If a man touches a cocktail waitress on the rear, he can expea a lawsuit – even though she’s making tips from getting him drunk. But had fans touched Elvis Presley on the rear while he was walking down the street at night in his stage outfit and Elvis had sued the fans, he would have been told to take responsibility for provoking it (because of what he was wearing). Some might even have accused him of using his position to lure young girls. When a female genetic celebrity uses her position, we protea her; when а male celebrity uses his, we protea her. The sex that is responsible is reversed, but the sex we blame is the same.

We apply a similar double standard to educator sex. When a police officer stops a driver, the driver feels vulnerable. When a professor tests a student, the student feels vulnerable. But if the driver flashes a hundred-dollar bill, she or he can get charged with bribery. When a female student flashes a ‘come hither" look to a professor, is that sexual bribery? If she then turns around and sues the professor for responding to her come hither look, is that sexual entrapment?

Sexual flirtation and come hither looks are the equivalent of flashing hundred-dollar bills to a police officer, terhaps even a woman charming her way into permission to turn in an exam late (the "charm" being a hint of sex) is as much a form of sexual bribery as is a "prolonged" look from the professor a form of sexual harassment. If both the police officer and the driver are held responsible for a monetary exchange, shouldn’t both the professor and student be held responsible for a mutual sexual exchange? Otherwise sexual harassment legislation is a male-only chastity belt. With women holding the key.

Sexual harassment’s potential for abuse

One woman’s accusation of sexual harassment can stop the government in its tracks (a la Anita Hill), can ruin a corporation (my friend s research firm), or ruin a man’s career (Senator Brock Adams). Women can use sexual harassment against the government, corporations, or men. But the govern­ment and corporations can also use it against men. A government that can label sexual language it considers incorrea as sexual harassment has more potential for abuse than a government that can label political language it considers incorrea as a threat to national security. And a corporation that can do the same has the potential to turn every American male employee into the new “yes-man."

ITEM Gordon Hamd was a respected employee with a virtually impeccable record. When he saw his company doing something dishonest, he became a whistle-blower. The company felt powerless to retaliate until it remembered it could charge him with sexual harassment Since sexual harassment could be defined as something as minimal as a leer or a dirty |Oke – anything that created a hostile atmosphere for a woman – the company could virtually ruin him. Gordon Hamel lost Ns home defending himself and acknowledges that if he had known what would happen, he would never have been honest.32