Therefore, determining which behaviors are annoying or not is something that depends on receptor behavior, being irrelevant at this point the intention of the issuer of the behaviors. If it depended on the intent of the perpetrator, the victim would be forced to accept and tolerate all kinds of offensive behavior in cases where the author fails to do so with intent to injure We identified the authors argue, to take into account that there are two basic types of sexual harassment on the basis of whether or not an element of blackmail in the same: the quid pro quo harassment and creating a hostile work environment. Regarding the first, this type of harassment that occurs is really a sexual blackmail (this only on that.) Through it, you force an employee to choose to submit to the sexual demands or see injured or lose benefits or working conditions. It is an abuse of authority by what can only be done by whoever has the power to provide or withdraw a job benefit. This type of harassment involves situations where a person's refusal to conduct of a sexual nature is used explicitly or implicitly as a basis for a decision affecting the person's access to vocational training, continued employment, promotion, to wages or other employment decision (Resolution on the protection of the dignity of women and men; Council of Ministers of the European Communities, May 1990 European Commission Recommendation on the same issue, November 1991). This concept of harassment involves a major problem, which is the exclusion of bullying behaviors among colleagues, the consequences, however, are identical to those of harassment by a superior.