Definitely agree with you there. I added the extra "made clear they had a significant other" since it would help to push the line even further into unacceptable territory. I don't mean to imply that the relationship status is a necessary condition for unacceptability. The fact that women have learned to use the existence of an SO as an escape rather than outright saying no reflects poorly on the men that caused the learned behavior.

Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company.

This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career.

Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility.

Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech.

It's pervasive. Still.

What prompts this kind of mentality?

Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.

Maladjusted chuds being maladjusted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...

That's not what they said at all.

> > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.

Stop rounding people to stereotypes.

"And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault".

Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it.

So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?

Ignorance of the law is not a defence against it. That's right and proper.

If I believe you are happy with me taking money from your wallet, and so take some. Can you see that would be a different category morally to if I believed you would condemn such action and yet still took the money. Both situations might be theft, both might be judged morally wrong. But to me the moral character of the person in the two situations is different. And, that differences is worthy of note.

"her silence [...] causing him to escalate to naked pictures"

Don't blame the victim's silence for "causing" an "escalation" to sending naked pictures. He decided to do it of his own free will, she did not "cause" him to do that by being silent.

based upon your post I can understand why you find it difficult identifying such a thing, but there it is.

You're so blinded by your beliefs you've lost all sense of fairness and balance and mistake moderates as the being of the opposing faction.

Yes, and even if the person being rejected poses no risk it's nice to spare their feelings with what amounts to a little white lie. It helps everybody save face and ideally allows the conversation to move on to other things.