I think you're talking about something different to the main thread here. Most people here are talking about a professional context where there is a significant power imbalance between the parties.
I was specifically responding to the claim that 'unwanted advances' could be considered sexual harassment under the law.
yes, technically you could consider rape to be an 'unwanted advance', but no reasonable person would ever characterize it as so. The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance tells you it's not sexual harassment, it's just someone chasing another person.
> Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very generally, “sexual harassment” describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
Unfortunately the majority of these individuals haven't actualized that things in life aren't completely binary and attempt to apply a binary algorithm to solve non-binary problems.
According to the accounts I have read (that have not been upheld in a court of law "beyond all reasonable doubt" or whatever the standard for these things is), this man was definitely in the wrong and had to be stopped. I applaud those women who selflessly put their names out there to stop him.
However, it seems to me, as a non-American, that the US is pretty hysterical on this topic. Humans make each other uncomfortable sometimes, some situations are inherently awkward, emotional anguish is inflicted on good people (I've had to fire a few... that's horrible on both sides of the desk)... there's no reason society should be ascribed the duty to guarantee that nobody ever finds themselves in situations they are not comfortable in.
As I mentioned, my partner pushed my boundaries a bit, but I'm doubleplusgood happy she did. In hindsight, my initial reticence was an error, and by persisting she allowed me the opportunity to correct that. Now our lives are significantly enhanced as a result. I don't see why such behaviour should be subject to censure. Did it make me uneasy? In a transitory way, yes. But it's part and parcel of existing in a social fabric.
> Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral
There is no "low morality" in a woman accepting an invitation to go on a date even in the most hidebound parts of the United States. But that's not what you mean. You don't mean "interact". You mean "screw". That you're conflating the idea of "regular, not very confident or skilled people" interacting with women with its very small subset, screwing, is telling as to your worldview and how you regard the women under discussion.
Of course it's no low morality in accepting a date. But I thought we discuss this in context of loose sexual behavior (implied by the article events), not of going on dates or making relationships. As of interact vs screw, it is the matter of accent, not of an objective view. Please don't take my words out of context, nor make a personal diagnosis. Proving [not your] point by attacking the person under his uncertain inferences is not a great way to deliver an argument anyway.
human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.