Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Physics Guy]

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.

This makes sense, and I agree that it's a different issue from the consensual relationship itself that I was discussing. Is it really a form of sexual harassment, exactly?

Well, it's certainly harassment in the sense that getting someone fired is giving them trouble. For most people it's closer to sticks and stones than mere name-calling, in fact, but you also can't call it assault, so I guess if it isn't harassment then it's not clear what should be.

In a way it sort of seems as though it might be harassment but not sexual harassment, because it's about ending a relationship rather than trying to start one. But sex is clearly involved in the interaction. I'm not pushing for pedantic hairsplitting for its own sake, here.

So okay, maybe the consensual relationship itself would have been a form of sexual misconduct different from harassment, but the pushing somebody out of a job because of sexual entanglements could legitimately be considered a form of sexual harassment, even if in some ways it wasn't the paradigmatic form of sexual harassment. I don't want to broaden the umbrella too wide but it has to have some width, because few real situations are ever going to conform to an ideal model.

Maybe this case is indeed one that not only could be classified as sexual harassment, but should be—as you say, not for the relationship itself (although that was wrong, too) but for the way it was ended.

[Esme]

Here's another snippet:

JD:

Don't you have those fears/concerns now? [Referring to a previous relationship she didn't continue.]

Rosebud:

I would only hurt people ... and that wasn't my intent or desire. Yes, but my decision will be the same. If any of this is more hurtful than good, I will be gone.

It sounds like to me that this was something touched on many times and Rosebud said several things like "I will be gone" as soon as its gets too hurtful. Lots of discussion on if this relationship was going to turn more hurtful than helpful.

So I think JD thought he could pull the ripcord once it got "too hurtful." You see this in his language in the letter such as "But I need you to go now. It's hurting me. I'm telling you it's hurting me. And it's hurting my family." And now she was supposed to follow through with what she said and "be gone."

[Esme]

In a way it sort of seems as though it might be harassment but not sexual harassment, because it's about ending a relationship rather than trying to start one. But sex is clearly involved in the interaction. I'm not pushing for pedantic hairsplitting for its own sake, here.

It doesn't matter that it's about ending a relationship rather than starting one.

With these relationships with a power imbalance, there's the opportunity for a threat either way.
"You continue/escalate this relationship, or else..."
0r
"You end this relationship, or else..."

It's the "or else" that's the problem, not whether it's at the beginning or end of a relationship.

[Esme]

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

Where did you get this? JD is on the board too.

[Esme]

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.

That's really unfair to Lem. She has conducted herself with a lot of grace and level-headedness throughout this.

[dastardly stem]

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.

Bull crap. That doesn't describe Lem at all. What are you talking about?

It does appear there are some Rosebud supporters who are taking it to personal-vendetta-against-JD arena. Jpatterson comes to mind. That's not Lem.

[dastardly stem]

Here's another snippet:

John Dehlin:

Don't you have those fears/concerns now? [Referring to a previous relationship she didn't continue.]

Rosebud:

I would only hurt people ... and that wasn't my intent or desire. Yes, but my decision will be the same. If any of this is more hurtful than good, I will be gone.

It sounds like to me that this was something touched on many times and Rosebud said several things like "I will be gone" as soon as its gets too hurtful. Lots of discussion on if this relationship was going to turn more hurtful than helpful.

So I think John Dehlin thought he could pull the ripcord once it got "too hurtful." You see this in his language in the letter such as "But I need you to go now. It's hurting me. I'm telling you it's hurting me. And it's hurting my family." And now she was supposed to follow through with what she said and "be gone."

Interesting. Thanks for finding that and the other mentions.

[honorentheos]

This pretty much describes Lem. Pretend to care about women while exploiting them.

Bull crap. That doesn't describe Lem at all. What are you talking about?

It does appear there are some Rosebud supporters who are taking it to personal-vendetta-against-JD arena. Jpatterson comes to mind. That's not Lem.

Agreed. Her comments in thread regarding sexual harassment are consistent with just about every organizational policy one should expect to encounter. Nor has she sided with Rosebud beyond arguing that John's responsibility not be ignored just because Rosebud is self-destructive.

[drumdude]

It does appear there are some Rosebud supporters who are taking it to personal-vendetta-against-JD arena. Jpatterson comes to mind. That's not Lem.

Yes lets please not lump Lem in with the idiots like Jpatterson. I disagree with her but Lem actually has thoughtful comments which should be seriously considered.

[The Stig]

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

Where did you get this? John Dehlin is on the board too.

In his employee role he would answer to the Board. In a small organization like that, the supervisory and subordinate roles are often fluid.