Man in gimp outfit attends Globe theatre

[Pluvia]

That's it, really. One woman wrote to complain and the staff said their only concern was that he might become dehydrated.

http://archive.today/YKE0m

More normalisation of fetishes.

Anyone who calls it out risks being filmed, have it uploaded to social media then being targeted by psychopaths

how would you explain this to you your kids?

'that man is getting sexual pleasure from alarming you, try not to look'?

he had his face covered, that could have been good enough. would they let someone wearing a motorcycle helmet roam about among the audience? (yes, yes religious face coverings for women, yadda yadda. places like banks manage to deal with this without allowing threatening looking men with their faces hidden to have free range of the site)

If woke places won't stop fetishists getting sexual kicks from attending their performances, then they will only have themselves to blame when fetishists flock to them. Which will undoubtedly happen.

I wish the next performance had been inundated with men wearing enormous comedy breasts, thongs, and BDSM gear.

Of course they will revise their policy, because now it's gone public. But what the fuck did they think would happen if they just left the policy as it was? Is their imagination really so limited?

I bet anyone wearing an Adult Human Female T-shirt would be straight out the door..

So depressing. Where’s the safeguarding??

Completely agree with sentiments on this thread. The Globe is the worst, has been for a long time. Their dedication to the worst kind of performative wokeism has long overtaken any desire to give audiences a decent show. I’m not a traditionalist by any means either. The Globe is now full of tourists or school kids, I haven’t been for a number of years now and I go to the theatre most weeks.

It's notable from that report that the theatregoer who complained had no trouble at all identifying the gimp suit wearer as a man despite the fact that he was covered head to toe. While the theatre refer to him as a 'patron' and 'someone'. Attempting to de-sex both the offender and the behaviour.

This.

For sure.

I would refuse to sit next to someone dressed like that especially if accompanied by children but not sure the theatre would do anything more than offer a refund of the tickets.

Sorry, I should have said woman who complained. Is her sex relevant? I think it probably is. It seems less likely to me that a man would complain, unless perhaps he was there with his kids.

I doubt whether they'd offer a refund. They'd say it was your choice to leave.

The name seemed familiar. I assume this is the same Globe? If so then then really hate normal women.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4648847-the-globe-theatre-share-and-praises-poem-about-terfs?reply=120522788

it is the same Globe so yep no surprises

Sounds like the Guardian. Subs dropping like dead flies, only kept alive by the BBC buying literally thousands of copies everyday to give to their staff.

Yes, our licence fees pay to keep their Mickey Mouse "journalism" alive.

Shouldn't that production of "I, Joan" have been renamed "I, Confused"?

What I don't understand is why they would let in someone who is clearly dressed in costume when people have come to watch a theatrical production, as I'm sure many audience members would have assumed it was one of the Globe's questionable costume choices until they realised this guy had no speaking part.

If I went to the theatre and saw someone in a gimp suit, especially somewhere like the Globe where they often have batshit costume choices and cast members are often planted in the crowd and/or frequently enter the stage by making their way through the audience, I would assume it was part of the play.

Aside from the Globe's duty of care to its audience, it has a duty to its actors not to subject them to these kinds of issues (of someone trying to upstage them, to interpret the scenario in the most charitable way) when they're trying to do their jobs.

Can you imagine having worked so hard on your craft to get to perform at the Globe and then coming out on stage to be confronted with a random masked audience member in a gimp suit? It sounds like the actors did a fantastic job of ignoring him and showed great professionalism in that, but why on earth should they have to perform their role under such challenging conditions that so disrespect their craft?

It must have felt incredibly intimidating for the actors (and audience) as you have no idea what this man is planning to do, and he obviously has zero regard for letting the actors present the play to the audience as they'd planned to, as he knows his costume will distract from any suspension of disbelief.

And if he doesn't care about the play or the actors or the audience, which is evident from his selfish, upstaging clothing choice, then that begs the question "why is he there?". The absolute best case scenario is that he's getting some sort of power thrill and/or sexual kick from it. But he could be planning anything. He could be dressed that way because he's an escaped criminal who needed to hide his identity or anything. I bet everyone was so relieved when the play ended and they could all conclude that he was probably "just" a fetishist.

Is the photograph illustrating the piece a stock photo or of the man? It doesn't look like a stock photo. If it's him, who took it? I'm slightly confused by the theatre's reference to a 'blue' gimp suit when the one in the photograph looks clearly black. And I'd be interested to know how the internal logs have come to light. Did the theatre disclose them voluntarily to the woman who complained or the paper? If there's a means of getting public venues to disclose their internal responses to incidents like this, it would be useful to know it.

Men have got it in their heads now that their psycho-sexual deviant behaviour somehow makes them marginalised and special. I expect we will all be subjected to much more of this as time goes on. The bullying of Baroness Falkner in the EHRC for trying to focus on the disabled (who have been neglected in equity work), and agreeing there is a rights conflict between women and deviant men is a disgrace.

Poor dehydrated gimp 😂

But honestly, what is wrong with people?!

GMG makes massive losses - the Scott Trust keeps it alive using the proceeds from the sale of Autotrader to Apax - a private equity firm

The hypocrisy and double standards of GMG and its writers are off the scale even compared to the rest of the MSM where it is pretty terrible as well

Maybe add ' No facial coverings ' to the rules?
Up until covid, you weren't allowed in a bank if your face was covered and a lot of places weren't too happy about allowing people wearing hoodies in.
I can't even imagine what goes through the minds of people who think wearing fetish gear in public is a good thing - they need locking up, imo!

My darling GF, only one thing I'd love to change about her, her slavish devotion tomtge BBC, ergo licence fee.

If she left me for a more handsome and talented fellow (unlikely, but not impossible, lol), day one the licence fee would go.

Goodbye BBC fact checkers that lie, and queer infected newsroom, goodbye sustaining the Grauniad and bans on Helen Joyce.

Come off it. No dress code or similar policy can cover every contingency. You may give specific examples of things that are banned, but you can't individually list every single inappropriate item that some numpty might wear. As well as any specifics, a dress code will also have general terms about appropriate clothing.

Thinking that the Globe staff were unable to remove this guy is to miss the point. If that had been the issue, the duty log would have said so. They did not want to remove him. On the contrary, they congratulated themselves on their tolerance, and treated the woman who complained as an annoyance. Because tolerance only extends to men wishing to co-opt people into their kinks, and not to women or children who don't consent to be part of someone's wank fodder.

This stuff only escalates doesn’t it? They get a kick out of the the idea that it’s not allowed, it’s forbidden, it shocks people. So when no one reacts, when nobody says ‘that’s not acceptable’. The only way to go is more extreme, more shocking.

As a society we have to live by a set of unspoken societal norms, imagine if we all had no shame, no boundaries and did as we wanted…it would be chaos and very dangerous, especially for women and children, excusing the worst of human behaviour.

I would have started a slow clap and then a chant of "Leave! Leave! Leave!" and then my husband would have taken matters into his own hands and frogmarched the Gimp outside.