when an executive engages in sexual acts with a subordinate within an organization, it constitutes sexual harassment.
Utter bullshit. Only if coercive elements are involved is it oppressive in any way, unless you're a weak minded, politically correct ninny. And in which case, I don't care what you think anyway.
Just for one example, my lady is the much loved daughter of a lawyer and his secretary, who he wooed and married and stayed with her entire life. Then, in turn, she was my student; I met her in that environment and we fell in love. Since then, we've been together 15 years and I guaren-fucking-tee you our relationship is mighty fine. Your direct insinuation that this process -- either example -- was in ANY way wrongheaded just shows you up as lacking the clues you need. What you're talking about is politically correct nonsense and bogus legislation.
Let me tell you the metric for "ok": It's informed consent. Nothing else. You can't have consent with pressure; what you have there is capitulation. But the idea that any intersection of differing levels of authority and personal relationships sans pressure are suspect, or worse, wrong, is just sick, a product of thinking that is grossly in error. If you had half a brain, you'd already have worked it out. How could a police officer or a judge or a politician ever find a mate? A martial arts instructor? By definition, the authority and/or power distribution is uneven. That's normal.
The fact is, it is ok, and one thing that is NOT ok, is some dweeb questioning someone else's choices absent any complaint from them. You are not your brother's (or sister's) mommy. Or, more concisely, fuck off.