3 ms·

From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. Also, > Young associate worked for this part

From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. Also, > Young associate worked for this partner I don't know how the legal profession works. But: 1. It's quite likely that leaving firm as a young associate carries a huge negative connotation. In other words, her choices might not have been "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job." It might have been more like "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job, and maybe not find another job because there's this huge negative on her resume." 2. The law profession has a reputation for being quite chummy. If she had quit over this harassment, even if she filed no charges then it's quite possible that this partner would have gone on the offensive to discredit her character to other influential people.

graeme 12y ago
In the US, if she was at Biglaw, then my impression is that leaving is basically unheard of. You're intended to work for a firm for 2-4 years and move on, or stay at the firm on a partner track. Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc. Edit: I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Its not that unheard of to leave. In fact probably 50% do by year 3. Though quitting without a job is really damn dangerous.
indrx 12y ago
But it's not "rape" unless the coercion involved threats of violence, cf http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... It is sexual harassment though.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  only in some legal jurisdictions with outdated notions of "rape" And even in those, rape is often the proper word, it's just not used in the legal text for historical reasons.
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    What is your definition of rape?
- graeme 12y ago
  As another poster pointed out, your own link includes retribution as a form of duress, and it doesn't limit it to physical retribution. Section 261 b. It applies to all of section 261. Did you make a new account just to post a misinterpretation of this link twice? Edit: I changed the text. I had cited the wrong section. But that doesn't change what the document says: section b says retribution is a form of duress, not necessarily violent.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    The "duress" you refer to is only relevant when someone is using "the authority of a public official" in lieu of force. I.e., the police/IRS can't threaten to arrest you/hit you with tax penalties unless you sex them up. Please read all of 261.7. [edit: I misunderstood the scoping rules of law. Ignore.]
    - graeme 12y ago
      This isn't correct. I made an incorrect citation, but you're also reading the text wrong. There is no 261.7. There is 261.a.7, which deals with public officials. 261.b deals with duress, and applies to all of 261.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
logic404 12y ago
From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates?
- JohnBooty 12y ago
  > I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men > in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss > want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates? Absolutely, and of course that would also be quite wrong. And I am sure that's a thing that happens sometimes, unfortunately. I only mentioned it because the poster I responded to had said, "I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs" and I thought it important to say that there are different dynamics involved there. If a male boss tried to coerce a male employee into sex, the male victim would be much more likely to respond with physical force, so it's less likely to happen in the first place. The male victim would also be more likely to be viewed as unambiguously victimized, whereas in a male-on-female situation there's likely to be a lot of well, she probably wanted it type speculation and/or congratulation of the male aggressor. In some senses it might even be more difficult for a male victim. A male victim might be viewed as "weak" for letting it happen in the first place. Whatever the case I'm sure we can agree that it's quite a different dynamic, so the original poster's well, as a man, I'd never let this happen to meeee is not really a useful road to travel down.

graeme 12y ago

In the US, if she was at Biglaw, then my impression is that leaving is basically unheard of. You're intended to work for a firm for 2-4 years and move on, or stay at the firm on a partner track. Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc. Edit: I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.

rhino369 12y ago
Its not that unheard of to leave. In fact probably 50% do by year 3. Though quitting without a job is really damn dangerous.

indrx 12y ago

But it's not "rape" unless the coercion involved threats of violence, cf http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... It is sexual harassment though.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
only in some legal jurisdictions with outdated notions of "rape" And even in those, rape is often the proper word, it's just not used in the legal text for historical reasons.
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  What is your definition of rape?
graeme 12y ago
As another poster pointed out, your own link includes retribution as a form of duress, and it doesn't limit it to physical retribution. Section 261 b. It applies to all of section 261. Did you make a new account just to post a misinterpretation of this link twice? Edit: I changed the text. I had cited the wrong section. But that doesn't change what the document says: section b says retribution is a form of duress, not necessarily violent.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The "duress" you refer to is only relevant when someone is using "the authority of a public official" in lieu of force. I.e., the police/IRS can't threaten to arrest you/hit you with tax penalties unless you sex them up. Please read all of 261.7. [edit: I misunderstood the scoping rules of law. Ignore.]
  - graeme 12y ago
    This isn't correct. I made an incorrect citation, but you're also reading the text wrong. There is no 261.7. There is 261.a.7, which deals with public officials. 261.b deals with duress, and applies to all of 261.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

logic404 12y ago

From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates?

JohnBooty 12y ago
> I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men > in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss > want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates? Absolutely, and of course that would also be quite wrong. And I am sure that's a thing that happens sometimes, unfortunately. I only mentioned it because the poster I responded to had said, "I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs" and I thought it important to say that there are different dynamics involved there. If a male boss tried to coerce a male employee into sex, the male victim would be much more likely to respond with physical force, so it's less likely to happen in the first place. The male victim would also be more likely to be viewed as unambiguously victimized, whereas in a male-on-female situation there's likely to be a lot of well, she probably wanted it type speculation and/or congratulation of the male aggressor. In some senses it might even be more difficult for a male victim. A male victim might be viewed as "weak" for letting it happen in the first place. Whatever the case I'm sure we can agree that it's quite a different dynamic, so the original poster's well, as a man, I'd never let this happen to meeee is not really a useful road to travel down.