer captains of industry, more inadequate geeks.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I think it's on a smaller scale. Fewer captains of industry, more inadequate geeks.



Yeah, low self-esteem followed by a sudden infusion of money and power isn’t the best combination.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yeah, that’s more like I might expect, and its plenty iffy, but it’s not on the scale of the Dorchester thing as far as I can tell ie. taking people’s phones, telling them not to tell their boyfriends, basically setting the scene for what happened etc.


There’s a lot more than just crass marketing - there’s loads of instances of “old fashioned” client meets and work parties in strip clubs etc - and did you see the sex party stuff recently?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh, both, it all comes from the same place. Just like the old rich boys the young rich boys seem entranced by what they can get away with.


The freedom of choice is truly a thing of wonder.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There’s a lot more than just crass marketing - there’s loads of instances of “old fashioned” client meets and work parties in strip clubs etc - and did you see the sex party stuff recently?



No, I totally missed that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 24, 2018)

Just want to pickup on a few points from earlier...



ddraig said:


> yeah, "just doing my job" and "not my problem"
> a cog in the machine, nice one





chilango said:


> Did beesonthewhatnow have any more choice in whether to accept this work than the "hostesses"?
> 
> (I'm asking, not stating, here btw)


Yes, doing my job. I work at a huge number of corporate events over the course of any given year, of varying types. I almost never know what they actually are until I get there, and often even then I'm just looking at a rigging CAD plan and have no idea what the actual event is until you see a logo appear on a set. And even then it's often a mystery. You then might get to run though a rehearsal or cue to cue check, then you go live. Often you only really get a feel for what the event is as you;re halfway though it.

The vast majority of events I've done are fine, and usually rather dull. There have been a couple that were somewhat dubious - all male audience with table hosts from a local strip club being one that springs to mind. At that point I'm faced with a choice - I can walk away, mid show from an event that has cost someone a 6 figure sum or more to put on and I will never work in the industry again. Or I can press the buttons and take the paycheque. 

I have once refused a show when by chance I found out beforehand it involved a certain racist, wife beating comedian however.




keithy said:


> Do you have daughter (s)?
> 
> Worth thinking about.


Yes, I do. Who needs a roof over her head, clothes on her back and food on the table.



keithy said:


> Accepting the work is irrelevent. Standing by witnessing sexual harrassment and abuse is another.



At no event I've worked have I ever witnessed harassment or abuse. There have been a few that were clearly on dodgy sexist territory attended by awful arseholes, but nothing that had ever crossed the line into whats been described at the event in the news today.




BemusedbyLife said:


> I doubt this, even if he was genuinely in the dark about the behaviour of some of the guests, I can't believe he would skip out on what was probably a chance for free food and booze, it' s not like he has a job where he has to get up early because he is on the early shift next morning.





Pickman's model said:


> Oh I believe he left at half elevs. Can't believe he saw nothing



I can absolutely believe he a) left when he said he did and b) saw fuck all. 

Celebrities rotate round these events week in, week out. It's where they all earn a very large part of their incomes. Presenting an awards dinner, doing a "motivational" talk, performing 20 minutes of a watered down standup routine, whatever, is an easy way to earn 10, 20 grand or more in an evening. It also get very dull and very repetitive. So a lot of them simply stay in their hotel room or the green room until they're due on stage, do their thing then bugger off as fast as possible. If they're lucky an agent may have sent a script beforehand but most of the time the first they'll know of the event specifics is when they look at the autocue in rehearsal.

Oh, and when you're stood on a stage you can see nothing of what's happening in the room in front of you. Literally fuck all. Stage lights are bright.

So in this case I imagine he saw a room of blokes with girls waiting on the tables. Same as countless events he's likely done before.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Pitch your startup at this lingerie networking event and oh god tech industry really?
> That's not a brilliant article but I've read about similar events. Women as accessories and eye candy.


This sort of thing used to be common when I went to car launches. There'd always be scantily clad girls. Jaguar used to be bad for this. It was embarrassing.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Can we stop the bollock swinging on this thread please? On a thread like this, it's really fucking distasteful


Yes, certainly, the Swingathon that was becoming was unnecessary and inappropriate.  Same time, a bit of personal reflection and indeed challenging on a topic is sometimes helpful (and that's not some dig at dessiato , who as was said earlier was being both honest and thoughtful).  These issues are, obviously, structural and deeply embedded and it's always unfair to reduce it down to 'so, what did you do to challenge it', particularly people who themselves might be in a vulnerable position.  But still, the questions keithy was asking earlier seem appropriate.  Suppose I'm just saying, amid our collective detestation of events like these, a bit of reflection can also be useful.


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 24, 2018)

dessiato said:


> This sort of thing used to be common when I went to car launches. There'd always be scantily clad girls. Jaguar used to be bad for this. It was embarrassing.



I think the world has changed an awful lot in the last 20/30 years. What you said earlier about your peers viewing you as odd if you didn’t join in and drool at women quite openly is very true. I remember thinking that Benny Hill (in the 70s) was rather disrespectful towards women - and I was still a child then but I wouldn’t have dared say anything due to peer pressure. Fast forward to late 80s and sitting in an audience with 200 men who were staring glassy-eyed at a naked woman gyrating on a stage was one of the most uncomfortable experiences of my life. I wondered how these (much older) men could square this behaviour with their wives but put it down to the age gap between them and me. This Presidents’ Club event surprises me as I thought the similar evening I went to back in the day was a last hurrah for an aging generation. Sadly not so


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> I think the world has changed an awful lot in the last 20/30 years. What you said earlier about your peers viewing you as odd if you didn’t join in and drool at women quite openly is very true. I remember thinking that Benny Hill (in the 70s) was rather disrespectful towards women - and I was still a child then but I wouldn’t have dared say anything due to peer pressure. Fast forward to late 80s and sitting in an audience with 200 men who were staring glassy-eyed at a naked woman gyrating on a stage was one of the most uncomfortable experiences of my life. I wondered how these (much older) men could square this behaviour with their wives but put it down to the age gap between them and me. This Presidents’ Club event surprises me as I thought the similar evening I went to back in the day was a last hurrah for an aging generation. Sadly not so


When you say peer pressure in the 70s, you mean other kids I suppose

I don't think the point you're making, a variation on 'everyone was doing it then', really stands up.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yes, certainly, the Swingathon that was becoming was unnecessary and inappropriate.  Same time, a bit of personal reflection and indeed challenging on a topic is sometimes helpful (and that's not some dig at dessiato , who as was said earlier was being both honest and thoughtful).  These issues are, obviously, structural and deeply embedded and it's always unfair to reduce it down to 'so, what did you do to challenge it', particularly people who themselves might be in a vulnerable position.  But still, the questions keithy was asking earlier seem appropriate.  Suppose I'm just saying, amid our collective detestation of events like these, a bit of reflection can also be useful.


Personal reflection is good. Having a spat about who called who a cunt first, less so


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> I think the world has changed an awful lot in the last 20/30 years. What you said earlier about your peers viewing you as odd if you didn’t join in and drool at women quite openly is very true. I remember thinking that Benny Hill (in the 70s) was rather disrespectful towards women - and I was still a child then but I wouldn’t have dared say anything due to peer pressure. Fast forward to late 80s and sitting in an audience with 200 men who were staring glassy-eyed at a naked woman gyrating on a stage was one of the most uncomfortable experiences of my life. I wondered how these (much older) men could square this behaviour with their wives but put it down to the age gap between them and me. This Presidents’ Club event surprises me as I thought the similar evening I went to back in the day was a last hurrah for an aging generation. Sadly not so


I worked in the sports clothing trade in the 90’s and it was far worse than this. They used to order hookers in for the conferences and drink until they passed out. I had a great boss back then who would wind them up by bringing his wife to these seedy events. She was quite happy to chuck a glass of wine at these dinosaurs if their behaviour warranted it. My other two bosses are in prison for fraud. Theres so much bad behaviour, none of this suprises me at all. I hope this is now the beginning of the end for this crap but I doubt it.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 24, 2018)

I cant remember the name of the skate shoe brand that had women administering blow jobs on their booth at the skate show in California in the nineties, but yeah, you’d think a skate brand would be more woke, but nope, same, same.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Personal reflection is good. Having a spat about who called who a cunt first, less so


It wasn't about who called who a cunt first. It was about that little shit-sniffer suggesting that I frequent events like this. I undoubtedly called him a cunt first.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> It wasn't about who called who a cunt first. It was about that little shit-sniffer suggesting that I frequent events like this. I undoubtedly called him a cunt first.


wtf???
again, any need?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> wtf???
> again, any need?


Fuck off. I'm setting the record straight. This is what kicked it off:


ddraig said:


> you still go to these events and love em don't you





ddraig said:


> yeah you ...



Don't fucking quote me again.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck off. I'm setting the record straight. This is what kicked it off:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


stop swinging your bollocks about ffs, got to bed


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 24, 2018)

ddraig said:


> stop swinging your bollocks about ffs, got to bed


Grow up you bullshitting turd.


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> When you say peer pressure in the 70s, you mean other kids I suppose
> 
> I don't think the point you're making, a variation on 'everyone was doing it then', really stands up.



What I’m saying is that I recall feeling a bit weird about it while most other people were just laughing.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 24, 2018)

This is going well


----------



## D'wards (Jan 24, 2018)

Apparently Boris claims he knew fuck all about the lunch with him offered as an auction item


----------



## oryx (Jan 24, 2018)

Another truly offensive thing about this affair is the rep from Artista, the agency 'providing' the 'hostesses' saying: 'I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.'

Like rich and powerful men would never do that sort of thing - which planet is she on?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

I’m sure as this kind of thing has become less socially acceptable, the attendees got even more of a kick out of it. Those petty laws and crap like treating women with respect is for the little people.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> Another truly offensive thing about this affair is the rep from Artista, the agency 'providing' the 'hostesses' saying: 'I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.'
> 
> Like rich and powerful men would never do that sort of thing - which planet is she on?


planet loaded and look the other way


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> Another truly offensive thing about this affair is the rep from Artista, the agency 'providing' the 'hostesses' saying: 'I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.'
> 
> Like rich and powerful men would never do that sort of thing - which planet is she on?


And if your rapey business nonce clients want 'hostesses' who know how to hold a fork, Artista have got that covered as well.



> *Artista Refined*
> Artista's newest service, Artista Refined was launched both in response to our clients evolving requirements and for hosts and hostesses to upskill themselves in the art of etiquette. When hosting it is vital to put your best foot and face forward as a first impression is everything in the world of hosting, particularly when you are representing some of the world's leading companies.
> 
> Understanding how the smallest details in posture, vocabulary, table manners and self-presentation have a key impact on a social sitation is the art of etiquette. At Artista we are raising the bar and running exclusive courses for our hosts and hostesses to enable them to truly thrive in any situation.
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

seeformiles said:


> What I’m saying is that I recall feeling a bit weird about it while most other people were just laughing.


I remember back in the day a mate wandering into one of the pubs on lower clapton road - the fountain if memory serves - and was shocked finding himself face to face with a stripper, he was very taken aback,made his excuses and left. For every person who went to see a stripper there were a load who'd avoid the experience. There's always been sleazes and doubtless always will be but imo they're almost always a minority


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Pitch your startup at this lingerie networking event and oh god tech industry really?
> That's not a brilliant article but I've read about similar events. Women as accessories and eye candy.



Also “OH MY GOD, THIS IS SO F---ED UP”: INSIDE SILICON VALLEY’S SECRETIVE, ORGIASTIC DARK SIDE" 



			
				from the article said:
			
		

> For many women who describe it, however, it’s a new immaturity—sexist behavior dressed up with a lot of highfalutin talk—that reinforces traditional power structures, demeans women, and boosts some of the biggest male egos in history: just another manifestation of Brotopia.


----------



## oryx (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> And if your rapey business nonce clients want 'hostesses' who know how to hold a fork, Artista have got that covered as well.



I just had a look at their website. Funnily enough the 'clients' list led to a 404 error!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> I just had a look at their website. Funnily enough the 'clients' list led to a 404 error!


Noticed that!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Have we organised an anarchist plot to shoot them yet? I live in Orkney, I can call you all my uncles and get you all safe to PAPA WESTRAY ala Stuart Christie( Papa Westray is the fucking remotest of remote here)


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Christie didn't go remote enough


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

Anyway, suppose Toby Young is at a loose end if they need a bit of PR advice.

Actually, who is the first journo going to be to come out with a 'storm in a teacup/they knew what they were doing/the charity sector will the be all the poorer for this' piece?  Which shit slice will it be? Katie Hopkins must be leading the field.


----------



## oryx (Jan 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Actually, who is the first journo going to be to come out with a 'storm in a teacup/they knew what they were doing/the charity sector will the be all the poorer for this' piece?



Preaching to the (probably) converted and stating the obvious I know...but if these fuckers were taxed at an appropriate rate (like they were in the 60s) the need for charity would presumably be less...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> Preaching to the (probably) converted and stating the obvious I know...but if these fuckers were taxed at an appropriate rate (like they were in the 60s) the need for charity would presumably be less...


Yes, plenty of free market gurus have argued that if you cut taxes it will free up the rich to support charities and get rid of the need for welfare. Well, Milton Friedman, that went well you stupid fucktrumpet.


----------



## keybored (Jan 24, 2018)

D'wards said:


> Apparently Boris claims he knew fuck all about the lunch with him offered as an auction item


Cool story Bor.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2018)

keybored said:


> Cool story Bor.


To be honest, the real victims here are the well meaning rapey financiers and industrialists who attend a rapey event, only to find their lunch with the Home Secretary and Tea with the Governor of the Bank of England has been cancelled. Broken Britain.


----------



## keybored (Jan 25, 2018)

oryx said:


> I just had a look at their website. Funnily enough the 'clients' list led to a 404 error!


That seems to be the only page on the site that isn't cached by Google right now (although it has been). Someone's been busy!

Edit: Got it.


----------



## Sue (Jan 25, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> Also “OH MY GOD, THIS IS SO F---ED UP”: INSIDE SILICON VALLEY’S SECRETIVE, ORGIASTIC DARK SIDE"



Mid-90s, a female friend started working in IT in a bank. Their team Christmas do was in a strip club. My friend suggested they did something else instead which wasn't received very well. She then refused to go, being a torn-faced, frigid manhater with no sense of humour and all. She didn't last in that job very long afterwards. 

(Think it was the bank rather than the IT bit that was the problem as I knew/know lots of women who work in IT and they were all horrified too.)


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, suppose Toby Young is at a loose end if they need a bit of PR advice.
> 
> Actually, who is the first journo going to be to come out with a 'storm in a teacup/they knew what they were doing/the charity sector will the be all the poorer for this' piece?  Which shit slice will it be? Katie Hopkins must be leading the field.


Sarah Vine nosing ahead possibly


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jan 25, 2018)

It's nauseating that this still goes on.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 25, 2018)

One of my cousins was both a stripper and burlesque dancer. She did it because she loved it. It certainly made me think again about my attitude towards the girls, and how I perceived the girls themselves. It brought home how the girls/women were somebody's daughter/sister/wife.

If, as she did, the girl/woman does it because they want to, then why shouldn't she? My cousin had a business creating costumes, and teaching burlesque. I don't believe that there's any justification for groping and abuse. She danced and took her clothes off. She never offered anything else explicitly or otherwise.

If, as I said earlier here, the dancer is dancing because she wants to, and isn't being unduly coerced, do we have the right to insist she doesn't do it? Having said that she is still entitled to respect though.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 25, 2018)

D'wards said:


> Apparently Boris claims he knew fuck all about the lunch with him offered as an auction item



The story goes that he had agreed to attend a lunch hosted by Sir Ian Botham, which was for another charity. Someone had a ticket to that lunch, but couldn't stomach it (see what I did there), so that person gave the place up for auction by the President's Club.

TBF, this I can believe, especially as another lot was for a tour of the Bank of England & tea with the governor...



> The Bank told the FT it “did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described”. It has launched an investigation into how the prize came to be offered and and has cancelled the invitation.
> Men-only gala auction prizes included meals with stars and MPs



I've won unwanted things, not on this scale, which in turn I've given to another fund raising event to raffle, so, yeah, I think both of these stories are likely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Christie didn't go remote enough


Should have gone to St Mary Cray, that's remote


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> The story goes that he had agreed to attend a lunch hosted by Sir Ian Botham, which was for another charity. Someone had a ticket to that lunch, but couldn't stomach it (see what I did there), so that person gave the place up for auction by the President's Club.
> 
> TBF, this I can believe, especially as another lot was for a tour of the Bank of England & tea with the governor...
> 
> ...


Despite how much people may dislike the characters involved I think it would be unfair to lay blame at the doors of the “prizes” like Carney and Johnson if they weren’t at the event. Even if they knew their time was being auctioned as prizes (denied by Johnson) they’re unlikely to have known how sleazy the event was going to be. They’d have contributed on the basis that it was raising money for sick kids and on the basis that just one prize was capable of generating a donation of £400,000 pounds, which is a _fuck_ of a lot of money.


----------



## Manter (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> It makes me wonder how many other things like this have been left off the radar, but may now be exposed because the times they are a changing. Albeit multiple decades after it was claimed this stuff had already been consigned to the dustbins of history.


It's *everywhere*- it's not off the radar, just ask any woman that works what workplace sexism is like and someone will have a story to tell you. This is part of a culture where all male clubs are still seen as OK- there are four or five I can think of in London- where women are paid less than men as a matter of course, where the structure of the very working day is designed for an old school nuclear family. Very, very few women are surprised by this. It may be a particularly jaw-dropping story, with the location and money and the *details*, but basically at the core it's same old same old. If you regard women as second class, this happens.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

...and all of that coupledwith a section of society a that (taking the misogyny and sexism away for a second) think they can stick their cocks into animal carcasses as an initiation, black up  or dress as Nazis at parties, burn money in front of homeless people, organise "Chav hunts/safaris" for the "bantz", turn pest control into some weird fancy dress supremacist ritual, trash restaurant s on nights out and generally swagger around with the sense of entitlement that comes with knowing their place...

Chuck in the alibi of "Charidee" and you've got a very potent mix....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Despite how much people may dislike the characters involved I think it would be unfair to lay blame at the doors of the “prizes” like Carney and Johnson if they weren’t at the event. Even if they knew their time was being auctioned as prizes (denied by Johnson) they’re unlikely to have known how sleazy the event was going to be. They’d have contributed on the basis that it was raising money for sick kids and on the basis that just one prize was capable of generating a charity donation of £400,000 pounds, which is a _fuck_ of a lot of money.


Yeh but Johnson has something of a sleazy history and a well-known habit of lying so you'll pardon me if I don't believe him


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 25, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> It's nauseating that this still goes on.



It is, it’s also frustrating and exhausting, especially the back tracking. Nobody saw anything, nobody knew what it was really about, much like when #metoo etc came out and everyone was horrified but nobody seemed to know the men doing it etc etc. 

Same old shit in a different package.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 25, 2018)

I don't know how much difference it's going to make it the long run but it's good to see these Presidents' Club pricks being called out on their behaviour - I bet more than one of them made cracks during the evening about how refreshing it was to be out of the office and in a place where they could still grope women and get away with it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but Johnson has something of a sleazy history and a well-known habit of lying so you'll pardon me if I don't believe him



True & understandable.

But, this wasn't lunch with Bojo as such, as widely reported, but a lunch hosted by Sir Ian Botham, that Bojo was just attending. Would Bojo even have tickets to give away? Surely the ticket allocation would be in the hands of the lunch organisers and/or Botham?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 25, 2018)

keybored said:


> That seems to be the only page on the site that isn't cached by Google right now (although it has been). Someone's been busy!
> 
> Edit: Got it.
> 
> View attachment 126031


The 'testimonials' provide a few more:


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but Johnson has something of a sleazy history and a well-known habit of lying so you'll pardon me if I don't believe him


Boris's explanation, that it was a Botham lunch that he was attending, is perfectly plausible and easily verifiable. I expect there are a couple of dozen journos checking it out as we type.

Mark Carney's involvement is marginally more questionable as the BofE have come straight out on record as having no knowledge. That said, _Carney_ is not denying knowledge at the moment and he is the Governor of the Bank of England so one would assume that he has the authority to show someone around the office and give them a posh lunch without getting permission from someone else. More likely here that he's been asked by the organisers to donate a lunch and tour to GOSH and has taken it upon himself to say yes.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, suppose Toby Young is at a loose end if they need a bit of PR advice.
> 
> Actually, who is the first journo going to be to come out with a 'storm in a teacup/they knew what they were doing/the charity sector will the be all the poorer for this' piece?  Which shit slice will it be? Katie Hopkins must be leading the field.


Tweet from yesterday:


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

DaveCinzano said:


> Tweet from yesterday:



WOT ABOUT FGM


----------



## Manter (Jan 25, 2018)

chilango said:


> ...and all of that coupledwith a section of society a that (taking the misogyny and sexism away for a second) think they can stick their cocks into animal carcasses as an initiation, black up  or dress as Nazis at parties, burn money in front of homeless people, organise "Chav hunts/safaris" for the "bantz", turn pest control into some weird fancy dress supremacist ritual, trash restaurant s on nights out and generally swagger around with the sense of entitlement that comes with knowing their place...
> 
> Chuck in the alibi of "Charidee" and you've got a very potent mix....


Working class men are sexist pests too. This is a man thing, not a class thing.


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> It's nauseating that this still goes on.



Sex sells I guess unless it's sex with me - I don't think that has a market value.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> Sex sells I guess unless it's sex with me - I don't think that has a market value.


Priceless


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

Manter said:


> Working class men are sexist pests too. This is a man thing, not a class thing.



Yes, they can can be.

But _this_ is both a man thing _and_ a class thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

chilango said:


> Yes, they can can be.
> 
> But _this_ is both a man thing _and_ a class thing.


And as you pointed out above, a cultural thing founded in part on notions of privilege


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, suppose Toby Young is at a loose end if they need a bit of PR advice.
> 
> Actually, who is the first journo going to be to come out with a 'storm in a teacup/they knew what they were doing/the charity sector will the be all the poorer for this' piece?  Which shit slice will it be? Katie Hopkins must be leading the field.


Brendan O’Neill got in there yesterday with “outrage brigade/it’s sexist to criticise this”.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

chilango said:


> Yes, they can can be.
> 
> But _this_ is both a man thing _and_ a class thing.


It's far safer to stay with the _men_ thing than the _class_ thing here though. Without seeing the guest list it's impossible to say for certain but I'd bet money that half of those tables were bought by traders and brokers and anyone with any experience of either will tell you that they are absolutely not the preserve of posh boys and far more likely to be occupied by _wide boys_ from Kent and Essex!


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 126044


come next january and the men will be doing the same thing at the dorchester under a different name


----------



## D'wards (Jan 25, 2018)

A real crying shame this


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

D'wards said:


> View attachment 126045
> 
> A real crying shame this


It's madness. 

_Take the fucking money!_


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 25, 2018)

D'wards said:


> View attachment 126045
> 
> A real crying shame this



I wasn't playing much attention, but there was someone on the news this, I guess from the Charity Commission, saying they would ensure the club is correctly wound-up and all the funds be given to children charities, so it's nuts for them not to take it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Yeah I agree. Refunding it to the titans of industry isn’t helping anyone .


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 126044


To be fair, one positive to come out of this is that we have the core of a men's 4 x 100 metre relay team for the next Olympics with Walliams, Mendleshon and Zahawi. They left the Dorchester at a fair rate of knots, but the speed with which they sought to distance themselves from the scandal was _incredible_.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

Am I reading too much into some of the statements by detecting a note of "_well, if you don't want our money..._"?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I wasn't playing much attention, but there was someone on the news this, I guess from the Charity Commission, saying they would ensure the club is correctly wound-up and all the funds be given to children charities, so it's nuts for them not to take it.


Especially with the Caring donation as that was for something very specific in the future, so it's extremely unlikely (almost unthinkable) that his 400 grand is going to be distributed elsewhere. He'll just keep it. So it's lost.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> It's madness.
> 
> _Take the fucking money!_


Absolutely. Truly fucking stupid to put their own PR and image before the good they could have done with that money. Mad.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Absolutely. Truly fucking stupid to put their own PR and image before the good they could have done with that money. Mad.


Guardian front page has 'presidents club shut down' right next to 'NHS hospitals facing serious shortages of vital equipment'.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

> "The trustees have decided that the Presidents Club will not host any further fundraising events. Remaining funds will be distributed in an efficient manner to children's charities and it will then be closed."





> "We won't support the charity in future, which is regrettable because it is a charity that supports numerous children's charities and has done a lot of good work."



For example.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 25, 2018)

I'm a little surprised that none of the many, many wealthy tax-dodging corporations out there hasn't bought itself some relatively cheap publicity and goodwill by promising to replace the donations - maybe it's because about 99% of them are run by men who have probably been to many similar events themselves.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

chilango said:


> For example.


Yep, that sounds about right. 'Can't you all just put up with a bit of everyday run of the mill rapey-ness if sick kids get to benefit?'.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yep, that sounds about right. 'Can't you all just put up with a bit of everyday run of the mill rapey-ness if sick kids get to benefit?'.



Indeed. Reeks of "_well, we'll carry on, but now you won't get anything out of it...so more fool you for causing a fuss_" type attitude....


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Absolutely. Truly fucking stupid to put their own PR and image before the good they could have done with that money. Mad.


Sarcasm, clearly, but I think an element of pragmatism is required here. After the dust has settled on this, few people will remember (or care) that the children's high dependency unit donation was facilitated by The Presidents Club. It'll be seen as a donation from Richard Caring who, as with every other public figure who has been named so far, has not been specifically accused of inappropriate behaviour at the event. The reports have gone out of their way to point that out. If there was a suggestion that Caring had been gropey, I'd agree with you, but there isn't. *And it's £400,000.  *


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 25, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> I'm a little surprised that none of the many, many wealthy tax-dodging corporations out there hasn't bought itself some relatively cheap publicity and goodwill by promising to replace the donations - maybe it's because about 99% of them are run by men who have probably been to many similar events themselves.


Yeah, I was wondering that too. It's not like the President's Club is the only way to make a donation. They could just _make a donation._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, I was wondering that too. It's not like the President's Club is the only way to make a donation. They could just _make a donation._


yeh but if you want to get your hands on a slender hostess *&* make a donation you have to visit the presidents club


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The reports have gone out of their way to point that out.


so far


----------



## dessiato (Jan 25, 2018)

Out of idle curiosity I had a look at the Mail on line to see how it was reporting the story. Most seems to be a rehashing of other reports. The most interesting read was the comments. The general attitude seemed to be "what did the girls expect? And it was their fault anyway because they knew what would happen." Perhaps this attitude too closely mirrors that of the attendees. 

I'm not surprised about Botham's involvement. He was regularly involved in those I attended many, many years ago.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so far


Indeed. If that changes so will my opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. If that changes so will my opinion.


yeh, 'anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter', eh pa


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, I was wondering that too. It's not like the President's Club is the only way to make a donation. They could just _make a donation._


Many of them do, but if that were sufficient there'd be no need for any charity events ever. Let's face it, a lot of these people make donations at these things to brush-up their egos and give it the Billy Big Bollocks.


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2018)

D'wards said:


> View attachment 126045
> 
> A real crying shame this



It's bonkers - that's £650k they can't spend on sick kids.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 25, 2018)

I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> It's far safer to stay with the _men_ thing than the _class_ thing here though. Without seeing the guest list it's impossible to say for certain but I'd bet money that half of those tables were bought by traders and brokers and anyone with any experience of either will tell you that they are absolutely not the preserve of posh boys and far more likely to be occupied by _wide boys_ from Kent and Essex!



Traders and brokers are proles now?


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I'm not surprised about Botham's involvement. He was regularly involved in those I attended many, many years ago.



There is a World of difference between going to charity events where women are groped and groping women at a charity event.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 25, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, I was wondering that too. It's not like the President's Club is the only way to make a donation. They could just _make a donation._


They could but I reckon due to the shitstorm they'll all be keeping their heads down currently. Not many will want to be publicly  linked with the event or charity currently.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.


It wouldn't surprise me if that were true.

The first I went to, in the mid seventies, used to separate the running costs from the other returns. The hosts would usually barely break even. They'd still make a couple of thousand for charity though. In the seventies this was decent money being raised in a smallish east coast town.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.


I can't see that. The cost of running the event would be well covered by the sale of the tables at £1660/head.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.


I had a similar suspicion yesterday when I tracked down their annual income figures yesterday (posted a few pages back, but didn't go into great detail).  Bit like these 'sponsor me to go trekking in the Himalayas on my gap year to benefit sick kids' things.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

Funny, isn't it, how the political party that best represents the interests of the kind of people who go to these events is also the party most responsible for the fact that the NHS is so dependent on donations for essential medical resources and kit.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I can't see that. The cost of running the event would be covered by the sale of the tables at £1660/head.


Unless he donated his fee (lol), that would take 3 or 4 tables just to pay for Walliams.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.


I saw similar, can't find it now but someone on twitter saying that the cost of the event was very close to the total donations, like a few grand difference (to give away).


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Unless he donated his fee (lol), that would take 3 or 4 tables just to pay for Walliams.


Probably. But there were about 32 more.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I saw similar, can't find it now but someone on twitter saying that the cost of the event was very close to the total donations, like a few grand difference (to give away).


I can't remember where I saw it either.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I can't see that. The cost of running the event would be well covered by the sale of the tables at £1660/head.


I interpret the statement as saying that the total of what the guests paid to attend was more than the total of the charity lots they paid for or otherwise donated.  Not that the event didn't cover its overheads.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I read somewhere that the donations made were less than the cost of running the event.



I thought this was the norm for this sort of thing.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Probably. But there were about 32 more.



£175 X 150 for the hostesses and probably the same again to the agency that sent them would add up to a lot of those tables. Plus there's the cost of the foie gras or whatever food it is they serve at this kind of thing.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 25, 2018)

8ball said:


> I thought this was the norm for this sort of thing.


I'm sure it is. I just find it profoundly depressing


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I interpret the statement as saying that the total of what the guests paid to attend was more than the total of the charity lots they paid for or otherwise donated.  Not that the event didn't cover its overheads.


That's more likely. A fag packet calculation suggests about £600k raised on table sales. Caring's £400k plus a few others might have come in under that.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

I agree with others, charities should have kept the money.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

8ball said:


> I thought this was the norm for this sort of thing.


Nope, if they are supposed to be a charity they would be investigated & struck off.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> £175 X 150 for the hostesses and probably the same again to the agency that sent them would add up to a lot of those tables.


About £26,000. They still have over half a million to play with.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2018)

I thought the Hostesses were paid £150. That won’t be what the agency charged for them though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I thought the Hostesses were paid £150. That won’t be what the agency charged for them though.


Triple it then. It's still a strawman.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 25, 2018)

D'wards said:


> They could but I reckon due to the shitstorm they'll all be keeping their heads down currently. Not many will want to be publicly  linked with the event or charity currently.


Sure, but as Yossarian suggested, someone could swoop in as a white knight. If played correctly someone who attended could possibly even pull it off. "It's not right that this great cause should lose out because of our mistakes, so I will still be donating £X. Lessons have been learned", sort of thing.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> About £26,000. They still have over half a million to play with.


Renting the Dorchester for the night isn't free. And it sounds like lots of the guests had rooms. The figures will probably come out in a while. Charity commission is investigating apparently.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 25, 2018)

I thought that the money paid for the tables was wholly separate from the money raised as donations through an auction. It was the model that used to be used.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Sure, but as Yossarian suggested, someone could swoop in as a white knight.


If I were one of Caring's business rivals with half a million quid going spare I'd be in like Flint!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I thought that the money paid for the tables was wholly separate from the money raised as donations through an auction. It was the model that used to be used.


I'd be extremely surprised if that's not the case.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

'The Presidents Club had an income of just over £2m in the year to 31 October 2016, of which £1.6m was generated through last year’s annual dinner, according the latest set of accounts filed with the commission. It spent £2.2m, largely on donations to charities..'
Charity to return any donations raised by Presidents Club's men-only event


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Bit like these 'sponsor me to go trekking in the Himalayas on my gap year to benefit sick kids' things.



I use to work at a US tech company that had a sabbatical policy, I'd get endless begging letters from wankers who wanted a year off to ride a moped across India sponsored
 by their collegues.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

...one of my *sources* passed me a little morsel this morning. Apparently someone professionally connected to one of those involved looks very miserable/distressed/distracted right now because of this.

Can't say more than that ('cos I don't yet know more) but hopefully there's a ripple effect happening.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> There is a World of difference between going to charity events where women are groped and groping women at a charity event.


Doesn't the one imply a level of complicity in the other? It wasn't as if it was a one off. In the seventies when I first went to these things they were regular events, often held three or four times a year. You'd see the same faces, doing the same thing at them all.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Manter said:


> It's *everywhere*- it's not off the radar, just ask any woman that works what workplace sexism is like and someone will have a story to tell you. This is part of a culture where all male clubs are still seen as OK- there are four or five I can think of in London- where women are paid less than men as a matter of course, where the structure of the very working day is designed for an old school nuclear family. Very, very few women are surprised by this. It may be a particularly jaw-dropping story, with the location and money and the *details*, but basically at the core it's same old same old. If you regard women as second class, this happens.



Yes. When I said radar, I mostly meant press radar. Well not even that exactly, since people that work for the press know the reality as well as anyone. Hmm I think I need a different word. Veneer. A cheap veneer was applied that game the flimsy impression that this stuff became unacceptable several decades ago at least. And a very large number of people knew about this facade, especially women who have never stopped suffering from this sort of shit.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> Hmm I think I need a different word. Veneer. A cheap veneer was applied



try curtain?


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Well the veneer/facade/curtain had a legal component to reinforce its credentials but for some strange reason (sarcasm) the long arm of the law doesnt seem to have been a match for the long arm of the groper.


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

does a NDA preclude you from reporting an assault? Can't do can it?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I'll defend who the fuck I want to, you gobby fuckwit. Get back in your fucking box.





Spymaster said:


> It wasn't about who called who a cunt first. It was about that little shit-sniffer suggesting that I frequent events like this. I undoubtedly called him a cunt first.


any chance of an apology this morning? thanks


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

ddraig said:


> any chance of an apology this morning? thanks


I’ll ask you the same


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> does a NDA preclude you from reporting an assault? Can't do can it?


as i posted up yesterday, linking to the citizens advice bureau website, contracts can seek to abbreviate your statutory rights, but those that do are not enforceable. so i don't see how you could be prevented from reporting such.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I’ll ask you the same





ddraig said:


> any chance of an apology this morning? thanks


ok. 

ddraig: spymaster's as sorry as he'll ever be
spymaster: ddraig is as sorry as he'll ever be

i think that's the best either of you will get.


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> as i posted up yesterday, linking to the citizens advice bureau website, contracts can seek to abbreviate your statutory rights, but those that do are not enforceable. so i don't see how you could be prevented from reporting such.



sorry, just catching up, there's going to be more to come out of this then surely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> sorry, just catching up, there's going to be more to come out of this then surely.


oh yes


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

Manter said:


> Working class men are sexist pests too. This is a man thing, not a class thing.



Having heard tales from blokes who work as bare bum waiters and such, it's an entitled cunt thing. Everyone loves sex, crosses both class and gender boundaries. More common with men I'm sure but if you put people in a crowd and they'll get up to all sorts.

