I've seen this argument so many times at this point they blur into one. It's a watered down version of "She was asking for it" when talking about about a rape case. The way someone looks or the clothes they have on doesn't give you carte blanche to harass/assault them.
I'll show you what I mean:
>If you are an attractive woman and want to do business under such potential circumstance, then your best bet is to try to make yourself look unattractive.
This is the exact same kind of victim blaming as in "She was asking for it". He's telling women to make themselves look unattractive, implying that they are partially to blame for their own harassment because of what they were wearing, or how they looked. Saying "well, it's bound to happen" isn't good enough.
>You can't have it both ways.
>And if instead, you just want to pin all the blame on men for being pigs and expect them to change, well good luck with that.
These two quotes both show that he really is talking about harassment and assault. The OP article wasn't talking about relatively harmless (if inappropriate) workplace flirting; some couples meet at work. That happens. The difference is that those kind of things generally begin with very subtle signals over an extended period of time. The context of this article, this thread, and implicitly this comment (by explicitly agreeing that women are asking for this harassment to stop) is one of harassment and assault.
>You can't lure a client with your looks and then always expect totally platonic behavior from them.
>Mother Nature quite clearly has other designs.
I don't need to break this down. It's so shitty.