>The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
God help whoever received that. I won't comment on the perversions in private life, but i hope that was not sent to a coworker. Sending such a message to a coworker, especially if you are in a managerial position above them is… reprehensible to the point of permanent ejection from any respectable company.
Exactly. If that was a private partner and done with consent, it’s fine, even if I personally would never consider such an arrangement for my own life.
If he’s gotten into a consenting relationship with his subordinates, then that’s kinda skeezy, since one has to wonder how much workplace power dynamics come into play. There’s a damn good reason why HR tends to clamp down on workplace dating, it creates a whole host of issues.
If he was using his power to push that, or springing it suddenly on coworkers and subordinates, then he needs to be blacklisted ASAP.
Ironically, HR people I have known in the past have been some of the worst offenders in this area...
Think of Zenefits, for example, an HR tools tech company which had to literally create an official policy stopping people from having sex in stairwells at the office.
> Think of Zenefits, for example, an HR tools tech company which had to literally create an official policy stopping people from having sex in stairwells at the office.
dev1: busy?
dev2: coding wizard for "no workplace dating" policies
I mean this is the same Zenefits that according to friends that worked there only had 1 chair for every 1.5 employees. Everything I hear about their boom time was reminiscent of an old school frat party shit show.
... reprehensible to the point of permanent ejection from any respectable company.
Courts will make any company "respectable," whether they want to or not.
As a matter of principle, people should enter such agreements if the want to and able to give consent. Of course, this doesn't make it right to send such email to the 18 year interne that started last week.
That's perfectly fine to send to a consenting partner. But completely inappropriate for the workplace.
Edit: not sure why this is being downmodded (not complaining about it, just curious). Is it somehow not completely fine for consenting adults to have whatever kinks they want?
Rubin deserves to be punished for sexual harassment. Kink shaming is unnecessary.
Slight nitpick: it's not clear that this particular email was about a workplace relationship (or sent on company time/servers). It was an email included as evidence in a civil suit by his ex-wife:
> In a civil suit filed this month by Mr. Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin, she claimed he had multiple “ownership relationships” with other women during their marriage, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. The couple were divorced in August. The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email...
The email was from 2015, but he had left Google in 2014, so it wasn't sent on company time/servers.
Even if it had been sent earlier, Andy Rubin had been named in enough patent lawsuits and deposed enough times to know that multiple plaintiffs had lawyers billing $700/800 per hour (at the very least) to go through all his corporate account's messages. He must have had tens of litigation holds.
Vanilla person here. Do women actually find it "hot" to be "loaned" like a sex slave? Given the circumstances I don't think it's absurd to assume that this was his fantasy and his only.
In my experience at a college in the northeast, it was about 10% that had actually thought a lot about it already and really wanted to do it. Around 50%, however, were more than happy to try it after learning about it.
This is definitely pretty far on the spectrum (the loaning part more so than the slave part), but I've said the 'loaning' part to people many times in a certain context and never actually meant it. I'd bet it just stayed as a fantasy between them.
Since the comments here seem to be mostly like "well at least some of them do", I'll just go ahead confirm your suspicion as a woman who has talked to other women about their relationships. Liking to be denigrated is not the norm at all, it's kinda gross and demeaning. However, much like many other sexual practices that many women find distasteful, some women will play along or pretend that they're into it to make their partners happy. Most of the time the partners aren't trying to be controlling or whatever, they're just imitating porn which normalizes that kind of thing. So yeah, there's a high chance this was a one-sided fantasy like you suspect.
> woman who has talked to other women about their relationships
That's less relevant as actually having sexual encounters with a woman. People often don't know their close friend's fetishes, but they do (or should) know what their lovers enjoy.
For a counterpoint: open a book of women's fantasies written by and marketed to women.
Rubin deserves to be punished for sexual harassment....
IF, in fact, he sexually harassed, right?
A) What in the hell was his partner doing reporting to his place of business that she felt like he had compelled her to have sex with him in a hotel room? What does that have to do with work? That smells like using an accusation as a weapon to me.
B) What does "compelled" mean? I had a girlfriend once who was into kink and I wasn't. We did kink all the time and it wasn't fulfilling to me, and once time in particular I was trying very hard to just get her to have sex with me (which I thought was going to be part of the relationship and was just beginning to realize it was not). I kept asking, she kept saying no. Eventually she gave in. After our break-up she cited this as a rape to a friend. Is this rape? Is it even sexual harassment?
There are so few details here it's shameful it's even being reported on.
So what if Google gave a severance to someone who was accused of harassment? It's not even clear, from the details, that he did. Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
What's wrong with people here, acting like this is something we know he did?
A) The article states that the two were in a relationship. Meeting someone at their hotel room doesn't automatically mean a consent to sex.
B) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your particular experience. But keep in mind that many sexual misconduct accusations involve the victim refusing but eventually "giving in". Harvey Weinstein, for example:
> Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
I hate to say "did you read the article?", but your question suggests that you may have skimmed the details. The article specifically states that Google investigated Rubin, and decided to terminate him as a result of the investigation. The investigation did not "prove" the accusation, but apparently the accusation was credible enough for Google to decide it was better to part ways with one of its most important executives.
> Google’s inquiry ultimately found the complaint against Mr. Rubin credible, said the two company executives familiar with the incident. While Mr. Rubin denied the accusation, it became clear that — at the very least — the relationship was inappropriate, they said. Mr. Page decided Mr. Rubin should leave, they said.
So what? People who work together have sexual relationships, and people who have relationships will have conflict.
"People who disagree with me are ignorant." Come on, man. Seriously? You sounds like a college kid on facebook.
If a company is not going to prohibit employees from having sexual relationships with each other, horizontally or vertically, that company also need to expect those employees to work their conflict out outside of work. If google does want to prohibit this, they should have disciplined both of them the moment they heard about it and fired them if it continued.
What's with people expecting companies to be mommy and daddy when we have conflicts in our relationships? That's crazy.
Ignoring the 'she worked for him' part, where her pay and career were subject to his whim? That's the issue. Its classic blackmail. Google doesn't have to be 'mommy' to oppose blackmail when it finds it occurring within their walls.
And what if she's using the relationship to get ahead? What, are we going to pretend that women are powerless, agentless puppets that smart, capable men can use?
If the company you're in doesn't prohibit relationships, if you get into one you need to resolve conflict in those relationships outside of work.
Uhhh