Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/01/18 18:57:01
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.
Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that leaving is the best way of protecting yourself.
Everyone needs to be part of the solution to sexual harassment. Men and women. Men need to be more aware of their behavior. Women need to be more aware of their surroundings and what signs should mean they should leave a bad situation. And everybody needs to be on the lookout as third party observers.
Biological hardwiring doesn't excuse poor choices. After all, we could find similar justification for guys like Ansari. Maybe his brain chemistry made him unable to pick up on her ques that she was 100% not interested. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility though.
Why are you so determined to blame her for his actions?
2018/01/18 22:44:02
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Seems to me that GreyTemplar is blaming Aziz for his actions, and Grace for hers. It's not an unreasonable position.
My view is, both Aziz and Grace could have made different choices throughout the evening, but they didn't, and so what happened, happened.
Badgering someone to fulfill a request is something that happens all the time, everywhere in society. It's not ideal behaviour, but it's not unusual.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/01/19 00:09:51
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
I think that's a very good analogy, and a good point. I feel like in many circumstances it is very apt.
Still, after having read the original article, this particular case doesn't seem that clear cut.
First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
This is the text she sent Ansari the next day:
Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me. You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind. If you are relying solely on non-verbal cues and the hope that people notice when you feel a certain way in order to have your own personal needs met and respected, you are in for a lot more than one uncomfortable date. Doubly so if you refuse to exercise your own agency, as if you yourself believe that you are an object that people do things to instead of a person who makes their own decisions. She could have got up and left at any point during the entire evening.
Stories like this are going to be a massive step backwards for this movement, for victims of sexual assault, and for women in general. They promote the idea that women in fact have no agency; that simply by being the object of a man's sexual advances they are beholden to his whims, and the only control they have over the situation is in the press after the fact. That is a lie.
In this situation, Ansari had no power over Grace whatsoever. He wasn't her boss, he wasn't her producer, he wasn't anything to her except someone on TV. She would have lost nothing by getting up and walking out the door. Was he a selfish, insensitive prick who shouldn't have been acting that way? Yes, but all the more reason not to hang out alone, naked, with a person who's behaving like that.
Modern Feminism is taking women backwards in time to a point where they are not capable of making their own decisions; they must be coddled and protected like children. Seriously. Modern feminists sound like they would have been totally comfortable in the Victorian era, where certain subjects are not broached around sensitive ears, women are never allowed to be in the private company of a man unchaperoned, and they don't have to worry about making decisions or taking responsibility for their own reproductive rights. What was the point of feminism from the time of Women's Suffrage if we're just going straight back to where we came from?
2018/01/19 00:56:12
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
I can't really fault him for asking again (and again and again). Both Aziz and Grace's actions spoke louder than their words.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/01/19 01:43:19
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Luciferian wrote: I think that's a very good analogy, and a good point. I feel like in many circumstances it is very apt.
Still, after having read the original article, this particular case doesn't seem that clear cut.
First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
This is the text she sent Ansari the next day:
Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me. You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind. If you are relying solely on non-verbal cues and the hope that people notice when you feel a certain way in order to have your own personal needs met and respected, you are in for a lot more than one uncomfortable date. Doubly so if you refuse to exercise your own agency, as if you yourself believe that you are an object that people do things to instead of a person who makes their own decisions. She could have got up and left at any point during the entire evening.
Stories like this are going to be a massive step backwards for this movement, for victims of sexual assault, and for women in general. They promote the idea that women in fact have no agency; that simply by being the object of a man's sexual advances they are beholden to his whims, and the only control they have over the situation is in the press after the fact. That is a lie.
In this situation, Ansari had no power over Grace whatsoever. He wasn't her boss, he wasn't her producer, he wasn't anything to her except someone on TV. She would have lost nothing by getting up and walking out the door. Was he a selfish, insensitive prick who shouldn't have been acting that way? Yes, but all the more reason not to hang out alone, naked, with a person who's behaving like that.
Modern Feminism is taking women backwards in time to a point where they are not capable of making their own decisions; they must be coddled and protected like children. Seriously. Modern feminists sound like they would have been totally comfortable in the Victorian era, where certain subjects are not broached around sensitive ears, women are never allowed to be in the private company of a man unchaperoned, and they don't have to worry about making decisions or taking responsibility for their own reproductive rights. What was the point of feminism from the time of Women's Suffrage if we're just going straight back to where we came from?
I'm not entirely on the same page, I feel like her nonverbal cues were sufficient to require actively ignoring them on his part; women shouldn't have to exclaim "NO!" to be able to say no, while there is certainly such a thing as sending mixed signals or not being clear that sometimes crosses into just assuming men are idiots who have to have it spelled out for them in elementary terms. There is a lot of grey area, but go to far either way and it becomes more clear-cut. That said, I think you have a some good points here even if I don't entirely agree with the overall assessment.
I will be honest, as a man, I AM an idiot when it comes to romance. I absolutely do have to have things spelled out for me. I'm kind of on the other end of the spectrum, though; unless a woman makes it abundantly clear that's she's interested in me, I don't even bother. I don't have time to pursue someone who doesn't know what they want or who simply doesn't want me. But when it comes down to it, communication is the key to any relationship. Even if that relationship only lasts one night. Expecting someone to know what you're thinking is a sure-fire way not to have your expectations met.
