POLL: Sexuality Question.

[nogodsforme]

I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad BUT a business would NOT irrationally discriminate against sexuality. The only thing businesses care about is money. So if a business does anything, it does it because it will increase their profits not to irrationally discriminate.

A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market. There are no established homosexual men or women for a business to model their employees or human products(popstars etc.). Unless you are a niche market built specifically to market to homosexual males/females or transgenders, why would you hire a one in a position where they can make people uncomfortable and hurt profits?

That is why sometimes the government has to intervene and tell people that if you do that kind of discrimination, you will lose certain benefits. If the thing you are discriminating on is not a bona fide job qualification, like being able to type or having experience working with kids, it is illegal. And sometimes the government has taken the lead in non-discriminatory hiring, like the post office and the military were integrated employers who paid equal wages, long before the rest of society caught up.

Some people wonder why so many black people, women, etc. have worked for the government--because that was the one employer who had to hire based on qualifications only, paid fairly, gave equal benefits and had a pension plan. Many private employers did not do this until they were forced to.

Like there are religious groups that don't want to hire people of other faiths or no faith or gay or whatever. They can do that, but should not get any government funds that all of us pay for through taxes. So you can discrimination on non-bona fide qualifications like sexual orientation or race, if you don't mind losing those government benefits. I say, they should stick to their guns (so to speak) hire only the kind of people they prefer, and not take any government money. And no tax breaks for you, either.

[Traveler]

... b. Why would anyone say they don't know? (Some late adolescents, I suppose...) ...

When I decided I no longer wanted to be married I was VERY pissed off at men in general. No, it was not rational. Yes, I was projecting. But I was VERY pissed at some things that had passed between myself and my now-ex, and considered whether I might prefer to be with women than deal with men ever again. If anyone had asked my sexuality at that time I would have answered "I don't know," despite having never been with a woman, and despite being in my 30s. In discussing this type of thing with other women, I've met very many who've wondered the same thing, especially when going through a divorce.

[Onesimus]

In discussing this type of thing with other women, I've met very many who've wondered the same thing, especially when going through a divorce.

It goes the other way, too.  I once knew a teenager who came out as a lesbian in high school and now dates only men because she learned that women actually drive her crazy.  She still window-shops but never buys, so to speak.

[Nam]

If I was a girl, I'd probably go both ways. But, that's only 'cause I am so used to having a penis, I would miss it. But if born a girl: I have no idea.

-Nam

[earthfreak]

Nam - if you were a girl you'd be gay, except for your horrible lack of penis?  I'm confused...

I'm a girl and swing both ways (at least in my head and maybe my heart, if not so much in practice) but I'm also monogamous, so hopefully someday I will be with or without a penis in my sex life permanently.

I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's.  I think we're much more likely to consider other options at various points (and we have to deal with being women in a sexist society no matter what, where it often strikes me that gay men have a horror of women's bodies, and straight men have a horror of even hinting at taking on a "woman's role" that influences the intensity of their orientation?)

[Mr. Blackwell]

@ earthfreak

Me thinks you project too much.

I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's. 

Your thinking does not match reality. YOUR sexuality may be more emotional but I have met (and been used) by plenty of women who were only interested in one thing.

They were gone just as soon as I even hinted at love.

[earthfreak]

Mr. Blackwell - I'm sorry about your experience.

I didn't exactly mean to be projecting.  it's true the MY sexuality is more emotional than I think any other mammal's on the planet, (by a lot) - but I think that could be true even if I was a guy, I'd just be even more of a freak as a guy than I am as a woman.

I was thinking more of studies like this one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

which suggest that women are actually physically aroused by either sex, while men really tend to fit, in terms of basic physical arousal, into one camp or the other.

It was my own leap to say, though, that women end up making this choice emotionally (as opposed to physically) - they may make it based on the earning potential of the guy or something.  I certainly do.  I can be physically aroused by a wide range of people (male/female, short/tall, whatever ethnicity)  - but I have to feel a pretty significant connection with them emotionally.

I tend to think that this is true in terms of things other than sexual orientation - that men are much more likely to have a physical "type" than women are.

I'm sorry that you've been used, and I have to wonder if it was really for sex.  Not that I think all women are above that, just, again, in my experience, women's sexuality is more complicated - it's more difficult to make love to a woman in a way she will find satisfying, especially the first or second time.  I think some women engage in casual sex to boost their egos or something?  I don't know, it's amazingly far from my experience.

[Nam]

Nam - if you were a girl you'd be gay, except for your horrible lack of penis?  I'm confused...

That's not what I said. The first part is in present-tense which eludes to me being bisexual, if I were a girl based on the fact I am guy, and I would miss having a penis since I have had one for 35 years.

The last part is different in meaning, if I was actually born a girl, I wouldn't know what sexual orientation I would prefer based on the fact I was born a guy.

But basically the first part was me being facetious. One can tell this by the "penis" remark.

I'm a girl and swing both ways (at least in my head and maybe my heart, if not so much in practice) but I'm also monogamous, so hopefully someday I will be with or without a penis in my sex life permanently.

Good for you.

I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's.

Men/boys think about sex all the time. We can't help it. However, this doesn't mean we are all perverts or dogs, and doesn't mean the vast majority of us do not feel the same (to the same degree) emotions as women do.

I think we're much more likely to consider other options at various points (and we have to deal with being women in a sexist society no matter what, where it often strikes me that gay men have a horror of women's bodies, and straight men have a horror of even hinting at taking on a "woman's role" that influences the intensity of their orientation?)

