Walk on girls at the darts

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:16 pm

Perhaps in the current climate, having women paraded around like pieces of meat to be gawked at isn't such a commercially astute decision. Mad, I know, that commercial interests would dictate the presentation of a commercially-driven product. If only the victims of sexual harassment would have kept their mouths shut, amarite, lads?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:18 pm

An idea would be to ask the female if they want to do what they're doing. If they do, then it's their decision. Another angle is suggesting females don't know their own mind and that the decision needs to be taken away from them.

karatekid · Post by **karatekid** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:28 pm

ITV Take Me Out.........young men being gawked at by a boisterous group of desperate women. One young fella even took his shirt off and was subjected to wolf whistles and jeering by the women. How do we allow this sexist show to be aired? Before the watershed too.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:31 pm

karatekid wrote:ITV Take Me Out.........young men being gawked at by a boisterous group of desperate women. One young fella even took his shirt off and was subjected to wolf whistles and jeering by the women. How do we allow this sexist show to be aired? Before the watershed too.

And that's without adding the fact that it's hosted by one of the most talentless specimens that's graced ITV in the last 40 years.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:32 pm

karatekid wrote:ITV Take Me Out.........young men being gawked at by a boisterous group of desperate women. One young fella even took his shirt off and was subjected to wolf whistles and jeering by the women. How do we allow this sexist show to be aired? Before the watershed too.

The people who want walk on girls banned are probably just as disgusted at take me out and Ann summers parties

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:43 pm

Burnley need a match fast to end all this.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:47 pm

FactualFrank wrote:An idea would be to ask the female if they want to do what they're doing. If they do, then it's their decision. Another angle is suggesting females don't know their own mind and that the decision needs to be taken away from them.

It has nothing to do with the will of the girls. It's a commercial decision made by the PDC, similar to how Disney World doesn't have strippers. They don't want to hurt their brand.

How are people not understanding this?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:49 pm

It's obvious that having female walk on girls isn't hurting the PDC brand.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:49 pm

karatekid wrote:ITV Take Me Out.........young men being gawked at by a boisterous group of desperate women. One young fella even took his shirt off and was subjected to wolf whistles and jeering by the women. How do we allow this sexist show to be aired? Before the watershed too.

It's all about power. It's similar to why conservative comedians are mostly $hit. It's all about punching up. The minute you start punching down, everyone feels awkward and sad.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:57 pm

Spiral wrote:It has nothing to do with the will of the girls. It's a commercial decision made by the PDC, similar to how Disney World doesn't have strippers. They don't want to hurt their brand.

How are people not understanding this?

Probably a terrible decision business wise considering the typical calibre of darts fans. As for strippers at Disney - ludicrous comparison. Self face slap required to wake up.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:57 pm

FactualFrank wrote:It's obvious that having female walk on girls isn't hurting the PDC brand.

Well in fact it neither is nor isn't obvious that it's hurting its brand, but the decision made solely by the PDC (not through coercion) suggests that it could be. I'm not privy to the PDC's commercial operations so I suppose I need to add the caveat that I'm speculating, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing most sensible, reasonable people that such speculation is unfounded.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:00 pm

Spiral wrote:but you're going to have a very hard time convincing most sensible, reasonable people that such speculation is unfounded.

That alone is assumption. And when you assume you make an Ass out of U and Me. (thanks Jerry).

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:02 pm

Bfcboyo wrote:Probably a terrible decision business wise considering the typical calibre of darts fans. As for strippers at Disney - ludicrous comparison. Self face slap required to wake up.

What other sporting organisations need tits as part of a larger stage production to make the sport watchable? What's the viewership of the BDO like compared with the PDC? Where do the best players play? (i.e. where is the money?)

You're deluding yourself if you believe this isn't commercially driven.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:03 pm

Spiral wrote:Well in fact it neither is nor isn't obvious that it's hurting its brand, but the decision made solely by the PDC (not through coercion) suggests that it could be. I'm not privy to the PDC's commercial operations so I suppose I need to add the caveat that I'm speculating, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing most sensible, reasonable people that such speculation is unfounded.

Not you then.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:05 pm

As a non-darts fan, who do the PDC make the most money off, the sponsors, or the fans?

