6 ms·

Hitting on a minor, who you know is a minor (17 years old) when you are in a position of power over her is more than just a little mistake. DeGrey admits this.

Hitting on a minor, who you know is a minor (17 years old) when you are in a position of power over her is more than just a little mistake. DeGrey admits this. Imagine if a coach or a teacher did this. That alone is a serious serious breach of ethics, and gives some insight into a person's mind and potential other activities.

stuaxo 5y ago
As someone pointed out, the age of consent in the UK is 16. But that's really not the point, everything else you said is. And just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable, for all those reasons.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  I don't remember exactly, but in Canada I believe it's significant whether the other person is in a position of authority over the minor. This is to prevent grooming and/or the implicit threat of reprisal if the minor doesn't comply.
JabavuAdams 5y ago
I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.
- RangerScience 5y ago
  > keep that stuff locked down Careful with this. IME, everything you feel gets expressed eventually. You either make some choices about that expression, or it leaks out of you - usually in toxic ways (passive aggression, overly controlling behavior, snipe-comments, etc.) Have close friends (and a therapist!) that you can talk to about just about anything. A lot of times, feelings are signals for exploration; "here be learning", as it were. Aubrey even names it, without realizing it (IMO) when he says "could treat [me] as an equal on every other level". I'm betting that if Aubrey had taken the time to feel and understand, he'd have realized that Deming (at that time) wasn't someone he could actually treat as an equal on every level. (And, probably, that he had a need for more people in his life that he could).
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    From reading his email to her, it's clear that he did realize this, but somehow he also thought he could get away with writing a suggestive email to her about his "adventurous love life" [sic]. (To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.)
    - RangerScience 5y ago
      Was the email published? All I've got to go off of is the snippet from the OP.
      - phnofive 5y ago
        No, but Aubrey confirms it: > "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"
        dkersten 5y ago
        He confirms that he wrote an inadvised email. We still do not know the actual content or context around the email, so we don't know if it was malicious, abuse or simply somewhat inappropriate but otherwise malign. We know she felt uncomfortable over it, but we do not know if he wrote it innocently-but-stupidly or if there is more to it.
        phnofive 5y ago
        I can see how 'inadvised' and 'regret' could refer to further projection of blame, but the author is dead, and that's not how it reads to me.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        ITYM "but otherwise benign", right?
    - 5y ago
- marcusverus 5y ago
  > I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Expressing romantic interest in a co-worker or classmate is not de-facto inappropriate. Your advice is solid for folks in positions of power, but for the rest of us, not so much. The idea that young men and women who work together should be forbidden from exploring relationships with with classmates or coworkers is a kind of bizarre neo-puritanism. (Your human nature? That's bad! Ignore it!) And for what? To prevent the occasional, momentary discomfort of rebuffing a respectful advance? Of course nobody should have to endure sexual harassment, socially inept creepiness, or blind persistence from unwanted suiters. And people who engage in these behaviors should be paid a visit from HR (and eventually receive a pink slip). But the vast majority of adults are capable of tactful communication, and should not be prevented from exploring the full possibilities of their interpersonal relationships simply because the relationship began at work.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    I agree in principle, but we should also consider the asymmetric effects in practice. If every female co-worker gets multiple unsolicited advances per year, that could be a problem, even if the advances are tactful, between equals, and listen to rejection. At some level you just want to go in to work, not be spammed with advances all the time. It's different for most guys we don't get nearly the amount of interest, even if we're attractive. So it would be crucial to try to understand what women experience and what they want out of a workplace instead of just going on abstract concepts.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      Studies show that between 10%-20% or people meet their spouses at work. It makes sense that far more than that have had long relationships with people they met at work. I suspect the actual situation with regard to women and men at work and approaching each other, and whether it's wanted or unwanted, is somewhat more complicated than "women get badgered".
  - 5y ago
rbanffy 5y ago
Hitting on someone who’s much younger and less experienced than you may be legal, but is still wrong. The power the more experienced person can exert on the less experienced one is dangerous and can easily be misused. It often is.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  It's not just that it can be misused. Hitting on them is misusing it. It's putting them between a rock and hard place. Nothing good can come of that.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
When you make mistakes, you don't double down and DARVO.
kbenson 5y ago
> DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way. I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.
RickJWagner 5y ago
Exactly. Like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing-- it was the start of exposing a predator. (Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that, many with firm evidence, some with settlements in hand.)
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  > Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that It's not as if there weren't accuser pre-Lewinksy either.
varelse 5y ago
A minor that he had mentored since she was 14. If that isn't solid evidence of poor judgment I don't know what is. Also incredibly and disgustingly creepy.

stuaxo 5y ago

As someone pointed out, the age of consent in the UK is 16. But that's really not the point, everything else you said is. And just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable, for all those reasons.

