Dating is less complicated when it does not involve coworkers so there is also the possibility he could have rejected her so he could ask her out.

Can you explain that claim, and is that claim in any way falsifiable?

Explain it? Sure. There's always subtexts in human interactions. Pressure doesn't have to be explicit. When a policeman tells you to pull over, there's an implied "or you'll be arrested" that we all understand even though he never comes out and says so. When your crappy boss asks you to come work overtime on the weekend without any additional pay, there's an implied "or I'll make your life at this company difficult, or maybe just fire you" that he usually doesn't need to state.

Your crappy boss might not mean it that way. He might be asking with absolutely pure intent, with the idea that you'll say no if you don't want to come in, and you'd work extra because you like it, or believe in the company, or whatever. But it doesn't matter, the implication is still there, because of the power he holds.

Now, you get rejected from an interview. Shortly after, the interviewer asks you for a favor. There is an implied "if you do this for me, I might reconsider the rejection." Again, he might not mean it, but it's still there, because he has that power. Or at least you have good reason to think he has that power.

Is this claim falsifiable? Beats me. Ask a sociologist if you want to get scientific about it.

> When a policeman tells you to pull over, there's an implied "or you'll be arrested" that we all understand even though he never comes out and says so. When your crappy boss asks you to come work overtime on the weekend without any additional pay, there's an implied "or I'll make your life at this company difficult, or maybe just fire you" that he usually doesn't need to state.

Both are those claims are simple to explain. Policemen clearly do arrest people if they don't pull over, and bosses clearly do penalize or fire people for not following orders (even unreasonable orders). And intention doesn't really come into play for either of those examples, because it's clear that both policemen and bosses intend to be issuing threats.

You haven't given any similar explanation for why asking someone on a date after interviewing and rejecting them carries the same implication. (For clarity, note that I don't approve of doing so, but for a different reason.)

You're saying the other examples are clear because people actually do these things, but the date example isn't clear because men don't retaliate against women who refuse a request for a date?

I'm not sure what I can tell you besides, yes, yes they do, all the time.

> You're saying the other examples are clear because people actually do these things, but the date example isn't clear because men don't retaliate against women who refuse a request for a date?

I'm not saying that men don't regularly do that. I'm saying I have absolutely zero evidence of men doing that. It might happen, but right now I am much more sure that policemen arrest people for refusing to pull over nearly 100% of the time than I am that male employers retaliate against women employees/candidates who refuse a date.

Again, I'm not sure what to tell you besides yes, this happens, all the time. Maybe ask some of the women in your life how careful they have to be when turning down men who ask them out. Maybe google "fired for rejecting a date" (but beware, there's a lot of noise in the results). Women (and men) absolutely suffer retaliation in the workplace for rejecting advances.

My point is that the claim that policemen routinely arrest people who refuse to pull over is far less uncertain or controversial than the claim that male employers routinely ask women on dates and make their employment contingent on their response.

I don't see anything uncertain or controversial about it. You appear to disagree, but I have a hard time seeing why. I gave you a couple of places where you might find the stuff I'm talking about.