Steve Frye is a man who was shocked, shocked when he went to a party at the Playboy Mansion called the “Leather Meets Lace” that there was naked sexual discrimination . . . against men. Frye was outraged that men were required to pay for admission while “gorgeous ladies” could enter for free. He is now suing on behalf of all aggrieved men.
Frye complains that he had to pay $625 and some men paid $1000 only to find women walking in free. Frye says that such a practice violates California’s Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995. The Act was passed in 1995 and states that “no business establishment of any kind whatsoever may discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of similar or like kind, against a person because of the person’s gender.”
We have seen previous lawsuits (here) against Ladies Nights and similar promotions. A previous lawsuit by a lawyer against the discrimination inherent in such events was thrown out.
Moreover, I am not sure those men paying $1000 to get in would like to see fewer gorgeous women as opposed to full-ticket women. I would think that, if anyone has a grievance, it would be those women told to go buy a ticket.
Source: Daily Mail
42 thoughts on “California Man Sues Playboy Over Gender Discrimination . . . Against Men”
Funny, Pete. Good to see you, Woosty.
aw, mike give him a break. do you know how much spam e-mail he got just to get viagra at that price.
good point about the legality of prostitution in Vegas. I am amazed at the arrogance of any man that thinks paying women/men for sex is normal.
I’ll buy dinner … you pay for the wine … it’s a brave, new world we’ve managed to mature into … 😉
For sarcasm to be effective it has to be obvious in intent to the person addressed, or possibly the audience.
Pretending to act like an ass from you is obviously believable. I wonder why?
“you want to make that a crime, what a stellar bunch of commentators on a so-called civil liberty blog.”
Nobody has suggested either censoring you, or baning you for any of your comments. You have free speech here, up to the point of slander, libel or threats and almost everyone here would defend your right to make a fool of yourself, as you just did.
Had you wit you might have replied to:
“long history of amorous relationships” with:
Mike’s referring again to his constant mirror gazing.
“I don’t get the attraction that men have to ogle, or have some kind of sex with women who are only interested in their money.”
Never being sucessful enough to earn money, Mike has never found much interest in him at all, by any sane women.
“I am aware of the broad spectrum of sexual interests humans share and I’m well aware of the raging hormonal urges that lead men to think below their belts. Transactions such as these seem demeaning to me, as it is to the women, who at least get paid for it.”
Is’t he cute everyone, he pontificates as if he were a expert? Think below their belts? What century was this guy born in?
Anon, sarcasm is not your forte, nastiness is your style.
Actually, most of you folks are amazingly ignorant, and you best it only with your own sanctimonious humorless inability to recognize sarcasm. (the tell: ” and finally, they had just that much more of their college education paid for.”)
Anyway Bette, et. al.,
No, it’s not (only) “Hoopy Frood”. That is what idiots insist on (*).
1. A really hoopy frood – In the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams, hoopy is defined as “a really together guy.”
A frood is defined as “a really amazingly together guy.”
An example from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which discusses the importance of towels is as follows:
“Hey you, sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There’s a frood who really knows where his towel is!”
In this sense “hoopy dude” makes perfect sense, just as applying it to Mike makes for a nice Thursday afternoon example of mocking sarcasm.
Regardless, there are many people, including libertarians, feminists, Jews, sex workers, former sex-workers, cops who fully understand that prostitution should be legalized and exactly how.
And also recognize the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, unctuous, patriarchal and condescending bullshit Mike’s ego trashed this thread with.
Anyway I confessed to a sarcastic comment, you want to make that a crime, what a stellar bunch of commentators on a so-called civil liberty blog. However, good luck, I’m behind 7 boxxies so the coppers will never find me, amirite Gene H?
(*) Bette, I was schooled in this a few months back in a FARK thread. Surprising what we believe isn’t it!
my G*d, the arguments about paying for sex that come from a dissident tinkled at having to pay for a party….
Happy Holidays everyone….may Santa and the Glorius Groundhog be good to you all!
“and I made sure they were happy (several times each Mike),”
I never realized until this comment what a totally ignorant man you are. Your macho implication that you gave these prostitutes orgasms is a hoot.
The only orgasm you gave them was in their head as they contemplated the easy money. As for your further “manly” implications that you were able to become erect multiple times, you and 90% of human males under a given age are capable of it. However, if you think that you can bait me into an argument with you comparing our sexual potency, you are off base as usual.
I feel pity for you that you have sex, but know so little about it. An orgasm is not a “unit of sexual pleasure”, but merely a climax of arousal. The beauty of sex comes before the orgasm and is intertwined by the loving contact between individuals. What adds immensely to the pleasure of the contact is a connection with one’s partner, that goes beyond the physical stimulation. Gene put it well:
“I’ve never been with a woman who wasn’t a friend of one degree or another. If I’m not interested in talking to her, I’m not interested in sleeping with her. Sex is an intimate act and to me intimate has always meant more than just getting naked and copulating.”
