[Ecstatify]

Not the only issue people have issues with:

> Ritter filed a lawsuit in November that alleged Schmidt, a former chief executive and chairman of Google, “forcibly raped” her while on a yacht off the coast of Mexico in 2021.

> She also claimed they had sex without her consent during the 2023 Burning Man festival in Nevada.

ref: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-03-06/former-goo...

[dylan604]

Trying to wrap my head around how one can still be around someone in 2023 after what happened in 2021. This confusion no way justifies what happened nor am I blaming anyone. I just don't understand it.

[lkey]

Staying with your rapist husband/boyfriend is the norm. He might beg for forgiveness and say he won't do it again. He might say he didn't understand you when you said no. He might threaten to kill you if you open your mouth one more time. He might do all of those in the same five minute span.

Almost every women I am close to has been raped or assaulted.

What part of this do you specifically not understand?

[therealdrag0]

People have different abilities. It’s often hard for people to not understand why something that’s natural to them isn’t natural to others. In some lights, humans are very similar; in other lights they can be wildly different.

I have cut multiple toxic people out of my life, even very close relationships and family, and it was easy as farting for me. It’s alien to me to not be able to do that. However it’s easy to recognize different people have different capacities in this regard.

[arational]

Sometimes you can't cut people out of your life because your life depends on them.

[irishcoffee]

A lot of people walk away from physically, mentally, or emotionally abusive relationships. I know many.

Reading the question generously, the person is asking why someone stays instead of leaves. Two of your 3 examples are emotional manipulation (big red flag, run away) and the last one is a threat to your life (big, big red flag, run away).

I think it is reasonable for someone to not understand why a person would choose to stay in that situation.

Of course, life is more nuanced than that, and the rash of pro athletes lately that have been exonerated from these accusations further muddies the waters.

[saghm]

You don't think that the CEO of Google might have some resources at his disposable to manipulate or threaten someone?

[fluffybucktsnek]

They might, but that isn't what they are addressing.

[spacechild1]

Do you really think the last sentence was necessary? It's a good answer otherwise.

[brimwats]

it's a great last line; when trying to explain something to someone it behooves someone to ask a follow-up so they can clarify anything not yet answered.

[spacechild1]

Thanks for the tip! I will immediately try this line in my next professional e-mail. I am sure they will appreciate my courtesy.

[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome

[morserer]

From the little that I know:

Every abuser in my personal life whom I've learned about--most of whom I'd also met and spent time with before learning of their deeds--are extremely charismatic people who make active efforts to both isolate their partner from their social circle as well as do things externally that increase their reputation amongst both their peers and the peers of their partner. The people who batter, violate, and terrorize their partners are, with unusual frequency (in my experience), the same people who pick up the tab for everyone at the bar, who reliably buy people gifts, and who offer trusted advice and counsel in trying times.

Now, as to why these abusers are like this, that's a more complex thing. I'm not qualified to speak on it, but in the examples I've seen in my life, they're often people who have narcissistic personality disorder, where they're extremely attached to being seen in favorable lights by those around them, and as a result, react viciously to those who challenge that (oft fictitious) image. (This isn't always a conscious process--to put yourself into their shoes, imagine you're inextricably convinced that everyone is trying to defame you, abuse you, and tarnish your reputation at all times (which is probably true for the abuser, because in trying to prevent such fiction, they do monstrous things that fulfill that exact prophecy), so you need to constantly prevent it from happening by becoming trusted and loved by every means necessary, or else.) However, in an effort to maintain this image, they become very well-regarded by those around them, which makes the victim of their abuse sound insane when they try to call them out.

These people also frequently attach high-value people (such as the children they have with the abused) to them so that they are more difficult to harm, hold accountable, or separate from. I have never, ever heard of an abuser who didn't actively maintain an external factor that made them incredibly difficult to prosecute ("but he has kids, and the kids adore him" / "but he donates so much of his time and money to local charities" / "but he's putting X through college", etc). Putting the abused OR people the abused cares about in financial dependence with them (paying for school / rent / resources for them or their lives ones, isolating the abused from avenues to financial independence, etc) is also very common, if the abuser has such resources. Then, the abused trying to get help is made to become someone who's trying to "defame" the abuser, "rob" their loved ones of financial assistance that they depend on, "steal" the children from their father "whom the kids so love". In the abuser's mind, if their being imprisoned means someone is immediately put in harm's way by their absence, they are safe.

The opportunities for the abused to be made to feel completely insane by the world the abuser has created around them are innumerable; the goal of the abuser is to make the victim sound like a monster for trying to challenge the abuser's authority, and usually, by the time the abused catches on to the situation they're now in (during which time the abuser has been nothing but sweet and caring), the abuser has already completed the process, and that world now has extreme consequences if the abused tries to escape it. They're no longer leaving their partner--they're leaving their entire family, their friends, their finances, their entire support network, because the abuser has ingrained themselves into all of it, and done all they can to make their authority unchallengeable (or, at least, convinced the abused of such).

