Rise to what level? Bc that's a fireable action without an recourse and there is no doubt about it.

The level of a hostile work environment claim for sexual harassment.

In other news, this ****ing mind blowing official explanation for why George Bush Sr has molested women in the same creepy way for years on end was offered to BBC.

"To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke - and on occasion, he has patted women's rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...anada-41771986

You have to admit this is a sort of bizarrely laid out sequence, temporally. I think on reflection perhaps you'll restate. Because in what context would we ever justify sending a co-worker a sexually suggestive email REGARDLESS of whether or not the co-worker told you the contact was unwanted?

This is perhaps too glib, but maybe not! But I think the point bobman, trolly, myself, perhaps others are making -- in light of the very startling, troubling amounts of workplace related sexual harassment -- one possible solution:

Assume all sexually suggestive communication in the workplace is unwanted

...I'm not accusing you of this, but I feel like this sort of social norm triggers Aspie types a little bit because they take it so literally as to mean all sexually suggestive communication is unwanted, which is fallacious good sir, there may just be a horny woman out there who wants this. GRANTED. The world is full of rules that only work in most contexts but not quite all. I still think "assume all sexually suggestive overtures are unwanted" is pretty decent as a default. Your office isn't Tinder, people take their jobs seriously and it touches on a lot of critical life components, the opening moves of sexual communication can be quite transgressive and unwanted, and so "it's not harassment until the recipient of sexual communication issues you a politely worded refrain to stop" seems like an extremely unfair burden here. Like even just the opening salvo in a "I wanna get laid" and its various permutations can be kinda bothersome and intimidating for people, it seems a little much to assume that person on the receiving hand has to come tell you to stop before it becomes problematic.

^^^This I agree with. Even if you work with your so.

Still think Kill All Normies was good, don't really follow Nagel's twitter career so if she's turned garbagey, shrug. Agreed the book was pretty sloppy at points but you can kinda ignore it. And I do think "how did Nazis become Nazis?" is worth asking. Sure, they're horrible people innately and we shouldn't discount that or dismiss it. Perhaps I take it as a truism, a given, that the world is always full of horrible people and what changes are the contexts around us that can aggrandize the horribleness, or awaken latent demons in people. I thought her book had persuasive points about this.

And I think what All In Flynn, myself, and others are saying in reply is that that's autistic nonsense that kind of indicates you guys don't really understand the idea of consent.

Explain it then. Is there some sort of implicit norm, an implied consent that sexually suggestive emails are acceptable until you're explicitly told to stop?

By the way, I appreciate that the current empirical reality is that standards of what constitutes acceptable sexual communication at work are all over the place.

The idea is that we construct a social contract, if you will, where we agree that there's this sort of implied consent to the norm that we won't try to **** each other at work. Like all contracts, it involves a bit of a give and take, some obvious burdens.

Burden/sacrifice: less people will find sex partners at work
Potential benefit: less women will get sexually harassed

Note that my definition of "harassment" is a bit expansive such that sexually suggestive emails and communication EVEN BEFORE you've been told to stop (recognizing the discomfort even just the opening volley of flirtation can be uncomfortable and disquieting for many) are included.

And when I say "don't send sexually suggestive emails at work EVEN IF the lady hasn't told you to stop," I acknowledge that forever may you not quite know if she really would have been turned on by it and done you in the bathroom stall. Absolutely true. I want to make that clear. The world is not so neat that we can have everything.

Let me be clear:

There's behavior well short of what I described that's also harassment. I just was trying to select cases that are absolutely unambiguously harassment under current legal standards. Maybe I went too far and the example seems absurd. Sending an unprompted sexually suggestive email to a random coworker is bad behavior that could get you fired, and doing it multiple times would probably constitute harassment--unless, of course, the recipient gave some affirmative indication that the emails were wanted.

It's not all that hard to imagine a situation where two coworkers at roughly equal levels in a company like each other, start hooking up, and then decide send each other naughty emails. Why would you want to assume that's unwanted sexual harassment when it is clearly consensual sexual behavior?

While i can certainly agree rape should be extinguished, Lefties, like all in flynn, who think inappropriate jokes and touching should not be part of ALL societal interactions are insane.

Like to cut to the ****ing point since it's just been obliquely referenced (and I think I preemptively predicted it in my first post) but I totally acknowledge the world I'm envisioning is less fun, more staid, a bit less colorful.

Gotta meet me halfway though. If I'm fessing up to the downsides of my argument, that it makes the workplace less colorful and interesting and constitutes a limitation on natural impulses, I expect reasonable people to meet me halfway.