The organisers employed hostesses when what they really wanted was prostitutes. They exploit the ambiguity. The men are told "no touching" but of course a blind eye is turned. The hostesses are told the men are just "annoying" yet are also told to wear the right colour underwear.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

When I left a job, many years ago, they hired a strippagram (police officer role).

I don't think I have ever been so embarrassed in my life. Even then (I was in my early 20s), it felt awful that someone was having to do that, in public.


----------



## aqua (Jan 25, 2018)

ddraig said:


> any chance of an apology this morning? thanks





Spymaster said:


> I’ll ask you the same


No. Consider this a warning. Both of you stop.


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

never understood it, the lap dancing thing too. first off you have no idea what situation the girls are in and secondly it's so fucking lame and degrading for everyone.

each to their own but no thanks, never been, never will.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 25, 2018)

aqua said:


> No. Consider this a warning. Both of you stop.


sorry, quite upset and angry about this, i was no where near as abusive, realised i was going on a bit and tried to cool it and stopped when trashy posted, I then get called a shit sniffer and told to get back in my box, again far more abusive
I've not continued it and asked for an apology with a thanks, and i've left it since as there clearly won't be an apology and don't want to disrupt the thread
please do not compare what i've posted with the vitriol and abuse i've received


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2018)

That isn’t stopping, is it?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

ddraig said:


> sorry, quite upset and angry about this, i was no where near as abusive, realised i was going on a bit and tried to cool it and stopped when trashy posted, I then get called a shit sniffer and told to get back in my box, again far more abusive
> I've not continued it and asked for an apology with a thanks, and i've left it since as there clearly won't be an apology and don't want to disrupt the thread
> please do not compare what i've posted with the vitriol and abuse i've received


Yeah, but it's tipped over from discussing the issue to becoming a pure spat. Best leave it eh?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Absolutely. Truly fucking stupid to put their own PR and image before the good they could have done with that money. Mad.



GOSH are fucking loaded though, got the Peter Pan money and lots of endowments. Now what they should have done is pass it on to UCLH next door....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 25, 2018)

send the money to women's aid or a rape crises centre


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nope, if they are supposed to be a charity they would be investigated & struck off.



They're not a charity, they're a group raising money for a charity.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

8ball said:


> They're not a charity, they're a group raising money for a charity.


Na they are, registered charity number and everything. I was surprised by this.
Charity Details


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> sorry, just catching up, there's going to be more to come out of this then surely.



May is now saying that the rules around non-disclosure agreements will be reviewed. No mention thus far of all the other nasty little tricks temp agencies use to mistreat and exploit their workers.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064


How lovely. Ugh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2018)

'Family values'


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> send the money to women's aid or a rape crises centre


Yep, that would have been the perfect response. Every box ticked - rapey event money gets to anti-rape charity, corporate filth don't get their money back and GOSH get to look good.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Na they are, registered charity number and everything. I was surprised by this.
> Charity Details



Ah, fair enough.  Me too.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

The word gentlemen rather lacks credibility at this point. As for Proudly Presents, well, it seems to have developed a sting.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> GOSH are fucking loaded though, got the Peter Pan money and lots of endowments. Now what they should have done is pass it on to UCLH next door....


Must admit, I have an inward groan every time I hear somebody who has done their 26 marathons in 26 days, or whatever, say the money is going to GOSH. It's the lack of imagination, lack of effort in looking out for which charities really need it.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Must admit, I have an inward groan every time I hear somebody who has done their 26 marathons in 26 days, or whatever, say the money is going to GOSH. It's the lack of imagination, lack of effort in looking out for which charities really need it.


yeh but the kids are the future, man, the future


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yep, that would have been the perfect response. Every box ticked - rapey event money gets to anti-rape charity, corporate filth don't get their money back and GOSH get to look good.


falls foul of the 's' principle


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064


strippers AND waitresses?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

sterling work from Badgers on this thread


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> The word gentlemen rather lacks credibility at this point.


'Twas ever thus. "Gentlemen" in this context is simply code for "sleazebags".


----------



## Manter (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> Yes. When I said radar, I mostly meant press radar. Well not even that exactly, since people that work for the press know the reality as well as anyone. Hmm I think I need a different word. Veneer. A cheap veneer was applied that game the flimsy impression that this stuff became unacceptable several decades ago at least. And a very large number of people knew about this facade, especially women who have never stopped suffering from this sort of shit.


Press didn't report because they thought no one gave a shit


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126067


Arrived at 8.00, only stayed till 9.35 at the men only event. A measure of his true decency and honour.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 25, 2018)

Nice to read


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but the kids are the future, man, the future



Unless we act now.


----------



## Slo-mo (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064



Interesting to note "waitresses".
Isn't it time some of the existing laws on equality were properly enforced?

Regardless of the highly questionable 'entertainment' why do the food and drink servers have to be female? Well we all know why, but that isn't what the law says. Isn't it time it was enforced?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> The word gentlemen rather lacks credibility at this point


historically correct i think...the Gentlemans Clubs around the south side of Piccadilly were handily right next to brothels on the north side of piccadily...a good london fact is that the suit shops of Burlington arcade all have a little staircase going upstairs for 'suit 'fitting', which were in fact brothels


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Interesting to note "waitresses".
> Isn't it time some of the existing laws on equality were properly enforced?
> 
> Regardless of the highly questionable 'entertainment' why do the food and drink servers have to be female? Well we all know why, but that isn't what the law says. Isn't it time it was enforced?


I'm not really wise to the ways of strip clubs, but I gather there is a 'no groping' convention, whether that be the reality or not. The inclusion of 'waitresses' here seems to be code for 'the women you are allowed to grope'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064


I know strippers are an issue too, but they're advertising "waitresses"?? Icky ick ick.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126067



Throw a drowning man a brick why don't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

ska invita said:


> historically correct i think...the Gentlemans Clubs around the south side of Piccadilly were handily right next to brothels on the north side of piccadily...a good london fact is that the suit shops of Burlington arcade all have a little staircase going upstairs for 'suit 'fitting', which were in fact brothels


https://londonist.com/london/secret/secrets-of-burlington-arcade for the disbelievers among you


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> strippers AND waitresses?



This has really tickled me, I thought it must be fake until I googled it. I'm still chuckling.

To be fair the stripper thing is fine, it's just who thought 'that'll be a good idea'


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> This has really tickled me, I thought it must be fake until I googled it. I'm still chuckling.
> 
> To be fair the stripper thing is fine, it's just who thought 'that'll be a good idea'


Not sure what the joke bit is?
Strippers strip on stage, waitresses get groped on the floor...an important distinction for their discerning punters


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> To be fair the stripper thing is fine,


In what world is it “fine” for those seeking to represent the whole community to raise money via the objectification of half that community?

This is a very long way from “fine”.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> In what world is it “fine” for those seeking to represent the whole community to raise money via the objectification of half that community?
> 
> This is a very long way from “fine”.


"Oh, but it's only a bit of fun"


----------



## Badgers (Jan 25, 2018)

Zelo Street: Presidents Club - Tories In Trouble


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> In what world is it “fine” for those seeking to represent the whole community to raise money via the objectification of half that community?
> 
> This is a very long way from “fine”.



No one would bother if they were at a charity boxing event watching two people attempting to knock each other out. It's all bodies for hire. It's the bait and switch that'd piss me off, hire hostesses then attempt to pimp them out. what the fuck is that all about? and when girls rightly complain something should be done about it.

Boxing, stripping, prostitution the important thing is that the workers aren't deceived or coerced. The FT article makes it clear that some of the girls there were excited about the evening. it shouldn't be hard to make sure all the girls know exactly what they're in for.

I suspect they'd struggle to find 130 girls to do the job if the truth were told upfront.


----------



## Whagwan (Jan 25, 2018)

So the Mail has stayed classy on it's front page- 'Prostitutes' and 'Innocent party-goers'


----------



## Athos (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064



Disgusting. A missed apostrophe!


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126064



Crikey! Bold as brass..


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Does that little white writing under her bum in the DM actually say, and I quote 
'Innocent party-goers Revellers at charity fundraiser'
?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Does that little white writing under her bum in the DM actually say, and I quote
> 'Innocent party-goers Revellers at charity fundraiser'
> ?


Yeah


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Does that little white writing under her bum in the DM actually say, and I quote
> 'Innocent party-goers Revellers at charity fundraiser'
> ?



Yes. Then in black on the black background, "But we've pixelated their faces to make it look like something it's not."


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

I did go visit the top rated DM comments early this morning and the votes were in, astonishingly its the women's fault, why would they take the job they got paid etc.


----------



## Poot (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I did go visit the top rated DM comments early this morning and the votes were in, astonishingly its the women's fault, why would they take the job they got paid etc.


I do that. I always read right wing press as well as left. And I can honestly say that there are a huge amount of people that think feminism has gone too far, men are being scapegoated for everything and women bring it upon themselves. More than ever this seems to be the case. If it wasn't for this place and my friends I would probably think that MOST people think that way. It's utterly draining.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I did go visit the top rated DM comments early this morning and the votes were in, astonishingly its the women's fault, why would they take the job they got paid etc.


You've just given me permission to go to the DM site... where I find that the 'shocked' Zahawi actually went there in the past before he became an MP. Any nonsense that he 'didn't know what it was like' or that his 'civil servants should have done checks' is outright dishonesty.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2018)

Quite a few names have been released from the guest list, but has the whole thing been posted up yet? There's some people I'm hoping are on the list 

Edit: found it! 

Presidents Club: who was invited to the all-male charity gala?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> You've just given me permission to go to the DM site... where I find that the 'shocked' Zahawi actually went there in the past before he became an MP. Any nonsense that he 'didn't know what it was like' or that his 'civil servants should have done checks' is outright dishonesty.


You don't need bimble's permission


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

editor said:


> Quite a few names have been released from the guest list, but has the whole thing been posted up yet? There's some people I'm hoping are on the list
> 
> Edit: found it!
> 
> Presidents Club: who was invited to the all-male charity gala?


Do you think THE John Terry was there?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't need bimble's permission


Was more of a warning, do not get into the bad habits of me. Going to the DM to check the temperature is a really bad habit and never surprising.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Thats the spirit editor


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't need bimble's permission


Oh, I know, I just wanted a variation on the usual 'with apologies for the source'.


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2018)

I like how they've arranged the tables based on what circle of hell they will end up in, table 1/2 especially.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

So, if I've got this right, Nadhim - 'I was shocked' - Zahawi, was on the table/ a guest of David Meller - the bloke who organised it (and was attending the men only for at least the second time).  He must have been _very_ shocked to find the rapey-ness was at career threatening levels.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2018)

editor said:


>



Oh maaan, there's no way I'm gonna find the time to check which schools they all went to .... Sorry Pickman's model


----------



## rekil (Jan 25, 2018)

I thought Tarby was dead.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

agricola said:


> I like how they've arranged the tables based on what circle of hell they will end up in, table 1/2 especially.


"That soul up there which has the greatest pain,"
  The Master said, "is David Walliams;
  With head inside, he plies his legs without.

Of the two others, who head downward are,
  The one who hangs from the black jowl is Nadhim Zaharwi;
  See how he writhes himself, and speaks no word.

And the other, who so stalwart seems, is David Meller.
  But night is reascending, and 'tis time
  That we depart, for we have seen the whole and need to get the story to the FT."


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

I swear Jimmy Tarbuck didn't make it through the 2016 die off


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> I swear Jimmy Tarbuck didn't make it through the 2016 die off


At least after his non-prosecution for sexual assault, he managed to find an event that showed the better side of his nature.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2018)

dorchester class hookers charge a slightly more than that a £170 night .  
   But its ok it's for charity and you could win a prize for the wife Plastic surgery vouchers to "TART HER UP".

I think a&e would be in my futre if I came home with plastic surgery vouchers so she could tart herself up


----------



## no-no (Jan 25, 2018)

likesfish said:


> dorchester class hookers charge a slightly more than that a £170 night .
> But its ok it's for charity and you could win a prize for the wife Plastic surgery vouchers to "TART HER UP".
> 
> I think a&e would be in my futre if I came home with plastic surgery vouchers so she could tart herself up



Bung it on ebay


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

Found another one who was shocked - Professor George Holmes, the overpaid Bentley and yacht owning cunty VC of Bolton University. 

He's also, another one who managed to combine being 'shocked' with 'not seeing anything at all'.  At least he waited till it was 'politely possible' to leave. Wouldn't want to depart from shocking behaviour that he didn't see in a way that was _rude_. When disassociating yourself from rapey-ness, manners are _everything_.


> “Although Professor Holmes did not witness any of the assaults subsequently alleged in the press, he chose to leave as soon as was politely possible at the end of the charity auction after he fulfilled his role to network with a number of key influential individuals as required of him when he attends such public events,” the statement says.


To be honest, if he was forced to complete his networking obligations in the middle of all this rapey-ness, _he's_ the real victim here.

Bolton v-c felt ‘uncomfortable’ attending Presidents Club dinner


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> I swear Jimmy Tarbuck didn't make it through the 2016 die off


I thought that Tarbuck was dead as well, surprised to see that he is younger than my Grandad, I would have pegged him for about 125 at least, It says something for the circles these people move in that I only recognised a dozen names without googling, assuming that they are the people I think they are like John Terry for instance.
 I still REALLY REALLY want to know how the guy who won the plastic surgery for his wife tried to explain it to her the next morning but alas I probably never will.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 25, 2018)

How heartening to see so many family groups on there. It's a bit like that video that fez posted of that kid being 'made a man' on his 12th birthday by his dad


----------



## emanymton (Jan 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Found another one who was shocked - Professor George Holmes, the overpaid Bentley and yacht owning cunty VC of Bolton University.
> 
> He's also, another one who managed to combine being 'shocked' with 'not seeing anything at all'.  At least he waited till it was 'politely possible' to leave. Wouldn't want to depart from shocking behaviour that he didn't see in a way that was _rude_. When disassociating yourself from rapey-ness, manners are _everything_.
> 
> ...





> “Professor Holmes recalls expressing at the time (to the woman now known as Madison Marriage) that both personally and also in the current context (in 2018, particularly post the Harvey Weinstein allegations) he was uncomfortable with the totally unexpected influx of hostess staff and certain auction lots



Even if it is 100% true, would he have said anything without the news story. Would he fuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 25, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Even if it is 100% true, would he have said anything without the news story. Would he fuck.


Well the assertion is that he spoke to her about it _before_ the story broke so presumably she'll be able to confirm or deny it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

no-no said:


> I swear Jimmy Tarbuck didn't make it through the 2016 die off


He certainly won't make it through the slaughterfest that is 2018


----------



## trashpony (Jan 25, 2018)

And for anyone who thinks he did his thing and then ducked out - Walliams was on a table AND he auctioned names in his book. He was a pig participant.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Even if it is 100% true, would he have said anything without the news story. Would he fuck.


Certainly doesn't ring true that he said it as quoted. As she was one of the hostesses he would have been saying 'I'm uncomfortable about _you'_ in practice.

I suppose it's odds on that he did say something to her as she could easily confirm or deny what he said. However it's his blustering bullshit about staying merely to fulfil his networking obligations that sounds blatant horseshit to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> And for anyone who thinks he did his thing and then ducked out - Walliams was on a table AND he auctioned names in his book. He was a pig participant.


A pig participant telling porkies


----------



## emanymton (Jan 25, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Well the assertion is that he spoke to her about it _before_ the story broke so presumably she'll be able to confirm or deny it.


I meant publicly.

Just another one of the hundreds of men who have attended over the years and been shocked, yet said nothing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 25, 2018)

trashpony said:


> How heartening to see so many family groups on there. It's a bit like that video that fez posted of that kid being 'made a man' on his 12th birthday by his dad



Just where I was going, the Carings, his mates the Greens and so on. Kill the lot of ‘em and give the money to GOSH - society will not notice their absence.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 25, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Just where I was going, the Carings, his mates the Greens and so on. Kill the lot of ‘em and give the money to GOSH - society will not notice their absence.


It would. It would be notably improved by it.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 25, 2018)

Possible ‘criminal offences’ committed at Presidents Club dinner


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 25, 2018)

Badgers said:


> Possible ‘criminal offences’ committed at Presidents Club dinner



Paywall fail.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Does that little white writing under her bum in the DM actually say, and I quote
> 'Innocent party-goers Revellers at charity fundraiser'
> ?



Pretty sure that will have been inserted by the lawyers, as I’m sure they’ll be identifiable.

Alex


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

editor said:


> Quite a few names have been released from the guest list, but has the whole thing been posted up yet? There's some people I'm hoping are on the list
> 
> Edit: found it!
> 
> Presidents Club: who was invited to the all-male charity gala?



<checks for boss’s name...>


----------



## catinthehat (Jan 25, 2018)

A gaggle (bastard, parliament, nest - whatever the collective noun might be) of PR Consultants: 'Look, we cant ALL say he left early and saw nothing'


----------



## bogbrush (Jan 25, 2018)

SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.


----------



## Santino (Jan 25, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.


Why don't you cunt off?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 25, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.


Well, it only took 18 pages but we got there in the end.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 25, 2018)

0/10.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

seventh bullet said:


> 0/10.



and minus five stars.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.


Oh, right. That's OK, then. And to think it took us 18 pages before someone came along to enlighten us. Tsk


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.



Aren't you breaching your NDA?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.


To be honest, I do feel sorry for you. Had your mobile confiscated, followed to the toilets, forced to wear black underwear... t_hat did happen didn't it?_


----------



## catinthehat (Jan 25, 2018)

'From 'Conservative Woman'.  Followed links there rather than habitual reader.  On the event in question.

_'This equality obsession, as Charles Moore once put it, is not just mad, bad and dangerous, it is inconsistent and hypocritical. It targets those it wants to target. That now seems to be any expression of the male sexual drive.

Is the latest freedom we have to defend men’s freedom to express themselves at all sexually? While women are allowed to parade at will, woe betide the man who then comments or looks.'_


----------



## Mumbles274 (Jan 25, 2018)

Vernon Kay lol..


----------



## binka (Jan 25, 2018)

Interesting (maybe) this Sarah Vine column from a few days ago where she complains about the boys who turned up to her 15 year old daughter's birthday party

Disastrous party that makes me weep for today's girls | Daily Mail Online



> how vulnerable these girls were to what can only be described as the feral demands of boys who clearly had no respect for them, me or my home.
> 
> Boys whose arrogance made them believe they could do whatever they wanted with impunity — and get away with it.
> 
> ...



The dads probably would have been fine with it tbh


----------



## colacubes (Jan 25, 2018)

binka said:


> Interesting (maybe) this Sarah Vine column from a few days ago where she complains about the boys who turned up to her 15 year old daughter's birthday party
> 
> Disastrous party that makes me weep for today's girls | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...



There are literally not enough facepalms in the world to describe her total lack of understanding between how shit it is to be a 15 year old girl being sexually pressured (which may well be worse now cos internet, but was a thing when I was one 25 years ago); and the impact of her newspaper employers and her own columns in shaming, sexualising and denigrating women. She’s a fucking disgrace


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2018)

colacubes said:


> There are literally not enough facepalms in the world to describe her total lack of understanding between how shit it is to be a 15 year old girl being sexually pressured (which may well be worse now cos internet, but was a thing when I was one 25 years ago); and the impact of her newspaper employers and her own columns in shaming, sexualising and denigrating women. She’s a fucking disgrace


Can we have any faith in the judgement re sexual mores of someone who chose Michael Gove as her life partner?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 25, 2018)

editor said:


>


Holy shit. I went to (public) school with one of them


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you think THE John Terry was there?


Was anyone spotted in full black blue tie, studded boots and all, with a massive silver trophy, having turned up 5 minutes before the end?


----------



## Celyn (Jan 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> I'm starting to think I'm morally superior to the rest of the male population based solely on the fact I don't masturbate in front of women or grab their tits at any opportuntiy.  The only thing stopping me being elevated to sainthood is I buy coffee from Costa.


I think you would also have to be dead. And do miracles.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> SO WHAT?	Have any of these moaning journalists ever had the job of dealing with a 'hen party' anywhere?  I've had to do that by myself before now, and the old saying 'the women are worse than the men' is true, as anyone who deals with the public when it is pissed could tell you.  The moral outrage of the Financial Times and the Guardian readership is not something that most of the country outside London are likely to relate to.



They relate to the rich elite misogynist males, you say?


----------



## Raheem (Jan 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> They relate to the rich elite misogynist males, you say?



Gender is quite a powerful force as an identity, so it's very possible that a fair proportion of 48% of them actually do.


----------



## bogbrush (Jan 26, 2018)

Santino said:


> Why don't you cunt off?



Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 26, 2018)

They're on the list and ready to roll CTR...


----------



## Celyn (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.


Are you actually saying that women who don't want to do this are "workshy debs"?

And what do you mean about "a no nonsense approach"?  And I note your concern about " embarrassing headlines". Is everything all right as long as there are no embarrassing headlines?


----------



## Celyn (Jan 26, 2018)

Re embarrassing headlines. Who would find them embarrassing?


----------



## Celyn (Jan 26, 2018)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, I was wondering that too. It's not like the President's Club is the only way to make a donation. They could just _make a donation._


Yes! And not let their left hands know what their right hands are doing.


----------



## Celyn (Jan 26, 2018)

D'wards said:


> They could but I reckon due to the shitstorm they'll all be keeping their heads down currently. Not many will want to be publicly  linked with the event or charity currently.



Donating money quietly is a thing they could do while keeping their heads down.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 26, 2018)

Celyn said:


> Are you actually saying that women who don't want to do this are "workshy debs?



Yep, he apparently believes that women who object to being propositioned or sexually assaulted in the workplace are both posh and lazy, he sounds exactly like the kind of person who comes up when women talk about the shittiest bosses they've ever had.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

He’s not an actual person, ffs.  He’s a troll, here to wind you up.  And it’s working.


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.


So, what you're saying is that the women complained about being assaulted in the workplace because - and do correct me if I'm wrong - they were the _wrong sort of woman._ 

Eta. Fair point Kabbes.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.



they didn't want hookers as a they'd be too expensive
										  b lower the tone


----------



## existentialist (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.


Your avatar looks vaguely familiar. Not in a good way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

bogbrush said:


> Or, of course the agency could have hired a different type of hostess.  There is no shortage of women who want £150 cash in hand plus free booze.  A simple notice on the door saying 'workshy debs need not apply' might help, but otherwise a no nonsense approach from the lady doing the hiring might have avoided a lot of embarrassing headlines.



Seems to be no shortage of returning banned posters, either


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

likesfish said:


> they didn't want hookers as a they'd be too expensive
> b lower the tone



Nail on the head. 

I don't have any issue with parties like this tbh but employees should know exactly what's involved.

The moral outrage is a bit misdirected I think.
This idea that anyone who was even there is complicit is overboard. How many men have been to lap dancing clubs on stag dos?  Or women in crowds of groping women on hen nights? just because you're there doesn't mean you're complicit, no more than anyone on these boards whose been somewhere like that and sat quietly drinking your overpriced beer and cringing.

 If a girl wants to be paid to be groped by rich men then fine but that should be in the job description.

As the law stands that'd be impossible. They tried a bait and switch instead and coerced girls into being abused. It's not going to fly anymore, today's women aren't scared to speak out. Good. 

I bet some of those blokes are likely attempting to pay off the girls right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Nail on the head.
> 
> I don't have any issue with parties like this tbh but employees should know exactly what's involved.
> 
> ...


Yeh. Not morally complicit. Despite the testimony of one woman who'd worked it before five years ago indicating this sort of thing had gone on before. I'm sure it would have come as a surprise to the male attendees if groping wasn't on the menu


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

How many men _have_ been to lap dancing clubs?

I'd be mildly interested to find out,

I've never been to one. It would never cross my mind to go to one. It's never come up as a possibility or suggestion either.

Have I just been lucky?

*Shuffles off to create thread with poll*


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

Hookers?

Workshy debs?

Hen nights?

Lap dancers?

Well, that's my 'sexual assault in the workplace' Bullshit Bingo sheet complete.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> Hookers?
> 
> Workshy debs?
> 
> ...


He's trolling for attention. Bans ahoy!


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

existentialist said:


> He's trolling for attention. Bans ahoy!


It wasn't just him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> Hookers?
> 
> Workshy debs?
> 
> ...


House!


----------



## dessiato (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> How many men _have_ been to lap dancing clubs?
> 
> I'd be mildly interested to find out,
> 
> ...


I've never been to a lap dance club. I don't see the appeal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Another no lap dance club here


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 26, 2018)

Mumbles274 said:


> Vernon Kay lol..


Always thought he was a cunt since I briefly met him. Seems I was right...


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> How many men _have_ been to lap dancing clubs?
> 
> I'd be mildly interested to find out,
> 
> ...



Most of the men I know have I think, either via work when entertaining clients or at stag dos. I've never been, always managed to get out of it.

Never worked anywhere where it was part of the culture and on the few times it's been suggested on stag nights I and a few others have managed to swerve the group away and towards a decent night of ecstacy fuelled raving.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Not morally complicit. Despite the testimony of one woman who'd worked it before five years ago indicating this sort of thing had gone on before. I'm sure it would have come as a surprise to the male attendees if groping wasn't on the menu



I'm sure most people there knew full well what the score was but for the staff especially there was enough ambiguity to kid yourself into thinking it was something a bit different. I don't think anyone necessarily needs to lose their job just by dint of being there, pretty much all my male friends would be out of a job this morning if that's the standard we follow.

Groping literally wasn't on the menu, they had "no groping allowed " on the flyer didn't they? but yeah, ambiguity. Same as a club that might have a strict no drugs policy yet everyone inside is battered.

Legalize the drugs, legalize the prostitution and let everyone do their shit unhindered and under the protection of the law.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Groping literally wasn't on the menu, they had "no groping allowed " on the flyer didn't they?



And do you think that was about protecting the staff or the organisers?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

In an ideal society, this sort of event wouldn't happen.

But given that we're not in an ideal society ....

The women who took the job at the gig were told they'd be wearing skimpy outfits and "matching underwear" at a mens' only event.  What did they think was going to happen?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Groping literally wasn't on the menu, they had "no groping allowed " on the flyer didn't they? but yeah, ambiguity. Same as a club that might have a strict no drugs policy yet everyone inside is battered.
> 
> Legalize the drugs, legalize the prostitution and let everyone do their shit unhindered and under the protection of the law.


 I've missed that, unless we are talking about another event. However, anything that needs to have a _no groping _policy on its publicity... well, that tells you _exactly_ what kind of event it is.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> And do you think that was about protecting the staff or the organisers?



The organisers obviously, I'm not defending the organisers.

I'm making  comment about the mixed messages the organisers are sending. no groping allowed yet girls should wear black underwear, "most un pc event of the year", parade of girls at the beginning, NDAs, confiscated mobiles, girls seen not to be engaging with the men, pushed to engage, "You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it's fine"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I've missed that, unless we are talking about another event. However, anything that needs to have a _no groping _policy on its publicity... well, that tells you _exactly_ what kind of event it is.


yeh, if you have to be told you already know


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The women who took the job at the gig were told they'd be wearing skimpy outfits and "matching underwear" at a mens' only event.  What did they think was going to happen?



I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> The organisers obviously, I'm not defending the organisers.
> 
> I'm making  comment about the mixed messages the organisers are sending. no groping allowed yet girls should wear black underwear, "most un pc event of the year", parade of girls at the beginning, NDAs, confiscated mobiles, girls seen not to be engaging with the men, pushed to engage, "You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it's fine"


Not sure where you are going with this. What do you want, a statement saying 't_hese men have paid lots of money and are entitled to proposition and sexually assault you_'?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning tbh.


Ditto


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning tbh.



Treading dangerously close to the 'well she went out dressed like that, what was she expecting?' line of reasoning.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, if you have to be told you already know



A safe assumption, doesn't follow that anyone in there is complicit though. no more than anyone in a drug filled club with a sign on the door that says "strict no drugs policy" is guilty


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Treading dangerously close to the 'well she went out dressed like that, what was she expecting?' line of reasoning.



Not at all.

They didn't just "go out" on a normal night out.

They were specifically told it was a men only do, and that they had to wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear.  If I was told that, I would turn the job down, because I'd have a very good idea of what sort of evening it would be.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not at all.
> 
> They didn't just "go out" on a normal night out.
> 
> They were specifically told it was a men only do, and that they had to wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear.  If I was told that, I would turn the job down, because I'd have a very good idea of what sort of evening it would be.



Opting in to wearing a certain outfit is not tacit acceptance that you will be sexually assaulted.  I mean, even in a strip joint where the girls are wearing no clothes groping is strictly unacceptable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not at all.
> 
> They didn't just "go out" on a normal night out.
> 
> They were specifically told it was a men only do, and that they had to wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear.  If I was told that, I would turn the job down, because I'd have a very good idea of what sort of evening it would be.



 you are taking a line of 'well they knew what they were getting into- even if you are right about that it doesn't make it acceptable btw-when in fact the FT is the one who publicised this. Of course the workers were happy to talk to the journos, why wouldn't they be.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

Just to expand as well, if you're a young women doing some temping work there are loads of jobs out there which require you to wear sexualised clothing.  Everything from standing on an exhibition stand (promo girls) to wandering around sports stadia handing out t-shirts.  Yes, the girls opt into that and the inevitable stares and comments that come with that but none of that means they are fair game for groping.


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> In an ideal society, this sort of event wouldn't happen.
> 
> But given that we're not in an ideal society ....
> 
> The women who took the job at the gig were told they'd be wearing skimpy outfits and "matching underwear" at a mens' only event.  What did they think was going to happen?


Even if you know you're there to look pretty, surely you don't expect that you will be sexually assaulted?


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

Not everybody is lucky enough to be able to pick and choose what work they do.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> Even if you know you're there to look pretty, surely you don't expect that you will be sexually assaulted?



You'd hope not, of course.  But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.  

You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Not sure where you are going with this. What do you want, a statement saying 't_hese men have paid lots of money and are entitled to proposition and sexually assault you_'?



legalized prostitution, yes. better than what's happening now and allows women who are willing to do this sort of work to do as they wish. Just as boxing is better than the alternative bare knuckle fist fights.


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'd hope not, of course.  But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.
> 
> You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.


Well they were likely all very young, and had probably done other promotions jobs where they were skimpily dressed and had to be friendly and there wasn't an assumption they would be sexually assaulted, so actually I don't think they should have known that a charity dinner attended by MPs and celebrities meant they should expect groping.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> A safe assumption, doesn't follow that anyone in there is complicit though. no more than anyone in a drug filled club with a sign on the door that says "strict no drugs policy" is guilty


tosh. utterly rubbish analogy, which would be better if there was a 'strict no drugs policy' which was then contradicted by the management handing drugs round to everyone


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 26, 2018)

What did those people who worked at Sports Direct expect? It wasn't going to be picnic was it, bit naive of them to think they should be able to take time off if they feel unwell or are about to give birth.



SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning tbh.


Bit more than "not a fan", it's a horrible load of shite


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'd hope not, of course.  But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.
> 
> You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.



_She allowed herself to get really drunk, he's a guy. What was she expecting?_


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Just to expand as well, if you're a young women doing some temping work there are loads of jobs out there which require you to wear sexualised clothing.  Everything from standing on an exhibition stand (promo girls) to wandering around sports stadia handing out t-shirts.  Yes, the girls opt into that and the inevitable stares and comments that come with that but none of that means they are fair game for groping.


And indeed I can imagine a big posh charity event with lots of high profile people might have felt safer and more legit than other promo work.
Lots of "modelling" etc might involve wearing very little and being objectified/sexualised but there's still a big leap to actually being sexualised assaulted.
And even if they had an idea the work might be unsafe but still had to do it, that doesn't make it their fault.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

From the FT article:

"The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.

At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. 

Hostesses were advised to lie to their boyfriends about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner.” 

“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine."

I think they had a slight inkling of what the job might be like.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 26, 2018)

They may have had an inkling that they’d be expected to throw their employment rights out of the window and put up with criminality?


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

"Putting up with annoying men" doesn't automatically mean groping.
Even if they were explicitly told "there's a risk you may be sexually assaulted" - what difference does that make?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tosh. utterly rubbish analogy, which would be better if there was a 'strict no drugs policy' which was then contradicted by the management handing drugs round to everyone



No, the two aren't identical but the point is that if both were legal people would know where they stand and could make a properly informed choice about where they go or where they work.

it'd be better if prostitution and drugs were legal and then organisers would be able to advertise events honestly and also recruit staff honestly.

It comes down to whether you think ti should be legal for someone to pay to have sex with someone else. Personally I wouldn't but I have no problem if other people want to do that and it'd be a lot better done in an open and honest way where organisers can't exploit ambiguous job descriptions to trick young girls into situations where they can be coerced and pressured into being assaulted.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think they had a slight inkling of what the job might be like.


Even if that is true so the fuck what? 

Those cockle pickers that got drowned might have had a _inkling_ that what they were doing wasn't safe, guess it's just tough tits they were killed?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'd hope not, of course.  But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.
> 
> You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.


The women who took this as a paid job had the usual variety of reasons for doing so - we could debate all of that. But surely, that's the wrong side of the equation? This is all about the rich men who demanded women as objectified entertainment - right through to actual sexual assault and exposing themselves - and the 'charity' and agency that delivered them to these men.  You seem to be victim blaming.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Even if that is true so the fuck what?



So why all the outrage about the event?  Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives.  Where's the outrage about that?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> From the FT article:
> 
> "The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
> 
> ...



I'd prefer my job descriptions to be clear rather than vague inklings. I'm sure many of the women were glad to be there, the FT article says so anyway but thers's still room for doubt. It's entirely possible girls took the job thinking it'd be a lot more tame than it turned out to be.


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So why all the outrage about the event?  Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives.  Where's the outrage about that?


We are talking about women here  Are these the wrong kind of women?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> The women who took this as a paid job had the usual variety of reasons for doing so - we could debate all of that. But surely, that's the wrong side of the equation? This is all about the rich men who demanded women as objectified entertainment - right through to actual sexual assault and exposing themselves - and the 'charity' and agency that delivered them to these men.  You seem to be victim blaming.



I'm absolutely not victim-blaming.  I'm just surprised at the level of outrage about this particular event, when women are treated appallingly all the time, without any outraged headlines all over the place.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> We are talking about women here  Are these the wrong kind of women?



No .... I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So why all the outrage about the event?  Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives.  Where's the outrage about that?


Oh fuck off. There's plenty of people that are outraged by the sexual harassment/assault that women have to put up with. But if you can't see why this event organised by the very wealthy for the very wealthy that set itself up as a opportunity to exploit women and turned a blind eye to criminal behaviour is worthy of outrage you're a idiot.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm absolutely not victim-blaming.  I'm just surprised at the level of outrage about this particular event, when women are treated appallingly all the time, without any outraged headlines all over the place.


So, why the fuck are you giving us the 'they knew what they were getting into' line?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> We are talking about women here  Are these the wrong kind of women?


Not 'respectable' women?


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No .... I don't understand what you mean.


It reads to me like you are making an argument that these silly slappers knew exactly what they were doing so who cares, we should be talking about decent women who aren't wearing short skirts in rooms full of men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> No, the two aren't identical <snip>


they're not intended to be identical. one is a shit analogy, the other is a far superior analogy.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, why the fuck are you giving us the 'they knew what they were getting into' line?



