Invite only (part 2) (26)

Now I'm not sure whether A_A was referring to this but I do feel it's important that I respond with regards to Dystopia. Samm's pretty much hit the nail on the head- we're aiming to hold parties unlike a lot of others and to be able to do that with minimum risk we need to be able to vouch for everyone there. I don't want to have to worry about whether someone's going to get touched up by someone uninvited or that someone playing with sharps won't have the correct equipment and this seems like a sensible way to minimise that risk.

Dystopia
Ultraviolence

People do make mistakes but a little humility does tend to go a long way.

That's me fresh out of platitudes

If there is a publicised reason for heavily vetting the guest list and it is not discrimintory (twats & the stupid excluded) then personally I don't see why it should not be advertised on IC

I just want to repeat again, that I have no issues with the way dystopia is being organised - as I said, I'd be more concerned if it wasn't done this way.

I think events like dystopia firmly belong on the board, private parties that are never intended to be anything other than that don't. Yet to look purely in black and white the first event is essentially a private party. The last thing we want is a situation where events like dystopia are having to fight tooth and nail to "earn" a place on the boards.

I just think if Admin is going to ban private parties from posting, then things like this need to be considered (and that's from someone who'd prefer not to see private parties on the events boards).

XxX

I'm actually in favour of inite only events, as it goes. It's better than inviting all-comers and then vetting out the ones you don't like/aren't up to standard.

I think that segregating an event on what you ARE is wrong, but upon what you DO is acceptable.

All clubs will pretty much always be trying to keep vanilla tourists out. If you aren't either into kink or curious, you shouldn't be inside. And if it's a rubber event and you don't do rubber, why the fuck are you there? Other than to be the sort of cock who wants to "assert their right" to be in other people's space, when they don't belong. Translation: "I *hate* to be left out of *anything*, in case someone is having a better time than me.

I don't see an issue here. As this tongue in cheek poster quipped:

merrynb99 wrote: I'm starting to suspect a Nanny State may be the only answer

Dystopia, for example, have said that they are trying to encourage more serious, edgy play - without people gawping, pointing, tutting or generally looking shocked at who is doing what to whom with whatever.

As such, they want to restrict the people who come in to people they know will be comfortable in that environment. So to start with they have said that they want to facilitate that by only letting people come they can vouch for as fitting in. They haven't stated it as an ongoing policy. So I guess that once you have enough people coming, you can move to letting people vouch for others they know who want to come and widen the attendance.

There's no difference between that and a fetish/swinging crossover which was seeking to keep out the people who just want to come and gawp at other people have sex. (Or A.N.Other similar scenario where you need to control the attendees for what I would term "positive reasons"). After all, I don't think it would be good for anyone if people who came to an event got uncomfortable and/or started protesting or generally kicking off. That would spoil the environment for all concerned.

I fail to see much difference between something like Decadence seem to be aiming for and a club like Sweet Torments, which is effectively invite only anyway. You either apply to the contact list of the club and get an invite from the owner, or you get invited by one of the current members. You can't just rock up on the night and expect to get in.

(Edited to fix the club being referred to from Decadence to Dystopia)

* * *
.
Your orders for today are: Have more fun.

Edited 2 Mar 10, 8:02 AM by Beau_Tox

And

These two quotes would seem to sum up really nicely what people appear to feel. My question is why does an event have to be seen to be 'not discriminatory', and why is it wrong for organisers to vet out the ones they 'don't like/aren't up to standard'?

That's what I don't get. I'm pretty discriminatory about the places I want to go and the people I want to hang out with. I just genuinely don't understand why it's such a negative thing to most people?

If an event doesn't meet someone's criteria (for how it's run or the style of event) or if someone doesn't meet it's (the organiser's criteria) for ANY reason, why would that someone want to go, let alone make a fuss?

I've not said at any time, that I think its *wrong* for anyone to organise any kind of event and select who they want to attend. The only thing I asked for was clarification as to whether it was appropriate to advertise on the public boards, events that aren't (in effect) public, because they select more on the basis of social networking more than any of (kink, competency, gender, Ds orientation, boob size, age, known to be genuine, causes trouble etc). The distinction between the two sides of the / above are, IMHO, an important characteristic of nature of the event.

Continually, throughout that thread people who disagreed have tried to twist that into a suggestion that all events have to be inclusive (not so), or I have a chip on my shoulder about something (not so), that it was about any particular event (not so), or it was a step on the slippery slope toward the nanny state (WTF?). There was no suggestion that any event couldn't be advertised in groups or blogs.

Admin asked for feedback, and without counting up (but vaguely accounting for several posters who were more vocal) there was a split in opinion, which suggests it wasn't an outlandish question. The majority +ve seemed to say that it was rude and a bit annoying, and the majority -ve seemed split between 'while I might agree, it doesn't cause a problem', and 'we shouldn't regulate how/what the board gets used for'. A third set responded to a different proposition entirely

I'm quite surprised by the level of angst and emotional investment people have put in

- M

Miss_Despotic wrote: Attitude_adjuster, being provocative?

I'd expect at least 27 continuation threads if I were

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Edited 1 Mar 10, 11:08 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

If an event wishes to control the gender balance which i would imagine no-one one here would argue against[even the single guys who i.m sure would moan if someone ran an event and then sold 90% of the tickets to the said guys]invite only is the only way.

The other issue that affects us in that we operate from what is essentially a private house[although be it one where no-one lives and is used exclusively for fetish activities] and the legal advice we were given as regards staying within the law is that the parties have to be private by invitation only events to do this to remain out of the clutches and medling of your fun friendly [not] local authorities etc.

We actually fall into the opposite catagory than the one most people on these threads are critisising in that we welcome new people of all persuasions genders and kinks approaching us with a veiw to attending as we believe a turnover of people is good for the dynamic of the party.

The timing of this thread is a bit of a coincidence as we were actively considering a presence on here to promote the parties so we.ll probrably let the fuss over this blow over and see where things lie before making a decision.

Attitude_Adjuster wrote: SheilaBlyge wrote: Professor_Tim wrote: I'm actually in favour of inite only events, as it goes. It's better than inviting all-comers and then vetting out the ones you don't like/aren't up to standard. And Jokelme wrote: If there is a publicised reason for heavily vetting the guest list and it is not discrimintory (twats & the stupid excluded) then personally I don't see why it should not be advertised on IC These two quotes would seem to sum up really nicely what people appear to feel. My question is why does an event have to be seen to be 'not discriminatory', and why is it wrong for organisers to vet out the ones they 'don't like/aren't up to standard'? I've not said at any time, that I think its *wrong* for anyone to organise any kind of event and select who they want to attend. The only thing I asked for was clarification as to whether it was appropriate to advertise on the public boards, events that aren't (in effect) public, because they select more on the basis of social networking more than any of (kink, competency, gender, Ds orientation, boob size, age, known to be genuine, causes trouble etc). The distinction between the two sides of the / above are, IMHO, an important characteristic of nature of the event. Continually, throughout that thread people who disagreed have tried to twist that into a suggestion that all events have to be inclusive (not so), or I have a chip on my shoulder about something (not so), that it was about any particular event (not so), or it was a step on the slippery slope toward the nanny state (WTF?). There was no suggestion that any event couldn't be advertised in groups or blogs. Admin asked for feedback, and without counting up (but vaguely accounting for several posters who were more vocal) there was a split in opinion, which suggests it wasn't an outlandish question. The majority +ve seemed to say that it was rude and a bit annoying, and the majority -ve seemed split between 'while I might agree, it doesn't cause a problem', and 'we shouldn't regulate how/what the board gets used for'. A third set responded to a different proposition entirely I'm quite surprised by the level of angst and emotional investment people have put in - M Miss_Despotic wrote: Attitude_adjuster, being provocative? I'd expect at least 27 continuation threads if I were

Just to clarify, I wasn't quoting you, AA, and wasn't even referring back to anything you said on the first thread.

