So the sexual harassment case that's taken down Trent Franks is . . . really weird

This is one is just plain weird, and it's got me wondering if we've now crossed the Rubicon from legitimate sexual harassment to anything at all that someone can claim after the fact made them "feel uncomfortable," whatever that might mean. The same day Al Franken announced his resignation for unwanting kissing and butt- and boob-groping he claims he didn't do, Republican Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona resigns too. What did he do? Grab boobs? Steal kisses? Expose himself? Er . . . not even in the same ballpark:

---

Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, one of the House’s most ardent social conservatives, said Thursday night that he would resign after the House Ethics Committee began an investigation into complaints that he had asked two female staff members to be a surrogate to bear his child. In a statement, Mr. Franks said the discussion about surrogacy came up with “two previous female subordinates” because he and his wife, who have struggled with fertility, wanted to have a child. He said he regretted that the conversations had “caused distress.” “Due to my familiarity and experience with the process of surrogacy, I clearly became insensitive as to how the discussion of such an intensely personal topic might affect others,” Mr. Franks said. Mr. Franks denied that he had ever “physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have, any sexual contact with any member of my congressional staff.” His statement said only that he deeply regretted discussing the topic of surrogacy, but a Republican familiar with the accusation said that Mr. Frank had specifically asked those aides to be surrogates. Speaker Paul D. Ryan was briefed a week ago on “credible claims of misconduct” and presented them to Mr. Franks, according to a separate statement from his office. When the congressman did not deny them, the speaker referred the matter to the Ethics Committee and told him to resign. Mr. Ryan’s statement did not detail the behavior in question. The Ethics Committee released a statement late Thursday saying it had opened an investigation into whether Mr. Franks “engaged in conduct that constitutes sexual harassment and/or retaliation for opposing sexual harassment.”

---

---

Look, that sounds like a really weird conversation to have in the workplace, although a lot of things can seem that way in the cold light of day. If you don't know the culture of an office or the personalities involved, it's hard for an outsider to to judge a given office topic and say definitively that it's out of bounds. I've been involved in some pretty bizarre work conversations, and an outsider walking in right in the middle would probably think the participants had lost their minds. But in context you'd understand it differently. That said, yeah, a conversation about female staff members serving as surrogates for the boss does seem pretty weird. But does it rise to the level of misconduct? This, it seems to me, is a much harder question to answer without some sort of HR policy to help define the acceptable boundaries of workplace banter. It certainly isn't the equivalent of making unwanted sexual advances or of implying employment consequences if such advances were rebuffed - unless there's more to the story than what we're hearing now. But I'm afraid this is what we've come to: There are no rules to govern this, and we're flying by the seat of our pants (if you'll pardon the pun) as this whole phenomenon just precedes apace on its own momentum. Anything that makes someone "feel uncomfortable" requires a resignation, even if the person only realizes in retrospect that the topic seems uncomfortable. And you feeling that way is all that's required, even if the banter itself could be justified on the merits. It doesn't matter. In the present environment, any complaint at all means the end of someone's career. I wonder if Republicans decided to sacrifice Franks in an effort to neutralize the Democrats' so-called "moral high ground" following the Franken resignation. I'm convinced the Democrats decided to sacrifice Franken so it would be easier for them to hang Roy Moore around Republicans' necks. Hey, we got rid of our miscreant! Why don't you get rid of yours? Maybe Republicans think that by offering up Franks as a blood sacrifice, they can even the score. But I think we've embarked on a dangerous path here. Groping and unwanted sexual advances are clearly inappropriate. But conversations about topics like surrogacy? It's weird, yes. Is it misconduct? I guess it is now, if only because misconduct is quickly being redefined as whatever happens to bother someone today.

---