Desire and the power to satisfy it.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way. — Baden

What's the cause then?

It isn't as if buddy drugged or raped them, they willingly prostituted themselves — Wosret

Okay, but that doesn't make it moral or right.

As there generally isn't anything wrong with giving positions based on relationships, or sexual exchanges, and everyone knows it. It isn't a big secret, it's a cliche, the opposite of a secret. — Wosret

Well, just because it happens and everyone knows it (which I agree with you) doesn't mean it's right. it means people have a very twisted sense of morality.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way.

I stopped really at the "firstly", as I didn't feel like going to equality dynamics, and incentives in general, both of which are more complex.

Again, I don't hear you making these excuses for Clinton. Who taught him? Who cares? They did it. They're responsible. — Baden

It's not an excuse though. Both Clinton and Trump are fully responsible. My point is that the focus should be on the source of the problem, which isn't them in this case.

Again, I don't hear you making these excuses for Clinton. Who taught him? Who cares? They did it. They're responsible.

They are both scumbags and Hollywood collectively is a scumbag (in terms of how it works). — Baden

Yes. But Hollywood should be attacked first, because that's the source of the problem. Otherwise, if we focus on Trump, etc., this source is masked, and it will continue to produce little Trumps.

There are many factors to consider. Firstly, it is inappropriate for subordinates and superiors not because of coercive incentives, but because positions in government or military or good grades at university are supposed to be out of qualification, not nepotism, because they're good buddies, or because they made some exchange for it. This isn't as obvious in business in general, or Hollywood. As there generally isn't anything wrong with giving positions based on relationships, or sexual exchanges, and everyone knows it. It isn't a big secret, it's a cliche, the opposite of a secret.

It isn't as if buddy drugged or raped them, they willingly prostituted themselves

I clearly said that the two cases play a different political role. Bill's case suggested there's something wrong with the President, but not with us the people. Trump's case, quite to the contrary, suggests that not only is there something wrong with the President, there's also something wrong with us. That plays an entirely different role.

Now you could accuse Trump of playing his role too well - he learned it from the media and Hollywood - the only difference is that he does it in the open and does not pretend to be ashamed of it, while Hollywood does it behind closed doors and pretends that it's wrong to do it. Now that hypocrisy is a greater problem than Trump. — Agustino

Maybe but I don't think a long story is necessary here as it comes across like a politically motivated attempt at mitigation. They are both scumbags and Hollywood collectively is a scumbag (in terms of how it works).

No it can't, that's precisely the point. But people may try to justify it in that manner, the same way they try to justify abuses of power. Neither of them can be justified retroactively. — Agustino

OK, I was going to say that maybe you were trying a reductio. I'm not quite sure that works. I'm open to the point and I can see the hypocrisy but I'm not completely convinced that in every case of the student / professor relationship there is moral wrongdoing.

So it's not even so much that Trump gets a free pass - it's that his actions reveal something important about society, they perform an unmasking. Trump should be condemned, but first, condemn his teachers, and only then the student, who just followed the teachers' advice.

It's not political partisanship.

I clearly said that the two cases play a different political role. Bill's case suggested there's something wrong with the President, but not with us the people. Trump's case, quite to the contrary, suggests that not only is there something wrong with the President, there's also something wrong with us. That plays an entirely different role.

Now you could accuse Trump of playing his role too well - he learned it from the media and Hollywood - the only difference is that he does it in the open and does not pretend to be ashamed of it, while Hollywood does it behind closed doors and pretends that it's wrong to do it. Now that hypocrisy is a greater problem than Trump. In fact, that hypocrisy gave birth to Trump - Trump is just a student in this regard. We should go first of all after the Professor, and the student later.

Nope, rape can never be justified retroactively or not. Asking a student out and raping someone are two entirely different categories of moral transgression. — Baden

No it can't, that's precisely the point. But people may try to justify it in that manner, the same way they try to justify abuses of power. Neither of them can be justified retroactively.

