You can be yourself, be human, be flexible, and not make sexual advances toward those you have power over.

In fact, if you can't do both, it's you who cannot survive in today's world. It's time for us to all get better at being more aware of our position.

>He doesn't have any power over this woman. She wasn't even hired yet to begin with.

Are you kidding? He has power over her future employment. She wants a job there, and he has the power to give her the job or to reject her. Also, if he were to hire her, he'd have power over her during her entire employment.

>Do you send just one job application when you're trying to find a new job?

No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.

>That assumes that transaction is somehow not mutually beneficial.

It is mutually beneficial, but you're probably looking at a 30:1 (or higher) benefit ratio here, in his favor.

> In the end, she's the one that has power over him, as evident from all publicity and his subsequent apology and management changes.

No, she only has power over him insomuch that she can leak any attempts by him to exploit his leverage over her. If he doesn't make any such attempts, she has no power.

This is like a cop beating and arresting someone recording him and, after the tape leaks to the media, defending the cop with "the suspect was the one with power over him because he was filming him, as evident from the aftermath."

I didn't downvote any of your posts.

>This is not how market works. The transaction you describe is not beneficial, and if that's what you see here, you don't account for all variables (one that people often miss is time, another is investment).

You were suggesting that he's benefitted by her employment and she's benefitted by being employed. I'm saying that balance is very much in his favor. She is much more at his mercy than he's at hers.

>You redefine what having power over someone means.

Then how do you define it? If you come to some sort of "gatekeeper" in a professional setting, like a hiring manager or investor, and they, right off the bat, they say they want to have sex with you, then how is this at all appropriate given they hold the power to fulfill the person's goals? A relationship like that is the definition of holding power over someone.

> This is probably my last response to you, as you (and quite a few others) seem to use downvotes as a way to disagree with me.

The direct respondent can't downvote you. You were downvoted and flagged by multiple other users.

>> No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.

> You redefine what having power over someone means.

If anything, you're the one operating with a non-standard definition of 'power'.

You misunderstand notions fundamental for what is being discussed in this thread, like power dynamics in various social situations, and confuse inappropriate behavior with honesty. It would be great if you could educate yourself on those things and read through multiple stories and researches on how views like you present affect women's and minorities lifes and careers.

> It is mutually beneficial, but you're probably looking at a 30:1 (or higher) benefit ratio here, in his favor.

Sorry that's wrong. What you're saying is she's overpaid by a factor of 30. Kind of insulting to her no?

I believe you have misread the comment. If there is a 30:1 benefit ratio in his favor, i.e., against her favor, she is underpaid by a factor of 30.

The problem here is that they met through the recruitment process and she was being considered for a job. That means that he had power over her which makes this potential sexual harassment. It would be different if they had met in a bar and talked about a job at his company and he had sent that email.

There's nothing humane or real about that line. It's just a creep who can't control his hormones.

He was aware that she was in the process of interviewing for a job with his company. It is not okay for him to hit on her in that situation, because he has power over her.

> Why should he "control" his hormones to begin with?

Because he's in a work/professional setting.

> What's so inappropriate in being confident enough to tell another person that you're attracted to them?

Nothing, if at a party, bar, or social event where people meet. In an interview at your company? Give me a break.

Why are you so upset about everyone on this thread who is honestly communicating? Isn't honest communication valuable?