I have no doubt from your brief comments that you are a “sexual legend in your own mind”. I find that pathetic. However, I am not opposed to prostitution, Someone like you with obvious intimacy problems overlaid by a misinformed macho, certainly would need these services to prevent total sexual frustration. Your comment also informs as to why you use your pseudonym, for as Bette Noir wrote:
“Anon, while prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, it is not legal in Vegas. You just confessed to a crime.”
Truthfully though Anon, although we’ve always disagreed on much, I never thought you ignorant. I guess I was wrong in that belief and I apologize.
“Only fat, balding women are going to be willing and able to pay $1000.00 to meet a bunch of fat, balding men.”
Ouch! Well, I’m getting fat, but doesn’t my money take the attention off of my head, even though that’s what I’m think about?
Just to be totally pedantic… Is the Playboy Mansion properly licensed to host events where attendees buy tickets that, I assume, come with service of alcoholic drinks? (In the terms of some ordinances/laws, are they licensed as a Public Place of Amusement?)
Never mind the slightly goofy gender discrimination suit… The Mansion could be in deep doodoo if they’ve been operating as an unlicensed commercial night club. (I have no idea how “the grotto” would work in terms of the building codes – it’s probably fine in a private residence, but in terms of the codes for places of assembly… uh, I don’t even know where to start…. and then there’s the ADA…. oy vey!)
I suspect that the folks who run the Mansion would like a SEP field* generator about now.
And maybe the Turley blog just attracts a very abnormal bunch of guys, but I can pretty well echo Mike and Gene’s comments… and echo Bette’s “blech” in regards to annon’s draft submittal to Penthouse (consistently fictional) Letters.
(Totally gratuitous Hitchhiker’s reference.)
Maybe you’re being a little tough on anon there. You and I may not understand the willingness or desire to pay for sex, but surely in the case of someone like anon we can at least form an accommodating understanding of the necessity of paying for sex for some people, can’t we?
Shucks. Just as I was thinking that the commenters on this blog represented an above-average group of men, Anon’s comment comes along. Yuck. For your further information, Anon, while prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, it is not legal in Vegas. You just confessed to a crime.
Roger: I LOVE running into “Hitchhiker’s Guide” references out of context!
Anon: Also, that’s “hoopy frood.”
I made sure they were happy (several times each Mike),
Two Thousand Bucks us to work your jaw? Gotta be a lawyer.
“At the age of 67, having a long history of amorous relationships prior to marriage I must say that I’m perplexed by anyone who would pay $625, or $1,000 to go to the Playboy Mansion. One wonders, as did Frankly, what was he looking for that he didn’t receive. To be honest I’ve never been, nor had the desire, to go to a strip club, or pay for sexual services either. While I think both should be legal, I don’t get the attraction that men have to ogle, or have some kind of sex with women who are only interested in their money.”
Once again Mike, I am ashamed to even be on the same planet as you. What a fully integrated, hoopy dude you are. I bet you have your towel with you even now.
Or maybe you’re just a sanctimonious prig with a superiority complex.
I went to Vegas a few weeks ago, met two strippers in Glitter Gulch, paid them each a thousand and had a great few hours back in my room. I went away happy, they came along of their own desire, and I made sure they were happy (several times each Mike), and finally, they had just that much more of their college education paid for.
While I can’t say I’ve never been to strip clubs (almost every time with bachelor parties and never of my own choosing), I can say I’ve never been to a prostitute. I echo your thoughts. I just don’t get the concept of paying to ogle or paying for sex. One is paying for sexual what? Frustration? To me is seems simply a waste of money. The other is simply . . . meaningless. I’ve never been with a woman who wasn’t a friend of one degree or another. If I’m not interested in talking to her, I’m not interested in sleeping with her. Sex is an intimate act and to me intimate has always meant more than just getting naked and copulating. I know this is a minority position compared to most men (and quite a few women), but I make no apologies for how my brain is wired.
At the age of 67, having a long history of amorous relationships prior to marriage I must say that I’m perplexed by anyone who would pay $625, or $1,000 to go to the Playboy Mansion. One wonders, as did Frankly, what was he looking for that he didn’t receive. To be honest I’ve never been, nor had the desire, to go to a strip club, or pay for sexual services either. While I think both should be legal, I don’t get the attraction that men have to ogle, or have some kind of sex with women who are only interested in their money.
I am aware of the broad spectrum of sexual interests humans share and I’m well aware of the raging hormonal urges that lead men to think below their belts. Transactions such as these seem demeaning to me, as it is to the women, who at least get paid for it.
What this does explain to me is how the Playboy Mansion has been operating all these years, I had’t realized that their infamous parties charged fees.
Of all the injustices in the world, THIS is what burns his butt?
Definitely B Ark bound.
You are rght Frankly. This guy is a loser
My guess is that his real complain is he didn’t get the happy ending he was hoping for and it took $625 out of money he could have used to get one on the street.
Stories like this always make me wonder what it is about most men that they can look in a mirror and think “Yes, THIS is what the laydezz want” while complaining that Kate Winslett is a chubby.
Only fat, balding women are going to be willing and able to pay $1000.00 to meet a bunch of fat, balding men.
Comments are closed.