Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't sexual. An asexual office is sexual in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an asexual office doesn't prevent or directly influence the sexual activity of workers - it just relegates that sexual activity to spaces outside the office.
> Saying "oh we should keep the office asexual by not having a relationship" is a sexual act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a sexual act.
That isn't keeping sex out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing sex into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what preferences they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping sex out of the workplace is about.
> Acting in opposition to sexual acts is in itself a sexual act. The asexual thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' sexual engagements_. If mgmt let its employees organize relationships with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting asexually.
For the third time, Keeping sex out of the workplace does not oppose any preference. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for sexual activity. Yes, the asexual thing is to not intervene in others' sexual relationships.
The reality is, bringing sex into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's sexual lives. In the sexually active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose preferences were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority preferences didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular preferences.
So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' sexual lives, keeping sex out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. An asexual office is indeed one where sex is kept out of the office. Nobody really bothers to call their office "asexual" because almost all offices are asexual.
If an office instituted a policy where sex was allowed in the office, and now you have co workers having sex in the cubicle next door and making sexual advances towards you, then that absolutely is intervening in employees' sexual lives.
That isn't keeping sex out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing sex into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what preferences they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping sex out of the workplace is about.
> Acting in opposition to sexual acts is in itself a sexual act. The asexual thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' sexual engagements_. If mgmt let its employees organize relationships with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting asexually.
For the third time, Keeping sex out of the workplace does not oppose any preference. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for sexual activity. Yes, the asexual thing is to not intervene in others' sexual relationships.
The reality is, bringing sex into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's sexual lives. In the sexually active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose preferences were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority preferences didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular preferences.
So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' sexual lives, keeping sex out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
---
It was fun, but it didn't _quite_ work...