Because it seems crazy to me that there's such outrage about men treating these particular women shockingly, even though the women had been warned about it, whereas there's no similar outrage about the things that happen to women every bloody day, when we're going about our ordinary business.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> It reads to me like you are making an argument that these silly slappers knew exactly what they were doing so who cares, we should be talking about decent women who aren't wearing short skirts in rooms full of men.



You said that, not me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You said that, not me.


well spotted. she is paraphrasing your argument, not repeating it.


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Because it seems crazy to me that there's such outrage about men treating these particular women shockingly, even though the women had been warned about it, whereas there's no similar outrage about the things that happen to women every bloody day, when we're going about our ordinary business.


Women know what they're getting into when they go to bars.
Or get jobs in male dominated workplaces. Or work with the public. 
They know what to expect when they wear short skirts. 
They know what could happen if they walk alone at night or go out without their husbands. Or get in a taxi. 
If they get drunk then they are knowingly taking a risk. 
We all know what we are getting into don't we? Did your mother never warn you about men?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> Women know what they're getting into when they go to bars.
> Or get jobs in male dominated workplaces. Or work with the public.
> They know what to expect when they wear short skirts.
> They know what could happen if they walk alone at night or go out without their husbands. Or get in a taxi.
> ...



None of these places are men only events where you've been specifically warned to expect at the very least "annoying" behaviour.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Because it seems crazy to me that there's such outrage about men treating these particular women shockingly, even though the women had been warned about it, whereas there's no similar outrage about the things that happen to women every bloody day, when we're going about our ordinary business.



Of course there is.  Its illegal, immoral and not right.  The press has been stacked full full of these stories for years now, people are disgusted and outraged about the everyday.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm absolutely not victim-blaming.



You kind of are, I appreciate you don't think you are and that is not your intention but that is what is coming across.


----------



## Thora (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> None of these places are men only events where you've been specifically warned to expect at the very least "annoying" behaviour.


You're making this weird distinction where there doesn't need to be one. 
They were warned about annoying men. They went to an all male event. 
I've been warned about going out alone after dark. If I do it anyway and am assaulted, I shouldn't be outraged because I knew what to expect?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> You're making this weird distinction where there doesn't need to be one.
> They were warned about annoying men. They went to an all male event.
> I've been warned about going out alone after dark. If I do it anyway and am assaulted, I shouldn't be outraged because I knew what to expect?


Just to be safe, never leave your home unescorted by a preapproved male.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 26, 2018)

Thora said:


> You're making this weird distinction where there doesn't need to be one.
> They were warned about annoying men. They went to an all male event.
> I've been warned about going out alone after dark. If I do it anyway and am assaulted, I shouldn't be outraged because I knew what to expect?


Speaking as a young, single (but sadly not rich) male, if I were at an event where there were lots of attractive young women in skimpy dresses serving drinks, I would certainly treat them to a selection of my best chat up lines and razor sharp wit in an attempt to get a phone number out of them. That's what being male is all about and I appreciate some girls would find such attention annoying, but I certainly wouldn't try sticking my hand up their skirt, grabbing their tits or showing them my dick, there are limits. If someone was doing that to either of my sisters, I wouldn't hesitate to punch his lights out.


----------



## Whagwan (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> None of these places are men only events where you've been specifically warned to expect at the very least "annoying" behaviour.



You've got a point, whenever I go to a client meeting and a colleague tells me they can be 'annoying' I fully expect to have my bell-end pinched.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> they're not intended to be identical. one is a shit analogy, the other is a far superior analogy.



Excellent, good work mate.

My analogy might not have been great but it's not really crucial to the point i'm making.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> No, the two aren't identical but the point is that if both were legal people would know where they stand and could make a properly informed choice about where they go or where they work.


do you know anywhere where sexual assault is legal?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> do you know anywhere where sexual assault is legal?



It's not assault if you agree a price for a service. 
It's not assault if a boxer agrees to a fight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

*taps watch*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's not assault if you agree a price for a service.
> It's not assault if a boxer agrees to a fight.




so consent has nothing to do with it.

according to you, then, it's impossible to sexually assault or rape a prostitute. utter bilge.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's not assault if you agree a price for a service.
> It's not assault if a boxer agrees to a fight.


So, do you think it isn't possible for sex workers to be raped?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so consent has nothing to do with it.
> 
> according to you, then, it's impossible to sexually assault or rape a prostitute. utter bilge.



No, that's not what i said at all.

If you agreed to play with my ball sack for a fiver and I then tried to slip my dick down your throat (a bit like how you're putting words into my mouth) that'd be assault because that wasn't our agreement.

The organisers of this event's agreement entailed talking and serving drinks, they broke their agreement and were complicit in assault when they turned a blind eye to the groping etc.

Same as if a boxer agreed to a fight and the organisers put two opponents in the ring with him or  got him to fight someone two weights above.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Speaking as a young, single (but sadly not rich) male, if I were at an event where there were lots of attractive young women in skimpy dresses serving drinks, I would certainly treat them to a selection of my best chat up lines and razor sharp wit in an attempt to get a phone number out of them. That's what being male is all about and I appreciate some girls would find such attention annoying, but I certainly wouldn't try sticking my hand up their skirt, grabbing their tits or showing them my dick, there are limits. If someone was doing that to either of my sisters, I wouldn't hesitate to punch his lights out.



A REAL man speaks.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, do you think it isn't possible for sex workers to be raped?



of course it is, just as it's possible to assault a boxer in the ring. When tyson bit off holyfield's ear, that was assault. holyfield didn't agree to a mauling.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'd hope not, of course.  But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.
> 
> You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.



Some people are very naive. Naive people aren't fair game.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> You kind of are, I appreciate you don't think you are and that is not your intention but that is what is coming across.



Fair enough.  I've been having a bit of a think about this, and accept that I was wrong.  Sorry for any offence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> No, that's not what i said at all.
> 
> If you agreed to play with my ball sack for a fiver and I then tried to slip my dick down your throat (a bit like how you're putting words into my mouth) that'd be assault because that wasn't our agreement.
> 
> ...


I'm not putting words into your mouth at all, though I feel as sullied as if I had had my hand near your mouth.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> of course it is, just as it's possible to assault a boxer in the ring. When tyson bit off holyfield's ear, that was assault. holyfield didn't agree to a mauling.


So, in the Dorchester case, this should have been the process:

Guest to hostess: ooze, ooze, ogle, slavver - all fine, contractually approved.

Guest crosses the line and puts hand round hostesses waist: management are called, rich guest is thrown out. Hotel and/or agency and/or charity support hostess in her complaint to the police about the assault, providing details of the guest and the company who booked the table.

That's your logic isn't it? That's a likely scenario?


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, in the Dorchester case, this should have been the process:
> 
> Guest to hostess: ooze, ooze, ogle, slavver - all fine, contractually approved.
> 
> ...


It should be for sure! 

I have hired dozens of event spaces over the years and there is usually the option for house security (if available) or external. That should not matter but it could do for an event like this. If 'hostesses' were asked to sign NDA agreements then the security would likely be asked to turn a blind eye to most things.


----------



## colacubes (Jan 26, 2018)

Badgers said:


> It should be for sure!
> 
> I have hired dozens of event spaces over the years and there is usually the option for house security (if available) or external. That should not matter but it could do for an event like this. If 'hostesses' were asked to sign NDA agreements then the security would likely be asked to turn a blind eye to most things.



And the security on the night were pulling the girls out of the loos if they felt they were in their too long, and pushing them to go and talk to the men if they felt they weren't being "involved" enough.  So not a blind eye, but doing pretty much the exact opposite of what decent security would do.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> That's what being male is all about



No


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> No


Got there two seconds before me


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

Badgers said:


> It should be for sure!
> 
> I have hired dozens of event spaces over the years and there is usually the option for house security (if available) or external. That should not matter but it could do for an event like this. If 'hostesses' were asked to sign NDA agreements then the security would likely be asked to turn a blind eye to most things.


Oh, yes, I'd love to see the Dorchester or organisers kicking one of these scumbags out (or anywhere else where this happens). I was just making the point that by no-no's logic, there are 2 categories - agreed/contractual sleaze and non-agreed extra-contractual sleaze/assault. Even if the agency/charity/dorchester gave the slightest shit about any such distinction, the nature of the event meant they were never going to intervene on behalf of the women (or indeed any group who were being exploited in these playgrounds of the rich).

Actually, purely on PR grounds, the Dorchester have probably got a tipping point.  At the moment they are going with sentences containing 'completely unaware of...'.  If an actual rape took place and made the headlines they would go into 'supporting police inquiries' mode - whilst still managing to keep the lid on details of the wider set of things the various elites get up to within their walls.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, in the Dorchester case, this should have been the process:
> 
> Guest to hostess: ooze, ooze, ogle, slavver - all fine, contractually approved.
> 
> ...



That's how it should happen and does at many events. 

That's not quite what I'm saying though. I'm saying it would be better if prostitution were legal so the organisers could recruit honestly because there are people who would willingly do this work whether we feel icky about it or not.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Oh, yes, I'd love to see the Dorchester or organisers kicking one of these scumbags out (or anywhere else where this happens). I was just making the point that by no-no's logic, there are 2 categories - agreed/contractual sleaze and non-agreed extra-contractual sleaze/assault. Even if the agency/charity/dorchester gave the slightest shit about any such distinction, the nature of the event meant they were never going to intervene on behalf of the women (or indeed any group who were being exploited in these playgrounds of the rich).
> 
> Actually, purely on PR grounds, the Dorchester have probably got a tipping point.  At the moment they are going with sentences containing 'completely unaware of...'.  If an actual rape took place and made the headlines they would go into 'supporting police inquiries' mode - whilst still managing to keep the lid on details of the wider set of things the various elites get up to within their walls.



OTOH The Dorchester isn't going to piss off it's actual clientele to placate people who wouldn't ever stay there anyway is it?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Oh, yes, I'd love to see the Dorchester or organisers kicking one of these scumbags out (or anywhere else where this happens). I was just making the point that by no-no's logic, there are 2 categories - agreed/contractual sleaze and non-agreed extra-contractual sleaze/assault. Even if the agency/charity/dorchester gave the slightest shit about any such distinction, the nature of the event meant they were never going to intervene on behalf of the women (or indeed any group who were being exploited in these playgrounds of the rich).
> 
> Actually, purely on PR grounds, the Dorchester have probably got a tipping point.  At the moment they are going with sentences containing 'completely unaware of...'.  If an actual rape took place and made the headlines they would go into 'supporting police inquiries' mode - whilst still managing to keep the lid on details of the wider set of things the various elites get up to within their walls.



You make a good point, even if prostitution were legalized who's to say that clients that overstep the agreed upon mark wouldn't be held accountable by the organisers? But that applies to anything. Boxers are exploited, american footballers, industrial workers, soldiers, all sorts...

The exploitation isn't a reason to knock the whole thing on the head, shouldn't we just properly regulate it so that at least the only people there are people who want to be? because there were lots of girls there who wanted to be there, that's a crappy thought but it's the truth and they should be allowed to do what the hell they like.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> OTOH The Dorchester isn't going to piss off it's actual clientele to placate people who wouldn't ever stay there anyway is it?



They might in today's climate. Other industries seem to be at least putting on a show of cleaning up.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not putting words into your mouth at all, though I feel as sullied as if I had had my hand near your mouth.



Yeah, you did. That sullied feeling....you owe me at least a couple of quid for it


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> No


Really? you wouldn't try and chat up the hot waitress? Assuming of course you're not married or in a relationship (neither true in my case), no girl should have to put up with being groped but you don't think you shouldn't ask her if she is free tomorrow night?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> You make a good point, even if prostitution were legalized .



It is, or least decriminalised..  Unless of course you are planning on running a brothel.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> OTOH The Dorchester isn't going to piss off it's actual clientele to placate people who wouldn't ever stay there anyway is it?


Indeed.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Really? you wouldn't try and chat up the hot waitress? Assuming of course you're not married or in a relationship (neither true in my case), no girl should have to put up with being groped but you don't think you shouldn't ask her if she is free tomorrow night?



No, I'd let her get on with her job, realising that her being friendly and maybe even a little flirty is as much of a work uniform as her outfit is.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Really? you wouldn't try and chat up the hot waitress? Assuming of course you're not married or in a relationship (neither true in my case), no girl should have to put up with being groped but you don't think you shouldn't ask her if she is free tomorrow night?



Yuk.

No. Of course not.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Really? you wouldn't try and chat up the hot waitress? Assuming of course you're not married or in a relationship (neither true in my case), no girl should have to put up with being groped but you don't think you shouldn't ask her if she is free tomorrow night?


Is this a trick question?


----------



## elbows (Jan 26, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is this a trick question?



I can't believe it isn't what he didn't say it wasn't.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2018)

quite a few girls who went travelling funded them by hostessing in Japanese clubs everyone knew and obeyed the rules no touching and no meeting people outside the club no matter how much they offered.
   annoying is somebody trying to chat you up while pissed not groping or trying to get you pissed thats not what people signed up for.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> If you agreed to play with my ball sack for a fiver ...


Pickman's model usually does it for half that.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> That's how it should happen and does at many events.
> 
> That's not quite what I'm saying though. I'm saying it would be better if prostitution were legal so the organisers could recruit honestly because there are people who would willingly do this work whether we feel icky about it or not.


No.  We should not be normalising and endorsing behaviour such as men groping the women who are bringing them drinks.  It doesn’t matter whether it was contractually agreed in advance between the organisers and the women or not.  It teaches acceptance of assault, which harms all women, not just those in the room.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

> @Pickman's model usually does it for half that.



((((bantz))))


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Pickman's model usually does it for half that.


no, after you've had your take you give me £2.50, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)




----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> No.  We should not be normalising and endorsing behaviour such as men groping the women who are bringing them drinks.  It doesn’t matter whether it was contractually agreed in advance between the organisers and the women or not.  It teaches acceptance of assault, which harms all women, not just those in the room.



there's some truth to that but then should anything that normalises untoward behaviour be restricted?

lap dancing clubs, strippers, chippendales and esp anything violenct...martial arts, full contact sports,movies, lyrics, etc

that's a bit puritan for me. Not to mention stepping all over people's rights.

it seems there are two options being touted. One to accommodate peoples wanton desires as safely as possible and the other to attempt to change the culture and those wanton desires.

I don't think these sorts of desires can be suppressed, they'll surface in some form in an unregulated environment. That has to be the worst possible option.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 26, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is this a trick question?


These girls were hired to serve drinks and look pretty and the partygoers turned out to be a bunch of assholes whose behaviour was shameful, but let's assume they didn't and behaved as well as I hope you or I would under these circumstances.
If at the end of the evening and you had a pleasant evening flirting with a pretty girl are you suggesting that you wouldn't ask if you could take her somewhere more private the next evening? If so why because she was paid to be there and you were a guest?
OK she says no thank you then fine you have to a gentleman about it but are you saying you consider it socially unacceptable to even ask?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> there's some truth to that but then should anything that normalises untoward behaviour be restricted?
> 
> lap dancing clubs, strippers, chippendales and esp anything violenct...martial arts, full contact sports,movies, lyrics, etc
> 
> ...



Hang on. So what if someone has a wanton desire?  What right do they have to have it fulfilled?  A peado has a wanton desire.

This post reads like something from a nambla member.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Hang on. So what if someone has a wanton desire?  What right do they have to have it fulfilled?  A peado has a wanton desire.
> 
> This post reads like something from a nambla member.


a nambla rambler


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> These girls were hired to serve drinks and look pretty and the partygoers turned out to be a bunch of assholes whose behaviour was shameful, but let's assume they didn't and behaved as well as I hope you or I would under these circumstances.
> If at the end of the evening and you had a pleasant evening flirting with a pretty girl are you suggesting that you wouldn't ask if you could take her somewhere more private the next evening? If so why because she was paid to be there and you were a guest?
> OK she says no thank you then fine you have to a gentleman about it but are you saying you consider it socially unacceptable to even ask?


Er, yes? Women who are nice to you while serving drinks aren't there because they signed up for some weird speed dating event, it's their job.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 26, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Women who are nice to you while serving drinks aren't there because they signed up for some weird speed dating event, it's their job.



My local has a sign with some very similar wording to this above the bar.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> a nambla rambler



 Very good.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2018)




----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Hang on. So what if someone has a wanton desire?  What right do they have to have it fulfilled?  A peado has a wanton desire.
> 
> This post reads like something from a nambla member.



A pedos wanton desire necessarily requires the consent of someone who can't consent. Adults that want to pay each other for sex is a totally different thing.It's got fuck all to do with anyone else other than that we attempt to make sure there's no coersion involved.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> If at the end of the evening and you had a pleasant evening flirting with a pretty girl are you suggesting that you wouldn't ask if you could take her somewhere more private the next evening? If so why because she was paid to be there and you were a guest?



Well, I wouldn't have spent the evening flirting with someone employed to "host" me for starters. 



BemusedbyLife said:


> but are you saying you consider it socially unacceptable to even ask?



Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> A pedos wanton desire necessarily requires the consent of someone who can't consent. Adults that want to pay each other for sex is a totally different thing.It's got fuck all to do with anyone else other than that we attempt to make sure there's no coersion involved.


and you think simple payment removes coercion.

tell you what, if i offer you a million pounds for sex would your consent be freely given? if the alternative to 'ok big boy' is 'fuck off without your pay' is your consent freely given?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Speaking as a young, single (but sadly not rich) male, if I were at an event where there were lots of attractive young women in skimpy dresses serving drinks, I would certainly treat them to a selection of my best chat up lines and razor sharp wit in an attempt to get a phone number out of them. That's what being male is all about and I appreciate some girls would find such attention annoying, but I certainly wouldn't try sticking my hand up their skirt, grabbing their tits or showing them my dick, there are limits. If someone was doing that to either of my sisters, I wouldn't hesitate to punch his lights out.



I'm going to come back to this as this sort of shit really grinds my gears.  I appreciate you're young so I'll try and play the ball not the man, I'm not having a go at you but the underlying assumptions in your post.

I've just reached 40 and I have met this attitude a 1000 times in my life, in fact a couple of friends have it.  The justification of 'because we're male / its what men do'.  The wink wink guys code, don't worry we'll say the right things until the girls have gone then we can get back to being male again.

The justification for the behaviour is that as males we can't help ourselves, its somehow in our DNA and as males we're all the same - the only difference is some guys lie about it or hide it better.  Its not my fault, I can't help myself - its just what guys do - right guys?  Back me up here... etc etc  et bloody cetera

Well, I tell you what! I've never done it, loads of guys I've met and are friends with don't behave that way.  Its a choice like any other choice, those who have this attitude are choosing to behave that way, they either think its OK or its not.  Make no mistake though, if you want to act in a shitty way it has nothing to do with a particular combination of chromosomes or how they identify its your shitty behaviour, you own it - don't drag the rest of us down and use us as self-serving justification.

Rant over.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> A pedos wanton desire necessarily requires the consent of someone who can't consent. Adults that want to pay each other for sex is a totally different thing.It's got fuck all to do with anyone else other than that we attempt to make sure there's no coersion involved.



I'll tell you what you head down to any red light district and see the desperate girls there and give them the benefit of your views on consent.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I'll tell you what you head down to any red light district and see the desperate girls there and give them the benefit of your views on consent.



You think they'd rather their line of work was illegal and they had to work the streets? No solution is going to make being on the game a good prospect.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

Badgers said:


> View attachment 126154


'Quiet word with the organisers'... of the rich men only event were women were 'presented' to the punters, forced to wear specific underwear, told not to allow their boyfriends anywhere near etc. _Wonder how that conversation would have gone:_

'There was a lot of sexual harassment, assault and men exposing themselves the other night. Will you change things for next year?'
- Certainly! We're as shocked as you are!


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> You think they'd rather their line of work was illegal and they had to work the streets? No solution is going to make being on the game a good prospect.



For sure, its a crappy situation but consent is not something that is black and white.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Really? you wouldn't try and chat up the hot waitress? Assuming of course you're not married or in a relationship (neither true in my case), no girl should have to put up with being groped but you don't think you shouldn't ask her if she is free tomorrow night?




It always used to piss me right off if someone I was serving at a table tried to get flirty with me. I’m working here. It always felt opportunistic and sleazy. Like they’d be acting interested in any woman who was waiting on them, in a subservient position, having to be charming and do the deferentials because I’m being paid to be that way. Being employed as a waitress compels  me to be polite even while feeling creeped out by the attention.

Whenever I’ve worked as a waitress, it’s  been absolutely normal for one waitress being hit on to get another waitress to work that table instead. Preferably switch to a male waiter for the rest of the meal. And then studiously ignore the person who was trying to flirt. Even to the extent of taking a break or walking the long way the around the room.


ETA And I’ve never met a manager who wasn’t very willing to allow a waitress to change stations or take a break if a punter was hitting on her.

It’s the same in bars and pubs by the way. Don’t hit on the wait staff. If you really are interested in getting to know them, find a different way to talk to them than while they are working.



ETA again. And by the way, I was never ever free the following night. Or the following weekend. Or I’d invent a boyfriend. And really hope him liking me would translate into a decent tip, rather than getting a knock back causing him to leave a miserly tip.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> For sure, its a crappy situation but consent is not something that is black and white.


of course not but having legalised prostitution would make this particular situation easier for young girls to navigate because the job description would be clear.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> A pedos wanton desire necessarily requires the consent of someone who can't consent. Adults that want to pay each other for sex is a totally different thing.It's got fuck all to do with anyone else other than that we attempt to make sure there's no coersion involved.


My corneas are a bit dodgy, can I buy yours?  If we agree a price and sign a contract, there's surely no reason for the namby pamby government, legal system or anybody else to get in the way.  Oh and I may need your liver in a few years.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> of course not but having legalised prostitution would make this particular situation easier for young girls to navigate because the job description would be clear.



It is legal, in that it is not illegal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> of course not but having legalised prostitution would make this particular situation easier for young girls to navigate because the job description would be clear.


young girls?
Wilf Teaboy Badgers


----------



## kittyP (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> These girls were hired to serve drinks and look pretty and the partygoers turned out to be a bunch of assholes whose behaviour was shameful, but let's assume they didn't and behaved as well as I hope you or I would under these circumstances.
> If at the end of the evening and you had a pleasant evening flirting with a pretty girl are you suggesting that you wouldn't ask if you could take her somewhere more private the next evening? If so why because she was paid to be there and you were a guest?
> OK she says no thank you then fine you have to a gentleman about it but are you saying you consider it socially unacceptable to even ask?



How would you like it if some bloke you had only met that day, as part of your work, came up to you and asked you on a date by your desk in front of your colleagues?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2018)

8ball said:


> My local has a sign with some very similar wording to this above the bar.



It's possible we have the same local


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 26, 2018)

kittyP said:


> How would you like it if some bloke you had only met that day, as part of your work, came up to you and asked you on a date by your desk in front of your colleagues?


Well in my case very surprised actually but yes point taken I shall endeavour to be more sensitive if I ever get invited to an event like this


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's possible we have the same local




It’s also possible that the problem is common enough to necessitate the sign being present in many bars.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Well in my case very surprised actually but yes point taken I shall endeavour to be more sensitive if I ever get invited to an event like this




Or anywhere that women are employed to serve you drinks and/ or food whilst being polite and charming.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's possible we have the same local



So long as you're not on that quiz team that keeps beating us...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2018)

8ball said:


> So long as you're not on that quiz team that keeps beating us...



No we always lose too


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jan 26, 2018)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Or anywhere that women are employed to serve you drinks and/ or food whilst being polite and charming.


That you Mum?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

BemusedbyLife said:


> That you Mum?





If she were here she’d no doubt agree with me that you need to grow the fuck up.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> My corneas are a bit dodgy, can I buy yours?  If we agree a price and sign a contract, there's surely no reason for the namby pamby government, legal system or anybody else to get in the way.  Oh and I may need your liver in a few years.



No thanks, I won't be signing that contract...see how that works?


Pickman's model said:


> young girls?
> Wilf Teaboy Badgers



Yes, some of these girls were only 19. You seem to have given up arguing your point and reverted to insults. Good work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yes, some of these girls were only 19. You seem to have given up arguing your point and reverted to insults. Good work.


'young girls' is not an insult in my book. why is it an insult in yours?


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

5 year olds are young girls. 

Nineteen year olds can vote (and work). Almost like grown-ups, really. Like women, you might say.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yes, some of these *girls* were *only 19*. You seem to have given up arguing your point and reverted to insults. Good work.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> 5 year olds are young girls.
> 
> Nineteen year olds can vote (and work). Almost like grown-ups, really. Like women, you might say.



getting sidetracked a bit aren't we, young women then, i'll use whatever terms you're happy with.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 'young girls' is not an insult in my book. why is it an insult in yours?



I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)

There's a bit of bollocks being posted on this thread now. There's a difference between someone making unwanted advances to someone else whilst they work and someone perhaps picking up on a mutual attraction and running with it. My ex was a barmaid who I met in the pub she worked at. Over a short period we got chatting and I soon asked her out. If I hadn't done that we'd both have missed out on a 5 year relationship and my son wouldn't have been born. Loads of people meet in workplaces.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> getting sidetracked a bit aren't we, young women then, i'll use whatever terms you're happy with.


I disagree, sunshine, laddie, wee one, little feller...


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> there's some truth to that but then should anything that normalises untoward behaviour be restricted?


Tell you what, let's just start with restricting the normalisation of behaviour that results in serious assault.  We can think about "untoward"  behaviour from there.

What we are talking about here is men being given the nod and the wink that it's okay when being served drinks to sexually assault their server.  You think that kind of positive reinforcement ends at the door?  That it doesn't change how the man objectifies other women he comes across?  That his impulses aren't going to be trained in the direction of what has been normalised from him? 

If you do think that, you don't know much about how psychology works.



> lap dancing clubs, strippers, chippendales and esp anything violenct...martial arts, full contact sports,movies, lyrics, etc


Can you spot the difference between individuals putting on a display and the interaction between members of the public and the "performers"?  Can you spot the difference between that and a "performance" that pretends that it is actually for real?



> that's a bit puritan for me. Not to mention stepping all over people's rights.


You want to talk about "rights" now?  How about the right to expect you can live your life in peace without society presenting you as a sex object that others have the right to use as they see fit?



> it seems there are two options being touted. One to accommodate peoples wanton desires as safely as possible and the other to attempt to change the culture and those wanton desires.
> 
> I don't think these sorts of desires can be suppressed, they'll surface in some form in an unregulated environment. That has to be the worst possible option.


Absolute fucking balderdash.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> getting sidetracked a bit aren't we, young women then, i'll use whatever terms you're happy with.


How about instead of that, you have a think about what terms _you_ are happy with and why you are happy with them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.


you said 


no-no said:


> You seem to have given up arguing your point and reverted to insults. Good work.


the post you quoted consisted of the words 'young girls'. the only possible conclusion is that you believe young girls to be an insult.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> There's a bit of bollocks being posted on this thread now. There's a difference between someone making unwanted advances to someone else whilst they work and someone perhaps picking up on a mutual attraction and running with it. My ex was a barmaid who I met in the pub she worked at. Over a short period we got chatting and I soon asked her out. If I hadn't done that we'd both have missed out on a 5 year relationship and my son wouldn't have been born. Loads of people meet in workplaces.


yeh. but you didn't rock up and within 15 minutes go 'alright darlin, how's about you and me later?' did you, which is what people are complaining about. getting to know someone and then asking them out is of course different.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2018)

The parties with 'young girls' are mostly for royalty


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> There's a bit of bollocks being posted on this thread now. There's a difference between someone making unwanted advances to someone else whilst they work and someone perhaps picking up on a mutual attraction and running with it. My ex was a barmaid who I met in the pub she worked at. Over a short period we got chatting and I soon asked her out. If I hadn't done that we'd both have missed out on a 5 year relationship and my son wouldn't have been born. Loads of people meet in workplaces.




Yes I also know long-term couples who met in similar circumstances.

But as you say yourself, you got talking to her over a period of time. I doubt you hit on her the first time you clapped eyes on her.


ETA... or Yeah, what Pickman’s said!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Pickman's model usually does it for half that.



Speaking from experience?


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> getting sidetracked a bit aren't we, young women then, i'll use whatever terms you're happy with.


Aren't we? Wtf? No, 'we' are not getting sidetracked. The way that you address someone shows what kind of esteem you hold them in. Son.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Tell you what, let's just start with restricting the normalisation of behaviour that results in serious assault.  We can think about "untoward"  behaviour from there.
> 
> What we are talking about here is men being given the nod and the wink that it's okay when being served drinks to sexually assault their server.  You think that kind of positive reinforcement ends at the door?  That it doesn't change how the man objectifies other women he comes across?  That his impulses aren't going to be trained in the direction of what has been normalised from him?
> 
> ...



I don't think it ends at the door at all, that's why I acknowledged what you said.

Would you ban boxing? Do you think glorifying violence might result in serious assaults on the streets? The fact some cunt might assault someone isn't reason to restrict other peoples behaviour.

"How about the right to expect you can live your life in peace without society presenting you as a sex object that others have the right to use as they see fit?"

How about the right of people to do what they want with their bodies? be that selling sex or violence?
If I want to sell my body that's got nothing to do with anyone and my they like.

To be clear here, you three are saying prostitution should remain illegal?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)

SheilaNaGig said:


> But as you say yourself, you got talking to her over a period of time. I doubt you hit on her the first time you clapped eyes on her.


No but it wasn't long. Less than a week. If you get a certain look or smile, or realise from conversation that there could be something going on, you'd be daft not to pursue it.

And there are more subtle ways to engage someone than "hows about me and you later?"


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> Aren't we? Wtf? No, 'we' are not getting sidetracked. The way that you address someone shows what kind of esteem you hold them in. Son.



Not really, calling me son implies you're my father. if you'd called me boy then it'd imply you thought i was quite young, that'd be fine if I was quite young. 19 say...not a problem.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Speaking from experience?


Nope. He doesn't charge me.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> No but it wasn't long. Less than a week. If you get a certain look or smile, or realise from conversation that there could be something going on, you'd be daft not to pursue it.
> 
> And there are more subtle ways to engage someone than "how about me and you later?"




Are you saying that because you and Mrs Spy happened upon each other and both noticed the chemistry and both acted on it, then hitting on people while they work is always okay?


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Not really, calling me son implies you're my father. if you'd called me boy then it'd imply you thought i was quite young, that'd be fine if I was quite young. 19 say...not a problem.


Yes that's right. It could only possibly imply that I was your father.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Not really, calling me son implies you're my father. if you'd called me boy then it'd imply you thought i was quite young, that'd be fine if I was quite young. 19 say...not a problem.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

Okay this is getting silly now. Some of us are trying to make larger points about a larger issue, while some others are trying to apply the arguments to specific and local occurrences.

This is usually the point where the discussion veers off into personal insults, so I’m stepping back now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 26, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. He doesn't charge me.





ETA: Interesting use of 'doesn't', rather than 'didn't'.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you said
> the post you quoted consisted of the words 'young girls'. the only possible conclusion is that you believe young girls to be an insult.



another conclusion could be that i thought you were implying i was a nonce...again...nambla rambler?

still derailing, you sort of lost it about the time you were fixing your watch didn't you? to get back to the point. 

We allow people to sell their bodies for violence, boxing etc....why don't we allow people to sell their bodies for sex? Both normalise violence and sexual objectification respectively.

If you want to ban martial arts and boxing too then that's consistent but you keep avoiding it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2018)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Are you saying that because you and Mrs Spy happened upon each other and both noticed the chemistry and both acted on it, then hitting on people while they work is always okay?


It wasn't Mrs Spy (she was a punter in the bar when I hit on her), but of course not. I'm saying it's not _always_ out of order (though I'm not sure what the definition of "hitting on" is). If it means a gentle approach after exchanging signals, then I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all just because it happens in her workplace.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Not really, calling me son implies you're my father. if you'd called me boy then it'd imply you thought i was quite young, that'd be fine if I was quite young. 19 say...not a problem.


A certain late great poster would have called you 'sweetie' by now and it would have been game over.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


>



If you've assumed I meant "girl" in some derogatory way I can only apologise and use "woman" from here on. For the record I simply meant that a 19 year old is very young and possibly naive and it's obviously exploitative to have a 19 year old anywhere near an event like this.

Now if we could get back to why we have a double standard when it comes to selling our bodies for sex/violence that'd be good.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> To be clear here, you three are saying prostitution should remain illegal?



Prostitution is not illegal in England you ignorant prick.


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> If you've assumed I meant "girl" in some derogatory way I can only apologise and use "woman" from here on. For the record I simply meant that a 19 year old is very young and possibly naive and it's obviously exploitative to have a 19 year old anywhere near an event like this.
> 
> Now if we could get back to why we have a double standard when it comes to selling our bodies for sex/violence that'd be good.



So you don't think that a 19 year old should be allowed to wait on tables or that they shouldn't be allowed to be a prostitute? At what age do you think women should be 'allowed' to do these things?


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Prostitution is not illegal in England you ignorant prick.



My bad, I should be more precise. It's illegal to advertise though isn't it, the organisers of this event are skirting as close as they can to hiring prostitutes and running a bait and switch sort of scam instead.

No need to be rude, you cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> another conclusion could be that i thought you were implying i was a nonce...again...nambla rambler?
> 
> still derailing, you sort of lost it about the time you were fixing your watch didn't you? to get back to the point.
> 
> ...


if you wanted to complain about being called a nambla rambler you should have quoted that post and not the one mentioning young girls. in the future you might like to remember it makes more sense to everyone if you do that, auld man.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> I don't think it ends at the door at all, that's why I acknowledged what you said.
> 
> Would you ban boxing? Do you think glorifying violence might result in serious assaults on the streets? The fact some cunt might assault someone isn't reason to restrict other peoples behaviour.


I dislike boxing and wouldn’t go to see it, but my dividing line for legality is the point you can pay to do something yourself that would otherwise be assault.  I can’t pay for the right to beat someone up and not should I have that right.



> "How about the right to expect you can live your life in peace without society presenting you as a sex object that others have the right to use as they see fit?"
> 
> How about the right of people to do what they want with their bodies? be that selling sex or violence?
> If I want to sell my body that's got nothing to do with anyone and my they like.
> ...


That has been my consistent position over the years, yes.  I mean, with subtleties about who is committing the crime.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> So you don't think that a 19 year old should be allowed to wait on tables or that they shouldn't be allowed to be a prostitute? At what age do you think women should be 'allowed' to do these things?



Poor wording on my part. I meant that society doesn't allow it in that it's seen as shameful, it's a restricted practice, etc...Women can do as they please. That's my point.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> No need to be rude, you cunt.



You're the one who sees adult women as girls, silly little things to be protected from the big bad world and their own naivety, yet _I'm the cunt_?


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Poor wording on my part. I meant that society doesn't allow it in that it's seen as shameful, it's a restricted practice, etc...Women can do as they please. That's my point.


No, society famously doesn't allow nineteen year old women to wait on tables, that's absolutely right.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I dislike boxing and wouldn’t go to see it, but my dividing line for legality is the point you can pay to do something yourself that would otherwise be assault.  I can’t pay for the right to beat someone up and not should I have that right.
> 
> That has been my consistent position over the years, yes.  I mean, with subtleties about who is committing the crime.



No I don't like boxing either. That's an important distinction, but other people can pay to see you beaten up.

Also, we've never had a practice of people paying to beat other people up, not in any numbers anyway. We do have a long history of prostitution. Is it realistic to think it's going to disappear at any point?

what subtleties?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> No, society famously doesn't allow nineteen year old women to wait on tables, that's absolutely right.



