[westoncb]

And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case?

If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.

[chipotle_coyote]

If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.

[robotresearcher]

The rule is simple. No messing with your employees. Even if they want you to.

[siidooloo]

Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.

[vidarh]

If you reason for not getting sexually involved with a subordinate is that it is wrong to abuse a position of power, how is there not an ambiguity there - or the rule goes out the window - if the subordinate is initiating?

To pretend that the "correct answer" is always so straightforward is to assume that people never make it messy by addressing your assumptions and actively trying to change your mind about it.

[jessaustin]

Like all moral questions, at its base it's really aesthetics or even "taste". Some managers are not attracted to those who are willing to exchange romance for career advancement. (...they got a name for that.) Other managers are attracted to that sort of person. The former group of managers has less difficulty with this situation than the latter group has, so one might say they have better taste; YMMV.

[vidarh]

Personally I find it quite disturbing that you assume that this will always be motivated by "exchanging romance for career advancement".

[jessaustin]

Like I said, YMMV. This is not an assumption so much as an observation of dozens of couples in various industries, with both men and women in the superior position. This isn't necessarily a conscious motivation on the part of the subordinate, but it exists. Like other temporary motivations (e.g. beauty, wealth, vigor, etc.) this one sets up the relationship for a transition when the motivator no longer exists. Many relationships survive such transitions; many do not.