6 ms·

It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures on LinkedIn

56 points by p17b 9y ago

bluetidepro 9y ago
I completely agree that it was not right for the sexual misconduct to happen in the first place. Not debating that at all. That is wrong on all levels. But... >LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, similar to going into the office or attending a corporate networking event, the theory of the case goes. I don't get how that could ever be legally enforced? Wouldn't a lawsuit like this would forever change LinkedIn if they won? Not even related to this sexual misconduct that started this, I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. This will be really interesting to see what happens next with this.
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  I too am curious about how they will define LinkedIn. From a mannerism/general code of conduct - I agree that it should be treated like an office or work-related event. Legally - it's a weird stance. If it's a direct extension of your workplace what will that mean for NDAs and corporate policies? Do they "own" the rights to all information you post while working there? What happens when you move on?
  - chc 9y ago
    The owners of an office building or event venue don't get any of those privileges either, and yet the office and work-related events are unambiguously governed by workplace rules. The fact that LinkedIn is not your employer doesn't seem like a big problem.
    - problems 9y ago
      Sort of - LinkedIn may combine things from different employers or seeking of a new employer, which your current employer may not at all approve of. So you can't really apply workplace rules to it directly.
      - chc 9y ago
        You could say the same thing about hallways in an office building with multiple tenants, but I don't think it's legally ambiguous whether propositioning your coworkers outside the restroom is more appropriate than doing it in the office.
        problems 9y ago
        Definitely - heck, you could argue any interaction between coworkers like that could impact the job. Just that many other such interactions that occur on linkedin might not, so job rules really don't apply just because it's work related but more because you're dealing with a coworker.
  - iagreeentirely 9y ago
    I disagree strongly. LinkedIn's primary purpose is connecting talent with people who want to hire that talent. Spending my work time looking for a new job would be bad. Recruiting people for a new venture I'm starting while at a work event would also be bad. Doing either of these on linkedin is more than acceptable, it's the whole point.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      If you are using a company account under which you represent the company, you presumably are doing things the company wants -- such as recruiting others to come work for that company. You also are subject to the company's policies, just as if you were interacting with someone in the office. None of this should be surprising to anyone.
- turc1656 9y ago
  It probably won't affect LinkedIn much, even if the courts were to rule strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. But this fool was using the company's account and directly representing the company, just as would be the case if they were talking on the phone or face to face. If he's conducting company business, the general rule is that the company is responsible for their employee. That's pretty much always been the case. The fact that this happened on the internet or, specifically, LinkedIn, is largely meaningless. That's why I don't think it will affect LinkedIn at all. Employers already know the risks about choosing who represents them.
  - bluetidepro 9y ago
    > Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. Ohhhhhh. Wow, yeah, if that's the case that definitely changes it more. I didn't realize that very distinct difference, I missed that part in the article. I didn't know LinkedIn had "work accounts." I just assumed all the accounts were "personal." I just thought it meant like they were messaging from their normal "personal" profiles and because he had "x" company set in his LinkedIn that meant he was "representing x company" in this context. This makes a lot more sense now knowing that detail. Good catch! :)
    - ghaff 9y ago
      It's very unclear from the article. LinkedIn does have various services for companies but, in the context of this article, it's not at all obvious that this is something equivalent to a company's twitter handle. While I certainly think of LinkedIn as largely a professional thing (and would never send these sorts of messages regardless), some of the discussion further down in the story seems off-base. At some level, I'm associated with my company in all non-anonymous or pseudonymous social media but beyond that level I'm not sure why LinkedIn would have some special status because LinkedIn likes to position itself for professional networking.
- cheez 9y ago
  This is mostly about shaming the guy. Whether or not the allegations are true (I didn't see the evidence), his name is forever besmirched. I did laugh a little when I googled the guy's name.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  It also can't possibly be true. You don't have to be employed to be on linkedin, ergo it cannot be the extension of a workplace under all circumstances.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The guy was using a company account.
