Of course this is true. I tried to throw out a simple hypothetical to see how you'd act in the absence of further data. Sorry, I may not have been clear about this.

About one-sixth of American couples meet through work, and it's much the same in Britain. That's a lot of people. And the idea that you can or should countermand that particular force of nature -- sexual attraction -- by bureaucratic fiat is... quite startling.

Right yeah.

I'm trying to figure out if people want to ban workplace dating because (a) they think women consider it a net negative, or (b) they recognize women think it's a net positive but want to ban it anyway.

If A, Im pretty confident they're wrong, but their heart is in the right place. And if they're right, and women want to ban dating, then I change my mind on this issue full stop.

If B, though, man, that is some Jeff Sessions ****.

Well, I don't agree it would increase the scope and severity of the issue. Sounds pretty hypothetical. It sounds like the whole "if you criticize and silence racists too much, they'll be driven into further frustration and anger and then really lash out." Alternate outcomes might be changed behavior.

But I am not a totally hard hearted soul. It's like the same sort of sympathy for low-self-awareness creeps and low-social-status men that I have for say the old racist grandma stranded out in the dying Rust Belt town whose grandson died of opiod abuse and fumes about Barack Hussein and rap music. It's a critical empathy. I think society SHOULD be doing a lot more to socialize boys and men and the startling, very troubling amounts of sexual harassment are due to some extent to holistic cultural and social problems. Hence why I said earlier we should do both: normal social interaction has benefits and should be encouraged, but I don't know that we're gonna solve THAT anytime soon, so we have a responsibility to make the workplace better for women.

It's more like the argument that sequestering white people from minorities makes them more racist.

Uh huh. This argument. Haven't seen this one for the last few hundred posts.

So if we took out the bureaucratic fiat, and instead said:



Normal people countermand their sexual attractions all the time. And I hope the SHOULD part of that goes without saying. In light of the incredible amount of sexually harassment going on, "countermand(ing) that particular force of nature -- sexual attraction" sounds pretty urgent.

Still struggling to parse this one out, but note I'm not really calling for segregation. Can't any of you work with women without asking them on dates and talking about how they look? Well, we're all nice, maybe we can. I think we can make the rules clearer for low-social-awareness dudes who need a clarification, and to stop letting predatory types defer to ambiguity.

But anyway, can't really make sense of this. Stricter policies about interactions between men and women will...make men sexually harass more? Deepen their desire to sexually harass?

Remember the anxiety about letting racist idiots stew out in the Ohio exurbs is that for better or worse we form a political polity with them and so we share some fates and have some leverage over each other. Let that **** go unresolved and they might elect a racist authoritarian dangerously unqualified game show host President, we might want to get out ahead of that, I get it. It's debatable.

Some man who really wants to sexually harass women but is deterred from doing it by stricter policies that promote vigilance and removes ambiguity about propriety and that...is going to cause him vote out the corporate board and appoint Bill Cosby the new CEO?

Like I'm just not following this. I can sort of appreciate how in a democracy, letting a bunch of racists stew silently in segregated communities about how much they hate black people is potentially problematic.

Making low self awareness men go take their sexual energy literally anywhere else, out of the workplace, or just be forced to work while sexually frustrated is *the point*.

There are already a lot of bill Cosby ceos though. I generally like the thrust of Dvaut a posts but I don't like the idea of an outright ban on dating at work and I do think it could lead to weird interactions. In a lot of low income jobs people to some degree need to mingle together to stay sane they actually need each other's friendship to get by. And sometimes that leads to couples making a combined income and life together.

Not at the same rate. People who have a lessor drive to perpetuate their genes are less likely to contribute children who will inherit this characteristic. Those with the opposite characteristic have more incentive to hrrass if they are male than female. There is no analogous situation holding up the elimination of racism.