Combine that with the abuser very often making a habit of encouraging the abused to doubt their own judgment, telling them they're stupid or worthless (in words subtle enough that you or I would believe them), or finding people from the get go who already lack such confidence (which the abuser may not even realize is what they're doing--they're just looking for someone who doesn't seem like a threat to them, while simultaneously being incapable of believing that they, themselves, might be that threat, as a result of being blinded by their own narcissism. Which is another factor--how do you convince someone they're being harmful when they're incapable of believing that they have the capacity to harm? The abusers often believe the same lies they tell their victims, and tell them with unwavering conviction.)

Do you have anyone in your life who you hold in very high esteem, whom you are very close to, who you've also heard ill of? When has your gut response been to believe the person speaking ill of them, instead of your trusted, caring, friend, who you've known for years, who would "never do such a thing"? It might be someone so close to you that believing their victim would feel like buying into a conspiracy theory--which is exactly the circumstance that the abuser is trying to maintain.

That's a big part of why.

[treis]

There is an equally impressive ability of abusers to rewrite history to put themselves in the role of the victim. That comes along with justifying all sorts of behavior. The classic "if you didn't make me so angry I wouldn't hit you" is logic that adds up to them.

[infraredshift]

If you are curious enough to read a book about this and related questions, Unspeakable Things by Brooke Nevils (who accused Matt Lauer) really opened my eyes on this.

[RIMR]

It turns out that rapists like to enter relationships with damaged people, and damaged people have trouble leaving violently abusive relationships. I know understanding isn't a strength of yours, but hopefully this helps.

>nor am I blaming anyone

Saying this doesn't immunize you from valid criticism of victim-blaming. Your question is basically "Why would the victim let it happen again?". I know you're "just asking questions", but we all get the message you are sending here.

[palmotea]

> I know you're "just asking questions", but we all get the message you are sending here.

You seem to be mind-reading and assuming everyone who doesn't already understand things the way you do is acting in bad faith.

[aiisjustanif]

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[raddan]

Like you, I am not much of a fan of victim-blaming, but you're reading the post in an extremely negative light. The poster literally concludes with "I just don't understand it." A more charitable way to interpret this statement is "please help me understand."

The first part of your response is informative, and I thought "interesting response." The second part is just nasty and I thought "wow, what a **." Do you want the poster to understand or do you just want to score points?

[dylan604]

No, you're projecting your own arm chair therapist thoughts here. The victim may have perfectly valid reasons that they justify for themselves. That does not mean that I will understand it. Lots of things can be justified while at the same time not making rational/logical sense. Emotional decisions rarely do. I've never been in a relationship with physical violence, but I have been in relationships that have been toxic and mentally/verbally abusive on both ends. I now recognize them much faster with age and ruthlessly end them as soon as the fog of new relationship allows it to be recognized. Days since most recent end of relationship: 3

[lazide]

Money.

Usually the lawsuits start when the money is more likely to come from that, than from enabling the behavior.

[lkey]

Rape apologia.

81% of women have been sexually harassed, at least 20% have been raped. Yet, weirdly, that hasn't changed the allocation of capital in the United States in their collective favor.

But let's see what kind of person you actually are. Do you have a problem with suing, post-rape? What kind of society would you consider ideal?

Keep in mind that the current criminal case closure rate of rape cases is 25% and has been dropping for the last 10 years.

[lazide]

Uh huh. Or just noting Cash Rules Everything Around Me. Which I doubt was a fact lost on the complaintant - which if the crime occurred, might indeed make the circumstances worse eh?

Which, notably, none of what you are saying even addresses eh?

Do you think Trump has gotten where he is because these things are not happening?

None of this excuses anything.

[saghm]

> Do you think Trump has gotten where he is because these things are not happening?

I don't even understand what you're trying to claim here. As best I can figure out, it sounds like you're saying that Trump made his money from suing people for sexual assault, but that's so absurd I can't even imagine someone trying to claim that as a troll.

Even ignoring that, your argument seems to be "people in general are motivated by money, therefore this specific instance of a person acting where money could plausibly be a motivation is the only possible explanation". It informs quite a bit about how you view the world, but it's not a particularly compelling explanation.

[lazide]

Wow, you are indeed quite confused.

People with a lot of money often get away with things for several reasons, including;

1) people sometimes attack/slander/harass others for arbitrary reasons hoping to get some of it (even if they never have to actually pay them!)

2) ability to hire people to professionally defend them (lawyers, PR people, etc.)

3) their often extensive networks among people in power (often in groups #1 and #2!), which can result in decisions going ‘their way’ even without having to take explicit action - but if they want, allowing them to take explicit action.

4) their ability to absorb extensive financial penalties without actual harm to their style of living, allowing them to be more risk tolerant.

5) they often own things (like newspapers, media outlets, companies), which can make most peoples lives hard if power is applied.

This means most people are hesitant to cross them, as normal folks can likely be crushed. This includes many people like police, public prosecutors, journalists, civil servants, etc. It’s ‘leverage’, and ‘power’.

So for most people, especially if they keep getting what they need, it’s not worth rocking the boat. You’re more likely to just get steamrolled/destroyed if you try. some people will even actively encourage it, as long as it seems like it will pay out. most people caught in this situation will ‘grin and bear it’, hoping to get out ‘alive’ and avoid further contact.

