revenage

[OWoman]

Are you saying that legally, sexual harrassment exists whenever a subordinate enters into a relationship with a superior? That this is legally analogous to a child being unable to give informed consent? Because you sure shoved that down NF's throat to make your point...

 

I'm saying that that's the basis for the sexual harassment policies in force in many companies. Whether it's LEGALLY sound or not is a different issue - and I also cannot speak about legal frameworks in countries other than my own, as I just don't know them. But because of the murkiness surrounding this type of issue, many policies work from the basis that, if there's a direct line report involved (or sufficient power embodied in hierarchical difference, even where no direct line report) that it's per se a case of sexual harassment.

 

It's not a position I personally support - I think it denies the individual woman (it's usually a woman) a sense of agency in the transaction - but it's a position that has found favour with many feminists, post-colonialists, anti-racists and other people whose political sympathies are unambiguously with the "underdog" in any relationship involving a disparity of power.

 

Whether the OP's company, in this particular case, subscribed to such a policy or not I couldn't guess. But that may have informed the VP seeking out her perspective on her MM.

[Trimmer]

I'm saying that that's the basis for the sexual harassment policies in force in many companies. Whether it's LEGALLY sound or not is a different issue - and I also cannot speak about legal frameworks in countries other than my own, as I just don't know them. But because of the murkiness surrounding this type of issue, many policies work from the basis that, if there's a direct line report involved (or sufficient power embodied in hierarchical difference, even where no direct line report) that it's per se a case of sexual harassment.

 

It's not a position I personally support - I think it denies the individual woman (it's usually a woman) a sense of agency in the transaction - but it's a position that has found favour with many feminists, post-colonialists, anti-racists and other people whose political sympathies are unambiguously with the "underdog" in any relationship involving a disparity of power.

 

Whether the OP's company, in this particular case, subscribed to such a policy or not I couldn't guess. But that may have informed the VP seeking out her perspective on her MM.

OK, I hear you and fully understand your points here.

 

I was just taken aback by your comment "Or do you feel that an adult seducing a "willing" under-age child is also OK, because the child "willingly" entres the relationship?" which I thought to be an unpleasant and inflammatory accusation directed at the poster you were quoting, and a digression unworthy of the mainline discussion...

 

That aside though, as I said, I understand your points in this post, even sharing your unease that current policies - out of their "abundance of caution" - sometimes deny participants that sense of agency (and even adulthood, for that matter...)

[Herzen]

I'm saying that that's the basis for the sexual harassment policies in force in many companies. Whether it's LEGALLY sound or not is a different issue - and I also cannot speak about legal frameworks in countries other than my own, as I just don't know them. But because of the murkiness surrounding this type of issue, many policies work from the basis that, if there's a direct line report involved (or sufficient power embodied in hierarchical difference, even where no direct line report) that it's per se a case of sexual harassment.

 

It's not a position I personally support - I think it denies the individual woman (it's usually a woman) a sense of agency in the transaction - but it's a position that has found favour with many feminists, post-colonialists, anti-racists and other people whose political sympathies are unambiguously with the "underdog" in any relationship involving a disparity of power.

 

Whether the OP's company, in this particular case, subscribed to such a policy or not I couldn't guess. But that may have informed the VP seeking out her perspective on her MM.

 

 

Fortunately, a consensual office relationship-- even between those with disparate authority-- does not a hostile work environment make under Title VII. See, Harris, Ellerth, etc.

 

Because of potential Title VII liability, morale and fairness issues, however, many litigation-adverse employers prohibit asymmetric office romances.

 

Liability issues often arise when the "subordinate" lover ends the relationship and feels the wrath of her/his spurned "superior." There's nothing worse than the rage of a boss spurned.

[noforgiveness]

In other words no one is responsible for their own actions. It is always someone elses fault.

 

Are you really comparing sex with a child to a willing participation with a boss? Please. She already admitted to getting drunk and coming on to this guy. She is responsible for her actions and he is not sexually harrassing her. Wrong is wrong regardless of how you want to spin the law and paint her as an innocent being seduced by a superior. She is far from the naive innocent child.