If its a) then I don't see how you can argue with Spiral.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:06 pm

Bfcboyo wrote:Probably a terrible decision business wise considering the typical calibre of darts fans.

Also, thanks for proving my point in post #85

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:11 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:As a non-darts fan, who do the PDC make the most money off, the sponsors, or the fans?
If its a) then I don't see how you can argue with Spiral.

But there's nothing concrete and confirmed that sponsors wanted this to happen. It's all guess work.

You can only 'not argue with Spiral' if it's been shown that money will be lost if they carried on with walk on girls. That's simply not the case.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:14 pm

Hugo Boss managed to survive so I suppose it isn't impossible to shake off a dodgy association as a brand, but most organisations prefer not to be on the wrong side of history.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:14 pm

But why have they withdrawn them then?

Whether we like it or not, something has spooked them to stopping this.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:23 pm

Spiral wrote:What other sporting organisations need tits as part of a larger stage production to make the sport watchable? What's the viewership of the BDO like compared with the PDC? Where do the best players play? (i.e. where is the money?)

You're deluding yourself if you believe this isn't commercially driven.

God knows I don't even like darts. Watched a few games and it just looks like a giant stag do . I'm sure they liked the tots.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:26 pm

Protecting future brand I'm guessing.
Not convinced that it would impact the brand based on the typical audience but then again I don't know whether their future plans are to widen appeal to a new audience.

Wonder whether sky sports are going to start recruiting their female presenters on a wider criteria than being fit as f-uck and being able to read an auto-cue.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:30 pm

TVC15 wrote:Protecting future brand I'm guessing.
Not convinced that it would impact the brand based on the typical audience but then again I don't know whether their future plans are to widen appeal to a new audience.

Wonder whether sky sports are going to start recruiting their female presenters on a wider criteria than being fit as f-uck and being able to read an auto-cue.

We need more ugly birds,it's full on discrimination.Maybe throw in a few boilers as well just incase.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:34 pm

TVC15 wrote:Wonder whether sky sports are going to start recruiting their female presenters on a wider criteria than being fit as f-uck and being able to read an auto-cue.

I notice the BBC have got Alex Scott appearing next to a male presenter for a lot of their live games. On an even field, I don't think she's as good as other male alternatives, so perhaps they should complain for being over looked for being male.

When will it end. You can counter pretty much every decision.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:34 pm

Know what's funny? I was in the supermarket this morning and noticed that this was on the front page of the Sun. (Apparently this constitutes front-page news, which begs the question as to how any sane person can pay money to read the Sun newspaper and believe it to be anything other than mind-numbing propaganda, but I digress.) I had a little bet with myself that by the evening this story would be on this messageboard. I wonder how many people posting on here read the front page of the Sun (I think "PC wave sweeping the country" was used in the first sentence) and felt mobilised by it enough to smash their troglodyte knuckles against their keyboard and post on here, oblivious to just how sad and tragic and downright perverted it sounds to be indignant at the inability to stare at a strangers boobs for about five seconds before watching fat, sweaty men throw metal at some arbitrarily placed numbers.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:36 pm

Get off the fence Spiral, tell us what you really think.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:37 pm

I didn't see it in the Sun, because I have more sense

I saw it on Sky Sports News, presented by some very tasty looking female presenters.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:43 pm

Spiral wrote:Know what's funny? I was in the supermarket this morning and noticed that this was on the front page of the Sun. (Apparently this constitutes front-page news, which begs the question as to how any sane person can pay money to read the Sun newspaper and believe it to be anything other than mind-numbing propaganda, but I digress.) I had a little bet with myself that by the evening this story would be on this messageboard. I wonder how many people posting on here read the front page of the Sun (I think "PC wave sweeping the country" was used in the first sentence) and felt mobilised by it enough to smash their troglodyte knuckles against their keyboard and post on here, oblivious to just how sad and tragic and downright perverted it sounds to be indignant at the inability to stare at a strangers boobs for about five seconds before watching fat, sweaty men throw metal at some arbitrarily placed numbers.

The worlds a terrible place.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:45 pm

Flatline wrote:We need more ugly birds,it's full on discrimination.Maybe throw in a few boilers as well just incase.

