Sleazy crowd set to gather at Olympia Theatre to sexually objectify "perfect" bodies

Killer Pigeon

It's incredible how ghey this is, I just have this deep urge to line them all up against a wall, masacre them all like this then chop them into small pieces with a machete and feed their remains to some wild chipmunks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5772Dc9K84

eco2live

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It's incredible how ghey this is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5772Dc9K84

Bit insensitive to be ripping off clothes in the middle recession. I could do with a T shirt like that one that was ripped and thrown into the crowd. Also bloody women cheering as they throw their clothes on the ground. I get nothing but grief for that. Double standards.

Animal_

They should be bringing female strippers to the olympia, cant see it happening though

OutlawPete

Animal_ wrote: »

They should be bringing female strippers to the olympia, cant see it happening though

Sure what's the point? All the fun is taken out of it if you can't grope them and get taken behind a towel so that you can lick whipped cream from their shaved front bottoms. Female pervs get a far better deal.

--LOS--

Those men are only trying to prove they have penises as well as..........ummm....penises >_>

Dudess

man.about.town wrote: »

no, the human body is beautiful, theres nothing wrong with admiring it. typical feminist bs here slating it

WHERE did you get that from...?
I don't give a sh1t if anyone (male or female) takes their clothes off for money - I think if you've the bod and you want to, you should. But I do find it a bit dodge the way touching - meaning groping and slobbering - is allowed at a male strip show. I know it's the men's choice to strip etc but the fact touching is allowed at all, and the fact it's ok for the female audience to act like a gaggle of sex-starved maniacs... obviously the latter in a gentlemen's club would result in bootings out the door, if not arrests.
I don't understand people having a problem with strip clubs, but yeah "You're obviously fat and ugly" type responses are so childish and quite spiteful. And maybe they're not fat/ugly?

fakearms123 wrote: »

Its funny that this chip 'n' dales rescue rangers fiasco is allowed to go on when you had a beautful organisation like Stringfellas closed down by probably the same women that will be flicking the bean off themselves in the Olympia!

A lot of people who protested against that club though were old-skool local people, auld conservative ones etc, and were concerned with "decency" and "morals" rather than exploitation of women. Parnell Street was a stupid idea - bet it would still be open if they'd opted for Leeson/Harcourt/Baggot Street.

WalterMitty wrote: »

in before feminazis arrive

Confusing - thought "feminazis" wouldn't have a problem with male strippers, only female ones?

chicken fingers wrote: »

OP is obviously ugly.
:P

djan wrote: »

OP first of all are you fat?
But really no one is forcing them to do it so why would you try and stop them or judge them as both parties involved dont seem to have a problem with it. As for your comments regarding why they want to be muscly and spend hours in the gym, why not?

Lol - WindSock, your work was already done for you!

drdeadlift wrote: »

agree with above poster

Read it again - I don't think you did agree with that poster. :pac:

OutlawPete

I'm down here now reporting from outside of the Olympia.

So far the women look normal and there is no way that you could tell just by looking at them, that they are in fact, all sexual deviants with no regard for the men that will be taken advantage of later on here this evening.

-- OutlawPete, Dame St.

UsernameInUse

TL;DR.

Whats going on? And more importantly, should I get there?!

OutlawPete

UsernameInUse wrote: »

TL;DR.

Whats going on? And more importantly, should I get there?!

Not much right now but Alanis Morrisette needs to get down here fast so I can show what 'irony' really is, as I just got my face slapped for checking out some cleavage in the queue.

-- OutlawPete

bonerm

OutlawPete wrote: »

I'm down here now reporting from outside of the Olympia.

So far the women look normal and there is no way that you could tell just by looking at them, that they are in fact, all sexual deviants with no regard for the men that will be taken advantage of later on here this evening.

-- OutlawPete, Dame St.

Thanks for the updates.

Have you been taken advantage of yourself out there yet (or feel fear for same as the night progresses)?

OutlawPete

bonerm wrote: »

Have you been taken advantage of yourself out there yet (or fear for same)?

Yes I have had my bottom pinched and women in stilettos tried to grab my crotch.

I told a passing member of the Police force but they laughed at me and the lady has now gone inside.

The lust in these women's eyes has to be seen to be believed. Filthy women who intend to enter the building behind me with hope of seeing men's genitalia.

Unfortunately, some of these men (that no doubt have self esteem issues) will feel pressured into preforming for these women for tonight they will sex objects and sex objects alone.

Let's just hope that when these ladies leave this establishment in their undoubtedly highly aroused state, that the young men in the area, won't be set upon and allowed to make their way home unmolested.

-- OutlawPete, Ricks on Dame St .. (was hungry)

hatrickpatrick

To be honest, I think both men and women who complain about this are pathetic.
Consenting adults. You don't want to put your body on display? Perfectly reasonable. You have every right not to. You don't want to go and see a show where others do so? Again, absolutely reasonable, and utterly your own decision.

However, this is the limit of your rights. You have the right to decide what you yourself want to do. Unless there is a victim who was not given a choice in the matter, on either side, you have absolutely no moral right to tell them how to live their lives. None whatsoever.

bonerm

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yes I have had my bottom pinched and women in stilettos tried to grab my crotch.

This sort of thing just isn't on! When are women going to realise that men aren't just objects put on this Earth for female sexual gratification?

(I hope also you got that Garda's number btw)

OutlawPete

dilbert2 wrote: »

This sounds unbelievably tacky ..

I don't think it's "tacky" at all, just as I didn't think Stringfellows was either.

dilbert2 wrote: »

There are strip clubs with women dancing in them all over the city.

Do you mean private lapdancing clubs, the ones buried in basements, hidden away from the public?

The point is that in one of our most celebrated theatres in the country, it is fine for women to gather and watch men strip naked, simulating sex acts with them on stage and were it women on the other hand, that were stripping naked, it would be all over the media, with the National Women's Council up in arms screaming exploitation no doubt.

They were the ones who got the harmless Hunky Dory ads pulled recently afterall.

dilbert2 wrote: »

And don’t forget, do the men who attend these strip clubs and whatever else have girlfriends and wives ..

What's that got to do with anything? Are we to stop female strippers and critise all men because some don't tell there wives where they are going?

dilbert2 wrote: »

.. in fairness outlawpete if we are to be honest with ourselves these shows don’t go on that often ..

Let them go on everyday for all I care, but lets just have an open attitude to both, not just the ones that cater to women.

--

They are all about to come out now, I have my pepper spray ready.

WindSock

OutlawPete wrote: »

Good, so you agree with me then.

Nice to know.

No, I will never agree with your attempts to trivialise womens issues and your general assumption that all women who dare raise a voice are hypocrites.

OutlawPete

WindSock wrote: »

No, I will never agree with your attempts to trivialise womens issues ..

Most "women's issues" in this day and age (in the western world at least) are a nonsense and are well catered for when we look after 'both' sexes at the same time, with regards to them not becoming victims of sexism.

WindSock wrote: »

..and your general assumption that all women who dare raise a voice are hypocrites.

It's not an "assumption" - it's a glaring fact.

I am tired of reading feminists complaining how men objectify and exploit women, when men's bodies are just as objectified, if not more so.

I have no problem with women doing so by the way, in fact I have started threads that have encouraged it, but lets just have it both ways and not where we look at men as being sleazy dirty creeps who have to go and attend such events in basement clubs and women as it been perfectly fine for them to have these events in one of most prestigious theatres because they are just going for "a laugh".

That's hypocritical, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Captain_Generic

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am tired of reading feminists complaining how men objectify and exploit women, when men's bodies are just as objectified, if not more so.

Thats just rediculous, women always have and always will be far more objectified than men. Men buy "lads mags" to gawk at semi clad women, women buy magazines to, again, look at other women.

What about advertising? 9 times out of 10 theres an attractive woman selling everything from furniture to software.

CrazyRabbit

Dudess wrote: »

I'd say most of the women will just be going for the laugh and not actually turned on by them. A lot of auld ones with waning libidos will be at it too thinking this is what you're supposed to fancy.

Orange. Bulging. Oiled up. Hairless.

Puke...

I'm pasty white, have regular muscle tone, dry skin and am as hairy as a yeti.

Fancy a date?

Feeona

Why isn't this thread in the Gentlemen's Club forum? It's telling that you feel comfortable enough to bring up sexism against men in After Hours, probably the busiest forum on the website. An equivalent female thread would be told to post in the Ladies Lounge fairly sharpish, or sidelined to a forum which caters for a minority.

This, amongst many other things, shows how women (and their experiences) are often relegated to the sideline in most people's minds. But you wouldn't know about it unless you've been sidelined (or treated as an object) at various times in your life. Much like I wouldn't know what African Americans experience, or what homosexuals experience. And I wouldn't dare to compare my working life to the working life of an African American's who has the weight of slave history behind him/her. So I think it's dis-ingenuous of you to compare a male strip show to what women as a whole have been experiencing for hundreds of years, and maybe more.

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am tired of reading feminists complaining how men objectify and exploit women

Where are you reading this? Boards?

when men's bodies are just as objectified, if not more so.

I don't think women who choose to take their clothes off for a living are being objectified in the least, but the above is just ridiculous. I've seen even a thread on autism here which had to bring in whether some woman was do-able or not. Enjoying looking at women, fine, but their looks don't have to come into EVERYTHING...
Plus, is this the right forum to make this point? Are there regular threads on AH complaining about objectification of women's bodies here? News to me if there are - and as WindSock rightly pointed out, any woman who'd start such a thread (and I'd disagree with the sentiments of such a thread) would be met with endless cat-calls of "You're obviously fat and ugly" which is spiteful even if the argument is flawed.
You might find such threads on Humanities/The Ladies' Lounge/The Gentlemen's Club (with PLENTY of women disagreeing with those who argue women are objectified though) so maybe you should have started this thread on one of those forums. Or better still - a feminist forum, so that you'll be aiming it more at those to whom it's specifically referring to. Here, it looks like you're just aiming it at all women who read this forum, when not ALL women agree that strip clubs are exploitative of women - and of course here is the easier option too.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I'm pasty white, have regular muscle tone, dry skin and am as hairy as a yeti.

Fancy a date?

Oh I'd certainly find that more attractive than a Chippendale, yup.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I wonder if any of the whores who complained about the hunky dories add went to this.

Sexism with women don't like it,
Chivalry when they do...

GTFO tbh.

gargleblaster

Dudess wrote: »

Enjoying looking at women, fine, but their looks don't have to come into EVERYTHING...

:pac:

all women, at least from their mid teens to their early 40s, or of course any other age if the men so choose, absolutely must be critiqued based on how they look. no matter if they chose a profession in which looks are actually an issue or not.

i don't make the rules, i just notice them.

OutlawPete

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Thats just rediculous, women always have and always will be far more objectified than men.

Nonsense, you think that because that's what society has led you to believe. Men have always been just as objectified, just in far different ways, that's all.

When I was a kid, from the moment I was subjected to the media, I knew that: 'Tall, Dark & handsome' was the male ideal, just as much as girls were subjected to the 'Barbie' Doll as being their ideal perhaps.

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Men buy "lads mags" to gawk at semi clad women, women buy magazines to, again, look at other women.

What, and girls mags don't have the same, are you kidding me or what? There was just as many Boyband members half naked in music videos and magazines as there are Girlbands and the like.

Captain_Generic wrote: »

What about advertising? 9 times out of 10 theres an attractive woman selling everything from furniture to software.

Well, not sure which adverts you mean but I see men being just as objectified in advertisements as I do women, as I say - it's all just in different ways.

If it's a sofa for sale, you will see a hunky guy who is clearly well off, implying that if she buys that sofa, that guy will be obtainable. Not all objectification has to be as blatant as the Diet Coke ad.

Billions of "romance" novels/movies have been successful for the very fact that they objectify men as been big, strong, masculine men who will sweep them off their feet. Of course, that will be labelled as "Erotica" but it just as objectifying.

Let's take the rampant rabbit vibrator (other models are available) as an example. How many millions of these have been sold worldwide? Seems the majority of women own some form of penis shaped dildo and if it were every man that had a plastic vagina within arm's reach, we wouldn't hear the end of how it was the ultimate form of objectification of women and how it showed just what men thought of them.

Again, no problem with any of the above but the hypocritical claptrap that some women come out with about their sex being objectified is nonsense, made very clear by the fact that they have no issue with the Chippendales and the like, it being just "fun" and all.

