To think David Pemsel's accuser was leading him on?

[caperberries]

Not sure if there's a thread about this already, but the Premier League boss David Pemsel (in his fifties) has been harassing a former colleague in her twenties with flirtatious texts. My first reaction was ew, but looking at the texts, I really think she was encouraging him.

www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CM-COMPOSITE-PHONE-P5.jpg

www.thesun.co.uk/news/10438420/premier-league-david-pemsel-texts/

No she wasn't. She was responding to him but I see absolutely no encouragement. He just didn't take the hint.

Hard disagree. She’s trying to close him down and he’s not listening.

But why keep replying? And adding the multiple kisses? I just can't imagine texting a married former boss like that if I was trying to discourage his advances

Is this a wind up OP?

What part makes you think she was leading him on? The part where she says no to sex, or the one where she keeps reminding him that he is married??

She's in a weak position. She's being firm but gentle in her response. She's not leading him in any way and she's making it clear that his married status is a complete block to any relationship.

Not at all.

If you take away the xx at the end of every message she's actually being very blunt.

And i don't know about you but most women i know put either x or xx at the end of every text. I don't assume that means they want to sleep with me! It's just politeness 2019 style so your texts don't sound cold.

She's trying to tell him to fuck off in a polite way not being flirty.

I disagree she was being polite but firm and not carrying on the convo.

She's been repeatedly shutting it down
Yabu op

YABU OP

A few months back I would have wondered why she continued the conversation and was adding ‘x’ to the end. I’m a strong, independent female that runs my own business and always assumed I’d tell someone lie that to fuck off.

Then this happened. I was harassed by text a few months back and there was a lot of sexual innuendos. I kept trying to change the subject, let him down politely, ignored loads of texts.

Now if you had said to me ‘why didn’t you just tell him to fuck off?’ As every one of my male friends did, my answer was:
I was nervous about offending him as he knew where I lived, I got a horrible ‘rapey’ vibe off him, I’m a widow in a house with young woman with special needs, I was afraid he’d break in, my instincts were to try to get him to back off without angering him. My female socialisation and history of violence at the hands off men in childhood kicked in.

Some men got it when I explained and ALL the women got it straight away. You obviously don’t. Lucky you.

She is in a subirdinate position to him, he could harm her career, he is being very persistent - THREE YEARS??. She is trying to shut him down. She is quite explicit too, you cannot mistake her meaning. He just isn't taking no for an answer.

But yeah, if you want to you could see xx as a way of her adding "But I REALLY wanna fuck you" to every message! But you'd REALLY have to want to!

Leading him on? Did you time travel from the 1950s or something?

He's a man in a position of power and men when they're thwarted can turn very nasty.

He's a creep

Disgraceful victim blaming

It reads to me that shes trying to get him to back off with as light a touch as possible, rather than being blunt and severe, which given the power dynamic in their relationship is understandable. Hes a wealthy, powerful man, well known in his industry. She is less wealthy, less powerful, and from the article it suggests she was seeking career support from him, which suggests he could in some way influence her career. So she wouldn't want to piss him off if she could avoid it. Hence the tone of the messages I think. They aren't rude, they seem to be making light of the situation, but definitely saying no to his advances. She referenced his marriage as a reason to say no, several times and he ignored it. She wasnt leading him anywhere. He trampled all over her boundaries and is now getting his comeuppance as he should.

I agree with you OP.
"Hmmm" and replies like that certainly aren't making her position clear. And why does she continue to engage with him

He's being very persistent. She is making her views and position very clear. I don't think the 'xx' at the end of her messages undermines them. I don't see in them what you do.

I read it as encouragement playing a little bit hard to get but not too hard(xxx). Either way it is irrelevant to the case since it was a work matter and she should not have to put up with that in the course of her employment.

However completely ignoring him or sending a text saying "I am not interested in anything other than a professional relationship so please don't contact me about anything except work. Thank you" would have been clear. (Add a line about "or I will have to take this to HR/ further/" if you want.)

Flirty texts with kisses and - "but you are married " ( naughty but nice .. oooh we shouldn't.....) are not how I would discourage.

She's trying to stay nice, but also send him a message to do one. Its hard when you're a woman who's been socialised to be 'nice'. She also had to work with the man.

Been there, got the t-shirt.

@caperberries
Your internal misogyny is deeply ingrained. First rule of misogyny is that women are responsible for everything men do and say.
Your op is victim blaming and if you are female you are a disgrace to the female sex.
Btw I don't agree with you.

If she replied bluntly, like I would have done, she would have found herself sidelined or sacked from something he made up due to his senior position.

So she is telling him to back off politely.

Clearly she always ends her messages with xx so she has to continue to do so.

A lot of women use x instead of a full stop, I don't, and think it's ridiculous but it certainly isn't flirtatious.

Given that not putting „kind“ in front of „regards“ is seen as showing someone isn’t happy, I think removing the x could be seen as significant nowadays. What reaction it could provoke depends very much on the person and the context. I would never use x in a work context to start with, so it seems strange to me that she didn’t remove the x to dispel any idea that she was just „playing hard to get“. But that’s me and my industry (v formal), and I wouldn’t judge her by my standards.

What is sad and wrong is his behaviour and the fact that she didn’t feel able to report it to HR or any other channels without fearing the consequences. No one should have to put up with that shit. No way.

I don’t think she was leading him on, no.

But like many of these situations, it may be complicated. Apparently she was looking for career advancement from him. He’s a powerful man. She was clear in saying she wanted to be on the right side of the moral equation. But she maintained contact with him (perhaps because he has actually helped her in the past?). It’s a very, very fine and difficult line to tread, getting a man like this to focus on what you want, rather than what he wants.

I’ve been in this situation before. An honourable man wouldn’t ever go there, but neither should an honourable woman. He’d told her what he was after, it’s clear. But she kept at it, albeit being clear she wasn’t going to give him what he wanted. I didn’t want anything at all to do with the man who was in a position of power and could have helped me, once I found out what he was like. Nothing is worth that.

I’m probably a bit of a prude. Some people have no problem using all the tools in their arsenal to get what they want. But if you choose that path, you can’t complain when it doesn’t go entirely the way hope it would. You play the game, you have to take the risks.

In reality, it doesn’t sound like any harm came to this woman. Arguably, it has to Pemsel. He was an idiot, and she has brought him down. So, ultimately, they both lost.

🤷‍♀️ Ain’t that the way of the world. It’s men and women.