What's wrong with being open and straight forward about what you want, sexually or otherwise? How else do you expect to get what you want? Why shouldn't a woman scream, "NO!" in Aziz Ansari's face? Or, "YES!" if that's the way she's feeling.
The problem with the kind of sexual dynamic described in the Ansari report is that it inherently assumes that all responsibility for sexual encounters is on the shoulders of the man - which isn't just an attitude that leads to unfulfilling sex, it's anti-Feminist!
Of course, men do have the responsibility not to sexually assault people. That's a given. But EVERYONE has the responsibility to communicate their needs and desires to people they expect to fulfill those needs and desires. I don't want to hear about a woman who consciously decided to take off her clothes in Aziz Ansari's apartment and go down on him, even though she apparently didn't want to but didn't do anything about it. I want to hear about a woman who threw her drink in Aziz Ansari's face and told him exactly how he was being a pig. Again, what is the point if women don't feel like they have that option?
2018/01/19 02:17:41
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
2018/01/19 02:42:33
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Luciferian wrote: I will be honest, as a man, I AM an idiot when it comes to romance. I absolutely do have to have things spelled out for me. I'm kind of on the other end of the spectrum, though; unless a woman makes it abundantly clear that's she's interested in me, I don't even bother. I don't have time to pursue someone who doesn't know what they want or who simply doesn't want me. But when it comes down to it, communication is the key to any relationship. Even if that relationship only lasts one night. Expecting someone to know what you're thinking is a sure-fire way not to have your expectations met.
What's wrong with being open and straight forward about what you want, sexually or otherwise? How else do you expect to get what you want? Why shouldn't a woman scream, "NO!" in Aziz Ansari's face? Or, "YES!" if that's the way she's feeling.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I actually think people should be more direct about such things, the distinction is that I feel people shouldn't be expected to put them in the most blunt manner possible.
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
2018/01/19 03:23:47
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
It's also harmful to non-neurotypical people if people don't state their intentions well enough. Not everyone can factor in non-verbal communication well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/19 03:25:32
2018/01/19 03:35:12
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Well, no one in the world has the brain of a mind-reader. There is no accurate way of guessing how someone else feels unless they actually tell you. Does that mean you should just aggressively pursue any and all sexual prospects unless you're specifically told otherwise? No, but especially in the realm of sex and relationships it's never a bad policy to be clear.
2018/01/19 04:16:14
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
Sure, I get that people won't always act the way they should. Thats why we need to stress so much to people that they should leave if a situation is becoming dangerous.
For men who have issues understanding the social ques of rejection. They gotta learn to leave it at that and deal with it.
For women who are dealing with a guy who doesn't understand No means No. You have to take responsibility for yourself and not let someone take advantage of you. If the guy isn't taking no for an answer, well, that is now a bad situation and you should remove yourself from it. Staying put is only going to make it worse since clearly the guy doesn't care about consent. So you shouldn't stay and hope that saying "No" over and over again will work. Its not your fault if you feel paralyzed by the situation, but you shouldn't be content to simply be a victim.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
You are misinterpreting me.
She didn't do anything wrong. She did fail to adequately take steps to protect herself. That is a stupid thing to do. Much like failing to maintain your car, to use your example. Its not wrong, but it is stupid.
Its kinda like a person accidentally wandering into a room in which there is a Tiger. You didn't do anything wrong, but it would be pretty stupid to remain in the room. Not wrong, but definitely stupid.
2018/01/19 04:49:18
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
ulgurstasta wrote: As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction.
There's a hell of a lot wrong with what you just posted. First up, it's more common that men make the first move, but it's far from universal and less common by the day. But that's really a nitpick. The first significant problem is using 'seduction', falling back on an outdated and really problematic idea that sex is about bringing down another person's barriers. It's the exact thinking that leads to these kinds of incidents.
The last problem is that the claim there can never be 100% certainty. That's completely not true. That just doesn't line up with reality. Most times both parties will be willing participants and this will be clear to both of them because both parties will be doing things & suggesting things. It's only when you have that dangerous mindset that one party is expected to be passive and reluctnat
I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...
That's some weird stuff, mate. I don't know Zizek, but that quote gives the impression of a guy with some serious issues. Basically, his claim that any pass can be seen as harassment is stupid beyond imagining. Obviously absurd. Anyone who spends more than a second thinking about it can think of a pass that cannot be seen as harassment or inappropriate in any way. Why Zizek would make such a stupid claim is the question. Is he trying to claim that all passes can be seen as harassement, in order to provide some kind of protection for actual harassment? Or is he just another man who delights in playing imaginary 'men are so hard done by games'. I don't know, but whatever it is his argument is pure nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: My view is, both Aziz and Grace could have made different choices throughout the evening, but they didn't, and so what happened, happened.
Sure, they both did stuff wrong. But it's fething absurd to reduce the level responsibility applied to the person who chose the interaction and continued to push that interaction, because the person who had that interaction sprung on them made sub-optimal choices in trying to get out of that situation.
