Download Sexuality in the Workplace: Organizational Control, Sexual

Sexuality in the Workplace: Organizational Control, Sexual Harassment, and the Pursuit of
Pleasure
Author(s): Christine L. Williams, Patti A. Giuffre, Kirsten Dellinger
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25 (1999), pp. 73-93
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223498
Accessed: 16/02/2009 17:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev. Sociol. 1999. 25:73-93
Copyright? 1999 by AnnualReviews.All rights reserved
SEXUALITYIN THE WORKPLACE:
OrganizationalControl,Sexual
Harassment,and the Pursuitof Pleasure
ChristineL. Williamsl,Patti A. Giuffre2,and KirstenDellinger3
'Departmentof Sociology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, e-mail:
[email protected];2Departmentof Sociology, SouthwestTexas State University, San
Marcos, Texas 78666, e-mail: [email protected];3Departmentof Sociology and
Anthropology,University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677,
e-mail: [email protected]
KEY WORDS consensual sexuality, office romance,intimaterelationships
ABSTRACT
Flirting, bantering,and other sexual interactionsare commonplace in work
organizations.Not all of these interactionsconstituteharassmentor assault;
consensual sexual relationships, defined as those reflecting positive and
autonomousexpressions of workers' sexual desire, are also prevalentin the
workplaceandarethe focus of this paper.We begin by reviewing researchon
the distinction between sexual harassmentand sexual consent. Next we examine popularandbusiness literatureson office romance.Finally we discuss
sociological researchon consensual sexual relationships,including research
on mate selection, organizationalpolicy, and workplace culture. We argue
that sexual behaviors must be understoodin context, as an interplaybetween
organizationalcontrol and individualagency.
INTRODUCTION
Sexual bantering, flirting, and dating are commonplace at work, but with few
exceptions, sociologists have not paid much attention to these behaviors. The
Weberian assumption that organizations progressively shed particularistic and
irrational elements as they bureaucratize has deflected attention from love,
sex, and relationships at work. The myth of the self-made professional also
73
0360-0572/99/0815-0073$08.00
74 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
contributesto this lacuna.Although Jessie Bernardnoted over thirtyyears ago
that men's top-level careerstypically rely on the unpaid supportof a wife at
home, the conviction persists that individuals achieve success based on their
own hardwork andmerit. To suggest that sexual relationshipsroutinelyshape
(and are shaped by) our employment experiences violates values and beliefs
thatare fundamentalto our capitalistculture.The researchemphasison sexual
harassmentmay also contributeto downplayingthe ubiquityof consensual sex
in the workplace. Some sexual harassmentresearchershave suggested that
women who do not label theirsexual experiencesas sexual harassmentare suffering fromfalse consciousness, implying thatall sexual behavioris harmfulto
women (whetherthey think it is or not) and thereforeought to be eliminated
from workplaces.
Despite sociologists' relative lack of attention to consensual sex in the
workplace, public attention has been riveted on the issue thanks to several
highly publicized sex scandals. Among the most notorious are the 1991 congressionalhearingson the alleged sexual harassmentof Anita Hill by Clarence
Thomas, nominee to the SupremeCourt;the sexual assaulton female officers
at a party duringthe 1991 annualconvention of Navy fighter pilots; the dismissal of Air Force pilot Kelly Flinn for adulteryin 1997; the 1998 trial and
acquittal of the top rankingArmy enlisted man on charges of sexual harassment;andthe independentcounsel investigationsof PresidentClinton's sexual
affairs with subordinates.These cases and others received saturationmedia
coverage, promptingone commentatorto label "sex and its place in American
life" as the dominanttheme of the 1990s (Stan 1995).
All too frequently,the public debates sparkedby these cases have been polarizedbetween those who arguethatsex doesn't belong in the workplace,and
those who argue that virtually"anythinggoes" as far as consenting adults are
concerned(Stan 1995). Feminists are as split as any othergroupon this issue.
Lynn Chanceridentifies a schism between "sex"and"sexism"among feminist
concerns:"Onefeminist goal ... is thatwomen be able to enjoy sexual freedom.
Another,just as necessary, is that women be able to attainfreedom from sexism" (Chancer1998:2). Those who focus theirenergyon the formergoal, often
referredto as "pro-sex"feminists, are pitted in debates againstthose committed to fighting discrimination and eradicating sexual harassment from the
workplace,a position associatedwith the works of CatharineMacKinnonand
AndreaDworkin and often labeled "radicalfeminist.""Pro-sex"feminists argue thatwomen are oppressedby restrictionson sexual expression.They point
out that such restrictionsare frequentlysupportedby social and political conservatives devoted to preservingan image of pure and virtuous womanhood.
From this perspective, women's sexual desire should be expressed, even in
workplaces, because it is a potentially subversive force for underminingthis
patronizingand patriarchalimage of women. Those associated with "radical
SEXATWORK 75
feminism," on the other hand, maintainthat heterosexualityis oppressive to
women, particularlyin workplacesthat are dominatedand controlledby men.
In this view, sexual consent is possible only between equals;thereforeheterosexual relationshipsthattakeplace at work are inherentlyinvoluntaryandunequal since men (in general)have more power, income, and statusthanwomen.
(See also Hallinan 1993, LeMoncheck 1997.)
Both positions, in their extreme forms, are untenable.Sexual relationships
at work are not always liberatingand mutually fulfilling, nor are they always
sexually harassingand harmful.Individualscan and do make distinctionsbetween sexual harassmentand assault on the one hand, and pleasurable,mutually desired sexual interactionsand relationshipson the other. Sexual interactions include a wide range of behaviors, including flirting with coworkers or
clients (in person or via email); consuming pornography;sexual joking, bantering and touching; and coworker dating, sexual affairs, cohabitation and
marriage.Fully understandinghow behaviorssuch as these come to be labeled
consensual or coercive raises fundamentalquestions that call out for systematic study by sociologists: How pervasive is consensual sexual activity in the
workplace?How do workersdistinguishbetween wantedandunwantedsexual
advances?Whatarethe consequencesof consensualsexual behaviorfor men's
and women's careers?How do organizationsdistinguishbetween wanted and
unwanted sexual activity? And why do some organizations accommodate
consensual sexual relationships,and others resist or prohibitthem?
This chapter reviews the literatureon these topics, focusing on research
conductedin the United States. We begin with a discussion of researchexamining the difference between consensual and harassingsexuality in the workplace. By clarifying the meaning of sexual harassment,we believe we will be
in a betterposition to understandconsensual sexual activity.
SEXUAL HARASSMENTAND SEXUAL CONSENT
Some might question our startingpremise on the groundsthat consensual sexual relationships have nothing whatever to do with sexual harassment(e.g.
Gallop 1997, Schultz 1998). This argumentcontendsthatsexual harassmentis
objectionablenot because it is sexual per se, but ratherbecause its effects are
damaging to women's careers and employment or educationalopportunities.
These writers acknowledge that workplace discrimination against women
often takes a sexual form-e.g., sexual put-downs, staring,come-ons, touching-but these behaviors should only be prohibited if they result in loss of
opportunities.
