[minopret]

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office?

Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fairly clear, and it is worth reviewing. Don't take my word for it, but I think if you check your authorities you may get confirmation.

First, no "quid pro quo." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you will provide business advantage in exchange for affectionate acts from a person who is sexually attractive to you. This principle is an excellent reason not to ask an interviewee to go out on a date (slightly simplifying an example from elsewhere in recent Hacker News).

Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.

[pauleastlund]

> Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.

+1. I've personally never really gotten the whole "bonding over women we mutually find attractive" aspect of hetero male culture (and I guess there are parallels for other genders/orientations) but those who are into it really need to understand how off-putting it can be to other people. I'm a straight guy and I often find it a little off-putting, but I can clearly tell from facial expressions how much more uncomfortable the women in the room become, and I am not particularly socially perceptive. This stuff really has no place in any setting connected to the office.

[elevensies]

I think this is a good rubric, for things you can control.

There can also be things that are way outside your control, that are almost guaranteed to cause serious/widespread feels. For example:

1. a co-worked is very attracted to you, and can't take a hint. Your continued romantic rejection will certainly inflict pain.

2. you exchange fluids with someone (totally unrelated to work) and then later discover that it is someone's recent ex and they are going to find out, and they're really not going to like it.

3. Your boss is in love with you and decreasingly able to hide it.

......

These are situation you can't solve, but you also can't do nothing.

- talk to a someone about it at work. ideally someone with authority, who knows the people involved. just casually, so you aren't kicking off a big process, but so that they can see what is happening before that negative feelings that are being generated metastasise into something more serious.

- gossip ... hold your nose and address it. if you don't it will slowly become accepted fact.

- communicate rejection clearly

[thomasahle]

I think got most of it, but I missed the connection between "people who are sexually attractive to you" and "people who are uncomfortable with glamour photos of models".

Or is "people who are sexually attractive to you" just a lawyer term for "people of a sex you might want to have sex with"?

[loumf]

It doesn't matter if you are attracted to them or their gender and it doesn't matter if they are offended. Having a calendar of models in swimsuits is not going to fly. The rule must be something else.

But, honestly, if you think you might not understand where the line is, get a cat poster and be done with it.

[gbog]

Looks weird to me that a swimsuit poster on my desk is not ok but deep hypnotizing cleavage and ten meters radius feminine perfume is.

[jheriko]

both are wrong.

[minopret]

My bad. It's not a lawyer term. I really don't know enough to be clear and accurate about that point.