Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 11, 2017, 03:05:45 PM
-
Strong article by Heather Graham
http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/heather-graham-harvey-weinstein-sex-for-movie-role-1202586113/
-
Sexual harassment of any sort is totally unacceptable and people need to speak out against it. It is more usually perpetrated by the male of the species, but some women are guilty of it too. :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41586442
Bafta has suspended Weinstein.
-
We have come a long way since the days of the casting couch.
Studio bosses like Darryl F Zanuck is reported to have created several stars - or at least, relatively successful acting careers - from women who were prepared to sleep with him. J F Kennedy's father, Joseph, deliberately involved himself in the film industry in order to gain access to young women. He became US ambassador to the United Kingdom.
It worked the other way, too. An aspiring young actress named Norma Jeane Dougherty (nee Mortenson) deliberately used studio executives, casting directors and producers to ease her way into the movie industry. We know her as Marilyn Monroe. She was reported to be on good terms with Joseph Kennedy's sons John and Robert.
Different times, different values.
-
Surely, if the allegations against Weinstein are correct, we have precisely not come a long way from the casting couch?
-
The only thing I see that is even vaguely different is that this perp has actually got found out and sacked.
-
Surely, if the allegations against Weinstein are correct, we have precisely not come a long way from the casting couch?
It would appear, from the storm which has arisen from reports of the activities of Mr Weinstein, that his activities are uncharacteristic of the present-day film industry and that they are unacceptable within that industry. If this is the case, then the best you can say is that Mr Weinstein is trying to revive an obsolete practice.
-
Those values don't seem to have done Donald Trump any harm.
-
And there's this.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/actor-terry-crews-sexually-assaulted-by-hollywood-executive
-
Surely, if the allegations against Weinstein are correct, we have precisely not come a long way from the casting couch?
Surely that depends on whether Weinstein is an isolated example. And, of course, the accusations have become public and have, at the very least, ended his career. That didn't happen in the past.
-
We have come a long way since the days of the casting couch.
Studio bosses like Darryl F Zanuck is reported to have created several stars - or at least, relatively successful acting careers - from women who were prepared to sleep with him. J F Kennedy's father, Joseph, deliberately involved himself in the film industry in order to gain access to young women. He became US ambassador to the United Kingdom.
It worked the other way, too. An aspiring young actress named Norma Jeane Dougherty (nee Mortenson) deliberately used studio executives, casting directors and producers to ease her way into the movie industry. We know her as Marilyn Monroe. She was reported to be on good terms with Joseph Kennedy's sons John and Robert.
Different times, different values.
Yes...that's true. We normally think of the 1950's and 60's as the good old days with family values etc....but lots of people seem to have have rather loose sexual values back then compared to now.
A senior army officer in India has been punished today for sleeping with his juniors wife (consensual of course). Similar steps have been taken with another officer in the air force. And I thought that sort of thing (having affairs) was the accepted norm in the Defence forces!!
Hmmm....not bad I say!
-
Affairs not bad?
Generally there seems to be a lot of doublethink on this. Sexual harassment has been rife throughout history. Many rich and powerful men are sex obsessed as, also, are many not very rich or powerful, it seems unlikely that publicly shaming a few of those exposed will change anything fundamental in society.
-
Marina Hyde on Weinstein
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2017/oct/12/harvey-weinsteins-rehab-just-your-basic-2000-a-night-sex-offender-programme?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41606140
An actress has accused Weinstein of rape.
-
And again not surprised
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/17/sexually-bullying-industry-british-tv-film
-
It is a great pity sexual harassment, which appears to have been par for the course in the entertainment industry, wasn't nipped in the bud years ago.
-
Too right! (The following is hearsay, no pun intended.)
I read that Mylene Klass came across the slimeball at the 2010 Canne film festival; he propositioned her and even had a document for her to sign that she would not disclose anything.
Mylene told him to "F*** off". Good for her, I would expect nothing less and feel proud of her.
Not everyone is so confident tho', there would have been girls who were intimidated. People like Weinstein home in on them.
I hope the book is thrown at him. Cosby appears to have got away with it - so far.
-
While I would in no way defend some of his remarks, it underlines for me why being an elected politician is a far from jolly job that something you wrote 15 years before being elected is then this significant. There are things I did at 22, and indeed last week that I regret. If we don't accept that politicians will have feet and legs and other bits of clay, then we will have no politicians. It also shows that the vetting of candidates isn't up to scratch, and that people really have to confident about what they put online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41724540
-
While I would in no way defend some of his remarks, it underlines for me why being an elected politician is a far from jolly job that something you wrote 15 years before being elected is then this significant. There are things I did at 22, and indeed last week that I regret. If we don't accept that politicians will have feet and legs and other bits of clay, then we will have no politicians. It also shows that the vetting of candidates isn't up to scratch, and that people really have to confident about what they put online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41724540
an orgy with Girls Aloud ; I wish!
he sounds like a pretty normal bloke to me
-
an orgy with Girls Aloud ; I wish!
he sounds like a pretty normal bloke to me
I'm with NS on this - we've got to stop expecting everyone to be on message all the time. I was thinking of the other MP (Clive Lewis?) who got into trouble for using the word 'bitch' (towards another bloke) because it was mysoginist language. Really? I mean ok dodgy language - but that is all you've got to worry about in this world, an off colour joke made after a few drinks?
-
I'm with NS on this - we've got to stop expecting everyone to be on message all the time. I was thinking of the other MP (Clive Lewis?) who got into trouble for using the word 'bitch' (towards another bloke) because it was mysoginist language. Really? I mean ok dodgy language - but that is all you've got to worry about in this world, an off colour joke made after a few drinks?
Some of the stuff on homosexuals is more dubious than what's quoted here but it's also ancient, and reads as if he's exaggerating for effect. Meanwhile Philip Davies remains on the Women and Equalities Committee despite what he does in parliament now.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/23/media/bill-oreilly-misconduct-allegations/index.html
Is this guy for real? ::)
Mind you, I suppose god should be protecting the guy from sexual harassment claims, seeing many of god's buddies like Abraham and his ilk would probably have been charged with that and rape, if they had been around today. :o
-
Sexual harassment of any sort is totally unacceptable and people need to speak out against it. It is more usually perpetrated by the male of the species, but some women are guilty of it too. :o
In my life I have only ever seen two examples of the same, a bunch of office girls teasing a young Indian boy to kiss one of them .....and a drunken lesbian chasing an unwilling receptionist into the ladies loo at a Christmas Party.
-
In my life I have only ever seen two examples of the same, a bunch of office girls teasing a young Indian boy to kiss one of them .....and a drunken lesbian chasing an unwilling receptionist into the ladies loo at a Christmas Party.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! I have experienced actual sexual impropriety on three occasions, at ages 14, 17, and when I was in my 30s, none were at my instigation, it wasn't pleasant! >:(
-
I wonder if a person's physical appearance has anything to do with the motivations of harassers like Harvey Weinstein.... He is a profoundly unattractive man. There can be no doubt that without his powerful position, he would be chum in a regular dating pool and he must know it. So what people call an addiction to pleasure could, as easily, be diagnosed as an addiction to degrade and abuse those who they know would not look at them twice if they were behind the counter of a convenience store.
We can treat people like him for addiction, but if he thinks the women enjoyed any of this, he might want to consider counseling for delusion as well.
-
I see he has been suspended by the Labour Party
-
I see he has been suspended by the Labour Party
Good.
-
So he was a wally thirteen years ago? It's not like he was imprisoned for fraud.
-
Yeah but he’s a politician, and they are supposed to not be wallies. I agree with NS; shit vetting by Labour.
-
He made the remarks when very young. I doubt he would make them now.
Can we not forgive youthful remarks?
-
22 isn’t ‘very young’; that aside I don’t see what forgiveness has to do with whether someone is fit to be an MP or not.
-
Who knows what you could dig up about anyone if you went back far enough.
If all potential MPs had to be above suspicion I would imagine the House of Commons would bedifficult to fill.
-
I don't know enough about how well he has done as an MP to judge whether this is truly fair or not, but the fact is that unfortunate youthful social media postings cost people job opportunities later, and not just MPs. Would this be ok if he were a teacher?
-
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. I'm sure he'll live it down, though.
-
I wonder if a person's physical appearance has anything to do with the motivations of harassers like Harvey Weinstein.... He is a profoundly unattractive man. There can be no doubt that without his powerful position, he would be chum in a regular dating pool and he must know it. So what people call an addiction to pleasure could, as easily, be diagnosed as an addiction to degrade and abuse those who they know would not look at them twice if they were behind the counter of a convenience store.
We can treat people like him for addiction, but if he thinks the women enjoyed any of this, he might want to consider counseling for delusion as well.
Sexual harassment is unwanted. It's no more enjoyable if one is harassed by somebody who looks like a model, than if one is harassed by somebody who looks like a gargoyle. And in many cases it is not being touched, or being given unwanted compliments, or unwanted propositions, it is spiteful name calling jokes, & allegations.
-
Sexual harassment is unwanted. It's no more enjoyable if one is harassed by somebody who looks like a model, than if one is harassed by somebody who looks like a gargoyle. And in many cases it is not being touched, or being given unwanted compliments, or unwanted propositions, it is spiteful name calling jokes, & allegations.
Agreed.
-
And now this had unsurprisingly become not just about O'Mara but any number of politicians? Garnier been suspended yet?
-
Mmm way to deflect, Kevin!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026
-
Mmm way to deflect, Kevin!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026
I have a 'story' about a current radio 2 presenter , do you think I should tell it?
-
I have a 'story' about a current radio 2 presenter , do you think I should tell it?
Only if you make up a name completely and utterly unlike that of said presenter.
But close enough so we all know who you mean, though. Obviously.
-
At the 1976 Xmas Party of Orpington College, Kent, held at the Anchor & Hope public house , down the road, I asked Tracey X if she would kiss me under the mistletoe. She blushed, shook her head, and then her friend, Liz Y, told her "Go on and kiss him".
If I were an MP now, both Liz and I would be in trouble. This is getting silly.
-
Only if you make up a name completely and utterly unlike that of said presenter.
But close enough so we all know who you mean, though. Obviously.
actually I've said too much already , just forget it !
-
I have a 'story' about a current radio 2 presenter , do you think I should tell it?
I have no idea why you think that relevant or significant to the discussion. If you think the sexual harassment/assault that you have information on is serious, I would hope you and/or person involved would now report it
-
actually I've said too much already , just forget it !
No chance!
-
I have no idea why you think that relevant or significant to the discussion.
you are right , sorry , I typed before thinking
If you think the sexual harassment/assault that you have information on is serious, I would hope you and/or person involved would now report it
person did not want to be involved !
let's just leave it at that
-
At the 1976 Xmas Party of Orpington College, Kent, held at the Anchor & Hope public house , down the road, I asked Tracey X if she would kiss me under the mistletoe. She blushed, shook her head, and then her friend, Liz Y, told her "Go on and kiss him".
If I were an MP now, both Liz and I would be in trouble. This is getting silly.
The following year, December 1977, I kissed Ruth Levi, and then Denise O'Callahan. Then Debbie West.
Am I supposed to beat myself up?
-
The following year, December 1977, I kissed Ruth Levi, and then Denise O'Callahan. Then Debbie West.
Am I supposed to beat myself up?
Is this equivalent to what Harvey Weinstein is accused of? Is it the same as a boss calling a female employee sugar tits or sending her to buy sex toys?
-
The following year, December 1977, I kissed Ruth Levi, and then Denise O'Callahan. Then Debbie West.
Am I supposed to beat myself up?
Not in the same league at all as the Harvey Weinstein saga, or the totally inappropriate behaviour to which that MP has admitted perpetrating.
-
Ask Robinson.
-
Ask Robinson.
Why should Robinson be asked about your posts?
-
She was there too.
-
She was there too.
EH?
-
She was there too.
That sounds interesting.
-
I have a 'story' about a current radio 2 presenter , do you think I should tell it?
Go to the Sun and sell it instead?
-
The following year, December 1977, I kissed Ruth Levi, and then Denise O'Callahan. Then Debbie West.
Am I supposed to beat myself up?
That's not sexual harassment. The stories coming out in the press are.
-
That sounds interesting.
It is ;D. I think it's a joke that we don't get floo or involving a fictional Robinson, like "Mrs Robinson" or something.
-
22 isn’t ‘very young’; that aside I don’t see what forgiveness has to do with whether someone is fit to be an MP or not.
I do think 22 is very young, lots of people that age are still at uni. However you have a point & it wasn't just about remarks made many years ago. I was reading the following Guardian article, amongst other things:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/if-only-it-were-so-easy-to-forgive-jared-omara-his-sins
-
I do think 22 is very young, lots of people that age are still at uni. However you have a point & it wasn't just about remarks made many years ago. I was reading the following Guardian article, amongst other things:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/if-only-it-were-so-easy-to-forgive-jared-omara-his-sins
My kids are old enough to know this is unacceptable and they haven’t left school yet. ‘Youthful indiscretion’ is one thing, and as someone who got married at twenty one I thoroughly concur with the idea that the young do idiotic things; not having learned what common decency is by that age is something else though.
-
It is ;D. I think it's a joke that we don't get floo or involving a fictional Robinson, like "Mrs Robinson" or something.
I did wonder if HWB was implying that you and he were an item.
-
I was married at 19 and a mother at 20, my husband was 22 when we wed, and a father on his 23rd birthday. Our first home was a few hundred miles away from our family, so we had to be responsible, or our child would have suffered.
-
And then we have this. Ffs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41812281
-
I think an entirely serious and perfectly legitimate concern is now starting to turn into silly season.
-
I think an entirely serious and perfectly legitimate concern is now starting to turn into silly season.
I've heard google have developed a cloaking device for women so they can go about their business undetected.
Another report elsewhere has stated that women are now finding it difficult to find a suitable husband/partner .
-
I think an entirely serious and perfectly legitimate concern is now starting to turn into silly season.
It’s worse than that. It’s a way of deriding the serious stuff by lumping in the clumsy and irritating with the damaging, the frightening and repulsive. It very calculatedly puts women in their place - as silly fuss makers.
-
Yes, I suspect some of the stories, they could be deliberately planted to evoke pickle kreckness comments. Wait for 'you can't say hello to a woman' comments coming soon.
-
You want to scare yourself, read the comments on Yahoo News.
-
And then we have this. Ffs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41812281
Since there was no suggestion that Julia was offended, it would seem that on this occasion Michael was guilty of no more than being a bit too touchy feely.
-
I don't know enough about how well he has done as an MP to judge whether this is truly fair or not, but the fact is that unfortunate youthful social media postings cost people job opportunities later, and not just MPs. Would this be ok if he were a teacher?
What young Jared did is not yet an offence.
But.....
Could this be the start of Nick Clegg's comeback?
-
Yes, I suspect some of the stories, they could be deliberately planted to evoke pickle kreckness comments. Wait for 'you can't say hello to a woman' comments coming soon.
''you cant say hello to a woman'' these days !
-
Thought about tacking this onto the end of the Harvey Weinstein thread, but decided against it as the focus is somewhat different.
I just heard on t'wireless that the Emmy people (board? council? committee? whatever) have decided to cancel a proposed award ceremony for Kevin Spacey in the light of the very recent allegations that he attempted to sexually abuse a 14 year-old male back in 1986. We've probably all cottoned on to the story by now so I won't delve into the specifics.
Was it right, is it right, for them to have done so given that the story is sufficiently new that his actions are, to date, only alleged rather than demonstrated fact?
-
Thought about tacking this onto the end of the Harvey Weinstein thread, but decided against it as the focus is somewhat different.
I just heard on t'wireless that the Emmy people (board? council? committee? whatever) have decided to cancel a proposed award ceremony for Kevin Spacey in the light of the very recent allegations that he attempted to sexually abuse a 14 year-old male back in 1986. We've probably all cottoned on to the story by now so I won't delve into the specifics.
Was it right, is it right, for them to have done so given that the story is sufficiently new that his actions are, to date, only alleged rather than demonstrated fact?
jesus, all this alleged stuff is getting out of hand now, but if a bloke who does make believe for a living is being denied an award by the make believe judges , then that's up to them.
If he is found guilty in law , then that is a different matter and should face what ever punishment is due
-
Thought about tacking this onto the end of the Harvey Weinstein thread, but decided against it as the focus is somewhat different.
In what way is the focus different?
-
Thought about tacking this onto the end of the Harvey Weinstein thread, but decided against it as the focus is somewhat different.
I just heard on t'wireless that the Emmy people (board? council? committee? whatever) have decided to cancel a proposed award ceremony for Kevin Spacey in the light of the very recent allegations that he attempted to sexually abuse a 14 year-old male back in 1986. We've probably all cottoned on to the story by now so I won't delve into the specifics.
Was it right, is it right, for them to have done so given that the story is sufficiently new that his actions are, to date, only alleged rather than demonstrated fact?
OK Kevin should have kept quiet.
But nothing has been proved. No charges have been laid to any local judge. Mick Jagger was the subject some years ago of an allegation that he was the father of some girl's baby, his response was "I don't know if that child is mine, or not. I honestly don't know". And guess what? Nobody cared.
I seem to remember more recently that Celine Dion's late husband was accused of groping, he paid off the complainant rather than get involved in litigation. It did not mean that he was guilty.
-
OK Kevin should have kept quiet.
But nothing has been proved. No charges have been laid to any local judge. Mick Jagger was the subject some years ago of an allegation that he was the father of some girl's baby, his response was "I don't know if that child is mine, or not. I honestly don't know". And guess what? Nobody cared.
I seem to remember more recently that Celine Dion's late husband was accused of groping, he paid off the complainant rather than get involved in litigation. It did not mean that he was guilty.
Was the 'some' girl 14?
-
Since there was no suggestion that Julia was offended, it would seem that on this occasion Michael was guilty of no more than being a bit too touchy feely.
And if she was offended?...
Actually my point around this story is that it’s smoke and mirrors to deflect from the nasty stuff. Reducing sexual assault, rape and grotesque harassment down to a bit of slap and tickle from Currant Bun readers.
-
And if she was offended?...
Actually my point around this story is that it’s smoke and mirrors to deflect from the nasty stuff. Reducing sexual assault, rape and grotesque harassment down to a bit of slap and tickle from Currant Bun readers.
Rather like HWB attempted earlier in the thread.
-
Did Kevin actually make an improper suggestion to the boy?
-
Rather like HWB attempted earlier in the thread.
I did not include Gina Royle, since she sat on my lap and kissed me first.
I am not claiming sexual harrassement, since in all honesty I did not put up too much of a fight.
-
Did Kevin actually make an improper suggestion to the boy?
So if I say pick up your 14 old daughter and roll on her, it's ok if I don't say 'Howzabout a bj?'
-
I did not include Gina Royle, since she sat on my lap and kissed me first.
I am not claiming sexual harrassement, since in all honesty I did not put up too much of a fight.
And again with trying to trivialise claims of sexual harassment and abuse
-
In what way is the focus different?
Rather than get into the details of any specific case I'm interested to know whether people think a figure should have an honour or something similar witheld or even stripped on the basis of allegation.
-
Rather than get into the details of any specific case I'm interested to know whether people think a figure should have an honour or something similar witheld or even stripped on the basis of allegation.
In terms of stripping someone of an award, no. Though the question is what is an allegation, and here is where I think it is difficult to avoid specific cases. Weinstein has denied certain allegations but it would seem tacitly accepted others - are they serious enough to mean some things are withheld/stripped - surely only the specific case is significant there.
For Spacey, it's surely difficult to have a special award where it appears that there isn't even a denial or acceptance? Some form of delay makes sense.
-
So if I say pick up your 14 old daughter and roll on her, it's ok if I don't say 'Howzabout a bj?'
That is not the issue.
-
That is not the issue.
In what way? You seemed to be positing that making an 'improper suggestion' was significant.
-
Did Kevin Spacey actually make an improper suggestion?
He has said that he cannot remember the same, but if he did, then he apologised.
Kevin has forgotten that this is not the nineties, but the teens. Apologies ain't accepeted any more.
-
You cannot make sexual assault and harassment ok by apologising. Especially given that we're talking about a victim who was a teenager at the time.
-
Did Kevin Spacey actually make an improper suggestion?
He has said that he cannot remember the same, but if he did, then he apologised.
Kevin has forgotten that this is not the nineties, but the teens. Apologies ain't accepeted any more.
And again if I roll on your 14 year old daughter and don't make an improper suggestion, is that ok? Or was it ok in the 90s but not now?
-
You cannot make sexual assault and harassment ok by apologising. Especially given that we're talking about a victim who was a teenager at the time.
Apologising for something you might have done, can't remember doing but are sorry for just in case you actually did do it after all is ... well, peculiar hardly does it justice.
-
When I was thirteen I went with my parents to a party; I was groped by a much older man that I was dancing with and it was pretty disgusting. My overwhelming memory of it though is being totally out of my depth in a situation that I had never encountered before and with someone who was essentially more powerful than me. There were worse things, but this was an older man who should have known better and being slightly pissed was no excuse.
What Spacey did is so much worse. Assuming it to be true, no apology helps.
-
I'm interested to know whether people think a figure should have an honour or something similar witheld or even stripped on the basis of allegation.
I'd say, in the former case, yes; in the latter case, no.
In the case of Kevin Spacey, if you are going to give him an award, it would be better to wait until the allegations are resolved one way or the other. If nothing else, the cloud hanging over him will dampen the atmosphere.
On the other hand, I think it is perfectly reasonable to strip an award from somebody who has been convicted of a crime. This sometimes happens in the case of British Royal honours. But it is unfair to strip such awards until they have been found guilty.
-
And again if I roll on your 14 year old daughter and don't make an improper suggestion, is that ok? Or was it ok in the 90s but not now?
If you talk to my fourteen year old daughter & don't make an improper suggestion then you have done nothing wrong.
-
Apologising for something you might have done, can't remember doing but are sorry for just in case you actually did do it after all is ... well, peculiar hardly does it justice.
I was replying to Humph's suggestion that apologies aren't accepted. No, they make fuck all difference to what sexual assault does and those who grope, assault and rape know it.; they get off on it, it is why they do it for fuck's sake.
-
You cannot make sexual assault and harassment ok by apologising. Especially given that we're talking about a victim who was a teenager at the time.
Isn't that up to the victim to decide?
-
Isn't that up to the victim to decide?
Well I can tell you it'd make fuck all difference to me. Not that I've ever had one.
-
Well I can tell you it'd make fuck all difference to me. Not that I've ever had one.
You were the victim. It's your decision.
-
You were the victim. It's your decision.
I’m nobody’s victim.
But aside from that, how a victim responds can not be the only consideration. Sex crime affects us as a society, it means we moderate our behaviour, it divides us. It isn’t just for individual victims to decide to forgive.
-
I’m nobody’s victim.
You were saying that you suffered a sexual assault. You were the victim in that assault. Calling you the victim is a statement of fact and casts no aspersions on how you dealt with it nor is it meant as a criticism.
But aside from that, how a victim responds can not be the only consideration. Sex crime affects us as a society, it means we moderate our behaviour, it divides us. It isn’t just for individual victims to decide to forgive.
Would you compel a rape victim to testify against a rapist if she didn't want to, bearing in mind that it would be for the good of society - especially women - for the rapist to not be in a position to do it again?
What about Adam Sandler putting his hand on Claire Foy's knee? In some people's eyes that was a sexual assault, but not apparently Claire Foy (http://"https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/claire-foy-adam-sandler-knee-touching).
-
If you talk to my fourteen year old daughter & don't make an improper suggestion then you have done nothing wrong.
I asked about rolling on her. Why did you you change that?
-
You were saying that you suffered a sexual assault. You were the victim in that assault. Calling you the victim is a statement of fact and casts no aspersions on how you dealt with it nor is it meant as a criticism.
Would you compel a rape victim to testify against a rapist if she didn't want to, bearing in mind that it would be for the good of society - especially women - for the rapist to not be in a position to do it again?
What about Adam Sandler putting his hand on Claire Foy's knee? In some people's eyes that was a sexual assault, but not apparently Claire Foy (http://"https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/claire-foy-adam-sandler-knee-touching).
Why are you indulging in the same trivialising of what is being talked about as Humph?
-
Why are you indulging in the same trivialising of what is being talked about as Humph?
I haven't trivialised anything.
-
I haven't trivialised anything.
It reads to me that you have. I don't see the point in raising an incident where someone didn't feel assaualted to someone who did and ask 'what about that then?'.
-
It reads to me that you have. I don't see the point in raising an incident where someone didn't feel assaualted to someone who did and ask 'what about that then?'.
It's relevant to my point that sometimes an apology is enough for the victim. Rhiannon seemed to be claiming that it is never enough and i find her argument compelling. However, there are edge cases where bringing the perpetrator to trial might be problematic. I simply want to explore the edges.
Anyway, I hove just read Rhiannon's opinion about knee touching on another thread, so I already have her answer on that question.
-
I was married at 19 and a mother at 20, my husband was 22 when we wed, and a father on his 23rd birthday. Our first home was a few hundred miles away from our family, so we had to be responsible, or our child would have suffered.
Do either or both of you celebrate you respective birthdays quite soon after your wedding anniversary? :-[
-
But surely you see using s false equivalency such as Humph on kidding different people is trivialising it?
-
But surely you see using s false equivalency such as Humph on kidding different people is trivialising it?
Sorry, I fail to see what I have equated to what.
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
That doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted.
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
and your evidence for this claim about Anthony Rapp is? And your justification that even if he was he can be treated as having no consent?
-
Sorry, I fail to see what I have equated to what.
what happened to Claire Foy with what happened to Rhiannon. Just as Humph has used missing different people as equivalent to the various claims of assault.
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
Would it be relevant?
I don't know who's "fighting shy" of the idea; it never even occurred to me.
Or are you edging toward the opinion that sex workers can't be sexually assaulted up to and including rape?
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
He was and is an actor. They were both on Broadway at the time.
Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.
-
OK let me say what we have fought shy of.
The kid was a rent boy.
He was a 14 year old child, irrespective of anything else.
-
You were saying that you suffered a sexual assault. You were the victim in that assault. Calling you the victim is a statement of fact and casts no aspersions on how you dealt with it nor is it meant as a criticism.
Would you compel a rape victim to testify against a rapist if she didn't want to, bearing in mind that it would be for the good of society - especially women - for the rapist to not be in a position to do it again?
What about Adam Sandler putting his hand on Claire Foy's knee? In some people's eyes that was a sexual assault, but not apparently Claire Foy (http://"https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/claire-foy-adam-sandler-knee-touching).
The courts re-traumatise and re-abuse those who are on the receiving end of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence...the issue isn't that women or men should be compelled to give evidence; first we have to address the way in which those that speak up are treated, in the courts, in the media, in society. Otherwise the risks on speaking out remain too great. Already we are seeing a shift here from Weinstein's rapes and the sexual assault of a teenage boy to a spot of flirty knee touching. Before long women and men will be silenced again; Me Too will just be another hashtag, people will try and remember whether that was the one about whether they thought the dress was blue or white.
-
You cannot make sexual assault and harassment ok by apologising. Especially given that we're talking about a victim who was a teenager at the time.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,
Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.
I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)
Do you not see now the connection?
-
Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,
Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.
I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)
Do you not see now the connection?
No, because you (a) trivialised the claims and (b) made an irrelevant, possibly libellous accusation about Anthony Rapp being a rent boy.
-
Apologising for something you might have done, can't remember doing but are sorry for just in case you actually did do it after all is ... well, peculiar hardly does it justice.
What Spacey did is so much worse. Assuming it to be true, no apology helps.
I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?
Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.
We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.
If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?
-
I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?
Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.
We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.
If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?
Spot on.
-
I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?
Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.
We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.
If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?
No, and neither of the quotes you use show that. Indeed I would suggest they show the opposite and your quote of Rhiannon is about her discussing the seriousness of charges. You representing as the above is so far from what you quote that I suggest you owe her an apology.
Further as the opening posts on this covered, while you cannot and should not assume guilt, then that doesn't stop a consideration of accusations in not awarding someone. It's like being suspended at work. Doesn't mean you are guilt but having an employee of the year award while you ate under investigation is also problematic.
-
I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?
Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.
... which is why I was careful to word the OP as I did.
We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.
Not as far as I can see. Any statements about Spacey's guilt have been qualified - including, strangely, in the two examples you quoted from me and from Rhiannon - because we don't know that he is. The Emmy people seemed to have decided otherwise (to my mind anyway, though I agree it's a complex area), which is precisely why I started this thread.
-
Spot on.
So is that your justification for the what appears to be libellous, and yet irrelevant, claim that Anthony Rapp was a rent boy?
-
Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,
Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.
I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)
Do you not see now the connection?
No I don't!
-
HH, you can see I qualified my post (‘assuming it to be true’) because we don’t know if it was true or not - and unless Spacey admits it or one party takes the other to court then we probably never will.
