Re: Torchwood--So do they not have ***ual harrassment laws across the pond?

In article <MPG.22781e93e9fc683f98bdba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Pete B <xxxh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <atropos-2D6B34.22020921042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
> atropos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> > In article <Al9Pj.11031$Zk5.7702@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  peachy a****e passion <exquisitepeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > >    Terribly sorry that the new laws make some folks uncomfortable,
but 
> > > women voting isn't the end of the world, gay marriage doesn't make
it 
> > > okay to marry your dog, and laws against actual inappropriate ***ual

> > > harrassment doesn't mean that anything anyone ever says or does is 
> > > illegal just if a woman decides so on a whim.
> > 
> > Actually we just had our annual ***ual harassment PC indoctrination 
> > class and in the federal government, a woman can indeed decide that 
> > something is retroactive harassment-- even if she explicitly invited
the 
> > behavior at the time.
> > 
> > My favorite aspect of this nonsense is the fact that harassment isn't 
> > based on the speaker's intent but on how the listener perceived what
was 
> > being said. So basically you have no control over any of it. So long
as 
> > someone claims to have perceived you acting in a harassing manner, it 
> > doesn't matter if you really were or not. Reality takes a back seat to

> > belief-- just as the PC mavens like it.
> 
> Terrifyingly sick.

Indeed. But just saying so can also be considered ***ual harassment.