[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[Cheshire Cat]

See all the posts above. The people who attend such events may be men, but "gentle" and "sporting" they are not.

 

[Diablo]

A gentlemens evening is surely something to be enjoyed especially if attended on by attractive young Fillies

 

[Motogull]

Before you get too outraged and sanctimonious let's just remind ourselves of your first post on the matter shall we? Nice.
You had clearly not read the story yet felt you knew the score. Later when the details were fed to you , you did try and backtrack a little to be fair. Anyway that's why I said you should shut up and I stand by that. You're full of shit.

That's a bit harsh.

My comments to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] are to note that he has adopted the Jimmy Tarbuck stance. I consider that stance to be flawed despite the initial temptation to think 'fair comment'.

If the girls in the posted pictures got a bit feisty and gropey then I think we and the fella would fancy his chances to get out of it (if he wanted to). Swapping the genders round, if a similar sized group of fellas got a bit feisty and gropey, then I think the girl would understandably feel very vulnerable and would not fancy her chances to get out of it (if she wanted to). Lastly, suppose that (straight) fella was booked to do a strip for a group of homosexuals and they got a bit feisty and gropey, my thoughts in that situation would be more akin to the theoretical girl's one.

I post this without being influenced by my view that Jimmy T is a sad old c*nt.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Dear [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=26606]Brighton Mod[/MENTION] let me state for the record that I am in no way 'looking forward' to the death of another poster. I am merely stating that this poster's views will go to the grave with them on whatever date it might be that they pass from the world. I defend the right of said poster to have his views, even if I disagree with them most vehemently.

His views will not go to the grave with him, because he's not the only one espousing these views. Thus they will not pass from this world, you made a mistake with your use of words.

 

[Hampster Gull]

The abuse of power and influence is depressingly common and rightly being called out again.

 

[The Clamp]

That's a bit harsh.

My comments to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] are to note that he has adopted the Jimmy Tarbuck stance. I consider that stance to be flawed despite the initial temptation to think 'fair comment'.

If the girls in the posted pictures got a bit feisty and gropey then I think we and the fella would fancy his chances to get out of it (if he wanted to). Swapping the genders round, if a similar sized group of fellas got a bit feisty and gropey, then I think the girl would understandably feel very vulnerable and would not fancy her chances to get out of it (if she wanted to). Lastly, suppose that (straight) fella was booked to do a strip for a group of homosexuals and they got a bit feisty and gropey, my thoughts in that situation would be more akin to the theoretical girl's one.

I post this without being influenced by my view that Jimmy T is a sad old c*nt.

He posted without knowing the story, just assumed the women would be asking for it. His comparison was of men who are virtually naked turning up in the role of naked butlers and strippers, not turning up to wait tables while wearing clothes. He then tried to make out he doesn't condone the events of that evening after saying the reporter had turned up to be deliberately offended not for one second considering she may have felt it was a serious issue that needed highlighting, course not! She's a feminist journo with a n agenda and a bird to boot, she cannot be a serious journalist. The big lesson here is to know what story you are commenting on before you make a tit of yourself.

 

[Hamilton]

His views will not go to the grave with him, because he's not the only one espousing these views. Thus they will not pass from this world, you made a mistake with your use of words.

Well, I don't think I did. There you go.

 

[dingodan]

He posted without knowing the story, just assumed the women would be asking for it. His comparison was of men who are virtually naked turning up in the role of naked butlers and strippers, not turning up to wait tables while wearing clothes. He then tried to make out he doesn't condone the events of that evening after saying the reporter had turned up to be deliberately offended not for one second considering she may have felt it was a serious issue that needed highlighting, course not! She's a feminist journo with a n agenda and a bird to boot, she cannot be a serious journalist. The big lesson here is to know what story you are commenting on before you make a tit of yourself.

I knew the story when I posted, and not condoning the behavior is not the same as condemning it. Some of the behavior I do condemn, and none of it I approve of, but you guys have not been just criticizing men getting their genitals out or putting their hands up women's skirts, if you were, I would join you. You have been condemning the whole concept of having women attend a men's night for the purpose of making it "fun" for the men, i.e. being there to be nice to look at and flirt with, which was the job description, and is exactly what those men in the pictures were hired for too.

You have no respect for women or men unless they conform to your values and morals, and by the way none of this means that these things are in line with my morals or values, I just respect what other people chose to do even when that is the case.

