A. Reader Takes Exception To A Post
I am always willing to give anyone the forum here to respond. I believe A. Reader makes some very valid arguments, although takes them to the nth degree. But, what I want to know, and what she doesn't address is, how is what the Playboy host did, anything different from what Howard Stern or any of the other similar type radio hosts do? They use the same language, make the same invitations, and also have nude people, yet no employees have sued. I think the issue here, is that line is very gray and fuzzy when it comes to this type of entertainment program and the people who work on it. Anyway, here is A. Reader.
Dear Enty,
Last weekend I went out on the Hollywood "scene" wearing a very short and tight purple dress with gold high heels. I knew that I was dressing in a way that would get me some attention from men. Obviously, because I was dressed this way, I knew I would probably get some sexual advances from these same men. Did I go out expecting to be raped? If in fact I was raped would I have deserved it because of the way I was dressed? I would hope your answer would be a resounding NO. But given your argument against this woman who worked for Playboy radio/TV, if I did not know you personally, I would have to question whether that would be the case.
When a stripper signs up to work at a strip club, she knows that she is entering into a workplace that is sexual in nature. Does that mean she expects to be witnessing her coworkers giving blow jobs? No. Your argument about the porn camera guy is a bit faulty: a guy who signs up to videotape porn KNOWS he will be watching people have sex on camera. But, unless it was specified in her contract, how the heck did this woman realize the degree of vulgarity she would be witnessing in her workplace? TMZ has info about how this producer was repeatedly asked to "wax the ass of co-host Christy Canyon." What jury in their right mind would nod their heads in agreement that this woman should've expected to be asked to do those kinds of things, given the subject matter of the show she was producing for? I don't disagree that maybe she should've expected her boss to, say, do some of the shows topless, but to be asked to touch her boss's breasts and genitals? Or watch her boss masturbate on camera? You don't REALLY think this is acceptable given that she works for Playboy TV, do you?
I don't think this woman is as stupid as you are portraying her to be in your analysis of the case. I have no doubt that she understood she would be in a workplace dealing with sexual material. But, as your reader Elizabeth said in the comments, there is a line, this goes beyond it.
Sincerely,
A. Reader
kudos, a reader. i do think enty is a bit hypocritical about how unfair the media is toward women and how fashion mags set women up to feel inferior, and then he posts shit like that and does the same thing. i know jindi is a poster who has complained about that and i now that's why twisted sister booked out of here, too. anyways, i wish this kind of thing would stop it makes the place less fun.
ReplyDeletei actually enjoy people engaging in "mature" discussions on hot topics. they should not DOMINATE this blog, but a few would not hurt.
ReplyDeleteenty needs schooling like MOST men in the world. lol.
so we should stay and school him.
southerner, i don't mind the discussions at all and i think most of us are respectful even when we disagree. i just hate his stupid ass posts that point out his hypocrisy. yup, he does need to be schooled, you're right about that!!
ReplyDeleteno doubt, molly. i understand you loud and clear. we just have to rip him a new one each and every time. ;)
ReplyDeleteOkay, I can see that if she didn't feel like she had the right to say "no" to these requests she'd have a point, but I don't get how she could be surprised at this kind of situation arising on the show. Are people getting their idea of what Playboy is about from "The Girls Next Door" and the Playboy Mansion? That's just the tease portion of the enterprise.
ReplyDeleteYa..No, sorry. Not buying it A. Reader.
ReplyDeleteYou work for playboy TV. The entire environment is sexual in nature. As such, every day the producer continued to go to work, she allowed herself to be put into a sexual environment, that is she wore her purple short dress. The only line in that type of workplace is if the producer was forced against her will to do anything, and no, she wasn't raped. As far what's been presented, it doesn't appear she was forced to do anything AGAINST HER WILL OR FOR THE SECURITY OF HER JOB. Being asked 100 million times ON AIR to wax the hosts ass is quite different from being forced to. The show is raunchy and dirty. She knew this. Part of the show's description talks about the hosts intimate involvement in the calls, it's a big reason they film the damn thing. The first time the host got naked and went to town on herself during a call, should have let the producer know what she was getting into. The show wasn't going to change. Jesus wasn't going to call and say 'Stop That'. Yet, the producer continued, on her own recognizance, to work at the show. Now, having said all that, if the producer was asked, outside of the show or live filming, to touch genitals and/or participate repeatedly, then I think you have have a chance of sexual harassment. The evidence so far indicates, she was asked for involvement during the show. Not outside of it. And that's all the judge is going to need to throw this out. Which she/he will, 'cause well its just stupid, frankly.
