"it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way."

That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html :

> Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive."

The specific legal definition is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition.

For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits." That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes?

Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment".

"Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal?

"If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!"

Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say:

> In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive."

It then gives an example:

> Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment.

and, regarding hostile workplaces:

> As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII."