Of course, Weinstein, Spacey are pretty clear-cut predatory [I think]. On the other hand someone who "hits on" or "chats up" colleagues because they are single or because they are cads, isn't necessarily predatory --however can become harassment, non-sexual as well as sexual, if boundaries are crossed.

My point isn't that this case isn't bad behavior, it's that we will get closer to a grey area or undefined area and will have to have a more nuanced response to those (mis)behaviors.

That's . . . not what happened in this article, though. The individual supposedly grabbed her around her waist, torso, and thighs without permission while in a swimming pool. This in addition to his other comments seems reasonably clear cut to me.

You're right. This person did more then chat up and allegedly continued with unwanted physical sexual advances.

Never the less, I think we will come to a time when companies will have to come up with something beside "zero tolerance". It's not a forgone conclusion, but I think we will come to a more nuanced approach as more people get caught up in these scandals.

Certainly the likes of Weinstein and Spacey have very little redeemability (However, we see Polanski had some abroad if not at home) but there is another class of people who do act "ungentlemanly/unladily" whatever, but not all the way to sexual harassment. For example, if we take Dustin Hoffman at his word, yes, it's uncalled for, but is it beyond the pale, given the times it took place?

Have you got any specific examples of a "zero tolerance" response to something that wasn't "pretty clear-cut predatory"?

I think companies and society have always had a clear consensus on these issues; the recent events have merely been pointing out that 'ignore and suppress' isn't a very good response.

This is the closest to a zero tolerance response to something not clear-cut predatory that I've seen:

https://www.facebook.com/Pinegroveband/posts/101557485055597...

Musician cancels his band's tour because of non-public accusation of "sexual coercion" in a relationship. What were his other options when someone presented this claim to him, presumably with some probability of the claim going public?

Who is the party who is imposing zero-tolerance here? The band leader disclosed the problem and also decided the "punishment," such as it was. I understand that you're just one person and are not representing this finding as the maximally bad situation. But I would say that if this is the worst that can be found, it's clear to me that we're in no immediate danger of jump-the-gun, zero-tolerance situations becoming common.

The fact that you're being downvoted shines very poorly on the HN community as a whole.

I understand the sentiment, but your comment breaks the HN guidelines. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

One reason we have such a guideline is that it takes time for the community reaction to actually become clear. The downvote situation usually rights itself, as it has—quite decisively—above. Only a single downvote affected that comment to begin with.

" it's predatory behavior "

Most people call it flirting (I mean the touching of a thigh).

Let's not make guys stupid romantic attempts out to be like rape.

If in a professional context, it's definitely inappropriate and must be called out.

Touching someone's thigh when they're presenting their poster at an academic conference is completely out of line. They have to be there to present their work to people, not get sexually harassed, and that's even ignoring his other behaviour. You probably shouldn't be flirting with people at a poster session anyway.

I was disagreeing with the use of the term 'predatory', I didn't suggest that what he did wasn't wrong.

Folks: someone touched someone on the thigh at a conference (inappropriately), and it's making international news? This is ridiculous.

The original Bloomberg article didn't make it so clear, but the blog post that's now linked to above describes a lot more than "the touching of a thigh".