Thursday, 25 August 2022

TfL: "We're An Unbeatable Laughing Stock With Our 'Sexual Staring' Poster Campaign!"

Aussie nightclub: "Hold our spiked drink, cobber!"

An iconic nightclub will introduce hi-vis 'staring police' who will kick out revellers if they look longingly at a stranger across the dancefloor without prior 'verbal consent'.


Long-established venue Club 77 in the heart of Sydney's Darlinghurst party strip has overhauled its safety and harassment policy to make the venue a 'safe space' that promotes a strong culture of consent amid a crackdown against harassment.
The venue stresses interaction with strangers is encouraged but says engagement must now start with prior verbal consent or will otherwise be considered as harassment and will result in being evicted from the club.

What happened to you, Australia..? Where did you lose your way? 

'We adopt a policy of 'always believe the report' in cases of harassment and feeling unsafe.'

We've all seen where that leads. Why can't you? 


MTG1 said...

I can foresee WC Jaded on the High Street, equipped with the Met's latest perv camera and issuing Fixed Penalty tickets for those exceeding the Stare Limit.

Anonymous said...

Let’s be honest here, when they say “a person” experiencing an unwanted gaze/attention, what they really mean is “a woman” and ‘only’ a woman.

As a male nurse I was required to attend annual (struggle) “sensitivity training” sessions, in which we (despicable) males were instructed in what not to do, say or think about/to our ‘betters’ – looking, touching, suggestive (or any ‘they’ could interpret as such if they so chose to) language, etc. We were informed (threatened) that if any such event occurred the ‘perpetrator’ would face termination and legal proceedings, with guilt/innocence based entirely on the ‘victims’ interpretation.

I was … encouraged not to attend after a while when I kept “reporting” incidents I had seen, or experienced, where women would behave towards me, or other men, (explicitly on an hourly/daily basis, unlike the doubtful few cases a year in the opposite direction) in ways that would have me censured, fired, if not arrested if I had acted that way towards them (Hey, they had to phrase the regulations so they appeared 'non-sexist', even if it was an open secret it would only be interpreted in one direction. Does the fact I used their own rules as written against them make me a bad man? :D).

So? It’s merely yet another indicator of just how far the feminists in Australian cities are willing to go to further their special status and privileges. We all know whether a ‘gaze’ or ‘attention’ is welcomed or not by a woman is entirely dependant on the man’s looks, wealth and ‘reputation’ – but now the fems demand that only the ‘attractive’ males be even allowed anywhere near them.

The hilariously predictable next step will be the mass whine as they realise … all men stop attending (as there’s always some woman who isn’t interested) and they’re all left, exactly where they should be, back on the shelf.

Ripper said...

What if you're cross eyed?

Stonyground said...

I'd be pretty screwed if they introduced this type of rule at the gym. Really toned lycra clad bodies that I'm not allowed to look at, sort of like sirens?

Bucko said...


Anonymous said...

So if I grab some girls arse, I can identify as blind and say it was just a quick braille glance?

Andy said...

That's going dismay a few slappers, wot, no geezer getting an eyeful of me bits!

Anonymous said...

Quite right and proper, to be denounced is to be guilty. The sooner it's made a capital offence to be a man the happier and more fulfilling life will be for those poor down trodden females. This is where millions of years of uncontrolled evolution gets you.

JuliaM said...

"Does the fact I used their own rules as written against them make me a bad man? :D)."

THAT'S the way to do it!

"What if you're cross eyed?"

Go to jail, do not collect £200, etc



"This is where millions of years of uncontrolled evolution gets you."

Darwin has a lot to answer for!