Were you planning to answer my question? You asked me to answer yours first, which I did.
I await your reply to my question.
Bumped for consig, you asked me to answer your q first, so I did. Please answer mine.
Sure thing, Lem.
The problem I have in answering your question is it is framed in such a way as to bear only a superficial resemblance to the case under consideration.
You have a remarkable skill at framing issues in such a way as to tilt in your favor. And I mean that as a compliment.
But the way you get it to tilt in your favor is by removing what I find to be relevant facts from the equation.
Sort of like winning a tug-of-war by systematically removing the strongest pullers from the other side of the mud pit.
Anybody can win the game under these circumstances.
What I specifically object to in this regard is your phrasing the question in terms of John Dehlin being “finished with her as a sexual plaything.”
I see little to conclude John Dehlin viewed AP in such a singularly sinister light, nor that he treated her so simplistically and two-dimensionally as your language suggests.
I do, however, find it likely that had AP stopped pursuing John Dehlin sexually when he told her to stop, she would be with MS today.
But AP wouldn’t stop.
She wanted John Dehlin. She wanted MS.
She wanted the whole damn fish.
Wow. And to think I answered your question in good faith, only to get this in response. Let me try again, just using your words.
consiglieri wrote:
If Rosebud had ceased and desisted as John Dehlin asked, there is no reason to suspect the board would ever have gotten involved.
Rosebud could still have been working for Open Stories Foundation doing the thing she loved if she had just backed down when asked and cooled her jets.
Sexual harassment can be a two-way street.
What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets," when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?
You'll note that it is not MY language that suggests dehhlin "treated her so simplistically and two-dimensionally," it is what YOUR language suggests. My adding the sexual plaything part was just to indicate how inappropriate I thought your language was when you said Rosebud should have "just backed down." It was added to indicate what I think about your suggestion that if a woman doesn't "cease and desist" in response to what looks like sexual harassment, then it means she is being sexually harassing (i.e. the two way street you specified).
But thank you, I did get a very clear indication of your bias on this topic of your podcast.
I think it's biased to call something "inappropriate" when it's in regards to a man, yet it's absolutely "sexual harassment" when it applies to a woman.
Let's at least treat the sexes equally if we're going to broaden the definition of sexual harassment to encompass anything that is harmful as a result of sexual activity.
I think it's biased to call something "inappropriate" when it's in regards to a man, yet it's absolutely "sexual harassment" when it applies to a woman.
Let's at least treat the sexes equally if we're going to broaden the definition of sexual harassment to encompass anything that is harmful as a result of sexual activity.
Read consig's post. He's the one who defined not backing off as a form of sexual harassment.
And yes, I consider a superior getting a subordinate fired as a result of their affair to be "sexual harassment." Talking about erectile dysfunction in an online post when neither person is employed by the other is "inappropriate." I have also in this thread noted that if a female superior has a male subordinate fired as a result of their affair it is "sexual harassment."
The distinction between the two terms depends on the circumstances, not on gender. Please treat the sexes equally in equal situations.
Doxxing refers to gathering an individual’s Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and disclosing or posting it publicly, usually for malicious purposes such as public humiliation, stalking, identity theft, or targeting an individual for harassment.
What she did goes beyond inappropriateness. Sexual harassment does not require an employee/employer relationship.
Read consig's post. He's the one who defined not backing off as a form of sexual harassment.
When one co-worker repeatedly propositions another co-worker even after the propositioned co-worker repeatedly declines, that is sexual harassment.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
“Drumdude” wrote:
What she did goes beyond inappropriateness. Sexual harassment does not require an employee/employer relationship.
That’s true. It does not. It can take place in any social environment. It can happen online. I would call Rosebud’s online behavior toward John Dehlin a kind of harassment. Sexual harassment would be a more difficult case to make. That said, she may get emotional and even sexual satisfaction from humiliating John Dehlin online for years on end. My guesss is that it is more the former than the latter. People are strange.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I imagine the argument against what A did being sexual harassment, was that she mentioned John Dehlin's erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation only incidentally as part of telling her story.
The problem with that is, A being asked to step down and take a different role was also incidental to John Dehlin's decision to end their affair.
You can't have it both ways. Did A want to humiliate John? Did John want to fire A? Or was the humiliation and firing simply incidental to their goals of ending the relationship/telling their story.
