To me, it matters significantly if refusing is retaliated against or is neutral.
If having sex with the boss is the difference between 0 firings and 1 firing, that's retaliation. If it's the difference between 95% fired and 100% fired, that's not retaliation.
Also we can say everyone gets the offer if that matters.
-
The other "dual" of this is a version where some employees have already been offered money for sex, but by a completely unrelated party. So if they want they can go take that offer now that they have more free time and only so much severance pay. (Also I am assuming they can get a new job easily enough; there are no destitution-based consent problems in this hypothetical.)
Does consent hinge on who is making the offer?
> There is retaliation, it's called jail.
You misunderstand me. There is no retaliation for not doing the gay sex thing. The default expectation is that you won't do it.
Retaliation for refusing to serve in the military is a different matter. And also why I think the mandatory service is where the actual consent issues are.
But we'd still call this coercion. The "dual" of this is "have sex with me or be fired." Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently.
> And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service.
There is retaliation, it's called jail.
Just because others are doing it doesn't make it any less of a coercion. This scales too.