So why misrepresent me? Where in my posts suggests a ‘mob rule’ mentality where Spacey is concerned? I haven’t expressed an opinion about his Emmy award thing because I don’t have an answer. He can’t get the award as things stand, clearly, yet he may never be found guilty or cleared, and I don’t like that.
-
No, Rhiannon, you made an assertion:
What Spacey did is so much worse.
A statement, terminated with a full stop. An unqualified assertion. An acceptance of the claim made by the accuser.
Assuming it to be true, no apology helps.
Your choice of words here, and their syntax, continue the assertion, suggesting that you considered the statement might be untrue but then discounted that interpretation.
I have not misrepresented you, I have taken your words and the way you have expressed them at their face value. I have no paralinguistic or semantic or syntactical cues which might cause me to do otherwise.
-
No, Rhiannon, you made an assertion:
A statement, terminated with a full stop. An unqualified assertion. An acceptance of the claim made by the accuser.
Your choice of words here, and their syntax, continue the assertion, suggesting that you considered the statement might be untrue but then discounted that interpretation.
I have not misrepresented you, I have taken your words and the way you have expressed them at their face value. I have no paralinguistic or semantic or syntactical cues which might cause me to do otherwise.
Then you are wrong to do so and I find your assertion (I have no reason to call it otherwise) that I am a liar offensive. I’ve clarified my position. You ignore it.
If you can’t see why I feel so strongly about this then that says more about you than me. And point out where I have joined in ‘mob rule’ or apologise.
-
I have no intention of falling out with you. I have not called you a liar, I have said that the way you used English - in the absence of any additional linguistic information - leaves me with only one interpretation of your two sentences. It may well not have been your intended message.
And anyway, I wasn't attacking you, I was attempting to make a philosophical point about the direction in which this whole thread appears to be moving: a general assumption that sanctions against Kevin Spacey are justified given the accusation made against him. I was merely asking whether people supporting this assumption would be happy if they were in an equivalent situation.
-
You used my post alongside your assertion that there is ‘mob rule’ around this incident.
-
Ffs. Again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41827264
-
I'm struggling to understand what actual sanctions have been taken against Spacey, and who on this thread has supported any such things. Yes, an awards ceremony for him has been cancelled and it would appear that House of Cards may well cease but those aren't really sanctions to my mind. Further it should be remembered that Spacey hasn't denied in any way the charge, has apologised for any action and stated that he can't remember it. Even without a court case, and I suspect there won't be one, anyone taking action such as cancelling the awards ceremony has surely a right to consider there to be an issue because of that?
Similar applies to Weinstein, in that while any rape claims, which he has clearly denied, would need to have further action legally to be regarded as relevant to any actions, he has admitted to clear sexual harassment and abuse. It's not a witch hunt or mob rule to take his own comments as damning him here.
-
OK, perhaps my use of "mob rule" may have been hyperbolic. I was trying to voice my impression that posters had made up their minds on the basis of an accusation of an event which took place more than 20 years ago and for which there is no evidence. The general tone of the thread had become somewhat condemnatory - "no smoke without fire".
As it happens, I don't think that Kevin Spacey has done himself many favours by the way he has chosen to handle this matter. He has managed to conflate homosexuality with "paedophilia" (rightly creating consternation in LGBT circles). And this has stoked up the general ignorance of the distinction between paedophilia and hebephilia.
What now for Spacey - withdrawal of his knighthood?
-
Do either or both of you celebrate you respective birthdays quite soon after your wedding anniversary? :-[
Why do you want to know that?
-
Why do you want to know that?
Think about it a little longer?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41828874
<sigh>
-
Our eldest daughter was born 10 months after we wed, if that is what you are on about.
-
Our eldest daughter was born 10 months after we wed, if that is what you are on about.
You got there in the end!
-
You got there in the end!
And what business is it of yours anyway?
-
And what business is it of yours anyway?
Oh, FFS, forget it.
-
Oh, FFS, forget it.
I suppose you were hoping my marriage was a shotgun one, as my husband and I were young when we wed. I can assure you it wasn't, we had been an item since I was 15, and engaged when I was 18.
-
Quite right floo & it never occurred to me that was what he was getting out, how personal, rude and stupid.
-
It gets worse,you couldn't make it up. He's toast especially after this:-
"Other men have now come forward, accusing Spacey of sexual harassment.
US filmmaker Tony Montana told Radar Online he suffered from PTSD for six months after Spacey allegedly grabbed his crotch in a Los Angeles bar in 2003.
And Mexican actor Roberto Cavazos, who acted in several plays at the Old Vic, claimed in a Facebook post Spacey "routinely preyed" on young male actors."
-
Quite right floo & it never occurred to me that was what he was getting out, how personal, rude and stupid.
FFS not you too. I was doing nothing of the kind.
Get over yourselves.
-
FFS not you too. I was doing nothing of the kind.
Get over yourselves.
Well what were you getting at then, explain yourself?
-
Well what were you getting at then, explain yourself?
It's really not worth the effort therefore I can't be arsed.
But please accept my apologies for any perceived offence that you have taken.
-
It's really not worth the effort therefore I can't be arsed.
But please accept my apologies for any perceived offence that you have taken.
OK thanks.
-
what happened to Claire Foy with what happened to Rhiannon.
I did not at any point claim they were equivalent. In fact, the point was to precisely the opposite: to show that not all sexual assaults are not equivalent.
-
I did not at any point claim they were equivalent. In fact, the point was to precisely the opposite: to show that not all sexual assaults are not equivalent.
So you put two things together that no one had claimed were the same to show they weren't the same?
-
So you put two things together that no one had claimed were the same to show they weren't the same?
Let me try to make it a bit clearer for you.
Rhiannon claimed that an apology was not enough to mitigate a sexual assault.
I said that, surely that was up to the victim to decide.
Rhiannon pointed out that the consequences of a sexual assault go beyond the victim and the perpetrator.
I conceded that that was certainly true in the more serious cases. For example, a rapist needs to be taken out of society, if nothing else, to stop him from doing it again.
However, I foresaw some problems. For example, can you force the victim to testify against the rapist? Also, is there a level of seriousness below which the interests of society are not served by pursuing the matter. I gave the Claire Foy incident as an example that I think is in the latter category.
-
Let me try to make it a bit clearer for you.
Rhiannon claimed that an apology was not enough to mitigate a sexual assault.
I said that, surely that was up to the victim to decide.
Rhiannon pointed out that the consequences of a sexual assault go beyond the victim and the perpetrator.
I conceded that that was certainly true in the more serious cases. For example, a rapist needs to be taken out of society, if nothing else, to stop him from doing it again.
However, I foresaw some problems. For example, can you force the victim to testify against the rapist? Also, is there a level of seriousness below which the interests of society are not served by pursuing the matter. I gave the Claire Foy incident as an example that I think is in the latter category.
Thanks for the admirably clear post. And perhaps I am being overly sensitive but the idea that 'clumsy flirting' is the same as what Weinstein has admitted to or Rhiannon described is a dangerous trivialising of what happens. And while I accept that isn't what you were aiming to do, it reads to me as if that is what it achieves.
-
Thanks for the admirably clear post.
In retrospect, it would have been better if my earlier post had been just as clear.
And perhaps I am being overly sensitive but the idea that 'clumsy flirting' is the same as what Weinstein has admitted to or Rhiannon described is a dangerous trivialising of what happens. And while I accept that isn't what you were aiming to do, it reads to me as if that is what it achieves.
Hopefully, your impression has been corrected now.
-
In retrospect, it would have been better if my earlier post had been just as clear.
Hopefully, your impression has been corrected now.
It has, and again thank you
-
First to say that this post isn't directed at anyone here; I'm just taking some of the ideas that have come up and am expanding on where they have led my thinking to.
Knee touching isn't sexual assault ( I say this as one who has had knees touched). It just isn't.
There is no circumstance in which I would want a victim of any sex crime or abuse to be forced to give testimony; it is revisting past trauma which can cause latent PTSD symptoms and anxiety, but also our courts and media still shame victims and still blame them. In all honesty I would never feel comfortable in telling anyone to report a sex crime or abuse unless they were sure that they wanted to.
These crimes do infect society; both women and men moderate behaviour accordingly and they divide us off from each other. Victim blaming has a lot to do with feeling unsafe - when we realise that someone we know gets knocked around by her husband or those that we admire are both victims and perpetrators, we realise that anyone can be a victim and people we like can be perpetrators. And somehow we feel things that we don't want to - betrayal, uncertainty of our own judgements, even a sense of loss as well and insecurity - so we seek to trivialise it in order to restore our own feelings. And vicim shaming and accusing those that do speak out of lying is a very good way of doing that.
-
I expect, when I was twenty two I said lots of things that I would find embarrassing at the very least now. Fortunately, back then we didn't publish everything we said to the World in a stream of consciousness - it was impossible to do that.
I count myself very lucky that Facebook didn't exist when I was young, otherwise I might never be able to get a job.
-
I expect, when I was twenty two I said lots of things that I would find embarrassing at the very least now. Fortunately, back then we didn't publish everything we said to the World in a stream of consciousness - it was impossible to do that.
I count myself very lucky that Facebook didn't exist when I was young, otherwise I might never be able to get a job.
Ditto
-
For crying out loud: http://tinyurl.com/y836pqw3
-
It's all happening toneet: http://tinyurl.com/y74fndtc
-
So Michael Fallon has gone. Presumably not because of the Julia Hartley Brewer nonsense.
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/camerons-comedy-cabinet-of-incompetents-michael-fallon/
-
Moderator:
This thread merges the separate but overlapping threads on Weinstein, O'Mara and Spacey - especially now that other people are implicated.
-
So Michael Fallon has gone. Presumably not because of the Julia Hartley Brewer nonsense.
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/camerons-comedy-cabinet-of-incompetents-michael-fallon/
BBC says not, although maybe it is a guilty conscience on his part. If it really is just down to a few incidents of knee touching then I despair.
-
BBC says not, although maybe it is a guilty conscience on his part. If it really is just down to a few incidents of knee touching then I despair.
Rhi , I am quickly reviewing my whole working life in fear of anything I may have inadvertandly done which might be considered unacceptable Up to now I can't think of anything
However I did make advances to one woman , we became a couple of 14 years and had a child together .
It could have all gone wrong and could now be faceing charges instead of a financial separation settlement !
-
Fallon's interview quite bizarre, talks about 'the behaviour' not his behaviour. Says things that were acceptable 10 years ago, aren't now. Was groping and harassment acceptable 10 years ago, not from my viewpoint, Michael.
-
Fallon's interview quite bizarre, talks about 'the behaviour' not his behaviour. Says things that were acceptable 10 years ago, aren't now. Was groping and harassment acceptable 10 years ago, not from my viewpoint, Michael.
Agreed on the bizarre bit.
However, on what we know this isn't a resignation matter (not that I'm devastated, heartbroken and bereft that a Tory has bi the dust).
Whether he is using this to mask his feelings over the HMS Vigilant affair, or whether there are more revelations to come, i have no idea - but this seems the most strange resignation of modern times.
-
I wondered if his brief has become too much for him but he doesn't strike me as that sort. It can only be that there is darker stuff that is hidden. Otherwise it is an insult to those who have been genuinely the victims of predators in the HoP and it trivialises the whole thing.
-
I see Fallon has resigned!
-
I wondered if his brief has become too much for him but he doesn't strike me as that sort. It can only be that there is darker stuff that is hidden.
This was as good as stated explicitly by a journalist interviewed on the steam-powered wireless last night - Fallon jumped rather than was pushed because (mixing my metronomes, admittedly) there's a can of worms yet to be opened and he felt it prudent to decamp early.
-
I agree others comments, there must be some nastier dirt to be dished. Worth remembering that Julia is a Tory & Brexit supporter, that may be why she was trying to minimalise the issue.
This will infuriate him, being linked with Swanley, rather than with Sevenoaks!
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/dartford_swanley/15635730.Swanley_MP_Michael_Fallon_quits_as_defence_secretary_following_allegations_of_inappropriate_behaviour/
-
If all Julia knows of is the ‘incident’ that happened to her there’s nothing to minimise - it’s a nonsense.
-
If all Julia knows of is the ‘incident’ that happened to her there’s nothing to minimise - it’s a nonsense.
''If this is over kneegate, him touching my knee 15 years ago and me not having any issue with it today, this is the most insane, absurd and ridiculous resignation of a cabinet minister ever," she told sky news
Julia Hartlley-Brewer
-
This was as good as stated explicitly by a journalist interviewed on the steam-powered wireless last night - Fallon jumped rather than was pushed because (mixing my metronomes, admittedly) there's a can of worms yet to be opened and he felt it prudent to decamp early.
I suspect Fallon would not have resigned if the knee touching had been his only indiscretion.
-
I suppose now we will not be informed about why Fallon resigned. It's much better if we don't know, isn't it, since politicians know best about these things?
-
''If this is over kneegate, him touching my knee 15 years ago and me not having any issue with it today, this is the most insane, absurd and ridiculous resignation of a cabinet minister ever," she told sky news
Julia Hartlley-Brewer
and she knows it isn't. So why create the idea that she doesn't know that?
-
and she knows it isn't. So why create the idea that she doesn't know that?
are you asking me?
-
are you asking me?
It was rhetorical.
-
It was rhetorical.
isn't that one of them little round rowing boats for crossing rivers?
-
I wasn't listening properly, but did I hear on the radio this morning (I think) mention of "a spreadsheet" compiled by someone of alleged personal infringements by people within the Palace of Westminster?
-
I wasn't listening properly, but did I hear on the radio this morning (I think) mention of "a spreadsheet" compiled by someone of alleged personal infringements by people within the Palace of Westminster?
Yes, you did. it's easily accessible on the net, of extremely doubtful provenance and very very odd in what it includes and who it doesn't. It applies to Tories rather than being cross party.
-
....and there's more...on t'other side...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853430
-
Strong article by Heather Graham
http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/heather-graham-harvey-weinstein-sex-for-movie-role-1202586113/
In my experience, the people I've come across (men and women) who play these power games are dangerous precisely because they seem incapable of interacting with someone without it turning into some kind of win-lose scenario, which they of course plan to win using any means at their disposal. They seem to take this approach with men as well as women, looking for the weak spot to exploit in any negotiation, in order to impose their will on the other person and walk away with the best overall deal including any freebies and perks. Far too many of them have got away with it for a long time.
I think Heather Graham is right that men and women don't speak out for fear of being looked at as weak, which is not respected in industry by the people with influence, making it hard to progress. They are also scared of losing their livelihood and finding another job. But the ethics of business and industry and politics do seem to be slowly changing, whereby more people are being held accountable for the way they perform rather than just on their results.
This is an interesting piece on how Harvey Weinstein managed to get away with it for so long (threats to sue, discredit or financially threaten anyone who tried to expose him) and questions what should be done about his accomplices, as well as about confidentiality agreements in settlements that prevent people from exposing crimes.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gavin-polone-harvey-weinstein-whos-blame-accomplices-be-exposed-1049259
I had an experience in my first job (in a US bank) of being on the receiving end of sexual comments from my team leader. I had observed him using comments and his size (he was 6'6") to put down other men as well as women - all done with a grin and a swagger - testing weak spots, establishing himself as top dog. I used to retaliate by trying to put him down, and then he took it to the next level by getting a few male colleagues to film him mooning using my video camera, that I had left on my desk, while I was out of the room for a few minutes. When I saw the footage that evening at home I remember running through my possible options and the potential consequences.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41857136
Apparently Corbyn was aware of the sexual harassment complaint made against Kelvin Hopkins, but still promoted him to the Shadow Cabinet!
-
I feel sorry for the girl but this is what she says:-
"I'm very disillusioned because just a few months later I realised that Jeremy Corbyn promoted Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet, despite the fact that the leader's office was aware of this and they refused to act and that made me feel very powerless and isolated and alone"
I'd think that Corbyn himself wouldn't have known the details, too much going on.
-
I feel sorry for the girl but this is what she says:-
"I'm very disillusioned because just a few months later I realised that Jeremy Corbyn promoted Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet, despite the fact that the leader's office was aware of this and they refused to act and that made me feel very powerless and isolated and alone"
I'd think that Corbyn himself wouldn't have known the details, too much going on.
What makes you say that?
-
Because political party headquarters have lots of staff and are very busy; what is reported by one person to another is not necessarily shared with all. Had she gone to Jeremy Corbyn personally and reported the incident it would be a different matter.
-
Because political party headquarters have lots of staff and are very busy; what is reported by one person to another is not necessarily shared with all. Had she gone to Jeremy Corbyn personally and reported the incident it would be a different matter.
You reckon? Corbyn is hardly a knight in shining armour, he has only acted now because it would look bad if he didn't given all the latest scandal, imo. He has refused comment on the issue.
-
I tend to think the best of people until proved otherwise. He's quite right not to comment until he has investigated further.
-
Gabriella
you might want to live in fairyland , I don't . And the weak will not inherit the earth , they will contribute to the strong becoming stronger . As far as I know the thought police still have no powers.
-
You reckon? Corbyn is hardly a knight in shining armour, he has only acted now because it would look bad if he didn't given all the latest scandal, imo. He has refused comment on the issue.
Perhaps you'd prefer someone in the Trump mould, who calls for the death penalty for someone not even yet tried.
-
Perhaps you'd prefer someone in the Trump mould, who calls for the death penalty for someone not even yet tried.
No I don't think Floo would want Trump. She prefers May the leatherette leaderene, and Theresa sure knew about it.
-
Perhaps you'd prefer someone in the Trump mould, who calls for the death penalty for someone not even yet tried.
Yeh right! ::)
-
Yeh right! ::)
Well why not? You've criticised Corbyn for refusing to comment before a full and detailed inquiry has been carried out to establish the facts as far as can be known. It's either that or Trump's approach of shooting his mouth off and the facts be damned.
-
Well why not? You've criticised Corbyn for refusing to comment before a full and detailed inquiry has been carried out to establish the facts as far as can be known. It's either that or Trump's approach of shooting his mouth off and the facts be damned.
It was said yesterday, on the BBC, that Corbyn did apparently know about the allegations concerning Hopkins, but still promoted him.
-
I think the use of 'collaborator' here is wrong and unheldful but a lot of it chimes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/westminster-sexual-assault-allegations-already-being-minimised
-
There must be plenty of people now who are not 'prominent', ie not household names but maybe have some status locally or in their jobs, who are worried about what might come out about them. I can think of one or two from when I was a teenager who had standing in certain areas - and plenty of access to adoring young girls.
-
I think the use of 'collaborator' here is wrong and unheldful but a lot of it chimes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/westminster-sexual-assault-allegations-already-being-minimised
And it misunderstands the need of many victims to minimise what happened to them in order not to let the predator win (see G Greer on rape). Doesn’t mean they aren’t victims too, it just shows in a different way.
-
Absolutely right Rhi!
(And Walter you said the weak will not inherit the earth, presumably a corruption of a biblical quote which is:
"The meek will inherit the earth."
Meek meaning gentle, not weak.)
-
Because political party headquarters have lots of staff and are very busy; what is reported by one person to another is not necessarily shared with all. Had she gone to Jeremy Corbyn personally and reported the incident it would be a different matter.
You'd think informing the leaders' office of a sexual harassment complaint against one of his MPs would be the same as informing the leader, or if not, that somebody in the office would have told him about it when he announced his intention to promote the same MP to the shadow cabinet. I think there is a certain amount of incompetence in the Labour leader's office.
-
That would not surprise me.
-
I think the use of 'collaborator' here is wrong and unheldful but a lot of it chimes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/westminster-sexual-assault-allegations-already-being-minimised
and now a Radio 2 presenter hmmm
-
It was said yesterday, on the BBC, that Corbyn did apparently know about the allegations concerning Hopkins, but still promoted him.
Which indeed he did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41878689
-
Which indeed he did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41878689
I have just seen that, it doesn't do much for Corbyn's reputation. :o
-
I have just seen that, it doesn't do much for Corbyn's reputation. :o
According to you I didn't think he had one?
-
I have just seen that, it doesn't do much for Corbyn's reputation. :o
And Floo why so vocal anout Corbyn but nary a word about May. She will have known about the dirty secrets her whips used to keep people in line. Or are you really as stupidly partisan as you sound.
-
In fact, the MP Lisa Tandy had asked May three times about the whips using sex abuse complaints to control MPs. I think May just did one of her grimaces.
-
And Floo why so vocal anout Corbyn but nary a word about May. She will have known about the dirty secrets her whips used to keep people in line. Or are you really as stupidly partisan as you sound.
I prefer May to Corbyn, even if she is not doing a brilliant job. It may surprise you to know that I vote for our local Labour MP. Having met him when he visited us at our request some years ago, I was impressed by him.
-
I prefer May to Corbyn, even if she is not doing a brilliant job. It may surprise you to know that I vote for our local Labour MP. Having met him when he visited us at our request some years ago, I was impressed by him.
Why should it surprise anyone that you voted for someone whom you considered would best represent your interests? This action is central to the British concept of representative democracy - we vote for individuals not for parties.
... I enjoyed my brief visit to Cloud Cuckoo Land ...
-
Why should it surprise anyone that you voted for someone whom you considered would best represent your interests? This action is central to the British concept of representative democracy - we vote for individuals not for parties.
... I enjoyed my brief visit to Cloud Cuckoo Land ...
I vote for the person I consider the best candidate, not the party. My husband and I often vote for different candidates.
-
I vote for the person I consider the best candidate, not the party. My husband and I often vote for different candidates.
Best candidate as constituency MP or best candidate for PM?
And are they not related to preference for a party - given that the candidate stands on the platform of the party's manifesto.
Would you, for example, vote for a local candidate who is very good as an MP but whose party has policies that you fundamentally disagree with.
-
Best candidate as constituency MP or best candidate for PM?
And are they not related to preference for a party - given that the candidate stands on the platform of the party's manifesto.
Would you, for example, vote for a local candidate who is very good as an MP but whose party has policies that you fundamentally disagree with.
Would you vote for a candidate who is a complete areshole yet stands for the party which most closely aligns with your political views?
-
Best candidate as constituency MP or best candidate for PM?
And are they not related to preference for a party - given that the candidate stands on the platform of the party's manifesto.
Would you, for example, vote for a local candidate who is very good as an MP but whose party has policies that you fundamentally disagree with.
A party with policies with which I fundamentally disagree, like the nasty UKIP, would never have an MP whose views I could respect.
-
So we’ve managed to deflect away from sex abuse and harassment again.
-
So we’ve managed to deflect away from sex abuse and harassment again.
perhaps people are fed up with the subject or the problem's gone away?
-
perhaps people are fed up with the subject or the problem's gone away?
NOT FUNNY! >:(
-
NOT FUNNY! >:(
did you see the question mark at the end?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904161
A Welsh Labour AM member, who was sacked last week, for improper conduct has just died!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904161
A Welsh Labour AM member, who was sacked last week, for improper conduct has just died!
Terribly sad. :(
-
It is now thought Carl Sargeant committed suicide.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904161
A Welsh Labour AM member, who was sacked last week, for improper conduct has just died!
Just to note it was allegations which he denied and which there was going to be investigation of.
-
Just to note it was allegations which he denied and which there was going to be investigation of.
If his death was suicide, it looks as if he had a case to answer.
-
If his death was suicide, it looks as if he had a case to answer.
You are wrong there. It's possible to feel utter despair as an innocent person.
-
You are wrong there. It's possible to feel utter despair as an innocent person.
Hmmmmmmm! He was sacked so I assume the case against him was pretty damning.
-
If his death was suicide, it looks as if he had a case to answer.
Which doesn't make your claim that he was sacked for 'improper conduct' correct. And I think given the circumstances, you might want not to jump to conclusions.
-
Hmmmmmmm! He was sacked so I assume the case against him was pretty damning.
The plaintiff is in court, so he must be guilty.
-
The plaintiff is in court, so he must be guilty.
Well hopefully the enquiry will discover the truth of the matter.
-
Well hopefully the enquiry will discover the truth of the matter.
that would be good, rather than you posting something incorrect that stated he was guilty.
-
that would be good, rather than you posting something incorrect that stayed he was guilty.
Well we shall see.
-
Well we shall see.
We already have seen. You stated he was sacked for improper conduct rather than allegations of such.
-
If his death was suicide, it looks as if he had a case to answer.
... and if the woman sinks and drowns, it looks as though she was innocent of witchcraft ::)
-
Hmmmmmmm! He was sacked so I assume the case against him was pretty damning.
No. He was sacked while investigations happened. Clearly he couldn’t continue on his ministerial role while that was happening.
-
Well hopefully the enquiry will discover the truth of the matter.
And if he’s innocent it’ll be a bit late to put things right seeing as he’s dead.
-
And if he’s innocent it’ll be a bit late to put things right seeing as he’s dead.
The accusers could be named and shamed.
-
If his death was suicide, it looks as if he had a case to answer.
Sorry, you csnnpt assume anything because he has ended his life.
Such an assumption at this point would be sheer speculation and nothing more.
-
The accusers could be named and shamed.
And that serves what? Should they kill themselves too?
-
The accusers could be named and shamed.
Yes they could.
Not a lot of help to Mr Sergeant though and scant consolation to his family and friends.
-
The accusers could be named and shamed.
So you think that making an allegation means that it's untrue?
-
So you think that making an allegation means that it's untrue?
And is a great way of ensuring fewer victims come forward.
-
And is a great way of ensuring fewer victims come forward.
Indeed. I don't, and I suspect no one on this board, has any information that allows them to judge what are the facts in this case. I don't know what the actual allegations are, never mind if they are true. I cannot judge anything about those who have made the allegations. Whatever has happened is tragic for his family. Knee jerk blaming of anyone who made an allegation seems extrordinary
-
So you think that making an allegation means that it's untrue?
What gave you that idea since I was responding to Rhiannon's scenario of his innocence.
In which event the accusations would have been malicious.
I point out that one COA would be to make that maliciousness public
-
What gave you that idea since I was responding to Rhiannon's scenario of his innocence.
In which event the accusations would have been malicious.
I point out that one COA would be to make that maliciousness public
Not commenting on this specific case here, but the wider picture. The issue is that innocence can be found even when someone is guilty - it can be hard to make charges of abuse/rape/domestic violence stick. If someone is already shamed through being attacked tbe prospect of being named and shamed on top of the shame of being disbelieved... hardly anyone would report these crimes.
There’s a case for anonymity for both parties though. Would that have worked in this case?
-
Not commenting on this specific case here, but the wider picture. The issue is that innocence can be found even when someone is guilty - it can be hard to make charges of abuse/rape/domestic violence stick. If someone is already shamed through being attacked tbe prospect of being named and shamed on top of the shame of being disbelieved... hardly anyone would report these crimes.
There’s a case for anonymity for both parties though. Would that have worked in this case?
Certainly something should be done to protect people all round rather than the shambles we have now as the system appears to be collapsing all round.
-
There’s a lot going on that’s good, and a lot that is appalling, and there’s this.
-
And if he’s innocent it’ll be a bit late to put things right seeing as he’s dead.
The accusers could be named and shamed.
Aren't complainants give an assurance of confidentiality? I don't recall the women who accused William Roache being named. Their evidence fell apart during his trial but they kept their anonymity. Paul Gambaccini was kept in limbo by the Metropolitan Police for many months, but his accuser also maintained his anonymity.
The only case I am aware of of false complaints leading to identification and prosecution of the complainants was that of Christine and Neil Hamilton.
-
I think Vlad was talking about some theoretical naming of people for which we have no evidence that they are malicious
-
What gave you that idea since I was responding to Rhiannon's scenario of his innocence.
In which event the accusations would have been malicious.
I point out that one COA would be to make that maliciousness public
Is there a reason why you ask what gave me the idea, which was phrased as a question, and then wrote that you wanted to give that idea? We don't know enough details here and you are talking about 'shaming' people.
-
Are people going to retroactively remove Spacey from films and programmes?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41925767
-
Doubleplusungood unpersons, anyone?
-
You are wrong there. It's possible to feel utter despair as an innocent person.
No she isn't. It does look like it. But looking like something isn't the same as it being true. The man's career has been destroyed and that might be enough even without there being any substance to the allegations.
-
The accusers could be named and shamed.
Is that going to bring him back to life?
-
No she isn't. It does look like it. But looking like something isn't the same as it being true. The man's career has been destroyed and that might be enough even without there being any substance to the allegations.
Are you disagreeing with me when I say that someone innocent could take their own lives because of despair at untrue allegations?
-
Are you disagreeing with me when I say that someone innocent could take their own lives because of despair at untrue allegations?
No and I don't really see how you could reasonably read disagreement with that part of your post onto my post.
What I do disagree with is the first part of your post that asserts that floo was wrong when she said it looks bad. It does look bad.
-
No and I don't really see how you could reasonably read disagreement with that part of your post onto my post.
