Well since we're sharing, I was groped while working as a childminder by the neighbour's prematurely sexualised seven-year-old girl. A highly inappropriate, unwelcome piece of sexual harassment that was mildly traumatic for me, but I imagine was an expression of a much more traumatic upbringing from her side. But since I was the person of power in the relationship, I was able to deal with it. If I had had an ounce of respect for the local child social services, I might have talked to them, but as it was, I was confident they would only make things worse for everyone.

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'.

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.

#MeToo
At age 18 I was working in a private home as a nanny, for the VP of University of Phoenix caring for her infant when I was sexually assaulted. Her Father, foreigner to the USA, who was in his 60's was visiting at her home for the holidays. The first time it happened I wondered if he realized what he was doing as I was stunned and he groped me while I was taking the baby from his arms, so I let it go. The next day, same situation only this time the child was in my arms and I turned to go away from him to which he groped both my breasts and then looked me in the eyes. I was creeped out and felt violated and began to get ill. I called my employer and said I needed to go as I was sick. She came home and I left. Do I say anything to her? This is her Dad for the love of God. Who is she going to believe? I was definitely going to lose my job before she would part ways with her Dad. Maybe they have different ways in his country? I was too physically ill to not say anything. So the next day when I arrived at work, I explained to her, in front of her Dad, what had happened, that it was intentional and I was not comfortable with his behavior. She spoke in Russian and he kind of shrugged at what she said and she told me he understood it was wrong and SHE said it wouldn't happen again and left for work.
She had me lined up to do a weekend of overnights to which I told her I would not stay overnight without my boyfriend staying with me as long as her Father was staying too. She said that was fine but the more I thought about it, the sicker I felt and gave her notice the following day. When she asked why I was quitting, I told her why and she accepted it. I wonder if presented as VP of a university, if she would act in the same way towards someone who speaks out about being molested by one of the professors.

Actually something like that happened to me once as well, although I'm not certain whether it was a girl or a guy as I was grabbed in the balls from behind.

Also had a gay guy come on to me rather strongly that made me feel uncomfortable by touching me and trying to hold my hand. When I said: "I'm sorry but I'm a heterosexual." His reply was: "That's what they all say the first time." Bloody annoying.

We were talking about Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky. From what she's said, it wasn't unwanted. So unless there's something else I'm missing, it was neither harassment nor abuse (although certainly inappropriate, and infidelity on Clinton's part). — Michael

You are correct and I stand corrected in stating Monica endured sexual harassment because it was consenting by two adults.

Bill wielded his position of President to take advantage of what Monica was offering. Bill as President and in a position of power is and should be held to a higher standard which means no fraternizing with employees, let alone fornicating.

"That is an equal playing field and you were able to freely chose how to react without fear of losing your job." — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Huh? I was just referring to being sexually harassed. I'm not sure what "being on an equal playing field" has to do with it. — Michael

I am thankful you shared what happened to you as it was being sexually assaulted but my aim of this thread is for when an experience such as yours, happens by a future or current employer or person who holds professional power over you.
I hope that makes sense.

I've never understood this. What's the difference between being attracted to someone because of their power and being attracted to someone because of their looks, talent, or sense of humour? — Michael

Some women want to be part of the power of the man she is pursuing. Monica was looking for more than just a job at the White House and was submissive to Bill to get ahead in the West Wing. I don't know why she kept the blue dress. Maybe a memento? Maybe proof if her true story was questioned?

If someone is looking for love, they will see it in the eyes of the paper boy when he laughs at your little jokes and makes you blush as he wishes you a good day. You will see that paper boy daily, a habit that both will enjoy and that is where true attraction happens. Monica was looking for a power play not love. I am pretty sure she would have knelt for anyone that was President if given the chance.

Obviously there's a difference if there isn't actually any attraction and the interest is just in exploiting the power the other person has, but that doesn't seem to be what happened in this case (unless she's lying). — Michael

I haven't read Monica's' book but I do believe she was attracted but as I said, the attraction was to the power, not necessarily limited to who was in power.

If the person of power, makes unwanted sexual advances on a subordinate, that is the very definition of sexual harassment/ and or abuse. What am I missing in what you are saying? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

We were talking about Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky. From what she's said, it wasn't unwanted. So unless there's something else I'm missing, it was neither harassment nor abuse (although certainly inappropriate, and infidelity on Clinton's part).

That is an equal playing field and you were able to freely chose how to react without fear of losing your job. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Huh? I was just referring to being sexually harassed. I'm not sure what "being on an equal playing field" has to do with it.

