Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 07:58:02 PMIf it's consensual.Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?
If it's consensual.
The employee has every right to say no
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:03:54 PMThe employee has every right to say noI'll restate the question: do you deny the fact that consent -- morally and legally -- is rarely possible when being leveraged by power or money?
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:03:54 PMQuote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 07:58:02 PMIf it's consensual.Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.Oh, well that explains it. This morally ambiguous person will stop when requested because it'd be immoral for him to continue his actions. Now it makes sense. For a borderline antinatalist, you sure do have a lot of faith in humanity.
Quote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 07:58:02 PMIf it's consensual.Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.
But we're talking hypotheticals here. You're saying that an employee who's in love with their boss, truly wants to date them or have sex with them, is legally prohibited from doing so because we have to protect them, out of the kindness of our hearts. That's wrong.
And that person is more important than the person who's too weak-willed to say no to their boss.
Quote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 07:03:25 PMIt's ripe for predation and abuse, and unlike other sex work it's completely unable to be regulated. because its illegalif it was legalized and allowed in licensed businesses with proper security and protocols it would be fine.
It's ripe for predation and abuse, and unlike other sex work it's completely unable to be regulated.
Quote from: Tyger on May 30, 2016, 07:50:38 PMThis isn't a business. Quotecould be easily regulatedYou recognize that it's intangible as a business, and yet you say it's easily regulated. There's no incorporation, no legal basis for the woman's income, no legal precedent for this, and it's not -- as you keep asserting -- simple prostitution. The closest it amounts to is some hybrid of indentured servitude and prostitution.
This isn't a business.
could be easily regulated
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:11:46 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 30, 2016, 08:07:07 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:03:54 PMQuote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 07:58:02 PMIf it's consensual.Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.Oh, well that explains it. This morally ambiguous person will stop when requested because it'd be immoral for him to continue his actions. Now it makes sense. For a borderline antinatalist, you sure do have a lot of faith in humanity.We're talking morality, not law. There's nothing morally wrong with an employee consensually having sex with their employer if there's no coercion involved. There is something morally wrong with the employer pressing it after a "no".Why do you think the law was made? This specific law, about employee - manager relations.
Quote from: challengerX on May 30, 2016, 08:07:07 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:03:54 PMQuote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 07:58:02 PMIf it's consensual.Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.Oh, well that explains it. This morally ambiguous person will stop when requested because it'd be immoral for him to continue his actions. Now it makes sense. For a borderline antinatalist, you sure do have a lot of faith in humanity.We're talking morality, not law. There's nothing morally wrong with an employee consensually having sex with their employer if there's no coercion involved. There is something morally wrong with the employer pressing it after a "no".
If an employer asks their employee to have sex with them, there is nothing prohibiting them from saying no. At all.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:16:21 PMIf an employer asks their employee to have sex with them, there is nothing prohibiting them from saying no. At all.This is just factually untrue, and there's documented evidence of a victim's inability to distinguish when an abuser is taking advantage of them, like in an imbalance of power (or money, in this case).
There is a difference between coercion and consent. What if the employee was the one pushing for sex? Nope, that's illegal, too.
esearch suggests that many sexually victimized women do not acknowledge their unwanted sexual experiences as assaults. The majority of the research on this topic has focused on rape acknowledgment; however, this pattern holds true for other forms of sexual assault as well. The present study examined differences among university women with acknowledged, unacknowledged, and no histories of sexual assault. Relevant groups were compared in terms of current psychological distress, the situational factors of the assault, and the labeling of the assault. Similar to studies examining only rape, acknowledged victims of sexual assault reported clearer refusal, the experience of a more forceful assault, and more intense resistance against the perpetrator. Unacknowledged victims were more likely to endorse a prior romantic relationship with their assailant and a more recent assault. The great majority of women who endorsed an unwanted sexual experience also reported they were intoxicated at the time.
There is a way to know...this is a hypothetical situation.
In your logic, it's morally wrong for an employee and employer to consent to sex, even though it's more than possible in reality. If a husband and wife opened a business together, and the wife was the employer of the husband, does it all of a sudden become morally wrong for them to fuck?
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 08:35:17 PMThere is a way to know...this is a hypothetical situation.It's really not...there are countless cases of sexual abuse by superiors in the workforce, or teachers in academia. You're basically denying that someone's judgment could ever be impaired by someone's authority.Quote In your logic, it's morally wrong for an employee and employer to consent to sex, even though it's more than possible in reality. If a husband and wife opened a business together, and the wife was the employer of the husband, does it all of a sudden become morally wrong for them to fuck?Obviously not, and I've already brought up my own example of that.
And the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.
Quote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 09:03:00 PMAnd the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.We're not writing legislation; all I wanted to do was see if you'd admit that this isn't so black and white.
Quote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 09:04:23 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 30, 2016, 09:03:00 PMAnd the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.We're not writing legislation; all I wanted to do was see if you'd admit that this isn't so black and white.I never said it was. The point is to protect people's freedom of choice. Being coerced, whether you know you are or not, isn't a choice. And it's not true consent.
She tried to make do – sharing a room with a classmate and working a minimum wage job, plus any freelance work she could get. But still she struggled to pay her rent and utilities, and her grades suffered.“That’s just not why I am here,” she said. “I wanted to find the most amount of money I could make for the least amount of effort.”
what are your thoughts on "sugar daddying" for college students?
