He was sure he would get fired or something. The following Monday his boss told him he heard that everyone had a great time, gave him a pat on the back and noted "I probabbly should have told you they party pretty hard."
They ended up being acquired before they could get full on wolf on wallstreet going but it was damn near close.
I drank with them but never took it any further. It’s a really unhealthy life both physically and emotionally.
You spend your company's money on private immoral fun of customers, customers spend their company's money on your products/services instead of the otherwise not so different competition. The key part is that nobody actually invests their private money, but the value they get out of it is private. That's why it works and that's why it's usually illegal, and like most illegal things it happens anyway until someone at the top gets really pissed with you/your department/your company specifically.
Is this just having physiological fun together, or having an evidence of illegal conduct for each other, potentially usable as a weapon?
Whatever they did produced results.
Till today, I do not know if that's how it expired. The salesman never admitted to anything. And in all ways he was one the most organized and professional salesman I've ever worked with. And in that vain, I want to believe this is how it also happened.
I did get a lot of nice dinners and bbq lunches. Seriously, every client had a favorite bbq place they had to show off. Weird in retrospect.
I don't have a view on whether this reflects the Swedish law correctly but if it does, I don't believe that changes anything nor that I am incorrect. Unless the other party established explicit, provable consent (he says-she says won't help in court), we are in absence of consent, and therefore rape territory. You can't prove absence of anything.
Heh, you should see company parties in northern Europe.
It's extremely easy to hook up. There's like a mentality that "since you work here" you're already pre-screened :)
Summer parties at the office often devolve into something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIf1fydxrfo
Global gatherings are, indeed, very crazy.
Maybe it's something like this: "If you can't be corrupt anymore, at least you can be sexually corrupt!"
Sure, but in my experience most of those hookups happen normally and after normal adult interactions, and not as the unintended fallout of an out of control party.
Perhaps you're not invited to the good ones...
I'm surprised they didn't just invite you to a place that caters for both.
Do you really believe their wives and girlfriends are princesses who are innocent little delicate snowflakes that need your manly protection? You're getting played my friend with the oldest trick in the book.
There are some viewpoints like which is the best kind of bread that you can leave to personal taste, but if you view something as evil and let others off for it just because they are different then you might as well have no morals
Edit: Also your insinuation that I find cheating bad only because I'm some kind of White Knight is uncalled for. There are certainly Thai women that cheat, but it's not part of their culture to treat it as a standard and necessary part of business. People will make mistakes or just be bad people, but normalising that is not ok
Have a nice day.
Sadly American business culture seems to be also drinking these guanxi- and gravitas-obsessed kool aids, and less disapproving (from what I have seen) than East Asia.
Others who are more connected and experienced would know more than I do.
"Disapproval" in the same way that some groups were for tee-totalling in the US. Some small minority is against the practices, but they are extremely prevalent all across Asia (and China has little to do with it, besides being the new big customer in lots of those cases -- Japanese do the same kind of stuff, Koreans, etc.).
Even in Hong Kong I find you're likely to run into people who say something like: "Mainlanders just want to be successful through making some deals with their friends, we aren't like that."
Isn't Hong Kong known for it's prostitution scene?
I think what those HKese wanted was to distinguish themselves from their more uncultivated mainlanders (like a yankee vs redneck thing, but with being an ex-British Colony thrown in).
Otherwise, HK has long before uniting with China been known as a haven for prostitution, smuggling, drugs, and so on. The archetypical "seedy harbor town". I doubt very much has changed since...
Then there's the westerners there, that could be even worse:
"The first time I walked down the main drag in Wan Chai in Hong Kong, I couldn't believe what I saw; all the mama bars there and prostitutes openly in the street outside trying to get guys to go in. Within the first week I'd already been offered cocaine, though I didn't take it at that stage. When I did, it was easy to get. I know 100 guys between the ages of 20 and 50, and I'd say around 30 of them were regular cocaine users. Not all were working in banking, but most were, of the ones I knew. They were all Westerners."
I've lived in Korea for many years, spent a lot of time in Japan, and do a lot of business in Hong Kong. Prostitution, particularly in room salon settings, is the primary setting for most intra-Asian business. Business drinking volumes are also off the charts, particularly in Korea.
