Should the House repeal the rule against Members having sex with staff?

[Jose Garcia]

[Wounded Bear]

1. Well, Dems generally follow the rules and suffer the consequences whereas Repubs don't seem to.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. No.

[Turbineguy]

3. Republicans won't like that.

This rule gives them an edge against Democrats.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. No.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

5. Huh?

Why?

[crickets]

6. No.

[comradebillyboy]

7. Does that rule apply to the male members? If I recall correctly

Newt was doing Callista on his desk in the House office building.

[Jose Garcia]

15. Yes. But the rule was adopted last year, long after he left Congress

[comradebillyboy]

20. Good to know...

[superpatriotman]

8. All Congress people should wear government-assigned chastity belts

While in service to the people

[Me.]

9. No

Staffs are subordinate and placed in a precarious position whether willing or not. Also counterproductive to the entire office environment.

[struggle4progress]

10. +

[LanternWaste]

11. I think the rule should be applied consistently

rather than against one party only.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Why do you think the rule is applied against one party only?

It's actually enforced against both parties evenly.

The Ethics Committee treats everyone the same. The only difference is that Democratic Members who get in trouble respond differently than Republicans do and often resign rather than go through the full process.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Here's the big news from yesterday:

Link to tweet

[Jose Garcia]

14. He's been pretty quiet on Twitter since then

[TheBlackAdder]

13. I don't know why congress is treated differently than employers having sex with employees.

.

It puts the underlings in a position of vulnerability, the supervisor or employer in a position of power, as the employrrd job most probably will be contingent on a relationship.

.

[Hortensis]

33. Right. No difference.

Society advances, although the White Man's Party is almost certainly marching backwards, or at least in place, regarding congressional abuse as well as everything else gender.

[StarfishSaver]

16. No. Why would you ask?

[Jose Garcia]

22. The subject has been in the news recently

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/27/rep-katie-hill-to-resign-amid-allegations-of-inappropriate-relationships-with-staffers-000301

[StarfishSaver]

24. The fact that House ethics rules prohibit such relationships has been in the news

But I haven't seen any discussion of rescinding the rule.

So, I pose my question again: Why do you ask?

[Jose Garcia]

26. Because some people are angry that the representative resigned and

are arguing that she should not have either because of the behavior of other politicians who are not members of the House, or that the rule should not be enforced because the relationships were allegedly consensual.

[StarfishSaver]

27. So, some people think it's unfair for Members' sex lives to be restricted to people who don't report

to them, so the rules should be changed to allow them to have sex with their Congressional staffs?

No, thank you. If they really can't find any options beyond Congressional staff members, maybe they should find some other line of work and then they can diddle with Hill staff to their hearts' content.

[rusty fender]

18. Why is it so hard for members of Congress

to keep their hands off their staffs[joke writes itself]? It’s a simple, but necessary rule. Being a member of Congress has many other perks for them. Is this rule really such an undue burden for them

[Hortensis]

34. :) For those of insufficient moral core and self discipline,

apparently yes. Of course Hill's only 32, now, so perhaps we could spot her some optimism of youth encouraging her to think her peccadilloes wouldn't get her in trouble. And maybe throw the old "other people do it and get away with it" rationale in on her behalf while we're at it.

It'll be interesting to see what she turns to next. After the issue of paying spousal support to her husband is settled perhaps. She has a lot of friends and all things are still possible, eventually, once she gets her act straight.

[Dr. Strange]

36. Damn you.

Why is it so hard for members of Congress to keep their hands off their staffs[joke writes itself]?

Damn your incisive wit.

Now who's gonna clean the Spaghetti-Os off of my keyboard?

[rusty fender]

39. Sorry, not sorry

[cwydro]

19. What an odd question.

Curious as to why you’d ask.

Do you think they should repeal the rule?

[Jose Garcia]

25. A member of Congress accused of violating this rule just resigned

Some people on DU think that its no hig deal.

I do not believe that the rule should repealed.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Ahh, Gotcha!

It took me a minute, but I finally see what you did there.

[eissa]

21. Wouldn't it be easier for politicians to refrain

from fucking their staff? I don't see why they should get a pass on a rule every other organization enforces.

[Sewa]

23. No! That rule was put in place to protect

staff from sexual harassment. Unfortunately predators continue to be elected to Congress

[LonePirate]

28. Exactly. The rule is to protect staffers, not their more powerful elected bosses.

[Bradical79]

29. Absolutely not

It's a situation ripe for sexual harassment suits, acusations of favortism, blackmail or revenge from jilted exes, and infiltration from bad actors.

[Mike Nelson]

31. Generally, I'm against sex ruels...

... but Congress-people people should not be having sex with their own staff... if they are totally into each other and must, the staff member should find another job.

[djg21]

32. No.

Sauce for the goose . . . . This is the de facto rule created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but Title VII does not extend protections to employees of the Congress.

[jberryhill]

35. No

If they want to hire someone for that, they should use their own money.

[revmclaren]

37. NO!!!

Most companies have rules against intimate contact with employees you are supervising or who are your subordinates.

Laws and rules are there for a reason in the work place wether private company or political organization.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[maxsolomon]

38. Yes.

Everyone else says no, so I'll be the contrarian.

At the very least, they should be able to apply for an exemption.

[budkin]

40. Yes if it's consensual

Who really cares?

[Maru Kitteh]

41. No.

[IluvPitties]

42. Yes. Consensual sex between adults should always be legal.

[GulfCoast66]

43. Is this a serious question?

Staff means employees. People you in some way control.

In my company it is automatic termination. Didn’t used to be(I’ve been with the same company for 33 years) and in the early days men fucking their subordinates was pretty common.

The solution is pretty simple. You feel an attraction growing one of you coworkers you transfer or find another way to insure the relationship is in no way power based. It happens. As long as everyone is above board it is not a problem.

And it not just about the subordinate in the relationship. All of his or her peers understand he or she has the upper hand because of the intimate relationship they have with the boss. It becomes poisonous in the workplace.

This is not something that we should ever think of advocating. Mature adults have to understand the results of their decisions.