So there was something called The Presidents’ Club. The only thing it seems to have done in its thirty-three years is to host annual parties in London. Sports cars, nights of the town and whatnot were auctioned off and the money (well, I have not seen an audit) went to charity. Supposedly the amount raised this year was over a million pounds.
This year, an investigative reporter infiltrated the event. She was asked about her hip and bust size, and was hired as a waitress based on her looks. She was asked to wear sexy, matching underwear. The party was (as she knew it would be) a bacchanalia. Bottoms got grabbed, hands went up skirts and so on.
Is there anything obviously wrong with such a party? Presume everyone was a consenting adult. This means the waitresses knew what they were getting into. This means they were getting paid more than what a regular waitress was paid.
If these conditions were met, was there something wrong with this? Am I being morally blind to this?
Yes, yes you are. Women consented to be hostesses, not be groped, or exposed to. Of course the reporter knew it was a bacchanal, that’s what she was there to report on. Do you allege all the other hostesses knew?
If a woman consents to be on display (e.g. a booth babe at ComiCon, or a pole dancer at a club), that doesn’t mean she consents to be touched.
Plus how fucking dumb do the organizers have to be not to read the zeitgeist?
How is “hired for appearance” the same as “hired to be touched” or “hired to be flashed”?
IMO, no. Just because women (presumably mostly of lesser economic means) are essentially compelled to be on display to higher-status men (and I’m sure it was almost all men) doesn’t mean the behaviour under consideration (touching, crude comments, exposure) should be acceptable or moral.
Yes, I said “compelled”. Yes, yes, “no-one was holding a gun to their heads” :rolleyes: Any such objection would be the very epitome of disingenuity and wilfully ignorant of both the economic and social realities of patriarchy.
Also, there are other troubling elements to the story: men participating are elites. It is troubling that they view this as a good time. If a private club hired black people to serve a private dinner for elites while the servers were dressed as slaves and while they were being subject to degrading abuse, I would find the incident very troubling regardless of whether or not the hired servers knew what they were getting in to. I think it is reasonable to judge these men by how they behave when they think no one is looking.
The only way I could see this working is if a contract was signed by the waitresses and their employer, with language specifying that the women would be acknowledging and consenting to physical contact - up to an agreed-upon limit, and that if that limit was exceeded by any of the guests, that individual would be removed from the event and would be personally liable for any civil or criminal charges (as opposed to the organization itself, to cover its own ass). Maybe the members of the club would also have to sign the contract.
With that said, even with a contract like that, I personally find something sleazy about a party like this, that’s like a formal event where a bunch of rich guys go around groping waitresses. It somehow seems more perverted than an outright orgy or swinger’s party or even an S&M club. Even if the actual sexual contact is more tame, it’s like the context of it is sleazier.
If you read the breifing they gave the hostesses that made it pretty clear those things could happen. They signed a five page document that made things clear.
This doesnt fully excuse the behavior, but anyone who didnt know what they were getting inot didnt listed when the breifing happened and signed the doc before reading it.
All the stories I have read reported that they were supposed to wear “sexy black shoes and black underwear.” That is not the same as “sexy underwear.” Where did you read “matching sexy underwear?”
Besides which, instructions on dress is not a disclosure of what surely seems to be widespread cases of sexual assault. If I hire you to work in a warehouse, and tell you to wear sweatpants to work, that doesn’t imply that other people there are going to grab your dick.
The articles I have read made it abundantly clear that some women knew what the event was, and enthusiastically participated, and others were taken completely by surprise. Some of those who were surprised apparently tried to hide in the bathroom, only to have bouncers come and tell them to leave the restroom and get back to work, under threat of being fired and not paid.
Wait, you’re referring to this contract as “making things clear?”
Absolutely. “I want the chance to grope strange, interchangable young women while other dudes watch without any consideration of the woman’s feelings or reactions” is a gross power fantasy, not even really a sex thing. No one is to blame for their impulses, but that doesn’t make it right to indulge them.
Paul, do you think servers at Hooters agree to get groped? I’m serious, because you seem to be genuinely asking. The jobs seem similar to me.
Without consent, groping is wrong. Unless everyone who was groped consented to be groped (and being hired to wear sexy clothes is not consent to be groped), there was unconsensual groping (e.g. sexual assault) occurring at these parties with the full knowledge of the organizers.
What is this fascination with "consent’? Look the girls were hired and warned it coudd happen. They signed that contract with full knowlegde it could happen (except those few that didnt rad it and were doing twitter instead of listening to the breifings).
Does a fireman “consent” to be burned to death? No, but they know what the job is and that could happen.
I don’t know, but I do know an awful lot of women who relied on this gig every year now can’t because one female reporter decided to goundercover to further her own workplace aims.
Women reading this thread. You have been warned. Some men will refuse to recognize sexual harassment no matter how blatant, how demeaning, or how much it is decried elsewhere.
According to these men, therefore, any sexual harassment from this day forward is not a problem or an issue. You are at fault because you deliberately and knowingly went into the world of men while wearing your female bodies - despite having been told that these men think of you as objects to be touched for their pleasure. You are the ones who are wrong - because you knew what was going to happen no complaints should ever be registered. You should never bring the subject up again. The feelings of these men might be hurt. That is important because men have feelings that count and women do not.
“By working this job, you agree that men at the event may touch you intimately, expose themselves to you, or otherwise seek to use you for sexual gratification. Agreeing to these requests is central to this job: for this night, you agree to be a sex worker, exchanging sexual favors for pay. A list of possible sexual favors appears below…”
I mean, it took me less than a minute to come up with that language. Surely the organizers, many years into the process, could come up with clearer and more comprehensive language, if they wanted to make sure that everybody was on the same page.
It seems to me there are two questions here, relating to two distinct factual scenarios.
One is (in my view) trivially easy to answer: if we accept that not everyone being groped, propositioned, or assaulted was aware of and had consented to those acts in advance, that’s horrible and wrong.
The more interesting debate is: what if we assume that, next year, the President’s Club uses LHoD’s language: “By working this job, you agree that men at the event may touch you intimately, expose themselves to you, or otherwise seek to use you for sexual gratification. Agreeing to these requests is central to this job: for this night, you agree to be a sex worker, exchanging sexual favors for pay. A list of possible sexual favors appears below…”
Is it still worthy of similar condemnation? Does the existence of the patriarchy mean that even a woman so informed cannot give true consent to such a bargain?
Seriously, dude–that’s why the army never explicitly talks with soldiers about the dangers of combat, right? They just sorta, y’know, imply it without ever discussing it, right? And they definitely don’t try to minimize that danger, no sir.
This is an excellent and well-thought-out analogy you’re making!
Did you read the article? Yes, we have proof. If you don’t understand what comprises “proof” in a discussion, you may disagree.
This is 100% irrelevant. There is no transitive property of consent.