I just want to live in a world where both sexes can be as perverted as the other is all. A world where airport customs would look on a woman having this in her luggage, just the same as they would look on me having this in mine

Dudess

Mavis Shapely Head wrote: »

I wonder if any of the whores who complained about the hunky dories add went to this.

Doubt they'd sell their bodies for sex to be fair... :pac:

bronte

Mavis Shapely Head wrote: »

I wonder if any of the whores who complained about the hunky dories add went to this.

Sexism with women don't like it,
Chivalry when they do...

GTFO tbh.

Seriously..I never use this fcuker but :rolleyes:

gargleblaster

OutlawPete wrote: »

What, and girls mags don't have the same, are you kidding me or what? There was just as many Boyband members half naked in music videos and magazines as there are Girlbands and the like.

i'm confused, are you talking abut nudey magazines for girls? with naked men in there doing ridiculous poses? :pac:

and there are just as many half naked men on videos as women? :pac::pac::pac:

Well, not sure which adverts you mean but I see men being just as objectified in advertisements as I do women, as I say - it's all just in different ways.

If it's a sofa for sale, you will see a hunky guy who is clearly well off, implying that if she buys that sofa, that guy will be obtainable. Not all objectification has to be as blatant as the Diet Coke ad.

Billions of "romance" novels/movies have been successful for the very fact that they objectify men as been big, strong, masculine men who will sweep them off their feet. Of course, that will be labelled as "Erotica" but it just as objectifying.

Let's take the rampant rabbit vibrator (other models are available) as an example. How many millions of these have been sold worldwide? Seems the majority of women own some form of penis shaped dildo and if it were every man that had a plastic vagina within arm's reach, we wouldn't hear the end of how it was the ultimate form of objectification of women and how it showed just what men thought of them.

Again, no problem with any of the above but the hypocritical claptrap that some women come out with about their sex being objectified is nonsense, made very clear by the fact that they have no issue with the Chippendales and the like, it being just "fun" and all.

I just want to live in a world where both sexes can be as perverted as the other is all. A world where airport customs would look on a woman having this in her luggage, just the same as they would look on me having this in mine

so because women like and use masturbatory aids, this proves what exactly?

you do know that there are fake vaginas out there for men to use, don't you? so i guess the lack of protests against them proves that you're completely incorrect about all the outrage you're imagining.


this thread has taken a turn for the bizarre, that's for sure! :pac:

brendanL

LOL,

Seriously, go volunteer to help old people in your community or something, how bored do you have to be to picket outside this?

Dudess

Yeah there's so much feminist outrage over blow-up dolls! Oh wait... there isn't.

gargleblaster

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah there's so much feminist outrage over blow-up dolls! Oh wait... there isn't.

and the fleshlight, too! tremendous outrage over that one :pac:

Micky Dolenz

Can anyone summarise what is going on here?

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Where are you reading this? Boards?

That's one of the places, sure.

When those St Pat's teachers did the fashion show it was the usual crap of 'why do women have to take their clothes off'. Ignoring the fact that Firemen and the like have done similar for charity calendars for years.

Dudess wrote: »

I've seen even a thread on autism here which had to bring in whether some woman was do-able or not.

Well, I didn't see that or I would most likely have been banned.

Dudess wrote: »

Enjoying looking at women, fine, but their looks don't have to come into EVERYTHING...

I agree but men's looks are brought into almost everything also.

Come on, every man I can think of that gets discussed in AH gets the piss taken out of him for his looks: Sarkozy to Brian Cowen and from Bono to Dave McSavage.

Dudess wrote: »

Plus, is this the right forum to make this point? Are there regular threads on AH complaining about objectification of women's bodies here?

Eh, was the American reporter thread that got whistled at not started here?

Dudess wrote: »

News to me if there are - and as WindSock rightly pointed out, any woman who'd start such a thread (and I'd disagree with the sentiments of such a thread) would be met with endless cat-calls of "You're obviously fat and ugly" which is spiteful even if the argument is flawed.

More victimhood mentally suggesting women get a raw deal in After Hours hogwash.

Thread was just a joke, with a subtext of truth for sure - but a lighthearted thread none-the-less.

