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

[Pickman's model]

You said that, not me.

well spotted. she is paraphrasing your argument, not repeating it.

 

[Thora]

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]

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?

None of these places are men only events where you've been specifically warned to expect at the very least "annoying" behaviour.

 

[Teaboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*taps watch*

 

[Pickman's model]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

That's what being male is all about

No

 

[Lord Camomile]

No

Got there two seconds before me

 

[Wilf]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.