Badgering someone to fulfill a request is something that happens all the time, everywhere in society. It's not ideal behaviour, but it's not unusual.
And depending on what you're badgering a person for and the relationship between the two people, that badgering can be completely fine or have some level of immorality. Ansari's actions are far from the worst we've seen alleged in the last year, but there is clearly an element that goes way past simple badgering and in to something far more coercive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 05:12:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/01/19 05:19:28
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
Sure, I get that people won't always act the way they should. Thats why we need to stress so much to people that they should leave if a situation is becoming dangerous.
For men who have issues understanding the social ques of rejection. They gotta learn to leave it at that and deal with it.
For women who are dealing with a guy who doesn't understand No means No. You have to take responsibility for yourself and not let someone take advantage of you. If the guy isn't taking no for an answer, well, that is now a bad situation and you should remove yourself from it. Staying put is only going to make it worse since clearly the guy doesn't care about consent. So you shouldn't stay and hope that saying "No" over and over again will work. Its not your fault if you feel paralyzed by the situation, but you shouldn't be content to simply be a victim.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
You are misinterpreting me.
She didn't do anything wrong. She did fail to adequately take steps to protect herself. That is a stupid thing to do. Much like failing to maintain your car, to use your example. Its not wrong, but it is stupid.
Its kinda like a person accidentally wandering into a room in which there is a Tiger. You didn't do anything wrong, but it would be pretty stupid to remain in the room. Not wrong, but definitely stupid.
Well if that is the case I did have things wrong.
2018/01/19 05:22:04
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Luciferian wrote: First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
If it ended when she went to that bathroom, freshened up, and came out and told him she didn't want to do anything and he actually respected that, then I'd agree. But that isn't what happened, after that he kept saying he was happy to just chill, and then trying to initiate sex again.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind.
She said “I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” In response to this Ansari invited her on the couch to chill, where he then told her to give him a blowjob.
She also said "I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this." Ansari again invited her to chill, they dressed and sat on the couch, and then he tried to put his pants down her jeans.
There's nothing non-verbal or subtle about that. This is a woman telling a man in non-confrontational language to please fething stop. And in response Ansari says he'll respect that, only to repeatedly not respect that at all, but instead try to have sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: The problem with the kind of sexual dynamic described in the Ansari report is that it inherently assumes that all responsibility for sexual encounters is on the shoulders of the man - which isn't just an attitude that leads to unfulfilling sex, it's anti-Feminist!
I'm beginning to see there's a false narrative building around what hapened between Grace and Ansari. People seem to forming a story that she did nothing verbal or clear to say she didn't want to have sex. But in addition to a lot of verbal cues she told him multiple times she didn't want to. We can say she could have said "I am absolutely not having sex with you today" and left, but that doesn't mean she didn't say anything at all.
The problem was after she said that, Ansari said he respected that and said he'd be happy just chilling, after which he tried to resume having sex. He did this multiple times.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 05:41:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/01/19 15:12:40
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
feeder wrote: I guess persistence paid off for Aziz.
I can't really fault him for asking again (and again and again). Both Aziz and Grace's actions spoke louder than their words.
So what, are we saying that no does not mean no and in fact means ask again later?
I have been reading Magic 8-Balls wrong this whole time!
Actually, to throw a messed up personal anecdote in...my step sister about 7 years ago told my sister and I that she had been raped. She went out with a guy, had fun, decided to fool around, he asked, she said yes, and they had sex. Partway through, she changed her mind, but never told him. No, she didn’t press charges. She just told us. And again, claimed it was rape because she changed her mind. We asked her if she expected the guy to ask every five minutes if it was STILL okay to be having sex...and she straight up said “yes”. So according to some actual, real life people, you DO and SHOULD keep asking every few minutes to see if things change. Needless to say, my sister and I both told our step sister she made a choice with the guy, didn’t let him know she changed her mind later, and that it was frankly completely her fault. We then called her an idiot. And yes, she made it clear that she wasn’t pressured; she WANTED it to start, but changed her mind later. And if she had pressed charges, that guy’s life would have been ruined.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
2018/01/19 18:33:02
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
I'm beginning to see there's a false narrative building around what hapened between Grace and Ansari. People seem to forming a story that she did nothing verbal or clear to say she didn't want to have sex. But in addition to a lot of verbal cues she told him multiple times she didn't want to. We can say she could have said "I am absolutely not having sex with you today" and left, but that doesn't mean she didn't say anything at all.
The problem was after she said that, Ansari said he respected that and said he'd be happy just chilling, after which he tried to resume having sex. He did this multiple times.
I'm by no means defending Ansari's behavior. He was definitely way too persistent and cloying. Still, she did not communicate her needs or expectations and she chose to continue engaging in sexual activity with him. If you don't want to give someone a blowjob, you don't.
You get a view into her mindset and communicative shortcomings very early in the piece. They make a dramatic point of saying that he offered her white wine, when she wanted red. But she didn't say anything about it, she just expected things to happen the way she wanted without having to engage in any kind of discussion about what her boundaries or expectations for the date were. That is pretty much the way the whole night went. Ansari was offering her something she didn't want, but instead of clearly communicating with him what she did want, she went along with it anyway. They were on two different pages and wanted two different things out of the evening. A problem that could have been solved very easily by a bit of communication between the two.
Even when it comes to the sex, she still wanted physical intimacy with him. She just didn't want it the way he was giving it to her. She wanted him to be sweet and slow and play with her hair and hold her. She didn't say she didn't want to have sex with him, she said she didn't want it to feel forced. Her statement that she didn't want it to feel forced because she didn't want to hate him if taken at face value pretty much says that she would have sex with him even if she didn't like it, and then just resent him for it afterwards. Which, by the way, is exactly what happened. So I guess Ansari shouldn't have expected anything other than this outcome if he actually was paying attention to what she was saying, but the fact remains that she consented to everything she did with him without being in a state of duress. Which means that this is not a case of sexual assault or rape, it is a case of two people being very bad at communicating with each other. At no point did anyone force this woman to give Aziz Ansari a blowjob, she just did it.
At the end of the day, she most certainly could have said, "I'm absolutely not having sex with you today," and left, without any negative repercussions whatsoever. She was under no threat to her job, her social standing, her wellbeing or her life. She also could have said, "I'm not going to have sex with you on the first date, I just want to cuddle," or any number of things that would have clearly established her own personal boundaries and expectations, but she didn't. That doesn't put the all of the blame on her or make her a bad person or excuse Ansari's behavior, but it is a very simple failure in communication which quite possibly could have turned a horrible experience into a good one for both parties if she were more assertive.
That's the biggest difference between this story, and others that have cropped up around powerful men in the media. In a lot of the other cases, men in positions of authority and power leveraged their considerable influence or even their physical strength over women who could have their lives significantly impacted in case they rebuff the advances. In this story, two people are gakky at dating and communication, and one of them is a jerk who's only thinking about getting his own rocks off. There's a pretty big difference.
2018/01/19 22:16:52
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
Absolutely, but that is a separate issue from sexual harassment that stretches across other crimes. Also, with that story I don't think his life would be ruined unless he was a public figure.
This article explores the Ansari situation and more quite well:
Ansari is not on public trial because he likes sex too much, for example—or because he likes a particular kind of sex with a particular gender or particular number of people, or because of a kink or fetish—or most any other element of sex that would not draw such widespread contempt. Relative to most of recent Western history, this is a time not of panic, but of great openness to proclivities and dispositions. The definition of normal is growing more expansive, if slowly.
The element that remains intolerable is nonconsensual sex, which—if sex is today defined by consent—means that these stories of famous men and coercive behavior are not really about policing sex. When a person is reporting feeling coerced, and other people say the story shouldn’t have been told—or that people who personally relate to it are overreacting by saying as much—that’s a more disquieting type of policing.
Telling these stories will not lead to less sex—to men being afraid to hit on people because they’re afraid of being inappropriate. It will lead to men being less creepy and domineering, and more communicative and confident in the rightness of how to go about things, and more decent and capable. This is not an anti-sex movement gone off the rails. It is a pro-sex movement just laying the tracks.
Grey Templar wrote: Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
And often very public accusations lead to nothing at all (besides abuse of the accuser), sometimes the accused even becomes president of the USA, stays in that position, and doesn't lose it once it becomes known (like Clinton and Trump). Anecdotal examples are not really representative of an overall pattern. In other kinds of criminal situations people also lie, the police makes mistakes, people get demonised, and so on (also without successful charges). Yet we still try to do better and improve things and don't just throw our hands into the air and give up because of the possibility of a few false positives.
Do you also worry as much about all the harassed and violated people who don't say anything and whose attackers were not brought to justice and who keep on assaulting other people? Or how about those who did go to the police but where still nothing happened? Stuff like this?
The math of that is stunning. In Detroit alone, 11,000 rape kits that were slowly tested over the last few years revealed 817 serial rapists—meaning there are likely close to 29,000 repeat rapists, whose identities are hiding in those crime-scene kits gathering dust around the U.S.
2018/01/23 07:02:39
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Luciferian wrote: They make a dramatic point of saying that he offered her white wine, when she wanted red. But she didn't say anything about it, she just expected things to happen the way she wanted without having to engage in any kind of discussion about what her boundaries or expectations for the date were. That is pretty much the way the whole night went. Ansari was offering her something she didn't want, but instead of clearly communicating with him what she did want, she went along with it anyway. They were on two different pages and wanted two different things out of the evening. A problem that could have been solved very easily by a bit of communication between the two.
Which is an argument that is completely reasonable when someone is sitting there thinking "gee I wish he'd given me a red instead of a white". It's an argument that makes a lot less sense when you're naked and vulnerable in someone else's apartment and they won't stop pressuring you in to doing things you made it clear you don't want to do.
At the end of the day, she most certainly could have said, "I'm absolutely not having sex with you today," and left, without any negative repercussions whatsoever. She was under no threat to her job, her social standing, her wellbeing or her life. She also could have said, "I'm not going to have sex with you on the first date, I just want to cuddle," or any number of things that would have clearly established her own personal boundaries and expectations, but she didn't. That doesn't put the all of the blame on her or make her a bad person or excuse Ansari's behavior, but it is a very simple failure in communication which quite possibly could have turned a horrible experience into a good one for both parties if she were more assertive.
