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

[Pickman's model]

We keep hardcore porn on the top shelf and covered because of the public consent issue.

if you think what's on the top shelf in newsagents is hardcore porn your heart will explode if you see what they sell in sex shops.

 

[Pickman's model]

You mean it's so high up nobody can see it? Or is that to do with the length of kids' arms?

You seem very confused about all this. Maybe have a smoke and a think, come back later.

or, mp, better if he doesn't

 

[no-no]

It’s not prudishness. It’s got nothing to do with taking offence at the sight of flesh. It’s to do with taking offence at the use of women as objects.

There's definitely an element of prudishness for some people. The grid girls themselves arent offended, it should be up to them if they want these jobs or not. The men objectifying them and crossing lines are fair game for criticism but the girls aren't.

 

[mojo pixy]

The models are clad, the flasher isn't.

Yeah FYI flashers don't tend to strip off entirely to do their thing.

 

[no-no]

Yeah FYI flashers don't tend to strip off entirely to do their thing.

hmmm, I consider someone waving their cock at me to be unclad.Most do I think

 

[mojo pixy]

You may want to consider what ''unclad'' means then.
And also consider that we're not talking about total nakedness (which isn't necessarily sexual anyway, ask any naturist) but on public displays of sexuality and to what extent consent from those witnessing it is an issue.

 

[no-no]

What about being groped and fondled by self-important men? Are you up for that bit too?

Abuse on the job is reason to tackle that abuse not to cancel the job.

 

[mojo pixy]

It may be a reason to cancel the job while the reasons behind the abuse are tackled. To give some neutral space for reflection and discussion etc.

 

[no-no]

You may want to consider what ''unclad'' means then.
And also consider that we're not talking about total nakedness (which isn't necessarily sexual anyway, ask any naturist) but on public displays of sexuality and to what extent consent from those witnessing it is an issue.

What exactly are we talking about? grid girls? Page 3? Flashers? Something else? Flashers?

The general concensus is that you should have your genitals covered.

 

[mojo pixy]

What exactly are we talking about? grid girls? Page 3? Flashers? Something else? Flashers?
The general concensus is that you should have your genitals covered.

Obtuse is as obtuse does

 

[no-no]

It may be a reason to cancel the job while the reasons behind the abuse are tackled. To give some neutral space for reflection and discussion etc.

You can't have a discussion whilst someone gets on with their work?! Which jobs exactly are you talking about?

 

[no-no]

Obtuse is as obtuse does

this is a long meandering thread, yeah i'm obtuse, excellent.is that the end?

 

[mojo pixy]

You can't have a discussion whilst someone gets on with their work?! Which jobs exactly are you talking about?

I don't know, what jobs are we talking about?
Maybe back up and read some of the posts you've been replying to for the last ten pages or so.

 

[bemused]

Men - if you were offered a job which included employing women as eye candy, would you take it?

Editor of Vogue seems like a good gig.

 

[mojo pixy]

is that the end?

ooff, let's hope so.

 

[no-no]

I don't know, what jobs are we talking about?
Maybe back up and read some of the posts you've been replying to for the last ten pages or so.

So, you asked "what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service?"

Other than porn itself which is kept under wraps I can't think of a product that uses naked people for promotion. perhaps there's an obvious example I'm missing.

Lots of products are sold using scantily clad models, but they are clad. Anyone who's offended by that is I would say a bit prudish and if their offence is based on the woman in question being objectified then it's still none of their business....because they are not that woman.

 

[mojo pixy]

So are you saying consent around public displays of sex/uality is, or is not, an issue?

 

[kabbes]

So, you asked "what essentially is the difference between someone exhibiting themselves naked so as to intimidate strangers (a flasher) and someone exhibiting themselves naked to sell a product or service?"

Other than porn itself which is kept under wraps I can't think of a product that uses naked people for promotion. perhaps there's an obvious example I'm missing.

Lots of products are sold using scantily clad models, but they are clad. Anyone who's offended by that is I would say a bit prudish and if their offence is based on the woman in question being objectified then it's still none of their business....because they are not that woman.

