
Silicon Valley's Secretive, Orgiastic Side - dbattaglia
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/brotopia-silicon-valley-secretive-orgiastic-inner-sanctum
======
jpzisme
What's up with all these sensational articles about Silicon Valley? Maybe the
lifestyle is different as a VC, but as an engineer, this seems so disjointed
from reality that it's almost farcical. I can barely get some of my coworkers
to stop talking about code for more than a breath. There's no way that they're
engaging in any of these activities.

Can anyone vouch for this behavior being prevalent? To me it just seems like a
result of psychology where people think that others have more
interesting/fulfilled social lives than they do despite it not being actually
true, but maybe I live under a rock.

Furthermore, there are a ton of small VCs and startups in the valley. Of
course a small percentage will do sketchy stuff. This is true everywhere and
would really only be a problem if it was widespread or common amongst the
major players and served as a meaningful barrier to entry. The only firm
mentioned by name, Binary Capital, looks like a two or a one person shop, and
I assume doesn't have much market power.

~~~
azernik
There is a sex/BDSM/cuddle party scene at a lower economic level, but that's a
pre-existing part of Bay Area culture; the roots are more in the gay
Leathermen/Folsom Street culture, and the hippie/tantra 60s counterculture,
than in rich VCs. There is increasing techie representation in that subculture
(mostly engineers), but that's because _every_ Bay Area subculture that's open
to the middle class has a lot of techies these days.

Of course, this scene tends to be explicitly feminist, disproportionately
queer/trans, and anti-classist (public events tend to have sliding-scale
prices and opportunities to volunteer for free admission). I didn't read the
article in detail, but a lot of the bits and pieces sound like an upper-class,
MUCH more heteronormative, more patriarchal attempt to reproduce those
experiences. (e.g. explicitly gender-differentiated rules, which tend to
create a mentality of men chasing sex and women giving it.)

~~~
aaaaathrowaway
I'm glad you brought this up, because I think it's important to emphasize just
how different and disconnected these scenes are, so that one doesn't get swept
up in coverage of the other. Especially as the elites making up the one
described in the linked article are contributing toward pushing out the
existing queer/kink scene (eg. through loss of venues to gentrification). And
the latter culture, as I know it, is far, far more concerned with consent and
equity than you'll generally find in straight/vanilla spaces, tying back into
decades-long histories of actual liberatory struggle.

~~~
stcredzero
_And the latter culture, as I know it, is far, far more concerned with consent
and equity than you 'll generally find in straight/vanilla spaces, tying back
into decades-long histories of actual liberatory struggle._

I've been to two cuddle parties. They are _very_ concerned with consent, and I
have to say that their facilitation is very well thought out. I don't think
I'd put them in the same general category as other parties mentioned here,
which I'd call a "bacchanal." For some attendees, it's a cross between a party
and a form of group therapy.

~~~
azernik
Yeah, I definitely agree - and in terms of the people involved they have a lot
of overlap with the kink scene, though they do tend to be a more straight and
cis subset.

------
guacamoleSoda
This sounds like something out of Eyes Wide Shut, but with social awkwardness,
baggy dad jeans, and crocs and socks.

I can't imagine this is emotionally healthy for most of the folks involved.
The once socially-exiled men trading wealth and drugs and (implicit) promises
of career advancement for sex. The women who hope to leverage their looks for
access to a better life, but risk ruining their reputations due to societal
double standards. Being aware of these facts, would either party feel good
about the encounters?

Orgies are fine. I've never been to one and have no desire to go to one. The
real issue here is the power-asymmetry between the men and women involved. It
reminds me of someone like Harvey Weinstein inviting an aspiring actress up to
his hotel room and making an advance. It puts the women in a damned-if-you-do-
damned-if-you-don't situation. Just extending the invitation itself can be
vaguely threatening to a lot of people.

~~~
stcredzero
_This sounds like something out of Eyes Wide Shut, but with social
awkwardness, baggy dad jeans, and crocs and socks..._

 _Orgies are fine. I 've never been to one and have no desire to go to one.
The real issue here is the power-asymmetry between the men and women involved_

Heck, there are low-rent "eyes wide shut" style events in Houston which are
distinctly lower middle class. Glowing bracelets to color code your
availability. Mud-wrestling scale large amounts of home formulated glycerin
lubricant. Not a VC in sight, not a whiff of money and power. Just a whole lot
of ex-employees of ISPs and assorted lower middle class nerd/weirdo friends.
One of the parties I know of is lesbians only. Another one of them is yearly
and run by a woman in an open marriage.

There are only two things in the Bay Area I know of that might fall vaguely
into this sensational category. One of them was some kind of brunch with a
live sex show. (The other: furries, and I don't know much more than that and I
don't want to know!)

People have been doing one variation or another of this bacchanal stuff since
time immemorial. It's "Honest" John the Fox and Gideon the Cat from Pinocchio
offering you the tickets to Pleasure Island. There's much better one can do
with the strength of one's body, mind, and passions than that nonsense. For
those of you still in your teens and early 20's -- it's your job to make it
past your youth with your honor, your mind, and your optimism intact.

