The Shooters photo wall...

Jim Jones said :

Pommy bastard said :

But I condemned no-one.

For those who’ve missed it, let’s have some highlights of PB’s posts on this issue:

Having been exposed as a liar, Jim, and instead of answering my direct questions to him above, decides to highlight again his lack of integrity by taking quotes out of context.

Pommy bastard said :

If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.

If you go to a party dressed as a policeman, people may think you are a policeman.
If you go out dressed like a nurse people may believe you are a nurse.

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

And this is derogatory, how exactly?

—–

And the difference between this and dressing up like a trollop and parading yourself in a public place, is…what exactly….

A quote rendered meaningless, as he didn’t include WHAT I was asking it was different too.

—–

If these scantily clad women object to this, and so far we do not seem to have any objection from them themselves, then why did they pose (as we can see the photos displayed are all posed) for the photos in the first place?

Yes, your point is what Jim, please point out the derogation in this quote?

Where is the derogatory statement?

—–

Or should I just take it you post unwarranted slurs as you are incapable of honest and logical debate?

Well, now, as we can see, not only are you a cowardly liar, you cannot even formulate a decent response even by taking quotes out of context.

A lair and a fraud Jim. Your mother must be so pleased with you.

sepi said :

Any use of the term slut is crude and inappropriate.

Any use?

This thread is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. It started out like high school debating and is now turning into 1984.

As you were…

Any use of the term slut is crude and inappropriate.

Especially when used about girls in parkas etc.

And your last para makes no sense at all.

What part don’t you understand, I’m not saying feminism isn’t concerned with “keeping women safe”, what I am saying is that maybe we shouldn’t be looking at the above comments with the feministic view of “Women should be able to wear what they want and not be judged” and accept the fact that they are in fact judged, and sometimes targeted for it.

I’m also not saying that women should be covered up, what I am saying is dressing in a sexually suggestive manner can have negative impacts, especially in a time where drink spiking and sexual assaults on young women is increasing. I can’t understand why you are arguing this? Are you that naive to not be able to see a possible link?

With regards to “my comments” in this post, where I may have made reference to the terms, I haven’t used those terms in a crude or inappropriate manner, so I think maybe you should go back and take a look at what I have said rather than make assumptions.

And finally I have not continually stated that “Dressing like” doesn’t equal “Is”, what I have continually tried to state is that it appears that PB was suggesting that people are “Dressing Like” prostitutes, not that they “are” prostitutes. The concept is pretty clear.

There is enough wrong with your post that I wonder why I’m bothering, but anyway:

– Feminism is quite concerned with keeping women safe from attack.

– Are you saying women should be covered up at all times – should we make laws about this?

– If you understand the concerns of others about your own crude and inappropriate language, why keep on using those terms.

– You have continually stated above that “dressing like” doesn’t equal “is”, but now you state that to some people it does?

If I were in your position I would take less notice of what people are wearing, and more notice of my own harsh comments.

Jim Jones, from your last submission it is apparent that you are only concerned with arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let’s go through it, without emotion:

Fashion these days is very sexually suggestive, call it what you want, but that’s exactly how it is. In the past only sex workers would publicly wear this type of clothing to insight sexual desire and to advertise their occupation to potential punters, but these days when you have big name stars like Brtiney, Paris and Lindsay marketing themselves as “slutty party girls” you have to expect that impressionable people will follow.

Given that you are a father to a daughter, I can understand that you have some concerns over the language used to describe women wearing sexually suggestive clothing, however,
if I was in your position I would look at the harsh comments on here and take more notice of what my daughter is wearing. Attacking someone who has made a tongue-in-cheek reference does not change the fact that there are terrible people out there with worse opinions of women who can’t understand that dressing like a prostitute doesn’t make someone a whore.

This debate shouldn’t be about feminism, this debate should be about keeping women safe from attack. The main perpetrators of sexual assault in this country are males between 15 and 19 years of age, and I don’t think that it is inappropriate to partly attribute these crimes with increased access to violent pornography and the increase of women dressing in a manner that is deemed sexually suggestive.

Pommy bastard said :

But I condemned no-one.

For those who’ve missed it, let’s have some highlights of PB’s posts on this issue:

Pommy bastard said :

If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

—–

And the difference bewteen this and dressing up like a trollop and parading yourself in a public place, is…what exactly….

—–

If these scantily clad women object to this, and so far we do not seem to have any objection from them themselves, then why did they pose (as we can see the photos displayed are all posed) for the photos in the first place?

—–

Where is the derogatory statement?

—–

Or should I just take it you post unwarranted slurs as you are incapable of honest and logical debate?

Ah, yes. It’s perfectly clear now. You’ve been cruelly misrepresented and are actually a stalwart of feminist values.

Lol.

Yeah right. As Spitfire and many others have said “Using nasty names to refer to women who dress up to go out and have fun with their friends and feel good about themselves is utter bullsh!t in my opinion”.

All the dissembling over ‘like’ and claims of ‘I don’t mind’ won’t change the fact that you refer to women as sluts and whores.

The only one you’ve exposed as a blatant liar is yourself. And if you think it’s okay to refer to people as being LIKE cheap sluts or whores, then you’re also an unselfconscious pig.

And I really believe that this is ultimately the crux of the problem. Many men chastise women for behaving in a certain way in one breath, and then promptly reveal that they are attracted to it. So the provocative clothing is a welcome sight when you feel like a perv but you dont have enough respect for the object of your attraction to not consider her a ‘cheap slut’. Great.

Thanks for raising that Roma.

However, I have not in this or any other discussion, “chastised” girls for wearing such clothes. I did and will again, admit again, that deliberately used provocative language in my description(and am glad that it engendered debate).

But I condemned no-one.

However, it is interesting that some who did not like the terms I have used, have been exposed as blatant liars. Personally I find lying far more reprehensible than using strong descriptors.

PsydFX, thank you for using your fine ability to analyse and debate here, you may have been an education to some.

Sorry, that ‘Not that im complaining’ was part of the post that I quoted. Damn these wretched html tags! lol 😉

I can see why some people in here might have gotten a little steamed at PB for using the tersm “slut”, “porn star” etc; however, while I am a young woman who is proud to be so, and find the commonly accepted disrespect for women in general completely gross, im not so offended in this case.
I think the words he used were more for image association. You might not appreciate someone likening a female to a porn star, but when you think of “porn star” you dont think of what she wears during the day (i.e. regular clothes), you think of what she wears at work – usually very little and VERY provocative.
When you think of the words “cheap slut” you might not agree with anyone being labelled as sexually promiscuous simply because of what she wears – I agree! – but it does still conjur up an image of someone who dresses in very provocative clothing. You might not agree with the lable itself, but you do know what the label is and what it represents. I think a lot of people here are jumping down PB’s throat for mentioning the words, as though he flippantly calls any girl who wears provocative clothing a “whore” or “cheap slut”, when really I got the impression he was just trying to evoke a certain image in our head to demonstrate his argument.

Having said all that, my biggest issue with PB is this post:

If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.
Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.
How times change.

Not that I’m complaining.

And I really believe that this is ultimately the crux of the problem. Many men chastise women for behaving in a certain way in one breath, and then promptly reveal that they are attracted to it. So the provocative clothing is a welcome sight when you feel like a perv but you dont have enough respect for the object of your attraction to not consider her a ‘cheap slut’. Great.

Supporting? How specifically do you see that from the “dress like / are” comment which you initially referred to.

And suggesting that someone “go back” to a specific country to validate a point still seems a little discriminatory.

