Found out a girl I know slept with a Wall Street exec for a scholarship

This comment turned me into a Wumao. Glory to the party, glory to the chairman.

sasha_j24

No you’re right, brown-nosing while having a few swings at the course is perfectly equivalent to implicitly prostituting oneself like a human sex toy.

To reiterate, aside from your puritanical hangups regarding sex, why is one different than the other?  Nowhere in the original post is it even remotely proven that she slept with this guy for the scholarship - all OP does is state that the person sleeping with the high ranking exec got the scholarship.  Everything else is pure speculation on your part.  But back to the point - so what? Please explain to me, in a way that doesn't inherently portray sex work as evil or immoral or indeed sex in general as something shameful, as to why spending several hours with your boss on the golf course is different than spending several hours having dinner and sleeping with your boss?  As long as all of it is consensual, I'm not sure how the two are all that different.  Spending time alone in a specifically social, non work setting, for the purpose of career advancement - that equally describes both.  And yet, getting a promotion on the strength of your short game instead of your work product is ethical?  Again, a rational explation would be lovely.

 Also kinda weird to insinuate her job is that of a sex object. Welcome back, Draper.

I did no such thing.  YOU are the one who called this person a "human sex toy".  If this is the kind of crap you spew at work, no wonder you resent people who get ahead, regardless of how.

You know, I wonder if this appeal to shame argument would work on this VP’s wife, when she inevitably figures out he’s cheating. “Why so puritanical, hon? She’s just my subordinate at work. It’s 196- I mean, 2025. Ugh, grow up already.”

Again, your idiocy isn't a reflection on my argument.  The guy's wife will have a totally different view, because her relationship to the VP is (presumably) predicated on the assumption of physical monogamy.

This kind of shitty argument may work well on whatever barely literate people you associate with, but you'll need to bring a little more than some projection and an obvious straw man to the table to convince me I'm wrong.

LMFAO "what's the difference between building a public mentor/mentee relationship over a mutual leisure activity vs secretly going behind the back of spouses/SOs & violating company policy + employment law to bang subordinates half your age in exchange for career advancement?"

You make a lot of unsupported assumptions here, which is par for the course for basically all your arguments.  Who is to say a career built on the back of a strong golf game is publicized?  This is why people colloquially talk about "sneaking out to play 18" or some such.  I've made this point in other contexts, but the idea that you build a relationship with your superior in a non-work setting from which many of your colleagues will be excluded and which then leads to career advancement is just as bad, from an ethical standpoint, as if you do the same but substitute "romantic dinners" instead of golf (always assuming consent from both parties).

Then we move on to the rest of your completely fabricated argument, in which you claim that the affair referenced above is secret (it obviously isn't since it's common knowledge) or behind the back of anyone, or even for that matter in violation of any company policy.  You don't know ANY of that.  You've made it all up to avoid actually confronting the salient point I made, which is that plenty of careers are built on the basis of something other than the merits of the work product being produced.  Your problem, obviously, is that once you concede that it's okay to climb the corporate ladder by sucking up to your boss, there is literally no reason to object to climbing the corporate ladder by sucking off your boss.  As long as it's all done in accordance with HR policy, at which point I should reiterate there isn't even a shadow of a suggestion that isn't the case in OP's (fictitious) story, who cares?  It's merely a matter of perception.

And again, I'm not sure what the spouses of the people involved have to do with anything.  A VP cheating on his spouse with a subordinate is obviously disgusting, but not because of anything to do with his job.  It's a gross violation of their relationship, presumably, and his spouse would probably be equally upset if he was sleeping with someone he met at a bar.

Epic white knighting with this take, well done sir. Wish you the best of luck for when you try this argument in an HR meeting or court

I mean... again, once you strip out the many, many assumptions you made, there isn't much of an issue.  Work relationships are permitted, as long as HR is informed.  Relationships between superiors and subordinates are permitted, as long as guard rails are in place.

At the end of the day, the story we're told contains not a single piece of evidence for the assertion made.  All it says is that someone who got a scholarship at a company is sleeping with a person at said company.  And if you want to call that inappropriate, I'll even agree!  I just think you need to also have some consistency and say the same about the myriad other ways in which people get ahead by pleasing their boss outside the confines of the office.

Ozy has whored out himself and his wife, ofc he’d have such an asinine take 

Isaiah_53_5 💎🙌💎🙌💎

Ozymandia

The dead giveaway comes when you read "I did a little digging on the scholarship and it’s for underrepresented minorities, which this girl is, but def not a URM."

So she both is an underrepresented minority, but "def not" a URM... the acronym for "underrepresented minority"?

Yeah I caught that too. First thing is OP can't write. And secondly I think he was trying to say the girl was a rich URM who doesn't need the help. That's what I interpreted it as.

Which brings out the entire hypocrisy of these kinds of posts.  Rich white kids getting jobs is just the way of the world, nothing to see there.  But a rich minority?  That's a crime.