[otherworld]

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right.

I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.

[rayiner]

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se.... Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

[skookumchuck]

Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.

[yontherubicon]

This is oddly enough, a lie.

Read Sexual Sabotage by Judith Reissmann. It's a reframing of Kinseyism and the Sexual Revolution, showing that the sexual statistics on Adultry, Pre-Marital Sex, and Homosexuality which precipitated the Sexual Revolution, were colored by massive selection bias, and motivated by Kinsey's own rather perverse proclivities.

EDIT: I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that the societal narrative that any of the things that you're suggesting were always prevalent is not so. Another book worth reading is A Generation of Sociopaths by Bruce Cannon Gibney. There are statistics on marriage and divorce between the Greatest Generation and the Boomers that are insane. The average GG partner count was 1; the average for Boomers was 15, and has been going down ever since.

[skookumchuck]

> I'm just saying that the societal narrative that any of the things that you're suggesting were always prevalent is not so.

I read a lot of history books. A lot of these behaviors are mentioned in passing. For example, in "D Day Through German Eyes" by Eckhertz, fraternization with french women was forbidden by army regulations. That seems to have stopped nobody, as it was rampant so much that orphanages were set up to care for the resulting kids.

Of course, that isn't statistics, and it would be pretty much impossible to turn that into statistics, but to say it is a lie is not warranted.

[cycrutchfield]

Why are you making this about laws? This is about people that are employed voluntarily needing to follow certain rules of conduct for their continued employment.

This is not about some constitutional right to fuck your subordinates.

[skookumchuck]

Legal consenting adults do have a constitutional right to engage in consensual relationships, regardless of laws and moral codes otherwise. And history amply shows they will do so regardless.

Case in point - Clinton/Lewinski. That was a textbook case of sexual harassment according to Federal regulations, except that Lewinski maintains to this day that the only abuse she suffered was from the media.

[tptacek]

Your case in point is not in fact on point. Lewinsky described what happened to her as a "gross abuse of power", just a few months back. Moreover, what happened to Lewinsky served to corroborate the stories of several other women, most of whom have stories about WJC far darker than hers.

[skookumchuck]

Monica describes it as "consensual" and a "consequence of my own poor choices."

http://time.com/5130921/monica-lewinsky-now/

Monica's story doesn't "corroborate" anybody else's story about affairs with Clinton. She's not a witness to any of those others.

[cycrutchfield]

That's nice, but completely irrelevant.

[skookumchuck]

Oh, it's completely relevant to the claim that there cannot be consensual affairs between people at different power levels, and it doesn't get much more different than literally the most powerful man in the world and an intern.

[GW150914]

Beating someone you don’t like to death with a jawbone is normal human behavior, but fortunately we’ve gotten better at deterring and controlling it with laws. If your standard for the value of a law is total 100% then yes, they fail. Rape, murder, and arson haven’t gone away, but I somehow doubt you’re arguing for laws against them to be repealed.

I hope.

Laws aren’t perfect, but they do tend to improve matters when society at large has decided that a behavior is harmful to others. Sometimes laws get it wrong, and then come under pressure to be repealed or changed. Laws against drug use for example, or laws against homosexuality not only tended to fail, but failed to target people for sound reasons.

There’s more nuance here than just “laws regulating ‘natural’ human behavior don’t work.”

[skookumchuck]

I'm talking about laws proscribing "immoral" behavior between consenting adults. Murder is certainly not between consenting adults. Neither is rape.

I don't believe this is a difficult concept to distinguish these behaviors.

[GW150914]

Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now.

That’s what you actually said, and what I responded to. The normalcy of a behavior isn’t an argument in its favor, goalpost movement aside.

[skookumchuck]

Be careful about taking excessively literal meanings. It would be ridiculous to say murder should be legalized, and you should interpret what you read in the context of a reasonable interpretation. That is, if you're interested in something other than simply arguing with people.

[jacquesm]

> and it's not appropriate in the workplace

It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.

[apersona]

I think if there's a difference in power, the person on the lower end should have a way to say no to his/her boss's advances. I think the culture today where you can talk to the media about it is a valid option and the boss should be punished for it.

But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Someone close to me got into a relationship with their boss a few years ago. The problems my friend was facing wasn't that they felt forced into it, instead, what my friend talks about is how it was everyone OUTSIDE of their relationship that's making them uncomfortable. Some of my friend's coworkers think that they didn't get into a relationship because of romantic reasons, but because of financial reasons (but in a more blunt and straight up insulting way). It's frustrating how people are so judgmental (even in different ways) just because of the position the two have.

[dragonwriter]

> But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but telling a story about how people commonly drawn the inference that the participants in such a relationship are engaging in an improper sex-for-job-rewards exchange with toxic effects on personal and working relations is an odd choice to support that claim.

[apersona]

I don't think putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is the right way.