The majority of the discussion is based on the difference between those two terms, ridiculing me for suggesting that fact

We seem to have a misunderstanding – I didn’t mean to ridicule you for that. It was meant more for your seeming support for the conservative attitude towards women’s rights to freedom.

What I said about Iran wasn’t racist, it’s Iranian government policy.

Spitfire3 said :

I’m just going to assume you missed the point

Thanks, but I didn’t. I think you are placing too much emphasis on the difference between those two terms.

Yes I realise there is a difference, but in my opinion in the context of this entire discussion, it’s almost irrelevant. It’s a technical difference, a loophole. The real story here is the attitudes on display.

The majority of the discussion is based on the difference between those two terms, ridiculing me for suggesting that fact seems a little weak, especially considering the rich content that may actually warrant debate from you.

On top of that, you’ve come into a post and all we’ve gotten from your triple post dribble is a racist remark, since when does fighting discrimination, which I wasn’t soliciting anyway, with another form of discrimination make it right. The answer is: It doesn’t.

That kind of dribble just invalidates anything profound you may have to say on the subject.

“The real story here is the attitudes on display”

Totally.

So depressing.

I’m just going to assume you missed the point

Thanks, but I didn’t. I think you are placing too much emphasis on the difference between those two terms.

Yes I realise there is a difference, but in my opinion in the context of this entire discussion, it’s almost irrelevant. It’s a technical difference, a loophole. The real story here is the attitudes on display.

Spitfire3 said :

Dammit. Posting mad is bad.

My quoted text was supposed to look like this:
Because people can’t differentiate between “dress like” and “are”

I’m just going to assume you missed the point and explain it.

The question was “Why so many comments…”, and if you go througg the 100 or so comments, you might clearly see the JJ and PB’s main arguments are based around one saying “Dress like” and the other interpreting that as “are”.

…and now I have to be a three post nutbag.

Felix, I didn’t mean you by the “three clowns” thing.

Dammit. Posting mad is bad.

My quoted text was supposed to look like this:
Because people can’t differentiate between “dress like” and “are”

Here’s a comment on one of PsydFX’s posts.

<i?Because people can’t differentiate between “dress like” and “are”

Look at the photos again. Do you really think girls dressed in coloured t-shirts or zipped-up parkas are “dressed like cheap sluts”?

The three of you clowns should get a grip or move back to Iran.

So many personal attacks going on here! I personally think PsydFX has hit the nail on the head with his (?) comments. Surprisingly no one seems have noticed or commented on the posts.

There was similar talk (though not as heated) about women’s clothing standards (or lack thereof) the other day in the thread about going to the horse races.

Angry Henry to answer your question, I think if someone appeared incidentally in a photo and wasn’t the focus of the photo they might get away with using it without permission. However, even if it’s an incidental portrayal, if they were portrayed in an unflattering light Shooters would be putting itself at risk ‘publishing’ the photo. What makes it sticky, is that one person’s innocent pic is another’s unflattering light. Not to mention, what if one of the subjects has a violent ex or something going on in their lives that preclude their pix being on the walls in bars. Shooters would be wise to get permission for all & any future uses at the time of taking the photos … perhaps they did.

The girls in those photos are all well into adulthood. They’re wearing lots of clothes! They’re having fun. They don’t even look drunk. I don’t know what the problem is!

sepi said :

if the piccies are so harmless – which i think they are really – then why has there been so many comments about cheap sluts??

Because people can’t differentiate between “dress like” and “are”

Using nasty names to refer to women who dress up to go out and have fun with their friends and feel good about themselves is utter bullsh!t in my opinion.

if the piccies are so harmless – which i think they are really – then why has there been so many comments about cheap sluts??

Boobs!

😀

So who else thinks we should send Elkie in to sort out the Shooters crowd?! lol

A couple of questions for Jim I would like him to answer.

1) Who have I “characterised?
? (please quote me)

2) What have I “characterised
them as? (please quote me)

3) Do you know the meaning of the term “characterised?

4) have you ever heard of the term hypothetical argument?

5) If “cheap slut” is not a common short hand (slang) term, how do you know the meaning of it?

6) Do you believe the photos in the OP are an “inducement to statutory rape”?

Questions I do not expect you to answer;

1) Why did you lie about what I have posted?

(“You’ve been characterising people as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’, and ‘trollops’ based on their dress and have won undying enmity for it.”)

2) Why did you misquote me?
(“I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, )

3) Why do you need to make stuff up about me?
(“What do you do for a real laugh, racist jokes?”)

4)Why are you taking offense on behalf of people, people who do not exist?

sweet I didn’t have plans for friday night until I saw this. I love school girls.

But seriously if that photo makes you want to commit statutory rape then the problem is with you. Not the photo.

johnboy said :

AH, one more inaccurate generalisation about “around here” and you’re gone for good.

The labels are based on the number of comments and are assigned automatically.

Try not to set your standards by what we might tolerate in the interest of free debate.

Sorry about that JB, I think you may have misunderstood where I was coming from, and I can see how from what I’ve written, hence the apology.

What I mean is that people are labelled everywhere, and I have seen comments to that affect here too. I wasn’t having a go at RA for labelling posters under their aliases but used it as an example because of the fact that there really isn’t anything to it and it shouldn’t be taken all that seriously.

Honestly it had nothing to do with the standards of what you might tolerate, indeed I myself have been trying to rationalise that one, and for the last few weeks thought I had been getting closer to what that might be…

It would seem I have suffered a little setback and I sincerely hope that this doesn’t affect my participation as I do really enjoy it and I hope others enjoy interracting with me, regardless of differing opinions.

Hey Jim Jones, I understand what you mean. Some people aren’t as articulate as others in my opinion however and I guess I’m trying to say ‘I take your point, you’re entitled to it, I don’t agree with it and here’s why’, but I’m not gonna hold the persons hand and tell them how to get their point across and I don’t see much point arguing about it with the person concerned because you wont change their mind, you’ll only inflame them…

All only and wholly my opinion.

Spitfire3 said :

I don’t think the girls in the photo are dressed provocatively at all.

Agreed. Looks like a collage of theme nights at the venue to me. I can make out ‘skiing’, ‘school’ and perhaps an 80’s night (top left hand corner).

AngryHenry said :

People seem to be more sensitive when it comes to gender, sometimes I think this is due to unresolved personal issues (only my opinion).

This stuff affects us when we LET it.

Uh huh. Or, maybe they have been at the receiving end of genuine discrimination based on their gender, and are not a woman who really wants to be a man or whatever personal issues you might think people who don’t find gender issues a laughing matter are suffering from.

sepi said :

Gobbo – you write like an idiot.

Not that that means I’m calling you one….

I realise that. It would be foolish of me to think otherwise.

Enough with the friggen nitpicking you blokes. There’s an intelligent discussion in amongst all this, but it’s hard to find it while wading through all your crap.

I don’t think the girls in the photo are dressed provocatively at all.

AH, one more inaccurate generalisation about “around here” and you’re gone for good.

The labels are based on the number of comments and are assigned automatically.

Try not to set your standards by what we might tolerate in the interest of free debate.

no – see I think this stuff continues to affect us while we continue to stay silent about it, and nothing changes.

Angry, there’s a very big difference between labelling someone a ‘goth’ and labelling someone a ‘whore’ or ‘cheap slut’.

Nobody puts up with racism or homophobia. I fail to see why they should get away with sexism.

“Care to do the “mode of dress thing” again?”

Your mode of dress was “like a cheap slut”. I’ll ask again: precisely how does a cheap slut dress?