Certainly,from a purely legal perspective, this argumentis correct:Sexual
harassmentis technically againstthe law only insofar as it is a form of gender
discrimination.According to Mane Hajdin:
76 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
Fromthe viewpointof the law,eventhe factthata victimof sexualharassmenthassufferedharmis notin itselfa groundforprovidinga legalremedy,
no matterhowgravetheharmmightbe....Theultimatequestionthata court
case needsto resolveis not "Hasthe
dealingwith [a sexualharassment]
butrather,"Hastheplaintiff,in sufferingtheharm,
plaintiffsufferedharm?"
beendiscriminated
againston the basisof sex?"Theevidenceof the harm
sufferedby thevictimis legallyrelevantonlyinsofaras it cancontribute
to
the
latter
answering
question.(Hajdin1997:123)
In a court of law, the victim of sexual harassmentmust show that she (or he)
was treateddifferentlythanwere the men (or the women) who were similarly
situated,andconsequentlysuffereda loss of opportunitiesor benefits. In 1998,
the US SupremeCourtaffirmed the principle that all litigated sexual harassment cases must involve gender discrimination.The Courtallowed a case of
sexual harassmentinvolving a heterosexualman suing his heterosexualmale
coworkers to go to trial, but Justice Scalia wrote that the male plaintiff must
still prove that his coworkers' behavior toward him was "not merely tinged
with offensive sexual connotation,but actually constituteddiscriminationbecause of sex" (New YorkTimes,March5, 1998, p. A17). The issue of consent is
immaterial according to this legal perspective: The only pertinent question
should be whether or not the particularsexual behaviors resulted in gender
discrimination.
Nevertheless, in actual court proceedings, the issue of sexual consent is
often paramountin proving or disprovinga charge of sexual harassment.Evidence of a priorintimaterelationshipmay underminethe credibilityof a sexual
harassmentplaintiff (Schultz 1998, Summers& Myklebust 1992). In a study
of a disciplinarytribunalhearingon sexual harassmentin a Canadianuniversity, Ehrlich & King (1996) found that consent was the central issue: Complainantswere questioned repeatedlyabout why they didn't resist the defendant's sexual advancesby yelling out or locking theirdoors. The authorsargue
thatthe presumptionof the defendantas well as the tribunalmemberswas that
behaviorthat is not resistedto the "utmost"implies consent, which can undermine charges of sexual harassment.
Workers themselves often conceive of sexual behaviors at work along a
continuum,rangingfrom pleasurable,to tolerable,to harassing.Some studies
have attemptedto ascertainhow workers"drawthe line" between sexual harassment and consensual sexual behaviors.In a study of restaurants,Giuffre&
Williams (1994) found that waiters and waitresses eagerly engaged in a great
deal of flirtatious,sexual banteringwith coworkers of their same race/ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation,but they defined identicalbehaviorsby coworkersof differentbackgroundsas sexual harassment.The widespreaduse of
double standardsin assessing sexual harassmentsuggests that it is not the sexual behaviorper se thatsome workersfind objectionable,but rather,character-
SEXATWORK 77
istics of the individualwho engages in the behavior.This studyraises concerns
that already-marginalizedgroups (racial/ethnicminority members; gays and
lesbians;working class men) may be singled out and targetedfor enforcement
of the sexual harassmentpolicies that exist today in many workplaces.
Workersalso may be more likely to tolerateobjectionablesexual behaviors
if they considerthem a requirementof theirjobs. Service workerssubjectedto
constant sexual comments, leering, and touching from customers may be reluctantto complain about these behaviors to managers.For example, Adkins
(1995) found thatwomen hired for several differentjobs in the Britishtourism
industrywere requiredto engage in sexualized interactionswith customersand
coworkers.A cateringmanagerdescribes the work of her female assistants:
She"expected"
womenworkersto be ableto copewithsexualbehaviourand
attentionfrommen customersas "partof the job." She said that if "the
womencateringassistantscomplain,orsaythingsliketheycan'tcope,I tell
themit happensall thetimeandnotto worryaboutit...it'spartof thejob...if
theycan'thandleit thenthey'renotupto workinghere."(Adkins1995:130)
While some women may enjoy and even profit from sexualized interactionsat
work, resisting these behaviors may be impossible. In this particularcase, reportingsexually offensive behaviorto the cateringmanagerwould not resultin
a complaint of sexual harassment;more likely, it would result in the loss of a
job. Those who stay in these jobs thereforemust develop their own personal
strategiesto cope with the constant sexual harassment.
In the service jobs they studied, Folgero & Fjeldstad (1995) found that
those who did actively complain of sexual harassmentwere admonishedby
their coworkers to either "take it or leave it." Many workersbelieve that any
reasonableperson should toleratethe sexual demandsof thejob. As Folgero &
Fjeldstadpoint out (1995:311), "in a culturalsetting where sexual harassment
is generally accepted as part of the job, feelings of harassmentmay be suppressed to a degree where the victim actively denies that the problem exists."
In these instances, workersmay label as sexual harassmentonly those experiences that transcendthe work role, involve violence, or take place after work
hours, as in the case of stalking. (See also Giuffre & Williams 1994, Williams
1998, cf Haavio-Mannilaet al 1988.)
These studies all suggest that sexual harassmentand sexual consent are not
polar opposites, in contrastto the assumptionof much legal theory. Instead,
they are interrelatedand overlapping moments in a complex and contextspecific process. Thus, in work contexts where subjection to sexual harassment is part of the job, the concept of "consent" is problematic, yet many
workerstolerate and even endorse these featuresof theirjobs. In these cases,
the boundarybetween sexual harassmentand sexual consent is often blurred,
from the vantage points both of employees and of researchersinterested in
documentingand ultimately eradicatingsexual harassment.
78 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
But what aboutjobs thatgive workersmore autonomyin defining theirown
sexual desires and practices?Do workersever seek outjobs for sexual excitement and adventure?Do men and women ever enjoy their sexual experiences
in the workplace?These questions tend to be ignored in the studies of sexual
harassmentwe have reviewed, in part because they have been designed to
documentthe unacceptablerange of sexual behavior.
In this paper, we shift the focus to consensual relationships, which we
define as those reflecting positive and autonomous expressions of workers'
sexual desire. Ourgoal is to preservea place for workers'agency in ourunderstanding of workplace sexuality, without denying the organizational constraints on their behavior. But very little sociological research has explored
the pleasurable and consensual end of the sexual spectrum.As editor Beth
Schneiderlamented in a special issue of Gender & Society devoted to sexuality research, "Thereis still a severe shortage of researchon the narratives
and experiences of the joys of sexuality" (1994:296). We now turnto a brief
overview of the few sources of existing data on this topic.
OFFICEROMANCELITERATURE
Nonacademic sources of informationabout consensual sex in the workplace
abound.Magazinesandnews organizationsfrequentlycommission surveys on
workplace flirting, dating, and marriage,but this kind of studyhas more to do
with titillating readersand expanding sales than generatingreliable information about work organizations.An Associated Press story released on Valentine's Day 1998, reportedon one such survey commissionedby Details magazine. It polled the magazine's subscribers'opinions about a range of intimate
and personal behaviors in the workplace, from smiling and socializing after
work, to wearing tight, provocative clothing and telling sexualjokes. Perhaps
not surprisingly,the survey found that a large percentageof respondentsengaged in these behaviors,leading the AP writerto concludethat"likered roses
and Valentine's Day, office romances are now partof many a love life."
