Also, the term "unwanted" makes me wonder about the existence of a "wanted sexual advance".

I worry that this whole concept is too fraught with "gut feeling" decisions and that could cause injustice or liabilities.

It might be cleaner to say that romantic or sexual workplace relationships are forbidden and that extends to investors, contractors, suppliers, vendors, etc. if the relationship clause is violated, all the involved parties will be fired or banned from interacting with the company, with any owned shares seized.

Basically like zero-tolerance policies in public school applied to the business world. It's more harsh, but it's equally unfair to everyone.

> Let’s talk about an uncomfortable truth, sexual harassment and assault is common in the tech industry

I also disagree that it does make sense officially demonizing men by adding special clause to investment agreement.

If someone did something illegal go to the police.

If it's not directly illegal then it's a common conflict situation as if one male spit on face of another male.

I'm pretty sure you would not add special clause against "spitting on face" although it could happen.

Despite nobody add this special clause, I'm pretty sure it's not allowed and if you do that consequences of this action could be pretty serious.

What you want to add "makes a sexual advance towards" is very dangerous clause. After all, any flirt, any asking for date is exactly "makes a sexual advance towards".