Robert Huber '05, a State Department employee, Adam Wible '05, and Ian McHenry '05 have been traveling the world in a yacht and having lots of sex. Their e-mail chain, which was leaked to Jezebel, describes their competition to have sex with as many women as possible. The alums make great sacrifices just to remain competitive. For example, in an e-mail sent on Monday, Oct 11, Robert Huber explained his choice to sleep with a particular woman: "the only reason i'm even considering it is because i need to do something to keep my numbers up. sadly, not all of us can slog tiny japanese girls. ok, fine, all of us can, but you have more variety." No wonder Princeton gets a rep for being so competitive. Some may perceive the e-mail chain as racist and sexist, considering its extensive objectification of women and racial profiling. These people may be right. But the scariest issue of all is that this e-mail chain was supposedly private domain. So watch out what you write or forward to "friends" in e-mails, especially if you want to run for public office. Holding this contest via telephone would have been a much better bet.-The Blogstress
Posts
11 comments:
This post should be removed. You mention yourself that their conversation was meant to be private. Nothing illegal seems to have occurred. You should respect the personal life privacy of alumni, or show some discretion.
These alumni deserve the same respect for their privacy as they display towards women.
I don't feel bad for these guys having their e-mail exposed, but I do think it is in poor taste to reprint their comments on this blog (link to the jezebel article instead if you'd like), especially since the author makes light of what was absolutely disgusting commentary by these alums.
"These alumni deserve the same respect for their privacy as they display towards women."
So one only deserves privacy if what he or she says is politically correct? Or is it that one gives up any expectation of privacy when one attends an Ivy League school? Neither thought is particularly comforting.
I think the post should be removed as well. What they did and wrote was disgusting, but I don't think their careers and reputations should be ruined because someone hacked into their email and leaked their commentary.
I also think the blog should be removed. What they wrote was disturbing, but who knows if it really happened or was a sick attempt at humor, and why should the person who hacked into their emails and leaked their exchange be rewarded by seeing all of it in print.
What they wrote was disgusting? Please. These are the kind of guys that make me proud to be a Princeton student, and I commend them for having the balls to do something this awesome.
No Jacob, one gives up any expectation of privacy when one uses any form of electronic media, but one only deserves respect when one is respectful towards others. Their careers and reputations are not ruined because their email was hacked. Any damage to their career or reputation is a result of their true character (or lack thereof) being revealed by what they said and did when they thought no one else was looking. Do none of the posters defending these misogynists have mothers, sisters, or daughters, and would they be comfortable if all were similarly demeaned and reduced to a notch on some cad's bedpost?
I really hope the post above me is a troll or something, as I really don't want to believe that there are actually people who think that "one gives up any expectation of privacy when one uses any form of electronic media." The use of email certainly enables violations of privacy, but we should condemn the media when they legitimize such breaches.
You know Robert killed himself not too long after this?
This story haunts me and every couple of years I search to see if Jezebel has taken down that article and whether we have more information on his suicide. I knew Robert personally, though not well — we were in some of the same circles while on campus. It shocks me that some of those defending the publication of these private emails are Princeton alums, displaying less than a modicum of understanding of ethics. People (especially Princeton alums) should be able to figure out how to reconcile all of the following without cognitive dissonance: (1) yes, the statements and behaviors revealed in the emails display a morally reprehensible attitude that objectifies women and degrades the specific women they were referring to. (2) Those women presumably consented to sleeping with those guys — if so, they chose to get intimate with these near strangers who were clearly only after one thing. Women have agency when it comes to any decision including casual sex (assuming consent is honored — and if not, then that’s an entirely different matter). (3) Private conversations, no matter how disrespectful, should be kept private, unless they reveal a crime or unless exposing them prevents some harm or damage. (4) The people judging this and stating that their lives ought to be ruined due to their own behaviors and choices should be able to answer how are we going to apply that equally across the board — anyone who has had politically incorrect, immoral, or degrading thoughts or private conversations should have them exposed publicly and disseminated widely at that? (5) Jezebel (and the entire enterprise that owned Jezebel) is after nothing more than clicks and was/is willing to ruin — even destroy — people to get those clicks, unless someone will try to claim that they were being altruistic or guided by some moral compass …
Post a Comment