Wal-Mart has one teaching in a Computer Basic Learning that define it as looking at someone for an inordinate amount of time as an example of sexual harassment, but the video shows the example of making it obvious TO the person when looking at someone to that person's knowledge as for being an inordinate amount of time... like right in front of that person. Now that is oppressive so I can see by the video what is meant by sexual harassment in that "limited" definition.
Can any one see how taking that definition by itself in applying it in other ways than what the video meant by that definition, in how it can lead to false accusations or not?
If you think about it, for someone else to accuse someone for looking at some other person or people for an inordinate amount of time without that person's or people's knowledge that the accused is looking at, and say that was sexual harassment, then that should also make the accuser a hypocrite and a sexual harasser by his or her own standard of judgment since the accuser have to be watching him or her for an inordinate amount of time to ascertain that or "to catch them in the act", so to speak, for looking at someone for an inordinate amount of time.
Anyway, what is your definition of sexual harassment? Making it obvious that the person want to have sex with that person?
Isn't groping or offensive sexual touching is more of a sexual assault charge rather than sexual harassment? I had heard that offensive touching can be considered as an assault and so that is why I was thinking it was defined in that way.
I know rape or nonconsensual sex is a sexual assault charge.
I admit my ignorance, because I think I have heard all kinds of things about sexual harassment that I have to wonder what the actual criminal charge is as defining it?
I could check online for how those in authority define it, but I do wonder how everybody else thinks of it first as what is considered sexual harassment and what is not for looking at someone for an inordinate amount of time. I really believe it can be used as an abuse of power in ruining people's lives without involving the police or those in authority. Kind of like bullying someone into quitting by slandering what the person was doing, even when that person is a virgin and has no interest in having sex before marriage.
People look at people all the time without lust in their hearts. Ever watch a game? Ever watch the preacher at the pulpit? Ever watch customers where you work at? Ever watch an associate to see what they are doing or try to figure out why they are acting that way as if they are having a problem doing something? Ever watch customers to get done talking so you can ask them to watch where they step because there are clothes at their feet that they may trip over?
One can get interrupted from telling them that when past accusers that have been trying to get you, are coming down the aisle. And these accusers can very well be those who go to the Adult Emporium as they had talked about it at lunch time, and even though you never had bad mouthed them, they got it in for you to slander you as if you are a sexual harasser. And because managers are people, sinners with shortcomings, they will not fact find to defend you. They will take the short path of least resistance and start treating you as someone to watch out for as a sexual harasser.
That is the trouble I see with leaving sexual harassment defined like that as Wal-Mart had done. Maybe they had changed it since then, but imagine the passive and yet oppressive witch hunt that can come out of that without involving the police.
Can any one see how taking that definition by itself in applying it in other ways than what the video meant by that definition, in how it can lead to false accusations or not?
If you think about it, for someone else to accuse someone for looking at some other person or people for an inordinate amount of time without that person's or people's knowledge that the accused is looking at, and say that was sexual harassment, then that should also make the accuser a hypocrite and a sexual harasser by his or her own standard of judgment since the accuser have to be watching him or her for an inordinate amount of time to ascertain that or "to catch them in the act", so to speak, for looking at someone for an inordinate amount of time.
Anyway, what is your definition of sexual harassment? Making it obvious that the person want to have sex with that person?
Isn't groping or offensive sexual touching is more of a sexual assault charge rather than sexual harassment? I had heard that offensive touching can be considered as an assault and so that is why I was thinking it was defined in that way.
I know rape or nonconsensual sex is a sexual assault charge.
I admit my ignorance, because I think I have heard all kinds of things about sexual harassment that I have to wonder what the actual criminal charge is as defining it?
I could check online for how those in authority define it, but I do wonder how everybody else thinks of it first as what is considered sexual harassment and what is not for looking at someone for an inordinate amount of time. I really believe it can be used as an abuse of power in ruining people's lives without involving the police or those in authority. Kind of like bullying someone into quitting by slandering what the person was doing, even when that person is a virgin and has no interest in having sex before marriage.
People look at people all the time without lust in their hearts. Ever watch a game? Ever watch the preacher at the pulpit? Ever watch customers where you work at? Ever watch an associate to see what they are doing or try to figure out why they are acting that way as if they are having a problem doing something? Ever watch customers to get done talking so you can ask them to watch where they step because there are clothes at their feet that they may trip over?
One can get interrupted from telling them that when past accusers that have been trying to get you, are coming down the aisle. And these accusers can very well be those who go to the Adult Emporium as they had talked about it at lunch time, and even though you never had bad mouthed them, they got it in for you to slander you as if you are a sexual harasser. And because managers are people, sinners with shortcomings, they will not fact find to defend you. They will take the short path of least resistance and start treating you as someone to watch out for as a sexual harasser.
That is the trouble I see with leaving sexual harassment defined like that as Wal-Mart had done. Maybe they had changed it since then, but imagine the passive and yet oppressive witch hunt that can come out of that without involving the police.