The root of the problem is the fear of losing one's job. I think what should happen is that anyone can say "no" to an advance without fear of repercussions, not forming moral laws for where you can/can't form romantic relationships.

[repolfx]

Right ... that seems to be the obvious answer so I don't get why nobody is discussing it? Firing should be a structured process, it shouldn't be possible for a manager to fire a subordinate simply because he/she wouldn't sleep with them. Certainly in every case I've fired someone I had to build a written case and collect evidence justifying it.

Is this "I worried I might get fired if I didn't sleep with my boss" thing really a serious concern at most well run companies these days?

[squarefoot]

"constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)."

That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.

[rayiner]

There is this great app called Tinder where you can make romantic overtures to people who are voluntarily there for that purpose, and do so on your lunch break!

[yellowapple]

And what if you match with a coworker?

[squarefoot]

My point was about spare time, not places to go to meet people.

[naasking]

Yup, because when I think "romance", the first thing that's pops into my head is "Tinder".

[harryh]

You know what's a lot more romantic than Tinder? Hitting on coworkers at the office when they're just trying to get their work done.

Oh wait.

[pen2l]

It really just depends. I can literally count dozens of acquaintances who met their significant other at work, just in the past few years -- who are really happy together.

I mean, compare being at a place with like-minded people, people who likely share some of your interests, education background, etc. vs. swiping right/left for the 2-thousandth time so much so that you are fucking exhausted and questioning your self-worth after having been denied for months on end.

It's totally okay if you've started a romantic relationship at work. Just don't be an ass about it is all -- let HR know as needed, keep it professional, and all of the other obvious stuff.

[cycrutchfield]

Work-life balance is a choice. I'm not sure why you feel the need to apparently spend 16 hours a day at work, but:

- You don't need to be doing that

- You probably are not very productive working that many hours per day

[squarefoot]

Be damned the language barrier, I was writing the exact opposite: we live in a society in which we spend the most part of time either working/driving to work or sleeping. When so much time is devoted to an activity with implied social relations as it's the case of any office, finding someone of interest there can be normal. I'm not advocating that as I have been bitten in the past for that exact reason, I'm just stating that we spend too much time at workplace to ignore relations that could start there.

[lovich]

Work life balance isn't a choice for people who get lower salaries in America. The choice is do what the boss says or go hungry/homeless

[cycrutchfield]

For the type of users that browse HN, it is largely a personal choice.

[kinggfx]

What are the constraints?

[rayiner]

It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition.

Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.

[sverige]

I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me.

It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended consequences for a long time now. It's closer than ever, I can feel it in my bones.

[harryh]

Intentionally hindering the careers of people that report to you makes you a crappy manager. Doing it in a sexist way makes this doubly true.

You should stop doing that.

[sverige]

I never said I hindered their careers. I have promoted and supported quite a few women over the years.

In fact, one of them is now a senior VP at a Fortune 100. I take no credit for that. She was extremely talented. OTOH, I certainly could have hindered her advancement but did not obviously. In fact I warmly recommended her for a promotion and later gave her very good references when she moved on to other companies. These were important steps in her career. Others have continued to advance as well, if not quite as spectacularly.

What I did say is that there are some who I did not help as much as I probably could have. They could have possibly benefited from some private coaching. I am not a crappy manager for not doing that. I am a good husband and provider for never allowing a situation to occur that could have put my career in jeopardy.

I didn't make the rules, the government (and especially the courts) did.

And calling me sexist is a cheap shot that only proves my point. Accusations are easy; proof is hard. This is especially true when you take a defensive position against the known risks of being falsely accused, as I have been several times.

[DanAndersen]

As someone who has never used Tinder (and doubt any success if I were to try), my impression was that it was more of a one-night stand / casual hookup sort of thing rather than looking for long-term relationships. Is this an incorrect perception I have?

[skookumchuck]

> They view it as an imposition.

Are you arguing that women would never want a relationship with someone they met at work?

[tptacek]

He's arguing what he said he's arguing: that women he's talked to or heard about view being asked out on dates by coworkers as an imposition. I've heard exactly the same thing.

[skookumchuck]

Do people ever like being asked out by people they are not attracted to? Isn't that always an imposition, regardless of the venue?

[sverige]

Just don't do it. That is the safest position to take.

[otherworld]

Maybe. I don't know Dworkin's work well enough to agree or not. From the little I've read I'm hoping that's not the case but I think we may disagree on whether that's a good thing.

I'm going to have to disagree on your last statement too. "it's not appropriate in the workplace". People do meet at work. Bluntly hitting on someone is not socially acceptable and could even get you fired but minor flirtation happens all the time. I think that's a gray area and not likely to go away.

I don't know that "women are renegotiating" anything so much as twitter people and bots are taking extreme positions (on both sides and not just on this issue). I think this is just one case where more nuanced, moderate discussion gets turfed in favor of extreme, us-against-them position taking.