Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Playboy of Discriminating against Men

Astrogirlrocks

If it weren't that way it'd just be a sausage party. You are paying to have hot women there. That's all it is. PERIOD.

zqxz

Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

LV Muffler $ 5.99LV Bags $ 19.9 LV Wallet $ 6.55Armani Glasses $ 5.99LV Belt $ 6.9

Buy addresses---- tntn.usTips (48 hours after the special product is invalid)

yup

you go boy!!

mobile watch phone

I do find it humorous that straight men complain about these policies though. The only reason they have them in the first place is for guys. Do you think the bar or club wants to give a discount just cause they hate men? No, they do it to try to keep the ratio as close to 50/50 as they can.

Angela Garcia as NeonMosfet

In Florida, they solved the " for ladies only", issue, by stating, if you're dressed like a lady( gotta love that eye liner), you get the lady's price. Of course, it really took everything out of the closet.

Angela Garcia as NeonMosfet

Freelance Minion

If this guy wants to go to these parties at all he needs to stop this, because the only thing he is going to do is to make ALL these parties a lot less fun in the future, NOT make them free for everyone.

Look, I think these things are pretty stupid, but fact is MEN probably want to go to them more than women, so only the reduced or comped entry fee is going to produce an almost balanced number of men and women.

If he succeeds in making women pay the same amount, all that will happen is Playboy parties with mostly dudes. Is that REALLY what he is wanting?

suenami

WTH was Playboy thinking? Of course a business in California can't charge customers different prices based on their sex. What with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, the California Supreme Courts' unanimous opinions in Koire (1985) and Angelucci (2007) finding that sex-based disparate pricing is illegal, Playboy seemingly has a whole lot of problems, and rightfully so.

CalimariI

Playboy, the business, does not discriminate by gender when pricing magazines, cable channels, etc. Hugh Hefner, the private citizen, is free to throw a wild party. If people are stupid enough to pay $625 just to be there, so be it. Mr. David Long may have been better off investing in a nice girl on Craigslist.

suenami

But Mr. Long is not suing Playboy for charging men and women different prices for magazines, cable channels, etc. he is suing Playboy for charging people different prices to enter the Playboy mansion based solely on the person's sex - a big No-No under several California anti-sex discrimination statutes, just like California nightclubs can't have a Ladies' Night and charge male patrons more than female patrons for cover charges or drinks. Furthermore, under the California Supreme Court's 2008 Benitez opinion, individuals, like Mr. Hefner, can be liable for Unruh Act violations.

robotchicken57

They wanted 'equal rights', they got 'em now....pay for the 'rights', good looks or a dog,turn them upside down and they are all the same.

MayorJohnRhodes

Um, private party, he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS!

PingoKingo

LOL, you are kidding right? Seriously?

www.anon-toolz.edu.tc

Calimarii

Dear dumb ass,The only reason Heff charges men $625 for a ticket to his parties is because they are the only ones stupid enough to pay to hang around naked women. Guess what? If he charged the women too, none would come and there would be a room full of men standing around holding their di--s. And guess what else? His parties do not provide the same services to both sexes. Men will receive the esteemed honor of mingling with some of the most beautiful women in the world who incidentally, won't be wearing clothes. At the same party, women can expect to be leered at, objectified, groped and compared to impossible imperfection. They don't need to pay Heff for that!

e.squared

SUCK IT UP! it's no secret women earn less and pay more for essentials like dry cleaning, haircuts, clothes, shoes...

suenami

On the contrary, for almost any job in which the woman has the same amount of consecutive years working, i.e., not taking time off to choose to raise children, the woman makes more money than the similarly tenured man. And that paying more for certain services is a myth; California's Unruh Act and Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 - both likely used against Playboy in this story - made such disparate pricing illegal, and each offense is $4,000 in statutory damages for the offending business.

Calimarii

I'm not sure where you're getting your data, Sue. In today's job market, the average man will leave a given company after about 4 years, in search of a better position. Contrarily, the working woman will hold the same job title with a company for an average of 8 years, taking only 6 six weeks for maternity leave. Compensation studies for several large corporations have revealed that managers are willing to pay male employees more because of the erroneous belief that men are better candidates for longevity in the workplace. Many employers mistakenly believe that women are more of a liability because of child rearing. However, raising children is now considered to be a joint effort between both mother and father. And, it is not 1950!

suenami

See "Why Men Earn More," written by former NOW board member Warren Farrell.

lakawak

They don't have to. They just CHOOSE to. You can get women's shoes just as cheaply as you can get men's shoes. And on the flip side, someone can easily overpay for men's shoes and have them cost as much as women's. Same with clothes. A woman can put on clothes from Old Navy just like a man. And again, the reverse is also true. Ask the guidos on the Jersey Shore how much they drop on one of their ridiculous looking shirts. Just as much as a nice woman's blouse.