You say ''boilers' like its rare condition amongst the female species.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:52 pm

ClaretEngineer wrote:You say ''boilers' like its rare condition amongst the female species.

It is on SKY,I'd like to see it personally and then we could observe who is the fattest ugliest bird.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:03 pm

I have never seen so many self righteous c***s on one thread before

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:06 pm

An interesting debate. I suppose it's the pressure groups prerogative to campaign, and the PDC's to ignore them or not. It does seem equally patronizing to assume that these women are being taken advantage of though, as if they aren't adults who can make their own decisions. I don't really know how to feel about it, and it's not something I had an opinion on before this announcement. The walk on girls never held much fascination for me, I can appreciate they're good looking but that's about it. Ultimately I won't be losing any sleep over it though.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:07 pm

This practice is totally unacceptable, probably illegal and should not be allowed under any circumstances. Ridiculous that people are even debating it.

Unless there's a hyphen missing. In which case, debate away...

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:10 pm

Or some kind of back-walking massage booth.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:11 pm

That complete metro elite belm-tard Nihal Arthanayke, was on 5live discussing this between 10 - 10.30 and had one of the young women who worked at the Darts on the programme. She was very articulate said she loved the work, it was safe, fitted it in between other modelling jobs and would lose 40% of her income as a result of this decision. He was unbelievably patronising, " you can always model hats or dresses...I mean why does Darts need "walk on girls " !
She tried to explain that it was just part of the show that they put on, but he just kept interrupting ! Following his line of arguement, " Little Mix " should take to the stage in Nun's habits and sing, because that's what people had come to hear !!

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:15 pm

SammyBoy wrote:An interesting debate. I suppose it's the pressure groups prerogative to campaign, and the PDC's to ignore them or not. It does seem equally patronizing to assume that these women are being taken advantage of though, as if they aren't adults who can make their own decisions. I don't really know how to feel about it, and it's not something I had an opinion on before this announcement. The walk on girls never held much fascination for me, I can appreciate they're good looking but that's about it. Ultimately I won't be losing any sleep over it though.

Well I would say its very safe to say that they aren't being taken advantage of. You only need to look at the interviews and social media statuses to show that they loved what they did. They were flown around the world and got to see many countries. If you questioned whether they enjoyed it, then you'd have to question every female in the country as to whether they were being taken advantage of. It's just utterly stupid.

You can reverse all of this by counter-attacking such moves. A male could complain that he never got the chance to be a walk on man because he was 10 stone overweight - and say he wasn't given the job because he was only 10 stone overweight or that he was a male. It's possibly the biggest can of worms you can imagine as it can totally go off in so many directions.

The trouble with this country - overall; we're thick. Extremely thick. 20 years ago we had more about us. These days, we no longer think for ourselves, we think of things because the next person said so. Or somebody on Twitter said so.

Burnleyareback2 · Post by **Burnleyareback2** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:15 pm

Assume they will go back to being industry leaders and doctors etc

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:26 pm

FactualFrank wrote:Why are the bouncers blokes?

I think we should have 2 female bouncers who happen to very attractive.

Exactly the men intimidate me and make feel insecure.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:36 pm

FactualFrank wrote:Well I would say its very safe to say that they aren't being taken advantage of. You only need to look at the interviews and social media statuses to show that they loved what they did. They were flown around the world and got to see many countries. If you questioned whether they enjoyed it, then you'd have to question every female in the country as to whether they were being taken advantage of. It's just utterly stupid.

You can reverse all of this by counter-attacking such moves. A male could complain that he never got the chance to be a walk on man because he was 10 stone overweight - and say he wasn't given the job because he was only 10 stone overweight or that he was a male. It's possibly the biggest can of worms you can imagine as it can totally go off in so many directions.

The trouble with this country - overall; we're thick. Extremely thick. 20 years ago we had more about us. These days, we no longer think for ourselves, we think of things because the next person said so. Or somebody on Twitter said so.

Do you by any chance watch an Al Murray and believe he is an actual pub landlord?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:37 pm

Spiral wrote:Do you by any chance watch an Al Murray and believe he is an actual pub landlord?

I think you need to quit with the italics.

They don't suit you.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:44 pm

Clarets4me wrote:Nihal Arthanayke...

