There is a lie we tell ourselves about modern workplaces—that merit wins, that talent rises, that professionalism shields us from the uglier instincts of power.

It is a comforting lie.

Behind glass offices, performance reviews, and diversity panels, there exists a quieter economy—one that is rarely acknowledged in official language but widely understood in whispers. Promotions are not always earned. Opportunities are not always fair. And sometimes, power is negotiated not through skill or labour, but through the oldest currency of exploitation: the body.

We hesitate to name it in corporate spaces, but we have no such hesitation when it comes to cinema. There, we call it the “casting couch.” In offices, we soften it—office politics, mutual understanding, personal arrangements. Language becomes a tool of denial.

But the reality remains: sexual favour, implicit or explicit, continues to operate as an undercurrent in professional advancement.

And what is perhaps more disturbing than its existence is how normal it has become.

Consent, or Compulsion in Disguise?

The most common defence of such arrangements is simple: they are consensual. Two adults, making a private decision. Who are we to judge?

But this argument collapses the moment we examine the structure in which this “consent” operates.

When one person controls your salary, your promotion, your appraisal, your very survival within an organization—what does refusal look like?

It looks like:

• Being sidelined
• Being labelled “difficult”
• Being denied growth
• Being pushed out

In such an environment, consent is no longer a free choice. It becomes a calculation.

Not desire—but damage control.

Not agency—but adaptation.

To call this empowerment is not just naïve—it is deeply dishonest.

The Dangerous Normalisation

What should alarm us is not merely that such dynamics exist, but that they are increasingly being rationalised.

A troubling narrative has taken root: that leveraging sexuality for advancement is a form of agency, a strategic choice in a competitive world.

But let us be clear—a system that rewards sexual compliance is not progressive. It is predatory.

And when such systems are normalised, they do not liberate women—they redefine the terms of their participation.

Competence becomes secondary. Integrity becomes optional. Silence becomes survival.

The Unspoken Divide Among Women

There is another layer to this discomfort—one that is rarely addressed openly.

Women who refuse to participate in such dynamics often find themselves at a disadvantage. They are not just competing against skill—they are competing against a system tilted in favour of those willing, or forced, to play by its unwritten rules.

This creates a quiet fracture.

Not because women are inherently divided—but because the system pits them against each other.

One group adapts. Another resists.

And in the process, resentment festers—not always fairly, but not entirely without reason either.

To ignore this tension is to ignore the lived reality of many professional spaces.

Power Protects Its Own

If such practices are so widely “known,” why are they so rarely challenged?

Because power rarely exposes itself.

Those who benefit from the system have no incentive to dismantle it. Those harmed by it often lack the protection to speak out.

Human Resources departments, designed in theory to safeguard employees, frequently function as risk-management arms of the organisation. Complaints become liabilities. Silence becomes policy.

The result is a system where:

• Exploitation is informal
• Accountability is absent
• Reputation is carefully managed

And truth circulates only in private conversations.

The Price of Refusal

What happens to those who say no?

They are rarely celebrated for their integrity.

More often, they are isolated, undermined, or quietly removed.

Careers stall. Opportunities vanish. Hostility becomes routine.

And eventually, many are forced to leave—not because they lacked ability, but because they refused to compromise on terms that should never have existed in the first place.

We do not talk enough about this cost.

We glorify success stories. We debate controversial choices. But we rarely acknowledge those who walked away—and what it took from them.

The Easy Target: Women

Public conversations around this issue often take a predictable turn—towards judging women.

If a woman is perceived to have benefited from such arrangements, her competence is dismissed. Her achievements are questioned. Her identity is reduced to speculation.

But this framing misses the point.

Even if some individuals make calculated choices within the system, the larger question remains: who built the system? Who sustains it? Who benefits most from it?

To focus solely on women is to ignore the architecture of power that makes such dynamics possible in the first place.

The Hypocrisy of Silence

Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of all this is the collective silence.

Colleagues know. Superiors know. Sometimes entire departments know.

But no one speaks.

Because speaking comes with risk.

And so, the system persists—not because it is invisible, but because it is inconvenient to confront.

Beyond Outrage: What Needs to Change

Condemnation alone is not enough. Structural problems require structural solutions.

If organizations are serious about integrity, they must move beyond performative policies and address the roots of the issue:

• Transparent promotion processes that reduce discretionary power
• Independent complaint mechanisms that employees can trust
• Strict consequences for abuse of authority
• Cultural shifts that prioritise dignity over performance at any cost

Most importantly, there must be an acknowledgement that this problem exists—not as isolated incidents, but as a pattern.

The Uncomfortable Truth

This is not a story about morality alone.

It is a story about power.

About what people are willing to do when systems reward the wrong things.

About what others are forced to endure when they refuse.

And about how easily we accept injustice when it is dressed in the language of choice.

Refusing the Terms

There will always be debates about agency, autonomy, and personal freedom. Those debates are necessary.

But they should not distract from a more urgent question:

Why do such choices exist at all?

Why must success be negotiated through compromise that has nothing to do with skill, talent, or hard work?

Until that question is addressed, discussions about consent will remain incomplete.

Because in a system where saying “no” carries consequences, “yes” is never entirely free.

And until workplaces become spaces where dignity is non-negotiable, the corporate world will continue to mirror the very exploitation it claims to have outgrown—only dressed in better language, and hidden behind closed doors.

.    .    .