I understand that most people aren’t lawyers and so might not pick up on the implications of particular criteria but this sort of definition is problematic and I believe that’s what’s pointed out by the SNL clip and the meme behind it. This definition confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one which turns sexual harassment into a strict liability tort/offense.
If it were defined as sexual advances which the defendant knew or should have known were going to be unwelcome, then it would make a lot more sense.
Otherwise, here is what it implies, let’s take two situations between Peter, Paul and Mary. Neither Peter nor Paul know how Mary feels about them.
Peter: So Mary, how’d you like to go for a movie?
Paul: So Mary, how’d you like to go for a movie?
Now, since Mary, in her own mind, fancies Peter, the advances were welcome so he’s in the clear. Since Mary, in her own mind, doesn’t fancy Paul, his advances were unwelcome so he’s guilty of sexual harassment.
Asking someone to the movies is not sexual harassment, unless you are holding your dick while doing it or something.
In any case, it’s not like there is no precedent. If I tell my best friend to give me a few dollars, it’s no biggie. If I tell a stranger to give me a few dollars, it could be robbery or harassment. If my boyfriend spanks me doing some hanky-panky, that’s nobody’s business. If he wants to spank our housekeeper, that is assault. If I punch someone in the face during a boxing match, that’s fine. If I punch someone in the face at the supermarket, that’s a jail term. If I flash my lover, he’ll be happy. If I flash some school kids, I’ll be in trouble.
Sven,
Please read Butterflies’ definition. If you find asking someone to the movies not to be strong enough, replace it with giving a compliment on looks or inviting someone on a date to watch a movie at home.
You speak of precedent, can you give me the ratio decidendi behind the distinctions you make in the second paragraph (which I agree with). You’re giving me plenty of specific examples but no principles/rules. I was using Butterflies’ stated rule and showing that it’s lacking additional criteria.
To reuse the example of the movie: It could be, in some circumstances. For example, if Paul repeatedly asked Mary to go to the movies in a date sort of way and Mary repeatedly refused, to persist in asking it would be sexual harassment.
This may be hard for decent guys to grok, but women are regularly exposed to some pretty out-there behavior. I’m talking about guys exposing themselves, trying to follow you home, explicitly describing sex acts without any prompting, grabbing sexual body parts out of nowhere, repeatedly making intrusive contract when they have been asked to stop, etc. These are things that are very much sexual and can at best gross, at its worst very threatening. And I know you don’t see it because you don’t do it, but it happens all the freaking time. It’s obnoxious, scary, and we have a right not to be subject to it.
We aren’t talking about something that is a normal advance gone wrong. Nobody is going to get a sexual harassment suit by genuinely asking a woman on a date. You get a sexual harassment suit by being threatening, and it’s the same as any other threatening behavior. My best friend will not get dinged for stalking if he peeks in my windows to see if I’m home. Joe on the street will.
Yup. I suspect what is really being communicated with this argument is that women are flakey, inscrupulous fools because they let some men get away with stuff while condemning others for the same “infractions”.
My question is, what are they are advocating then? That women consider all sexual advances from men either welcomed or unwelcomed, just so no men are discriminated against? I hope not, because that’s just stupid. Just because I might be more tolerant of an unsolicitied hand squeeze from George Clooney, that doesn’t mean I have to tolerate Jim Bob Brown from cubicle 9-233 when he makes similar advances. Could it be that George senses my attraction towards him and is flirting in response to signals of interest I’m sending him (involuntarily or voluntarily)? Of course he very well might be. If I know for a fact that I’m not sending Jim Bob those signals, there is no reason in the hell why I should welcome his hands on me. When Jim Bob does this its not wrong for me to infer that he’s acting a little bit like a creep.
Well I’m thoroughly confused by some of the last few responses. They may not be complicated but they do seem to be incoherent.
If any unwelcome advance is sexual harassment, and an unwelcome advance is the exact same behaviour that guys need to do to get a date in situations where the girl does like the guy, then that puts men in a very odd position.
We make an advance to know if a girl likes us or not, but if she doesn’t, not only do we not get a date, we’ve also committed the crime of sexual harassment.
An unwelcome advance, by itself, is not necessarily sexual harrassment.
Put your hands on someone’s ass against their wishes? Yes, this will probably count as harrassment. Asking someone on a date? It would be unreasonable to consider this harrassment if it happens only once or twice. Asking someone out on a date 5 or more times will probably cross the line into harrassment, though, if the answer is always no.