Okay sure, but the rape could be interpreted as retroactively justified — Agustino

Nope, rape can never be justified, retroactively or not. Asking a student out and raping someone are two entirely different categories of moral transgression.

There you go answering @fishfry's question for him. The reason liberals ignore the scumbaggery of Clinton and conservatives make excuses for the scumbaggery of Trump is political partisanship.

I don't accept it's a fair analogy Rape in never consensual by definition. It's not impossible though that a student would fall in love with her professor and he with her and the relationship be consensual. The relationship may be corrupted by the power differential of course, and there is hypocrisy. That's what I was pointing to. — Baden

Okay sure, but the rape could be interpreted as retroactively justified, even though it's harmful, the same way the power differential which compels one to act as the other desires can be interpreted retroactively to be beneficial and normal, instead of harmful and a form of bullying.

I don't accept it's a fair analogy Rape in never consensual by definition. It's not impossible though that a student would fall in love with her professor and he with her and the relationship be consensual. The relationship may be corrupted by the power differential of course, and there is hypocrisy. That's what I was pointing to.

(Note that we've gone several pages of posts with no-one mentioning the fact that the President is an admitted sexual harasser of women, a disgusting predator who sees them as pussies to be grabbed. Clinton is in the same ball park in my view but not much in play right now. Trump is and so should be front and center. Wonder why he isn't? ) — Baden

Well there's a difference here. I view Trump as a positive element in the overall political picture, precisely because he unmasks the pretensions that the President is some sort of saint, or that we, as a society, are moral. Because we're not. I like to think of Trump as a little puppet - he's doing what the media, etc. have shown him is the cool thing to do. And that's exactly what he said - "it's locker room talk, all men do it". Clinton didn't - he pretended it wasn't a frequent occurrence, that there was no social problem behind it, that it was an isolated case.

We see it in the media all the time, that the cool guy, the "alpha male", grabs women for himself as he wishes. Indeed, being able to get women to submit sexually is viewed as a great power in the man. How can such a society fail to produce a Trump? Trump is doing what most other people - as they are indoctrinated by our culture - would like to do but can't. What do you think young American teenagers think when they see Ivanka? Ooooh so hot, etc. - When the whole society is like that, it's no surprise that people vote for Trump - he's just like them afterall.

So when sex becomes a matter of self-esteem, it's clear that abuse of that kind isn't far away.

(Note that we've gone several pages of posts with no-one mentioning the fact that the President is an admitted sexual harasser of women, a disgusting predator who sees them as pussies to be grabbed. Clinton is in the same ball park in my view but not much in play right now. Trump is and so should be front and center. Wonder why he isn't? )

But it is as you've recognized. It's kind of paradoxical though. These sorts of situations tend to be retroactively justified. So, a professor who ends up in a happy loving marriage with a student he asked out has his approach somehow justified by the result. "He did nothing wrong. Look how happy they are together!" Whereas the one who horrifies the student with the inappropriate come on doesn't and may lose his job. "The creep!" — Baden

Yes, but I see this as hypocritical many times, precisely because the result is allowed to retroactively justify the activity that got it there. It would be like raping a girl and then marrying her and having a great happy marriage because whatever culture you live in forces you to marry once you have sex. I can imagine such a situation where even the girl ends up feeling happy with how things worked out :s - but I don't think that would make the rape justified. I think it's still just as wrong.

Same reason Trump gets a pass from conservatives. I don't see how it's difficult to understand.

What is your point? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I simply asked a question. Bill Cosby was called to account. Harvey Weinstein was called to account. But Bill Clinton gets a pass from liberals. I asked why that is. I'm genuinely curious about this.

You tell me. You're the one arguing that there's something improper about power imbalances in relationships. — Michael

No I'm not. Stop being so uncharitable in your reading. Princesses should not have relationships with their servants, because they have immediate power over their lives. They don't have that power over the lives of commoners in general or other royals' servants. Clear now?

