Tuesday, April 7, 1998
Frivolous lawsuits exploit, repress sex
SEX: Oversensitive culture intimidates by scrutinizing
conduct
As members of a society plagued by a frightening contradiction,
I’m surprised we don’t walk around confused all the time.
On one hand, sex seems to be everywhere we look. Advertisers
sell sex as a veritable bonus gift with their products. News
anchors relay politicians’ affairs with lascivious smirks. Friends
spend hours embellishing last night’s sexual conquests.
Yet simultaneously, a backlash is growing against sexuality.
Some people beg for a cleaner, more sterile culture. They try to
repress sex or absolve it, convinced that promiscuity and fun lie
at the root of world’s problems.
Even President Clinton buckled under the sexual pressure (the
only time in his career he rejected something sexual) when he fired
Jocelyn Elders for advocating masturbation. (He prefers the real
thing, thank you very much.) Clinton was influenced by the growing
number of right-wing wackos who want to remove sex from all other
avenues of life and put it back in the bedroom (with a hole in the
sheet).
This backlash has created a monster – a civilization that
tiptoes around sexual issues. We don’t know the difference between
political incorrectness, inappropriate behavior and sexual
harassment.
Want to tell a dirty joke? Better not. See a good-looking babe?
Eyes down. An over-achieving co-worker deserves a pat on the back?
Make it a pat on the hand. Or just a handshake – firm, with no
possible implications. Actually, you shouldn’t even touch. Try
shouting, "Nice job!" across the room and pray he or she doesn’t
think you said, "Nice butt."
Such sexual hypersensitivity has awakened the guard dog in all
of us. We scrutinize our thoughts before they become words and do
anything to avoid a run-in with the sex police – even if it means
stifling emotion and expression.
First Amendment rights are at stake because of ridiculous
Puritan values. Intellectual curiosity, healthy debate and honesty
are sacrificed for the unnatural sanitation of the workplace,
school yard and even the local hangout.
This unhealthy atmosphere has trained us to keep a feverish eye
out for "inappropriate" behavior which, as we have seen, can
sometimes lead to unwarranted sexual harassment lawsuits.
The line between sexuality and sexual harassment is blurry and
perplexing. Of the increasing number of publicized sexual
harassment cases (Jones vs. Clinton, Sgt. McKinney, Marv Albert)
some – like those involving sex sans the harassment – are just
plain silly.
Yes, sexual harassment is bad. But taking advantage of its
premise by punishing people who mean no harm is worse. Ruining
reputations, careers and lives does not promote feminism nor is it
a gesture of political correctness. It is injustice.
When sexual harassment claims are authentic cases, then yes,
please prosecute! Punish those who deserve it. Surely the majority
of cases are genuine and involve personally offensive and improper
conduct. But what about those cases that push the limits of the law
too far?
The current sexual harassment law is vaguely worded, allowing
many sketchy claims to be filed. The law has two parts: the first,
quid pro quo, states that if your boss punishes you for denying any
sexual advances, he or she is guilty of sexual harassment. Simple
enough.
The second segment of the law involves behavior that creates a
"hostile environment." The problem lies in this second tier – what
exactly is a hostile environment? Impossible to define and
dependent on the person in it, a hostile environment can be
anything from retelling a Seinfeld plot to crotch-grabbing to
sexual metaphors used in a university writing class.
Or puckering up, if you’re a 6-year-old. Remember that boy who
was suspended for kissing his classmate? Is this what we want to
teach kids, that love and affection are bad? That showing your
feelings can get you suspended? I’m not implying that the boy was
trying to profess his undying love, but come on, surely his act was
an innocent one.
And what Puritan god dictated that the absence of a fig leaf can
equal perversion? Plenty of ridiculous sexual harassment lawsuits
have been brought by people who claim to be offended by pictures of
others who are scantily dressed, no matter how harmless the context
may be.
For example, in Murfreesboro, Tenn., a painting by a local
artist who was exhibiting her work in City Hall was promptly
removed after a city employee filed a sexual harassment complaint
against her employer. The reason? The "bad" painting depicted a
semi-nude woman, which the city employee deemed offensive. The
painting is not crude or vulgar, does not depict bestiality or a
weird sex act, and you cannot even see the woman’s genitalia. You
can barely make out her Impressionistic breasts. Yet the city
employee couldn’t handle it.
Did the art hurt her in any way? What’s her problem? Naked
bodies? Naked selves? Naked anything? Had she not caught a glimpse
of her own body in the mirror while getting in the shower that very
morning? Yet gentle brush strokes creating a subtle image evoked
powerful feelings of disgust.
And here’s another case of naked-phobia: In 1993, a grad student
at the University of Nebraska was asked to remove a desktop picture
of his wife in a bikini because two students claimed that it
violated the school’s sexual harassment policy. The grad’s own
wife? Someone he presumably loves and respects? We’re not talking
centerfold here, folks, we’re talking small, framed picture,
probably a sweet reminder of their last vacation. Isn’t this
"violation" a little obsessive?
What’s next? A new mom won’t be able to hang a picture of her
2-month-old baby’s buns on her bulletin board? Or is it acceptable
for a mom but not for a dad, who may be deemed some crazy
pedophile?
As a result of this hypersensitivity, sexual harassment policies
have crept into employee handbooks all across the country and with
good reason. But CEOs who fool themselves into thinking that they
can eliminate all aspects of sex from their companies need to have
a one-on-one with Dr. Freud.
Sexual tension (and dare I say flirting?) will always exist,
whether a corporate clause outlaws it or not. I know that I don’t
stop and refer even to God’s rule book if some rad guy is standing
nearby. I can see it now: "Oh my, here comes Seth … Now that man
is beautiful … Oops! See page 105, Section 3, Point B, Asterisk
1: ‘Staring and drooling over 6’2" blond-haired, blue-eyed studs
strictly prohibited.’ Damn, I guess I’d better take a cold shower
at the water cooler to realign my priorities."
In fact, many companies have gone so far as to ban interoffice
dating to avoid sexual harassment problems (as well as other
obvious interpersonal conflicts). Yet our evolutionary mating
rituals often begin in the workplace, the very domain in which they
are forbidden!
People marry later, enter the work force earlier and hence, more
of them are single. They spend a lot of time with their coworkers,
sharing their interests, often spending more time at work than at
home. It is only natural that friendships develop among co-workers.
And it is even more natural – and expected – that young people find
potential partners at work. Besides, it’s better than meeting some
nasty-ass sleazeball in a bar.
I absolutely believe that sexual harassment laws are necessary
to protect people who are being victimized. But I hate when the
laws are unjustly and undeservedly used to turn people into
victims.
And who really benefits from the frivolous lawsuits, anyway?
Women? Society? Nope, the lawyers. I most certainly do not benefit
from this fanaticism. I actually enjoy being crass every once in a
while. But now, instead of coming up with a clever line, I have to
ponder a prison term.
The way to halt these repressive lawsuits that hinder free
speech and healthy sexual thoughts is to behave yourself. If
someone even slightly rebuffs your "innocent" banter, cut it out.
Be perceptive and sensitive to those around you, and remember that
we don’t all find the same things amusing or flattering. And geez,
don’t touch.
Similarly, if you feel even moderately uncomfortable, be blunt.
Don’t play along or cower in the corner for months, making the
person think you actually like it then shout "Lawsuit!" at his or
her next routine comment.
Look, humans enjoy sex. So get over it! Freud discovered long
ago that we are sexual creatures and that our actions are governed
by our sexuality. Don’t be so quick to slap a sexual harassment
label on every sexual aspect of life.
In the words of my 80s idol, George Michael, "Sex is natural,
sex is good; not everybody does it, but everybody should." (Safe)
sex is a sign of a healthy and thriving civilization – one in which
people seek pleasure responsibly and enjoy themselves, yet not at
the expense of others.
Relax – sex is no big deal. Sexual misconduct is. Let’s not
confuse the two.