I confess I don't agree with his outlook on pretty much everything but, even putting that aside, he has a voice for newspapers.

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:56 pm

The issue today is hypocrisy, it’s ok for those on loose women to talk about men they way they do because “it’s harmless” but if you had a show with men talking about women the way they do there would be uproar on Twitter.

As for the main issue on the thread my question is where’s the line drawn, surely any product that is using a female just for their looks is objectionable now, from Catalogues to Sky Sports presenters

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:00 am

Dy1geo wrote:The issue today is hypocrisy, it’s ok for those on loose women to talk about men they way they do because “it’s harmless” but if you had a show with men talking about women the way they do there would be uproar on Twitter.

As for the main issue on the thread my question is where’s the line drawn, surely any product that is using a female just for their looks is objectionable now, from Catalogues to Sky Sports presenters

Dy1geo, you make a valid point. But the second part of what you say pretty much brings an entire end to being a model, completely.

But what would happen is the next phase comes along... somebody can't be advertising due to their knowledge of X because that's offending people who aren't as brainy.

welsbyswife · Post by **welsbyswife** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:00 am

Bit late to the thread but, having waded through 3 pages of strong opinion, I am confused. The thing is, I find women attractive to look at. I don't make any judgement about the character or intelligence of the walk on girls, I just find them nice to look at. Is that allowed in today's world? So if an attractive girl is happy to do the job and I, the viewer, enjoy watching then where is the problem?

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:12 am

FactualFrank wrote:Dy1geo, you make a valid point. But the second part of what you say pretty much brings an entire end to being a model, completely.

But what would happen is the next phase comes along... somebody can't be advertising due to their knowledge of X because that's offending people who aren't as brainy.

The issue is that I cannot see why people are getting so bothered about walk on girls or grid girls , I asked my wife and she said it doesn’t bother her at all, she said the thing the bothered her was the way them girls were groped and molested by the rich and powerful abusing their power this week.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:15 am

Dy1geo wrote:As for the main issue on the thread my question is where’s the line drawn, surely any product that is using a female just for their looks is objectionable now, from Catalogues to Sky Sports presenters

Your argument is nonsense because it assumes that 1. there is an independent arbiter determining the boundaries of objectification and tastelessness (and that these decisions are being made coercively), and 2. female SSN are employed for their looks, not their newscasting ability; but there's an even more sinister implication in what you say, in that by arguing female SSN presenters are employed as eye-candy your position assumes sports newscasting is the preserve of men.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:15 am

Dy1geo wrote:The issue is that I cannot see why people are getting so bothered about walk on girls or grid girls , I asked my wife and she said it doesn’t bother her at all, she said the thing the bothered her was the way them girls were groped and molested by the rich and powerful abusing their power this week.

I agree. What it all boils down to is what I mentioned a few days ago...

People are bothered because it makes them feel significant. They're seen to be complaining and it puts them in the spotlight. It doesn't actually offend them - they do it because they can and they've naff all else to do with their time.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:17 am

Would a solution be just watch girls playing darts?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:18 am

FactualFrank wrote:I agree. What it all boils down to is what I mentioned a few days ago...

People are bothered because it makes them feel significant. They're seen to be complaining and it puts them in the spotlight. It doesn't actually offend them - they do it because they can and they've naff all else to do with their time.

For what it's worth, this thread was started by a person complaining (or perhaps just lamenting? But certainly followed up by complaints) about the PDC's decision to drop walk-on girls from the product, not a person complaining about the inclusion of walk-on girls. I'd be careful about throwing stones in glass houses if I were you.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:22 am

Spiral wrote:For what it's worth, this thread was started by a person complaining about the PDC's decision to drop walk-on girls from the product, not a person complaining about the inclusion of walk-on girls. I'd be careful about throwing stones in glass houses if I were you.

It's not worth much and I've decided to ignore it.

What you're missing is very important in a debate. It's seeing things from both sides. I don't think you can do that, so you're always going to be ******* against the wind on here.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:24 am

FactualFrank wrote: It's seeing things from both sides.

This is a joke, yes?

I understand your side, you want to see tits with the darts. I don't know why you don't just blu tack a photo of Owen Coyle to you dart board.