There is also a vast literatureon "office romance"that has been generated
by business researchersand consultants. This literaturecan be grouped into
three categories: empirical studies, policy analyses, and how-to advice for
managers. The empirical studies focus on assessing the impact of intimate,
sexual relationshipson productivity, and on generatingpolicy guidelines to
controland monitoremployee behavior.A numberof studies surveymanagers
about whether their companies have policies regulating office romance and
solicit their opinions on the motives of the participants,and the effects of such
relationshipson workers'productivity.A comprehensivereview of this literature (Pierce et al 1996) reports mixed and inconclusive results from these
studies: Some find that office romances increasejob productivityand worker
morale; others find the opposite. On the benefits side, studies find that work-
SEXATWORK 79
place romance can inject excitement into the work group;enhance communication and cooperation;stimulate creativity;and create a happierwork environment(Mainiero 1986, Crary1987, Anderson & Hunsaker 1985, Dillard &
Broetzmann 1989). On the negative side, studies find that romances can take
time and energy away from work (late arrivals, early departures, long
lunches); increasegossip; arousejealousy and suspicion due to favoritism;and
increasevulnerabilityto charges of sexual harassment(Anderson& Hunsaker
1985, Mainiero 1986, Powell 1993, Pierce & Aguinis 1997).
Numerous shortcomingsdetractfrom the value of most of these studies for
sociologists. Most are based on anecdotal evidence or on convenience samples, such as MBA studentsor people waiting in airports(Dillard's work is an
exception). Many are thirdparty studies, soliciting opinions about office romance from individuals who may or may not have any personal experience
with such relationships.Almost all of the studiesuse closed-ended surveys and
pay little to no attentionto organizationalcontext. Finally, these studies are of
limited value because they tend to focus exclusively on heterosexualrelationships among white collar employees, ignoringthose of gays and lesbians, and
any relationships that may develop among blue collar workers and those
employed in service industriesand the professions.
The management literaturealso includes articles addressing policy concerns. Many of these urge managersto institutepolicies to stop office affairsif
they suspect thatproductivityis adversely affected by them (e.g. Anderson&
Hunsaker1985, Dillard & Broetzmann1989, Lobel et al 1994). For instance,
one study of intimateheterosexualrelationshipsconcludes with the following
advice:
Becausethistypeof relationship
canhavebothpositiveandnegativeconsequences,managershave a vital role to play: fosteringpositiveoutcomes
while interveningto minimizeany negativerepercussions(Lobel et al
1994:15).
The means that managers have at their disposal to "minimize any negative
repercussions" of office romance include transferring and even firing the
employees. There are virtuallyno legal limits on employers' ability to impose
and enforceprohibitionsagainstfraternizationbetween employees, even away
from the workplace (Massengill & Peterson 1995). The constitutionallyguaranteed right to privacy does not protect individuals involved in intimate relationships at work (Hallinan 1993). In fact, employers can requireemployees
to disclose information about intimate relationships that involve actual or
perceived conflicts of interest. Failure to disclose can be legal grounds for
discharge (Segal 1993).
Almost half of all states have laws prohibiting discrimination against
workers on the basis of marital status. Some people who marry coworkers
80 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
have attemptedto use these laws to protectthem fromjob loss or transfer,but
in most instances, these efforts have not been successful in challenging rules
prohibitingcorporateromanceand relationships(Wolkenbreit1997).
The practice of firing or transferringindividuals involved in consensual
sexual relationships may be especially detrimentalfor women workers. In
cases involving heterosexualcouples, the woman may bear the bruntof such
managementdecisions, because she is likely to occupy a lower- level position
in the organizationcomparedto the man (Quinn 1977, Anderson& Hunsacker
1985, Wolkenbreit 1997). Laws prohibiting employment discrimination
against women may not apply in these cases if the two partnersdo not occupy
similar positions in the organizationalhierarchy.Courtshave found that it is
legal to fire the subordinatemember of the couple and not the superordinate-even if that negatively impacts more women than men-as long as the
rule is enforced equally on all subordinates,regardlessof gender (Massengill
& Peterson 1995, cf Young 1995). Genderdiscriminationresulting from such
policies is difficult to prove for two additionalreasons. Because only a small
numberof women are typically affected by the policy in any given organization, the statisticalevidence needed to prove disparateimpact is usually lacking or unconvincing in the courtroom(Wolkenbreit 1997). And finally, because some companies allow the couple to decide which membermust leave
theirjob, a varietyof factorsmight enterinto theirchoice, such as income, seniority, and opportunities. Although all of these considerations are clearly
linked to gender,courtsmay view them as independentcausal factors,making
gender discriminationargumentsdifficult to prove (Wolkenbreit 1997; see
also Hallinan 1993).
In sum, there are few legal protections available for employees who lose
theirjobs because they date, cohabitatewith, or marrya coworker.The managementliteraturegenerallysupportscompanies' power to regulatethese relationships. Thus, most of the managementpolicy literatureand several of the
law journal articles we reviewed (e.g. Hallinan 1993, Herbst 1996) recommend institutinga clear, written policy prohibitingfraternization(especially
between supervisorsand subordinates)and uniformly enforcing it.
Finally, in additionto researchand policy studies, the managementliteraturealso containsa genre of"how to"books and essays, providing"hands-on"
advice to businessmen and women regarding sexual relationships. These
works are typically based on informal,journalistic interviews with corporate
executives (e.g. Westoff 1985, Neville 1990, Baridon& Eyler 1994). Business
workers usually are advised to avoid sexual relationships, in part to protect
themselves against charges of sexual harassmentand in part to enhance their
productivity and economic success. Some writers provide check-lists to aid
individuals in deciding whether or not to pursue a sexual relationshipon the
job, as in the following example (cited in Powell 1993:144-45):
SEXATWORK 81
1. Be aware of office norms about romancebefore acting.
2. Evaluatethe potential risks to careeradvancement.
3. Don't mess aroundwith a boss-or mentor.
4. Maintainstrictboundariesbetween personal and professional roles.
5. Clarify at the startexactly what you want from the relationship.
6. Identify the possible areas in which partnersmay become competitive.
7. Anticipate possible conflict-of-interest situations.
8. Be sensitiveto thereactionsof colleaguesandmanagement.
9. Rememberthattheromancewill notremaina secretforlong.
10. Discuss"contingency
plans"at the startof theromance.