JabavuAdams 5y ago
I don't remember exactly, but in Canada I believe it's significant whether the other person is in a position of authority over the minor. This is to prevent grooming and/or the implicit threat of reprisal if the minor doesn't comply.

JabavuAdams 5y ago

I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.

RangerScience 5y ago
> keep that stuff locked down Careful with this. IME, everything you feel gets expressed eventually. You either make some choices about that expression, or it leaks out of you - usually in toxic ways (passive aggression, overly controlling behavior, snipe-comments, etc.) Have close friends (and a therapist!) that you can talk to about just about anything. A lot of times, feelings are signals for exploration; "here be learning", as it were. Aubrey even names it, without realizing it (IMO) when he says "could treat [me] as an equal on every other level". I'm betting that if Aubrey had taken the time to feel and understand, he'd have realized that Deming (at that time) wasn't someone he could actually treat as an equal on every level. (And, probably, that he had a need for more people in his life that he could).
- zozbot234 5y ago
  From reading his email to her, it's clear that he did realize this, but somehow he also thought he could get away with writing a suggestive email to her about his "adventurous love life" [sic]. (To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.)
  - RangerScience 5y ago
    Was the email published? All I've got to go off of is the snippet from the OP.
    - phnofive 5y ago
      No, but Aubrey confirms it: > "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"
      - dkersten 5y ago
        He confirms that he wrote an inadvised email. We still do not know the actual content or context around the email, so we don't know if it was malicious, abuse or simply somewhat inappropriate but otherwise malign. We know she felt uncomfortable over it, but we do not know if he wrote it innocently-but-stupidly or if there is more to it.
        phnofive 5y ago
        I can see how 'inadvised' and 'regret' could refer to further projection of blame, but the author is dead, and that's not how it reads to me.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        ITYM "but otherwise benign", right?
  - 5y ago
marcusverus 5y ago
> I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Expressing romantic interest in a co-worker or classmate is not de-facto inappropriate. Your advice is solid for folks in positions of power, but for the rest of us, not so much. The idea that young men and women who work together should be forbidden from exploring relationships with with classmates or coworkers is a kind of bizarre neo-puritanism. (Your human nature? That's bad! Ignore it!) And for what? To prevent the occasional, momentary discomfort of rebuffing a respectful advance? Of course nobody should have to endure sexual harassment, socially inept creepiness, or blind persistence from unwanted suiters. And people who engage in these behaviors should be paid a visit from HR (and eventually receive a pink slip). But the vast majority of adults are capable of tactful communication, and should not be prevented from exploring the full possibilities of their interpersonal relationships simply because the relationship began at work.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  I agree in principle, but we should also consider the asymmetric effects in practice. If every female co-worker gets multiple unsolicited advances per year, that could be a problem, even if the advances are tactful, between equals, and listen to rejection. At some level you just want to go in to work, not be spammed with advances all the time. It's different for most guys we don't get nearly the amount of interest, even if we're attractive. So it would be crucial to try to understand what women experience and what they want out of a workplace instead of just going on abstract concepts.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    Studies show that between 10%-20% or people meet their spouses at work. It makes sense that far more than that have had long relationships with people they met at work. I suspect the actual situation with regard to women and men at work and approaching each other, and whether it's wanted or unwanted, is somewhat more complicated than "women get badgered".
- 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago

Hitting on someone who’s much younger and less experienced than you may be legal, but is still wrong. The power the more experienced person can exert on the less experienced one is dangerous and can easily be misused. It often is.

JulianMorrison 5y ago
It's not just that it can be misused. Hitting on them is misusing it. It's putting them between a rock and hard place. Nothing good can come of that.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

When you make mistakes, you don't double down and DARVO.

kbenson 5y ago

> DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way. I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.

JabavuAdams 5y ago
You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.
- kbenson 5y ago
  That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.

RickJWagner 5y ago

Exactly. Like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing-- it was the start of exposing a predator. (Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that, many with firm evidence, some with settlements in hand.)

bigbillheck 5y ago
> Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that It's not as if there weren't accuser pre-Lewinksy either.

varelse 5y ago

A minor that he had mentored since she was 14. If that isn't solid evidence of poor judgment I don't know what is. Also incredibly and disgustingly creepy.