~~~
azernik
My honor, mind, and optimism are surviving the sex parties of the poly and
BDSM scene just fine, _thank_ you very much.

~~~
stcredzero
_My honor, mind, and optimism are surviving the sex parties of the poly and
BDSM scene just fine, thank you very much._

Thank you for that. I dated a poly woman at one point. Not all parties are the
same. From my experience, there is a definite rationality and morality
associated with the poly scene which is based on consent. I'm not saying that
pleasure is bad. Nihilistic pleasure without regard to anything else is
pessimistic and simply doesn't lead to good things in the long run. Even
Orthodox Jewish teaching recognizes certain kinds of sexual pleasure as a
mitzvah. (In fact, sex has been shown by researchers to encourage
neurogenesis. One grows more brain when one has good sex.)

------
blueyes
This is a nothing burger of an article. It's about consensual drug use and sex
among adults. It happens to involve rich and powerful people who (gasp) can
throw these kinds of parties. In any unequal society, there will be people who
are willing to trade sex for financial security or access to power, with
others who are seeking sex. It would be deeply naive to think otherwise. The
outrage here strikes me as hollow.

~~~
dang
I don't think that's quite fair. The article reads to me like a good-faith
attempt to explore some less obvious aspects of these dynamics. It doesn't
arrive at new or substantive conclusions, but just standing in the
neighborhood of these questions while keeping an open mind is worth something
while society is in transition about them.

The article also manages to stay more neutral and non-judgmental than the
lurid material would easily allow, and that deserves respect too. Overall,
it's better than the median for the genre.

~~~
blueyes
You're right, I should have toned down the first sentence a little bit. I hope
that young women working in Silicon Valley will read this article and make
better decisions for themselves. Each new generation has to learn the ways of
the world all over again. But some of them will read this article and make
exactly the same decisions, because there are reasons why these parties are
thrown and why people, with their eyes open, attend.

What I was trying to say was: The article is overblown in its tone, and that's
important for reasons I'll get to at the end.

There are other, much worse things going on in the world, some of which Emily
Chang has admirably broken as news.[1] It probably would have worked better if
the orgy angle had been woven into a chapter of The Circle. I don't find much
in it that surprises me. And given its lack of concrete details, it doesn't
strike me as particularly newsworthy. I try to read things that I hope will
surprise me and that I might learn from. This book chapter tells me that rich,
powerful people behave in Silicon Valley much as they do in other parts of the
world (Wall Street, for example), and much as they have done in other times
(the Marquis de Sade's books are one example among many).

Personally, I don't find the article to be neutral or non-judgmental. Quite
the opposite. It is part of a book titled "Brotopia", and it advances a thesis
that Silicon Valley is dominated by emotionally immature or egotistical men
who use their relative wealth and power to prey on young women. These sex
parties are cast as part of a gender war with two sides: straight males vs
straight females. That's a vast oversimplification, making a lot of noise
about a very small sample of the humans who constitute the tech community. The
only reason why this doesn't fall into the cateogory of "things we can assume
happen weekly" is that it's Silicon Valley.

I could name at least one powerful lesbian in tech who left her wife to shack
up with a female employee. I'm quite positive that some gay men in tech find
opportunities to prey on male interns just as much as the revanchist straight
male geeks in the article manage to live out their adolescent fantasies by
acting like players. But neither of those fit the direction of Emily Chang's
outrage (which is also the dominant direction of outrage in liberal circles).
That tells me either that Chang is not reporting this story as diligently as
she could, or that she's ignoring significant information to advance a point
in this debate. The villain's role has been cast.

Emily Chang is a professional journalist, and she knows how to maintain a
journalist's neutral tone while letting her sources drive home her point. If
you look at the most emotionally powerful quotes (take that of Elisabeth
Sheff, for example [2]) or language like "sport fucking", you can tell which
side Chang is on. She's portraying the males here as powerful, predatory and
ridiculous all at once:

"Furthermore, these elite founders, C.E.O.’s, and V.C.’s see themselves as
more influential than most hot-shit bankers, actors, and athletes will ever
be."

All the voices in the piece are Chang's, because she selected them to tell
this story, which is a very particular story out of all the threads she could
pick. And those voices land heavily in the judging camp.

She lets Founder X make a fool of himself between double quotes, just as she
did with Tom Perkins. Is Founder X a fool? Probably. Is he typical of male
entrepreneurs? Not in my experience. Did he think he was speaking to a
sympathetic ear? Probably. That's how journalists get people to say
embarrassing things. They use their sources, just like their sources use them
to gain publicity. Just like the men and women at these orgies are using each
other. And that's a fundamental part of human interactions that she sounds
really judgey about.[3]

My chief concern is that this article is part of a prurient and puritanical
movement to police sexuality in America, a movement that has gone far beyond
condemning acts of coercion or workplace sexual harassment (both of which I,
too, condemn), and drifted into condemning the gray area of fluid power
dynamics juxtaposed with consent.

Masha Gessen has talked about it more articulately than I can:

[https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-
wa...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-watershed-
become-a-sex-panic)

[https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/sex-consent-
da...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/sex-consent-dangers-of-
misplaced-scale)

If we become too easily outraged and rigid in the way we judge sexual behavior
publicly, we will simply become a society of hypocrites and rule breakers who
can't talk about or understand real humans. A lot of things already can't be
discussed calmly -- eppur si muove, as the man said.

Good journalism pushes us to look at things in new ways that deepen our
understanding of the world. This article didn't do that for me.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/uber-
inve...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/uber-investor-
shervin-pishevar-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-multiple-women)

[2] “That’s exploitation. That’s old-school, fucked-up masculine arrogance and
borderline prostitution,” she said. “The men don’t have to prostitute
themselves, because they have the money. . . . ‘I should be able to have sex
with a woman because I’m a rich guy.’ That is not even one particle
progressive; that is the same tired bullshit. It’s trying to blend the new and
keeping the old attitudes, and those old attitudes are based in patriarchy, so
they come at the expense of women.”

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbN8jqDhHO8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbN8jqDhHO8)

------
iaw
There's a lot in this article that raises red flags for me, but more about the
journalism then the subject. There's an element of sensationalism implying
that this is a 'side' of Silicon Valley without offering evidence of
prevalence.

> ... Founder X told me.

The things here on the record are by those who aren't involved, those who are
involved speaking on the record do so anonymously. It really seems less that
this is a 'side' of Silicon Valley but more that there is a small number of
people engaged in the activity.

Further drawing into question the author's credibility...

>Managing directors at top-tier investment banks may pocket a million a year
and be worth tens of millions after a long career.

Principals at mid-tier firms can make a couple million per year. A million
dollar _quarterly_ bonus for a fund manager isn't absurd. Henry Paulson took
the Treasury Secretary job because it gave him a tax-free sale of his $500M
worth of equities after being a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs.

Those at VC funds may have more influence socially because they hold purse
strings, but banking is the 'traditional' way to make too much money. I'm
really having a hard time not thinking that the entire article is exaggerated.

