The workplace can be a great spot to make new connections and even friends. Sometimes though, coworkers can want a closer relationship than is comfortable for the other person. After rejecting his coworker’s advances, one man asks on a popular online forum; is he the a**hole for saying what he did?
The OP (original poster) first explains that he has two jobs, one he describes as a “full-time, blue-collar job” at a cement lot. The second job is part-time at a small accounting firm owned by one of OP’s friends.
“For context, at my primary job, I work four, 10-hour shifts a week, and normally Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, I work at my buddy’s firm,” says the OP.
“At this accounting firm, everyone knows I am married and have been married for 17 years with two kids,” the OP states. He then adds, “I normally don’t wear my wedding ring because sometimes I have to go help on a project and have lost many rings in cement without realizing it.”
The issue arises when a new person comes to work at the accounting firm. The OP says, “They hired a new full-time accountant; let’s call her River.”
“Some of the guys at the office were talking about River and how she has been dumped by her boyfriend and is looking for a new man,” the OP explains. “Being kind, I said that I hope she finds a man who would make her happy.”
While the OP merely intended the sentiment to be friendly, his new coworker is a bit more moved by his words than he thought. “Somehow, River took what I said and thought that I was hitting on her. She came up to me and tried to tell me a sob story about her man being insecure about her having an OnlyFans. I said that is definitely a deal breaker for most. So I guess she thought I was saying I am an exception,” he shares.
The OP’s worker suggestively invites him to spend time with her, an offer that the OP refuses. “I politely said no, I am married,” the OP says. “She said why don’t you have a ring on then? I told her I don’t wear a ring because they normally get lost in cement,” he continued.
The explanation still fails to deter the OP’s coworker. The OP states, “She said you must want to appear single if you don’t wear your ring here. I said just because I don’t wear a ring doesn’t mean I want to hook up with some ho*ker.”
“She screamed and called me a misogynistic pig and said she would get me fired. I laughed and said you are selling your body for money. Back in my day, they had a name for those they are ho*kers,” the OP says.
The OP adds, “My buddy said to post my story here due to all the backlash I am getting.”
They’re Both Wrong?
Taking to the comments, we find that most people are on the OP’s side, with him being voted NTA (not the a**hole). One person says, “NTA. The only criticism people can maybe make of you is the wording, but she was the one who started by harassing you at work.”
“She harassed this man because she thought he was hitting on her for an innocent comment not even made to her and got mad when he said he was married. He’s most definitely NTA,” agrees a second comment.
Some thought both parties were in the wrong one person commented, “You’re both TA (the a**hole). She’s TA because she was harassing you in the workplace and behaving in a completely inappropriate way. You’re TA because you immediately went to disrespecting s*x work.”
And others took the side of OP’s coworker River. “YTA (you’re the a**hole). Nothing wrong with not wearing a ring, but she’s right about you being a misogynist. There’s no need to call somebody names or judge what they do to make money,” says one person.
Another user agrees, “You ARE the a**hole, obviously, for calling your coworker “some h*oker,” and you know it. Who cares about the ring? YTA.”
What do you think? Was the OP being harassed? Or was he the one being unfair for what he called his coworker? What would you have done if you were in this situation?
More From Cents + Purpose
- She Won’t Stop Calling Her Nephew This Name, and it’s Making Her Sister-in-Law Mad
- Is She Wrong for Not Letting Her Daughter and Grandkids Move in With Her?
Images for illustrative purposes only.