3 ms·
> 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 si
by 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 agoBut 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 agoHarassment does not require "multiple". That's just wrong.
- naikrovek 9y agoThe dictionary of definition DEFINITELY does. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
- rectang 9y agoIt 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?