Waterbury Case and Repercussions Discussion Cont'd

[WLH]

48 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

For me—and I'm speaking only for myself—the issue isn't looking at nude images of women. People have been doing that since cave-paintings and our museum walls are covered with women in all their naked glory. It's consent. If a woman is OK with her partner sharing nude or sexually explicit images of her with others, that's their business. But if those images are shared without the woman's knowledge or consent, that's a different matter. It's a breach of trust. If a woman's colleague shares an explicit photo her with other of her colleagues without her consent, and exposes what she believed was a private, intimate moment to public gaze—the gaze of people she works with closely day in and day out—she's stopped being their colleague and has become a commodity. I'd consider it workplace harassment and I'd argue that any organization would be right to sanction employees who were engaged in it.

Alexandra Waterbury wasn't anyone's colleague, so Finlay and Ramasar's behavior with respect to her isn't the same kind of breach of trust. But the men involved shared images of women they worked with too, and that's a different matter. 

Well said. Thank you

[MarzipanShepherdess]

1 hour ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

For me—and I'm speaking only for myself—the issue isn't looking at nude images of women. People have been doing that since cave-paintings and our museum walls are covered with women in all their naked glory. It's consent. If a woman is OK with her partner sharing nude or sexually explicit images of her with others, that's their business. But if those images are shared without the woman's knowledge or consent, that's a different matter. It's a breach of trust. If a woman's colleague shares an explicit photo her with other of her colleagues without her consent, and exposes what she believed was a private, intimate moment to public gaze—the gaze of people she works with closely day in and day out—she's stopped being their colleague and has become a commodity. I'd consider it workplace harassment and I'd argue that any organization would be right to sanction employees who were engaged in it.

Alexandra Waterbury wasn't anyone's colleague, so Finlay and Ramasar's behavior with respect to her isn't the same kind of breach of trust. But the men involved shared images of women they worked with too, and that's a different matter. 

Exactly! If these men had been sharing images from PornHub with one another, there would have been no issue. Any workplace doing its duty by its workers would sanction or fire workers who shared intimate images of other workers without their consent.

And I would add, nonconsensual sharing of private nude or sexually explicit images of someone isn't just a breach of trust, it's increasingly ruled to be a crime in many cities and states. I

[abatt]

2 hours ago, MarzipanShepherdess said:

Exactly! If these men had been sharing images from PornHub with one another, there would have been no issue. Any workplace doing its duty by its workers would sanction or fire workers who shared intimate images of other workers without their consent.

And I would add, nonconsensual sharing of private nude or sexually explicit images of someone isn't just a breach of trust, it's increasingly ruled to be a crime in many cities and states. I

Alexa Maxwell was the NYCB employee whose nude photo was exchanged.  She consented. 

Waterbury never consented to her photo being shared, but  she was never an employee of NYCB.

[Helene]

3 minutes ago, abatt said:

Alexa Maxwell was the NYCB employee whose nude photo was exchanged.  She consented. 

Waterbury never consented to her photo being shared, but  she was never an employee of NYCB.

1. She did not consent to photo sharing: she forgave him (in a public statement) after the fact.

2. She was not the only one.

[Balletwannabe]

A quick search reveals that there was no consent. "In response, Ramasar allegedly sent a naked picture of his girlfriend Alexa Maxwell, who is also a dancer, to the other two men without her consent"

"Maxwell called his text messages a “misstep in judgment.” She said he had apologized to her multiple times, and that she had already forgiven him."

[On Pointe]

9 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

For me—and I'm speaking only for myself—the issue isn't looking at nude images of women. People have been doing that since cave-paintings and our museum walls are covered with women in all their naked glory. It's consent. If a woman is OK with her partner sharing nude or sexually explicit images of her with others, that's their business. But if those images are shared without the woman's knowledge or consent, that's a different matter. It's a breach of trust. If a woman's colleague shares an explicit photo her with other of her colleagues without her consent, and exposes what she believed was a private, intimate moment to public gaze—the gaze of people she works with closely day in and day out—she's stopped being their colleague and has become a commodity. I'd consider it workplace harassment and I'd argue that any organization would be right to sanction employees who were engaged in it.

Alexandra Waterbury wasn't anyone's colleague, so Finlay and Ramasar's behavior with respect to her isn't the same kind of breach of trust. But the men involved shared images of women they worked with too, and that's a different matter. 

I agree with you almost completely.  I am not sure whether there were multiple female dancers from NYCB who had nude photos shared.  There was only one identified by name,  and she was adamant that,  while she didn't condone the action,  she did not feel victimized.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

I am not sure whether there were multiple female dancers from NYCB who had nude photos shared.

This is one of the specific allegations in the court filings.