4 ms·

You can't make that blanket statement. A single punch is battery. A single genital grab is sexual assault. A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in

You can't make that blanket statement. A single punch is battery. A single genital grab is sexual assault. A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in exchange for professional rewards is sexual harassment. A single message asserting that an individual is not right for their job because of their gender creates a hostile work environment, and that's also sexual harassment. Just because there can be cases where a single message does not constitute sexual harassment doesn't mean that a single message can never amount to sexual harassment.

naikrovek 9y ago
A single event can be illegal, immoral, wrong, or any one of a bunch of other words, and a single event is never harassment because harassment requires multiple events. A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in exchange for professional rewards is a sexual offence, a bad one, and alone it is not harassment. IANAL, though the dictionary definition sticks with me, especially the key words: "multiple", "unwanted", and "intentional". That's why "harassment" as a word exists, it is to indicate that multiple unwanted events have happened intentionally. Maybe the legal definition of "harassment" differs from the dictionary definition. If so, a new word for single event harassment needs to be chosen.
- rectang 9y ago
  > A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in exchange for professional rewards is a sexual offence, a bad one, and alone it is not harassment. That's simply wrong -- a single egregious instance can certainly constitute harassment, both in terms of common sense and in terms of legal consequences. What matters is severity -- and though repeating the behavior makes it more likely to be judged as severe, one bad incident can easily exceed the threshold. A quid-pro-quo proposal of sex-for-promotion is a perfect example.
  - naikrovek 9y ago
    But that's just a single instance, and by definition not harassment. Unless my understanding of the word "multiple" (and "persistently" and "continually") is completely wrong...
    - rectang 9y ago
      Harassment does not require "multiple". That's just wrong.
      - naikrovek 9y ago
        The dictionary of definition DEFINITELY does. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
        rectang 9y ago
        It is not a requirement. Consider the Oxford English definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment > Aggressive pressure or intimidation. ‘they face daily harassment and assault on the streets’ English doesn't have a definitive dictionary, anyway -- usage determines meaning. It has been the case for decades that a single quid pro quo proposal could be ruled as "harassment" in court. (As it should be!) Is it any wonder that colloquial understanding would reflect legal reality?
- ashelmire 9y ago
  Both the legal and linguistic standards for harassment do not require repeated events. You are incorrect.

naikrovek 9y ago

A single event can be illegal, immoral, wrong, or any one of a bunch of other words, and a single event is never harassment because harassment requires multiple events. A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in exchange for professional rewards is a sexual offence, a bad one, and alone it is not harassment. IANAL, though the dictionary definition sticks with me, especially the key words: "multiple", "unwanted", and "intentional". That's why "harassment" as a word exists, it is to indicate that multiple unwanted events have happened intentionally. Maybe the legal definition of "harassment" differs from the dictionary definition. If so, a new word for single event harassment needs to be chosen.

rectang 9y ago
> A single demand for quid pro quo sexual favors in exchange for professional rewards is a sexual offence, a bad one, and alone it is not harassment. That's simply wrong -- a single egregious instance can certainly constitute harassment, both in terms of common sense and in terms of legal consequences. What matters is severity -- and though repeating the behavior makes it more likely to be judged as severe, one bad incident can easily exceed the threshold. A quid-pro-quo proposal of sex-for-promotion is a perfect example.
- naikrovek 9y ago
  But that's just a single instance, and by definition not harassment. Unless my understanding of the word "multiple" (and "persistently" and "continually") is completely wrong...
  - rectang 9y ago
    Harassment does not require "multiple". That's just wrong.
    - naikrovek 9y ago
      The dictionary of definition DEFINITELY does. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
      - rectang 9y ago
        It is not a requirement. Consider the Oxford English definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment > Aggressive pressure or intimidation. ‘they face daily harassment and assault on the streets’ English doesn't have a definitive dictionary, anyway -- usage determines meaning. It has been the case for decades that a single quid pro quo proposal could be ruled as "harassment" in court. (As it should be!) Is it any wonder that colloquial understanding would reflect legal reality?
ashelmire 9y ago
Both the legal and linguistic standards for harassment do not require repeated events. You are incorrect.