Someone on the news was talking about risk takers, and risk avoiders.

[RandomThoughts]

Notice once again, the entire conversation was with no morale component. It was around the topic of various affairs.

If what you do you think is right, then you take any risk. And you take no risk for what is wrong.


Sure some people like risks, and some like to avoid risks, the problem is there are people that avoid risks when they should stand up, and take risks for some selfish reason that could even hurt someone.

The rapist risk taker, and the Gandhi risk taker are not the same thing.



So it is not about risk takers, but for what reasons.


And consensual affairs, even when someone is married, is a betrayal of trust within a marriage, and really has only the factor of gauging someones trustability, otherwise it has little significance to how they set policy. It is an indicator of character. If they would betray there spouse what else might they do. However everyone makes mistakes.

The topics of those that assault others is a completely different topic. And if you want to divide those groups it is far easier to see, it is about those that take pleasure from power, and those that take pleasure from love. Rapist crave power. The person that thinks getting laid by a women is a conquest, has the frame of mind of a rapist. The person that is attracted and requires mutual consent for any enjoyable thoughts, thinks in ideas of love with caring.

I have been in the bars, and seen many people that think like rapist, even if they don't do that action, they have that thought process. But most of the people, in pool bars at least, don't think that way, and I would guess most people would not enjoy such things unless consensual.

So it is possible with Ensign, Arnold, Edwards, Clinton, Newt, and many others, it was two people doing what they probably shouldn't but was mutual attraction more then coercion. Although they could have been coercive by position of power, it may have been attraction, it is really tough to tell, and why it is good for bosses not to sleep with employees.

And the topic of work place romance is another topic. I had some girlfriends from workplace over the years, but never when I was in a position of control over them, although most companies say no work place romances at all, it makes sense that a position of power, can be used over someone to influence them, and that can be the same as removing consent. That does not mean it always is, but since it is so tough to tell, good to avoid it, or quit your job if you were to have such a relationship.


If a relationship is attraction by aphrodisiac of power, that is different then if it was coercion by threat of use of that power. But after the fact, it is really hard to determine which is which, and even the 'power position' person might not know which way it is in that case. So someone in a power position probably should avoid such things.


So in the many cases of people having affairs, or relationships, and there are many of them, the factor is the why. Was it pressured by some boss, or was it aphrodisiac and attraction of power. Although since that is very difficult to determine, it is best for bosses not to sleep with employees.

[kentauros]

1. What about risk players?

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. They're mean, they cheat...and I refuse to play with them.

:hi:

At least that's how my brothers were when we were kids.

[kentauros]

3. No one cheated at my house.

However, it seemed like all too often I got Asia :eyes:

:hi: