5 ms·

The word "unwanted" is troubling, because it means the alleged victim gets to personally decide whether the act was illegal/punishable or not, based entirely on

The word "unwanted" is troubling, because it means the alleged victim gets to personally decide whether the act was illegal/punishable or not, based entirely on their own subjective feelings. So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted. This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").

chasing 9y ago
This is the wrong answer.
- throwaway055 9y ago
  I wasn't asked a question and didn't provide an answer (or even a proposal), but I understand that having a rational discussion on this topic is difficult or impossible for most people, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
  - chasing 9y ago
    > Honest question... > I wasn't asked a question... Anyway: You didn't offend me at all. I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
    - throwaway055 9y ago
      > It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted." The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower your scope of acceptable behavior is. If Dave McClure was someone more Sarah Kunst's type, we might be reading an article about their pending nuptials. Instead, we're reading ones about how Dave McClure is a creep who should be added to the sex offender registry. That's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for the same behavior.
      - chasing 9y ago
        I think you're missing my point as it pertains to the NYTimes article: Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting. It's not. Actually, I take that back: It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life. That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.
aortega 9y ago
IANAL but I saw some comments from one, apparently in USA you have to consistently do unwanted approaches for a long time to be considered sexual harassment.
briandear 9y ago
What we need is a Tinder for the workplace. This way both sides are protected if one person says no.

chasing 9y ago

This is the wrong answer.

throwaway055 9y ago
I wasn't asked a question and didn't provide an answer (or even a proposal), but I understand that having a rational discussion on this topic is difficult or impossible for most people, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
- chasing 9y ago
  > Honest question... > I wasn't asked a question... Anyway: You didn't offend me at all. I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
  - throwaway055 9y ago
    > It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted." The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower your scope of acceptable behavior is. If Dave McClure was someone more Sarah Kunst's type, we might be reading an article about their pending nuptials. Instead, we're reading ones about how Dave McClure is a creep who should be added to the sex offender registry. That's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for the same behavior.
    - chasing 9y ago
      I think you're missing my point as it pertains to the NYTimes article: Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting. It's not. Actually, I take that back: It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life. That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.

aortega 9y ago

IANAL but I saw some comments from one, apparently in USA you have to consistently do unwanted approaches for a long time to be considered sexual harassment.

briandear 9y ago

What we need is a Tinder for the workplace. This way both sides are protected if one person says no.