Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 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. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated? The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.