~~~
owens99
It's not a side for Silicon Valley. It's a side for Silicon Valley's most
powerful and influential people.

That does mean something.

~~~
iaw
>It's a side for Silicon Valley's most powerful and influential people

What I am trying to say is that I see the author making an allegation but they
don't do a very good job of justifying. If a small percentage of all people
engage in alternative lifestyle cultures then it's not surprising if a small
percentage of powerful and influential people in Silicon Valley also engage.

What the author alleges is that the behavior is cultural which would put women
who didn't participate at a disadvantage, neither of these assertions are
backed up with a reasonable journalistic standard in the article.

Not being a member of that community I make no assertions about the veracity
of the authors claims, my point is that the author is lobbing some pretty big
allegations that they didn't back up well in this article.

------
crmd
I'm trying to imagine a cringier situation than a druggy sex party full of
industry people. Try chilling with artists, musicians, chefs, teachers, dog
walkers, anything but tech people. The mutual discovery of each other's worlds
is really hot, and it minimizes the chance of ever being in a work meeting
with someone where we need to pretend we haven't seen each other naked.

~~~
mruniverse
Artists are very cringy. A lot of musicians are cringy. Some teachers are
cringy. Not sure about chefs or dog walkers.

~~~
tomcam
Also cringey

~~~
forgottenpass
At least they wouldn't have to "pretend [they] haven't seen each other naked."

After all, what well-adjusted adult would consider it a normal hum-drum part
of life to interact with previous sexual partners in work situations? /s

~~~
mruniverse
musicians

------
jMyles
This article felt like a an "Unsolved Mysteries" narration to begin with, but
this part really set off my BS sensors:

> MDMA is a powerful and long-lasting drug whose one-two punch of euphoria and
> manic energy can keep you rolling for three or four hours. As dopamine
> fires, connections spark around the room, and normal inhibitions drop away.
> People start cuddling and making out. These aren’t group orgies, per se, but
> guests will break out into twosomes or threesomes or more. They may
> disappear into one of the venue’s many rooms, or they may simply get down in
> the open. Night turns to day, and the group reconvenes for breakfast, after
> which some may have intercourse again. Eat, drugs, sex, repeat.

Listen, MDMA is great. But make people want to fuck it does not. In fact, it's
damn near impossible to become seriously sexually aroused on MDMA. It promotes
a much more fraternal feeling than a sexual one.

------
orasis
This article is a fascinating reflection of our current culture. It’s
simultaneous power shaming and slut shaming.

It’s pretty sad that across all of the women interviewed they’re either
portrayed as naive and disempowered or “merely” prostitutes.

Despite its semi-neutral tone, in the end this article is quite sexist.

------
tzs
So...a Silicon Valley version of a Hellfire club [1]?

What's the deal with that hot tub party photo from 1996? In particular what is
supporting the laptop? It appears to be right on the surface of the water,
which would be a ridiculous way to try to use it, as any ripples or waves
would get it wet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club)

~~~
sargun
Could be a Toughbook, although doubt it.

Introduced in '96:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughbook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughbook)

------
gdilla
Not shocking at all - follows a pattern we've seen before on wallstreet and
anywhere else men think they're amazing cuz they're rich. It's just cute that
SV has the lifestyle choice spin on it.

------
throwawaygoogol
OK, so this bothers me on a couple of levels. One, this strikes me as New York
wagging its fingers at San Francisco, while bankers and media types have been
having parties like this for ages, and it's taken with more or less a shrug.
That said, though, it's also a bit slimy the ways that feminist polyamory and
sex-positive community has been coopted as some sort of fig leaf for plain old
money and power. The bankers never sought to justify themselves. I don't think
that actually alters the basic morality one way or the other, but I have to
say, I'm reminded of this scene:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkj6PhhhzDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkj6PhhhzDk)

------
dsfyu404ed
This article is hilarious. It's like someone invited MADD to a weekend of beer
fueled antics at a mud bog and this is their horrified blog post about how it
went.

People are crazy. People like to do drugs and have sex. Money adds fuel to the
fire. Also, water is wet.

------
weeksie
My goodness, the pearl clutching sex panic is hilarious coming from Vanity
Fair.

