Letters to the Editor
-
Boob-related injury
This reminds me of a case in I think Florida (where else, right?) where a guy sued for damages when a stripper with enormous breasts placed his head betwixt her bosoms and jiggled back and forth so that her boobs whacked his head. Apparently, they were *so* big and heavy that he suffered neck injuries because of it.
-
Professional driver, closed course, do not attempt
I saw an ad recently that had a guy jump off a building. There was a footnote that said "Do Not Attempt". That kind of angered me because I felt that if anyone needed to take themself out of the Human Race it's people who jump off buildings because they saw it on television.
Though to be fair, being kicked in the face with a "come fuck me pump" usually costs extra.
-
Inherent Dangers
How many lap dances happen without kicks to the face?
Have you ever had a lap dance from a professional stripper? Based on your description, I would guess no.
I have, and it never once involved being kicked in the face, regardless of shoe.
I think if I paid for a lap dance, and sustained injuries inflicted by the stripper that were not part of the intended outcome, I would take whatever recourse seemed appropriate.
How is this news, let alone women's news?
-
Financial compensation, or ...
Remember that Seinfeld episode where Kramer gets coffee spilled on him, and settles out of court for a lifetime of free coffee? This guy needs to call Jackie Chiles.
And by the way, Catherine Price, just read the AP story. "According to the lawsuit, as the dancer swung around, the heel of her shoe hit him in the eye, causing him ''serious injuries.''"
Whoops, you're an asshole.
-
He was hit in the eye
That’s what all the local papers are saying.
-
Focused on the wrong issue.
So what you are saying is, he was engaged in a "sin" activity, therefore tough luck?
Look at it this way. This guy was, we assume, injured in a proprietor's establishment by an employee. From a legal standpoint, how is this different from, say, getting banged in the head by a waiter's serving tray at a restaurant?
The fact that the employee is a stripper is neither here nor there. Getting kicked in the head is not an expected outcome any more than being injured at a restaurant.
-
Throw them all in jail
And kick as many families off welfare as necessary to pay for it.
Isn't that the feminist answer to anything involving men, women, sex and money?
-
Can I be on the jury?
I hadn't heard of this and still know nothing about the real story. That is a disclaimer for this: CP, you are hilarious! Thank you for the best laugh I've had in a while.
Have a good day everyone, and may you escape any dangerous heels.
-
Who's "stupid" ?
Dear Ms. Price,
to answer at least one of your arch little questions.....?
There are any number of activities that, indeed, "come with risks". If, however, I PAID someone to show me how to kiteboard (to use your example), then I would sue if, while under their paid supervision/tutelage, my back was broken (to use your example).
and why do you write "provided that's not the case..."? Oh....he's "stupid"....and you're not?
Obviously, you're not....but , ironically enough, you're as catty and full of self-congratulatory snideness as can be.
you could at least check your facts (read the other letters yet?) before you spout off yet another foolish, we're-so-much-smarter-than-everyone-else broadsheet piece of crap that wouldn't fly in a freshman let's-practice-being-journalists(!) class.
It's amazing to witness what Broadsheet puts out (so to speak).
If I had a teenage daughter, I'd show your columns to her and use them to indicate exactly the sort of adult (mal3 or female) I hope she doesn't become.
quite sincerely,
David Terry
www."GloriaSteinem,She'sSoZealous/ButPompomGirlsKnowshe'sJustALittleJealous...".com
-
I'll Write You Off as an Ignorant Lazy Asshole Who Writes Like an Reactionary
Catherine Price writes "If this is anything involving your eye, then disregard the rest of this post and write me off as an asshole."
The third sentence in article Price links to says just that: "According to the lawsuit, as the dancer swung around, the heel of her shoe hit him in the eye, causing him 'serious injuries.'"
Price couldn't read three sentences before launching into a mocking rant starting: "I have a question: Are you stupid?"
If this was a male blogger, or anti-feminist woman, called an injured stripper stupid and clearly didn't the whole article, this would be written up in Broadsheet as blaming the victim. Broadsheet might dissect the ugly, prudish assumptions and entitlement indicated by such lazy reading.
Broadsheet would be correct. This post is so interested in mocking someone's sexual choices it ignores information which contradicts their attack.
Because it's a strip club, the guy deserves it and is presumed stupid. Price admits such an accident is highly unlikely, but still mocks the victim by equating his action with high risk sports.
How is this different from berating a female victim for wearing sexy clothes or being drunk? It's not.
If the guy sued over some clearly bogus claim like a boob blow, Price would be justified, but she knows this wasn't the case and wrote the post anyway - apparently the rules about honest rhetoric only work one way.
-
Weak Tea, Cathy
"Update: According to the lawsuit, Mr. Chang did suffer an eye injury. I apologize. But as a general point, I still stand by what follows."
This is not an apology, because it doesn't deal with how you didn't bother to read the article you were writing about. It's a "mistakes were made" quasi-apology.
Prices general point rests this false superiority.
She blames the victim and call him stupid for being injured by the actions of someone else.
She justifies this by falsely equating a minimal risk event with extreme sports (high kicks near the head aren't standard).
Her general rhetoric not only echos that used by apolgists for harassment, but also right wing types who want to make businesses immune from any liability.
I'm surprised she didn't use the old "hot coffee lawsuit" canard - which falsely frames a lawsuit over severe third degree burns as frivolous.
-
well it depends
if he just got a black eye, then obviously he should just grin and bear it.
but if he had to get medical treatment, then all of a sudden it's nontrivial. actually, i'm surprised it's not his insurer trying to sue the club.
and the real idiots here are the strip club; when any kind of business has somebody injured on the premises, for any reason, no matter how trivial, you fall over yourself bending backwards (how's that for a metaphor?) to pay for it and make them happy, if you intend to remain insured in the future.