4 ms·

The victimless-crime police strike again Seriously though... Unless there is an evidentiary, demonstrable long-term negative/harm to any given voluntary adult

The victimless-crime police strike again Seriously though... Unless there is an evidentiary, demonstrable long-term negative/harm to any given voluntary adult human interaction (say, to an institution, or to society at large, or to the educational process)... I think we need to live and let live. Distaste and offense are not rational arguments against something

fluidcruft 11y ago
That's too optimistic. The original acts in the Scarlet Letter didn't cause long-term negative/harm until society got involved after the fact.
- lectrick 11y ago
  Can you elaborate? Adultery being a betrayal of the family is arguably a negative (insofar as the traditional legally-enforced-monogamy marriage arrangement isn't fatally flawed... lol. I predict the default will be "open" in a generation or 2, max, which may have the positive side effect of fewer secret liaisons and divorces)
wodenokoto 11y ago
It is not distaste that is the argument against professors dating students. It is blackmail as well as academic integrity. Did she pass just because she did a sexual favor? Is she being lenient on the argumentation of this paper just because she is dating the student? These are legitimate arguments and concerns, and while I think the rules set up to stop these problems are stepping well over their bounds, let's not try and act like there wasn't a problem to being with.
- lectrick 11y ago
  Conflict of interest is arguable, but these regulations paint a false portrait of an "all-powerful professor" picking and choosing students to deflower as he pleases, which is most definitely the furthest thing from how it actually works. They also make "inappropriate humor" against policy, which is frankly ridiculous. Having gone to Cornell, which made John Cleese of Monty Python fame a "Professor at Large", it would appall my every sensibility if the vast swathes of inappropriate humor in Monty Python were banned.
pron 11y ago
Well, what sociologists, psychologist, historians and anthropologists have found over the past five decades or so (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable), is that it's very hard to define "voluntary". We therefore don't treat volition as binary, but as a point on a spectrum, signifying how much duress, influence -- the technical term is "power" -- was involved.
- lectrick 11y ago
  > (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable) You saying that there's evidence, is not the same as citing even a single instance of said evidence. :P I haven't seen anything that is actual evidence, other than people shouting angrily in text that things simply should be so (which seems to be almost what you're doing). Do you have a chip on your shoulder about this? (i.e., is there someone in your past who you feel took advantage of you via a power differential?) I think full disclosure is necessary. > We therefore don't treat volition as binary, but as a point on a spectrum, signifying how much duress, influence -- the technical term is "power" -- was involved. Fair enough, but you're conflating 2 things here, people who are together because of a power differential and people who are together because of an overridden will. I don't think these are the same thing. I think a person can be drawn to another's power even as that power may wrap around them. To an outsider it may look like an overridden will but to the person on the inside it does not look the same, it looks like a form of seduction. And I think this happens, and HAS happened, all the time. There are millions of stable marriages that are based on a power differential of some sort, whether it's a beautiful woman, a wealthy man, a more intelligent spouse, or some other combination. Usually people are trading one power for another, such as beauty for intelligence. Are you suggesting we mark all of those as invalid?

fluidcruft 11y ago

That's too optimistic. The original acts in the Scarlet Letter didn't cause long-term negative/harm until society got involved after the fact.

lectrick 11y ago
Can you elaborate? Adultery being a betrayal of the family is arguably a negative (insofar as the traditional legally-enforced-monogamy marriage arrangement isn't fatally flawed... lol. I predict the default will be "open" in a generation or 2, max, which may have the positive side effect of fewer secret liaisons and divorces)

wodenokoto 11y ago

It is not distaste that is the argument against professors dating students. It is blackmail as well as academic integrity. Did she pass just because she did a sexual favor? Is she being lenient on the argumentation of this paper just because she is dating the student? These are legitimate arguments and concerns, and while I think the rules set up to stop these problems are stepping well over their bounds, let's not try and act like there wasn't a problem to being with.

lectrick 11y ago
Conflict of interest is arguable, but these regulations paint a false portrait of an "all-powerful professor" picking and choosing students to deflower as he pleases, which is most definitely the furthest thing from how it actually works. They also make "inappropriate humor" against policy, which is frankly ridiculous. Having gone to Cornell, which made John Cleese of Monty Python fame a "Professor at Large", it would appall my every sensibility if the vast swathes of inappropriate humor in Monty Python were banned.

pron 11y ago

Well, what sociologists, psychologist, historians and anthropologists have found over the past five decades or so (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable), is that it's very hard to define "voluntary". We therefore don't treat volition as binary, but as a point on a spectrum, signifying how much duress, influence -- the technical term is "power" -- was involved.

lectrick 11y ago
> (and yes, many of the findings are very much evidentiary and demonstrable) You saying that there's evidence, is not the same as citing even a single instance of said evidence. :P I haven't seen anything that is actual evidence, other than people shouting angrily in text that things simply should be so (which seems to be almost what you're doing). Do you have a chip on your shoulder about this? (i.e., is there someone in your past who you feel took advantage of you via a power differential?) I think full disclosure is necessary. > We therefore don't treat volition as binary, but as a point on a spectrum, signifying how much duress, influence -- the technical term is "power" -- was involved. Fair enough, but you're conflating 2 things here, people who are together because of a power differential and people who are together because of an overridden will. I don't think these are the same thing. I think a person can be drawn to another's power even as that power may wrap around them. To an outsider it may look like an overridden will but to the person on the inside it does not look the same, it looks like a form of seduction. And I think this happens, and HAS happened, all the time. There are millions of stable marriages that are based on a power differential of some sort, whether it's a beautiful woman, a wealthy man, a more intelligent spouse, or some other combination. Usually people are trading one power for another, such as beauty for intelligence. Are you suggesting we mark all of those as invalid?