4 ms·

For anyone wondering: there have been some rumours that Eric Schmidt has been indiscrete in the past, more specifically that he described that he had an “open m

by bertil 9y ago

For anyone wondering: there have been some rumours that Eric Schmidt has been indiscrete in the past, more specifically that he described that he had an “open marriage” and that he had relations with “exotic dancers”. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that his close collaborators at Google didn’t know about and discovered something unsavoury recently. More to the point, there is no reason to think his behaviour (although offensive to some) was ever non-consensual. It’s entirely understandable that, after more than a decade at the helm of the most incredible companies of all time, he’s stepping down to simply retire. Given the times, the question bears being asked -- although as far as we can tell, No.

eanzenberg 9y ago
Cool, I always wanted our sexual culture to revert back to the puritan 1600's.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It's not a reversion, it's a continued evolution. As Dworkin noted: > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. The hippies became Reaganites and women were allowed to participate in the economy to some extent, but that freedom also came with the expectation of sexual availability. You see it even now: suggest that maybe we should prohibit relationships between coworkers, and men flip out. The idea that we might categorically close off some spheres of life to sexual advances, so that women can work in peace and build their careers, induces apoplexy.
  - mrleiter 9y ago
    Thank you, exactly this.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Where are you getting this that men flip out of they are prohibited relationships between coworkers? I was just listening to NPR this morning where the woman speaking was saying that we need to more strongly define expectations for office behavior, but that women as well as men are against the idea of banning office relationships.
  - eanzenberg 9y ago
    Weird though, because school/work is the most common place for couples to meet. Your opinion is another example of ivory-tower syndrome, or living in an ultra-liberal bubble. Coworkers abstaining has more to do with risk (greater on the men’s side). Elites have always tried controlling sexual freedom and exploration because it threatens their control over literally creating future elite generations. The sexual revolution absolutely improved women’s prospects from the Eisenhower era. Instead of forced to religious-coupling or pushed into traditional female roles, instead women were able to more freely choose their mate.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Work is at 10% of relationships and rapidly falling: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ARQXH32AVQ4KTP4255WUYDHHUQ.png https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c.... In a few decades it’s going to be socially unacceptable to hit on coworkers. “If I were looking for a date, I’d be on tinder!” As to the sexual revolution, read Dworkin’s take on it. Her point that it is a distinctly a man-centric view of sexual freedom is prescient. It’s not just about being free to have sex whenever/with whoever you want, but also freedom to live aspects of your life without dealing with sexual advances. It’s about the freedom to go to work and have coworkers look at you as someone who can help advance their careers, or someone who they can mentor, not a potential date.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    Say that to my long-time girlfriend who approached me at work or the men and women I work alongside (I work at a very large company) who have wives or husbands in other departments and have no issues. Men don't "flip out" about prohibitions between coworkers any more than women do. It's de facto not allowed as stands in professional business etiquette but there is no real reason to prohibit workplace relationships, nor any effective means of doing so. People are also friends at work, should we prohibit that as well? How sterile should the work place be? Should I have to submit a request to stop by somebody's desk so not to interpret that I have a personal relationship with them? Sexual and relationship advances are a fact of life. If you can't handle it, then I'm not sure what to tell you. If you want people to be locked together for a minimum of 40 hours/week then you need to be realistic and expect that people will on occasion form romantic relationships, bad stuff sometimes happens too, but it also happens at bars, on college campuses, and at Wal-Mart. It's human. We're human. Grow up and get out of your bubble.
- burkaman 9y ago
  I think you misread that comment.
refurb 9y ago
The only thing I can think of is the timing of this announcement is perfect if you don't want any attention drawn to it. Keep an eye our on the news tomorrow around 4pm EST. You'll see plenty of companies dropping bad news right before the holidays. By the time everyone gets back to work, they've forgotten!
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Papa Johns CEO is stepping down as well as of Jan 1 2018
justboxing 9y ago
More than rumors. Apparently he had 1 of his many mistresses sign a "confidentiality agreement."[1] This is the kind of stuff Dave Chappelle used to joke about lol, in his "Love Contract" piece[2]. Can't believe someone actually did it - i.e. have the other person sign a confidentiality agreement before a consensual (sometime paid) sexual encounter. [1] Source: Google CEO and serial womanizer Eric Schmidt spends $15 million on private, no doorman Manhattan penthouse and then has it totally soundproofed => http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377785/Google-CEO-serial-womanizer-Eric-Schmidt-spends-15-million-dollars-private-doorman-Manhattan-penthouse-totally-soundproofed.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377785/Google-CEO-s... [2] “THE CHAPPELLE SHOW” DRAMATIZES SEXUAL CONSENT WITH THE LOVE CONTRACT => https://vimeo.com/183089808 https://vimeo.com/183089808
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by bertil 9y ago

eanzenberg 9y ago

Cool, I always wanted our sexual culture to revert back to the puritan 1600's.

rayiner 9y ago
It's not a reversion, it's a continued evolution. As Dworkin noted: > Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. The hippies became Reaganites and women were allowed to participate in the economy to some extent, but that freedom also came with the expectation of sexual availability. You see it even now: suggest that maybe we should prohibit relationships between coworkers, and men flip out. The idea that we might categorically close off some spheres of life to sexual advances, so that women can work in peace and build their careers, induces apoplexy.
- mrleiter 9y ago
  Thank you, exactly this.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Where are you getting this that men flip out of they are prohibited relationships between coworkers? I was just listening to NPR this morning where the woman speaking was saying that we need to more strongly define expectations for office behavior, but that women as well as men are against the idea of banning office relationships.
- eanzenberg 9y ago
  Weird though, because school/work is the most common place for couples to meet. Your opinion is another example of ivory-tower syndrome, or living in an ultra-liberal bubble. Coworkers abstaining has more to do with risk (greater on the men’s side). Elites have always tried controlling sexual freedom and exploration because it threatens their control over literally creating future elite generations. The sexual revolution absolutely improved women’s prospects from the Eisenhower era. Instead of forced to religious-coupling or pushed into traditional female roles, instead women were able to more freely choose their mate.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Work is at 10% of relationships and rapidly falling: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ARQXH32AVQ4KTP4255WUYDHHUQ.png https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c.... In a few decades it’s going to be socially unacceptable to hit on coworkers. “If I were looking for a date, I’d be on tinder!” As to the sexual revolution, read Dworkin’s take on it. Her point that it is a distinctly a man-centric view of sexual freedom is prescient. It’s not just about being free to have sex whenever/with whoever you want, but also freedom to live aspects of your life without dealing with sexual advances. It’s about the freedom to go to work and have coworkers look at you as someone who can help advance their careers, or someone who they can mentor, not a potential date.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Say that to my long-time girlfriend who approached me at work or the men and women I work alongside (I work at a very large company) who have wives or husbands in other departments and have no issues. Men don't "flip out" about prohibitions between coworkers any more than women do. It's de facto not allowed as stands in professional business etiquette but there is no real reason to prohibit workplace relationships, nor any effective means of doing so. People are also friends at work, should we prohibit that as well? How sterile should the work place be? Should I have to submit a request to stop by somebody's desk so not to interpret that I have a personal relationship with them? Sexual and relationship advances are a fact of life. If you can't handle it, then I'm not sure what to tell you. If you want people to be locked together for a minimum of 40 hours/week then you need to be realistic and expect that people will on occasion form romantic relationships, bad stuff sometimes happens too, but it also happens at bars, on college campuses, and at Wal-Mart. It's human. We're human. Grow up and get out of your bubble.
burkaman 9y ago
I think you misread that comment.

refurb 9y ago

The only thing I can think of is the timing of this announcement is perfect if you don't want any attention drawn to it. Keep an eye our on the news tomorrow around 4pm EST. You'll see plenty of companies dropping bad news right before the holidays. By the time everyone gets back to work, they've forgotten!

oh_sigh 9y ago
Papa Johns CEO is stepping down as well as of Jan 1 2018

justboxing 9y ago

More than rumors. Apparently he had 1 of his many mistresses sign a "confidentiality agreement."[1] This is the kind of stuff Dave Chappelle used to joke about lol, in his "Love Contract" piece[2]. Can't believe someone actually did it - i.e. have the other person sign a confidentiality agreement before a consensual (sometime paid) sexual encounter. [1] Source: Google CEO and serial womanizer Eric Schmidt spends $15 million on private, no doorman Manhattan penthouse and then has it totally soundproofed => http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377785/Google-CEO-serial-womanizer-Eric-Schmidt-spends-15-million-dollars-private-doorman-Manhattan-penthouse-totally-soundproofed.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377785/Google-CEO-s... [2] “THE CHAPPELLE SHOW” DRAMATIZES SEXUAL CONSENT WITH THE LOVE CONTRACT => https://vimeo.com/183089808 https://vimeo.com/183089808

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]