Shameful waitresses


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> No, society famously doesn't allow nineteen year old women to wait on tables, that's absolutely right.



oh jesus, you know i'm talking about prostitution but carry on willfuly misunderstanding me.


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> oh jesus, you know i'm talking about prostitution but carry on willfuly misunderstanding me.


You said:




no-no said:


> If you've assumed I meant "girl" in some derogatory way I can only apologise and use "woman" from here on. For the record I simply meant that a 19 year old is very young and possibly naive and it's obviously exploitative to have a 19 year old anywhere near an event like this.
> 
> Now if we could get back to why we have a double standard when it comes to selling our bodies for sex/violence that'd be good.



'Event like this'.

So you're saying that the women were employed as prostitutes, yes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> oh jesus, you know i'm talking about prostitution but carry on willfuly misunderstanding me.


right. so it's your considered opinion these women were whores.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> You said:
> So you're saying that the women were employed as prostitutes, yes?



Did you not read my earlier post? I'm saying it would be be better if prostitution were fully legal and events like this could recruit people without havign to use bait and switch tactics and ambiguous job descriptions.

I'm, saying that the organisers wanted prostitutes, couldn't hire them legally so instead they hired hostesses and turned a blind eye to the abuse going on.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> No I don't like boxing either. That's an important distinction, but other people can pay to see you beaten up.


No they can’t.  They can pay to see you take part in a fight that regulators have a responsibility to ensure is fair enough not to present undue risk, and where they have a responsibility to stop it if it goes too far.

I can’t just pay one desperate person to beat up another desperate person.

You might think this difference is unimportant.  It is not.  It is the heart of the matter.



> Also, we've never had a practice of people paying to beat other people up, not in any numbers anyway. We do have a long history of prostitution. Is it realistic to think it's going to disappear at any point?


Ah, so being able to pay to engage in an assault is to be justified on the basis of _tradition_...



> what subtleties?


For a start, there is little point in criminalising to one forced by economic coercion into offering themselves for the assault.  The criminal is the one taking advantage of their economic power.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Did you not read my earlier post? I'm saying it would be be better if prostitution were fully legal and events like this could recruit people without havign to use bait and switch tactics and ambiguous job descriptions.
> 
> I'm, saying that the organisers wanted prostitutes, couldn't hire them legally so instead they hired hostesses and turned a blind eye to the abuse going on.


you're not making this any better for yourself, you know.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> right. so it's your considered opinion these women were whores.



precisely the opposite. they took the jobs under the impression there would be no sexual abuse.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

"No they can’t.  They can pay to see you take part in a fight that regulators have a responsibility to ensure is fair enough not to present undue risk, and where they have a responsibility to stop it if it goes too far.

I can’t just pay one desperate person to beat up another desperate person."

and if prostitution were regulated and run to the same standards as boxing? shouldn't it be?

"Ah, so being able to pay to engage in an assault is to be justified on the basis of _tradition_..."

no, not justified. I don't think boxing is justifiable either but I don't think it's going to disappear because I want it to and neither is prostitution.

"For a start, there is little point in criminalising to one forced by economic coercion into offering themselves for the assault.  The criminal is the one taking advantage of their economic power."

yes i agree but even criminalising the customers affects the workers. they can't advertise, can't work in a safe environment. Why couldn't it be regulated properly?

sorry, i should learn to use the quotes properly.....


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Did you not read my earlier post? I'm saying it would be be better if prostitution were fully legal and events like this could recruit people without havign to use bait and switch tactics and ambiguous job descriptions.
> 
> I'm, saying that the organisers wanted prostitutes, couldn't hire them legally so instead they hired hostesses and turned a blind eye to the abuse going on.


You do realise that prostitutes (I'm going to use that word for disambiguation) are frequently abused too, don't you? They are - shockingly - also women capable of human feelings. And 'legalising prostitution' won't do squat to change anything as long as entitled sociopaths like those men are allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

The equivalent to boxing is a live sex show, not prostitution.  That’s the point I am making.  You are drawing a fatuous false equivalence.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Poot said:


> You do realise that prostitutes (I'm going to use that word for disambiguation) are frequently abused too, don't you? They are - shockingly - also women capable of human feelings. And 'legalising prostitution' won't do squat to change anything as long as entitled sociopaths like those men are allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour?



Yes I do realise that, what I'm talking about is harm reduction at most.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The equivalent to boxing is a live sex show, not prostitution.  That’s the point I am making.  You are drawing a fatuous false equivalence.



yes I see that but the people in the sex show are still having sex for money. What's the difference other than that they work in a safer environment? which is exactly what I'm saying all sex workers should have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> yes I see that but the people in the sex show are still having sex for money. What's the difference other than that they work in a safer environment? which is exactly what I'm saying all sex workers should have.


An audience


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2018)

Why didn't the organisers hire 130 escorts? There would have been no ambiguity then about the role. 

I should imagined that the FT have done themselves no favours as far as their advertising take goes, they have offended a lot of very powerful people.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> yes I see that but the people in the sex show are still having sex for money. What's the difference other than that they work in a safer environment? which is exactly what I'm saying all sex workers should have.





kabbes said:


> ...my dividing line for legality is the point you can pay to do something yourself that would otherwise be assault.  I can’t pay for the right to beat someone up and not should I have that right.





kabbes said:


> No they can’t (pay to see you be beaten up).  They can pay to see you take part in a fight that regulators have a responsibility to ensure is fair enough not to present undue risk, and where they have a responsibility to stop it if it goes too far.
> 
> I can’t just pay one desperate person to beat up another desperate person.
> 
> You might think this difference is unimportant.  It is not.  It is the heart of the matter.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I should imagined that the FT have done themselves no favours as far as their advertising take goes, they have offended a lot of very powerful people.


win-win then.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> An audience



and the person they're having sex with? just whoever the other employees is?

In terms of saftey, why would we allow sex workers on tv or sex shows more security than those on the street?


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Why didn't the organisers hire 130 escorts? There would have been no ambiguity then about the role.
> 
> I should imagined that the FT have done themselves no favours as far as their advertising take goes, they have offended a lot of very powerful people.


To your first point, there is still ambiguity if escorts are waiting on tables. To your second point, I think the future of young women is more important than those people's feelings. Or money. Young women are still going through the same shit now as they did twenty years ago. That has to change.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Kabbes



Gonna have a think on that, i see what you're saying but it feels like the people working the streets are being abandoned and more problems flow from that. Thanks for not calling me a cunt.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> and the person they're having sex with? just whoever the other employees is?


An individual who also knows exactly what they are signing up for and knows where their absolute right to withdraw lies. An individual who has had the chance to agree what the rules of engagement are and has no interest in circumventing them.

I still hate the idea of it, mind, and judge those who would go as morally bankrupt.  But it is qualitatively different and can be judged for legality on its own merits, not by analogy to something it isn’t.



> In terms of saftey, why would we allow sex workers on tv or sex shows more security than those on the street?


I’m not allowing anything here.  You are.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2018)

Wilf said:


> win-win then.


 Well, I've never read the FT, but will accept your implication that it isn't worth reading.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> and the person they're having sex with? just whoever the other employees is?
> 
> In terms of saftey, why would we allow sex workers on tv or sex shows more security than those on the street?


For a long time it's been known that prostitutes on the streets are less safe than women working together in a flat or house. Yet the latter is criminalised while the former isn't. Go figure


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> and the person they're having sex with? just whoever the other employees is?
> 
> In terms of saftey, why would we allow sex workers on tv or sex shows more security than those on the street?



There should be no sex workers on the street. It is time that the law caught up with the actuality, and brothels were legalised in the UK. I would rather that no one had to make a living in this way, but whilst it happens, it should be as safe as possible. Working on the streets is never safe.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I’m not allowing anything here.  You are.



Bad language on my part. With increased regulation the only people who wouldn't be "allowed" to do anything are those who exploit the situation as it is.


----------



## no-no (Jan 26, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> There should be no sex workers on the street. It is time that the law caught up with the actuality, and brothels were legalised in the UK. I would rather that no one had to make a living in this way, but whilst it happens, it should be as safe as possible. Working on the streets is never safe.



Poot and Pickmans agree?

What happens if these rich twats simply hire a brothel for their charity night? Isn't that pretty much the situation I've been talking about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Poot and Pickmans agree?
> 
> What happens if these rich twats simply hire a brothel for their charity night? Isn't that pretty much the situation I've been talking about?


Poot and Pickman's often agree


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2018)

If the organisers  had hired prostitutes/escorts then that would have ruined (much of) the fun for the guests.

Removing both the pretence that these women are being won over by their charm and sophistication and deeper down removing the raw thrill of flaunting their power over the waitresses.

Prostitution would've been too banal a transaction. It wasn't (just) about sex.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Poot and Pickmans agree?
> 
> What happens if these rich twats simply hire a brothel for their charity night? Isn't that pretty much the situation I've been talking about?



It is a pity they didn't. At least the women concerned would have known the score.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> If the organisers  had hired prostitutes/escorts then that would have ruined (much of) the fun for the guests.
> 
> Removing both the pretence that these women are being won over by their charm and sophistication and deeper down removing the  raw thrill of flaunting their power to over the waitresses.
> 
> Prostitution would've been too banal a transaction. It wasn't (just) about sex.



Exactly, it's not about sex, it's about power.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Bad language on my part. With increased regulation the only people who wouldn't be "allowed" to do anything are those who exploit the situation as it is.


If those exploiting economic coercion to force sex on another were prosecuted for assault, I reckon things might start to change.  Attitudes towards it for a start.


----------



## Poot (Jan 26, 2018)

no-no said:


> Poot and Pickmans agree?
> 
> What happens if these rich twats simply hire a brothel for their charity night? Isn't that pretty much the situation I've been talking about?



I was agreeing with Sass's last sentence, really. Sex workers need more protection. But if a village is being stalked by a lion, rather than keep building fences, eventually you're going to have to shoot the lion. 

So let's deal with men's attitudes rather than keep trying to protect women.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 26, 2018)

Firstly (as others have said) this behaviour is not about sex - its about men bonding by demonstrating their (class and gender-based) power over these women.  And even if the women were all prostitutes, they should be able to negotiate and be suitably paid for any sexual services, and would have limits and boundaries about what they would do (sometimes as simple as no kissing), and should be able to refuse consent.  This would be sexual assault and harassment and appallingly exploitative work conditions whatever the job title.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> This would be sexual assault and harassment and appallingly exploitative work conditions whatever the job title.


Quite.  And the fact that some think the problems all go away just by ascribing the label “prostitute” speaks volumes.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2018)

If you can't have a men's only night without groping the waiting staff then you don't get to have nice things and while a 20 something  bloke would be an immature twat anyone over 30 who is I imagine giving the large sums to charity is just a twat if they cant keep their hands to themselves.


----------



## agricola (Jan 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> If the organisers  had hired prostitutes/escorts then that would have ruined (much of) the fun for the guests.
> 
> Removing both the pretence that these women are being won over by their charm and sophistication and deeper down removing the raw thrill of flaunting their power over the waitresses.
> 
> Prostitution would've been too banal a transaction. It wasn't (just) about sex.



FWIW there is at least one report that they did hire (edit:  sorry - the report actually says they were present, albeit in matching garb) prostitutes/escorts for the afterparty, but had them wear red dresses rather than black.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 26, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Why didn't the organisers hire 130 escorts? There would have been no ambiguity then about the role.
> 
> I should imagined that the FT have done themselves no favours as far as their advertising take goes, they have offended a lot of very powerful people.


WTF? Have you drink taken?


----------



## yield (Jan 26, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, I've never read the FT, but will accept your implication that it isn't worth reading.


It's actually a pretty good read in the the "telling truth to power" kind of way. What the capitalists want or expect to hear. That and the Economist.

Pearson sold it to Nikkei in 2015. It's gotten a lot thinner the last few years. But their attempts at investigative journalism have borne fruit already.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 26, 2018)

agricola said:


> FWIW there is at least one report that they did hire (edit:  sorry - the report actually says they were present, albeit in matching garb) prostitutes/escorts for the afterparty, but had them wear red dresses rather than black.




Ugh.

Much in the same manner as the Handmaids in The Handmaid’s Tale had to wear a red dress to signify their station.


----------



## elbows (Jan 26, 2018)

Somehow I managed to read this thread without learning that Walliams presented the event for three years in a row! Did I fail to spot that bit in the thread or is this factoid not well known, or so well known it didnt need a mention? 

David Walliams withdraws Presidents Club lot as bookshops drop his titles


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 26, 2018)

He also said he left at 11:30pm, while the article said:


> At* 10pm* last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. *“Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,”* he roared.


But he had no idea...

<edit: just to clarify, I'm aware it the quote isn't from Walliams, but it's a fair bet he heard the remark>


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2018)

you want a sleazy men-only event crack on don't hire hostesses under false colours and don't claim its ok as it's for charity.
littlejohn was claiming the sick kiddies are the real losers.

what is next trophy hunting poachers for charity?
sponsored drone strikes for help the heroes?*


great Ormond street and other charities don't want to take money off people who have raised it under circumstances which most normal people would consider dubious*


*personally having rich fuckwits pay to  push the button to targeted kill jihadis by drone strike would be a fitting end to said  jihadists but i'm a sick fuck


----------



## Badgers (Jan 27, 2018)




----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I should imagined that the FT have done themselves no favours as far as their advertising take goes, they have offended a lot of very powerful people.



Yeah I expect they'll get some flak for it from advertisers for a bit.  I'm genuinely surprised a paper like FT ran such a story.  Great piece of journalism though.  Not only did it expose such a thing it exposed something that any person with even a whiff of intelligence has known to be true for decades and it did it at the perfect opportunity given the background of current sexual abuse cases in Hollywood, abuse in sport and so on.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

Giles Coren is one of the very few people I fervently wish would suffer a long and painful illness


----------



## dessiato (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Giles Coren is one of the very few people I fervently wish would suffer a long and painful illness


His piece in the Times about this is quite good. It describes the situation in which I found myself at these events, and why I've not been to one for about thirty years.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2018)

basically, there's a minority who enjoy this sort of thing and getting hammered while showing off wonga does charity some good
  some who go once and the rest get dragged along because its the old school tie networking event sit there waiting for the thing to end and will probably be toasting the FT today


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

dessiato said:


> His piece in the Times about this is quite good. It describes the situation in which I found myself at these events, and why I've not been to one for about thirty years.


Worse for the men? My heart bleeds for them 

You believe that, you'll believe anything. He's just realised that the sort of article he used to write isn't going to get him the writing gigs any more: 
A couple of xx’s could end my glorious career
No, Giles Coren, Being Overweight Isn’t The Worst Thing In Life

He's an obnoxious shithead


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 27, 2018)

So, The Sun front page today is a tale of broken Britain, because due to all this PC gone mad news of late even - gasp - _darts matches_ aren’t having pretty girls dressed in skimpy clothes any more


----------



## Badgers (Jan 27, 2018)




----------



## dessiato (Jan 27, 2018)

I know we're not supposed to cross thread post. I posted this on the other thread and felt it would sit equally here. So, with apologies, I'm posting it here too.

I don't know how typical I am, I imagine I'm notespecially atypical. I look at beautiful things. I like paintings and sculpture, I like beautiful cars, I'll notice a beautiful person (male and female) But stopping and staring at a person, drooling over a stripper, just not my thing. It seems so very wrong. It seems disrespectful. I did it in the past, but I grew up. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd willingly go to watch a stripper or lap dancer.

This change in attitude isn't just due to growing up and seeing the performers in a more humanising way, but also due to places like Urban which has caused me toreexamine my position. I hope I'm the better person for this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 27, 2018)

likesfish said:


> basically, there's ae minority who enjoy this sort of thing and getting hammered while showing off wonga does charity some good
> some who go once and the rest get dragged along because its the old school tie networking event sit there waiting for the thing to end and will probably
> be toasting the FT today



If you sit there in an environment or situation that makes you uncomfortable because of mistreatment of others and you endure it for the sake of social form then you're as bad as the rest. Arguably worse, because you actually know that what's happening is wrong and yet ingratiating yourself with shit people is more important to you than doing the _bare minimum_ by getting up and leaving.

Don't give me 'dragged along'. If there's anyone being dragged, its young women being dragged in to these things by financial necessity and then being felt up by the sort of human sewage that gets off on being at the right end of such a gruesome imbalance of power.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 27, 2018)

dessiato said:


> This change in attitude isn't just due to growing up and seeing the performers in a more humanising way, but also due to places like Urban which has caused me toreexamine my position. I hope I'm the better person for this.



I think many of us have done similar. I've never been in to strippers or even sex that much, but this place has very much helped shape attitudes, especially some posters such as equationgirl to name but one of many who has made me open my eyes to a lot of shit to which I was blind. I think I am a better person for this. So thanks.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 27, 2018)

what doesn't seem to have been picked up on as much about this event being "men only" - is that its also a networking event - building and reinforcing connections between powerful men where women are excluded except for being items on the menu.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 27, 2018)

Man who says ‘correct me if I’m wrong’ has no intention of being corrected


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 27, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think many of us have done similar. I've never been in to strippers or even sex that much, but this place has very much helped shape attitudes, especially some posters such as equationgirl to name but one of many who has made me open my eyes to a lot of shit to which I was blind. I think I am a better person for this. So thanks.


You're welcome, Urban has encouraged me to examine my viewpoint on more than one occasion too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 27, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> what doesn't seem to have been picked up on as much about this event being "men only" - is that its also a networking event - building and reinforcing connections between powerful men where women are excluded except for being items on the menu.



This ties in with them members clubs too; no public record of who is a member, loads of ministers and judges of course, so when a minister proposes something you can’t see the conflict of interest if he’s doing it on behalf of a fellow member. Imagine taking someone to court who happens to be a member of the same club as the judge?

This shit needs ending. Now.


----------



## Voley (Jan 27, 2018)

Nail on head here:


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 27, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This ties in with them members clubs too; no public record of who is a member, loads of ministers and judges of course, so when a minister proposes something you can’t see the conflict of interest if he’s doing it on behalf of a fellow member. Imagine taking someone to court who happens to be a member of the same club as the judge?
> 
> This shit needs ending. Now.



Are you advocating the listing of all Trades Union members? Political Party members? Both of the preceding groups are also capable of collusive behaviour, so should be publically listed in the name of transparency.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Are you advocating the listing of all Trades Union members? Political Party members? Both of the preceding groups are also capable of collusive behaviour, so should be publically listed in the name of transparency.



Yes, of course, why shouldn’t they?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 27, 2018)

Badgers said:


>




Blimey, I thought he had died. 

I have seen hen party behaviour which was absolutely appalling, but cannot say I've seen anyone sexually assaulted.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 27, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, of course, why shouldn’t they?


 Best of luck getting that one to fly. 

I said that to a client one day, he was claiming that a section of EU legislation exempted him from paying taxes.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 27, 2018)

what do trade union members collude on that's so bad then sas? compared to these 'captains of industry' etc
stronger rights at work? equality?


----------



## agricola (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Are you advocating the listing of all Trades Union members? Political Party members? Both of the preceding groups are also capable of collusive behaviour, so should be publically listed in the name of transparency.



Not on anything like the same scale, though.  If you divided the money controlled by just tables 1/2 at the Dorchester that night up among every trade union member in the UK, it would easily be five figures each.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Blimey, I thought he had died.
> 
> I have seen hen party behaviour which was absolutely appalling, but cannot say I've seen anyone sexually assaulted.


He won't survive the bloodlust of 2018. Wait till the afternoon of Nov 24


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 27, 2018)

I don't think the FT will face an advertiser backlash - imagine being the company that pulled your ads from the FT because of this article. (Also it's made them more valuable in terms of ad sales anyway due to the increased attention and readership.)

It'll mean that all the future events of this sort screen harder for journalists though. It's hardly as if there won't be any more of them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 27, 2018)

ddraig said:


> what do trade union members collude on that's so bad then sas? compared to these 'captains of industry' etc
> stronger rights at work? equality?



That and Bolshevism, lesbianism, human sacrifice. All the usual abominations.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2018)

Easy solution to the collision of trade union members, bring back closed shops so everybody is involved in the colluding.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 27, 2018)




----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 27, 2018)

MrSki said:


>



"Proudly presents"! 

Eta: tories in apostrophe fail!


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 27, 2018)

MrSki said:


>



Waitresses AND food?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Worse for the men? My heart bleeds for them
> 
> You believe that, you'll believe anything. He's just realised that the sort of article he used to write isn't going to get him the writing gigs any more:
> A couple of xx’s could end my glorious career
> ...



I'd not heard of him before, but yeah, he sound like a total knob.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> I'd not heard of him before, but yeah, he sound like a total knob.


Alan Coren’s son, Victoria Coren Mitchell’s brother


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Alan Coren’s son, Victoria Coren Mitchell’s brother



Ah. Alan Coren I've heard of. Writer?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah. Alan Coren I've heard of. Writer?


Writer/comic, was on the News Quiz for donkeys years. And _Call my Bluff_


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah. Alan Coren I've heard of. Writer?


He was Punch basically


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2018)

Groping enthusiast, Bernie Ecclestone, has "slammed" "snowflake racing chiefs" for "banning" Grand Prix "grid girls".

Pro-groping paper, the S*n, announces: "snowflake latest FORMULA DUMB Now killjoys ban Grand Prix grid girls".

As someone with no interest at all in motor racing, I don't know what "grid girls" are or do. But in my mind they're like co-hosts on 70s game shows; they look lovely and point at cars. 

The "outrage" seems entirely manufactured.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Groping enthusiast, Bernie Ecclestone, has "slammed" "snowflake racing chiefs" for "banning" Grand Prix "grid girls".
> 
> Pro-groping paper, the S*n, announces: "snowflake latest FORMULA DUMB Now killjoys ban Grand Prix grid girls".
> 
> ...



They just stand next to the cars in varying states of undress (depending on the country hosting the grand prix) and hold up a number.  Its just before the race starts.

As a news story of international importance it ranks slightly below the earth shattering news that I found a fiver on the pavement yesterday.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> They just stand next to the cars in varying states of undress (depending on the country hosting the grand prix) and hold up a number.  Its just before the race starts.
> 
> As a news story of international importance it ranks slightly below the earth shattering news that I found a fiver on the pavement yesterday.



Probably a little bit more important than that, esp to anyone who's just lost their cushy jet set job.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Groping enthusiast, Bernie Ecclestone, has "slammed" "snowflake racing chiefs" for "banning" Grand Prix "grid girls".
> 
> Pro-groping paper, the S*n, announces: "snowflake latest FORMULA DUMB Now killjoys ban Grand Prix grid girls".
> 
> ...


has anyone asked the women about this either in this instance or wr2 darts, or is it just about men?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> has anyone asked the women about this either in this instance or wr2 darts, or is it just about men?


Asked which women? I'm sure the grid girls themselves are broadly pro-grid girls, but that's not really the point.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> has anyone asked the women about this either in this instance or wr2 darts, or is it just about men?


yes, one woman, Charlotte Wood, from the darts started or backed a petition to reinstate them and said it was a large part of their income


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Probably a little bit more important than that, esp to anyone who's just lost their cushy jet set job.



You seem to have missed the international importance part of my comment.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2018)

Darts: PDC to scrap walk-on girls after broadcaster talks



> But walk-on girl Charlotte Wood, who says darts accounts for 60 per cent of her income, says her rights "are being taken away".
> 
> "We regularly review all aspects of our events and this move has been made following feedback from our host broadcasters," said a PDC spokesperson.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

I would imagine that women who work as models are largely in favour of jobs for women who work as models.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Asked which women? I'm sure the grid girls themselves are broadly pro-grid girls, but that's not really the point.


so it's the men


----------



## 8ball (Feb 1, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Groping enthusiast, Bernie Ecclestone, has "slammed" "snowflake racing chiefs" for "banning" Grand Prix "grid girls".



I had no idea they still did anything like that.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
Its all getting a bit confusing imo.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so it's the men



Men with money.  Apparently the darts reached the conclusion from feedback from their broadcasters. I think if you're trying to make a sport more family friendly it makes sense to end this sort of practice.  Totally absurd outrage though.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
> Its all getting a bit confusing imo.



We need to just smash everything and wipe all the hard drives, burn all the books and start again.
It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
> Its all getting a bit confusing imo.


whatever happened to *including* a painting to prompt conversation?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> whatever happened to *including* a painting to prompt conversation?



You get conversations where someone might be offended.


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I would imagine that women who work as models are largely in favour of jobs for women who work as models.



That is true, though they have every right to given what the alternative is (that they will almost certainly all be paid less and have to work in worse environments). 

Besides, firms being seen to take a stand and dismantle this bit of the patriarchy is a nonsense, given that other aspects of modelling - especially on the catwalk - are far more physically harmful and have seen vastly more exploitation take place over a much longer period of time.


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2018)

8ball said:


> We need to just smash everything and wipe all the hard drives, burn all the books and start again.
> It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so it's the men



Its the new owners of F1.  I don't know what their board make-up is or who made the final decision but in all likelihood it would have been men.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> That is true, though they have every right to given what the alternative is (that they will almost certainly all be paid less and have to work in worse environments).



Shrug. F1 has new owners who want to change aspects and that will affect certain roles.  If someone takes over my company and decide I'm no longer needed that's the way of the world unfortunately, I don't have any right to stay employed if I'm not required or needed.

They work on gig work and some gigs are better than others.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 1, 2018)

The new F1 owners are American I believe. 

A friend of mine is a grid girl. She loves the job. She gets paid well and all the pit crew and drivers are far too busy to give them any hassle. And she gets to travel to different places and races. Most hassle comes from the hangers on who still think of them as screwdrivers.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
> Its all getting a bit confusing imo.


That's a bit odd


----------



## Wilf (Feb 1, 2018)

Darts - at the forefront of the battle against objectification!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Darts - at the forefront of the battle against objectification!


they have a point, you know

*gets coat*


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think if you're trying to make a sport more family friendly it makes sense to end this sort of practice.


I think half the world were astonished when, only a few years ago, the IPL decided to go with cheerleaders







This is _*CRICKET*_, ffs 

It has provided me with some amusement, however. When watching matches with my father-in-law it's fun to see what reason he can manufacture to look away every time they come on (looking for something, coughing, drinking tea, reading a paper, going for a piss ... etc)


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I think half the world were astonished when, only a few years ago, the IPL decided to go with cheerleaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not only Cricket but in India, that's what surprised me more.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I think half the world were astonished when, only a few years ago, the IPL decided to go with cheerleaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To its credit, the Aussie Big Bash is heavily promoting their women's competition, widely televising it, and holding matches as double-headers with the men.


----------



## billbond (Feb 1, 2018)

Spose this will be the end of this type of thing
My cousin entering the ring with "company" by his side


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2018)

dessiato said:


> A friend of mine is a grid girl. She loves the job. She gets paid well and all the pit crew and drivers are far too busy to give them any hassle. *And she gets to travel to different places and races.*



Really? I thought they used local women? Local as in from the country the race is being held in? Perhaps not in Abu Dhabi, but certainly elsewhere?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2018)

It’s a shit attitude that says we shouldn’t pay any attention to the negative social impacts of something just so long as a few people get to keep their job, especially when that job is the very thing creating the negative social impact.

“Exploitation of women” doesn’t mean “exploitation of a woman”.  It refers to the impact on women as a whole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Men with money.  Apparently the darts reached the conclusion from feedback from their broadcasters. I think if you're trying to make a sport more family friendly it makes sense to end this sort of practice.  Totally absurd outrage though.


yeh. so this isn't being pushed for by your actual feminists?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s a shit attitude that says we shouldn’t pay any attention to the negative social impacts of something just so long as a few people get to keep their job, especially when that job is the very thing creating the negative social impact.
> 
> “Exploitation of women” doesn’t mean “exploitation of a woman”.  It refers to the impact on women as a whole.



Are you saying that the four-year-old currently half-way up my chimney has anywhere better to be?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Are you saying that the four-year-old currently half-way up my chimney has anywhere better to be?


Child abuse is not about the abuse of “a child”.  You’ll be fine.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> You seem to have missed the international importance part of my comment.


I wasn't sure what relevance it had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Are you saying that the four-year-old currently half-way up my chimney has anywhere better to be?


should be halfway up my chimney: had them booked in for two - why's your place taking so long?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> should be halfway up my chimney: had them booked in for two - why's your place taking so long?



Trying to shift the corpse of the last child to go up is taking this one longer than we thought.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Trying to shift the corpse of the last child to go up is taking this one longer than we thought.


last time i use bahnhof strasse cleaning services ltd


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> I wasn't sure what relevance it had.



I'm not surprised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I'm not surprised.


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## dessiato (Feb 1, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Really? I thought they used local women? Local as in from the country the race is being held in? Perhaps not in Abu Dhabi, but certainly elsewhere?


Not always. She's certainly travelled with the grid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Not always. She's certainly travelled with the grid.


so she doesn't live off-grid


----------



## dessiato (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so she doesn't live off-grid


Actually yes. She's just got a job as a flight "hostess" for a private charter company. I'm not sure this is a good move, but it isn't my life.


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Actually yes. She's just got a job as a flight "hostess" for a private charter company. I'm not sure this is a good move, but it isn't my life.


I know I'm going to regret asking this, but a "hostess" in speech marks; surely that's never a good thing? What does that involve?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Not only Cricket but in India, that's what surprised me more.


As long as they're not _ nice Indian girls_, it's ok.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Not always. She's certainly travelled with the grid.



That can't have been cheap for F1 shipping these women around the world and paying for accommodation and subsistence plus their wages on top.  If I had just taken over F1 it'd probably be the thing I'd get rid of first if only because its a chronic waste of money.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> As long as they're not _ nice Indian girls_, it's ok.


glad to see you're still with us


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> That can't have been cheap for F1 shipping these women around the world and paying for accommodation and subsistence plus their wages on top.  If I had just taken over F1 it'd probably be the thing I'd get rid of first if only because its a chronic waste of money.


That's probably one of smallest costs involved in F1, tbf.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

The idea of doing away with grid girls etc is to stop men from objectivising women and change mes attitudes to women right? But that's going to continue whether we like it or not. I'm not even convinced there's anything wrong with sexual objectification. Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.

I think all that's happening here is that we're doing women out of lucrative work. 

Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2018)

“You can’t change things so why even bother trying?”


----------



## trabuquera (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> As long as they're not _ nice Indian girls_, it's ok.



This is fascinating! Why on earth are they all Saffas? (Other blonde Jezebels are available from other nations). Gupta connection maybe?


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.



I think its extremely challenging to make proper comparisons to other cultures, there are too many variables.

In any case I do not see the removal of grid girls etc as being a sign of inevitable broader restrictions in society, or general prudishness. Corporate prudishness yes. Anyway I support the removal of this stuff because even if you want to retain the exploitation of women as eyecandy in certain specific contexts, the days where this sort of thing leaked into the general sporting & tv scene should have ended many years ago, amazing in many ways that it's taken this long.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> The idea of doing away with grid girls etc is to stop men from objectivising women and change mes attitudes to women right? But that's going to continue whether we like it or not. I'm not even convinced there's anything wrong with sexual objectification. Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.
> 
> I think all that's happening here is that we're doing women out of lucrative work.
> 
> Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.


As a woman, I find it humiliating and excluding to see grid 'girls' and walk on 'girls'. Makes it very clear that my role is about decoration, and that I shouldn't be watching this or participating as this is a sport for MEN. 

And isn't it funny how adult women are referred to as 'girls' when they're objects of sexual desire for men?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

trabuquera said:


> This is fascinating! Why on earth are they all Saffas? (Other blonde Jezebels are available from other nations). Gupta connection maybe?


They're about 90% South African and Australian with a handful of Brits and other Europeans.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That's probably one of smallest costs involved in F1, tbf.



Look after the pennies spy


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

kabbes said:


> “You can’t change things so why even bother trying?”




Who though, is the arbiter of what should change? My wife, a woman, commented last night that she is fed up to the back teeth with our current ethos of 'Neo-puritanism'. It was with regards to the darts events dropping the walk on girls. Her comment was that the girls are now unemployed, for no good reason. I agree with her. the whole thing is becoming a large bag of bollocks.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> The idea of doing away with grid girls etc is to stop men from objectivising women and change mes attitudes to women right? But that's going to continue whether we like it or not. I'm not even convinced there's anything wrong with sexual objectification. Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.
> 
> I think all that's happening here is that we're doing women out of lucrative work.
> 
> Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.



Man says equality achieved and no longer any need for feminism.  Oh well, that's that then, it was good while it lasted.


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> As a woman, I find it humiliating and excluding to see grid 'girls' and walk on 'girls'. Makes it very clear that my role is about decoration, and that I shouldn't be watching this or participating as this is a sport for MEN.
> 
> And isn't it funny how adult women are referred to as 'girls' when they're objects of sexual desire for men?



And most of the people moaning about the changes seem to be men, another non-surprise there.

I think the BBC did a poll when the F1 change was mooted but not yet confirmed, and it was about 60% who said they wanted to keep this shit. I'm very glad they have been ignored.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Who though, is the arbiter of what should change? My wife, a woman, commented last night that she is fed up to the back teeth with our current ethos of 'Neo-puritanism'. It was with regards to the darts events dropping the walk on girls. Her comment was that the girls are now unemployed, for no good reason. I agree with her. the whole thing is becoming a large bag of bollocks.


"No good reason", eh?  What about this reason?



trashpony said:


> As a woman, I find it humiliating and excluding to see grid 'girls' and walk on 'girls'. Makes it very clear that my role is about decoration, and that I shouldn't be watching this or participating as this is a sport for MEN.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Who though, is the arbiter of what should change.



In this case the people who own F1 and run the darts.  Who are you to tell them otherwise?  I thought you were some sort of capitalist?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> And most of the people moaning about the changes seem to be men, another non-surprise there.



http://newsthump.com/2018/02/01/man...hen-the-job-involves-shiny-skintight-dresses/


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Who though, is the arbiter of what should change? My wife, a woman, commented last night that she is fed up to the back teeth with our current ethos of 'Neo-puritanism'. It was with regards to the darts events dropping the walk on girls. Her comment was that the girls are now unemployed, for no good reason. I agree with her. the whole thing is becoming a large bag of bollocks.



People are often fed up when things they have been totally used to throughout their lives change in ways they dont recognise or appreciate.

Tough shit really, my primary interest in these changes involves the women of tomorrow and the dodgy messages we give them as they grow up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> People are often fed up when things they have been totally used to throughout their lives change in ways they dont recognise or appreciate.
> 
> Tough shit really, my primary interest in these changes involves the women of tomorrow and the dodgy messages we give them as they grow up.


yeh that they're not to be seen for example


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> People are often fed up when things they have been totally used to throughout their lives change in ways they dont recognise or appreciate.
> 
> Tough shit really, my primary interest in these changes involves the women of tomorrow and the dodgy messages we give them as they grow up.



What message is this sending, though?  _Billionaire capitalists might find it more trouble than you are worth to employ you to stand next to F1 cars or fat blokes, because of things on Twitter that were only tangenitally related to this?_


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> People are often fed up when things they have been totally used to throughout their lives change in ways they dont recognise or appreciate.
> 
> Tough shit really, my primary interest in these changes involves the women of tomorrow and the dodgy messages we give them as they grow up.



This reply is wrong on every level.

I will limit my reply to the specific I mentioned. The darts walk on girls did so of their own volition, they did so because it was an easy way to make a living. Because of the decision by some neo-puritanical arsehole, they are unemployed. Do you think that they will be giving thanks for their emancipation? They would probably rip your balls off, had it been your decision.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> What message is this sending, though?  _Billionaire capitalists might find it more trouble than you are worth to employ you to stand next to F1 cars or fat blokes, because of things on Twitter that were only tangenitally related to this?_


It's more to do with the message that they will no longer be sending from this point on. Boys, you can dream of being an F1 driver or, er, a darts player. Girls, practise walking and smiling at the same time and looking nice, cos that's all you're good for.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> As a woman, I find it humiliating and excluding to see grid 'girls' and walk on 'girls'. Makes it very clear that my role is about decoration, and that I shouldn't be watching this or participating as this is a sport for MEN.
> 
> And isn't it funny how adult women are referred to as 'girls' when they're objects of sexual desire for men?



Tough shit basically, it was their choice of employment, and who are you to deny them that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> This reply is wrong on every level.
> 
> I will limit my reply to the specific I mentioned. The darts walk on girls did so of their own volition, they did so because it was an easy way to make a living. Because of the decision by some neo-puritanical arsehole, they are unemployed. Do you think that they will be giving thanks for their emancipation? They would probably rip your balls off, had it been your decision.


yeh, i asked above but no one's saying these decisions are being made at the behest of women, which i find surprising - it's men removing women from the publick sphere.


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

If you dont get it by this stage, I doubt anything I can say will sound particularly convincing.

Carry On bleating.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's more to do with the message that they will no longer be sending from this point on. Boys, you can dream of being an F1 driver or, er, a darts player. Girls, practise walking and smiling at the same time and looking nice, cos that's all you're good for.


the message they're really sending is 'if it benefits our business model we'll get rid of you'


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> This reply is wrong on every level.
> 
> I will limit my reply to the specific I mentioned. The darts walk on girls did so of their own volition, they did so because it was an easy way to make a living. Because of the decision by some neo-puritanical arsehole, they are unemployed. Do you think that they will be giving thanks for their emancipation? They would probably rip your balls off, had it been your decision.



Sas.  How many darts events constitute a season?  8? 10?  I'm pretty sure they have other work than for a couple of hours 8 times a year.  Anyway given the nature of their job it can only be done for a couple of years anyway as then they're too old.  I don't think this legitimate decision by organisers is going to have a bit hit on the next government employment figures.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> If you dont get it by this stage, I doubt anything I can say will sound particularly convincing.
> 
> Carry On bleating.


oh, i entirely understand the rationale you think's in play. i just disagree with it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's more to do with the message that they will no longer be sending from this point on. Boys, you can dream of being an F1 driver or, er, a darts player. Girls, practise walking and smiling at the same time and looking nice, cos that's all you're good for.


 If someone would pay me a wage to dress skimpily (the darts girls didn't, they were in evening dresses), smile prettily and escort someone onto a stage, I would bite their bloody hand off_. _The likelihood of someone doing so is beyond microscopic, but I'm available.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Anyway given the nature of their job it can only be done for a couple of years anyway as then their too old.


oh dear. oh dear oh dear oh dear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> If someone would pay me a wage to dress skimpily (the darts girls didn't, they were in evening dresses), smile prettily and escort someone onto a stage, I would bite their bloody hand off_. _The likelihood of someone doing so is beyond microscopic, but I'm available.


i suspect that at the moment of assault you would lose the job.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the message they're really sending is 'if it benefits our business model we'll get rid of you'


That is the reason they are doing it. Not the same thing as the message they were sending up to now but will not be sending from now on. Could say exactly the same thing about the demise of the page 3 topless models, who were also paid well for a not-too-hard job that they may have been glad to have.


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Who though, is the arbiter of what should change? My wife, a woman, commented last night that she is fed up to the back teeth with our current ethos of 'Neo-puritanism'. It was with regards to the darts events dropping the walk on girls. Her comment was that the girls are now unemployed, for no good reason. I agree with her. the whole thing is becoming a large bag of bollocks.


And does your wife speak for all women? Do you speak for all men? Or do others have other experiences that are equally as valid?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> If you dont get it by this stage, I doubt anything I can say will sound particularly convincing.
> 
> Carry On bleating.


 Pathetic. Try harder.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear. oh dear oh dear oh dear.



Well its true though isn't it?  All these people fighting for the rights of the women less they become unemployed.  I don't give much of a shit anyway but if someone is going to defend it at least defend it for what it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is the reason they are doing it. Not the same thing as the message they were sending up to now but will not be sending from now on. Could say exactly the same thing about the demise of the page 3 topless models, who were also paid well for a not-too-hard job that they may have been glad to have.


i'm glad you're replying to me now, i'll be glad while it lasts.

i don't think the two are really equivalent and am surprised you appear to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Well its true though isn't it?  All these people fighting for the rights of the women less they become unemployed.  I don't give much of a shit anyway but if someone is going to defend it at least defend it for what it is.


a couple of years? you're having a laugh.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Poot said:


> And does your wife speak for all women? Do you speak for all men? Or do others have other experiences that are equally as valid?


 Hyde Park Corner ->


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> As a woman, I find it humiliating and excluding to see grid 'girls' and walk on 'girls'. Makes it very clear that my role is about decoration, and that I shouldn't be watching this or participating as this is a sport for MEN.
> 
> And isn't it funny how adult women are referred to as 'girls' when they're objects of sexual desire for men?



Why are you humiliated because other women are working as grid girls or models or whatever? It doesn't say anything about your role or anything about what you should or shouldn't be doing at all, you're not them, they're not you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why are you humiliated because other women are working as grid girls or models or whatever? It doesn't say anything about your role or anything about what you should or shouldn't be doing at all, you're not them, they're not you.


blue touchpaper lit.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> a couple of years? you're having a laugh.



I bow to your knowledge of darts and the modeling world. Are their veterans out there?  A women who has been at it as long as the power?


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> I think its extremely challenging to make proper comparisons to other cultures, there are too many variables.
> 
> In any case I do not see the removal of grid girls etc as being a sign of inevitable broader restrictions in society, or general prudishness. Corporate prudishness yes. Anyway I support the removal of this stuff because even if you want to retain the exploitation of women as eyecandy in certain specific contexts, the days where this sort of thing leaked into the general sporting & tv scene should have ended many years ago, amazing in many ways that it's taken this long.



Yes theres are lots of variables, our society is different in many other ways but the essence of it is the same.

Men behave badly.
It's because women are objectified.
Hide the women.

I don't see why this pattern of thinking won't continue into other areas, music, movies, modelling and finally the clothign choices of private individuals. How far along that path it'll go i don't know, hopefully not too far.


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why are you humiliated because other women are working as grid girls or models or whatever? It doesn't say anything about your role or anything about what you should or shouldn't be doing at all, you're not them, they're not you.



We interviewed some slaves earlier. A couple of them were delighted to have a roof over their head and a hot meal every day. Therefore it's absolutely fine to keep slaves.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> blue touchpaper lit.


 This is the age of artificial outrage on behalf of others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I bow to your knowledge of darts and the modeling world. Are their veterans out there?  A women who has been at it as long as the power?


your claim is apparently that women lose their looks over a couple of years. i suggest that you reconsider your crass comment.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

kabbes said:


> “You can’t change things so why even bother trying?”



Not if it means restricting peoples personal decisions no.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> If someone would pay me a wage to dress skimpily (the darts girls didn't, they were in evening dresses), smile prettily and escort someone onto a stage, I would bite their bloody hand off_. _The likelihood of someone doing so is beyond microscopic, but I'm available.



*sets-up a crowd funding page*


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> your claim is apparently that women lose their looks over a couple of years. i suggest that you reconsider your crass comment.



Indeed. I can only speak for myself here, but my wife of nearly 43 years is as beautiful today as she was the day I married her. beauty has little to do with physical looks.


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Pathetic. Try harder.



With various blokes now leaping to soil themselves over this issue, I dont think I need to try at all really.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why are you humiliated because other women are working as grid girls or models or whatever? It doesn't say anything about your role or anything about what you should or shouldn't be doing at all, you're not them, they're not you.


Because it makes me very aware that whatever I do, whatever I'm doing, men are judging me because of how I look. That I'm a more valuable human being if I'm attractive and dressed in a particular way. That, as a woman, looks, body shape and age are prized and impact on our value as humans.

If you can't see how this feeds into a culture where men feel entitled to comment on women's looks and fuckability (or otherwise), then you're either not very bright or have little imagination. Sas is just a fucking arsehole but we all know that.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

I was just thinking that some of the people on here make Harriet Harperson look quite reasonable.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I wsa just thinking that some of the people on here make Harriet Harperson look quite reasonable.



Harriet Harperson. Listen to yourself you pathetic individual


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Not if it means restricting peoples personal decisions no.


This is a bizarre argument, tbh. They're paid well for an easy job, which most of them are probably very happy to have. But within the context in which they can get this kind of money for managing to stand, smile and hold a thing all at the same time (_Only open to stunning beauties, as judged by me. Sorry love_ - so not a personal decision open to all persons), there is no 'right' to have this kind of work. There is either a demand for it or there is not. 

As elbows said, the only wonder here is that it took so long for this to change.


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, i asked above but no one's saying these decisions are being made at the behest of women, which i find surprising - it's men removing women from the publick sphere.



... and to protect themselves from the allegation of being anti-women, no less.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Hide the women.



Just picking up on this comment.  I don't know about the darts but I imagine for F1 the exact opposite is true.  The new owners are looking to broaden its appeal beyond the assorted collection of overwhelmingly male and slightly odd petrolheads that make up its current fan base.  From a purely commercial perspective you'd be mad to ignore half the population.  So a decision has been made with a view to getting more women fans of the support and probably even some women drivers, that's the real goal. Are grid girls going to help that goal or hinder it?  Lets face it they ain't going to help.

Pickman's was right earlier, this is nothing to do with snowflake this, neo-puritanical that or even making women disappear - this is purely a commercial decision. Red toothed capitalism and its weird (and funny) to see so many flag waivers for capitalism get all hot under the collar about it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Because it makes me very aware that whatever I do, whatever I'm doing, men are judging me because of how I look. That I'm a more valuable human being if I'm attractive and dressed in a particular way. That, as a woman, looks, body shape and age are prized or otherwise.


Hmmmm. Would you apply that to all female modelling then? Where does the line get drawn?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> your claim is apparently that women lose their looks over a couple of years. i suggest that you reconsider your crass comment.



No my claim is that its a crass industry that will not hire people unless they are the right age and looks.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Tough shit basically, it was their choice of employment, and who are you to deny them that?



*other jobs are available, I'd have loved to be a grid model but *sigh* no vacancies for blokes. I had to get another job too.


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2018)

Your occasional reminder that bigots, racists and generally right-wing trolls most often accuse their opponents of doing the exact same things that they are guilty of.


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> No my claim is that its a crass industry that will not hire people unless they are the right age and looks.



and now its a crass industry that will not hire people


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Hmmmm. Would you apply that to all female modelling then? Where does the line get drawn?


They're modelling clothes. Entirely different (although it does contribute to the culture that women are objects).


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

Mind you if I were a woman I might almost be relieved that the mask has slipped for some on this issue. Because so many men have apparently learnt how to say mostly the right things when it comes to debates about, for example, rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment. But there are lingering suspicions that this new found enlightenment has its limits, for some more than others, so perhaps it is a relief to find visible signs of the true limits of progress at this stage.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Because it makes me very aware that whatever I do, whatever I'm doing, men are judging me because of how I look. That I'm a more valuable human being if I'm attractive and dressed in a particular way. That, as a woman, looks, body shape and age are prized or otherwise.
> 
> If you can't see how this feeds into a culture where men feel entitled to comment on women's looks and fuckability (or otherwise), then you're either not very bright or have little imagination. Sas is just a fucking arsehole but we all know that.



Errr... ever considered that you are deluding yourself? To the point of mental imbalance? As a male of 65, I can assure you that for all of my working life, I judged a woman by how well they did their job, not how they looked. Ditto when I had a female boss, I was more concerned that she did her job, which enabled me to do mine.

I could take offence over your blanket accusation concerning the mindset of all men, because you clearly have no clue whatsoever, beyond your blind stereotyping.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Because it makes me very aware that whatever I do, whatever I'm doing, men are judging me because of how I look. That I'm a more valuable human being if I'm attractive and dressed in a particular way. That, as a woman, looks, body shape and age are prized or otherwise.
> 
> If you can't see how this feeds into a culture where men feel entitled to comment on women's looks and fuckability (or otherwise), then you're either not very bright or have little imagination. Sas is just a fucking arsehole but we all know that.



We're all judged constantly on how we look, what we say, what we know, the list is endless. So what?

Why do you care what motorsport fans think of you? isn't that your problem? why do the grid girls have to take responsibility for your insecurities? Do good looking women in public make you feel the same way? What responsibility should they take for your feelings?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> and now its a crass industry that will not hire people



Shrug.  The world changes some industries thrive others fall by the wayside.


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 1, 2018)

Let's hope some of these teenage girl magazines and women's magazines follow suit -  because some of the content in these rags are just as damaging to women and (especially) teenage girls, in terms of objectifying and judging them. Will be interesting, too, what the A listers to Z listers think about this, as they parade themselves for the cameras at the next premiere or showbiz love-fest. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. Thought not.

Lights! Camera! Action! Indeed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> Mind you if I were a woman I might almost be relieved that the mask has slipped for some on this issue. Because so many men have apparently learnt how to say mostly the right things when it comes to debates about, for example, rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment. But there are lingering suspicions that this new found enlightenment has its limits, for some more than others, so perhaps it is a relief to find visible signs of the true limits of progress at this stage.


 I doubt if there is a single person posting here that rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment is acceptable behaviour. I certainly don't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> Mind you if I were a woman I might almost be relieved that the mask has slipped for some on this issue. Because so many men have apparently learnt how to say mostly the right things when it comes to debates about, for example, rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment. But there are lingering suspicions that this new found enlightenment has its limits, for some more than others, so perhaps it is a relief to find visible signs of the true limits of progress at this stage.


 I doubt if there is a single person posting here believes that rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment is acceptable behaviour. I certainly don't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why do you care what motorsport fans think of you? isn't that your problem? why do the grid girls have to take responsibility for your insecurities? Do good looking women in public make you feel the same way? What responsibility should they take for your feelings?


And the point about the messages this kind of thing sends to girls growing up? What about those? 'You can grow up to be a pretty cheerleader, supporting the boys', not 'you can grow up to do the things the boys will be doing'.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a bizarre argument, tbh. They're paid well for an easy job, which most of them are probably very happy to have. But within the context in which they can get this kind of money for managing to stand, smile and hold a thing all at the same time (_Only open to stunning beauties, as judged by me. Sorry love_ - so not a personal decision open to all persons), there is no 'right' to have this kind of work. There is either a demand for it or there is not.
> 
> As elbows said, the only wonder here is that it took so long for this to change.



Well this is the thing, the way the papers aregoing on you'd think it was a ban handed down from parliament rather than F1 making their own decision. That decision is based on the direction the percieve public opinion to be heading.

I'm not sure that direction is such a great one though since it so closely resembles what we see in other authoritarian societies.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> my primary interest in these changes involves the women of tomorrow and the dodgy messages we give them as they grow up.


Basically this.
Christ this thread got depressing. no-no you’re just being a dick, parading the ‘all feminists are just bitter cos they’re not hotties’ line of argument.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I doubt if there is a single person posting here that rape, sexual assault, groping and harassment is acceptable behaviour. I certainly don't.



There are certainly loads who'll put in the 'not acceptable' disclaimer then reach straight for the 'but...'


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Shrug.  The world changes some industries thrive others fall by the wayside.



True - though I am struggling to think of another industry that failed because its male owners wanted to take a stand against the exploitation of women, in the aftermath of an event in which women were exploited, by telling women their services are no longer required.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> I'm not sure that direction is such a great one though since it so closely resembles what we see in other authoritarian societies.


It's like Communist Albania.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Well this is the thing, the way the papers aregoing on you'd think it was a ban handed down from parliament rather than F1 making their own decision. That decision is based on the direction the percieve public opinion to be heading.
> 
> I'm not sure that direction is such a great one though since it so closely resembles what we see in other authoritarian societies.



omg facism. It's just a business decision you twit.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the point about the messages this kind of thing sends to girls growing up? What about those? 'You can grow up to be a pretty cheerleader, supporting the boys', not 'you can grow up to do the things the boys will be doing'.



So put some boys on the grid in pants, campaign for girls to get into karting and hence into adult motorsport. Plenty of things we could do other than act prudish.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

trashpony said:


> They're modelling clothes.


Not solely though, are they? Female models advertise everything from coffee to toothpaste, via detergent, pet food and insurance policies. Many girls aspire to a modelling career. Is that something that should be discouraged?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Let's hope some of these teenage girl magazines and women's magazines follow suit -  because some of the content in these rags are just as damaging to women and (especially) teenage girls, in terms of objectifying and judging them. Will be interesting, too, what the A listers to Z listers think about this, as they parade themselves for the cameras at the next premiere or showbiz love-fest. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. Thought not.
> 
> Lights! Camera! Action! Indeed.



Well quite. The people who force actresses to turn up almost naked at award ceremonies must be stopped... Oh, wait a minute, it is actually their own choice of dress. Anyone smell the slightest whiff of hypocrisy?


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Not solely though, are they? Female models advertise everything from coffee to toothpaste, via detergent, pet food and insurance policies. Many girls aspire to a modelling career. Is that something that should be discouraged?



Yes, at least as the industry currently exists.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Basically this.
> Christ this thread got depressing. no-no you’re just being a dick, parading the ‘all feminists are just bitter cos they’re not hotties’ line of argument.



I didn't parade it, I asked what the problem was and trash pony posted about feeling humiliated because men were judgeing her against "hotties"


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> True - though I am struggling to think of another industry that failed because its male owners wanted to take a stand against the exploitation of women, in the aftermath of an event in which women were exploited, by telling women their services are no longer required.



Well it's purely a business decision whichever way they may spin it.  Also the women are still wanted, they can buy a ticket like everyone else or get real good at the sport themselves.

With the darts whilst this may have been one of their better earning gigs their income from this must have a been a fraction of their annual income as its only a few hours work eight or ten times a year.  It's just not that big a deal really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Hmmmm. Would you apply that to all female modelling then? Where does the line get drawn?


Catalogues


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> I didn't parade it, I asked what the problem was and trash pony posted about feeling humiliated because men were judgeing her against "hotties"


Jesus christ.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> I didn't parade it, I asked what the problem was and trash pony posted about feeling humiliated because men were judgeing her against "hotties"



It's this bit i was thinking of


no-no said:


> We're all judged constantly on how we look, what we say, what we know, the list is endless. So what?
> 
> Why do you care what motorsport fans think of you? isn't that your problem? why do the grid girls have to take responsibility for your insecurities? Do good looking women in public make you feel the same way? What responsibility should they take for your feelings?



I can't even be bothered to argue with you though tbh, as your ideas are basically nonsense (nothing should ever change unless everyone in the world totally agrees thats its in their individual economic best interests).


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Poot said:


> We interviewed some slaves earlier. A couple of them were delighted to have a roof over their head and a hot meal every day. Therefore it's absolutely fine to keep slaves.



You see grid girls as akin to slaves? Sex slaves no doubt....What's wrong with you?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> So put some boys on the grid in pants, campaign for girls to get into karting and hence into adult motorsport. Plenty of things we could do other than act prudish.


I'm not a prude. This is all about context. I also don't care about motorsport. But the idea that events should involve men taking part with women as decoration appears to be nearing its shelf-life. And about time too.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> So put some boys on the grid in pants, campaign for girls to get into karting and hence into adult motorsport. Plenty of things we could do other than act prudish.



That won't attract young women or girls into motor sport you twit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not a prude. This is all about context. I also don't care about motorsport. But the end of the idea that events should involve men taking part with women as decoration appears to be nearing its shelf-life. And about time too.


Yeh. A while till it reaches the end of its shelf life tho


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Basically this.
> Christ this thread got depressing. no-no you’re just being a dick, parading the ‘all feminists are just bitter cos they’re not hotties’ line of argument.



There is some truth in it though, the ultra-feminists don't tend to be Miss World (even without the swimsuit round) contestants. 

I need to be elsewhere, and apologise unreservedly for this post, I just couldn't resist it. Put it down to 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> We're all judged constantly on how we look, what we say, what we know, the list is endless. So what?
> 
> Why do you care what motorsport fans think of you? isn't that your problem? why do the grid girls have to take responsibility for your insecurities? Do good looking women in public make you feel the same way? What responsibility should they take for your feelings?


Why would they take responsibility for anyone's feelings? It's not about the grid girls. If you think it's about them, you're deluded. It's about the system that objectifies women. It's about my daughter thinking she has to please men all the time because that is ALL SHE FUCKING SEES AROUND HER.


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well quite. The people who force actresses to turn up almost naked at award ceremonies must be stopped... Oh, wait a minute, it is actually their own choice of dress. Anyone smell the slightest whiff of hypocrisy?


I can smell something but I actually thought it was coming from you.


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> You see grid girls as akin to slaves? Sex slaves no doubt....What's wrong with you?!


It's called an analogy. Google it.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> It's this bit i was thinking of
> 
> 
> I can't even be bothered to argue with you though tbh, as your ideas are basically nonsense (nothing should ever change unless everyone in the world totally agrees thats its in their individual economic best interests).



No, that's not my argument at all. there are other ways to change the message delivered to girls as they grow up that don't invovle hiding women.


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is some truth in it though, the ultra-feminists don't tend to be Miss World (even without the swimsuit round) contestants.
> 
> I need to be elsewhere, and apologise unreservedly for this post, I just couldn't resist it. Put it down to 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.


You're a complete cunt. I apologise unreservedly for calling you a cunt, you cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I need to be elsewhere, and apologise unreservedly for this post, I just couldn't resist it. Put it down to 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.


Yeh. And you're getting out


----------



## colacubes (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is some truth in it though, the ultra-feminists don't tend to be Miss World (even without the swimsuit round) contestants.
> 
> I need to be elsewhere, and apologise unreservedly for this post, I just couldn't resist it. Put it down to 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.



But you never judge a woman on her looks


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 1, 2018)

And what about women wearing bikinis to the beach eh?


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Poot said:


> It's called an analogy. Google it.


a shit one.

You could use tht analogy to do away with any and all paid work...oh wait...that's probably what you want.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2018)

Every time I think Sas has scraped the barrel of one-dimensional thinking, he manages to go deeper.


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2018)

I'd like to apologise to the whole thread for using the word 'cunt', for when I called that cunt a cunt just now.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.



Piss the fuck off with this and stop rationalising your own stupidity by pretending all men are as stupid as you.
EtA, I sort of want to apologise for the cursing but really, you do deserve it sometimes.


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> So put some boys on the grid in pants



Here you go: one for the ladies.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2018)

the heady aroma of reaction. I'm also getting hints of 'myth of the level playing field'. 

its true to say that men are not judged on standards of beauty in the same way as women. Not with the same social weighting nor with the same historical baggage. To claim that 'we are all judged' in some banal apolitical truism, well how thick is that. Would one care to apply that to say, skin colour? Well we are all judged so y'know, its just that. Nothing else to see here. Certainly we can't look beyond oh noes burqa by the back door or some shit. Have a word


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> a shit one.
> 
> You could use tht analogy to do away with any and all paid work...oh wait...that's probably what you want.



Bored today?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> a shit one.
> 
> You could use tht analogy to do away with any and all paid work...oh wait...that's probably what you want.


Don't you want to do away with useless toil?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> No, that's not my argument at all. there are other ways to change the message delivered to girls as they grow up that don't invovle hiding women.


Where have you got this 'hiding women' thing from? 

To go back to the cricket example from earlier, you have two leagues: in India, there's a men's competition with female cheerleaders; in Australia, there is a men's match, which comes directly after a women's match. Messages: in the former, girls, you can be a cheerleader; in the latter, girls, you can be a cricketer.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't you want to do away with useless toil?



Useless troll would be fine.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't you want to do away with useless toil?



Just having a look around me at work, no useless toil going on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Just having a look around me at work, no useless toil going on here.


Yeh you're all slacking off


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where have you got this 'hiding women' thing from?
> 
> To go back to the cricket example from earlier, you have two leagues: in India, there's a men's competition with female cheerleaders; in Australia, there is a men's match, which comes directly after a women's match. Messages: in the former, girls, you can be a cheerleader; in the latter, girls, you can be a cricketer.



ok, so the problem is that there aren't enough messages for girls. There's nothing wrong with being a cheerleader, the problem is the lack of other messages. So get your daughter into karting or cricket or whatever she wants to do rather than tellig other people what they can't do anymore.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh you're all slacking off


 LOL , I am a bit.....4 o clock blues.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> There are certainly loads who'll put in the 'not acceptable' disclaimer then reach straight for the 'but...'



There is no defensible 'but'. Being serious for a moment, rather than the 'piss taking' posts above, it is never acceptable to lay hands on another person without their consent. I was taught this by my father, and have followed it all my life. No means no, not maybe or yes. 

Men are physically stronger, this generates the assault; women get ripped to bits in court, this engenders the pathetic conviction rate for such offences. We had a case some years back in Scotland, where a rape victim had to hold up in court, the underwear she had been wearing the night of the attack. Shortly afterwards she took her own life. Until there is law in place to protect women, the conviction rates will remain low. That is a disgrace.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Just having a look around me at work, no useless toil going on here.



No, too busy posting in urban.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To go back to the cricket example from earlier, you have two leagues: in India, there's a men's competition with female cheerleaders; in Australia, there is a men's match, which comes directly after a women's match. Messages: in the former, girls, you can be a cheerleader; in the latter, girls, you can be a cricketer.


The Big Bash have cheerleaders too though.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. And you're getting out



Don't worry, Mrs Sas will soon restore the status quo.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

I think a general strike in support of 4 or 5 women who have lost 16 or so hours work a year is what is needed.  To the barricades old friends.


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where have you got this 'hiding women' thing from?
> 
> To go back to the cricket example from earlier, you have two leagues: in India, there's a men's competition with female cheerleaders; in Australia, there is a men's match, which comes directly after a women's match. Messages: in the former, girls, you can be a cheerleader; in the latter, girls, you can be a cricketer.



To be fair to the IPL, they do not encourage most of the women viewing it to be a cheerleader either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The Big Bash have cheerleaders too though.


So they do. The idea in the post is still valid though.

Mixed messages from the Big Bash.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> ok, so the problem is that there aren't enough messages for girls. There's nothing wrong with being a cheerleader, the problem is the lack of other messages. So get your daughter into karting or cricket or whatever she wants to do rather than tellig other people what they can't do anymore.


tbh these messages affect both boys and girls, don't they. Such things can be overcome, but they form a backdrop against which you have to fight.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 1, 2018)

Fuck me sideways, some men here really are stupid cunts.

If you can’t see why “grid girls” need consigning to the history books you need to take a long hard look at yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck me sideways, some men here really are stupid cunts.
> 
> If you can’t see why “grid girls” need consigning to the history books you need to take a long hard look at yourself.


Yeh. And if you can't explain or outline those reasons then so should you


----------



## Poot (Feb 1, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck me sideways, some men here really are stupid cunts.
> 
> If you can’t see why “grid girls” need consigning to the history books you need to take a long hard look at yourself.


I was going to give some kind of considered post about cheerleading and its detrimental effect on women but, actually, I think your post pretty much covers it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 1, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck me sideways, some men here really are stupid cunts.



But, there's only one that's a cupid stunt.


----------



## bemused (Feb 1, 2018)

Last year Loius Vuitton and a few other fashion companies decided it probably wasn't a good idea to use children and size zero models to shill their shit. That story received a fraction of coverage F1 not wanting to pay models to stand in front of their wagons on the start line. An odd World.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> To be fair to the IPL, they do not encourage most of the women viewing it to be a cheerleader either.


If that's true, then that's even worse, no? Don't be a whore, girls, but men, you're ok using whores - that's all they're good for.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

colacubes said:


> But you never judge a woman on her looks



I don't actually. I don't think she looks... so must be...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. And if you can't explain or outline those reasons then so should you


Petty 

What r grid girls..... I suppose I should look upthread, do I want to see another ugly facet of teh patriarchy


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Petty
> 
> What r grid girls..... I suppose I should look upthread, do I want to see another ugly facet of teh patriarchy


Probably not


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh these messages affect both boys and girls, don't they. Such things can be overcome, but they form a backdrop against which you have to fight.



Sure but we can fight them without part of the message being "becoming a grid girl is bad" that's a backwards step.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I think a general strike in support of 4 or 5 women who have lost 16 or so hours work a year is what is needed.  To the barricades old friends.


Yeah, fuck em. who cares what they'd like to do huh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Sure but we can fight them without part of the message being "becoming a grid girl is bad" that's a backwards step.


No, that's closer to the idea put forward about the IPL: we have cheerleaders, but be a good girl and don't become one. Rank hypocrisy.

This is different. Becoming a grid girl will be impossible as no such thing will exist.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Men are physically stronger,* this generates the assault*



That's quite a telling bit of stupidness there. If only women had better upper body strength all would be well. It's tempting to forgive you the rest of it just because you're an antique but come on, this just shows your total lack of understanding of how this stuff joins up.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 1, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> the heady aroma of reaction. I'm also getting hints of 'myth of the level playing field'.
> 
> its true to say that men are not judged on standards of beauty in the same way as women. Not with the same social weighting nor with the same historical baggage. To claim that 'we are all judged' in some banal apolitical truism, well how thick is that. Would one care to apply that to say, skin colour? Well we are all judged so y'know, its just that. Nothing else to see here. Certainly we can't look beyond oh noes burqa by the back door or some shit. Have a word


Thick as fuck!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Piss the fuck off with this and stop rationalising your own stupidity by pretending all men are as stupid as you.
> EtA, I sort of want to apologise for the cursing but really, you do deserve it sometimes.



Here here. Absolutely agree. I'm a dreadful person. Really terrible.

Those who know me IRL don't think so, but I must give absolute credence to your incredible perspicacity. With an IQ of 135, I would dispute 'stupid' though.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yeah, fuck em. who cares what they'd like to do huh?



I'm with you.  One out all out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thick as fuck!


In surprising numbers, tbh.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's quite a telling bit of stupidness there. If only women had better upper body strength all would be well. It's tempting to forgive you the rest of it just because you're an antique but come on, this just shows your total lack of understanding of how this stuff joins up.


 If your comprehension level is low, it's hardly my fault.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> the heady aroma of reaction. I'm also getting hints of 'myth of the level playing field'.
> 
> its true to say that men are not judged on standards of beauty in the same way as women. Not with the same social weighting nor with the same historical baggage. To claim that 'we are all judged' in some banal apolitical truism, well how thick is that. Would one care to apply that to say, skin colour? Well we are all judged so y'know, its just that. Nothing else to see here. Certainly we can't look beyond oh noes burqa by the back door or some shit. Have a word


No one is innocent


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yeah, fuck em. who cares what they'd like to do huh?



In fairness you've given me a good chuckle.  It's a been a passionate and often bizarre defence but it's got me through the last half hour of the day.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> If your comprehension level is low, it's hardly my fault.


You said 'men are physically stronger and that's why they sexually assault women'. What is it I'm missing you utter wally?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In surprising numbers, tbh.


The thick always hunt in packs!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yeah, fuck em. who cares what they'd like to do huh?



Were I 'grid girl' I would be incandescent with rage. Travelling around the world, and paid to do so, and then suddenly someone decides it isn't my right to do it.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, that's closer to the idea put forward about the IPL: we have cheerleaders, but be a good girl and don't become one. Rank hypocrisy.
> 
> This is different. Becoming a grid girl will be impossible as no such thing will exist.



They'll all move into another line of work, modelling or similar. and then that'll be in the firing line. The logical conclusion is that women and men eventually will not be able to earn money as models of any form.

I don't think that's such a great message to send to the next generation either because it'll hit women first and hardest and the message will be "don't flaunt yourself"...or some notion like that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Anyhoo, sas has an iq of 135, so that pretty much settles things, I would have thought.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)




----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 1, 2018)

I once did one on the telly whilst stoned and it was way down at 82.

Urban : bout right HC


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Were I 'grid girl' I would be incandescent with rage. Travelling around the world, and paid to do so, and then suddenly someone decides it isn't my right to do it.



Yes I was upset when I got made redundant.  I told the company it was against my rights and I had a right to work there regardless of what the company wanted, sadly it didn't work.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyhoo, sas has an iq of 135, so that pretty much settles things, I would have thought.



All these years and none of us knew we had a genius on our hands.  Fuck me, he hid that well.


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

My wife of 135 years blames an outbreak of dungarees and berets in the 1980's for the decline of our dearly held beliefs.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> the heady aroma of reaction. I'm also getting hints of 'myth of the level playing field'.
> 
> its true to say that men are not judged on standards of beauty in the same way as women. Not with the same social weighting nor with the same historical baggage. To claim that 'we are all judged' in some banal apolitical truism, well how thick is that. Would one care to apply that to say, skin colour? Well we are all judged so y'know, its just that. Nothing else to see here. Certainly we can't look beyond oh noes burqa by the back door or some shit. Have a word



I wasn't implying that all judgement is equal, it seems you're saying that for women at least that judgement affects them to such a degree that they get to dictate what jobs other women can do.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> You said 'men are physically stronger and that's why they sexually assault women'. What is it I'm missing you utter wally?



The point I was making, that even someone of moderate intelligence could understand, is that the greater strength of the male facilitates the assault. My second point was that the legal system does not provide proper protection in court for women who have been assaulted. A good QC can make a woman feel as if she has been assaulted a second time. I can understand why a woman will simply suffer the assault, and make no complaint to the police, and it sucks. Previous sexual behaviour has nothing to do with the case in point, but is often mentioned by the defence barrister. The judge, instead of locking the fucker up for contempt, tells the jury to disregard. You cannot 'unhear'. Women are being let down badly by the legal system, and it needs to change. A rapist who has got away with it will do it again and again.


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> In fairness you've given me a good chuckle.  It's a been a passionate and often bizarre defence but it's got me through the last half hour of the day.



Like I said, 4 0 clock blues.....


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

elbows said:


> My wife of 135 years blames an outbreak of dungarees and berets in the 1980's for the decline of our dearly held beliefs.


 The beret movement was bad, but over now, thankfully.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

I found a copy of the Sunday Sport on a train recently, was weirdly pleased to find that it still exists, though not enough customers for the Daily edition anymore i suppose.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> With an IQ of 135, I would dispute 'stupid' though.



All that means is you’re above average at IQ tests. Practice more and you’ll raise it. It’s no indication of understanding anything else though.


----------



## elbows (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> The beret movement was bad, but over now, thankfully.



Excellent, the invisible stealth berets evaded your primitive radar and will not rest until no more dinosaurs roam the earth. There will be plenty more to come for you to get all outraged about, and I look forward to cheering the long overdue progress.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> All that means is you’re above average at IQ tests. Practice more and you’ll raise it. It’s no indication of understanding anything else though.


Yeah, my son scores in the top 2%. He's still got special educational needs.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyhoo, sas has an iq of 135, so that pretty much settles things, I would have thought.



