Aaron Worthing (who purports to be a lawyer) at Patterico's Pontifications, on the subject of Herman Cain:
Or did he do the full quid pro quo (“something for something”) and say, “sleep with me or you are fired/won’t get that promotion, etc.?” Now I want to be careful to say that we are not nearly there, yet, but if that is what it was, then it’s not just “sexual harassment.” Seriously what do you call it when you give something of value in exchange for sex? In most states, that’s prostitution.
No, Aaron. An employer saying to an employeee "sleep with me or else you are fired/won't get that promotion" is the textbook definition of sexual harassment. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Go back to law school (or alternatively, get a job and read the company employee manual).
EEOC, get my back:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Aaron has a hard time understanding these situtations. For example, he gets puzzled about the following scenario:
Cain pressures the woman to have sex with him, she capitulates… and then she goes to HR, hires a lawyer and sues? That sounds odd to me, although the answer might be that something might be missing.
He finds it "odd" that a woman would capitulate to pressure? What's so odd? That's what the harasser is trying to do, and sometimes they succeed!
Aaron, of course, is demonstrating the mentality that makes sexual harassers think they can get away with their harassment in the first place. They hit on their employee (with the subtle threat of repercussions if the employee doesn't give it up). If the employee shoots them down, the putative harasser can always say they were just joking. Bu if the employee has sex with them, then the harasser is shielded from liability (i.e., "she wanted it")
Unfortunately for Aaron, that's not how it works. It does not matter whether she "accepted" the full "quid pro quo". After all, agreeing to have sex with a harasser doesn't negate the coercion aspect (and it arguably bolsters it).
Then, to make sure his stupidity and ignorance about sexual harassment is solidified, Aaron writes:
Indeed, I have read of cases where Virginia attorneys offered for their clients to pay them in sex instead of fees, which then led them to be arrested for soliciting prostitution.
Which relates to the Cain allegations how? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, an attorney-client relationship is not the same as workplace conduct, since the two actors there do not work for the same company or employer.
FURTHER THOUGHT: Of course, Aaron's views change when Democrats and blowjobs are involved. In those situations, it is of course, sexual harassment.
UPDATE: Worthing responds in the comments below, and for once, he's right about something: dyslexia wins the day. I read what he wrote as "…then it’s just not 'sexual harassment'.", instead of what he actually wrote, which was "…then it’s not just “sexual harassment'.” (as in "it's not only sexual harassment").
So the "pig" remark is retracted on my part, although I stand by the rest of the post (and why is "sexual harassment" in scare quotes, anyway?).