BerraBoy68 said :

PB – your use of terms such as Trollops, Porn Stars in this thread is labelling.

That kind of crap happens around here all the time, singling one person out for doing it seems a bit hyprcritical and unfair.

A few examples would be Emos, Greenies, Goths, Booners, Bogan, I could go on all day.

You yourself have been labelled a ‘picketer’ by the RA powers that be.

People seem to be more sensitive when it comes to gender, sometimes I think this is due to unresolved personal issues (only my opinion).

This stuff affects us when we LET it.

While I don’t agree with the dude and some of his chosen words at all, he’s got a right to communicate his thoughts and opinions on someone’s dress sense however he see’s fit.

Given he kept it nice and simple I was able to easily understand where he was coming from and got his point loud and clear, which is more than I can say for some people.

“I used a common short hand,”

‘Cheap slut’ is not a common short hand. Anyone with an ounce of a brain recognises this. I’m astounded that you continue to think that it’s okay. Any number of alternatives about ‘skimpy clothes’, ‘revealing’. It’s not hard – the fact that you go straight to ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ says volumes about you. Granny is right. You’re a misogynist – the fact that you won’t even acknowledge that terms such as ‘cheap slut’ are f(_)cked up only makes it worse.

“However, I can see how a humourless person may take it the way you have.”

I find calling women ‘sluts’ or ‘whores’ offensive, and supposedly this makes me ‘humourless’? What do you do for a real laugh, racist jokes?

“You really do have contempt for the English language. Point out the person who I have characterised?”

How can you possibly state that saying that someone ‘dresses like a cheap slut’ is not characterising people negatively? Are you really this stupid? Is anyone? You’ve wiggled your way around this point trying to deny it. I’m afraid that’s impossible. If you can argue that saying someone ‘dresses like a cheap slut’ is not derogatory I’d really really like to hear your explanation.

“It must be embarrassing for a so called “Master” of literature to have your mistakes pointed out. Care to do the “mode of dress thing” again?”
Another ad hominem. But you haven’t even bothered to get the title right.

Honestly, how about an answer to one of these very basic questions instead of attempting to use the same tired ruses (“I didn’t do it”, “I’ve been misquoted”, “I can’t think of any other way to refer to people apart from ‘cheap slut'”, “you got your degree from a cornflake packet” etc.)

If someone is wearing a police uniform, people may think they look like a police officer.
If someone is wearing a Pilots uniform, people may think they look like a pilot.
If someone is wearing sexually suggestive clothes, similar to what a street walking prositute would wear, people may think they look like a whore.

Gobbo – you write like an idiot.

Not that that means I’m calling you one….

AngryHenry said :

Hey PB, how about ‘appearing to have questionable morals’?

Doesn’t have much of an impact but,

there you go. :o)

I missed that Henry, thank you very much.

BerraBoy68 said :

PB – your use of terms such as Trollops, Porn Stars in this thread is labelling.

Is labelling whom?

Jim Jones said :

An easier to read version would be:

Are you seriously arguing that you can’t think of another way to characterise the way that girls are dressing apart from ‘like a cheap slut’? Wow, you’re worse than I thought.

Feeble. I used a common short hand, I have asked for an “acceptable” alternative, but none has been forthcoming. So from that we can assume that no one here can think of an alternative, which makes them as bad as me.

The characterisation of girls at Shooters was Gobbo at 92. It’s very clear. And you’re saying that other people can’t read?

I am not responsible for Gobbo’s posts. However, I can see how a humourless person may take it the way you have.

Suck it up. You’ve been characterising people as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’, and ‘trollops’ based on their dress and have won undying enmity for it.

I’ve had a few people lie about what I have written, and had some make up things. That says more about them than it does me. I’ve characterised no one.

You really do have contempt for the English language. Point out the person who I have characterised?

Didn’t think you could.

I have spoken only in hypothetical’s, as to do otherwise would leave me open to being attacked for being rude about people, and rightly so. Not that it has stopped some of the mouth breathers here from doing exactly that.

Attempting to pull pissweak ruses such as “I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, or “it never happened” is very sad.

]

And if I had done that, I should be criticised. But I haven’t . You however, due to a lack of personal morality have lied constantly about what I have posted. As you have yet again.

That speaks volumes about you.

Care to point out where I posted; “I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, or “it never happened”? Or should we just be content to know you are lying again.

Particularly when your posts are there for anyone with half a brain to read.

Which excludes you. As I have pointed out you cannot even understand the most basic points made here.

It must be embarrassing for a so called “Master” of literature to have your mistakes pointed out. Care to do the “mode of dress thing” again?

[Thankfully it’s the internet and you can continue to deny and dissemble until the cows come home. But I can assure you that if I ever hear anyone talk that way around my daughter I’ll shut their mouths for them.

Yes, well, great, thanks for telling us that.

The cornflakes packet jab was typical ad hominem bollocks. No great surprise there.

Well after I proven your misquoting, and straight out lies about what I have written, I think a little “ad hominem” is justified.

I cant agree that stating that someone is dressing like a slut/trollop/duck is calling that person a slut/trollop/duck.

Insisting that they mean the same …. that is just weird

The photos are the molehill.

The endless comments about sluts and trollops are the mountain.

And then denying that these comments about young women are a bad thing….that is just wierd.

Jim Jones said :

An easier to read version would be:

Are you seriously arguing that you can’t think of another way to characterise the way that girls are dressing apart from ‘like a cheap slut’? Wow, you’re worse than I thought.

The characterisation of girls at Shooters was Gobbo at 92. It’s very clear. And you’re saying that other people can’t read?

Suck it up. You’ve been characterising people as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’, and ‘trollops’ based on their dress and have won undying enmity for it. Attempting to pull pissweak ruses such as “I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, or “it never happened” is very sad. Particularly when your posts are there for anyone with half a brain to read.

Thankfully it’s the internet and you can continue to deny and dissemble until the cows come home. But I can assure you that if I ever hear anyone talk that way around my daughter I’ll shut their mouths for them.

The cornflakes packet jab was typical ad hominem bollocks. No great surprise there.

Jim –

You stated you didn’t know what a cheap slut dressed like? I stated that if you hung around at Shooters you’d see a myriad of women there, pick the cheapest.

Considering that Granny had already been appalled due to statutory raping occuring due to the photos, I hardly think it was a leap of faith to conect the two. This is a thread about the photos outside Shooters isn’t it?

FFS. Mountain met Molehill. Thy name is Granny Jim.

PB – your use of terms such as Trollops, Porn Stars in this thread is labelling.

An easier to read version would be:

Are you seriously arguing that you can’t think of another way to characterise the way that girls are dressing apart from ‘like a cheap slut’? Wow, you’re worse than I thought.

The characterisation of girls at Shooters was Gobbo at 92. It’s very clear. And you’re saying that other people can’t read?

Suck it up. You’ve been characterising people as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’, and ‘trollops’ based on their dress and have won undying enmity for it. Attempting to pull pissweak ruses such as “I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, or “it never happened” is very sad. Particularly when your posts are there for anyone with half a brain to read.

Thankfully it’s the internet and you can continue to deny and dissemble until the cows come home. But I can assure you that if I ever hear anyone talk that way around my daughter I’ll shut their mouths for them.

The cornflakes packet jab was typical ad hominem bollocks. No great surprise there.

Pommy bastard said :

Jim Jones said :

Gobbo, do you seriously think it’s okay to describe someone as ‘dressing like a cheap slut’, in any circumstances?