Tested twice. Same score twice. I may do one again, 40 years of grass and booze must have had some effect, that said, very little booze these days. Too many calories apart from anything else.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

People who boast about their IQ scores are not very bright, ime. Did you join mensa sass to be amongst your peers?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

[


elbows said:


> Excellent, the invisible stealth berets evaded your primitive radar and will not rest until no more dinosaurs roam the earth. There will be plenty more to come for you to get all outraged about, and I look forward to cheering the long overdue progress.



They are very vulnerable to shotgun action, a bit like clay pigeons.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Here here. Absolutely agree. I'm a dreadful person. Really terrible.
> 
> Those who know me IRL don't think so, but I must give absolute credence to your incredible perspicacity. With an IQ of 135, I would dispute 'stupid' though.



Anyone who thinks IQ counts for anything is stupid. The only time I even encounter it these days is in the ramblings of 'scientific racists' and other related species of stupid cunt.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone who thinks IQ counts for anything is stupid. The only time I even encounter it these days is in the ramblings of 'scientific racists' and other related species of stupid cunt.



Yes its normally first warning that you're about to receive a lecture on how misunderstood eugenics is.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> People who boast about their IQ scores are not very bright, ime. Did you join mensa sass to be amongst your peers?


Ooooh... do I detect just the faintest hint of sarcasm there...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Yes its normally first warning that you're about to receive a lecture on how misunderstood eugenics is.



If you want to find some eugenicists, have a look at the Labour Party in the 40's. 'Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland

Such thinking was not alien to the great Liberal titan and mastermind of the welfare state, William Beveridge, who argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood". Indeed, a desire to limit the numbers of the inferior was written into modern notions of birth control from the start. That great pioneer of contraception, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – was a hardline eugenicist, determined that the "hordes of defectives" be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit". Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild.

Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That's _Untermenschen_ in German.

I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.

According to Dennis Sewell, whose book The Political Gene charts the impact of Darwinian ideas on politics, the eugenics movement's definition of "unfit" was not limited to the physically or mentally impaired. It held, he writes, "that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class." It was not poverty that had to be reduced or even eliminated: it was the poor.

Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too "drunken and ignorant" to keep its numbers down.'

I suspect that for the elite of the Labour Party, not much has changed. The welfare cuts, blamed for a rising number of deaths, were instituted by Labour. (University tuition fees, Student Loans and removal of maintenance grants ditto.)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> People who boast about their IQ scores are not very bright, ime. Did you join mensa sass to be amongst your peers?



At 135 they wouldn't have him.

Also his IQ is too low.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you want to find some eugenicists, have a look at the Labour Party in the 40's. 'Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland
> 
> Such thinking was not alien to the great Liberal titan and mastermind of the welfare state, William Beveridge, who argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood". Indeed, a desire to limit the numbers of the inferior was written into modern notions of birth control from the start. That great pioneer of contraception, Marie Stopes – honoured with a postage stamp in 2008 – was a hardline eugenicist, determined that the "hordes of defectives" be reduced in number, thereby placing less of a burden on "the fit". Stopes later disinherited her son because he had married a short-sighted woman, thereby risking a less-than-perfect grandchild.
> 
> ...


Did teaboy pay you to do that?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> People who boast about their IQ scores are not very bright, ime. Did you join mensa sass to be amongst your peers?



An IQ of 135 won’t get you into Mensa afaik.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Were I 'grid girl' I would be incandescent with rage. Travelling around the world, and paid to do so, and then suddenly someone decides it isn't my right to do it.


The grid girls don’t travel the world, they’re just picked from local modelling agencies. 



no-no said:


> They'll all move into another line of work, modelling or similar. and then that'll be in the firing line. The logical conclusion is that women and men eventually will not be able to earn money as models of any form.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> An IQ of 135 won’t get you into Mensa afaik.


It might do some years and not others as it's an entry requirement to be in the top 2% of iqs. This will clearly vary over time. I don't know if they chuck out people who were in the top 2% but fall out of it. But I do recall regularly beating a mensa team in a pub quiz. They didn't like it when I pointed out you can have an IQ of 160 but if you don't know the answers you won't win


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 ..


Are you so old that you're actually experiencing a time lag and are speaking to us from a place located 6 years ago?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did teaboy pay you to do that?



Spooky wasn't it?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 1, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> An IQ of 135 won’t get you into Mensa afaik.



Depends on the test (different standardised tests give different scores - the only constant being the ‘average’ being set at 100).


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are you so old that you're actually experiencing a time lag and are speaking to us from a place located 6 years ago?


I look forward to you speaking from such a recent period


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I look forward to you speaking from such a recent period


I'm living in the future, in the moment when my pizza arrives to be specific.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm living in the future, in the moment when my pizza arrives to be specific.


Wishing your life away


----------



## no-no (Feb 1, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>


Why the face palm? Don't all the criticisms against grid girls apply to the catwalk?

Why wouldn't the grid girls carry on working in the glamour industry?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are you so old that you're actually experiencing a time lag and are speaking to us from a place located 6 years ago?


From beyond the Grove no less


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 1, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why the face palm? Don't all the criticisms against grid girls apply to the catwalk?


Are you genuinely this fucking thick?


----------



## xenon (Feb 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm living in the future, in the moment when my pizza arrives to be specific.



Pineapple?
:judgey face:

Anyway where’s the GGs union stand on all this. Is there a model union.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

xenon said:


> Pineapple?
> :judgey face:
> 
> Anyway where’s the GGs union stand on all this. Is there a model union.


RMT

A model for other unions


----------



## xenon (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> RMT
> 
> A model for other unions




Clapton Ultras beg to differ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

xenon said:


> Clapton Ultras beg to differ...


I'm sure they do. But what have Clapton Ultras ever won for their members?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> It might do some years and not others as it's an entry requirement to be in the top 2% of iqs. This will clearly vary over time. I don't know if they chuck out people who were in the top 2% but fall out of it. But I do recall regularly beating a mensa team in a pub quiz. They didn't like it when I pointed out you can have an IQ of 160 but if you don't know the answers you won't win



I did an IQ test on some app a year or two ago and got circa 135 and it said that put me in the top 30% - certainly not the top 5% - although I could be misremembering!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 1, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> But what have Clapton Ultras ever won for their members?



Hilarity and derision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Hilarity and derision.


Quite


----------



## Santino (Feb 1, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ooooh... do I detect just the faintest hint of sarcasm there...


There's no sarcasm there, you thick cunt.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are you genuinely this fucking thick?



Are you genuinely angry at the question?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> The idea of doing away with grid girls etc is to stop men from objectivising women and change mes attitudes to women right? But that's going to continue whether we like it or not. I'm not even convinced there's anything wrong with sexual objectification. Other societies restrict womens working choices and choice of clothing far more than we do yet the men don't objectify women any less. Some would say men from restrictive societies are worse.
> 
> I think all that's happening here is that we're doing women out of lucrative work.
> 
> Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.



Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 2, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.



Good idea, perhaps we should force women to wear black robes and cover their faces so they can’t be objectified at all ?

Alex


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.



What I find odd about this situation is why it is terribad for these sporting industries to use promotional models whilst the fashion industry who have repeatable been proven to abuse entire generations of young women get off scott free.  Any industry that exists to sell to women parades children and size zero models in front of very wealthy, famous and influential people at shows and seem to get along with any issues.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.


If people would pay me I'd have no problem doing it. I take the attitude that Sam Fox took. If people are daft enought to pay, in her case 250k a year at her peak, I'm daft enough to let them.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.



If someone wants to pay me then yeah why not?


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> If someone wants to pay me then yeah why not?



People will pay me not to. It is a win win


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> If someone wants to pay me then yeah why not?



Would you not be worried about harassment, being groped etc?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> What I find odd about this situation is why it is terribad for these sporting industries to use promotional models whilst the fashion industry who have repeatable been proven to abuse entire generations of young women get off scott free.  Any industry that exists to sell to women parades children and size zero models in front of very wealthy, famous and influential people at shows and seem to get along with any issues.


The fashion industry hasn't got off scot free.  There's been longstanding organised feminist campaigns both within the fashion industry and against the fashion industry about the way it treats models (including girls under 16), and the message that using only very slim models (and children for adult clothing) sends out to women and girls.  This has had some successes recently - with two of the companies that own a lot of the big French brands saying that they won't use size zero models or under 16s to model adult collections last year, for example.  The problem is not solved completely yet however, and its a campaign that will be ongoing for some time.

On the other hand, i might be wrong, but I haven't heard anything except for very vague feminist grumbling about walk-on/grid girls before these decisions - I certainly don't thing there's been any kind of campaign or organised pressure.  Its just a business decision.  TV rights are becoming more important than ticket sales for many sports, and its not the image that the broadcasters want to promote anymore.  And maybe they are thinking about the development of the sports, and getting more women and girls into it at all levels of playing, watching, behind the scenes.  Because when you use women purely as ornaments like that it is giving women and girls the message that they won't be taken seriously in that industry (and lets face it its not just sport - I've seen plenty of horticulture industry adverts for weedkiller for example where they stick a random female model in a little black dress in the ad for no reason).  Being made redundant is shit, so I feel a bit for the women involved (I'm sure the grid girls aren't going to be signing on anytime soon though) - and if the women want to fight it then fair play - but its a business decision, not the big bad feminists taking their jobs - and they don't have any more right to choose that work than I have the right to choose the work I'm being made redundant from.  Its just been taken up more in the media because sexism and misogyny is a hot topic now.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Were I 'grid girl' I would be incandescent with rage. Travelling around the world, and paid to do so, and then suddenly someone decides it isn't my right to do it.



Societies limit individuals' freedoms (to those individuals' chagrin) all the time, for the social good. We don't let people manufacture crack, or practice as a doctor unqualified, or sell child porn, for instance. All of which are 'infringements' on personal liberty. It comes down to the question of: what is a proportionate response to the social ill that is the trivialisation and sexual objectification of women?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 2, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Good idea, perhaps we should force women to wear black robes and cover their faces so they can’t be objectified at all ?
> 
> Alex



No.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Good idea, perhaps we should force women to wear black robes and cover their faces so they can’t be objectified at all ?
> 
> Alex



I can't quite believe how many of these there are on here. Women: keep being 'grid girls' else next thing you'll be in burquas and it will be all your fault.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 2, 2018)

Nobody has been made redundant. The grid girls at each grand prix are models from local agencies. So they will continue to work as models in other areas.

This whole "oh the poor girls have just lost their jobs" is just whining from thick as shit blokes who are upset that they won't be able to look at pretty girls anymore.

Apart from the thousands of other places where this shit still happens daily of course.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nobody has been made redundant. The grid girls at each grand prix are models from local agencies. So they will continue to work as models in other areas.
> 
> This whole "oh the poor girls have just lost their jobs" is just whining from thick as shit blokes who are upset that they won't be able to look at pretty girls anymore.
> 
> Apart from the thousands of other places where this shit still happens daily of course.



I dunno.  I'm finding this hitherto unseen rallying of support for women's jobs as heartwarming.  I'm fully expecting the next picket line to be a very busy place.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 2, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Pro-groping paper, the S*n, announces: "snowflake latest FORMULA DUMB Now killjoys ban Grand Prix grid girls". The "outrage" seems entirely manufactured.


Well the Sun has reason to be outraged as page 3, plus the Suns more general sexist attitudes, looks increasingly unacceptable. Only two options for them: double down or ship out



no-no said:


> Thin end of the wedge and all that stuff, the prudery will continue.


First they came for Benny Hill, but I did not speak for I did not watch Benny Hill...


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Would you not be worried about harassment, being groped etc?



It'd happen if I had the sort of body that attracted gropers. But that'd be an issue to be dealt with, the gropers should be the ones being reprimanded not me for doing my job.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

First they came for Benny Hill and I did not speak out because it was shit anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nobody has been made redundant. The grid girls at each grand prix are models from local agencies. So they will continue to work as models in other areas.
> 
> This whole "oh the poor girls have just lost their jobs" is just whining from thick as shit blokes who are upset that they won't be able to look at pretty girls anymore.
> 
> Apart from the thousands of other places where this shit still happens daily of course.


yeh cos obvs the decision was taken in the interests of equality and - although not publicised - the people who run formula 1 won't be hiring prostitutes any more, indeed the're very keen to eradicate sexism from their industry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> It'd happen if I had the sort of body that attracted gropers. But that'd be an issue to be dealt with, the gropers should be the ones being reprimanded not me for doing my job.


yeh cos only pretty people get groped


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> It'd happen if I had the sort of body that attracted gropers. But that'd be an issue to be dealt with, the gropers should be the ones being reprimanded not me for doing my job.



I don't think gropers discriminate as to which body they decide to assault. It's opportunistic.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think gropers discriminate as to which body they decide to assault. It's opportunistic.



Maybe not, but as a rule people who make their money modelling are conventionally good looking. If i were on the grid in hotpants in this body? I doubt very much many people would be copping a feel.....twas a self deprecatory joke.

Two people focused on that part of my post rather than the answer to your question, that the gropers should be dealt with rather than reducing the job roles available to women.

It's the same logic again...

men behave badly
it's because women are objectified
hide the women

rather than

men behave badly
these men are arseholes
punish them

I'm not saying it's going to be burqa by the back door or whatever strawman bullshit some are trying to spin. I'm saying that this has been tried in other places, and it hasn't had any effect on men's attitudes as far as i can tell.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Maybe not, but as a rule people who make their money modelling are conventionally good looking. If i were on the grid in hotpants in this body? I doubt very much many people would be copping a feel.....twas a self deprecatory joke.
> 
> Two people focused on that part of my post rather than the answer to your question, that the gropers should be dealt with rather than reducing the job roles available to women.
> 
> ...



Of course the bad apples should be dealt with. But so should the barrel in which they're allowed to fester.  It's nothing to do with hiding women; it's about shifting *how* men view women i.e. as something more than eye-candy.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos obvs the decision was taken in the interests of equality and - although not publicised - the people who run formula 1 won't be hiring prostitutes any more, indeed the're very keen to eradicate sexism from their industry.


No it was taken in the interests of business which in this case is about attracting women and family audiences, partly on the behest of broadcasters who provide a lot of the cash to the industry.  So in this case business interests coincide with the interests of sex equality (though I'm sure behind the scenes there is still plenty of misogyny)- but it boils down to money, not feminist ideals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> No it was taken in the interests of business which in this case is about attracting women and family audiences, partly on the behest of broadcasters who provide a lot of the cash to the industry.  So in this case business interests coincide with the interests of sex equality (though I'm sure behind the scenes there is still plenty of misogyny)- but it boils down to money, not feminist ideals.


i thought my sarcasm evident


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> Of course the bad apples should be dealt with. But so should the barrel in which they're allowed to fester.



ok, so should other modelling jobs become a thing of the past too? All the criticisms against grid girls apply to other modelling work too don't they?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> No it was taken in the interests of business which in this case is about attracting women and family audiences, partly on the behest of broadcasters who provide a lot of the cash to the industry.  So in this case business interests coincide with the interests of sex equality (though I'm sure behind the scenes there is still plenty of misogyny)- but it boils down to money, not feminist ideals.



Down to feminism as the driver of social change surrounding attitudes to women in wider society which in turn drives what broadcasters/advertisers want to be associated with.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> men behave badly
> it's because women are objectified
> hide the women


How about:
Men behave badly
It's because women are objectified
_Stop objectifying women_


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> ok, so should other modelling jobs become a thing of the past too? All the criticisms against grid girls apply to other modelling work too don't they?



No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> How about:
> Men behave badly
> It's because women are objectified
> _Stop objectifying women_



But this presumes that the problem is the objectification rather than the bad behaviour. Isn't that essentially prudishness? What's wrong with objectification in and of itself?

For some it might tip them into becoming some sort of abusive arsehole but that's no reason to do away with the objectification.

Some people can't handle their beer, no reason to return to prohibition.

It's also stepping all over the people who don't mind being objectified and are having a wail of a time travelling the world while doing so.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> The fashion industry hasn't got off scot free.  There's been longstanding organised feminist campaigns both within the fashion industry and against the fashion industry about the way it treats models (including girls under 16), and the message that using only very slim models (and children for adult clothing) sends out to women and girls.  This has had some successes recently - with two of the companies that own a lot of the big French brands saying that they won't use size zero models or under 16s to model adult collections last year, for example.  The problem is not solved completely yet however, and its a campaign that will be ongoing for some time.
> 
> On the other hand, i might be wrong, but I haven't heard anything except for very vague feminist grumbling about walk-on/grid girls before these decisions - I certainly don't thing there's been any kind of campaign or organised pressure.  Its just a business decision.  TV rights are becoming more important than ticket sales for many sports, and its not the image that the broadcasters want to promote anymore.  And maybe they are thinking about the development of the sports, and getting more women and girls into it at all levels of playing, watching, behind the scenes.  Because when you use women purely as ornaments like that it is giving women and girls the message that they won't be taken seriously in that industry (and lets face it its not just sport - I've seen plenty of horticulture industry adverts for weedkiller for example where they stick a random female model in a little black dress in the ad for no reason).  Being made redundant is shit, so I feel a bit for the women involved (I'm sure the grid girls aren't going to be signing on anytime soon though) - and if the women want to fight it then fair play - but its a business decision, not the big bad feminists taking their jobs - and they don't have any more right to choose that work than I have the right to choose the work I'm being made redundant from.  Its just been taken up more in the media because sexism and misogyny is a hot topic now.



Whilst I have no doubt people have campaigned against the widespread abuse of women in the fashion industry and I wish them luck, let's be honest the fashion industry has come out of it unscathed. 

Louis Vuitton who about six months ago decided that using children and pressuring women into damaging their bodies to work for them may not be a good idea. It didn't generate a fraction of the coverage that the 'are you beach body ready' tube campaign did, or the choice to stop attractive women escorting unattractive men to a darts board has. Where were the high profile celebrities urging their fans to boycott these companies? They weren't because they were being paid fortunes to shill it.

I'm pretty cynical here.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).



I don't see this difference at all. The models are still selected based on their looks, it's arguable as to whether the clothes look better on them but there's certainly a lot of objectification going on in the modelling world.

There are other jobs, backing dancers, girl bands, acting...at what point are these people objectified? Once they're good looking enough? Once we decide their job requires no talent or has no other purpose than objectification?

Why is it wrong to objectify people?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2018)

Nobody has banned grid girls.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> But this presumes that the problem is the objectification rather than the bad behaviour. Isn't that essentially prudishness? What's wrong with objectification in and of itself?
> 
> For some it might tip them into becoming some sort of abusive arsehole but that's no reason to do away with the objectification.
> 
> ...


I don’t think you understand what objectification is.  Objectification IS bad behaviour.  It’s a dehumanising process that turns a person into an object to be used and consumed.

The fact that women are seen as objects that exist just for gratification purposes (and these “grid girls” literally are there for no other reason than to be physically gratifying) is directly responsible for this objectification process.  It endorses and celebrates it.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).



Isn't this an empty distinction? Don't fashion houses prescribe what these women should look like, pressure them into altering their bodies to fit their requirements, manipulate their images and essentially treat them like cattle?

I personally think the fashion industry is more toxic than paying women to stand in front of cars.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).



But attractive people are used in glossy magazines to sell lots of things.  Perfume, watches, cars, all sorts - the models don't need to be there, do they?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I don't see this difference at all. The models are still selected based on their looks, it's arguable as to whether the clothes look better on them but there's certainly a lot of objectification going on in the modelling world.
> 
> There are other jobs, backing dancers, girl bands, acting...at what point are these people objectified? Once they're good looking enough? Once we decide their job requires no talent or has no other purpose than objectification?
> 
> Why is it wrong to objectify people?


Objectifying people beyond the most basic of needs (hello are you a bus driver driving the bus i need to get) is to reduce them to functional parts of your ego and so useable and binnable as your needs dictate. It's a horrible way to live your life and to treat people. It's juvenile and its shit. Grow up.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t think you understand what objectification is.  Objectification IS bad behaviour.  It’s a dehumanising process that turns a person into an object to be used and consumed.
> 
> The fact that women are seen as objects that exist just for gratification purposes (and these “grid girls” literally are there for no other reason than to be physically gratifying) is directly responsible for this objectification process.  It endorses and celebrates it.



How can something that occurs inside someone's mind be bad behaviour? The vast majority of women and men manage to objectify the people they find sexually attractive without groping anyone.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> If someone wants to pay me then yeah why not?



as long as you're also happy to take the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration. Bet you've never had days and days of that in all your life, have you? You might think you wouldn't mind; I suggest you think again.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Objectifying people beyond the most basic of needs (hello are you a bus driver driving the bus i need to get) is to reduce them to functional parts of your ego and so useable and binnable as your needs dictate. It's a horrible way to live your life and to treat people. It's juvenile and its shit. Grow up.



Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.


Because they're objects.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).


There are plenty of instances outside of the fashion industry where women are levered into adverts irrelevantly. Much advertising has traditionally been targeted at men and of course all men want to look at attractive women all the time don't we? I find it rather annoyingly low-brow that some marketers think I'd be better disposed to their product, service, or sport, because they've adorned it with half naked females. It's patronising bollocks to blokes as well.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> as long as you're also happy to take the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration. Bet you've never had days and days of that in all your life, have you? You might think you wouldn't mind; I suggest you think again.



and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.


there are none so blind as those that will not see


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.



Everyone is always pissed off when they lose a job ffs. These women will get other work, they're models. It's hardly a dying trade.

What about the other bit, would you mind


> the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Because they're objects.



and so it follows that they're worthless? I don't think it does.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody has banned grid girls.


I think they have.

Formula 1: 'Grid girls' will not be used at races this season


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Everyone is always pissed off when they lose a job ffs. These women will get other work, they're models. It's hardly a dying trade.



jobs that you would levy the same accusations at no doubt.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.



I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> jobs that you would levy the same accusations at no doubt.



Putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth? Try putting them in your own.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> and so it follows that they're worthless? I don't think it does.


It follows that they are potentially worthless once you've got your worth from them - and on a much larger social scale. People as means rather than as ends in themsleves  - basic stuff this.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.



I heard the death of the Atlantic slave trade was extremely unpopular in some quarters.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.



These aren't black and white minstrels.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> These aren't black and white minstrels.



They’re not caricatures?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It follows that they are potentially worthless once you've got your worth from them - and on much larger social scale. People as means - basic stuff this.



Potentially worthless, but potentially not. Why does that follow? You're saying it follows does but I don't see why.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I heard the death of the Atlantic slave trade was extremely unpopular in some quarters.



Oh come on.  These "grid girls" are earning a lot of money and travelling the world.  They're not being forced to do anything.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They’re not caricatures?



What?! They're real people.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Potentially worthless, but potentially not. Why does that follow? You're saying it follows does but I don't see why.


Wow, potentially not worthless. What a nice way to view people and life.

If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen. You asked what's wrong with objectifying people.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I don't see this difference at all. The models are still selected based on their looks, it's arguable as to whether the clothes look better on them but there's certainly a lot of objectification going on in the modelling world.
> 
> There are other jobs, backing dancers, girl bands, acting...at what point are these people objectified? Once they're good looking enough? Once we decide their job requires no talent or has no other purpose than objectification?
> 
> Why is it wrong to objectify people?



Yes, of course models are selected on their looks (it's an aesthetic industry), but their sole purpose isn't just to be lusted after by men; their main role is to demonstrate the clothes.  I think that's quite different from grid girls (though, as I've said, the fashion industry is far from blameless).

It's wrong to objectify people because it creates a culture in which some people are treated as less than human - as commodities, to be consumed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> What?! They're real people.


No they're not. They are objects.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> What?! They're real people.



Yes their tits are just naturally pushed up into a cleavage.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, potentially not worthless. What a nice way to view people and life.
> 
> If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen. You asked what's wrong with objectifying people.



This isn't true is it?

"If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen."

I objectify people, pretty sure most people on these boards do if they're honest. It doesn't follow that shit will happen at all.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes their tits are just naturally pushed up into a cleavage.



Because women don't wear push up bras when they're not being paid do they?


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Isn't this an empty distinction? Don't fashion houses prescribe what these women should look like, pressure them into altering their bodies to fit their requirements, manipulate their images and essentially treat them like cattle?
> 
> I personally think the fashion industry is more toxic than paying women to stand in front of cars.





ElizabethofYork said:


> But attractive people are used in glossy magazines to sell lots of things.  Perfume, watches, cars, all sorts - the models don't need to be there, do they?



I'm not defending the fashion industry. I'm making the point that 'grid girls' don't serve the same function as models.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh come on.  These "grid girls" are earning a lot of money and travelling the world.  They're not being forced to do anything.



Just to be clear, I'm not comparing the women doing this job to slaves, I'm saying that when society evolves some things go out the window and that's not always universally popular, even though it's ethically better.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> This sin't true is it?
> 
> "If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen."
> 
> I objectify people, pretty sure most people on these boards do if they're honest. It doesn't follow that shit will happen at all.


Of course it's true. This thread is replete with it. Your posts are. Reducing people down to what function they serve to meet your needs and then this becoming the wider way to view life and other people. If you haven't noticed the way this is becoming the increasingly normal way of viewing things then you must be going through life with your eyes shut or just being incredibly comfortable with this way of things.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I think they have.
> 
> Formula 1: 'Grid girls' will not be used at races this season



No longer being employed is not the same as banning.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Because women don't wear push up bras when they're not being paid do they?



As is their choice. But there’s a difference between that and employing someone as that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> No longer being employed is not the same as banning.


For the purpose of this thread "will not be used" seems pretty unequivocal.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Because women don't wear push up bras when they're not being paid do they?



Why do you think they do?  Does that choice exist in a vacuum? Has it always been thus? Is it the same everywhere?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's true. This thread is replete with it. Your posts are. Reducing people down to what function they serve to meet your needs and then this becoming the wider way to view life and other people. if you haven't noticed the way this is becoming the increasingly normal way of viewing things then you must be going through life with your eyes shut or just being incredibly comfortable with this way of things.



everyone is reduced down to their function while they're on the clock. It doesn't follow that you assume that's all there is to that person. Unlike some posters here that regard them as caricatures.

It becomes a wider way to view life for some people but I'm not convinced we need to restrict anyone's choices because of that, better to deal with the people who cross the line.

None of my posts imply these women are merely sex objects, i'm saying there's nothing wrong with being a sex object if that's what you want.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

Bit of clash here between the types arguing the contract based agreement stuff and them also arguing that stopping or not renewing a contract is some sort of violence.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> everyone is reduced down to their function while they're on the clock. It doesn't follow that you assume that's all there is to that person. Unlike some posters here that regard them as caricatures.
> 
> It becomes a wider way to view life for some people but I'm not convinced we need to restrict anyone's choices because of that, better to deal with the people who cross the line.
> 
> None of my posts imply these women are merely sex objects, i'm saying there's nothing wrong with being a sex object if that's what you want.



What if what an individual wants causes social ills?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> Why do you think they do?  Does that choice exist in a vacuum? Has it always been thus? Is it the same everywhere?



To attract a sexual partner? Have women always attempted to attract sexual partners? Yes, of course they have. So do men, people like to fuck.

Is it wrong for women to wear push up bras? Are they encouraging objectification?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> everyone is reduced down to their function while they're on the clock. It doesn't follow that you assume that's all there is to that person. Unlike some posters here that regard them as caricatures.
> 
> It becomes a wider way to view life for some people but I'm not convinced we need to restrict anyone's choices because of that, better to deal with the people who cross the line.
> 
> None of my posts imply these women are merely sex obects, i'm saying there's nothing wrong with being a sex object if that's what you want.


No they're not and no they don't have to be. You are explicitly arguing that they should be though and that there is nothing wrong with this. Why else make the case that there is nothing wrong with objectifying people? I think it has become a wider view for you - or you wouldn't be making such a juvenile argument - one, based of course on choices. And an incredibly context free series of choices of course. Why do i get the feeling that the only choice that counts here  - despite the sales pitch - is yours?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

It's always the fucking hippys who are the worst.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> To attract a sexual partner? Have women always attempted to attract sexual partners? Yes, of course they have. So do men, people like to fuck.
> 
> Is it wrong for women to wear push up bras? Are they encouraging objectification?



Women only ever wear push-up bras when trying to attract a sexual partner?  And you didn't answer the other questions?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of clash here between the types arguing the contract based agreement stuff and them also arguing that stopping or not renewing a contract is some sort of violence.



I fully understand that this is F1 decision. They can employ who they like and they've obv decided this is the direction society is favouring. Makes sense for them to try to be popular.

I'm not convinced any of this is going to solve the problem though, which is the bad behaviour rather than the objectification going on inside peoples minds.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

All the posters on here who are railing against this are totally unable to join the dots, all they see is 'freedoms' being curtailed. ((push up bra manufacturers)).


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> All the posters on here who are railing against this are totally unable to join the dots, all they see is 'freedoms' being curtailed. ((push up bra manufacturers)).


yeh cos that's really what i've said


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> Women only ever wear push-up bras when trying to attract a sexual partner?  And you didn't answer the other questions?



That's not what I said. They might wear them for other reasons but I'd say attracting a partner is pretty high on their list of reasons.

I missed the question about it happening in a vacuum. No it doesn't happen in a vacuum,society plays its part in applying pressure but so what? you still haven't made it clear why it's a problem for women to wear push up bras.


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I'm not convinced any of this is going to solve the problem though, which is the bad behaviour rather than the objectification going on inside peoples minds.


  What's the link between the two?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> you still haven't made it clear why it's a problem for women to wear push up bras.


yeh well you wouldn't understand it if she did


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos that's really what i've said


Did you say something interesting about why 'grid girls' are a good thing? I must have missed it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Did you say something interesting about why 'grid girls' are a good thing? I must have missed it.


i didn't say anything about 'grid girls' being a good thing. or a bad thing, either.

here's a thought: why not actually read the thread before telling people what they're (not) doing


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> That's not what I said. They might wear them for other reasons but I'd say attracting a partner is pretty high on their list of reasons.
> 
> I missed the question about it happening in a vacuum. No it doesn't happen in a vacuum,society plays its part in applying pressure but so what? you still haven't made it clear why it's a problem for women to wear push up bras.



When might it be a problem for women to wear push-up bras, do you think?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> When might it be a problem for women to wear push-up bras, do you think?



In bed.  I can't imagine they are that comfortable and would potentially inhibit a decent nights kip.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> When might it be a problem for women to wear push-up bras, do you think?


when trying on other bras


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I think they have.
> 
> Formula 1: 'Grid girls' will not be used at races this season


There is a difference between banning and deciding not to have any more. The more hysterical posts here are talking about prohibition.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> No they're not and no they don't have to be. You are explicitly arguing that they should be though and that there is nothing wrong with this. Why else make the case that there is nothing wrong with objectifying people? I think it has become a wider view for you - or you wouldn't be making such a juvenile argument - one, based of course on choices. And an incredibly context free series of choices of course. Why do i get the feeling that the only choice that counts here  - despite the sales pitch - is yours?



I'm arguing that they should be able to and yes choice is very important. The context and the environment these personal choices create aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to. They might feel that pressure but there's no force.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't say anything about 'grid girls' being a good thing. or a bad thing, either.
> 
> here's a thought: why not actually read the thread before telling people what they're (not) doing


Bore off. Do you disagree with me that there is an astonishing level of blindness on display here by the likes of nono sass etc who claim to be upset about women losing their jobs and see nothing else going on but the loss of these individuals' 'freedom' to be paid for standing around wearing hotpants at a men's sporting event.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> When might it be a problem for women to wear push-up bras, do you think?



Other peoples choice of underwear has fuck all to do with me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I'm arguing that they should be able to and yes choice is very important. The context and the environment these personal choices create aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to. They might feel that pressure but there's no force.


In a society run on the dull compulsion of economics to see a _socialist _endorsing this state of affairs and the only sensible thing to do is to objectify people is pretty shit.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> In a society run on the dull compulsion of economics to see a _socialist _endorsing this state of affairs and the only sensible thing to do is to objectify people is pretty shit.



thanks for the link, will read on the train, might clear things up.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

Odd how we're now comparing these women to black and white minstrels and slave traders.Doesn't seem very gracious.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Bore off. Do you disagree with me that there is an astonishing level of blindness on display here by the likes of nono sass etc who claim to be upset about women losing their jobs and see nothing else going on but the loss of these individuals' 'freedom' to be paid for standing around wearing hotpants at a men's sporting event.




You've got me wrong. I'm aware of the other issues, encouraging men to objectify women, the message it sends to girls about their career paths, the pressure it creates for women to live amongst a stream of sexual images. I just don't think this is the right way to fix those problems, esp since it's already been tried and it's failed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Bore off. Do you disagree with me that there is an astonishing level of blindness on display here by the likes of nono sass etc who claim to be upset about women losing their jobs and see nothing else going on but the loss of these individuals' 'freedom' to be paid for wearing hotpants at a men's sporting event.


i don't find no-no and sas's arguments persuasive, if that's what you mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> You've got me wrong. I'm aware of the other issues, encouraging men to objectify women, the message it sends to girls about their career paths, the pressure it creates for women to live amongst a stream of sexual images. I just don't think this is the right way to fix those problems, esp since it's already been tried and it's failed.


What's been tried and failed?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Odd how we're now comparing these women to black and white minstrels and slave traders.Doesn't seem very gracious.



and caricatures. freedom of choice, but only for the nice ladies


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's been tried and failed?



Restricting women's choices in order to promote better morals.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> thanks for the link, will read on the train, might clear things up.


It won't. I just included it so i wasn't accused of copying other people phrases.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

I need to do some fucking work today......


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> and caricatures. freedom of choice, but only for the nice ladies


I would ban oxbridge burlesque without a second of doubt.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It won't. I just included it so i wasn't accused of copying other people phrases.



I can but try


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> and caricatures. freedom of choice, but only for the nice ladies



To be fair their employers are exercising a freedom of choice. Just seems weird to attack the women who choose to get paid for it.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Just seems weird to attack the women who choose to get paid for it.


Who is doing this?


----------



## Athos (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Other peoples choice of underwear has fuck all to do with me.



Tell me more about choice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I need to do some fucking work today......


go on then


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Who is doing this?


caricatures,slaves, minstrels.....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> To be fair their employers are exercising a freedom of choice. Just seems weird to attack the women who choose to get paid for it.


Can you point me to a post attacking the women involved?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then


ok, boosting the economy now....can you feel it?


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> All the posters on here who are railing against this are totally unable to join the dots, all they see is 'freedoms' being curtailed. ((push up bra manufacturers)).



Not really - I think what people have been trying to point out is that its unlikely a company whose senior management looks like this (or this, if you want a more diverse look at a sister firm) is doing it out of a wish to smash the patriarchy; so what you are left with is a firm sacking or ceasing to hire women because of the reputational damage they think they might suffer from, hypothetically.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Who is doing this?



Scroll up this page and you'll find people comparing the women who've mentioned that aren't happy to lose their jobs to the slave trader and the black and white minstrel show.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> ok, boosting the economy now....can you feel it?


no


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> Not really - I think what people have been trying to point out is that its unlikely a company whose senior management looks like this (or this, if you want a more diverse look at a sister firm) is doing it out of a wish to smash the patriarchy; so what you are left with is a firm sacking or ceasing to hire women because of the reputational damage they think they might suffer from, hypothetically.


They've just made a business decision, I thought everyone agreed on that at least. Most likely thinking that maybe women might come along to these events as paying audience. Just like the daily sport didn't cease publication in order to smash the patriarchy but because the business model wasn't working anymore. 
R.I.P. Daily and Sunday Sport


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

My two p worth.

My burlesque  dancer/stripper cousin loved her job. She thought it was great to dance in front of men and be ogled. It was what she wanted, it was what she enjoyed.

My model/grid girl friend loved it for the attention she got. She enjoyed being half naked in photo shoots for soft erotica.

Neither enjoyed being groped by strangers, and, being strong women, dealt with unwanted touching etc. quickly and with no nonsense. 

Much further up the thread I said that women have the right to respect, regardless of how they are dressed, and regardless of their job. 

I worry a little that, if we are not careful, we will stop people doing as they wish with their bodies. Isn't part of the premise of feminism that a woman has the right to do as she wishes? Isn't it right, therefore, that if a woman chooses, and I understand that not everyone has the free choice, she should be allowed to dress and do as she wishes? Shouldn't we, as a society, be focusing on making sure that we give women due respect for their choices, rather than expecting them to conform to an image we are imposing on them? Even if we consider it for "the greater good." Any man, or woman, has the right to choose for themselves, and is due respect, surely? And if that means they choose to be grid girls, hostesses, or strippers, and they do so in proper knowledge of what that means, shouldn't we let them?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Scroll up this page and you'll find people comparing the women who've mentioned that aren't happy to lose their jobs to the slave trader and the black and white minstrel show.



Objectifying these women for entertainment has fallen out of fashion. That was also the fate of the black and white minstrel show.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Odd how we're now comparing these women to black and white minstrels and *slave traders*.Doesn't seem very gracious.





bemused said:


> Scroll up this page and you'll find people* comparing the women who've mentioned that aren't happy to lose their jobs to the slave trader* and the black and white minstrel show.



No, I didn't. Read post #1077 then come back and make amends for these numptastic entries of yours.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> They've just made a business decision, I thought everyone agreed on that at least. Most likely thinking that maybe women might come along to these events as paying audience. Just like the daily sport didn't cease publication in order to smash the patriarchy but because the business model wasn't working anymore.



I appreciate they have made a business decision, the point is that its a very questionable one.  Can it ever be right for a firm to (effectively) fire women because that firm wants to avoid the consequences of its own actions in order to avoid potential reputational damage that might come along later, as the result of ongoing scandals regarding how men have treated women and how firms have helped cover it up?  They could at least have found the people concerned alternative employment within their organization.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> I appreciate they have made a business decision, the point is that its a very questionable one.  Can it ever be right for a firm to (effectively) fire women because that firm wants to avoid the consequences of its own actions in order to avoid potential reputational damage that might come along later, as the result of ongoing scandals regarding how men have treated women and how firms have helped cover it up?  They could at least have found the people concerned alternative employment within their organization.


yeh it's being done because of how men view these women, not because of the women


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

This thread is all like


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> ...
> My burlesque  dancer/stripper cousin loved her job. She thought it was great to dance in front of men and be ogled. It was what she wanted, it was what she enjoyed.
> 
> My model/grid girl friend loved it for the attention she got. She enjoyed being half naked in photo shoots for soft erotica.
> ...



The issue I have with this is, what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service? It makes them happy? What about the poor old flasher then, is he not made happy by people seeing his knob?

I am aware it's not a straight-up comparison but if we're onto the slippery slope / thin end of the wedge argument then let's have another.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> I appreciate they have made a business decision, the point is that its a very questionable one.  Can it ever be right for a firm to (effectively) fire women because that firm wants to avoid the consequences of its own actions in order to avoid potential reputational damage that might come along later, as the result of ongoing scandals regarding how men have treated women and how firms have helped cover it up?  They could at least have found the people concerned alternative employment within their organization.



I think its unlikely that this is their reason (fear of some future grid-girl related scandal) . Seems more likely to me that they just think they'll make more money by creating an environment where women are more likely to be paying customers / participants.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think its unlikely that this is their reason (fear of some future grid-girl related scandal) . Seems more likely to me that they just think they'll make more money by creating an environment where women are more likely to be paying customers / participants.



Are women being put off attending F1 (or the darts) because of the presence of other women at those events who could be said to be objectified, though?  I'd have thought they were more likely to get more people through the door if they either reduced the astronomical cost of tickets (in F1's case) or decreased the very high level of tedium involved in the sports.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> No, I didn't. Read post #1077 then come back and make amends for these numptastic entries of yours.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it's being done because of how men view these women, not because of the women



well exactly -_ "I know we've used you to advertise various brands before girls, but would you mind one last gig of advertising how feminist we are?  There is no pay."_


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> Are women being put off attending F1 (or the darts) because of the presence of other women at those events who could be said to be objectified, though?  I'd have thought they were more likely to get more people through the door if they either reduced the astronomical cost of tickets (in F1's case) or decreased the very high level of tedium involved in the sports.


Can't imagine personally wanting to attend either of these things but, you know, I think half the point of having the hotpant girls is to signal that this is a men's event for manly men who like menthings, so yes it might be a pragmatic business decision to stop doing that and open up the market to the other 50% of people that exist.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Can't imagine personally wanting to attend either of these things but, you know, I think half the point of having the hotpant girls is to signal that this is a men's event for manly men who like menthings, so yes it might be a pragmatic business decision to stop doing that and open up the market to the other 50% of people that exist.



I think if you wanted to waste a day watching people zoom around a field the tightness of some of the models pants wouldn't be something that put you off. They are obviously pre-empting a perceived problem they may face because darts decided to do it first. I love how it was darts that did this first, who would have thunk it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think half the point of having the hotpant girls is to signal that this is a men's event for manly men who like menthings, so yes it might be a pragmatic business decision to stop doing that and open up the market to the other 50% of people that exist.


Nah. F1 doesn't need new viewers, male or female. It's run primarily by billionaire dinosaurs and the girls are just a relic from the 60s and 70s that nobody has given much thought to until now. Someone's just woken up, is all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Nah. F1 doesn't need new viewers, male or female. It's run primarily by billionaire dinosaurs and the girls are just a relic from the 60s and 70s that nobody has given much thought to until now. Someone's just woken up, is all.


Above the thunders of the lower floors,
Far, far above on the abysmal board,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The CEO sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him swell
Huge sponges of millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From many a wondrous grot and secret cell
Unnumbered and enormous polypi
Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green.
There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
Battening upon huge big macs in his snoring,
Until the latter fire shall heat the boardroom;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


>



Very good. Now try post #1077, like I said.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I worry a little that, if we are not careful, we will stop people doing as they wish with their bodies.



I think you've got the point here where women can do what they want with their bodies unless it's being paid for men to look at them in an innocuous setting, like a car show, sporting event etc. 

If society chooses to wipe out the promotional model industry because they don't the idea of women being paid to have men lear at them it's fair enough - I'll go with the flow. 

However, compared to the damage the beauty and fashion industry are doing to women by not only exploiting them physically but then digitally manipulating their image to create unobtainable standards it doesn't even compare. I've got teenage kids and the pressure this vampire industry puts on them is shameful - if they were only half as self-aware as professional darts it would progress. But I just think they don't give a fuck.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Very good. Now try post #1077, like I said.



You said sorry for it, well done.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

it is a tragedy. What will they do now they can't do this glamorous job anymore.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> You said sorry for it, well done.



What the fuck is wrong with you? I didn't say sorry, I explained what it actually meant when someone _not _shitposting queried it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> it is a tragedy. What will they do now they can't do this glamorous job anymore.
> View attachment 126569 View attachment 126570 View attachment 126568



((((women who want and need well-paid work))))


----------



## Almor (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> My two p worth.
> 
> My burlesque  dancer/stripper cousin loved her job. She thought it was great to dance in front of men and be ogled. It was what she wanted, it was what she enjoyed.
> 
> ...


 
Have women in bikinis been banned from f1 events or women in evening dresses been banned from darts matches? 
I thought the organisers of these events had just decided to stop paying them to be there?


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> What the fuck is wrong with you? I didn't say sorry, I explained what it actually meant when someone _not _shitposting queried it.




I've posted what you said in the context of that conversation which is this:





 If you wanted to make a more nuanced point maybe you should have picked a better analogy before choosing this one?

Just a thought.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> it is a tragedy. What will they do now they can't do this glamorous job anymore.
> View attachment 126569 View attachment 126570 View attachment 126568



Sorry, why is it okay to ridicule how they choose to make a living?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

i can't help thinking that countdown is lagging behind the zeitgeist


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> Sorry, why is it okay to ridicule how they choose to make a living?


sorry? for what are you sorry?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> If you wanted to make a more nuanced point maybe you should have picked a better analogy before choosing this one?
> 
> Just a thought.



If you wanted to pick someone up on a point, maybe you should have bothered to read what they themselves wrote about that point before plonking a great clumsy foot in your metaphorical mouth by misinterpreting something already explained?
Just a thought.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry? for what are you sorry?



It's people like you that make my writing better - you're urban's Zinsser.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Up until about 10 years ago my company used to hand out free calendars which were basically page 3 style.  We work in construction these were given to sites and they were used in site cabins etc.  We then made the switch the wildlife scenes and animals etc.  

Now I realise we were outright sacking the girls and banning them from calendars.  We were denying them rights all for the sake of our pathetic attempt at reputation protection.  What terrible people we are and the worst of corporate misogynist behaviour.  When I think now of the lives we must have destroyed by doing away with titty calendars.  Quite frankly, I doubt I'll ever sleep again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Up until about 10 years ago my company used to hand out free calendars which were basically page 3 style.  We work in construction these were given to sites and they were used in site cabins etc.  We then made the switch the wildlife scenes and animals etc.
> 
> Now I realise we were outright sacking the girls and banning them from calendars.  We were denying them rights all for the sake of our pathetic attempt at reputation protection.  What terrible people we are and the worst of corporate misogynist behaviour.  When I think now of the lives we must have destroyed by doing away with titty calendars.  Quite frankly, I doubt I'll ever sleep again.


tbh you'd have to do more than that to up your rep, stopping building bloody awful buildings might be a better way for reputation protection.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Interesting.
The boss of darts is blaming TV's editorial PC gawn mad  policies, saying its their decision not his.

“I have no personal problems whatsoever with walk-on girls at darts. They’ve been there since the beginning, the girls are great, they get paid, it’s a job for them, and I haven’t got a problem. But I’ve got one big problem, the age we live in. I’ve got BBC, ITV and Sky saying to me this is not part of their editorial policy anymore.
They don’t want to show the walk-on girls on television. If you can tell me what I can do about it, I’ll do it."

Hearn Backs Walk-on Girls - If TV Bosses Give Green Light | Red Dragon Darts Info


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 2, 2018)

"I have no problem employing women as eye candy" says man.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> "I have no problem employing women as eye candy" says man.



"I have a problem with me employing women as eye candy", says man, "so I don't employ them any more"


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 2, 2018)

Maybe that's a good point to start talking about men's choices here?

Men - if you were offered a job which included employing women as eye candy, would you take it?

I wouldn't (unless for completely ridiculous reasons I had to for mere survival, which sounds like the plot of a particularly bad Russ Meyer film).

I am very boring though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> "I have a problem with me employing women as eye candy", says man, "so I don't employ them any more"


But it's not my doing.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> It might do some years and not others as it's an entry requirement to be in the top 2% of iqs. This will clearly vary over time. I don't know if they chuck out people who were in the top 2% but fall out of it. But I do recall regularly beating a mensa team in a pub quiz. They didn't like it when I pointed out you can have an IQ of 160 but if you don't know the answers you won't win



I did and passed the Mensa test, but balked at the membership fee. This was over 30 years ago.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps you’d like to take your clothes off for a living. If it’s good enough for us women it’s good enough for you.


 Certainly. If you pay me, I will take my clothes off for you. Not a problem. 

Be careful what you wish for though, you just might get it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> People will pay me not to. It is a win win



I suspect that I'm in the same class. I'm waiting for an offer from purenarcotic though. On a scale of say Schwarzenegger being £1000.00, I'm about a tenner.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

bemused said:


> I think if you wanted to waste a day watching people zoom around a field the tightness of some of the models pants wouldn't be something that put you off. They are obviously pre-empting a perceived problem they may face because darts decided to do it first. I love how it was darts that did this first, who would have thunk it.


So depressingly short-sighted in how you view motivation and action.

The being put off happens years before the point that somebody decides today is the day to buy a ticket.  It happens when a person tests something against the model in their head for whether that thing is the kind of thing people like them do and decides it is not.

This kind of thinking is all of a one with the idea that people should just decide to be rich or just decide to change their life.  Human motivation is way richer than that.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Above the thunders of the lower floors,
> Far, far above on the abysmal board,
> His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
> The CEO sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
> ...



Interesting piece, who wrote it?


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato , I'd like to apologise for calling you a cunt yesterday. In my defence, I only did it because you were acting like a cunt. You cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Interesting piece, who wrote it?


alfred lord tennyson did the first draft


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2018)

P.S. I've temporarily put you on Ignore just so I don't have to read anything you might post in reply to me. Have a nice weekend, you cunt.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Certainly. If you pay me, I will take my clothes off for you. Not a problem.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for though, you just might get it.



What about being groped and fondled by self-important men? Are you up for that bit too?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Maybe that's a good point to start talking about men's choices here?
> 
> Men - if you were offered a job which included employing women as eye candy, would you take it?
> 
> ...


It would depend on the job and the pay. I don't care enough about it to take a huge stance and I think it's something that I could be bought on, for the right price!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> What about being groped and fondled by self-important men? Are you up for that bit too?


 I'd smack them around the head. Which is what I wish the poor bloody women, who were assaulted at the OP venue had done. They should also have summoned the police. 

I think I've made my view on touching without consent quite clear. Don't!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'd smack them around the head. Which is what I wish the poor bloody women, who were assaulted at the OP venue had done. They should also have summoned the police.
> 
> I think I've made my view on touching without consent quite clear. Don't!


Silly women.  They could solve all of this just by being physically violent enough.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Violence solves everything don't y'know


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> alfred lord tennyson did the first draft



What a prescient man, foreseeing the Big Mac.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Violence solves everything don't y'know


If they don’t fight back hard enough, it’s because they don’t mind it really.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Violence solves everything don't y'know



Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good. 

I spent 14 years in the army, and attended many alcohol fueled events where women, both as guests and waitresses were present, and the sort of behaviour as in the OP did not happen. It would not have been tolerated for a second. Anyone behaving like that would have been ejected, and been answering for it on the next working morning. Funny that, those neanderthal squaddies completely understood what was acceptable, yet their so called betters do not.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 2, 2018)

That is my last post on this. There isn't anything left to say.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh you'd have to do more than that to up your rep, stopping building bloody awful buildings might be a better way for reputation protection.



Fraid not, wrong trade.  We make them stay up, design is not in our remit.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.


I give up.  I can’t out-satire this.  There’s nowhere left for the parody to go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Fraid not, wrong trade.  We make them stay up, design is not in our remit.


yeh. if you picked the ones which were well designed then your company would almost certainly have a higher rep with the publick


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.
> 
> I spent 14 years in the army, and attended many alcohol fueled events where women, both as guests and waitresses were present, and the sort of behaviour as in the OP did not happen. It would not have been tolerated for a second. Anyone behaving like that would have been ejected, and been answering for it on the next working morning. Funny that, those neanderthal squaddies completely understood what was acceptable, yet their so called betters do not.



So what you seem to be saying is that if civvy street were more like the army then social problems we have wouldn't exist? Well, you may be right about that, but reflecting on what other things would also change thereby I have to confess I'm not sure the entire outcome would necessarily be preferable to what we have.

Also, are you really claiming ''neanderthal squaddies'' do or don't do things because _they understand why or why not? _Or are they following orders? My guess (fuck me sideways really) is the latter. The army doesn't ask its men and women to understand, it commands so they obey.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.



Women, letting the side down _again_.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.


You just have no clue Sasaferrato, which must be quite nice for you. By the same token, when some random man starts talking to me in the street when i'm walking alone late at night I should just be brave and tell him to fuck right off. That is just not how how things work, sadly.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> The issue I have with this is, what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service? It makes them happy? What about the poor old flasher then, is he not made happy by people seeing his knob?
> 
> I am aware it's not a straight-up comparison but if we're onto the slippery slope / thin end of the wedge argument then let's have another.



The difference is consent


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. if you picked the ones which were well designed then your company would almost certainly have a higher rep with the publick



Nope they are all just holes in the ground as far as we're concerned.  The public likely even know know the problems that are products resolve so we don't really have a public reputation.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> The difference is consent


So you’re suggesting that the rights of third parties might outrank the right of the individual to make an unencumbered decision?

Well, I never.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> The difference is consent



Whose consent? how is consent gained from people to make sure they want to see scantily-clad / half-naked models on magazine covers and in advertising and at sports events?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Whose consent? how is consent gained from people to make sure they want to see scantily-clad / half-naked models on magazine covers and in advertising and at sports events?



prudishness again. If I want to walk down the road in my pants I can. If someone wants to pay me to do it while holding a billboard I can do that too.

Other peoples feelings shouldn't be relevant. Some people don't want to see any leg or they might be offended by cleavage or a mans bum crease, others still want women completely covered.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Other peoples feelings shouldn't be relevant.



So then consent is _not _an issue?

Make your fucking mind up.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> prudishness again. If I want to walk down the road in my pants I can. If someone wants to pay me to do it while holding a billboard I can do that too.
> 
> Other peoples feelings shouldn't be relevant. Some people don't want to see any leg or they might be offended by cleavage or a mans bum crease, others still want women completely covered.


It’s not prudishness.  It’s got nothing to do with taking offence at the sight of flesh.  It’s to do with taking offence at the use of women as objects.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is some truth in it though, the ultra-feminists don't tend to be Miss World (even without the swimsuit round) contestants.
> 
> I need to be elsewhere, and apologise unreservedly for this post, I just couldn't resist it. Put it down to 'Within every grown man is a small boy desperately trying to get out'.


And with that bit of hideous sexism, you're off the thread for good.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So then consent is _not _an issue?
> 
> Make your fucking mind up.



misunderstood you...thought you were comparing prostitution to flashers
the difference between a flasher and scantily clad models? The models are clad, the flasher isn't.

We keep hardcore porn on the top shelf and covered because of the public consent issue.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

You mean it's so high up nobody can see it? Or is that to do with the length of kids' arms?

You seem very confused about all this. Maybe have a smoke and a think, come back later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> We keep hardcore porn on the top shelf and covered because of the public consent issue.


if you think what's on the top shelf in newsagents is hardcore porn your heart will explode if you see what they sell in sex shops.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> You mean it's so high up nobody can see it? Or is that to do with the length of kids' arms?
> 
> You seem very confused about all this. Maybe have a smoke and a think, come back later.


or, mp, better if he doesn't


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s not prudishness.  It’s got nothing to do with taking offence at the sight of flesh.  It’s to do with taking offence at the use of women as objects.



There's definitely an element of prudishness for some people. The grid girls themselves arent offended, it should be up to them if they want these jobs or not. The men objectifying them and crossing lines are fair game for criticism but the girls aren't.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> The models are clad, the flasher isn't.



Yeah FYI flashers don't tend to strip off entirely to do their thing.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah FYI flashers don't tend to strip off entirely to do their thing.



hmmm, I consider someone waving their cock at me to be unclad.Most do I think


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

You may want to consider what ''unclad'' means then.
And also consider that we're not talking about total nakedness (which isn't necessarily sexual anyway, ask any naturist) but on public displays of sexuality and to what extent consent from those witnessing it is an issue.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> What about being groped and fondled by self-important men? Are you up for that bit too?



Abuse on the job is reason to tackle that abuse not to cancel the job.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

It may be a reason to cancel the job while the reasons behind the abuse are tackled. To give some neutral space for reflection and discussion etc.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> You may want to consider what ''unclad'' means then.
> And also consider that we're not talking about total nakedness (which isn't necessarily sexual anyway, ask any naturist) but on public displays of sexuality and to what extent consent from those witnessing it is an issue.



What exactly are we talking about? grid girls? Page 3? Flashers? Something else? Flashers?

The general concensus is that you should have your genitals covered.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> What exactly are we talking about? grid girls? Page 3? Flashers? Something else? Flashers?
> The general concensus is that you should have your genitals covered.



Obtuse is as obtuse does


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It may be a reason to cancel the job while the reasons behind the abuse are tackled. To give some neutral space for reflection and discussion etc.



You can't have a discussion whilst someone gets on with their work?! Which jobs exactly are you talking about?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Obtuse is as obtuse does




this is a long meandering thread, yeah i'm obtuse, excellent.is that the end?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> You can't have a discussion whilst someone gets on with their work?! Which jobs exactly are you talking about?



I don't know, what jobs are we talking about? 
Maybe back up and read some of the posts you've been replying to for the last ten pages or so.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Men - if you were offered a job which included employing women as eye candy, would you take it?



Editor of Vogue seems like a good gig.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> is that the end?



ooff, let's hope so.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't know, what jobs are we talking about?
> Maybe back up and read some of the posts you've been replying to for the last ten pages or so.



So, you asked "what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service?"

Other than porn itself which is kept under wraps I can't think of a product that uses naked people for promotion. perhaps there's an obvious example I'm missing.

Lots of products are sold using scantily clad models, but they are clad. Anyone who's offended by that is I would say a bit prudish and if their offence is based on the woman in question being objectified then it's still none of their business....because they are not that woman.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

So are you saying consent around public displays of sex/uality is, or is not, an issue?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> So, you asked "what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service?"
> 
> Other than porn itself which is kept under wraps I can't think of a product that uses naked people for promotion. perhaps there's an obvious example I'm missing.
> 
> Lots of products are sold using scantily clad models, but they are clad. Anyone who's offended by that is I would say a bit prudish and if their offence is based on the woman in question being objectified then it's still none of their business....because they are not that woman.


You do realise that you have drawn a subjective line between what are defensible and indefensible levels of “prudishness”, right?  There’s nothing but cultural context to set that line.  And cultural context can shift, deciding that it is no longer acceptable to treat women as nothing but ornaments for the serious men.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 2, 2018)

This thread is well depressing.

That's all.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This thread is well depressing.
> 
> That's all.


I agree.  I hadn't realised the extent to which there were men who actually endorsed the idea of objectification.  I thought it was more a matter of not identifying the implications rather than actually embracing those implications.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You do realise that you have drawn a subjective line between what are defensible and indefensible levels of “prudishness”, right?  There’s nothing but cultural context to set that line.  And cultural context can shift, deciding that it is no longer acceptable to treat women as nothing but ornaments for the serious men.



Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it,  but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it,  but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.


Society is perfectly comfortable with "scantily clad" women.  It's just gradually losing its comfort with women being used as nothing more than props to ornament successful men.  Regardless of how much those ornaments are wearing, by the way, which is why this is not to do with prudishness.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

A few weeks backs I had to cancel an Uber taxi I'd ordered.  I now realise that I have banned him from ubering and denied him his human rights to that job. I'm the worst.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So are you saying consent around public displays of sex/uality is, or is not, an issue?



It's obviously an issue since we have a top shelf, a watershed, age verification on websites etc.

I think we're going too far if a woman in a bikini is considered a sexual display that should be post watershed. Or is it only once she's paid that it's an issue?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> It's obviously an issue since we have a top shelf, a watershed, age verification on websites etc.
> 
> I think we're going too far if a woman in a bikini is considered a sexual display that should be post watershed. Or is it only once she's paid that it's an issue?


Is it you being an arsonist that's a problem, or is it that you only ever eat bilberries?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This thread is well depressing.
> 
> That's all.


no-no proves again the truth of einstein's adage that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> A few weeks backs I had to cancel an Uber taxi I'd ordered.  I now realise that I have banned him from ubering and denied him his human rights to that job. I'm the worst.



and isn't that the thin end of the wedge? I'm going round his house to tell him he cannot drive his private vehicle during his own time- a logical and fair leap I am sure, yet I do feel bad about it. Damn that slippery slope that got us here


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Society is perfectly comfortable with "scantily clad" women.  It's just gradually losing its comfort with women being used as nothing more than props to ornament successful men.  Regardless of how much those ornaments are wearing, by the way, which is why this is not to do with prudishness.



I can't argue with that. society does seem to be a bit fed up of it, it's pretty tacky imo but so are lot of things. I don't see why it's a problem unless there's some sort of coercion going on. None of this is tackling the actual coercion, other than that a woman can't be groped or whatever if she's simply not there.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I can't argue with that. society does seem to be a bit fed up of it, it's pretty tacky imo but so are lot of things. I don't see why it's a problem unless there's some sort of coercion going on. None of this is tackling the actual coercion, other than that a woman can't be groped or whatever if she's simply not there.


It _is_ tackling the coercion.  Coercion comes from expectations.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it,  but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.


But but consumerist society insists that we acquire or at least aspire to acquire wealth and achievement to attract the ultimate sexual partner. How are they meant to sell us stuff with out dangling the this is what you can win carrot at us? 

On the male side that is. 
On the female side how are women suppose to know what clothing, makeup and expensive face creams to buy without attractive models hanging around successful men to show them what they could win? 

I for one welcome the absence of enforced sycophantic eye candy. Let's also ban the diet coke hunks too whilst we're at it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I can't argue with that. society does seem to be a bit fed up of it, it's pretty tacky imo but so are lot of things. I don't see why it's a problem unless there's some sort of coercion going on. None of this is tackling the actual coercion, other than that a woman can't be groped or whatever if she's simply not there.


you've got groping on the mind. do you get all handsy irl?


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It _is_ tackling the coercion.  Coercion comes from expectations.


But No-no isn’t talking about coercion as in pressures on women as people, he’s only talking about coercion in terms of things done to their bodies against their will.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> But No-no isn’t talking about coercion as in pressures on women as people who feel stuff, he’s only talking about coercion in terms of things done to their bodies against their will.


i think you'll find no-no doesn't know what he's talking about


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

Blimey. Are there still Diet Coke hunks? They are mentioned surprisingly often on this thread...


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It _is_ tackling the coercion.  Coercion comes from expectations.



Like in Saudi? Did it work there? They've gone further down this path than us. We're a very different culture for sure and other factors might play a part but I don't know if we're that different. Coercion comes from the belief they'll get away with it. Loads of men expect sex and go home sorely disappointed every weekend.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This thread is well depressing.
> 
> That's all.



Even the bit when Sass started boasting about his IQ?  That was urban gold.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> But No-no isn’t talking about coercion as in pressures on women as people, he’s only talking about coercion in terms of things done to their bodies against their will.



societal pressure isn't coercion.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Blimey. Are there still Diet Coke hunks? They are mentioned surprisingly often on this thread...



Got rid of them years ago didn't they.  There is still those god awful yogurt adverts but to be honest they imply everyone is a fucking idiot so that's an equality of sorts.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Got rid of them years ago didn't they.  There is still those god awful yogurt adverts but to be honest they imply everyone is a fucking idiot so that's an equality of sorts.



The Old Spice adverts were genius


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Got rid of them years ago didn't they.  There is still those god awful yogurt adverts but to be honest they imply everyone is a fucking idiot so that's an equality of sorts.


2017 recedes into the distance more quickly than i thought it seems


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

they were 30 yrs old, came back for a 30yr anniversary says google

makes me feel old, I can remember them first being on tele and my pop-eyed uncle raging see! See! bloody sexism! its all right one way eh!

etc etc

how little has changed.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 2017 recedes into the distance more quickly than i thought it seems




Not sure that played in the UK.  Certainly I've never seen it, but you're right if I had been trawling youtube for adverts in 2017 I would have found it.


----------



## bemused (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So are you saying consent around public displays of sex/uality is, or is not, an issue?



If we're all honest we're all very unattractive when we're humping - banned public displays of sex are in the best interest of all.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 2017 recedes into the distance more quickly than i thought it seems


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Like in Saudi? Did it work there? They've gone further down this path than us. We're a very different culture for sure and other factors might play a part but I don't know if we're that different. Coercion comes from the belief they'll get away with it. Loads of men expect sex and go home sorely disappointed every weekend.


Not like in Saudi, no.  The opposite, in fact.

When you comprehend why that statement is true, you’ll be well along the path to enlightenment.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 2017 recedes into the distance more quickly than i thought it seems



The D&G Light Blue adverts are a bit close to the edge.



Spoiler: D&G Light Blue 1










Spoiler: D&G Light Blue 2


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> societal pressure isn't coercion.


Of course it is.  It’s the most successful coercion of all.  It’s coercion at source.

It’s like the way the most successful domestic abusers don’t even need to raise a hand.  They can do it with a _look_.  They can do it by having _already implanted the thought_.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Not like in Saudi, no.  The opposite, in fact.
> 
> When you comprehend why that statement is true, you’ll be well along the path to enlightenment.



Maybe, finding it difficult to see a distinction other than extremity. Because the solution to male coercion is the same, cover up the women.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

It's a comfort, sort of, that you're just thick no-no .


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> . Because the solution to male coercion is the same, cover up the women.


You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any truer.

If everybody in the world was naked all the time, “grid girls” would still be a problem.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Maybe, finding it difficult to see a distinction other than extremity. Because the solution to male coercion is the same, cover up the women.


One of the things I fail to understand it why women must be covered because otherwise men would have no self control.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any truer.
> 
> If everybody in the world was naked all the time, “grid girls” would still be a problem.


Why?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> One of the things I fail to understand it why women must be covered because otherwise men would have no self control.


You are right.  You don’t understand.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You are right.  You don’t understand.


Then explain it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Why?


The reasons why are all in this thread, repeatedly.

If everybody in the world wore burqas at all times, “grid girls” would be a problem there too.

It’s not the level of clothing that is the problem.  The level of clothing is merely a symptom of the problem.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Then explain it.


Because it’s still treating women as nothing but ornaments to the all important men.  That’s bad enough in its own right but it also exists in the context of a society in which inequality is already endemic and structural because women struggle to be taken seriously.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Blimey. Are there still Diet Coke hunks? They are mentioned surprisingly often on this thread...


Umbrella term like Hoover or McJob. Don't necessarily refer to the brand that created it anymore.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

Fuck off, Gromit


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The reasons why are all in this thread, repeatedly.
> 
> If everybody in the world wore burqas at all times, “grid girls” would be a problem there too.
> 
> It’s not the level of clothing that is the problem.  The level of clothing is merely a symptom of the problem.


This is better than I could have put it. It is nothing to do with the women, it is to do with the bigger picture. The bikini/burqa in this situation is only a sign that something, somewhere, is very wrong.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Because it’s still treating women as nothing but ornaments to the all important men.  That’s bad enough in its own right but it also exists in the context of a society in which inequality is already endemic and structural because women struggle to be taken seriously.


So why shouldn't men be educated in not objectifying women instead of women being forced to cover up? The onus is on men to improve their behaviour, not women to hide.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Diet Coke hunk is not passive he is active, he's always taking his top off and cleaning windows. Not that he matters much but - grid girls / darts girls their role is to be totally passive (and act as advertising space) whilst the men around them do stuff.


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Umbrella term like Hoover or McJob. Don't necessarily refer to the brand that created it anymore.


Oh yeah, like all those other times that men are paraded for our amusement. Like... Well, the Chippendales. Or, well, someone mentioned a yoghurt ad that I haven't seem. Hmmm. Does Bez count?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> women being forced to cover up


lets see where this has been done. I was under the impression that they'll no longer be using the local modelling agencies to stck them with grid girls as they no longer find that role appropriate.

Is this being forced to cover up? Are the PC Police, thin, ascetic looking sorts who do not understand sensuality and the refined things of love and art and what it means to be alive- are they on there way round to force these beautful flowers into ugly sackloth on the altar of prudery?

no.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> So why shouldn't men be educated in not objectifying women instead of women being forced to cover up? The onus is on men to improve their behaviour, not women to hide.


How do you think “education” works?

Clue: it’s not by telling people not to do something and then carrying on doing it yourself.

And I note that once again, you are focussing on the “covering up” aspect in spite of me pointing out that this would still be a problem even if everybody involved was covered head to toe.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Does Bez count?



Probably to three but I wouldn't trust him after that.


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

What is the problem with this picture? Is it the women?
No, it's not the women.
Is it what the women are wearing?
No, I think they look very nice.
Is it the man in the helmet?
No. Not even.
Is it the fact that this picture was taken at all?
Yes! That is the problem!

Is that any help?


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Diet Coke hunk is not passive he is active, he's always taking his top off and cleaning windows. Not that he matters much but - grid girls / darts girls their role is to be totally passive (and act as advertising space) whilst the men around them do stuff.


Isn't that part of the fantasy? That he's physically active. A man who can put up shelves. The flimsy reasons to take his top off are just as flimsy as movie girls' need to shower for the sake of the movie's plot. 

Grid girls aren't always totally passive. In fact I think the passive holding of umbrellas is less demeaning than the standing in a line to applaud the victors into the victory room part of their job. Always makes me cringe.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any truer.
> 
> If everybody in the world was naked all the time, “grid girls” would still be a problem.



Wouldn't it be the men that are the problem? 

On the one hand you're saying that social pressure amounts to coercion, which is pretty patronising to women.

On the other you're saying that the reason or a large part of the reason, men behave like arseholes is because they also have no control in the face of messages from society that tell them that women are sex objects.

I think people have far more agency than you're giving them credit for.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Isn't that part of the fantasy? That he's physically active. A man who can put up shelves. The flimsy reasons to take his top off are just as flimsy as movie girls' need to shower for the sake of the movie's plot.
> 
> Grid girls aren't always totally passive. In fact I think the passive holding of umbrellas is less demeaning than the standing in a line to applaud the victors into the victory room part of their job. Always makes me cringe.



Standing in a line applauding the men = not passive. Righto Gromit.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


>



Wow, one man worth eight women. I'm sure there are better exchange rates elsewhere. 
At least he has the courtesy to doff his cap.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Oh yeah, like all those other times that men are paraded for our amusement. Like... Well, the Chippendales. Or, well, someone mentioned a yoghurt ad that I haven't seem. Hmmm. Does Bez count?


It happens more than you realise because you personally obviously aren't looking for it or care about it.





Kinder Bueno Hunks photocall


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Wouldn't it be the men that are the problem?


Which men?

It’s society itself that is the problem.  Its assumptions and structures.  That stuff needs dismantling.  It’s not about personal failings.



> On the one hand you're saying that social pressure amounts to coercion, which is pretty patronising to women.


My god.

No, it is not patronising.  It’s how we work as people.  Our decision making is based on having models in our head for who we are, models of how people like us behave and then a set of defaults to map one into the other.  Every time we want to disobey the model, it’s a stressful process and it comes at an emotional price.



> On the other you're saying that the reason or a large part of the reason, men behave like arseholes is because they also have no control in the face of messages from society that tell them that women are sex objects.
> 
> I think people have far more agency than you're giving them credit for.


Yes, they have agency.  But they only have agency to the extent that they identify where the decision points lie rather than react in accordance to their pre-formed behaviour model.

We don’t go round constantly making decisions on every situation that we ever meet.  We quite literally would be unable to function.  We follow our model until we notice there is something that needs cognition.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Wow, one man worth eight women. I'm sure there are better exchange rates elsewhere.
> At least he has the courtesy to doff his cap.



Bit of sympathy please.  Those poor women have been SACKED AND BANNED!  Human rights?  Don't make me laugh, where's the UN when it really matters?


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> What is the problem with this picture? Is it the women?
> No, it's not the women.
> Is it what the women are wearing?
> No, I think they look very nice.
> ...



It is, but I wonder why people think the solution to the problem is to get rid of the women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> It is, but I wonder why people think the solution to the problem is to get rid of the women.


no woman no cry


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> It is, but I wonder why people think the solution to the problem is to get rid of the women.


Which bit of that photo would you change, if anything?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> How do you think “education” works?
> 
> Clue: it’s not by telling people not to do something and then carrying on doing it yourself.
> 
> And I note that once again, you are focussing on the “covering up” aspect in spite of me pointing out that this would still be a problem even if everybody involved was covered head to toe.



ok, so the problem is the agreement between the models and their employers and the message it sends to everyone else.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye, the problem for me is that people are acting on that message or lettign it affect them and that's their responsibility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Bit of sympathy please.  Those poor women have been SACKED AND BANNED!  Human rights?  Don't make me laugh, where's the UN when it really matters?


where it's always been


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Standing in a line applauding the men = not passive. Righto Gromit.


Yeah they are actively employed to go oooh look how great they are. My aren't we impressed. Although most of the time they are going ooh look a camera. Play up to it quick.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Which bit of that photo would you change, if anything?



I'd ignore the photo and get on with my life.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Bit of sympathy please.  Those poor women have been SACKED AND BANNED!  Human rights?  Don't make me laugh, where's the UN when it really matters?


Good. Fuck them traitors to feminism. Sell outs.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I'd ignore the photo and get on with my life.


Easy to do, of course, if you don’t belong to the group marginalised by the objectification that the photo promotes.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Which bit of that photo would you change, if anything?



It is difficult to say because I am not responsible for anything that goes on within it, but you could make an argument to objecting to everything that is on it - the objectification of the women, the covering of the bloke in adverts from businesses (or rather the amount of money spent on putting those adverts on him), the waste of electricity represented by the light still being on etc.  

To put it another way, I don't think the photo can suddenly be made acceptable by the people who were responsible for it editing the bits they were also responsible for off.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

agricola said:


> It is difficult to say because I am not responsible for anything that goes on within it, but you could make an argument to objecting to everything that is on it - the objectification of the women, the covering of the bloke in adverts from businesses (or rather the amount of money spent on putting those adverts on him), the waste of electricity represented by the light still being on etc.
> 
> To put it another way, I don't think the photo can suddenly be made acceptable by the people who were responsible for it editing the bits they were also responsible for off.


It’s all shit so none of it is worth changing, then?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Why isn't the driver a woman, and the eight models men? Ever?
Not that I think everything would be OK if that were the case but the fact is, for better or worse, it's not.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Easy to do, of course, if you don’t belong to the group marginalised by the objectification that the photo promotes.



Easier than it is for others, it's not an impossible task though.

You put up a good solid argument kabbes, thanks


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Why isn't the driver a woman, and the eight models men?
> Not that I think everything would be OK if that were the case but the fact is, for better or worse, it's not.


Not only is it not the case, but it’s impossible to imagine the genders being reversed without it changing the social dynamic of the set up.  If roles were reversed, there would be like when the CEO goes and works on the shop floor for the day — the activity is all there just as it would be if he were a normal worker, but everybody still knows who the boss is.


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

Gromit said:


> It happens more than you realise because you personally obviously aren't looking for it or care about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you fucking joking?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Why isn't the driver a woman, and the eight models men? Ever?
> Not that I think everything would be OK if that were the case but the fact is, for better or worse, it's not.



Because not many girls join the karting circuit.

Male objectification - male backing dancers - Google Search

One thing I've noticed, completely anecdotal so worthless but anyway....

Women on my facebook feed regularly post pics of actors or singers and then proceed to objectify them. Tom Hardy seems to be the hot shiz right now.

I rarely if ever see men doing the same. Not that I have an issue with either sex doing it but it doesn seem like men know very well it's not acceptable.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Because not many girls join the karting circuit.



Ah well that's OK then. No problem, girls can just be decoration while the boys race.


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s all shit so none of it is worth changing, then?



No, all of it is worth changing.   The firm that owns F1 - Liberty Media - has one woman at board level, in a non-executive capacity; they shouldn't really be boosted in the way that they have been for boasting of how forward thinking they are by effectively sacking a group of other women.  

FWIW I would have no problem with this if they'd said they would no longer use grid girls but that the people affected would all be employed elsewhere during F1 weekends - but they haven't said that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Why isn't the driver a woman, and the eight models men? Ever?
> Not that I think everything would be OK if that were the case but the fact is, for better or worse, it's not.


Because the women in motor racing are mainly working in the important role of mechanic and engineer. Let the boys have their fun driving while the women get on with the vital stuff.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 2, 2018)

Back to the original topic for a second. Have we had this yet? From 1989. Oxford Tory students society.
‘Black cab rapist’ was hired as stripper for OUCA cabaret social – Cherwell


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

It’s worth me saying here that one of the consequences of consumer-capitalism is the objectification of _everybody_ in one way or other (but not in the same way).  Everybody is turned into a consumer to market themself and be marketed to.

The solution to the objectification of women is not to promote similar objectification of men.  Down that route lies a hideous race to the bottom.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Ah well that's OK then. No problem, girls can just be decoration while the boys race.



Not at all, I highly encourage you all to get your daughters into motorsport simply because it's fucking awesome.

Personally that's out of my budget, whitewater kayaking is in my daughters future.


----------



## Poot (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Because not many girls join the karting circuit.
> 
> Male objectification - male backing dancers - Google Search
> 
> ...


Get less tedious female friends?

For me, the moment I hear the words 'typical man' I know that we can never be friends.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s worth me saying here that one of the consequences of consumer-capitalism is the objectification of _everybody_ in one way or other (but not in the same way).  Everybody is turned into a consumer to market themself and be marketed to.
> 
> The solution to the objectification of women is not to promote similar objectification of men.  Down that route lies a hideous race to the bottom.



I see what you're saying here but I'd far prefer if we attempted to create a a generation that can view this stuff from a step back and remain somewhat aloof. But what the fuck do i know.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Get less tedious female friends?
> 
> For me, the moment I hear the words 'typical man' I know that we can never be friends.



Ohh you bitch!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> I see what you're saying here but I'd far prefer if we attempted to create a a generation that can view this stuff from a step back and remain somewhat aloof. But what the fuck do i know.


The one sure way to end up without meaningful choice over your life is to ignore the implications and consequences of “this stuff”


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

Poot said:


> Are you fucking joking?


Yogurt:






Aftershave (advertising us aimed at women as the industry realised more women buy aftershave for men than men buy for themselves):





More yogurt:





Salad dressing:





Cheese spread


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

((men))


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Not at all, I highly encourage you all to get your daughters into motorsport simply because it's fucking awesome.



Sadly I have no daughters, but beyond that there's still an issue. It's not going to be enough for a girl to get into karting. She'll have to not only beat the boys but she'll have to be chosen to race in the big events by the men who make such choices. Let's not be naive enough to really think her_ actual driving ability_ will be the #1 factor that goes into here selection (or not). If it were, why haven't there been more than five female F1 drivers in the last 60 years? Are _*all *_male racers better?


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Sadly I have no daughters, but beyond that there's still an issue. It's not going to be enough for a girl to get into karting. She'll have to not only beat the boys but she'll have to be chosen to race in the big events by the men who make such choices. Let's not be naive enough to really think her_ actual driving ability_ will be the #1 factor that goes into here selection (or not). If it were, why haven't there been more than five female F1 drivers in the last 60 years? Are _*all *_male racers better?



Pretty sure that whoever wins the races gets into the fastest cars. Motorsport is a very equal sport, you need to be physically fit but not neccesarily stronger than your opponent.There's not reason a woman can't be the fastest.

Most drivers are men because the number of boys who join the karting circuit vastly outnumber the girls. There have been a few women drivers in recent years, it is becoming more common but until the numbers of kids in karting reached parity there will alwasy be more boys.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> There have been a few women drivers in recent years.



No there haven't. The last woman to race in a F1 Grand Prix was in 1982, her name was Giovanna Amati. That was over a generation ago. No way is it just a numbers game.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s worth me saying here that one of the consequences of consumer-capitalism is the objectification of _everybody_ in one way or other (but not in the same way).  Everybody is turned into a consumer to market themself and be marketed to.
> 
> The solution to the objectification of women is not to promote similar objectification of men.  Down that route lies a hideous race to the bottom.


Ive been saying that and you told me to fuck off so you don’t get to jump on that message now.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> No there haven't. The last woman to race in a F1 Grand Prix was in 1982, her name was Giovanna Amati. That was over a generation ago. No way is it just a numbers game.


The last one to race in an F1 race, not the last to drive and test F1. Most recently in 2017 Tatiana Calderón was signed to Sauber development programme.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> ((men))


((Women))


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

I''m thinking of danica patrick, i thought she'd raced F1 but she's indycar.

I don't know why you don't think it's a numbers thing. If for sake of argument 95% of the kids are boys and only the fastest of the fastest make it through to get selected then the chances it's one of the girls that only make up 5% is tiny.

Ask yourself this, why would a team not want the fastest driver in it's car? they don't give a monkeys if it's a woman or a man. prob better to have a woman because it's likely she'll weigh less.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> The last one to race in an F1 race, not the last to drive and test F1. Most recently in 2017 Tatiana Calderón was signed to Sauber development programme.



I know there are female test drivers, but the last woman to drive in an F1 Grand Prix was _*over 35 years ago*_.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

no-no said:


> Ask yourself this, why would a team not want the fastest driver in it's car? they don't give a monkeys if it's a woman or a man. prob better to have a woman because it's likely she'll weigh less.



So where are the women racing then? In terms of the numbers we really ought to be seeing at least one woman racing every couple of years at least, even if as you say the number of girls in karting is very small.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

I’d wager even the mechanics at the pits are exclusively men also.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I know there are female test drivers, but the last woman to drive in an F1 Grand Prix was _*over 35 years ago*_.


Remember read my post. That's what I said.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

Don't you think that's shameful though? IMO it's dubious at best._ Not one_ female Grand Prix driver in this whole generation.


----------



## no-no (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So where are the women racing then?



There just aren't enough in the sport. Because their numbers are low it's unlikely that any of them will be fast enough. If more got involved we'd start to see more succeed.If they're not fast enough for F1, like many of the boys too....they'll get offered seats in other motorsports.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Don't you think that's shameful though? IMO it's dubious at best._ Not one_ female Grand Prix driver in this whole generation.



There’s a class dynamic to it as well as a gender one imo.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

_Ladies ride horses_


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

And poor people don't drive F1 cars. F1 is a rich boys' club all the way through.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’d wager even the mechanics at the pits are exclusively men also.





mojo pixy said:


> So where are the women racing then? In terms of the numbers we really ought to be seeing at least one woman racing every couple of years at least, even if as you say the number of girls in karting is very small.


Danica Patrick was in Indy car, and I think has gone back to it, she was also in NASCAR. Sabine Schmitz comes to mind. Others are in different classes as a quick Google will tell you.

When I was racing karts the only female driver that I ever met was my wife. As a sport it attracted very few women or girls. I don't know why as, in my experience, the only bar was how fast you could drive.

There's women in the pit crew, and Claire Williams is the deputy chief at Williams.

There's not many, but they are, slowly, breaking through.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

To become professional from a sporting hobby like racing takes cash as well as time. You’re not going to find many middle to upper class girls being pushed into go carts when horse riding is seen as both more feminine whilst projecting status.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

Not enough girls go into the sport which treats women as ornaments for men.  It’s a real mystery.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Not enough girls go into the sport which treats women as ornaments for men.  It’s a real mystery.


I've been in the sport, I raced single seaters,  rally and saloon cars all as a privateer. I have a friend who was a grid girl, and I've met others. You are out of touch with the modern reality of the sport. Insiders have a lot of respect for all the girls, whatever job they are doing. 30/40 years ago what you say was true. It isn't now.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Not enough girls go into the sport which treats women as ornaments for men.  It’s a real mystery.


[insert some joke along the lines of men getting a head start because faster female drivers are still trying to park when the race starts]


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

speculated on this one over snooker before- theres no actual requirement to be a male to win trophies/ranking at the snooker. But theres very few women snooker champions. I'd have to google. One conclusion was that snooker clubs/venues are often quite blokey spaces. I'm still not sure thats the be al and end all- and snooker isn't a drastically expensive sport so its not that...


Magnus McGinty said:


> To become professional from a sporting hobby like racing takes cash as well as time. You’re not going to find many middle to upper class girls being pushed into go carts when horse riding is seen as both more feminine whilst projecting status.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> speculated on this one over snooker before- theres no actual requirement to be a male to win trophies/ranking at the snooker. But theres very few women snooker champions. I'd have to google. One conclusion was that snooker clubs/venues are often quite blokey spaces. I'm still not sure thats the be al and end all- and snooker isn't a drastically expensive sport so its not that...



See earlier answer:



kabbes said:


> It’s how we work as people.  Our decision making is based on having models in our head for who we are, models of how people like us behave and then a set of defaults to map one into the other.  Every time we want to disobey the model, it’s a stressful process and it comes at an emotional price.
> 
> 
> Yes, [people] have agency.  But they only have agency to the extent that they identify where the decision points lie rather than react in accordance to their pre-formed behaviour model.
> ...


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I've been in the sport, I raced single seaters,  rally and saloon cars *all as a privateer*.


Is that like a pirate but with cars?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Is that like a pirate but with cars?


i think it means someone with enough money to piss about with cars and enter races rather than being part of a team


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> speculated on this one over snooker before- theres no actual requirement to be a male to win trophies/ranking at the snooker. But theres very few women snooker champions. I'd have to google. One conclusion was that snooker clubs/venues are often quite blokey spaces. I'm still not sure thats the be al and end all- and snooker isn't a drastically expensive sport so its not that...


Can't remember her name but the multi women's world champ tried her hand against the men a couple of years ago. Won a couple of matches but seems to have stopped now. Hard to judge too much as so few women play snooker.  In snooker clubs the vast majority of women there play pool not snooker.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> speculated on this one over snooker before- theres no actual requirement to be a male to win trophies/ranking at the snooker. But theres very few women snooker champions. I'd have to google. One conclusion was that snooker clubs/venues are often quite blokey spaces. I'm still not sure thats the be al and end all- and snooker isn't a drastically expensive sport so its not that...



I agree it carries into other (most?) sports which is why I was careful to say _racing_ in my post; I’m not an expert on horses though - horse racing is mainly male jockeys isn’t it? I was probably thinking of show jumping.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

kabbes said:


> See earlier answer:


yes, I can see that. Little Jimm, 9 years old, spends all his free time playing pool/snooker with an uncle or what have you. Destined for the crucible and his mates wouldn't find it odd. Little jayne at the snooker club getting the bug that early- an oddity, the reactions (however well meaning) from older people there re-enforcing the sense of unusualness, your mates think its odd and possibly ma's not keen on it too... process of socialisation. And before that even, would you even contemplate it or would your 9 yer old consciousness not have just relegated it into 'not girls stuff' and without being explicitly told that, without even expressing the thought in your own head. hmm.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

Even with snooker there’s a class element to it. You get the occasional gifted genius but for most it’s practice, practice, practice - either by installing a professional snooker table at home or by constantly being at a club. Proles do become professional at it though, like football, as it’s way less investment than becoming serious about motor racing.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

ddraig said:


> i think it means someone with enough money to piss about with cars and enter races rather than being part of a team


This. Money doesn't last long though.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Insiders have a lot of respect for *all the girls*, whatever job they are doing. 30/40 years ago what you say was true. It isn't now.



If _adult females _in motorpsort are routinely referred to as _girls _(either with or without the definite article) then I for one would query _a lot of respect_. This might be a slip on your part, but even so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Even with snooker there’s a class element to it. You get the occasional gifted genius but for most it’s practice, practice, practice - either by installing a professional snooker table at home or by constantly being at a club. Proles do become professional at it though, like football, as it’s way less investment than becoming serious about motor racing.


Here's one for you. Steve Davis in a dusty-room retirment speech mentioned how his father had died and and so on, the years in the game etc. It struck me as an armchair psychologist. You've won everything twice and three times. You are a legend in the game, an elder statesman. Only once your father had gone did you think now is the time to formally lay down my cue. Theres probably more to it than thaat simple observation but there you go


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Even with snooker there’s a class element to it. You get the occasional gifted genius but for most it’s practice, practice, practice - either by installing a professional snooker table at home or by constantly being at a club. Proles do become professional at it though, like football, as it’s way less investment than becoming serious about motor racing.


When I was invited to play pool for Yorkshire my coach was a very feminine woman. She was also a referee. Women are the exception still, but they are breaking down the barriers,  albeit very slowly.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> If _adult females _in motorpsort are routinely referred to as _girls _(either with or without the definite article) then I for one would query _a lot of respect_. This might be a slip on your part, but even so.


"Girls" in the same way that the male mechanics and other male pit crew are "the boys."


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> Here's one for you. Steve Davis in a dusty-room retirment speech mentioned how his father had died and and so on, the years in the game etc. It struck me as an armchair psychologist. You've won everything twice and three times. You are a legend in the game, an elder statesman. Only once your father had gone did you think now is the time to formally lay down my cue. Theres probably more to it than thaat simple observation but there you go



Beckham had a pushy parent also. I guess it paid off if selling your childhood down the river is worth the subsequent, but by no means guaranteed, success and cash windfall.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> "Girls" in the same way that the male mechanics and other male pit crew are "the boys."



OK then you can have that one.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

Give up your childhood for social mobility.


----------



## bimble (Feb 2, 2018)

The cars thing starts really early I imagine, with small boys* getting given toy ones whilst girls get to dress dolls.
*not all boys ..


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> The cars thing starts really early I imagine, with small boys* getting given toy ones whilst girls get to dress dolls.
> *not all boys ..



I’m very up for letting my son find his own way and play with whatever toys he asks for - his favourite thing is dinosaurs and he play acts aggressiveness being one. I wondered where this may have come from then remembered that the male child in Peppa Pig plays with dinosaurs. 
It’s almost impossible to avoid. Turning the TV off might have helped though.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 2, 2018)

We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household without a TV. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 2, 2018)

the drawing board: Dear Podium Girl


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2018)

dessiato said:


> "Girls" in the same way that the male mechanics and other male pit crew are "the boys."


It's not the same.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2018)

kenny g said:


> We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household without a TV. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.


Science.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2018)

Pickman's model why have you Liked so many posts by sexist bigots? Disappointing.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household _without a_ _TV_. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.


'Did you see That's Life last night? They had a carrot shaped like a ...'
- NO, WE'VE JUST GOT FUCKIN' LEGO!


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m very up for letting my son find his own way


I recall you being fairly indignant and righteous (am I right in thinking you are citizen66?) Are you like that with everyone you engage with now days?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household without a TV. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.


Alternatively: socialisation is more than just what toys you are given.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

pocketscience said:


> I recall you being fairly indignant and righteous (am I right in thinking you are citizen66?) Are you like that with everyone you engage with now days?



You only know I’m that person because I told people I was but it’s against board rules to keep referring to me as an old moniker. Plus I don’t see why it’s relevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Santino said:


> Pickman's model why have you Liked so many posts by sexist bigots? Disappointing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.


Late to the party, but just caught up with this. 

Urgh, you utter prick. Absolutely repulsive.


----------



## hegley (Feb 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> The cars thing starts really early I imagine, with small boys* getting given toy ones whilst girls get to dress dolls.
> *not all boys ..


Depressingly early it seems when it comes to career choices: Children's career choices fixed by gender as early as age 4


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2018)

hegley said:


> Depressingly early it seems when it comes to career choices: Children's career choices fixed by gender as early as age 4



That made me well up a bit, actually.


----------



## Athos (Feb 3, 2018)

kabbes said:


> That made me well up a bit, actually.



You big girl.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2018)

hegley said:


> Depressingly early it seems when it comes to career choices: Children's career choices fixed by gender as early as age 4



By the way, nothing to do with this thread except in terms of comment on socialisation generally, but that video led me to this one, which is properly depressing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps if you put your thinking head on, instead of the one you have on, and consider this. If the first woman who was groped had slapped the groper's face, and declared loudly 'Do no put your hand on my...', it may well have changed the behaviour of the evening. By remaining silent they did neither themselves, or women in general, any good.



You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> I spent 14 years in the army, and attended many alcohol fueled events where women, both as guests and waitresses were present, and the sort of behaviour as in the OP did not happen. It would not have been tolerated for a second. Anyone behaving like that would have been ejected, and been answering for it on the next working morning. Funny that, those neanderthal squaddies completely understood what was acceptable, yet their so called betters do not.



I guess all those people who've told me about getting groped and hassled by gangs of pissed squaddies were talking out of their arseholes then. And to be fair, they were all asking for it anyway right? For being unwilling to start a physical confrontation with a highly trained people slaughtering specialist? They should've just grown some balls and fought their way out of there right?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

He’s been banned from the thread so will be blissfully unaware of any subsequent fallout.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2018)

Another fascinating video, this one


----------



## bimble (Feb 3, 2018)

^ that one's really good, yes. That's from this recent bbc show i think (if you haven't seen it worth a look) BBC Two - No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He’s been banned from the thread so will be blissfully unaware of any subsequent fallout.



Like a dog banned from its own vomit.


----------



## Sue (Feb 3, 2018)

hegley said:


> Depressingly early it seems when it comes to career choices: Children's career choices fixed by gender as early as age 4



At four, my nephew came out with 'boys are doctors, girls are nurses' when my sister suggested he swap dress-up outfits with one of the girls at nursery. 

He'd certainly never heard that at home -- my sister was horrified...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> No my claim is that its a crass industry that will not hire people unless they are the right age and looks.


rereading the thread - sorry, accused you of having said something the nefandous no-no did. apologies.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 3, 2018)

If children are aware of and respond to the culture around them then it should be seen as a good sign. The point in parents is to help them rise above it rather than be horrified by their children reflecting it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Santino i've liked 264 posts on this thread, listed in this table by poster in descending order. could you enlarge on the issue you wanted to raise?

e2a: just liked equationgirl's post 1359, so my table's already out of date


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is no defensible 'but'. Being serious for a moment, rather than the 'piss taking' posts above, it is never acceptable to lay hands on another person without their consent. I was taught this by my father, and have followed it all my life. No means no, not maybe or yes.
> 
> Men are physically stronger, this generates the assault; women get ripped to bits in court, this engenders the pathetic conviction rate for such offences. We had a case some years back in Scotland, where a rape victim had to hold up in court, the underwear she had been wearing the night of the attack. Shortly afterwards she took her own life. Until there is law in place to protect women, the conviction rates will remain low. That is a disgrace.


There are already laws in place to protect women. What law do you want - a law that says 'don't be a rapist'? We already have that.


----------



## keybored (Feb 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 126656
> 
> Santino i've liked 264 posts on this thread, listed in this table by poster in descending order. could you enlarge on the issue you wanted to raise?


Listed in descending order of the ones you liked the most <3


----------



## keybored (Feb 3, 2018)

ddraig said:


> i think it means someone with enough money to piss about with cars and enter races rather than being part of a team


Also not good enough to get sponsorship.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2018)

And Sasaferrato did it ever occur to you that the groper's face wasn't slapped because of the fear he might do something worse if she did? That she'd lose her job? That she was frightened? 

There are countless reasons why it didn't happen. You're not a woman. You've not ever been in that situation. You won't ever be in that situation. So stop making out you know it would all have been better if they'd only done X, Y or Z.


----------



## Sue (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> If children are aware of and respond to the culture around them then it should be seen as a good sign. The point in parents is to help them rise above it rather than be horrified by their children reflecting it.


Which is why my sister then patiently explained that boys and girls could both do whatever jobs and reminded him that their GP was a woman and the doctor he saw in hospital was a woman and Uncle Jim is a nurse etc etc.

So you know, it's perfectly possible to be horrified by something as well as helping a child reflect on it .


----------



## Sue (Feb 3, 2018)

equationgirl said:


> And Sasaferrato did it ever occur to you that the groper's face wasn't slapped because of the fear he might do something worse if she did? That she'd lose her job? That she was frightened?
> 
> There are countless reasons why it didn't happen. You're not a woman. You've not ever been in that situation. You won't ever be in that situation. So stop making out you know it would all have been better if they'd only done X, Y or Z.


As well as the obvious why the fuck should you have to.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

He still can’t hear any of you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He still can’t hear any of you.


yeh but never mind, eh.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 126653View attachment 126654View attachment 126656
> 
> Santino i've liked 264 posts on this thread, listed in this table by poster in descending order. could you enlarge on the issue you wanted to raise?
> 
> e2a: just liked equationgirl's post 1359, so my table's already out of date


HoratioCuthbert 4 London 0


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Did you actually make that table?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Did you actually make that table?


Yeh I was bored at work


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household without a TV. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.



Yeah? I used to stick on my uncle's bike leathers, and we would reinact the scene from T2 my friend would be Sarah collapsing in the lift and I would be like "come with me if you want to live" in a flat weirdly full of single mothers and daughters. We also knew the script of The Lost Boys backwards. Gore is just more fun


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2018)

Nobody plays cowboys and indians via "nature". There's no cowboy gene. It just shows how pervasive cultural influences are and how much children pick up on them regardless of what their parents try to do.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 3, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nobody plays cowboys and indians via "nature". There's no cowboy gene. It just shows how pervasive cultural influences are and how much children pick up on them regardless of what their parents try to do.


That's a very big statement. You're completely denying the possibility that nature may be one of the factors that predispose boys to playing more aggressive games?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2018)

8115 said:


> That's a very big statement. You're completely denying the possibility that nature may be one of the factors that predispose boys to playing more aggressive games?


I said specifically what I said. Would you like to critique that?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nobody plays cowboys and indians via "nature". There's no cowboy gene. It just shows how pervasive cultural influences are and how much children pick up on them regardless of what their parents try to do.


I know, I am female.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

Not sure I like this banned from a thread thing. Obviously it makes the board more manageable but half the fun of this place is watching someone getting savaged for putting a foot wrong.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 3, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I said specifically what I said. Would you like to critique that?


I'm surprised by your certainty .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2018)

8115 said:


> I'm surprised by your certainty .


That there is no cowboy gene? I'm pretty sure about that one. "Cowboys and indians" is absolutely not "nature".


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

And The Bell Curve is a load of auld shite.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He’s been banned from the thread so will be blissfully unaware of any subsequent fallout.


Unfortunately not true. 
I have put a thread on full ignore and shortly after banned from the very same thread. 

Didn't stop me from getting notifications about said thread or being able to read said thread. Only stops you from posting to it and responding.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And The Bell Curve is a load of auld shite.


Loads of bell ends curve. 


(That didn't quite work did it?)


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Unfortunately not true.
> I have put a thread on full ignore and shortly after banned from the very same thread.
> 
> Didn't stop me from getting notifications about said thread or being able to read said thread. Only stops you from posting to it and responding.


that's cause your cuntery transcends all boundaries


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I know, I am female.


I know, it was a comment on the general point.


----------



## Poot (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I like this banned from a thread thing. Obviously it makes the board more manageable but half the fun of this place is watching someone getting savaged for putting a foot wrong.


Well, yes, but for one section of society it is usually extremely raw and personal. And it doesn't always feel as though they are getting savaged. Sometimes it just feels as though they have a platform to air their toxic views. And yes, sometimes it is quite hurtful if you're in the section of society that's being discussed.

Don't get me wrong, often it's a good reminder that the massive majority of Urban are really awesome and supportive, but still.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure I like this banned from a thread thing. Obviously it makes the board more manageable but half the fun of this place is watching someone getting savaged for putting a foot wrong.


You're doing it wrong if you're only watching


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

Poot said:


> Well, yes, but for one section of society it is usually extremely raw and personal. And it doesn't always feel as though they are getting savaged. Sometimes it just feels as though they have a platform to air their toxic views. And yes, sometimes it is quite hurtful if you're in the section of society that's being discussed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, often it's a good reminder that the massive majority of Urban are really awesome and supportive, but still.



I’m in the camp of people organising against stuff rather than appealing to an authority to sort it. That aside, it works as threads can get derailed, even by obvious trolls such as Sass’s.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You're doing it wrong if you're only watching



We’re all observers and participants.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 3, 2018)

Thanks to the posters who appear to think it adds to the discussion to point out that there is not a cowboy gene......


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Poot said:


> Well, yes, but for one section of society it is usually extremely raw and personal. And it doesn't always feel as though they are getting savaged. Sometimes it just feels as though they have a platform to air their toxic views. And yes, sometimes it is quite hurtful if you're in the section of society that's being discussed.


Transgender folks? People with mental health issues who don't fit MIND's rosy picture of what that might look like? 


Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m in the camp of people organising against stuff rather than appealing to an authority to sort it. That aside, it works as threads can get derailed, even by obvious trolls such as Sass’s.


You use these concepts strangely, urban is not the working class community you live in


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You use these concepts strangely, urban is not the working class community you live in



True. Although having posted on here for almost 20 years I know how it operates here also.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 3, 2018)

I've always wanted to be a cowboy. It's in my jeans.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 3, 2018)

kabbes said:


> By the way, nothing to do with this thread except in terms of comment on socialisation generally, but that video led me to this one, which is properly depressing.




Hell, that's scary. I *suppose* it might matter if these children are in some notably racist area of the USA, but it's quite horrible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> True. Although having posted on here for almost 20 years I know how it operates here also.


((((magnus mcginty))))


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I've always wanted to be a cowboy. It's in my jeans.


You could go and take some chaps with you


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ((((magnus mcginty))))



I know. You would expect I’d have found something better to do by now.


----------



## Poot (Feb 3, 2018)

Me too. I think I need a break from this place for a while. I'm really not an angry person in real life, and I don't think I like myself much here at the moment.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> We were given a dolls house as a couple of brothers in  non gender normative 70s household without a TV. Used to play cowboys and indians using lego men running through the house. Nature is often stronger than nurture.


My younger (female) cousin, (possibly aged 5 or 6, I don't know), when asked what she would like for Christmas, said "A doll. And a gun to shoot it with".

That doesn't indicate anything important really, but it still amuses me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Poot said:


> Me too. I think I need a break from this place for a while. I'm really not an angry person in real life, and I don't think I like myself much here at the moment.


Aw  Don't go - if you do come back soon


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2018)

Celyn said:


> My younger (female) cousin, (possibly aged 5 or 6, I don't know), when asked what she would like for Christmas, said "A doll. And a gun to shoot it with".
> 
> That doesn't indicate anything important really, but it still amuses me.


Did she get her gun?


----------



## bimble (Feb 3, 2018)

Poot said:


> Me too. I think I need a break from this place for a while. I'm really not an angry person in real life, and I don't think I like myself much here at the moment.


I know what you mean. Can’t figure out if it’s cathartic or just bad.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2018)

kenny g said:


> Thanks to the posters who appear to think it adds to the discussion to point out that there is not a cowboy gene......


Kenny, get off your horse and drink your milk.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You could go and take some chaps with you


But I'd not want to be saddled with them.



(This thread needs a bit of lightening up)


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Celyn said:


> My younger (female) cousin, (possibly aged 5 or 6, I don't know), when asked what she would like for Christmas, said "A doll. And a gun to shoot it with".
> 
> That doesn't indicate anything important really, but it still amuses me.


Reminds me of a girl I used to childmind for, she wanted me to be a monster or something and was shooting me with a bow and arrow ... Once she succeeded in taking me out she says calmly "It's dead, but it's happy." 4 years old


----------



## Celyn (Feb 3, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Another fascinating video, this one



Oh damn,    and this is probably quite recent. Very worrying. How many girls at school are pushed away from careers by people like this?  Even now?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> that's cause your cuntery transcends all boundaries


A cunt for all seasons, the universal cunt, one cunt to rule them all, the once and future cunt - yep, that's the feller.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2018)

Poot said:


> Me too. I think I need a break from this place for a while. I'm really not an angry person in real life, and I don't think I like myself much here at the moment.


Every now and then I find myself turning a bit too much into a person I don't like during arguments on this place and take a few months off.  I think it's a good thing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

dessiato said:


> (This thread needs a bit of lightening up)



_just lighten up, girls..._


----------



## dessiato (Feb 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> _just lighten up, girls..._


You said that I DIDN'T! Some shit'll descend for that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Every now and then I find myself turning a bit too much into a person I don't like during arguments on this place and take a few months off.  I think it's a good thing.


Turn aroooound!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 3, 2018)

dessiato said:


> You said that I DIDN'T! Some shit'll descend for that.



The irony of not lightening up in response to a response to your request to do so.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 3, 2018)

Hai mumbles sorry about the other day you know what carers are like


----------



## Mumbles274 (Feb 3, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Hai mumbles sorry about the other day you know what carers are like


No worries x


----------



## Mumbles274 (Feb 3, 2018)

Every now And then i fall apart


----------



## kenny g (Feb 3, 2018)

Thinking back on it I suspect the lego figures may have been wearing cowboy  and indian outfits.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Did she get her gun?


Not sure. I think she probably did not. There might be laws and stuff about letting small children have guns.

_<thinks. Oh! If cousin possesses gun, wonder whether she'd consider letting me borrow it>_


----------



## agricola (Feb 5, 2018)

The "grid girls" (paid to be there) will be replaced by "grid kids" (who either won't be paid to be there, or will one day pay to be there) from next season in F1.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 6, 2018)

F1 grid girls backlash has begun against 'feminsts forcing women out of work' | Metro News


----------



## Santino (Feb 6, 2018)

Remember, always accuse the other side of doing what you are in fact doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2018)

agricola said:


> The "grid girls" (paid to be there) will be replaced by "grid kids" (who either won't be paid to be there, or will one day pay to be there) from next season in F1.


let's hope there's not a formula 1 sir jimmy savile obe kcsg


----------



## dessiato (Feb 6, 2018)

Can you spot the misogyny in this article?

Kwik Fit charged woman £685 to fix air conditioning that her car doesn't actually have | Metro News


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Can you spot the misogyny in this article?
> 
> Kwik Fit charged woman £685 to fix air conditioning that her car doesn't actually have | Metro News


the misgendering?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 6, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Can you spot the misogyny in this article?
> 
> Kwik Fit charged woman £685 to fix air conditioning that her car doesn't actually have | Metro News


'apologised to Mr Stowell for the error'. 

I can well believe a garage phoned her dad about the car.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 6, 2018)

Probably more to do with her name being Stevie.

Of course it's misogyny though.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 6, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Can you spot the misogyny in this article?
> 
> Kwik Fit charged woman £685 to fix air conditioning that her car doesn't actually have | Metro News


Is it that the father (a man) assumes he had to step in and rescue the fair damsel (his daughter) instead of realising that the sexes are equal and that as a woman she’s just as capable of sorting her problems (confrontation) as a man?


----------



## elbows (Feb 7, 2018)

I think its pretty clear from the article that they gave the original quote to her dad and so thats why an apology later came his way.

It's also perfectly plausible that she asked for the quote to be given to him, perhaps she was busy at her part time job or in lectures etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2018)

Santino said:


> Pickman's model why have you Liked so many posts by sexist bigots? Disappointing.


you never did get back to me about this. which sexist bigots did you have in mind?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you never did get back to me about this. which sexist bigots did you have in mind?


Santino now you've had time to peruse the list perhaps you could get back to me.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Santino now you've had time to peruse the list perhaps you could get back to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


>



It could be you...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It could be you...


Well it wouldn’t work unless you want to find some stale beef we’ve had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Well it wouldn’t work unless you want to find some stale beef we’ve had.


Oh I've no beef with you. But it could be you Santino meant


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 29, 2019)




----------

