[tetrep]

Do you extend the same principles to homosexual men? Are homosexual women exempted?

I find it easier to not have to consider the sexual preferences of my coworkers when I'm interacting with them.

Edit: I should add, if someone is going to attack my character, they're going to do it regardless of what I do. I'm not going to go out of my way to prevent that.

Similar to using encryption everywhere you can: it makes the use of it non-suspicious. The last thing I want is for being alone with a coworker to be implicitly suspicious because the new norm is this sillyness.

[Dylan16807]

> Do you extend the same principles to homosexual men? Are homosexual women exempted?

The worry is about him appearing plausibly improper, so their sexuality doesn't matter.

[s73ver_]

Right, but the implication is that they'd be just fine meeting one on one with another man. That it's only women who get treated specially.

[Dylan16807]

Yes, that's the point. That this paranoia is bad for women. And the paranoia is all about a man with any element of power interacting with a woman. The first party's sexuality is somewhat relevant, but the latter's doesn't matter at all.

[s73ver_]

I'm sorry, but that paranoia is pure cowardice. If someone in power cannot meet with someone one on one without attempting anything, then they do not deserve to be in that position, full stop.

[Dylan16807]

> that paranoia is pure cowardice

Sure.

> If someone in power cannot meet with someone one on one without attempting anything

Uh, that's not what the paranoia is. The paranoia is about accusations.

[s73ver_]

And I don't buy that. People who aren't sexual predators don't have to worry about that.

[abiox]

presumably, the rate of male v male harassment accusations is very low (at least relatively), and as such doesn't much play into risk aversion.