That is your view "H" and I would hazard a guess, not a view many people share, particularly young people who have been a victim of S.H.

There are varying degrees of S.H, yourself included in one type when younger Houllebecq. A courageous step to admit and share with people.

However, your encounter, and every individual's encounter with S.H differs greatly.

No one case is ever the same; many cases far worse than yours described and prolonged for various reasons, one of which, a young victim may well think or hope, that the perpetrator will be seen/observed and action taken by another Manager or staff.

Some people suffer silently from S.H in their jobs/careers, out of necessity, to pay for food on the table, their rent, mortgage, and raising their children, after being qualified in a set field with little scope to move.

There are not always 'personal or life choices' in every situation.

Not all people are as confident and gregarious as you appear to be Houllebecq, particularly young people starting out in their chosen professions, coming out of high school, TAFE or University.

Several girls were victims of S.H in government departments I worked in ten years ago, by the same perpetrator. He was warned quietly by his executive staff. He continued to abuse his power via his low self esteem and mysoginistic ways [a mental disease].

In the meantime those girls were left without a referee for their first jobs, one girl needed ongoing psychological assistance the following year, the next victim a year later was hired and left the department altogether, the last stood up to him, and she was informed that it was a 'story' and asked to move elsewhere.

After the perpetrator had retired early, most of the victims spoke out and action taken.

Most perpetrators of S.H and paedophilia will be found out and action taken, it is only a matter of time.

Houllie

I'm not sure that working with women who display a bit too much cleavage puts you in the same category as the poor girl in Pelican's motel story.

Foxy

There are cases of harassment that are clearly wrong and there are cases where women choose to complain about behaviour that could well have been judged as acceptable, even wanted.

You couldn't say how people can know which actions are unwanted, before one does them? It isn't always possible to tell which attention was wanted after people see the reaction they get. Pelican cannot provide a neat distinction between acceptable and unacceptable either.

Only nice, clear rules will work. Never flirt with co-workers is clear if everone agrees to it. Never flirt after a knockback is unambiguous. The current policy means that some behaviour is unacceptable in certain circumstances but acceptable in others. These rules are doomed to failure.

"Pelican cannot provide a neat distinction between acceptable and unacceptable either."

No-one can benk, because the definition itself is subjective.

Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another.

Obvious sexual harassment (groping, asking for sex, aggressive sexual behaviour etc) is not hard to distinguish from those grey areas where the bounds of flirting might be different among a group of people.

As for the case before the courts, as Foxy said, we don't know the outcome yet nor do we know the full extent of the allegations nor the number of people affected.

My encounters [one last winter] has always been to say firmly "I do not mix business with pleasure in any situation. That has been motto working with thousands of people throughout my career. Do not take it personally".

This is the truth along with my own personal morals and values, in terms of knowing that any workplace relationship or involvement, would affect and spoil my different working colleagues environments in the many different work settings I am required to work daily.

It is the working colleague's problem if they harrass or become revengeful, threatening or vindictive after being informed of a firm 'no' and the reason.

I cannot report or label a person a known perpetrator when the request could have been a one off singling myself out ie Non-perpetrator of S.H.

Yet, it is a positive for someone else in higher authority or an HR Manager, to be made aware of that person's advances 'In-confidence'.

For a reason: the primary being that the requesting person may be a perpetrator of S.H towards the most vulnerable in the future, ie a male or female with limited or no qualifications totally relying upon her position/job [ie may find it difficult to secure another similar position], and/or a person who has no idea on how to handle the bullying and S.H.

To me, a working colleague sends warning bells that he/she has a screw loose, to directly request sex or physically make advancements in the work place environment without asking for a date/coffee/dinner first.

This indicates to me that the person is desperate and indicates predatory behaviour

Pelican:"No-one can benk, because the definition itself is subjective.

Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another."

How can a law that punishes me be based on your reaction to my actions? If I steal your car there is a definable act that can be legislated against. Ditto if I punch you. If I ask you out, is that in itself punishable? I don't think so, yet apparently it is under definitions put foeward here. As I said, I'd not exist if it wasn't for workplace relationships and my kids only exist because I had a relationship with their mother who was my housemate/landlady.

What is happening more and more is that women expect to be able to behave as they like without impunity, while men are being constrained by punitive laws.

Can anyone tell me why the feelings of a woman who has been "harassed" by an unwanted chat-up are more important than the feelings of a man who may have to stop himself from chatting up the woman he thinks is a pretty good sort? What if she really wants him to do so, but he won't, because of the chance of being punished? How is this in either of their interests?

The nature of human sexuality is the famous "man proposes, woman disposes". Women have usually relied on extended family to back up their "disposals", but now, thanks to feminism, they don't have to do anything at all, leaving the man possibly fighting the State for doing no more than what comes entirely naturally, while she gets to "shake her thing" as she feels like.

It's distorted, disturbed thinking.

We are unique:"It is the working colleague's problem if they harrass or become revengeful, threatening or vindictive after being informed of a firm 'no' and the reason."

Well said. I'd go further and suggest that a firm "no" doesn't require a reason. The only thing wrong with the scenario is that there is a strong tradition in romantic love that "no" doesn't mean "no", just "not now". the hero pursuing and winning the beautiful maiden, who demands greater and greater demonstrations of his love before finally accepting him has been with us since Sheherezade and probably earlier. I suspect it may actually be hard-wired; many species have ways of sexually selecting for the "fittest" male to breed with.

By eliminating the p[ossibility of beimng asked more than once, we are interfering with the natural sexual by-play that is part of humanity. Can anyone tell me why they think that is a good thing? Will it increase happiness for the majority, or does it only pander to the wants of the dysfunctional?