I don’t know what you mean by “exact same behavior that guys need to do to get a date”. The bare minimum for getting a date is usually by asking someone out. If they turn you down, they are telling you that any further advances on your part will be unwelcome. If you take it upon yourself to press the issue or escalate things by touching them or ramping up the personal compliments, you risk being accused of harrassment. I honestly don’t get what is so hard to understand about this.
Yep, I agree with that. Harassment implies to me either an extreme or persistent action. Creepy old guy asking young girl out…might be weird or even scary, but harassment it is not. Not one instance in itself.
What this tangent has been about is Sleeps With Butterflies’ post #137, which did seem to imply that the exact same behaviour is either harassment or not based on whether the girl likes the guy (which he may not know until he tries).
Everything that has followed has possibly been talking past each other.
I think most of us agree that #137 is not in keeping with the normal definition of sexual harassment.
If you don’t consider such to be sexual advances, it would imply that a boss can repeatedly ask his employee to a movie date, repeatedly brush against her shoulder, repeatedly ask her to dinner even after she’s said “no” and it would never constitute sexual harassment because it isn’t, according to you, sexual advances. Not being sexual advances (according to you), they can never constitute sexual harassment no matter how often they’re done.
Again, my point is that unwanted sexual advances is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sexual harassment, do you agree or disagree?
To show how erroneous it is to think it’s a sufficient condition, let’s take Peter and Mary again. Peter and Mary have been dating for 2 years and as they’re sitting on the couch watching a movie, Peter reaches over and kisses and touches Mary sexually. Mary shows she doesn’t want to and Peter stops. What do we have here? We have sexual advances. Said sexual advances were not wanted. We have an unwanted sexual advances. Sexual harassment! Peter is liable for sexual harassment.
Of course he isn’t and ought not be but that is the implication of considering unwanted sexual advances a sufficient condition of sexual harassment.
“It’s obnoxious, scary, and we have a right not to be subject to it.”
Sure, but not by drawing overarching prohibitions.
Meta-comms note: You keep giving me specific examples. While those can help illustrate a principle or rule, they can not replace it.
The question isn’t whether or not your should welcome Jim Bob’s hands even if you don’t want them. You have absolutely no obligaton to welcome anyone’s hands and you’re free to welcome anyone’s hands. The question is whether “unwanted sexual advances” is/should be a necessary or sufficient condition to trigger civil and/or criminal liability for sexual harassment. I say it’s a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.
It’s the difference between:
Sexual harassment is when you make unwanted sexual advances.
Sexual harassment is when you make unwanted sexual advances which you knew or should have known were going to be unwanted.
I agree with 2) although I may add a few caveats concerning recklessness.
I think perhaps people who are worried about the intricacies of litigating sexual harassment should become lawyers and get paid to worry about it.
The rest can just not pursue others at work if you’re bad with social interactions. And if anyone rejects an advance, stop advancing.
Yes, if a woman likes you, she’ll let you do more than if she doesn’t like you. The problem in most of these threads is that most of the men seem incapable of figuring out the first question, so the boundaries of the second question are pretty impossible to set.
Don’t stare, don’t grope, don’t push. No pictures you wouldn’t show your mom. No emails you wouldn’t show your mom. No cubicle art you wouldn’t show your mom. No jokes you wouldn’t tell your mom. And if you’re thinking “Why, I’d show my mom anything!” mentally borrow someone else’s mom.
A lot of complaints I’ve seen about “I’m in the friend zone” could be easily addressed if the person would stop the pursuit. If you don’t like being “stuck” buying her flowers and taking her places when she won’t date you, stop. Being her friend isn’t stopping you from seeking a girlfriend among people who might be receptive. And doing that stuff in the hopes of progressing along the boyfriend track when she’s already said you’re not on the boyfriend track is wasted effort.
It’s easier not to hit on your coworkers than to hit on them.
What jsgoddess says. Most of this should be intuitive, and if it’s not, then there’s no amount of explaining on our part that really can enlighten you. You either get it or you don’t.
If you’re bad at detecting interest or disinterest, then it’s best not to take any chances. Keep your hands to yourself at work, watch how you stare at people, refrain from making personal compliments, and limit the date requests to one per co-worker.
If you’re at good at detecting interest or disinterest, then there’s no need to memorize any rules about sexual harrassment. Just use common sense.
If that “did seem to imply” to you then please stop assuming and ask people what they mean because you’re not great at guessing at all.
I think you and MichaelEmouse get this just fine. I think you both are behaving as if we’re having a Great Debates nitpick but instead of trying for real understanding you’re playing the GOTCHA game! You even gave me a good laugh with us women putting those poor poor men in an odd position. Aww.
My post in #137 was not supposed to be THE definitive word on sexual harassment. Rather it was responding those this endless bleating some men have here on the board when it comes to any situation with women and dating that if a good looking/rich guy does ________ it’s just fine with women but if a nice guys (not great looking) like them does it then it doesn’t work! I used sexual harassment as an example because that is what the joke video was about in the post I responded to. Jesus jumped up Christ I never dreamed (although I should have) that this would cause a whirlwind of let-us-pick-apart-sexual-harassment so we can find a way these women are doing us wrong!
If you all are truly concerned with sexual harassment issues then youwiththeface and jsgoddess have written some really good responses you should read over and over again. But please, if we’re going to continue this sexual harassment hijack can we stop saying that the bar of sexual harassment is set at a man asking a woman out once for a date? Has it ever happened in the history of sexual harassment? I’m sure it has but pretending that’s where the bar is set that we go by makes anyone using it seem as crazy as that guy around here who acts like he needs to get a woman’s signature before sex or else he will be accused of rape.
The comment by jsgoddess in #151 is a great one because of its simplicity. If someone reads that and really doesn’t understand after that then I really have to believe they don’t want to understand and all of this is just a game. That or you are really clueless and you really should just stick to working while you’re at work and not risk doing things that could jeopardize your job.
So, to repeat, I was NOT trying to set the end all be all for sexual harassment in my comment #137. I was using sexual harassment as an example because that’s the thing the person I was responding to was talking about. Of course it is more nuanced and can require pages of documents or 20 minute videos to watch during HR seminars and cannot be fully explained for every country, state, city, municipality, and business with a few lines here on a messageboard.
I’m not asking you to explain something I don’t understand. Again (and will you please answer this) do you agree or disagree that unwanted sexual advances are a sufficient condition of sexual harassment? Based on what you said in post 147, it seems you agree that it’s not sufficient.
In post 144, you ask “what are they advocating then?” May I have a go?
I advocate that you welcome whatever sexual advances you want and unwelcome whatever sexual advances you want and that unwanted sexual advances only be considered sexual harassment when the person making them knows they’re unwanted or should know they’re unwanted or is reckless about them being unwanted.
It depends on the advance. I thought my response to Mijin made that perfectly clear.
Asking someone out on a date (assuming we’re going to call this a “sexual advance”, which I don’t) would not pass the threshold into harrassment unless it’s a repeated request that is always declined.
Sticking your hands down someone’s shirt is the kind of sexual advance that is likely to get you called a harrasser even if it’s one-time offense. Squeezing a woman’s hand during a business meeting might not get you slapped with a suit, but it’s something that could you get labled as a creep through the rumor mill.
Not every advance is the same. And this is the kind of thing that is obvious intuitively.
The problem with this that it gives men permission to take potentially offensive liberties with women, no matter how remote the probability is that she might like it. Which means women will have to put up with guys testing her interest in them by pawing her ass or complimenting her breasts and then seeing if she rebuffs them. It would be infinitely preferable for them to just keep their hands to themselves and talk to women like regular people.
What’s wrong with the rule of thumb that jsgoddess has provided? Please answer me that? If you don’t know whether your advance would be welcome AND there’s a reasonable chance you might cause offense by making this advance, then don’t make it. Asking someone out on a date would not meet this criteria, because most reasonable women won’t be offended by this gesture. Touching someone in an overly familiar way very well might cause offense, though. Probably best to not do this in the workplace, and it would be risky to do with friends too.
Absolutely, which is one reason why Butterflies’ statement above was overly broad nonsense. I see she’s stepped away from it which is to her credit.
It doesn’t because of the “reckless about them being unwanted”. Or one could say that it’s sexual harassment if it’s 1) unwanted sexual advances and 2) the defendant did not have reasons to believe, overall, that it would be wanted.
In any case, there has to be some element of intent or recklessness or willful blindness on the part of the person accused of sexual harassment.
I can’t tell anything wrong with jsgoddess’s rules of thumb aside from the fact that they don’t even try to address what should constitute sexual harassment. Given the responses I’ve been getting, especially jsgoddess’, it seems several of you were under the impression that I was asking you for practical advice on how to hit on people at work. Is that so?
Wouldn’t having reasons to believe, overall, that it will be welcome (rather than knowing it will be welcome) be a more realistic standard?