It's not necessarily about power imbalances - subordinates might express interest in a superior, or a colleague might interest in another colleague, and both situations can be just as problematic as a superior expressing interest in a subordinate.

The problem is simply one person deciding to single out another person for any deviation of expected treatment especially when it has no relation to the social context or work performance/duties.

Hitting on a coworker is potentially as problematic as inviting a coworker to church. Being extra friendly to a coworker or customer of a different gender is just as problematic as being nasty and disrespectful to a coworker or client of a different ethnicity. Every scenario mentioned is grounds for making the person or possibly even those next to the person uncomfortable, leading to harassment claims. Furthermore, the idea of only behaving a certain way if the other party consents is a lack of principle. It potentially jeopardizes the protections a workplace is supposed to provide to all workers and customers. Just because a door is left open does not mean one should enter.

I don't think dating coworkers is wrong. I think making somebody uncomfortable with clumsy/forceful/persistent advances can be bad though.

But let's say you like somebody at work, so you talk to them, and you both enjoy the conversation. Then you eat lunch together at work a few times. Then you invite them to get drinks after work as a group. Then you continue to hang out when the rest of the group has gone home. Then you ask if this person would be interested in getting drinks in the future. If anybody has a problem with that I don't see why.

So again key differences: - Power imbalance - Advances on the first time you meet somebody (no evidence of reciprocity) - Advances during the job - How aggressive the advance is (a compliment? touching? inviting to a date? lewd comment?)

The problem with dating a coworker is that when they break up with you, you have to see them everyday.

That is more a life and operational issue, not a legal/abuse/harassment issue, to be fair.

Actually a breakup can turn into any one of those situations. One person can begin spreading rumors and propagating lies about the other person, or begin leaving harassing messages. Workplace morale can be severely affected. Co-workers lives can literally be in danger because of how one person in a workplace romance interprets behaviors.

You really have to understand the perspective of a company to know why any form of singling out an employee for any type of reason, including dating or romance, is a potential legal landmine.

You personally may think dating coworkers is fine under some circumstances, and so may the other person potentially involved, but others not involved and observing may find it unacceptable under any circumstance. One goal of the workplace is to ensure equal treatment and equal protection to all of its workers under any and all circumstances.

A quick google suggests that nearly 40% of people have dated a co-worker, so to say it is wrong under any circumstances seems a silly.

The lengths that companies will go to protect themselves from lawsuits is silly, but at the same time necessary given the potentially problematic behaviors and motivations of certain employees.

Inviting a coworker to church is a problem? Can someone elaborate please?

It's rude to assume someone else wants to go to your church, is into your sect of your religion, is into your religion or is religious at all. It's dangerous when you combine that with power structures from a work or other environment.

>it's rude to assume that someone else wants to go to your church

You're not assuming anything, you're asking them if they want to come. They can always just say no. Not everything has to be the end of the world. Of course you could make up tons of situations where this could be inappropriate (I heard you had a drinking problem, would you like to try church instead?) but I think in general it's a safe question.

The askers' perception may be that it's a safe question, but there are too many situations where the question is dangerous. Do you really want to have to identify as muslim or non-chrich goer when working and living in the Redstates? Do you really want to have to identify as non-religious when everyone around you is? Will your religion - or lack of - transmit your political leanings, which are opposite to the others around you?

The invitation to a (particular) church can come across as part of a package of high pressure to conform to the rest of the team. I've received these invitations while living in the US, and yes, it was very uncomfortable.

If the invitation is from someone in power over the receiver then it may be received/perceived as an order.

Isn't it also rude to assume they don't want to go?

If only there were a way you didn't have to assume, but could find out...

This may be a cultural thing, but inviting someone to go to church would be at least astonishing in France (and the rest of Europe). This is just not the place you go for a date.

There could be some circumstances where this is possible ("hey, my church has its annual fiesta, plenty of people dressed up in a traditional way - you know, the famous one! Wanna come see that?", or a marriage/baptem/other family / friends gathering) but this is not the first place which come to mind when thinking about dates.

Inviting someone on a date to church does seem odd. But what about the following:

Co-worker "What did you get up to this weekend".

Me "Just the usual. Lazy Saturday, church took up most of Sunday, what about you".

Co-worker "Not much just watched a few movies. You go to church? Really?"

Me "Haha yeah I do, you're welcome to check it out if your interested."

> You go to church, really?

is something you will never hear from civilized people in France, not in that context.

People will discuss religion as part of a general discussion, but context is everything.

In some countries that still plays very badly and it could change your relationship forever.

In the USA, which is an extraordinarily religious country versus other Western countries, the response is likely to be more nuanced, but there are sill the many matters of which religion, sect and so on to consider. Going to a (particular type) of church risks being seen as a political statement as well. Best to avoid.

