raindropsandroses

Yes, exactly. Why is it so difficult? Is it not normal to have a discussion prior to anything happening about what you consent to and what you don't, and then to check as you go along? Who would honestly want their partner doing something they weren't 100% on board with?

dbd33

The same as the reasonable expectation of a group of any gender, or combination of genders, naturally assigned or self-selected.

It depends on the circumstances, one might have a different expectation of the audience at an opera than of the crowd at a hen night. If one sought, for example, to avoid crude language and violent behavior one would stay out of the way of iced hockey parents and hunt saboteurs.

dave_j

It's an interesting discussion this one because it questions some of our attitudes.

The scenario is that a group of men gather together to eat, drink and 'flirt' with women who are recruited for this purpose.

The objection is that the women were exploited sexually and this was understood by the organisers because they arranged for sexy clothing to be worn and insisted on secrecy as set out in the non-disclosure document.

So, in a country where 'hostesses' are tolerated for their sexual laxity and where tolerance to prostitution is in the main accepted, why has this episode become newsworthy?

I suspect that the main issue is that the young ladies were not recruited from those who earn their living from selling sexual favours. So you have to ask why. Would the men have agreed to such a gathering had they know they were to flirt with professionals or was the titillation of flirting with young innocents the attraction? On the organisational side, would the professionals have wanted more money and did they recruit those they considered cheap because they didn't know the going rate? Perhaps it was the very innocence and unpreparedness of the young ladies that was the attraction and of course this might exclude those who perform to order.

So, I have no objection to any number of men or women interacting at any sexual level with groups of the opposite or same sex where EVERYONE understands precisely what is happening and what is expected of them. And this is where the story becomes newsworthy because I don't think that all of the young women were prepared for what the organisers had arranged. I don't think that the organisers had explained what would happen and in this respect deserve to be front page news.

Siouxie

I can't say that I've ever asked a long term partner whether I can kiss them, caress them or indulge in mutually satisfying acts before or during the event. If I was asked before each 'part' of the act, I would probably get somewhat ticked off and lose any interest.

(If they told me they were not in the mood or turned away or objected at any time, then I would obviously stop)

Does anyone ask their long term partner this in reality?

Shard

raindropsandroses

I do. My husband and I have been together (and happy!) for fifteen years and we both do, we ask before anything, even hugging. Its been the norm with previous partners too, ime.

I don't find it frustrating or interrupting, I find it increases trust and makes it so much more enjoyable.

raindropsandroses

Reading that back it sounded overly self righteous, not what I intended.

Jingsamichty

How am I meant to hear my wife say yes with that gag in her mouth and that tight leather hood on?

raindropsandroses

Haven't you downloaded the consent and safe signal checklist spreadsheet from the BDSM society's website? That should have coverered it along with a good list of top tips.

Jingsamichty

Of course I haven't - she might say she doesn't like it.

morpeth

Obviously I am not saying all men are guaranteed to assault women if given the opportunity, nor that we should accept poor behavior. I am saying though the world is what it is, and one has to deal with it while hoping it will improve. Signing a non-disclosure agreement for a job as a Hostess at a male-only event I think is an indicator of a potential situation that someone wishes to keep quiet. Maybe another generation, or two or three, may provide a generation of males that have better behavior in such situations, but the recent events seem to show am unacceptable percentage of men still behave in such manner as exhibited by recent events and disclosures.

Shard

It's pretty obvious, isn't it. Just the word 'hostess' in this day and age should set off some red flags. Dress code, NDA, men-only event. Nobody should be groped, obviously, but it is a risk, and grown women are capable of evaluating such a risk. Even in a restaurant or bar you get this kind of behavior, occasionally. I get the sense that FT journalist was simply keen to expose the goings-on (and why not) and given the Weinstein et al revelations, the story has become a big scandal rather than a saucy tale. Just another storm in a Dorchester teacup, methinks.

bats

Non disclosure agreement could just mean that famous people would be there.

Dress code, uniform? Not unusual. What you wear does not indicate consent.

Grown women? 19 some of them. I think one would expect to have to fend off lewd comments but not physical abuse. Why would all those women agree to be groped by strangers?

Hostess doesn't mean prostitute.

BristolUK

How about a short term one
Indeed. I was likely to incur my wife's wrath for pausing



How long is it since the term Air Hostess was dropped for that very reason.

I do find myself wondering if women have stopped handling the goods at hen nights. Occupational hazzard?

Almost Canadian

The length of the relationship was mentioned simply to point out that, one assumes, those that have been together for some time are likely to act differently than those that have only just met.

I have to admit that I don't ask my wife if it is OK to kiss her when I leave for work each morning. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, if I do this, I am committing a sexual assault, just as I would be if I gave her a cuddle in the middle of the night while she is sleeping.

I am not suggesting it is difficult but I am suggesting that, in reality and in the vast majority of cases, such "question and answer" consent in a long term relationship does not occur. I suggest that one party will initiate something, the other party will either say words to the effect of "not now, I have a headache" or things move forward. That is not consent in accordance with Canadian law.

Clearly, if someone says "no" there can be no argument that there is no consent but, for example, the Canadian law appears to prevent any form of spontaneity at all and, in effect, requires a question and an answer.

Hollywood's spectacle of ripping clothes off, throwing up against walls is outlawed unless one says, "can I rip your clothes off" to wish the answer must be "yes", followed by, "can I throw you up against the wall" to which the answer must be "yes" and so on, and so on. Consent cannot be inferred from the other's apparent willingness to participate.

Edit: I see that others have made similar points which I hadn't read when I posted this.