Abercrombie & Fitch Male sex allegations

[KYTOP]

First let me say no one should be forced to have sex if they don't want to and drugging someone to sexually take advantage of them is beyond deplorable.

With that said this BBC A&F expose leaves me with mixed thoughts.  Rich and famous guys pay to have sex with sexy young frat boy type males and years later the Frat boys are just now trying to raise a stink.  Even they are not sure they were drugged but still make a claim to such. They were told sex would be involved yet still went on their own accord and accepted the money. Some guys interviewed by the BBC admitted to past "commercial Sex". That would be defined as a male escort I believe. US Government may investigate as "sex trafficking" because they were paid to cross state or country boundaries for sex. As we know, lots of rich and non rich people pay both Female and Male for sex. 

So sleaze ball or just a guy with the means to have sex with sexy men that he would otherwise never have the chance with them.

Well sex always sells and every gay guy and straight girl went crazy over the A&F models. So the BBC may as well try to cash in on it too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66889779

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66957726

 

[unicorn]

These stories always make me want to roll my eyes. 🙄 Do we have a bunch of men who want money to just fall on them because they're good-looking? This comes straight out of the article:

"Barrett Pall, a former model turned life coach and activist, said he felt pressured into attending an event in the Hamptons in 2011. Then 22, he said he was recruited by an older model, who received a referral fee, to be his "replacement" for "some sort of sexual experience" with the couple. He said he felt obliged to comply as the older man had been supporting him financially and he felt indebted. Like the other men, he said initially he attended a "test run" with Mr Jacobson. Mr Pall said the older model told him that "you don't have to do anything you don't want to do" but suggested that "the further you go, the better", and alluded to career opportunities. When he arrived at the event, he said he felt under pressure to "perform". "How was I going to leave? I didn't have a car," he said. "I had a chaperone sitting and watching me."...". 

Well, sir, you were a grown man who knew exactly what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. If you consented, you may have done so financial reasons, but you were a consenting adult nonetheless. New flash: a lot of people wouldn't go to work if they weren't being paid either. You were not a child. You were not drugged. This was a Saturday afternoon, apparently. You didn't have a car? Poor baby. Maybe you could do what the vast majority of New Yorkers/Long Island residents do: take the Long Island Railroad if you were late in understanding what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. And he makes his living being a life coach now? Please. 

 

[omega]

I think the problematic issue is the offer of "opportunities".

Whether that offer got realised for most of the models or not, it's pretty shitty way to get someone do something they wouldn't normally want to do. It's the difference between performing sex acts to get a job and performing sex acts as your job. In my mind one is manipulative and shady, and the other is perfectly fine way to make money.

 

 

 

[fedssocr]

isn't this a story as old as the modeling industry?

[caeron]

 

Like Omega, I wonder if the young men were led on about what they might get modeling career-wise if they consented. Even so, this feels a bit like an attempt to extract further money from the guys who apparently gave them "envelopes with thousands of dollars of cash". That's a pretty generous payscale in the world of sex work for attending a sex party.

[Mavica]

The young, handsome and virile men (not boys) willingly participated for personal gain and some now have buyers remorse.  This reminds me, in some ways, of teenage altar boys who, for a period of years, returned time after time after time to let Priests give them blow jobs ... and did so for gifts ... only to at a later date claim abuse.  There comes a point when acquiescence replaces seeming coercion. $$$.  Modeling and acting casting couches for young men and women are legendary in those industries.  Greed (financial or promises of career gain) can and oftentimes does eventually backfire.  Earlier in life when I was more physically attractive 😁 I'd visit NYC and spent a lot of time at Rounds, during which times I was frequently invited to private (and declined invitations to) parties out on the Island.  None though, to my knowledge, with AF models in attendance.  😒 I didn't accept the offers (in the era of HIV/AIDS), and one of these AF parties eluded me (damn!) (not that I was intriguing enough to be invited!).

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, omega said:

...it's pretty shitty way to get someone do something they wouldn't normally want to do... one is manipulative and shady...

Men (and sometimes women) have probably always used "manipulative" ways to get others to have sex with them. I'm sure my gardener has better things to do than take care of my garden. Am I "manipulative and shady" in paying him to do so? Wealthy (and less fortunate) men have been enticing women (and men) for years to get them to agree to intimacy. I found out several years ago that my biological father wasn't my legal father. My biological father, according to DNA records, enticed lots of women (we half-sibs had a large meeting at one point, without, of course, informing the children of his wife). I have but little doubt he probably fed his women some BS lines, but they were free to say no, and consented nonetheless. I was reading in Wikipedia about the formerly billionaire cryptoexchange dude Sam Bankman-Fried. Apparently: "According to former employees of FTX and Alameda, Bankman-Fried was romantically involved with co-worker and Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, until their split around the time of the 2022 crypto crash when Caroline reportedly stopped talking to him...". 

People consent to sex all of the time based on hopes of love and/or riches, not all of which become fulfilled. The dictum of caveat emptor seems to apply. Obviously, it's not OK to threaten or drug someone into consenting, nor can someone consider a consent valid if the person has diminished capacity, such as a child or an intellectually impaired adult. However, I don't see any evidence that these models were threatened, drugged, or unduly coerced (it's ridiculously loose to say the promise of money is a coercion--we all agree to do things we wouldn't otherwise do for financial reasons). The model I quoted knew full well why he was invited to the Hamptons. Even if it were true that he was told he'd be thrown out the door if he didn't have sex with the owner (and I doubt it was), he certainly had a way to get back without a car. His ridiculous "but I didn't have a car" protestation to me just accentuates the silliness of his allegations. 

So, he regrets his decision to consent after the fact. So might my mother, had she known of her Don Juan's philandering. If we were to arrest everyone who "manipulated" another to consent to sex, probably half of the world would be in jail, and, well, we could solve the world overpopulation problem. 

[caeron]

 

There are many shitty things to do that aren't illegal. That doesn't make them not shitty. I hate the argument legality=acceptability.

[omega]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

Men (and sometimes women) have probably always used "manipulative" ways to get others to have sex with them. I'm sure my gardener has better things to do than take care of my garden. Am I "manipulative and shady" in paying him to do so? Wealthy (and less fortunate) men have been enticing women (and men) for years to get them to agree to intimacy. I found out several years ago that my biological father wasn't my legal father. My biological father, according to DNA records, enticed lots of women (we half-sibs had a large meeting at one point, without, of course, informing the children of his wife). I have but little doubt he probably fed his women some BS lines, but they were free to say no, and consented nonetheless. I was reading in Wikipedia about the formerly billionaire cryptoexchange dude Sam Bankman-Fried. Apparently: "According to former employees of FTX and Alameda, Bankman-Fried was romantically involved with co-worker and Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, until their split around the time of the 2022 crypto crash when Caroline reportedly stopped talking to him...". 

People consent to sex all of the time based on hopes of love and/or riches, not all of which become fulfilled. The dictum of caveat emptor seems to apply. Obviously, it's not OK to threaten or drug someone into consenting, nor can someone consider a consent valid if the person has diminished capacity, such as a child or an intellectually impaired adult. However, I don't see any evidence that these models were threatened, drugged, or unduly coerced (it's ridiculously loose to say the promise of money is a coercion--we all agree to do things we wouldn't otherwise do for financial reasons). The model I quoted knew full well why he was invited to the Hamptons. Even if it were true that he was told he'd be thrown out the door if he didn't have sex with the owner (and I doubt it was), he certainly had a way to get back without a car. His ridiculous "but I didn't have a car" protestation to me just accentuates the silliness of his allegations. 

So, he regrets his decision to consent after the fact. So might my mother, had she known of her Don Juan's philandering. If we were to arrest everyone who "manipulated" another to consent to sex, probably half of the world would be in jail, and, well, we could solve the world overpopulation problem. 

If I may, I'll clarify using your own example, even if it would be a little to absurd to actually happen in real life:

Your gardner is paid for a specific service - Gardening. Presumbly, he advertised that service, and you engaged him for that service. No that's not "manipulative and shady", and if you read my post carefully, I never said it was. What would have been "manipulative and shady" is if you'd demanded your gardner give you a blow job in order for you to engage his services as a gardener. It would have been even more shady, if after getting the blow job, you subsequently did not engage their services. Even more manipulative and shady, would have been if you had threatened to ensure that they would never find work as a gardener if they didn't accede to your demand.

There is of course, a huge amount of grey area when it comes to human relationships. Sex work itself is frought with grey area. But on analysis of situations we can determine how deep into the dark a given situation is. This A&F situation seems pretty dark. The allegations suggest a deliberate abuse of power.

