[Deleted for abuse.]

Anti

Biology tells me that it would be fun to have sex with every hot young thing that I see. Yet I never act on those thoughts and have never cheated on my wife. Making every effort to act in a moral way while acknowledging biology is different to making no effort and using biology as an excuse.

Suze and Transki

Some actions are clearly "unwanted and unwelcome" and should be punishable. Some actions are defined as sexual harassment at some times, but not at others. That this situation is reflected in the law makes it no less unworkable or immoral.

Benk:"Making every effort to act in a moral way while acknowledging biology is different to making no effort and using biology as an excuse."

I agree, I'm simply suggesting that interfering with the biology is going to cause problems. If legislation prohibits all sexual interaction it's doomed to fail.

The real problem is that it doesn't allow for men to even explore the possibilities of becoming intimate with their female colleagues - even the unmarried ones - without taking the risk that he'll not just get a knockback, but may get sacked and end up in court.

People generally have relationships with people they know well. Work colleagues are in close contact for long periods, possibly seeing more of each other than spouses. It is a natural environment for relationships to occur, thanks to biology.

Perhaps Foxy et al could explain how a man might approach this problem and avoid the potential repercussions if she gets offended?

'Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended'

So everyone does has a right not to be offended. What is the world coming to. If I find something offensive, then what has happened IS offensive. I feel, so you must change. Love it. Screw objective and definitive, we should just go on feelings.

'probably means that you should know for sure BEFORE you try this with anyone at work if you don't want to get into trouble!'

How can anyone know for sure? 100%. Basically what you're saying is that nobody can flirt at work. The essence of flirting is the excitement of the unknown. That's the point of it, to gauge attraction, to find out, to titillate, to be cheeky and funny. These things are subjective.

The point I'm making, is men who get it wrong are criminalised. Man asks woman out, she's offended, he's a criminal. Man asks woman out, she rejects the proposal offensively, he's offended, but that's just life.ie We look to criminalise the man when he gets it wrong, but the woman has open slather to get it wrong.

'By all means mandate "no touching" rules, or similar objective constraints, leave the subjective victimhood out of it, that's the point. '

Exactly! And there are laws already in place for these objective things.

'If a gay man tries to chat me up at work and I'm offended, can I claim sexual harassment?'

Of course not, that'd mean you're homophobic! Women should be protected from unwanted advances, but if a man receives one he should deal with it maturely taking into account the feelings of the person he's rejecting. If he's offended, there's something wrong with him. If she's offended, the offender is a criminal.

'Sexual harassment is NOT "sexual behaviour". Sexual harassment is "unwanted and unwelcome" sexual behaviour, and while it can be a one off it is usually "repeated".'

Equally, it's not hard to understand that one can never really know 100% for sure what will be unwelcome. So what you're saying is there is a zero tolerance for workplace flirting.

Not hard to understand! Unless one has an "agenda". Or unless one is terribly thick

Houlley
It is easy to know what is unwanted - by reaction. Even if the harassed does not make it clear, a warning from a supervisor should be a clear indication of where the line is for that person.

I have a habit of touching people (not sexually) on the arm and am naturally affectionate, but obviously if someone said to me please don't touch me, I would know that for that person it is not appropriate.

People seem to think that SH in the workplace is overly difficult when really it is pretty simple. For example if those women who acknowledged your behind were told their behaviour was not appropriate and that behaviour did not cease, one could make a case for SH, but generally those situations do not involve the serious stuff of SH cases and are easily dealt, because many times people are unaware that their behaviour is causing angst, and when they are told they respect those wishes.

Anti
There have been complaints raised by men about unwanted attention from another male.

We have to use some commonsense here. If the attention is persistent and unwanted and the person continues despite warnings from supervisors or the HR Manager then some sort of action is warranted. The harassed, male or female, should be able to feel safe at work without being constantly pressured in a sexual way.

Now it is difficult if the boss is the owner and it is a small business, then sometimes the only course of action is to leave but that is difficult if one is dependent on the income and if employment is not readily available. It isn't fair but life sometimes isn't fair. One might argue that the boss might find it difficult to retain staff or to find staff (once reputations are known) and that will be punishment enough. This would be a natural justice but we all know that if jobs are scarce, the choice to leave is removed.