I also know her, and camped with her at Burning Man many moons ago.

I don't think the account related in the article in any way obscures the truth, and it doesn't soften the sharp and inappropriate edge of what her interviewer did in the least.

I, myself, occasionally run across subordinates at Burning Man, and I make a very strong effort to interact with them in the same way I'd do at work, with the exception of offering them water bottles, extra ampoules of sunscreen, and electrolyte packets.

There is less than zero excuse for that guys' behavior.

The article led the reader to believe that the victim was not a burner, and that Burn was part of the weird SV culture and part of the setup for harassment. The problem was the guy's behavior, not inviting her to the Burn.

Totally agree! It really seems like the article is trying to say she was invited to attend her first burning man by this creepy interviewer and that she attended it mainly for networking purposes but brought her mom and a “conservative” attire to keep it professional. This isn’t explicitly stated but is strongly implied. The author also links predatory behavior with burning man by making Star seem like the outsider to it.

I commented because I think this article is doing a disservice to the victim and falsely depicting her as a bit naive, clueless, and perhaps a tad too desperate for the job which isn’t accurate at all.

I love how you're admittedly making stuff up that the article doesn't say, and then attack it for it.

To be fair, I can somewhat see what causes your misinterpretation. The first sentence about Burning Man is

She said he invited her to Burning Man, an annual festival in the Nevada desert, the following week.

What's cause for confusion here is the interjection defining Burning Man. Your interpretation sees it as a retelling of her experience, i.e. him having to explain her what it is.

But any semi-regular reader of the NYT will take this for what it is: an explanation of Burning Man to the reader.

It's rather common to introduce new terms in article in this way, whenever they are first mentioned. Sometimes, as arguably in this case, it is overdone. Worst offender here is the Economist: "The US, a large north-american country,...".

well glad we agree on content and just have a different interpretation of what his article is implying!

Instead of discussing the article, let’s just look at other commenters and see their interpretation.

reviewing other comments in this thread I see:

- commenters that believe she made plans to go to burning man on a weeks notice and convinced her mom to join. And got tickets.

- commenters that re-interpret “conservative” to mean professional/business casual attire. That interpretation makes Simpson seems particularly oblivious about the event which is clearly untrue

- a commenter that specifically mentions her naivete

As I’ve said already, what these commenters think isn’t true, but they believe these things because that’s what the article unfairly implies.

I’m glad this article is drawing attention to this harasser and this issue in general, but it does a disservice to the victim to falsely paint them in this light.