[child_of_isis]

I think you may be going a bit off base here. Ingrained in the subconscious of society is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

 

It is ingrained I tell ya.

 

A VP is on not only on the look out for true sexual harrassment, but the sexual harrassment CLAIMS of a pissed off woman bent on revenge.

 

Now this is sexist no doubt.... but it is the way it is. No VP would ever admit to thinking such a thing, but the subconscious is a funny thing.

 

And truthfully, the OP acted in such a manner. Albeit, not to a large degree. But, she did exact her little bit of revenge on her previous lover when given the chance and the VP was testament to that.

 

Of course the OP wasn't sexually harrassed, I think we are all aware of that. That is really not the issue.

 

Are you really comparing sex with a child to a willing participation with a boss? Please. She already admitted to getting drunk and coming on to this guy. She is responsible for her actions and he is not sexually harrassing her. Wrong is wrong regardless of how you want to spin the law and paint her as an innocent being seduced by a superior. She is far from the naive innocent child.

[Herzen]

I think you may be going a bit off base here. Ingrained in the subconscious of society is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

 

It is ingrained I tell ya.

 

A VP is on not only on the look out for true sexual harrassment, but the sexual harrassment CLAIMS of a pissed off woman bent on revenge.

 

Now this is sexist no doubt.... but it is the way it is. No VP would ever admit to thinking such a thing, but the subconscious is a funny thing.

 

And truthfully, the OP acted in such a manner. Albeit, not to a large degree. But, she did exact her little bit of revenge on her previous lover when given the chance and the VP was testament to that.

 

Of course the OP wasn't sexually harrassed, I think we are all aware of that. That is really not the issue.

 

My firm is defending a "scorned woman" sexual harassment lawsuit at the moment. In fact, the plaintiff, and the alleged perp, her colleague, are both physicians and married.

 

Messy indeed.

[Cobra_X30]

So I think I told you all that my xmm and I work fr the same company, but different identities for the company, and that he was fired (HA, Still loving it) anyways today the VP asked me what I thought of XMM's work, I told him he is smart and great ideas, but he is a huge jerk and nobody gets along with him, co-workers or customers (he was going to offer him a job until I said that)

 

Thought I would share

 

and now that I said it I feel bad for doing so because it will take him a long time to find a job doing what he was doing....But I really cann't have him working with me....just can't

 

Is this revenge?

 

Sounds like you told the truth. Don't worry if this guy is smart, and does good work... he will find another job soon enough.

 

I understand your need to move on! How far along that path do you think you have gone?

[Havn_a_life]

You know, this guy may be all she says, where other coworkers are concerned, but she didn't have a problem with it while she was having an A with him.

I would never have sex with any guy who's like she describes, especially one I didn't know but only through work.

 

It sounds like she's using his "jerk-ness" toward other coworkers as an excuse to mask her rankled feelings over their A and her reluctance in wanting to have to go into work everyday and see what a mistake she made during a weak moment, or in her case, moments.

JMO

[KenzieAbsolutely]

It's his problem right? Should have kept it in his pants,etc...tough luck for the W and kids...

 

OK!

 

 

regardless if the OP is right or wrong in her actions, the above is still true.

[Havn_a_life]

Point being?

[RecordProducer]

I am sorry if I missed something from previous threads, but I didn't see that the original poster mentioned sexual harassment. It was our mascot, LittleLady, the theoretical (and possibly practical) expert in sex intrigues, who suggested that the OP should (falsely) charge the XMM with sexual harassment - because that's what LittleLady would do or at least fantasize about.

 

The OP sounds like a normal woman to me. Was she a bitch to the MM? Maybe, but those women should exist, too. They have the mission of teaching a MM a lesson once in a while.

 

I kinda like what she did to him. I don't like that she compromised her professional ethics because of personal issues with another employee, but people trip other people at work all the time, for reasons other than love affairs. I do like though that she taught him a lesson: he wanted to have a wife and kids at home and a mistress at work. He had to pay for the lovely life he had while he screwed around and screwed his pregnant wife.

 

It's one thing to live in a miserable marriage and get the attention you crave on aside; and another to make a harem out of your life. He thought that women should turn around his dick like planets around the Sun. Well, this woman showed him that his dick is not so precious. Why should she let him get away with it? I know she agreed to sleep with him, but she paid her dues.

 

And about the kids who now have a jobless father... they are not her kids, they are HIS kids. Maybe next time he will keep his pants zipped. As a matter of fact, she did the kids a favor: if he was encouraged to continue to cheat, he might transmit AIDS to his kids' mother and the kids would stay orphans. This lady taught him a lesson. I can look at it from that perspective. Next time he won't mess with women and he'll have more time to spend with his kids. I can see that perspective, too. He'll spend less money on his mistresses - more on saving for his kids' college.

 

I could never do what she did, but I support her "deed." Her action was short-term immoral, but I see the long-term moral of the story.

[Herzen]

I am sorry if I missed something from previous threads, but I didn't see that the original poster mentioned sexual harassment. It was our mascot, LittleLady, the theoretical (and possibly practical) expert in sex intrigues, who suggested that the OP should (falsely) charge the XMM with sexual harassment - because that's what LittleLady would do or at least fantasize about.

 

The OP sounds like a normal woman to me. Was she a bitch to the MM? Maybe, but those women should exist, too. They have the mission of teaching a MM a lesson once in a while.

 

I kinda like what she did to him. I don't like that she compromised her professional ethics because of personal issues with another employee, but people trip other people at work all the time, for reasons other than love affairs. I do like though that she taught him a lesson: he wanted to have a wife and kids at home and a mistress at work. He had to pay for the lovely life he had while he screwed around and screwed his pregnant wife.

 

It's one thing to live in a miserable marriage and get the attention you crave on aside; and another to make a harem out of your life. He thought that women should turn around his dick like planets around the Sun. Well, this woman showed him that his dick is not so precious. Why should she let him get away with it? I know she agreed to sleep with him, but she paid her dues.

 

And about the kids who now have a jobless father... they are not her kids, they are HIS kids. Maybe next time he will keep his pants zipped. As a matter of fact, she did the kids a favor: if he was encouraged to continue to cheat, he might transmit AIDS to his kids' mother and the kids would stay orphans. This lady taught him a lesson. I can look at it from that perspective. Next time he won't mess with women and he'll have more time to spend with his kids. I can see that perspective, too. He'll spend less money on his mistresses - more on saving for his kids' college.

 

I could never do what she did, but I support her "deed." Her action was short-term immoral, but I see the long-term moral of the story.

 

Although I disagree with you, RP, you've ably and convincingly stated the "Pro" position.

 

Nice job.

[Havn_a_life]

Do I feel sorry for the MM? Hell no! Did he deserve to be sacked for screwing around with another woman.

Hell yes!

I don't care whether it wasn't the OW's kids, that it was his kids. blah! blah!

 

Either freakin' way, those kids got crapped on. Whomever's fault it was.

I think it's BS to just write off the guy's kids, even if he did for the moment.

 

Is he going to learn a lesson from it? I sure hope so.

Will this xOW learn a lesson about having A's with MMs?

Who knows!

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

Who knows if either one will.

One thing's for sure. He paid for his mistake in having an A with her, didn't he? We can all agree on that.

 

Wonder how karma will deal with her?

[Kasan]

I kinda like what she did to him. I don't like that she compromised her professional ethics because of personal issues with another employee, but people trip other people at work all the time, for reasons other than love affairs. I do like though that she taught him a lesson: he wanted to have a wife and kids at home and a mistress at work. He had to pay for the lovely life he had while he screwed around and screwed his pregnant wife.

 

Who the heck died and left us the morality police? There are drug dealers that got off with less than the MM did.