I don't believe John was motivated by the desire to fire A, he was motivated by the desire to end the affair. I do think A was motivated by a desire to publicly humiliate John by releasing confidential private sexual information that was not relevant to her case.
Last edited by drumdude on Tue May 18, 2021 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I imagine the argument against what Anne did being sexual harassment, was that she mentioned John Dehlin's erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation only incidentally as part of telling her story.
The problem with that is, Anne being asked to step down and take a different role was also incidental to John Dehlin's decision to end their affair.
You can't have it both ways. Did Anne want to humiliate John? Did John want to fire Anne? Or was the humiliation and firing simply incidental to their goals of ending the relationship/telling their story.
I don't believe John was motivated by the desire to fire Anne, he was motivated by the desire to end the affair. I do think Anne was motivated by a desire to publicly humiliate John by releasing confidential private sexual information that was not relevant to her case.
In my opinion the best description of what is going on here is what Dr. Moore shared. We should set aside the sexual smokescreen and consider the business aspects of the situation. According to Dr. Moore, John Dehlin discovered that for various reasons Rosebud was not the kind of business partner who would benefit his nascent business, so he cut her loose. Rosebud is upset about the lost business opportunity, so she is attacking John Dehlin's brand, knowing that Mormon sexual mores and current cultural changes make this point of attack especially powerful. In business terms, Open Stories Foundation was really smart to cut Rosebud loose, because, as subsequent developments show, Rosebud has not learned yet how to be a savvy and successful businessperson. Pay close attention to her blog, where she sets herself up as the better alternative to people like John Dehlin, whom she denigrates for being bad victim advocates.
The core business issues are difficult to ignore once you stop focusing on the weapons and start honing in on the purpose for which they are being used. I entitled a recent thread on this phenomenon as "Mofluencer Wars" because that is what I saw this as being--a struggle between influencers. The major actors here (Kwaku, Kate Kelly, Rosebud, John Dehlin) are businesspeople trying to build their own brand and following. They are jostling for influence and attention and using each other as allies and targets to further their own agendas. It is absolutely fascinating, and quite different from what it appears to be on the surface--a simple moral conflict.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I do think your rephrasing of what consig said did dial the rhetoric up to 11. There was back and forth between the two parties, asking to end the tryst, only to get sucked back in. John Dehlin expressed his ultimate desire to try and make it work with his wife, though it appears he got perilously close to losing his family. Rosebud, from what I can tell, had a tumultuous home life, the relationship with John Dehlin had more meaning for the long term. Read John Dehlin’s august 10th email to Rosebud. I don’t read it as “I’m done with you, I had my fun, now leave.” I read it as a plea for this to end before tragedy happens.
It is the perfect example of the debate about consent. Both parties are in then out at different times, but they couldn’t help themselves around each other.
My stance is, I agree with Lem, the firing is a form of harassment. Superior asked a subordinate to leave when a relationship ended. I don’t think it has legal standing, but it has some level of moral standing. That being said, he said no, she didn’t drop it kept pushing it in that conversation. That is also harassment. And this is where I agree with consig and some others. ITV of these arguments are built upon the sand, there are plenty of points to consider that weaken each argument.
It is a strange case, maybe a true crime podcast will take the mantle form our hole in the wall and really dig into it. Maybe they can define faux sexting for the rest of us.
According to Dr. Moore, John Dehlin discovered that for various reasons Rosebud was not the kind of business partner who would benefit his nascent business, so he cut her loose. Rosebud is upset about the lost business opportunity, so she is attacking John Dehlin's brand, knowing that Mormon sexual mores and current cultural changes make this point of attack especially powerful.
Unfortunately for their relationship it appears that went both ways. She declined he insisted, showed up when unwelcomed at late hours, persisted when she said no. If you are saying she's guilty of sexual harassment because she kept requesting sex at the end of their relationship then it appears he too would be so guilty earlier in their relationship, given the claims validity. I do believe that is why she's interested in telling her whole story and not focusing in on the parts where it seems, at least to me, she was forced from her job due to the affair. But, I think it's a weak case to make since it appears they each played the pursuer after having been declined.
One could agree with Dr Moore's take and still conclude there was sexual harassment involved. His take seems to focus on why she's doing what she's doing now. I haven't really felt too concerned about that since she's behaved erratically before.
Last edited by dastardly stem on Wed May 12, 2021 1:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