Both just customers. — Michael

That is an equal playing field and you were able to freely chose how to react without fear of losing your job.

Perhaps, but that's not the same as abuse or harassment. — Michael

? If the person of power, makes unwanted sexual advances on a subordinate, that is the very definition of sexual harassment/ and or abuse. What am I missing in what you are saying?

Both just customers.

I recall being assaulted at a nightclub once. Some girl walked past me, grabbed me by the balls, and then walked away.

I just thought it a really weird thing to do. — Michael

I think it is a really weird thing to do as well. Were you working for the nightclub? Was she a customer or a fellow employee?

Getting fired because someone lied about you, or because somebody just didn't like you and had made trouble for you, or because the boss just didn't like your long hair, or short hair, or whatever hair -- all sorts of reasons -- can be devastating. One suddenly finds one's self without an income, insurance, cut off from the social circle of work, etc. — Bitter Crank

This I understand but what you have explained can happen to anyone. I fail to see how it is specific to sexual harassment/and or abuse by people in the position of power.

Also very common is injury on the job or sickness because of the job because it was cheaper to have an unsafe, unhealthy workplace. — Bitter Crank

Again, I don't understand the relevance. Am I missing something? Can you correlate the two for me so I can see what you see?

This is considered normal by many people who howl about sexual harassment. — Bitter Crank

Grrrr....why does it feel like you're using the words "howl about sexual harassment" in an effort to convey a less than supportive attitude towards those that confront their abuser.

I wasn't clear. I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts to me. I do agree with you that there are people, men and women, who find screwing their way up in an organization is the way to go and tolerating exploitation is part of the deal. And you are right in that the exploiter usually has obtained a superior position.

Sexual exploitation is a specialty within the general practice of exploiting employees (aka, workers). "All workers can expect to be harassed on the job, sooner or later, whatever form the harassment takes. The reason for this is that most jobs are exploitation to start with. Sexual harassment is but a specialty." — Bitter Crank

No. All workers should not "expect" to be harassed on the job. It is not acceptable and it is okay to speak up about it and take your stand even if that means leaving your job.

If we are going to be against harassment and exploitation, then we should be against harassment and exploitation across the board. — Bitter Crank

I agree. This thread is about non consensual sexual harassment/ and or abuse by those in the position of power.

Yes they were both adults and consenting but I doubt if he was a news paper salesman she would have pursued him for any reason. It was because of his position of power that she fell for him which is why she never called rape or sexual molestation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've never understood this. What's the difference between being attracted to someone because of their power and being attracted to someone because of their looks, talent, or sense of humour?

Obviously there's a difference if there isn't actually any attraction and the interest is just in exploiting the power the other person has, but that doesn't seem to be what happened in this case (unless she's lying).

Personally I think it was probably her idea that they got caught so that she could become famous. But I, like everyone else in the public don't and probably will never know the whole story. — Sir2u

You are right that we will never know the whole story but Monica had enough "proof" to show that he cheated on his wife and that is about it. I never heard her cry fowl about being forced to do something against her will. Bill got in trouble for lying not for getting a bj though many thought it was lacking all class to treat the Oval office that way.

I really don't like the idea of anyone with authority using it like that, as a man it is not the correct way to behave no matter what position you hold. But shit happens. — Sir2u

I agree that no one of authority should use it that way, either gender. But shit happens

We were doing so well until that last part about shit happens. Shit never 'just happens'. It is always a conscious decision to sexually dominate someone when in a position of power.

They were consenting adults and she could have walked away. If she was as good a worker to have a position that put next to a president she could have found work anywhere. But she wanted and accepted the deal that was offered so that makes her just as responsible as the idiot with his fly open. — Sir2u

Yes they were both adults and consenting but I doubt if he was a news paper salesman she would have pursued him for any reason. It was because of his position of power that she fell for him which is why she never called rape or sexual molestation.

How would the people have seen things if Hilary had been the president and she was caught getting some nooky? Would the people have cried fowl as well? — Sir2u

Assuming that it was consensual sex, like Bill and Monica, we would probably shame her for infidelity like we did Bill.

You never heard of any other credible rape allegations against Bill Clinton? They've got their own Wiki page. Before one of the 2016 presidential debates, Trump brought a group of Bubba's accusers to a press conference. You don't remember that? — fishfry

I do remember the rape allegations against Bill Clinton and I also know what his wife Hillary said about those rape allegations, discounting each and every accuser until proven otherwise. What is your point? That sexual predators have people around them that know what the predator is doing and either looks the other way or enables the behavior to continue?