Rich people have parties and they're fun because when you're rich you can
afford good drugs and nice venues. News at 10.

~~~
webkike
You've missed the point. Orgies are fine. Drugs are fine (or at the very least
your choice). There is however a huge contrast between smoking a bit of pot
and going to an explicitly organized orgy with an enforced ratio and being fed
MDMA and expensive presents by a CEO who wants to fuck you and your best
friend.

~~~
justonepost
women trading sex for gifts. Gasp. Say it aint so. Let's call pulitzer right
now.

~~~
webkike
To take that attitude further, let's look at prostitution:

Prostitution is fine morally. However, the manner in which it is currently
conducted in most of the world is incredibly exploitative. e.g. pimps beating
the shit out of the people they're supposed to protect.

~~~
stcredzero
Bureaucrats can suck, but they are a whole lot better to deal with than pimps!

------
itronitron
I expect that a majority of people would be very uncomfortable at one of these
work-related parties. Beyond the man/woman power asymmetry there are a lot of
other groups of people that would exclude themselves from these events, but
that may be the point.

------
olivermarks
I'm trying to reconcile '60 shades of grey' selling 125 million copies
globally so far and Vanity Fair/Emily Chang being so shocked about wealthy
silicon valley swingers...

------
todd8
At a Christmas party about 12 years ago I ran into a woman that I had been on
a couple of dates with. Because she and a her girlfriend at the party were
drinking I offered to drive them home. On the way home her girlfriend got a
call, learned of a swingers party, and invited us to go with her. It was quite
surprising for me. We didn't stay or participate, but I had no idea that such
well attended parties were going on under my nose and overlapped to such a
large degree with my social circle. (This wasn't in SV.)

------
cs702
This is a sensationalist piece based on a _really tiny_ amount of anecdotal
evidence. I'm not upvoting it.

------
1024core
If these parties are so widespread, how come no one has posted any actual
photos from these parties? I'm sure there's _some_ of this going on, but it
can't be as widespread as claimed.

------
indescions_2018
A common refrain: practice X is packaged by its purveyors as the sine qua non
of enlightened thinking and action. But ultimately, it is argued, ends up
reinforcing the establishment status quo. Can be applied universally to
everything from the gig economy to young blood infusions.

In this context, however, I believe we are witnessing an unprecedented and
radical redefinition of traditional monogamy in real-time.

Naturally, social media plays a fundamental role in the re-thinking of modern
monogamy. And one can't help but infer some connection between a platform and
its creator's biases.

At root is perhaps a philosophy born in the heyday of the Haight-Ashbury
scene. Free Love. The idea that anyone can share intimacy with any one else.
Without possessiveness. Without jealousy. Without betrayal. As long as there
is explicit consent.

It's not even a modern idea. Some elements are found in Plato's Republic.
Fertility rites attended by the entire polis. Followed by newborns becoming
wards of the state. To be raised with egalitarian love. And no parent showing
any preference for their own offspring over another.

But does it actually work in practice? Are we actually wired for pan-amory?

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn)

------
justonepost
The only thing I found vaguely interesting about the article was the lack of
male bisexuality. My guess is that the author was pursuing a very narrow group
of people.

------
justinzollars
"Molly tablets that have been molded into the logos of some of the hottest
tech companies"

I'm going to call bullshit.

~~~
throwawaymamba
They are real. I've seen Netflix, UPS, Teslas in the wild

------
moron4hire
I think, if you look hard enough in any city, you'll find just about anything,
including sex dungeon parties. I knew some people who were not very secretive
about it in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. Those are the only cities I've
lived in, so considering it's been 3-for-3 so far, I suspect it's pretty
prevalent. The fact that in SV it's full of VCs is not surprising, as nowhere
else would you find the density of VCs than in SV.

I think the bigger question might be--in an age of safe sex and (ostensibly)
loose morals--why isn't it more common?

~~~
walshemj
Yep its the CSI Freak of the week trophe.

------
Sundog
I've been going to the wrong parties!

------
adotjdotr
In all honesty - why is this seen as such a bad thing. So many well off people
engage in this sexualised fantasy behaviour who are monied / well off.

I would expect a bit more from a Bloomberg presenter but then again
superficiality is clearly what she needs to sell her book.

This is honestly nothing new at all unless you're a prude

------
uoaei
I think the crucial mistake most commenters/assessors on HN are making is in
somehow equating SV with engineer and social introvert types. Of course those
people aren't going to sex parties!

But SV has over the years adopted the money-hungry, the investors and startup-
flippers, as the core demographic by which it continues and grows. And these
people are always in search of that next high. If that next high can be taboo
and paid for with an exclusive amount of money, they'll be there.

SV is no longer defined by its engineers. We see this in the hypergrowth
cycles, in the "you can't engineer yourself out of a societal problem"
phenomenon, in the fact that you can't get anywhere in SV without getting on
your knees in front of a VC board.

------
JamieBeckett
Yuck. I felt slimy after reading this article. What female would participate
in this?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
One trying desperately to survive in a male-dominated industry in a geographic
area where failure means you join their ever increasing homeless population, I
imagine.

------
guacamoleSoda
Preface: I spend a lot of this response talking about a hypothetical high-
status man and a low-status woman. This isn't to be sexist or perpetuate
stereotypes; it's just to use a common example that we've all probably seen
and witnessed.

Preface 2: this response was to someone else in this thread but it got pulled
out to the top level for some reason.

The intention of the article was, probably, just to shed light on the fact
that this sort of stuff happens. It might not even be accurate. But, for the
sake of argument, let's assume that it is. The author wasn't suggesting
solutions. Why is it interesting to Vanity Fair readers?

\- It's about the glamorous lives of the 0.1%.

\- It's about sex.

\- It's about drugs.

\- A lot of these men are socially oblivious, so it provides material to laugh
at otherwise powerful people. Who, in their right minds, sees a co-worker at a
bondage-event and tells others at their workplace? And who, in their right
minds, brings it up with said co-worker?

\- If what the article reports is true, the behaviour of some of the male
participants could reasonably be interpreted as sexually predatory.

It's the last point that's a bit troublesome. I think a lot of the men
involved don't realize their behaviour is shitty. They flash wealth and
reputation and make drunken suggestions like, which I've personally witnessed,
"Oh, you're interested in starting a company... I could totally put you in
touch with my friend who runs a VC firm. He's always looking for new
investments. Hey, let's get another drink. You're super interesting. Oh, it's
closing time. Wanna head back to my place, it's only a couple blocks away, and
we could continue this conversation?"

It's even worse if the dude talking has some sort of professional connection
with the woman (e.g. introduction through co-worker or investor). It's not
illegal but it's lousy. It's also reasonable for her to think that their might
be some form of punishment for saying, 'no'. I think the lesson those sorts of
guys could learn is that they're, at best, being manipulative and assholes.
And the lesson targeted women can learn is that these guys probably aren't
telling the truth and they should stick to mostly professional channels to get
ahead (if that's their reason for engaging sexually with these men).

Guys, if sex is your goal, I suggest the old-fashioned method. This isn't
targeted at you, OP, but just a rhetorical bit aimed at the hypothetical male
described in the article:

\- Work your way into a good job.

\- Be polite.

\- Be funny.

\- Work out.

\- Dress well.

\- Be financially responsible.

\- Have a drink or two, if that's your thing.

\- Don't be too flashy and avoid mentions of wealth or powerful connections.

\- Show genuine interest in the other party and her friends and family.

\- Be forward but not obnoxious about your intentions before sex (e.g. looking
for sex, looking for a relationship, etc...).

\- Never lie.

\- Never EVER make promises or suggestions that you can help her career until
you're well into a relationship.

\- If you genuinely believe in her and want to help her career, do so, but
save any romantic or sexual advances until after you've helped and you can't
renege what you've done. Be absolutely clear that she doesn't owe you
anything.

EDIT:

\- And never kiss and tell. It might win you a few bar-room points but it's
frankly trashy and teenager-like behaviour. Romantic and sexual relationships
involve two parties and are inherently intimate and you might be violating
your partner's trust and reputation by divulging you've had sex or what the
sex was like and so on. Even if your partner is okay with it, a lot of people
don't find talking about your sexual conquests entertaining.

~~~
sleepyandlazy
The old-fashioned method you are suggesting requires much more effort than
Silicon Valley parties that are currently being thrown. Changing who you are
as a person is tough, and why do that when there are easier options. In places
like SV and Seattle where there is an imbalance between men/women, you could
follow these instructions perfectly but you would still be playing with bad
odds.

There was recently an article about a prostitution ring busted in Seattle
involving Amazon/Microsoft employees, which just shows these type of
situations are inevitable in male-dominated industries, and wealth just
exasperates the issue.

The old-fashioned method is one of those win-win situations, but if you're
willing to let go of being morally correct, it certainly does not hold up
against what is currently going on.

~~~
guacamoleSoda
Unfortunately, I agree. I've had significantly more trouble dating in Silicon
Valley than anywhere else I've lived. In fact, that's why I'm moving to NYC.
Using dating apps as evidence:

On the east coast:

\- I get 5x as many matches.

\- Most of my matches respond to my openers.

\- My matches are significantly higher quality.

\- My matches suggest meeting up for dates.

\- My matches compliment me.

\- My matches never unmatch me.

The whole silicon valley gender skew seems like a bad situation for everyone
involved. But I'm not sure what can be done about.

I suggested the old-fashioned method because it does no harm. My only issues
with the orgies described in the article is there seems to be quite a bit of
consent-through-manipulation.

~~~
puzzle
NYC is probably the optimal case, since it's been known for years that it's
one of the few places where there are more single women than single men. In
some areas, many more single women. In other words, it skews the exact
opposite way from SV.

------
eternalcode
This is all real. I’ve been to some of the parties she mentioned. I hope that
people read Brotopia and see that what Emily Chang is deriding isn’t Burning
Man, renegades, or the like.

It’s how a predatory part of the startup population exploits these kinds of
environments to use and hurt people.

I’ve gotten a lot of questions recently why I sort of dropped off the radar a
few years ago in going to a lot of VC/founder rage scene. This is a big part
of why. I don’t want me or the people I care about to be exposed to this.

And to be honest, I don’t know how to stop it.

------
dawhizkid
Is this really limited to just SV?

This was one of the more eye opening articles I read last year ->
[https://jezebel.com/the-slutty-resurgence-of-new-yorks-
under...](https://jezebel.com/the-slutty-resurgence-of-new-yorks-underground-
gay-sex-1800953101)

Also I'll leave this here... [https://www.yelp.com/biz/power-exchange-san-
francisco-3](https://www.yelp.com/biz/power-exchange-san-francisco-3)

------
olfactory
This is a bit tangential but I wonder how the following classic psychological
experiment would play out if participants were on MDMA, drunk, or aware of
social status:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285214736_Deviance_...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285214736_Deviance_in_the_dark)

Also, I wonder if in today's world (with more gender equality) if some of the
female participants might actually not have wanted to be intimate.

------
rearden
It may not be a popular opinion, but why are these tech founders and VCs
always judged and pointed at by reporters and such? I mean yeah, if they
engage in illegal behaviour (sexual asssault) and stuff there should be
punishment as with any other citizen. But in any other case, why don’t tech
reporters focus on the tech? Rather than on the morals or sex lifes of the
founders? It seems to me that founders are now under public scrutiny as if
their company sold morals.

------
Apocryphon
Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley... are there any other high-rolling
industry hubs out there that don't have a decadent underbelly? Maybe Motor
City in its heyday.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
It's not just high-rolling ones.

Over the last few years I've been involved in the furniture and construction
industries and their "decadent underbellies" are just as bad if not worse than
what I've seen in tech, finance and elsewhere. According to many insiders I
know in the concrete world, they have the most insane industry parties.
Carpeting is pretty crazy too from what I've seen.

It's not unique to any industry.

