Incorrect.
There's a distinct difference between "willingness" and consent.
I'm sure your job requires you to perform tasks you find unpleasent but you perform these tasks because it's in your job description.
- You consent to performing certain tasks even though you don't want to, but they're officially needed to do your job.
In her case; she agreed to sexually pleasure that motherfucker even though it wasn't officially part of her job description.
- She willingly went way beyond the (legal) mandate of what her job duties require.
She made a choice to engage in these activities.
- She could've said "no".
- She could've walked away at any time.
Bruh, my point is not hard to understand for anyone who has ever held a job at a place where there was an HR department, OR knows someone who has.
If I pay a hooker, which I have no problem doing, it is a consensual transaction.
But, if there is even the ILLUSION that a woman sexually pleasured the boss for fear of losing her job, then the boss has violated the most holy of holy human resource rules and the boss AND the company will get POPPED for a huge financial judgment or settlement.
If you were Rudy's lawyer, and argued to a jury that she had the choice to suck his dick or quit her job and she chose to suck dick instead of quit her job, which she could easily have done, your ass would be the talk of the courthouse for generations to come.
They would write whole chapters in employment law books named after your ass.
Continuing legal education seminars would have entire lectures on how NOT to defend an employment law course.
Some conduct is so looked down upon that one is to avoid even the ILLUSION of impropriety. Fucking someone who directly works under you is at the top of that list.
