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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

But you're missing that enjoying the cycle means the situation doesn't "ask for" negation. For 10 years now I've been a "nihilist" in recognizing nothing absolute in the world. Indeed, this negation of the world is (for me) the absolute itself. By identifying with disidentification itself, man becomes transcendence incarnate.So by no means am I afraid of understanding you here. I'm not squeamish about the futility of human existence. It's part of my persona, living with this knowledge and the distance from mortal things it provides those who can accept their mortality.

I agree with what you imply, that we "slap on terms" in order to cope with reality. But I radicalize this theory. Even the grim "truth" of futility can function as an erotic object or power play. Pessimism is sexy.

Occasionally I feel world-weary. Occasionally (especially if I get sick), I get disgusted with life. So these modes appear, and it's easy to abstractly assent to my death in such modes. But for the most part the game is too absorbing. I have projects to bring to fruition. We can call the projects an illusion or the sense of futility an illusion. We'd just be privileging one mode over the other. Both modes are real. To project a dominant abstraction is arguably to reduce the real for a moment's purpose. — t0m

As someone also trapped in paralyzing depression, my question still stands. — Noble Dust

Gotta have hope. Indeed. Upgrade the opium. — schopenhauer1

A purpose has to mean something that connects to the experience of life, in all it's fullness, suffering, and nihilism. — Noble Dust

The hope, though, is not to push more dope, but to do something about the wretched world. — Bitter Crank

I decided [dogmatically] to give "trying" a try, improved my circumstances, got a good "intellectual" job, blah blah blah. So life is better. — t0m

Those who don't fear hellfire (or death as eternal sleep) fear death as the loss of this opportunity to repeat the same old pleasures. — t0m

Falling in love for the first time again, for instance. — t0m

Men even die for "honor," not so much because of what others think of them, necessarily, but for fear of how they would think of themselves after cowardly submission. — t0m

That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest — schopenhauer1

They aren't. — Thorongil

The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;

15And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

16To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

17Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.

18“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;

19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.” — Genesis 3

God wouldn't damn a being who is deceived. — Thorongil

He possessed knowledge of the good and what would happen if he freely choose not to will it anymore. No longer willing the good is the act of will in this case, which then results in his being deceived. — Thorongil

Yes, and I'm saying he must have done so with full knowledge. — Thorongil

There is no ur-Satan that deceived Satan. — Thorongil

I disagree. I think it can be deliberately denied with full knowledge. — Thorongil

The question "why do what makes you happy?" is subverted by the premise that we cannot but desire happiness. — Thorongil

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

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

exhibit A — Noble Dust

Because obsession and control are not good? — Noble Dust

No? — Noble Dust

Eh? How? You ain't a mod. — Noble Dust

Haha, I thought it was maybe too harsh. I'm such a nice guy. — Noble Dust

Says the guy with the most posts here. :P — Noble Dust

Please do, we have a tendency to bash each other on a left / right basis (here and elsewhere), and it would be interesting to focus on developing a common core of sensible principles both sides could agree on. — Baden

Also, I'm an engineer — T Clark

So far you've just made assertions that it's trivial; I was hoping you had an argument to make about it. — Noble Dust

What's trivial about it? — Noble Dust

What, this thread, or the show? — Noble Dust