Funny no one mentions the lack of respect for women in this thread?
Someone with a short skirt/dress and showing some cleavage IS fully dressed.
If a man cannot control himself beyond normal behaviour and respect he maybe shouldn't be out on the street?
Isn't it ridiculous that we need laws to protect women from being harassed? We should be able to go out in whatever fashion is considered normal in our society and still be respected.
Sexual harassment = total disrespect.

I've had sexual harassment a few times, and the worst ones where I was groped I was FULLY dressed! Full length jeans and a blouse and no 'inviting' cleavage at all. So how do you explain that?
In my own country I had some dude touch my calf in a pub when I put my foot on a 25cm high step of stage to relax my back a little.
Why is that an invite to touch me? I was not provocative, not flirting, just watching and enjoying the band on stage. Yet a man feels he has the right to touch me?
What it boils down to is total disrespect.

If it is totally subjective on the part of the woman if it "emotionally feels good", then a man has no chance of innocence!!!

That is true! And there's also the third person to consider. If two people in the work place are having any kind of sexual conversation, even talking about that hot babe they saw yesterday... if someone who over hears the conversation is uncomfortable with such talk, they can be turned in for sexual harassment. Fortunately in some of those cases, a simple warning to cease that kind of conversation is all that happens. Termination generally happens when the behavior is more blatant such as physical contact or telling someone they must have sex with you if you want a promotion or pay raise.

It basically boils down to having common sense and respect for others. When it comes to the work place, a good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you'd discuss or say that to your mother. If not, then it's probably not a good idea to say it to your co-workers.

They do, sometimes, as part of like "provocation."

It's just not a legal defense absolving someone of responsibility or culpability for their own behavior.

You're still responsible for what you do. But it can be construed as a mitigating factor in conjunction with other factors which may/can influence how severe of a punishment you get.

There's similar issues with things like MAGA hats, and wearing the american flag like a bikini or speedo, constituting hate speech or desecrating the flag.

Not to mention:

That's pretty important.
What exactly transpired during that time?
Depending on severity of the "harassment" it's usually not just a single instance of an inappropriate comment.
It's usually a pattern of behavior, attitudes, leers, comments.

Also, look up the actual statistics for the amount of sexual harassment cases that go to trial. The vast majority never go to trial. Those that actually go to trial, usually the prosecution doesn't win.

It's just on t.v., in movies, the whiny kangaroo court of public opinion
(especially the internet) where it's this "scary" thing not based on reality.

If you get fired, that could be the employer just trying to cover their butts. They just need to not break the law in order to fire you, there's no law saying they have to do their best to keep you employed, or do some sort of employer court system to determine if you did/didn't harass someone as defined by the law rather than HR.

Hello I am I like your answer

are you saying only rapists are interested in sluts? Dont sluts get paid for sex? are men interested in paying for sluts automatically rapists?

Harassment has changed over the years to make the overly sensitive feel more secure. It used to be there had to be an element where one was made AWARE by a person that they wished the behavior to discontinue, and then harassment would involve continuing an unwanted behavior. Now, there is alot of mind reading expected, in my opinion, as to what may or may not be welcome by another individual. I do feel for all those accused, regardless of their gender, on the basis of what they 'should have' known to be unwelcome behavior.

No not at all, what this refers to is people saying "She dressed like a slut, so she must have deserved it." I wouldn't say people in the sex trade are sluts.

no one 'deserves' rape, even sluts. I do find relevance in saying what someone is dressed like though. I agree that dress alone is never justification for non consensual sex, aka rape.

reminds me of a dave chapelle joke about a woman fussing that a man thought she was easy or slutty because she was in a club in a tight barely there dress. She said "Just because Im dressed this way, doesn't mean I'm a slut!" To which he offered the analogy. "Ok. I get that. It does not mean you are a slut. But if someone robbed you, and you ran down the street and saw me standing there in a cop uniform, and then asked me for help. I would not yell at you for assuming I am a cop by my dress. I would just let you know I am not an actual cop and keep on moving. I mean, if you are wearing the uniform, the assumption is understandable, not offensive."

I think you are making the point that I was making. Because someone wears what they feel comfortable in, it doesn't give anyone the right to abuse or make comments to that person, no matter what.

abuse? no. Freedom of speech? Yes. Good comments, aka compliments, are encouraged. Negative comments, aka insults, are rude and inconsiderate. But people do have the right to be encouraging or rude and inconsiderate. Whether they have the class or standards to choose one over the other is another story.

I don't think it is anything to do with freedom of speech, harassing someone is a form of abuse. Yes compliments are fine, but sexual innuendo, No.

agree to disagree.

I can respect that.

Didn't Newstalk sack one of their presenters over saying something like that about two years ago? Forgot his name though. He wanted to point out, that so many girls in Ireland pose on Instagram, Tinder, etc with miniskirts, lots of makeup and so on, to look older.

Not sure about that larsi, I don't watch TV, but if he did he probs deserved it..

It's a radio station Never mind. It wasn't his only blunder.

Just reading about Conor McGregor being charged with another sexual assault, Irish media were banned from naming him, but is didn't affect The Now York times from exposing it, that guy is a proper Cnut..

Conor McGregor? That gobshite? He will probably toss a few brown envelopes again

Yep, the very one..