Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (137782)	6/25/2001 6:31:32 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1585094

Tim.. Re..A married man having sex with a much younger subordinate and then lying about it is wrong but not something that should be illegal. It also isn't a sexual assault unless the sex is nonconsensual.<<<<<< I agree with you there, but I also feel that if the sex wasn't coerced, there shouldn't be any penalties, civil or criminal; as long as the subordinate is at least 18. That is where I differ with Bill and his supporters, the feminists who feel that any sexual encounter with a subordinate is sexual harrassment, and the company is liable, period.

To: TimF who wrote (137782)	6/25/2001 10:34:54 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585094

So you understand my position. A married man having sex with a much younger subordinate and then lying about it is wrong but not something that should be illegal. It also isn't a sexual assault unless the sex is nonconsensual. Lying about it under oath is and should be illegal. Fair enough. I understand your position, and agree with a bit of it. The basic distinction, I believe, is interpretation of the word "consensual". I'm not sure how I feel about sexual harrassment (i.e., whether it should be a civil wrong).