    - Sir_Substance 9y ago
      That doesn't make the statement "LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace" true. Acting in a disreputable way while wearing clothing that represents my company could get me fired, but that doesn't make the local supermarket an extension of my workplace just because I walk in there with a company shirt.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        If you walk into a supermarket wearing clothing that represents your company, and you say "I am a representative of the company, acting here in my official capacity as that representative, and what I say and do here reflects the policies and positions of the company", then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did. Which is, metaphorically, what happened here: when using the company account you're not a private citizen in a t-shirt with a logo; you are the company.
        jbronn 9y ago
        See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.
        Sir_Substance 9y ago
        >then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did. Yep, I /totally/ agree with you. Still doesn't make LinkedIn an extension of the workplace. Please think about what that means for at least one second. For most software engineers, if LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, then by the wording of their employment contract (which invariably includes IP ownership clauses for everything done in their capacity as an employee), their employer owns all their content on LinkedIn, and could request it any time. That potentially makes it very hard for software engineers to use LinkedIn on a private account to look for a new job without their boss knowing.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. I think it's important that in this case, the LinkedIn account being used was that employee's work account, used to represent the company for company business (recruiting), normally during work hours. It wasn't the employee's personal account. I'd liken it to a uniform. A uniform is in the possession of the employee, it even has their name on it and is their size. It also has the company's name on it and it's clear that someone wearing it is representing the company. This is like if someone wearing a uniform came up and started harassing you.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    I don't think your uniform example follows. Is someone in that uniform who doesn't actually work for the company still representing them?
    - Veratyr 9y ago
      If they're employed by the company and off the clock, yes. If they're impersonating someone from the company, yes, but fraudulently.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        I'm talking about another case, they are not employed by the company, and not pretending to be an employee, but are currently wearing the uniform.
        Veratyr 9y ago
        This isn't possible. The act of wearing the uniform constitutes pretending to be an employee.
rcdwealth 9y ago
When anybody pretends to be authorized by a company, and employee is in conversation with authorized person, than both the company and individual shall be held liable for sexual harassment
microcolonel 9y ago
Every place where people can communicate is a place where they can proposition. If you're thinking of changing this, give up now while you have your sanity. LinkedIn is a social network which prominently displays professional credentials. I have dated women I've met on LinkedIn and it's gone just fine (granted, nobody I was doing business with, that is unwise even if not illegal). The question of the case, in my estimation, is Is it unlawful to send a picture of your genitals to a person who works with your company over a channel you might also use for business communications. This gets into all sorts of complicated matters; for example, is it unlawful to MMS a picture of your genitals to somebody who does business with your company? Is there a precedent for a similar case but with a different medium? If the precedent did not penalize the defendant, is there something about LinkedIn or another detail of the case which distinguishes it?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Did you start out the conversation with genital photos? Because I keep hearing about guys who do that, and it's just never made sense to me...
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    I don't think that's effective, I don't do it. Ogi Ogas & Sai Gaddam did some analysis which would suggest that dick pics are not effective, given that imagery of penises (and visual stimulus in general) is not a major factor in female arousal. From a personal "moral" perspective I don't see myself doing that. Excellent question nonetheless. Nobody really seems to think much when they do things like this. I think the reason men* send dick pics is because they (the men) are naturally aroused by imagery of penises, and think that women will be similarly aroused by it. It's probably a lot like a women giving complimenting a man on social stature, confidence, or competence, and maybe not understanding that he probably won't understand what she's getting at. * Edit: referring to straight men in this case
    - watwut 9y ago
      Are you saying that gay men are trying to find female dates by sending them dick pics? I have to say, those gay men sound quite confused ...
nanistheonlyist 9y ago
Don't like someone at work? Pretend to be them on LinkedIn and send someone nekked pictures. Problem Solved!
stcredzero 9y ago
