Interesting – selling sex exploits you?

A former Fox News employee told New York magazine that ousted chairman Roger Ailes had sexually exploited and “psychologically tortured” her for more than 20 years.

Laurie Luhn, in an extensive interview published Friday afternoon, detailed a coercive relationship that she said began in 1988 and involved Ailes paying her for sexual favors – with cash, mentoring, jobs and promotions.

Luhn signed a $3.15m settlement with Fox News in 2011 that barred her from speaking publicly but told the magazine that she was motivated to speak out by the recent spate of sexual harassment allegations against Ailes.

“He’s a predator,” she said.

No, obviously, you don’t want a boss doing this. However, it’s still interesting, the logi of her statement, isn’t it?

I sold sex to him for 20 years therefore he exploited me.

Watching the money flow we might think it the other way around.

26 comments on “Interesting – selling sex exploits you?

  1. As between the two it was probably a fair trade given how much return custom there was.
    However, I doubt the jobs and promotions were paid for out of his pocket, so there is reason to suspect that the shareholders were bilked.

  2. Amazing how many American women suddenly remember they were sexually harrassed / raped / fed drugged jello pudding 20 or 30 years after the event.

  3. Luhn signed a $3.15m settlement with Fox News in 2011 that barred her from speaking publicly but told the magazine that she was motivated to speak out by the recent spate of sexual harassment allegations against Ailes.

    Doesn’t that mean she’s obliged to give back to Fox their $3.15m?

  4. I never understand this sort of thing.

    Just pay for hookers. They never get older, they’re discrete and they charge by the hour. This guy is a successful businessman. He understands division of labour. He doesn’t have Sarah Palin reporting on the Broncos game, and he doesn’t have John Madden doing swivel-eyed conservative twattery. Both of those people are good at their jobs, though.

  5. It’s only selling if it’s a willing transaction on both sides. I don’t think anyone would consider it less of a rape if the perpetrator dropped a large denomination banknote on her curled-up weeping body afterwards.

  6. Corvus,

    I don’t believe any bloke is so fussy he can’t find a hooker that doesn’t match his physical desires.

    I mean, a wife? Sure. You want to be fussy. She’s going to be mother to your kids. You’re going to have to pick out curtains with her. You’ll have to go on holidays with her and watch TV together.

  7. No Anon. Corvus is right. It’s why I pick out curtains, watch TV & go on holiday with a hooker 😉

  8. Anon,

    Oh I agree, but you’re still thinking with your upper brain. The lower brain meanwhile can’t get past “I want some of that right now”.

  9. To know whether she was exploited, we need to know how much she was paid and whether or not women of similar talents would accept the err, job, for that price or less.

    And as always in this debate,

    Buying sex = exploitation
    Selling drugs = exploitation
    Therefore, buying sex from your drug dealer is morally neutral, or buy drugs and sex from a prostitute, or something.

  10. bloke in spain,

    Kinky. Do you pay extra for that?

    “I want to do what husbands and wives do”
    “That’ll be £100”
    “OK, here’s the money”
    “Can you tell your mother to stop inviting herself over? Oh, and stop leaving socks on the floor. And that guttering needs repairing”.

  11. “Can you tell your mother to stop inviting herself over? Oh, and stop leaving socks on the floor. And that guttering needs repairing”.

    Ha! You forgot: I AM NOT NAGGING YOU!!!

  12. “Kinky. Do you pay extra for that?”
    You wouldn’t believe how much.
    And you’re right. The package includes the nagging. The cooking makes up for it, though.

  13. Amazing how many American women suddenly remember they were sexually harrassed / raped / fed drugged jello pudding 20 or 30 years after the event.

    Jimmy Saville would like a word with you.

  14. Ted – Yah, but that was just 70’s nostalgia gone awry. I blame those “I Love Nineteen Seventy-Whatever” clip shows.

    Claiming to have been molestered by Sir Jimmy is part of the shared national experience, like space hoppers, Raleigh Choppers, and glam rock.

  15. She was a booker for Fox. That being the Grauniad I’m not sure that’s not a typo.

  16. Feminist theory, of course. Nonsense, but nobody challenges it, so on it goes. Like Keynesian theory.

    One suspects that she was miffed when, after 20 years, she found her market value had dropped to a level below that which she found acceptable.

  17. She naturally won’t be expecting Fox to come back for their $£million, hope they do though.

    ‘How do I write women so well? I write a man then take away any logic or responsibility’ Protagonist, As good as it gets.

  18. Pure nonsense. In theory, this is objectionable only in that if she had through her whoring been displacing a honest, male journalist, it would have been bad, but Fox- so no real news or journalists were harmed.

  19. “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”

    is the actual quote. Sorry to be pendantic.

  20. Bang a bird more than once and you’re responsible for her. The cash has nothing to do with it. Otherwise known as “the first hit is free” principle.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.