What I do disagree with is the first part of your post that asserts that floo was wrong when she said it looks bad. It does look bad.
Oh, ok, I'm following you now.
-
Sexual harassment...George Bush Sr....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41987895
*************
An eighth woman has come forward with claims that former US president George HW Bush groped her.
An interpreter, whom the BBC has agreed not to name because of the sensitive nature of her job, claims Mr Bush touched her inappropriately in 2004.
It was at the photo call after the meeting had finished when the alleged incident occurred.
"When the time came to take the photos, Mr Bush insisted on me being in the photo," the interpreter said.
"I remember thinking this was odd. Usually we stay outside of the frame.
"He grabbed my bum. At first I thought it was an accident, but then he did it a second time."
Her story is similar to other allegations made against Mr Bush. Another woman, Roslyn Corrigan, told the publication Time that Mr Bush touched her inappropriately in 2003, when she was 16.
*************
-
I see Aled Jones has been axed from 'Songs of Praise', as sexual harassment claims have been made against him. :o I am shocked I always rated that guy, he was in the same form at school in Anglesey as one of our sons-in-law.
-
His excuse is that a decade ago his behaviour was less mature, as was that of others.
A decade ago he was 36.
-
His excuse is that a decade ago his behaviour was less mature, as was that of others.
A decade ago he was 36.
Didn't he say 'his behaviour over a decade ago was occasionally juvenile, as was that of others,'. I don't think he was claiming he should be excused because of his age ten years ago, only that he hasn't acted in a juvenile way since then.
-
The 'as was that of others' implies that being juvenile in one's thirties is something that people just do, a youthful indiscretion.
-
It gets worse!
A very few years ago I saw a TV interview with the novelist, Joanna Trolloppe who is now in her early seventies. She related that her first job was in the Foreign Office and sexual innuendo and groping was rife. One person she mentioned in particular was George Brown, girls were warned to stand against the wall if he was coming to their offices, he liked to grope from behind presumably. She said he was the worst one! They accepted that even though they didn't like it, had no choice because if they had complained, no-one would have taken it seriously. Sounds dreadful.
My mum - older than Joanna Trolloppe - worked in the Foreign Office until she was pregnant with me. She said it was the same in her day - not GB obviously - and young women were expected to get on with it.
-
I heard George Brown had an alcohol problem. Off topic, but when I was in labour with our eldest girl on the night of the general election in 1970, my husband was in the relatives room awaiting developments and watching the TV. A member of staff asked him if he had any message for his wife, "Tell her George Brown is out at Belper", was his reply! ::)
-
I heard George Brown had an alcohol problem. Off topic, but when I was in labour with our eldest girl on the night of the general election in 1970, my husband was in the relatives room awaiting developments and watching the TV. A member of staff asked him if he had any message for his wife, "Tell her George Brown is out at Belper", was his reply! ::)
George Brown's drunkenness is a known fact but the classic likely apocryphal story is as follows:
"Attending a glittering official reception at the Palace of the Dawn on an official visit to Brazil, with all the military officers in full-dress uniform and the ambassadors in court dress, he is said to have made a bee-line for a gorgeously crimson-clad figure.
A colleague later recalled: ‘George said: “Excuse me, but may I have the pleasure of this dance?” There was a terrible silence for a moment before the guest, who knew who he was, replied: “There are three reasons, Mr Brown, why I will not dance with you.
'“The first, I fear, is that you’ve had too much to drink. The second is that this is not, as you suppose, a waltz that the orchestra is playing but the Peruvian national anthem, for which you should be standing to attention. And the third reason why we may not dance, Mr Brown, is that I am the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima.”’
Thing is, I've heard that story from different sources for nearly forty years, and it was never really censorious. It was looked on as almost an eccentricity and I suspect the sexual assaults of women, if he carried them out, were just seen as part of that. Something to be managed not stopped.
-
That's funny NS ;D.
Floo I may be dense today but don't get the Belper reference, which is a place in Derbyshire.
Yes he couldn't cope without the booze unfortunately. He was a proper old Labour man, born to a working class family, educated himself through the WEA. Pity he had wandering hands.
-
George Brown's seat was Belper; he lost the seat in the 1970 GE.
-
George Brown's seat was Belper; he lost the seat in the 1970 GE.
Exactly.
-
The 'as was that of others' implies that being juvenile in one's thirties is something that people just do, a youthful indiscretion.
it suggests people of any age can act in a juvenile fashion - which is true.
-
it suggests people of any age can act in a juvenile fashion - which is true.
But it excuses and minimalises it. This isn’t in the context of too much clubbing or doing too much E. This is in the context of sexual harassment. It isn’t youthful indiscretion in your twenties; to trivialise such behaviour in your thirties as ‘juvenile’ (just larks, darling) is pathetic.
-
But it excuses and minimalises it. This isn’t in the context of too much clubbing or doing too much E. This is in the context of sexual harassment. It isn’t youthful indiscretion in your twenties; to trivialise such behaviour in your thirties as ‘juvenile’ (just larks, darling) is pathetic.
Be fair, we don't know what he is alleged to have done yet.
-
George Brown's seat was Belper; he lost the seat in the 1970 GE.
From what I can gather, he probably lost his seat (as in falling off it) many times :D
I have read the wiki article about him, apparently when he went to the Lords, he changed his name to George George-Brown ???
-
Be fair, we don't know what he is alleged to have done yet.
It’s enough for him to decide to stand aside from his broadcasting duties.
-
Incidentally, Lena Dunham has made a prize fool of herself:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/lena-dunham-murray-miller-rape-accusation-aurora-perrineau-jenni-konner-apology-girls-latest-a8063396.html
-
Leaving aside the fact that Lens Dunham hasn’t made a fool of herself but something far worse, I don’t think that’s the most important thing about that story, do you?
-
But it excuses and minimalises it. This isn’t in the context of too much clubbing or doing too much E. This is in the context of sexual harassment. It isn’t youthful indiscretion in your twenties; to trivialise such behaviour in your thirties as ‘juvenile’ (just larks, darling) is pathetic.
I certainly don't trivialise sexual harrassment, as I hope you have seen from my other posts. He may well be attempting to down play what happened as just being juvenile behaviour - I don't know. My point was just to clarify what he actually said which differed, in my view, from what you suggested he said.
-
I certainly don't trivialise sexual harrassment, as I hope you have seen from my other posts. He may well be attempting to down play what happened as just being juvenile behaviour - I don't know. My point was just to clarify what he actually said which differed, in my view, from what you suggested he said.
I didn’t mean that you are trivialising it, I meant that he is. To dismiss his own behaviour as ‘juvenile’ immediately puts down whoever it is who has made the accusation against him - it’s not far off ‘shame she can’t take a joke’. We don’t know the content but we do know that the harassment he seems to be admitting is sending text messages with some kind of sexual content; he denies the accusation of ‘unwanted contact’.
-
I didn’t mean that you are trivialising it, I meant that he is. To dismiss his own behaviour as ‘juvenile’ immediately puts down whoever it is who has made the accusation against him - it’s not far off ‘shame she can’t take a joke’. We don’t know the content but we do know that the harassment he seems to be admitting is sending text messages with some kind of sexual content; he denies the accusation of ‘unwanted contact’.
Yes, and thanks, I think we agree on this topic (and others too!).
-
Yes, and thanks, I think we agree on this topic (and others too!).
:)
-
George Brown's seat was Belper; he lost the seat in the 1970 GE.
Thanks, I might have guessed it was that. I did look him up after floo's post but must've glossed over the Belper reference.
-
It’s enough for him to decide to stand aside from his broadcasting duties.
Judging by this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42043422
it's probably just about some text messages he might have sent to somebody (or some people). He's denying inappropriate contact.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255
The JW cult apparently covered up child sex abuse perpetrated by their members! >:(
-
Judging by this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42043422
it's probably just about some text messages he might have sent to somebody (or some people). He's denying inappropriate contact.
I know, I said that in a reply to Maeght. It depends though on what was said and to who it was said. If he was in a position of power then it’s realky not good. If she told him to stop and he didn’t, likewise. And as for the inappropriate contact, we have to wait for the outcome of the investigation.
-
Leaving aside the fact that Lens Dunham hasn’t made a fool of herself but something far worse, I don’t think that’s the most important thing about that story, do you?
Lena Dunham stands by a friend of hers, and then changes her mind just because some "feminists" tell her that she should not bat for the opposition? I think that tells a lot about Lena, and about some feminists.
-
Morrissey adds his tuppenceworth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42050512
-
I'm surprised at him (don't know why).
"Anyone who ever said 'I like you' to someone else is suddenly being charged with sexual harassment," he said.
I don't think so.
Lena Dunham has had to apologise for/retract statements she has made before about other issues, makes me think perhaps she'd be better off saying nothing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255
The JW cult apparently covered up child sex abuse perpetrated by their members! >:(
Floo you seem surprised. I'd read about sexual abuse in the JW community and various Brethren sects, mainly concerning elders taking advantage. It happens in every religious group, the more exclusive and/or secretive they are the easier it seems to be. Not just Christian-type sects but others, including some of the exclusive Jewish sects who take it very seriously and have systems set up to deal with the perpetrators.
-
Morrissey adds his tuppenceworth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42050512
Pillock. He's not actually grown up, has he?
-
Lena Dunham stands by a friend of hers, and then changes her mind just because some "feminists" tell her that she should not bat for the opposition? I think that tells a lot about Lena, and about some feminists.
So one feminist screws up and that tells you something about other feminists? Really? How about I say that your comments tells me a great deal not only about you as a man, but about some men?
To repeat, Dunham didn't 'make a fool' of herself. She said something very damaging. It isn't something to gloat over.
-
Pillock. He's not actually grown up, has he?
he may even have managed to grow down.
-
Morrissey adds his tuppenceworth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42050512
I tend to agree with him , it's all gone crazy
-
I tend to agree with him , it's all gone crazy
"People know exactly what's going on," he reportedly said when asked about Weinstein inviting actresses to his hotel room, "and they play along".
"Afterwards, they feel embarrassed or disliked. And then they turn it around and say: 'I was attacked, I was surprised'.
"But if everything went well, and if it had given them a great career, they would not talk about it."
"I hate rape... But in many cases, one looks at the circumstances and thinks that the person who is considered a victim is merely disappointed."
You agree with this? Really?
-
So one feminist screws up and that tells you something about other feminists? Really? How about I say that your comments tells me a great deal not only about you as a man, but about some men?
To repeat, Dunham didn't 'make a fool' of herself. She said something very damaging. It isn't something to gloat over.
What did she say that was damaging?
As far as I can see, she simply supported somebody who denies an accusation of rape.
-
What did she say that was damaging?
As far as I can see, she simply supported somebody who denies an accusation of rape.
She said that the accusation was wrong because she knew the man. And ergo the woman was lying. She didn't simply support the person she knew
-
I tend to agree with him , it's all gone crazy
So given he supports Weinstein who has been accused of rape and is on tape about sexual assault, you think it's all gone crazy. You do realise that in your daughter's complaint against her manager, Morrissey is on the manager's side?
-
She said that the accusation was wrong because she knew the man. And ergo the woman was lying. She didn't simply support the person she knew
Well of course, if you don't believe the man did what he is accused of, it follows you think the accuser was lying. It concerns me that supporting the accused in a case like this because you think they are not guilty is now deemed unacceptable by some.
-
What did she say that was damaging?
As far as I can see, she simply supported somebody who denies an accusation of rape.
and backed down soon afterwards. She did the same with racist and homophobic comments though they weren't accusations but she lacks credibility.
-
and backed down soon afterwards. She did the same with racist and homophobic comments though they weren't accusations but she lacks credibility.
OK, I can see how her behaviour has been damaging to herself...
-
Well of course, if you don't believe the man did what he is accused of, it follows you think the accuser was lying. It concerns me that supporting the accused in a case like this because you think they are not guilty is now deemed unacceptable by some.
I think there is a huge difference between saying I am supportive of someone and that someone who says they were raped by them is obviously lying. I could say that because of my belief I'm inclined to believe them but it's not for me to say what happened.
-
I think there is a huge difference between saying I am supportive of someone and that someone who says they were raped by them is obviously lying. I could say that because of my belief I'm inclined to believe them but it's not for me to say what happened.
Being disbelieved is an added trauma on top of abuse and rape. It's a disgusting and abominable thing to accuse someone of lying before the facts have been established.
-
Disturbing report from the Beeb regarding the JW attitude to child abuse....which appears to be much worse than previously suspected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255
-
I think there is a huge difference between saying I am supportive of someone and that someone who says they were raped by them is obviously lying. I could say that because of my belief I'm inclined to believe them but it's not for me to say what happened.
The second form is weasel words of the form often used by politicians when they believe something to be true but know it would be unpopular.
If you truly believe the accused is innocent, why not call the accuser out as not telling the truth? Sure, you should qualify the statement with "in my opinion", but people are always failing to do that.
-
Being disbelieved is an added trauma on top of abuse and rape. It's a disgusting and abominable thing to accuse someone of lying before the facts have been established.
And being disbelieved has been the default for so long that why come forward, why even say what you think happened because after all you don't get in those situations unless you were asking for it.
'the gospel according to Morrissey'
-
The second form is weasel words of the form often used by politicians when they believe something to be true but know it would be unpopular.
If you truly believe the accused is innocent, why not call the accuser out as not telling the truth? Sure, you should qualify the statement with "in my opinion", but people are always failing to do that.
Perhaps because you don't know and calling someone saying they gave been raped as a liar when you don't know is disgusting?
-
And being disbelieved has been the default for so long that why come forward, why even say what you think happened because after all you don't get in those situations unless you were asking for it.
'the gospel according to Morrissey'
Exactly.
This makes coming forward feel less safe, and coming forward is terrifying enough as it is.
-
Being disbelieved is an added trauma on top of abuse and rape. It's a disgusting and abominable thing to accuse someone of lying before the facts have been established.
If you are somebody who believes the accused to be innocent and you want to say so, how can you do it without implicitly saying the accuser was not telling the truth.
This is part of the statement she made with Jenni Konner:
We believe, having worked closely with him for more than half a decade, that this is the case with Murray Miller. While our first instinct is to listen to every woman’s story, our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year. It is a true shame to add to that number, as outside of Hollywood women still struggle to be believed. We stand by Murray and this is all we’ll be saying about this issue.
She at no point accuses anybody of lying, although, obviously, she is implying that Ms. Perrineau was not telling the truth but not necessarily lying.
-
Perhaps because you don't know and calling someone saying they gave been raped as a liar when you don't know is disgusting?
Nobody called the victim a liar, they simply said that, in this case they did not believe that the victim was raped by the accused.
-
If you are somebody who believes the accused to be innocent and you want to say so, how can you do it without implicitly saying the accuser was not telling the truth.
This is part of the statement she made with Jenni Konner:
She at no point accuses anybody of lying, although, obviously, she is implying that Ms. Perrineau was not telling the truth but not necessarily lying.
Implying you aren't talking the truth is here saying you are lying.
-
Exactly.
This makes coming forward feel less safe, and coming forward is terrifying enough as it is.
How do you balance that against the right of somebody falsely accused to defend themselves and their reputation?
-
Nobody called the victim a liar, they simply said that, in this case they did not believe that the victim was raped by the accused.
No they said it was a false report.
-
Implying you aren't talking the truth is here saying you are lying.
No it isn't.
She could be mistaken that the incident happened at all. She could be mistaken that the incident was rape (if she consented but forgot that she consented). She could be mistaken about the identity of the rapist.
-
How do you balance that against the right of somebody falsely accused to defend themselves and their reputation?
and a big hello to the false dichotomy. Rhiannon's post didn't say someone should always be believed . Just not assumed to be wrong.
-
No it isn't.
She could be mistaken that the incident happened at all. She could be mistaken that the incident was rape (if she consented but forgot that she consented). She could be mistaken about the identity of the rapist.
And must obviously be wrong. In some way she cannot be telling the truth. You, Lena, and Dunning Kruger up a tree....
-
No they said it was a false report.
I already quoted the statement they made. Why are you still claiming a falsehood?
They did not say it was a false report, they said "our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year". The word "false" is not used. They do not claim the report is wrong, only that they are confident it is wrong.
-
And must obviously be wrong. In some way she cannot be telling the truth.
And not telling the truth is not the same as lying. Lying requires the knowledge that what you say is false.
-
So given he supports Weinstein who has been accused of rape and is on tape about sexual assault, you think it's all gone crazy. You do realise that in your daughter's complaint against her manager, Morrissey is on the manager's side?
No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to , unless I've read it wrongly?
-
No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to , unless I've read it wrongly?
And the Weinstein claims aren’t obvious?
-
So one feminist screws up and that tells you something about other feminists? Really? How about I say that your comments tells me a great deal not only about you as a man, but about some men?
To repeat, Dunham didn't 'make a fool' of herself. She said something very damaging. It isn't something to gloat over.
She changed her mind because the "sisterhood" told her she was off message. Nothing at all to do with the case in point.
-
She changed her mind because the "sisterhood" told her she was off message. Nothing at all to do with the case in point.
You love those quote marks. Surely whatever happens with the case in point - i.e Lena Dunham's take is to do with the case in point i.e Lena Dunham's take?
-
No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to , unless I've read it wrongly?
And the case of someone saying they were raped by Weinstein is just something that wasn't obvious and blatant because Morrissey said so?
-
And not telling the truth is not the same as lying. Lying requires the knowledge that what you say is false.
Except if you say it's a 'false report' that's part of the package. There was nothing in Dunham's statement about confusion or wrong person - just that it was false.
-
I already quoted the statement they made. Why are you still claiming a falsehood?
They did not say it was a false report, they said "our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year". The word "false" is not used. They do not claim the report is wrong, only that they are confident it is wrong.
' Misreported' - so the person isn't being false in some way? What are they saying but a claim to truth? How do you get there?
-
You love those quote marks. Surely whatever happens with the case in point - i.e Lena Dunham's take is to do with the case in point i.e Lena Dunham's take?
The case in point has not been heard yet.
-
The case in point has not been heard yet.
So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?
-
The case in point has not been heard yet.
What's that got to do with saying that talking about the case in point isn't to do with the case in point?
-
So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?
Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.
-
What's that got to do with saying that talking about the case in point isn't to do with the case in point?
If you really enjoy this kind of thing check out the exchange between the Pirate King & Major General Stanley in Act I of The Pirates of Penzance.
-
Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.
it seems to me the problem is as so often a false dichotomy. I can trust a friend and say I believe what they say without saying that someone disagreeing with them must be wrong. As bluehillside correctly makes clear often, truth here is probabilitistic - so I can take the position that isn't an absolute.
-
If you really enjoy this kind of thing check out the exchange between the Pirate King & Major General Stanley in Act I of The Pirates of Penzance.
I think Humph is the G&S fan
-
Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.
No she didn't say that at all. Either you have misunderstood what she said or you are lying.
But that still doesn't explain why you think 'the sisterhood' were wrong for telling her not to prejudge the situation.
-
Disturbing report from the Beeb regarding the JW attitude to child abuse....which appears to be much worse than previously suspected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255
Yes it is Anchor but nothing new, s I don't repeat myself please see post 275 above.
Here's one about the Brethren and there are plenty more:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268926/I-raped-leader-Exclusive-Brethren-Shock-testimony-man-alleges-abused-child-Big-Jim-Taylor-rocks-churchs-claim-charitable-status.html
-
Being disbelieved is an added trauma on top of abuse and rape. It's a disgusting and abominable thing to accuse someone of lying before the facts have been established.
I agree.
-
couldn't resist this
anyone of a delicate nature DO NOT WATCH , you have been warned
https://youtu.be/_MC9L4nzmHs
-
I well understand why the accused is named pre-trial and the accuser not, in cases of sexual assault because others who may have been abused by the accused will feel more confident to come forward. However, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm beginning to think it might be better for nobody's names to be made public until there is a trial or at least a pre-trial hearing, whatever it's called (arraignment in America).
-
I'm sympathetic to that but so many people who felt able to talk out against Savile did so on the basis that it wasn't them against Savile. Given the fear of coming forward because of possible repercussions it is not an easy balance.
-
I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented. It's often the same with other types of offences.
-
I well understand why the accused is named pre-trial and the accuser not, in cases of sexual assault because others who may have been abused by the accused will feel more confident to come forward. However, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm beginning to think it might be better for nobody's names to be made public until there is a trial or at least a pre-trial hearing, whatever it's called (arraignment in America).
I don't know how this can work when public figures have to stand down frisk public life until the facts are known. I don't feel comfortable with it, but don't know what the solution is.
-
I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented. It's often the same with other types of offences.
No, from what I've seen the court of public opinion writes off women who speak out as liars, gold diggers and the 'disappointed' in all except the most extreme cases.
-
I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented. It's often the same with other types of offences.
Not sure how that addresses the question. I mean I don't disagree but that is true of all accusations. You need, I would suggest, a clear whistleblowers charter for sexual assualt because if the societal pressure is you put up with it from people in power then we as a society condone it. And it's blatantly true that we have so condoned it.
-
Yes that is true - very true - brushed under the carpet because no-one wanted to face up to the fact that outwardly nice, ordinary people are capable of vile acts.
As for people being called liar I can imagine a child surrounded by adults, perhaps including parents, all telling him/her that she has made it up, imagined it, even that he is wicked! The police used not to be very good at questioning children about abuse up until quite recent times. Poor kids had no-one to trust, how lonely is that.
-
I doubt that the police are yet that good at interviewing people about abuse. Note that isn't really a criticism of the police, just that it isn't clear how we think we, society, should discuss it so why should some poor police person be the utter genius
-
You have a point but in the past they would shout, intimidate and put words into kids' mouths. Presumably they were a reflection of society who didn't want to believe. I think they are better now, more gentle, have specialist training.
-
Not sure why we are just talking about kids.
-
I doubt that the police are yet that good at interviewing people about abuse. Note that isn't really a criticism of the police, just that it isn't clear how we think we, society, should discuss it so why should some poor police person be the utter genius
It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors...
-
It's not just about kids Rhiannon, I was thinking of children at the time of posting after Saville was mentioned. Adults can be equally intimidated.
"It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors..."
Yes indeed, the list is endless...prison officers, youth workers, carers - some parents...
-
You have a point but in the past they would shout, intimidate and put words into kids' mouths. Presumably they were a reflection of society who didn't want to believe. I think they are better now, more gentle, have specialist training.
It's less than 10 years since the start of the most recent Rochdale case, and only 5 since the last of those accusations , never mind what their MP may have done in 60s and 70s. Don't get me wrong, I hole things are better but when I encountered their approach, this century, less then 12 years ago, it was shocking. And again I don't blame them. Apparently either our recent defence secretary couldn't tell how you aren't sexually harassing someone till very recently or he could and didn't care.
-
It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors...
Absolutely agree.
-
So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?
The "sisterhood" called out Dunham for suggesting that a woman may not be telling the truth.
-
The "sisterhood" called out Dunham for suggesting that a woman may not be telling the truth.
I might be wrong but from your posts you seem to be supporting the accused rather than the accusers?
-
I might be wrong but from your posts you seem to be supporting the accused rather than the accusers?
Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?
-
Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?
is the 'sisterhood' prejudging? Or was Dunham?
-
Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?
So when Dunham says she knew her friend was innocent and that the woman accusing him was lying before any court case she was doing what, exactly?
-
Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?
Spot on.
-
Spot on.
Except that is precisely what Dunham did not do originally.
-
Spot on.
So Dunham saying that she knows this bloke is innocent before any court proceedings is...?
-
I wonder if any of the guys on this forum have been accused of sexual harassment, wrongly or otherwise?
-
You can bet most if not all the women here have been victims of it, and some of the men too.
-
You can bet most if not all the women here have been victims of it, and some of the men too.
I have been a victim of it.
-
Except that is precisely what Dunham did not do originally.
I am not defending Dunham, I think we can all agree that it would have been best if she had just kept quiet. My point is that Dunham, having publicly stood by her friend, because of the grumblings of the "sisterhood" publicly changes her mind & implies that he is guilty of the allegations which have not yet been proven, just because he is a male against whom allegations have been made by a female.
-
So when Dunham says she knew her friend was innocent and that the woman accusing him was lying before any court case she was doing what, exactly?
She was prejudging, I thought we went through all that yesterday. Then she did a complete about face (making an arse of herself). Better she had said nothing!
The point here is that no-one should prejudge. All the facts are not yet known & a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Lets leave it now for the law to sort out, that's their job.
-
I am not defending Dunham, I think we can all agree that it would have been best if she had just kept quiet. My point is that Dunham, having publicly stood by her friend, because of the grumblings of the "sisterhood" publicly changes her mind & implies that he is guilty of the allegations which have not yet been proven, just because he is a male against whom allegations have been made by a female.
Except you said that HH was spot on about the 'sisterhood' (whatever the fuck that is) prejudging when they were trying to get Dunham not to prejudge.
-
She was prejudging, I thought we went through all that yesterday. Then she did a complete about face (making an arse of herself). Better she had said nothing!
The point here is that no-one should prejudge. All the facts are not yet known & a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Lets leave it now for the law to sort out, that's their job.
We did. Not Humph and HH apparently.
-
I can't see that from what I've read, they appear to be trying to encourage impartiality (despite being accused of supporting the accused), but so be it.
(I'd never heard of Dunham before yesterday & then looked her up. Don't know why she got involved and I bet she wishes she hadn't.)
-
I can't see that from what I've read, they appear to be trying to encourage impartiality (despite being accused of supporting the accused), but so be it.
(I'd never heard of Dunham before yesterday & then looked her up. Don't know why she got involved and I bet she wishes she hadn't.)
The bloke is one of her circle and works on her show. She claimed 'insider knowledge'.
Breitbart describe her as a 'rape truther'.
-
Actually having to accept that someone we know is an abuser - sexual, domestic, whatever - is so hard. 'But I would have known...' you get it from community members, teachers, doctors, as well as friends and even family.
So who gets blamed for exposing it, shattering illusions, making someone doubt their judgement, professional or personal?
The victims.
-
If we know someone quite well, or think we do, and like them, we're bound to be biased. The law has to be unbiased so everyone is treated fairly. Let's hope it all works.
-
Apparently refuges have been set up for men who are victims of domestic abuse. :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42045801
-
Why does this shock you? I know two men who were regularly assaulted by ex partners and several who have been on the receiving end of psychological abuse.
-
Why does this shock you? I know two men who were regularly assaulted by ex partners and several who have been on the receiving end of psychological abuse.
I have never come across a man who has been the victim of domestic violence.
-
I have never come across a man who has been the victim of domestic violence.
A friend of mine was. His wife used a carving knife on him. He has the scars. He left.
-
I have never come across a man who has been the victim of domestic violence.
As I have covered elsewhere on this board, my ex on occasion hit me. It wasn't threatening in a physical sense. It was deeply humiliating and shocking. I could have stopped it but when you are as large as I am any physical 'reaction' has its own problems - grabbing her arm would hurt her physically far harder than anything she would manage. I don't believe in violence of any kind and I'm sure that many people feel it difficult to defend themselves in such circumstances.
-
I have never come across a man who has been the victim of domestic violence.
I have. Usually it was things being thrown at me, but sometimes it was fists.
-
Apparently refuges have been set up for men who are victims of domestic abuse. :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42045801
About time too! The last four posts alone illustrate what a problem domestic abuse against men is - and I don't believe you've never come across any man who was such a victim, you undoubtedly have but they aren't likely to tell you.
-
About time too! The last four posts alone illustrate what a problem domestic abuse against men is - and I don't believe you've never come across any man who was such a victim, you undoubtedly have but they aren't likely to tell you.
And psychological. controlling abuse is hard enough for people to spot when the victim is female - there are no bruises. When it is a man, people just don't seem to think it can happen. Including the victims sometimes.
-
As I have covered elsewhere on this board, my ex on occasion hit me. It wasn't threatening in a physical sense. It was deeply humiliating and shocking. I could have stopped it but when you are as large as I am any physical 'reaction' has its own problems - grabbing her arm would hurt her physically far harder than anything she would manage. I don't believe in violence of any kind and I'm sure that many people feel it difficult to defend themselves in such circumstances.
Both men I know were plenty big enough to stop it physically. There was the knowledge that they could hurt their partners more - and also simply not wanting to hurt someone that they loved.
-
Both men I know were plenty big enough to stop it physically. There was the knowledge that they could hurt their partners more - and also simply not wanting to hurt someone that they loved.
Yes, it's not the stopping of it, it's the fact that that seems worse. So you ignore the hitting. Note as I have already covered it wasn't frequent but I couldn't see a way to stop it.
-
About time too! The last four posts alone illustrate what a problem domestic abuse against men is - and I don't believe you've never come across any man who was such a victim, you undoubtedly have but they aren't likely to tell you.