Communication is extremely important, I agree. But it is also very important to recognise the circumstances in which that communication happens, that context is a huge part of determining whether one person didn't make their point clear enough, or if the other person just didn't hear it.
Consider it is a couple of miles off shore, in the middle of the night, it is pitch black, and a small boat is sinking. The sole person aboard scrambles to the bow of the ship which is jutting out of the water but going down fast. They grabbed one thing as the boat went down, a torch. They see a large yacht a few hundred metres away and try to remember their morse code.
Over on the yacht the crew watch with interest, and take not of the message as it comes in. S. A. S. Oh, for a second there they thought the man in the sinking boat was in trouble, and asking SOS. But he sent SAS instead. So he must be special forces or something. So the crew of the yacht head off, content that this man on the sinking ship mustn't need their help after all.
Now, it is true that the man in the sinking boat did send the wrong message. He said SAS instead of SOS. But seeing the context of the man in the sinking ship, understanding he was reacting to an unexpected and threatening event and so might make mistakes, well it'd be a very silly person that said he was just as much to blame as the yacht when the message didn't get through.
And in the real case in question, sure, her language was indirect, it could have been clearer. But it is understandable that placed suddenly in that stressful position people won't act perfectly. Some people, like Grace, will try to use indirect language to avoid a confrontation. The context of the situation made it clear what she was telling Ansari, what he should have realised.
So the idiots on the yacht, well they didn't mean to leave that man to die on his sinking boat. The same is most likely true of Ansari as well, he didn't mean to give her the worst night of her life. Neither the yacht idiots or Ansari should be called villains. But stupidity can cause suffering just as easily actual malice.
If guys don't want to accidentally cause that kind of suffering, they need to stop thinking they can keep pushing up until they hear an absolute no.
That's the biggest difference between this story, and others that have cropped up around powerful men in the media.
This is most definitely very different to the behaviour of Weinstein, Trump etc. But that doesn't mean it was okay.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/01/24 12:43:46
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
At 10pm last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. “Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,” he roared.
Mr Gould — who presented Channel 5’s Major League Baseball show — was there to host a charity auction, the centrepiece of a secretive annual event, the Presidents Club Charity Dinner.
The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital in London’s Bloomsbury district.
Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, and afternoon tea with Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
But this is a charity fundraiser like no other.
It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.
The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.
The questions raised about the event have been thrown into sharp relief by the current business climate, when bastions of sexual harassment and the institutionalised objectification of women are being torn down.
The Financial Times last week sent two people undercover to work as hostesses on the night. Reporters also gained access to the dining hall and surrounding bars.
Over the course of six hours, many of the hostesses were subjected to groping, lewd comments and repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms elsewhere in the Dorchester....
Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.
Spoiler:
WPP, the FTSE 100 advertising conglomerate, sponsored a table at the event as it has in previous years. Martin Sorrell, chief executive, was not present this year — though he has attended in the past.
Andrew Scott, its chief operating officer for Europe, hosted the table in his absence. Other table sponsors included CMC Markets, the UK-listed spread betting company, and Frogmore, the London-based real estate investment business.
A seating plan for last week’s event seen by the FT listed those due to attend as including well-known British business figures such as Philip Green of Arcadia Group, Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, and Ocado boss Tim Steiner.
Financiers on the seating plan included Henry Gabay, founder of hedge fund Duet Group, and Makram Azar, the head of Barclays’ investment bank’s Middle East business. From the world of politics were Nadhim Zahawi, newly appointed undersecretary of state for children and families, and Jonathan Mendelsohn, a Labour peer and party fundraiser. It is not clear whether those listed all turned up on the night.
The comedian David Walliams was the host for the evening. Previous attendees have included Michael Sherwood, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish real estate billionaire and Conservative party donor.
Current and past supporters provide a roll call of British wealth and business influence: patrons include high-end developer Nick Candy; former Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone; and TV presenter Vernon Kay. CMC Markets founder Peter Cruddas is also a regular attendee.
The event has a laudable fundraising aim with prestigious prizes offered for auction. During the three decades The Presidents Club has been running, it has raised more than £20m for charity. Thursday’s event alone raised more than £2m.
The organisation’s charitable trust has two joint chairmen: Bruce Ritchie, a Mayfair property developer who founded Residential Land, and David Meller, from the luxury good specialist Meller Group, who also sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London.
But the auction offers a hint of the evening’s seedier side. Lots included a night at Soho’s Windmill strip club and a course of plastic surgery with the invitation to: “Add spice to your wife.”
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed. The glossy auction catalogue distributed to attendees during the evening included multiple images of Marilyn Monroe dressed in revealing, tight dresses.
The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told.
“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess.
Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue.
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day.
For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.
