Here's a story in the news that makes me wonder what exactly constitutes sexual harassment?
Party girl has sex in hotel room with two men while the other female guests watch on and complain of being sexually harassed because they are forced by circumstance to view party girl's frolic.
Party girl is sacked by employer for sexual harassment.
I'm not passing any judgment on party girl's behavior not do I wish to take a moral stand on this issue.
What puzzles me is how somebody can use the law of sexual harassment to victimize party girl.
It seems to me that the whole concept of "sexual harassment" has become muddied and blurred like any new fangled concept to construe meanings which were not foreseen or intended when the laws were written.
We all know what harassment means.
We all know what sexual activity means, at least we do most of the time.
My understanding of this concept is that sexual activity is directed as somebody who does not wish or welcome such attention.
Being an observer or in the presence of sexual activity of other people doesn't constitute harassment in my mind.
For example, I was once in an open air cafe and a gay couple were tongue- kissing. It was distasteful to me but I hardly would have considered myself sexually harassed.
Let's not get caught up in the trend to turn everybody into a criminal because somewhere, somehow in some way, we are breaking some law or even worse, we are breaking a law in somebody's eyes.
5 comments:
One office I worked in had a stripper brought in for a birthday party. Pretty much everyone was on board with it.
I abstained because I didn't want to get involved with the whole scene, one guy who worked in that area complained that he was sexually harassed by the situation and the fact that he was forced to watch it while he was on the clock.
I can sort of sympathize with the employee that didn't want to be party to this sex romp but was stuck in a room with these people because of a work related trip.
Here in the states all of those people would have been fired and the "victim" would have recieved a huge amount of compensation for being subjected to the situation.
This was clearly not sexual harrassment - the whole connotation of harrassment is that it is repeated unwanted attention. This was one instance and the 2 witnesses were not pressed to take part at any time.
Party girls actions weren't tasteful but they really had nothing to do with work unless the company's reputation was harmed in some way.
I wonder though, if this is just the tip of the iceburg. It just doesn't sound so bad if it was just one instance of a girl getting drunk and behaving badly. BUT if the girl HAS continually flaunted her sexuality at work and grossed out the 2 witnesses with recounts of her other escapades, then this really would be sexual harrassment of sorts and the company should be allowed to get rid of her if she disrupts the office with her behaviour. I'm not sure the whole story has come out.
hammer, the difference between your example and party girl is that party girls romp occurred in her own time and not on work premises.
Jeannie, there is no suggestion of party girl doing anything inappropriate at work.
Why don't people just fuck more often. Even when it's terrible, it's better than watching television. Real sexual harassment is being deluged with pictures of Britney Spears shaved franken-cooter when I'm looking for deviant grown up porn.
Lex:
I read the article; fascinating.
I think it's well summed up here:
Jonathon Hamberger, former Howard Government employment advocate and commission senior deputy president, ruled the sexual conduct took place in a hotel room, with the lights out, in the early hours of the morning, when Streeter thought the other employees were asleep.
Most of the conduct occurred well away from the workplace, after rather than during a work function, and in a hotel room that was booked and paid for privately.
...
"Work can rule you and govern your relations during working hours when you are working in an employer space. There's a very clear line. Simply because a person had been to a work-related function and was subsequently mixing with work colleagues doesn't necessarily mean their behaviour has to be acceptable to the employer."
In other words, it's not harrassment if it's not on the clock.
Was her behavior crude and adolescent? Yup.
But it was also consensual (with her partners), and no one else was asked to join. In fact, as the advocate pointed out, it was done in the dark, when everyone else should have been asleep.
So what's the moral of this story?
Easy: Don't invite this party girl to another party.
Post a Comment