I’ve asked several times here for an alternative way of phrasing the style of dress, but no one yet has come up with one. Perhaps you could, oh master of English literature. (I’ve also admitted to deliberately using provocative terms.)

I just love your characterisation of the girls at Shooters — sadly, it says a lot more about you than it does about them.

No one has “characterised the girls at Shooters”, you’re making things up again.

Did you get your masters off the back of a Cornflakes packet?

BerraBoy68 said :

I think we can just take it as read that PB and Gobbo judge and label people based on their dress sense. Heaven forbid they should attend a fancy dress party, their heads migh explode.
quote]

Ah so yet another one who makes up imaginary things I have posted, is forced back into making up stuff. A simple Sorry, you did not post any objections at all to those people or photos, I made that claptrap up” would be nice.

God I must be good, people either agree with me, or a need to resort to debating imaginary things which I have not written

Are you seriously arguing that you can’t think of another way to characterise the way that girls are dressing apart from ‘like a cheap slut’? Wow, you’re worse than I thought.

The characterisation of girls at Shooters was Gobbo at 92. It’s very clear. And you’re saying that other people can’t read?

Suck it up. You’ve been characterising people as ‘cheap sluts’, ‘whores’, and ‘trollops’ based on their dress and have won undying enmity for it. Attempting to pull pissweak ruses such as “I honestly can’t think of another way to describe them other than cheap sluts”, or “it never happened” is very sad. Particularly when your posts are there for anyone with half a brain to read.

Thankfully it’s the internet and you can continue to deny and dissemble until the cows come home. But I can assure you that if I ever hear anyone talk that way around my daughter I’ll shut their mouths for them.

The cornflakes packet jab was typical ad hominem bollocks. No great surprise there.

I once had a rather intellectually errrr stimulating 30 minute conversation about literacy development in low SES communities and paulo Freier with a young woman clad only in a glittery g-String and see through bra.

Goes to show you can’t judge a book by its discretely wrapped brown paper cover…

Hey PB, how about ‘appearing to have questionable morals’?

Doesn’t have much of an impact but,

there you go. :o)

Roma said :

Boy oh Boy. Best Thread Ever.

But seriously, the only point that I havent noticed raised in this thread (and if it has been, I apologies profusely…it was hard to plough through over 90 posts in the face of a deadline), is the possibility that this girl INVITED the photographer to take a photo of her cleavage.

Yes, I had raised that point, but it got lost amongst all the things people imagine I posted.

So these girls are encouraging statutory rape of girls.

That’s a bit mean of them.

BerraBoy68 said :

BerraBoy – I think we can just take it as read that PB and Gobbo judge and label people based on their dress sense.

Shoes that permanently ruin a good set of feet do cause me problems.

People who wear said shoes I consider idiots.

They can sue me. You can too if you like.

Jim Jones said :

Gobbo, do you seriously think it’s okay to describe someone as ‘dressing like a cheap slut’, in any circumstances?

I’ve asked several times here for an alternative way of phrasing the style of dress, but no one yet has come up with one. Perhaps you could, oh master of English literature. (I’ve also admitted to deliberately using provocative terms.)

I just love your characterisation of the girls at Shooters — sadly, it says a lot more about you than it does about them.

No one has “characterised the girls at Shooters”, you’re making things up again.

Did you get your masters off the back of a Cornflakes packet?

BerraBoy68 said :

I think we can just take it as read that PB and Gobbo judge and label people based on their dress sense. Heaven forbid they should attend a fancy dress party, their heads migh explode.
quote]

Ah so yet another one who makes up imaginary things I have posted, is forced back into making up stuff. A simple Sorry, you did not post any objections at all to those people or photos, I made that claptrap up” would be nice.

God I must be good, people either agree with me, or a need to resort to debating imaginary things which I have not written

Skidbladnir said :

BerraBoy:
RiotACT is not about civil agreement, its about making your opponents WEEP IN DEFEAT so often that their tearducts bleed.

LOL, totally agree Skid (I hope all that oppose me are taken kicking and screaming to the highest cliff where they are then unceremoniously thrown the the dolphins!).

Noting Granny’s statement, however, I just wanted to try take some of the heat out of the argument.

Granny said :

AngryHenry, I have posted on this issue before. Ok, I will go.

It’s not my place to tell you to ‘go’ anywhere Granny. I just really hope you are taking steps other than this to make things right in your life.

I might be Angry but I have the best intentions.

Roma said :

Boy oh Boy. Best Thread Ever.

But seriously, the only point that I havent noticed raised in this thread (and if it has been, I apologies profusely…it was hard to plough through over 90 posts in the face of a deadline), is the possibility that this girl INVITED the photographer to take a photo of her cleavage.
If you look at any of the photos posted on dance music and clubbing websites such as In The Mix amongst others, you cant avoid a strategic cleavage shots – there are hundreds of them! And most of them are focused on girls who have massive smiles on their faces because they just love showing off what they’ve got.
Now, I sometimes question the taste and behaviour of these girls but I have probably engaged in similar behaviour at some point in my life.

Its really not a big deal!! Maybe its a case of Monday-itis but I really think that a lot of people get riled up and overly argumentative around here over nothing. I think we all need to lighten up a little 🙂

Roma you;re a logical legend!!! I think people are blowing off a little monday steam. I did say I thought the shot was tongue in cheeak and funny as opposed to some of the other comment and you’re right I’ve seen heaps of chicks take photos like this for a laugh, and no I don;t think any less of them for doing so because it was all done for a laugh.

The most disturbing thing about this whole thing isn’t the photos or even the OP’s story it’s some of the comments that have come out of it.

Gobbo said :

Jim Jones said :

Gobbo said :

Jim – I was always taught that if it dresses like a slut, talks like a slut and walks like a slut, it must be a duck.

What a charmer. The girls must just love you.

It was a joke Jim. A bit of levity.

I’ll explain it to you one day. 🙂

*quack*

Meh. I don’t get jokes anymore.

Not since the … incident.

Jim Jones said :

Gobbo said :

Jim – I was always taught that if it dresses like a slut, talks like a slut and walks like a slut, it must be a duck.

What a charmer. The girls must just love you.

It was a joke Jim. A bit of levity.

I’ll explain it to you one day. 🙂

*quack*

Boy oh Boy. Best Thread Ever.

But seriously, the only point that I havent noticed raised in this thread (and if it has been, I apologies profusely…it was hard to plough through over 90 posts in the face of a deadline), is the possibility that this girl INVITED the photographer to take a photo of her cleavage.
If you look at any of the photos posted on dance music and clubbing websites such as In The Mix amongst others, you cant avoid a strategic cleavage shots – there are hundreds of them! And most of them are focused on girls who have massive smiles on their faces because they just love showing off what they’ve got.
Now, I sometimes question the taste and behaviour of these girls but I have probably engaged in similar behaviour at some point in my life.

Its really not a big deal!! Maybe its a case of Monday-itis but I really think that a lot of people get riled up and overly argumentative around here over nothing. I think we all need to lighten up a little 🙂

AngryHenry, I have posted on this issue before. Ok, I will go.

BerraBoy:
RiotACT is not about civil agreement, its about making your opponents WEEP IN DEFEAT so often that their tearducts bleed.

I am happy to do that BerraBoy68. I feel very tired and old and emotionally drained, but you and Jim Jones and all the people like you give me faith in the world and hope for the future.

Thanks ….

Granny said :

Ok, Gobbo, having had my six year old statutorily raped I’m a bit over sensitive perhaps.

WTF!?!?! Well that’s a pretty shocking statement, I certainly didn;t see that one coming.

This is the most frayed, out of control thread ever!!!!

What are you supposed to say to something like that ‘thanks for sharing’!?!?!?

And before you say ‘nothing’, then why put it up? You know you’re gonna get a reaction here.

It’s not my intention to be cold or heartless, but what does this have to do with photos outside of Shooters?

I honestly hope you are seeking help beyond talking online all day, for you and your family’s sake Granny.

I think we can just take it as read that PB and Gobbo judge and label people based on their dress sense. Heaven forbid they should attend a fancy dress party, their heads migh explode.

Can we just agree we disagree on this thread?

Gobbo said :

Jim – I was always taught that if it dresses like a slut, talks like a slut and walks like a slut, it must be a duck.

What a charmer. The girls must just love you.

Pommy bastard said :

Jim Jones said :

I have a PhD in English Literature, I’ve taught for a number of years at a university level and I’ve worked for about a decade in the publishing industry: I can assure you that my reading and comprehension skills are up to scratch.

Said the person who didn’t realise that

“If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.”

may indicate a mode of dress?

I’m still waiting for your explanation of precisely what ‘mode of dress’ you’re referring to.

I can only assume that you think that wearing skimpy clothes gives women an association with ‘cheap sluts’. If you really think this, then Granny’s point has been conclusively proven – you cast women as vile whores because they don’t cover up (thanks Sheik PB). If you don’t think this, then the ‘mode of dress’ question is still open.

Any answers?

Jim – I was always taught that if it dresses like a slut, talks like a slut and walks like a slut, it must be a duck.

Ok, Gobbo, having had my six year old statutorily raped I’m a bit over sensitive perhaps.

“Jim – Pommy Bastard didn’t accuse the women of being cheap sluts, just like dressing like cheap sluts.”

Gobbo, do you seriously think it’s okay to describe someone as ‘dressing like a cheap slut’, in any circumstances?

I just love your characterisation of the girls at Shooters — sadly, it says a lot more about you than it does about them.

Jim Jones said :

I have a PhD in English Literature, I’ve taught for a number of years at a university level and I’ve worked for about a decade in the publishing industry: I can assure you that my reading and comprehension skills are up to scratch.

Said the person who didn’t realise that

“If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.”

may indicate a mode of dress?

PB, the people that frequent this board can read fine. Your ruse is as transparent as it is

I have a PhD in English Literature, I’ve taught for a number of years at a university level and I’ve worked for about a decade in the publishing industry: I can assure you that my reading and comprehension skills are up to scratch.

I’d suggest that the Australian education system is less an issue than your spectacular failure to realise that associating people with ‘sluts’ and ‘whores’ because of the way they dress is somewhat frowned upon in this poor, backward country.

Granny said :

I think that presenting girls or boys in school uniform as sexy does encourage predators to:

A) think that’s normal behaviour, and
B) frequent the place in search of that kind of action.

Hopefully there are no underage kids there – I wouldn’t know or claim to.

Saying I am disturbed about something is a fairly mild expression of an opinion I would have thought.

Then, unless you know better, those are pictures of grown men and women and not boys and girls.

Should there be no pictures allowed anywhere incase of these potential statutory raping predators seeing them?

Jim – Pommy Bastard didn’t accuse the women of being cheap sluts, just like dressing like cheap sluts.

If you don’t know what cheap sluts dress like, then I suggest you hang around Shooters. The photos above seem to have a myriad of types of women portrayed. Pick your cheapest.

So I take it from that you’re retracting your statement;“You’re backpedalling because you were casually bandying around phrases such as ‘cheap slut’. How in all hell is that a descriptor that indicates a mode of dress?” as quite obviously describing someone’s mode of dress is pretty certainly errmmmmm….. a descriptor of a mode of dress, is it not?

Granny said :

BerraBoy68, they sounded like an uncharacteristically happy family to me. I think PB must be objecting to ‘cleavage’. Or perhaps it’s cleavage, legs and midriff.

Another one who cannot read? My god the Australian education system sure has left a few people down, has it not?

Please BerraBoy, pretty please, point out my “objection” to anything about those people or images?

sepi said :

sigh

Male club owner takes sleazy photos of younger women and sticks them up on a window.

Instead of cries of Pimp, Sleaze, Dirty old man, we have endless derogatory words for women.

Such derogatory words are never relevent – unless you’re a mysoginist/riotact regular.

Aw c’mon… Are you just assuming the club owner is male? And aside from the cleavage shot (which I think is more tongue in cheek and funny than titilating or even sleazy) how are any of the other photos ‘sleazy’.

People, WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN’T REALLY THERE!!!

Like I said several times before maybe some people are seeing it as sleazy and dirty because that is EXACTLY what they’re looking for!!! And to those people…

Get ya mind out of the gutter!!! ;o)

*guffaw*

“Now then Jim, would you like me to explain how to “dress like cheap sluts” could possibly indicate a mode of dress? “

Go nuts buddy. How does a cheap slut dress?

I think that presenting girls or boys in school uniform as sexy does encourage predators to:

A) think that’s normal behaviour, and
B) frequent the place in search of that kind of action.

Hopefully there are no underage kids there – I wouldn’t know or claim to.

Saying I am disturbed about something is a fairly mild expression of an opinion I would have thought.

Jim Jones said :

“I used common descriptors to indicate modes of dress.”

Bullsh1t. You’re backpedalling because you were casually bandying around phrases such as ‘cheap slut’. How in all hell is that a descriptor that indicates a mode of dress?

Another one who cannot read?

Here is what I said;

“If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.”

Now then Jim, would you like me to explain how to “dress like cheap sluts” could possibly indicate a mode of dress?

Would you like me to explain the cause and effect I have posited?

Your argument that ‘I was just calling them what they are, but they can be sluts and that’s okay with me’ is risible

Well it would be if that was the argument I was making. However, you seem to have fallen into Granny’s method of imagining things into what I have posted.

Why not try actually reading?

Just admit you f$cked up – honestly, would you describe wife or daughter as a ‘cheap slut’ or ‘whore’ because they’re wearing skimpy outfits?

No I wouldn’t, just as I have not said that about anyone here.

Granny said :

There’s a differece between judgment and hate speech.

Too true Granny.

So, In your judgement why is Shooters encouraging the Statutory rape of young girls by having those photos on display?

There’s a differece between judgment and hate speech.

poptop said :

This thread sounds exactly like my parents did when I was 15.

Go to your room!

Granny said :

So did makeup, Gobbo. Your point is?

My point was I was agreeing with PsydFX. Thanks for enquiring though. 🙂

This thread sounds exactly like my parents did when I was 15.

more boobs the better !

Opposolity?

Granny said :

Whatever, PsydFX …. If you want to refer to women in insulting and degrading terms, who am I to try and stop you?

It’s the last way I would choose to refer to a young woman, regardless of her clothing or her lifestyle. I would be far more interested in her sense of humour and her smile and whether she was kind and friendly. If she was smart and beautiful that would be a bonus, and I would find that kind of delightful. I love beauty in all its forms, and especially women. I am totally not attracted to them sexually however.

Each to their own. Sometimes it all just seems too hard. You are free to behave as you wish. So be it.

You’re quick to put words in peoples mouths – I NEVER said that I refer to women in that manner, I merely made point that todays Fashion is yesterdays Hookerware.

You’re too caught up on this feminist point of view that women should be able to wear whatever they want without being judged.
Everyone is judged by what they wear, deal with it. If we stop judging women by what they wear, but continue to judge everyone else, doesn’t that create the opposite of equality?

So did makeup, Gobbo. Your point is?

PsydFX said :

Granny said :

BerraBoy68, they sounded like an uncharacteristically happy family to me. I think PB must be objecting to ‘cleavage’. Or perhaps it’s cleavage, legs and midriff.

Reading his comments he hasn’t said anything of the sort, it just appears you’re harping over nothing.

Where I understand that the terms he used may be degrading towards women, it doesn’t mean they’re not relevant, females today are wearing clothes that have historically been worn by street walking prositutes.

I agree PsydFX.

The clothes I am seeing on many for ‘young women’ used to only be worn by employees of certain businesses in Fyshwick and Mitchell.

Don’t even get me started on the new fashion of Bondage Boots. Podiatry runs in my family, (but feet don’t).

The sheik then suggests the woman should be locked up for life, while the man should be spoken to and disciplined.

True. That’s his opinion. Not sure what we’re supposed to do about it, though.

Skidbladnir said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

So what are the hookers supposed to wear?

One of those string bags that oranges come in, and a smile.

Until that becomes fashionable!

Whatever, PsydFX …. If you want to refer to women in insulting and degrading terms, who am I to try and stop you?

It’s the last way I would choose to refer to a young woman, regardless of her clothing or her lifestyle. I would be far more interested in her sense of humour and her smile and whether she was kind and friendly. If she was smart and beautiful that would be a bonus, and I would find that kind of delightful. I love beauty in all its forms, and especially women. I am totally not attracted to them sexually however.

Each to their own. Sometimes it all just seems too hard. You are free to behave as you wish. So be it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

So what are the hookers supposed to wear?

One of those string bags that oranges come in, and a smile.

sigh

Male club owner takes sleazy photos of younger women and sticks them up on a window.

Instead of cries of Pimp, Sleaze, Dirty old man, we have endless derogatory words for women.

Such derogatory words are never relevent – unless you’re a mysoginist/riotact regular.

So what are the hookers supposed to wear?

“I used common descriptors to indicate modes of dress.”

Bullsh1t. You’re backpedalling because you were casually bandying around phrases such as ‘cheap slut’. How in all hell is that a descriptor that indicates a mode of dress?

Your argument that ‘I was just calling them what they are, but they can be sluts and that’s okay with me’ is risible.

Just admit you f$cked up – honestly, would you describe wife or daughter as a ‘cheap slut’ or ‘whore’ because they’re wearing skimpy outfits?

“The real difficulty arises when you look at the argument made by the Sheik, but take away the emotion. What he’s saying is that men who are under the influence and see a scantily clad female might struggle to keep themself under control, resulting in an experience unpleasant for the woman. Of course, he could have presented the argument better, but hey, if we’re going to espouse free speec we should at least read and judge with getting all steamed up about it.”

The sheik then suggests the woman should be locked up for life, while the man should be spoken to and disciplined.

Granny said :

BerraBoy68, they sounded like an uncharacteristically happy family to me. I think PB must be objecting to ‘cleavage’. Or perhaps it’s cleavage, legs and midriff.

Reading his comments he hasn’t said anything of the sort, it just appears you’re harping over nothing.

Where I understand that the terms he used may be degrading towards women, it doesn’t mean they’re not relevant, females today are wearing clothes that have historically been worn by street walking prositutes.

BerraBoy68, they sounded like an uncharacteristically happy family to me. I think PB must be objecting to ‘cleavage’. Or perhaps it’s cleavage, legs and midriff.

BerraBoy68 said :

I like the pics PB – seems pretty standard for Gypsies though, I’d have thought.

Still not sure why you can’t describe the clothing rather than the wearer by using terms like tart, porn star etc.. though.

Perhaps because “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” ~ Mark Twain

Wow, don’t they look happy- I’m so glad they got the wedding they wanted. Doesn’t really matter what any of us think does it?

See, that was easy!

I like the pics PB – seems pretty standard for Gypsies though, I’d have thought.

Still not sure why you can’t describe the clothing rather than the wearer by using terms like tart, porn star etc.. though.

Granny said :

Pommy Bastard, I consider you to be a misogynist and I do not wish to engage with you further nor will I. Say what you like.

Translated reads: I have no answer to your points, so I’m going to sulk at you.

BerraBoy68 said :

How does a porn star dress exactly? I’ve known a couple and when they are not at work they look like any other women. You probably wouldn’t give them a second glance at the shops. And how does their working dress differ from say Brittany Spears in any of her videos or even Nicole Kidman in any of her full frontal roles?

Ermmm if it were a “full frontal role”, she’d be naked wouldn’t she?

You hit the nail on the head with Spears (also Pussy cat dolls) they dress as porn stars to sell records. And again I ask, for the purpose of this discussion, how should we describe someone who dresses provocatively? I’ll happily give up the descriptors I’ve used, (and I in no way deny responsibility for using deliberately provocative terms,) if someone, anyone, can come up with a useable alternative.

In the UK on New years Eve a couple of years back, (middle of bloody winter) a group of girls were photographed going out in scarves (draped over their breasts) and knickers. Oh, and handbags.

How should we describe this “fashion”?

Here’s a Chav wedding from the UK, how would you say these girls were dressed?

http://tackyweddings.com/2008/10/30/outer-limits-tacky-150k-wedding-for-uk-16-year-old-girl-ugliest-dress-ever/

Now, nothing which those who choose to take umbrage could be offended at in those descriptions please!

There are also other illogics – like you see far more of the body exposed on a beach than a nightclub, but what is normal and socially acceptable there would be faint-and-smelling-salts-worthy if you walked through Civic.

It makes me laugh sometimes, actually. We humans are funny creatures ….

Granny – good response. I have deliberately stayed away from trying to pass judgement on what is an appropriate level of dress, because I agree with the points you made.

The difficulty arises in the different interpretations individuals have of what constitutes sexy dressing. Personally, I don’t have any problem with seeing a scantily clad woman, and leaving it at that. I suspect others have different standards of what they find acceptable.

Is there a solution?

Pommy Bastard – perhaps you could describe the clothing rather than using common, but emotive, phrases.

Pommy Bastard said: “Should I have described those who choose to dress like porn stars as being dressed as “fairy princesses”

How does a porn star dress exactly? I’ve known a couple and when they are not at work they look like any other women. You probably wouldn’t give them a second glance at the shops. And how does their working dress differ from say Brittany Spears in any of her videos or even Nicole Kidman in any of her full frontal roles?

Of course it is!!!

I have on occassion asked my wife why some girls dress quite provocatively to go to work, shopping etc, for example with more than half of their breast flowing over the top of their t-shirts etc.. her response has always been the same… “it’s because they want you to look”.

This doesn’t make them tarts, whores, porn stars etc. IMO. And yes I do look, after all who am I to deny them the attention! As a species if we didn’t look at the opposite sex how could we survive. Our brains are hardwired that way.

The problems is when some blokes see an attractive girl ascerting their right to dress any way they like and taking it as an invitation to label them ‘tarts, etc. or worse, abusing them physically. The excuse ‘they were asking for it’ is about as poor as it can get.

I beleive the issues as stated in the original post are this…

1. The photos of girls displayed out the front of shooters are aimed at ‘toolies’ (older people who prey on the young, derived from shoolies week).

2. The OP notes they are young, perhaps underage, and quite pretty.

3. The OP finds the image of cleavage(which was inaccurately reported as upskirt) and the fact it was chosen by the clubs management, disturbing.

So this talk about Shiek Al Hilalli or whoever the bloody hell he is, the role of men vs women in society, etc… what does that have to do with shooters posting pictures out the front of their club!!! This is ridiculous.

How we percieve each other is more of an issue related to this article and honestly I think people have shown their true colours with the words and opinions they have chosen to post.

Guys wouldn’t call them ‘whores’, ‘sluts’, ‘tramps’ or whatever if the girls gave their ugly backsides the time of day and girls wouldn’t use those words about them if they were as good or better looking because there would be nothing to be jealous of.

Pommy Bastard, I consider you to be a misogynist and I do not wish to engage with you further nor will I. Say what you like.

That’s a good point, VY, but where does it end? The more you cover up of a woman, the more the rest becomes sexy.

In Victorian times the sight of a well-turned ankle accidentally glimpse could incite lust in the most God-fearing of souls! They even had to cover the table legs in case men were too aroused ….

Religions requiring modesty urge women to dress in loose-fitting clothing and be covered from neck to ankle. What happens then? The hair is too sexy. It must be covered. The face is too sexy. That should also be covered – for her own good of course.

In native cultures where nudity is the norm, the body is hardly that sexy at all.

Jim Jones said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Women can dress however they like. Men can look at whatever they like.

And it would be really nice if all this could occur without phrases such as ‘cheap slut’, ‘whore’, ‘porn star’ and ‘trollop’ being used as common descriptors.

Ok, how should we describe their mode of dress if we are to have this discussion?

Granny said :

Pommy Bastard, only an idiot could perceive those rants as being anything other than derogatory. Who do you think you are kidding?

Where is the derogatory statement?

I used common descriptors to indicate modes of dress. Should I have described those who choose to dress like porn stars as being dressed as “fairy princesses”, “African Queens” or “morally upright and chase virgins”?

Your ire is laughable, who came up with this piece of well reasoned thought?

Granny said :

I am actually really disturbed by this.

For one thing, it’s publicly displayed in full view of children. For another, why would anyone want to encourage the statutory rape of young girls?

My post was directed to JJ, Granny beat me to the punch!

I think topics like this are hard to for people to discuss sensibly, because it’s really very emotive for some people. Even using phrases like you identified invoke emotive reaction. I mean, really, if some woman wants to sleep with every bloke she meets, so what? And if some guy wants the same, so what?

The real difficulty arises when you look at the argument made by the Sheik, but take away the emotion. What he’s saying is that men who are under the influence and see a scantily clad female might struggle to keep themself under control, resulting in an experience unpleasant for the woman. Of course, he could have presented the argument better, but hey, if we’re going to espouse free speec we should at least read and judge with getting all steamed up about it.

Pommy Bastard, only an idiot could perceive those rants as being anything other than derogatory. Who do you think you are kidding?

poptop said :

I think we have hit top speed on moral-outrage-on-zero-evidence in record time on this one.

Should we ask for a sense of humour or a sense of proportion as our non-denominational festive gifts this year?

Hear hear!!!

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Women can dress however they like. Men can look at whatever they like.

And it would be really nice if all this could occur without phrases such as ‘cheap slut’, ‘whore’, ‘porn star’ and ‘trollop’ being used as common descriptors.

Women can dress however they like. Men can look at whatever they like.

Pommy bastard said :

The trouble is with some people is that they are so busy taking offense on behalf of other people, that they forget to get coherent thinking in place first.

You can say that again. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen people be “offended” for the sake of been offended. Sometimes their offended on behalf of another group.

I’ve spent many a good night at shooters, I’ve spent many a bad night at shooters. It’s no better or worse than most of the other night clubs in the city.

Pommy bastard said :

Interesting, very interesting.

I have no problem with women at all, you must have (?deliberately?) missed this

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

How times change.

Not that I’m complaining.

Did I post that the change in attitudes was a good or bad thing?
Did I not post that “some” aspire?
Did I not post that i was “not complaining”?

I have no problem with women wearing whatever they want, if they want to dress provocatively that is their choice. Some look good dressed that way, some look less good. Aesthetically it is in the eye of the beholder, who does and does not.

But if women wish to dress that way that is their prerogative.

But, less we forget, the idea behind this thread was that the club named had photos of young ladies, scantily dressed, posted as an inducement to attend it.

If these scantily clad women object to this, and so far we do not seem to have any objection from them themselves, then why did they pose (as we can see the photos displayed are all posed) for the photos in the first place?

The trouble is with some people is that they are so busy taking offense on behalf of other people, that they forget to get coherent thinking in place first.

Oh, very good.

And how do explain the ‘cheap sluts’ reference, precisely?

Every time I see a young woman driving a car with big Playboy stickers and seat covers etc on it I wonder, does she just like reading porn, or is she in the business?

Interesting, very interesting.

I have no problem with women at all, you must have (?deliberately?) missed this

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

How times change.

Not that I’m complaining.

Did I post that the change in attitudes was a good or bad thing?
Did I not post that “some” aspire?
Did I not post that i was “not complaining”?

I have no problem with women wearing whatever they want, if they want to dress provocatively that is their choice. Some look good dressed that way, some look less good. Aesthetically it is in the eye of the beholder, who does and does not.

But if women wish to dress that way that is their prerogative.

But, less we forget, the idea behind this thread was that the club named had photos of young ladies, scantily dressed, posted as an inducement to attend it.

If these scantily clad women object to this, and so far we do not seem to have any objection from them themselves, then why did they pose (as we can see the photos displayed are all posed) for the photos in the first place?

The trouble is with some people is that they are so busy taking offense on behalf of other people, that they forget to get coherent thinking in place first.

Pommy bastard said :

If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

I’d say that sort of comment plants you firmly in the Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali camp.

Some photos of girls at a nightclub go up (none of which appear to be dressed like ‘whores’ or ‘porn stars’ – hell, most of them are wearing long sleeves) and suddenly all the talk is about whores, porn stars and trollops.

I’m sure that you were joking, but by god you really sound like you’ve got some major problems with women.

I think it speaks for itself, Pommy Bastard.

“Trollops” attacks the morals of the woman. “Parading in public places” suggests that she should not be out in public dressed in a particular way.

But you are big on denigrating women by calling them trollops, aren’t you?

Elkie would no doubt be appalled too.

I think we have hit top speed on moral-outrage-on-zero-evidence in record time on this one.

Should we ask for a sense of humour or a sense of proportion as our non-denominational festive gifts this year?

Granny said :

You and Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali would get on well together, Pommy Bastard.

Oh I see, we would, would we? What utter claptrap!

Now you were just about to point out the similarities between what I had posted, and what he has said, weren’t you Granny?

For the life of me, I cannot see any myself, but I’m sure you were just about to enlighten the community about it.

Or should I just take it you post unwarranted slurs as you are incapable of honest and logical debate?

neanderthalsis said :

Most of the girls (not many of those pictured fall into the woman category) dress like that because they want to be noticed, they want men to want them. I personally can’t see a problem with scantily clad young things living it up as long as they take care of themselves and their friends in that setting.

It is now socially acceptable to wear not a lot in public. Have a wander around Civic or the Belco shops on the weekend now that it is warmer and see the vast expanses of cleavage on display or skirts so short you can see morning dew.

At the risk of sounding prudish,it’s frightening that some now think that dressing like this is appropriate in the workplace.

Dress like what? For crying out loud man, most of the girls in that photo are covered up… Even the cleavage is pretty well covered up. You don’t sound prudish, you just sound old, like Grandpa Simpson.

Most of the girls (not many of those pictured fall into the woman category) dress like that because they want to be noticed, they want men to want them. I personally can’t see a problem with scantily clad young things living it up as long as they take care of themselves and their friends in that setting.

It is now socially acceptable to wear not a lot in public. Have a wander around Civic or the Belco shops on the weekend now that it is warmer and see the vast expanses of cleavage on display or skirts so short you can see morning dew.

At the risk of sounding prudish,it’s frightening that some now think that dressing like this is appropriate in the workplace.

neanderthalsis said :

They (shooters) should ask permission from the individual or even better, have a waiver signed sying that the photos are available for use in promotions etc. Although methinks that many of the subjects may be non compos mentis at the time of the photo being taken.

I’m no legal expert but I’m pretty sure that if you pay admission to enter somewhere then while you’re there you kind of fall under their rules (obviously within reason) and I think this may include being photographed. Like if you go to a concert, there’s something on the ticket that says you may be photographed and in buying this ticket you give the organisers to the right use that photo.

I’d be keen to be set straight on this by someone who was in the know.

They (shooters) should ask permission from the individual or even better, have a waiver signed sying that the photos are available for use in promotions etc. Although methinks that many of the subjects may be non compos mentis at the time of the photo being taken.

You are one crazy lady Granny…

You and Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilali would get on well together, Pommy Bastard.

“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: ‘If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.’ Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”

“If you take a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.

“If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it’s no use.

“If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.

“That’s why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

“Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you’re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.

“The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

Ari said :

Panhead said :

You guys are a bunch of bloody prudes.

I’m sure drunken young people takes all sorts of risque photos of each other. Good luck to them and it’s none of my business.

What’s somewhat disturbing about this is that it is the management of the venue taking the risque photos of its patrons and then displaying them in public.

Like I said, in my opinion there is nothing particularly risque about these pictures, nothing more than what you’d see on Saturday morning television. I’ve seen more risque photos in the social pages of the Canberra Times.

So maybe you’re disturbed because you’re just plain looking for something disturbing.

Ari said :

Panhead said :

You guys are a bunch of bloody prudes.

What’s somewhat disturbing about this is that it is the management of the venue taking the risque photos of its patrons and then displaying them in public.

And the difference bewteen this and dressing up like a trollop and parading yourself in a public place, is…what exactly….

“Well, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.”

*chuckle*

Thanks a lot, Ari! Now I’m embroiled in Cleavagegate!!

Panhead said :

You guys are a bunch of bloody prudes.

I’m sure drunken young people takes all sorts of risque photos of each other. Good luck to them and it’s none of my business.

What’s somewhat disturbing about this is that it is the management of the venue taking the risque photos of its patrons and then displaying them in public.

Yeah Pommy but take a closer look, aside from the cleavage shot, which I reckon is just funny I honestly don’t think there is anything ‘slutty’ about what they’re wearing.

So I think in this case that none of the girls are being portrayed as that and I know you didn’t refer specifically to them in your comment, you’re just talking in general terms…

I don’t think they aspore to be whores or porn stars, I think they just aspire to be accepted, some on probably a more shallow level than others, but accepted all the same.

Peoples imaginations are just running a little wild with this one I think.

If young women attending bars dress like cheap sluts, then their photographs will portray them as …errmmm….work it out yourself.

Back in the day, looking like or behaving like a whore was something frowned on, today it seems that some aspire to look like a porn star.

How times change.

Not that I’m complaining.

justbands said :

> I can’t see any school uniforms there!?!?!

There is one….above & to the left of the (shock! horror!) cleavage pic.

Right! What a slut, how dare she be having fun in her school gear! lol! At least it’s a senior school unform!

Still looks pretty innocent to me and hardly encourages statuatory (or any kind of for that matter Granny) rape. I don’t know any establishment who wants punters through it’s front doors that would encourage that.

It’s almost like some people can’t handle seeing others looking like they might be having a better time than them.

> I can’t see any school uniforms there!?!?!

There is one….above & to the left of the (shock! horror!) cleavage pic.

I can’t see any school uniforms there!?!?!

It’s not more lewd an image then what you’d see on video hits at 10am on a Saturday morning just after the cartoons, or some billboard advertising that’s around.

I think if you’re looking for something dirty in it then you’re obviously gonna find something, because you’ve already geared yourself up for it. I see photos of people cutting loose and having a good time.

My personal opinion says shooters is a dump, but that’s just me.

I don’t know how you can make a comment like ‘It’s Shooters you would have to assume many of them are underage’, well I guess you can assume but what does your assumption mean to anyone else? Give me some evidence, a testimonial, anything! As it stands all it is is hot air.

blueberry said :

>Yeah, but having them in school uniforms? What message is that sending?

Every few months some of the night clubs have themed nights like school students, foam partys and Naughty Nurses…

What’s your theory then Granny? They actually want underaged schoogirls in there & to encourage older guys in with the promise of a shot at them?

I hope you’re right, Justbands, but I suspect not ….

> Yeah, but having them in school uniforms? What message is that sending?

I’m guessing that’s a time of year thing…they want to school finishers in there celebrating the fact that they’ve finished year 12 & that they are now 18.

blueberry said :

>Yeah, but having them in school uniforms? What message is that sending?

message: ‘we have lame dress up themed nights so girls come dressed in hot clothes’

Or given the time of year more likely “Hey we’ve finished school for ever and now we’re going to get pissed and trash our uniforms”

It’s a licensed premises too, you’d have to assume that all the pretty young things featured were over 18.

It’s shooters, you would have to assume many of them are underage…

>Yeah, but having them in school uniforms? What message is that sending?

message: ‘we have lame dress up themed nights so girls come dressed in hot clothes’

But seriously though, i don’t see any uniforms in that photo??

Not that i’m sticking up for shooters or any thing but if i remember correctly they are actually pretty strict with their carding at the door. It would be pretty hard to get in there with out a fake id if you were underage.

Yeah, but having them in school uniforms? What message is that sending?

Oh no! Cleavage! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! The place is a dump, bu seriously…who cares if they have pics of good looking girls on their door? Pretty common practice for a club like this I would have thought. It’s a licensed premises too, you’d have to assume that all the pretty young things featured were over 18.

You guys are a bunch of bloody prudes.

Ari@6

Ari said :

I also didn’t want to linger too long short-sightedly peering at all the young babes.

LOL! Whereas taking photo is always acceptable.

BerraBoy68 said :

Er… I’m getting old, what’s a toolie?

Older blokes who went to the Gold Coast to try and pick up young chicks during Schoolies Week were quickly dubbed Toolies.

Er… I’m getting old, what’s a toolie?

And it’s definately cleavage. I personally researched the topic for many, many years.

Nothing more than you get on any TV ad.

How this encourages the statuatory rape of young girls go figure. You need to get out more.

Granny said :

It’s cleavage, not upskirt… Not much research went into this story I see ….

Heheh, well I did say my eyesight’s not great. 😉

I also didn’t want to linger too long short-sightedly peering at all the young babes.

It’s still just as disturbing to my mind.

Granny said :

For another, why would anyone want to encourage the statutory rape of young girls?

The huwahuh ?

Yep it’s defiantly a down blouse shot, i have seen this wall, lots of the night clubs have a similar wall somewhere, most of the pics are young girls. Probably to attract the male patrons to come in, thinking that the club is full of young girls. They really annoy me they make me & feel old….

Canberra81 said :

It’s cleavage, not upskirt…

Goodness me, Ari! Get your facts straight!!

*chuckle*

Not much research went into this story I see ….

It’s cleavage, not upskirt…

still pretty dodgy though

I am actually really disturbed by this.

For one thing, it’s publicly displayed in full view of children. For another, why would anyone want to encourage the statutory rape of young girls?