What I am suggesting is that the 'playing field' is not equal when one person holds professional power over another. The superior should be expected to rise to a stricter set of rules when interacting with those he manages. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps, but that's not the same as abuse or harassment.

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusive or harassment just because one person has more power than another. — Michael

Just to be clear, I am not talking about people who are involved in a romantic relationship.
What I am suggesting is that the 'playing field' is not equal when one person holds professional power over another. The superior should be expected to rise to a stricter set of rules when interacting with those he manages.

I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position.

Monica Lewinsky probably calculated greater advantage from sex with Bill than calling a press conference announcing that Bill had come on to her (literally). — Bitter Crank

Maybe she was just attracted to him and it had nothing to do with "exploiting" him to get ahead. Seems to be what she's saying here:

So I think was the eye contact. And the way he looks at women he’s attracted to. He undresses you with his eyes. And it is slow, from the bottom of your toes to the top of your head back down to your toes again. And it’s an intense look. He loses his smile. His sexual energy kind of comes over his eyes, and it’s very animalistic. And if you’re someone who is comfortable with your sensuality, you’re in touch with that, you’re receptive to it if you find that person attractive.

Others. Inconvenient to search for refs right now, but those are easily found online.

I agree about Clinton incidentally and the same thing applies. It's quite possible he's a rapist but people just shrug as if that's what the rich and powerful do and now we've got it out in the open everything's OK as if he's been punished enough. No, these people need to be behind bars not podiums. — Baden

Are you referring to Lewinsky or some other allegation(s)?

Won't let me vote without voting for all sections, even though the middle section isn't relevant to me. You should really add an N/A option.

I recall being assaulted at a nightclub once. Some girl walked past me, grabbed me by the balls, and then walked away.

I just thought it a really weird thing to do.

I just voted. I haven't been exploited nor have I exploited others. I have had a few female friends who disclosed to me they have been sexually harassed, threatened and/or hit. It's shockingly pervasive even in a relatively progressive society as the Netherlands. 45% of women in the Netherlands have been sexually assaulted, compared to 33% average in Europe. That difference is explained by a high participation of Dutch women in labour (more risk at work) and Dutch women being more vocal about it.

The good development I see is that women reporting this seem to be taken seriously more often than not as opposed to being suspected of having ulterior motives or having asked for it. Other than that it's often embarrassing to be associated with men.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. I guess TPF members aren't very open with regards to this sort of thing. — Agustino

Probably because

A. most of the participants are male
B. probably haven't been sexually exploited on the job
C. probably haven't even been offered sexual exploitation
C. are philosophers who would disarm their exploiters with incisive invective.

To start with I should let you know that AZ is a right to work state which also means the right to fire without reason given state. I believe Unions represent 4% of workers in AZ which seems very low in comparison to say, Minnesota or Illinois. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Minnesota has about 15% of its employees represented, Arizona has about 5%.

"Right to work" are rules disadvantageous to workers who seek protection from unionization. "Employment at will" (meaning one can be fired any time for any reason) is separate from "right to work", and operates where no contract (union or professional) is in force.

Getting fired because someone lied about you, or because somebody just didn't like you and had made trouble for you, or because the boss just didn't like your long hair, or short hair, or whatever hair -- all sorts of reasons -- can be devastating. One suddenly finds one's self without an income, insurance, cut off from the social circle of work, etc. Also very common is injury on the job or sickness because of the job because it was cheaper to have an unsafe, unhealthy workplace. This is considered normal by many people who howl about sexual harassment.

Correct me if I am wrong but what I am reading is that you might believe that if the rewards are good enough, a boss or supervisor should be able to come onto an employee? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I wasn't clear. I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position.

Monica Lewinsky probably calculated greater advantage from sex with Bill than calling a press conference announcing that Bill had come on to her (literally).

Sexual exploitation is a specialty within the general practice of exploiting employees (aka, workers). "All workers can expect to be harassed on the job, sooner or later, whatever form the harassment takes. The reason for this is that most jobs are exploitation to start with. Sexual harassment is but a specialty."

If we are going to be against harassment and exploitation, then we should be against harassment and exploitation across the board.