The backgrounds of the dozen or more hostesses met by reporters were varied: many were students, hoping to launch careers as lawyers or marketing executives; others juggled part-time jobs as actresses, dancers or models and did occasional hostessing work to make ends meet.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
At first, hostesses were assembled in the Dorchester’s Orchard Room, where a team of hair and make-up artists prepped women for the evening ahead. During the pre-event preparations, some of the women new to hostess work sought advice from those with more experience. The feedback was mixed.
A number of the hostesses seemed excited about the evening ahead. It was a fun night, they said, especially as — unlike most hostessing assignments — you could drink on the job.
One experienced hostess acknowledged that a portion of the men were likely to be “arseholes”, but said others were “hilarious”. “It really depends on the luck of the draw,” she added.
Others were more apprehensive. One woman who had last worked at the event five years ago sighed to herself: “I can’t believe I’m here again.”
Towards 7pm, during a staff buffet dinner, Ms Dandridge entered wearing a smart black suit and gave a briefing; she said if any of the men became “too annoying”, the hostesses should contact her.
Hostess uniforms were distributed — short tight black dresses, black high heels and a thick black belt resembling a corset. Once dressed, the hostesses were offered a glass of white wine during the final countdown to their entrance into the ballroom.
As the 8pm start time approached, all of the hostesses were told to form two lines in height order, tallest women first, ready to parade across the stage as music began to boom across the venue: “Power”, by British girl band Little Mix.
Entering in twos from opposite sides on to a stage positioned at the front of the ballroom, hostesses presented themselves to the men before walking towards their allocated tables alongside dinner guests. This continued until all 130 women were spread across the room.
With the dinner properly under way, the hostess brief was simple: keep this mix of British and foreign businessmen, the odd lord, politicians, oligarchs, property tycoons, film producers, financiers, and chief executives happy — and fetch drinks when required.
A number of men stood with the hostesses while waiting for smoked salmon starters to arrive. Others remained seated and yet insisted on holding the hands of their hostesses.
It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps. Meanwhile champagne, whisky and vodka were served.
On stage, entertainers came and went. It was soon after a troupe of burlesque dancers — dressed like furry-hatted Coldstream Guards, but with star-shaped stickers hiding nipples — that one 19-year-old hostess, recounted a conversation with a guest nearing his seventies: who had asked her, directly, whether she was a prostitute. She was not. “I’ve never done this before, and I’m never doing it again,” she said later. “It’s f***ing scary.”
According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room.
Another woman, 28, with experience of hostess work, observing the braying men around her said this was significantly different to previous black tie jobs. At other events, men occasionally would try to flirt with her, she said, but she had never felt uncomfortable or, indeed, frightened.
She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room.
Meanwhile, Artista had an enforcement team, made up of suited women and men, who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests.
Outside the women’s toilets a monitoring system was in place: women who spent too long were called out and led back to the ballroom. A security guard at the door was on hand, keeping time.
At 10pm, the main money-raising portion of the evening got under way: the charity auction, where the lots on offer ranged from a supercharged Land Rover to the right to name a character in Mr Walliams’ next children's book.
Richard Caring, who made his fortune in the retail sourcing business before scooping up a long list of London’s most fashionable restaurants, including The Ivy and Scott’s, rounded off the money-raising portion of the evening with a successful £400,000 bid to place his name on a new High Dependency Unit at the Evelina London children’s hospital for sick children.
It was a moment of respite for the women, most of whom had been allowed to return to the Orchard Room. Some were excited to have been offered jobs by men in the room. Others had been offered large tips, which they had been obliged to decline. One woman struggled to re-apply her eyeliner. “I’m so drunk,” she said apologetically, blaming tequila shots at her table.
The women filed back into the ballroom at 11pm for the final hour of the main event, which would be followed by an “after-party” elsewhere in the hotel.
Most hostesses had been told they would be required to stay until 2am. One was told that this final leg of the evening offered a chance to drink what she wanted and seek out those men she found “most attractive”.
The after-party was held in a smaller room off the main lobby at the Dorchester, packed tight with guests and women.
According to the 28-year-old hostess, while men danced and drank with a set of women on one side of the room, a line of younger women were left seated on a banquette at the back of the room, seemingly dazed. “They looked shocked and frightened, exhausted by what had happened,” she said.
Meanwhile, in the centre of the room, Jimmy Lahoud, 67, a Lebanese businessman and restaurateur, danced enthusiastically with three young women wearing bright red dresses.
By midnight, one society figure who the FT has not yet been able to contact was confronting at least one hostess directly.
“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”
In a statement the Dorchester said it had a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of guests or employees. “We are unaware of any allegations and should we be contacted we will work with the relevant authorities as necessary,” it said.
The Presidents Club said: “The Presidents Club recently hosted its annual dinner, raising several million pounds for disadvantaged children. The organisers are appalled by the allegations of bad behaviour at the event asserted by the Financial Times reporters. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. The allegations will be investigated fully and promptly and appropriate action taken.”
Ms Dandridge of Artista stated: “This is a really important charity fundraising event that has been running for 33 years and raises huge amounts of money for disadvantaged and underprivileged children’s charities. There is a code of conduct that we follow, I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.”
None of the trustees of the charity provided a comment for publication.