Let's not forget that this is the forum where threads asking if women can parallel park get locked though. I haven't yet seen any men complain about the thread suggesting that men can't dance though and we're not likely to either, thank God.

Dudess

A guy started that thread - and the question was asked, it wasn't a statement. I personally think anyone who says "Men can't dance" is an idiot. And that is not "victimhood" by me - it's merely stating a fact about AH. Anyone can see it's a trend, male or female. And the OP of that sports reporter thread was not making the point that the woman was being objectified - the main crux of that argument was that the woman herself said she felt uncomfortable because of the way the men acted towards her and I and others said if that's how she felt, that's how she felt. I emphasised there is nothing wrong with a guy looking at her admiringly when she did choose to wear skimpy clothing (so she can't NOT expect men to look at her) but there's no need for them to be hooting and acting like frat boys. And then a bunch of idiots said I was a feminazi, obviously unattractive etc etc. And if I were a man, I would not like to be represented by that crap, nor by men who think it's just run-of-the-mill manly behaviour to lose dignity and behave like an ape around a woman (repeat: that does NOT refer to merely admiring how she looks, or passing a compliment).

Micky D, the point is being made that female stripping is deemed an outrage by some women, whereas they don't seem to take issue with male stripping.
Irony is being used to make the point - and it's funny the way some people aren't seeing that... :pac:

Now though, the gender war (I'd imagine an aim of the OP :pac:) has started...

Ickle Magoo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Can anyone summarise what is going on here?

The usual crass-generalization laden soap-boxing reeking with bitterness.

strobe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Can anyone summarise what is going on here?

Someone posted a parody thread, people laughed and then and a bunch of people missed the joke and got outraged.

OutlawPete

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The usual crass-generalization laden soap-boxing reeking with bitterness.

Ah, a man makes a valid point - he must be "bitter".

How original of you.

Micky Dolenz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The usual crass-generalization laden soap-boxing reeking with bitterness.

Yeah, thought as much.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah there's so much feminist outrage over blow-up dolls! Oh wait... there isn't.

Miss the smiley did you? Oh I forget, you don't like that 'wink', do you.

gargleblaster

OutlawPete wrote: »

Nonsense, you think that because that's what society has led you to believe. Men have always been just as objectified, just in far different ways, that's all.

When I was a kid, from the moment I was subjected to the media, I knew that: 'Tall, Dark & handsome' was the male ideal, just as much as girls were subjected to the 'Barbie' Doll as being their ideal perhaps.



What, and girls mags don't have the same, are you kidding me or what? There was just as many Boyband members half naked in music videos and magazines as there are Girlbands and the like.



Well, not sure which adverts you mean but I see men being just as objectified in advertisements as I do women, as I say - it's all just in different ways.

If it's a sofa for sale, you will see a hunky guy who is clearly well off, implying that if she buys that sofa, that guy will be obtainable. Not all objectification has to be as blatant as the Diet Coke ad.

Billions of "romance" novels/movies have been successful for the very fact that they objectify men as been big, strong, masculine men who will sweep them off their feet. Of course, that will be labelled as "Erotica" but it just as objectifying.

Let's take the rampant rabbit vibrator (other models are available) as an example. How many millions of these have been sold worldwide? Seems the majority of women own some form of penis shaped dildo and if it were every man that had a plastic vagina within arm's reach, we wouldn't hear the end of how it was the ultimate form of objectification of women and how it showed just what men thought of them.

Again, no problem with any of the above but the hypocritical claptrap that some women come out with about their sex being objectified is nonsense, made very clear by the fact that they have no issue with the Chippendales and the like, it being just "fun" and all.

I just want to live in a world where both sexes can be as perverted as the other is all. A world where airport customs would look on a woman having this in her luggage, just the same as they would look on me having this in mine

if the bolded part was said in jest then fair enough, but it looked to me like it was said in all seriousness, which made it funny.

OutlawPete

gargleblaster wrote: »

if the bolded part was said in jest then fair enough, but it looked to me like it was said in all seriousness, which made it funny.

The majority of what I said was in jest, not all - but most.

Believe it or not I wasn't even down at the Olympia doing live reports.

I've made the point I wanted to, in as lightheated a way as I could.

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

When those St Pat's teachers did the fashion show it was the usual crap of 'why do women have to take their clothes off'. Ignoring the fact that Firemen and the like have done similar for charity calendars for years.