The nitty gritty of individual incidents is not so important in my view as the general discourse that surrounds these incidents. That's where the issue is for me, the discourse seems to get skewed in direct proportion to the degree of power and wealth of the abusers and the power disparity between them and the abused. There's talk of dinosaurs, rehab and second chances, the focus being more on the abusers' psychological and behavioural failings rather than the individual crimes and victims. Whereas for the not-so-privileged that conversation becomes less and less relevant and the focus tends to be more clearly on punishment. It seems then that Weinstein and his ilk are in a way insulated by the level of scandal that surrounds them and the debates it generates and that the fact that the scandal is an outpouring of what we already suspect makes it more of a catharsis than a serious disruption in terms of the social fabric. Here we are confirming our suspicions again and so our outrage becomes dissipated and defocused. So, let's not distract ourselves from the fact that Weinstein has all but admitted the abuse excepting the rapes and the likelihood he committed those increases with every new report. The focus then should first be on justice for the particular women who were abused and the talk in the media should be of courts, prison sentences etc (in so far as those measures are possible given statutes of limitations and so on). After that's out of the way, let's focus more about general prevention and awareness. But there has to be justice.

(I agree about Clinton incidentally and the same thing applies. It's quite possible he's a rapist but people just shrug as if that's what the rich and powerful do and now we've got it out in the open everything's OK as if he's been punished enough. No, these people need to be behind bars not podiums.)

Monica's to advance her career and Willey to continue on his pattern of taking advantage of women who fall at his feet, without getting caught? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Personally I think it was probably her idea that they got caught so that she could become famous. But I, like everyone else in the public don't and probably will never know the whole story.

I really don't like the idea of anyone with authority using it like that, as a man it is not the correct way to behave no matter what position you hold. But shit happens.

They were consenting adults and she could have walked away. If she was as good a worker to have a position that put next to a president she could have found work anywhere. But she wanted and accepted the deal that was offered so that makes her just as responsible as the idiot with his fly open.

How would the people have seen things if Hilary had been the president and she was caught getting some nooky? Would the people have cried fowl as well?

Thankfully, it was not rape — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You never heard of any other credible rape allegations against Bill Clinton? They've got their own Wiki page. Before one of the 2016 presidential debates, Trump brought a group of Bubba's accusers to a press conference. You don't remember that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

I agree with you. I find Mitch's comment degrading — Agustino

My name isn't Mitch. And how is my comment degrading? The subsequent paragraphs don't seem to explain it.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. I guess TPF members aren't very open with regards to this sort of thing.

But the aftermath is part of the relationship, so in this case it is not presumptuous. But one ought to be presumptuous in any case. One ought to presume that power imbalances will lead to manufactured consent, as is the case in prostitution. That is why many professional bodies prohibit such relationships absolutely, such as doctors with patients, teachers with children. which is to say that if Monica and Bill want to have a consensual sexual relationship, they can do so in my book as soon as they are no longer in a professional power relationship. It is a matter of protecting the vulnerable in general from exploitation and abuse, even if some of them quite like being abused in particular situations.

We might even find it plausible that Harvey Weinstein's 'weakness' was on occasion exploited by ambitious women, or that Monica herself exploited Bill's inability to pass up a chance to play the lover-boy to further her career; one never knows. But however it works, and whoever is being exploited, there are other parties to consider: the PAs or actresses who do not compromise their virtue, and the audiences and electors who are potentially deprived of the best person to be doing the job. — unenlightened

I agree with you. I find Mitch's comment degrading:

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusive or harassment just because one person has more power than another. — Michael

The further issue is that there is no way to really avoid such situations in the end, except to say that if you really want to avoid such situations, don't accept such jobs, which put you in contact with people who are significantly more powerful than you are. That's why for example I've avoided working in larger multinational corporations where the bosses snort cocaine and make you do stupid stuff for fun (although I know people who have accepted such). So it's quite simple in a way - there's sacrifices you have to make if you don't want to be in such an environment. The environment cannot really be reformed. Either you grow powerful by yourself, so that you can create the environment and then enforce your own rules, or you avoid environments that force you to interact with those more powerful than you. Then you don't need to compromise.

And obviously I'm a man, I think it's much worse if you're a woman in such an environment. But again, the strategy recommended would be the same. You cannot have one foot in hell and another in heaven - you have to make a choice. Some women (and men) exploit those environments very well by humiliating themselves before they can rise to the top and ultimately grow bigger than those whom they humiliated themselves before in the first place. The Chinese military proverb says that even the great general Han Xin crawled between the legs of a bunch of hooligans.

I said there's no way to avoid such situations, because power ultimately dictates the terms, whether you like it or not. You cannot stand up to power except if you yourself are powerful. Bureaucracies, division of powers - this is all ultimately nonsense. Whoever holds power, and knows how to use it, can abuse, if that's what they decide to do.

A bad divorce wouldn’t mean a bad marriage. — Michael

Yes it would.