Your promiscuous and fecund father perhaps promised love and marriage to his paramours. Or perhaps he just had that way with words that got his ladies into bed without actually promising them anything. On the face of the stated facts, I'd suggest that his actions are more towards the lighter end of the greyscale.

[fedssocr]

It's difficult to know just how "dark" this was. I'm sure the BBC isn't above some sensationalism to get eyeballs on their product. Certainly if anyone was drugged that is a crime. Given how long ago this allegedly occurred it's unlikely anyone would be able to prove anything now. I also think that desperate people end up in situations that others would likely not find themselves in. But the fact that they apparently received envelopes full of thousands of dollars makes it much more difficult to see them as victims.

I'd also guess that 99% of the people on this website who are paying for affection and physical interaction with attractive young men (including me) will have a different point of view on this subject than many other people will.

[caeron]

I agree fedssocr. I could almost hear the breathless titillation in the article. It made me roll my eyes. 

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, omega said:

....Your promiscuous and fecund father perhaps promised love and marriage to his paramours. Or perhaps he just had that way with words that got his ladies into bed without actually promising them anything. On the face of the stated facts, I'd suggest that his actions are more towards the lighter end of the greyscale.

First of all, I don't consider my biological father my "father," and I doubt most people in my position would. My father was the person who brought me up and had legal custody. At first I though you were slighting my father. My purpose at bringing him (the bio dad) up was to use an example of how men pull off BS all of the time in order to get their sexual partners to say yes. I'd at least like to think that had my mother known the truth about him she wouldn't have consented. Were they alive, would she be in a position to say she was unduly coerced? I don't think so. 

You missed the point on the gardener example as well. My point there was that just because one pays someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do doesn't equate with unethical coercion. By his own admission, the model BP above received ample financial compensation for what he was told would be a "sexual experience." Even after he'd received the money, if the experience went beyond what he was willing, he could have easily left and taken the LIRR (with that amount of money, he could even have hired a taxi for the whole trip if he felt the LIRR was below his dignity--but I just took the LIRR 3 months ago to Sayville/Fire Island, and I consider myself financially secure). Now that he's apparently financially secure himself, to express regret about this years later comes off as very phony. Do you truly believe his statement that he had to consent to additional sexual acts just because he didn't have a car???

[omega]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

You missed the point on the gardener example as well. My point there was that just because one pays someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do doesn't equate with unethical coercion. By his own admission, the model BP above received ample financial compensation for what he was told would be a "sexual experience." Even after he'd received the money, if the experience went beyond what he was willing, he could have easily left and taken the LIRR (with that amount of money, he could even have hired a taxi for the whole trip if he felt the LIRR was below his dignity--but I just took the LIRR 3 months ago to Sayville/Fire Island, and I consider myself financially secure). Now that he's apparently financially secure himself, to express regret about this years later comes off as very phony. Do you truly believe his statement that he had to consent to additional sexual acts just because he didn't have a car???

You say that I missed your point on the gardener, I did not. You didn't quote my response, so let me put it again:

"Your gardner is paid for a specific service - Gardening. Presumbly, he advertised that service, and you engaged him for that service. No that's not "manipulative and shady", and if you read my post carefully, I never said it was. What would have been "manipulative and shady" is if you'd demanded your gardner give you a blow job in order for you to engage his services as a gardener. It would have been even more shady, if after getting the blow job, you subsequently did not engage their services. Even more manipulative and shady, would have been if you had threatened to ensure that they would never find work as a gardener if they didn't accede to your demand."

Putting this into the context of A&F story.

The men were models.

They were seeking work as models.

In seeking work with A+F, they encountered a middle-man, a "gatekeeper" of acccess to A+F CEO who demanded sex for that access, and who would then pay the models "for their time" after they gave him the sex.

This then set the models up for a similar situation when they were invited to the A+F CEO's parties. Sex in exchange for access, with money paid after to turn it into a sex for money transaction.

The shady parts here is that the alleged "gatekeeper" did exactly that. Models who refused his demands for sex were not invited to these parties, clearly because they would refuse sex for "opportunities". The subsequent payments after that effectively turned the men from models to sex workers, changing the terms of engagement from "I'll give you modelling work for sex" to "here's some cash for that sex".

This is all substantially different from engaging a gardener or a sex worker who is clear and consenting about what they are, what they're offering, and negotiates their fee in advance.

[caeron]

"The men were models.

They were seeking work as models."

Maybe. They were paid for sex work. How much they may have been mislead or not is an unanswered question, and I suspect given the time that has past cannot be answered.

_IF_ they were misled, that is a shitty thing to do. If they now regret doing it, or just want more money for having done it and want to extort the one who hired them, that is also a shitty thing to do.

I don't think any of us can know which of these two it was. Their lawyer is certainly pushing the former to achieve the latter. 

It isn't hard for me to believe that no promises were made. It is hard for me to believe future benefits might result wasn't implied. Then again, maybe some of these party attendees did end up getting such rewards, just not these particular ones...

But, to Omega's point, I recall a conversation in this forum some years ago when I commented very positively about a siamroads.com guide I had in Myanmar. Someone suggested I should have tried to bed him (he was both charming and handsome).  I had hired him as a guide without any such agreement.  I considered that suggestion highly unethical because as the employer who had contracted for non-sexual services to attempt to now use that position of power to negotiate a "new arrangement" including sex would be an abuse of power to me.

I think it can be very easy for some in power to forget that the position of power they hold limits their counter-party's freedom to choose. Saying no may carry implied consequences that those not in the position of power fear enough to make them do things they would never agree to if they were in a position of equal power.

When I contract for sexual services, I am very clear about what I am asking for and offering in exchange, as I suspect most all of us here are. 

(as an aside, I've enjoyed all the siamroads.com guides I've hired for local guide services.)

 

[unicorn]

5 hours ago, omega said:

You say that I missed your point on the gardener, I did not. You didn't quote my response, so let me put it again:

"Your gardner is paid for a specific service - Gardening. Presumbly, he advertised that service, and you engaged him for that service...

Dude, the model was told he was being hired for a "sexual experience," to use his own words. Nothing ambiguous about that. Had my gardener told me "I'm really hard up for cash this month," while he was at my place, while taking his shirt off, and I countered with "I can spot you for another $250 if you're willing to give me a sexual experience," that would not be shady either. If I added "And I've been thinking of having that tree in my back yard taken down," that wouldn't have made it even more shady. 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, caeron said:

"The men were models.

They were seeking work as models."

Maybe. They were paid for sex work. How much they may have been mislead or not is an unanswered question, and I suspect given the time that has past cannot be answered.

_IF_ they were misled, that is a shitty thing to do. If they now regret doing it, or just want more money for having done it and want to extort the one who hired them, that is also a shitty thing to do.

I don't think any of us can know which of these two it was. Their lawyer is certainly pushing the former to achieve the latter. 

It isn't hard for me to believe that no promises were made. It is hard for me to believe future benefits might result wasn't implied. Then again, maybe some of these party attendees did end up getting such rewards, just not these particular ones...

But, to Omega's point, I recall a conversation in this forum some years ago when I commented very positively about a siamroads.com guide I had in Myanmar. Someone suggested I should have tried to bed him (he was both charming and handsome).  I had hired him as a guide without any such agreement.  I considered that suggestion highly unethical because as the employer who had contracted for non-sexual services to attempt to now use that position of power to negotiate a "new arrangement" including sex would be an abuse of power to me.

I think it can be very easy for some in power to forget that the position of power they hold limits their counter-party's freedom to choose. Saying no may carry implied consequences that those not in the position of power fear enough to make them do things they would never agree to if they were in a position of equal power.

When I contract for sexual services, I am very clear about what I am asking for and offering in exchange, as I suspect most all of us here are. 

(as an aside, I've enjoyed all the siamroads.com guides I've hired for local guide services.)

 

'enjoyed all the siamroads.com guides'. Enjoyed in what sense?

[omega]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

Dude, the model was told he was being hired for a "sexual experience," to use his own words. Nothing ambiguous about that. Had my gardener told me "I'm really hard up for cash this month," while he was at my place, while taking his shirt off, and I countered with "I can spot you for another $250 if you're willing to give me a sexual experience," that would not be shady either. If I added "And I've been thinking of having that tree in my back yard taken down," that wouldn't have made it even more shady. 

 

Which model? There are many that have come forward and given their stories to the BBC.

One of the men said did indeed say that, and said it about the party after he was recruited by another man who had been supporting him financially.

Others reportedly did not know that sex was the purpose of the party.

