[anothercomment]

The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.

[irpapakons]

What makes you think that the women liked him, or that he thought they liked him? They were pitching to him, that's a business transaction. He himself said he leveraged a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, and the linked article mentions groping and harassment with unwanted sexual propositions.

Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?

[ddoolin]

Perhaps they see a trend of knee-jerk reactions to these kinds of cases where the defendant is presumed guilty before the entire story or evidence is out, or before any sort of due process occurs. I can see why someone would at least try, even weakly, to counteract this type of community pressure.

I realize this isn't a legal matter at this point but I'm speaking of the principle(s) on which those features are based.

It almost always seems to become a case of "you're either with us or you're against us," so let's try to steer clear of that.

[mejari]

The "defendant" has already admitted to the accusations and stepped down.

[ddoolin]

In this case, I agree in the sense it defeats the point I made above, but for various reasons others may continue to push back on that pressure on principal rather than on the facts of the matter.

[khazhoux]

> Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?

You're implying he supports sexual harassment.

He's bringing up a perfectly valid question for discussion: what if the person has an outsized opinion of his attractiveness, and also happens to be a VC -- is that still sexual harassment or just stupidity?

Well, the answer is that in this case it's still harassment.

And so now there's question, answer, discussion, etc. No need to accuse the poster of being complicit himself in harassment.

[biocomputation]

>> The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.

This type of behavior is about boundaries. Boundaries are about power.

His behavior crossed what our culture generally says are the boundaries of a professional situation. That's what makes it inappropriate; it doesn't matter what he believed.

It's totally acceptable to meet someone in a social situation and, after a bit of due diligence, it's totally acceptable to ask them out.

But that's not what this was.

[anothercomment]

People date in the workplace all the time, so I don't think your rules about "professional situations" are generally accepted.

I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money. You could just as well say the applying women are in a position of power because the VC desperately needs somebody to invest in. I guess a startup should avoid seeking investments where the investor is "in a position of power", anyway.

I am also not justifying his behavior, obviously he made mistakes. But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".

The "boundaries" talk is also not really helpful - at some point, somebody has to make a move. If their estimate of the situation is correct, they are not "crossing boundaries". Otherwise they are crossing boundaries and need to withdraw.

Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.

[vkou]

> I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money.

Nobody's forced to work for a boss that harasses them, yet making unwanted sexual advances against someone who reports to you is illegal as hell.

You have a poor legal understanding of sexual harassment. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to what kind of advances and relationships are, and are not appropriate in a professional setting.

[biocomputation]

First, a pitch meeting with a venture capitalist is generally accepted by our culture to be the kind of professional environment that is inappropriate to sexualize in any fashion. While I understand your basic point, you seem to be very interested in denying that there are many situations in life where notions and hints of sex and romance are just not appropriate.

* I hate to think that you might have trouble understanding this, but we're not talking about dating a co-worker. We're not talking about a pitch that didn't succeed followed by three months of radio silence followed by them meeting at a social event and realizing that they are attracted to each other.

* The mutual realization that you are attracted to a coworker is not the same as sexual harassment, it's not the same as being asked out by your manager, and it's not the same as receiving unwelcome sexual advances during a pitch meeting from a man who works at VC firm.

* Asking an available coworker out on a date, however unwise it may be depending on your place of employment and working relationships, is not the same as making remarks about her looks, clothes, or anatomy. It's not the same as denying her an investment or promotion because she rejected your advances.

I hope that clears things up for you.

>> But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".

Oh but that's exactly what this was. It was a man abusing his power to pressure women into sex.

>> Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.

Grabbing the knee of someone you are not mutually involved with is not appropriate behavior in the workplace. Depending on the situation, it may be inappropriate even if you are mutually involved. But without mutual involvement, it's absolute inappropriate.