Thomas Nagel is part of the philosophical establishment in the same way that David Gergen is part of the political establishment. To show you how much has changed with regard to sexual attitudes in just 23 years, read what Nagel wrote in "Personal Rights and Public Space," Philosophy & Public Affairs 24 (spring 1995): 83-107, at 106:
Regarding harassment, I believe real care is needed to stay with the original meaning of the term. That does not include the expression of sexual interest, even if unwanted, unless it persists beyond reason, or is backed up by an abuse of authority. Nor does it include sexual compliments or evident sexual appreciation. The toleration of sexual feelings should include a certain margin of freedom for their expression, even if it sometimes gives offense, and even though it will often impose the unpleasant task of rejection on its target. Adults should be able to take care of themselves.
I'm neither endorsing nor repudiating what Nagel says; I'm simply pointing out that there has been a sea change in attitudes in the past two decades. Women wonder why there should be any expressions of sexual interest toward them in the workplace. They say that when they are complimented or "appreciated" sexually, they are being degraded (de-graded). They are at work to work, not to flirt or be flirted with. They would ask Nagel how he would feel if, while at work, he had to fend off sexual advances (or deflect sexual attention) from colleagues. There is a time and place for flirting; work is not that place.
