Balancing Privacy and Personal Conduct Clauses with BDSM Activities

[Dianthus]

In Canada, right now, a public figure has been fired from his media job and accused of abuse for activities that he rebuts were BDSM-related and consensual.

He has come forth with what seems to be a full and frank disclosure about a very private matter.

This is a graphic and, to me, frightening example of the possibility that disgruntled former partners may twist what were consensual activities into something that can be used against one.

In this case it has cost him his job and exposed his private activities to his family, friends, employer and the public.

 

[desertslave]

I know this is a trite and overly simplistic way of looking at things, but I simply wouldn't want to be employed by a business that attempted to have that kind of control over my life. I do understand that some career choices make that nearly impossible, but it then becomes a decision one has to make for oneself. I couldn't do it. Neither would I ever want a job that required me to be on-call 24/7, or to give my my privacy and/or personal time beyond a general 9-5.

 

[Netzach]

I know this is a trite and overly simplistic way of looking at things, but I simply wouldn't want to be employed by a business that attempted to have that kind of control over my life. I do understand that some career choices make that nearly impossible, but it then becomes a decision one has to make for oneself. I couldn't do it. Neither would I ever want a job that required me to be on-call 24/7, or to give my my privacy and/or personal time beyond a general 9-5.

Me either. But then I also probably wouldn't make sexual harassment my personal style at work if I didn't want the scrutiny. This isn't just one ex out of nowhere. I'm not buying the feminist secret cabal bullshit either.

The BDSM community loves to ignore non-con and widespread harassment in favor of "well then she'd better prove it was NON con!" Um, no I don't think the burden of proof lies that way. I'm hanging on to my sympathy card, personally, and I'll play it when I think there's good reason.

 

[Dianthus]

I know this is a trite and overly simplistic way of looking at things, but I simply wouldn't want to be employed by a business that attempted to have that kind of control over my life. I do understand that some career choices make that nearly impossible, but it then becomes a decision one has to make for oneself. I couldn't do it. Neither would I ever want a job that required me to be on-call 24/7, or to give my my privacy and/or personal time beyond a general 9-5.

What if one had started a career in such a field that invites that kind of scrutiny (doctor, lawyer, teacher, gov't official, etc.) BEFORE discovering his/her kink?

Me either. But then I also probably wouldn't make sexual harassment my personal style at work if I didn't want the scrutiny. This isn't just one ex out of nowhere. I'm not buying the feminist secret cabal bullshit either.

The BDSM community loves to ignore non-con and widespread harassment in favor of "well then she'd better prove it was NON con!" Um, no I don't think the burden of proof lies that way. I'm hanging on to my sympathy card, personally, and I'll play it when I think there's good reason.

I know that the specific case is being discussed elsewhere. I don't really want to try and deduce which party is telling how much truth.

The whole firing and subsequent 'outing' just sparked this thread. What if...? How much privacy can people expect? What will employers stand?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Me either. But then I also probably wouldn't make sexual harassment my personal style at work if I didn't want the scrutiny. This isn't just one ex out of nowhere. I'm not buying the feminist secret cabal bullshit either.

The BDSM community loves to ignore non-con and widespread harassment in favor of "well then she'd better prove it was NON con!" Um, no I don't think the burden of proof lies that way. I'm hanging on to my sympathy card, personally, and I'll play it when I think there's good reason.

Yeah, I haven't followed this case closely, but from what I've seen I'd be reluctant to take his version as gospel.

If we want to look at the ramifications of consensual kink for a person's career, the Max Mosley case of a few years back might be a better example; as far as I know there was no suggestion of any harassment or nonconsensual activity there*, but it did a lot of damage to his career.

*At least, none relevant to the way it was covered. He was cheating on his wife, which you can regard as NC depending on how you frame relationship agreements, but it's not that angle that made the papers.

 

[Stella_Omega]

only two years ago someone was talking in my hearing, about the big corporation where he worked. he said that he'd been at a meeting and they had discussed one particular woman and her prospects for promotion. She was passed over because there was a RUMOR-- nothing more-- that she was having an affair with a man in the company. Who experience no penalization.

For what it's worth, and aside from this guy's culpability, corporate culture is ugly.

 

[midwestyankee]

Participation in social media is re-defining privacy whether we want it to happen or not. It is becoming a somewhat regular happening for a celebrity in trouble to take to his or her Facebook page to plead a case of innocence. By the same token, every time we post an update or publish a tweet, we are revealing things about ourselves that, a decade or so ago, we might not have ever made known to any other than close friends and family. Because we have a self-defined "friends" list at Facebook and on other sites creates no real boundaries for our posts and information. Any twelve-year old with some tech savvy could get access to most of our social media posts no matter how "private" we think we are making them. Further, it is commonplace for hiring managers to comb through an individual's social media history when considering employment possibilities. All these things are conspiring to weaken, if not essentially destroy, our notion of privacy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Further, it is commonplace for hiring managers to comb through an individual's social media history when considering employment possibilities. All these things are conspiring to weaken, if not essentially destroy, our notion of privacy.

Uh-huh. I've heard tell of hiring managers knocking back people who DON'T have a Facebook account, either because it flags them as 'antisocial' or because it's assumed they must have deleted it for incriminating content. I don't think this is a GOOD trend, but it's certainly a trend.

 

[BiBunny]

Uh-huh. I've heard tell of hiring managers knocking back people who DON'T have a Facebook account, either because it flags them as 'antisocial' or because it's assumed they must have deleted it for incriminating content. I don't think this is a GOOD trend, but it's certainly a trend.

Oh, the benefits of going by something other than your legal name.

I have two profiles: One with my "real" name that has practically nothing on it, and one with the name everyone knows me by that has my real stuff on it.

Not that it really matters in my current employment situation, but yeah.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's why I am unhireable by corporate standards, even by my legal name. My solution? Form my own company. it's not easy, but hey-- what is?

 

[IrisAlthea]

only two years ago someone was talking in my hearing, about the big corporation where he worked. he said that he'd been at a meeting and they had discussed one particular woman and her prospects for promotion. She was passed over because there was a RUMOR-- nothing more-- that she was having an affair with a man in the company. Who experience no penalization.

For what it's worth, and aside from this guy's culpability, corporate culture is ugly.

Yup, hypocrisy isn't confined to the Harper Valley PTA.