Back when I was going to ecstasy-fueled weekend-long after parties at peoples houses, there was a lot more talking, hugging and dancing happening than sex.
I think people who haven’t tried ecstasy have a really skewed idea about how people behave on it. Mostly you just want to listen to music and dance and talk. You often couldn’t have sex even if you wanted to.
I only ever attended one party with MDMA. After I took a 1/2 tab, I emerged from the kitchen thinking to myself, "I'm going to try and give a massage to every woman in this living room!" I never made it past the cute med student who took the other 1/2 of the tab, and we both left the party with the illusion that we had just found our soul mates, then proceeded to have a 2 week relationship that suddenly evaporated.
I think that was 1999. It's confusing to talk about these things, because "ecstasy" or "E" means something very different today than what it referred to back then.
Barring some actual test kit results, i wouldn’t take people’s self reports of what they’re taking as being reliable, because people’s response to mdma seems to change a lot with repeated use.
Some young folks have tried to tell me that GHB == "ecstasy."
Aside from the obvious fact that the drugs are illegal, there is also the question of whether those who are under the influence of these drugs can consent to sex.
I imagine that if, even if they took the drugs voluntarily and with full knowledge it could be a problem.
As the men also took the drug, we could make a powerful case that they are not consenting neither.
[Midseason spoiler warning]
"Bezzerides goes undercover, posing as Athena to infiltrate one of the secret elite parties in Monterey. With no phone, transmitter or weapon, she is forced to rely on Woodrugh and Velcoro for support. At the party, she is drugged and taken to the guests with a busload of other girls. Her attempts to search the party are hampered by the male guests (Geldof, Holloway and Tony Chessani among them) and hallucinations of a strange man from her childhood, implying that she was sexually abused"...etc
If you have a colonoscopy done, the medication they give you will make it so you don't remember things or (I hope) feel things, but, my doctor told me, you will still respond to instructions like "roll on your side" etc. If I consent to go to the doctor's office, and have the IV after it's explained to me what the drug does, and then they give me the drug and I have the procedure, am I consenting to the procedure even though I'm very much impaired during the process? I'd say so.
However, reading this, it seems that affirmative consent was given at all times, first to taking drugs and then to making out (or having sex) so this article is basically just a hoo-hah over consenting adults engaging in drug-enabled group sex.
My point here is that there seems to be affirmative consent, as you say. The example with the young woman who made out with a founder in front of his wife, then took MDMA and then (I assume) had sex with him (possibly, maybe she just left) is one where she consented to go to the party, she consented to the kissing, even checking in with the wife first, she got an accurate description of what the drug would do when it was offered to her, it was clear that she was being offered a drug, she chose to take it, and then she left when she wanted.
I don't want to defend non-consensual activities, but I don't see any being described. Given that these are consensual acts between adults - my point is "What's the issue?"
In might be consensual in the sense that everyone said yes, but there’s a known balance of power. Sounds like coercion and naivety.
How do you know these women don’t genuinely want casual sex with rich, powerful men?
Drugs, alcohol, and whores are cheap compared to the value you can extract from people using them. This article was fun to read; there have been lots of hit pieces coming out this year on SV, can't say it's undeserved either. Nothing here is shocking or unexpected, pederasty would be shocking -- no names which takes a whole lot of fun out of it for the spectators.
Sounds like they are explained the situation when they get invited.
But it also sounds like there is no way to back out or participate without repercussions leaking into their normal lives. Not exactly fair.
Maybe a bit off topic but I skipped the drugs for my colonoscopy and it was less discomfort than a trip to the dentist, plus watching my insides on the screen was very interesting. I definitely recommend considering no medication.
I don't consider recreational drug use nor recreational sex to be a problem that social norms nor government should be involved in.
Fortunately despite your sense of things, try that as a defense for rape and you’ll be in a deep, dark hole full of other rapists. Consent can be revoked, can be modified, and taking drugs doesn’t imply that you’re up for being passed around like a joint.
I completely agree that consent can be revoked or modified and that nobody should be passed around like a joint against their will. That's not what the article is describing though, at least not in my reading. The young woman who went to the party did consent, the whole way through, and didn't revoke or modify her consent until she decided to leave, and when she did, she left, presumably unimpeded. Furthermore, neither the woman in question nor the author of the article called this rape, so for you to imply otherwise seems a bit inappropriate.
Give people enough drugs and put them under enough pressure, and you’ll get in some of their pants. You might even get something that sounds like consent, but is it really?
An article about cultural practices outside of the social norms doesn't have to imply that there is either something wrong or something that needs to be done about it. Different readers will think different aspects of it are wrong and have their own opinions about how, if at all, to respond to the things they see as wrong.
Surely there's nothing (drug use aside) that's legally actionable about this. The encounters seemed consensual in the sense that the women weren't threatened or forced and were told about what the drugs offered would do.
If there's not any legal wrong doing then is it social misconduct? Somehow it feels wrong for me to judge or condemn adults for their sexual conduct - even if it seems cheap, transactional, and gross to me. I understand different people have different values and preferences, so why should I apply mine to them? Furthermore, I can't imagine that finger wagging from the likes of Vanity Fair is going to make these rich young men give up on their drug fueled sex parties.
It's an interesting article, even though the author is decidedly biased and at times intentionally misleading (e.g. when she scorns the idea that there are some/many women interested in taking advantage of men, in the middle of an article about rich nerds finding themselves suddenly with a surfeit of women). I don't understand what is supposed to be done about this though or even if something should be aside from educating young women about the tradeoffs they may make in these environments.