Sexual Harassment's Secondary Benefit

It's interesting to look for who benefits most form the latest boundaries and sexual harassment legislation. It's not readily apparent. It would appear that women, the most sexually harassed, would benefit most.
However I considered hitch hiking on highways. Police were unsuccessful stopping the highway hitchhikers until they penalized car drivers, first class citizens, in this example, for picking up hitch hikers, hitchhikers. Overnight car drivers stopped picking up hitch hikers on the highways and the numbers of hitchhikers plummeted.
Prior to the sexual harassment legislation, first class mothers had considerable difficulty preventing, second class, women from marrying their children. The principle upward mobility socioeconomically for women was in all those places that laws now restrict socialization. If only they were in place when a King abdicated for the sake of a second class Hollywood floozie, a now dead mother might say.
Considering the the hithhiking analogy the sexual harassment legislation prevents men from approaching women except in designated areas. These 'designated areas', private clubs, private functions etc. are where the upper classes can ensure their sons are with the women of upper classes who are least likely to benefit from any sexual harassment accusations.
Is it possible in a kind of twisted way this legislation was a means whereby the upper classes not only ensured their men didn't get the staff pregnant or the Clinton's didn't mix with the help, but more importantly the upper class women were more likely to have first go at upper class men.
It strikes me that this is clearly a secondary and powerful reason for perpetuating this legislation and ensuring men, especially the sons of the upper class only commingle in designated areas. It strikes me that it would dramatically reduce upward mobility because historically women married upward by dating profs, bosses etc in those very places where sexual harassment law penalize the drivers throwing drivers back to dating arenas where the classes can be contained more rigidity. This would be in keeping socially with all the other legislation that appears to be solidifying the position of the upper classes in a kind of new feudalism.
Naturally it's one more way of keeping lower class men in their place as the sexual harrassment studies show that the lower the class of man the more likely he is to be deemed as sexually harassing.
It's probably not true. The upper classes were born that way and would never manipulate laws or social circumstances to interfere with competition for positions which God gave them as rulers. There would be no need. However it would seem to serve the status quo most of all.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad