You can not have sex with your employee or employer. The power dynamic ensures it can never be totally equal and there will always be some duress. If someone holds the power over your finances including your health insurance, saying No is never that simple.
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
308 points (97.8% liked)
News
23259 readers
3605 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I never thought of it that way. I always thought of it as "don't shit where you eat" because I ain't at work to make friends. I'm here to get shit done.
It's both, really. After some misadventures in my youth, I have refused to engage romantically with anyone in an organization I'm employed by. "Don't shit where you eat." As I have moved up to supervise others, it goes doubly so for people within my chain of command. That would be highly unethical.
Essentially, one is practical advice and the other is a matter of ethics. If you follow the first, the ethics are easy.
You never had to sit through a sexual harassment training where they explain quid pro quo?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it's healthy to have clear boundaries with coworkers, they are not the same things as friends.
That said I spend 41 hours a week working, no way I'm not going to socialise with my coworkers. If I don't make any friends after several years of working at a place I feel I have done something wrong.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They were dating before he hired her, also mentions that hiring her was a mistake
Honestly best take. There's a lot to this story I'm sure and I think it needs to be discovered in a court.
I'm hopeful it's a truly fair court case as everyone has their right to their day in court.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Hiring her was a lapse of judgment. The rest of it sounds like a good time. BDSM relationships involving power exchange can be healthy but there is a huge risk that a messy breakup can go this way.
If my wife and I ever got divorced, I know she'd have the power to rake me over the coals with receipts. So I can give the guy the benefit of doubt, because based on what is alleged and my own personal experience it sounds reasonable that it might've been completely consensual at the time.
However as we grow as people, we can recontextualize our experiences and decide that hey this was really unhealthy and he should've known it was unhealthy and that she wasn't capable of consenting, and that could even be right. Some people give enthusiastic consent and it turns out to be some PTSD trauma response. Given the number of people in kink with trauma in their past, the lines can get really blurry.
I'm not saying she wasn't abused for sure, just that from a kink perspective his side of the story seems as plausible as hers. Regardless, I hope justice, whatever that may be, somehow prevails. But this case is going to hinge on whoever is more credible on the witness stand I think, and less on indisputable truths.
While the dom/sub fantasy is a common one, we need to remember that it has to stay a fantasy.
This was the real world, with a real world power dynamic in the workplace. That made consent dubious. And the number one rule of this sort of relationship is that CONSENT MUST BE CERTAIN.
Anyone with half a fucking clue would would not have this kind of relationship with an employee.
The employment came after the relationship and continued after it. I think that's a key difference that isn't conveyed in the headline. Yeah ethically he shouldn't have hired someone he was in that kind of relationship in, but at the time I'm sure it felt like a reasonable thing to do. Infatuation is like that.
Also saying dom/sub has to stay a fantasy is a different suggestion altogether and one I disagree with although perhaps only by degrees. It depends a lot on how real you allow for a fantasy to be. Ultimately there should be a safe word that allows a sub to withdraw consent at any time and so consent is always certain even if it's being vehemently denied by both people. In that manufactured ambiguity is where the excitement lies for many people.
The thing most people don't realise is in a dom/sub relationship it's actually the sub who has all the power. They can withdraw consent etc. any time they want Having someone you're in a relationship with directly reporting to you is problematic and most companies would explicitly not permit it.
At the time hiring her seemed a reasonable thing to do. And therein lies the test of a person's character. And what we're seeing is the consequence of a failure of his character.
And yes, if you seek excitement in the ambiguity, you can absolutely choose to do that. Some people like risk. Some people like skydiving. No one should be surprised that occasionally the parachute doesn't open. We can be sad that the situation ended like this, but not surprised.
Yeah, this sounds like someone who's only BDSM experience was the 50 Shades series, and therefore didn't understand how it works at all.
This is entirely based on a quote of him saying they were dating. Did she coberate that? Did anyone else? Is there a known history of their relationship or just this guy saying it exists?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Based on the article they were together before working together. Because of that, while there may of course be elements where some position of power was abused after they started working together, it's quite unlikely that everything here was against her will.
This is likely a case where both people have been shitty to each other in some way.
The ex-CEO said that he was dating the woman who sued him before hiring her at Tradeshift in 2014, which he called a “grave error of judgment." He also noted that the "plaintiff went on to work for Tradeshift for approximately five more years after our relationship ended."
This raises so many red flags to me.
I can't comment on the alleged activities, and we don't know her financial or emotional situation in 2014 when she was hired, but it sounds waaaay more complicated than "boss treats random new chick as sex slave".
I hope she's in a better place now (mentally and emotionally).
load more comments
(13 replies)
that people would “celebrate” if it were fictitious.
Well that's just delusional. How exactly did he make it this far while having trouble separating TV from reality?
He's talking about 50 Shades of Grey. Which is a work of fiction that has been systematically pointed as problematic.
Their point was this dude isn't in a movie or tv show. A lot of crazy shit happens in movies that you wouldn't want to happen in real life, this is one of them.
Rich parents, probably.
Man... being into kink is dangerous if you have money and there's a scorched earth breakup. I have heard people in kink circles say that having a contract signed by both parties offers some protection, but here it is being used against him in court. Eeek.
It's fine as long as you don't do it with employees. If you find a woman with no social or financial dependence on you, you will be golden. It's actually not that difficult since most of the adult woman population isn't directly employed by you and a portion of them like being subs and doing kinky shit.
Apparently they were dating before she was hired. I can see how easily lines could be blurred when in love. The saying don't shit where you eat is appropriate with regards to work and relationships, but often people can't help themselves.
Sometimes people can't help themselves? You are describing the defense of every single crime in history.
He is a fucking Millionaire in charge of a company and you are talking about him like he failed the marshmallow test.
I mean, nepotism is rife across the world, clutch your pearls all you like but it's common enough to date colleagues or employ those with familial ties despite the warnings against. Do note that I didn't defend his choices, comparing them to shitting where you eat.
yeah, hiring her as his assistant isn't ideal as the risk to the company, but in terms of nepotism, it doesn't sound as bad to me as the CEOs that will make someone a director over an entire department just because they're banging (have seen this irl)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why are CEOs always shit? Someone must've done a study into the type of people who want to be CEO, majority probably being psychopaths.
I've seen a few studies on this, I'd have to dig up some sources but socio/psychopaths do tend to seek power... So CEO rates of socio/psychopathy are significantly higher.
Same with politicians.
Regardless of what they sell or their stated ethos, once a corporation becomes publicly traded its only purpose becomes maximizing profits for its shareholders. The prevailing attitude in that section of the business world is that, if you can save a million and one dollars by dumping toxic waste on a children's playground, and the fine from the EPA is going to be one million dollars even, then it is your holy and sacred duty to poison those children for the sake of delivering that one dollar to the shareholders. In fact, failing to prioritize shareholder profits is the only thing corporations ever get in real trouble for.
People who thrive in this type of environment, let alone rise to the top, tend not to be good or moral people who are bothered by things like a conscience or a sense of compassion. To run a publicly traded corporation you need a person who can cause enormous amounts of suffering and blight in the world, and then go home and sleep comfortably and unbothered, soothed by the belief that everything is permissable as long as they made a line on a graph go up slightly.
I've seen that movie. It was really good. Maggie Gyllenhaal was great in it.
Ah yeah that movie was amazing, what was the name of it? Actor guy Spader really good too.
Secretary. Deserved an award for the sexiest non-pornographic film of the year.
Just another day at Twitter...X...
/s
I don't get it, the same story is repeated time and time again, how hard is it to not be a terrible person?
Unless they were born or raised with empathy, which is an obvious no, nothing bad happens to them if they're terrible. A ton of enjoyable things happen, even.
At that point, you're weighing the opportunity to do whatever you feel like at no consequence against doing what other people tell you to do for none of your own benefit (the only measurement that matters). Technically at a moderate cost to the one reigning themselves in. Under the looming threat of nothing if you do not comply.
I know the question was purely rhetorical and born out of the same frustration that I have. But I wish we'd drop this weird notion the more humanitarian of us seem to default to, like people who do this shit just haven't had the golden rule properly explained to them yet. They know. And they've figured out it's currently a farce.
They must have been afforded some protections to insulate them from consequences. It’s not just a realization that being a monster is easy and beneficial. The golden rule isn’t a farce for those of us who aren’t affluent, it’s a warning.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›