That is false and unlikely. Presumably if you're a CEO, part of it is that you've got more common sense than some other alternative. Use your common sense, not someone else's braindead ideological power structures oppression narrative to decide whether two people should get into a relationship. Companies are filters in a way, as are higher up positions, so there's just a higher chance that some of the factors at play for relationship forming are being amplified. If the nature of the relationship is such that it's relevant to the company, then inform the board and so on especially if it can have a PR angle.

There seems to be some kind of failed activist attempt in social media to make it sound like so many relationships are evil, bad, abusive and wrong, but in most cases this is not an issue. Trying to generalize them that way is a cynical approach to society. Of course you can find examples, because there are billions of people on the planet. I don't think it's inherently wrong to make people more aware that there can be issues where leverage is abused to establish a relationship, but at some point people go too far and generalize beyond what they understand.

It's certainly a false equivalence to suggest that someone rich and smart, probably with alternative options and something to gain, is in a similarly vulnerable space as someone for whom losing their job means they're on the street by the end of the month.

How do you think executives that do work at this level meet people outside work?

The only people who understand this kind of job and what it takes are people in the same sort of area. And you’re prolly only meeting them in your own workplace.

At least if you’re boning someone from work you don’t have to watch everything you say the same way.

If they make over half a million total comp, all good right?

I like how nobody seems to consider the possibility that the employee(s) involved came on to him.