If you’re already being pushed out/fired, you’re already more in the direction of being ‘destroyed’, so the additional consequences of trying to fight are less. And at that point, it’s clear it won’t pay out as much going the other direction.

It’s sex realpolitik + money - and I’m sure anyone in that circle is quite familiar with it. Both the complaintant, and the defendant. Why make a scene if it’s in your financial/safety interest not too, after all? Especially if you’ll likely lose.

If you have not as much to lose, why not make a scene?

If you are a victim of an actual crime or not is a lot less tangential to this calculus than anyone wants to think about, but it’s true.

Notably, a LOT of people will also retroactively cast consensual behavior into non-consensual later, if it is also in their financial or social interest, which further muddies the waters.

After all, were you there when this event potentially happened? Was it rape? Sexual harassment? Was it a half sprung trap?

Good luck knowing for sure if you weren’t, or sometimes even if you were!

[yubblegum]

Seriously, I just skimmed that LA Times article and wondering why isn't HN discussing this claim made by her?

quote: "She further alleged that Schmidt had built a “backdoor” to Google servers with a team of company engineers that allowed him to spy on her and anyone with a Google account."

[bckr]

When you have everything but can’t even keep your hands to yourself. Shameful.

[mschuster91]

It's a common issue. When you got everything you could possibly want in life or have enough money to buy whatever you want... then for quite a lot of people of either gender, the illegal and illicit becomes the next thing to obtain.

For some, it's an increasingly worrisome amount (and type of) drugs, for others, it's women, and for a select few it's children.

[saghm]

> When you got everything you could possibly want in life or have enough money to buy whatever you want... then for quite a lot of people of either gender, the illegal and illicit becomes the next thing to obtain.

But with a society that empowers men more than women, and relative power disparities of all types lending themselves to behavior like this (plenty of people who don't have everything still have enough power to exploit those they have power over). In the abstract, sure, it might not be something inherent to men, but it's kind of hard to ignore the fact that in practice women are victimized by behavior like this at a system level that men are not.

To any men who are dubious about this, I'd genuinely suggest asking the women who you have close enough relationships with to be comfortable having tough discussions if they'd be willing to tell you about experiences they've had where men have behaved poorly towards them in ways that wouldn't have likely happened to a man in their circumstances; I'm guessing that pretty much all of them will have experienced far more than you'd imagine. As a man, I'm relatively certain I can't recall any instance of ever experiencing the reverse of this though, and that's my point: going out of your way to try to frame this as a gender-neutral issue basically emphasizes theoretical concerns at the expense of the actual distribution of problems that people face in real life. When things are so slanted that in practice almost everyone in one group has experienced it but relatively few from another group has had the same experience, framing it in terms of that is important.

[mschuster91]

> But with a society that empowers men more than women, and relative power disparities of all types lending themselves to behavior like this (plenty of people who don't have everything still have enough power to exploit those they have power over). In the abstract, sure, it might not be something inherent to men, but it's kind of hard to ignore the fact that in practice women are victimized by behavior like this at a system level that men are not.

A valid and important point, yes. But then there's Ghislaine Maxwell. By all accounts, she is just as guilty as he was, some say even worse because she actively recruited victims for him.

The fact that society gives less women that kind of power reduces the absolute number of women that abuse their power - but the level of depravity they can sink to those that do rise to power is just as bad as men's.

[saghm]

I feel like the existence of victims of women doesn't detract from the overall point I was making, which is that overall the distribution of people who exploit people like this is overwhelmingly tilted towards men being the dominant source. The fact that you can point to specific counterexamples as a distraction from this is exactly what I'm trying to argue against being useful. For any significant source of mistreatment of an oppressed group in history (which I won't bother calling out examples of because they will readily come to mind), there were likely some members of the oppressed group who took part or at least didn't stand up for the others, but equating that with being the overall source of the mistreatment is at best misguided and at worst actively muddying the waters.

[delecti]

It seems that when you can have anything money could buy, you start to look at the things money can't buy.

[johnnyanmac]

Why can't that ever be talent, or wisdom, or passion? So many filthy rich people. Seem to instantly go "hmm, what's some illegal stuff I can do despite so many legal things available to me".

I'm sure all the above happened back in the day too, but: rich people of previous centuries would go to the arts to find meaning. Being part of an orchestra or theatre troupe or artist alley was a peak achievement. Now we just have boring dystopia where rich guys literally build bunkers for the end of days they are personally bringing about. What the hell happend?

[dyauspitr]

So we’re just going to believe her? Why?

[RIMR]

Please list all the reasons you don't believe her.

[FunHearing3443]

Isn’t the burden of proof on the accuser?

[dyauspitr]

There is no proof. She can retroactively at any point say she did not give consent to extract money. She was with him two years after the first time she was “raped”. She’s the only one that has made any such claims about him.

[IncreasePosts]

At least the claim of Eric having a secret backdoor to Google servers letting him spy on whoever he wants seems unlikely. If he was spying on her putting spyware on her devices seems much more likely.