4 ms·

> That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not act

> That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. Extrapolation into actual numbers is both difficult and meaningless. Even if 99/100 people never actually mean "no" it would not make it okay to harass the 1/100. > The problem of sexual harassment [...] This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say.

einhverfr 14y ago
No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. So you think that sometimes but not a significant portion? Not enough to pay attention to? This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say. Well, you have a problem. Yes, harassment generally is a bad thing. Most people you would hope wouldn't keep asking someone out on a date after getting shot down a bunch of times. That's not necessarily harassment though. It could be socially clueless or stupid, or whatever. Moreover at a bare minimum such behavior smacks of the sort of failure that builds on itself. But being afraid of committing harassment is as big a danger (or perhaps even larger) as actually harassing someone. You can't have the confidence that people find attractive if you are always afraid of crossing lines. Sexy men are unafraid of sexual harassment lines. They don't need to be. It will never become sufficiently severe or pervasive because there are always greener pastures and one isn't going to waste time with the uninterested. If "no means no" means you don't get to ask again for a date even if it is not made crystal clear that no means never, then if you are ever turned down by your spouse for sex, I guess you have to get a divorce if sex is important to the marriage. Nobody believes that. And between those extremes it is impossible to draw articulable lines. It's like these recent cybercrime laws that makes it a crime to knowingly cause offence or embarrassment. Sometimes people should be offended or embarrassed. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out these on their face criminalize on-line complaining about cheating significant others.....
einhverfr 14y ago
Oh also one point on the absurdity of how sexual harassment laws are interpreted (in part because of vague standards like "severe" and "pervasive"). In the Jacksonville Shipyards case, there was a real sexual harassment problem. This included some pretty vile behavior including male workers opening up a female co-workers tookbox and placing pornographic images there. The behavior was vile, included real trespasses of personal space (the toolbox) and was pervasive. She rightfully won her case. However because the judgement ordered Jacksonville Shipyards to have a policy banning pornographic images in the workplace (reasonable even given 1st Amendment issues in the context of the specific behavior at issue), everyone has cited this case as an authority that presence of pornographic images in the workplace equals sexual harassment, in part because the standards are so vague that lawyers can't give any bright lines aside from "ban all behavior that anyone might find offensive." But this flies in the face of logic. In a nation where porn consumption is rapidly approaching gender parity no such rule makes objective sense. This gets even worse when looking at hostile public accommodation harassment because there have been cases where businesses have been held accountable for customer actions. Perhaps someone should sue reddit over the fact that they have subreddits that are for porn? After all, reddit is a public accommodation, right? But that would be silly and it would not be ok first-amendment-wise, would it? Also I think your post fails to realize that semantic systems really do require negotiating possibilities. If "no" may or may not mean "never" I think you have to give people any benefit of the doubt, and require that the person wishing to establish any no-further-contact rule be absolutely clear. Otherwise rules no longer rule, and whoever takes the greatest offense gets the most power. Such a subjective approach is wholely unacceptable any view that people should have reasonable opportunity to stay within rules defined ahead of time. Otherwise where do you stop?

einhverfr 14y ago

No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. So you think that sometimes but not a significant portion? Not enough to pay attention to? This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say. Well, you have a problem. Yes, harassment generally is a bad thing. Most people you would hope wouldn't keep asking someone out on a date after getting shot down a bunch of times. That's not necessarily harassment though. It could be socially clueless or stupid, or whatever. Moreover at a bare minimum such behavior smacks of the sort of failure that builds on itself. But being afraid of committing harassment is as big a danger (or perhaps even larger) as actually harassing someone. You can't have the confidence that people find attractive if you are always afraid of crossing lines. Sexy men are unafraid of sexual harassment lines. They don't need to be. It will never become sufficiently severe or pervasive because there are always greener pastures and one isn't going to waste time with the uninterested. If "no means no" means you don't get to ask again for a date even if it is not made crystal clear that no means never, then if you are ever turned down by your spouse for sex, I guess you have to get a divorce if sex is important to the marriage. Nobody believes that. And between those extremes it is impossible to draw articulable lines. It's like these recent cybercrime laws that makes it a crime to knowingly cause offence or embarrassment. Sometimes people should be offended or embarrassed. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out these on their face criminalize on-line complaining about cheating significant others.....

einhverfr 14y ago

Oh also one point on the absurdity of how sexual harassment laws are interpreted (in part because of vague standards like "severe" and "pervasive"). In the Jacksonville Shipyards case, there was a real sexual harassment problem. This included some pretty vile behavior including male workers opening up a female co-workers tookbox and placing pornographic images there. The behavior was vile, included real trespasses of personal space (the toolbox) and was pervasive. She rightfully won her case. However because the judgement ordered Jacksonville Shipyards to have a policy banning pornographic images in the workplace (reasonable even given 1st Amendment issues in the context of the specific behavior at issue), everyone has cited this case as an authority that presence of pornographic images in the workplace equals sexual harassment, in part because the standards are so vague that lawyers can't give any bright lines aside from "ban all behavior that anyone might find offensive." But this flies in the face of logic. In a nation where porn consumption is rapidly approaching gender parity no such rule makes objective sense. This gets even worse when looking at hostile public accommodation harassment because there have been cases where businesses have been held accountable for customer actions. Perhaps someone should sue reddit over the fact that they have subreddits that are for porn? After all, reddit is a public accommodation, right? But that would be silly and it would not be ok first-amendment-wise, would it? Also I think your post fails to realize that semantic systems really do require negotiating possibilities. If "no" may or may not mean "never" I think you have to give people any benefit of the doubt, and require that the person wishing to establish any no-further-contact rule be absolutely clear. Otherwise rules no longer rule, and whoever takes the greatest offense gets the most power. Such a subjective approach is wholely unacceptable any view that people should have reasonable opportunity to stay within rules defined ahead of time. Otherwise where do you stop?