I literally thought those two quotes summed up a lot of the 'feeling' I got from the first thread, and used them as a springboard to ask my question.

My personal view is that an organiser is free to organise what they want. If they are a member of IC then they are free to use the Events board to publicise or otherwise discuss their event, since I can't see anything that stipulates that events have to be 'public events' at the moment.

If Admin decides to change that, then obviously my view as to what was or wasn't appropriate to publicise would change accordingly.

As I've said all along, I am wondering where the problem is with the current state of affairs? Is anyone inconvenienced? Is Admin inconvenienced? (Rhetorical questions, by the way).

ETA The musing below uses this quote as a springboard; it's not intended to be "preaching" at you SB.

Thinking in general here, rather than about fetish clubs of which I have little experience, I like spending time in places which are open to the public and in which I might find myself in contact with people who I never expected and who are very different and who perhaps whose company I wouldn't have set out to keep. E.g. public transport; public parks; shops and shopping malls. IC sometimes feels a bit that way . I like the fact that our city centre church has all manner of people wander in for all manner of reasons, including people for whom the main attraction seems to be a free coffee or sandwich and perhaps a bit of company.

In this way one's experience and knowledge is widened and a sense of "community" is built up which isn't based on shared interests / activities / social class / culture. I actually enjoy diversity and inclusiveness, despite the challenges it can sometimes bring. And because this is healthy for society, there is sometimes a tendency to disapprove of events and places which exclude people. Those who campaign for better access for disabled people have a point; the more we discriminate and exclude groups, the more unjust it feels to be part of that group. They feel marginalised.

Having said all that, I also enjoy being in "exclusive" company and places at times. Despite being a huge fan of public libraries, I am also a member of a private library with an air of elegance and gentility, which has social events at which most folk are educated, cultured, well mannered and "civilised". This enables certain sorts of activity and conversation to happen which would not be possible if it was open to a random collection of the public. Most exclusive of all, I like spending time in my own home, with my wife, or sometimes with invited guests. We English think of our homes as castles!

I guess we all spend some time in excluding places and activities, and some time in inclusivity. A balance is required for individual health and for societal health. How society or legislature (or people in power such as the owners of this website) can encourage people to find appropriate balance is a hugely difficult question.

Equal opportunity legislation for recruitment to jobs (if I understand it correctly) allows the employer to discriminate on the basis of ability to do the job (as outlined in a job description) but not on certain other grounds such as gender, race, age etc except where necessary to do the job.

I don't suppose Admin on IC want to police inclusion criteria and "recruitment" process for events to the same extent before allowing them to advertise here. I'd suggest letting most events (which aren't guilty of illegal discrimination) advertise here. If Admin want to give extra support and encouragement to inclusive events, they might choose to give them greater prominence than others.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

Edited 2 Mar 10, 8:33 AM by wonderer

I'm not.

I haven't read all the replies and thoughts on the thread.

But it seems to me to be a bit like...a school playground.

People are "tribal". They like to think they're part of "popular" factions or "gangs". I can remember things from my childhood along the following lines:

"You can't come Rachel, because *you're* not friends with x, y, or z". That sneering and hurtful spite thing going on. And yes it did hurt.

I also remember, "Rachel, would *you* like to be involved. We really like you. You're one of *us*. Whereas all these other people aren't." And yes, that makes one feel "special".

I believe it's called life. And the response you have to it all is much a function i think of your own security and "care factor".

In terms of the OP: like much of what goes on on IC, I don't much mind how and what people use it for. Each to their own. If you want to advertise your private party, and vet accordingly, you go for it.

We are all free to care, or not. To mind, or not. To want to go to these "exclusive" events, or not. And to care about what others think of us, and whether that means we belong to that "crowd", or not.

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. (Buddha)

If they're out to make money and they upset people, ban them from listing. Simples.