BTW, I would like to add that if you haven't, you should try and see the show. It really really is raunchy. There is no way that producer walked in thinking stuff like this wasn't going to happen. All she had to do was watch one episode. The set has a bed, yes A BED, next to the desk where the host hosts. And people have sex on that bed during calls as well. And the desk itself has all kinds of sexual toys on it. And this was 8 years ago in college when we built a black box and got playboy TV. So I'm with Ent. For those of you feeling sorry for the producer, just watch one episode.
ReplyDeletetrogdor:
ReplyDeleteAppearing nude and discussing sexually explicit things is compeletely different from engaging in sexual activity. They should be treated as such.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is how her job is detailed in her contract. If she signed up for nudity and sexually graphic talk, and nothing more, she has every right to be upset that she was continually pressured to engage in physical acts either alone or with other people.
"And that's all the judge is going to need to throw this out. Which she/he will, 'cause well its just stupid, frankly."
ReplyDeleteHa, depends on the judge.
mooshki,
ReplyDeleteso playboy enterprises are not capable of conducting their ANY of their affairs in a non-sexual manner?
i am also aware of the happenings of the Mansion.
however, i was told by a "frequent visitor" that not everyone goes into the shaded and secluded areas for sex, and that the policy of "no" means no.
hefner does not have the rep of raping women. he has banned people for showing up and causing problems. all the playmates have to do is rat you out. if you are aggressive and disrespectful of them.
btw, so if someone gets an interview with christie hefner (ceo), they should expect to drop to my knees and help her masturbate.
i take it that this woman's problem was that she had to participate in sexual activites?.
what i meant to so was:
ReplyDelete...not everyone choses to go into the secluded areas and participate in sex.
Seriously, she was working for PLAYBOY radio/tv. I think there is a "reasonable expectation" that there is going to be sexual innuendo, sexual activity, sexually charged verbal interactions, etc. She didn't sign on over at "Meet the Press". I'm quite sure she had seen the show and that the nature of the type of show it is was discussed in her interview process. If she didn't do her research, one day on the show should have been enough for her to realize it wasn't her cup of tea. I would like to know how long she worked there before she decided to quit and sue. The longer she was there, the weaker her story and, therefore, her case.
ReplyDeleteHughes, who is African-American, alleges that when a host of another Playboy show -- who was also an African-American woman -- requested for Hughes work on her show, the executive producer of Playboy Radio warned, "I don't know how to say this, and it might offend you, but I'm just going to say it anyway -- no Negro shows."
ReplyDeleteis this kind of thing expected, too?
"...not everyone choses to go into the secluded areas and participate in sex."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but do they sue if someone asks them to?
Molly, no that's not okay. (but I don't get it - if the host was African American, what was he talking about?) I don't agree with the parts of the suit that Enty posted, but obviously I don't know the whole story.
mooshki, hughes is african american and so was the host that asked hughes to work on her show. i guess in his pea brain racist mind, 2 african americans = *negro show*.
ReplyDeleteYa the negro comment she could sue for and should sue for. That's discrimination in the workplace and is, in general, uncalled for. Hopefully she can prove it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that dude needs some serious reeducation and/or firing. This is in no way a defense of what he said, but that might be technically legal - the entertainment industry is allowed to make hiring decisions based on race in ways that other businesses aren't. That shouldn't be the case - it might be weird at first, but people would get used to colorblind casting.
ReplyDeleteThe negro comment is fucked up and legally actionable for sure. The race of an individual is effecting their job and ability to move up in the company. That's pretty clear cut. Totally different from the case at hand though concerning the sexual matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with whomever stated that Hef has a rep of being respectful towards the playmates and that any kind of trouble is met with a ban from the mansion. He doesn't play around with that stuff as he shouldn't with that type of situation. Dude knows that he has to be careful about people getting out of hand and causing him to get sued if he/his staff doesn't step in.
I agree that she must have known what kind of show this is before taking the job. If she were hired to produce a kids show, she would know what atmosphere she was going to be working in too. Cooking show, game show, etc. Who would agree to produce an existing show w/o watching it before hand? She didn't do her homework before accepting the job? That's like accepting a job as a producer of a kids show and not knowing you would have to work with kids.