Perhaps I'm naive or not important enough to know about these things. In SEA the prostitution is in your face and even in SG they will stand streetsidr asking you to come in; but in East Asia it must all be behind closed doors I guess because I've just never been privy to that sort of thing.
I'm likely biased in my experiences because I'm not into those types of things personally, would never use a prostitute.
Sorry, but what do you mean with "East Asia"? China is East Asia, and this is very much a thing. So is Korea and Japan.
"Since Japanese law defines prostitution as "intercourse with an unspecified person in exchange for payment," most fūzoku offer only non-coital services, such as conversation, dancing, or bathing, to remain legal. Nevertheless, polls by MiW and the National Women's Education Center of Japan have found that between 20% and 40% of Japanese men have paid for sex."
Kabukicho, an entertainment and red-light district in Shinjuku, Tokyo, measures only 0.34 km2, and has approximately 3,500 sex parlors, strip theaters, peep shows, "soaplands", 'lovers' banks, porno shops, sex telephone clubs, karaoke bars and clubs, etc. (...) It was reported in 2003 that as many as 150,000 non-Japanese women were then involved in prostitution in Japan."
If your stats are true that 20-40% of Japanese men have paid for sex than I am incredibly naive, however I dont believe the stats are that high
When the current generation of social justice from America floods its banks and arrives in Asia there is going to be an ugly reckoning.
I think the idea that many of China’s troubles (corruption / pollution / freedom reductions) are a byproduct of the extreme rapid move from poverty to wealth combined with an equally extreme arrival of wealth inequality is true. You simply can’t hit the gas pedal and accelerate 40 years into the future in one decade without creating the potential for major discontent.
But socially speaking, the era of progressivism America has experienced has not yet leaked out but it will.
American millenials think they are oppressed, they have no idea what the rest of the world finds normal. This article is a great example of how the rest of the world is currently socially caliberated compared to the USA.
The truth is that America is a paradise of social justice.
In many ways, the US is advanced but in many ways it also lags other places, namely in Europe. In other ways it's better. I think if you take an every day liberal or social justice advocate, you'll find that they may be surprised at the level of racism and sexism that pervades other countries, specifically in Asia. But, I don't think you'll find that attitude from activists, academics and others who try to be informed about these things. They know it is the structure of things as they stand and as you said, there is a strong chance that these issues will become important elsewhere as they too find they must deal with the intrinsic contradictions in their society.
I highly doubt that Japan will ever become as "socially aware" as the United States is currently, which is not really that much, if we're being honest. These countries are already very developed and have strong near-monocultures in them, and a pasttime for both Chinese and Japanese people is to make fun of Americans for being "soft" or giving a shit about social justice.
If you adjust your timeline to hundreds of years, maybe. But I really don't think a wave of social justice is likely to happen in those countries at the rate it is happening in the United States.
There is an equal or higher amount of racism in Europe. We may not have as much of the american black type but the cultural and ethnic divide with so many countries as well as the centuries of history has created a very complex situation. Eastern Europe is particularly bad with antisemitism for example. Southern Europe( e.g. Greece) has seen a big rise in fascism( the "hate all outsiders" type). I know immigrants who died in Germany by neo-nazi attacks. The list goes on and on...
* US Americans are generally very sensitive to the issue and try to be PC as much as possible.
* Europeans are rather insensitive to it, which shows in two ways: A lot of people seem to be more color-blind, which IMO is the upside, and a smaller but very visible bunch of people are more openly racist.
* This also applies to public discussions - the skin color of immigrants or inhabitants is rarely mentioned, people and the media rather just differentiate between natives, people with immigration background and immigrants - here in Switzerland maybe with special mentioning of Germans, French and Italians, as those three originating countries tend to be the most prevalent. Thus, it seems much less a race-, than a nationality issue.
* On the topic of numbers, I gotta say I think it depends. Here in Switzerland roughtly 30% of inhabitants don't hold Swiss nationality, tendency rising rather quickly. Of those, roughly half come from neighboring countries (i.e. culturally close), the other half is mostly from Ex-Yugoslavia, Middle East and Northern/Central Africa. Switzerland today seems much more like a melting pot than it was a decade ago, which is something I actually appreciate (I married an Asian immigrant myself and my son has two nationalities, which is actually a majority phenomenon in the whole greater Zurich area now).
