• gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    “The deal” is the worker fucks the boss or the worker’s career gets destroyed so yeah that’s a big old frowny face

    • Cypher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      There’s an implicit assumption there about who initiated which won’t always be the case

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The problems I see in it are that there is pressure on every decision someone makes. Whether the relationship starts as a mutual interest the ability to step outside the situation has friction that shouldn’t be there for both parties.

        She can say he forced her into the relationship to keep her job, he can take away her job. Doesn’t matter if the sexes are reversed, no one should be having to think, oh I better give him/her a kiss before I leave or I might be homeless soon. Having to do things you no longer want to be doing romantically/sexually because your finances are directly impacted by it.

        I assume it’s why HR departments will usually always prefer anyone in a relationship to work in separate departments if they work for the same company.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Initiation is completely irrelevant, the boss has power over the worker either way and that power imbalance shuts down any possibility of ethical sex. If you are a leader with any kinda character you do not have any sexual activities with your subordinates ever.

        Also, kinda off topic, but initiation is very much in the eye of the beholder sometimes and SAers love to argue the other person initiated, so it’s just a very weak signpost to rely on in these situations (and that’s not even considering intoxication being a factor)