 

As the OP noted he has issues with other employees (we have been told by her) was fired, asked what kind of person he was (OP has an axe to grind) and takes great delight in taking pleasure in effing up his life.

 

Well alrightyyy then--what should be the punishment for women who bear children out of wedlock, how about married women who cheat.....on and on we could go.

 

There is just something not right about all this. We all fall, it is simply human nature, but to take great joy in the ruination of a family makes me feel a little bit sick.

 

I am so tired of people meting out their brand of justice to even up the score, then putting on their compassionate masks and off they go. Talk about hypocrisy!

 

How can we as human beings participate in this?

 

Well whatever....I am getting down from my soapbox now. Feel free to carry on!

 

Namaste

[RecordProducer]

Although I disagree with you, RP, you've ably and convincingly stated the "Pro" position.

 

Nice job.

Do I have what it takes to be a lawyer?

[Herzen]

Do I have what it takes to be a lawyer?

 

Absolutely, because even when wrong you're clear, concise and convincing.

[RecordProducer]

Absolutely, because even when wrong you're clear, concise and convincing.

Let the jury decide who's wrong!

 

Thanks, Herzen.

[Havn_a_life]

Well, in my opinion, I don't care about the MM and the punishment meted out to him by xOW. I don't care about xOW and the whys and wherefores of her attitude and the MM getting fired/not recommended for another job, etc.

I sympathise with the BW and kids who get punished for it.

 

The MM and xOW are BOTH responsible for that.

[NoIDidn't]

Can I give my two cents in this matter?

 

I don't agree completely with RP, but I do understand how she managed her reasoning and it is compelling. But.

 

I don't really care what happens to him or to his family because HE did this to them. If he hadn't had an A, he wouldn't have an xOW with an ax to grind. The xMM is the one that should be feeling sorry for his family and his lack of judgment and restraint. This is his shame to bear as HE is the member of that family that betrayed it, and now is possibly impoverishing it too.

 

As for lost...it is just wrong to gloat over what she did. Its very clear that she embellished the truth when speaking to her VP. We can guess as to the Veeps intentions in asking her the questions, but only the veep knows what the motivation for asking was. Naming this thread "revenage" (not revenge, very funny LOL) and then stating that "I just can't work with him....I just can't" (rough quote) makes it clear that whether lost knew initially or not that xMM was going to be offered a job is irrelevant. She used the opportunity to sully his name for personal reasons. I don't believe in loyalty to an employer (my Generation neXt status rearing its *beautiful* head), so I don't think that plays into it. She didn't know up front that he was be considered for re/hire. But she did seem to relish the opportunity to remove any possible positive thoughts the VP may have had about the xMM.

[Havn_a_life]

Can I give my two cents in this matter?

 

I don't agree completely with RP, but I do understand how she managed her reasoning and it is compelling. But.

 

I don't really care what happens to him or to his family because HE did this to them. If he hadn't had an A, he wouldn't have an xOW with an ax to grind. The xMM is the one that should be feeling sorry for his family and his lack of judgment and restraint. This is his shame to bear as HE is the member of that family that betrayed it, and now is possibly impoverishing it too.

 

As for lost...it is just wrong to gloat over what she did. Its very clear that she embellished the truth when speaking to her VP. We can guess as to the Veeps intentions in asking her the questions, but only the veep knows what the motivation for asking was. Naming this thread "revenage" (not revenge, very funny LOL) and then stating that "I just can't work with him....I just can't" (rough quote) makes it clear that whether lost knew initially or not that xMM was going to be offered a job is irrelevant. She used the opportunity to sully his name for personal reasons. I don't believe in loyalty to an employer (my Generation neXt status rearing its *beautiful* head), so I don't think that plays into it. She didn't know up front that he was be considered for re/hire. But she did seem to relish the opportunity to remove any possible positive thoughts the VP may have had about the xMM.

 

Sorry you feel that way.

I do feel sorry for the innocent parties involved.

[NoIDidn't]

Sorry you feel that way.

I do feel sorry for the innocent parties involved.

