Something needs to be done about nightclub groping

kat.mac

kat.mac wrote: »

<_<

>_>

Don't know if serious misogyny, or serious trolling, is going on here...

<_<

>_>

I'm guessing the latter, laced with a liberal dose of the former.:)

kat.mac

mangochavez wrote: »

Women are naturally inclined to be that way, therefore it's NOT their fault. It's the responsibility of the MEN to ensure strong sexual mores to enable a stable society.

Silly wimminz, aren't even in control of our own sexual choices, thank god for big strong men to save us from ourselves!

mangochavez

mangochavez wrote: »

Women are naturally inclined to be that way, therefore it's NOT their fault. It's the responsibility of the MEN to ensure strong sexual mores to enable a stable society.

Gimme some studies, anything at all.

Or are you willing to admit all this is your ill-considered opinion presented as fact?

BTW, women are capable of forming their own personal sexual mores, we don't need men to sort us out by telling us the 'right' way to live for the betterment of society.

Malari

mangochavez wrote: »

Women are naturally inclined to be that way, therefore it's NOT their fault. It's the responsibility of the MEN to ensure strong sexual mores to enable a stable society.

Are you posting from Afghanistan?

mangochavez

kat.mac wrote: »

Silly wimminz, aren't even in control of our own sexual choices, thank god for big strong men to save us from ourselves!

Study after study has proven that men are better at logical and long term thinking/planning. The absence of female leaders/philosophers throughout history also heavily backs up this point.

Wibbs

mangochavez don't post in this thread again or you will face a ban. Replying to this on thread will also result in a ban. Only warning.

Malari

Malari wrote: »

Are you posting from Afghanistan?

Niice

Some of this sounds very like the basic justification behind PUA'y type thinking , dressed up with a liberal injection of pretension.

kat.mac

mangochavez wrote: »

Study after study has proven that men are better at logical and long term thinking/planning. The absence of female leaders/philosophers throughout history also heavily backs up this point.

Links to these studies? The names of the authors, the names of the journals they were published in.... Anything? (Your own opinions don't count as studies, by the way. Just, you know, FYI.)




No?






Didn't think so.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

Niice

Some of this sounds very like the basic justification behind PUA'y type thinking , dressed up with a liberal injection of pretension.

What's PUA'y thinking?

starling

Whoa.....
I've just woken up and been reading through this thread from the last post I made. I was going to write another clarifying what I was saying because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, MC, and thought you genuinely just misunderstood the connection between slut shaming and groping.
But it's become clear you have deeper issues with women in regards to their sexuality and rights.

So i'm just going to clarify a bit about the whole slut shaming practice. I think firstly we should acknowledge that the very concept of a "slut" is actually quite vague. The word "slut" used to be used as an insult to deride women who had sex outside of marriage. Nowadays most people agree that sex before or without marriage is not "morally wrong". (I'm putting that in quotations marks because again, morality is relative and changes.)
So where does that leave the word "slut"? Nobody seems to agree what exacty constitutes being a slut. Is it a woman who has sex with someone she's not going out with? If so, how long should I be waiting to have sex with a new partner? A month? A week? Two days?
Is it about the tineframe or the emotions involved? Am I supposed to be waiting until I think I'm "in love"? What if I just fancy a ride, and don't really care if I never see the person again?
Or is it a woman who has "too many" sexual partners? How many is too many?

The thing about all those questions I just asked is that nobody agrees what the answers are. Nobody, especially the people who actually try to call women sluts, actually agrees on the meaning of the word. If there were one fixed, definable "morally right" answer to any of those questions then believe me, we would all know it.

But the main thing about all those questions is this: who gets to decide what the answers are? Because the very notion that anyone other than me has a right to tell me how many sexual partners I can have, how long I should know someone or how I should feel about them before I have sex with them is exceedingly offensive.

This is what I mean by society "policing" my body. This is what I mean by society thinking that my body is not my own private property but somehow "belongs" to strangers.

And that is why some men think it's no big deal to walk up to me and sexually assault me and laugh it off as "groping." They think they are entitled to.

Mark Hamill

GreeBo wrote: »

The OPs scenario is completely unrelated to self-defence.