Why would gay men see women's bodies as being horrific?

-Nam

[kindred]

I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad BUT a business would NOT irrationally discriminate against sexuality. The only thing businesses care about is money. So if a business does anything, it does it because it will increase their profits not to irrationally discriminate.

A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market. There are no established homosexual men or women for a business to model their employees or human products(popstars etc.). Unless you are a niche market built specifically to market to homosexual males/females or transgenders, why would you hire a one in a position where they can make people uncomfortable and hurt profits?

That is why sometimes the government has to intervene and tell people that if you do that kind of discrimination, you will lose certain benefits. If the thing you are discriminating on is not a bona fide job qualification, like being able to type or having experience working with kids, it is illegal. And sometimes the government has taken the lead in non-discriminatory hiring, like the post office and the military were integrated employers who paid equal wages, long before the rest of society caught up.

Some people wonder why so many black people, women, etc. have worked for the government--because that was the one employer who had to hire based on qualifications only, paid fairly, gave equal benefits and had a pension plan. Many private employers did not do this until they were forced to.

Like there are religious groups that don't want to hire people of other faiths or no faith or gay or whatever. They can do that, but should not get any government funds that all of us pay for through taxes. So you can discrimination on non-bona fide qualifications like sexual orientation or race, if you don't mind losing those government benefits. I say, they should stick to their guns (so to speak) hire only the kind of people they prefer, and not take any government money. And no tax breaks for you, either.

Job qualifications? Half of what makes a person effective at their job has nothing to do with their job qualification.

What use would an excellent professor be if he was gay/lesbian and creeped out students with his non-conformity? The easy fix would be for him/her to take on a fake working persona but it will still be more efficient for the employer not to even look at that demographic. Time spent sifting through the social outcasts is far better spent at something easier and more time/cost-effective.

Forgive me if this line of thinking rubs you the wrong way. From the standpoint of an employer, humans are just numbers. We either up or raise the bottomline. Why would an employer give a shit about your personal struggle against discrimination?

[nogodsforme]

^^^^All true. People don't want to hire people who "creep them out".  Which is why there are anti-discrimination laws. If being "creepy", ie Muslim, or short, or gay or black or female or in a wheelchair is not relevant to ability to do a job, an employer is not supposed to discriminate. Expect to be sued or fined.

And don't expect those government contracts.

[on:bread:alone]

i once landed a job at a XXX shop because the manager was gay and thought i was cute. i was also wearing leather pants and make-up. personally, i am not gay, but i have no problem with people who are. i have a t-shirt that has a grayscale rainbow with the word "straight" underneath it, and another that says "sorry boys, i eat pussy." ...both of which i would wear to work, and both of which my gay boss found hilarious. i'm glad there are anti-discrimination laws in place, because i don't think a person's sexual preference should enter into the professional environment... but on the flip side of that, a straight guy might not have hired me... and that job was fuckin' awesome.

[kindred]

@nogodsforme

I find that to be very stupid about anti-discrimination laws. It forces businesses to start the trend of equality and equity when that is not the responsibility of businesses. Profit is the only responsibility of a business. Governments are essentially coercing the business owners to participate in an international anti-discrimination project free of charge.

Its just so irrational. Its the responsibility of every individual to change the society. When individuals fail to do so then we as a society ought to reap the fruits of our mistakes. We shouldn't be coercing a few people to do the change for us.

It is irrational and unfair. I'd rather the entire world suffer then force a few people to have to bear the burden for everybody. Unfair is unfair, even if it is the only way for improvement. Lets just let discrimination run rampant since we obviously don't deserve equality as a species if we are going to rely on a few select individuals to give it to us.

[nogodsforme]

So, if businesses will not do the right thing without the law compelling them to, we should not have the laws at all? We should wait for people to figure out the right thing on their own.  Or not. Whatever.

So why have any laws regulating businesses, if all they have to do is make money? Why have laws telling businesses that they have to label their products? Why have laws telling businesses that they have to serve food that is clean and not spoiled? As long as they are making money selling rotten food labeled fresh, why should the government interfere? Buyer beware and all that. If you get sick, don't shop there.

People will someday stop abusing kids-- we don't need no child abuse laws. People will someday treat gays fairly-- we don't need no equal rights laws. Until then, people just need to shut up and be abused or discriminated against.

Problem is, that the law does not come first-- the people being hurt compel the law. If people were being hired and treated right, they would not be pushing for the laws. The law is the reaction to the people being hurt. Just like the food labeling and inspection laws were a reaction to people getting sick and dying from bad products. Of course businesses should try to make money, but they have to do it in ways that don't hurt people. Or people will eventually get together and do something about it.

[kindred]

^

All good points and I agree with all of them but in this specific instance, people are piling up the responsibility on one party. I don't care about the fact that the consequences are good. It is still unfair. It is everybody's job to not be racist. Business shouldn't be given the lion's share of the responsibility.

In the case of food regulations, of course its the businesses responsibility because it is their product. That should be the case, you are responsible for your conduct and not other people's. Their shouldn't be this notion that because businesses HAVE more power to stop inequality that we should expect more from them. We should expect the same amount of things from everybody(equity/equality and all that) regardless of their skill or power unless the expectation is inherent in their position, say a president or something.

It all boils down to a matter of values. I value the consequences less than the ethics. I don't care about how good the effects of pushing businesses to better society if it is at the cost of placing an unfair amount of burden on the business owners.

Unfair is unfair no matter the consequences.