Actual Ex-Mo Predators

[Marcus]

This is what I read but I was too lazy to pull it out.

Hm. So Rosebud, by her statement did say she found his recording of her orgasming during their phone sex to be unwanted, and she did say him coming into her room the last time and fondling her breasts to be unwanted, so it would be interesting to see if this really applied.

[Kishkumen]

Hm. So Rosebud, by her statement did say she found his recording of her orgasming during their phone sex to be unwanted, and she did say him coming into her room the last time and fondling her breasts to be unwanted, so it would be interesting to see if this really applied.

Lack of consent is a problem. In this case, credibility is a problem that conflicts with her claims. If we could be sure that the person who has consistently lied to us were telling the truth about these things, that would change my view of the situation.

[IWMP]

You make very good points doc. I didn't visualise it this way. It certainly does shed light. Does that make him a predator though? To me I see a predator as someone who knowingly harresses and abuses another. You are correct that he had power and he got involved and didn't consider consequences. The problem arises in that she lost her career and he didn't. But would we define that as a predator/prey dynamic. Or just that he had the upper hand in the outcome. Which is pretty crappy. But I don't think that constitutes the image that is being portrayed, that he made unwelcome sexual advances and used his power to enforce an intimate relationship with another. The relationship appears consensual. It is suggested on rosebuds website that he was abusive. She defines gaslighting and other forms of abuse. Perhaps abuse of power in that ultimately she was left jobless and he wasn't. He didn't suffer the same way she did. But "predator"?

One of the legacies of Leftist politics (I would describe my self as a Center-Left voter) is an unfortunate idea borne of radical feminism: male sexuality is rape by definition. Although most people on the Left do not go that far, the lingering influence of this idea tends to warp the assessment of consent and culpability in exactly these kinds of situations. Men are often assumed to be predators because male sexuality is assumed to be predatory to some extent. So, if someone like John Dehlin sends flirty messages to a Rosebud, he is seen by those who buy into this line of thought as a predator who is "grooming" his prey. Her failure to tell him to knock it off or report him is excused after the fact as part of her victim profile. She was too scared, you see, to tell him to knock it off. If you start with the assumption that male sexuality is predatory, then it is very easy to conclude that someone like John is a predator, even if the person he is carrying on an affair with reciprocated and even asked for sex. To this day, certain people on this board see John as a predator and Rosebud as a victim.

Holly Welker recommends the following book, which I think is shaped by the legacy of radical feminism:

In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward smartly explores what, exactly, is wrong with heterosexuality in the twenty-first century, and what straight people can do to fix it for good. She shows how straight women, and to a lesser extent straight men, have tried to mend a fraught patriarchal system in which intimacy, sexual fulfillment, and mutual respect are expected to coexist alongside enduring forms of inequality, alienation, and violence in straight relationships.

I would bet that what is "wrong with heterosexuality" is not just a problem of the twenty-first century, or even just a problem with heterosexuality. I would guess that the root problem is human relationships, which are usually a complicated combination of dominant and subordinate personality types and behaviors that can vary, relationship-by-relationship, in their strange stew of dominant and subordinate ingredients. I admit I have not read this book, and I understand that I should. I don't want to portray this book in an unfair manner. What I am pointing out here, however, is how ideology has shaped an entire discourse, within which this book comfortably falls.

I'm feeling like I'm going to end up in a fight here. But I don't want to ignore your reply. I don't know about leftist views. I think women can be predators too. The arguments on both sides of this thread are strong. My view is that we are basically debating what the word predator means.

When I read the Facebook conversation, rose bud was sending the same messages that John was. Sometimes they were both basically saying they shouldn't but they couldn't resist. I'm paraphrasing. I think if a person responds in the same ilk then they can't say that sending such messages are predatory. And from the conversations, it seemed that at times rosebud first brought up that energy at times too. Does that make her predatory in the same sense. To me predatory would be if she was a child, or a vulnerable adult or if the messages were overwhelming and manipulative. Definitely seems there may have been a power imbalance in terms of how they resolve the problem when the relationship breaks down but where does that become abuse? There doesn't appear to be a power balance within the relationship itself. If the relationship kept going smoothly then there would be no power imbalance.

