Another consequentialist argument for it not being unethical to express romantic/âsexual interest in somebody, even if thereâs a power difference: itâs always uncomfortable to reject a guy.
It seems like a lot of the argument relies on the idea that the women were upset or felt uncomfortable when he expressed interest. See âMultiple women expressed being upset by Owenâs advances.â
Speaking as a woman whoâs had to turn down many guys in my time and as somebody whoâs more comfortable saying no than probably 99% of women, I can assure youâitâs always upsetting to reject somebodyâs advances.
At least for me, thereâs always the compassion, thinking that Iâm hurting their feelings. Iâm also worried that it might make our friendship weird in the future (which sometimes does happen but usually doesnât). Many people are worried that the guy will respond with hostility, which is never fun. And tons of people find it really uncomfortable to say no in general.
So using as an argument that they felt upset rejecting his advances would mean that anybody whoâs ever asked somebody out and been rejected has behaved unethically and should be exiled from EV events for 2 years. This proves too much.
We can feel compassion for people who feel upset rejecting advances, but that doesnât mean that then we should just stop all advances, unless weâre absolutely certain theyâre reciprocated (which is impossible). This is a standard that, if equally applied, would mean that virtually no EA men could attend EAGs.
This addresses just one argument against just one accusation. I cover other aspects of the accusations and other counterarguments here and here
So using as an argument that they felt upset rejecting his advances would mean that anybody whoâs ever asked somebody out and been rejected has behaved unethically and should be exiled from EV events for 2 years. This proves too much.
The women pointed to specific factors that were relevant to being upset: the specific content and frequency of the advances. The Boards also found that some of the advances were made under circumstances where it was âdifficult for the women to avoid interacting with Owen while the inappropriate actions were taking place.â
I think the volume of complaints is also relevant here. Presumably, the [EDIT: individual(s)] who went to Community Health with concerns are not doing so every timeâor even a significant portion of the timeâsomeone in EA expresses romantic/âsexual interest in them. Nor is CH likely to learn of romantic/âsexual advances in EA that are anywhere near the baseline level of upsetness that is inherent to declining an advance. That suggests there was something about Owenâs advances that was particularly upsetting to a number of the recipients of those advances. Although a single recipient concluding that an advance warranted CH involvement might not itself be evidence of inappropriate behavior, the existence of a number of similar reports [EDIT: would be] a much stronger indication that something more than baseline upsetness with turning down advances was at play here.
Thus, I donât think the quoted statement is an appropriate inference from the Boardsâ action.
Iâm not sure that there was more than one (unprompted) complaint to CH. In addition to the one complaint, there was one case of something potentially inappropriate they heard about from a third party, one case they uncovered when they went looking, and a couple of other cases I told them about.
However, I do think that my communications were unusually likely to be upsetting (and relatedly that some of what I now understand to have been the most damaging communications were not understood by me at the time to be advances).
Another consequentialist argument for it not being unethical to express romantic/âsexual interest in somebody, even if thereâs a power difference: itâs always uncomfortable to reject a guy.
It seems like a lot of the argument relies on the idea that the women were upset or felt uncomfortable when he expressed interest. See âMultiple women expressed being upset by Owenâs advances.â
Speaking as a woman whoâs had to turn down many guys in my time and as somebody whoâs more comfortable saying no than probably 99% of women, I can assure youâitâs always upsetting to reject somebodyâs advances.
At least for me, thereâs always the compassion, thinking that Iâm hurting their feelings. Iâm also worried that it might make our friendship weird in the future (which sometimes does happen but usually doesnât). Many people are worried that the guy will respond with hostility, which is never fun. And tons of people find it really uncomfortable to say no in general.
So using as an argument that they felt upset rejecting his advances would mean that anybody whoâs ever asked somebody out and been rejected has behaved unethically and should be exiled from EV events for 2 years. This proves too much.
We can feel compassion for people who feel upset rejecting advances, but that doesnât mean that then we should just stop all advances, unless weâre absolutely certain theyâre reciprocated (which is impossible). This is a standard that, if equally applied, would mean that virtually no EA men could attend EAGs.
This addresses just one argument against just one accusation. I cover other aspects of the accusations and other counterarguments here and here
The women pointed to specific factors that were relevant to being upset: the specific content and frequency of the advances. The Boards also found that some of the advances were made under circumstances where it was âdifficult for the women to avoid interacting with Owen while the inappropriate actions were taking place.â
I think the volume of complaints is also relevant here. Presumably, the [EDIT: individual(s)] who went to Community Health with concerns are not doing so every timeâor even a significant portion of the timeâsomeone in EA expresses romantic/âsexual interest in them. Nor is CH likely to learn of romantic/âsexual advances in EA that are anywhere near the baseline level of upsetness that is inherent to declining an advance. That suggests there was something about Owenâs advances that was particularly upsetting to a number of the recipients of those advances. Although a single recipient concluding that an advance warranted CH involvement might not itself be evidence of inappropriate behavior, the existence of a number of similar reports [EDIT: would be] a much stronger indication that something more than baseline upsetness with turning down advances was at play here.
Thus, I donât think the quoted statement is an appropriate inference from the Boardsâ action.
Iâm not sure that there was more than one (unprompted) complaint to CH. In addition to the one complaint, there was one case of something potentially inappropriate they heard about from a third party, one case they uncovered when they went looking, and a couple of other cases I told them about.
However, I do think that my communications were unusually likely to be upsetting (and relatedly that some of what I now understand to have been the most damaging communications were not understood by me at the time to be advances).