[I’m on the road, and have a commentary on last night’s debate to file, but it’s hard doing it right in cabs and airports. This stupid tale, however, doesn’t take as much thought.]
Like the last post, this one begins in Minnesota. Something strange is going on up there. I didn’t write about this lawsuit a year or so ago when it first came to my attention, but it is apparently still live. It is unbelievable, but also true.
PRIDE Institute Inc. of Eden Prairie is a non-profit agency that works with lesbian, gay and transgender clients, helping them deal with “mental health, substance abuse and sexual health” issues. As a special treat for its staff, the HR department hired a hypnotist as entertainment at a staff holiday party. The hypnotist, Freddie Justice, started his act by telling the employees that he recognized it was a work event and that they didn’t have to worry about, for example, being hypnotized to “cluck like a chicken.” His audience put at ease, Freddie entertained the group for nearly an hour and a half, hypnotizing volunteers and persuading them to do various silly things for the amusement of their colleagues.
Then the hypnotist asked the agency’s director of human resourcesor permission to conduct a final special demonstration.. With her permission, Justice selected three female volunteers, hypnotized them and told them they were going to experience an intense orgasm, like Meg Ryan’s fake version in “When Harry Met Sally.” All three did, spectacularly so, in front of their co-workers and the CEO of the agency.
The trio later filed lawsuits claiming they were traumatized by the embarrassment. One has settled with PRIDE, but the others are going to trial, alleging invasion of privacy, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I have never understood why anyone would allow themselves to be hypnotized for entertainment, but consent doesn’t relieve the company of its accountability here. The CEO and the HR director watched a contractor humiliate employees in a sexual manner under the company’s control and auspices, and did nothing. Once again, this is dead ethics alarms at work. Has anyone heard of the Golden Rule? Would you let your daughter, sister or mother be subjected to this?
PRIDE’s lawyer argued that “allegations pertaining to this single incident of playacting during the hypnotist’s performance in which [they] volunteered to participate, while perhaps personally embarrassing, are not legally actionable.”
This is lame, and borderline dishonest. Hypnosis subjects are not “playacting.” He also argued that there was no pattern of harassment. I think he needs to bone up on harassment law. No pattern is necessary to prove harassment if a single incident is sufficiently severe. Making female employees have orgasms in public? I’d call that severe.
PRIDE’s motion to dismiss evokes “19A The Insidious Confession, or “It wasn’t the best choice,” acknowledging that the judgment of the hypnotist and the HR director “certainly could have been better.” Gee, ya think? How about the choices of the CEO and the entire staff that sat and laughed rather than stopping this fiasco?
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, who has the inspiring name of Marshall, says recordings show that the hypnotist repeatedly assured the audience that they were “safe, secure,” so they would not hesitate to participate. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to argue that the women consented to what happened to them.
It gets worse. When one of the victims quit, PRIDE denied her unemployment benefits. A disgusted employment law judge said that “the human resource director’s consent to the orgasm event; the chief officer’s intentional failure to prevent the actions or conduct of a sexual nature and the hypnotist’s directed humiliation of [the plaintiff] in front of subordinates, co-workers and other management and his failure to provide a reasonable good faith response” gave the woman good reason to quit.
File this one under unethical hypnotist, HR staff, CEO, and organizational culture.
But at least the women didn’t have to cluck like a chicken.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack,
I understand the jury is still very much out as far as how hypnosis actually works (personally, I’m skeptical of the whole thing) and how effective it is (in terms of therapeutic value, not very); however, almost everything I’ve read on the subject states that it is impossible to command someone under hypnosis to do something that is otherwise against their nature. In other words, hypnotized subjects cannot be ordered to commit murder, rape, etc, unless they’re otherwise complicit. Doesn’t that sway the ethics a little?
I realize it would be unethical for me to offer a co-worker $50 to flash everyone at an office party, but wouldn’t it make her at least equally unethical if she actually took the wager? After all, she still had the right to final refusal.
“In other words, hypnotized subjects cannot be ordered to commit murder, rape, etc, unless they’re otherwise complicit. Doesn’t that sway the ethics a little?”
I don’t see why. All of us are potential murderers, thieves, or other type of criminal. ALL OF US. But most of us have also cultivated other forces which suppress those tendencies.
texagg04,
Thank you for your unsolicited insight — I REALLY appreciate it!
I appreciated it too. And re the $50 offer, I think that it would be unethical to hyptnotize her (or him) to flash everyone and then not pay up.
that’s hypnotize
To take a conservative approach, hypnotism comparable to goading someone on. People are easily manipulated in benign ways, because people are trusting.
It would be comparable to a friend whispering silly things into a classmate’s ear. First you get a chuckle, then another, suddenly, the classmates laughing outloud in the middle of a test, everyone is staring at her…
Yes, she could tell her friend to shut up. Yes, she could ignore her. But the classmate trusts her friend, assumes she is not tying to get her in trouble, and too easily takes the bait.
The women in the show were promised they would not be asked to do anything embarrassing. They play along – doing every so slightly more risque activities – right up until the point the whole office is staring and laughing at them for intensely moaning as though under orgasm.
It is a betrayal of trust. In a classroom, the wise teacher would give the detention to the friend for goading. A human resources managers should not need the threat of “detention” to realize this was wrong.
“The women in the show were promised they would not be asked to do anything embarrassing.”
No, they were told the participants would be “safe and secure.” Not the same thing, especially not in a sexual situation, say, the difference between having your picture taken without your permission when you’re naked and being raped. Or it’s like the wide gap between laughing out loud and having people stare at you and even interrupting a test (she was being whispered to in the middle of a test??) … and having a full-on orgasm in front of a roomful of co-workers and superior staff.
Sounds like the hypnotist knew how to protect himself legally. Which makes me wonder if he isn’t liable himself anyway? Can the women sue him separately?
You are way out of line if you believe that being ‘safe and secure’ in a sexual situation might involve nude photos without permission.
It was a pretend orgasm, i.e. presumed to be a pleasurable experience; been done before — “safe and secure” from embarrassment. Do you really think the staff who gave permission for the act would tolerate anything more?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. You contradicted me when I said they were promised they would not be asked to do anything embarrassing, and now say they were promised to be “safe and secure” from embarrassment. I see no material difference. Your examples trying to explain this difference (nude photos versus rape…?)
are still quite distressing.
Can it be proven they were actually under hypnosis? As I have understood it, you cannot be hypnotized to do anything you would not do normally. In fact, just like acupuncture, I am skeptical that a true state of hypnosis that actually controls behavior exists. But the whole thing was stupid anyway. That might have been “cute” for a bachelorette party, but was inappropriate for work.
I suspect having an orgasm wasn’t repugnant, but having it on stage to amuse your coworkers was a betrayal of the trust the performer encouraged. If it had happened in Vegas, it should have stayed in Vegas. But doing the stunt for a company event was really dumb as none of the coworkers will forget. The hypnotist did not modify their show for the setting and crowd, and no compassionate person was willing to stand up.
You can pull yourself out of a hypnotic state if you get angry but a show is more like a primrose path that they weren’t aware.
Sorry to say, that there are no actual Svengalis who can manipulate people to do things against their will. Putting somebody “under hypnosis” so they do things that would be abhorant to them when they are in a normal state of mind is a myth. True, the subject will follow the hypnotist’ suggestions in most cases and do crazy things that they may regret later. However, the subject really hypnotises themselves.
Human psychology is a complicated thing. If it what you say were true, there would be no bullying, no blackmail, no coercion of any sort possible. There is nothing special or unique about hypnosis in this regard. In the stage version, it simply uses a person’s natural playfullness for entertainment; it is a form of benign manipulation. There is no mental firewall that prevents it from being abused; Con men and mobsters use these same techniques all the time to extort others. The difference is the fun involved when cooperation is voluntary.
Nor did they likely have an orgasm. One of the unbreakable laws of hypnosis is that you cannot be forced to do something you would ordinarily NOT do. That, strangely enough, includes being “hypnotized”. I would like to assume that these three women would not normally be inclined to orgasm in public, so I am inclined to discount the suit. I would also hope that a certified hypnotherapist (I am not, nor have I ever been) would be called by the defense.
Are you asserting these three women faked an orgasm in public to go along with the fun and games, are now embarrassed by it, regret degrading themselves so basely, and now think a settlement will bring their reputations back?
No, I think they may have seen an early and comfortable retirement in their future…but I’m just a skeptic when it comes to stuff like this.
Fair enough, I think what we wrote parallels in essence, but varies in cynicism.
BAZINGA!!!
“One of the unbreakable laws of hypnosis is that you cannot be forced to do something you would ordinarily NOT do.” Are you sure that this unbreakable law is not just something put about by hypnotists in order to avoid all accountability for any session that goes wrong.
Yes, I am. Because what you are referring to as a hypnotist is actually a performer who has little or no knowledge of actual hypnotism. What he is practicing on stage is an entertainment form that relies heavily of suggestibility and on people’s innate desire to act silly as hell when given any excuse to deny responsibility. Much like this guy’s “victims”.
Many stage hypnotists are, in fact, hypnotists as well as performers. And they use the techniques of hypnotists. One of my dad’s friends—I played with his kids— used hypnotism to help people lose weight and stop smoking, and he was also a magician. “The Mentalist,” a carny swindler, knew the techniques of hypnotism—it’s not a pairing that would be uncommon.
I actually did not know that. As I said earlier, I am not and never was certified, but did attend a seminar so that I could make at least partially informed referrals when requested.
I like your disclaimer, dragin, but I would point out that having an orgasm is not “something you would ordinarily NOT do” such as a violent or illegal act. Nor were they told about it beforehand, but rather had 90 minutes of preparation in viewing the hypnotist’s other benign acts to have reason to trust him NOT to request (not “force”) anything embarrassing. It seems reasonable to me that at that point – was there alcohol involved? – they would be relatively easy subjects. And I have witnessed enough hypnotherapy in clinical settings, though only in one-to-one situations, to say that it could have happened as reported.
If you will re-read my comment, you will find that I actually said “IN PUBLIC”. I would like to think they enjoy orgasms in private at least as often as the rest of the general public.
We’re on either side of a line here. You “would like to assume that these three women would not normally be inclined” whereas I am assuming that they may well be so inclined (in my experience, women like to play out fantasies just as much as men do — especially if they feel S&S). and IF indeed they were not faking. Neither of us are going to know for sure.
Which is precisely why culture, communities, manners, and the leadership in this instance should NOT allow these scenarios to even play out.
This is a useful article on STAGE hypnotism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_hypnosis
It seems clear that it works in different ways, and is often a fraud, but that certain people can be led to do things they would not ordinarily do by a combination of factors, some of which are not well understood. This quote from the article is especially interesting:
“In his book Deeper and Deeper by Jonathan Chase,[20] he talks about delivering suggestion, more importantly, The Super Suggestion a phrase he coined in his first published book in 1999.
“From this moment everything I say to you. Every single thing I say, no matter how silly or stupid it seems will instantly become your reality. Everything I say will instantly become your reality.” He emphasizes the use of repetition but warns that when they have accepted the suggestion then everything that the hypnotist says to them after this point will become an irresistible suggestion.”
So to address the “Rule”: someone who would normally never dream of faking an orgasm in public may also have willingness to do so once inhibitions are removed by the hypnotist;s technique. This is not like making someone kill, or eat fecal matter. But might an repressed exhibitionist be made to, say, do a strip tease? Yes…but that’s not the same as her doing it voluntarily.
This is a bit off center but perhaps germane to the subject of hypnosis. My father was a dentist and, in the middle of his career, decided to pursure medical hypnosis. He took the required courses and he practiced on me… a lot. (I was maybe 14 or 15 at the time.) My subjective experience was that I was never truly hypnotized by my father. Objectively, who can tell?
However, I did watch my father hypnotize a woman who was not able to tolerate novacaine. I watched the induction procedure and then I gasped as my father removed several teeth as a prelude to getting a partial denture. The woman didn’t flinch at all, and there was negligible blood flow.
I’ve attempted self hypnosis several times during my lifetime, but, again, I don’t think I ever succeeded. Still, might I be mistaken?
Personally, I like exploring the newer paradigm of NLP… neuro-linguistic programming. Grinder and Bandler may be the pioneers. http://www.nlpu.com/NewDesign/NLPU_WhatIsNLP.html
Again, Jeff, let me be real clear…actual hypnosis when practiced by a professional can be very effective in a number of areas. Up to and including controlling pain, quitting smoking, and several others. This guy is a stage magician. What he is doing is NOT hypnosis.
Better to study Milton Erickson who Bandler and Grinder learned from. Erickson is the undisputed master of using “the double bind” and implanting covert suggestions.