TIL: There's a niche opportunity for a LinkedIn for the adult entertainment industry.
- mpeg 9y ago
  That's called Twitter for professionals and Tumblr for amateurs.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    I guess PornHub works pretty well as an IMDB analogue.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Or an opportunity for Jian Yang at LinkedIn.
wand3r 9y ago
The article also states, a few other anecdotes. A recruiter who uses LinkedIn to send unsolicited messages on the platform for professional gain was upset she received unsolicited social messages. She was unable to recognize the irony. Another businesswoman was actually a reality TV star from Trump's the apprentice. She left the platform because the lines blurred from social/entertainment/career and she was getting harassed. IDK, I feel for this woman but I am not convinced seeing dick pick entitles her to millions from a company she isn't affiliated with. Coming from the Susan Fowler thread, I really feel for her. This seems like a money grab
- watwut 9y ago
  What is the connection between this and Fowler? Seems like two completely separate issues involving entirely different people and industries?
asadlambdatest 9y ago
Linkedin is failing big time to control spam and impersonation. Keeping these social media clean is next big challenge for the tech world.
diziet 9y ago
Unlike email accounts (firstname.lastname@company.com) or accounts at various services and vendors tied to those emails (such as Photoshop, Jira, etc), many, if not most Linkedin accounts stay with people across jobs. In case of Sales Teams or Recruiters, companies might pay or reimburse for the premium services that Linkedin monetizes, and the employees might use Linkedin in the day-to-day work, but they're also likely to look for other jobs, build non-work related professional connections, etc.
vmarsy 9y ago
Most important part of the article is that the offender is a recruiter: > Jane Doe alleged that a recruitment conversation on LinkedIn took a turn for the inappropriate when she received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her. One of the messages included a photograph of his genitals. So "It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures if you're a recruiter representing the company" would be a more accurate title, but it wouldn't be as interesting of an headline. Similarly that if you're a recruiter calling someone or having a dinner with, you shouldn't attempt to seduce* the maybe-future-employee since that's clearly an abuse of power. Lawsuit or not, that recruiter should be fired. I don't think the medium (phone company, restaurant you're at, or Linkedin) should be held responsible and Nowhere on this article it says the plaintiff is suing Linkedin, she's suing the company that recruiter works for. * For some people apparently, sending a photograph of their genitals seem to be a "seduction" technique, but even if this was more tactful flirting, this is already not ok.
- mc32 9y ago
  This is tangential but somewhat related. I'd like to see a day when if someone publishes something on their personal account (not official work account) whether it be social media, private conversation, etc. that those actions not affect their "life for hire" (work) life. That's the way it has been for ages (what one would say in one's private time was detached and unrelated to public time). I hope we can get there because humans are not perfect and we will always say regretful things. Things which if held to account as if representatives of a company would carry different weight. People should be able to voice their own opinion separately divorced from their "professional persona". In other words, someone from UAL when in "uniform" should conduct themselves professionally --but once they go home and don their personal attire and their personal opinion (even if negative) should not affect their professional standing. For example, flight attendant has to deal with egotistical high profile passenger --as a professional they should be able to handle things gracefully, but once they get home as a private citizen they should be able to say "I had to deal with a nasty traveler today" without the company coming down and saying "don't demean our paying customers even if they mistreat you, that is unbecoming, you are fired".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fivestar 9y ago
While I don't condone that banker's behavior in any way, I want to mention that I pretty much refuse to speak to any women where I work unless I absolutely have to. It's really the only way to remain safe in such politically correct environments. I think something important is being lost in our day to day interactions with colleagues and not only that, but much has been taken away from our personal lives when we deal with overbearing rules. Again, not condoning the 'dick pics' that was way out of line, but merely observing that life in the US is just not any fun in or out of the workplace. I can't even imagine trying to date in a an environment where your professional life is threatened merely by opening your mouth at all. Also, there's a double-standard--women harassing men is overlooked by men, but when it goes the other way it is never overlooked. So unless a man's overtures of friendship are immediately warmly welcomed (and subject to later rejection, natch) that person's job is at risk. Meanwhile, the C-Suite and higher echelon folks are all in bed with each other, which is the other double standard.

