So did MSU take the loss like a man?
....so theres some ugly stuff floating around about Mark Perry
- Thread starter The Vak
- Start date
The the terms of sexual harassment the power dynamic matters. And since it seems you’re not paying a lot of attention to how these things have played out, the consent thing will always be argued .
Cheat on your at work girlfriend and watch that scenario play out. Consent? I did agree but felt pressured since he’s the boss and the hilarity begins .
You do not need to have specific rules in place to get sued for sexual harassment. If you don’t have certain rules in place, you’re probably more at risk when the lawsuit comes . Ignorance of the issue isn’t going to save you.
I would happily take the loss if someone could actually tell me what part I lost and why!
For all the back and forth, this argument can truly be condensed into 3 parts:
1.) Criminal- So far not a single shred of evidence has been introduced into this discussion. As such, the "sexual predator" part, so far, doesn't exist in this argument. No loss here.
2.)Code of Conduct violation-As I said from the beginning, I simply wanted more information before forming a decision. Once provided with the Safe Sports documents, it is crystal clear that Mark was 100% in violation and I, in no way, said otherwise. No loss here.
3.) Work place punishment-This seems to be the one and only part where the disagreement lies. Mind you, the disagreement here is only if there is not a clearly defined and laid out sanction for breaking this rule. The crux of the argument is whether or not "consent" matters here. Most I am arguing with are blurring the lines between "consent" mattering in breaking the rule itself and the resulting punishment.
I do not see how you can argue "consent" doesn't matter in regards to the punishment itself, IF and the IF is very important, there are not already guidelines in place. Hell, "consent" determines whether or not several, much more severe, sexual misconduct transgressions apply. Without "consent" being determined this could go all the way to rape. Are you trying to tell me this is rape?
I promise I will not bog this down any further unless substantial, new information comes to light. I just don't want to be told I should take a loss when most don't even understand what I have been saying and the only part we are arguing about is 100% subjective...
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
That's a completely different issue. If the grown, adult subordinate outright says, "I consented. It was consensual. I wasn't coerced." Then it wasn't rape. Still might be against many organizations policies and inappropriate and grounds for termination but it's not rape.
If you can't see the absurdity of the claim that there can't be consent between a subordinate and a coach/boss, you're not living in the land of reason.
It's making the argument that a child can't consent and applying it to a grown adult acting on their own free will.
Again, could be inappropriate and unacceptable and against policy and cause for termination, but doesn't make it immoral, criminal, or rape.
Sexual harassment law doesn't see it your way, you're the one living in fantasy land. I'm not talking rape, but inappropriate workplace behavior, such as sleeping with subordinates. All the woman has to do is say she felt pressured to have sexual relations, date or whatever. And the guy is screwed.
In terms of sexual harassment there is not consent, sexual harassment isn't a rape case, unless she can claim she was forced. Guess what? The claim it was consensual gets harder to prove if you're already breaking one rule. How you could prove it is by showing evidence of an ongoing relationship. then you're still screwed because that can constitute harassment. The phrase don't poop where you eat comes to mind.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
You keep throwing in these caveats. That statement would be her not giving consent.
If she doesn't say that and instead said "it was 100% consensual". There is no lawsuit, no harassment. Maybe still a fireable offense due to company/organization policy.
My initial comment was responding to the claim that it's impossible for a subordinate adult employee to consent to sexual relations with their boss and that just isn't factual. The claim that no subordinate can consent to sexual relations by definition would mean that any sexual relationship between a boss and their employee is rape. That's absurd and insane.
Of course if you go that route as the superior, you're playing with fire because to your point it can quickly go wrong if the subordinate revokes their verbal consent after the fact.
Are you talking "civil" or "criminal" law? Mind you, there is a giant difference when proving something. One requires proving it beyond a reasonable doubt and the other just a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that she admits consenting dismisses the reasonable doubt part for any jury with the slightest amount of brain power. Now, civil is a much different story. When it comes to lawsuits, your stance has much more solid ground under it...
It sounds like MSU158 is ok with Quid Pro Quo relationships. That arrangement is consensual. Even though one person is using there position of power.
And don't forget that we would not be in a war in Ukraine with thousands of people dying, if Trump was in the White House.
By the way, when is that term "White House" going to become offensive and change to something else? I can't believe it has lasted this long. It does not sound very woke. Maybe we should call it a "mostly one toned structure".
By that logic Terry Brands' son should not be on the team. The relationship of father and son is stronger.
Like I said earlier, reading comprehension is NOT a strong point for many of you on here. I clearly said Perry made a very dumb decision and looks like an asshole. I am pretty sure both statements clearly say the opposite.
I simply argued the level of punishment should be based on all factors and consent absolutely matters in that case. I never said consent removes him from any/all wrongdoing, just that it determines the level of wrongdoing. Not ONCE did I ever say he did nothing wrong...
Quit with the idea there are no sanctions laid out in code of conduct. That’s dum.
I read the entire thing trying to find it. Please find it and show it to me BEFORE calling me dumb...
Dude can’t even find lawyers to keep on retainer days before his case gets underway.
Funny how a network that at least tries to be somewhat balanced is always brought up - never CNN or MSNBC or quite frankly the major networks. I guess they all tell the truth all the time because you know why? You agree with their biased coverage. You disagree with conservative commentators so of course they must be lying. And by only bringing up FOX, you simply answered the question of which side owns the media.