Overall, the value of this literatureto sociologists is mixed. It offers very little
reliable informationabout what is actually taking place in organizationsand
why. But it does provide interestinginsights into how managementexpertsunderstandsexuality and its place in organizations.Most of these writersrely on
a very reified image of sexuality, as an irrational,biological force thatmust be
controlledand channeledfor organizationsto profit and for individualsto succeed. Almost every book and article in the genre follows the same format:
They begin with a variantof the statement,"In the last decade, women have
been entering the labor force in record numbers" (Dillard & Witteman
1985:99). Office romanceis consideredthe inevitable result:"Today's organizationalwoman works, interacts,travels, socializes, andrelaxes with her male
colleagues more than ever before. Such intense involvement is a potential
breeding groundfor both sexual attractionand romanticrelationships"(Warfield 1987:22). These romances are threateningto organizations:"The introduction of gender into workplace groupingsopens up issues such as jealousy,
triangles, favoritism, territoriality,mismatched attraction,exploitation, and
awkwardbreakups"(Baridon& Eyler 1994:149). But experthelp is available:
"Whether[corporations]like it or not, whether it is good for business or bad,
corporateromanceis as inevitable as earthquakesin California,and it must be
explored and understood so that this often unpredictablesocial force can be
properlychanneled"(Westoff 1985:21).
The view of sexuality contained in these writings is very similar to the
conventional Freudianperspective that sexuality must be repressedfor civilization to function productively. Sexuality (id) is counterposedto rationality
(ego) and is considered disruptive, antisocial, dangerous, and in need of
control. Many sociologists today reject this perspective, arguing instead that
society actively promotes some specific expressions of sexuality while it discourages others. The discourse of experts (in contemporarysociety, anyone
from talk-show hosts to psychologists to business consultants)is particularly
influential in defining and enforcing the boundaries between "normal"and
"abnormal"sexuality. Jeffrey Weeks sums up this position:
82 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
Sexualityis somethingthatsocietyproducesin complexways.Itis a resultof
diversesocialpracticesthatgive meaningto socialactivities,of socialdefinitionsandself-definitions,
of strugglesbetweenthosewhohavethepower
to defineandregulate,andthosewho resist.Sexualityis not given,it is a
productof negotiation,struggleandhumanagency.(Weeks1986:25)
This broaderdefinitionof sexuality emphasizesthatsocial institutions,including the workplace, define and shape sexual desire, and also that social groups
often negotiate and resist pressurestowardconformitywith social norms (see
also Williams & Britton 1995).
From this perspective, managerscan be seen, throughtheir expert advice
literature,as actively shapingworkers'sexual desire. This opens up interesting
questions for sociological investigation.For instance,by providingcheck lists
like the one cited above, are consultantsprivileging certain sexual practices
and marginalizingothers?Do any groups benefit more than others from antidatingpolicies (e.g. marriedvs single, men vs women)? And what are the social and psychological consequences of implementingthis advice? It is possible thatthese policies may make prohibitedliaisons riskierandhence sexier to
workers. Furthermore,because they typically police only heterosexual relationships, they may contributeto the invisibility of gays and lesbians in many
workplaces, but by prohibiting all sexual relationships, such policies may
force heterosexuals into the closet as well. Unfortunately,we know virtually
nothingaboutworkers'reactionsto such policies, how pervasivethey are, how
consistently they are enforced, and their impact on differentgroups of workers. Thus the "office romance"literatureis suggestive of fruitfulavenues for
sociological research,but it begs as many questions as it answers.
SOCIOLOGICALSTUDIES OF WORKPLACE
SEXUALITY
As noted, few sociologists have ever examined consensual sexual behavior in
the workplace.However, pockets of informationare scatteredin diverse literatures. Some insight into the topic can be gleaned from researchon sexual partnering or mate selection. For instance,we can gain an overall impressionof the
prevalence of consensual sexuality from the nation-wide survey on American
sexual behavior by Laumann et al (1994). This survey asked respondents
where they met their currentsexual partners,and a substantialproportionabout 15%-said that they met at work.
Researchon marriagepatternsin particularoccupations is also a potential
source of informationon the scope of consensual sexual behavior. Studies of
workers in specific occupations often include informationabout their family
members.Thus, we know that women physicians often marrymen physicians
(Myers 1988); many women researchscientists are marriedto scientists (Py-
SEXATWORK 83
cior et al 1996); and faculty membersfrequentlymarryotherfaculty members
(Astin & Milem 1997). Of course this researchon marriagepartnersis limited
to legally sanctioned heterosexual relationships;less is known about workplace relationshippatternsamong gays, lesbians, and unmarriedheterosexuals. Furthermore,this admittedly partial information is available only for a
narrowrange of occupations. We have relatively more informationabout the
prevalence of marriage-at-workamong professionals and small business owners (e.g. Kranendonk1997), and less informationaboutworkersin blue collar
and service occupations. Presumably,certain occupations would lend themselves more to consensual sexual unions thanothers.The mix of workers(age,
gender, sexual orientation,race/ethnicity),their relative isolation or proximity, hoursrequirements,and opportunitiesfor social interactionduringthe day
are all importantaspects of jobs that may have an impact on the prevalence of
consensual sexual behavior(Mainiero 1986, Haavio-Mannilaet al 1988, Powell 1993). But no one has yet undertakena systematic study of the prevalence
of consensual sexual relationships, including marriage patterns, over the
gamut of occupations.
Ascertainingthe prevalence of sexual relationshipsamong workers in differentjobs would not inform larger questions of organizationalstructureand
culture,however. Specific hospitals, universities, factories, and stores may be
more or less amenableto the formationof sexual relationshipsamong employees, but there have been no studies to date thathave explored generalpatterns
among organizations.
Some information about the structuralconstraints imposed on workers'
intimaterelationshipsis available from the employee manuals of specific organizations and from publicized court cases that contest specific personnel
policies. Our brief examinationof these sources suggests that there is a wide
range of corporatepolicy and expectationsregardingconsensualrelationships
in the workplace.(References for this section are includedunder"Newspapers
and Magazines Consulted"in the LiteratureCited.)
At one extreme are organizationsthatprohibitand closely monitorall intimate involvements among employees. This category includes religious organizations,which typically scrutinizethe sexual behaviorof their clergy, and
the military, which has strict antifratemizationpolicies and bars the employment of gays and lesbians. Some business organizationsalso fit in this category. Prior to 1994 (when they lost a court battle over this issue), Walmart
fired any employee who acknowledgedcommittingadultery.In 1997, Staples
Inc. fired the president of the company and a secretary whom he had been
dating for violating the company's no fraterization policy. Some businesses,
such as the CrackerBarrel restaurantchain, bar the employment of gays and
lesbians. Dual-careermarriedpartnersare often accommodatedby these organizations (such is the case in the US military),but some have antinepotism
84 WILLIAMS,GIUFFRE,& DELLINGER
policies, such as UPS (United Parcel Service), although this is increasingly
rare(Reed & Bruce 1993, Werbel & Hames 1996).