> differentiate between natives, people with immigration background and immigrants
Yes, in a racist/othering manner. Sure, in the US you might hear about someone being an immigrant or being born to an immigrant family. But this is almost universally mentioned as a positive reflecting ones Americanness. With illegal immigrants being the only notable exception. In Europe it's often the other way around.
This "it's not about race, it's about nationality/whatever" gambit is exactly how Europeans fool themselves into believing there isn't a problem. It's not about the word, it's about treating people badly for who they are.
Although saying that, I do have a picture on how heavy regulation could work better - have more stuff selected blindly. And I do mean blind - no names, no voices, instead you get assigned a case ID (from government?) and you communicate through secure chat, until an offer is either accepted or rejected from any party. That could at least meet discrimination at the initial selection process - of course you still have adverse networking effects leading to lots of jobs not being offered public anymore and the subsequent workplace discrimination issues - these are harder nuts to crack. But the way e.g. job applications in the US are handled is an incomplete shield, it should be either all-in blind or just open to 'cultural fit' questions from start IMO.
Being PC doesn't mean not being racist. They will keep their thoughts to themselves and will not let you know directly. But behind your back, oh boy...
I hear people talking trash about 'brown' refugees on a daily basis here in Paris. I've probably heard something similar once or twice in my 8 years in the US, mostly coming from mentally unstable people like the ones you see in the streets in San Francisco.
TBH UK is a lot more sensitive than the mainland Europe (there's a lot more immigrants in London too).
Anecdotal, of course, but that has consistently been my impression.
Of course, the U.S. has other issues (an increasingly violent police force as well as income inequality) which makes the effects that stem from racial discrimination worse than they would elsewhere, although that's just my take.
If you're white.
Like, I get that racism specifically is way more prevalent other places. But it's pretty fucking bad in the US, especially for certain ethnicities. Not a "paradise" by any means.
There are some aspects of the social justice advocacy in recent years that may have gone a bit far, but your statement was pretty hyperbolic, and sounds a bit like the proverb where the man without limbs tells the man without legs "you have nothing to complain about! Nothing at all!".
Probably the most meaningful aspect of this article, "But the purpose of these visits isn’t a good time. It’s to cement business and personal ties, binding men together through the power of taboo and mutual self-exposure, or at least the pretense of it. It lets them judge that the others involved in a potential deal are men of the same stripe."
And one paragraph down, " As one saying that went rapidly around the Chinese Internet in 2011 put it, “It’s better to do one bad thing with your boss than a hundred good things for your boss. Over time, this can extend to an actual exchange of what criminologist Diego Gambetta in his pioneering Codes of the Underworld calls “hostage-information,” mutual knowledge of each party’s sins that acts as a powerful guarantee neither will break their agreements."
And, "But vice serves as a kind of screen, weeding out the rare few who might have moral qualms about future dealings. It tells both sides that they’re playing by the same rules."
It's not just vice. There is an aspect of these transgression trust rituals in pretty much every organization I have seen.
What I read in this article is that vice is collateral in a relationship, where if there is no collateral, there is no basis on which to trust someone.
"I told my husband that if he cheats on his wife only after a year, he will cheat us. He said no way, he’s a good guy, we can trust him!” She looked a little smug. “Now this man owes us a lot of money that he won’t pay.”"
It's completely true...if you get the impression that someone has dubious morals, they will just as easily cheat you. I never trust anyone in business who even hints at breaking the law or cheating on anything.
People generally don't cheat their in-groups, and these vice collateral rituals establish in-group status. Showing disrespect to the values of a group is a good indicator your perceived cost of defection is low. Signalling you don't value your collateral is a good way to put off counterparties.
The guy showing up with a mistress showed not that he was necessarily immoral, but rather, that he didn't value the esteem of his clients or vice collateral he had established.
>People generally don't cheat their in-groups
Perhaps "less likely". My own experience is that people who try to bend the rules are less intelligent, and less likely to be successful. This seems to be backed up by research:
Of course, this may not work in China, if things are still the same as described in the article.
It has some intriguing aspects, such as the children of the "first wife" are often seen as more legitimate. Also often the wives tolerate each other. And more in this abstract.
 in most cases it's hetero males, ergo the wives part. I believe one of the (perh former) chiefs of Foxconn [from TW] had several "second wives".
