Sexual Harrassment

In the last few months, sexual harassment has come to light in numerous and varied places. Except for one instance, all accusations have come from women against men. The assumption is that since the vocational institutions are ruled by men, if a woman feels violated, it is the man misusing his power. Surely, that may be the case in most instances.

The female of the species has defined sexual mores. They have their powerful feminists groups. Men have some groups of their own but they are unheard of, and emasculated by the rule makers. In history, the rule-makers were those of the church. The standards of behavior were God's metrics. With the Age of Enlightenment, mankind's rules became paramount, and God's rules emasculated. Hence, what remains is chaos.

God's rules are clear. As for touching women, here is what scripture says about that:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "...It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

God is the Designer of mankind. He knows our ways! He was there when the law of sin replaced the Law of God. Somehow, after eating of the tree of life, man became the hunter, and woman the hunted. All of us are inborn with one of those two traits. With the feminist movement, women desire to be like men. Hence, new rules came into being with the feminist movement. In my own time, I have seen feminism move from the idea of "equal pay for equal work" to sexual freedom, abortion, and lesbianism; whatever is "right in their own eyes" (Deu 12:8).

Unfortunately, their desire to have the power of men also gave them the faults of men. Women can and are now as aggressive as the men, thus the problem with "touching" applies to those of this new sexual attitude.

We think of "fornication" as sexual intercourse. In the Greek, the word is porneia. Thus, fornication includes any type of sexual attitude or behavior. Lust is porneia. Voyeurism is porneia, as is exhibitionism. Any type of sexual contact is pornea, even if it is consensual if outside the realm of Holy Matrimony. The English word "fornication" just touches on one of the standards: consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried people.

Why do I include lust? It is unrequited intercourse. However, it may be returned in the form of exhibitionism. Most animals play sexual games. Usually, in the animal kingdom, the female flaunts her beauty and charm, and the male is the "aggressor"; in quotes because the one who fires first shot is really the aggressor. In this case, the female displaying her charm and wares is the first to be aggressive. Flirting is the bait both sexes use, but the female is better designed to flirt.

If we examine the porneia of David and Bathsheba, there was much going on: Bathsheba fired first shot! She used her best weapon - her body. She bared it all on the rooftop. That was not tradition; it was an act of provocation. David's castle was adjacent and much higher. She knew who lived there, and knew that she would be seen. Bearing her "all" was an extreme case of flirtation. Just like the modern woman, scripture gives little account of her own sexual game.

It would appear that Bathsheba must have desired David. Lust is when porneia is born:

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

We know that David lusted because he sent for her. It was not to have Bible lessons, as we soon found out! David sinned. What we miss in the story is that Bathsheba lusted first because she sought David. She fired a fatal shot; Bathsheba brought first blood! She committed the sin of Eve all over again.

David responded. A righteous man, who was "a man after God's own heart" was tempted. He fought the devil, so to speak, but the devil won. Bathsheba was one of the "fiery darts" that make men burn. The truth is, if Bathsheba had been standing on the roof merely enjoying the breeze, David would have still lusted. There are ways to flirt without being sexual! Honestly, most often men do lust without provocation. For men, that is certainly a "thorn in our flesh". Feminism demanded and got that same thorn. However, they got a different rule book because they wrote the rules! 

The United States Equal Opportunity Commission defines sexual harassment as:

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Much of this is pragmatic. However, the word "other" in "other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature" includes anything the woman is offended by! The next statement reinforces that: "It doesn't even have to be of a sexual nature."  Ironically, sexual harassment doesn't even have to be sexual. It's anytime or anything at which a woman is offended. I use the female as the example because Webster's Dictionary applies sexual harassment as mostly men against women. Like I said, the feminists made the rules!

The law doesn't prohibit "simple teasing, offhand comments, or other isolated incidents" but if the incidents offend the woman, it is unlawful. If they seek remediation for perceived injustice, what may have been "simple teasing" can make or break the case.  The law allows "isolated incidences". Most of the women who complained about the male provocateurs used an "isolated" incidence. When several women had an isolated incident, the compilation of isolated incidences were used for the ruination of the man. The law doesn't cover multiple isolated incidences of different women. Feminism and "political correctness" has.

According to the law, for the harassment to be illegal it has to be "frequent or severe". This recognizes the fact that men and women do use flirtation and response in the flirtation process. However, it is the person who complains who defines "severe" and the word "frequent" is ambiguous. Even with that, the harassment must result in an "adverse employment decision". The examples given are fairly extreme: fired or demoted. Hence, being "uncomfortable" with a situation is not a case of harassment in the workplace because women are often uncomfortable with situations at any locale.

Rejection is part of the mating process. For every successful flirtation, there are multiple rejections. That is just part of the process. Feminists are to the point that even one case where a female rejects the advances of a man, they label him a "stalker". On the other hand, in the eyes of feminists, by definition, it is impossible for women to be the stalkers. This unwritten rule establishes the mating process - it must be by the woman's rules! Actually, that is feminists insecure in their place. Rather than being brave like a man, they resort to wimpy "I'll take my toys and go home if it's not played my way."

Men are forced by law in to extreme caution. Now they fear even complimenting a woman. I had one case where I told an unattractive woman "you have pretty hair" to make her feel good. Although this was in front of both her parents and her husband, she was offended. She perceived that she was being hit upon! That was far from the case.

What I have argued is logic. On the other hand, from a spiritual perspective, indeed "it is better for a man not to touch a woman". I'll go one further: it is better for a man not to put himself in a position of being perceived as having touched a woman! It is our duty to be beyond reproach (1 Tim 3:7). Even casual conversation perceived as  flirtation may make one suspicious. Many have learned that the hard way. Compliments can be misconstrued as a come-on.

Most Christians will say, "I have never fornicated," at least after they became born-again. I challenge that notion given the extent of porneia.  Many commit adultery in their hearts, and thus have lusted (Mat 5:28). Most have lusted after the opposite sex in immodest dress, and even sometimes when they are dressed modestly. In Victorian times even the sight of ankles was provocative.

Now, let's move again to the present problem. Harvey Weinstein did use his position to overpower women. He seemed to have the sex demon on his shoulders. He misused many women for his own pleasure. That is sinful and morally wrong, even to the world. Many of his victims were Bathsheba-like, however. I'm certain they didn't lust after Harvey, but maybe his power and money. Most who I know of appeared to be immodest. Women, like it or not, you are bait. That's the makeup of men. If they are not attracted to you, you are either quite unattractive or something is wrong with them. The hormones don't turn off in the workplace!

Therefore, scripture calls for modest dress and modest behavior in both men and women (1 Tim 2:9-10). That is keep the passion from burning (1 Cor 7;9)! It's not that women are "asking for it" but that  the way they act and dress, they may get it whether they want it or not.  I'm not speaking of sexual intercourse, but sexual advances. 

I saw a photo of one complainer hugging Weinstein whose cleavage and pelvis enshrouded Weinstein's arm and leg. She was the provocateur, maybe without even realizing it. Many women hug with their entire bodies. That provokes hormones if one is not careful. I have seen as much cleavage in careless women at church as anywhere. Men have a responsibility for self-control but women are to be modest. That helps men in their weakness. It keeps the "thorns" away.

The mating ritual is inborn. The problem with contemporary sexual standards are that they are extremely loose in society, but extremely stringent in the workplace. Women can look and behave provocatively, but the men must act as if they are blind and unfeeling. Men aren't designed to turn the hormones on and off.

What can be done? We need to keep workplace rules in effect. They just need to be better defined. Using words like "other" confuses everyone. Right now, there is chaos in the workplace. Even the most controlled man can be perceived as a deviate. One case in point is one of the most righteous men with whom I worked was accused by a woman of "looking right through her clothes". Of course, he was in her presence but his view was well beyond this unattractive woman! Perceived harassment is not harassment. It must  be real and verifiable.

Now "alleged" harassers are arrested, judged, and convicted without due process, oftentimes because of grudges or to destroy enemies. Indeed, logical people can't take allegations seriously because they remain unproven. A "good story" only means that the story-teller has a talent for fantasy. Everyone must be considered innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the liberal media and those in the government who should know better cast the first and fatal stones.

In the case of the woman prostitute Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (Joh 8:7).  No one is without sin, and everyone is to show mercy. In the case of the angry men, they all walked away because they were sinful. I bet some of them were even customers of the wayward woman! Neither are women without sin. The entire feminist movement propagates sexual freedom. However, they are free to pursue but are immune from being pursued. They have achieved sexual dominance because they have rewritten the rules of engagement. The feminists have created gender division, and men allowed them to be dominant.

The role of the two genders are to help one another (Gen 2:18). If both sexes helped each other, there would be less harassment. Women, help men by being modest, and men, help women by respecting them. The problem is not men nor is it women; it is mankind. We were created with the urge necessary to replicate. Satan's will is that, that drive me misused. Perhaps when God's Law supersedes EEO's laws, then both men and women will be able to work together.