On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 11:41:39 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was also wondering about the issue of the Presidents Club.
The main thrust of this seems to be that the ladies hired were not actually
aware of how the event was to go down.

Or who was meant to go down on who.

I'd have smelled a rat when presented
with the costume, myself though.

Not always true as a peolpe I know worked in soho in the clubs there, they were also supplied with leotards or other clothes, and the job description was that they must flurt with the men and get them to buy them cocktails (no alcohol) at about £200 a glass, they just had to talk to them, if the customers tried anything they;'d be throw out without a refund by the door staff, and that was how it worked, the women knew they were there to lok sexy and talk to lonely men, mostley business men and mostly foreigners usually chinese whoi wouldn;t think twice about ordering two cocktails one for themself and one for the girl at £200 quid each for 1/2 an hour or so chat.


I wonder if a group of, lets say dominatrix and their submissives all
agreed
to do a public show for paying guests for a very good cause. How would that
be viewed. No exploitation no non consensual goings on at all.

I think this is why Great ormand street is having a rethink on accepting the charity donation. It's a moral question for them. I'm not sure who these presidents are but as long as they are spending their own money I;d have no problems with it, but if it's tax payers money or tax deductable that might be differnt.


Its interesting to think of such things as it separates the moral from the
ethical side of things.
The film the magic Christian covered what would you not do for unlimited
wealth?

And how often you'd have to touch yuor toes may also be important.