I like much of what Sydney has to say, but her verbal affectation of adding the word "right" to punctuate many of her thoughts drives me nuts.

Wow, what the fuck, Dan.

I agree with Sydney, and dang, it is kinda gross to have this interaction where (I'm assuming) her boss (Dan) defends the right for bosses to date employees. That's some weird power show there. Just overall a solid reflection on power would be cool, and how our views on power and what's appropriate related to power & relationships and how all that can change as times change and our understandings change.

Like, for real people have fallen in what they felt was real love while experiencing power imbalances. (Let's use the stark example of Prisoner and Guard.) I'm sure that has and *could* really happen. But you cannot separate the power imbalance from that situation, and also how the Prisoner may not, on some level, feel they have a real choice. If this situation/meeting happened in total Freedom, where their life wasn't under restriction by the Guard, would their Love still have grown? Maybe they will never know the answer to that question, but do we still maintain situations where it's allowed (or even encouraged) to happen to others so on the off-chance real Love could grow between Guards and Prisoners? Or do we acknowledge the innate wrongness of pursuing a relationship when *you* have the power to restrict or affect their freedom? (Or career, or health, safety, etc.)

What is so scary about either waiting or setting up a situation where two people could be fully "consensual" to make that choice?

Sydney made many great points, with national conversation on sexual harassment in the work place, trying to change the topic is part and parcel of the backlash and how it functions It is not about sex and dating at all, it is about sexual assault and gender and nonstop gender discrimination.

Sydney is definitely a very intelligent, thoughtful contributor to Blabbermouth, but she is completely infuriating because she contradicts herself at every turn, and appears unable defend her opinions when they are scrutinized. She (incredibly, ridiculously) suggests that workplace flirtations/romances simply shouldn't happen. "Just don't do it."

Then, when Dan attempts to bring the real world into the conversation, with all of its nuance and varied experiences, Sydney says, yes, these things needed to be evaluated on a "case by case basis." She parses her stance over and over like this in the podcast.

Sydney wants to impose a strict, black and white rule--never, ever workplace romance--and then acknowledges that, yes, these have successfully occurred in the past. She says she's not trying to preempt future workplace relationships. But just don't do it.

The solution she and Eli suggest: quit your job, find a new one, uproot your career so you can take those tiny first steps to see if a dating relationship is even possible. Make an huge, potentially epic Life Change so you can ask someone out on a date to see if there's any spark.

Why is there such a strong impulse to infantalize everyone in the workplace? Let adults be adults with agency, and make them take personal responsibility for their actions. The roll of the HR department should be to ensure negative repercussions (retribution) don't occur if flirtations or advances are rebuffed. Dan's suggestion that there be extra, even excessive, "circling" I think he called it, on the part of the "more powerful" before making a move is the correct approach. The solution is not to shut everything down. Empower HR and encourage the staff to access HR.

The solution is not to shut everything down; tweak the system. Tweak it a lot if that's what's called for.

And to Captain Pants:
Your prison analogy is...well, kinda absurd.

The majority of known/reported prisoner/guard romances involve the guard falling for the prisoner. It is most often the work of a cunning prisoner manipulating a guard to gain special privileges, sex or assist escape. But even the documented "genuine" romances which are not manipulations (and there are plenty) involve the guard falling for the prisoner, whether its a male guard/female prisoner or female guard/male prisoner. Data regarding same sex relationship is virtually nonexistent.

But the point is that your "stark example" is a figment of your imagination, and it actually invalidates your theory of a power differential affecting relationship compliance of any sort.

@3 Monica and Bill might be a better example.
Lots of folks recognized that as a gross abuse back in the day, before pussyhats.
Not Hillary, of course.
Welcome to the party.

@7: Until Bill apologizes for his assaults on Juanita, Kathleen, Paula, and transgressions on Monica and Jennifer and until Hillary apologizes for her cavalier attitude towards these women, the Clintons remain without creditably and decency.

Oh Jesus Christ on a breadstick, you're re-litigating Bill, Monica and Hillary?

Why not just come right out and admit you helped elect Trump?

And yes, Dan and the other mansplainer are wrong, wrong, wrong: where there's a power differential the one above needs to cut it out and be professional..

If the person lower on the power pole is interested he/she can make the first (appropriate) move.

Outside the office/construction site/battlefield/prison.

Dating and flirting usually doesn't start with sexual anything.

Outside the work place can ask Mr./Me. Power person out to have coffee, whatever, and test the water judiciously.

There, solved it for you.

9
You bet your ass.
Re-litigating and re-litigating and re-litigating until every Millennial with a crush on Hillary knows what a predatory creep Bill was and what a hypocritical character assassin Hillary was.
And when we have Bill and Hillary's heads on a pike we will go after JFK and Bobby and Teddy.
It will be a real teachable moment for The Left, esp the little newbie Lefties.
In fact, soon they will regret that they also did not vote for Trump.

@11: Thanks for reminding us. Marilyn Monroe and Mary Jo Kopechne would still be alive today without those nasty Kennedy boys.

12
The Moral Arc of the Universe has an appointment with Camelot in the not-too-distant future.

Elections having consequences;

"Doug Jones spent his first Sunday as the new senator-elect from Alabama promising to work with Republicans and even leaving the door open to voting with them. Five days after defeating Roy Moore and becoming the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in Alabama since 1992, Jones was on the Sunday morning show circuit talking up possibilities for bipartisanship. “I think there’s an opportunity at every turn,” he said on Fox News Sunday. Jones also said that he likes the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, Politico reports.

Meanwhile, on CNN's State of the Union, Jones seemed to go a step further, saying he would "of course" consider voting with Republicans on certain issues and that he would take into consideration his state's strong Republican lean when thinking about his votes, the Hill reports. “I’m going to talk to people on both sides of the aisle, try to figure out what I think is in the best interest of my state and in the country,” Jones said. “Don’t expect me to vote solidly for Democrats.”

My god........

@7, @8, @11, @12 and @13: You ultra-wrong-wing Trumpzilla apologists make me sick.
As if a completely inept asshole, hurtling us into Nuclear World War III out of a 5 year old tantrum, who just signed into law to SCREW 99.99999999% of U S citizens just to add to its insane level of ill gotten wealth and $1.5 trillion in national debt, who openly brags about its penis size, and that because it's a star, it can get away with it should be qualified presidential material over a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.
Crawl back into your troll holes, fuck each other and die there.

@14: Ah. NOW I get it. You watch fake news.

@18 idiocy4all: RepubliKKKans and neo-fascist gun nuts are clueless, ignorant hypocrites.
Or was that your point?