Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I feel bad for Joe.

What he did was not malicious. He is not an abuser or predator. He did a dumb thing.

This story isn't about a rapist or someone who preys on women. It's about a drunk man who thought he was going to score. A man who was becoming increasingly physical with a woman who he was attracted to, and who invited him to do a body shot after he had grabbed her ass. For those who don't know what body shots are, that's when a girl lays down on the bar, lifts her shirt, and holds a lime in her mouth. The bartender pours tequila in her navel, and another party drinks it from her stomach, and then, using his mouth takes the lime she is holding in her mouth, which amounts to a kiss. It's unquestionably sexual. Here is a picture: http://pubcrawlba.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/body-s...

"Body shots" are not a normal thing Americans do at conferences. I say that not to judge, but to provide context. I've been to a lot of industry parties, with a lot of alcohol, and a lot of very drunk (or high) "party animals", and haven't seen this done. I think most people would associate it with those "Girls Gone Wild" ads that used to run. For the record, it's not normal or appropriate to exchange backrubs and forehead kisses with male coworkers either. I'm a bit shocked that she said such behavior with her coworkers was common. The reason this matters is that this is certain to confuse people about their relationship with you.

So this man, a drunk, sexual being, who was not holding someone against their will or being violent, kept testing his boundaries and not receiving any indication that he had crossed a line. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to interpret that after sexually touching her, and she invited him to lick her body and take a lime from her lips, that she was very much into this. In fact, a reasonable person could make this interpretation while completely sober. Then, she never says she doesn't want the behavior, but instead she says he has a wife and kids. "Well, if that's the only thing stopping us, I have great news...I have permission from my wife!" he says.

This isn't placing blame. Don't reply telling me about victim blaming. It's a bad miscommunication. He needed to be less drunk, she needed to be more clear. Both of them made very poor decisions. The fact that she did body shots for complicated reasons while masking discomfort to fit in is not his problem. She wanted to look like she was into it, as she said, and she was successful in giving him this impression. He has no way of knowing this, and no way of knowing that the party girl laying on the bar secretly doesn't want him to partake. Regardless, this is stupid, juvenile behavior on his part, which he would not have done sober. He likely knows this and is deeply ashamed.

I know many commenters here are probably less experienced when it comes to "hooking up" casually. To you, this all sounds straightforward. The vast majority of the sexually active population does not work in this straightforward way that you think - male and female. No man has ever touched the rear of any female by first asking bluntly, "Is it alright if I touch your butt?". No woman has ever told a man, "I would now like you to touch my butt." Yet, there is a non-negligible part of the population who likes to touch and be touched, and it isn't assault.

What happened here was all kinds of inappropriate, but it wasn't malicious. It's extremely inappropriate to vilify this man given the nature of the offense. And it's certainly not his fault that she became an alcoholic and got a DUI. That sounds like a cop-out to me. He's now been publicly named and shamed, which will be permanently on the internet and searchable for the rest of his life, because one night he had drunk wandering hands on a female who he thought was inviting the attention.

Edit: Whoa, wait just a minute here. We glossed over something fairly significant.

"In recent months this year I’ve been arrested, charged with a DUI, involved in second intervention classes..."

She got a DUI.

She just threw that in there, non-chalantly.

She operated a vehicle while intoxicated. Most who get a DUI don't get caught their first time, so she may have even developed a habit of it. Still, with the benefit of the doubt, even doing this once is very serious. There is a high risk that you can maim or kill innocent people while driving drunk.

Why is this not a huge controversy, and why is anyone forgiving her? Because we all make mistakes, she was drunk, she's taken steps to get help with her problem, and so on?

But here we are going to crucify someone who got too drunk and put his hands down her pants.



Holy shit. This is the top post? This? This victim blaming bullshit? (Just because you say it’s not victim blaming doesn’t make it not victim blaming.)

Consent to one thing (whatever that may be) does not imply consent to another thing. If you fail to make sure consent exists you always run the risk of doing something non-consensual. If that’s a risk you want to take, well, then do it. If you believe in your infallible abilities to read body language go for it. But don’t complain when others call you out for sexual assault or rape. (This doesn’t even begin to address the power imbalance of the relationship.)

You should re-think the tons of empathy you seem to have for this guy, based on some imaginary life-destroying effects of this blogpost, all the while you seem to have exactly zero empathy for her.

Think about that.


Good call. In what situation is it going to be acceptable to put your hands down someones pants in public? It's difficult to imagine any situation in which this isn't crossing a line. I don't see how that behaviour can be condoned.


It's possible to sympathise with both of their mixed up lives.

Do you always ask your partner if you can kiss or have sex with them?


You're right he is victim blaming. Except, he says both parties were victims in their own way.


At this point I have a hard time seeing how her boss can be considered a victim here. (It’s sad that I have to add this, but this is obviously assuming her account is truthful.)

If you do the stuff described in the blog post you might be sorry, it might have been a mistake you made while you were drunk and you might have had no intentions of committing sexual assault or being in any way malicious but you still committed sexual assault. Having good intentions (which the parent comment was also only speculating about) doesn’t change that, really.

Maybe he is a victim of his brain making stupid decisions? I don’t know. That’s how I sometimes feel when I make mistakes.

He is only a victim if she is falsely accusing him. Are you making that case?


