What most people here seem to be missing is that she was fucking her employees.
That’s the problem.
There is a massive power dynamic imbalance when you’re a world-famous politician in one of the highest profile jobs available and you start making moves on underlinings. It’s highly unethical behaviour and has been exactly the conduct that caused many politicians to be ousted and even impeached in the past.
To be fair, Boebert fucking her employees plays into the hierarchical social structure that conservatives support. The fact they’re her subordinates is probably what makes it okay.
While I take your point and agree with the merits of power imbalances inherently muddying the waters of consent, at what stage are we infantilising adults with the capacity to consent? Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people. In your comment, you suggest the idea that Boebert was the one ‘making moves’ on her staffers. Is there any verified information to suggest this was the case?
My broader question is this: are there any circumstances in which an employee can truly consent to sexual activity with their employer? I worry that answering ‘no’ to that question unfairly infantilises people, while I simultaneously worry that answering ‘yes’ justifies abuse of power to extract sexual favours.
It’s a very difficult puzzle, and one that I would personally argue heavily relies on context and the accounts of those who we fear may have been sexually abused. I’m reminded of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga which posed very similar questions, and to which you’ve also alluded in your comment.
Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people
The power imbalance makes any sexual relationship, even completely consensual ones extremely dodgey. Any kind of boundary setting you’d need to do in a healthy sexual relationship becomes marred with questions of “is this going to impact my ability to buy food?” This is why in most workplaces romantic and sexual relationships between managers and subordinates are explicitly banned.
It’s a violation of house ethics rules. Hypocrisy aside, its just simply against the rules of a body who’s purpose is to make the laws that govern the rest of us. No tolerance or excuses for that.
Pretty much any job anywhere will fire you on the spot for sleeping with a subordinate because it’s obvious that it’s a coercive power dynamic and bad for business and legal risk.
Lol they are wheeling in a barely functioning octagenerian for votes, and have a staffer to correct him when he votes wrong. You think Congress cares about ethics or power dynamics?
Regardless of if the individuals she was fucking were fully consenting or not it’s unethical. It’s going to lead to favoritism of those individuals over the ones who aren’t fucking her.
What most people here seem to be missing is that she was fucking her employees.
That’s the problem.
There is a massive power dynamic imbalance when you’re a world-famous politician in one of the highest profile jobs available and you start making moves on underlinings. It’s highly unethical behaviour and has been exactly the conduct that caused many politicians to be ousted and even impeached in the past.
That’s definitely true, though her being a republican in 2026… is she expected to face any real consequences?
To be fair, Boebert fucking her employees plays into the hierarchical social structure that conservatives support. The fact they’re her subordinates is probably what makes it okay.
While I take your point and agree with the merits of power imbalances inherently muddying the waters of consent, at what stage are we infantilising adults with the capacity to consent? Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people. In your comment, you suggest the idea that Boebert was the one ‘making moves’ on her staffers. Is there any verified information to suggest this was the case?
My broader question is this: are there any circumstances in which an employee can truly consent to sexual activity with their employer? I worry that answering ‘no’ to that question unfairly infantilises people, while I simultaneously worry that answering ‘yes’ justifies abuse of power to extract sexual favours.
It’s a very difficult puzzle, and one that I would personally argue heavily relies on context and the accounts of those who we fear may have been sexually abused. I’m reminded of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga which posed very similar questions, and to which you’ve also alluded in your comment.
The power imbalance makes any sexual relationship, even completely consensual ones extremely dodgey. Any kind of boundary setting you’d need to do in a healthy sexual relationship becomes marred with questions of “is this going to impact my ability to buy food?” This is why in most workplaces romantic and sexual relationships between managers and subordinates are explicitly banned.
https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct/
It’s a violation of house ethics rules. Hypocrisy aside, its just simply against the rules of a body who’s purpose is to make the laws that govern the rest of us. No tolerance or excuses for that.
my dude, the US elected a pedo, sexual predator, grifter as President, people admire this sort of behaviour.
Pretty much any job anywhere will fire you on the spot for sleeping with a subordinate because it’s obvious that it’s a coercive power dynamic and bad for business and legal risk.
Lol they are wheeling in a barely functioning octagenerian for votes, and have a staffer to correct him when he votes wrong. You think Congress cares about ethics or power dynamics?
Right my comment was intended to hilight how outside the norm this is
Regardless of if the individuals she was fucking were fully consenting or not it’s unethical. It’s going to lead to favoritism of those individuals over the ones who aren’t fucking her.
I was just about to point this out.