And unless you look like Channing Tatum or like WAY funnier than the average dip****, CHANCES ARE quite quite good, I am sure of it, that your sexually suggestive emails are creepy as **** and unwanted. I acknowledge it's not quite a given but almost. Do I KNOW this for a fact? No I do not.

But I think the startling amounts of #MeToos out there suggests a surprising amount of men are drastically overestimating their charms.

Your medal's in the post.

Oh, by 'touching' you meant all forms of physical contact regardless of context, as opposed to something placed on a spectrum between 'inappropriate jokes' and 'rape'. You are extremely smart and I have never been more owned.

Now we're talking. We have consensus, like even unprompted sexually suggestive communication (jokes, emails) are probably kinda creepy. So what about less obviously ribald things like requests for dates? I AGREE that it's a spectrum behavior; sexually suggestive emails are probably worse than politely asking to go get a coffee. But the wide range of social expectations here COUPLED WITH what seems like an incredible amount of women feeling sexually harassed suggests to me that we're failing to clearly delineate the rules in a very specific direction (too lax), not randomly.

And I'm trying so hard here to give men the benefit of the doubt, that the problem is where norms are drawn. Because IF we're arguing it's not a norm problem, those are fine, then what the ****, right? Metric ****ton of men must be terrible because there seems to be an awful lot of sexually harassed women out there. We've got the correct social conventions, men just transgress them continuously anyway? I agree that's not a norm problem, then, but speaks pretty catastrophically about the state of society.

I'm really not even sure how to proceed with this since even on 2p2 with relative non-terrible people, the argument SEEMS to be "do nothing" in light of lots of testimonies and notable examples of what seems like a pretty systemic social ill. Do I have the perfect solution? No, I acknowledge the tradeoffs. But I'm not quite sure that ham-handed references to the existing rules are solving this.

I agree that sexually suggestive emails and "Nice ass" are unacceptable outside of very specific circumstances, where there's a context leading you to be virtually certain they'll be received well. It seems both more productive and less destroy-all-earthly-pleasure to focus on getting men to set a higher barrier for "It's OK to be overtly flirtatious with this person" than to try and prohibit flirtatious behaviour outright. Particularly since a huge chunk of our sexual culture is already built around flouting ostensible propriety.

I feel like the harassment angle is only one reason it's a bad idea to date your co-workers. Dr. Modern gave that one example of one partner always taking the other's side in a meeting. Just imagine these are professors deciding who to make the faculty head. I seen that irl; it isn't pretty. Then there's the problem of relationships going sour and what that does to the workplace when jilted exes are in neighboring cubicles --I've already shared my own sob story about how that gets ugly. Note that the "don't **** down/up rule" won't help you in these spots.

Best case scenario is that things go swimmingly and it doesn't create an awkward workplace. Even then you've got a situation where you're with your significant otter all day and all night every day for years. I've seen couples that make it work but I don't think most people want a relationship with that little space.

It just seems like the downside risk isn't worth the convenience of not having to go to Christian Mingle to meet women.

Tell it to these guys imo

I ran this by my wife just to make sure I wasn't too far off base here. She thought it was much clearer that an office social life that revolves around going out after work was bad than interoffice dating, and told me she had just had a female job candidate spontaneously express the same view during an interview.

Did either of them say why, or was it just so obviously because of working mothers that it didn't need to be said?

Send me my medal's whenever you are able. I would prefer you send it by unicorn from your fantasyland.

I basically think the bolded is true, and my point is that, yes, there's a spectrum, and the worst conduct--in fact most of the conduct that reasonable people can agree is bad--is already technically illegal. I mean Donald Trump, a person accused of this kind of abuse by multiple women, is the President. Is it really that hard to believe that this conduct goes essentially unpunished because systems of financial and cultural power shelter it?

Well, I suggested:

(1) Amending the constitution to relax the confrontation clause for sexual offenses;

(2) Massively increasing the penalties for sexual harassment at work;

(3) Generally making the systems of reporting sexual offenses more accommodating for victims, who may feel traumatized or humiliated.

Do you not like any of those ideas?

Make sure you read the definition of 'inappropriate' that comes with it, champ.

Unless you are currently harassing someone or silently witnessing harassment, I think "do nothing" is probably fairly reasonable to be honest.

I have two questions/comments:

1. Define "bad". Like, does "bad" just mean they don't like it or that they think it's somehow discriminatory?

2. How does the fact that you know two people who apparently share your opinion matter?

To be fair, they are at least women, which is more than can be said for most in this discussion.

That doesn't give their opinions more weight than anyone else's.