Earlier quoted context omitted.
>walls of text everywhere trying to examine the situation and blame those involved You guys have to deal with it that she voluntarily lied down on a bar, induced by alcohol with other men around her and OFFERED her body to be licked. In which universe did she saw an expected outcome of not being approached with a sexual tone? They were drinking the entire night and all those geeky guys normally filled with anxiety co…
> She must have at least expected something, no? No. A body shot is not an invitation for anything. A body shot taken from a girl with a boyfriend is not an invitation for anything. A body shot taken from a girl with a boyfriend, while hanging out in a bar with 'geeky guys' that just 'loosened up' is not an invitation for anything. If you think it is, you have a problem. To answer your question again: no. Just no. No…
Because it needs to be said
501–510 of 635 posts
Re: Because it needs to be said
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
We call this "rape culture."
My girlfriend put her hand in my pants without asking this morning, so she's part of 'rape culture'?
A couple is different than a married CEO and his employees. I don't feel you're arguing in good faith, so I'll leave it at that.
Re: Because it needs to be said
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the society I breathe daily, women generally do not get sexually assaulted when they go to a bar (I don't know the statistics). However, I quote: "At some point, it was suggested that I do a body shot. I’ve never done one in my life but at the insistence of many people, attendees and bartenders I decided to lay on the bar." this is an invitation to sexual behavior. "A body shot is a shot of alcohol (such as tequil…
Consent to a body shot is consent to a body shot. Let's not even bring up the coercive aspect here. Consent to a body shot is not consent to sex afterward.
Re: Because it needs to be said
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
woosh back at ya buddy. He says he's genuinely concerned for my welfare, but he's concerned about me being trafficked or had my organs harvested? Either he's unbelievably insincere, and a bit of a prick; or he's deadly seriously and a bit of a fool. He hasn't really given himself much middle ground there.
Oh, no; sorry man. I thought his joke was pretty funny.
I suppose humour applied through ridicule of another is always funniest when you aren't the recipient.
Re: Because it needs to be said
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit.ly link to a Let Me Google That For You for rape statistics in the U.S.? That's your contribution? Seriously?
He said: > Either your definition of sexual assault is much different that standard usage, or you hang out with deplorable people. I was demonstrating that he was wrong.
Re: Because it needs to be said
#506Completely beside the larger point of assault, I am just frankly amazed at the seemingly unanimous defense (in the three blog writeups) of the level of drinking that happens in these atmospheres. It really does read as if people are saying, look, people should be able to get shitfaced drunk every night at a professional conference without having to worry. And... well gosh maybe that's true in theory , but... isn't th…
It's not just the conferences. I have visited startups that have beer on tap or in the fridge, and some companies even inject alcohol into the interview process[1].
Mixing work and alcohol is a bad idea. Period. There's just too much that can go wrong. Sadly, in some industries, and at some companies, and in much of society at large, alcohol consumption is so strongly encouraged and expected that many individuals who would like to opt out feel uneasy about whether they can do so without consequence.
Re: Because it needs to be said
#507Re: Because it needs to be said
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy shit. This is the top post? This? This victim blaming bullshit? (Just because you say it’s not victim blaming doesn’t make it not victim blaming.) Consent to one thing (whatever that may be) does not imply consent to another thing. If you fail to make sure consent exists you always run the risk of doing something non-consensual. If that’s a risk you want to take, well, then do it. If you believe in your infallib…
You're right he is victim blaming. Except, he says both parties were victims in their own way.
If you do the stuff described in the blog post you might be sorry, it might have been a mistake you made while you were drunk and you might have had no intentions of committing sexual assault or being in any way malicious but you still committed sexual assault. Having good intentions (which the parent comment was also only speculating about) doesn’t change that, really.
Maybe he is a victim of his brain making stupid decisions? I don’t know. That’s how I sometimes feel when I make mistakes.
He is only a victim if she is falsely accusing him. Are you making that case?
Re: Because it needs to be said
#509I feel bad for Joe. What he did was not malicious. He is not an abuser or predator. He did a dumb thing. This story isn't about a rapist or someone who preys on women. It's about a drunk man who thought he was going to score. A man who was becoming increasingly physical with a woman who he was attracted to, and who invited him to do a body shot after he had grabbed her ass. For those who don't know what body shots ar…
Reading the comments here, have brought up one of the major issues I've always had with the technical community -- its inability to empathize.
And worse, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, it's almost as if there's a disincentive to empathize with the victim, resulting in straight-up, outlandish comments that are on par with those of extreme, right-wing talk radio hosts.
The line about what is or isn't normal things that Americans do at conferences is just bullshit. You put 500 people with a shared interest in the same room, you'd be surprised at what quickly becomes "normal" or justified. It's actually called herd mentality.
At this age and point in your life, with all the media coverage and information surrounding you about sexual assault, and to use your Girls Gone Wild example: the girls who have claimed, and successfully proven in a court of law that they were exploited by GGW; how can you use the excuse that he didn't know he crossed a line?
Has he been participating in a self-imposed media blackout for the last 10 years? Has he never thought of the day he might have to discuss the issue of sexual predators with his three daughters, and how they potentially come in all shapes and sizes?
And to top it off, you're shocked that she said the touching was common behavior for coworkers. What does that tell you?
That she was really trusting and naive, or there's a culture of predatory behavior in her workplace, or BOTH.
As a manager, you yourself have an obligation to not make unwanted advances across the personal boundaries of your subordinates, and ensure to the best of your ability, that your subordinates are also safe from unwanted advances within the company. There is absolutely no question about that.
In fact, if you do indeed choose to start a relationship with a subordinate, you absolutely need an a CLEAR line of communication that establishes that, yes, your subordinate does indeed want to engage in relations with you, and understands it has no bearing in your career/position or their career/position.
This even extrapolates to hooking up casually -- you need a clear signal that both parties are okay with this. Sometimes, it's reciprocated, non-verbal communication, and yes, other times it can be a BLUNT question that is purposely meant to remove any ambiguity from the situation, and end in one of two clear results: yes or no.
You cannot assert that no man has ever asked first. You can only assert that you've never asked first.
And then you've flip-flopped on your own logic regarding vilification.
You give him the benefit of a doubt of making a mistake influenced by alcohol, that "is stupid, juvenile behavior on his part, which he would not have done sober."
But later you reverse your position regarding her DUI, and insinuate that this may not be her first time, and she may have even developed a habit of driving under the influence.
What if this isn't Joe O'Brien's first time? What if he developed a habit of it? What if that's the reason he's checked himself into a 6-week mental health program as you stated in other comments? Do you check yourself into a mental health facility, after a single "juvenile" mistake?
EDIT: What if this occurred with such frequency, that he did indeed have an "agreement" in place with his wife, as he so creepily stated?
Re: Because it needs to be said
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you are saying she is supposed to shut up or what? Or what is the point you are trying to make? You want to muffle her voice? That’s your point, right?
Please calm down. Neither have I said that, nor do I believe it. For unrelated reasons - namely that I don't believe naming and shaming is a working justice system and that it diverts from the underlying social issues - I would prefer to leave names out of such blog entries. But the reason for my post is that I found the quoted passage to be one of the many oversimplifications that crop up again and again in these di…