[Marcus]

...If the relationship kept going smoothly then there would be no power imbalance...

A 'smooth' relationship does not necessarily mean there is a balance of power.

[Kishkumen]

I'm feeling like I'm going to end up in a fight here. But I don't want to ignore your reply. I don't know about leftist views. I think women can be predators too. The arguments on both sides of this thread are strong. My view is that we are basically debating what the word predator means.

When I read the Facebook conversation, rose bud was sending the same messages that John was. Sometimes they were both basically saying they shouldn't but they couldn't resist. I'm paraphrasing. I think if a person responds in the same ilk then they can't say that sending such messages are predatory. And from the conversations, it seemed that at times rosebud first brought up that energy at times too. Does that make her predatory in the same sense. To me predatory would be if she was a child, or a vulnerable adult or if the messages were overwhelming and manipulative. Definitely seems there may have been a power imbalance in terms of how they resolve the problem when the relationship breaks down but where does that become abuse? There doesn't appear to be a power balance within the relationship itself. If the relationship kept going smoothly then there would be no power imbalance.

This all looks fair and reasonable to me, IWMP.

[IWMP]

This is what I read but I was too lazy to pull it out.

Hm. So Rosebud, by her statement did say she found his recording of her orgasming during their phone sex to be unwanted, and she did say him coming into her room the last time and fondling her breasts to be unwanted, so it would be interesting to see if this really applied.

Did she say at the time or after the relationship broke down?

Both things would be gross if there wasn't already an implied sexual relationship. Recording is just gross in my opinion. But credit where credit is due. If you are in a sexual relationship, would you think you were allowed to continue such sexual advances? If in that moment she says I don't like this don't do it or delete the recording then he should respect that and apologise and discuss the boundaries of their relationship. But they were already both actively involved in a relationship that implies that it is ok to make physical contact. This is where the grey area becomes murky. Because different people have different levels of what is acceptable and those lines have shifted in the last decade. Shifted for the better definitely. I strongly believe in laying down your boundaries and respecting that. But a decade ago, people weren't talking about boundaries. Not that that makes things ok but if someone were in a relationship of a sexual nature, then one can assume that one party may have thought it was ok to make sexual advances.

How she reacted at the time is what matters and how he responded to that reaction is what matters.
That is what we don't have evidence of.
I hope I'm making sense.

I do agree with the sentiment you are expressing Marcus but we have to try to look at the full picture. I'm married and if my husband recorded me I'd be upset but I'd talk to him about it I wouldn't assume that he was abusing me doing that. I'd assume he didn't know that that was a boundary I didn't appreciate but would hope that it never happened again after I explained how I felt. I would assume that he thought it ok because we are married. I wouldn't announce to the world that he did it if we divorced and accuse him of assault or abuse, I might if it happened multiple times and after I expressed my discomfort he continued. (This did not happen, I'm giving a scenario).

[Kishkumen]

Another characteristic of Leftist discourse is the almost sole preoccupation with power in human relationships. Marcus is pretty much a textbook Leftist, and her arguments proceed accordingly. This is not a knock but an observation. People should know that Marcus operates in a particular discourse with its own history and idiosyncrasies. The views she expresses are not automatically true, right, or uniquely salient.

[IWMP]

...If the relationship kept going smoothly then there would be no power imbalance...

A 'smooth' relationship does not necessarily mean there is a balance of power.

I meant in the case of rosebud and dehlin. If they didn't fall out, there wouldn't have been negative consequences for rosebud. I agree, there can be power balances even in happy couples. Some people like and welcome power imbalances.

[Kishkumen]

I think the recording thing, if not agreed to up front, is super creepy and unacceptable. I just don’t know whether it is true in this case.

[Marcus]

Another characteristic of Leftist discourse is the almost sole preoccupation with power in human relationships. Marcus is pretty much a textbook Leftist, and her arguments proceed accordingly. This is not a knock but an observation. People should know that Marcus operates in a particular discourse with its own history and idiosyncrasies. The views she expresses are not automatically true, right, or uniquely salient.

Wow, you are really, really touchy about being disagreed with!

No matter. You know nothing about me. Your statement above stands as the personal attack it is. Fallacious argument at its best. Well done, fellow professor.