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that so long as the use of power isn't involved. — Agustino

But it is as you've recognized. It's kind of paradoxical though. These sorts of situations tend to be retroactively justified. So, a professor who ends up in a happy loving marriage with a student he asked out has his approach somehow justified by the result. "He did nothing wrong. Look how happy they are together!" Whereas the one who horrifies the student with the inappropriate come on doesn't and may lose his job. "The creep!"

What if one is a hairdresser and the other is a princess (or one a student and the other a prince)? — Michael

Steve Jobs wife (Laurene Powell Jobs) was a student when she met him doing her MBA and Steve Jobs was a big time CEO giving a speech. Here's the story. Steve Jobs asked her to dinner, and she said yes.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that so long as the use of power isn't involved. Though it's hard to see how the use of power wouldn't be involved. If you're Steve Jobs you're clearly going to play your wealth and status to your advantage, or at least be tempted to do so - someone will find it hard to reject you. I mean if you're a 20 something-year-old girl, and one of the most famous men in the world asks you out on a date, chances are you won't refuse. But not because you really like them, but you'll think - being naive - ah, such a famous man, I may not get another chance, I should try this. That's manufactured consent.

Like look at this story of a date with Shkreli. Clearly the girl didn't like him, but still didn't refuse him, because "who would give up such an opportunity?". Most people would do almost anything for power - so that manufactures consent.

Sure, but how can it be stopped? The problem is that I think this kind of social interaction cannot be stopped. When I was in school in 12th grade I had a female teacher who slapped my butt playfully on the hallway when she passed by me and then smiled. What can you do when such a thing happens? Clearly nothing, because the other person has authority - all you can do is try to avoid them, and extricate yourself from situations where they can use that power in ways that you can control even less.

I've been in many situations where there were imbalances of power, and there really can't be done anything to stop them. — Agustino

It cannot be stopped entirely, but it can be helped to stop by having conduits for reporting and recording such incidents. One probably wouldn't want one such report as yours to lead to much action, but if you could safely report it, it might be put together with other such reports, and become a cause for action. One cannot remove power imbalances, but one can provide some protection, particularly against habitual abusers.

You tell me. You're the one arguing that there's something improper about power imbalances in relationships. So what of Prince William and Princess Mako having relationships with commoners? Are they in some sense abusive? Ought their would-be partners wait until their royal love interests renounce their royalty?

There needs to be an N/A option for the questions after the first one, otherwise one can't truthfully complete the poll and see the results. I screwed up in this regard when making polls, too, so you're not the first.

I don't know - what if?

Now it might be in a particular case, that there is simply a mutual attraction across the power imbalance - totally innocent - but in such cases, true love will wait until circumstances permit; change your doctor before you have sex with her, change your boss before you have sex with him. Shimples. — unenlightened

What if one is a hairdresser and the other is a princess (or one a student and the other a prince)?

Now it might be in a particular case, that there is simply a mutual attraction across the power imbalance - totally innocent - but in such cases, true love will wait until circumstances permit; change your doctor before you have sex with her, change your boss before you have sex with him. Shimples. — unenlightened

! Exactly! How many times have I not said this...

We are talking of the abuse of power to coerce: 'give me a massage and I'll make you a star'. It's an indecent proposal, and it doesn't become decent if it is accepted. Nor does it become decent if it is proposed by the other side: 'make me a star and I'll give you a massage'. — unenlightened

Sure, but how can it be stopped? The problem is that I think this kind of social interaction cannot be stopped. When I was in school in 12th grade I had a female teacher who slapped my butt playfully on the hallway when she passed by me and then smiled. What can you do when such a thing happens? Clearly nothing, because the other person has authority - all you can do is try to avoid them, and extricate yourself from situations where they can use that power in ways that you can control even less.

I've been in many situations where there were imbalances of power, and there really can't be done anything to stop them.