Policing sexual "harassment" should not be the responsibility of employers

You know that girl in the office you have been admiring from afar for so long? Yes, that"s right: the nice, slim, pretty one with the outsized breasts. Well, how does she know you find her attractive? She won"t unless you let her know. So here's the idea: go over to her desk and say "I bet you five dollars I can make your boobs bounce up and down without touching them. " She'll accept assuming that you will try and make her guffaw at some amusing anecdote and that she will be easily be able to resist the temptation to laugh at any joke you might tell her. With that, you reach out and grab her boobs, and bounce them up and down vigorously, and then say "Okay, I lost, here"s your five dollars! " So you've had your fun while she will think your trick is enormously funny. She will also be flattered because you paid attention to her and, furthermore, she'll be five dollars better off, so everyone's a winner man! You see, it is the jovial atmosphere that this type of flirtatious exchange creates which actually improves staff moral and, thereby, productivity and company loyalty. Now, to address my opponent's arguments: a private company's primary responsibility is to maximise profits for its shareholders and the red tape involved in pursuing accusations of sexual harassment, many of which will be spurious, can cost a company a great deal of money and, therefore, restrict the amount of cash available for dividend payments to investors. Regarding the company's reputation, since the law applies to all firms, no company would be obliged to police sexual harassment in the workplace so their reputation wouldn't suffer if they didn't. Some companies may choose to crackdown on people having a bit of a laugh at work but this extra time and expense would make the firm uncompetitive and also give the impression to potential recruits that their outfit would be a joyless place to work, where everybody is obsessively monitored and subject to intrusive surveillance, where the slightest transgression in the arena of political incorrectness is severely punished. Who would want to work in such an Orwellian environment? Only militant lesbians and frigid religious girls together with prudish Nazis and humourless homosexual gentlemen, that's who. My opponent goes on to quote the Jewish author Daniel Goleman who equates a man attempting to forge a friendly relationship with a female co-worker with rape. This is the same man who claimed that non-cognitive skills can matter as much as I. Q. for workplace success (Working with Emotional Intelligence, 1998, Bantam Books), in other words, an gibbering idiot should be put in charge of a running a major country just because he can drive a golf buggy. Thankfully this hasn"t happened in the real world since George W. Bush became President of the United States but it shows what an utter fool Goleman is. At the end of the day, workers are not schoolchildren, if they are being bullied at work they can't go to their boss like they went their teacher at school, they have to deal with it like adults and the same principle should apply to sexual "harassment". Thank you.