The only thing I'd add is that Lem is arguing that anytime there is a sexual relationship between a subordinate and a superior, regardless if it is 100% consensual, and the subordinate ends up losing his/her job it is per se sexual harassment.
It's definitely f***y to fire the affair partner because you're ending the affair. I agree with Lem that it qualifies as a sort of sexual harassment in a technical sense.
And I don't buy that Rosebud was the one with organizational power over him. He had the power of celebrity (in this context) and longevity in the organization. There wasn't going to be an Open Stories Foundation without him.
But Rosebud's story all along should have been, "I had an affair with JD and he broke it off and had me fired." That she spent nearly a decade never mentioning her OW status doesn't give me much sympathy for her.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
(That goes for Dehlin as well. This embarrassment is one hell of a stupid prize to win.)
BA, Classics, Brigham Young University
MA, American Religious History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD Student, Church History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Apparently there was ejaculation and unclothed sexual encounters involved but yes mainly emotional affair
That makes it a non-PiV physical affair.
So very Mormon.
Sometimes you can take the ex-Mormon out of the church, but you can't take the church out of the ex-Mormon.
BA, Classics, Brigham Young University
MA, American Religious History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD Student, Church History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
The only thing I'd add is that Lem is arguing that anytime there is a sexual relationship between a subordinate and a superior, regardless if it is 100% consensual, and the subordinate ends up losing his/her job it is per se sexual harassment.
It's definitely f***y to fire the affair partner because you're ending the affair. I agree with Lem that it qualifies as a sort of sexual harassment in a technical sense.
And I don't buy that Rosebud was the one with organizational power over him. He had the power of celebrity (in this context) and longevity in the organization. There wasn't going to be an Open Stories Foundation without him.
But Rosebud's story all along should have been, "I had an affair with John Dehlin and he broke it off and had me fired." That she spent nearly a decade never mentioning her OW status doesn't give me much sympathy for her.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
(That goes for Dehlin as well. This embarrassment is one hell of a stupid prize to win.)
oh yes. It's a relief to agree after this long and tiring thread.
“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
Worse yet, she wanted to break up their family. John asked for that pressure when he had an affair and on top of that with a seemingly unstable person. Does this merit a decade-long vendetta though?
Sheesh!
Yeah, he's the idiot who had the affair with an unstable person (female affair partners almost *always* want the man to leave his spouse and are shocked to discover they are not a Very Special Person who warrants that; male affair partners usually want to keep the status quo, this is all so textbook apart from the no-PiV Mormon aspect).
But a decade of bitterness and revenge over an affair that lasted a couple of months seems extreme.
My ex-husband cheated on me with a woman who would later marry a pastor and attempt to go into ministry. You don't see me hounding them all over the Internet.
BA, Classics, Brigham Young University
MA, American Religious History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD Student, Church History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
(1) John Dehlin had a consensual emotional affair with Rosebud, who was at that time an Open Stories Foundation board member. (By "emotional affair" I mean there were professions of love, affection, and desires for sex that would be inappropriate between mere co-workers / friends, but they apparently never crossed over into physical affection / sex.) Both parties were married to other people at the time. They both suck.
I don't think that's fair in the sense that there WAS physical affection...just not sex. And Rosebud is claiming that she withdrew consent for this physical part of the relationship and JD violated that by groping her.
(1) John Dehlin had a consensual emotional affair with Rosebud, who was at that time an Open Stories Foundation board member. (By "emotional affair" I mean there were professions of love, affection, and desires for sex that would be inappropriate between mere co-workers / friends, but they apparently never crossed over into physical affection / sex.) Both parties were married to other people at the time. They both suck.
I don't think that's fair in the sense that there WAS physical affection...just not sex. And Rosebud is claiming that she withdrew consent for this physical part of the relationship and JD violated that by groping her.
Is there contemporaneous evidence that she withdrew consent?
In a small organization like that, the supervisory and subordinate roles are often fluid.
Good point. Trump was the CEO but he definitely liked to be spanked with a rolled-up magazine and be fed cheeseburgers. Would he like Rosebud in a dominatrix uniform? Who knows.
Is there contemporaneous evidence that she withdrew consent?
From what I remember, she was uncomfortable about staying in someone's home because John had used that opportunity before to sneak into her room late at night after she told him not to.
The evidence she provided to back this up were emails expressing her discomfort at staying in someone's home and declaring her intention to get her own hotel room. She also provided the receipt to prove she followed through and booked the hotel room.
But I don't remember anything in writing where the actual withdrawal of consent happened. It may not have happened in writing.
Is there contemporaneous evidence that she withdrew consent?
From what I remember, she was uncomfortable about staying in someone's home because John had used that opportunity before to sneak into her room late at night after she told him not to.
The evidence she provided to back this up were emails expressing her discomfort at staying in someone's home and declaring her intention to get her own hotel room. She also provided the receipt to prove she followed through and booked the hotel room.
But I don't remember anything in writing where the actual withdrawal of consent happened. It may not have happened in writing.
So, the contemporaneous evidence is: (a) emails expressing discomfort at staying in someone's home and (b) a receipt showing she got a hotel room instead of staying in someone's home. Do the emails say why she is uncomfortable staying in someone's home, especially anything that would lead an observer to believe she had withdrawn consent? Also, I would also be curious what Rosebud was saying to JD before and after this incident. Do those communications indicate that she had withdrawn consent?
