"Rubin was also 'alleged to have engaged in human sex trafficking': in an October 2018 lawsuit brought by his ex-wife, Rie Rubin, she claimed that Andy Rubin had multiple 'ownership relationships' with several highly paid women. In text messages produced in that case, Andy Rubin allegedly claimed that he could 'loan' these women as they were 'kinda like… my property.'"
it could be related to sex trafficking,
or more likely just had some fetishes with willing participants.
Edit, it was a labor lawyer In any event, says he it was consensual. Charges later dropped.
Surprisingly, it isn't in most places: criminalising it is the "Nordic model" and not widespread. It's things around prostitution that are criminalised (advertising, running a brothel, pimping etc)
Many of the rank and file Google employees I know personally seem to hold with a quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality" -- especially similar with regards to parallel mental constructs to purity and original sin, like "privilege."
This case may have privilege at its core. Elites across history and cultures often adopt more permissive sexual behavior, as their position and resources enable this. It's quite common to see a disconnect between their mores and the standards of the rank and file.
(I'd much rather see social norms of "live and let live," while personally, I think keeping one's personal life simple and uncomplicated is by far the best policy.)
No, the clear thing here that applies up and down the hierarchy is that managers should not have sexual relations with their reports. It's not a complicated rule that people should not be put in the position of having to decide whether refusing sex will ruin their career.
The intent is not puritanical but egalitarian - against the "old days" of using employment power relations for sexual harassment and assault.
The reason for corporate policies like that are there is only to protect the company from risk, not because they are trying to protect their workers.
Nominally, there is not necessarily a contradiction. One can consent to being a "sub", hence "safe words" and such.
One is free to believe that there are still potentially issues involved, or that it may still be a dangerous relationship, or whathaveyou. But I do think that it would be something that puts the question beyond the modern spin on consensuality; that set of ethics stops making sense if you start letting people mutilate the definition of "consent" any which way they please.
(Note I am speaking independent of the question of whether there was consent; as I say in another post, I don't think that question is answerable in this forum by any information we can get, other than an investigative report.)
Consent is a critical pillar in the BDSM community, it's the only barrier between abuse and not. Some countries do have restrictions on what you can consent to, but that's a different issue.
Pretty much every description of the cultural mores of BDSM center around consent. There are basically two formulations:
SSC = Safe, Sane, Consensual
RACK = Risk-Aware Consensual Kink
(the difference here is in just how okay people are with edgeplay, but in both cases consent is paramount)
This sounds like you are trying to make a political point, c.f "quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of "Intersectionality"". I don't have a clue what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're trying to call them dumb liberals or something...
I miss the days when such people were just "dumb liberals" like me. Now, there are people who spend their time going after other people, like obnoxious religious people used to go after homosexuals. It's not the ideology which is problematic. It's the meta can be wrapped around it which seems inextricable from negative emotion, oppressive acrimony, and a desire to impinge upon other lives.
As I said before, live and let live is the best way. Don't judge, lest ye be judged. Most of all, don't project hypothetical emotional and mental states on others and engage in moral judgement and condemnation on that basis. This is precisely what accusations of "internalized" _-isms are, such pronouncements are objectively produced by adherents of intersectionality, are objectively stated in presentations of the ideology, and objectively have as little evidence backing them as accusations of "satanic influence" had from fundamental religious people during social controversies of the 80's.
I have direct experience of people making emotion driven, unjust, evidence-less accusations in the name of "intersectionality." Online, you can see people doing the same. In personal discussions, it's absolutely amazing the number of times someone contradicts what someone else says and comes out with their evidence-free version of what they're "actually thinking." Again, it's not the ideology per-se. It's the tribal emotion-driven meta around it which makes people behave in unproductive ways.