5 ms·
I don't understand this train of thought, then again I'm not married, but why do you think someone would want to have sex with you because they happen to be alo
by why_tho_ 9y ago
I don't understand this train of thought, then again I'm not married, but why do you think someone would want to have sex with you because they happen to be alone with you? This reeks of misogyny... You're basically saying you have no self control when it comes to 50% of the worlds population. That's just pathetic and comes across as extremely rapey.
People have agency over who they have sex with, you're saying they don't.
- backpropaganda 9y agoWhat if he agrees with all your allegations that he is rapey and misogynistic? In that case, wouldn't it be better if he adopts the policy than not? I assume you'd agree. So, if you are misogynistic, following this policy saves you from career suicide and harming others, and if you are not misogynistic, then the price is small. Therefore, it's best to follow this "no socialization with subordinates" policy.
- joshuamorton 9y agoI would disagree that the price is small. Many of my closest friends are opposite gender, and as another user said, avoiding cross gender friendships is likely to be harmful to the gender which has fewer people at the top.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y agoYou're probably right. As I mentioned elsewhere, I feel bad about any downsides this has for women. It's probably a downside that we should try to mitigate.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]