Dear Houellie,

Thank You for expressing your opinion.
But I don't know whether
to take you seriously, or whether you're
merely having "fun" again.

If you genuinely feel that this
thread is too narrow,
and you feel constrained by it, -
feel free to start one of your own.

Or alternatively, keep on posting here.
Now that we are aware of your feelings,
we shall try to pay more attention.

We would hate to be rude and dismissive.

Pelican

I don't pretend that one advance is likely to get someone in trouble with the law (unlike Anti). However, I suggest that acceptable behaviour in this area is policed largely by social pressure. I have seen quite a few over-reactions to single, polite approaches that could well have been received favourably. Our society is all too willing to rescue damsels in distress.

The Fraser-Kirk/McGuiness case may well prove to be quite different. If reports such as him slipping his hand up her blouse are accurate, there should be some sort of sexual assault law that he should be charged with.

Dear benk,

I agree with you - most unwanted sexual advances at work
are handled quickly and quietly without any fuss.
It's only for a small minority that the law is involved,
due to the fact that all other options have failed.
Of course there has to be concrete evidence provided.
Otherwise they won't have a case.

The reason that the laws exist however is
to oblige employers to
provide a harassment-free workplace - and to hold them
legally responsible for acts of Sexual Harassment
committed by their employees. The aim of this is to
promote equality between men and women - especially
for those staffers who are to shy or intimidated to
deal with the situation themselves. The laws are
there to protect them.

The laws may not be ideal - and could do with improvement,
but at least they do exist and without them - the problems
could be even more serious than they currently are.

The atiseptic bloke is now even getting his posts deleted for abuse. He asks "how do I define unwanted and unwelcome, objectively". Well that's easy to do , but I guess if someone's a bit dense, no names mentioned,it might be hard. It's defined this way: If any sexual advance is unwanted or unwelcome by a person, regardless of what that sexual advance is, then it is "unwanted and unwelcome". See antiseptic,it's not too hard to understand.

Benk wrote, "some actions are defined as sexual harassment at some times, but not at others". Exactly! That's the whole point of what people like me, foxy and pelican have been saying. Therefore it's not the sexual activity or advance that's the issue, the issue is whether or not it's wanted.

Now, in the workplace, if a worker wants to get sexual with another worker, then it's necessary to be absolutely 100% certain that the sexual advance is welcomed. If the worker is not certain about that, DON'T DO IT. It really is sooooo obvious, except maybe to those who are rather dense. If the sexual activity is welcomed by the recipient then there's no sexual harassment taking place, regardless of what that sexual activity is. If the person making a sexual advance makes a mistake and realises the sexual feelings are not reciprocated, that person should then immediately stop and never do it again with that person; under those circumstances there's no real problem. But the "real" trouble with some harassers is they DON'T STOP. They keep at it, again and again and again and again.

It's NOT hard to know what sexual harassment in the workplace is and isn't.

What is it about basic commonsense and reality that some of you people don't get?

Do you maybe feel your human rights are trampled on because you don't have the right to sexually harass without consequence?

Maybe you feel YOU are the real victims, because it's harder to sexually harass these days? Is that it?

Or are you just dense?

Or philosophically opposed to not being allowed to sexually harass without consequence?

Dear Transki,

I'm beginning to suspect that some posters
may just be stirring things up for their
own amusement to get a reaction out of people.
I guess that's to be expected on a public Forum
such as OLO. It's often difficult to tell the
difference between those who genuinely are
expressing an opinion and want a discussion
and those who are simply
stirring. There's also the people who want to
de-rail threads, and others who believe that
your biological sex plays a big part in being
seen as either a victim and/or an aggressor.

To each his own

Transki

"Now, in the workplace, if a worker wants to get sexual with another worker, then it's necessary to be absolutely 100% certain that the sexual advance is welcomed. If the worker is not certain about that, DON'T DO IT."
What if we really liked the woman, thought that we should be principled and leave her alone and watched as some other bloke broke all the rules and got the girl?

We have all seen plenty of blokes who were flirting with women who looked really, really disinterested. We've all thought to ourselves "leave the poor girl alone" and the next thing we know they are together. Blokes watch that and think maybe I should be more like that.

Far too many women reward certain behaviour with sex and cannot understand why other men copy those tactics.

Its a wonder so many of us don't sexually harass.

If you want a simple rule, try "if how cute he is matters, then it isn't sexual harassment." Behaviour is either acceptable for everyone or for no-one.