 

 

That's my point, though. The MM should have been thinking about the possible outcomes to his behavior. The MM isn't thinking about his family when he cheats and unfortunately its his family that will suffer the most - whether he loses his job or not. My H told me when he spoke with his co-worker (its was an EA) he didn't have me OR our kids on his mind. And when the sh*t began to hit the proverbial fan, all of a sudden we were ALL that he could think of - besides the possibility of her claiming harrassment but she didn't report to him in any capacity.

 

Its not that I don't care at all about them, I do. But that's besides the point. I can't erase the consequences of his actions. Cause and effect. He chose to betray his family with Lost. He was not forced to do so. His family's suffering is on him and on him alone. If he was the sole breadwinner, he SHOULD be ashamed of himself.

 

If they were my neighbors and I knew the truth of how they ended up in need, I would help them to the extent that its reasonable. If it was a family member who did this to his family, I would be there for them no questions asked (to the same reasonable extent, though). If it was my worst enemy, I would still help. But that won't change the fact that it was HIS actions that put them into that situation.

 

Feeling sorry for his family just seems like excusing him for his behavior and choices. But it was his behavior and choices that got them into the mess to begin with. He is the reason for their suffering. Sure he had an accomplice, but as far as his family's well-being and care are concerned, that's on him. Always was.

 

While I can't understand the sarcastic rolling eyes here, I can understand the feelings of us previously betrayed spouses to feeling sorry for the innocents affected. But Lost didn't cause the man to lose his job directly. And Lost did not know that the man was being considered for being hired again when she made her statement. It just seems to me that Lost is being blamed for taking care of this man's family and that's HIS job.

[GreenEyedLady]

Can I give my two cents in this matter?

 

I don't agree completely with RP, but I do understand how she managed her reasoning and it is compelling. But.

 

I don't really care what happens to him or to his family because HE did this to them. If he hadn't had an A, he wouldn't have an xOW with an ax to grind. The xMM is the one that should be feeling sorry for his family and his lack of judgment and restraint. This is his shame to bear as HE is the member of that family that betrayed it, and now is possibly impoverishing it too.

 

As for lost...it is just wrong to gloat over what she did. Its very clear that she embellished the truth when speaking to her VP. We can guess as to the Veeps intentions in asking her the questions, but only the veep knows what the motivation for asking was. Naming this thread "revenage" (not revenge, very funny LOL) and then stating that "I just can't work with him....I just can't" (rough quote) makes it clear that whether lost knew initially or not that xMM was going to be offered a job is irrelevant. She used the opportunity to sully his name for personal reasons. I don't believe in loyalty to an employer (my Generation neXt status rearing its *beautiful* head), so I don't think that plays into it. She didn't know up front that he was be considered for re/hire. But she did seem to relish the opportunity to remove any possible positive thoughts the VP may have had about the xMM.

 

I think this is a really good response...It's fair and reasonable...

 

Good to see you around!

[OWoman]

That's my point, though. The MM should have been thinking about the possible outcomes to his behavior. The MM isn't thinking about his family when he cheats and unfortunately its his family that will suffer the most - whether he loses his job or not. My H told me when he spoke with his co-worker (its was an EA) he didn't have me OR our kids on his mind. And when the sh*t began to hit the proverbial fan, all of a sudden we were ALL that he could think of - besides the possibility of her claiming harrassment but she didn't report to him in any capacity.

 

Its not that I don't care at all about them, I do. But that's besides the point. I can't erase the consequences of his actions. Cause and effect. He chose to betray his family with Lost. He was not forced to do so. His family's suffering is on him and on him alone. If he was the sole breadwinner, he SHOULD be ashamed of himself.

 

If they were my neighbors and I knew the truth of how they ended up in need, I would help them to the extent that its reasonable. If it was a family member who did this to his family, I would be there for them no questions asked (to the same reasonable extent, though). If it was my worst enemy, I would still help. But that won't change the fact that it was HIS actions that put them into that situation.