All the men I know personally would be highly unlikely to be victims of domestic violence.
-
All the men I know personally would be highly unlikely to be victims of domestic violence.
Don't be so bloody ridiculous. You have no clue what goes on behind closed doors, to men as well as women.
-
Don't be so bloody ridiculous. You have no clue what goes on behind closed doors, to men as well as women.
I am not being ridiculous, I was taking about the men I know personally, not mere acquaintances.
-
All the men I know personally would be highly unlikely to be victims of domestic violence.
What sort of man do you think would be most likely to be a victim then Floo?
-
Yes, it's not the stopping of it, it's the fact that that seems worse. So you ignore the hitting. Note as I have already covered it wasn't frequent but I couldn't see a way to stop it.
Yes that makes perfect sense. I think it works like that for a lot of women too in the sense that stopping it can also have horrible consequences.
I'm sorry, NS. It's grim.
-
I am not being ridiculous, I was taking about the men I know personally, not mere acquaintances.
You have no clue.
-
You have no clue.
You don't know me, or the men I know well, so don't make statements you can't substantiate.
-
You don't know me, or the men I know well, so don't make statements you can't substantiate.
Your post suggested that those men are not the type to be victims of abuse. Is that what you meant or were you saying that you don,'t know any men who you know are victims or what?
-
You have no clue.
I think that sums up Floo in general , based on what she puts on here . Glad it wasn't me who said it . ;)
-
You don't know me, or the men I know well, so don't make statements you can't substantiate.
Most people don't know when women are victims - even their own families a lot of the time, especially when it is coercive or psychological. It's even more so the case where the victim is male - when you started posting in this you seemed to be in disbelief that domestic violence against men even existed.
I'm not saying that men you know are victims, only that you can't be sure that none of the men that you know aren't, or haven't been in the past.
-
Physical abuse is well hidden, floo. There have to be wounds or a real crisis for it to become known so most of us would not recognise it. The victims come in all shapes, sizes and types - often the last people you would expect. Men tend to hide it well too.
It often goes hand in hand with psychological abuse, same as with women and is extremely difficult to get away from.
I really feel like weeping right now thinking about all this. So many damaged people hurting eachother, what's the point of it all?
-
You don't know me, or the men I know well, so don't make statements you can't substantiate.
On the subject of claims that can't be substantiated
All the men I know personally would be highly unlikely to be victims of domestic violence
is pretty close to the top.
There's a reason that DV against males is either (a) disbelieved or (b) treated with 1970s-comedy eye rolling and winking and you've pretty much nailed it.
Out of interest: if the men you know were victims of DV how do you think you'd know about it?
-
Yes that makes perfect sense. I think it works like that for a lot of women too in the sense that stopping it can also have horrible consequences.
I'm sorry, NS. It's grim.
Given it wasn't a physical threat, it didn't feel as grim as it sounds but then I was justifying it, wondering if somehiw it was my fault.
No one knew about it. No one of my friends no matter how close, until after I left. Even now in terms of people who know me and my ex only 3 people know and one of those is my current partner. It's easier to be honest on here because the judgements of both of us and the ramifications are less.
-
Physical abuse is well hidden, floo. There have to be wounds or a real crisis for it to become known so most of us would not recognise it. The victims come in all shapes, sizes and types - often the last people you would expect. Men tend to hide it well too.
It often goes hand in hand with psychological abuse, same as with women and is extremely difficult to get away from.
I really feel like weeping right now thinking about all this. So many damaged people hurting eachother, what's the point of it all?
Psychological abuse is in many ways worse than physical. Narcissistic abuse is a thing in its own right and utterly destroys lives. Yet narcissists often get away with it because they aren't spotted - very often they are the charmers, everyone's mate, the one you couldn't do without on the committee. So victims don't speak up because there is just no point. And if they do leave sympathies often lie with the abuser, who is very good at appearing grief stricken at the loss of the relationship.
-
Given it wasn't a physical threat, it didn't feel as grim as it sounds but then I was justifying it, wondering if somehiw it was my fault.
No one knew about it. No one of my friends no matter how close, until after I left. Even now in terms of people who know me and my ex only 3 people know and one of those is my current partner. It's easier to be honest on here because the judgements of both of us and the ramifications are less.
That's pretty grim. Wondering if it was your fault. But then you know that it never was, right?
-
I doubt any of my friends or family would think it at all likely that I would be a victim of domestic violence. I am not sure what type of person is the 'type' but it isn't going to be what I come across as.
-
That's pretty grim. Wondering if it was your fault. But then you know that it never was, right?
Yes, and then again at the time, no. Again I've mentioned about being aggressively sexually propositioned and to my feeling sexually assaulted though I knew I was always able to stop that but again I examined my behaviour to see if I was in some way 'asking for it'.
I hasten to add that in both of these cases I knew I could stop it if it went too far which puts me in a much better position than many but that doesn't stop you wondering if it was your fault.
-
Psychological abuse is in many ways worse than physical. Narcissistic abuse is a thing in its own right and utterly destroys lives. Yet narcissists often get away with it because they aren't spotted - very often they are the charmers, everyone's mate, the one you couldn't do without on the committee. So victims don't speak up because there is just no point. And if they do leave sympathies often lie with the abuser, who is very good at appearing grief stricken at the loss of the relationship.
Oh gosh Rhiannon, my sister was involved with someone like that and completely mesmerised for a while, it was terrifying. He wasn't the 'everybody's friend' type but certainly presented as 'an upright man'. He completely controlled her and played mind games(& sex games on his terms). He always blamed her and she felt it must be her fault because he was 'such a good person'. It wasn't until it was over she could see things in perspective.
Tbh in many ways she's never got over it even though she met someone else, who is lovely, married and had a family. If you met her you'd never think she'd fall for anything like that. It is so chilling.
-
I have never come across a man who has been the victim of domestic violence.
the first Mrs Walter was pretty useful with her hands , especially on our little kids when she thought I wasn't watching.
On one occasion she pushed me up against the dining room wall with a carving knife across my throat in front of the kids , then she panicked and fled upstairs and phoned the police thinking I would retaliate. It was a couple of hours before the police left our house . No charges were pressed.
A year later she left and I got full custody of the kids when they were just 6 and 4 Ayear later she challenged me for the house in court and lost . THE BITCH .
-
Physical abuse is well hidden, floo. There have to be wounds or a real crisis for it to become known so most of us would not recognise it. The victims come in all shapes, sizes and types - often the last people you would expect. Men tend to hide it well too.
It often goes hand in hand with psychological abuse, same as with women and is extremely difficult to get away from.
I really feel like weeping right now thinking about all this. So many damaged people hurting eachother, what's the point of it all?
I am only talking about the men I know well, which are my sons-in-law, my brothers-in-law, my uncles and the husband of my best friend. I know for a fact my daughters and sisters aren't violent, I know my aunts by marriage would never dare attack their husbands, anymore than my mother would have dared lay a finger on my father. My best friend has always been a very mild mannered girl, she and her husband seem to have a very good relationship, which is especially important now as she has a very serious illness. However, as for people with whom I am only acquainted, of course I don't know for sure what goes on in their homes.
-
To this day none of my family know that my ex hit me, and no one would think she was anything other than a lovely well brought up middle class woman.
-
There must be many with stories, well hidden, like yours NS. It's very, very sad.
Walter your story is horrific, well done to you for getting out of it.
Floo if you had moved more out of your small circle, been involved with lots of people, gone out to work, you'd know more about this sort of thing. However, you're learning now :).
-
One thing I have to stress is that any such violence is just a tiny part of the relationship I had with my ex. It was as all such relationships complex and I was not just a 'victim' but also a support, a much cherished partner and a bastard.
-
One thing I have to stress is that any such violence is just a tiny part of the relationship I had with my ex. It was as all such relationships complex and I was not just a 'victim' but also a support, a much cherished partner and a bastard.
I hope you're okay now NS, talking about such things is painful and distressing, even on here . You have my best wishes .
-
I hope you're okay now NS, talking about such things is painful and distressing, even on here . You have my best wishes .
Anything that isn't OK now isn't related to that. I was 20 years with my ex. I have only loved 2 other people as deeply, and one of those is me. I am lucky to be with a woman I don't deserve.
The point I would stress is that in these circumstances the people who might be getting hit do not have 'victim' tattooed on their forehead. It doesn't say 'suffers domestic violence' in their passport. It's not got 'energetic self starter with a capacity to produce institutional change, and occasionally is hit by their partner' on the CV.
-
I hope you're okay now NS, talking about such things is painful and distressing, even on here . You have my best wishes .
It's the betrayal by the person you trust most in the world that's so hard. I think that is the hardest thing because the place you stop being safe is the place you should be safe - in your own home, in your relationship.
-
Yes, thank goodness I haven't had that experience but I do know people who have and in my work I frequently come across the same. It's quite heartbreaking. It's also wonderful to see people come out of it and grow strong. Yet there are others who repeat the pattern.
We all have a responsibility to "be excellent to eachother".
-
It's the betrayal by the person you trust most in the world that's so hard. I think that is the hardest thing because the place you stop being safe is the place you should be safe - in your own home, in your relationship.
you are right of course , the greatest betrayal for me was in my second relationship (the love of my life), it wasn't related to any physical abuse but it damned near killed me all the same ,
-
Yes, thank goodness I haven't had that experience but I do know people who have and in my work I frequently come across the same. It's quite heartbreaking. It's also wonderful to see people come out of it and grow strong. Yet there are others who repeat the pattern.
We all have a responsibility to "be excellent to eachother".
Wanting to help is sometimes how people end up in this shit to start with.
-
you are right of course , the greatest betrayal for me was in my second relationship (the love of my life), it wasn't related to any physical abuse but it damned near killed me all the same ,
I'm sorry.
-
I'm sorry.
d'ya know what? that's exactly what I said to her even though she was the one that totally ripped a family apart.
-
d'ya know what? that's exactly what I said to her even though she was the one that totally ripped a family apart.
It's way of it, I'm afraid. Some people just can't do it. So it's for us to be sorry instead.
-
It's way of it, I'm afraid. Some people just can't do it. So it's for us to be sorry instead.
they who go feel not the pain of parting; it is they who stay behind that suffer
Longfellow
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-42101850?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_wales_news&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=wales
This is crazy, a father convicted of sexually abusing his children still has parental rights even though he is behind bars! :o
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-42101850?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_wales_news&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=wales
This is crazy, a father convicted of sexually abusing his children still has parental rights even though he is behind bars! :o
There is a myth that the courts act largely in the mother’s interests. Since the change in the law in 2010 this is no longer the case. Abusers are free to use the courts to abuse, abuse and abuse again.
Of course the key thing in this story is that he has a solicitor willing to take his coin to continue his child abuse even though he is a sex offender.
-
Of course the key thing in this story is that he has a solicitor willing to take his coin to continue his child abuse even though he is a sex offender.
Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.
In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.
-
Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.
In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.
Any parent who has sexually abused their children should lose their parental rights.
-
Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.
In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.
Solicitors can decline work. New guidelines make it necessary for all involved in the court process to consider whether actions brought are a continuation of existing abuse.
I’m trying to decide whether you are deliberately siding with the father here about his asserting his ‘normal parental rights’ ‘not being a form of abuse’ or whether you are just clueless and naive about how abusers work and how they get their kicks.
-
Solicitors can decline work.
They can, but everybody has the right to legal representation. A solicitor may consider it the more principled stance to represent somebody and thus afford them their right rather than bow to public opinion.
New guidelines make it necessary for all involved in the court process to consider whether actions brought are a continuation of existing abuse.
I’m trying to decide whether you are deliberately siding with the father here about his asserting his ‘normal parental rights’ ‘not being a form of abuse’ or whether you are just clueless and naive about how abusers work and how they get their kicks.
Rhiannon, what part of
I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.
makes you think I could possibly be siding with the father in this case? Just because I disagree with your characterisation of the situation, does not mean I support him.
A parent asserting a right in whether their children are allowed to leave the country or not would not normally be considered child abuse. You have no evidence of the motive of the father for taking the actions he is taking so you should not be claiming it is continuing the abuse. If you want to say it is a disgrace that he has not been stripped of his parental rights, you have my support 100%. If you say that, in your opinion, this is continuation of the abuse by other means, I would say fair enough, you are probably right. But you didn't: you made a claim as to the facts that you cannot support.
-
Here are some figures about sexual harassment around the world......
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/25/health/sexual-harassment-violence-abuse-global-levels/index.html
************
Any woman, in any country, will most likely be able to relate to this situation:
Walking down the street, alone, past a group of guys hanging out with nowhere to go. Her guard goes up, and preparation takes place. Many things could happen when she passes them.
It may be the words "hey, beautiful" or "hey, sexy," or being instructed to smile. It may be more intentional: standing in the way or blocking the path in hope of some interaction. It may get more aggressive, with hands reaching to inappropriate places.
The spectrum is far and wide, with one end harboring the potential for things to become more violent with physical abuse or rape.
In the streets of London, Mumbai, Washington or Lagos, the recent outpouring of stories from women using #MeToo and its many iterations has showed the uniformity of the problem -- irrespective of country and culture.
In 2017, the world has made one thing clear: Sexual harassment is everywhere.
*************
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42123304
Former Blue Peter presenter, John Leslie, has been charged with sexually assaulting a woman in June. :o
-
And Garrison Keillor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42174257
Do i think this is oddly judged or is it Dunning Kruger
-
And Garrison Keillor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42174257
Do i think this is oddly judged or is it Dunning Kruger
Don't know, do you?
-
Don't know, do you?
Which is surely an issue?
-
From the first bit I read it seemed he had patted a woman on her back to console her - then he said he put his hand up the back of her shirt! Honestly, not quite the same thing. However he apologised and she forgave him until now.
-
Which is surely an issue?
What, that you don't know if it is odd?
The story doesn't really ring true, as has been said.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148
I see Damien Green is back in the spotlight again this morning.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148
I see Damien Green is back in the spotlight again this morning.
Or to be more precise a computer from his office is. It's not been shown to be his computer
-
Or to be more precise a computer from his office is. It's not been shown to be his computer
And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.
I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.
-
And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.
I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.
I think porn is ghastly even if it isn't illegal, but when children involved it is evil >:(. Mind you, I do wonder how many of the people taking part in it are doing so willingly, or are coerced into performing?
-
I think porn is ghastly even if it isn't illegal when children aren't involved. Mind you, I do wonder how many of the people taking part in it are doing so willingly, or are coerced into performing?
The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.
-
The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.
If it was him, he was being very foolish though.
-
If it was him, he was being very foolish though.
And at the rate he's alleged to have done so it sounds like an addiction.
-
The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.
He was supposedly viewing it while he was working, which if true doesn't do him any credit.
-
He was supposedly viewing it while he was working, which if true doesn't do him any credit.
Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.
-
Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.
I think it is a moral issue too, but this is not the thread for it.
-
Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.
And just who is the employer here, Rhi? He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.
I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?
-
And just who is the employer here, Rhi? He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.
I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?
He still gets a salary for services rendered.
-
And just who is the employer here, Rhi? He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.
I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?
He has a job and if he is viewing porn at the rate stated he’s not doing it properly.
I made my concern about the police officer’s actions earlier. If this is permissible then it has implications for anyone arrested for anything.
-
Indeed, Rhi, but this was your earlier post:
And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.
I'm merely pointing out that the relationship is not an "employment" relationship. As far as I am aware, a Member of Parliament is expected to behave "with probity" - whatever that means. The late John Profumo, Secretary of State for War, was sleeping with a bed-mate of a Soviet naval attache - but it was lying to the House of Commons that was his downfall.
Damien Green had been arrested in 2008, when a member of the Opposition, on charges of Misconduct in a Public Office. The arrest was widely thought to have been politically motivated and had not been carried out according to the normal parliamentary procedures - neither the Speaker not the Home Secretary at the time appeared to know anything about it. Charges were dropped and the Met did not come out of the affair particularly well.
I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.
The "detective" is actually a retired detective. Who knows, he may have an axe or two to grind following this affair. He would seem to have used the recent flowering of complaints against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others as an opportunity to stir things up. He is a private citizen now, but seems to have kept a notebook from his employment period.
-
He has a job and if he is viewing porn at the rate stated he’s not doing it properly.
I made my concern about the police officer’s actions earlier. If this is permissible then it has implications for anyone arrested for anything.
Indeed it does. But surely the main issue is political, depending on the outcome of the, no doubt inconclusive, inquiry and subsequent action by the PM?
-
I made my concern about the police officer’s actions earlier. If this is permissible then it has implications for anyone arrested for anything.
I saw on the news a little while ago that the detective found the porn nine years ago. If he'd thought it was that terrible, why wait until now to say anything? I understand people who were abused many years ago finding it difficult to come forward but the detective wasn't abused.
-
I saw on the news a little while ago that the detective found the porn nine years ago. If he'd thought it was that terrible, why wait until now to say anything? I understand people who were abused many years ago finding it difficult to come forward but the detective wasn't abused.
Obviously there is bad feeling left between some officers who were involved in investigating the 2008 leaks and Green. Maybe they feel justified in bringing this up now as Green is being investigated over the Kate Maltby accusation? Possibly it is relevant, but they are also violating confidentiality. At the time it would certainly not have been justifiable.
-
I'm not going to think about it any more for the time being.
-
And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.
But misuse of your employers' time and resources is quite serious in the context of your employment. I'm quite certain that if I had pornography on my company PC, my feet wouldn't touch the ground as I was being ejected from the building.
However, I think the bigger issue is that it looks like he lied about the episode.
I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.
From the interviews I heard on the radio yesterday, he isn't allowed. I think he might now be in some trouble.
-
I think porn is ghastly even if it isn't illegal when children aren't involved.
So it is not ghastly if children are involved?
-
I saw on the news a little while ago that the detective found the porn nine years ago. If he'd thought it was that terrible, why wait until now to say anything? I understand people who were abused many years ago finding it difficult to come forward but the detective wasn't abused.
Nine years ago the police officer in question would have faced disciplinary and possibly legal proceedings for revealing information discovered in an enquiry, if that information was not related to the topic of the enquiry.
The issue now is not that he viewed porn but that he lied about viewing porn. He's the deputy prime minister and allegedly provably dishonest. The man's integrity is in question but he could end up running the country for a bit.
-
So it is not ghastly if children are involved?
Sorry I didn't read my post properly, I have amended it! :-[ Of course I think child porn is evil and people should be sent down for possessing it
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42299192
Max Clifford, who was sent down in 2014 for 8 years for sexual abuse, has had a heart attack.
-
Though doubtless lamented by many other than family and close friends, it turns out that he has died: https://tinyurl.com/ybb4hwo4
-
Though doubtless lamented by many other than family and close friends, it turns out that he has died: https://tinyurl.com/ybb4hwo4
Doubtless you left out a "not" there.
-
So I did.
-
That nasty piece of work, Roy Moore, the chap from Alabama who failed to get a place in the US Senate, is an extreme evangelical of the hell-fire brigade. If the sexual abuse charges against him are true, how does he think his god is going to react? I suppose he is one of those idiots who believe in the, 'once saved, always saved', garbage, an insurance policy, which they think will get them into heaven whatever they do. ::)
-
Only Catherine Deneuve is worth mentioning from all the signatories?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108
-
Only Catherine Deneuve is worth mentioning from all the signatories?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108
That woman is sick! >:(
-
That woman is sick! >:(
Is she! And what about all the other women signatories? What 'sickness' does she have?
-
Is she! And what about all the other women signatories? What 'sickness' does she have?
The rest must be pretty sick too if they think it is a man's right to touch up a woman! >:(
-
The rest must be pretty sick too if they think it is a man's right to touch up a woman! >:(
That isn't what the letter says.
-
Quick one b4 I go to work (start at 10 today). I agree with floo. No-one has the right to touch up anyone without consent. However I think there is probably more to what Catherine Deneuve said than what is reported - she may not have meant that men are free to actually hit on women, but remembered the days when people freely hugged and put arms around each other and casual, sexist jokes, were the norm. I, frankly, dunno (!) and await further comment from her - but don't believe everything I read on media where comments are so often taken out of context.
-
That isn't what the letter says.
In effect it does.
-
In effect it does.
Where?
-
Where?
French actress Catherine Deneuve has said that men should be "free to hit on" women.
-
French actress Catherine Deneuve has said that men should be "free to hit on" women.
Which isn't
'it is a man's right to touch up a woman'
-
I had always thought that to hit on someone was to try and chat them up (although it sound like an Americanism to me anyway) - so it may be that there is confusion over what is actually meant here.
After all if no-one is free to chat someone up, some of us are going to end up unhappy and lonely.
-
It's also problematic as the letter is in French.
ETA The original apart from the first couple of paragraphs is behind a pay wall and so we have to do with the translation in the reports.
-
I don’t object to men hitting on women, or indeed the opposite, or men hitting on men, or women on women. Sometimes being hit on can be fun.
The harassment scandal is about men in positions of power hitting on women and men who are in a position where saying no has implications for their career and even their safety. The scandal is about a culture of silence that protects predators. This is about men not taking no for an answer. This is about rape and abuse. Not being hit on.
-
I don’t object to men hitting on women, or indeed the opposite, or men hitting on men, or women on women. Sometimes being hit on can be fun.
The harassment scandal is about men in positions of power hitting on women and men who are in a position where saying no has implications for their career and even their safety. The scandal is about a culture of silence that protects predators. This is about men not taking no for an answer. This is about rape and abuse. Not being hit on.
Yes that sounds about right to me Rhi. When I think back to the days of my youth and the bars I used to go into.....well let's put it this way - if you weren't hit on you were very disappointed!
-
I don’t object to men hitting on women, or indeed the opposite, or men hitting on men, or women on women. Sometimes being hit on can be fun.
The harassment scandal is about men in positions of power hitting on women and men who are in a position where saying no has implications for their career and even their safety. The scandal is about a culture of silence that protects predators. This is about men not taking no for an answer. This is about rape and abuse. Not being hit on.
That seems to me to be what the letter itself says. I think it over emphasizes the possible cases where people are being hit on rather than assaulted and I think the idea that persistence is ok is simplistic but if that is the impression some people have of what's happening, I don't think they should be branded as 'sick' for raising it.
-
It appears that what was actually meant is not easy to determine. Being chatted up never did it for me, I hated it! >:( Fortunately my husband never chatted me up that just isn't him, which is probably why we got on.
-
That seems to me to be what the letter itself says. I think it over emphasizes the possible cases where people are being hit on rather than assaulted and I think the idea that persistence is ok is simplistic but if that is the impression some people have of what's happening, I don't think they should be branded as 'sick' for raising it.
I don't agree with the letter if it is right that it claims that there is a 'witch hunt'. Again witch hunts happen against those who aren't in a position to defend themselves. And persistence isn't 'ok'. But there is definitely a discussion that needs to be had and this letter isn't 'sick'.
Part of the fun of being a woman for me is being flirted with, and dating involves someone making a move at some point. This should be able to happen in an environment where both men and women are free to say no.
-
I don't agree with the letter if it is right that it claims that there is a 'witch hunt'. Again witch hunts happen against those who aren't in a position to defend themselves. And persistence isn't 'ok'. But there is definitely a discussion that needs to be had and this letter isn't 'sick'.
Part of the fun of being a woman for me is being flirted with, and dating involves someone making a move at some point. This should be able to happen in an environment where both men and women are free to say no.
I think it depends what is meant by persistence, but it's not a message that I think works well as it seems to indicate that a no can be ignored.
-
I think it is good that it is all coming out into the open now. For far too long men seem to have got away with unwanted sexual advances whether of the verbal or physical kind. Before I am accused of being sexist, yes there are women who come on to men and that is very wrong too. >:(
-
I think it is good that it is all coming out into the open now. For far too long men seem to have got away with unwanted sexual advances whether of the verbal or physical kind. Before I am accused of being sexist, yes there are women who come on to men and that is very wrong too. >:(
Why is it wrong for women to come onto men? Or men onto women etc.
-
Why is it wrong for women to come onto men? Or men onto women etc.
I just hate that it gives me the creeps! :o
-
I just hate that it gives me the creeps! :o
So how is anyone meant to show that if the other person(s) is/are willing then canoodling might be a fun consensual activity?
-
I just hate that it gives me the creeps! :o
But you hating it doesn't make it wrong.
-
But you hating it doesn't make it wrong.
I think it is wrong to chat someone up in a sexually explicit way, especially if it makes the other person uncomfortable.
-
I think it is wrong to chat someone up in a sexually explicit way, especially if it makes the other person uncomfortable.
But hitting on someone isn't sexually explicit (what gave you that idea?) and is often very welcome indeed.
-
I think it is wrong to chat someone up in a sexually explicit way, especially if it makes the other person uncomfortable.
Isn't this the whole nub of the issue though - people can't agree on what is and what isn't appropriate behaviour.
I'm sure I probably take a different view to you on what I think is a "sexually explicit way" and even then it doesn't take into account how the person receiving such advances view them. It seems to me you will not arrive at one set of rules for this so there is no point trying.
What should be concentrated on is the illegal behaviour of people rather than trying to proscribe what ordinary folks get up to on a night out where (let's face it) for a lot of people the primary reason is to flirt, chat up, getting hit on, and in some cases getting their leg over at some point during, or in the last instance, hopefully after the proceedings.
-
Dear Dawkins, that all sounds exhausting. I must be getting old.
-
Dear Dawkins, that all sounds exhausting. I must be getting old.
Aye well it's been awhile since I went out into the City Centre at night but my contacts tell me that people are still behaving the way they always did in my youth - dim and distant though that now is. Men fancying women, women fancying men, men fancying men, women fancying women*
*Other options are available.
-
I just hate that it gives me the creeps! :o
The only time in my life that I have "hit on" anybody was at a lavish Richmond riverside pub in the early nineties, my friends and I had a competition to "hit on" a female randomly chosen by the other two lads, the idea was to last as long as possible before being "blown out". The first two boys were blown out after about two minutes, yet I was still chatting away fifteen minutes later.
Was it my natural charm, and witty conversation?
No, the other boys had inadvertently chosen an Aussie backpacker, who was very happy to chat with a stranger, that was why she had gone abroad.
-
In my youth, dancing was one major way of meeting somebody. If you fancied someone, you asked her(rarely him) to dance. If the person you asked didn't want to dance with you, then they simply refused. Granted, this was a definite blow to your ego, but it seemed a sort of civilised way to go about things. If the person accepted, then you danced and talked. If you both were still attracted to each other, then one of you either invited that person to a drink at the bar or asked her/him for another dance. In this way many people met each other and relationships took shape. I actually met my wife like this, and we became engaged about ten days later.
-
Ye dancin?
-
Aye well it's been awhile since I went out into the City Centre at night but my contacts tell me that people are still behaving the way they always did in my youth - dim and distant though that now is. Men fancying women, women fancying men, men fancying men, women fancying women*
*Other options are available.
It happens outside of city centres too. In rural places we are grateful for bus shelters.
-
It happens outside of city centres too. In rural places we are grateful for bus shelters.
Knee tremblers in bus shelters - stay classy Britain!
-
Knee tremblers in bus shelters - stay classy Britain!
Trent you have just again outed yourself as a closet Mail reader.
-
Trent you have just again outed yourself as a closet Mail reader.
HWB - I think over all the years that I have frequented this board, nobody, but nobody (and this includes many long gone posters who were fairly rude from time to time) has said anything quite so offensive and disgusting as that!
Apologise at once you bounder ;)
-
HWB - I think over all the years that I have frequented this board, nobody, but nobody (and this includes many long gone posters who were fairly rude from time to time) has said anything quite so offensive and disgusting as that!
Apologise at once you bounder ;)
To be accused of reading that ghastly tabloid is indeed an insult too far. ;D
-
I haven't read the whole letter, but there seems to be a conflation between defending the right of people to flirt and 'hit on' each other, and then the issue of a witch-hunt of men. Eh? Who has been unjustly accused of harassment?
The French seems to use the word 'importuner', "Nous défendons une liberté d’importuner, indispensable à la liberté sexuelle", which does't really help as I don't know the full flavour of 'importuner'.
-
Interesting comment by French feminist Caroline de Haas, 'sexual violence is not intensified flirting', ( Les violences ne sont pas de la "séduction augmentée").
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/droits-des-femmes/tribune-les-porcs-et-leurs-allie-e-s-ont-raison-de-sinquieter-caroline-de-haas-et-des-militantes-feministes-repondent-a-la-tribune-publiee-dans-le-monde_2553497.html
-
I haven't read the whole letter, but there seems to be a conflation between defending the right of people to flirt and 'hit on' each other, and then the issue of a witch-hunt of men. Eh? Who has been unjustly accused of harassment?
The French seems to use the word 'importuner', "Nous défendons une liberté d’importuner, indispensable à la liberté sexuelle", which does't really help as I don't know the full flavour of 'importuner'.
If Michael Fallon actually lost his Defence Secretary post because he put his hand on a women's knee - that seems to qualify as not a real justification - I think that case isn't made properly
-
Interesting comment by French feminist Caroline de Haas, 'sexual violence is not intensified flirting', ( Les violences ne sont pas de la "séduction augmentée").
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/droits-des-femmes/tribune-les-porcs-et-leurs-allie-e-s-ont-raison-de-sinquieter-caroline-de-haas-et-des-militantes-feministes-repondent-a-la-tribune-publiee-dans-le-monde_2553497.html
She is also quoted as saying 'Les signataires de la tribune du Monde sont pour la plupart des récidivistes en matière de défense de pédocriminels ou d’apologie du viol. '
-
HWB - I think over all the years that I have frequented this board, nobody, but nobody (and this includes many long gone posters who were fairly rude from time to time) has said anything quite so offensive and disgusting as that!
Apologise at once you bounder ;)
I apologise for my unwarranted allegation implying that you have ever enjoyed reading unsubstantiated and unproven gossip about people whom you have never met.
I am suitably admonished.
-
The French seems to use the word 'importuner', "Nous défendons une liberté d’importuner, indispensable à la liberté sexuelle", which does't really help as I don't know the full flavour of 'importuner'.
To the best of my knowledge, "importuning" is not a concept readily understood in English. A dictionary will probably define it as "bothering" or "harrassing" but I think that there is also an implication of an outcome involving sex. I first came across the word in a Maigret novel.
The letter, therefore, seems to be saying that in a sexually liberal society you can't stigmatise anyone for, well, enquiring about the possibility. So if someone's attempt at selecting a bedmate is rebuffed, and the rejection is accepted with good grace, then that person has done nothing wrong.
-
Some people (women) seem to be a little scornful of the #MeToo movement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42730942
*************
Veteran French actress Brigitte Bardot has dismissed actresses who have commented on sexual harassment via the #MeToo movement as "hypocritical".
The star was asked in an interview with French magazine Paris Match what she thought of actresses denouncing harassment in the film industry.
"In the vast majority of cases they are being hypocritical, ridiculous, uninteresting," the 83-year-old said.
"There are many actresses who flirt with producers in order to get a role."
*************
-
Catherine Deneuve said much the same. Flirting is one thing but being groped and worse is quite another.
-
Yes, I think Bardot is doing a kind of logical hop skip and jump here. If a woman flirts with someone, how does that justify being harassed or groped? Unless Bardot is equating the two things, or saying that the woman should expect it. That would be stone age stuff - don't wear a short skirt, because men can't help themselves. Otherwise, I don't get it.
Also, she mentions 'the vast majority of cases' - how does she know this? Has she checked them all?
-
I’m not convinced that Bardot and Deuneve are saying the same thing anyway. Bardot is victim shaming in a way that the letter isn’t.
-
Some people (women) seem to be a little scornful of the #MeToo movement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42730942
*************
Veteran French actress Brigitte Bardot has dismissed actresses who have commented on sexual harassment via the #MeToo movement as "hypocritical".
The star was asked in an interview with French magazine Paris Match what she thought of actresses denouncing harassment in the film industry.
"In the vast majority of cases they are being hypocritical, ridiculous, uninteresting," the 83-year-old said.
"There are many actresses who flirt with producers in order to get a role."
*************
Does Bridget Bardot have any evidence that any of the actresses who have signed up to #metoo are amongst those who have flirted with producers to get roles? Does she have any evidence that the actresses who did flirt with producers to get a role are completely OK with the idea. Maybe they did the flirting because they thought it was a necessary evil and would actually have preferred not to.
-
Perhaps, Jeremyp, it is not difficult for someone whose employment involves pretending to be someone else (and publicly displaying every kind of behaviour of the person they are pretending to be) would not find it difficult to pretend that they like the producers involved.
This would not invalidate your apparent caution about Sriram's post.
-
Perhaps, Jeremyp, it is not difficult for someone whose employment involves pretending to be someone else (and publicly displaying every kind of behaviour of the person they are pretending to be) would not find it difficult to pretend that they like the producers involved.
This would not invalidate your apparent caution about Sriram's post.
Women have tonpretend that they like dirty old men all the time. You don’t have to be able to act for a living. Just ask anyone who waits tables, serves behind a bar, works as a flight attendant...
-
Women have tonpretend that they like dirty old men all the time. You don’t have to be able to act for a living. Just ask anyone who waits tables, serves behind a bar, works as a flight attendant...
Are all old men dirty?
-
Are all old men dirty?
Nope. To be fair though there are a good number of young men whose behaviour is dirty too.
-
Yep. Dirty young men. Most men aren't, thank goodness, and feel utterly ashamed when they hear of such things.
Women have tonpretend that they like dirty old men all the time. You don’t have to be able to act for a living. Just ask anyone who waits tables, serves behind a bar, works as a flight attendant...
Junior secretaries, students, police officers (less so nowadays), social workers and housing officers (!), young woman doing internships at the White House......
Young men are also at risk from DOM.
-
A couple of reported incidences of abuse of power have arisen in the music world - not pop music but classical music. Both involve highly respected conductors.
In the USA, James Levine, music director of the Metropolitan Opera - a post he has held for over 40 years - is the subject of a complaint about activity with a 15 year old boy over 30 years ago. He has been stood down from all engagements - it looks as though his career has terminated.
The Swiss conductor, Charles Dutoit, principal conductor and music director of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, has been accused of multiple sexual offences by a number of women. The RPO has cancelled his engagements, saying that time must be allowed to enable the incidents to be investigated.
These accusations are taken very seriously by the orchestra and the RPO believes that the truth of the matter should be determined by the legal process. The immediate action taken by the RPO and Charles Dutoit allows time for a clear picture to be established. Charles Dutoit needs to be given a fair opportunity to seek legal advice and contest these accusations.
No fewer than seven other orchestras have cancelled engagements.
If anecdote and rumour are to be believed, then conductors have always been able to enjoy adventurous sex lives.
Natalie Portman on the sexual climate in Hollywood (taken from The Independent)
Following a wave of sexual harassment allegations made against Hollywood bigwigs, dozens of actors have started speaking publicly about their own experiences.
During a talk at Vulture Festival, Natalie Portman spoke candidly out about the harassment she has received and the normalisation of such behaviour.
“When I heard everything coming out, I was like, wow, I’m so lucky that I haven’t had this,” she told an audience.
“And then, on reflection, I was like, okay, definitely never been assaulted, definitely not, but I’ve had discrimination or harassment on almost everything I’ve ever worked on in some way.
“I went from thinking I don’t have a story to thinking, ‘Oh wait, I have 100 stories’. And I think a lot of people are having these reckonings with themselves, of things that we just took for granted as like, this is part of the process.”
-
Perhaps, Jeremyp, it is not difficult for someone whose employment involves pretending to be someone else (and publicly displaying every kind of behaviour of the person they are pretending to be) would not find it difficult to pretend that they like the producers involved.
This would not invalidate your apparent caution about Sriram's post.
Do you understand the difference between pretending to like somebody and pretending to like giving them sexual favours?
-
Do you understand the difference between pretending to like somebody and pretending to like giving them sexual favours?
I am simply saying that the people concerned are professional .... actors. Nothing more.
Consider the way that Norma Jean Mortensen transformed herself into Marilyn Monroe.
-
Do you understand the difference between pretending to like somebody and pretending to like giving them sexual favours?
Your post about Bardot mentioned flirting, not sex.
-
Your post about Bardot mentioned flirting, not sex.
Why should women even have to flirt to get the job they want? If there's a part available, shouldn't the best actor get it not the one who is prepared to flirt with the director?
-
Why should women even have to flirt to get the job they want? If there's a part available, shouldn't the best actor get it not the one who is prepared to flirt with the director?
I totally agree.
-
Why should women even have to flirt to get the job they want? If there's a part available, shouldn't the best actor get it not the one who is prepared to flirt with the director?
I totally agree - but I don't think that it was ever the director who was the miscreant. The director is just a hired hand with little power, the person with the power was the producer. And the person with the greatest power was the studio head.
Joseph P Kennedy (father of JFK and onetime US ambassador in London) bought a stake in a film studio - reportedly to provide access to female talent. He had an affair with Gloria Swanson. His sons, John and Robert, were both active womanisers even when in high office.
Darryl F Zanuck - head of 20th Century Fox was renowned for his ... err ... quality control checks on young actresses. He would summon a contract actress to spend time with him every afternoon. Some did become stars.
I wonder if this behaviour is some kind of biological relic in homo sapiens of the dominant male behaviour seen in many mammalian species?
-
Why should women even have to flirt to get the job they want? If there's a part available, shouldn't the best actor get it not the one who is prepared to flirt with the director?
They shouldn’t.
I was reflecting what you said to HH. I’m not sure why you asked him what you did.
-
Because he likes responding to a post with a question or questions and he's not the only one.
-
I totally agree - but I don't think that it was ever the director who was the miscreant. The director is just a hired hand with little power, the person with the power was the producer. And the person with the greatest power was the studio head.
Sorry, I used the word "director" to mean "person with hiring privileges".
-
They shouldn’t.
I was reflecting what you said to HH. I’m not sure why you asked him what you did.
Because HH's post in response to my post criticising Bridget Bardot seemed to claim that because these women were actors, pretending to like people should come easy to them and it was therefore OK. I agree with HH on that but it is not about pretending to like people, it is about flirting with people., which is not the same thing.
Nobody should have to flirt to get a job and if you do flirt to get a job, you are perpetuating the culture that leads to Harvey Weinstein.
-
This is really just an observation. But much of this discussion has taken place in a context that suggests that men are always predatory and that women are victims. I do not doubt that for many of these occurrences this is manifestly the case.
But it is quite possible for the sexual aggressor to be a woman who uses her sexual favours as bargaining chips in the development of her career - possibly with threats of blackmail quietly tucked away. The desire to be a film star may have been so great that a possible casual sexual involvement would have been seen to be a reasonable price to pay. It may even be conceivable that in a business where one's body is the main asset, bodies were a commodity with a value: "All I've got to do is to sleep with a couple of them and then I've got my part."
I think that we are looking at historical actions through modern spectacles, in a context where feminism is a powerful force, a context where women are valued for who they are and what they are. I have mentioned before that the conductor of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra is a woman. She fills Symphony Hall - not because she is a woman but because she is Mirga.
I go to the gym every morning. Most mornings there are some girls from the local high school - perhaps 14 or 15 years old. They are fortunate because they are probably the first generation of young women who will be taken seriously as sports people in their own right. Women' football and cricket teams are now considered to be as worthy of respect as mens' teams - not as some parody of "the real thing".
The past is another country - they do things differently there.
But that doesn't mean that the past is a better country ...
-
Oh look, the old ‘actresses are just prostitutes’ argument. Thought that was done with before the war.
Meantime those 15 year old girls had better hope that the lessons on consent stick.
-
Oh look, the old ‘actresses are just prostitutes’ argument. Thought that was done with before the war.
Meantime those 15 year old girls had better hope that the lessons on consent stick.
I must have missed that post is it me or do some people hear what they want to hear.
-
I must have missed that post is it me or do some people hear what they want to hear.
HH said, 'a business where one's body is the main asset, bodies were a commodity with a value: "All I've got to do is to sleep with a couple of them and then I've got my part."'. Nothing about the requirement for women to be able to act. Just sell their bodies.
-
I must have missed that post is it me or do some people hear what they want to hear.
What Rhiannon has done is to take a short part of a larger post, strip it of its context and then use it as fuel for a rant.
-
What Rhiannon has done is to take a short part of a larger post, strip it of its context and then use it as fuel for a rant.
Two sentences equals a rant?
Bit of an ad hominem there but whatever. And you could have replied to me but chose to reply to Jak. So telling. Talking over the little woman.
-
What Rhiannon has done is to take a short part of a larger post, strip it of its context and then use it as fuel for a rant.
That implies some form of dishonesty on her part which I think is unjustified. It seems to me that the context you had it in doesn't make that much difference and your post could well be read the way Rhiannon read it. To be honest, I didn't really see what point you were making in raising the idea of actors sleeping with people for favours.
-
The point I was trying to make - clearly not very effectively - is that social values have changed.
My expectation, my hope, my belief is that we are now living in an era when sex (ie whether one is male or female) should not be a relevant factor in expecting excellence or competence. Combined with this is - I hope - the realisation that the exercise of sexual power is a thing of the past. In almost every sphere of activity women are as capable as men and this should progress to the equal representation of men and women at all levels of authority.
There is plenty of evidence that during the middle decades of the 20th century ambitious actresses used sex to advance their careers (they may not necessarily have enjoyed it) and also that men may used their real (or feigned) homosexuality to the same ends. I was attempting - clearly unsuccessfully - to contrast those times with today, although as the Weinstein affair shows, such practices may not have entirely disappeared.
Rhiannon clearly failed to recognise my purpose in posting. And even where I was attempting to celebrate - in my eyes - the liberated world in which young women find themselves, Rhiannon appeared to devalue it by adding "consent".
I apologise for my failings in communication.
-
HH, the ‘liberalisation’ that you celebrate is illusory. My daughters don’t give a fuck about football. They do about body shaming, slut shaming, getting sent dick pics, rape threats on social media and no meaning no.
-
That, unhappily, is the world young people are creating for themselves.
(Further explanation) My point was not that the young people themselves should play football, but that football played by women is not being seen generally as some parody of "real" football. I have watched women's football on tv and find it more satisfying than much men's football. To me, it relies more on skill and team work and less on strength and power than the men's game.
And the national women's team is more successful than the national men's team ...
-
No, HH, social media aside the world I grew up in was exactly the same. Rape threats were in the playground and in the street. Date rape was the norm. Most of my friends had experienced some kind of non consensual sex. And slut shaming is as old as the hills.
Even with regards football, we watch a lot of footie in this house, and as my daughter has just pointed out, she can’t name a single female player, nor who is top of the league. There’s no transfer window update for the women’s game, no WMOTD. The seriousness with which womens’ football is reflected by the calibre of the recent England managers. The possibility of Phil Neville getting the gig being seen as a giant leap forward speaks volumes.
And as for the pay...
-
I accept all that, Rhiannon, I can't name any players either.
But, as I have found in conversation with other people, it is no longer considered a freak show. That women can and do play football and that people are prepared to watch it and accept it as a legitimate activity, that's the difference.
-
I accept all that, Rhiannon, I can't name any players either.
But, as I have found in conversation with other people, it is no longer considered a freak show. That women can and do play football and that people are prepared to watch it and accept it as a legitimate activity, that's the difference.
It’s an improvement. It’s not equality. And in many areas no progress has been made.
-
Two sentences equals a rant?
I agree its not a rant but I didn't read HH post and read 'acting is just prostitution'.
Bit of an ad hominem there but whatever. And you could have replied to me but chose to reply to Jak. So telling. Talking over the little woman.
Wow!
-
Wow!
Yes, it surprised me too.
-
It’s an improvement. It’s not equality. And in many areas no progress has been made.
What areas?
This in part covers the pay gap a robust debate at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
-
Yes, it surprised me too.
The surprise is that without checking HH's motive you were prepared to suggest he was being misogynistic
-
The surprise is that without checking HH's motive you were prepared to suggest he was being misogynistic
My dad didn't think he was being racist when he used the term Paki. Motives aren't necessarily an easy guide.
-
What areas?
This in part covers the pay gap a robust debate at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
Oh yeah, that’s the guy whose supporters sent Cathy Newman rape threats.
HH and I were discussing elite football. Has the gender pay gap closed in football? Give me the statistics.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-42780327
I see the Pope has apologised for upsetting people with his remarks last week about sexual abuse in Chile. But is still claiming the Bishop who is accused of covering up for a paedophile priest is innocent!
-
The surprise is that without checking HH's motive you were prepared to suggest he was being misogynistic
That assumes misogynistic behaviour is a conscious choice.
-
Oh yeah, that’s the guy whose supporters sent Cathy Newman rape threats.
So that makes him wrong?
HH and I were discussing elite football. Has the gender pay gap closed in football? Give me the statistics.
No the gender pay gap still exists, try to read what I post not what you think I post.
-
My dad didn't think he was being racist when he used the term Paki. Motives aren't necessarily an easy guide.
No idea what you mean, HH replied to my post and not to Rhiannons, now maybe HH was being misogynistic but I would not have jumped to that conclusion quite as quick.
-
So that makes him wrong?
No the gender pay gap still exists, try to read what I post not what you think I post.
Surely everyone can only read what they think you post i.e. what they think you mean? I didn't find your post particularly clear but in context of a discussion on pay if someone says there have been areas where things haven't improved and you appear to doubt that by challenging them, it's a legitimate reading to think you are saying that the specific are you reference is one where your doubt applies.
-
No idea what you mean, HH replied to my post and not to Rhiannons, now maybe HH was being misogynistic but I would not have jumped to that conclusion quite as quick.
People can be misogynistic or racist without thinking 'I am about to be misogynistic or racist now'. Indeed I suspect the vast majority of people who are do not have a motive of misogyny or racism. So Rhiannon wasn't talking about HH's motive necessarily but the effect of his action.
-
A small word in favour of Jordan Peterson - he has tried to get people who notionally agree with him to stop any threats to Cathy Newman. I disagree with most of what he says but he does seem to be someone who in context a dialogue can be had with.
-
A small word in favour of Jordan Peterson - he has tried to get people who notionally agree with him to stop any threats to Cathy Newman. I disagree with most of what he says but he does seem to be someone who in context a dialogue can be had with.
Yes, and he spoke up immediately the threats were made known.
That the threats were made at all is interesting in the context of the discussion we are having about how things have 'improved'.
-
Suzanne Moore teaches her daughters the same way that I do mine.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/22/nigella-lawson-why-women-mollify-men-fear
-
Yes, and he spoke up immediately the threats were made known.
That the threats were made at all is interesting in the context of the discussion we are having about how things have 'improved'.
I would certainly prefer his approach to John McDonnell's
-
People can be misogynistic or racist without thinking 'I am about to be misogynistic or racist now'. Indeed I suspect the vast majority of people who are do not have a motive of misogyny or racism. So Rhiannon wasn't talking about HH's motive necessarily but the effect of his action.
Maybe leave Rhiannon defend herself.
Otherwise:-
So telling. Talking over the little woman.
-
Maybe leave Rhiannon defend herself.
Otherwise:-
So telling. Talking over the little woman.
He’s not making a point to me by talking to a man.
It’s intetesting that you feel I need to ‘defend’ myself. Who from?
-
Maybe leave Rhiannon defend herself.
Otherwise:-
So telling. Talking over the little woman.
So you now are arguing that Rhiannon's take on HH was right? You seen confused
-
Surely everyone can only read what they think you post i.e. what they think you mean? I didn't find your post particularly clear but in context of a discussion on pay if someone says there have been areas where things haven't improved and you appear to doubt that by challenging them, it's a legitimate reading to think you are saying that the specific are you reference is one where your doubt applies.
I posted what I thought was an interesting discussion which covered the gender pay gap. I have a daughter, a wife, a sister, a mother all have faced or will potentially face discrimination simply because they are women.
It is better than it was but we still have a long way to go, I do suspect that false claims of discrimination do much to undermine any progress. I do not think HH was discriminating and posted in context.
I replied to this post because it offered a segue into what I wanted to say.
-
He’s not making a point to me by talking to a man.
It’s intetesting that you feel I need to ‘defend’ myself. Who from?
Oh good grief we are having a discussion, you make a point, I counter, you defend, its normal human conversation.
-
So you now are arguing that Rhiannon's take on HH was right? You seen confused
No you think it was a fair take, if so then you are behaving in the same way.
-
He’s not making a point to me by talking to a man.
It’s intetesting that you feel I need to ‘defend’ myself. Who from?
Oh tish now, this is the men talking, and if you don't understand that, that's OK,you know how to wash things.I fancy a cup of tea, could you run along now and get me one, love?
-
No you think it was a fair take, if so then you are behaving in the same way.
As what? You appear to think that what people say is only interpretable by you? Or is that wrong?
-
Oh tish now, this is the men talking, and if you don't understand that, that's OK,you know how to wash things.I fancy a cup of tea, could you run along now and get me one, love?
Your true colours for all to see.
-
As what? You appear to think that what people say is only interpretable by you? Or is that wrong?
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
So therefore your approach was wrong then, since I was reflecting it back at you.
-
Your true colours for all to see.
What true colours? Do you need to look up the definition of sarcasm?
-
Oh good grief we are having a discussion, you make a point, I counter, you defend, its normal human conversation.
Which is attacking and defending points, ideas and opinions, not people. Hence NS wasn’t defending me, but joining in this thing called ‘conversation’.
-
So therefore your approach was wrong then, since I was reflecting it back at you.
As I was doing to you.
-
Which is attacking and defending points, ideas and opinions, not people. Hence NS wasn’t defending me, but joining in this thing called ‘conversation’.
Semantics, you raise a point and NS elects to defend that point, it could be read that he thinks you are not capable of doing it yourself.
To be fair I don't think he is doing that for any other motive other than a chance to wow us with one of his fallacy zingers.
-
Semantics, you raise a point and NS elects to defend that point, it could be read that he thinks you are not capable of doing it yourself.
To be fair I don't think he is doing that for any other motive other than a chance to wow us with one of his fallacy zingers.
It’s not semantics. As a parent you know the difference between saying ‘that wasvidiitic’ and ‘you are an idiot’. Ideas, thoughts and points are not people.
NS has no interest in defending me. I’ve told him to fuck off before. More than once I think.
-
It’s not semantics. As a parent you know the difference between saying ‘that wasvidiitic’ and ‘you are an idiot’. Ideas, thoughts and points are not people.
NS has no interest in defending me. I’ve told him to fuck off before. More than once I think.
Whatever lets get back to gender equality. Stephen Law on J Peterson:-
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/who-is-jordan-peterson-my-first.html
-
Whatever lets get back to gender equality. Stephen Law on J Peterson:-
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/who-is-jordan-peterson-my-first.html
The discussion isn’t so much about equality as harassment and abuse. The gender pay gap may be indicative of a general dismissive attitude to women but I’m more concerned about the rape threats that a female journalist gets for discussing it.
-
I should be shocked but I fear not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODYX6fNRYk
-
I should be shocked but I fear not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODYX6fNRYk
And so it goes on. :o
-
The ructions continue
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42801178
-
I am sure this sort of thing is going on everywhere, not just in high places and with famous people. Every office, shop, restaurant, government office, army, police and every other work place where women work, many of them could be exploited in such manner or much worse. Most of them would not be wealthy, with no clout and with no one to listen to them or print their story.
-
Quite apart from the sexual harassment claims, it is extraordinary that clubs with male members only are still functioning in the 21st century. My husband attends 'Probus' a male only club for retired business and professional men. They hold a meeting on the first Wednesday morning of each month apart from August. However, they permit female speakers like myself. I must admit I was very tempted to make some comment to that effect when giving my talk,. However, I refrained from doing so, for fear of embarrassing my husband. I know for a fact he would not have joined such a group had he not been brain damaged, but there are very few things he can attend these days, which are held during the day. He gets very tired at night, and finds it hard to function mentally after 6pm.
-
I am sure this sort of thing is going on everywhere, not just in high places and with famous people. Every office, shop, restaurant, government office, army, police and every other work place where women work, many of them could be exploited in such manner or much worse. Most of them would not be wealthy, with no clout and with no one to listen to them or print their story.
Not really sure what point you are making here. I agree that thus happens in akk walks of life but I haven't seen that denied by anyone here. That some people may have the clout to present a story is surely what is needed for those who have no voice as well?
-
Interesting.
While I was reading the article I was thinking if it all got too much for any of the girls they could disappear somewhere cosy in the hotel until it was over (I'm someone who always looks for an escape route in any situation). However they seem to have been quite heavily policed - not allowed mobiles and where were their own clothes? If spent too long in the loo someone would go in to find them. I feel trapped & panicky just reading that.
No, not nice. There are easier ways of making money.
-
.... it is extraordinary that clubs with male members only are still functioning in the 21st century. My husband attends 'Probus' a male only club for retired business and professional men..... I know for a fact he would not have joined such a group had he not been brain damaged ....
Absolutely right, Floo, close these nasty men-only clubs down. And while you're at it, close down dangerous organisations like Soroptomists and Womens Institutes ... as well as women-only Probus Clubs.
-
I can't see anything wrong with men only or women only clubs if people want them, alongside mixed ones of which there are plenty. I had to look up Soroptomists, HH, as I did Probus which LR mentioned and as you said, there are women only Probus clubs. You left out Townswomens Guild, dread to think what shenanigans they get up to.
It's not the Presidents club itself that caused concern but the behaviour of the members (or some of them) on a particular night, enabled and sanctioned by the event organisers.
-
Absolutely right, Floo, close these nasty men-only clubs down. And while you're at it, close down dangerous organisations like Soroptomists and Womens Institutes ... as well as women-only Probus Clubs.
Good idea, I would hate to go to an all woman club.
-
I am sure this sort of thing is going on everywhere, not just in high places and with famous people. Every office, shop, restaurant, government office, army, police and every other work place where women work, many of them could be exploited in such manner or much worse. Most of them would not be wealthy, with no clout and with no one to listen to them or print their story.
In my department its not going on, as far as I'm aware in the company it isn't going on, the CEO would blow a fuse if it was.
It happens a lot but I work with companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, most closely with Google and I don't see any of that sort of behaviour. In fact with Google the most senior people I've met have been women and I've only just realised that, their sex is irrelevant to their ability to do their job.
I used to work as a manager in heavy industry in the 1990s and yes I would see it then with reps from other companies, I'm sure it goes on today but in more modern industries its less of an issue.
When I next meet with a few staff I'll bring this up just to be sure, my perception might be off!
-
I don’t know about the Townswomens Guild but the WI admits male members.
ETA only on their courses. Hmm.
-
OK, I'll come clean. I am a member of a Probus Club. Yes, it is for retired professional and business men. In the same town is a women's Probus Club. And, in some cases, there are mixed Probus Clubs.
Let me talk about the club I know.
It is not the Presidents Club. The Presidents Club was (it appears to have been disbanded) a club for men possessing power, people excercising power on a daily basis. My guess is that these men's behaviour is influenced by testosterone. People with power - particularly those with power in formal organisations - like other people to know of their power. Some of them may behave in ways not dissimilar to stags, stallions and lions maintaining their harems. At an event at the Dorchester Hotel, free from the environmental context which constrains their behaviour, they let themselves relax in the presence of attractive, alluring, young women and some take the opportunity to be competitive ...
In my Probus Club there are men - some in their eighties and nineties - who are still sharp and intelligent. They are articulate and capable and are pleased to be able to spend time with others who share backgrounds. They offer each other friendship and warmth. There is no competition. The continued welfare of members is a significant factor which occupies the club. It is quite possible that for some, club meetings allay the loneliness the characterises their lives.
The club, in an undemonstrative manner, offers companionship and concern and mental stimulation to men that society in general has ceased to consider of prime importance, and when they have died, continues to do so to their widows.
-
HH,
‘At an event at the Dorchester Hotel, free from the environmental context which constrains their behaviour, they let themselves relax in the presence of attractive, alluring, young women and some take the opportunity to be competitive ... ‘
Sexual harassment and assault is not ‘competition’. And this seems to be blaming the young women for being ‘alluring’, so what else could these poor relaxed men do in the face of such temptation?
-
HH,
‘At an event at the Dorchester Hotel, free from the environmental context which constrains their behaviour, they let themselves relax in the presence of attractive, alluring, young women and some take the opportunity to be competitive ... ‘
Sexual harassment and assault is not ‘competition’. And this seems to be blaming the young women for being ‘alluring’, so what else could these poor relaxed men do in the face of such temptation?
It seems interesting to me that this is so unshocking. And worse it is just what we think is ok
-
Rhiannon
I was describing the situation, not condoning it. This is the second time in this thread that you have jumped to incorrect conclusions because, seemingly, you have mistaken narrative for involvement.
If you thought that you were reading my thoughts or analysing my motives then you were wrong. I am disgusted and depressed by the events at the Dorchester Hotel and condemn the men who behaved so despicably.
-
Unless you were there, HH, and were involved, you are not describing what happened. You are explaining it according to your own beliefs.
Whether or not the women were young and alluring (really?) is irrelevant. As is whether this bunch of losers imagine themselves to be ‘alpha males’ or not.
I didn’t think for a moment you condone what happened. But your ‘explanation’ is unhelpful.
-
It seems interesting to me that this is so unshocking. And worse it is just what we think is ok
Can’t tell you how often these things happened to me when I was younger. Hand up skirt, grope in a bar, hand in underwear, hand down top... get a lift home, you’re asking for it. Walk home, you’re asking for it. Have a drink, you’re asking for it. Go to the park, you’re asking for it. Don’t report it, you were asking for it.
