kylith wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » I am reading more up on this story and it turns out hookers were hired at this event. The outfits of the hostesses seems to be what I thought. I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that! In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers? dotsman wrote: » They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients. When flirting and partying with very drunk people of the opposite gender, one should not be shocked/upset/horrified if said drunk people hit on the hostesses. Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.
A Little Pony wrote: » I am reading more up on this story and it turns out hookers were hired at this event. The outfits of the hostesses seems to be what I thought. I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that!
dotsman wrote: » They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients. When flirting and partying with very drunk people of the opposite gender, one should not be shocked/upset/horrified if said drunk people hit on the hostesses.
anewme wrote: » Rory28 wrote: » They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear. Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job? The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place. Are you allow specify that in your advertising? Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal. Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?
Rory28 wrote: » They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear. Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job? The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.
kylith wrote: » Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Rory28 wrote: » Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true. The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else. In work you expect your employer to make sure you’re safe though. They employer was an agency who also supplied floor staff to keep an eye on the hostesses. They were watching them to prod the ones who weren’t interacting enough with the guests. So that means they saw what was happening and didn’t try to help. If they wanted escorts, and strippers, why didn’t they hire escorts and strippers? Instead they hired young students and struggling actors to work for £15 an hour and hoped that when they were sexually assaulted, they would just take the money and stick to the non Disclosure agreement. It’s wrong by any definition so it’s good that it’s being highlighted as unacceptable in 2018. Even if it’s overdue. This will cause things to change. Lots of old people who have difficulty with the changing world will say ‘this is PC gone mad... can’t even flirt with a girl or grope her arse or whip your dick out without being accused of doing something wrong... world’s gone mad’. But most people will just adapt. If men are mistreated in a similar way, I think they should make a big song and dance about it and cause a similar change. Hen parties can be gross and I’d equally support stamping out harassment of men.
Rory28 wrote: » Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true. The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.
A Little Pony wrote: » Problem is it's a dream for most men.
dotsman wrote: » True, but, at the same time: if one can't flirt with inebriated people and can't handle the idea of it escalating, maybe one should not take a job that's sole function is to flirt with inebriated people. Exactly how many of the girls working there actually were shocked/horrified? Was it just the "feminist attention-seeker reporter"? How many were groped? How many of the men groped? Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind. If you can't handle the heat, don't look for work in a kitchen.
dotsman wrote: » Exactly how many of the girls working there actually were shocked/horrified? Was it just the "feminist attention-seeker reporter"? How many were groped? How many of the men groped? Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » Problem is it's a dream for most men. What’s a dream for most men?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Sweet Jesus do you mean it’s a dream for most men to be treated like these women were treated?
kylith wrote: » I hate to break it to you, but the logical continuation of flirting is not groping someone.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » This sounds like the exact attitude that allowed child sexual abuse to continue for so long. Does it matter exactly how many nobody has been singled out and the original FT article was careful not to name any guests who definitely attended. This is 2018 and touching up people without their consent is out of order. ‘The sluts were asking for it if they took the job’ doesn’t cut it anymore.
dotsman wrote: » When drunk, touching someone who has been giving you sexual advances is actually a common and natural response. Did the girls say no? Complain? Remove the hand? Walk out and leave? Or simply continue to flirt?
bluewolf wrote: » I cannot believe a thread about these scumbags has turned into "the women were asking for it". Are you for real
kylith wrote: » It hasn't turned into that, it was like this from the start. And people wonder why it took so long for Weinstein to be outed...
bluewolf wrote: » I cannot believe a thread about these scumbags has turned into "the women were asking for it". Are you for real. First it's "this probably didn't happen" but now there were eyewitnesses, it's still their fault.
Penn wrote: » Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job. These women were hired as waitresses/hostesses at a charity dinner. There is no reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped.
bluewolf wrote: » Did you hear the judge who put that child molestor to jail is a big meaniehead. Because she's female
dotsman wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » This sounds like the exact attitude that allowed child sexual abuse to continue for so long. Does it matter exactly how many nobody has been singled out and the original FT article was careful not to name any guests who definitely attended. This is 2018 and touching up people without their consent is out of order. ‘The sluts were asking for it if they took the job’ doesn’t cut it anymore. What the fcuk does this have in common with child sexual abuse? We've now gone from "a mountain out of a molehill" to "a friggin planet out of a molehill".
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Do you know what I find the funniest part about people defending the men, saying the women looked like strippers etc and therefore should expect it? The fact that majority of strip clubs go by the no-touching rule. Woman are literally stripping, prancing about in their underwear and giving lap dances, and you are still not allowed to touch them without their permission. So why is it most men can control themselves in a much sexier environment, when there's big scary bouncers to throw them out... but seem to lose that ability when they think there's no consequences for their actions? Why is it suddenly then that they should be excused, and it's the woman's fault for looking attractive, wearing short dresses and flirting a bit?
kylith wrote: » Well in fairness, if you're going to leave your children with an authority figure you should expect them to be molested. What was he supposed to do? Not molest them? Don't people know that men have absolutely zero ways of stopping themselves from doing things? That judge is just a feminiazi.
ceadaoin. wrote: » What do you mean "people"? We all know that its mothers who are to blame for everything
RDM_83 again wrote: » While I completely agree why is nobody but myself calling out Penn's earlier post that completely excuses identical behaviour due to "expectations"
Ave Sodalis wrote: » I think it's down to permission. You get female strippers, mostly party ones*, where it is perfectly acceptable to touch them. You get male strippers, again mostly party ones*, who find it okay to touch. If either of them say no, then it is automatically not okay. *from what I've seen
RDM_83 again wrote: While I completely agree why is nobody but myself calling out Penn's earlier post that completely excuses identical behaviour due to "expectations"
Cabaal wrote: » Some people can see no wrong and would rather blame women then accept that some men can be utter scumbags when it comes to women. I say this as a man, I feel awful sorry for people that make excuses for this completely inappropriate behavior,
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yes I have been saying I would support stamping out uninvited abuse of men too. I think there can be differences in the type of strippers. I think female strippers are 'look but don't touch' but I think male strippers tend to oil themselves up and take the women's hands and run them over themselves. But any invited touching etc should be treated the same.
Penn wrote: » Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job.
RDM_83 again wrote: » It really doesn't sound like its talking about strippers taking somebodies hands and placing on themselves This isn't a random whatabout the menz post, its literally a popular non controversial opinion in that post that grabbing and groping of guys (you don't use the word grab/grope to imply touching with consent) is ok if there is a reasonable expectation that its going to happen on the job. Is anybody actually shocked (not disgusted actually surprised) that harassment occurred to people hired to be dressed scantily at this event, doesn't it make it exactly the same thing?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dcc54fc0153c491ede3e66aef098573d.svg)