No, it is not. The posters scenario is strongly related to a situation were someone might have to be violent to defend their partner. Yes, as you say, the situation was over so there was no more immediate threat, but it was only over a few moments and it had been exacerbated by the actions and attitude of the nightclub owner.

GreeBo wrote: »

What if I was *really* mad at someone for touching me, can I just shoot them?
Or perhaps you could explain where the mythical "line" of what is ok and what isnt ok actually is? Two punches?
A kick to the head?

FFS, do you really think there is a "mythical line" between a punch and shooting someone? The ridiculous comparisons brought out by some in this thread show how little they support they can actually muster for their position.

GreeBo wrote: »

It was the past. It was not currently happening, it was over. In the past!
Why didnt the OP punch the bouncer/owner?

Because he decided the groper was the ultimate wrongdoer? Why would he hit the bouncer, the bouncer backed him up?

starling

MaxWig wrote: »

What's PUA'y thinking?

Attitudes to women usually shared by "PickUpArtists" like, the selfish bitches are only "breeding" with those tall handsome Alpha Males, and if I pay €59999.00 in six easy instalments I can learn all the trick I need to manipulate them into "breeding" with me. *shudders*
they're as creepy as all hell.

Note "breeding" is not the actual aim.


PS re my last post MC more or less outed himself while I was typing all that crap with my thumbs. It's still true tho:)

Wibbs

OK folks mangochavez has been barred from posting/replying in this thread so no more replies to him or his "opinions" please.

Mark Hamill

mangochavez wrote: »

I understand, it's just that the poster implied that these two positions weren't polarized, but were in fact two aspects of the same single problematic attitude within society, which is of course absurd.

Men feel entitled to sex, and this manifests itself in rape cases. Surely this entitlement will increase the less "slut-shaming" there is (and hence the more promiscuity). I just don't understand the "sex positive" feminist position.

If people were fundamentally rational, then these two positions would be inherently polarised. But there are men who see women wanting to be promiscuous with them as a good thing, but at the same time see women wanting to be promiscuous with other men as a bad thing. It is, in some respects, an expressions of arrogance of even dominance, "women should want me and no-one else". Mainly, it is an expression of stupidity and hypocrisy.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

What's PUA'y thinking?

PUA courses and books trot out these kind of lines as a way of dehumanising women and making it easier for a certain, romantically unsucessful and usually resentful, type of man to approach them. If they follow the line of thinking to it's bitter end and get rejected, it's not their fault, it's a failure of the system. If they do manage to manipulate a girl into bed, it's a success that bolsters their confidence and they get to own that.

Basically its a way of giving inadequate men the illusion of confidence and that enables them to approach women in a very dishonest way. It also gives them a means of absolving themselves of responsiblilty for their own romantic failures.

Regarding women as incapable of making the right choices, being stupidly selective, and of being easily manipulated is part and parcel of it.

Google it, it's an eye-opener

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

PUA courses and books trot out these kind of lines as a way of dehumanising women and making it easier for a certain, romantically unsucessful and usually resentful, type of man to approach them. If they follow the line of thinking to it's bitter end and get rejected, it's not their fault, it's a failure of the system. If they do manage to manipulate a girl into bed, it's a success that bolsters their confidence and they get to own that.

Basically its a way of giving inadequate men the illusion of confidence and that enables them to approach women in a very dishonest way. It also gives them a means of absolving themselves of responsiblilty for their own romantic failures.

Regarding women as incapable of making the right choices, being stupidly selective, and of being easily manipulated is part and parcel of it.

Google it, it's an eye-opener

I think I might - sounds fascinating

Morag

I think a certain ammount of slut shaming goes back to the world war 2 posters warning soldiers about STD or Veneral disease as it was termed back then.




The idea that a guy has the right or entitlement to look at women and touch them up is a problem, it's part of the male gaze were so much of the media is tailored to that.

Found this intresting article today about how it seem some men expect women to dress in a way which which makes them more leerable.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/06/why-do-white-guys-hate-my-hijab

kylith

MaxWig wrote: »

What's PUA'y thinking?

Ever seen The Big Bang Theory? Wollowitz is a PUA (Pick Up Artist), men who will try to manipulate women into sleeping with them using techniques such as 'negging': using backhanded compliments to erode a woman's confidence; like 'I think it's great that you're on a diet' or 'not many women look good with their roots showing, but you pull it off'.

For some reason they see relationships as a competition, and the other men are 'winning'. The PUA believes that this is because the other guy has some secret or trick that he's using to get women; it never seems to cross his mind that the other guy is probably being polite and pleasant, and showing interest in the young lady in question whereas the PUA is being creepy and insulting.

starling

Morag wrote: »

I think a certain ammount of slut shaming goes back to the world war 2 posters warning soldiers about STD or Veneral disease as it was termed back then.




The idea that a guy has the right or entitlement to look at women and touch them up is a problem, it's part of the male gaze were so much of the media is tailored to that.

Found this intresting article today about how it seem some men expect women to dress in a way which which makes them more leerable.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/06/why-do-white-guys-hate-my-hijab

Ugh those posters were horrible, but I would see them as more of a symptom than a cause (tho of course it is a self-perpetuating attitude, a vicious circle).
Afaik similar advice was given to WW1 soldiers but done via booklets issued directly to them rather than posters.
Same for the media, the whole male gaze thing, I think it starts from the assumption of entitlement and perpetuates it.
Sure slut shaming has been going on since the Old Testament, maybe earlier - hard to really know.

Morag

Morag wrote: »

I wonder what kind of harassment the model in that poster had to put up with afterwards :eek:

I hope they told her her picture was going to make her the poster girl for VD!

Mark Hamill

Morag wrote: »

Found this intresting article today about how it seem some men expect women to dress in a way which which makes them more leerable.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/06/why-do-white-guys-hate-my-hijab

Tbh, I think that article is a bit of a non-sequitor. I don't think that the men shouting at the woman to remove her hijab were doing it because they wanted to leer at her, they were shouting at her because they were religious bigots.

GreeBo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, it is not. The posters scenario is strongly related to a situation were someone might have to be violent to defend their partner. Yes, as you say, the situation was over so there was no more immediate threat, but it was only over a few moments and it had been exacerbated by the actions and attitude of the nightclub owner.

It was over long enough to go find a bouncer and owner and talk to them, then go after the guy. It was over.
OP, if the bouncer/owner had thrown yer man out, would you have gone outside to punch him?
If not, why not? I thought you were so angry that it was purely a reaction?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

FFS, do you really think there is a "mythical line" between a punch and shooting someone? The ridiculous comparisons brought out by some in this thread show how little they support they can actually muster for their position.

Physical Violence is not an absolute, it starts with very little violence and ends in extreme violence. There is no discernible gap between each stage and the next. Im asking you to draw then line on what is "too much"?
A punch to the body, a punch to the face, two punches to the face, a kick, etc, etc.
If you think any of its understandable then its all understandable, unless you can explain to me where you draw the line on whats too far.
No need for the "FFS" btw, if you cant back up your point thats fine too.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because he decided the groper was the ultimate wrongdoer? Why would he hit the bouncer, the bouncer backed him up?

The "wrongdoer"???
What is this, some old Batman episode?
We have law enforcers to deal with the evil wrongdoers...yunno, that whole society thing we are part of?

Again, would he have still hit the guy if he was removed from the club...if not, why not?

Mark Hamill

GreeBo wrote: »

It was over long enough to go find a bouncer and owner and talk to them, then go after the guy. It was over.

You may need to read the post again. The poster and the groper were in an argument with the bouncer when the owner passed by and made his remark. The groper left while the poster was interacting with the owner and when the owner left he crossed the room and found the the groper again and hit. Given the attitude of the owner, its completely understandable why the poster was still angry.

GreeBo wrote: »

Physical Violence is not an absolute, it starts with very little violence and ends in extreme violence. There is no discernible gap between each stage and the next. Im asking you to draw then line on what is "too much"?
A punch to the body, a punch to the face, two punches to the face, a kick, etc, etc.
If you think any of its understandable then its all understandable, unless you can explain to me where you draw the line on whats too far.
No need for the "FFS" btw, if you cant back up your point thats fine too.

No, I will not draw any line because it's irrelevant to this discussion. In the posters situation only one punch was thrown so bringing in a stupid extreme like shooting is just a slippery slope fallacy.
The poster went too far when he threw one punch, he should have called the guards. But throwing one punch is a very different thing to throwing two or throwing a kick or shooting someone.

GreeBo wrote: »

The "wrongdoer"???
What is this, some old Batman episode?

What?

GreeBo wrote: »

We have law enforcers to deal with the evil wrongdoers...yunno, that whole society thing we are part of?

You asked why he didn't hit the owner/bouncer, what have the guards got to do with him hitting them?

kat.mac

GreeBo wrote: »

The "wrongdoer"???
What is this, some old Batman episode?
We have law enforcers to deal with the evil wrongdoers...yunno, that whole society thing we are part of?

Ah here :rolleyes:

Pretty much everyone on this thread has already acknowledged that the Gardai would have been a better option than the punch.

And I don't understand your problem with the word 'wrongdoer'; that's just smartarsery.

starling

Is it really accurate to be talking about the punch being the first expression of violence though? I mean the sexual assault was what kicked things off in the first place. Unlike a punch it doesn't result in tissue damage or physical injury, but it is still assault. It's still the first violation that occurred, no?
I'm not sure there's such a clear line in that situation between "in the moment" and "in the past" that is, I would have seen "in the past" more as being, say, the next day. The actual sexual assault was some moments in the past - moments, not hours - but throwa20 and everyone else involved was still experiencing the situation rather than looking back on it from after it had all been resolved

Arawn

starling wrote: »

Is it really accurate to be talking about the punch being the first expression of violence though? I mean the sexual assault was what kicked things off in the first place. Unlike a punch it doesn't result in tissue damage or physical injury, but it is still assault. It's still the first violation that occurred, no?
I'm not sure there's such a clear line in that situation between "in the moment" and "in the past" that is, I would have seen "in the past" more as being, say, the next day. The actual sexual assault was some moments in the past - moments, not hours - but throwa20 and everyone else involved was still experiencing the situation rather than looking back on it from after it had all been resolved

unfortunately the law will see the line once they were not in his immediate vicinity and could of left the premises. But as I pointed out earlier the bouncers should of had the other buck out not given throwa the chance to go back over and deck him

starling

Arawn wrote: »

unfortunately the law will see the line once they were not in his immediate vicinity and could of left the premises. But as I pointed out earlier the bouncers should of had the other buck out not given throwa the chance to go back over and deck him

Oh true, if it was a legal or criminal procedure naturally they would look at it that way; I should have clarified I was talking more about us on the thread trying to come to a consensus on whether he was "morally" in the right or wrong.
Definitely they should have put the first guy out for several reasons like a) he didn't deny groping throwa's GF so I think that should be immediate grounds for ejection, b) even if the management doesn't view groping as serious, he was already trying to get her thrown out for slapping him so obviously he was going to cause trouble in general and c) it's just good sense to expect the situation between throwa and the groper is going to continue and/or escalate so they were kind of asking for more trouble by not just nipping it in the bud.
Generally they sound like fairly incompetent/negligent managemt of a venue (not the bouncer himself I bet he knew how to do his job, since he's the "man on the ground")

Michael D Not Higgins

Candie wrote: »

I hope they told her her picture was going to make her the poster girl for VD!

senordingdong

Perhaps it's a sign of a more serious under-lying problem.

Maybe a system similar to what doggers use is needed.

If there is a pink hanky hanging from a back pocket than the person is game, otherwise leave well alone.

jaffacakesyum

senordingdong wrote: »

Perhaps it's a sign of a more serious under-lying problem.

Maybe a system similar to what doggers use is needed.

If there is a pink hanky hanging from a back pocket than the person is game, otherwise leave well alone.

Meh, doubt it would work. Gropers don't give a shít how unwanted their touching is. They do it for the thrill or because they feel entitled IMO.

throwa20

GreeBo wrote:

It was over.
OP, if the bouncer/owner had thrown yer man out, would you have gone outside to punch him?
If not, why not? I thought you were so angry that it was purely a reaction?

No I would not have hit him, as justice would have been done (in some form).

I was angry that the owner condoned his behaviour and was letting him away with it.

My initial reaction to the grope was perfectly fine. I reported it to the bouncer, who said he would deal with it. Then when the guy protested, I took the complaint to the owner. Who else could I have gone to? I followed the correct course of action and we were laughed at, basically. So get down off your high horse, I'm a bit sick of it at this stage. It's not like I decked the guy without trying to go through the proper channels.

Going to the guards would have been the preferable option, but at the time I was not thinking clearly. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I doubt they would have been able to do anything. How could they find the guy? I didn't know his name, I had no way of finding him if he decided to leave the club, and the owner had made clear that he wouldn't be helping us at all, despite his security guys being on our side.

I forgot to mention, three of the bouncers spoke up and said that they would have done much worse than throw a single punch at the guy if he had done the same to their girlfriends. Now, I'm not saying that violence is correct, but you might wake up a bit and realise how serious the situation was when even the bouncers were that furious at the actions of the owner and the groper.

Also, it's a bit silly trying to find a point at which the incident is over - the whole situation happened very quickly and emotions and tensions were high the whole time. There was no stage at which everything was ''over'' and people had time to cool down.

You are making it seem as if it was a cold, calculated decision to walk over and hit the guy in broad daylight.

The punch happened after my girlfriend was assaulted, after we followed the correct procedures and were humiliated, and after the perpetrator tried to get the victim kicked out of the club.

Spare me the moral high horsery.

If someone ever assaults you and then humiliates you I hope others show a little more understanding towards you than you are showing here.

throwa20

throwa20 wrote: »

No I would not have hit him, as justice would have been done (in some form).

I was angry that the owner condoned his behaviour and was letting him away with it.

My initial reaction to the grope was perfectly fine. I reported it to the bouncer, who said he would deal with it. Then when the guy protested, I took the complaint to the owner. Who else could I have gone to? I followed the correct course of action and we were laughed at, basically. So get down off your high horse, I'm a bit sick of it at this stage. It's not like I decked the guy without trying to go through the proper channels.

Going to the guards would have been the preferable option, but at the time I was not thinking clearly. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I doubt they would have been able to do anything. How could they find the guy? I didn't know his name, I had no way of finding him if he decided to leave the club, and the owner had made clear that he wouldn't be helping us at all, despite his security guys being on our side.

I forgot to mention, three of the bouncers spoke up and said that they would have done much worse than throw a single punch at the guy if he had done the same to their girlfriends. Now, I'm not saying that violence is correct, but you might wake up a bit and realise how serious the situation was when even the bouncers were that furious at the actions of the owner and the groper.

Also, it's a bit silly trying to find a point at which the incident is over - the whole situation happened very quickly and emotions and tensions were high the whole time. There was no stage at which everything was ''over'' and people had time to cool down.

You are making it seem as if it was a cold, calculated decision to walk over and hit the guy in broad daylight.

The punch happened after my girlfriend was assaulted, after we followed the correct procedures and were humiliated, and after the perpetrator tried to get the victim kicked out of the club.

Spare me the moral high horsery.

If someone ever assaults you and then humiliates you I hope others show a little more understanding towards you than you are showing here.

I genuinely think some posters are just failing to realise how emotive sexual assault is. It's fundamentally different from having your pocket picked, say, or even being randomly punched elsewhere on your body. All three are crimes, but they each have different emotional effects on a person.

The nuances of humiliation, threat, helplessness and intrusion are different, and not being taken seriously throws frustration into the mix, and I can say that after experiencing all three to some degree.

Throwa has conceded that hitting back isn't the best course to take, everyone has really, but knowing the best thing to do and reacting when your partner has had their bodily integrity invaded - callously and casually, when they were with you, supposedly safe - are two very different things.

I think anger, even rage, is understandable. Hitting back might not be the pinnacle of correct behaviour, but he's only human.

kat.mac

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely think some posters are just failing to realise how emotive sexual assault is.