~~~
walshemj
Chemical engines have a rep for really hard drinking as do civils I have heard
(at a top 5 consultancy) a discussion of the best computer cleaning fluids to
make hooch with.

~~~
Apocryphon
A lot of professions are associated with drinking, it's not the same as
hedonistic decadence delivered by dumb money

------
throwawayyyyyyo
I’m a Silicon Valley engineer/founder who attends “light” versions of this:
basically mini Burning Man-esque parties among trusted groups of friends,
where “orgiastic” behavior is present, but not expected.

My only point is that not all similar events prominently feature the
male/female power dynamic described in this article.

------
norswap
Slavoj Zizek:

> In racism, the other is not simply an enemy. His figure is also usually
> invested with some specific perverse enjoyment, or maybe he his someone who
> tries to steal our enjoyment from us.

------
nunez
Well given that advertising, marketing and finance companies throw ragers like
this somewhat on the reg, it doesn’t surprise me that folks at the top take it
to 11.

------
ThrowAway3456
are some comments being removed?

------
danso
In American society, aren’t most orgiastic groups also secretive, in general?

------
epx
The HIVE header in article was a perfect predictor of the BS that came next.

------
robofd
One question I have as a recent grad who moved to Silicon Valley to work in
tech is how do I get invited to one of these parties. Setting aside all the
social implications, they sound really fun.

~~~
astura
Be an attractive female with the right connections or be a powerful male with
the right connections.

~~~
Pica_soO
I call this power discrimination. I demand equal treatment of all men by the
oppossum sex.

~~~
dang
If you continue to post unsubstantive comments to HN we will ban you.

------
ThrowAway3456
I like this answer even if i strongly disagree with it. Hopefully we can
engage in a polite discussion where i can contribute the male centric counter-
part of your perspective.

>That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female
'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex
party...)

Yes some men, but those case are very rare and fare in between. I don't have
any better analogy than saying that's like talking about female on male rape
or white people being also subject to police violence when talking about black
life matters.

> to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on
> the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with.

But isn't that true for 99% of the working population ? My salary depend on my
continue cooperation of my company i am working for.

> Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in
> my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives
> me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle
> perks.

Is this true for any jobs ? Or are you describing the reality for you (what i
presume being a conventionally beautiful ,upper middle class American woman)?

Is that true for any man ? or just the one you dated ?

> Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these
> men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when
> debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral
> choice.

Yes, but you are implying that having those choices is not a intrinsic
privilege mostly associated with being a (conventionally beautiful) woman and
that pointing this privilege is something of a simplification. I am born with
a relatively high intelligence. It's also usually comes with high propensity
to anxiety and depression and social awkwardness and as such my intelligence
doesnt by me everything in life, but all in all it's still a nice privilege to
have in 2017. I see female beauty the same.

If had to point an overarching theme on you answer, is that you seems to
compare the "gains" from the sexual options of being a woman with those of
very power man. We can agree on this (although there is something to be said
on comparing a man in his late 35 and the fruit of his labor with the life
style of a 20-something, but that a discussion for another time). I don't
think that's the fair comparison.

What we need to look at : while you were being a "trophy girlfriend" , how did
you life compare to you less desirable friends, and to your male friends
around you? Beauty, like intelligence or any other intrinsic quality is an
asset; It can be used wisely or not, it can be very valuable or not, but it's
still an asset...

> the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not.

Which two choices ?

> On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact
> that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think
> is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do
> and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in
> certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.

I guess i can try to share the male perspective on this. It seems that there
is wide belief that male sexuality is by nature predatory. Might be some truth
to that and the news these days don't really help. But from anecdotal
experience, and for having been to those type of parties. Trying to coerce
women into coming to those type of party is always plan B. Plan A is always to
find open minded women with common interest. And much in the same way that
height and muscular bodies are attractive to certain women, money,weath and
power is attractive to enough women that plan A i usually all one needs...

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't have any better analogy than saying that's like talking about female
> on male rape or white people being also subject to police violence when
> talking about black life matters.

