I didn't downvote any of your posts.

>This is not how market works. The transaction you describe is not beneficial, and if that's what you see here, you don't account for all variables (one that people often miss is time, another is investment).

You were suggesting that he's benefitted by her employment and she's benefitted by being employed. I'm saying that balance is very much in his favor. She is much more at his mercy than he's at hers.

>You redefine what having power over someone means.

Then how do you define it? If you come to some sort of "gatekeeper" in a professional setting, like a hiring manager or investor, and they, right off the bat, they say they want to have sex with you, then how is this at all appropriate given they hold the power to fulfill the person's goals? A relationship like that is the definition of holding power over someone.

> This is probably my last response to you, as you (and quite a few others) seem to use downvotes as a way to disagree with me.

The direct respondent can't downvote you. You were downvoted and flagged by multiple other users.

>> No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.

> You redefine what having power over someone means.

If anything, you're the one operating with a non-standard definition of 'power'.

You misunderstand notions fundamental for what is being discussed in this thread, like power dynamics in various social situations, and confuse inappropriate behavior with honesty. It would be great if you could educate yourself on those things and read through multiple stories and researches on how views like you present affect women's and minorities lifes and careers.