+ 1,000

kylith

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely think some posters are just failing to realise how emotive sexual assault is.

I suppose it's hard for some men to put themselves in a woman's place in that situation. They haven't spent most of their lives having a fear of strange men and sexual assault drilled into them. They simply do not know what it's like because all their lives they've been programmed to think 'Sex = good. People touching my genitals = good", and haven't felt the powerlessness that goes with knowing that there is nothing you can do to stop someone doing whatever they want with you because they're bigger and stronger than you are.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I suppose it's hard for some men to put themselves in a woman's place in that situation. They haven't spent most of their lives having a fear of strange men and sexual assault drilled into them. They simply do not know what it's like because all their lives they've been programmed to think 'Sex = good.

I think that's the reason why the word groping is used, instead of assault. It makes it sound harmless and non-threatening when it's often the opposite.

One poster here said he got over a groping in minutes...well his assaulter was probably someone smaller, who had little chance of overpowering him if he chose to move away or if he slapped her. He was most likely in no danger of things escalating into seriously dangerous territory. If he was assaulted by a bigger man, who's intention it was to just humiliate and distress him, he would probably take more than a few minutes to get over it. And he's probably be a lot more worried that fighting back would result in a more vicious assault.

It sounds a lot less harmless if you give it its proper name, sexual assault.

And I seriously can't believe the lack of understanding at Throwas reaction to a stranger randomly feeling he was entitled to put his hands on his gf's naked genitals, up her skirt. Or considering a slap commensurate punishment.

Galwayguy35

kylith wrote: »

I suppose it's hard for some men to put themselves in a woman's place in that situation. They haven't spent most of their lives having a fear of strange men and sexual assault drilled into them. They simply do not know what it's like because all their lives they've been programmed to think 'Sex = good. People touching my genitals = good", and haven't felt the powerlessness that goes with knowing that there is nothing you can do to stop someone doing whatever they want with you because they're bigger and stronger than you are.

Yo seem to have a very simplistic view of how men think, "people touching my genitals = good". Men can have a real fear of sexual assualt as well, many have felt powerless as male rape does happen and most of us despise men who grope women.

I'm aware of the forum I am posting in but when I see posts like this that portray half the human race as idiots who don't mind having their crotches fondled it needs to be picked up on.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yo seem to have a very simplistic view of how men think, "people touching my genitals = good". Men can have a real fear of sexual assualt as well, many have felt powerless as male rape does happen and most of us despise men who grope women.

I'm aware of the forum I am posting in but when I see posts like this that portray half the human race as idiots who don't mind having their crotches fondled it needs to be picked up on.

I don't think thats her personal opinion of how men think: I think she was expressing her opinion that men are pressured or programmed into thinking any sex=good. The all-pervading culture of macho expectation can lead to a different perspective on uninvited touching.

I think she's quite right too, you only have to see the reaction of some men on AH to a story of an underage boy being abused by an older woman. It's often congratulatory.

I didn't read it as dismissing half the population as idiots, just other people dealing with pressures and expectations of their own which affects how they think, just as surely as pressuring girls into being wary of strange men affects how they think. It was also qualified by the italicised use of the word 'some'.

kat.mac

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yo seem to have a very simplistic view of how men think, "people touching my genitals = good". Men can have a real fear of sexual assualt as well, many have felt powerless as male rape does happen and most of us despise men who grope women.

I'm aware of the forum I am posting in but when I see posts like this that portray half the human race as idiots who don't mind having their crotches fondled it needs to be picked up on.

She said men are programmed by society to think that, or made to feel like that's what they should think, which I think is a fair comment.

cantdecide

kat.mac wrote: »

She said men are programmed by society to think that, or made to feel like that's what they should think, which I think is a fair comment.

I think there's a lot of pressure in Irish/ UK society for everyone to be mad and outrageous to an almost competitive level. The biggest no-no these days is to be reserved, old fashioned, quiet etc. I think this kind of behaviour is an extension of this drink fuelled YOLO crap that's been increasingly rammed down everyone's throats. How some men have come to the conclusion that this does not cross some kind of line, I haven't quite figured out yet...

becost

I don't go to nightclubs any more but when I did, I always took it as a compliment when women pinched my bum. I'm male by the way not that it should make a difference.

senordingdong

Candie wrote: »

I genuinely think some posters are just failing to realise how emotive sexual assault is.

Maybe there is a link there.

I think alot of women (the victims) often see sex and emotion being very intrinsically linked, whereas men (the culprits) often feel sex and emotions are completely separate matters.

throwa20

kylith wrote: »

I suppose it's hard for some men to put themselves in a woman's place in that situation.

True.

But it shouldn't be hard for men to picture themselves in my situation. How many here would stand by and let someone get away with grabbing their partner's genitals right in front of them?

Seriously, I'd rather the jail time than have to live with myself knowing I let a guy fondle/grope/assault and upset my GF in front of me.

At some point, people have to stand up to bullies, even if the method of doing so is distasteful.

To sum up, in order of preference, the best way of dealing with such perverts is

1) call the guards
2) deal with the groper yourself
3) do nothing

Anyone who thinks that doing nothing and letting someone away with sexual assault is a realistic option needs their head examined, tbh.

If we all took the approach of 'turning the other cheek' then the bullies would run riot. There has to be a line in the sand.

It's one thing turning the other cheek if some little tracksuited bastard calls you a wanker on O'Connell Street - fine, I can live with walking away from that scenario. But sexual assault - come on!!

meeeeh

throwa20 wrote: »

True.

But it shouldn't be hard for men to picture themselves in my situation. How many here would stand by and let someone get away with grabbing their partner's genitals right in front of them?

Seriously, I'd rather the jail time than have to live with myself knowing I let a guy fondle/grope/assault and upset my GF in front of me.

While I have some understanding for your reaction, your gf isn't a minor for you to protect her. From what you described, she stood up for herself very well.

cantdecide

@throwa20; what were your good lady's feelings on your reaction?

One thing's for sure- the only one who did anything to make that gentleman think twice about his behaviour in future was you. If the club owner was quite happy about having casual sexual assault going on in his premises, well the barring shouldn't concern you one little bit...

GreeBo

throwa20 wrote: »

No I would not have hit him, as justice would have been done (in some form).

I was angry that the owner condoned his behaviour and was letting him away with it.

My initial reaction to the grope was perfectly fine. I reported it to the bouncer, who said he would deal with it. Then when the guy protested, I took the complaint to the owner. Who else could I have gone to? I followed the correct course of action and we were laughed at, basically. So get down off your high horse, I'm a bit sick of it at this stage. It's not like I decked the guy without trying to go through the proper channels.

Going to the guards would have been the preferable option, but at the time I was not thinking clearly. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I doubt they would have been able to do anything. How could they find the guy? I didn't know his name, I had no way of finding him if he decided to leave the club, and the owner had made clear that he wouldn't be helping us at all, despite his security guys being on our side.

I forgot to mention, three of the bouncers spoke up and said that they would have done much worse than throw a single punch at the guy if he had done the same to their girlfriends. Now, I'm not saying that violence is correct, but you might wake up a bit and realise how serious the situation was when even the bouncers were that furious at the actions of the owner and the groper.

Also, it's a bit silly trying to find a point at which the incident is over - the whole situation happened very quickly and emotions and tensions were high the whole time. There was no stage at which everything was ''over'' and people had time to cool down.

You are making it seem as if it was a cold, calculated decision to walk over and hit the guy in broad daylight.

The punch happened after my girlfriend was assaulted, after we followed the correct procedures and were humiliated, and after the perpetrator tried to get the victim kicked out of the club.

Spare me the moral high horsery.

If someone ever assaults you and then humiliates you I hope others show a little more understanding towards you than you are showing here.

You followed the correct procedures right up to the point where you decked the guy. You cant just hit someone because you dont like the outcome of something, otherwise we would have anarchy outside our courts everyday.

Im not sure I understand how you say you wouldnt have hit him if he had been kicked out, yet you were so angry that you werent thinking clearly?
Either you were mad at him for what he did and would have hit him either way OR you became mad at the bouncers for doing nothing? If you were mad at the bouncers then my earlier question of why you didnt hit him is pertinent.
If you were just mad at the guy then wouldnt you have hit him in any event?

Anyway, your partner had already defended herself, why didnt you leave it at that?


Btw its not high horsery to think that you were wrong for what you did. I happen to despise violence and people who cant control themselves.
Violence solves nothing, ever.

newport2

GreeBo wrote: »

You followed the correct procedures right up to the point where you decked the guy. You cant just hit someone because you dont like the outcome of something, otherwise we would have anarchy outside our courts everyday.

Im not sure I understand how you say you wouldnt have hit him if he had been kicked out, yet you were so angry that you werent thinking clearly?
Either you were mad at him for what he did and would have hit him either way OR you became mad at the bouncers for doing nothing? If you were mad at the bouncers then my earlier question of why you didnt hit him is pertinent.
If you were just mad at the guy then wouldnt you have hit him in any event?

Anyway, your partner had already defended herself, why didnt you leave it at that?


Btw its not high horsery to think that you were wrong for what you did. I happen to despise violence and people who cant control themselves.
Violence solves nothing, ever.

I'd agree with everything you say, it all makes perfect sense to me sitting here at home. However, I know if some stranger put his hand up my wife's skirt I would not be so calm and collected, in short I would have to be restrained.

What would you do if, in front of some of your friends and family, some guy blatently slipped his hand down the back of your jeans and tried to put your ring on his finger? Smiling at you. Very few men I know, gentlemen included, would not instinctively lash out in that situation. And most more so if it was their wife, gf or sister they had to watch it happen to.

I agree with you, violence doesn't really solve anything and I haven't raised my hand to anyone since I was in school. But I think in certain extreme circumstances I would.

Smidge

The thing with niteclub/pub "groping" is this.........

It is so unchecked and so readily accepted as "just messing" or "harmless" by the people who do it that we as people have felt we have NO choice but to accept it as such(or else as the other poster did and clock the offender).

But why in the name of all that is holy should this sexual assault(and make no mistake, that's EXACTLY what it is)be unpunished?

If you walked up to a random woman(as is done in the niteclub)on the street or in Tesco and rammed your hand up her skirt and grabbed her private parts, you can bet your life the Guards would be called and you would have a very good chance of appearing before a judge.

illuma

I can't say I've experienced much of this tbh, or at least nowhere near to the extent of some of the women here. I regularly go drinking in Maynooth and have never seen it happen there. I lived in Galway for a couple of years and it was a rare occurance there too. Where are you people drinking? I wonder is this mostly happening in Dublin.

It must make it really difficult to meet decent guys who just want to chat to women.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

illuma wrote: »

I can't say I've experienced much of this tbh, or at least nowhere near to the extent of some of the women here. I regularly go drinking in Maynooth and have never seen it happen there. I lived in Galway for a couple of years and it was a rare occurance there too. Where are you people drinking? I wonder is this mostly happening in Dublin.

It must make it really difficult to meet decent guys who just want to chat to women.

It happens in Galway too....

Just not as extreme as people are making out to be here?? I've never heard of anyone sticking their hand up someones skirt. I have seen guys come from behind start dancing up real close with girls which is not the right thing to do either. I think guys do this because it works....I have seen it work.

Wompa1

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

I have seen guys come from behind start dancing up real close with girls which is not the right thing to do either. I think guys do this because it works....I have seen it work.

Yip. That's probably the reason it does happen. It does work. But then again for the right guy, anything could work. I had a friend who would physically kick girls up the arse and then turn away and pretend it wasn't him, Or do something like touch the top of her head when she walked past. I saw some lads from the Galway United Team doing similar sh!t in a night club in Galway before, sometimes even just blocking girls trying to walk by and not letting them go past them. And it worked.

I didn't drink until I was older, I didn't go to school discos because of the drink and peer pressure etc. By the time I went to a nightclub I was completely naive for the first few months. I would try to talk to girls and ask them if they would like to dance. It didn't work, ever.

Granted, I never tried the grinding thing, I wouldn't have the confidence or balls to be so forward. But I knew plenty of lads who did and plenty of lads who got laid using that as the ice breaker.