Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was sexual harrassment. If you had done that to a female co-worker you could be fired.
But that doesn't fit the liberal definitions does it?
Actually, I don't think that fits ANY description of sexual harassment.
This.
Unwanted or unwelcomed physcial contact. I would probably classify that as BOTH.
Your made-up definition of the term doesn't change in any way the
actual definition, nor how it has been applied in the legal system.
As a good starting point, the United States EEOC defines sexual harassment as:
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.
It gets more complicated in the detail (quid pro quo vs. hostile environment) and obviously a lot depends on specific rulings and precedent. In a sense, the working definition of sexual harassment is continually being defined.
But what the OP described
in no way meets the existing standard for sexual harassment, despite your opinion to the contrary.