Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Meadowchik
Elder
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:54 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Meadowchik »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm
I’m looking forward to your thoughts on the topic when you’re in a place to do so, good luck with your exams.
Thanks for the well-wishes. I think I did better than expected on my exams, yay!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=856
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Lem »

Meadowchik wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 12:41 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm
I’m looking forward to your thoughts on the topic when you’re in a place to do so, good luck with your exams.
Thanks for the well-wishes. I think I did better than expected on my exams, yay!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=856
Congratulations!
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4298
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by honorentheos »

Physics Guy wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 11:57 am
I'm just concerned about whether framing the charge as one of sexual harassment is correct. I think that kind of consensual relationship is a different flavor of sexual misconduct from harassment. A few online definitions seem to support my own impression that to harass someone is to give them trouble, and so by definition anything that someone wants can't be harassment. It can absolutely be wrong, but just not for that exact reason.

Whether or not the recipient wanted the attention is an important issue in harassment, because it's what makes it harassment to give someone—even a peer—lavish bouquets of roses or other inappropriately lover-like gifts, or pay them inappropriately personal compliments. If whether the gifts or compliments were welcome or not were irrelevant, then the harasser could just ask what was wrong with being nice to someone? The recognition that it's the reasonable feelings of the recipient of the attention that matter, and not the claimed innocent intentions of the harasser, was an important step forward for civilization.
I think the issue isn't if there was consent or not. Relationships between superiors and subordinates inherently have a difference in power dynamics that makes engaging in it fraternization or misconduct. But the power dynamics overlays every request or refusal made between them afterward with implications for the relationship and non-business expectations related to the relationship. Thus, the superior can't escape sexually harassing the subordinate when any business action is called for once the relationship is not just started, but offered. Whether both parties want the relationship doesn't change this. It's a bit, but not exactly, like why a fifteen year old can't consent to a sexual relationship with a 21 year old. It's statutory rape even if the fifteen year old was eager to engage in the relationship.

But I do think there is an issue here and that's the nature of the business. At the beginning of the relationship this was a two-person venture that organized into a NTP with a nominal board due to organizing requirements. But Open Stories Foundation was for all intents and purposes two people working from home on a project. Interpersonal issues between two-person ventures inevitably result in the person with the lesser claim being pushed out by the person with the stronger claim if the relationship breaks down and begins to interfere with the business. In this case there is the messiness of an affair of passion with the decidedly Mormon dynamic of doing everything except having actual intercourse because they seemed to believe there was a line they weren't crossing. It couldn't be more Mormon if it were a weekend in Vegas to get married, have sex, get an annulment, and be back in classes on Monday.

Anyway, the size of the organization mattered. Rosebud lost her stake in the venture to John who had the greater claim when the relationship soured. She knows this is the reality as she made early claims her importance to the organization had eclipsed his.

It's for those reasons it's not sexual harassment as it actually happened. It absolutely would be just based on the dynamic if the organization was structured differently before they started the relationship. But two people in a start up venture having an affair is a contextual difference that matters.
Last edited by honorentheos on Fri May 14, 2021 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9042
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

Meadowchik wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 12:41 pm

Thanks for the well-wishes. I think I did better than expected on my exams, yay!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=856
Congratulations!
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by dastardly stem »

Lem wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 12:33 pm
I'm just concerned about whether framing the charge as one of sexual harassment is correct. I think that kind of consensual relationship is a different flavor of sexual misconduct from harassment. A few online definitions seem to support my own impression that to harass someone is to give them trouble, and so by definition anything that someone wants can't be harassment. It can absolutely be wrong, but just not for that exact reason.
While I don't disagree that a relationship with a power imbalance, consensual or not, represents the possibility of a harmful situation, to me that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The reason this relationship is an issue is because it did cause actual harm, in the form of an involuntary loss of employment as a result of the relationship between the superior and the subordinate. Using the prior consensuality of such a relationship, actual or not, to justify such harm, misses the point. "Promises" made in the throes of romantic love are an extraordinarily shaky base for justifying later behavior that results in harm. To me, it's like justifying breaking into a person's home, on the premise that the person said they would always love you. Such statements shouldn't be used as the equivalent of a contract to allow later harm.
Yes, exactly this. John saying they had an agreement hardly shows she also agreed. I'd say it's doubtful she did. But it hardly matters. If she did so agree, that can't seriously be considered anything but clear evidence supporting the allegation of sexual harassment. If she did not agree, then it's still a huge support for her claim of sexual harassment because he, for some reason, thought their relationship and her employment was wholly contingent on his romantic whims.

I get some will contend that's not really sexual harassment. To that I'd say, doesn't really matter what one wants to label it at this point. To make an issue of the term seems to miss the point.
“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
User avatar
SaturdaysVoyeur
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 7:24 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by SaturdaysVoyeur »

mormonstories wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 2:00 pm
1) I’m not saying I didn’t have the most power or influence. I’m only saying that Rosebud was a founding board member. And she did have more power and influence than a mere employee. And she was a board member before she became an employee. And she was a board member while she was an employee. So all I’m saying is that she had more power and responsibility than a simple employee.

2) Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee.

Oh, dear God, will someone please get J-D a shovel?? He seems intent on digging himself into a deeper hole.

If it's true that Rosebud was an Open Stories Foundation board member (which should be easy to independently verify), that changes the whole equation. The CEO of a non-profit is an employee in charge of day-to-day operations, but the CEO answers to the board of directors. (Some CEOs also have a seat on the board, but typically in an ex officio capacity.) Ultimately, the CEO serves at the board's pleasure.

In other words, J-D wasn't Rosebud's boss. Rosebud was his boss.

That doesn't change the gender dynamics or the fact that J-D would obviously have more power and influence as the public face of Mormon Stories, but it obliterates the framing of this as workplace sexual harassment based on who was subordinate to whom on the organizational chart.

If she was on the board of directors, then J-D was Rosebud's subordinate, not the other way around. What ultimately put Rosebud in the one-down position is that she clearly still wanted J-D, romantically and sexually, after he no longer wanted her. (I feel for her. Haven't we all been there with an ex-lover? It hurts like hell.)

However, it's as ridiculous to interpret the "go away promise" as an "agreement" between them, as it is to interpret Rosebud's "two option" letter as blackmail. Her "two option" email is too grandiose to even be taken seriously, and J-D's problem isn't that he was a pervy monster, but that he was astonishingly naïve.

The "go away promise" is referenced throughout the hundreds of text messages in Rosebud's document dump. Dizzy with infatuation, they both make promises to fall on their own swords before ever allowing any harm to come to the other. Ah....c'est l'amour! :roll:

To frame such melodramatic pillow talk as J-D twisting Rosebud's arm to leave Open Stories whenever J-D decided he had tired of her, is as ludicrous as believing Rosebud will someday peddle a bestseller on the talk show circuit. It's an even bigger stretch to think that, when Rosebud encouraged him to go back to his wife and family, and he swooned in reply that this "only makes me want you more," that J-D was getting off on Rosebud's unwillingness to be with him.

Unwillingness?? She's been chasing his bacon non-stop since the first Obama administration!

The shocker is that, after pages upon pages of nutty messages between the two of them, J-D somehow still believed she would keep her gallant "promise" to leave his life forever before ever allowing any harm to come to him. He makes similarly theatrical promises to her in those text messages. What do you expect? They were twitterpated.

It would be age-appropriate, and maybe even charming, if they were 14-year-olds instead of grown-ass adults, both of them parents many times over, with spouses at home whose feelings neither one of them ever seemed to consider. (I was revolted by the intimate sexual details that J-D shared with Rosebud about his wife, which Rosebud then posts to the Internet! TEN YEARS LATER!)

To paint J-D as a manipulative pervert gives him far too much credit for conniving, when he was actually behaving like a teenager in the throes of his first crush, rather than the middle-aged husband and father that he actually is.

And then there's Rosebud. Every public move she has made in the last decade makes me genuinely concerned for her mental health. Not only that she's nurtured this obsession with J-D for such an unfathomably long time, while blaming him for problems in her life that he plainly has nothing to do with. Not only that she nurtures grandiose fantasies, like bringing down the franchise industry. Not even that she describes cutting her own flesh to alleviate emotional distress (! :shock: !). I don't doubt that her anguish is entirely real. So, will somebody please get this woman the help that she needs instead of feeding her delusions??

The elephant in the room here is that she's upped the ante every time she dredges this thing back up. First, she just wanted access to the work projects she'd been locked out of. Then she claimed workplace sexual harassment, enabled by a conspiracy of her fellow board members. Then she claimed the relationship with J-D was never consensual at all because his machinations rendered her unable to consent. Then she claimed J-D had a sexual fetish about getting caught in flagrante delicto. Then she claimed that J-D made a sexual recording of her against her will. Now, she's claiming he barged into her bedroom uninvited and sexually assaulted her.

Mark my words: When this current bid to destroy J-D fails yet again, she's either going to claim that he's threatening her with release of the sex tape (that we have no evidence even exists), and/or that he straight-up raped her, rewriting their mutual denial of intercourse as J-D telling lies, and that she was so traumatized she had blocked it out and believed it didn't happen. For 10 years. (Hey, you can't prove that didn't happen!)

Her allegations aren't credible, and J-D's attempts to defend himself turn into own goals. But the really sickening part (beyond the effect this must keep having on, y'know, their actual families) is that the people who claim to care so much about Rosebud seem to be using her to further their agenda of hating J-D, rather than getting her some qualified mental health care.
drumdude
God
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by drumdude »

It's train wreck and we can't look away.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Dr Exiled »

SaturdaysVoyeur wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 3:36 pm

Mark my words: When this current bid to destroy J-D fails yet again, she's either going to claim that he's threatening her with release of the sex tape (that we have no evidence even exists), and/or that he straight-up raped her, rewriting their mutual denial of intercourse as J-D telling lies, and that she was so traumatized she had blocked it out and believed it didn't happen. For 10 years. (Hey, you can't prove that didn't happen!)
Spot on. Her crap show will continue.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
User avatar
The Stig
Deacon
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by The Stig »

Not sure there's been a more epic first post than the one provided by SaturdaysVoyeur. Well done, mystery person, well done.
User avatar
Tavares Standfield
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:37 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Tavares Standfield »

SaturdaysVoyeur wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 3:36 pm
But the really sickening part (beyond the effect this must keep having on, y'know, their actual families) is that the people who claim to care so much about Rosebud seem to be using her to further their agenda of hating J-D, rather than getting her some qualified mental health care.
This pretty much describes Lem. Pretend to care about women while exploiting them.
Post Reply