Maybe I missed something, but the power imbalance seemed to be the only issue. If he wasn't her boss, then she wouldn't have been afraid to say no.


No man has ever touched the rear of any female by first asking bluntly, "Is it alright if I touch your butt?". No woman has ever told a man, "I would now like you to touch my butt."

While I agree with you that this is less common than communicating through body language, it sounds like a great exaggeration to say "No man" or "No woman".


I keep coming back to the fact that the one doing the groping was the boss.

Let's be very clear here - if you have anyone who you are managing, then you need to take care not to get drunk and horny around them, you must certainly never initiate a sexual relationship of any sort with them unless you first take steps to ensure that any power imbalance is removed (this is almost impossible), and you should take care never to allow alcohol to impair your judgement whilst at work-related events.

Frankly, I can't believe I even have to say this. This should be obvious, and if not then it should be made clear to anyone in management that there are certain boundaries you must not cross. There is a very valid reason why managers are normally somewhat aloof from their staff - it is wise to remember the maxim that it is often lonely at the top.


Completely agree. Also, we don't need to be very clear here - that's what sexual harassment laws are for. This isn't (only) a norm, this is a law, and although IANAL, it sounds like she has grounds to sue. Not only was the "wandering hands" inappropriate, pressuring her into doing a body shot was inappropriate as well.

The fact that the boss was drunk is a mitigating factor, not a grab-your-subordinates-ass-free card. I'm willing to assume he isn't a predator but a regular Joe who got drunk and made a mistake, but that doesn't absolve him of guilt.


This.

lawnchair_larry says, "So this man, a drunk, sexual being, who was not holding someone against their will or being violent, kept testing his boundaries and not receiving any indication that he had crossed a line." The mere fact that Justine was a subordinate was already a line Joe crossed.

I would also argue that this subordinate relationship was akin to "holding someone against their will".


I can't wait to see you guys give that lecture to Sergey Brin.

This stuff happens.

Personally I'm going to call Sergey and Amanda "Probably not a great idea", rather than your implied suggestion of "Sergey is guilty of sexual assault and is holding her against her will". But we can agree to disagree.


Yeah, because that little love triangle wasn't a complete and total disaster.

By the by, I don't recall that Brin shoved his hand down her pants at a conference and penetrated her with his fingers in a drunken stupor.

Perhaps you didn't read that bit about removing the power imbalance first? The issue is that while you give us an example it's really an outlier, and not the same at all.


This is so fucked on so many levels.

Reading the comments here, have brought up one of the major issues I've always had with the technical community -- its inability to empathize.

And worse, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, it's almost as if there's a disincentive to empathize with the victim, resulting in straight-up, outlandish comments that are on par with those of extreme, right-wing talk radio hosts.

The line about what is or isn't normal things that Americans do at conferences is just bullshit. You put 500 people with a shared interest in the same room, you'd be surprised at what quickly becomes "normal" or justified. It's actually called herd mentality.

At this age and point in your life, with all the media coverage and information surrounding you about sexual assault, and to use your Girls Gone Wild example: the girls who have claimed, and successfully proven in a court of law that they were exploited by GGW; how can you use the excuse that he didn't know he crossed a line?

Has he been participating in a self-imposed media blackout for the last 10 years? Has he never thought of the day he might have to discuss the issue of sexual predators with his three daughters, and how they potentially come in all shapes and sizes?

And to top it off, you're shocked that she said the touching was common behavior for coworkers. What does that tell you?

That she was really trusting and naive, or there's a culture of predatory behavior in her workplace, or BOTH.

As a manager, you yourself have an obligation to not make unwanted advances across the personal boundaries of your subordinates, and ensure to the best of your ability, that your subordinates are also safe from unwanted advances within the company. There is absolutely no question about that.

In fact, if you do indeed choose to start a relationship with a subordinate, you absolutely need an a CLEAR line of communication that establishes that, yes, your subordinate does indeed want to engage in relations with you, and understands it has no bearing in your career/position or their career/position.

This even extrapolates to hooking up casually -- you need a clear signal that both parties are okay with this. Sometimes, it's reciprocated, non-verbal communication, and yes, other times it can be a BLUNT question that is purposely meant to remove any ambiguity from the situation, and end in one of two clear results: yes or no.

You cannot assert that no man has ever asked first. You can only assert that you've never asked first.

And then you've flip-flopped on your own logic regarding vilification.

You give him the benefit of a doubt of making a mistake influenced by alcohol, that "is stupid, juvenile behavior on his part, which he would not have done sober."

But later you reverse your position regarding her DUI, and insinuate that this may not be her first time, and she may have even developed a habit of driving under the influence.

What if this isn't Joe O'Brien's first time? What if he developed a habit of it? What if that's the reason he's checked himself into a 6-week mental health program as you stated in other comments? Do you check yourself into a mental health facility, after a single "juvenile" mistake?

EDIT: What if this occurred with such frequency, that he did indeed have an "agreement" in place with his wife, as he so creepily stated?


There is no inability to empathize. The difference is I'm empathizing with both parties. Everyone else wants to burn the guy without a trial.

I disagree with most of your other conclusions and you've mischaracterized most of what I said.


There are many of us who do empathise. While I see a lot of morons who have either outright or subtly blamed the victim, the vast majority have not and in fact for every comment that does blame a rape victim, there are two or three replies which categorically state the opinion is not acceptable.

Have heart :-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: