Politely asking a peer out on a date, ONCE, is not harassment. Even though it might be a little uncomfortable in the moment, that can pass if everyone acts professionally regardless of the outcome.

Examples of harassment include:

- asking someone out on dates repeatedly, even if they've already said "no"

- propositioning someone for sex--different from asking out on a date in that it is more sexually explicit

- subtly or not-so-subtly suggesting that you have leverage over them--for example, a boss asking out a direct report and mentioning that their performance review is coming up

- making repeated comments of a sexual nature or about a person's body, i.e. "wow Suzie you look so hot in that dress" (if that happens ONLY ONCE and never again, that's not likely to be harassment, but those sorts of things very rarely happen ONLY ONCE)

- putting the other person into uncomfortable situations--following them into the bathroom, following them to their car at night, stopping by their home unexpectedly, etc.

- pointless, uninvited touching or rubbing--like walking up behind a colleague and starting a shoulder run without asking first (and respecting "no" if that's the answer)

- if you want more examples, just read the Vice story linked at the top here

There's some kind of weird disconnect in our society here. I've been in the position where I've asked a colleague out to a movie, but she gave a plausible sounding excuse each time. I stopped asking when she finally definitely said "no," but she did so with language that made me feel like she thought me a rapist. No means no, but white lies should not be held equivalent to "no."

She was trying to brush you off, hoping you'd take the hint, without appearing confrontational. It obviously didn't work. You continued with the unwanted advances, and it made her uncomfortable.

Worst than that, some people would call that harassment and chastise me and others for victim blaming, just stating a simple fact: She should have said no.

I wonder how many of these cases get into the statistics about harassment when it should just be considered simple human interaction up to the point she gave a definite answer: "No". It's quite simple, you can even make it nicer with: "Sorry but I'm not interested".

If after that he keeps pushing, then yes, it should be considered harassment.

Once I gave a guy a simple-but-polite "no" in college, and he responded with harassing emails/repeated phone calls/stalking/etc for months.

Once during an internship, a superior cornered me in my office after-hours, blocking my exit and declaring his love for me. I could've said "no", but I was alone and cornered and in a very vulnerable situation, so I stammered over excuses about being really busy with work right then and thanked God that my internship was ending in a few days.

I wish I could just say "no", because most men would be civil and bow out and appreciate the straightforwardness. But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be.

On what basis should men be treated by-default as if they are, "the type that won't take no for an answer?" Wouldn't it be parsimonious to try the "no" and see what happens, in that case? How about we're all treated as emotionally secure, professional, rational beings until we show otherwise?

But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be.

The thing about growing up where you are literally one of only a dozen asians for a 50 mile radius, is that the sociopath racists sometimes come out of the woodwork -- sometimes even to be your "friend" then really let you have it when the time is right. That doesn't entitle me to automatically assume everyone is going to be one of those jerks. Nor would that be a productive stance to take.

How about some "evidence based" life in principle, not just when it suits one's agenda? I should be treated with according to my deeds and evidence of my character. Not according to statistics attached to an attribute I was born with.

"I wish I could just say "no", because most men would be civil and bow out and appreciate the straightforwardness. But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be."

It's erring on the side of caution because I fear for my personal safety. I wish it weren't this way, but surely you can empathize with a desire to protect oneself, particularly given negative experiences in the past?

I also have no way of knowing in advance which white person is going to attack or denigrate me next. (Of all those incidents in my life, it is that "group" which is most prevalent.) Should I interact in a way which assumes any of them might at any time?

It would be parsimonious, and on average, it would work out. The problem is that the cost of being mistaken is high enough that it's worth working to avoid the worst-case result rather than optimize for average-case results. Does that make sense?

While it is not evident a guy will take a no worst than a girl would, I agree that a straight "no" will always lead to an unpleasant outcome.

My theory on why tech seems to be an outlier in terms of gender-related disputes (other than that stories about it generate lots of clicks) is that rather than being an environment of "evil misogynistic geeks wreaking havoc on well adjusted females," it's really an environment of developmentally stunted socially awkward people all around, a perpetual comedy of errors of oversensitive idiots overreacting to bumbling fools.

Either way, learn by being told, or learn by using empathy, if she doesn't counter offer it was a no. Once you've had your 3rd no, you're that creepy guy fyi.

I'd give a straight-forward answer to a fellow adult, assuming she or he will take it in a rational and mature fashion. I certainly wouldn't say anything that could be confused on the surface with, "I would, but I can't."

I find this weirdly Victorian. I should treat grown women as fragile flowers that can't take a straight answer?

Put more emphasis on "I want to avoid an awkward situation" and "I don't want to hurt their feelings" less on "but people are adults" and you're pretty much there though.

How is this a good thing? It just confuses people.

It is unfortunate and I sympathise with your hurt feelings, but I think this is just something you should take on the chin.

For a woman, giving the wrong response to an obsessed creeper can cause harm to her career, her body, or her life. (Yes, I am quite aware that women can be creepy and violent. No, it is not a frequent power dynamic in the office.)

It would certainly be nice if we could be honest all the time, but you are demanding far too much in this bargain.

I'm sure she was annoyed, but that doesn't, by itself, make the situation harassment. He can easily recover now by simply acting polite, pleasant, and professional with her--essentially, acting like it never happened. That's hard, but the right thing to do.

If he retaliated--by treating her badly, talking shit about her to other people, trying to harm her career, etc.--that would be a clear step into harassment land.

Yeah, it feels unfair, but that's life. People get annoyed at each other all the time in a typical workplace, often for reasons that seem unfair. Everyone is still expected to act maturely and professionally.

or this: http://mic.com/articles/133535/yet-another-woman-has-been-ki...

I like "no means no" as a principle. I wish everyone stood up boldly for the right to say "no." Do this by boldly saying no. The right to say yes but really mean no is something else entirely, and is corrosive to the right to say no.

I think it's telling that in contexts where consensuality is even more immediately critical, the social norm is for direct and clear communication.

awkward social burden of providing unequivocal rejections

It's unreasonable for people to assume the awkward social burden of subtle second-guessing, with the consequence of being labeled as a deviant if you don't. How is that any less unpleasant and corrosive than women having to second guess how they dress, or be thought of as a sexual target? Both of these situations needlessly eschew clear communications for illogical reasons, and hold starkly severe consequences for not adhering to them -- way out of whack with the cost/benefit analysis of avoiding a little "awkwardness."

I have also been gender neutral in my pronouns because I'm a guy, I've been asked out by women I did not want to go out with, and it was awkward, and it would have felt worse to just say a simple "No, I'm not interested". But she picked up on that just fine. My point is that there really isn't much second-guessing required. If they say yes, then you're good. If they counter-offer with a different time, you're still good. If they say anything else, that's no.

I associate this degree of social/mental gymnastics with Victorian England or the antebellum South, not rational people in 2016.

Given the number of people directly disagreeing with you here, I think you need to reevaluate your premise.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11520762

And then you say something like the above and I shake my head and wonder how both sentiments can be expressed by the exact same person. Do you not see how your other comment applies to the situation that you find personally frustrating? Do you not see how unreasonable it is to expect all women to just give a straight up "no" instead of a polite excuse?

I am pretty forthright and I find that just straight up telling men "no" is all kinds of problematic. If just saying "no" worked and solved my problems, wow, that would be heaven.