egafd.com

I know here in the States if one woman complained about being left out of a store there would be lawyers lined up in the streets to represent the case for free. I agree with the overall concepts. Good work.

There is actually a tacit but highly effective double standard of jurisprudence in the US on this subject. A law that has the parctical effect of harming females (usually financially) is subject to the same 3-tier Constitutional scrutiny as one concerning race or religion;conversely, a law benefitting females is only subject to the "any rational reason" test, & hence almost never overtruned based on principles of judicial constarint & federalism.

I still think the world has gone mad with this political correctness nonsense. If someone does not want me in their shop then I will shop elsewhere.

in fact inside its presented in a feminine way ith lots of brightly coloured goodies where girls can browse sex toys in the company of other girls without the dirty mac brigade watching.

If it makes such shopping easier for the girls, I am all for it.

They do have a mail order catalogue and are happy to supply by post to anyone male or female.

Thanks for the insight. No one explains anything around here. And all this time i thought it was the media running it. Girls really do like shopping with the girls. If you've ever had to do the mall with your woman you know what i mean.

Eh????
Mart

I fully see and understand Highlanders case in point, and he is indeed within his rights to feel maligned. However, and at the risk of casting political correctness to the dogs, gender discrimination, by its very nature (if you'll excuse this poor
attempt at a pun), will in some form or other always be with us.

Would Highlander hypothetically justify my insistence on using the ladies changing/fitting rooms when purchasing that set of
sheer nylon stockings I have long admired in the shop window at Harrods. Since a female "one size" range may not cover my male 6ft 3in 16 stone frame, surely a trial in the appropriate surroundings and with the correct ambience is called for?

How much inadvertently hasty fumbling around the fly area would take place should one be surprised by the presence of a no doubt politically correct female, insistent on using the adjacenet urinal, while one is indulging in a satisfying and much needed leak/slash in the Heston Services Gents?

Would this fumbling be due to embarrassment, pride, or simply due to the backsplash from our female neighbour, whose equipment can never be up to scratch when it comes to using a facility designed for male members (not another pun!)?

You see, what is sauce for the goose is not invariably sauce for the gander, because men are men and women are women. I hope this does not sound sexist, because I am a great believer in gender equality, but in a few fields of human existence, sports, junior dorms, and perhaps sex shops to name a few, there may just be some justification in establishing a divide.

I presume that any shop is in business to make money, and turning away an unaccompanied Scot, no matter how intrinsically
tightfisted, does not seem to be a very clever way to go about that. However, perhaps one has to view the greater picture to
come to a reasonable conclusion. Could it be that the presence of unaccompanied and, dare I say, dirty old men in a shop
designed to purvey sexual aids and what have you to those classified as "fairer", inhibits these damsels from making a move for their credit cards and thus deprives them of the satisfaction and well-being brought about by this " unisex shopping experience" ? This I cannot say.

What I can say is that through the ages, and based on the morphological, psychological and temperamental differences in gender constitution, it has proven necessary, and often expedient, to make certain allowances for the females in our midst.

Most of these are, as far as I am concerned non-issues to say the least, and it would, for example, take a complete buffoon or an avowed mysogynist to deny female employees 15 minutes thrice a day at work, and the use of a suitable room to breast-feed their infants. This of course assumes that the employer has had the werewithal to provide a creche. [As an aside, a creche at work benefits not only the mother and and child, but the community as a whole, and the fathers and business concerned in particular.]

At the end of the day, I suppose the point I am making is that women, by and large, deserve some degree of consideration from
us males, who should really be way above the level of pettiness that political correctness is apt to cause. For though man is
said to be a political animal, I assure you that he is a sexual animal first and foremost, and that politics becomes interesting only when he has filled his stomach (and emptied his balls). Principle (now there is a word I hate) does not come into it, and should not be allowed to rear its ugly head. "On Principle" is one of the most abused and misaligned concepts of thought, and is often used to irrationally justify bigotry in one oppressive form or another.

Bearing all of the abpve in mind, and taking it whichever way you want, ultimately it may be pertinent to reflect and ask
onesself the following question, "Who are these women that may benefit greatly from these minor considerations?" Your answer
is all around you, for they are our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, aunts, nieces and if one is French,
mistresses, though not necessarily in that order.

Have fun

mannteufel

A misogynist and a bigot - nice combination!!

Women win, men lose.

Your post is thought provoking but it does not make it right, what about fathers, brothers, uncles, nepthews, husbands, etc.
A sex shop si no erefuses to allow women into their premises to encourage more men to buy sexy lingerie without embarrassment?
I am well aware about the provision of good and services andthe only time that it is considered lawful for a single sex admission is if it was a private members club, or a service provider "such as a sport club" where state of undress can be seen by others and can cause extreme embarrassment in the present of the opposite sex (thats include public toilets). Men have the same rights to shop in the lingeries departments of any stores and feel no more embarassed than women who shop at a sex shop, yet women are less embarrased in shopping for underwear clothes for men at the highstreet. Yes there are sex shop that makes women feel uncomfortable but that is the problem of how it is run though they have no rules banning women, I would also add that some men, myself included, feel reluctant to visit a gloomy or seedy sexshop because I may get ripped off (which happens all the time, look at Soho in the news recently) and would much prefer to shop in a brightly lit environment were men and women are there. There are very few, probably except London were there are sexshops that resembles a highstreet store.
I theory of the "dirty old man" that would deter female shoppers is totally unfounded, society had moved on since (I hope), besides if any behaved improperly they get arrested anyway and you can discriminate someone if you dont like how they look, seriousely. You only look at Anne Summers and there are shoppers of both genders but they dont prevent men from shopping there if he is unaccompanied. However one must also argue that "Sh!" does not completely exclude male shoppers so the "embarrasment" defence does not stand up in their case which makes them the only shop trading for the public to ban unaccompanied single men, but not single women. Then what about gay couples who are male, they also gets excluded and surely that too is wrong.

Come on, there are far more important issues to be debated. Do you really want to go into that shop? Is it life threatening if you can't?
Mart