In the case of Dani Alves, there has been talk of the proper functioning of the protocols, both of the Sutton nightclub and of the Mossos d'Esquadra. Thanks to its application, evidence was gathered without which everything would have been more complicated. But perhaps we should rethink two common practices of nightlife. One is the figure of the matchmaker or intermediary: that person who brings the girls you ask to the VIP room, like someone who brings you a drink. The other is so old and sexist that its validity is surprising: girls get in for free, and sometimes they also have a free drink. The boys pay.
When something is free, the product is you. If they pay to enter a disco and they don't, it follows - thoughtlessly, and more or less unconsciously - that they are the product. It's not an explicit perception, everything is based on interpretations and misunderstandings: it's as if the girls accept different rights from those who have paid. Not that it's like that, but that's how we understand it in other areas: I pay to get something, I'm a customer. If I don't pay, I can't claim the same.
In the nightlife, they might think they have paid to go out partying and see girls (girls the bar serves like they serve drinks, girls the bar puts in front of you like they play music; the girl is part of the pack, n' is the claim). And they can think: "Fantastic, they invite me in and drink for free", with the peace of mind that they don't owe anyone anything. If a bumblebee comes, they get it out of the way.
But, if there are problems, the feeling will remain that nothing is free in life; the "you already knew what I wanted" thing. This is how the idea spreads that some are products and others are consumers. It is very good that the protocols work, but changing the previous procedure would perhaps avoid having to apply them. Because the moment they are used, what seemed free has already turned out to be very expensive.