Reality for me as a young woman. I’m lucky there’s no lasting damage. Just sadness.
-
Unless you were there, HH, and were involved, you are not describing what happened. You are explaining it according to your own beliefs.
No. I am making a serious attempt to respond to Littleroses/Floo's statement about "mens clubs":
it is extraordinary that clubs with male members only are still functioning in the 21st century
contrasting The Presidents Club - as portrayed in the press - with a Probus Club of which I am a member. If you bothered to read for context you would have understood that. Instead you choose to select choice phrases and imbue with an importance that - in context - is not there. You then take that selected phrase, power it with indignation and use it as a weapon. However, you don't say why you are firing the weapon nor what your target is?
Whether or not the women were young and alluring (really?) is irrelevant. As is whether this bunch of losers imagine themselves to be ‘alpha males’ or not.
What is relevant, then? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
In a following post you relate experiences which were clearly painful - appending "you were asking for it".
Do you think that I used the word "allure" in a trivial way? Is that what brought this on?
The young women selected for this "event", first of all, had to be young, slim and tall. (Source - radio interview with a "hostess")
and then:
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring "BLACK sexy shoes", black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a "smart sexy place". Dresses and belts would be provided on the day.
-
And still you don’t get it.
-
Can’t tell you how often these things happened to me when I was younger. Hand up skirt, grope in a bar, hand in underwear, hand down top... get a lift home, you’re asking for it. Walk home, you’re asking for it. Have a drink, you’re asking for it. Go to the park, you’re asking for it. Don’t report it, you were asking for it.
Reality for me as a young woman. I’m lucky there’s no lasting damage. Just sadness.
Yep, I know of no woman where this is different. And this sort of shit makes it all so normal, which it always is.
-
And still you don’t get it.
"It" - in the context of this thread - could be any one of a DOZEN things. How can anyone "get" anything if you are not specific.
If I know what your specific concern is, then I can discuss it with you.
-
I see the President's Club is closing, good.
-
I see the President's Club is closing, good.
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
-
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
I don't get that either.
-
I see the President's Club is closing, good.
You'd actually heard of it?
-
You'd actually heard of it?
I listen to the news, I think it is important to keep up with what is happening in this country and the world.
-
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
Perhaps the Soroptimists will pick up the tab.
-
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
Indeed.
And I am sure that there will have been many people at the Presidents Club event who took no part in the abusive practices but who gave generously to the charitable causes. Are their donations tainted by association?
-
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.
What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.
-
TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.
What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.
That is of great concern. :o
-
TBH I would not want to go to such an event even if invited, since "sleaze" is not my cup of tea.
What concerns me more is the thought that a sick child has an operation postponed because of a returned donation.
I have no idea how healthy the finances are at GOSH but I doubt this scenario will happen. That said, I think returning the donations is unnecessary. It’s become clear that the event won’t happen again.
It shouldn’t be of *more* concern to you though. Right now my main thoughts are with the mental health of the young women who experienced unwanted touching and harassment. And I wonder what else these men have done to other women. This won’t be a one off for many of them.
The worst thing was the non disclosure agreement that the agency owner made the women sign. She knew she was throwing them to the wolves.
-
I'm struggling with why charities are now rushing to return the money. I mean I get that they don't want to be associated with, or seem to be condoning the behaviour - but given that charities get money from all sorts of unknown sources, some of which could be equally morally suspect, why not take the money and at least make some good out of the vile behaviour that has been reported.
No amount of donated money can ‘make some good’ of what happened. But I’m not sure what purpose is served by returning it. Who to?
-
No amount of donated money can ‘make some good’ of what happened. But I’m not sure what purpose is served by returning it. Who to?
I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.
-
Indeed.
And I am sure that there will have been many people at the Presidents Club event who took no part in the abusive practices but who gave generously to the charitable causes. Are their donations tainted by association?
I would think going to all male event with hired hostesses was in itself abusive. And the whole 'we didn't see anything bad happen' schtick that various parties have trotted out seems monumental self justification.
-
I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.
I think the issue is that ‘but it raised so much money for charity!’ will be used to both wave away the abuse and be used to justify similar behaviour in the future - this headlined because it’s the City and big names are involved, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this doesn’t happen at rugby clubs, working mans clubs etc etc, and slapping ‘it’s for sick kiddies’ on it is using the misfortune and suffering of others to attempt to legitimise abuse.
This is why the money has been returned. But I don’t know who else will take it and I can see it just sitting in an account somewhere.
-
I think you are being a tad pedantic here. Of course good can come of the money donated, which was my meaning.
I suspect the charities returning the money feel they have little choice. Arguably some of what happened was illegal so keeping the money would be problematic. That they may well receive money from other dubious people isn't going to protect their reputation in taking this money.
-
I suspect the charities returning the money feel they have little choice. Arguably some of what happened was illegal so keeping the money would be problematic. That they may well receive money from other dubious people isn't going to protect their reputation in taking this money.
Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html
or ensuring the money gets used for good?
I'm so glad they are all so principled.
-
Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html
or ensuring the money gets used for good?
I'm so glad they are all so principled.
‘Come and put your hand down an nineteen year old’s knickers for charity! She might not want you to but it’s ok because the money’s gone to help sick kids.’
Now do you get why they are principled?
-
‘Come and put your hand down an nineteen year old’s knickers for charity! She might not want you to but it’s ok because the money’s gone to help sick kids.’
Now do you get why they are principled?
Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?
Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?
-
My ex went to a mixed event rugby/business event that similarly had a charity auction which had the prizes given out by schoolgirls from Edinburgh Academy referred to as the Academicelles and dressed in school uniform. I got a phone call at one point requesting me to drive in and pick her up because it was all getting very sleazy. My ex was a strong woman but she felt threatened in the environment. And that would be just one of many such events held by 'respectable' society. You would have to have the intelligence of a piece of lint not to pick up on the issues about such events so maybe this will force people to realise the fact that they are complicit in sexual assault.
-
Maybe. I wonder which is the greater evil? Ensuring their reputation (one that is largely tarnished for many charities with the huge sums they pay their top brass) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11435754/32-charity-bosses-paid-over-200000-last-year.html
or ensuring the money gets used for good?
I'm so glad they are all so principled.
That underlines the problem. That charities have an issue with reputation is well known, accepting money from such a source isn't going to help.
-
Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?
Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?
I think the problem is that there isn't a way of accepting the money that doesn't in some way validate what happened, and continues to happen. I'm sure the charities that received money will continue to get money from similar events but in refusing it here they can at least be seen to be saying that they want/need for this approach to be stopped.
-
Stop it Rhi. You know damned well I get it. Stop attacking people who are on your side. I think the money can be put to good use don't you?
Or do you want it to go back to the rich sleaze bags that donated it?
I don’t have a ‘side’.
Money made from abuse... the more I think about it the more I think returning the money is right. Even if it ends back with the donors. My bet is there’s some kind of City trust that will take it.
-
I don’t have a ‘side’.
Money made from abuse... the more I think about it the more I think returning the money is right. Even if it ends back with the donors. My bet is there’s some kind of City trust that will take it.
I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.
-
I suspect some men thought they were doing women a favour by sexually harassing them, as they were attractive enough to come to the guy's attention! >:(
-
I wonder if there could be a sort of charity of last resort that gets donations that other charities return, a sin eater charity.
-
I wonder if there could be a sort of charity of last resort that gets donations that other charities return, a sin eater charity.
https://sineatersguild.co.uk/
-
https://sineatersguild.co.uk/
Not sure an 'I was groped by a drunk business man and all I got was this lousy T-shirt' would quite live up to the bill.
-
I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.
+1.
I do remember some years ago the English Womens FA refused a donation from porn baron David Sullivan. The irony is that his second in command, one Karren Brady, is now being touted as some kind of feminist role model, having made her money & reputation in the porn industry.
-
I'm afraid in this instance I think your posting style belies that claim. However, I do get the point about returning the money - but I still think it's money that could be put to good use, and that is surely better than letting those involved get it back. You obviously disagree, so maybe leave it at that.
Yeah, my posting style is angry right now. Not because I’m on any ‘side’. This isn’t a fucking game. It’s not a contest. I’m not seeing much on this thread that gives me a great deal of assurance that my daughters will be maturing into a different world, NS’s posts aside.
-
+1.
I do remember some years ago the English Womens FA refused a donation from porn baron David Sullivan. The irony is that his second in command, one Karren Brady, is now being touted as some kind of feminist role model, having made her money & reputation in the porn industry.
YUCK!
-
+1.
I do remember some years ago the English Womens FA refused a donation from porn baron David Sullivan. The irony is that his second in command, one Karren Brady, is now being touted as some kind of feminist role model, having made her money & reputation in the porn industry.
Not seeing the irony there.
-
Not seeing the irony there.
And Brady works in football, not porn.
-
Can’t tell you how often these things happened to me when I was younger. Hand up skirt, grope in a bar, hand in underwear, hand down top... get a lift home, you’re asking for it. Walk home, you’re asking for it. Have a drink, you’re asking for it. Go to the park, you’re asking for it. Don’t report it, you were asking for it.
That is quite chilling who is the 'asking for it'.
I've a 14 yo daughter I think she has been educated to make sure that these things are not ok, will make sure though. How would you approach it?
Reality for me as a young woman. I’m lucky there’s no lasting damage. Just sadness.
It is tragic.
-
And Brady works in football, not porn.
So what she does now has expunged her past?
-
I have no idea how healthy the finances are at GOSH but I doubt this scenario will happen.
https://www.ft.com/content/49af420c-00f6-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
-
So what she does now has expunged her past?
Karren Brady has not worked in porn. She did work for a couple of people who had financial interests in the porn industry. I can't work out why you latched on to that!
Here's an article and interview:
https://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/karren-brady-a-catholic-feminist-who-works-for-porn-barons-26849379.html
-
That is quite chilling who is the 'asking for it'.
I've a 14 yo daughter I think she has been educated to make sure that these things are not ok, will make sure though. How would you approach it?
It is tragic.
Thanks, Jak.
My daughters are around the same age as yours. I’ve always approached these things honestly and frankly. Stories like those in the press now and Me Too have given the opportunity for us to talk a lot about issues like harassment, consent, victim blaming etc. There’s a really good feminist website aimed at young women, will try to find it.
I have a son too and he gets included in some of our discussions although he’s younger, so it’s not all age appropriate for him yet.
ETA here’s a link.
http://ukfeminista.org.uk/about-us/
-
Karren Brady has not worked in porn. She did work for a couple of people who had financial interests in the porn industry. I can't work out why you latched on to that!
Here's an article and interview:
https://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/karren-brady-a-catholic-feminist-who-works-for-porn-barons-26849379.html
So surely that is still "tainted money"? The fact that Brady may not have been a model, or a photographer, does not mean that she has not worked in the porn industry.
-
So surely that is still "tainted money"? The fact that Brady may not have been a model, or a photographer, does not mean that she has not worked in the porn industry.
Still not getting what this has to do with men sexually assaulting women?
-
Nor me.
-
Thanks, Jak.
My daughters are around the same age as yours. I’ve always approached these things honestly and frankly. Stories like those in the press now and Me Too have given the opportunity for us to talk a lot about issues like harassment, consent, victim blaming etc. There’s a really good feminist website aimed at young women, will try to find it.
I have a son too and he gets included in some of our discussions although he’s younger, so it’s not all age appropriate for him yet.
Thanks, I'm travelling today but when I get home will speak to the daughter and wife about this, I'm sure we are on the same page but always pays to be certain.
I've a son of 22 never had any concerns in this regard but worthy of a conversation.
-
So surely that is still "tainted money"? The fact that Brady may not have been a model, or a photographer, does not mean that she has not worked in the porn industry.
I am at a loss to the point you are trying to make here. What has this to do with sexual assualt of women?
-
https://www.ft.com/content/49af420c-00f6-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
Behind pay wall
-
Thanks, I'm travelling today but when I get home will speak to the daughter and wife about this, I'm sure we are on the same page but always pays to be certain.
I've a son of 22 never had any concerns in this regard but worthy of a conversation.
:)
-
Thanks, Jak.
My daughters are around the same age as yours. I’ve always approached these things honestly and frankly. Stories like those in the press now and Me Too have given the opportunity for us to talk a lot about issues like harassment, consent, victim blaming etc. There’s a really good feminist website aimed at young women, will try to find it.
I have a son too and he gets included in some of our discussions although he’s younger, so it’s not all age appropriate for him yet.
ETA here’s a link.
http://ukfeminista.org.uk/about-us/
At what age do you think it is appropriate to have this discussion with your son?
-
At what age do you think it is appropriate to have this discussion with your son?
We do discuss things now - he’s 11 - but just avoid including him in some of the more adult discussion. That said, if he asks a question then I answer it. He knows about rape, consent etc. And by his age it’s essential to have talked about sexting and the possible consequences of sharing images.
It’s not just one discussion either. It’s an evolving conversation that can happen in response to the news, a song on the radio, a sports star getting arrested, something happening at school... I’ve found that making sex and issues around it a normal topic of conversation is better than the ‘we need to have a chat’ approach, which is a bit cringey.
ETA when it comes to issues like sexting, young men need protecting too. They are just as vulnerable to exploitation.
-
Yeah, my posting style is angry right now. Not because I’m on any ‘side’. This isn’t a fucking game. It’s not a contest. I’m not seeing much on this thread that gives me a great deal of assurance that my daughters will be maturing into a different world, NS’s posts aside.
Thanks for that vote of confidence. I merely posted about the money donated. That you feel I am in some way threatening the safety of your daughters by raising the issue of what happens to monies donated is sad. I do hope you see that that really is not the case.
-
So what do you people think the options are now...
1. These clubs/organisations will (should) stop advertising for such hostesses.
2. Women will (should) stop responding to such advts.
3. Even if the above two continue, men will (should) stop behaving the way they did.
Just as an aside...one of the states in India has made 'buying sex' a crime instead of the usual 'selling sex'. Do you think that makes sense?
-
Thanks for that vote of confidence. I merely posted about the money donated. That you feel I am in some way threatening the safety of your daughters by raising the issue of what happens to monies donated is sad. I do hope you see that that really is not the case.
Why make this personal? It’s not a problem of individuals, it’s society. If we *as a society* think that it is acceptable for a charity to take money that is tainted by the sexual harassment and assault of young women then *as a society* we have a big problem. Your view that the money should be put to good use isn’t uncommon - in fact I veered towards that earlier. But I’ve thought about it (largely as a result of this discussion) and now think differently. It’s better to draw a line, otherwise we are on thin ice when we say we want sexual assault and exploitation to end.
Incidentally, my daughter read the FT account earlier and wondered about drinks being roofied. Maybe, maybe not, but the description of the event leaves rape a possibility, with all its consequences. I can’t say with confidence that no young women will have lifelong consequences as a result of these events. How can any charity take such money?
-
Still not getting what this has to do with men sexually assaulting women?
The exploitation of women, by women is somehow better than the exploitation of women by men?
It is wrong to take money from the likes of Sullivan, but presumably it is ok to take money from the likes of Brady?
Better to return money from allegedly sleazy men, than to spend it on sick kids, 'cos it was allegedly made exploiting women?
If you answer yes to those, so be it, but please stop trying to imply that these valid questions are "whataboutery", or irrelevant.
-
So what do you people think the options are now...
1. These clubs/organisations will (should) stop advertising for such hostesses.
2. Women will (should) stop responding to such advts.
3. Even if the above two continue, men will (should) stop behaving the way they did.
Just as an aside...one of the states in India has made 'buying sex' a crime instead of the usual 'selling sex'. Do you think that makes sense?
1. They will not
2. They will not
3. They will not
Aside. No that is silly. To make it legal to sell something but illegal to buy it, is ridiculous.
-
The exploitation of women, by women is somehow better than the exploitation of women by men?
It is wrong to take money from the likes of Sullivan, but presumably it is ok to take money from the likes of Brady?
Better to return money from allegedly sleazy men, than to spend it on sick kids, 'cos it was allegedly made exploiting women?
If you answer yes to those, so be it, but please stop trying to imply that these valid questions are "whataboutery", or irrelevant.
The women at the event were not exploited, they were assaulted. As NS says, that is illegal. Consensually appearing in porn isn’t. We aren’t talking about returning money because women are exploited but because they were molested. Can you say for certain that worse didn’t happen.?
You are twisting a discussion about sexual assault into an attack on a woman who claims to be a feminist and, by extension, feminism itself. Why?
-
The exploitation of women, by women is somehow better than the exploitation of women by men?
It is wrong to take money from the likes of Sullivan, but presumably it is ok to take money from the likes of Brady?
Better to return money from allegedly sleazy men, than to spend it on sick kids, 'cos it was allegedly made exploiting women?
If you answer yes to those, so be it, but please stop trying to imply that these valid questions are "whataboutery", or irrelevant.
Woman do exploit men, but not as much as men exploit women as they have done throughout history. The Bible is full of tales of men treating women in an abominable way, including the god character who supposedly got the unmarried Mary, probably a young teenager, pregnant!
-
1. They will not
2. They will not
3. They will not
Aside. No that is silly. To make it legal to sell something but illegal to buy it, is ridiculous.
Nice. Is this what you tell your daughter to expect - harassment and assault because men just can’t help themselves?
-
The women at the event were not exploited, they were assaulted. As NS says, that is illegal. Consensually appearing in porn isn’t. We aren’t talking about returning money because women are exploited but because they were molested. Can you say for certain that worse didn’t happen.?
You are twisting a discussion about sexual assault into an attack on a woman who claims to be a feminist and, by extension, feminism itself. Why?
Then why has nobody complained to the police?
-
Nice. Is this what you tell your daughter to expect - harassment and assault because men just can’t help themselves?
I would advise my daughter
Don't apply for a job as a "hostess" at a hotel.
-
So what do you people think the options are now...
1. These clubs/organisations will (should) stop advertising for such hostesses.
2. Women will (should) stop responding to such advts.
3. Even if the above two continue, men will (should) stop behaving the way they did.
Just as an aside...one of the states in India has made 'buying sex' a crime instead of the usual 'selling sex'. Do you think that makes sense?
Sriram, a ‘hostess’ job usually just involves getting drinks, making sure people know where to sit etc. Usual requirements for women are a skirt and blouse, tights, and tidy hair. Generally clean and smart. This story is unusual.
Re paying for sex, don’t know much about the sex industry but I saw something where prostitutes said they fear it will drive the ‘good’ clients away and leave them vulnerable to the criminal type who will rape and assault them. I don’t think there’s an easy answer to protecting sex workers.
-
I would advise my daughter
Don't apply for a job as a "hostess" at a hotel.
You should advise your daughter to report any harassment, immediately.
-
I would advise my daughter
Don't apply for a job as a "hostess" at a hotel.
Right. So those girls were asking for it.
-
Right. So those girls were asking for it.
Once again, the complaints came from an undercover FT reporter. How do you know that these allegations are true?
You don't. It's not as if 150 hostesses at that function all complained, it was one undercover reporter.
-
Right. So those girls were asking for it.
Equally good advice would be "Only answer an advert for "dancers" if the same is in a trade publication, don't answer such an advert in the London Evening Standard".
-
Once again, the complaints came from an undercover FT reporter. How do you know that these allegations are true?
You don't. It's not as if 150 hostesses at that function all complained, it was one undercover reporter.
Seriously?
-
Equally good advice would be "Only answer an advert for "dancers" if the same is in a trade publication, don't answer such an advert in the London Evening Standard".
So do you think they were asking for it?
-
So do you think they were asking for it?
Do you think they did not know what to expect?
-
Do you think they did not know what to expect?
That’s a yes then.
-
Do you think they did not know what to expect?
So you are saying it is ok to sexually harass/abuse a woman in that situation?
-
So you are saying it is ok to sexually harass/abuse a woman in that situation?
A room full of drunk men, whether it be an upmarket hotel, or a downmarket pub, is not going to be full of politically correct conversation. If you want to blame anybody, blame the agency. Or can women not be blamed?
What I find interesting is that in any such environment, bouncers are on hand to sort out any inappropriate behaviour, including such events as the Sunday Sport Roadshow, and anybody who crosses the line is thrown out. Yet there has been no reports of any such action in this case.
-
A room full of drunk men, whether it be an upmarket hotel, or a downmarket pub, is not going to be full of politically correct conversation. If you want to blame anybody, blame the agency. Or can women not be blamed?
What I find interesting is that in any such environment, bouncers are on hand to sort out any inappropriate behaviour, including such events as the Sunday Sport Roadshow, and anybody who crosses the line is thrown out. Yet there has been no reports of any such action in this case.
So if you are drunk you are not at fault if you sexually harass/abuse a woman! GET REAL! >:(
-
A room full of drunk men, whether it be an upmarket hotel, or a downmarket pub, is not going to be full of politically correct conversation. If you want to blame anybody, blame the agency. Or can women not be blamed?
What I find interesting is that in any such environment, bouncers are on hand to sort out any inappropriate behaviour, including such events as the Sunday Sport Roadshow, and anybody who crosses the line is thrown out. Yet there has been no reports of any such action in this case.
OMG Humph, blame anyone except the men who grope, fondle, harass and assault. It’s despicable. How much do you hate women?
-
OMG Humph, blame anyone except the men who grope, fondle, harass and assault. It’s despicable.
I am not saying that. I am saying that in very much less salubrious establishments, men who grope, fondle, harass & assault the dancers/hostesses are thrown out, from what I can gather the dancers will usually thump the groper before the bouncer will. Yet apparently nobody was thrown out here, and there have been no allegations that anybody was asked to leave, or to behave himself.
Unless one believes that the entire thing was intended as a kind of rich men's harem, and if that was the case how comes nobody apart from an undercover FT journalist has complained?
-
I am not saying that. I am saying that in very much less salubrious establishments, men who grope, fondle, harass & assault the dancers/hostesses are thrown out, from what I can gather the dancers will usually thump the groper before the bouncer will. Yet apparently nobody was thrown out here, and there have been no allegations that anybody was asked to leave, or to behave himself.
Unless one believes that the entire thing was intended as a kind of rich men's harem, and if that was the case how comes nobody apart from an undercover FT journalist has complained?
And obviously Jimmy Savile was innocent by this logic? Plus a tawdry use of thr tu quoque fallacy, that this might happen elsewhere is irrelevant to it being acceptable.
-
And obviously Jimmy Savile was innocent by this logic? Plus a tawdry use of thr tu quoque fallacy, that this might happen elsewhere is irrelevant to it being acceptable.
As regard Jimmy Savile, complaints were made to the police.
-
A room full of drunk men, whether it be an upmarket hotel, or a downmarket pub, is not going to be full of politically correct conversation. If you want to blame anybody, blame the agency. Or can women not be blamed?
What I find interesting is that in any such environment, bouncers are on hand to sort out any inappropriate behaviour, including such events as the Sunday Sport Roadshow, and anybody who crosses the line is thrown out. Yet there has been no reports of any such action in this case.
You really want the blame sexually assaulted women line to be the one you take?
-
As regard Jimmy Savile, complaints were made to the police.
So nothing happened because no one has gone to the police? How quaint.
-
One of the things I struggle with here, is how much of a dick do you have to be to go along to a male only night with 'hostesses' and not think this is fucking weird and distasteful? What sort of wankstain doesn't go 'Mmm yes that would be strange and be advertising that I am a fucking perv'?
-
One of the things I struggle with here, is how much of a dick do you have to be to go along to an male only night with 'hostesses' and not think this is fucking weird and distasteful? What sort of wankstain doesn't go 'Mmm yes that would be strange and be advertising that I am a fucking perv'?
As I wrote several messages ago, I would not want to go along to such an evening since it smacks of sleaze. I would prefer somebody female to chat to me because she genuinely liked me a bit, rather than a hooker trying to "hit" on me, and YES that has happened at workplace Xmas bashes held in the West End, though second tier compared to The Dorchester).
I don't see anything inherently "pervy" in an all male evening out (one can think of the historic "Jolly Boys" outings of yesteryear, or of ex squaddies nights out getting drunk & singing regimental songs). But that ain't my cup of beer either.
-
So nothing happened because no one has gone to the police? How quaint.
So you have proof that something has happened because of an allegation?
-
So you have proof that something has happened because of an allegation?
That the allegation has been made is already evidence, not 'proof'. Are you saying the only assaults that 'actually' happen have gone through the courts?
-
So you have proof that something has happened because of an allegation?
Several allegations. Google it - lots of women speaking up.
-
As I wrote several messages ago, I would not want to go along to such an evening since it smacks of sleaze. I would prefer somebody female to chat to me because she genuinely liked me a bit, rather than a hooker trying to "hit" on me, and YES that has happened at workplace Xmas bashes held in the West End, though second tier compared to The Dorchester).
I don't see anything inherently "pervy" in an all male evening out (one can think of the historic "Jolly Boys" outings of yesteryear, or of ex squaddies nights out getting drunk & singing regimental songs). But that ain't my cup of beer either.
Didn't say there was something inherently pervy about evenings with blokes. But a male only dinner where you pay for a table and has hostesses is screaming 'perv who thinks women are chattels' in big multicoloured letters.
-
Several allegations. Google it - lots of women speaking up.
plus we have an all male evening with hostesses dressed specifically to demand and none of that is at question.
-
I’ve been to dozens of corporate/fundraising events over the years. Most have hosts/hostesses whose job it is to direct people to their table, get drinks, sell raffle tickets, collect question sheets (a lot have been quiz nights - David Mitchell is a fab quiz master) and generally smile a lot. The agency for this event also provided services to big corporations.
The women at this event knew barely 48 hrs before the event that there were ‘stipulations’; to pull out then might mean not getting more work. The non disclosure agreement and confiscation of phones wasn’t announced til they got there.
-
It's about level of consciousness, isn't it? If you are used to this kind of stuff, you wouldn't see it as wrong, (I'm talking about the men). Your sub-culture may well validate it in tiny ways, and there's no disruption to to it. Well, there is now!
-
It's about level of consciousness, isn't it? If you are used to this kind of stuff, you wouldn't see it as wrong, (I'm talking about the men). Your sub-culture may well validate it in tiny ways, and there's no disruption to to it. Well, there is now!
Wiggy
Do you seriously think that I have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you think that working class men have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you?
-
Wiggy
Do you seriously think that I have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you think that working class men have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you?
Is there a relevance to the idea that it's not just middle-class men who are pervs?
-
I’ve been to dozens of corporate/fundraising events over the years. Most have hosts/hostesses whose job it is to direct people to their table, get drinks, sell raffle tickets, collect question sheets (a lot have been quiz nights - David Mitchell is a fab quiz master) and generally smile a lot. The agency for this event also provided services to big corporations.
The women at this event knew barely 48 hrs before the event that there were ‘stipulations’; to pull out then might mean not getting more work. The non disclosure agreement and confiscation of phones wasn’t announced til they got there.
48 hours is adequate notice. You have obviously never worked in security, where you can be give minus two hours notice.
And YES women work in security too. And YES they are paid the same rate as are the men.
-
Is there a relevance to the idea that it's not just middle-class men who are pervs?
That is an obvious wind up, which I am going to ignore.
:)
-
48 hours is adequate notice. You have obviously never worked in security, where you can be give minus two hours notice.
And YES women work in security too. And YES they are paid the same rate as are the men.
Women hating, women blaming.
-
That is an obvious wind up, which I am going to ignore.
:)
No, it isn't a wind up. What relevance is there to saying that this might happen in a working men's club?
-
Women hating, women blaming.
And what is the relevance of that emotive comment?
-
Wiggy
Do you seriously think that I have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you think that working class men have ever been invited to such an event?
Do you?
To be fair I don’t think in your case it’s because you’ve been exposed to a culture where sexual harassment is normalised. I just think you dislike women.
-
48 hours is adequate notice. You have obviously never worked in security, where you can be give minus two hours notice.
And YES women work in security too. And YES they are paid the same rate as are the men.
So when you worked in security, they told you to wear which colour of underwear?
-
And what is the relevance of that emotive comment?
Because that’s what you are doing.
-
And what is the relevance of that emotive comment?
That you appear here to be happy with sexual assault. Because working class men do it too.
-
That you appear here to be happy with sexual assault. Because working class men do it too.
And he’s absolving men of all blame.
-
No, it isn't a wind up. What relevance is there to saying that this might happen in a working men's club?
If a stripdancer was groped in a working mens club, the groper would be thrown out & barred from the club.
So how comes the alleged gropers were not barred from the rich mens club?
-
If a stripdancer was groped in a working mens club, the groper would be thrown out & barred from the club.
So how comes the alleged gropers were not barred from the rich mens club?
So no one in a working men's club has been groped without action being taken?
-
So when you worked in security, they told you to wear which colour of underwear?
They told me that I could not wear a beard.
My face was on show. So I had to abide by their rules. Nightclub hostesses, who are I understand paid rather more than I was per hour, were given underwear as part of their uniform.
