5 ms·

"From March to October 2006, Mr. Nazre continued to pressure Plaintiff to have sexual relationship with him. Mr. Nazre falsely told her that his wife had left h

"From March to October 2006, Mr. Nazre continued to pressure Plaintiff to have sexual relationship with him. Mr. Nazre falsely told her that his wife had left him. When Plaintiff refused his advances Mr.Nazre engaged in offensive, obstructionist and difficult behavior toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr. Nazre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions. In October 2006 Plaintiff informed Mr.Nazre that she would no longer have any personal relationship with him. Mr. Nazre started a consistent pattern of retaliation against her."

afarrell 14y ago
That doesn't sound like a relationships so much as intimidating someone into having sex...
temphn 14y ago
Much more reasonable interpretation: he didn't leave his wife for her, so she got angry and threatened to destroy him. A jilted lover story line makes a lot more sense than a "harass into having sex two or three times" story. No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended. It sure isn't what normal people perceive as "harassment" if it was reciprocated with "two or three" episodes of sex (because who's counting!) Future civilizations are going to look at our bizarre notions regarding sex like we looked at the notions of the Victorians.
- diyang 14y ago
  Disregarding how "much more reasonable" this interpretation is, there's a lot of space between "no physical force" and "something she only felt bad about after things ended". Jumping to the latter conclusion and implying promiscuity on her part ("because who's counting!") is completely unfair. We should presume that Mr. Nazre is innocent and not attack his character. We should also do the same for Ms. Pao.
  - temphn 14y ago
    I'm not implying promiscuity. I'm implying that it can't actually be "harassment" if she lost track of how many times they had consensual sex. Doesn't "yes" mean "yes", not "yes but I might sue you later"?
    - starwed 14y ago
      What the fuck have people in this thread been drinking? It could be harassment if they'd had sex a hundred times, or no times, if they'd been married, or if they'd never met before. The sex isn't the issue here! Pause for a second, and think critically about the issue, rather than spewing crap onto the internet. If you ask someone to stop such a pattern of behavior and they don't, that's harassment regardless of your personal history.
      - temphn 14y ago
        Reread the suit. She claims he harassed her "over a period of years". But during that period, she slept with him consensually! If you don't see how that detonates Ellen Pao's claim that his advances were unreciprocated (i.e. that they were "harassment"), not sure what to say. Is "harassment" just "I felt mad at him years later" or is there any precise definition you're working from? Because if you define harassment as "unwanted advances", they objectively weren't unwanted back in 2006.
        jarek 14y ago
        I'm really sorry I have to explain this, but the fact she slept with him a couple of times doesn't mean his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for that matter, those times they were successful). To really dumb this down, this isn't like a child asking parents for a toy repeatedly and once the toy is given everyone involved is fine and has moved on. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them.
        14y ago
- jarek 14y ago
  > No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended. This lawsuit isn't against the guy. This lawsuit is against the firm about their claimed lack of suitable response for her reports of harassment and a request for transfer. (And then there's the parts about systemic discrimination.)

afarrell 14y ago

That doesn't sound like a relationships so much as intimidating someone into having sex...

temphn 14y ago

Much more reasonable interpretation: he didn't leave his wife for her, so she got angry and threatened to destroy him. A jilted lover story line makes a lot more sense than a "harass into having sex two or three times" story. No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended. It sure isn't what normal people perceive as "harassment" if it was reciprocated with "two or three" episodes of sex (because who's counting!) Future civilizations are going to look at our bizarre notions regarding sex like we looked at the notions of the Victorians.

diyang 14y ago
Disregarding how "much more reasonable" this interpretation is, there's a lot of space between "no physical force" and "something she only felt bad about after things ended". Jumping to the latter conclusion and implying promiscuity on her part ("because who's counting!") is completely unfair. We should presume that Mr. Nazre is innocent and not attack his character. We should also do the same for Ms. Pao.
- temphn 14y ago
  I'm not implying promiscuity. I'm implying that it can't actually be "harassment" if she lost track of how many times they had consensual sex. Doesn't "yes" mean "yes", not "yes but I might sue you later"?
  - starwed 14y ago
    What the fuck have people in this thread been drinking? It could be harassment if they'd had sex a hundred times, or no times, if they'd been married, or if they'd never met before. The sex isn't the issue here! Pause for a second, and think critically about the issue, rather than spewing crap onto the internet. If you ask someone to stop such a pattern of behavior and they don't, that's harassment regardless of your personal history.
    - temphn 14y ago
      Reread the suit. She claims he harassed her "over a period of years". But during that period, she slept with him consensually! If you don't see how that detonates Ellen Pao's claim that his advances were unreciprocated (i.e. that they were "harassment"), not sure what to say. Is "harassment" just "I felt mad at him years later" or is there any precise definition you're working from? Because if you define harassment as "unwanted advances", they objectively weren't unwanted back in 2006.
      - jarek 14y ago
        I'm really sorry I have to explain this, but the fact she slept with him a couple of times doesn't mean his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for that matter, those times they were successful). To really dumb this down, this isn't like a child asking parents for a toy repeatedly and once the toy is given everyone involved is fine and has moved on. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them.
        14y ago
jarek 14y ago
> No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended. This lawsuit isn't against the guy. This lawsuit is against the firm about their claimed lack of suitable response for her reports of harassment and a request for transfer. (And then there's the parts about systemic discrimination.)