Originally Posted by
vascodegama
TG
Fair point , although I would have thought that the harassment case would be easier to prove.
Harrassment generally requires a course of conduct to be pursued over two or more occassions (though not always)
Usually that covers unwanted calls, texts, visits etc but the list of possible behaviours is endless.
I think you're confusing the idea of sexual harrassment as defined in the Equality Act which generally governs workplace incidents.
The case and the comments it attracts are interesting in that they show a snapshot of how a change in attitude toward what were generally regarded as normal behaviours, driven by a vocal minority and a raft of legislation, can leave large portions of the population scratching their heads.
You can chart the change through film:
Weird science; "Are you sure you're only 15?"
Sexual assault. Lock her up.
Say anything; John Cusack tries to woo back his lover with a big stereo in her garden.
Stalking. 'cuffs on.
Any film where the protaganists have a drunken shag;
No consent when intoxicated. Rape. Lock (probably him. [Always is]) up.
I'm glad I'm married and well out of it.