2016: Shake It Off

[Michael's Servant]

With Will Petz – Quiet Events and Quiet Clubbing; douche bros in a club; excommunication; the controversial professor’s comments on unconscious rape; James Garner dies; Israel vs. Palestine; Russia shoots down a Malaysian passenger airliner that Jason Biggs jokes about; Gisele Bündchen is still the #1 supermodel; Johnny Utah’s revisited; a police officer gets pizza pranked

Share this episode: Twitter, Facebook & email

Get the show: on iTunes, on Stitcher and RSS feed

[WSEIII]

I could see where the quiet clubbing could possibly be expanded to other states and It sounds like a good time to me. The only thing I would be worried about would be how clean are the headphones, because there would be the possibility of getting lice from someone.

The person who got excommunitated from the church was being shown the door because they were homosexual. Homosexuality is a sin and goes against God's plan for humanity. That being said I don't fully understand homosexuality and I need love just like they do.

War is hell and I'm glad Chemda's parents are relatively safe so far. I know they love their homeland, but maybe Chemda and her brothers should think about temporally relocating them here in the U.S. where we're not under the near constant threat of missiles.

[rodimusprime]

I've been enjoying the back and forth on all of the issues from Cumia's "freedom of speech" and the women working suing the bar. It seems like everyone takes the night off and recharges their batteries and tries to think of new scenarios to change each other's minds and then we still end up in a weird stalemate.

Is the crux of the discussion just the idea of the word "surprised"? Keith keeps going back to that phrasing saying women shouldn't be surprised to be violated in these sexy clubs. And Chemda has said a few times that as a woman every time you're harassed is surprising.

Is that the key to all of this? The definition of "surprise"?

Also, does Keith think it's impossible to reign the guys in and get them to behave at these clubs? Or is it just that the club owners would never really consider that anyway because it would cut into their profits if they started enforcing the rules?

I feel like the ladies are doing the right thing in suing if they want the work place environment to change. It will be interesting to see if it makes the club lose revenue once men realize that you can't go there and be an animal I wonder if they'll just stop attending all together.

I do get Keith's point about everyone jumping right to "you're saying it's okay for women to be raped" though. I never got that from his point even the elements of it that I disagree with. And I think once you accuse someone of that it typically shuts down all conversation on the topic. Glad to see everyone working through it b/c these discussions don't happen very often in any medium and it's really interesting to see people grind through it.

Great shows and I love how despite everything Keith and Chemda (and guests) are able to keep the entire thing funny while debating.

[J. Canines]

Originally Posted by WSEIII

The person who got excommunitated from the church was being shown the door because they were homosexual.

Gosh. If only God understood donuts.

God once told a woman to lick my asshole. I'm not sure if it was biblical, but it sure was heavenly.

[lizsquiz]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

Is the crux of the discussion just the idea of the word "surprised"?

Is that the key to all of this? The definition of "surprise"?

I think you may be onto something.


Chemda's definition of surprise has human rights underpinning it. A perfect world where bosses can 100% of the time protect their staff from assholes, if assholes even exist.

Keith's definition of surprise is more realist. Keeping in mind that the Keith point is not that these assholes and bosses are right, or entitled or whatever, but just the realist fact that they exist.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by J. Canines

Gosh. If only God understood donuts.

God once told a woman to lick my asshole. I'm not sure if it was biblical, but it sure was heavenly.

fuck me, i pissed myself

90000/10

[Keith]

It needs to be noted that while this show's guest sided publically with Chemda regarding Johnny Utah's, after the show he immediately said to us both, on his own, that he really agreed with me, but if he had said otherwise his girlfriend would "kill him."

He could have just not picked a side, but he picked what he knew women would want to hear.

That might be a little telling also.

[Mark Sandiego]

The last strip club I went to had heavy enforcement of the 'no touching' rule. There were multiple bouncers walking around the room the whole time. I'm sure some people are allowed to touch, but with the stripper's permission. My point is that it is possible to run a strip club and still enforce no touching. Apparently people still show up.

I hear Keith's side as, enforcing no touching or not, strippers are still going to be touched. It is inevitable and silly to think it is never going to happen.

Chemda is just fighting for the right of women to work there and not be touched.

It comes down to basic risk versus reward. Should men respect women's boundaries at all times. Sure. Is that always going to happen when a guy is drunk with a naked woman grinding on him and the only consequence is getting kicked out. Probably some men will try to touch at some time. That's it.

[Tulipaloozi]

What? You mean a guy said something they thought their girlfriend wanted to hear instead of giving their own opinion on a topic?

SHOCKING!

So we're all in agreement that it's not right what these guys (customers and management) are doing and we also agree that the women probably had an idea what could happen to them on one level or another when they applied for the job. My question is, is this the only place where a woman shouldn't be too surprised if they end up being harassed? What other job positions should this expectation cover?

The women who work at Hooters are also made to dress provocatively and at the same time the majority of the customers that visit are males. What's stopping these men at Hooters from grabbing their waitresses' tits and ass when she brings them their drinks? Are the men that go there just classier and have more respect for women than the guys that go to strip clubs? Sure, there are vastly different situations going on at each establishment, one has scantily clad women grinding on poles and the other has women in tight fitting clothes serving food, but the reasoning behind it is the same; get guys all horned up so they give a bigger tip/spend more money. I guess I just don't see where the respect to be able to look and not touch ends and the expectation of harassment begins.

I'm definitely more on Chemda's side of this argument in that no one, regardless of place of employment, should be subjected to that type of treatment by customers or their management. Yet, I see Keith's point (I think) as, out of any job in the world, the risk of being verbally and/or physically harassed is drastically increased in the strip club type of environment.


Women who apply for those types of jobs aren't stupid. They know just how harassing and degrading some men can be just by walking down the street on a regular basis. I don't think they're upset that they were pinched or grabbed, I think they're upset because there was no boundary set or enforced by their management or a clear and concise layout of what's considered going too far, resulting in an unsafe work environment.

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by Mark Sandiego

I hear Keith's side as, enforcing no touching or not, strippers are still going to be touched. It is inevitable and silly to think it is never going to happen.

I think Keith's side is, it should not happen. And you can complain when it happens. Just don't be shocked when it happens.