 

Feeling sorry for his family just seems like excusing him for his behavior and choices. But it was his behavior and choices that got them into the mess to begin with. He is the reason for their suffering. Sure he had an accomplice, but as far as his family's well-being and care are concerned, that's on him. Always was.

 

While I can't understand the sarcastic rolling eyes here, I can understand the feelings of us previously betrayed spouses to feeling sorry for the innocents affected. But Lost didn't cause the man to lose his job directly. And Lost did not know that the man was being considered for being hired again when she made her statement. It just seems to me that Lost is being blamed for taking care of this man's family and that's HIS job.

 

Impressive response, NID!

 

I agree that the two need to be separated. The morality of what Lost did - and whether it was fair, or motivated by revenge (or "revenage") - is one matter. The responsibility for protecting the source of income for the BW and kids is another matter.

 

An MM really should consider the potential impact of his actions before he engages in any kind of extramural nookie. I know they all think they're invulnerable, it will never happen to them - and, they're too smart to get caught - but they need to consider the "what ifs" carefully.

[Havn_a_life]

That's my point, though. The MM should have been thinking about the possible outcomes to his behavior. The MM isn't thinking about his family when he cheats and unfortunately its his family that will suffer the most - whether he loses his job or not. My H told me when he spoke with his co-worker (its was an EA) he didn't have me OR our kids on his mind. And when the sh*t began to hit the proverbial fan, all of a sudden we were ALL that he could think of - besides the possibility of her claiming harrassment but she didn't report to him in any capacity.

 

Its not that I don't care at all about them, I do. But that's besides the point. I can't erase the consequences of his actions. Cause and effect. He chose to betray his family with Lost. He was not forced to do so. His family's suffering is on him and on him alone. If he was the sole breadwinner, he SHOULD be ashamed of himself.

 

If they were my neighbors and I knew the truth of how they ended up in need, I would help them to the extent that its reasonable. If it was a family member who did this to his family, I would be there for them no questions asked (to the same reasonable extent, though). If it was my worst enemy, I would still help. But that won't change the fact that it was HIS actions that put them into that situation.

 

Feeling sorry for his family just seems like excusing him for his behavior and choices. But it was his behavior and choices that got them into the mess to begin with. He is the reason for their suffering. Sure he had an accomplice, but as far as his family's well-being and care are concerned, that's on him. Always was.

 

While I can't understand the sarcastic rolling eyes here, I can understand the feelings of us previously betrayed spouses to feeling sorry for the innocents affected. But Lost didn't cause the man to lose his job directly. And Lost did not know that the man was being considered for being hired again when she made her statement. It just seems to me that Lost is being blamed for taking care of this man's family and that's HIS job.

 

I understand 100% what you're saying. I do not feel the way Lost is posting she feels any responsibility to her own guilt in the A.

That is what I have a problem with.

She was 50% of that A, which directly involved the BW and kids.

I don't care about the opinion of, if it wasn't her it would have been someone else.

BS!

I,too am a former BW who's H cheated with OW who cared not one iota for what me or the kids would have to deal with.

H was 50 % of that A and he got 50% of the blame. So, did xOW, who tried the "if I get fired for this A, you will too" BS.

 

My sympathy lies with the BW and kids of the MM lost was with.

Not Lost. Not MM. I don't pity or have empathy for either of them. He's got a good dose of reality.

She should stay as far away from MMs as possible because the next person getting fired might be her.

I doubt she'd have such a justified opinion if the shoe were on the other foot.

[Havn_a_life]

Impressive response, NID!

 

I agree that the two need to be separated. The morality of what Lost did - and whether it was fair, or motivated by revenge (or "revenage") - is one matter. The responsibility for protecting the source of income for the BW and kids is another matter.

 

An MM really should consider the potential impact of his actions before he engages in any kind of extramural nookie. I know they all think they're invulnerable, it will never happen to them - and, they're too smart to get caught - but they need to consider the "what ifs" carefully.

 

Is it really about a source of income for a BW and kids? Really?

It's about emotional security.

Lost is partly to blame for that emotional insecurity.