I couldn't care less about Trump - not one part of me wants him to run again. Can you be strong enough to say the same about Biden?
Based on the below, if found in violation, he could get anything from a written warning to permanent ineligibility and corresponding legal sanctions. So, yeah, I see NOTHING that clearly defines how he would be sanctioned. On top of that, the age of the individuals involved is literally listed as a possible mitigating circumstance....
A. Sanctions One or more of the following sanctions may be imposed singularly or in combination: • Written warning An official, written notice and formal warning that a Participant has violated the Code and that more 30 severe sanctions will result should the Participant be involved in other violations. • Probation A specified period of time during which, should any further violations of the Code occur during the probationary period, it will result in additional disciplinary measures, likely including a period of suspension or permanent ineligibility. This sanction can also include loss of privileges or other conditions, restrictions, or requirements. • Suspension or other eligibility restrictions Suspension for a specified period of time from participation, in any capacity, in any program, activity, Event, or competition sponsored by, organized by, or under the auspices of the USOPC, any NGB, or any LAO, or at a facility under the jurisdiction of the same. In the Center’s discretion, a suspension may include restrictions or prohibitions from some types of participation but allowing participation in other capacities. A suspended Participant is eligible to return to sport after the suspension lapses, butreinstatement may be subject to certain restrictions or contingent upon the Participant satisfying specific conditions noted at the time of suspension. • Ineligibility Ineligibility to participate until further notice, in any capacity, in any program, activity, Event, or competition sponsored by, organized by, or under the auspices of the USOPC, any NGB, or any LAO, or at a facility under the jurisdiction of the same. Ineligibility is typically imposed when a Respondent has pending charges, in violation of the Criminal Charges or Disposition provision. • Permanent Ineligibility Permanent ineligibility to participate, in any capacity, in any program, activity, Event, or competition sponsored by, organized by, or under the auspices of the USOPC, any NGB, or any LAO or at a facility under the jurisdiction of the same. • Other discretionary sanctions The Center may, in its discretion, impose other sanctions for Prohibited Conduct, including, but not limited to, other loss of privileges, no contact directives, requirement to complete educational or other programs, or other restrictions or conditions as deemed necessary or appropriate. B. Considerations Factors relevant to determining appropriate sanctions include, without limitation: 1. The Respondent’s prior history; 2. A pattern of inappropriate behavior or misconduct; 3. The ages of individuals involved; 4. Whether the Respondent poses an ongoing or potential threat to the safety of others; 5. Respondent’s voluntary disclosure of the offense(s), acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, and cooperation in the Center’s process; 31 6. Real or perceived impact of the incident on the Claimant, the USOPC, NGB(s), LAO(s), or the sporting community; 7. Whether given the facts and circumstances that have been established, continued participation in the Olympic & Paralympic Movement is appropriate; or 8. Other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Any single factor, if severe enough, may be sufficientto justify the sanction(s) imposed.
Have you ever tried a different language. Maybe if you spoke (typed) pig latin or swahili or rap, some of the people on this board would comprehend what you have said and what you mean.
It was posted earlier that there were no issues or reports when he was with the HWC.
I wouldn't bet on that. MSU was called the most stubborn on this board. Just pay attention to the comments of others and it's not even close. Most just can't accept another point of view, or even consider that it may be at least in part acceptable. All or nothing. That in itself shouldn't surprise anyone.
You act like you play no role in it all.
Yes, I accept full responsibility for the 8 lines I have written causing a 6-page thread.
I appreciate your recognition - but I never said causing. I said being a part of it.
You know nothing about me or my allegiance to Iowa. But you do you.
That's just stupid, I mean incredibly dumb comparing a parent and child to a coach having sex with an athlete he or she is coaching.
IMHO, you lost on the following three general forum exchange criteria:
- The ratio of the number of your posts to counter posts;
- Your average word count per post vs counter posts; and,
- Amount of repetitive content posting while seeming to restate large portions of your take with only very minor modification.
- Verbose hypothetical posting while admittedly being completely ignorant of the actual rules;
- Making no apparent effort to obtain the actual rules as the thread evolved;
- Continually referring to "consent" in such a manner that allowed others to infer that you thought it should be a factor in deciding punishment in situations of power imbalance.
Last edited:
I asked earlier for a scoffer to provide the statement of law too with only "chirps" to follow.
This has to be the most sarcastic post ever. Certainly you are not suggesting being long winded determines truth.
Certainly not. But just as certainly it determines whether one is an effective communicator, as well as the likelihood of their posts being read (let alone comprehended as intended). So from that standpoint, it contributes to an L on this forum judge's card.
Now I am 100% certain I am the winner. As soon as you chime in there is no other possibility. Thanks for your contribution. Feel free to make a contribution to MSU Wrestling as well. It would certainly be appreciated. Have a great day!
Just a completely ignorant stance. No matter how concise and articulate, NOTHING I was going to type was changing the minds of those I have gone back and forth with.
However, I do value your opinion since it only bolsters mine being the opposite...
I almost added "Have a great day!" to the end of my post.
See I'll always remember you as the guy who wanted Michigan to pass a certain ban ballot initiative and thought a simple majority to pass it would be right and just. So your position here on this matter really doesn't surprise me. I find it wholly consistent with maintaining a male power structure over women.
Similar threads