-
And he’s absolving men of all blame.
To be fair, I think he's saying that women are asking for it so while the men may be wrong, it's lessened by all the dressing up in specific underwear
-
I’ve been to dozens of corporate/fundraising events over the years. Most have hosts/hostesses whose job it is to direct people to their table, get drinks, sell raffle tickets, collect question sheets (a lot have been quiz nights - David Mitchell is a fab quiz master) and generally smile a lot. The agency for this event also provided services to big corporations.
The women at this event knew barely 48 hrs before the event that there were ‘stipulations’; to pull out then might mean not getting more work. The non disclosure agreement and confiscation of phones wasn’t announced til they got there.
Why the heck are women required in an all men's event to just smile, direct people to tables etc? Can't men smile and direct people to tables?
This fact itself is suggestive of women being considered as objects of beauty (in men's view), pleasant to be seen around. That is where it begins. The groping cannot be far behind!
And the fact that women are willing to submit themselves to such indignity, being well aware of such possibilities, is also interesting. Saying that its all for the money doesn't really help.
-
They told me that I could not wear a beard.
My face was on show. So I had to abide by their rules. Nightclub hostesses, who are I understand paid rather more than I was per hour, were given underwear as part of their uniform.
So people paid more than you at that time can be groped. What an IDD idea!
-
So no one in a working men's club has been groped without action being taken?
Usually the offender was asked to leave, and then invited to a disciplinary hearing.
Hey, you claim to be a working class Londoner, and you do not know how Working Mens Clubs operate?
-
Usually the offender was asked to leave, and then invited to a disciplinary hearing.
Hey, you claim to be a working class Londoner, and you do not know how Working Mens Clubs operate?
I have never claimed to be a working class Londoner. And I note you didn't answer the question.
-
Why the heck are women required in an all men's event to just smile, direct people to tables etc? Can't men smile and direct people to tables?
This fact itself is suggestive of women being considered as objects of beauty (in men's view), pleasant to be seen around. That is where it begins. The groping cannot be far behind!
And the fact that women are willing to submit themselves to such indignity, being well aware of such possibilities, is also interesting. Saying that its all for the money doesn't really help.
I posted to explain that hosting/hostessing is a legitimate way to earn a living and that women applying for this job wouldn’t have known in advance the nature of what would be required of them. By the time they got any idea it was too late to pull out without signalling to the agency that they could be ‘unreliable’. And in the UK at the moment needing money is s very likely explanation as to why the women took the chance that they’d be protected - after all we do have workplace harassment laws and they should have been safe.
-
They told me that I could not wear a beard.
My face was on show. So I had to abide by their rules. Nightclub hostesses, who are I understand paid rather more than I was per hour, were given underwear as part of their uniform.
Do you have even the faintest idea how utterly ridiculous this is?
Let’s think for a moment why women are told what colour underwear to wear. Oh yeah, because their uniform is so short that it will be on show. Is that normal in your line of work?
How much per hour do you think is reasonable for women who are being sexually assaulted?
-
Do you have even the faintest idea how utterly ridiculous this is?
Let’s think for a moment why women are told what colour underwear to wear. Oh yeah, because their uniform is so short that it will be on show. Is that normal in your line of work?
How much per hour do you think is reasonable for women who are being sexually assaulted?
Do you think that female dancers are expected to show their own underwear?
Of course not, what looks like their knickers is actually part of the costume. Ask Ruth Madoc.
-
Do you think that female dancers are expected to show their own underwear?
Of course not, what looks like their knickers is actually part of the costume. Ask Ruth Madoc.
Apart from showing you didn't watch the link, read what happened which made clear that the underwear was the women's you think knickers are a costume that wankers at a dinner decide? Fuck the fucking hell.
-
Apart from showing you didn't watch the link, read what happened which made clear that the underwear was the women's you think knickers are a costume that wankers at a dinner decide? Fuck the fucking hell.
I think that you need to calm down a bit.
Me old cock
-
That is what a self professed Cockney told me in the Public Bar of The Railway, Bromley, Kent in 1977.
-
I recall that, in 1979, outside The Railway pub, near Bromley North, I got between a male and a female, who were screaming at each other, I thought that she was at the risk of being assaulted.
She screamed at me "Fuck off out of here".
Your thoughts?
-
I think that you need to calm down a bit.
Me old cock
Calm? I am so fucking calm the the calmometer in Geneva uses me to set the International Calmoneter.
-
I recall that, in 1979, outside The Railway pub, near Bromley North, I got between a male and a female, who were screaming at each other, I thought that she was at the risk of being assaulted.
She screamed at me "Fuck off out of here".
Your thoughts?
That you have a problem talking about women
-
That you have a problem talking about women
I would have been prepared to protect her from assault.
But she told me to "Fuck Off" instead.
So females are not the helpless types that you, Rhia and Wiggy claim they are.
-
I would have been prepared to protect her from assault.
But she told me to "Fuck Off" instead.
So females are not the helpless types that you, Rhia and Wiggy claim they are.
And, FTR I am sure that Robbie knows the location of The Railway, near Bromley North
-
I would have been prepared to protect her from assault.
But she told me to "Fuck Off" instead.
So females are not the helpless types that you, Rhia and Wiggy claim they are.
Why are you lying? I, and I have seen no post from Rhiannon (BTW why shorten and indeed change hr board name to Rhea?), or wigginhall saying women are 'helpless types'?
-
And, FTR I am sure that Robbie knows the location of The Railway, near Bromley North
And that would be relevant in what way?
-
Why are you lying? I, and I have seen no post from Rhiannon (BTW why shorten and indeed change hr board name to Rhea?), or wigginhall saying women are 'helpless types'?
You know what I mean.
-
You know what I mean.
Nope, not a clue. Stop lying!
-
And that would be relevant in what way?
Robbie will know ;)
-
Struggling to see what relevance an argument between a man and women outside a pub in the outskirts of London has in relation to the wider issue of sexual abuse: I'd imagine a couple arguing outside a pub happens in places other than Bromley North (or indeed West, East or South).
Does Robbie have some unique information on this pub that makes it special in some way?
-
Robbie will know ;)
what can she know that makes your post relevant?
-
So females are not the helpless types that you, Rhia and Wiggy claim they are.
Don't you fucking dare suggest that I said that. You liar.
-
Newsthump on the issue - as is quite often the case, funny and on the money:
http://newsthump.com/2018/01/25/presidents-club-disbanded-after-behaviour-of-members-crosses-line-into-presidential/
-
Interesting article here on clothing, blame and self control.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2018/jan/25/how-provocative-clothes-affect-the-brain-and-why-its-no-excuse-for-assault
-
Do you have even the faintest idea how utterly ridiculous this is?
Let’s think for a moment why women are told what colour underwear to wear. Oh yeah, because their uniform is so short that it will be on show. Is that normal in your line of work?
Not necessarily. I remember being part of a discussion with female work friends about it being better to wear a black bra under a white shirt as a white bra can be seen more clearly under a white shirt than a black bra can. Same with a particular black evening dress - it doesn’t look see through but under lights any colour underwear other than black shows up through the dress, which doesn’t look elegant or professional. I wasn’t required to wear that particular black dress but the discussion was because we wanted to look out for each other and look competent/ not feel embarrassed about our underwear being visible through black dresses.
I don’t see a problem with hostesses being required to wear a black dress but I personally wouldn’t want to do a job that had looking attractive as a more important criteria than competence or intelligence. And looking attractive is not a green light for someone to touch you without your consent - unless it is just normal touching on the arm that women also do to men.
-
And, FTR I am sure that Robbie knows the location of The Railway, near Bromley North
I fail to see the relevance Humph. Yes there was a pub next to Bromley North Station called the Railway Signal. I guess we are both from Bromley and were teenagers in the 1970s but we don't know eachother as far as I know. You mentioned something once before like that, last year, and at the time I thought you were making some kind of joke that I didn't get. So please stop mentioning my name, will you. I don't go around saying, "I bet Humph would know that one". You are coming over as seriously weird atm but being as you were a kindly moderator here not long ago I can't believe you really are.
None of it has owt to do with the topic in hand.
This thread needs some proper reading before I comment any more, it has become somewhat tangled with cryptic remarks and misunderstandings, so I'll come back to it later or maybe not.
-
Interesting article here on clothing, blame and self control.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2018/jan/25/how-provocative-clothes-affect-the-brain-and-why-its-no-excuse-for-assault
Yes good article. I agree that men, if they choose to, can control themselves around attractive women, even where the woman wants to be a willing participant in a sexual encounter. The ones who choose not to control themselves, assuming there is no mental health issue, either have a serious sense of entitlement that needs to be neutralised or they are not concerned about potential consequences.
I agree with the part about alcohol as well. Getting drunk is a bad idea for men and women if you are no longer in control of yourself and alcohol overcomes your brain’s inhibitory control. No point choosing to get drunk and then later on regretting your responses while drunk. I’ve certainly had that experience even though I did not set out to get drunk but the alcohol affected me more than I expected (probably hadn’t eaten properly and i’m Petite) and once I was tipsy i wasn’t thinking clearly and decided to have another drink.
Eventually it just seemed a good idea to stop drinking alcohol altogether. I enjoyed driving more than drinking anyway.
-
Yes good article. I agree that men, if they choose to, can control themselves around attractive women, even where the woman wants to be a willing participant in a sexual encounter. The ones who choose not to control themselves, assuming there is no mental health issue, either have a serious sense of entitlement that needs to be neutralised or they are not concerned about potential consequences.
I agree with the part about alcohol as well. Getting drunk is a bad idea for men and women if you are no longer in control of yourself and alcohol overcomes your brain’s inhibitory control. No point choosing to get drunk and then later on regretting your responses while drunk. I’ve certainly had that experience even though I did not set out to get drunk but the alcohol affected me more than I expected (probably hadn’t eaten properly and i’m Petite) and once I was tipsy i wasn’t thinking clearly and decided to have another drink.
Eventually it just seemed a good idea to stop drinking alcohol altogether. I enjoyed driving more than drinking anyway.
I think people rarely chose to get drunk and few people who do understand the effect on their own behaviour. But I think most people understand that it has an effect that they do not control. Further while part of me wants to put all of this down to drink, I am not sure it makes sense to deal with it as 'drink makes you an eejit'.
-
I think people rarely chose to get drunk and few people who do understand the effect on their own behaviour. But I think most people understand that it has an effect that they do not control. Further while part of me wants to put all of this down to drink, I am not sure it makes sense to deal with it as 'drink makes you an eejit'.
No, too much planning. Although there was an element of trying to get the hostesses to drink which is unpleasant.
-
I think people rarely chose to get drunk and few people who do understand the effect on their own behaviour. But I think most people understand that it has an effect that they do not control.
I think it’s learned through experience that drinking alcohol can lead to making choices we would not have made when sober - such as men and women becoming amorous towards someone who does not welcome their interest or initiating or going along with a sexual encounter due to feeling less inhibited, or getting into a pointless argument or becoming physically aggressive or being reckless and climbing out onto a window ledge high off the ground
Once you have had any of these experiences people have to decide for themselves whether it’s better to avoid alcohol and not risk becoming out of control if they don’t want to risk repeating the bad experience.
Further while part of me wants to put all of this down to drink, I am not sure it makes sense to deal with it as 'drink makes you an eejit'.
Drink lowers inhibitions. Lowering inhibitions isn’t guaranteed to make you do something you will regret or that has bad consequences for yourself or someone else but it’s a definite possibility. The article mentioned being accountable for actions regardless of whether the person was drunk at the time as they made the choice to drink.
Regarding the President’s Club dinner, I am not sure where this leaves some of the women who worked as hostesses who were looking to make money from sexual encounters.
Regarding attractive hostesses in black dresses - we use them at certain charity events because they raise more funds by selling raffle tickets than unattractive people selling raffle tickets. But they look a lot more classy than the pictures I saw of the President’s Club hostesses. The article made the point that sexualised images of women and young looking girls are everywhere Which may give some men the impression that some women are iok being viewed as a sexual commodity. Not sure how you discover who those women are unless you proposition a woman dressed in a sexually appealing way and get their answer.
-
It is sad if men have to be encouraged to give their money to a good cause by ogling sexually attractive women who are encouraging them to do so. Surely they should be donating their money because it will benefit others.
-
I’ve been to numerous black tie charity things over the years, at places like the Grosvenor House and the Guildhall, and the hosting staff have always been an even mix of make and female, dressed in standard waiting stuff (white shirt/blouse, black trousers/skirt) and something like a red waistcoat or to make them distinguishable from everyone else, including those that are there to serve food. Generally youngish, attractive-ish, but what always stands out is their confidence and ability to chat and laugh with guests while selling raffle tickets etc.
I’d find arriving somewhere and noticing all female hosting deeply weird and slightly creepy.
-
It is sad if men have to be encouraged to give their money to a good cause by ogling sexually attractive women who are encouraging them to do so. Surely they should be donating their money because it will benefit others.
I’m not a man so don’t know how much ogling is going on. Also not sure what you define as ‘ogling’ as opposed to appreciating attractiveness and finding it induces you to feel happier about buying more raffle tickets. There are waiters and waitresses to serve the food or drinks, the main job of the hostesses is to fund raise. At my husband’s annual school Old Boys Charity ball the hostesses are asked to wear a black dress and given a sash to wear made up of the school colours and they wander round with their credit card machines and with raffle tickets for expensive prizes. There is no attempt by the guests to manhandle them as far as I know but it’s possible they have encountered unpleasant experiences with drunk men and handled it themselves and not complained. It’s certainly not our intention or expectation that the women are there to be assaulted or insulted and we expect everyone attending to show normal good manners.
We find holding the event at a more expensive hotel with attractive surroundings has the same effect of raising more money.
ETA: Ladies are welcome at these events and are very generous in their contributions to charity. It wouldn't surprise me if we would be more generous if a cute host was trying to sell us the idea of contributing more or buying more raffle tickets.
-
Like all narrow class and social movements the concern at sexual harrasment and pay equality it will peter out as soon as it has to confront the same goings on in lower class and social communities.
-
Like all narrow class and social movements the concern at sexual harrasment and pay equality it will peter out as soon as it has to confront the same goings on in lower class and social communities.
The Presidents Club is rich men exploiting poor women.
Are you saying that nobody cares if it’s poor men exploiting poor women?
-
The Presidents Club is rich men exploiting poor women.
Are you saying that nobody cares if it’s poor men exploiting poor women?
I think if women are being assaulted or some other crime has been committed this should be investigated by the police, which can only happen if women come forward to make a statement to the police. In the current climate they have a good chance of being believed and the allegations investigated.
Not sure about the rich men exploiting poor women generalisation. I think some poor/rich women exploit some poor/ rich men as well. Also if you are driving an expensive car or trying to go into an exclusive club or bar or spending a lot on alcohol, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, there is a good chance attempts will be made to exploit you if you seem approachable.
-
I think if women are being assaulted or some other crime has been committed this should be investigated by the police, which can only happen if women come forward to make a statement to the police. In the current climate they have a good chance of being believed and the allegations investigated.
Not sure about the rich men exploiting poor women generalisation. I think some poor/rich women exploit some poor/ rich men as well. Also if you are driving an expensive car or trying to go into an exclusive club or bar or spending a lot on alcohol, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, there is a good chance attempts will be made to exploit you if you seem approachable.
People exploit people, that’s a given. My response was to Vlad’s rather odd generalisation about class.
I think though that if you take hosting work it’s fair to say you don’t expect to be explored in the same way that you might if you took escort work instead. In fact with the latter it’s a two way thing - an escort knows what to expect and how to maximise what he or she gets from it. I wonder if having hostesses thrown into this furthers the power imbalance.
If I was reliant on agency work I’m not sure I’d go to the police but then maybe this particular agency won’t be around much longer - she must have breached employment law, surely. I believe so far one report has been made by a third party but the victim wouldn’t pursue it.
-
People exploit people, that’s a given. My response was to Vlad’s rather odd generalisation about class.
I think though that if you take hosting work it’s fair to say you don’t expect to be explored in the same way that you might if you took escort work instead. In fact with the latter it’s a two way thing - an escort knows what to expect and how to maximise what he or she gets from it. I wonder if having hostesses thrown into this furthers the power imbalance.
If I was reliant on agency work I’m not sure I’d go to the police but then maybe this particular agency won’t be around much longer - she must have breached employment law, surely. I believe so far one report has been made by a third party but the victim wouldn’t pursue it.
True enough. I read that there were hostesses who were working on the night who were prepared to offer escort services. If that's true, not sure how the guests were advised on how to tell who was a hostess who was prepared to offer additional services. Any ideas?
ETA: Also, given the statement that a government minister should not be going to an event where women are only there for entertainment, if you take it down a class level - what do we think about a head teacher or a company boss going to a hen night where men are there only for entertainment, and where men are manhandled? These events are a valuable source of income to put food on the table for their children for many men and women who work in the hosting / entertainment industry.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/what-is-the-presidents-club-what-happened-at-the-charity-dinner-who-are-the-key-guest-list-members-a3749206.html
-
If I was reliant on agency work I’m not sure I’d go to the police but then maybe this particular agency won’t be around much longer - she must have breached employment law, surely. I believe so far one report has been made by a third party but the victim wouldn’t pursue it.
One thing which concerns me about this case is that the young women were made to sign non-disclosure agreements which were - apparently - five pages long but were not given the opportunity to read them. Some of the women may well have intimidated by this and may even have believed that the agreements prevented them from making formal complaints about the treatment they received. The purpose of the agreement, apparently, is to protect the guilty.
Any form of assault is a criminal offence. The attempted enforcement of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent reporting such assaults should be regarded as a criminal act in itself - conspiring to obstruct the course of justice.
-
I’m not a man so don’t know how much ogling is going on. Also not sure what you define as ‘ogling’ as opposed to appreciating attractiveness and finding it induces you to feel happier about buying more raffle tickets. There are waiters and waitresses to serve the food or drinks, the main job of the hostesses is to fund raise. At my husband’s annual school Old Boys Charity ball the hostesses are asked to wear a black dress and given a sash to wear made up of the school colours and they wander round with their credit card machines and with raffle tickets for expensive prizes. There is no attempt by the guests to manhandle them as far as I know but it’s possible they have encountered unpleasant experiences with drunk men and handled it themselves and not complained. It’s certainly not our intention or expectation that the women are there to be assaulted or insulted and we expect everyone attending to show normal good manners.
We find holding the event at a more expensive hotel with attractive surroundings has the same effect of raising more money.
ETA: Ladies are welcome at these events and are very generous in their contributions to charity. It wouldn't surprise me if we would be more generous if a cute host was trying to sell us the idea of contributing more or buying more raffle tickets.
I would object to being told how to dress so that I would come over as attractive to the male of the species. I have always dressed to please myself.
-
One thing which concerns me about this case is that the young women were made to sign non-disclosure agreements which were - apparently - five pages long but were not given the opportunity to read them. Some of the women may well have intimidated by this and may even have believed that the agreements prevented them from making formal complaints about the treatment they received. The purpose of the agreement, apparently, is to protect the guilty.
Any form of assault is a criminal offence. The attempted enforcement of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent reporting such assaults should be regarded as a criminal act in itself - conspiring to obstruct the course of justice.
Agree with this. I’ve seen an interview with a young woman who believed that the agreement meant she couldn’t even tell her mum about what had happened. Her mum rang police and they said that they had no reports of anything illegal.
Interestingly in this interview the young woman said she went back this year after pressure to attend. This feels like grooming and normalising of harassment to me. I get that, each time leaves you just that little bit more resigned, that little bit more defeated.
-
True enough. I read that there were hostesses who were working on the night who were prepared to offer escort services. If that's true, not sure how the guests were advised on how to tell who was a hostess who was prepared to offer additional services. Any ideas?
ETA: Also, given the statement that a government minister should not be going to an event where women are only there for entertainment, if you take it down a class level - what do we think about a head teacher or a company boss going to a hen night where men are there only for entertainment, and where men are manhandled? These events are a valuable source of income to put food on the table for their children for many men and women who work in the hosting / entertainment industry.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/what-is-the-presidents-club-what-happened-at-the-charity-dinner-who-are-the-key-guest-list-members-a3749206.html
I’d rather stick pins in my eyes than go to a hen night so I’m not the best person to ask, but I think that strippers know what they are getting - a show like the Chippendales are strictly hands off, a strippergram will expect touching. I’ve heard some seriously sick stories about the latter but the ‘victim’ has generally been the person for whom the ‘act’ was a surprise booking.
Incidentally, I’ve never got what is ‘equal’ about women copying the worst of male behaviour, but what do I know.
-
, I’ve never got what is ‘equal’ about women copying the worst of male behaviour, but what do I know.
Agrre with this. It is strange now when I do venture into the city centre to see quite how widespread ladette culture has become, and sometimes how very vile it is.
Down more to changing social mores rather than anything to do with gende imo, depressing nonetheless.
-
Agrre with this. It is strange now when I do venture into the city centre to see quite how widespread ladette culture has become, and sometimes how very vile it is.
Down more to changing social mores rather than anything to do with gende imo, depressing nonetheless.
A case in point.
I cannot see the anti harassment movement tackling ladette behaviour or male behaviour described as abusive in it's main class and social group but which other communities might consider part of their ''culture''.
-
One thing which concerns me about this case is that the young women were made to sign non-disclosure agreements which were - apparently - five pages long but were not given the opportunity to read them. Some of the women may well have intimidated by this and may even have believed that the agreements prevented them from making formal complaints about the treatment they received. The purpose of the agreement, apparently, is to protect the guilty.
Any form of assault is a criminal offence. The attempted enforcement of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent reporting such assaults should be regarded as a criminal act in itself - conspiring to obstruct the course of justice.
My understanding is that these agreements are intended to stop people from going to the press with tales of "I saw Lord X dancing on the table singing "Agadoo".
It is sadly quite common practice for employees to be expected to sign agreements without reading them properly, likewise Hire Purchase Agreements.
-
I’d rather stick pins in my eyes than go to a hen night so I’m not the best person to ask, but I think that strippers know what they are getting - a show like the Chippendales are strictly hands off, a strippergram will expect touching. I’ve heard some seriously sick stories about the latter but the ‘victim’ has generally been the person for whom the ‘act’ was a surprise booking.
Incidentally, I’ve never got what is ‘equal’ about women copying the worst of male behaviour, but what do I know.
I've always ducked out of hen nights if invited, I didn't have one myself, and the only one I organised did not include anyone taking their clothes off....or drinking come to think of it...just food and lots of dancing at a club.
I agree about ladette behaviour being irritating - I guess some women want to dispel the stereotype of ladies being expected to be the gentler sex or having good manners and they want to project a different identity. A lot of these changes in society is about being free to assume an identity of your choice. (As an aside - the media give the impression that more people these days seem to frown on white people blacking up, which I don't understand - it's just assuming an identity - I thought Ali G was funny, my kids think Ali G is funny, but there you go.)
This situation of some hostesses working there being willing to provide additional services, make extra money etc while others were not - how will men know either way unless they ask?
ETA - I remember in my 2nd job, the head of the futures brokerage desk - I worked in his Middle Office - asking me if I wanted to go with him and the boys to Stringfellows after the Christmas party, which was at the Dorchester. I politely declined and drove home but a couple of ladies went. Not sure why they would want to go to Stringfellows but now I'm curious about how everyone behaved when they did go to that establishment - did the inebriated "boys" treat them like colleagues - lots of banter but nothing more - or did the inebriated "girls" end up sitting on their colleagues' laps and being groped in that atmosphere.
-
Once it is agreed that many women (and some men presumably) have to keep their personal morals and sense of disgust aside just so they can make some money and feed their families....then anything goes, I should think. Where does it stop? Its up to the individual concerned.
And many of the famous actresses who are now blaming their producers probably did just that at the beginning of their careers! Once they have made their millions they can afford to fish out their morals from the attic and get all indignant, I suppose.
-
Personally I think it would do Society a great service if men started a #MeToo about all the women who have used sexual power to manipulate and exploit them - I think both men and women should stop all this manipulation and exploitation in personal relationships- it’s challenging enough trying to navigate it in business encounters. They may use different methods and men might be cruder but the intent to control and manipulate a human encounter is similar.
If women can proposition men and some men and women welcome being propositioned I fail to see why some of the women at the President’s Club felt outraged at being propositioned. How is a man supposed to know if you are up for it unless he asks?
-
I understand where you are coming from, Gabriella, but isn't a major concern here the difference in power between senior City executives and students trying to supplement their loans and allawances?
-
My understanding is that these agreements are intended to stop people from going to the press with tales of "I saw Lord X dancing on the table singing "Agadoo".
Anybody else see the irony of Lord X asking someone to sign away their rights to provide Lords Y and Z copy for their papers to publish?
-
I understand where you are coming from, Gabriella, but isn't a major concern here the difference in power between senior City executives and students trying to supplement their loans and allawances?
Oh absolutely I agree society should express disapproval to stop abuse of power - the waitresses were told to let the agency person at the event know if any of the men tried to assault them and a minority of men obviously behaved badly towards women who were not interested in doing any more than doing a professional job and going home. I don’t think it did much good telling hostesses to report inappropriate behaviour as it seems some hostesses tried to handle any groping themselves rather than down tools and the non-disclosure agreement should have had next to the signature strip something to say sexual assault or harassment should be reported.
I am just not clear what happens in a situation where some women are prepared to offer additional services and are working alongside women who aren’t. How does a man know unless he asks, anymore than how does a woman know a man will buy her a drink or pay off part of her student loan unless she asks either for a drink or money or both? It seems some women were appalled that other women were allowing themselves to be groped.
I think the damage done by women to men in denying them relationships with their children and in false accusations of assault or rape is far worse than anything that happened at the President’s Club. Having worked and socialised with executives - the majority of them behaved perfectly reasonably and probably have better things to do than grooe women - it’s the minority that have made headlines and been sensationalised to paint a caricature IMO.
-
If women can proposition men and some men and women welcome being propositioned I fail to see why some of the women at the President’s Club felt outraged at being propositioned. How is a man supposed to know if you are up for it unless he asks?
Because they were there to work, not to be picked up. Different thing for women who are also guests such as you would usually find at a corporate event, as the playing field is somewhat level, but this one was men only and the young women on zero hours contracts with little protection should they decide to walk out. That some apparently didn't mind being picked up isn't relevant given that a willingness to go to hotel rooms wasn't in the job description. And according to reports the 'jobs' some were offered by the men picking them up were nannying (yeah, right) or paid mistress.
-
Whilst there is never any excuse for sexual abuse or harassment, some women put themselves in danger by wearing clothes, which give predatory males the 'come on'. :o
-
Whilst there is never any excuse for sexual abuse or harassment, some women put themselves in danger by wearing clothes, which give predatory males the 'come on'. :o
FFS.
-
Because they were there to work, not to be picked up. Different thing for women who are also guests such as you would usually find at a corporate event, as the playing field is somewhat level, but this one was men only and the young women on zero hours contracts with little protection should they decide to walk out. That some apparently didn't mind being picked up isn't relevant given that a willingness to go to hotel rooms wasn't in the job description. And according to reports the 'jobs' some were offered by the men picking them up were nannying (yeah, right) or paid mistress.
Some women don’t want it that clear cut - male or female admin staff hook up with people more senior, male and female interns hook up with permanent staff, male and female bar and waiting staff hook up with guests - the evidence doesn’t really support your ideal that we’re all just here to work and nothing more. The workplace is one of the key places to hook up.
I think the contract should make clear that sexual assault is a criminal act that should be reported and leave it up to men and women and the courts to figure out whether a criminal act took place. We can of course be appalled by sexist, boorish behaviour when we encounter it as much as we are by a minority of ladettes intimidating vulnerable men and women.
-
Whilst there is never any excuse for sexual abuse or harassment, some women put themselves in danger by wearing clothes, which give predatory males the 'come on'. :o
OH come on Floo - this is just nonsense.
AS a gay man I see loads of straight men leading me on dressing with well fitting clothes, exposing glimpses of their chest - I'm driven wild with desire and I can't stop myself your honour.
Do you know how seriously stupid your statement sounds?
-
Some women don’t want it that clear cut - male or female admin staff hook up with people more senior, male and female interns hook up with permanent staff, male and female bar and waiting staff hook up with guests - the evidence doesn’t really support your ideal that we’re all just here to work and nothing more. The workplace is one of the key places to hook up.
Yeah but this isn't 'the workplace', it's a cattle market of young women on zero hours contracts who think that they are there to do hostessing work, not act as escorts, and they were in a position of vulnerability.
The wider problem with saying that it's ok to hook up with people in the workplace is that not everyone wants that. And that makes people vulnerable; years ago a woman I knew who worked in a club was told by a customer (a well known England footballer) that he'd get her sacked if she didn't sleep with him. There's nothing wrong with making passes at people; the issue is when someone finds their career going down the toilet because they said 'no'.
-
OH come on Floo - this is just nonsense.
AS a gay man I see loads of straight men leading me on dressing with well fitting clothes, exposing glimpses of their chest - I'm driven wild with desire and I can't stop myself your honour.
Do you know how seriously stupid your statement sounds?
A man once said to me that 'only five percent of men would act on seeing a woman dressed a certain way but most would think about it, therefore women only have themselves to blame'.
The man was and is a prick but hey.
-
A man once said to me that 'only five percent of men would act on seeing a woman dressed a certain way but most would think about it, therefore women only have themselves to blame'.
The man was and is a prick but hey.
Well there is the old saying that when men aren't having sex they are thinking about having sex, I'm not sure how true that is, in my case it isn't; but whatever, it's not that hard to exert self control for goodness sake.
Oops just seen the possibility of some kind of ooh-er missus in that last sentence.
-
Well there is the old saying that when men aren't having sex they are thinking about having sex, I'm not sure how true that is, in my case it isn't; but whatever, it's not that hard to exert self control for goodness sake.
Oops just seen the possibility of some kind of ooh-er missus in that last sentence.
I posted this earlier - reposting it for Floo. We need to remember that she think Little Mix look like they ar eon teh game.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2018/jan/25/how-provocative-clothes-affect-the-brain-and-why-its-no-excuse-for-assault
-
Yeah but this isn't 'the workplace', it's a cattle market of young women on zero hours contracts who think that they are there to do hostessing work, not act as escorts, and they were in a position of vulnerability.
The wider problem with saying that it's ok to hook up with people in the workplace is that not everyone wants that. And that makes people vulnerable; years ago a woman I knew who worked in a club was told by a customer (a well known England footballer) that he'd get her sacked if she didn't sleep with him. There's nothing wrong with making passes at people; the issue is when someone finds their career going down the toilet because they said 'no'.
I’m happy to look at any evidence that any of the men at the President’s Club dinner threatened any of the hostesses with the sack if they rebuffed them. Otherwise this whole “vulnerable women on zero hours contracts” seems to be an unsupported assumption. All I’ve seen is women who don’t appear vulnerable being appalled by boorish, uncouth behaviour unless there is a court case and someone is convicted of a crime or found liable in a civil action. Telling the women that the non-disclosure agreement means they can’t report crimes or take civil action seems something the agency should be held liable for if the agency did do that.
Some young men and women like being part of the hook-up cattle market. Casual sex can lead to all kinds of future opportunities.
-
I’m happy to look at any evidence that any of the men at the President’s Club dinner threatened any of the hostesses with the sack if they rebuffed them. Otherwise this whole “vulnerable women on zero hours contracts” seems to be an unsupported assumption. All I’ve seen is women who don’t appear vulnerable being appalled by boorish, uncouth behaviour unless there is a court case and someone is convicted of a crime or found liable in a civil action.
Some young men and women like being part of the hook-up cattle market. Casual sex can lead to all kinds of future opportunities.
Which is fine if they are looking for escort work. Hosting isn't that.
As for the rest, how about the word of a vulnerable young women on a zero hours contract?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/27/other-city-events-tainted-by-presidents-club-style-harassment
-
Whilst there is never any excuse for sexual abuse or harassment, some women put themselves in danger by wearing clothes, which give predatory males the 'come on'. :o
You're a one person Taliban.
Personally, I like it when women dress in certain ways, but I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever in not sexually assaulting them. You'd be surprised at how easy it is for many men to find somebody attractive and yet not grope them or worse.
We could take your line, which leads to the burqa or we could try to fix the root of the problem which is some men.
-
OH come on Floo - this is just nonsense.
AS a gay man I see loads of straight men leading me on dressing with well fitting clothes, exposing glimpses of their chest - I'm driven wild with desire and I can't stop myself your honour.
Do you know how seriously stupid your statement sounds?
Floo said there is no excuse for sexual assault so it doesn’t read like she is trying to argue that men can’t help themselves.
-
Floo said there is no excuse for sexual assault so it doesn’t read like she is trying to argue that men can’t help themselves.
She is however putting forward a mitigating factor - simply not acceptable.
-
Floo said there is no excuse for sexual assault so it doesn’t read like she is trying to argue that men can’t help themselves.
No, she's blaming women for putting themselves 'in danger'.
-
You're a one person Taliban.
Personally, I like it when women dress in certain ways, but I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever in not sexually assaulting them. You'd be surprised at how easy it is for many men to find somebody attractive and yet not grope them or worse.
We could take your line, which leads to the burqa or we could try to fix the root of the problem which is some men.
i think what Floo meant, though i’m not sure, is that it’s like a woman wearing a hijab and going to a bar frequented by violent EDL or Britain First supporters - there is no excuse for her getting assaulted - it’s still a crime - and she put herself in danger even though she went to a public place where she was entitled to be present, dressing as she pleases.
-
No, she's blaming women for putting themselves 'in danger'.
No idea what you consider “blaming” women - seems a very subjective assessment. Senior judges have also pointed out that women don’t help themselves stay safe by getting drunk. I don’t consider that a problematic statement- I had to pick my daughter up from a party after midnight last night as her friend who she was supposed to come on the tube with was very drunk and wasn’t showing any signs of sobering up any time soon.
-
She is however putting forward a mitigating factor - simply not acceptable.
Which bit of her statement did you read as mitigating the sexual assault?
The issue of what women can do to try to help themselves stay safe seems entirely separate from the crime a man commits by assaulting them. Young men are subjected to more violent assaults than young women - my mother used to constantly worry about my brother coming home on the night bus from university in London and told him to stay the night with his friends and later to move into a shared flat with friends rather than live at home to try to make it safer for him.
-
No, she's blaming women for putting themselves 'in danger'.
As I said there is never any excuse for sexual abuse or harassment, but women are foolish if they deliberately wear sexually explicit clothes, which brings them to the attention of evil perverts. It is like dressing small children up in clothes, like 'I am sexy' T shirts, which will bring them to the attention of sick paedos.
-
No idea what you consider “blaming” women - seems a very subjective assessment. Senior judges have also pointed out that women don’t help themselves stay safe by getting drunk. I don’t consider that a problematic statement- I had to pick my daughter up from a party after midnight last night as her friend who she was supposed to come on the tube with was very drunk and wasn’t showing any signs of sobering up any time soon.
I remember being on a bus in Beckenham a few years ago, a group of young ladies got on the bus, they might have been eighteen, they might have been twenty one. Whilst they were not "legless" they had obviously drunk too much alcohol, as they walked through the bus, one said out loud "I never ever wear knickers".
No that was not an invitation to have sex, but it was a very foolish thing to say, and walking around inebriated is always a foolish thing to do.
Even if you are female.
-
It is idiotic to get drunk, whether you are male or female, especially if you don't know what you are doing and it puts you in danger.
-
i think what Floo meant, though i’m not sure, is that it’s like a woman wearing a hijab and going to a bar frequented by violent EDL or Britain First supporters - there is no excuse for her getting assaulted - it’s still a crime - and she put herself in danger even though she went to a public place where she was entitled to be present, dressing as she pleases.
Yes she is putting herself in danger, but the fix is not to blame her but to do something about the people who would endanger her for wearing a head scarf in a certain public place.
-
It is idiotic to get drunk, whether you are male or female, especially if you don't know what you are doing and it puts you in danger.
It's not a crime to be an idiot.
-
Which bit of her statement did you read as mitigating the sexual assault?
The bit where the dress can be taken as a come on. Can you define which clothes won't induce lecherous behaviour or rape or worse....because I can't. It is a complete and utter red herring
Women get attacked wearing short skirts, long skirts, joggers, trouser suits, hijabs, saris. You name the clothing item women get attacked dressed in them. For LR to cite this as some kind of 'encouragement' for men to behave badly lets them off the hook just a little bit and is insulting to that large majority of decent men out there who can think thats an attractive outfit without wanting to stick their tongue down the womans throat, or amy other part of his anatomy.
-
is insulting to that large majority of decent men out there who can think thats an attractive outfit without wanting to stick their tongue down the womans throat, or amy other part of his anatomy.
I'm not flexible enough to stick my tongue down other parts of my anatomy.
I'll get my coat.
-
I'm not flexible enough to stick my tongue down other parts of my anatomy.
I'll get my coat.
LOL theres always one..
-
Which is fine if they are looking for escort work. Hosting isn't that.
I don’t think the opportunities you can get from casual sex equate with escort work - it”s more of a grey area.
Hosting seems to be an opportunity for some individuals to make money by meeting wealthy guests and providing additional services after the main social event - in the hope of getting something in return. Absolutely it causes problems for hosts and hostesses who do not use the job as an opportunity for exchanging sexual favours leading to access to money or other opportunities. I would certainly be impressed if there was a cultural change requiring people to behave themselves and not seek out casual hook-ups with people supplying them with goods and services. or while working.
As for the rest, how about the word of a vulnerable young women on a zero hours contract?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/27/other-city-events-tainted-by-presidents-club-style-harassment
It sounds like you mean people on zero hours contracts are vulnerable to not getting more work, as opposed to women having any unique vulnerability?
I totally agree that the negative publicity around the President’s Club dinner is useful to reinforce the message that sexual assault or harassment towards hostesses is unacceptable but unless a crime is reported and investigated there is little evidence of an actual crime. The Guardian article points to the need for guests to be advised to behave properly, a clear sexual harassment policy for workers so they know who to report incidents to, the need for workers to be trained to escalate incidents to get the behaviour to stop and the need for other people present at a social function to be prepared to challenge boorish behaviour as socially unacceptable at the time, though the guests could also be vulnerable to negative financial repercussions from their fellow guests if they did challenge the behaviour.
-
The bit where the dress can be taken as a come on. Can you define which clothes won't induce lecherous behaviour or rape or worse....because I can't. It is a complete and utter red herring
Women get attacked wearing short skirts, long skirts, joggers, trouser suits, hijabs, saris. You name the clothing item women get attacked dressed in them. For LR to cite this as some kind of 'encouragement' for men to behave badly lets them off the hook just a little bit and is insulting to that large majority of decent men out there who can think thats an attractive outfit without wanting to stick their tongue down the womans throat, or amy other part of his anatomy.
Even if a dress is a “come on” and plenty of women do dress in order to signal a “come on” to encourage attention - I know i’ve done it - it doesn’t mean it’s a come on to encourage a crime to be committed against you. I’m not seeing the link between signalling a “come on” and it being a mitigating factor in a crime - who is.presenting it as a mitigating factor in a crime if they are also saying there is no excuse (mitigation) for the crime?
-
Even if a dress is a “come on” and plenty of women do dress in order to signal a “come on” to encourage attention - I know i’ve done it - it doesn’t mean it’s a come on to encourage a crime to be committed against you. I’m not seeing the link between signalling a “come on” and it being a mitigating factor in a crime - who is.presenting it as a mitigating factor in a crime if they are also saying there is no excuse (mitigation) for the crime?
I would agree it's not being presented as mitigation, that said I'm not seeing any point in Floo's post raising it.
-
Yes she is putting herself in danger, but the fix is not to blame her but to do something about the people who would endanger her for wearing a head scarf in a certain public place.
I don’t follow. What’s blame got to do with it? Are you saying your solution would be to advise her to continue dressing that way and going to those public places and keep reporting the crime every time she gets beaten up or harassed? And while she keeps being taken to hospital you would divert resources from other areas to launch an education campaign against committing crimes and allocate extra police resources to try and protect her? Because advising her to change her behaviour for her own safety would be blaming her for getting attacked?
-
I would agree it's not being presented as mitigation, that said I'm not seeing any point in Floo's post raising it.
I thought the point is to blame the victim. Why else mention clothing?
-
I thought the point is to blame the victim. Why else mention clothing?
Indeed. If it’s dangerous to dress a certain way, and not dangerous not to, then those that do are guilty of putting themselves in danger.
-
I thought the point is to blame the victim. Why else mention clothing?
Possibly, though I think that it might be possible to blame the victim in some way without necessarily it being seen as a request that the crime was mitigated. I can't seee why you would that but it might be a reading of post.
-
It's not a crime to be an idiot.
It is if you endanger others in the process.
-
It's staggering how many discussions of sexual abuse of women end up blaming them. There is often a token criticism of men, , then there is an irresistible tendency to shift blame to women, for their clothes, being drunk, being in the wrong place, not being assertive enough, and so on. I think in the old days you couldn't make a charge of rape unless you had fought back, so I suppose there is some progress.
-
Meanwhile in the world of darts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-42851554
-
It's staggering how many discussions of sexual abuse of women end up blaming them. There is often a token criticism of men, , then there is an irresistible tendency to shift blame to women, for their clothes, being drunk, being in the wrong place, not being assertive enough, and so on. I think in the old days you couldn't make a charge of rape unless you had fought back, so I suppose there is some progress.
I think it's possible to think that actions taken were foolish and still fully condemn anyone carrying out sexual harassment or assault. I do struggle with why it's even mentioned in the context though and I think that it's easy to be seen as backing up with statements such as 'she was asking for it'.
-
It is if you endanger others in the process.
In the context of women being sexually assaulted, what point are you trying to make?
-
Well, I am now extremely wary of people commenting on a woman being drunk, or wearing revealing clothes, or being in the wrong place, as there is often a hint of fault-finding, and backtracking on the man's fault.
-
I think it's possible yo think that actions taken were foolish and still fully condemn anyone carrying out sexual harassment or assault. I do struggle with why it's even mentioned in the context though and I think that it's easy to be seen as backing up with statements such as 'she was asking for it'.
No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.
It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?
-
Well, I am now extremely wary of people commenting on a woman being drunk, or wearing revealing clothes, or being in the wrong place, as there is often a hint of fault-finding, and backtracking on the man's fault.
Yes, I would agree, but I think that it's often phrased and said without it being meant to link to that. Floo emphasised that she didn't see this as a mitigation for a he crime, which is why I am interested in what point she was aiming for.
-
No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.
It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?
That's a good point, and I haven't thought of it that way, I mean, the idea that women have to modify their behaviour all the time. I think this is so soaked into our culture, that it's hard to spot. It's not so much that women are extra-vulnerable, as that they are wrong just in being attacked.
I mentioned this to my wife, and she said that women have to take responsibility for being attacked, which is a paraphrase really.
-
No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.
It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?
It might well be seen as something 'different' but that doesn't mean the person seeing it that way sees it in any way as mitigation.
I had a friend staying a littlecwhike ago and they went out for a gun. We both stressed to him that there was a good run but at one point he should make sure to turn right rather than left. Had he taken the 'wrong' turning, anything that happened would still be the full responsibility of whoever committed the crime, but it would still have prompted me to ask why he was being foolish.
-
That's a good point, and I haven't thought of it that way, I mean, the idea that women have to modify their behaviour all the time. I think this is so soaked into our culture, that it's hard to spot. It's not so much that women are extra-vulnerable, as that they are wrong just in being attacked.
Hasn't some of this idea come from the other general presumption that we have covered here that males are all potential rapists?
-
Hasn't some of this idea come from the other general presumption that we have covered here that males are all potential rapists?
Well, yes, but Rhiannon's insight seems to me to be that women are responsible for being attacked, or if you like (my wife is bellowing this out in the kitchen), women have to be responsible for the behaviour of the other. I also think this is deeply unconscious in our culture, and is being dragged to the surface with great difficulty.
-
Well, yes, but Rhiannon's insight seems to me to be that women are responsible for being attacked, or if you like (my wife is bellowing this out in the kitchen), women have to be responsible for the behaviour of the other. I also think this is deeply unconscious in our culture, and is being dragged to the surface with great difficulty.
I think we can have a discussion where 'women don't have to be responsible for the other', and to be fair to Floo she certainly seemed to try to avoid that. Now I think that the expression of it at all makes no point unless someone wants to read it in the 'asking for it' sense.
-
I think we can have a discussion where 'women don't have to be responsible for the other', and to be fair to Floo she certainly seemed to try to avoid that. Now I think that the expression of it at all makes no point unless someone wants to read it in the 'asking for it' sense.
What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’
-
What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’
Yes, the but word is a problem.
"I'm totally for science but..."
"I'm not racist but..."
"I don't think women should be raped but..."
The but word almost invariably signals an attempt to back track on what you have just said.
I don't think Floo advocates victim blaming but she sure seems to use the but word a lot.
-
What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’
I think it's hard to hang an interpretation of someone saying there is no excuse as being not doing that on the word 'but'. Again I think that Floo's comment appears to have no point other than working as a sort of fig leaf for those who really do think that it is somehow relevant. I think it's badly thought and phrased in terms of avoiding that.
-
I think it's hard to hang an interpretation of someone saying there is no excuse as being not doing that on the word 'but'. Again I think that Floo's comment appears to have no point other than working as a sort of fig leaf for those who really do think that it is somehow relevant. I think it's badly thought and phrased in terms of avoiding that.
I agree with Jeremy - ‘but’ tends to negate what comes before it. Otherwise why not just say ‘there’s no excuse for sexual assault’ and leave it there?
-
There is no excuse for sexual assault as I have said on numerous occasions. ::)
-
I agree with Jeremy - ‘but’ tends to negate what comes before it. Otherwise why not just say ‘there’s no excuse for sexual assault’ and leave it there?
Which I have been saying for some time on here, I'm just not convinced that Floo meant it as any form of mitigation, and that once that is removed I can't see any point to the post.
-
There is no excuse for sexual assault as I have said on numerous occasions. ::)
The question though is what other point you were making in mentioning how assaulted women might be dressed.
-
The question though is what other point you were making in mentioning how assaulted women might be dressed.
My point is if a woman is wearing very sexually explicit clothes, which don't leave anything to the imagination, she is likely to attract the attention of perverts, not that it is any excuse for them to attack her. I don't see that making that point is a bad thing.
-
Well it still sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.
Still perhaps she can pull together a handy guide for women on how to dress to avoid unwanted attention.
-
Well it still sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.
Still perhaps she can pull together a handy guide for women on how to dress to avoid unwanted attention.
Whatever! ::)
-
I thought the point is to blame the victim. Why else mention clothing?
Well I’d say apart from the point that dressing a certain way is one way of drawing attention to yourself, which could bring you to the attention of a predator who may target you and commit a crime against you if they find the opportunity to get you by yourself, and it’s easier for them if you also happen to be drunk, your dress and level of sobriety could make you more vulnerable if you can’t fight or escape. I generally find I can run away from danger faster sober, in jeans and trainers than a dress and heels. That goes for men too - I would advise them to not draw attention to themselves and to wear trousers and flat shoes over a dress and heels.
What they are wearing is still not a mitigating factor to be used by a criminal.
-
Whatever! ::)
Ah - incisive as ever.
Just let the female of the species know the best way to dress to avoid bothersome males. You must know because you've already given advice on the subject.
-
Well it still sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.
Still perhaps she can pull together a handy guide for women on how to dress to avoid unwanted attention.
I would object to being told how to dress so that I would come over as attractive to the male of the species. I have always dressed to please myself.
So surely the answer is to dress like Floo? :-X
-
That goes for men too - I would advise them to not draw attention to themselves and to wear trousers and flat shoes over a dress and heels.
There goes my fun nights out. >:(
-
My point is if a woman is wearing very sexually explicit clothes, which don't leave anything to the imagination, she is likely to attract the attention of perverts, not that it is any excuse for them to attack her. I don't see that making that point is a bad thing.
Define what you regard as ‘very sexually explicit clothes’.
-
No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.
It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?
Is that because a woman being raped is worse than a woman being beaten up? Or is that because people assume a men has a better chance of defending himself or less chance of being targeted by a predator because a woman is considered an easier prey?
-
Hasn't some of this idea come from the other general presumption that we have covered here that males are all potential rapists?
i don’t think all EDL supporters are potentially violent people but I still wouldn’t walk into a bar frequented by EDL supporters while wearing hijab as the violent one is unlikely to be wearing a sign to let me know he’s violent.
-
i don’t think all EDL supporters are potentially violent people
I don't share your optimism.
Leaving aside that surely all people are potentially violent?
-
My point is if a woman is wearing very sexually explicit clothes, which don't leave anything to the imagination, she is likely to attract the attention of perverts, not that it is any excuse for them to attack her. I don't see that making that point is a bad thing.
If we are still talking about the Presidents Club event, we should remember that all the young women were required to dress themselves in was black underwear and sexy" shoes.
The agency provided the dresses ... and belts.
-
Is that because a woman being raped is worse than a woman being beaten up? Or is that because people assume a men has a better chance of defending himself or less chance of being targeted by a predator because a woman is considered an easier prey?
Round of applause.
Puts "Feminism" where it belongs-into a small discussion room on a Friday Evening.
-
Round of applause.
Puts "Feminism" where it belongs-into a small discussion room on a Friday Evening.
How does it do that exactly?
-
Is that because a woman being raped is worse than a woman being beaten up? Or is that because people assume a men has a better chance of defending himself or less chance of being targeted by a predator because a woman is considered an easier prey?
I have no idea - you’d need to ask people who feel that way. As an aside, I used the term ‘assault’ here to cover everything from a slap in the face to sexual assault and rape, for both genders.
As a mother I’m as fearful for my son as for my girls.
-
My point is if a woman is wearing very sexually explicit clothes, which don't leave anything to the imagination, she is likely to attract the attention of perverts, not that it is any excuse for them to attack her. I don't see that making that point is a bad thing.
I just don't see the relevance. If how a woman is dressed is irrelevant to an assault, then why raise the 'point'.
-
Round of applause.
Puts "Feminism" where it belongs-into a small discussion room on a Friday Evening.
Not sure it does anything of the sort, even if that would make you happy.
-
I don't share your optimism.
Leaving aside that surely all people are potentially violent?
Yes but I was thinking there was a greater chance of me encountering violence if I walked into a bar full of EDL supporters wearing a hijab than if I walked in without the hijab. In that environment the hijab would draw attention to me and make me more of a target. The hijab would not be a mitigating factor if one of them were to assault me and neither would it be victim-blaming IMO to advise me that it would be more sensible to not walk into that bar wearing a hijab.
-
Yes but I was thinking there was a greater chance of me encountering violence if I walked into a bar full of EDL supporters wearing a hijab than if I walked in without the hijab. In that environment the hijab would draw attention to me and make me more of a target. The hijab would not be a mitigating factor if one of them were to assault me and neither would it be victim-blaming IMO to advise me that it would be more sensible to not walk into that bar wearing a hijab.
I'm not sure the analogy works unless you do want to go down the line that all men at various social events are see sexual assault in the same way as an EDL pub group might think of Muslims wearing a hijab.
I wouldn't advise someone wearing an opposite Old Firm T-shirt in various pubs in Glasgow but I don't see that is the equivalent of what seems to apply here that women shouldn't wear certain clothes in general social situations.
-
I have no idea - you’d need to ask people who feel that way. As an aside, I used the term ‘assault’ here to cover everything from a slap in the face to sexual assault and rape, for both genders.
As a mother I’m as fearful for my son as for my girls.
If I heard a woman had been beaten up I react the same way as if I heard a man had been beaten up. I would take more precautions to try and protect myself from the risk of being raped than I would take if I thought I might just get beaten up. I’ve had someone threaten to hit me with a cosh in front of a crowd and in the heat of the moment I pointed to my chin and told him to take his best shot. If someone threatened to rape me I would never tell them to take their best shot at raping me.
If women are advised to modify their behaviour it is because the media portray women as more devastated by rape compared to the way they portray men or women who have been beaten up. The worse the potential outcome, the more safeguards people take against that outcome.
On top of that the women who are attacked are attacked by men who are bigger and stronger than them. My 6 foot female friend was not beaten up by any of her boy friends who were shorter than her but she was beaten up by a boyfriend who was bigger and stronger than her. A predator is more likely to go after a weaker prey and is statistically more likely to come across a smaller, weaker woman before they come across s smaller, weaker man. Plus there are less men who want to have sex with men rather than women so there is less likelihood of a predator man wanting to have sex with male prey rather than female prey. Once you know the stats about sexual attacks on women you tend to modify your behaviour accordingly to avoid becoming another statistic.
Finally, men have to modify their behaviour too based on stats. Any guy who hates fighting and has an idea of the statistical likelihood of getting into a fight will modify his behaviour. When I was younger I was aware that there were certain areas of London you just could not go to if you were male and of a particular colour due to skinhead gangs roaming around. If you were a girl you might get jeers or someone spitting towards you but if you were a boy you were actively disrespecting them by being in
their territory and you would probably get your head kicked in. And absolutely Asian boys would be advised to not walk around those areas and if they did go in those areas and were beaten up their family would be saying why did you not take a different route or stay somewhere safe or get a lift rather than walking.
-
I'm not sure the analogy works unless you do want to go down the line that all men at various social events are see sexual assault in the same way as an EDL pub group might think of Muslims wearing a hijab.
I wouldn't advise someone wearing an opposite Old Firm T-shirt in various pubs in Glasgow but I don't see that is the equivalent of what seems to apply here that women shouldn't wear certain clothes in general social situations.
I don’t know if that was the point Floo was making. Women should be safe if they can protect themselves or if other people will step in to protect them regardless of what they are wearing. My advice to my kids is that opportunity more than clothes is what could make the difference between becoming a victim and not and you can’t control all possible opportunities. So even if you were wearing something that really draws attention to yourself you are far less likely to get hurt if you are surrounded by bodyguards as a predator won’t have the opportunity to prey on you. But if you’re alone regardless of what you are wearing a predator has more opportunities to prey on you, if you are unlucky enough to cross the path of a predator. I really don’t see that advice to be aware of your surroundings and aware of potentially risky decisions as victim-blaming.
-
I don’t know if that was the point Floo was making. Women should be safe if they can protect themselves or if other people will step in to protect them regardless of what they are wearing. My advice to my kids is that opportunity more than clothes is what could make the difference between becoming a victim and not and you can’t control all possible opportunities. So even if you were wearing something that really draws attention to yourself you are far less likely to get hurt if you are surrounded by bodyguards as a predator won’t have the opportunity to prey on you. But if you’re alone regardless of what you are wearing a predator has more opportunities to prey on you, if you are unlucky enough to cross the path of a predator. I really don’t see that advice to be aware of your surroundings and aware of potentially risky decisions as victim-blaming.
Which relates back to me not understanding the point Floo is trying to make.
-
Which relates back to me not understanding the point Floo is trying to make.
I think her point was that wearing certain clothes draws more attention to you than to people wearing less attention-grabbing clothes, and amongst all the attention you are attracting you might have caught the attention of a predator. Which still would not matter if the predator does not get an opportunity to get to you.
-
I think her point was that wearing certain clothes draws more attention to you than to people wearing less attention-grabbing clothes, and amongst all the attention you are attracting you might have caught the attention of a predator. Which still would not matter if the predator does not get an opportunity to get to you.
Which has already been covered in that if this is an attack from some predator whatever might attract them in this sense could be anything. I still don't see any relevant point to what is worn on this context, especially given Floo's phrasing.
-
Which has already been covered in that if this is an attack from some predator whatever might attract them in this sense could be anything. I still don't see any relevant point to what is worn on this context, especially given Floo's phrasing.
I'm not sure Floo's point was just based on attacks - Floo said sexual assault or harassment. As harassment is very subjective - if you don't mind the comments you don't feel harassed - base don my experience if I wear a sexy black dress I get far more notice, attention and comments than when I am in jeans and a shirt or in a dress that is not sexy.
For the dress to be considered sexy it needs to be revealing, so when I wore a long black clingy dress with a slit up to half way up my thigh and heels that elongated my legs and the top part of the dress was strappy and moderately low cut I had a guy who has seen me in jeans on many occasions and acted like he did not see me in a sexual way, telling me how he would like to lick champagne off part of my anatomy, even though he knew I was going out with the person who went on to become my husband and who was his friend. He apologised to me the next day and said he had been drinking and would never have said it if he had been sober, which was what I figured at the time so I hadn't taken offence.
If I want attention - black, clingy, revealing dresses and heels work.
I think the way I would reason it is if predators are men, and men are more attracted to black, clingy, revealing - then it seems likely that that choice of clothing will attract more attention from predators.
it doesn't mean that not dressing that way will guarantee safety for the reasons already stated, but the more you get noticed the more someone may perceive you as a target, and the way you dress is just one way of getting noticed.
-
Just to add that in date rape cases third parties who were not present at the time of the alleged rape have to be convinced that the accused knew that the alleged victim did not consent to sex. In order to build a case about what the accused should have known or not know, you have to explore what was going through the minds of both parties prior to the alleged rape - in which case you have to look at cues such as what dd they see, hear say, touch, feel prior to the alleged attack. Which is why clothing and behaviour is examined - because clothing and behaviour can provide information about what a person was thinking or what perceptions they could create in the mind of another person.