Ah I see. I guess location context is important. It seems odd to me as I live in NZ a very secular country, with little to no political implications of church attendance.

If anything I'd expect to get ridiculed for believing in something science couldn't prove.

I live here in NZ too, and yes we have to be careful the other way - not to ridicule someone else's belief. There are a lot of religious people here, but religion is not something that people take to work.

I had a high school German teacher who said politics and religion were two taboos for polite American conversation, but Europeans can have more civilized discussion about these topics.

Is this not true?

It is, but religion is not a very trendy subject.

Politics yes, and I would not say that it is very civilized, so people avoid it not because of political correctness (so to speak) but rather because these discussions tend to get heated.

I'm European and I can have super uncivilised discussions about these topics.

Otherwise, yeah, but I think it matters a lot what crowd you hang out with. The USA is a big place, and so is Europe.

I agree.

You know a large percentage of long-term relationships start in an office setting.

Another perspective - the reason some of the situations above are inappropriate is not about the impact on you.

Rather, it's because some of the examples are situations where you are forced by law to interact with those people, and have no alternative.

From my "libertarian" perspective, the situation with the police officer, judge at a trial, the teacher, and probably the doctor are clearly the most offensive, because the state gives them tons of power over me without me being able to get out of it. (The doctor situation is kind of dependent on how healthcare works in your country).

The other examples are less clear cut. A waiter hitting on someone - no problem IMO (usual caveat here - it's still bad if persistent after rejection, done with pressure, etc). At work with co-workers - generally ok assuming it's done in a non-pressuring way, and there's no power imbalance (which wouldn't make it not-ok necessarily, again, depends on the situation). Car dealer - no problem.

> it's because the individual in question has a responsibility to make a neutral judgement call that will have a meaningful impact on your life.

The other reason: Sometimes an issue goes your way when you sleep with the powerful person. A cop decides to let you away with a warning, a boss gives you the job, the bank manager grants the loan/mortgage, the teacher gives you a good grade. (And conversely, you can be punished if you don't sleep with them)

If we want a real meritocracy, we need to stop flirting in the office.

We need to legalize prostitution so that an investor or manager who has these fantasies can play them out with professional help. If we viewed prostitutes as a form of health therapist and gave them professional respect rather than keeping them in the black market a lot of these guys could work out their power issues with a trained sex professional instead of creating these nightmares for innocent women who just want to do a great job or run a successful startup.

You're assuming these guys see this as a problem. I suspect for most of them, the power issues are, erotically, the whole point. Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

Plus, if it really is a power thing, then paying for the prostitute immediately screws that up. They're paying, so they know it's not as real as it would be if they didn't.

Maybe if you could pay prostitutes for them as a third party in some way, that could work.

We need the Uber of prostitution!

> Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

Because it's a lot less likely to get you in trouble (if we make it a lot less likely to get you in trouble).

Given the frequency with which VCs have gotten in trouble for this before this week, that doesn't seem like an important consideration.

I'm not certain I'm interpreting your comment as you intend. Do you mean that this happens a lot and people have rarely got in trouble for it?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Agreed, prostitution as a profession should be seen more as a therapy, than as a playground for men to exploit their darkest sexual desires. I mean, if you read some of the horrific experiences prostitutes undergo, it'll leave you with disgust. Bottomline, we men have to learn to treat women with respect and equality, regardless of their profession, period. This is portrayed superbly in Pretty Woman.

Treating it as a profession rather than keeping it in the black market would probably go a long way towards reducing the horrific experiences.

Plenty of places have legal prostition. It doesn't mean that bosses don't get sued for sexual harrasment.

(Prostitution should be legalised anyway, but maybe not for that reason)

A trained sex professional? Are there schools for this sort of thing? How does one get “training?”

> Its only a problem if the other party is not into you,

You're part of the problem.

This is a useless reply, and it has become pervasive. Technically anyone not a part of the solution is part of the problem. Instead maybe clarify on what you find objectionable to help everyone out, including parent.

Would you please not make this place even worse by adding gratuitous partisan slights to what is already a flamewar?

In what way is OP 'part of the problem'? If the other party wishes to also pursue a romantic relationship - what's the problem?

I can't speak for OP, but let me ask you this. Suppose your sister is in the back of a police vehicle, on her way to jail. Would you rather the cop who is driving that vehicle be told

A) It's okay to flirt with suspects/criminals if they are into you

B) It's never okay to flirt with suspects/criminals and you will lose your job if you do

?

Obviously the second.

If its your sister, if the police flirt with her, she will probably have an easier time in jail, maybe able to get preferential treatment. Good if you are the guilty criminal. So A.

If she is a suspect, then she would feel pressured to go along with the police's advances, because of the risk of retaliation for knocking back advances. So, B.

But for the victim of your sister's crime, she will want justice to be served, and will definitely go for B.