[ SECRET POST #3893 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3893 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Valkyrie]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Joss Whedon and ex-wife Kai Cole]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Alyson Hannigan, "Fool Us"]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Wolfenstein: The New Order]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Anne, the new Anne of Green Gables reboot miniseries]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, to use a more notorious example, even if Brian Singer never raped anyone, his reputation for throwing sex parties where Hollywood money hooked up with barely legal aspiring actors is sketchy as fuck.

The reason why we tend to look down on sexual relationships where there's a professional power differential isn't because those relationships are automatically non-consensual. It's because those relationships tend to create a professional conflict of interest.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, and? That's just dialing the casting couch coercion up and taking it off the couch.

Say Singer had thrown parties where influential money men hooked up with barely legal aspiring actors - but there was no pressure to attend said parties, and even if you did attend your career wouldn't suffer if you decided not to have sex with anyone. In that hypothetical case, I honestly couldn't fault Singer. Because the problem with transactional sex isn't that it's transactional. The problem is when one person is being coerced into being there, or coerced into agreeing to terms that don't satisfy them.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

As I said elsewhere, the reason why those of us who actually work for a living and have a code of ethics tend to look down on transactional sex on the job isn't because it's inherently coercive. It's because transactional sex tends to create professional conflicts of interest (in that, you can no longer be trusted to act in an objective manner regarding that person).

So to use another example, I have no problem with Hugo Schwyzer, former male feminist talking head, losing his feminist credibility and tenure for fucking both adult students and research subjects. As far as I know, there was no question of consent, but having crossed that line, both his objectivity in evaluating students and in conducting research in his chosen field was questionable.

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with Hugo Schwyzer, former male feminist talking head, losing his feminist credibility and tenure for fucking both adult students and research subjects.

I don't know Schwyzer, but the way you've described the situation, I do have a problem with him losing his feminist cred. Because unless he pressure them, harassed them, or coerced them, it's just not a feminist issue. Judge him for thinking with his cock (and them for thinking with their pussies)? Sure, maybe. Bad call, guys. But it just doesn't affect their feminism at all IMO.

Two coworkers choosing of their own volition to have sex while knowing it might create a difficult professional dynamic for one or both of them is impulsive, perhaps foolish, and perhaps against the rules of their workplace. But it's not misogynist.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

A central idea behind feminist ethics regarding labor and education is that women should be paid and evaluated fairly based on the work they do. Sex between a supervisor/subordinate adds another form of bias into that equation. (Conscious or unconscious.) So it's not fair to the student if this comes out, because her grades and recommendations are now questionable. It's not fair to other students. And if this becomes normalized, (as it arguably has in parts of Hollywood) does it become another form of additional (compared to men) emotional labor that some women have to do in order to get equivalent treatment?

Then there are questions about if some types of women get preferential treatment on the basis of sexual availability, how does that affect the labor of women (such as older actresses) who don't get preferential treatment? If quid quo pro sex gets you more professional opportunities in a highly competitive labor market, does constitute a form of systemic economic pressure?

Which is why it's a feminist issue, and why those of us who work for a living generally have ethics guidelines prohibiting that kind of conflict of interest.

[(Anonymous)]

"why those of us who work for a living"
You keep saying that as if you assume ayrt doesn't.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

"Don't create conflicts of interest by fucking at work," has been an explicitly stated workplace rule from my first adult jobs as dishwasher and burger flipper 25 years ago. So I'm honestly baffled as to why an ethical rule as basic as "don't steal the tools" needs to be explained here.

[(Anonymous)]

That's irrelevant. Doesn't change that it makes you sound conceited as hell. (And kind of ignorant yourself making assumptions about other people like this.)

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Yes, darling, my biggest vice is habitually expressing profound contempt when anonymous randos express opinions that are profoundly ignorant of basic common sense and decency when stanning for a fandom fave.

[(Anonymous)]

It's kind of ridiculous how much of a condescending ass you are - which pretty much completely undermines your faux-superiority.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Callouts: You're doing it wrong stalker anon.

But I'll tell you what stalker anon, let's run an experiment. I'll be nice and polite in discussions where the indefensible is defended with phrases like, "stupid as fuck" and we'll see how it goes.

[(Anonymous)]

Honest question: Are you suffering from paranoid delusions? Since you seem convinced that every single person not 100% the same opinion as you are all one great evil stalker anon?
Nah, don't answer that. It's pretty obvious without your input.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Only a particular anon who jumps into mostly dead and completely unrelated discussions, usually in the EST morning or afternoon after a post, with a specific rhetorical style combining a tone argument and personal insult. Variations of "condescending ass" and a complete refusal to address the topic of the thread are the tells. I'm tempted to run some linguistic fingerprint analysis just to check, but that would be too much work to set up.

Also, those are not honest questions, as I'm sure you're aware. Gods bless and have a nice afternoon.

[(Anonymous)]

Well as long as you believe in it, I guess. Ever thought not being a condescending ass might help with the several people thinking this about you? Because I know it's not me all those many times you claim this happening to you. Have fun with your paranoia though!

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Thank you for your response. As part of this new policy I will no longer respond to posts containing personal attacks. Gods bless and have a nice afternoon.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the actual person you were originally talking to, and I'm glad I came back to check this, because it's really made it clear what kind of nonsense I can expect from you in the future. Ugh.