Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

If they get groped, which they claim is against the rules, and the women walk out half way through. Do they still get paid in full?

If you don't understand why people are floored by your responses Feeder I don't think anyone will be able to explain it to you.

I'm putting you on ignore now. For frame of reference I have neither Whembly and Frazzled on ignore so congratulations on being special!

Huh. TIL I'm an donkey-cave for assuming consenting adults can make their own choices about what kind of employment and job conditions they wish to accept.

 feeder wrote:
Huh. TIL I'm an donkey-cave for assuming consenting adults can make their own choices about what kind of employment and job conditions they wish to accept.

No dude, that isn't what happened at all. People are floored that you are reaching that conclusion. No one knows what to say because... There's just no place to start.

Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:
If you don't understand why people are floored by your responses Feeder I don't think anyone will be able to explain it to you.

I'm putting you on ignore now. For frame of reference I have neither Whembly and Frazzled on ignore so congratulations on being special!

Ahaha just noticed this!

Whembly and Frazz, you guys are apparently only slightly better than a rape apologist! Congrats.

No legal contract can have you waive your right to legal protection from sexual assault, nor give blanket consent to all parties to engage in what would otherwise be sexual assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.

It fails to be a charity event when all the charities give back the donations. Children's hospitals typically don't want to be associated with sexual predators, especially in the current climate.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
No legal contract can have you waive your right to legal protection from sexual assault, nor give blanket consent to all parties to engage in what would otherwise be sexual assault.

Interesting. Sex work is difficult to navigate, for sure.

 feeder wrote:
Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.

It fails to be a charity event when all the charities give back the donations. Children's hospitals typically don't want to be associated with sexual predators, especially in the current climate.

Are the charities returning the donations? I suppose they would.


Regardless of normal proper conduct and social mores, everyone knows what is likely to happen and what kind of behaviour is expected. They are told what kind of underwear to wear FFS. It's not a typical waiting tables gig.

 feeder wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Today I learned that unwanted groping isn't illegal. Also Jesus Christ man, I didn't expect anyone to defend that, but Dakka never ceases to amaze.

It's easier to wrap your head around it if you think of the hostesses as sex workers rather than waiting tables.

There's on woman quoted saying "she can't believe she's back" After appearing at five consecutive events.

Consent is given at the door, and nobody is being assaulted. Women who realize the are actually not ok with being a sexual object for a room full of men are free to leave.

You read that wrong. the woman didn't do it five times in a row. She did it once five years ago and now once again. But who are you to say its acceptable, they obviously aren't recruited as sex workers and for people who need money there might not be a choice. If anything it would b better if they actually did hire sex workers knowing what would go on, but they don't. Clear from these statements:

"women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”."

""You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine""

"the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing."

Its obvious most of these women are walking into a trap so to speak. 'Annoying' doesn't even come close to describing reality.

Besides, I'm pretty sure sex workers get paid better than 140 pounds for ten hours of work.

Feeder... I can only conclude that you read the article and saw a completely different version than what was there. It's quite clear they were not told what they were getting into, they were forced to sign an NDA without being given time to read it or a copy, and we have several notable officials insisting that this kind of activity is zero-tolerance. At what point did they know what they were getting into? Rape culture doesn't mean 'rape apologst' is means people go through extraordinary amounts of mental gymnastics to excuse sexual harassment at all levels. You instantly jumped to an assumption that it was fine and they all knew what they were getting into, despite explicit evidence to the contrary and no evidence to lead to that conclusion. It's downright delusional because the point you reached is simply not based on the available evidence, and that you would go so far to protect people harassing women like that is what floors people. That you even feel this needs to be justified is rape culture in itself.

Most indeed seem to return the donations after being made aware of what was going on: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42801178

Key part though:

They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.

I stand corrected. I freely admit I skimmed the article and made assumptions that are, in fact, wrong.

I will take this as a reminder to carefully read a spoilered wall of text before commenting on it.

 feeder wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

The article says that the event had guards whose job was essentially keeping the girls in the party. Also, their initiation involved a lot of broad euphamisms, like "annoying", and empty promises of protection for any women who were made uncomfortable.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is The Financial Times and the BBC that are reporting this.

I'm not entirely sure you can get any more reputable than that. At least, as far as I'm aware.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Most indeed seem to return the donations after being made aware of what was going on: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42801178

Key part though:

They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.

I counter with:

The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.

Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.

They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.

 feeder wrote:
I stand corrected. I freely admit I skimmed the article and made assumptions that are, in fact, wrong.

I will take this as a reminder to carefully read a spoilered wall of text before commenting on it.

Well, good on you for admitting it. We've all done it but not too many people admit it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Most indeed seem to return the donations after being made aware of what was going on: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42801178

Key part though:

They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.

I counter with:

The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.

Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.

They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.

Counter how? As far as Im aware were on the same side making the same argument. I just lifted the quote because it specifically mentioned they weren't warned of sexual harrasment in response to Feeder having said that they knew what they were walking into

I even quoted that last quote you gave in my previous comment above yours.

 feeder wrote:
I think not. It is plainly clear to everyone what will be going on at that event. It might not be to your or my taste, but it's not criminal.
It not like it's a regular waiting tables gig. These girls are being paid to be sexual objects for rich men, and they know it before they walk in the door.

Credit it to you for admitting you'd missed a lot of the story, feeder. I'm going to leave my response to you, though, just because I think its an important point that often gets missed.

Dude, at buck's parties the girls often aren't just skimpy but straight up naked. Even then it is still absolutely unacceptable to go about grabbing the girls. Agreeing to wear a sexy outfit, or even agreeing to wear no clothes at all does not mean giving up your body to anyone who wants to do as they please.

There is, I think, a dangerous mindset where if girls agree to one thing, like wearing a more revealing outfit for work or out to a club, then some men think the normal rules of decency and respect stop applying. I've read some shocking things about the way Hooters waitresses are treated, for instance.

 feeder wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Most indeed seem to return the donations after being made aware of what was going on: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42801178

Key part though:

They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.

I counter with:

The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.

Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.

They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.

Counter how? As far as Im aware were on the same side making the same argument. I just lifted the quote because it specifically mentioned they weren't warned of sexual harrasment in response to Feeder having said that they knew what they were walking into

I even quoted that last quote you gave in my previous comment above yours.

You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
I stand corrected. I freely admit I skimmed the article and made assumptions that are, in fact, wrong.

I will take this as a reminder to carefully read a spoilered wall of text before commenting on it.

Well I respect that response considerably, especially given how easy it would have been to drop out of the discussion without responding. But you came back and admitted the mistake anyways, so good on you sir.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.

As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.

Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.

As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.

Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.

Oh, they exist. Just like there are brothels outside the Red Light District. Some of my colleagues are colourful characters (offshore industry, what can I say), and I've gone to strip clubs with them once or twice in Rotterdam and a few places in the UK before deciding/realising the girls' dead eyes were a complete turnoff for me.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!

Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.

I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.

Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)

Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.

As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.

Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.

Oh, they exist. Just like there are brothels outside the Red Light District. Some of my colleagues are colourful characters (offshore industry, what can I say), and I've gone to strip clubs with them once or twice in Rotterdam and a few places in the UK before deciding/realising the girls' dead eyes were a complete turnoff for me.

I know they exist. I'm old enough to remember when Rotterdam really had a red light district before it was cleared out so to speak. It gets marginalized to the bigger cities and even those tend to try and drive it away. But it was more the point that the depictions of media make them seem much more 'pervasive' in the US, which I was curious about.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...

Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.

Mario wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...

Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.

To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Mario wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.

One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.

I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...

Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.

To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.

I don't think he is being too hyperbolic. Women has a reasonable concern that rejecting a man's advances can have some serious consequences. While it is not always violent, there are many stories about retribution in regards to being blackballed, fired, or passed on a promotion. The
NYT article is a great example of why rejection can make your life miserable: (Also a good article about how blue-collar workers are being forgotten in the #metoo movement)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-sexual-harassment.html

It does not help that half of female homicides are done by their intimate partner:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538518569/cdc-half-of-all-female-murder-victims-are-killed-by-intimate-partners
http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/domestic-violence-shootings-statistics/

Speaking of #metoo

Casey Affleck is skipping the Oscars this year.
[sarcasm] I wonder why [/sarcasm]

There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But it was more the point that the depictions of media make them seem much more 'pervasive' in the US, which I was curious about.

... because it's an easy way to get some tits in your TV show. That's why characters in GoT kept having meetings in brothels, and why the Sopranos kept on having mobsters meeting up in a strip club. Having them do it in Tony's living room doesn't give you the opportunity for having a load of half-naked women in the background.