>The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”
Uhhh
Uhhh
Was that sent to a co-worker or not? Was that an argument for or against "being owned"? Was that sarcasm or in earnest? Was that a quote from a book?
None of that is clear without context!
I know people who have full BDSM dungeons in their homes, go to all sorts of outrageous parties and have some of the craziest stories.
SV in general has every type of person.
I recall some contractors commenting on a multi-million dollar "pleasure dungeon" they built into a huge mansion in Los Altos Hills....
So, for some this can be SSC, for other context it can be far worse.
One thing is for sure, whatever the context, these situations typically don't turn out good when they get the public eye.
And you think the ones that don't have turned out better?
Assume that a couple were consenting in owner/slave BDSM play and their dialogue were recorded and read by those who are not even previously aware that such relationships occur, no matter what these types of conversations will hit ears that were not ready/interested/amenable to hearing them, and judgements will be made.
That was my only point.
Being outside of the workplace does not make a power relationship that is akin to slavery OK. (You could claim the woman is free to leave, but there are implied threats against doing so, such as an asymmetric implied threat to reputation, with email documentation, at a minimum).
Yes it is true that context matters. However, I think it's safe to say his ex-wife who shared the quote has more knowledge of the context than we do... and again, slavery is not an indicator of leadership to aspire to. Nor is paying massive rewards to such a person.
Edit: what part of this do you disagree with?
Can you respond to what I said, instead of something else?
Andy: Strange. I prefer just "Love." Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people. I am glad you are no longer with that guy.
This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important.
But I agreed with the OP about context being important. So why are you telling me this?
The context, as the article mentioned, is that the screenshot is being used as evidence against him in a lawsuit.
He is said to have had several of these "ownership" relationships.
And you seem to be claiming that not only was a screenshot taken, but then someone came after the fact with photoshop and altered it to remove sentences from it, before submitting it as evidence.
================
Ex-Wife: I'm suing Andy Rubin, here's an email he wrote.
Judge: Why is this stuff blacked out?
Ex-Wife: (makes up excuse) It mentions proprietary information.
Judge: OK, well just show me the original, and we can keep it out of the record, and I'll decide whether this thing is pertinent.
Ex-Wife: OK, here is the original.
Judge: That is not proprietary information. It doesn't need to be covered.
Ex-Wife: But covering it up makes my case stronger because it makes him look like a creepy jerk.
Judge: GTFO
================
You really think this is what is going on? Seems like quite a stretch to me.
If he’s gotten into a consenting relationship with his subordinates, then that’s kinda skeezy, since one has to wonder how much workplace power dynamics come into play. There’s a damn good reason why HR tends to clamp down on workplace dating, it creates a whole host of issues.
If he was using his power to push that, or springing it suddenly on coworkers and subordinates, then he needs to be blacklisted ASAP.
Think of Zenefits, for example, an HR tools tech company which had to literally create an official policy stopping people from having sex in stairwells at the office.
dev1: busy?
dev2: coding wizard for "no workplace dating" policies
dev1: wanna bang?
dev2: sure
Courts will make any company "respectable," whether they want to or not.
As a matter of principle, people should enter such agreements if the want to and able to give consent. Of course, this doesn't make it right to send such email to the 18 year interne that started last week.
Edit: not sure why this is being downmodded (not complaining about it, just curious). Is it somehow not completely fine for consenting adults to have whatever kinks they want?
Rubin deserves to be punished for sexual harassment. Kink shaming is unnecessary.
> In a civil suit filed this month by Mr. Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin, she claimed he had multiple “ownership relationships” with other women during their marriage, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. The couple were divorced in August. The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email...
Even if it had been sent earlier, Andy Rubin had been named in enough patent lawsuits and deposed enough times to know that multiple plaintiffs had lawyers billing $700/800 per hour (at the very least) to go through all his corporate account's messages. He must have had tens of litigation holds.
IF, in fact, he sexually harassed, right?
A) What in the hell was his partner doing reporting to his place of business that she felt like he had compelled her to have sex with him in a hotel room? What does that have to do with work? That smells like using an accusation as a weapon to me.
B) What does "compelled" mean? I had a girlfriend once who was into kink and I wasn't. We did kink all the time and it wasn't fulfilling to me, and once time in particular I was trying very hard to just get her to have sex with me (which I thought was going to be part of the relationship and was just beginning to realize it was not). I kept asking, she kept saying no. Eventually she gave in. After our break-up she cited this as a rape to a friend. Is this rape? Is it even sexual harassment?
There are so few details here it's shameful it's even being reported on.
So what if Google gave a severance to someone who was accused of harassment? It's not even clear, from the details, that he did. Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
What's wrong with people here, acting like this is something we know he did?
She worked for him. Not sure if it's intentional but your reply seems full of willful ignorance.
"People who disagree with me are ignorant." Come on, man. Seriously? You sounds like a college kid on facebook.
If a company is not going to prohibit employees from having sexual relationships with each other, horizontally or vertically, that company also need to expect those employees to work their conflict out outside of work. If google does want to prohibit this, they should have disciplined both of them the moment they heard about it and fired them if it continued.
What's with people expecting companies to be mommy and daddy when we have conflicts in our relationships? That's crazy.
If the company you're in doesn't prohibit relationships, if you get into one you need to resolve conflict in those relationships outside of work.
The parent commenter said:
> She worked for him
> horizontal or vertical
B) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your particular experience. But keep in mind that many sexual misconduct accusations involve the victim refusing but eventually "giving in". Harvey Weinstein, for example:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-ove...
> Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
I hate to say "did you read the article?", but your question suggests that you may have skimmed the details. The article specifically states that Google investigated Rubin, and decided to terminate him as a result of the investigation. The investigation did not "prove" the accusation, but apparently the accusation was credible enough for Google to decide it was better to part ways with one of its most important executives.
> Google’s inquiry ultimately found the complaint against Mr. Rubin credible, said the two company executives familiar with the incident. While Mr. Rubin denied the accusation, it became clear that — at the very least — the relationship was inappropriate, they said. Mr. Page decided Mr. Rubin should leave, they said.
In my experience at a college in the northeast, it was about 10% that had actually thought a lot about it already and really wanted to do it. Around 50%, however, were more than happy to try it after learning about it.
This is definitely pretty far on the spectrum (the loaning part more so than the slave part), but I've said the 'loaning' part to people many times in a certain context and never actually meant it. I'd bet it just stayed as a fantasy between them.
That's less relevant as actually having sexual encounters with a woman. People often don't know their close friend's fetishes, but they do (or should) know what their lovers enjoy.
For a counterpoint: open a book of women's fantasies written by and marketed to women.