Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 826, 116 S.Ct. 92, 133 L.Ed.2d 48 (1995). “General harassment if not ... sexual is not actionable.” Id. See also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 1002, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (“Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at ‘diseriminatfion] ... because of ... sex.’ We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.”); DeCintio v. Westchester County Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304, 306-07 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 825, 108 S.Ct. 89, 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as recognized by the Eleventh
recognizing that a plaintiff can demonstrate that samesex harassment is because of sex by showing that the conduct was motivated by the coworkers sexual desire for persons of the same sex holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment holding that conduct that a jury finds to be based on sex and not motivated by nondiscriminatory reasons cannot later be found by a district court to lack an intent to discriminate on the basis of sex holding that the proscribed treatment must be based on a persons sex and not their sexual affiliations recognizing a claim of cruel inhuman and degrading treatment based on alleged sexual abuse