That second analogy isn’t what you probably want; White people are very much
subject to police violence; BLM is about the lack of accountability for (not
just police; the impetus was actually the Trayvon Martin killing, which was
not by police) violence against black people and not about the idea that black
people are uniquely the target of police violence.

~~~
ThrowAway3456
> violence against black people and not about the idea that black people are
> uniquely the target of police violence.

I guess we will have to disagree on this. My perspective is that they are. The
frequency, the magnitude and ubiquity of said violence makes it a distinct
experience than most other racial group.

Another analogy, both I and a poor child in Somalia experience hunger from
time to time, but i think his/her experience is distinctively worst than mine.

------
oblib
To me, the idea that one must participate in this "open" lifestyle to climb
the ladder is bullshit. You either decide to go to the party and jump in the
cuddle puddle, or not.

But, no matter what you "think" you're doing, what you will find there is
drama. Lot's of drama. Try as you might to keep that out, it is impossible to
do that. It's human nature.

The women who attend are every bit as calculating and self absorbed as the men
who pay them to come, so I have no special sympathies for their plights that
ensue from it. And the men are hardly immune themselves. I have no doubt that
some of them have fallen deeply in love with a woman at one of those parties
and spent many long hours crying in bed alone because the woman didn't give a
single shit about them afterwards.

Another thing that's bullshit is that this is a "progressive" lifestyle. It's
a sex obsessed lifestyle. That too is a human nature that some cannot resist,
but again, there's always drama down that path. And some who you'll find there
thrive on that drama and constantly work at creating it and can cause you all
kinds of stress with their bullshit.

So, no, there's nothing "progressive" about it. That stuff is as old as
civilization itself. Calling it "progressive" is putting lipstick on a very
old pig.

And finally, the entire “OH MY GOD, THIS IS SO F---ED UP” approach to paint
this as an exposé is bullshit too. You can find the same thing going on in
Branson, Missouri with plumbers and concrete finishers.

~~~
nvahalik
I kept reading this and saying “when are they going to call this ‘swinging’?”

------
peterwwillis
This article munges swinging, kink, and nuveau-hippie sensuality events into
one big pile and claims that rich techies are "marginalizing" women, because
they can't claim the women are being abused, because they "happen" to be
completely in control of themselves and their choices. This is white-knightism
shrouded in the pseudo-scandal of sex, with a silicon valley cherry on top.

This is a tired old journalistic trope. Take a secretive, not-socially-
acceptable topic, and present it to the world, as if exposing some hidden evil
lurking behind a corner. Sadly, the truth is a lot more boring than most
people will ever realize.

 _" Perhaps this culture is just one of the many offshoots of the sexually
progressive Bay Area"_

This is a tiny example of what is happening all over the world, in addition to
this country. Ignore that the topic's location is the literal epicenter of not
only the sexual revolution, but gay liberation and the effective birthplace of
hetero BDSM. These events happen _everywhere_. You can find them in North
Dakota, in Alaska. This is not in any way new, or weird, or irregular. This is
normal. It's not "socially acceptable", but it is normal.

 _" It’s worth asking, however, if these sexual adventurers are so
progressive, why do these parties seem to lean so heavily toward male-
heterosexual fantasies?"_

Welcome to swinging culture, enjoy your cisheteropatriarchy. Again, nothing to
do with Silicon Valley. The fact that there are men with lots of money
throwing parties has nothing to do with tech. You'll find a different set of
men [and women] throwing parties in DC, New York, LA, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Sao
Paulo, etc.

 _" The party scene is now so pervasive that women entrepreneurs say turning
down invitations relegates them to the uncool-kids’ table."_

Oh no, peer pressure!!! We better make an after-school special for the women
V.C.s. It's not news that wealthy men have been making deals in strip clubs
and private parties for a long time, and breaking those barriers is not easy,
but also not some mysterious invisible barrier. People in power should
obviously not use these one-sided venues for business, but shaming or banning
the events altogether doesn't seem like a healthy answer to this.

 _" The problem is that weekend views of women as sex pawns and founder
hounders can’t help but affect weekday views of women as colleagues,
entrepreneurs, and peers."_

And I agree! But 'orgies' are not what are creating unfair societal
expectations and marginalizing women. The real causes are slew of issues that
start and end in everyday human activity. If you want to help marginalized
women, help them where they are being marginalized every day! Not by shaming a
generic amalgamation of parties that all happen to feature the lowering of
inhibitions in ways that won't get you invited back to the church social.

And by the way, writing an article about a bunch of people who cannot or will
not give their names leaves no room for them to offer a rebuttal. This isn't
journalism, this is an op-ed hit piece.

~~~
tarheeljason
> This is white-knightism shrouded in ...

The author is a woman; not saying you didn't know that, but knights are
traditionally men.

> The real causes are slew of issues that start and end in everyday human
> activity. If you want to help marginalized women, help them where they are
> being marginalized every day!

What sorts of activities, and where? I agree with all the rest of your points
--just probing this one for the sake of completeness.

------
ImSkeptical
This article makes me wonder, what, exactly, is wrong and what is supposed to
be done about this. I get that it seems exploitative and probably does have
consequences for social attitudes at work, but what I don't understand is
what's to be done about this?

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.

~~~
tathougies
The entire article was on how these interactions are facilitated by the
intentional use of illegal, mind-altering drugs.

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.

~~~
ImSkeptical
I think if you consent to go to the sex party, you consent to physical
romantic activity, you consent to taking the drug knowing your context and
what the drug will do, and then you consent to sex throughout the experience,
it's hard to see how it's anything but consensual.

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.

~~~
lhnz
It would be non-consensual if you didn't give affirmative consent.

