Originally Posted by ecokid (Post 12426653)

Interesting that you pointed hooters out - massively flopped over here. :p It was seen as naf.

Excusing men for their apparent inability to control themselves is condoning such behaviour. As a bloke btw, I think we're better than that. I've never felt it was necessary to go say sexual stuff to somebody while they're working. It's not only inappropriate but freaking weird and desperate >snip<.

Being ogled at is one thing, having unsolicited lewd comments or someone exposing themselves in front of you, is quite another. There is nothing inherent in a hostess' role that makes it objectively 'OK' for the above to happen. Equally, a stripper agreeing to get naked in exchange for money isn't agreeing to physical contact, but punters often think that they're entitled to that and step over that line. Sure there's a risk of that happening, which is why strip clubs often remind punters of what's acceptable/unacceptable. Some strip joints don't and they're failing their duties to those women and men working there.

Blaming the outcome as a result of the choice of clothing is the same argument used in defense of harassment or rape of a woman dressed provocatively on a night out and one which is an old internalised social narrative that proportions blame and responsibility largely at the feet of the woman. Seeing some old sods defending such an argument is really sad. Thankfully the narrative is being rewritten whether you like it or not.

Just because they're happy to wear something risque (because it makes them feel sexy and as something considered fashionable and who may or may not be looking to attract someone), does not mean they resign their rights as a human to be treated with respect and fairness.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12426678)

Pun intended?

Originally Posted by ecokid (Post 12426702)

Naturally. ;) Some work colleagues wanted to go and being open-minded enough I was persuaded, I found it a really really really strange and naf. Girls would randomly burst into cheers and dance on tables to try and distract you from how creepy the underlying intention of the place was.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12426705)

TBH, I even find that at Earls in Canada, with all the flirtatious young women in eye-catching outfits. It seems like such a charade, I can see why the girls do it (tips) but not why the old guys delude themselves.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12426701)

I don't think anyone condones such behavior, but simply one cant just wish the world to be different, maybe the narrative is being re-written but until it is the world is what it is. Taking a job at a male-only event and having to wear prescribed knickers should have raised some questions as to what was likely to occur, as well as non-disclosure agreements.

Originally Posted by bats (Post 12426726)

Seriously? You're saying that men are guaranteed to assault women given the opportunity? That women wearing matching knickers is likely to make this happen? That signing a non disclosure agreement indicates that something illegal/immoral/offensive is going to happen?

What about other bad behaviour should we just accept that that is going to happen too?

Originally Posted by bats (Post 12426726)

Seriously? You're saying that men are guaranteed to assault women given the opportunity? That women wearing matching knickers is likely to make this happen? That signing a non disclosure agreement indicates that something illegal/immoral/offensive is going to happen?

What about other bad behaviour should we just accept that that is going to happen too?

Originally Posted by ecokid (Post 12426702)

Naturally. ;) Some work colleagues wanted to go and being open-minded enough I was persuaded. I found it a really really really strange and naf. Girls would randomly burst into cheers and dance on tables to try and distract you from how creepy the underlying intention of the place was.

Originally Posted by raindropsandroses (Post 12426768)

:goodpost: . There's also the fact that any of the hostesses using the toilet were timed by a bouncer waiting outside, and if they were in there (probably escaping) for too long they were "brought back out". That their phones were taken from them before the event started too, it all smacks of trapping them there.

I used to dance, and in competitions used to have to wear matching knickers, I always assumed it was to stop them showing through, not that I was handing out invitations to be groped.

The ONLY time a woman (or man) is "asking for it", or should expect anything sexual to happen is if she or he has given their explicit, uncoerced consent, and that they were in sound enough mind and of an age to give consent.

All this nonsense about what did they expect is rage inducing.

Originally Posted by raindropsandroses (Post 12426768)

The ONLY time a woman (or man) is "asking for it", or should expect anything sexual to happen is if she or he has given their explicit, uncoerced consent, and that they were in sound enough mind and of an age to give consent.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12426846)

Robin Camp, the Canadian Judge that you have likely heard of due to the poor reporting about what went on at the trial when he allegedly asked the assailed why she couldn't keep her legs together, questioned the crown prosecutor in great detail about what explicit consent was.

I'd be interested as to what you believe is required, let's say, between a couple that have been together for 2 years.

We know that, in Canada, the law states that no consent is given unless one party asks the other for explicit consent and the other replies "yes" but I'd suggest that, in reality, more often than not, that doesn't happen. In all such circumstances, do you believe that a sexual assault has occurred?

Originally Posted by ecokid (Post 12426865)

Such tosh. Firstly, many women (and men) in long-term relationships are forced into having sex by their partner against their wishes. Secondly, there is a difference between being sexually receptive and saying NO or pushing away the advances, or stating that "you're not in the mood or tired". There are many sex pests who pursue their partners into having sex despite such indications and that is where it constitutes assault. I'm sure many people are guilty of that. Just because someone is married or in a long-term relationship does not give anyone a right to their partner's body. They might tolerate such behaviour or it might eventually get them in the mood, but that does not make it right in the moment and to force oneself upon someone is not only selfish but wrong. You should have clear indications of when your partner is sexually receptive or at least you'd hope to have a clue by then, especially if you've been together as long as 2 years. Personally, I make sure my partner is enjoying the experience before erm persevering... but i guess we can't all be givers.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12426772)

There is a difference between condoning an event and feeling that the people who attend the event should have a reasonable expectation of what is going to happen when they do. I don't, for example, support dog fighting but I'd have little sympathy for someone who went to a dog fight and then complained of being exposed to animal cruelty and gambling.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12426846)

I'd be interested as to what you believe is required, let's say, between a couple that have been together for 2 years.

We know that, in Canada, the law states that no consent is given unless one party asks the other for explicit consent and the other replies "yes" but I'd suggest that, in reality, more often than not, that doesn't happen. In all such circumstances, do you believe that a sexual assault has occurred?