At the other extreme are organizationsthat facilitate if not encourage the
formation of sexual relationships. Family businesses, including direct sales
organizationssuch as Amway, explicitly seek out and invite the employment
of family members(Biggart 1989). Historicallyblack colleges have welcomed
the employment of dual-careermarriedcouples (Perkins 1997), as do some
colleges and universities in remote ruralareas (Ferber& Loeb 1997). In the
corporateworld, there is apparentlymore acceptanceof datingand fraternization in specific industries, such as natural foods (e.g. Ben & Jerry's and
Odwalla), and high tech (e.g. Apple, Microsoft, Xerox, Oracle, and Borland
Computers). In these organizations, workers are encouraged to socialize at
company-sponsoredevents, and to work-outat the companygymnasium.Ben
& Jerry'shosts wintersolstice partiesfor its employees where it subsidizes hotel rooms to discourage drinking and driving. A personnel manager at the
company is quoted as saying, "We expect that our employees will date, fall in
love, and become partners."They make no effort to limit personal relationships among employees. Some companies in this category,such as AT&T and
Johnson's Wax, previously had more restrictivepolicies that were changed in
response to employee litigation.
Most work organizationsprobably fall somewhere in the middle, promoting some types of sexual relationshipsand prohibitingothers. Several universities now prohibitdating between faculty membersand their studentsas part
of their sexual harassmentor "amorousrelationship"policies, but they permit
other types of sexual relationships, such as marriagebetween faculty members. (Some universities now have "partnerprograms"that set aside salary
lines to hire faculty spouses. See Ferber& Loeb 1997.) Similarly,many corporations (IBM, GeneralMotors, GeneralElectric) enforce an antidatingpolicy
only on supervisorsand their subordinates.IBM, for example, requires employees to informmanagementif they aredatinga subordinateandto submitto
a job transfer.Interestingly,the policy stipulatesthatit is the supervisorwho is
requiredto transferto a new job.
It would be a fruitful exercise to systematically map out this range for a
largenumberof work organizationsin orderto ascertainwhat if any characteristics are sharedin common by organizationswith similarpolicies. It may be
the case that organizationswith steeper hierarchiesare more restrictivethan
"flatter"organizations.Sociologists could also assess the links between specific policy approachesand employment opportunitiesfor various groupings
of workers (e.g. men and women; heterosexuals, gays, and lesbians; factory
workers,service workers,professionals, etc.) It would be interestingto know,
for example, if liberal policies are associated with enhanced or restrictedjob
opportunitiesfor women workers.
SEXAT WORK 85
Perhaps the best sources of sociological information about consensual
sexuality are workplace ethnographies.Several ethnographersare currently
interestedin the overlapbetween the public and private lives of employees. A
numberof recent studies provide rich insights into how organizationsmonitor
and control intimate relationships at work, and also how workers resist that
controlandpursuesexual pleasureon thejob. We briefly review findings from
a varietyof workplacesettings thatpoint the way to fruitfulavenues for further
study.
In her ethnography of "Amerco," Hochschild (1997) explores why executives, managers, and factory workers in a company with family-friendly
policies do not seem to make use of them in orderto alleviate "thetime bind"
surroundingthe balancingof work and family needs. While thereare structural
reasons why workersdon't utilize these policies (fear of losing hours, not being seen as a "serious"player, failureof executives to wholeheartedlyendorse
a family-friendlywork culture, etc), Hochschild argues that there has been a
culturalshift in the valuationof home andwork. She foundthatmany workers,
despite their complaintsof a time crunch,preferredto spend time at work because they were emotionally supported,appreciated,and rewardedthere.
Modem participatorymanagement techniques invite workers to feel relaxed at work by blurringthe distinctionbetween work and play (dress down
days, free cokes), and by taking on "the role of a helpful relative"in solving
employees' personalproblems.Hochschild also claims thatwork may become
more interestingthanhome because the workplaceoffers a " naturaltheater"in
which workers can "follow the progress of jealousies, sexual attractions,
simmeringangers"that may be less dramaticat home (1997:201). She argues
that several social trends have caused courtshipand mate selection to move
into the sphere of work:
Thelaterage for marriage,the higherproportion
of unmarried
people,and
thehighdivorcerateall createan ever-replenishing
courtshippool at work.
Thegenderdesegregation
of theworkplace,andthelengthenedworkingday
alsoprovideopportunity
forpeopleto meetanddevelopromanticor quasiromanticties.Atthefactory,romancemaydevelopinthelunchroom,
pub,or
levels, at conferences,in "fantasy
parkinglot; andfor uppermanagement
settings"in hotelsanddimlylit restaurants
(1996:27).
For example, in Hochschild's interviews with factory workers at Amerco,
one man describedthe joking and "meaningless"flirting relationshipsthat he
and his male coworkers have with single women on the shop floor. These
women, who have the reputationof "coming on" to marriedmen, are labeled
"marriagebusters."Hochschild also reportsthat older women come to work
early "to gossip aboutthe cut of a young women's jersey or her new haircoloring-or like the men, they would consider the latest bulletins from the
'marriagebusting' front" (1997:188). Although this is merely one example,
& DELLINGER
86 WILLIAMS,
GIUFFRE,
Hochschild's ethnographicapproachto studyingthe workplace,and her attention to personal and emotional relationshipsat work, illustratethe ubiquitous
interestin consensual sexuality in a variety of occupationsin one work organization.
The term "professional"usually connotes an attitudetoward work that is
knowledgeable,trustworthy,and asexual. It is a termthat is often reservedfor
very high status occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. But a
study of doctors and nurses (Giuffre 1995, 1997) found that many health care
professionals experience a highly sexualized work culture, which includes a
great deal of bantering,touching, and flirting with coworkers.According to a
male anesthesiologist:
Wejokeallthetimeaboutsex. It's
Youcango intoa typicalheartoperation.
a copingmechanismforpeoplein anoperatingroomforstressfulsituations.
Peoplecomeup to me andhug me, or massagemy back,andthat'sall it's
meantto be. Outsiders
mightthink,"Gee,is shecomingonto him?"Butthey
don'tknowthatyou mighthavebeen doingthatfor six years.Everybody
doesit. (Giuffre1997:8)
Of course, in many cases, these sexual interactionsdo mean more, and they
lead to long term intimaterelationships.
But several men and women interviewed considered the frequent sexual
banteringand touching an importantpartof theirjob because it helps them to
cope with the stressful nature of their work. The pleasure that many derive
from sexual interactionsleads some to be wary of efforts to rid their workplaces of sexual harassment.According to a woman urologist:
Sexualbanterhappenspartlybecauseof thehighstresssituations.Intheoperatingroom,it's evenmorestressful.Youall go in andputon thesescrubs.
It removessocialandsexualboundaries....
[There's]teasingandjokingand
pinchingandelbowing.It's fun.That'sonereasonpeoplelikebeingin that
thinkit's beenlimitedsomewhatby
arena.That'spartof thecamaraderie....I
cases.It's sadthatif someonewhoI'mworking
all of thesexualharassment
withnudgesup to me andelbowsme, andI say,"I'mgladI woremy metal
bratodayto protectmyselffromyourelbow,"it's sadthatyoucan'tsaythat
in peaceanymore.It's a way thatmenandwomeninteract.It's a formof
flirtation.(Giuffre1997:6)
The sexualizedwork culturein the operatingroom is consensualand fun in her
view, and it should be beyond the scope of sexual harassmentpolicy. This
finding suggests that at least some workers, including highly placed professional women, would likely resent and resist organizations'efforts to monitor
and regulatetheir sexual behaviorsand relationshipswith coworkers,even for
the purposeof eradicatingsexual harassment.
On the otherhand,doctors and nurses in Giuffre's study were very circumspect aboutengaging in sexual interactionswith theirpatients.Sexual relation-
SEXATWORK 87
ships with patients are strictly prohibitedand can result in job loss and legal
problemsfor health careprofessionals (Friedman& Boumil 1995). Physicians
and nurses must therefore learn to "desexualize"their interactionswith patients, by repressing their personal sexual feelings and denying the sexual
desires of their patients (Henslin & Biggs 1998). Thus, even in this highly
sexualized work culture, health care professionals recognize as legitimate
certain organizationalrestrictionson their sexual behavior.
What happens when workersviolate such restrictions?In Britton's (1995,
1997) ethnographicstudy of guardsin a men's and a women's prison,the topic
of sexual relationshipsbetween guardsand inmatessurfacedfrequently.At the
men's prison, women officers are seen by supervisors and male officers as
"willing or unwilling victims of seduction by male inmates"(1995:96), and
consequently they are viewed as "weak."There were stories of women who
lost their jobs because they developed relationships with inmates. Many
women officers attemptto rid their interactionswith inmates of any possible
sexual interpretationby closely following institutionalprocedures.Although
this lessened the chance that they would be labeled "weak"andsexually vulnerable,it also made it more difficult for them to get along with male officers
who expected a degree of flexibility when implementing institutionalrules
duringwork with the inmates.Thus, women officers in the men's prison face a
double bind: They are disadvantagedby the perception that they will have
consensual sexual relationshipswith male inmates, as well as by their efforts
to avoid this perceptionby sticking closely to institutionalprocedures.
In the case of the women's prison, lesbianrelationshipsbetween guardsand
inmateswere a frequenttopic of discussion and gossip. Like women who work
in many nontraditionaloccupations, women prison guards are frequently
stereotyped as lesbian. This makes them especially susceptible to rumors
aboutrelationshipswith female inmates.In fact, women officers were seen as
equally if not more likely to enterinto relationshipswith inmatesas were male
officers (the converse was not the case at the men's prison), and women were
as likely as men to be fired for having sex with inmates. Several officers
claimed thatthere was a high numberof inmate/guardrelationshipsas a result
of the structuralset-up of the women's prison facility barracks,where 34 inmates are guarded by one officer for eight hour shifts. This arrangementof
the prison, so unlike the "panopticon"design of the men's prison, promotes
rumorsaboutprohibitedsexual liaisons and may even facilitate the formation
of such relationships.
In the prison and the hospital, as in other"total"institutions,employees are
typically forbidden from entering into sexual relationships with "clients."
However, as mentionedpreviously in this article, sexual interactionswith clients are part of many jobs in the service sector. Maika Loe (1996), who was
employed for six monthsby the euphemisticallyrenamed"Bazooms"national
88 WILLIAMS,GIUFFRE,& DELLINGER
restaurantchain, discusses how sexual behavior can be built into job descriptions, and also how workers attemptto reshape and negotiate with these demands. At Bazooms, young women workersare hired to wait on mostly male
customers. They are required to wear skimpy uniforms, and their figures,
make-up,and hair are strictlymonitored.In additionto serving food, the "Bazooms Girls,"as they areofficially called, arerequiredto play with hula hoops,
to dance with customerson theirbirthdaysand special occasions (while giving
instructionson how to shake salt-and-peppercontainerslike maracas),and to
place orders by reaching up to a line into the kitchen (which exposes their
midriffs) while singing.
The culture of the Bazooms workplace is completely sexualized. New
workers are requiredto sign consent forms that certify they are aware of this
sexualized environmentand they are comfortablewith it. Calendarsfeaturing
"Bazooms Girls"wearing bikinis are prominentlydisplayed, as arejokes that
characterizethe waitresses as stupid and gullible ("Caution:Blondes Thinking").
Remarkably,there is a great deal of competition for these jobs: Loe writes
that she was one of sixty "lucky"women hiredout of an applicantpool of 800!
Why do women want to work there? Loe claims that they have a variety of
motives: Some are motivated by economic need and limited prospects, but
many come to Bazooms to affirm their femininity:
Workingat Bazoomscanbe "ahugeself-esteemboost"(Lori),becauseBazoomsgirls aregettingwhatsome considerto be positiveattentionin the
formof flirting,flattery,anddailyaffirmation
thattheyareindeedsexy,desirablewomen.NotonlydoBazoomsgirlsgetattentionandaffirmations,
but
theyaremakingcommissionaswell....Myfellowwaitresseswhoweresingle
momstendedto be moreinterestedin the tips;othersmayhavebeenmore
concernedwithaffirmation
andself-esteem. (Loe 1996:418)
The boost to self-esteem is short-lived and tenuous, however. The women at
Bazooms constantlystrugglewith managers(all men) andcustomersto protect
their autonomy and agency. They also incessantly monitor themselves (and
their coworkers) about their appearanceand self-worth. Not surprisingly, a
high turnoveramong waitresses is the result.
Organizationssometimes appropriateworkers' sexuality and sexual pleasure in more informal ways. Yelvington (1996) conducted an ethnographic
study of flirtingin a Trinidadianfactory.Accordingto Yelvington, all non-kin
male-female relationships in Trinidadare sexualized. Through flirting, men
and women express their sexuality and sexual desire, but they also use it to
exercise power in specifically gendered,ethnic, and class-specific ways.
Yelvington, an anthropologist, studied sexual interactions in a factory
stratified by race/ethnicity and gender: All the supervisors were white and
East Indian men, and all the line workers were Black and East Indian, and
SEXAT WORK 89
most were women. He found that the white supervisors often flirt with the
young Black and East Indianwomen factory workers,who usually play along
with it:
Whatthewomentoldmewasthattheyhadtakenstockof theirrelativepositionsof influenceandpowerwithinthe factoryhierarchy(theywereat the
bottom)andthattheyneedto playalongwiththe supervisor'sadvances,to
so thattheycouldeninsinuatethepossibilityof a futuresexualrelationship,
suresmoothworkplacerelations,andultimately,keeptheirjobs. (Yelvington 1996:323)
Yelvington arguesthatthis flirtingbetween white supervisorsand female line
workersreproducesthe history of white men's access to Black and East Indian
women under slavery and indenture.He notes that supervisors who are East
Indiando not flirt with the Black women, because doing so would cause them
to lose symbolic capital, but they do flirt with the East Indian women line
workers.
Yelvington also found a greatdeal of flirtingbetween men and women line
workers. Both men and women sexually objectify each other. Men typically
flirt with women in a confrontationalverbal style, while women's flirtingusually is done with sexy looks and suggestive body language. Yelvington explains that women flirt to "engage [men's] attentions for instrumentalpurposes," such as getting men to collect boxes of parts for them. Occasionally,
women do aggressively "heckle"(verbally bait or harass) men; for example,
when threewomen looked out the factorywindow and caught a man urinating
outside, they teased him about his penis. Yelvington sees women's initiation
of flirting as a way for women to mitigate and resist men's control. He concludes that "Flirtingplays with sexual attractionwhile being a conduit for
power relations, and these multiple meanings are fraughtwith contradiction
and value conflict. The culturally 'acceptable' and valorized practice of
flirting shades into threat and coercion, which are less acceptable and more
able to be resisted legitimately"(Yelvington 1996:328).
Each of the studies thatwe have reviewed so far describes workplacesthat
are infused with a heterosexual culture that privileges heterosexual workers.
Are there any organizations that value other expressions of sexuality and
workers with alternative sexual identities? Dellinger's (1998) study of two
organizations in the magazine publishing industry suggests that the official
ideology of an organizationcan greatly impact the organization'swillingness
to tolerateand, in some cases, to value the contributionsof gay, lesbian, andbisexual workers. One of the organizationsshe studiedpublishes a heterosexual
men's pornographicmagazine, and the other, a feminist magazine. At the
feminist magazine, lesbian perspectives are valued for providing alternative
and criticalinsights into the editorialcontentof the magazine andfor addingan
90 WILLIAMS,
& DELLINGER
GIUFFRE,
interesting,"exotic"element to workplaceinteractionsand discussions. At the
pornographicmagazine, the perspectives of gays and lesbians are not valued
per se, but in some jobs gays and lesbians may be the preferredworkers. The
men entrustedwith escortingthe models to companyfunctionsandnude photo
shoots, for example, areboth gay. Dellinger noted thatgay men, andto a lesser
extent lesbians, may be sought after for certainjobs because they are seen as
betterable thanheterosexualsto distancethemselves and their own sexual desires from the materialat hand. In otherwords, they are perceived to view the
pornographic material as simply a "product"to be dealt with objectively.
Although in both organizations,gays and lesbians face barriersto achieving
the top positions, Dellinger's study suggests that not all occupations within
organizationspresumeand privilege heterosexualworkers.
These ethnographiesillustratea range of organizationalresponses to sexuality. They each provide rich, detailed informationaboutparticularworkplace
contexts. But how generalizableare their findings? More informationfrom a
wider arrayof organizationsis neededbefore we can reachany reliableconclusions, but a few preliminaryobservationsare possible.
Perhaps most importantly, these ethnographies demonstratethat in the
study of sexuality in the workplace,context is paramount.The same behavior
in different organizationalcontexts can have different meanings and consequences. Thus, while many service workersare paid to be sexy and to engage
in sexual innuendo with customers, in otherjobs, mere rumorsof sexual behavior or desire can destroy a career,as is the case in the prison or hospital.
The consequences of organizational sexuality for women's careers seem
especially significant. Because young women are defined as (hetero)sexually
attractive,they arethe preferredworkersin certainservingjobs. Many women
find pleasurein this recognitionof their sexual attractiveness,and some profit
from it. Yet definingwomen's value as workersin termsof theirsexuality is always short-lived,andmay discriminateagainstolder, "less attractive"women.
Equating women workers with sexuality may also make women especially
vulnerableto dismissal or transferin organizationsthat forbidsexual relationships between employees and clients, as is the case in total organizations.
We also see from these studies that different expressions of sexuality are
hegemonic in differentcontexts. Usually heterosexualmarriedindividualsare
privileged,but occasionally singles, andmore rarely,gays and lesbiansmay be
the preferred workers. We need to have more information about the work
contexts that are welcoming to nonheterosexuals.Finally, these studies indicate that sexual practices vary considerably among countries. Behavior that
is expected and normative in Trinidad may be highly unusual and deviant
in anothercountry.A country's laws and norms regardingsexual harassment
are likely to have an importantimpact on the workplace culture of organizations.
SEXAT WORK 91
CONCLUSION
Sexuality takes many forms in the workplace, and it has multiple and contradictorymeanings and consequences. The various literatureswe have reviewed
show that organizations attempt to control and to monitor sexual behavior
among workers, but also that workers resist and negotiate these constraints.
Many men and women enjoy the sexualized elements of their work lives, but
they neverthelessdrawboundarylines between enjoyable,tolerable,andunacceptable sexual behavior. These boundarylines are context-specific, and they
can vary for differentcategories of workers(professional,service, blue collar,
etc). Sexual behavior that would scandalize and result in sexual harassment
lawsuits in one context could be partof the job descriptionin another.
However, the fact that men and women workers enjoy sexualized interactions in a particularcontext does not preclude the possibility of dangerousor
damagingoutcomes. Individualsmay use double standardsto decide who can
and who cannot participatein the sexualized culture of the workplace. Marginalized groups may be overrepresented among those who are excluded,
makingmembersof these groupsmore likely thandominantgroupmembersto
be chargedwith sexual harassmentfor engaging in sexual behaviors. Some organizations also use double standardsin deciding who can and cannot engage
in sexual relationships, and which relationships are valued and privileged.
Furthermore,enjoyableand consensual sexual behaviorcan be coopted for organizations' purposes, producingambivalentreactions in the workforce. The
waitresses at "Bazooms,"for example, are flatteredby the public acknowledgment of their sexual attractiveness,yet they lament that they are exploited in
ways thatdeny their sexual agency and self-esteem. Sex at work is rarelyeither
pleasurableor harmful;apparently,it is usually both.
Sociologists still have a greatdeal to learnaboutsexuality in the workplace.
Our review of the literature has suggested some of the ways that the social
organization of sexuality at work may be linked to workplace inequality,
stratification,and discrimination-and also to job satisfaction, self-esteem,
and happiness. But many unanswered questions remain. Human beings are
sexual and consequentlyso are the places where they work. Organizationswill
never be able to rid themselves of sexuality (an undesirablegoal at any rate),
but they should do a better job of shielding workers from harassment and
discrimination.Achieving a betterunderstandingof the pleasuresand the perils of sexuality at work is an importantstep in this quest for more humane
workplaces.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http ://www.AnnualReviews.org.
92
WILLIAMS, GIUFFRE, & DELLINGER
Literature Cited
Adkins L. 1995. Gendered Work:Sexuality,
Family, and the Labour Market. Bristol:
Open Univ. Press
AndersonCI, HunsakerPL. 1985. Why there's
romancingat the office and why it's everybody's problem.Personnel 62:57-63
Astin HS, Milem JF. 1997. The status of academic couples in U.S. institutions. See
Ferber& Loeb 1997, pp. 128-55
Baridon AP, Eyler DR. 1994. Working Together: The New Rules and Realities for
Managing Men and Womenat Work.New
York: McGraw Hill
Biggart NW. 1989. Charismatic Capitalism:
Direct Selling Organizations in America.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Britton DM. 1995. Sex, violence and supervision: a study of the prison as a gendered
organization. PhD thesis. Univ. Texas,
Austin
Britton DM 1997. Gendered organizational
logic: policy and practice in men's and
women's prisons. Gender Soc. 11:796818
Chancer LS. 1998. Reconcilable Differences.
