Anonymous wrote:OMG lady stop saying "on a day like today" again and again and again - its totally irrelevant what the day is when the news breaks. All this stuff is historic. What about those friggin days???

Agreed. If someone is easily triggered by posts about sexual harrasment, or anything for that matter, DCUM is not the place to be.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

I'm just a little surprise that you don't understand as long as there is a person willing to bang their boss to keep their job, there is s 16 yo girls pressured to do the same to keep her minimum wage job to help feed her family.

Much of this is done at a very low level and there are girls hardly 18 blowing their managers to keep their job or to get a raise to $9/hr.

It is a system put in place to keep certain women down, it's an abuse of power. Like a teacher screwing a student. Sexual harassment is a form of rape. (We don't call it that cause "good guys" do it.

Sure raping a 3 yo is worse, but it is on the continuum.

What makes you think that I don't understand those things? Of course I understand those things. Again, go join the actual discussion and argue your points. My only concern is whether the discussion fits our guidelines and the posts are on topic.

Because you seem to be deliberately dodging them and not acknowledging how distressing and offensive the thread is within that context.

You also acted like it was absurd to compare Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse with a boss-subordinate sexual relationship... when, in reality, they are one in the same. At the very, very least- on a small, uneasy continuum.

Are you going to call him a misogynist?

OMG lady stop saying "on a day like today" again and again and again - its totally irrelevant what the day is when the news breaks. All this stuff is historic. What about those friggin days???

OMG, OP, shut up. You are making this into way more of a drama than it has to be. I find the HW situation depressing and horrifying.

I am pretty sure the I'd sleep with my boss thread was started merely to stir things up. Instead of stirring up trolls on that thread, it's managed to stir you up to the point where you're acting like a whiny, hysterical baby over how awful such a thread is on such a day.

I just listened to an interview with the head of HBO documentaries, who wrote an autobiography. It was a few days ago, so I don't have the details right, but she was pretty upfront about how she slept with a boss to move up, and had she not done it, she would not have the position she has today. It happened in the 60s or 70s, I believe. The world is different and not so different today.

I think Jeff is right- there clear abuse of power in HW. THere's seeming and use of what power you might have in planning to sleep with your boss to get ahead. And there's a wide area in the middle, where it's not so blatant and obvious, or the power dynamic is real but on a whole different scale (the example of the minimum wage worker who needs to keep her job). if this HW debacle does anything positive, it could be to bring discussions out into the open.

Don't be a stereotype of a precious snowflake who can't bear discussions of which you disapprove.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because you seem to be deliberately dodging them and not acknowledging how distressing and offensive the thread is within that context.

You also acted like it was absurd to compare Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse with a boss-subordinate sexual relationship... when, in reality, they are one in the same. At the very, very least- on a small, uneasy continuum.

I am not dodging anything. My personal viewpoint about the propriety of relationships between bosses and subordinates is completely immaterial to whether such a thread should be allowed here. Any number of topics with which I disagree get discussed. Your argument is with the poster who started the other thread.

You agreed with me that there is a difference between a consensual relationship and unwanted forced sexual assault. Now you are criticizing me for that viewpoint. Are you saying that is never possible to have a consensual relationship between a boss and a subordinate? There are a lot of married couples in this town in which one spouse previously worked for the other. They would probably argue that point with you.

It's funny- first you tell me that you personal views are immaterial, and then you want to question me about them and get into a discussion. When I respond, and you are unable to meet the points, your response is "it doesn't matter what I think" and to fail to come up with a substantive response. So I'm not seeing the point of your continuously questioning me on these issues while failing to engage on your end.

Secondly- your right, your opinions are immaterial to whether the thread should be left up. The opinions that should matter and be considered? The victims of workplace sexual harassment who have to scroll past that thread on recent topics on a day in which dozens of rapes of women at said workplace were uncovered.

Whether you think that's fine, dandy, whatever- as an individual living in the 21st century who's livelihood is dependent on ad revenue largely generated by women, you should at least attempt to feign some compassion for us at a class, especially on a day when a mass atrocity against women has been uncovered.

Anonymous wrote:
Because you seem to be deliberately dodging them and not acknowledging how distressing and offensive the thread is within that context.

You also acted like it was absurd to compare Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse with a boss-subordinate sexual relationship... when, in reality, they are one in the same. At the very, very least- on a small, uneasy continuum.

I am not dodging anything. My personal viewpoint about the propriety of relationships between bosses and subordinates is completely immaterial to whether such a thread should be allowed here. Any number of topics with which I disagree get discussed. Your argument is with the poster who started the other thread.

You agreed with me that there is a difference between a consensual relationship and unwanted forced sexual assault. Now you are criticizing me for that viewpoint. Are you saying that is never possible to have a consensual relationship between a boss and a subordinate? There are a lot of married couples in this town in which one spouse previously worked for the other. They would probably argue that point with you.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

I'm just a little surprise that you don't understand as long as there is a person willing to bang their boss to keep their job, there is s 16 yo girls pressured to do the same to keep her minimum wage job to help feed her family.

Much of this is done at a very low level and there are girls hardly 18 blowing their managers to keep their job or to get a raise to $9/hr.

It is a system put in place to keep certain women down, it's an abuse of power. Like a teacher screwing a student. Sexual harassment is a form of rape. (We don't call it that cause "good guys" do it.

Sure raping a 3 yo is worse, but it is on the continuum.

What makes you think that I don't understand those things? Of course I understand those things. Again, go join the actual discussion and argue your points. My only concern is whether the discussion fits our guidelines and the posts are on topic.

Because you seem to be deliberately dodging them and not acknowledging how distressing and offensive the thread is within that context.

You also acted like it was absurd to compare Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse with a boss-subordinate sexual relationship... when, in reality, they are one in the same. At the very, very least- on a small, uneasy continuum.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

Apparently not. I do wish you would reconsider your choice or reflect on this because some of the posts were heartbreaking and on a day like today, a thread like that is so inappropriate. And hurtful.

Yes, I understand that it is a complex topic and the issue of power versus consent is worth discussing and probably should be discussed in the actual thread. Anyone who would be bothered by such a discussion should avoid that thread. But, there are others who are interested in discussing it. It does not violate any of our guidelines and, to the contrary, would likely be a much more interesting discussion than many here.

It's not an interesting discussion, as modern society has recognized that such arrangements are inappropriate, innately coercive, and wrong. Particularly when it's on a "quid pro quo" basis, i.e. I'll get promoted for sleeping with you (which is what the poster described).


It's only on DCUM that such discussions would be classed as "interesting" on a day when dozens of women came forward to reveal rapes in the exact same scenario.

No, these are not the exact same scenarios. One is consensual and one is not. There is no comparison between rape and willingly engaging in a sexual relation in return for favors. However, there is considerable gray area between those two things and that's what makes this an interesting discussion.

You clearly have your viewpoint on this topic. Why are you willing to argue that position with me, but not with the posters who are actually engaging in such a discussion? Go tell them that society has decided it is wrong. That is not really pertinent to my role here.

Society has it right, in that it recognizes that true consent cannot exist in the context of a huge power difference. Hence age of consent laws and laws against workplace harassment.

I'm grateful society recognizes that, since it seems you're a bit behind the times. It's just unfortunate for the women to have to view the horrifying thread, again, on a day when so many women have come out with their brutal, horrific rape stories.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

I'm just a little surprise that you don't understand as long as there is a person willing to bang their boss to keep their job, there is s 16 yo girls pressured to do the same to keep her minimum wage job to help feed her family.

Much of this is done at a very low level and there are girls hardly 18 blowing their managers to keep their job or to get a raise to $9/hr.

It is a system put in place to keep certain women down, it's an abuse of power. Like a teacher screwing a student. Sexual harassment is a form of rape. (We don't call it that cause "good guys" do it.

Sure raping a 3 yo is worse, but it is on the continuum.

What makes you think that I don't understand those things? Of course I understand those things. Again, go join the actual discussion and argue your points. My only concern is whether the discussion fits our guidelines and the posts are on topic.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

Apparently not. I do wish you would reconsider your choice or reflect on this because some of the posts were heartbreaking and on a day like today, a thread like that is so inappropriate. And hurtful.

Yes, I understand that it is a complex topic and the issue of power versus consent is worth discussing and probably should be discussed in the actual thread. Anyone who would be bothered by such a discussion should avoid that thread. But, there are others who are interested in discussing it. It does not violate any of our guidelines and, to the contrary, would likely be a much more interesting discussion than many here.

It's not an interesting discussion, as modern society has recognized that such arrangements are inappropriate, innately coercive, and wrong. Particularly when it's on a "quid pro quo" basis, i.e. I'll get promoted for sleeping with you (which is what the poster described).


It's only on DCUM that such discussions would be classed as "interesting" on a day when dozens of women came forward to reveal rapes in the exact same scenario.

No, these are not the exact same scenarios. One is consensual and one is not. There is no comparison between rape and willingly engaging in a sexual relation in return for favors. However, there is considerable gray area between those two things and that's what makes this an interesting discussion.

You clearly have your viewpoint on this topic. Why are you willing to argue that position with me, but not with the posters who are actually engaging in such a discussion? Go tell them that society has decided it is wrong. That is not really pertinent to my role here.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

I'm just a little surprise that you don't understand as long as there is a person willing to bang their boss to keep their job, there is s 16 yo girls pressured to do the same to keep her minimum wage job to help feed her family.

Much of this is done at a very low level and there are girls hardly 18 blowing their managers to keep their job or to get a raise to $9/hr.

It is a system put in place to keep certain women down, it's an abuse of power. Like a teacher screwing a student. Sexual harassment is a form of rape. (We don't call it that cause "good guys" do it.

Sure raping a 3 yo is worse, but it is on the continuum.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am not sure why you are comparing consensual relationships to unwanted, forced, sexual assault. That's basically the same thing the poster to whom you objected was doing. A woman (or man) who is willing to sleep with his/her boss to get ahead is completely different from someone forced into an unwanted sexual situation. It is wrong to compare them.

Agreed, and that's what poster(s?) in the Harvey W thread were doing, shortly before this thread appeared. I'm sure you're aware of people who are blaming the women by claiming they chose to sleep with him for career advancement. You cannot truly see no correlation to those statements and then this thread appearing shortly after?

I removed those posts from the Weinstein thread because I considered them inappropriate. A different poster started the new thread. Whether there is a correlation is not something I can determine.

Apparently not. I do wish you would reconsider your choice or reflect on this because some of the posts were heartbreaking and on a day like today, a thread like that is so inappropriate. And hurtful.

Yes, I understand that it is a complex topic and the issue of power versus consent is worth discussing and probably should be discussed in the actual thread. Anyone who would be bothered by such a discussion should avoid that thread. But, there are others who are interested in discussing it. It does not violate any of our guidelines and, to the contrary, would likely be a much more interesting discussion than many here.

It's not an interesting discussion, as modern society has recognized that such arrangements are inappropriate, innately coercive, and wrong. Particularly when it's on a "quid pro quo" basis, i.e. I'll get promoted for sleeping with you (which is what the poster described).


It's only on DCUM that such discussions would be classed as "interesting" on a day when dozens of women came forward to reveal rapes in the exact same scenario.