“Bimbos held off when the man was powerful because there’s an implied sexual negotiation happening.”
~~~
Okay, this is complex, because I don’t completely disagree with you. There is a lot of research about how women react emotionally to powerful men, and even if most of it is subconscious, it very probably that to some degree, they are going to react differently to an advance by a powerful (in an admirable way) male than they would the slob name Joe parking their car. In fact, as I said in other post on rape and harassment, women will often tacitly agree to advances when their is promise (or hope) of personal social gain, even if the gain is only interpersonal. Once the advance appears to have been a one-off or a superficial event, and they don’t feel they gained anything by it, they feel used (and abused) afterward.
However, that doesn’t exclude two other completely realistic and autonomous emotions/states.
One of them is that mammals have an ingrained neurology for social orders (pecking orders in birds). People freeze when someone in power gets aggressive, even if a fight/flight response is experienced, whereas they will react assertively to an aggressive show by someone they consider equal or below them.
Another one, and this one is most important, is that when you are a subordinate, you fear acting out dissension or disobedience. Unlike the previous two experiences, this one can be mostly conscious and you are very aware in the moment that you believe you are in conflict what is happening. The problem is that acquiescence is a pattern in working relationships, and that part of it can be powerfully subconscious. It sounds easy, in theory, to go from saying ‘yes, I’ll get that for you right way’ all day long to flicking a switch and saying no. Subordinates should NOT be put in that situation when it is outside the constraints of their professional contract.
That said, when people are made aware of the experiment - and how they're being manipulated - they change their behavior. They say, 'no'....
These women have the full protection of the law, the HR department in any organization and the support of members of the press - ready and willing to tell their story... In short, it's NOT 1950. This has turned into a sexual power negotiation that favors women and puts men under the sword of damocles - - for a lifetime....
Let's take out the power part of the negotiation and see how it changes: Let's say Coumo walks up to a woman and puts a dab of ketchup on the sleeve of her blouse. She looks at it - assumes it's an accident. Then he turns around and does it again. Two ketchup stains on the sleeves of her $200 blouse. Now tell me, do you think she'll tell him to 'stop it' or that she'll wait ten years until he's been damaged (and no longer can offer her the possible payback of 'guilt' dues?). No, she'll say, 'stop it'. Right then and there...Over a $200 blouse or a $20 blouse. No laws needed, no HR needed... no press bimbos needed. We need to change the standards for grown up women...
As far as sexual abuse of children is concerned the statute of limitations should be forever - there is no 'negotiation happening there and they are deserving of our full protection... but with grown up women - two years is plenty. If they can't screw up their courage in two years then the man walks.