4 ms·

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

by 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.
      - temphn 14y ago
        his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for that matter, those times they were successful). The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding? This is a reductio ad absurdum of feminism and may well be the most ludicrous thing ever posted on this site. Now no means no...and yes means no too! Now it's harassment even when she says yes. Retroactively, even if it wasn't at the time. You sure you want to take that position? Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period. Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them. Utterly wrong analogy. Falls down on every level. You don't sue Staples after you buy something from them. Staples didn't steal the money from you (rape), you gave it consensually. Buying something isn't sleeping with someone. Sleeping with someone "two or three" times isn't slipping up once. Suing them six years after isn't suing when the event happened.
        starwed 14y ago
        At this point you are so deliberately ignoring what the conversation is even about that I think you must be a troll. Well, I hope you're a troll. The alternative is too depressing. :(
        temphn 14y ago
        What is this conversation about? Read the complaint. Ellen Pao, an extremely wealthy woman, has issues with virtually every partner at KPCB, one of whom she sleeps with and subsequently charges with sexual harassment years later. By her own admission, over a period of six years she continually complains about other partners and her compensation, title, and responsibilities. On the one hand she demands a transfer; yet on the other hand she wants the "harassers" to include her in meetings and emails and spends a full paragraph on the outrage of not being invited to a dinner party and another on ostensibly being excluded from a get together with junior associates. She marries a man who made millions off of discrimination lawsuits. To top it off, she then launches her own discrimination lawsuit after seven years at the firm which made her so much money. These are facts. They come from her filing: http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-ellen-pao/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-hara... If anyone believes these charges at face value they are simply credulous. She is looking for "monetary restitution", a multimillion dollar payday comparable to what her husband has squeezed out of others in his multiple discrimination lawsuits.

by diyang 14y ago

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.
    - temphn 14y ago
      his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for that matter, those times they were successful). The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding? This is a reductio ad absurdum of feminism and may well be the most ludicrous thing ever posted on this site. Now no means no...and yes means no too! Now it's harassment even when she says yes. Retroactively, even if it wasn't at the time. You sure you want to take that position? Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period. Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them. Utterly wrong analogy. Falls down on every level. You don't sue Staples after you buy something from them. Staples didn't steal the money from you (rape), you gave it consensually. Buying something isn't sleeping with someone. Sleeping with someone "two or three" times isn't slipping up once. Suing them six years after isn't suing when the event happened.
      - starwed 14y ago
        At this point you are so deliberately ignoring what the conversation is even about that I think you must be a troll. Well, I hope you're a troll. The alternative is too depressing. :(
        temphn 14y ago
        What is this conversation about? Read the complaint. Ellen Pao, an extremely wealthy woman, has issues with virtually every partner at KPCB, one of whom she sleeps with and subsequently charges with sexual harassment years later. By her own admission, over a period of six years she continually complains about other partners and her compensation, title, and responsibilities. On the one hand she demands a transfer; yet on the other hand she wants the "harassers" to include her in meetings and emails and spends a full paragraph on the outrage of not being invited to a dinner party and another on ostensibly being excluded from a get together with junior associates. She marries a man who made millions off of discrimination lawsuits. To top it off, she then launches her own discrimination lawsuit after seven years at the firm which made her so much money. These are facts. They come from her filing: http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-ellen-pao/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-hara... If anyone believes these charges at face value they are simply credulous. She is looking for "monetary restitution", a multimillion dollar payday comparable to what her husband has squeezed out of others in his multiple discrimination lawsuits.