I would like to know how long she worked there before having this problem, did she ever address it with the boss or the boss' boss? Was she threatened with demotion or losing her job? As for this chick asking guests and co workers to do these things is in bad taste I would think but a reasonable person would kind of expect some crazy shit when going on a show like that. Did these workers and/or guests complain? One would think that if a guest would complain, that shit would have been squashed right away by the higher ups. You would hope the same would go for the workers but you know damn well that the guests would be addressed first if this behavior was out of hand for this environment/show. The producer took exception with this chick talking dirty to callers and exposing herself? Seriously, what would you expect from Playboy? It's a men's magazine where women pose nude. I thought that was pretty common knowledge. Callers are not calling in for recipes or to discuss the war. It's a sex show.
Unless this person was threatened to be fired or demoted unless she participated in sexual acts for the show, I don't think she has a leg to stand on. Did she tell this chick that she is there to produce a show and not jerk her off? I would want to know exactly what was said and what were the consequences stated if she didn't comply. From what is being said, it doesn't sound like she was singled out of the crowd. She wasn't being targeted. If that were the case, then you may have an argument. More particulars would be nice before making a judgment but with what has been spelled out here, it smells of bullshit. Why sue over this if she has a clear case of discrimination against the company? Why not at least sue for both reasons and not just the one? Makes no sense IMHO.
I think there is a big difference between knowing you will be working in a graphic sexual environment, having to listen and see it as you do your work, and being repeatedly asked to participate in it. And not just by way of dirty talk etc, but being asked to masterbate your boss and touch them when they are naked. Its like a camera man in a porn film wouldnt be expected to or be asked to particapte in the sex acts, just film them. and if life was made difficult for her because she refused or felt that if she didnt she would be fired or whatever, then yes, that is sexual harassment.
ReplyDeletePs Has Enty deleted his original post? I can't find it anymore! Unless im just slow today and not looking properly.
ReplyDeleteeleanor, i found it by doing a search for 'playboy'. Here's the link, just go down to the second entry - the one called 'it wasn't the nightly news':
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crazydaysandnights.net/search?q=Playboy
Doesn't matter what the name or rep of the corporation is. They're subject to state and fed labor laws including those prohibiting sexual harassment. Just because it's Playboy doesn't mean that anything goes.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this, Enty. Shame on you.
i was wondering the same thing, thanks for the link, molly.
ReplyDeleteanytime, bionic bunny!
ReplyDeleteBravo, A. Reader!
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that ENT wrote about the sexual harrasment aspect of the lawsuit, but conveniently left out the fact that Hughes' lawsuit includes the racism she experienced in the work place.
In this case, the sexism and the racism go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive. After researching what I could find about the case, there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the racist nature of the environment lead certain individuals in Hughes' workplace to believe that they had a free pass to treat Hughes any way, in this case sexually, they wanted to i.e. "let's oversexualize the black woman, we all know blacks are hyper-sexual and sexually available".
And for those of you who will protest to my post, just because you don't think in this manner does not mean this sort of thing does not happen.
Hughes has a right (don't forget, she was offered the job) to work anywhere she chooses and has the right, by law, to do so WITHOUT any type of harassment.
amen, nate! you sound like you know more about the law than enty does.
ReplyDeleteYa nate, but she also has the right to quit and move on when she feels she cant handle the job. Sex was part of that job description. I highly doubt playboy wouldn't have let her know exactly what she was dealing with when she got hired. Like I said, watch one episode. That's all you have to do to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe racism was from a producer of a different show. I can not say it didn't play a part in the sexual harassment she feels she received from her show anymore than you can be sure the racism played a part in the sexual harassment she feels she did receive from her show.
This will be tossed out. Playboy isn't a company to eff around with.
unless it was in a state where that kind of thing is legal, then sex couldn't be part of the job description, trogdor. was it in las vegas? no? then that would be illegal.
ReplyDeleteLoL, dang molly 5:58am? Just woke up?! or just getting in, like me?
ReplyDelete=)
Trogdor, I thought the racist comment came from the executive producer of the show for which Hughes was hired? Did I read it wrong?
ReplyDeleteWe need to get a hold of that job description, it would definately clear up some things.
Also, is that Trogdor as in Strongbad?
Nate - Ya, the producer had to clear herself to join the other show with the other producer. It was that shows exec that made the comment.
ReplyDeleteObviously, information will come in broken pieces. We'll just have to wait and see when the case comes up!
Burnination of Peasantry!
LOL...very few people know that!
trogdor, the lights were still out at that hour in my house..lol. i'm in the midwest. could that be enty's pacific time which is two hours behind me? i think that's what it is. it's 7:21 right now here. let's see what time pops up when i click 'publish'.
ReplyDeleteyup, enty's time!
ReplyDelete