My wife is Cantonese-American. Her fathers brothers, the ones who remained in Hong Kong, each had second wives. The children of the second wives aren't really considered family "publicly." They're never mentioned at family events or reunions, nor ever invited, either. When we visit Hong Kong we always carve time out to see a couple of her cousins from second wives. It was strange to me at first (as so many things are) but I've come to understand that it was very common among the older generations.
I'm not sure what's going on with her male cousins who are in Hong Kong. I've never thought to ask and don't want to pry but I am kind of curious now to know if it's being picked up by younger generations, as well. I guess in my naivety I had unconsciously assumed the practice would die out.
It seems to be sort of expected that once you reach a certain level in your business life, you will get a mistress.
This is so prevalent in the Philippines that the family law concerning whether or not you can use the last name of your father is explicitly spelled out.
I don't think so. They'll not fight the man, because the man is the source of money and social security. But they'll certainly fight each other, including physical battles in the parking lot.
As women get more powerful in society, they'll stand up a bit more for themselves and their gender. I recall reading an article that I can't find about women working in South Korea. It's difficult for them to get promoted to senior positions because they're often not interested in bringing their customers or business partners to strip clubs and the like, as it makes for an uncomfortable work experience. But the same article quotes men who say they're more comfortable working with people with whom they share dark secrets and experiences.
You can totally see that reason not flying over time if women become more powerful, similar to the woman surnamed Li. After some time, Li probably won't only speak up, she'll probably have more influence over decisions too.
Humans are flawed
My point is we have strong evidence people's behavior is effected by society. So in a society with strong gender roles its easier to make assertions about specific genders with less information because of how gender roles operate.
But if it was the wife cheating in public, i'm pretty sure no one would have made a deal with her and her husband would have been warned within the hour. Women are not faultless, but those in power have to hide their faults and vulnerabilities harder than men.
Nor would I want to hang out with colleagues at a strip club if we were not friends outside of work.
I don’t think this is some gender thing. Maybe be men are more likely to be coerced into doing these things. But I think they’re having fun.
To be clear, obviously I don’t mind how and with who people are spending their nights, as long as they are not deceiving someone. It’s a shame that open relationships are not more accepted, but that’s not an excuse because nobody forced a cheating person to take an engagement in the first time.
> I would not trust any person who cheated on their spouse
Doubtful. The man is traditionally expected to have the job and provide for the family, while the woman can take care of the children at home. It's somewhat assumed that the man will spend a lot of time at work.
I would be careful about that, because that group includes the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to feel the same way, and have ended personal relationships when I found out someone had cheated on their spouse, but some of history's greatest figures cheated on their spouse.
People can have a net positive on the world and still regularly backstab acquaintances. See Steve Jobs.
What could trustworthy mean if historical archetypes of honesty and great morality are not considered trustworthy?
What do the two concepts have in common at all?
Trustworthy means he will not screw me over if, say, I were to borrow him money. That simply has nothing to do with "who the person" is but only with "what he is like in his personal relationships". Business relationships are very personal and greatly dependent on one's personality.
In fact, the "greater" the person (in those historical, societal senses of the word) I'd actually be biased to trust them less even without any knowledge of their otherwise untrustiness.
And if we go to an extreme, that you operate solely on your wiring and nothing else... well, you're hardly a modern human at that point.
...one of those abilities that make humans as a species
When did residing in a particular nation-state define such specific moral boundaries? Are you saying if I move to China I can cheat on my spouse because that's how things are done there? It seems you are applying your own morals to 300 million members of a very diverse group of people.
So I'll only make the general claims for Americans.
Judge all you want, but if it ain't illegal don't shove your values down people's throat.
Having multiple relationships, known to all parties is subjectively wrong and we can argue about it as much as we want.
Agreeing to a monogamistic relationship and secretly breaking that agreement, as implied by your use of the word "cheater", is objectively wrong.
If the alternative is to break up a family so the cheater can be 'honest' with him-/herself, is a lie and a happy family worse than a broken family? Stop seeing things black and white.
And I can understand specific contextes, so don't come up with things like "what if the other is handicapped".
But it's ok, you place value in peace of mind, I place value in respect, different points of view, nothing new, no big deal.
- If someone wants to believe the lies, then in order to avoid discovering the truth, they will keep the relationship intentionally superficial.
- If someone doesn't want to believe the lies, they will discover the truth sooner or later and they will just be acting through life.
What defines immorality and how should that condemnation take place?
The reason I said life is complicated is because it is impossible to define immorality for everyone. There is also the issue of the law, what is legal may not be moral. Then they are personal circumstances. Is it immoral for an abused married woman/man to cheat? Everyone will have their own answer based on their beliefs. This is why life is complicated. It isn't as straightforward as media headlines we see.
I suppose at the same time you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
But if I knew someone was cheating. Definitely trusting them much less.
I'm just noting this since I know that I would have had much less of an image of a quote like this in your ocmment without having seen the series.
Except Li is from the same country, so your attempt at writing her story off as a foreigner's biased view doesn't really work.
Probably not gonna happen in China. Just google around to see how #metoo was turned down in mainland at least.
It seems so weird to see people have to do things just to do business deals/sales all over and I'm curious as to even why. What advantage does it hold over normal sales?
Same reason as gangs requiring a new initiate to kill someone. If you have someone expose themselves doing something taboo and you yourself do it too, then a mutual bond is built.
The article says as much.
Surely there are stories about businesses booking saunas for private events with hookers to bribe officials, but in most cases these are urban legends.
Heck no! There was plenty of dealmaking which was "celebrated" afterwards at Houston strip joints up through the 00's.
(EDIT: I had one coworker who had a kind of perverse "nationalistic" Texan pride around the notion of things like "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" and actual whorehouses.)
I see this as one of the effects of European colonialists on East Asia and South East Asian colonies. The practice of colonialist generals/warlords, typically of a naval background of using brothels as a place/culture to bond with other warlords/generals and their local puppets is the predecessor of the current "elite level" business culture observed in these former colonies.
For a more contemporary example, Thailand did not have this sexpot/sex tourist city reputation until after the Vietnam War. It was the exploitation of Thai beach resorts and cities as RnR locations for US soldiers that created the current conditions.
It is unclear which "it's" you are referring to. Group sex dealmaking or using group sex for bonding business partners as per the original article? I don't think that is normal in Thailand or any Asian society for that matter.
As for the history of prostitution in Thailand. That's a well covered subject. You're points are somewhat accurate but OP's point appears to be different than what you are addressing. I thought he/she was implying that the Vietnam war had overarching societal and economic consequences, one of which was the availability of vulnerable exploitable migrant and rural women in Thai cities.
The location of Thailand plays a key role in the success of the sex trafficking industry. It is close to war-torn Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. China and Vietnam are also nearby. Various waterways along with porous borders also facilitate trafficking.
If the point that was being made was that the Vietnam war had huge side effects, including enabling horrific sex trafficking and exploitation, then yes, I would agree.
Sorry, I just meant the sexual service industry in general.
> The location of Thailand plays a key role in the success of the sex trafficking industry. It is close to war-torn Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. China and Vietnam are also nearby. Various waterways along with porous borders also facilitate trafficking.
I know lol, I live here and have travelled to all of those countries dozens of times. Regardless of whatever you have read, 99% of the prostitutes are Thai women and are working by their own choice, at least as much as any bricklayer or garbageman in Ameria has chosen their line of work. Any other nationalities should be a footnote.
I'm sorry but this article is silly.
"Trafficking" and "Slavery" in this case are ideologically-loaded euphemisms. There is the sex industry and there is economic (and often illegal) migration. There isn't really a super unique and exploitative sex trafficking industry.
I have never seen a large movement by the Thai middle class to fight "sex trafficking." That's not because Thai people are evil or ignorant, it's just because it's not a big problem that really exists. No one is going to risk enslaving women for sex work when (a) there is a surplus of women perfectly willing to do the job without being enslaved and (b) normal men don't get off on the thought of having sex with slaves.
There is no sex slavery epidemic in Thailand.
No. There were brothels somewhere in Asia, basically forever. Rough men have made deals in and around them, basically forever.
I believe you're intentionally misconstruing my argument. It would be ridiculous to claim that Europeans invented brothels in Asia. What I am pointing out, which is well supported by historical evidence, is that European colonialism, resource extraction culture, such as the encomienda system in the Americas created the political and socio-economic structures that are the dominant structures behind the sex trafficking and "sexual activity based dealmaking" that is discussed in the article.
