The Buttery Males Thread

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Redskins247

Pretty sure Jerry Richardson had a woman come out with a sexual harassment suit against him directly...and had proof or something like that. Here are couple of examples of what led to the removal of him.

Former employees allege that in addition to verbal harassment, Richardson engaged in improper acts. According to sources, on multiple occasions Richardson requested female employees to visit him during a workday in his suite inside Bank of America Stadium. The women would be escorted by Richardson’s assistant, who would then depart, leaving the owner alone with a junior employee. One former female employee recalls Richardson, who stands 6'3", arriving barefoot and asking for a foot massage. Says one such invitee: 'The first time, you thought it was an important meeting with the owner. You [then] realized it was never anything that couldn’t be discussed over the phone.' Others talk of Richardson giving back rubs that lingered too long or went too low down the spine.

Richardson was also known for what multiple women call the 'seatbelt maneuver.' He would invite female employees out to lunch, and in keeping with his reputation as a self-styled gentleman, he would open the car door for his guests. Once they were seated, however, he would insist on fastening their seatbelt for them, reaching across their lap and brushing his hand across their breasts before putting the belt in the clasp."

Unfortunately, unless the "emails" uncover something else, doesn't sound like Dan has been caught with anything close to this.

Forcing your cheerleading squad to pose topless is pretty close.

[Redskins247]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Forcing your cheerleading squad to pose topless is pretty close.

Definitely agreed...however, unless those cheerleaders come forward and say they were forced to pose and by whom that is somehow linked to Dan...nothing will come from that. Dan will just say that was all Bruce...or one of the others that have been fired, and he'll say he has corrected the problem.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Forcing your cheerleading squad to pose topless is pretty close.

They were not forced to do anything they did not want to do. The director was a female. This cheerleader thing was way overblown.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

They were not forced to do anything they did not want to do. The director was a female. This cheerleader thing was way overblown.

No, BS!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/s...aders-nfl.html

This article was first published May 2, 2018.

When the Washington Redskins took their cheerleading squad to Costa Rica in 2013 for a calendar photo shoot, the first cause for concern among the cheerleaders came when Redskins officials collected their passports upon arrival at the resort, depriving them of their official identification.

For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.

A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.

One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No, BS!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/s...aders-nfl.html

This article was first published May 2, 2018.

When the Washington Redskins took their cheerleading squad to Costa Rica in 2013 for a calendar photo shoot, the first cause for concern among the cheerleaders came when Redskins officials collected their passports upon arrival at the resort, depriving them of their official identification.

For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.

A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.

One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.

Your source is the NY Times...lol. Again, no one held a gun to their heads and told them to do what they did. They were adults. Also these were not even their jobs. Cheerleaders are not paid. All they had to do was say no. They choose not to. Not to excuse what the Redskins did, it was 100% out of line - but pretty tired of the cry wolf crap.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

They were not forced to do anything they did not want to do. The director was a female. This cheerleader thing was way overblown.

Have to disagree here. The reports definitely show an unwillingness to participate but fearful of repercussions. I also am not sure what having a female director has anything to do with the scenario anyways.

[irish]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Have to disagree here. The reports definitely show an unwillingness to participate but fearful of repercussions. I also am not sure what having a female director has anything to do with the scenario anyways.

Agree. Especially when their passports had been confiscated which eliminated their ability to get out of there.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Have to disagree here. The reports definitely show an unwillingness to participate but fearful of repercussions. I also am not sure what having a female director has anything to do with the scenario anyways.

But what were the repercussions? Loss of a salary? That wasn't it. At the end of the day you are a cheerleader, an unpaid position.

If someone puts a crack pipe in front of you and tells you to smoke it are you going to do it?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

But what were the repercussions? Loss of a salary? That wasn't it. At the end of the day you are a cheerleader, an unpaid position.

If someone puts a crack pipe in front of you and tells you to smoke it are you going to do it?

Dude, no offense but why are you so hell bent on this? Bunch of cheerleaders were harassed and threatened by this organization. What's the benefit to you as a person to disregard and discount what they went through?

Women put up with a lot of shit, and aren't always in a position to say no. This is an organization that has fired people for sexually harassing women, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Dude, no offense but why are you so hell bent on this? Bunch of cheerleaders were harassed and threatened by this organization. What's the benefit to you as a person to disregard and discount what they went through?

Women put up with a lot of shit, and aren't always in a position to say no. This is an organization that has fired people for sexually harassing women, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

End of story.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Dude, no offense but why are you so hell bent on this? Bunch of cheerleaders were harassed and threatened by this organization. What's the benefit to you as a person to disregard and discount what they went through?

Women put up with a lot of shit, and aren't always in a position to say no. This is an organization that has fired people for sexually harassing women, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

I am not discounting it. As I said it is pretty low. My point is these women didn't act like responsible adults by choosing to take off their shirts. .

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I am not discounting it. As I said it is pretty low. My point is these women didn't act like responsible adults by choosing to take off their shirts. .

That is borderline saying " she wore a short skirt she deserved to be rape"

Do you not think people do things because they are chorused or threaten to do the act.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I am not discounting it. As I said it is pretty low. My point is these women didn't act like responsible adults by choosing to take off their shirts. .

Nevermind i think everyone else made the point here…

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I am not discounting it. As I said it is pretty low. My point is these women didn't act like responsible adults by choosing to take off their shirts. .

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...nt-lewd-videos

Washington Football Team, former cheerleaders reach settlement over lewd videos


The Washington Football Team reached a settlement with its former cheerleaders, who appeared in lewd videos made without their knowledge during swimsuit calendar photo shoots in 2008 and 2010.

Attorneys for both sides confirmed the settlement, which, one source said, was actually reached in 2020, though they declined to say exactly when. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The Washington Post first reported news of the settlement. There was no lawsuit filed.

There were two videos made from outtakes during those years in which some private parts were exposed. Certain props were used to shield those body parts and at times those props were insufficient.

The Washington Post detailed those shoots in August, with one former employee, Brad Baker, saying staffers were told to produce a video of this for owner Dan Snyder, who has denied that allegation. Baker worked in the franchise's broadcast department from 2007 to '09. The Post reported two other sources saying a similar video was produced at the behest of the team's former vice president and play-by-play announcer Larry Michael. He, too, has denied the allegation.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

But what were the repercussions? Loss of a salary? That wasn't it. At the end of the day you are a cheerleader, an unpaid position.

If someone puts a crack pipe in front of you and tells you to smoke it are you going to do it?

The old days of old men exerting their standing and undue influence on young ladies in the workplace is over.

Young interns dont need to "stay silent" when an older boss gets creepy.

Those days are over.

The Jon Gruden and Bruce Allens of the world are being phased out.