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.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Rich men vastly outnumbered by 20 something women? The men are finally in
positions of power and the women think that being in the ‘inner circle’ might
open doors for them?

In might be consensual in the sense that everyone said yes, but there’s a
known balance of power. Sounds like coercion and naivety.

~~~
philwelch
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” —Henry Kissinger

How do you know these women don’t genuinely _want_ casual sex with rich,
powerful men?

~~~
myaso
Sure it's technically possible. If you were a woman would you want to have sex
with Henry Kissinger?

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.

------
jenkstom
I think there is a certain amount of denial about male sexuality. It's like
trying to change the fundamental personality traits of a child: it won't work
and will probably result in someone who is antisocial or otherwise crazy.

I don't know why we can't have a discussion about this. Possibly feminism is
caught up in a narrative that is overly female-centric, which isn't really
unexpected (or entirely unreasonable). But just as feminism is reactionary to
abuse by males, there are going to be reactionary elements to the desire of
some feminists to suppress men in general.

If you think that isn't true, do a google images search for "feminist
tshirts", the sixth one is a woman kneeing a man in the testicles. A simple
image search on feminism points out just how much anger there is on all sides
of the argument.

~~~
astura
There's no such thing as "the sixth Google result," everyones Google results
are different depending on your location, language settings, search history,
browsing habits, and probably a million different variables. I just scrolled
through many, many pages of Google image search results both from my phone and
my work computer and didn't come across anything negative, the only thing
cringy I saw was "the future is female." In fact, one of the first 10 results
I got was "pro-women is not anti-men."

The other question is what site did this image come from? Was is some toxic
red pill fringe site that created it for the purpose of "proving" the
"feminists agenda" or an actual mainstream feminist site selling actual real
life tshirts to people who actually identity as feminist for the purpose of
wearing? A single unqualified Google image search results doesn't tell you
anything of any value.

I think you show more about your search history and browsing habits than
anything about the feminist movement or the average person's feelings on the
matter. If you go seeking "them wimen folk are out to get me" crap Google is
going to show you more of it.

~~~
drchap
I did the same search in an incognito window. Woman kneeing a man in the groin
was the fourth result.

Maybe your results show more about your search history and browsing habits
than anything about the feminist movement or the average person's feelings on
the matter.

~~~
moron4hire
Just because you're in an incognito window doesn't mean Google doesn't know
who you are.

"The neatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he wasn't
real."

------
trisimix
Cant wait for the work of silicon valley movie

~~~
trisimix
Wolf _

~~~
meatsock
i am now interested in the movie i thought your uncorrected typo referred to:
The Worf of Wall Street

------
nickthemagicman
“I see a lot of men leading people on, sleeping with a dozen women at the same
time. But if each of the dozen women doesn’t care, is there any crime
committed? You could say it’s disgusting but not illegal—it just perpetuates a
culture that keeps women down.”

How does it keep women down? Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women
have to better their lives, that men don't have.

Otherwise they're just like the rest of us poor schmuck dudes that actually
have to go into work everyday.

I'm so confused about what women expect these days.

~~~
erroneousfunk
"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives,
that men don't have."

This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here.

That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female
'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex
party...) to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they
depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with.

I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire
life revolved around "keeping" this guy. After a while, he broke up with me, I
had to ask my parents for rent money (I had taken a first class trip to Europe
the month before, but what was I going to do, ask him to put the money into my
emergency savings account instead?), my entire life sort of fell apart. I went
to parties with his friends, lived in his apartment, had a credit card on his
account. Making sure he was happy was a job, but the skills weren't entirely
transferable and there was no security. Not a situation I wanted to be in
again, and I didn't.

Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in
my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me
far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks.
Even with alimony and child support in the picture (in which case you need to
"get him" to marry you and/or have children) there is no facet of your life or
lifestyle that is insulated from the whims of a single person. No, you may not
starve after a divorce, but, especially if there's a pre-nup involved, the
"betterment" in your life will always be temporary gain during the length of
the relationship while his will be a permanent one.

Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these
men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when
debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice.
But saying "This is a built-in option for women that men don't have... the
rest of us poor schmuck dudes actually have to go to work everyday" is an
incredible simplification that makes the two choices sound like equivalent
things, when they're absolutely not.

On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact
that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think
_is_ an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do
and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in
certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.

------
narrator
The following seems to be what it's all about:

" Rich men expecting casual sexual access to women is anything but a new
paradigm. But many of the A-listers in Silicon Valley have something unique in
common: a lonely adolescence devoid of contact with the opposite sex. Married
V.C. described his teenage life as years of playing computer games and not
going on a date until he was 20 years old. Now, to his amazement, he finds
himself in a circle of trusted and adventurous tech friends with the money and
resources to explore their every desire. After years of restriction and
longing, he is living a fantasy, and his wife is right there along with him."

If I may humblebrag for a moment, I had a really great sex life in the years
before I got married when I was young and good-looking, so all this kind of
stuff seems like a very risky and mildly pathetic way to create a lot of
trouble in one's personal life. Young nerds, I implore you to have a really
awesome time while you are young and good-looking so you make some great
memories so you won't have to deal with all this regret and pathetic chasing
around after a lost youth that these older guys engage in.

~~~
ryandrake
Your advice is not actionable and kind of boils down to "just be good
looking". If these "young nerds" had the opportunity to make great memories as
awkward teenagers, why wouldn't they?

