I asked "What does "police state" have to do with this article?" Your answer also doesn't appear to have anything to do with this article. To start with, who

I asked "What does "police state" have to do with this article?" Your answer also doesn't appear to have anything to do with this article. To start with, who in it suggests to 'criminalize every interaction between males and females'? The article even mentions the sexual harassment in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which only concerned interactions (and not even ones based on 'sexual desire') between men. Plus, I disagree with your definition of a police state. The laws can be crystal clear about what's considered a crime - eg, holding a meeting with more than 5 people without permission, publishing without first getting an authorization stamp from the censor, not having an internal passport to move around the country, spending the night in a place not designated for people of your skin color - and still be a police state. The underlying difficulty is that "police state" is ambiguous. If you want a boss to be free to fire a employee who refuses to have sex with a potential customer, then a law banning that practice may be a sign of a police state. If you think a company should be free to reject veterans, Catholics, or Indians as employees, then certainly you might consider the existing civil rights laws to be examples of police state action. For someone who thinks that anti-discrimination laws are part of a police state, then of course anyone who supports anti-discrimination laws supports a police state. But that weakens the meaning of 'police state' to something rather tepid and useless. "There should be a law preventing the setting off of fireworks during periods of extreme fire danger" is a limit on freedom, yet hardly something that deserves being called a police state. So again I ask, "What does "police state" have to do with this article?"