We live in a free country, the attitudes you show suggest you are not really someone who cares about women's rights, in fact it sounds like you would be more comfortable in one of those strict hard-line countries where women are told what they can and cannot do, and told it's for their own good and the sake of their "honor" and moral decency etc.

I prefer a free country thanks, and so do most of the women I know.

 

[The Clamp]

I knew the story when I posted, and not condoning the behavior is not the same as condemning it. Some of the behavior I do condemn, and none of it I approve of, but you guys have not been just criticizing men getting their genitals out or putting their hands up women's skirts, if you were, I would join you. You have been condemning the whole concept of having women attend a men's night for the purpose of making it "fun" for the men, i.e. being there to be nice to look at and flirt with, which was the job description, and is exactly what those men in the pictures were hired for too.

You have no respect for women or men unless they conform to your values and morals, and by the way none of this means that these things are in line with my morals or values, I just respect what other people chose to do even when that is the case.

We live in a free country, the attitudes you show suggest you are not really someone who cares about women's rights, in fact it sounds like you would be more comfortable in one of those strict hard-line countries where women are told what they can and cannot do, and told it's for their own good and the sake of their "honor" and moral decency etc.

I prefer a free country thanks, and so do most of the women I know.

Stop digging, lad.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Stop digging, lad.

How is he digging ?

 

[BadFish]

I knew the story when I posted, and not condoning the behavior is not the same as condemning it. Some of the behavior I do condemn, and none of it I approve of, but you guys have not been just criticizing men getting their genitals out or putting their hands up women's skirts, if you were, I would join you. You have been condemning the whole concept of having women attend a men's night for the purpose of making it "fun" for the men, i.e. being there to be nice to look at and flirt with, which was the job description, and is exactly what those men in the pictures were hired for too.

You have no respect for women or men unless they conform to your values and morals, and by the way none of this means that these things are in line with my morals or values, I just respect what other people chose to do even when that is the case.

We live in a free country, the attitudes you show suggest you are not really someone who cares about women's rights, in fact it sounds like you would be more comfortable in one of those strict hard-line countries where women are told what they can and cannot do, and told it's for their own good and the sake of their "honor" and moral decency etc.

I prefer a free country thanks, and so do most of the women I know.

My attitude is that people should have the right to go to work with out being touched up, inappropriately propositioned, flashed, groped and forced to sign no disclosure papers that they are not given a copy of or time to read. It may be the case that the majority of these women signed up for the above with their eyes open and all power to them if that is how they choose to make their money. As you allude to in your post this is about choice, IMHO you have focussed throughout this thread on those that chose to work that night with their eyes open my concerns however are for those that felt that the 'gentlemen' in question over stepped the mark. My concern in this case is for those who didn't. Will we ever know how many of the 130 felt uncomfortable with how far things went that night? I am guessing the non disclosure statements will ensure we don't.

As you say we live in a free country and the 'gentlemen' at the event are free to treat the hostesses in any way they choose within the law. That said i am free to consider them to be grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves (a view that is obviously taken by many of the entities that they work with).

FWIW I think it is a massive leap from this viewpoint to your ideas of my disrespect for women and aligning my values with those of a hardline oppressive state. But each to their own.

 

[Hampster Gull]

The world is moving a bit too fast for some of our knuckle draggers

 

[dingodan]

My attitude is that people should have the right to go to work with out being touched up, inappropriately propositioned, flashed, groped and forced to sign no disclosure papers that they are not given a copy of or time to read. It may be the case that the majority of these women signed up for the above with their eyes open and all power to them if that is how they choose to make their money. As you allude to in your post this is about choice, IMHO you have focussed throughout this thread on those that chose to work that night with their eyes open my concerns however are for those that felt that the 'gentlemen' in question over stepped the mark. My concern in this case is for those who didn't. Will we ever know how many of the 130 felt uncomfortable with how far things went that night? I am guessing the non disclosure statements will ensure we don't.

As you say we live in a free country and the 'gentlemen' at the event are free to treat the hostesses in any way they choose within the law. That said i am free to consider them to be grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves (a view that is obviously taken by many of the entities that they work with).

FWIW I think it is a massive leap from this viewpoint to your ideas of my disrespect for women and aligning my values with those of a hardline oppressive state. But each to their own.

I agree that nobody should be touched up at work, even the women who went into this knowing what it would be like shouldn't have been touched up. That wasn't part of the deal, and was explicitly forbidden on the night. You make it sound like the women who understood the job were Ok with being felt up, I think they probably weren't.

Your problem is you don't distinguish, and this has been going on throughout this thread, making the whole conversation pretty pointless.

Like I said multiple times, condemn the guys who overstepped the mark, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that it happened, but that doesn't make it Ok. But you still go on to say, "the 'gentlemen' at the event [are] grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves", what all of them? How about just the ones who overstepped the mark? It sounds more like you are just against that kind of an event in general, I'm not exactly impressed by the idea of that event, I doubt I would feel comfortable with it if I had been there, but I'm not about to label everyone in attendance a perv, or lump everyone in with the guy who got his genitals out.

& your post, if taken seriously, still means that you have to view women on a hen night as grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves too, and I doubt that you do.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

I wont rehash all the comments about the hostesses as I think they have the absolute right to work without being groped and treated like semi escorts.

What really strikes me is that some of these men seem to think that these women are 'fair game' and how they feel is unimportant. These are industry leaders whos companies no doubt have stringent anti improper behaviour codes. They may have daughters and wives who they would hate to go through that, yet still do this. It is like a throw back to the 70s to 90s and they need to be outed IMO to stop others treating money as a free pass to abise of power.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

I agree that nobody should be touched up at work, even the women who went into this knowing what it would be like shouldn't have been touched up. That wasn't part of the deal, and was explicitly forbidden on the night. You make it sound like the women who understood the job were Ok with being felt up, I think they probably weren't.

Your problem is you don't distinguish, and this has been going on throughout this thread, making the whole conversation pretty pointless.

Like I said multiple times, condemn the guys who overstepped the mark, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that it happened, but that doesn't make it Ok. But you still go on to say, "the 'gentlemen' at the event [are] grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves", what all of them? How about just the ones who overstepped the mark? It sounds more like you are just against that kind of an event in general, I'm not exactly impressed by the idea of that event, I doubt I would feel comfortable with it if I had been there, but I'm not about to label everyone in attendance a perv, or lump everyone in with the guy who got his genitals out.

& your post, if taken seriously, still means that you have to view women on a hen night as grubby pervs who should be ashamed of themselves too, and I doubt that you do.

Maybe I should have been more explicit when talking about the 'gentlemen' but yes, I was talking about the ones that over stepped the mark, I was using the inverted commas to make that distinction.

I think that comparing unwanted sexual attention while working at a charity function to hen nights and even the naked butler thing (if that is what it was) is comparing apples and oranges. The huge distinction in both cases is consent.

 

[GT49er]

How is he digging ?

He isn't. Someone's just lost an argument!

 

[GT49er]

Well, I don't think.

Of course you do....................










...................just not very well, sometimes.

 

[GT49er]

My attitude is that people should have the right to go to work with out being touched up, inappropriately propositioned, flashed, groped and forced to sign no disclosure papers that they are not given a copy of or time to read. It may be the case that the majority of these women signed up for the above with their eyes open and all power to them if that is how they choose to make their money. As you allude to in your post this is about choice, IMHO you have focussed throughout this thread on those that chose to work that night with their eyes open my concerns however are for those that felt that the 'gentlemen' in question over stepped the mark. My concern in this case is for those who didn't. Will we ever know how many of the 130 felt uncomfortable with how far things went that night?

No, we won't. But your assumption that you have the right to speak for those who were OK with it is pretty shit. You haven't - you want to, but that's not a qualification.

 

[GT49er]

Maybe I should have been more explicit when talking about the 'gentlemen' but yes, I was talking about the ones that over stepped the mark, I was using the inverted commas to make that distinction.

I think that comparing unwanted sexual attention while working at a charity function to hen nights and even the naked butler thing (if that is what it was) is comparing apples and oranges. The huge distinction in both cases is consent.

And you have mystic powers to know who was and who wasn't consenting?








Oh, right. Sorry - you must 'know' everything about everything.

 

[BadFish]

No, we won't. But your assumption that you have the right to speak for those who were OK with it is pretty shit. You haven't - you want to, but that's not a qualification.

I am not speaking on behalf of anybody I am just expressing my opinion on those who over stepped the mark on a message board designed for people to do exactly that.

This seems to be upsetting you?

And you have mystic powers to know who was and who wasn't consenting?

Oh, right. Sorry - you must 'know' everything about everything.

Nowhere on this thread have I stated, suggested or insinuated that I know who did or didn't over step the mark.