56 points by p17b 9y ago

I completely agree that it was not right for the sexual misconduct to happen in the first place. Not debating that at all. That is wrong on all levels. But... >LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, similar to going into the office or attending a corporate networking event, the theory of the case goes. I don't get how that could ever be legally enforced? Wouldn't a lawsuit like this would forever change LinkedIn if they won? Not even related to this sexual misconduct that started this, I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. This will be really interesting to see what happens next with this.

nxsynonym 9y ago
I too am curious about how they will define LinkedIn. From a mannerism/general code of conduct - I agree that it should be treated like an office or work-related event. Legally - it's a weird stance. If it's a direct extension of your workplace what will that mean for NDAs and corporate policies? Do they "own" the rights to all information you post while working there? What happens when you move on?
- chc 9y ago
  The owners of an office building or event venue don't get any of those privileges either, and yet the office and work-related events are unambiguously governed by workplace rules. The fact that LinkedIn is not your employer doesn't seem like a big problem.
  - problems 9y ago
    Sort of - LinkedIn may combine things from different employers or seeking of a new employer, which your current employer may not at all approve of. So you can't really apply workplace rules to it directly.
    - chc 9y ago
      You could say the same thing about hallways in an office building with multiple tenants, but I don't think it's legally ambiguous whether propositioning your coworkers outside the restroom is more appropriate than doing it in the office.
      - problems 9y ago
        Definitely - heck, you could argue any interaction between coworkers like that could impact the job. Just that many other such interactions that occur on linkedin might not, so job rules really don't apply just because it's work related but more because you're dealing with a coworker.
- iagreeentirely 9y ago
  I disagree strongly. LinkedIn's primary purpose is connecting talent with people who want to hire that talent. Spending my work time looking for a new job would be bad. Recruiting people for a new venture I'm starting while at a work event would also be bad. Doing either of these on linkedin is more than acceptable, it's the whole point.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    If you are using a company account under which you represent the company, you presumably are doing things the company wants -- such as recruiting others to come work for that company. You also are subject to the company's policies, just as if you were interacting with someone in the office. None of this should be surprising to anyone.
turc1656 9y ago
It probably won't affect LinkedIn much, even if the courts were to rule strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. But this fool was using the company's account and directly representing the company, just as would be the case if they were talking on the phone or face to face. If he's conducting company business, the general rule is that the company is responsible for their employee. That's pretty much always been the case. The fact that this happened on the internet or, specifically, LinkedIn, is largely meaningless. That's why I don't think it will affect LinkedIn at all. Employers already know the risks about choosing who represents them.
- bluetidepro 9y ago
  > Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. Ohhhhhh. Wow, yeah, if that's the case that definitely changes it more. I didn't realize that very distinct difference, I missed that part in the article. I didn't know LinkedIn had "work accounts." I just assumed all the accounts were "personal." I just thought it meant like they were messaging from their normal "personal" profiles and because he had "x" company set in his LinkedIn that meant he was "representing x company" in this context. This makes a lot more sense now knowing that detail. Good catch! :)
  - ghaff 9y ago
    It's very unclear from the article. LinkedIn does have various services for companies but, in the context of this article, it's not at all obvious that this is something equivalent to a company's twitter handle. While I certainly think of LinkedIn as largely a professional thing (and would never send these sorts of messages regardless), some of the discussion further down in the story seems off-base. At some level, I'm associated with my company in all non-anonymous or pseudonymous social media but beyond that level I'm not sure why LinkedIn would have some special status because LinkedIn likes to position itself for professional networking.
cheez 9y ago
This is mostly about shaming the guy. Whether or not the allegations are true (I didn't see the evidence), his name is forever besmirched. I did laugh a little when I googled the guy's name.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
It also can't possibly be true. You don't have to be employed to be on linkedin, ergo it cannot be the extension of a workplace under all circumstances.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The guy was using a company account.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    That doesn't make the statement "LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace" true. Acting in a disreputable way while wearing clothing that represents my company could get me fired, but that doesn't make the local supermarket an extension of my workplace just because I walk in there with a company shirt.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      If you walk into a supermarket wearing clothing that represents your company, and you say "I am a representative of the company, acting here in my official capacity as that representative, and what I say and do here reflects the policies and positions of the company", then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did. Which is, metaphorically, what happened here: when using the company account you're not a private citizen in a t-shirt with a logo; you are the company.
      - jbronn 9y ago
        See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.
      - Sir_Substance 9y ago
        >then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did. Yep, I /totally/ agree with you. Still doesn't make LinkedIn an extension of the workplace. Please think about what that means for at least one second. For most software engineers, if LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, then by the wording of their employment contract (which invariably includes IP ownership clauses for everything done in their capacity as an employee), their employer owns all their content on LinkedIn, and could request it any time. That potentially makes it very hard for software engineers to use LinkedIn on a private account to look for a new job without their boss knowing.
Veratyr 9y ago
> I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. I think it's important that in this case, the LinkedIn account being used was that employee's work account, used to represent the company for company business (recruiting), normally during work hours. It wasn't the employee's personal account. I'd liken it to a uniform. A uniform is in the possession of the employee, it even has their name on it and is their size. It also has the company's name on it and it's clear that someone wearing it is representing the company. This is like if someone wearing a uniform came up and started harassing you.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I don't think your uniform example follows. Is someone in that uniform who doesn't actually work for the company still representing them?
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    If they're employed by the company and off the clock, yes. If they're impersonating someone from the company, yes, but fraudulently.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      I'm talking about another case, they are not employed by the company, and not pretending to be an employee, but are currently wearing the uniform.
      - Veratyr 9y ago
        This isn't possible. The act of wearing the uniform constitutes pretending to be an employee.

