California Man Sues Playboy Over Gender Discrimination . . . Against Men

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”

  1. forgetting all the silly arguments about paying for sex being fine or bad – however you define paying for sex, forgetting such disgusting things like poking fun at the way some woman look without makeup, after being arrested, and most likely after living a life with numerous problems, there is some small point to the man’s lawsuit.

    It is similar to the arguments against things like “ladies night” at bars and whatnot. It is discrimination. There is no way to argue it isn’t. In fact some places have banned such give-aways even though 99.99% of people don’t mind going to a bar where ladies drink free. It is good for everyone. That doesn’t change the fact that it is discrimination and all it takes is one asshole willing to fight it. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it but sadly some people do.

    Sometimes they’ll get around the no ladies-night promos by changing it to anyone wearing a dress gets in free or some other similar prerequisite

  2. rafflaw:

    some guy once approached me and asked me how much to have sex with her [Maddie the dog] but since she doesnt have free will, I could not in good conscience accept the offer.

    In the mans defense she was a good looking Golden Retriever.

  3. Just an observation. Having to pay for it speaks volumes about one’s innate attractiveness, desirability and dare I say so, one’s ability to please.

    Any John who thinks they thrilled a prostitute is one of those folks of which P. T. Barnum spoke so eloquently.

  4. “There’s a big difference between thinking you’re invisible, actually being invisible and nobody wanting to see you in the first place, but the net effect is very similar.” (Gene H)

    That is award worthy!!

  5. “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.”


    This isn’t just a case study in narcissism, exhibitionism, and megalomania, It’s a whole darn institute.

  6. rafflaw:

    who pays for sex?

    Me for my dog, it cost me plenty to have her inseminated by Tobias Culpeppers Golden Johnson.

  7. anon,

    Considering you have to pay for sex in addition to your normal charming personality, I’m pretty sure most people are not really that interested in finding you. There’s a big difference between thinking you’re invisible, actually being invisible and nobody wanting to see you in the first place, but the net effect is very similar. So you have that going for you . . . which is nice.

  8. rafflaw–“I am amazed at the arrogance of any man that thinks paying women/men for sex is normal.”

    Actually, it is quite normal and has been so for thousands of years.

Comments are closed.