Aside from the hypocrisy I don’t really care at all. So she had sex with three adults? Good for her. I actually think it’s kinda sad that she feels she needs to keep it a secret that she likes women. Other than that, she’s a terrible, terrible person, so I won’t be crying any tears for her.
But you know, there’s an actual sexual predator in your Whitehouse, his whole inner circle is filled with Nazis and pedo’s. When compared to all that, Lauren Boebert should get an award for being so… consensual about sex. I hate her hypocrisy, and she shouldn’t be using government money to book hotel rooms for her sexual escapades, but shaming women for liking sex? Miss me with that shit.
It’s a bit less consensual when you’re having sex with people who rely on your good opinion for their jobs, probably their health insurance. That’s going to make it harder to say no. But at least they’re adults. The republican party has set a low bar.
You, and some others who pointed it out, are right, of course. I forgot to take the whole subordinate-thing into account. Guess my gut reaction was “at least they’re not kids” because that’s the world we live in now.
Honestly I feel a little bad for her. She had kids super young, now she’s single and ready to have her wild phase that she couldn’t have when she was younger because of her responsibilities to her kids, except now she’s a Republican in Congress, so she still has to reign it in! If she wasn’t actively making the world worse with her actions in office I’d actually feel bad for her
What most people here seem to be missing is that she was fucking her employees.
That’s the problem.
There is a massive power dynamic imbalance when you’re a world-famous politician in one of the highest profile jobs available and you start making moves on underlinings. It’s highly unethical behaviour and has been exactly the conduct that caused many politicians to be ousted and even impeached in the past.
To be fair, Boebert fucking her employees plays into the hierarchical social structure that conservatives support. The fact they’re her subordinates is probably what makes it okay.
While I take your point and agree with the merits of power imbalances inherently muddying the waters of consent, at what stage are we infantilising adults with the capacity to consent? Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people. In your comment, you suggest the idea that Boebert was the one ‘making moves’ on her staffers. Is there any verified information to suggest this was the case?
My broader question is this: are there any circumstances in which an employee can truly consent to sexual activity with their employer? I worry that answering ‘no’ to that question unfairly infantilises people, while I simultaneously worry that answering ‘yes’ justifies abuse of power to extract sexual favours.
It’s a very difficult puzzle, and one that I would personally argue heavily relies on context and the accounts of those who we fear may have been sexually abused. I’m reminded of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga which posed very similar questions, and to which you’ve also alluded in your comment.
Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people
The power imbalance makes any sexual relationship, even completely consensual ones extremely dodgey. Any kind of boundary setting you’d need to do in a healthy sexual relationship becomes marred with questions of “is this going to impact my ability to buy food?” This is why in most workplaces romantic and sexual relationships between managers and subordinates are explicitly banned.
It’s a violation of house ethics rules. Hypocrisy aside, its just simply against the rules of a body who’s purpose is to make the laws that govern the rest of us. No tolerance or excuses for that.
Pretty much any job anywhere will fire you on the spot for sleeping with a subordinate because it’s obvious that it’s a coercive power dynamic and bad for business and legal risk.
Lol they are wheeling in a barely functioning octagenerian for votes, and have a staffer to correct him when he votes wrong. You think Congress cares about ethics or power dynamics?
Regardless of if the individuals she was fucking were fully consenting or not it’s unethical. It’s going to lead to favoritism of those individuals over the ones who aren’t fucking her.
Well the issue is the power disparity there. She was basically these peoples boss. Even if it’s consensual, that’s not really a situation one wants to have. And having someone in power over you make sexual advancements is a huge red flag in any case.
Given she is a political figure, they also left her open to being compromised, which is also something you don’t want to have happen to leaders in government. Given there was $200.000 of hush money paid, I’d say she was indeed compromised.
There’s also the whole hypocrisy part, but that’s par for the course when it comes to Republicans. So while still bad, hardly worth mentioning.
Aside from the hypocrisy I don’t really care at all. So she had sex with three adults? Good for her. I actually think it’s kinda sad that she feels she needs to keep it a secret that she likes women. Other than that, she’s a terrible, terrible person, so I won’t be crying any tears for her.
