Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it is two men having sex, or two people that don't know what they are, all is well and good.
Are you done with the senseless judgments and vitriolic language?
Odds are there are instances where men with power over other men - and women with power over other women, women with power over men - used sex as a weapon. Anyone coerced in such a manner should speak up. It doesn't matter the gender or sexual orientation of the two people involved, it's stil wrong. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers
How is "engage in sexual favors with me or suffer consequences from your job" consensual?
I think women are attracted to males with power or authority and have consensual sex in part because of that. Or they want something in exchange, which is not the same thing as being denied something if they don't engage in sexual relations
Absolutely. We see this with celebrities and other people with wealth and power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Liberals love to judge heterosexual relationships. If it is two men having sex, or two people that don't know what they are, all is well and good. If it is a man and a women they feel obliged, even obligated to intervene, make demands, and construct rules which they believe are binding for the world.
They should just shut up. I can't wait until the country rebels agaisnt this ****. Liberalism is like cheap whiskey...some peope like the way it makes them feel, but eventually, most at the table get sick and puke.
Actually, this isn't just a liberal thing. The imaginary virtues of monogamy, marriage, purity and sex = love are widely preached by conservatives. And we all know how they feel about the gays.
This was from the last post on another thread about sexual assault that was shut down. I mentioned Matt Lauer's situation. His accuser said she felt ashamed afterwards. I suspect it's because she had sex with her married boss in his office during business hours against company policy. It doesn't make the act any less consensual. I've read nothing to suggest she was coerced or assaulted.
The response to this in its entirety, from Mircea, was:
I'd love to continue the discussion here.
An ego power trip doesn't make sex less consensual. Wanting to sleep with many women doesn't make one a predator. Is there something else I missed with Matt Lauer's co-worker and Monica Lewinsky?
I think that where you are struggling here is that you're using an older definition of these types of things and others are using the more current definitions.
Now we may not agree which definition is the correct one but that is essentially the disconnect.
In a modern CORPORATE setting, consensual only matters for CRIMINAL charges and not for being FIRED.
Boss Betty having sex with employee Steve could make employee Joe or Stacy etc. feel like that's how you get ahead at the company and it creates a hostile work environment.
So, to have a fair uncluttered discussion about this we all have to make sure we're clear about what we are talking about specifically.
With regards to Clinton, what he did was wrong but considered less so back then (but still not acceptable). He should have stuck to having Sharon Stone or other Hollywood types give him some side loving instead of someone "from work". (for many reasons)
unless you are underage, it is always concenting unless you are physically forced
Coercion is actually a thing. My concern is more with the idea that authority makes one (usually men) a predator during consensual sex with a co-worker. Polices and moral outrage against fraternization do not a predator make. Consent is still consent whether it's at home or on your boss's desk.
There has been a cohort of women who trade sex for what they want always. I used to work with a guy whose fiance broke off their engagement because her boss offered (and delivered) a huge promotion for accompanying him to Cancun. She took it, got the promotion and as far as he knew, she thrived in the new job.
I think we have to keep in mind historical context.
Even today, the rules can be different for men and women.
Saying women trade their sexuality for what they want overlooks the fact that those may have been the only rules they could play by.
I think that where you are struggling here is that you're using an older definition of these types of things and others are using the more current definitions.
Now we may not agree which definition is the correct one but that is essentially the disconnect.
In a modern CORPORATE setting, consensual only matters for CRIMINAL charges and not for being FIRED.
Boss Betty having sex with employee Steve could make employee Joe or Stacy etc. feel like that's how you get ahead at the company and it creates a hostile work environment.
So, to have a fair uncluttered discussion about this we all have to make sure we're clear about what we are talking about specifically.
With regards to Clinton, what he did was wrong but considered less so back then (but still not acceptable). He should have stuck to having Sharon Stone or other Hollywood types give him some side loving instead of someone "from work". (for many reasons)
Good points but I'm really addressing the claim that it is not "inherently consensual" because of the issue of power. Power is often the reason women enter into these relationships. Other times, it doesn't actually matter. I don't think that has changed much over the years.
Matt Lauer's issue would likely never have made it to criminal court because it was clearly consensual. It's her shame that speaks volumes, to me, about the situation because it's not about coercion or lack of consent. It was regret. There was plenty of which to be ashamed. To be clear, that's not my personal opinion of her but it is the opinion of many others. Taking on the role of victim is a great way to absolve herself.
How is "engage in sexual favors with me or suffer consequences from your job" consensual?
The same way "come in on-time or you will lose your job" is consensual. People were given a choice, and they decided that sex was a better option than being fired. It sounds flippant, but it's consensual according to the textbook definition of the word.
Now a more interesting question - is a woman losing her job for refusing to have a sex with a perverted boss any worse than someone being fired for comments they said on FB outside the workplace?
Good points but I'm really addressing the claim that it is not "inherently consensual" because of the issue of power. Power is often the reason women enter into these relationships. Other times, it doesn't actually matter. I don't think that has changed much over the years.
Matt Lauer's issue would likely never have made it to criminal court because it was clearly consensual. It's her shame that speaks volumes, to me, about the situation because it's not about coercion or lack of consent. It was regret. There was plenty of which to be ashamed. To be clear, that's not my personal opinion of her but it is the opinion of many others. Taking on the role of victim is a great way to absolve herself.
How she felt about it after the fact is moot with regards to Lauer getting terminated for diddling the employees.
She wouldn't be the first person that got caught in a nationally publicized affair that spun it to make themselves look less bad, I honestly don't care either way and haven't followed the case that closely.
In this charged environment of #metoo and the SCOTUS nomination, a lot of people are going to imprint want they want to see onto every scenario that occurs like this. Doesn't change reality though.
Not "Inherently Consensual" is very grey and attempts to turn every Lauer etc. affair situation into some sort of Harvey Weinstein moment.
As such, I do not accept that with regards to criminality and it's moot with regards to employment practices and rules about sleeping with subordinates.
The same way "come in on-time or you will lose your job" is consensual. People were given a choice, and they decided that sex was a better option than being fired. It sounds flippant, but it's consensual according to the textbook definition of the word.
Now a more interesting question - is a woman losing her job for refusing to have a sex with a perverted boss any worse than someone being fired for comments they said on FB outside the workplace?
I have literally never heard of that happening in real life. I have seen women seek promotions that way though. My boss used to service the CEO under his desk, the secretary caught them. She didn't even have a four year degree and she was running three departments, lording over people with PhDs. Later it turned out she was a nympho and the men did not have to be in positions of power, they just had to be male.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