You do realise that you have drawn a subjective line between what are defensible and indefensible levels of “prudishness”, right? There’s nothing but cultural context to set that line. And cultural context can shift, deciding that it is no longer acceptable to treat women as nothing but ornaments for the serious men.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

This thread is well depressing.

That's all.

 

[kabbes]

This thread is well depressing.

That's all.

I agree. I hadn't realised the extent to which there were men who actually endorsed the idea of objectification. I thought it was more a matter of not identifying the implications rather than actually embracing those implications.

 

[no-no]

You do realise that you have drawn a subjective line between what are defensible and indefensible levels of “prudishness”, right? There’s nothing but cultural context to set that line. And cultural context can shift, deciding that it is no longer acceptable to treat women as nothing but ornaments for the serious men.

Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it, but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.

 

[kabbes]

Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it, but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.

Society is perfectly comfortable with "scantily clad" women. It's just gradually losing its comfort with women being used as nothing more than props to ornament successful men. Regardless of how much those ornaments are wearing, by the way, which is why this is not to do with prudishness.

 

[Teaboy]

A few weeks backs I had to cancel an Uber taxi I'd ordered. I now realise that I have banned him from ubering and denied him his human rights to that job. I'm the worst.

 

[no-no]

So are you saying consent around public displays of sex/uality is, or is not, an issue?

It's obviously an issue since we have a top shelf, a watershed, age verification on websites etc.

I think we're going too far if a woman in a bikini is considered a sexual display that should be post watershed. Or is it only once she's paid that it's an issue?

 

[kabbes]

It's obviously an issue since we have a top shelf, a watershed, age verification on websites etc.

I think we're going too far if a woman in a bikini is considered a sexual display that should be post watershed. Or is it only once she's paid that it's an issue?

Is it you being an arsonist that's a problem, or is it that you only ever eat bilberries?

 

[Pickman's model]

This thread is well depressing.

That's all.

no-no proves again the truth of einstein's adage that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits

 

[DotCommunist]

A few weeks backs I had to cancel an Uber taxi I'd ordered. I now realise that I have banned him from ubering and denied him his human rights to that job. I'm the worst.

and isn't that the thin end of the wedge? I'm going round his house to tell him he cannot drive his private vehicle during his own time- a logical and fair leap I am sure, yet I do feel bad about it. Damn that slippery slope that got us here

 

[no-no]

Society is perfectly comfortable with "scantily clad" women. It's just gradually losing its comfort with women being used as nothing more than props to ornament successful men. Regardless of how much those ornaments are wearing, by the way, which is why this is not to do with prudishness.

I can't argue with that. society does seem to be a bit fed up of it, it's pretty tacky imo but so are lot of things. I don't see why it's a problem unless there's some sort of coercion going on. None of this is tackling the actual coercion, other than that a woman can't be groped or whatever if she's simply not there.

 

[kabbes]

I can't argue with that. society does seem to be a bit fed up of it, it's pretty tacky imo but so are lot of things. I don't see why it's a problem unless there's some sort of coercion going on. None of this is tackling the actual coercion, other than that a woman can't be groped or whatever if she's simply not there.

It is tackling the coercion. Coercion comes from expectations.

 

[Gromit]

Yes I realise it's subjective. Technically I'd say the nudists have it right but most people, myself included aren't really comfortable with that. If society is deciding that they aren't comfortable with even scantily clad women then that's it really, I'll go along with it, but I don't think it's a good thing and I don't really see any reason why this shift would stop at paid work and not also make some judgement on women in the private sphere.

But but consumerist society insists that we acquire or at least aspire to acquire wealth and achievement to attract the ultimate sexual partner. How are they meant to sell us stuff with out dangling the this is what you can win carrot at us?

On the male side that is.
On the female side how are women suppose to know what clothing, makeup and expensive face creams to buy without attractive models hanging around successful men to show them what they could win?

I for one welcome the absence of enforced sycophantic eye candy. Let's also ban the diet coke hunks too whilst we're at it.