But you know, there’s an actual sexual predator in your Whitehouse, his whole inner circle is filled with Nazis and pedo’s. When compared to all that, Lauren Boebert should get an award for being so… consensual about sex. I hate her hypocrisy, and she shouldn’t be using government money to book hotel rooms for her sexual escapades, but shaming women for liking sex? Miss me with that shit.
It’s a bit less consensual when you’re having sex with people who rely on your good opinion for their jobs, probably their health insurance. That’s going to make it harder to say no. But at least they’re adults. The republican party has set a low bar.
You, and some others who pointed it out, are right, of course. I forgot to take the whole subordinate-thing into account. Guess my gut reaction was “at least they’re not kids” because that’s the world we live in now.
Honestly I feel a little bad for her. She had kids super young, now she’s single and ready to have her wild phase that she couldn’t have when she was younger because of her responsibilities to her kids, except now she’s a Republican in Congress, so she still has to reign it in! If she wasn’t actively making the world worse with her actions in office I’d actually feel bad for her
It’s actually really easy to not accidentally become a republican congressperson.
Trickier than you’d think. Just ask Fetterman.
What most people here seem to be missing is that she was fucking her employees.
That’s the problem.
There is a massive power dynamic imbalance when you’re a world-famous politician in one of the highest profile jobs available and you start making moves on underlinings. It’s highly unethical behaviour and has been exactly the conduct that caused many politicians to be ousted and even impeached in the past.
That’s definitely true, though her being a republican in 2026… is she expected to face any real consequences?
To be fair, Boebert fucking her employees plays into the hierarchical social structure that conservatives support. The fact they’re her subordinates is probably what makes it okay.
While I take your point and agree with the merits of power imbalances inherently muddying the waters of consent, at what stage are we infantilising adults with the capacity to consent? Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people. In your comment, you suggest the idea that Boebert was the one ‘making moves’ on her staffers. Is there any verified information to suggest this was the case?
My broader question is this: are there any circumstances in which an employee can truly consent to sexual activity with their employer? I worry that answering ‘no’ to that question unfairly infantilises people, while I simultaneously worry that answering ‘yes’ justifies abuse of power to extract sexual favours.
It’s a very difficult puzzle, and one that I would personally argue heavily relies on context and the accounts of those who we fear may have been sexually abused. I’m reminded of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga which posed very similar questions, and to which you’ve also alluded in your comment.
The power imbalance makes any sexual relationship, even completely consensual ones extremely dodgey. Any kind of boundary setting you’d need to do in a healthy sexual relationship becomes marred with questions of “is this going to impact my ability to buy food?” This is why in most workplaces romantic and sexual relationships between managers and subordinates are explicitly banned.
https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct/
It’s a violation of house ethics rules. Hypocrisy aside, its just simply against the rules of a body who’s purpose is to make the laws that govern the rest of us. No tolerance or excuses for that.
my dude, the US elected a pedo, sexual predator, grifter as President, people admire this sort of behaviour.
Pretty much any job anywhere will fire you on the spot for sleeping with a subordinate because it’s obvious that it’s a coercive power dynamic and bad for business and legal risk.
Lol they are wheeling in a barely functioning octagenerian for votes, and have a staffer to correct him when he votes wrong. You think Congress cares about ethics or power dynamics?
Right my comment was intended to hilight how outside the norm this is
Regardless of if the individuals she was fucking were fully consenting or not it’s unethical. It’s going to lead to favoritism of those individuals over the ones who aren’t fucking her.
I was just about to point this out.
Well the issue is the power disparity there. She was basically these peoples boss. Even if it’s consensual, that’s not really a situation one wants to have. And having someone in power over you make sexual advancements is a huge red flag in any case.
Given she is a political figure, they also left her open to being compromised, which is also something you don’t want to have happen to leaders in government. Given there was $200.000 of hush money paid, I’d say she was indeed compromised.
There’s also the whole hypocrisy part, but that’s par for the course when it comes to Republicans. So while still bad, hardly worth mentioning.