Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[Aruntraveller]

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'. 

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?

[Rhiannon]

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'.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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

[jeremyp]

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'. 

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[floo]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm not flexible enough to stick my tongue down other parts of my anatomy.


I'll get my coat.

LOL theres always one.. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.