You really need help understanding how taking away a socially-awkward guy's possibly only opportunity to meaningfully interact with a woman could make them even more of a freak and very weird dude and lead to worse societal outcomes? You don't think those people become Trump voters the same way racists in Ohio do?

No matter what Dvaut's views on the subject is this is completely absurd.

The fact that the role of women has changed as drastically as it has in just a handful of generations should tell you that culture is overwhelmingly the main driver here AINEC. The flexibility of birth rates relative to economic circumstances should tell you to basically abandon this whole line of reasoning.

They almost certainly already have. I have a theory that for men under 40, likeliness of voting for Trump is pretty strongly correlated with sexual frustration.

Just to make this abundantly clear-- Im on DVaut's side that in no way whatsoever should this affect policy, and my sympathy for this cohort is quite limited. But ya, I'm convinced this effect exists. Someone should write a book on gamergate and its connection to the origins of the alt right movement.

Yeah I dunno what to say here. Think this is pretty absurd but whatever. I'll repeat what I said before: I'm all for a critical empathy, but I wouldn't ask women to be training dummies for low social awareness dudes to get some practice on, even if it means some men become hardcore right wing reactionaries because they can't talk to women at work without devolving into asking them out on dates.

Think this is getting esoteric. I appreciate what .Alex. is getting at, kind of. It's the microbet take at best, veering towards deplorableness at worst (I take it on face .Alex. means well).

It's the (at best): just how much do we have to genuflect to capital and our bosses, this is really subservient, really puts a damper on the human spirit? take.

Or at worst, the whole "is it really fair to ask only the idiots to control their sexual impulses, have some sympathy?" take.

Now with a threat of deepening Trumpism to I guess really stir me into changing my mind here.

Still, not compelled.

This is what I was trying to say, you said it better.

If some dude is really so dysfunctional and shut-in that work is literally the only place he gets to interact with women, I really don't think letting him make an awkward pass at a co-worker is going to change much. Like, I dunno man, maybe join a book club or something.

Yea it feels like we're going around in circles at this point, but it's just confusing why this is the one issue where you are getting triggered into taking a puritanical illiberal stance.

Problem: Drug abuse
Conservative solution: Ban all drugs
Liberal solution: Education and rehabilitation

Problem: Teen pregnancy
Conservative solution: Tell teenagers not to have sex
Liberal solution: Inform people of the risks and allow easy access to birth control

Problem: Sexual harassment in the workplace
Liberal solution: Promote respect for women and treat them like human beings
Dvaut/Mike Pence solution: Prohibit office romance!

It's almost like I've repeated ad nauseum a very specific proposal for dealing with this problem with citations to a book and several magazine articles by women, but I do like that you've moved over into explicit anti-feminism here. Only a true nobleman like thee can save the hapless fairer sex from itself!

im not talking about allowing people to flirt and date at work for weirdos; i'm just referring to normal people. Who in a reasonable work environment are going to do that at some point anyway.

Yea I guess you just underestimate how many people work really long hours and/or don't have legitimate social networks. And literally the number one piece advice I would give to a depressed guy that struggles to make friends is "go try to hang out with someone from work."

Your chances of passing on your genes are higher if you don't sexually harass people but whatever it's semantics.

Please do not conflate people on the spectrum with 4chan forum members. I am not one of those and neither are the vast majority of others on the spectrum.

I know it's a bit off-topic but it is very bothersome to have a group of millions from all different walks of life associated with the dregs of society.

It's like we are talking about two different issues but I don't understand the idea that you need to be some social recluse to socialize at work or where that came from. Social people talk to people everywhere and are the people more likely to be involved in workplace romances.

Isn't signing up for a dating website a better play here? More potential dates out there, fewer consequences if things go badly. You're not really expanding your social circle if your off-work friends are also your co-workers.

I feel like we're still a long way from needing some Brave New World system where we get company-assigned wives.

Like 80% of the users here are somewhere on the spectrum, I assume when people here use it, it's in a familiar sense, like black dudes dropping the N-bomb.