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.