But in practice, it is the people at the top who believe they can get away with it, like in this case. Rules for thee, but not me.

Civil disobedience is one thing - breaking the rules in order to drive change. "Breaking the rules because I'm big and powerful so I can probably get away with it" does not deserve the nobility associated with the former.

And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.

The same argument could be made against laws, including plenty of laws that both you and I, and plenty of others, agree should never be broken.

So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.

It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.

>It's a great way to breed corruption and decay.

Tacitus is spinning in his grave.

In any situation where an individual has direct power over another can you really claim any form of relationship born from this is consensual? For many people who are not women it can be easy to shrug this aside for their own "personal interests" especially those in academia where most women tend to either leave the workforce or are left outside the pool of candidates for an individual. From an outsiders perspective looking in all I can say is no they cannot.

In the end how many rules you can break depend on how much money you have and/or how many friends in high places you have. Because in the end it's only illegal if you get caught and find someone willing to prosecute you. And if money is the only penalty, then the law is only against poor, rich will pay and nothing will change.

The version I like most is Terry Pratchetts: "Rules are there so that you think before you break them".