And you're ignoring the entirely the account of Mr Bradbury who alleges that the middleman demand sex for the contact with A&F.

Many of the men said that they attended more than one party becuase they were still under the impression that it would further their modelling career. The article isn't clear on whether they were given modelling work with A&F after. 

[Mavica]

Photographer Bruce Weber was / has been accused of (and settled regarding) hitting on, fondling and probably sucking off some of the AF and other hot, young male models such as ones for Calvin Klein (who probably sucked them off, first).  Some of Weber's advances were not consensual ... others probably resulted in the model consenting / not objecting and then obtaining lucrative modeling contracts because of the excellent photos Weber took.

[PeterRS]

I cannot say I have been in a similar situation, but I have found myself in one which was difficult and somewhat the same. At the age of 25 I switched jobs and moved to a different city. I loved the new job. It was very different from the one I had left and I had to learn very fast. For a month we had a visiting professional who was almost at the pinnacle of the profession. I knew he was gay and also that he had a long-time partner who was not with him on that visit. He had been accommodated in a serviced apartment rather than a hotel. One day he invited me to join him for dinner. I was gay but not 'out' at the time and so I doubt if he knew I was gay although his gaydar may have been working!

He had cooked a very good dinner and we consumed a nice bottle of wine. For me, it was fascinating to learn more about the business from him. I was happy I had gone. After we had tidied the table and placed the dishes in the kitchen, I was surprised and somewhat shocked when he came up to me and put his arms around me. It was obvious what he wanted, but I had zero feelings for him and no intention of having sex with a man twice my age. Fortunately he was not the predator type and on my basically saying "please, no" and "I really have to get home", he got the message and we parted amicably. For the rest of his visit we both acted as though nothing had happened.

The difference, I suppose, is that had I slept with the guy I would have gained no immediate advantage in my career. Not that that had entered my mind. I went to learn. Perhaps I was naive and on a different occasion with a more determined man I would have had difficulty getting out of the situation. 

But this thread has reminded me of a very short relationship I had with a 23 year old Thai around 20 years ago. He was exceedingly intelligent having degrees from 2 UK universities including Oxford. He had applied for a post with a United Nations Agency. I went with him to the interview and just waited in a nearby coffee shop . When he returned, he had a rather amused look on his face. There had been three on the interview panel chaired by a 50-ish westerner. After the interview had gone extremely well, the Chairman asked if they could have a private word outside. Bascially he told my friend that he would almost certainly be offered the job. "And by the way," he added. "I'm top! What are you?" My friend was utterly shocked that an interview Chairman would be so brazen with an interviewee. He did not take the job and instead went to Germany for a post graduate degree in European Union law! 

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, omega said:

 

Which model? There are many that have come forward and given their stories to the BBC...

Well, especially Barrett Pall, who has always been a loud complainer. It's one thing to say "You have a modeling contract for Balenciaga. Go to the photographer's office at 1752 Madison Avenue." Under such circumstances (and with Bruce Weber fondling his men during photoshoots), any sexual activity would be harassment. But someone given $2000 cash to go to a private house while being told this is for a "sexual experience" certainly should know what's going on, and what the money's for. That being said, it should obviously be clear what the intent is if someone is being given cash and a plane ticket to go to a private party in Marrakesh as well. This is obviously not a photoshoot for GQ magazine.

Those models who go along with this know damned well that these are not legitimate modeling gigs. I find it unsavory for them to take the money then complain about it years later. No means no, and yes means yes. Once the erotic activity ends, one stops having the ability to withdraw consent. Regrets any time later do not negate consent given at the time of the activity. I remember reading an autobiography by former model John Barrowman. In it, he recalls a story in which Valentino invited him onto his private yacht to discuss "employment opportunities." Early in the voyage, after having given him expensive gifts such as a Rolex watch, Valentino put his hand on Barrowman's shoulder. Barrowman flicked it off, and was let off at the next port. I'm sure JB had a good laugh, as I'm sure he understood why he was being invited on the yacht in the first place.

[Mavica]

Quote

Early in the voyage, after having given him expensive gifts such as a Rolex watch, Valentino put his hand on Barrowman's shoulder. Barrowman flicked it off, and was let off at the next port. I'm sure JB had a good laugh, as I'm sure he understood why he was being invited on the yacht in the first place.

Barrowman, who was/is gay, was playing the role of a prick tease.  In his own way, a hustler.