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.
My point here is that there seems to be affirmative consent, as you say. The example with the young woman who made out with a founder in front of his wife, then took MDMA and then (I assume) had sex with him (possibly, maybe she just left) is one where she consented to go to the party, she consented to the kissing, even checking in with the wife first, she got an accurate description of what the drug would do when it was offered to her, it was clear that she was being offered a drug, she chose to take it, and then she left when she wanted.
I don't want to defend non-consensual activities, but I don't see any being described. Given that these are consensual acts between adults - my point is "What's the issue?"
In might be consensual in the sense that everyone said yes, but there’s a known balance of power. Sounds like coercion and naivety.
Sounds like they are explained the situation when they get invited.
But it also sounds like there is no way to back out or participate without repercussions leaking into their normal lives. Not exactly fair.
How do you know these women don’t genuinely want casual sex with rich, powerful men?
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.