For example, impoverished indigenous Americans like the Mayas/mestizo are used as sex exploits/rites of passage/sex maids by the modern teenage descendants of Spanish conquistadors who treat it as a bonding experience. Much like how frats have group sex acts with women from impoverished backgrounds (or minorities) as part of their hazing/bonding rituals.
I speculate that sex as social norming behavior is something many in the west are far-removed from. The heavy drinking is still present -- alcohol seems to lubricate anything -- but the pressure for sexual activities isn't anywhere near as strong here as it is in other places.
We commonly think of sex as romantic, even a quick fun-filled romp. We don't think of it very often as being a group social sorting event. Fascinating. Thanks for the link!
some people do business differently, get over it. Not everyone agrees with the western "politically correct" approach to life, and that's ok.
"“The more guys, the less safe the girl is. When there are other men in the room [for sex], it’s like the men are competing with each other, and they get rougher, so the girls can get really hurt.“"
Not much need for bigotry to see that if people get "really hurt" in an inter-company bonding event, something must be wrong.
I disagree. IMO consensual sex is fine (however BDSM it is), non-consensual sex is bad. Arguing the degree of badness, while sometimes useful, is (1) not relevant to the above discussion, and (2) a second-order effect, so vastly less important anyways.
But when it isn't consensual, the harm done makes the situation that much worse.
What about the ones who were forced into it?
I guess it would be better for everyone if the interviewee is asked "You might have to participate in, err, hard parties. Would you be okay with it?"
The other thing you have to consider is these can be much worse for women and minorities than straight men.
If you did business in Asia, you would quickly realize this attitude is ridiculous for any number of reasons, not the least being strip club visits.
Asian business is all about maintaining and saving face. When in China once, our factory rep offered to us let pick where to go get food. We chose four places and got "hmm, no, don't think that would work well for you" until we chose a place and they agreed. When we got there, our names were placed and the restaurant was clearly waiting for our group.
The entire thing was a sham and set up from the beginning to force us into a choice. But they wanted us to have the feeling of control, even if we immediately knew it was bullshit. They're not stupid.
Directness like you talk about is simply not acceptable when it comes to any number of negotiating tactics. This is something you learn very quickly if you do logistics or sales in China, or you simply just don't get any work.
>> The other thing you have to consider is these can be much worse for women and minorities than straight men.
Chinese businessmen don't care about this. Just because Americans do, or it's the right thing to do, doesn't make it something that's going to happen.
It is not so much that it is politically incorrect, it is more that you can't simultaneously claim that this is how it is and is ok while also claim that everything is totally fair and demographic composition is not influenced by any of this.
Not just gender, also religious as it selects people with certain values - good traditional Christian boy saving himself for marriage is f-cked too.
We should certainly work towards improving ourselves but I dont think we can grow unless we learn to respect each other's differences, even when we dont like them.
Certainly nobody is coercing anyone into going to strip clubs to close business deals and you can always walk away. Of course you will be walking away from a business opportunity but life is full of hard choices. We don't get to change the rules of the game just because we don't like the outcome.
I used to believe that people dont have right to try to change rules of the game, but not anymore. Rules are tilted towards those who are willing to change them and this ideology equals ideology of passivity and submission.
Certainly, people are entitled to try to change rules, because current rules are result of human activity - someone else setting rules in his favor in the past.
Again, you make your own choices. If it is more important what people 'claim' about you, instead of how you feel about urself then it seems to me like somebody needs to readjust his moral compass and drop the 'what they are doing is not fair and just'. The hard truth is that people are not really complaining about the morality of the game, but about the fact that they don't get to play it because they have to keep their politically correct appearances.
> I used to believe that people dont have right to try to change rules of the game, but not anymore. Rules are tilted towards those who are willing to change them and this ideology equals ideology of passivity and submission.
You are absolutely right, I expressed myself poorly. What I meant is that that's the game they are playing. You are welcome to try and change it, but don't go crying (and claiming the moral high ground) when you are kicked out and defeated anyway.
In effect, it is a way how the system based on strip clubs defends itself from being exchanged for one that depends more on skills, abilities and work.
And absolutely, one reason people who can't get in due to own values (you will be shock to hear it exists) or social pressure from church is that they don't get to get business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that motivation. That is how the world works, people tend to be interested in issues that affect them.
