his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for
that matter, those times they were successful).
The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding? This is a reductio ad absurdum of feminism and may well be the most ludicrous thing ever posted on this site. Now no means no...and yes means no too! Now it's harassment even when she says yes. Retroactively, even if it wasn't at the time.
You sure you want to take that position?
Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period.
Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics.
This is like an annoying salesperson calling you
repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved
in and bought something from them.
Utterly wrong analogy. Falls down on every level. You don't sue Staples after you buy something from them. Staples didn't steal the money from you (rape), you gave it consensually. Buying something isn't sleeping with someone. Sleeping with someone "two or three" times isn't slipping up once. Suing them six years after isn't suing when the event happened.
You sure you want to take that position?
Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period.
Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics.
Utterly wrong analogy. Falls down on every level. You don't sue Staples after you buy something from them. Staples didn't steal the money from you (rape), you gave it consensually. Buying something isn't sleeping with someone. Sleeping with someone "two or three" times isn't slipping up once. Suing them six years after isn't suing when the event happened.