Confronting Beauty, Pornography, and
the Future of Feminism. Berkeley: Univ.
of Calif. Press
CraryM. 1987. Managing attractionand intimacy at work. Organ.Dynamics 15:27-41
Dellinger KA. 1998. Contextualizing workplace opportunities: a comparative case
study of gender and sexuality at afeminist
and a men's pornographic magazine. PhD
thesis. Univ. Texas, Austin
Dillard JP, Broetzmann SM. 1989. Romantic
relationships at work: perceived changes
in job-related behaviors as a function of
participant'smotive, partner'smotive, and
gender. JAppl. Soc. Psychol. 19:93-110
Dillard JP, WittemanH. 1985. Romantic relationships at work: organizationaland personal influences. Hum. Commun.Res. 12:
99-116
Ehrlich S, King R. 1996. Consensual sex or
sexual harassment: negotiating meaning.
In RethinkingLanguage and Gender Research: Theory and Practice, ed. VL
Bergvall, JM Bing, AF Freed, pp. 153-72.
London: Longman
Ferber MA, Loeb JW. 1997. Academic Couples: Problems and Promises. Urbana:
Univ. I11.Press
Folgero IS, Fjeldstad IH. 1995. On duty-off
guard: cultural norms and sexual harassment in service organizations. Organ.
Stud. 16(2):299-313
Friedman J, Boumil MM. 1995. Betrayal of
Trust:Sex and Power in Professional Relationships. Westport,CT: Praeger
Gallop J. 1997. Feminist Accused of Sexual
Harassment. Durham:Duke Univ. Press
GiuffrePA. 1997. Labeling sexual harassment
in hospitals. a case study of doctors and
nurses. Presented at the Sociologists
Against Sexual Harassmentmeeting, Toronto
Giuffre PA. 1995. Themanagementof sexuality: a case study of doctors and nurses.
Presentedat the Am. Sociol. Assoc. annual
meeting, Washington,DC
Giuffre PA, Williams CL. 1994. Boundary
lines: labeling sexual harassmentin restaurants. Gender Soc.8:378-401
Hajdin M. 1997. Why the fight against sexual
harassment is misguided. In Sexual Harassment: A Debate, ed. L LeMoncheck, M
Hajdin, pp. 97-163. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Hallinan KM. 1993. Invasion of privacy or
protection against sexual harassment:coemployee dating and employer liability.
Columbia J. Law Soc. Problems 26:
435-64
Henslin JM, Biggs MA. 1998. Behavior in
public places: the sociology of the vaginal
examination.In Down to Earth Sociology.
Introductory Readings, ed. JM Henslin.
New York: Free Press
Herbst MS. 1996. Employers may regulate
some workplace romances. Natl. Law J.
(February26): C 19-20
Haavio-MannilaE, Kauppinen-ToropainenK,
KandolinI. 1988. The effect of sex composition of the workplace on friendship, romance, and sex at work. In Womenand
Work:An Annual Review, Vol. 3, ed. BA
Gutek, AH Stromberg,L Larwood. Newbury Park:Sage
Hochschild AR. 1997. The Time Bind: When
Workbecomes Home and Home becomes
Work.New York: MetropolitanBooks
Hochschild AR. 1996. The emotional geography of work and family life. In GenderRelations in Public and Private, ed. L Morris,
ES Lyon. New York: St. Martin's Press
KranendonkB. 1997. Married and Making a
Living: Couples Who Own Small Franchise Businesses. New York: Garland
Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. 1994. TheSocial Organizationof
Sexuality. Sexual Practices in the United
States. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
LeMoncheck L. 1997. Loose Women,Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
SEX AT WORK
Lobel SA, Quinn RE, St. Clair L, Warfield A.
1994. Love without sex: the impact of psychological intimacy between men and
women at work. Organ. Dynamics 23:
4-17
Loe M. 1996. Working for men-at the intersection of power, gender, and sexuality.
Sociol. Inquiry 66:399-421
Mainiero LA. 1986. A review and analysis of
power dynamics in organizational romances. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11:750-62
Massengill D, Peterson DJ. 1995. Legal challenges to no fraternization rules. Labor
Law J. 46:429-35
Myers MF. 1988. Doctors' Marriages: A Look
at the Problems and Solutions. New York:
Plenum Medical Book
Neville K. 1990. Corporate Attractions: An
Inside Account of Sexual Harassment with
the New Sexual Rulesfor Men and Women
on the Job. Washington, DC: Acropolis
Books
Perkins LM. 1997. For the good of the race:
married African-American academics-a
historical perspective. See Ferber& Loeb
1997, pp. 80-105
Pierce CA, Aguinis H. 1997. Bridging the gap
between romanticrelationshipsand sexual
harassmentin organizations.J. Organ. Behav. 18:197-200
Pierce CA, Byrne D, Aguinis H. 1996. Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance.J. Organ. Behav. 15:5-32
Powell GN. 1993. Womenand Men in Management. Newbury Park:Sage
Pycior HM, Slack NG, Abir-Am PG. 1996.
Creative Couples in the Sciences. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Quinn RE. 1977. Coping with Cupid:the formation, impactand managementof romantic relationships in organizations. Admin.
Sci. Q. 22:30-45
Reed CM, Bruce WM. 1993. Dual-careercouples in the public sector: a survey of personnel policies and practices. Public Personnel Manage. 22:187-99
Schneider B. 1994. [Editor's introduction]
Gender Soc. 8:293-96
Schultz V. 1998. Reconceptualizing sexual
93
harassment.YaleLaw J. 107:1683-1805
Segal JA. 1993. Love: what's work got to do
with it? HR Magazine 38:37-41
StanAM. 1995. Debating Sexual Correctness:
Pornography, Sexual Harassment, Date
Rape, and the Politics of Sexual Equality.
New York: Delta
Summers RJ, Myklebust K. 1992. The influence of a history of romance on judgements and responses to a complaintof sexual harassment.Sex Roles 27:345-57
Warfield A. 1987. Co-worker romances: impact on the work group and on careeroriented women. Personnel May: 22-35
Weeks J. 1986. Sexuality. London: Tavistock.
Werbel JD, Hames DS. 1996. Anti-nepotism
reconsidered:the case of husbandandwife
employment. Group Organ. Manage. 21:
365-79
Westoff LA. 1985. CorporateRomance: How
to Avoid It, Live Through It, or Make It
Workfor You.New York: Times Books
Williams CL. 1998. Sexual harassmentin organizations: a critique of currentresearch
and policy. Sexuality Culture 1:19-43
Williams CL, Britton DM. 1995. Sexuality
and work. In Introductionto Social Problems, ed. C Calhoun, G Ritzer. New York:
McGraw-HillPrimis
WolkenbreitR. 1997. In orderto form a more
perfect union: applying no-spouse rules to
employees who meet at work. ColumbiaJ.
Law Soc. Problems 31:119-65
Yelvington, KA. 1996. Flirting in the factory.
J. RoyalAnthropol. Inst. 2:313-333
Young BS. 1995. Family matters. HRMagazine 40:30-31
Newspapers and Magazines Consulted
Austin-AmericanStatesman, 2-14-98
Details Magazine, February1998
Fortune Magazine, 10-3-94
New YorkTimes,4-24-96, 10-26-97, 2-16-98
Newsweek, 6-16-97
Psychology Today,March-April,1995.
USA TodayMagazine, November, 1995
WallStreet Journal, 2-14-95, 2-4-98
WashingtonPost, 11-2-97, 1-29-98