Harvey Goldsmith, a former trustee, said he was “gobsmacked” by the accounts of sexual harassment taking place at the event. “I’m totally shocked to be quite frank,” he said.
The BoE said: “The Bank of England did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described nor would it have for that organisation under its guidelines for charitable giving.”
Mr Walliams declined to comment. Mr Caring said he “was not aware of any of the alleged incidents”.
Barry Townsley, a well-known stockbroker and lifetime president of The Presidents Club who helped to set up the charity, said he had not attended the dinner for a decade. He added that it was previously “very nice and civilised” and a “mild-mannered charity”. “What goes on now is not my business,” he said.
Its quite long, but the unspoilered part gives you the right impression of what follows I would say. Its really fething awful and just shows how acceptable it is in (some) higher circles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 12:44:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
2018/01/24 17:25:56
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
At 10pm last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. “Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,” he roared.
Mr Gould — who presented Channel 5’s Major League Baseball show — was there to host a charity auction, the centrepiece of a secretive annual event, the Presidents Club Charity Dinner.
The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital in London’s Bloomsbury district.
Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, and afternoon tea with Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
But this is a charity fundraiser like no other.
It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.
The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.
The questions raised about the event have been thrown into sharp relief by the current business climate, when bastions of sexual harassment and the institutionalised objectification of women are being torn down.
The Financial Times last week sent two people undercover to work as hostesses on the night. Reporters also gained access to the dining hall and surrounding bars.
Over the course of six hours, many of the hostesses were subjected to groping, lewd comments and repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms elsewhere in the Dorchester....
Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.
Spoiler:
WPP, the FTSE 100 advertising conglomerate, sponsored a table at the event as it has in previous years. Martin Sorrell, chief executive, was not present this year — though he has attended in the past.
Andrew Scott, its chief operating officer for Europe, hosted the table in his absence. Other table sponsors included CMC Markets, the UK-listed spread betting company, and Frogmore, the London-based real estate investment business.
A seating plan for last week’s event seen by the FT listed those due to attend as including well-known British business figures such as Philip Green of Arcadia Group, Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, and Ocado boss Tim Steiner.
Financiers on the seating plan included Henry Gabay, founder of hedge fund Duet Group, and Makram Azar, the head of Barclays’ investment bank’s Middle East business. From the world of politics were Nadhim Zahawi, newly appointed undersecretary of state for children and families, and Jonathan Mendelsohn, a Labour peer and party fundraiser. It is not clear whether those listed all turned up on the night.
The comedian David Walliams was the host for the evening. Previous attendees have included Michael Sherwood, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish real estate billionaire and Conservative party donor.
Current and past supporters provide a roll call of British wealth and business influence: patrons include high-end developer Nick Candy; former Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone; and TV presenter Vernon Kay. CMC Markets founder Peter Cruddas is also a regular attendee.
The event has a laudable fundraising aim with prestigious prizes offered for auction. During the three decades The Presidents Club has been running, it has raised more than £20m for charity. Thursday’s event alone raised more than £2m.
The organisation’s charitable trust has two joint chairmen: Bruce Ritchie, a Mayfair property developer who founded Residential Land, and David Meller, from the luxury good specialist Meller Group, who also sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London.
But the auction offers a hint of the evening’s seedier side. Lots included a night at Soho’s Windmill strip club and a course of plastic surgery with the invitation to: “Add spice to your wife.”
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed. The glossy auction catalogue distributed to attendees during the evening included multiple images of Marilyn Monroe dressed in revealing, tight dresses.
The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told.
“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess.
Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue.
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day.
For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.
The backgrounds of the dozen or more hostesses met by reporters were varied: many were students, hoping to launch careers as lawyers or marketing executives; others juggled part-time jobs as actresses, dancers or models and did occasional hostessing work to make ends meet.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
At first, hostesses were assembled in the Dorchester’s Orchard Room, where a team of hair and make-up artists prepped women for the evening ahead. During the pre-event preparations, some of the women new to hostess work sought advice from those with more experience. The feedback was mixed.
A number of the hostesses seemed excited about the evening ahead. It was a fun night, they said, especially as — unlike most hostessing assignments — you could drink on the job.
One experienced hostess acknowledged that a portion of the men were likely to be “arseholes”, but said others were “hilarious”. “It really depends on the luck of the draw,” she added.
Others were more apprehensive. One woman who had last worked at the event five years ago sighed to herself: “I can’t believe I’m here again.”
Towards 7pm, during a staff buffet dinner, Ms Dandridge entered wearing a smart black suit and gave a briefing; she said if any of the men became “too annoying”, the hostesses should contact her.
Hostess uniforms were distributed — short tight black dresses, black high heels and a thick black belt resembling a corset. Once dressed, the hostesses were offered a glass of white wine during the final countdown to their entrance into the ballroom.
As the 8pm start time approached, all of the hostesses were told to form two lines in height order, tallest women first, ready to parade across the stage as music began to boom across the venue: “Power”, by British girl band Little Mix.
Entering in twos from opposite sides on to a stage positioned at the front of the ballroom, hostesses presented themselves to the men before walking towards their allocated tables alongside dinner guests. This continued until all 130 women were spread across the room.
With the dinner properly under way, the hostess brief was simple: keep this mix of British and foreign businessmen, the odd lord, politicians, oligarchs, property tycoons, film producers, financiers, and chief executives happy — and fetch drinks when required.
A number of men stood with the hostesses while waiting for smoked salmon starters to arrive. Others remained seated and yet insisted on holding the hands of their hostesses.
It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps. Meanwhile champagne, whisky and vodka were served.
On stage, entertainers came and went. It was soon after a troupe of burlesque dancers — dressed like furry-hatted Coldstream Guards, but with star-shaped stickers hiding nipples — that one 19-year-old hostess, recounted a conversation with a guest nearing his seventies: who had asked her, directly, whether she was a prostitute. She was not. “I’ve never done this before, and I’m never doing it again,” she said later. “It’s f***ing scary.”
According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room.
Another woman, 28, with experience of hostess work, observing the braying men around her said this was significantly different to previous black tie jobs. At other events, men occasionally would try to flirt with her, she said, but she had never felt uncomfortable or, indeed, frightened.
She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room.
Meanwhile, Artista had an enforcement team, made up of suited women and men, who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests.
Outside the women’s toilets a monitoring system was in place: women who spent too long were called out and led back to the ballroom. A security guard at the door was on hand, keeping time.
At 10pm, the main money-raising portion of the evening got under way: the charity auction, where the lots on offer ranged from a supercharged Land Rover to the right to name a character in Mr Walliams’ next children's book.
Richard Caring, who made his fortune in the retail sourcing business before scooping up a long list of London’s most fashionable restaurants, including The Ivy and Scott’s, rounded off the money-raising portion of the evening with a successful £400,000 bid to place his name on a new High Dependency Unit at the Evelina London children’s hospital for sick children.
It was a moment of respite for the women, most of whom had been allowed to return to the Orchard Room. Some were excited to have been offered jobs by men in the room. Others had been offered large tips, which they had been obliged to decline. One woman struggled to re-apply her eyeliner. “I’m so drunk,” she said apologetically, blaming tequila shots at her table.
The women filed back into the ballroom at 11pm for the final hour of the main event, which would be followed by an “after-party” elsewhere in the hotel.
Most hostesses had been told they would be required to stay until 2am. One was told that this final leg of the evening offered a chance to drink what she wanted and seek out those men she found “most attractive”.
The after-party was held in a smaller room off the main lobby at the Dorchester, packed tight with guests and women.
According to the 28-year-old hostess, while men danced and drank with a set of women on one side of the room, a line of younger women were left seated on a banquette at the back of the room, seemingly dazed. “They looked shocked and frightened, exhausted by what had happened,” she said.
Meanwhile, in the centre of the room, Jimmy Lahoud, 67, a Lebanese businessman and restaurateur, danced enthusiastically with three young women wearing bright red dresses.
By midnight, one society figure who the FT has not yet been able to contact was confronting at least one hostess directly.
“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”
In a statement the Dorchester said it had a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of guests or employees. “We are unaware of any allegations and should we be contacted we will work with the relevant authorities as necessary,” it said.
The Presidents Club said: “The Presidents Club recently hosted its annual dinner, raising several million pounds for disadvantaged children. The organisers are appalled by the allegations of bad behaviour at the event asserted by the Financial Times reporters. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. The allegations will be investigated fully and promptly and appropriate action taken.”
Ms Dandridge of Artista stated: “This is a really important charity fundraising event that has been running for 33 years and raises huge amounts of money for disadvantaged and underprivileged children’s charities. There is a code of conduct that we follow, I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.”
None of the trustees of the charity provided a comment for publication.
Harvey Goldsmith, a former trustee, said he was “gobsmacked” by the accounts of sexual harassment taking place at the event. “I’m totally shocked to be quite frank,” he said.
The BoE said: “The Bank of England did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described nor would it have for that organisation under its guidelines for charitable giving.”
Mr Walliams declined to comment. Mr Caring said he “was not aware of any of the alleged incidents”.
Barry Townsley, a well-known stockbroker and lifetime president of The Presidents Club who helped to set up the charity, said he had not attended the dinner for a decade. He added that it was previously “very nice and civilised” and a “mild-mannered charity”. “What goes on now is not my business,” he said.
Its quite long, but the unspoilered part gives you the right impression of what follows I would say. Its really fething awful and just shows how acceptable it is in (some) higher circles.
I think not. It is plainly clear to everyone what will be going on at that event. It might not be to your or my taste, but it's not criminal.
It not like it's a regular waiting tables gig. These girls are being paid to be sexual objects for rich men, and they know it before they walk in the door.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/01/24 17:34:25
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Today I learned that unwanted groping isn't illegal. Also Jesus Christ man, I didn't expect anyone to defend that, but Dakka never ceases to amaze.
It's easier to wrap your head around it if you think of the hostesses as sex workers rather than waiting tables.
There's on woman quoted saying "she can't believe she's back" After appearing at five consecutive events.
Consent is given at the door, and nobody is being assaulted. Women who realize the are actually not ok with being a sexual object for a room full of men are free to leave.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/01/24 18:12:12
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
