Jump to content

Feminist protesters vs new Playboy club

Recommended Posts

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sexual person NOT object

 

So unattractive people are not sexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A feminist is anyone who wants equal rights for women - in which case i'd hope that most people are

 

Yes, we want a club with gorgeous hunks of men pole dancing, walking around in next to nothing and performing lap dances. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keh? What are you on about? :confused:

 

I can see you're struggling. I'll leave you to ponder a little longer.:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see you're struggling. I'll leave you to ponder a little longer.:hihi:

 

It reads like you're saying that if you are slim and attractive, you can only possibly be seen as a sexual object. Surely that's not what your saying???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we want a club with gorgeous hunks of men pole dancing, walking around in next to nothing and performing lap dances.

 

Then apply for a licence, get some men, and open one. Women have the same rights as the men you know (equality for all, and all that;)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It reads like you're saying that if you are slim and attractive, you can only possibly be seen as a sexual object. Surely that's not what your saying???

 

In the case put forward by your inference (job description) yes. Otherwise why not inc any woman? By splitting the criteria (ugly/pretty) you objectify. If you didn't objectify the criteria would be woman or man only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would pay an ugly hairy woman to dance for them?

 

I wouldnt, and would definatley have a wobbly at the management for employing her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then apply for a licence, get some men, and open one. Women have the same rights as the men you know (equality for all, and all that;)).

 

Nah, can't be doing with the hairy ugly women protesters ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case put forward by your inference (job description) yes. Otherwise why not inc any woman? By splitting the criteria (ugly/pretty) you objectify. If you didn't objectify the criteria would be woman or man only.

 

No, what I was saying is that if you don't fit the job description, then it's highly unlikely you will get the job isn't it.

I don't fit the job description for heart surgeon but i'd love to crack at it. Is it unfair that I wouldn't get the job or is it just common sense?

Edited by BettyBooHoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, can't be doing with the hairy ugly women protesters ;)

 

Surely it would be the mens turn to protest, not the womens?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it would be the mens turn to protest, not the womens?:D

 

Can't see it somehow, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.