This exact snippet could both be part of a SSC (safe, sane and consensual) relationship, or sexual harassment, possibly even sexual exploitation. Which it is, depends on the context; removing or implying context makes it very easy to have one appear as the other.

Exactly. And people would get surprised to know just how many "sexually progressive" (I'm using that term because I don't know a better one) people there are in silicon valley.

I know people who have full BDSM dungeons in their homes, go to all sorts of outrageous parties and have some of the craziest stories.

SV in general has every type of person.

I recall some contractors commenting on a multi-million dollar "pleasure dungeon" they built into a huge mansion in Los Altos Hills....

So, for some this can be SSC, for other context it can be far worse.

One thing is for sure, whatever the context, these situations typically don't turn out good when they get the public eye.

> these situations typically don't turn out good when they get the public eye.

And you think the ones that don't have turned out better?

Jeasus. Yeah thats exactly what I meant. WTF?

Better for the abuser, you mean?

I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. Do you mean kink in general is abusive; do you mean workplace relationships are abusive or are you relating to this specific case?

I was asking samstave. It's complicated... Of course kink in general is not abusive. But often when otherwise private things are exposed publicly, abuse or alleged abuse is the reason for the exposure. It's a general thing, but it's also related to the specific case where some presumably non-workplace relationship details came out and there was apparent (not proven) arguable abuse of financial privilege which shows that, if true, this is not necessarily a wonderful person that I would want as a leader in my company. And the information coming out is not great for the abuser. In this specific case we can say the alleged abuser, if that helps.

I wouldnt say they are better for anyone - I was saying that regardless of the consent or context - when private conversations of this nature come to light - its never good.

Assume that a couple were consenting in owner/slave BDSM play and their dialogue were recorded and read by those who are not even previously aware that such relationships occur, no matter what these types of conversations will hit ears that were not ready/interested/amenable to hearing them, and judgements will be made.

That was my only point.

Fair point.

Google had to punish Andy Rubin once because they found bondage porn on his work computer. Now, does that give you enough context?

the issue is that it is the work computer I guess. depending on your contract as a VP.

Co-worker or not, which you mentioned, is not all that helpful in determining whether this is OK or not.

Being outside of the workplace does not make a power relationship that is akin to slavery OK. (You could claim the woman is free to leave, but there are implied threats against doing so, such as an asymmetric implied threat to reputation, with email documentation, at a minimum).

Yes it is true that context matters. However, I think it's safe to say his ex-wife who shared the quote has more knowledge of the context than we do... and again, slavery is not an indicator of leadership to aspire to. Nor is paying massive rewards to such a person.

Edit: what part of this do you disagree with?

Girl: My ex called me "My Love".

Andy: Strange. I prefer just "Love." Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people. I am glad you are no longer with that guy.

This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important.

>This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important.

But I agreed with the OP about context being important. So why are you telling me this?

The context, as the article mentioned, is that the screenshot is being used as evidence against him in a lawsuit.

He is said to have had several of these "ownership" relationships.

And you seem to be claiming that not only was a screenshot taken, but then someone came after the fact with photoshop and altered it to remove sentences from it, before submitting it as evidence.

================

Ex-Wife: I'm suing Andy Rubin, here's an email he wrote.

Judge: Why is this stuff blacked out?

Ex-Wife: (makes up excuse) It mentions proprietary information.

Judge: OK, well just show me the original, and we can keep it out of the record, and I'll decide whether this thing is pertinent.

Ex-Wife: OK, here is the original.

Judge: That is not proprietary information. It doesn't need to be covered.

Ex-Wife: But covering it up makes my case stronger because it makes him look like a creepy jerk.

Judge: GTFO

================

You really think this is what is going on? Seems like quite a stretch to me.

I'm not defending Rubin's situation regarding Google, but I don't think the evidence in his ex-wife's divorce suit is automatically relevant to what led Google to force him out. The email may have been used as evidence of infidelity, not necessarily of (other) sexual misconduct -- the article doesn't say one way or the othewr.

But I made no claims about its relevance to what led to Google forcing him out.

Can you respond to what I said, instead of something else?

What's to answer about what you asked? You're making an unjustified assumption about what the ex-wife knows or thinks about his extramarital relationships -- that because the email was in her lawsuit, that it insinuates the relationship is morally wrong (besides being adultery), i.e. "akin to slavery". We simply do not have the info or context to know otherwise.