>Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment And what of the situation in which wome

>Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic? And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors. In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females. I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.