The idea that you have to be totally selfles in all motivations and circumstances to have right to have and push for values you consider important is wrong. Caring about social status or money does not make you hypocritical nor oblige you to be silent on what you disagree with. Most humans care about something like that to at least some extend. That is just another idea designed to silence opposition.
I also think it is ok to claim high moral ground when you lost, assuming you had high moral ground. It is totaly fine and even freespeech right to talk about experience, complain and generally not give up.
I'm not surprised that Westerners fail to perceive the essence of the it — this is an act of collective humiliation of junior employees who are made passive spectators of those disgusting orgies. It is a sublime message to his underlings — be my loyal shoeshiner, and maybe one day I will elevate you to a position where you can do this too.
Those middle age nobodies rarely if ever attend brothels just by themselves, the whole point for them doing so is to drag their subordinates into it, making them a part of the "humiliation pyramid." There is no "oiling of the deal" element here.
In the west we negotiate a deal, maybe voices get raised a bit, people argue, we do a deal, people go away a bit pissed ...
In China all that arguing still happens but after we go out and socialise, we drink and eat together, and we become friends so we can work together on this thing we've agreed to do together
As I said I think the Chinese way, at least the way I've experienced, is more healthy
probably because the other person knew/sensed that you are not interested?
Or in another case, when I do business there on my own because my excellent usual Chinese buyer/facilitator is also not a guy
But also I suspect that while that sort of may be common it's not universal
Alcohol, strippers come prostitutes, and other such fun do a good job of removing the social inhibitions in people. It's not about some sort of secret mutual blackmail or whatever (which is also not to say that does not happen) - it's just tearing down the social barriers that people put up. And this most certainly is in no way whatsoever unique to China.
Most people you meet you think you know, you will never really know. A bit of vice changes this for reasons that I do not think can be so easily explained as the article attempts to do. The point is that it does.
It seems that while no less false, Asia is much safer place.
Same reason the news doesn't do stories about "Husband and Wife went to work, picked up kid from daycare. Situation Normal".
I'm really glad alcohol isn't an requirement anymore.
I too am glad alcohol isn't a requirement anymore, though I still get weird looks.
The truth is most likely that that boring company has always been a boring company, with not much happening. Still, sometimes, people fuck at work, drink a little too much at parties, and drugs exist. These things happen occasionally and sometimes, these events surface, get mixed up, amplified, and you get stories of orgies.
I also believe it's actually a part of their cultural inclusivity. It's a very stressful pressure if you're expected to go to a strip club with your colleagues after work if you're female, gay or in a relationship where such behavior would be sanctioned by the other party.
Americans and Asians apparently expect others to "fall in line" in all corporate policy matters, including this one. So as a result of globalization the corporate policy matters that one is expected to "fall in line" to have slowly become the least common denominator of all this cultures and that's the type of business chastity that is normal in today's HR rule books and everything outside is hastily sanctioned.
Well, the first thing I can tell you about us Americans is we make up a lot of stuff to impress people. Look at our president and his tweet about being a best selling author. Happy Fourth!
Is this for real ? WTF
I can't believe you're all going to sit here and complain about fucking booze and sex while at the same time, by doing business there at all, you're supporting a tyrannical fucking monster of a government!
The idea that Americans are going to bring up the cultureless sexist/racist/whatever Asians is indeed made fun of regularly. Well-meaning Americans have decent intentions but are also pretty culturally tone deaf on Asian societies; before we seek to export social justice, we should probably figure out how and why their societies are structured the way they are and understand the timeline you're looking at.
That. And because the country was founded by religious zealots, it still has a Christ complex to this day, regardless of if it involves a Bible Belter or a West Coast atheist. That and superiority ("manifest destiny", "leaders of the free world", "land of the free" and so on), it's just part of its cultural status quo.
The corporate policies I've had to read (without much interest as it's not relevant to my work) do not allow hospitality and entertainment for public officials unless it has been specially authorised by a senior lawyer, which suggests it's not clearly illegal in itself, though of course any attempt to "improperly influence" the official would be illegal.
Obviously it would be bad PR to be involved with the sordid stuff in the article but I'm curious about the legal aspect.
People who complain about "bro culture" won't be happy until everybody (and I mean everybody) is exactly like them...bland.