The Problem With Conflating Sexual Advances With Sexual Harassment | Intellectual Takeout

The Problem With Conflating Sexual Advances With Sexual Harassment | Intellectual Takeout
'"Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors?"
"It is wrong to ask someone intrusive questions about his private life. 
A federal appeals court made that clear in allowing a woman to sue over invasive questions by federal officials.

It ruled that she had a plausible claim that federal officials violated her constitutional privacy rights by questioning her about private details of her “home life” in a race-relations seminar. (See Robinson v. Reed (1978)).
But Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) is asking people nominated to become federal judges intrusive questions about their sex lives, as lawyer Scott Greenfield notes in “Hirono’s perjury trap.”
Hirono asks nominees a confusing compound question that conflates merely asking your spouse for sex with serious acts of sexual harassment:
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
This question deliberately lumps together two very different things. 
A request to your spouse for sexual favors is not illegal, even if your spouse says he doesn’t want sex; by contrast, assault of a sexual nature certainly is illegal, and should preclude anyone who commits it from ever being a judge..."
Read on.