rcdwealth 9y ago

When anybody pretends to be authorized by a company, and employee is in conversation with authorized person, than both the company and individual shall be held liable for sexual harassment

microcolonel 9y ago

Every place where people can communicate is a place where they can proposition. If you're thinking of changing this, give up now while you have your sanity. LinkedIn is a social network which prominently displays professional credentials. I have dated women I've met on LinkedIn and it's gone just fine (granted, nobody I was doing business with, that is unwise even if not illegal). The question of the case, in my estimation, is Is it unlawful to send a picture of your genitals to a person who works with your company over a channel you might also use for business communications. This gets into all sorts of complicated matters; for example, is it unlawful to MMS a picture of your genitals to somebody who does business with your company? Is there a precedent for a similar case but with a different medium? If the precedent did not penalize the defendant, is there something about LinkedIn or another detail of the case which distinguishes it?

jessaustin 9y ago
Did you start out the conversation with genital photos? Because I keep hearing about guys who do that, and it's just never made sense to me...
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I don't think that's effective, I don't do it. Ogi Ogas & Sai Gaddam did some analysis which would suggest that dick pics are not effective, given that imagery of penises (and visual stimulus in general) is not a major factor in female arousal. From a personal "moral" perspective I don't see myself doing that. Excellent question nonetheless. Nobody really seems to think much when they do things like this. I think the reason men* send dick pics is because they (the men) are naturally aroused by imagery of penises, and think that women will be similarly aroused by it. It's probably a lot like a women giving complimenting a man on social stature, confidence, or competence, and maybe not understanding that he probably won't understand what she's getting at. * Edit: referring to straight men in this case
  - watwut 9y ago
    Are you saying that gay men are trying to find female dates by sending them dick pics? I have to say, those gay men sound quite confused ...

nanistheonlyist 9y ago

Don't like someone at work? Pretend to be them on LinkedIn and send someone nekked pictures. Problem Solved!

stcredzero 9y ago

TIL: There's a niche opportunity for a LinkedIn for the adult entertainment industry.

mpeg 9y ago
That's called Twitter for professionals and Tumblr for amateurs.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I guess PornHub works pretty well as an IMDB analogue.
tyingq 9y ago
Or an opportunity for Jian Yang at LinkedIn.

wand3r 9y ago

The article also states, a few other anecdotes. A recruiter who uses LinkedIn to send unsolicited messages on the platform for professional gain was upset she received unsolicited social messages. She was unable to recognize the irony. Another businesswoman was actually a reality TV star from Trump's the apprentice. She left the platform because the lines blurred from social/entertainment/career and she was getting harassed. IDK, I feel for this woman but I am not convinced seeing dick pick entitles her to millions from a company she isn't affiliated with. Coming from the Susan Fowler thread, I really feel for her. This seems like a money grab

watwut 9y ago
What is the connection between this and Fowler? Seems like two completely separate issues involving entirely different people and industries?

asadlambdatest 9y ago

Linkedin is failing big time to control spam and impersonation. Keeping these social media clean is next big challenge for the tech world.

diziet 9y ago

Unlike email accounts (firstname.lastname@company.com) or accounts at various services and vendors tied to those emails (such as Photoshop, Jira, etc), many, if not most Linkedin accounts stay with people across jobs. In case of Sales Teams or Recruiters, companies might pay or reimburse for the premium services that Linkedin monetizes, and the employees might use Linkedin in the day-to-day work, but they're also likely to look for other jobs, build non-work related professional connections, etc.

vmarsy 9y ago

Most important part of the article is that the offender is a recruiter: > Jane Doe alleged that a recruitment conversation on LinkedIn took a turn for the inappropriate when she received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her. One of the messages included a photograph of his genitals. So "It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures if you're a recruiter representing the company" would be a more accurate title, but it wouldn't be as interesting of an headline. Similarly that if you're a recruiter calling someone or having a dinner with, you shouldn't attempt to seduce* the maybe-future-employee since that's clearly an abuse of power. Lawsuit or not, that recruiter should be fired. I don't think the medium (phone company, restaurant you're at, or Linkedin) should be held responsible and Nowhere on this article it says the plaintiff is suing Linkedin, she's suing the company that recruiter works for. * For some people apparently, sending a photograph of their genitals seem to be a "seduction" technique, but even if this was more tactful flirting, this is already not ok.

mc32 9y ago
This is tangential but somewhat related. I'd like to see a day when if someone publishes something on their personal account (not official work account) whether it be social media, private conversation, etc. that those actions not affect their "life for hire" (work) life. That's the way it has been for ages (what one would say in one's private time was detached and unrelated to public time). I hope we can get there because humans are not perfect and we will always say regretful things. Things which if held to account as if representatives of a company would carry different weight. People should be able to voice their own opinion separately divorced from their "professional persona". In other words, someone from UAL when in "uniform" should conduct themselves professionally --but once they go home and don their personal attire and their personal opinion (even if negative) should not affect their professional standing. For example, flight attendant has to deal with egotistical high profile passenger --as a professional they should be able to handle things gracefully, but once they get home as a private citizen they should be able to say "I had to deal with a nasty traveler today" without the company coming down and saying "don't demean our paying customers even if they mistreat you, that is unbecoming, you are fired".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fivestar 9y ago

While I don't condone that banker's behavior in any way, I want to mention that I pretty much refuse to speak to any women where I work unless I absolutely have to. It's really the only way to remain safe in such politically correct environments. I think something important is being lost in our day to day interactions with colleagues and not only that, but much has been taken away from our personal lives when we deal with overbearing rules. Again, not condoning the 'dick pics' that was way out of line, but merely observing that life in the US is just not any fun in or out of the workplace. I can't even imagine trying to date in a an environment where your professional life is threatened merely by opening your mouth at all. Also, there's a double-standard--women harassing men is overlooked by men, but when it goes the other way it is never overlooked. So unless a man's overtures of friendship are immediately warmly welcomed (and subject to later rejection, natch) that person's job is at risk. Meanwhile, the C-Suite and higher echelon folks are all in bed with each other, which is the other double standard.