You need to go back and read the opening post to that thread which referenced a woman's blog entry that was an out-and-out attack on those girls and made awfully nasty comments about STDs and the like, and a whole plethora of women (myself included) slated her. Then throughout the rest of the thread, plenty of women continued to say same women can take their clothes off if they like. There was the point made that it could be dodgy for their careers as teachers (which it could be - extremely conservative world is primary teaching) but that has nothing to do with being opposed to them doing the calendar.
Sure, some women objected to the women stripping off because of "objectification" etc but their view was most definitely not the only one.

And the thread wasn't ABOUT firemen who strip for calendars.

DeVore

I thought this thread was actually kinda funny (until people missed its subtlety, which wasn't particularly subtle in the first place).

I haven't seen one decent answer from the usual pro-women groups, sorry "equality advocates" as to question of the hypocrisy about this.

So here's the straight up question: Isn't this hypocritical??

DeV.

gargleblaster

OutlawPete wrote: »

The majority of what I said was in jest, not all - but most.

Believe it or not I wasn't even down at the Olympia doing live reports.

I've made the point I wanted to, in as lightheated a way as I could.

yes, well the live reports were rather obviously in jest. the above post, not so obviously.

it's good to know you were joking!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bronte wrote: »

Seriously..I never use this fcuker but :rolleyes:

So why are you using it now? Any reason?

Dudess wrote: »

Doubt they'd sell their bodies for sex to be fair... :pac:

I wasn't using the word literally

gargleblaster

DeVore wrote: »

I thought this thread was actually kinda funny (until people missed its subtlety, which wasn't particularly subtle in the first place).

I haven't seen one decent answer from the usual pro-women groups, sorry "equality advocates" as to question of the hypocrisy about this.

So here's the straight up question: Isn't this hypocritical??

DeV.

i'm a raging feminazi and it's very simple. if the same women who rage against strip clubs for men enjoy the chippendales nonsense, then yes, they are hypocritical.

i don't care about strip clubs, those women choose the field. maybe some are in bad circumstances but you can't condemn all strip clubs as bad, because individuals are so different, no one can speak for anyone else.

Captain_Generic

strobe wrote: »

Someone posted a parody thread, people laughed and then and a bunch of people missed the joke and got outraged.

OutlawPete wrote: »

The majority of what I said was in jest, not all - but most.

Alright, I'll just assume the subtle parody element of the latter part of this thread was lost on me

Average_Joe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The usual crass-generalization laden soap-boxing reeking with bitterness.

Ya you would say that wouldn't you. Get back into the kitchen!

WindSock

strobe wrote: »

Someone posted a parody thread, people laughed and then and a bunch of people missed the joke and got outraged.

Actually, the point of the parody is only been taken up now.

I have too many points to make myself but can't from this damn dirty mobile.

Ickle Magoo

OutlawPete wrote: »

Ah, a man makes a valid point - he must be "bitter".

How original of you.

The thread was funny at first, I thought your original post was very good....but....if you had a valid point rather than an embittered soap-box you'd have followed that up with arguing why those who were campaigning outside Stringfellows weren't also campaigning outside the Olympia - but instead you are using the fact they aren't to throw around crass generalisations about more than just those who objected to the strip-club - who judging by the pictures of those protesting weren't all female btw.

When the same names keep cropping up throwing around the same aggressive assumptions thrown at an entire gender with no thought to differences of opinion or debate within that gender then it does reek of bitterness with an axe to grind rather than genuine witticism, you're only fooling yourself if you think it doesn't.

For the record, I don't have an issue with stringfellows or chippendales - sorry if that destroys your whole gender based rantings.

Dudess

DeVore wrote: »

I haven't seen one decent answer from the usual pro-women groups, sorry "equality advocates" as to question of the hypocrisy about this.

Nice passive-aggressive sneer at some users of the site you run there.

And what you mean is, you haven't bothered to look?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71133105&postcount=108

So here's the straight up question: Isn't this hypocritical??

Yes, it is hypocritical for some women to object to female stripping (I don't object to it) and not to object to male stripping.

Average_Joe

I really think all these femenists should just go back to posting in the lesbian forum.