I answered this concern:

"Provocative or not, you don't have to react. Not every thought that pops into your mind is a comment worth broadcasting publicly. In other words, be an adult and think before you speak. Keep you lewd comments to yourself."

With this statement:

"My work demeanor is unfailingly polite and serious, even shy. I would indeed regard lascivious comments to be seriously out of place, and I can't imagine a situation in which I would make any such comments."

...which I provided in the hopes that any responses to me would be free of any condescending assumptions that I would do such a thing. Too much to hope for, it turns out. And how dare you conflate my questioning of the inclusion of the word "provocative" in a company dress code policy with sympathy to rapists. How. Dare. You.

The discussion I'd have liked to provoke is whether such a policy attempts to solve an age-old inequity, but manages only to create an inequity in the opposite direction. Do you think it's possible that such a policy might be used to advantage -- say, by a woman dressing provocatively, and knnowing that a male co-worker, proscribed from overt reaction, would sublimate his response into an acquiescence to the woman on some work-related matter. Or, to put it more simply, dress-as-power-play? I would love to hear a non-condescending response.

Thanks IQ -- sure wish you'd been in that seminar with me!

I'm not upset by your question, Duck -- yours is the tone I was hoping to achieve in the first place. Beats being compared to a rapist sympathizer....

Here's what it comes down to for me: If someone is on the receiving end of lewd comments or unwanted advancements in the workplace, they have a clear line of redress by going to their HR department. As it should be, obviously.

But what if I get passed over for promotion to someone who dresses provocatively and has established a mutually flirtatious work relationship with the boss? Or say we have a difference of opinion about the direction of a project, but I find it hard to draw attention to my viewpoint while her cleavage is spilling out over the conference table? Do I, or should I, have my own line of redress? Would an attempt to find redress in such a situation be met with the derision and dismissiveness that women have had to suffer in more blatant sexual harassment cases? The fact that this company codified the word "provocative" raised these questions in my mind.

I wasn't attempting to apply my experience to the Maryland situation, because it's mind-numbingly obvious that the guy was acting inappropriately, so I didn't see how to further that discussion.

and I regretted that my line of questioning in the seminar never got any further, because as I left it it could have been construed that I was simply defending a man's right to be a lout (as some here have done), when in fact I was trying to build up to an argument that allowing provocative dress may create its own set of problems. It was my fault that I allowed the negative perception of my initial statement to prevent me from furthering my point, and I appreciate your finding the point to be valid for discussion.

I also accept the "eye of the beholder" contention, although I might substitute "attractive" or "alluring" -- "provocative" seemed to imply intent on the part of the dresser. At any rate, our jobs were soon outsourced to India, where provocative dress probably isn't much of a problem (although sexual harrassment may very well be).

I couldn't agree more with the outrage regarding O'Neil's exclusion. To me, his closest analog is Joe Torre circa 1999 -- a long playing career of borderline HOF merit followed by a successful managing career which, combined, should have put him over the top. Torre's subsequent success after '99 (the point at which he became generally considered a likely inductee) has made his eventual honor a no-brainer. Similarly, O'Neil's advocacy and ambassadorship should have gotten him home without a throw.

But Minoso -- eh, I don't know. In his autobiography he confessed to having been only 21 when Jackie Robinson broke the barrier, not 24 (as is still reported by Baseball Reference and other sources), so his major league career was not that significantly shortened by the barrier. He was an All-Star from the moment he stepped onto the field, but at that point it could be said that the Indians just didn't realize what they had. The same argument could be made for dozens of other players who got stuck in the minors for an extra year or two (which was the case with Minoso).

And, as King stated, he played only three years in the Negro Leagues. He's always been borderline -- I probably would have voted for him, but I can see the opposite argument. The fact that he's alive would certainly have improved the atmosphere at the induction ceremony, but I don't see that being a compelling reason per se to vote for him.

Speaking as one who suffers from social phobia (though mildly, compared to the LW), I can say that it's a great relief to dedicate time and effort to a cause outside yourself. Yes, you will be with other people, but you might be surprised how many other social phobics you'll find there. Surely the LW has considered the notion that one of the best ways to forget one's own suffering is to work to alleviate the suffering of others, and independent wealth provides a great opportunity to do this. Don't give up. Help instead.