really? you turned down sex? why?
Because people who have an actual chance of getting some can afford to be choosy?
There was one time when I had absolutely no interest in hooking up with a very sloppily drunk woman that was groping me and who I just barely knew. A pretty rare happenstance for me, but it did come up once.
I also used to have a good friend who was polyamorous and I knew was interested at one point in pursuing a romantic relationship, but I politely shut that down (which she to her credit was fine with and we stayed friends). Because I’m NOT polyamorous and I knew that wouldn’t have worked out great for me.
We’ve had this discussion before, I’m pretty sure. I see and have heard a version of your POV from a number of dudes, so I’m going to assume it is a common opinion. But no, it is not universal. And the reverse certainly isn’t rare IME either.
For example every time some news story comes out about a female school teacher being arrested with sleeping with her underage teen student a number of guys will come out of the woodwork to say they would have been overjoyed to have had that experience. Not me, man. I think it would have just freaked me out and I would have beaten a hasty retreat if some 30-40-something teacher, even a pretty one, had paid that kind of attention to me.
You couldn’t pay me enough to sleep with someone I knew was in a relationship. Not interested in that drama, thank-you-very-much. And the list goes on.
I’m not a single guy, but single guys I’ve known have said they’ve turned down sex because
a. the person offering it was drunk, which doesn’t count as consent
b. the person offering was “a fucking psycho,” and he foresaw all kinds of complications.
c. they were not attracted to the person offering and had other opportunities.
Two guys I know said a., one said b. and four said c. And a couple said they paid no attention because they were married.
But I would never use the anecdotal stuff guys have told me to make a generalization. Maybe the guys I know are as unusual as the guys you know seem to be. Don’t mistake personal experience for objective data. Don’t be guilty of hasty generalization or false authority.
Why not check any of the placed where it is legal - I’m pretty sure it’s the case legal prostitutes can refuse to serve any and all clients without giving reasons (leaving aside considerations of illegal coercion). So it looks like intimacy trumps work, as a sphere, there. This is because the right to refuse sex is absolute, for everyone. There is no parallel right to not employ women - in fact, the opposite right is explicitly enshrined in law in many places.
Wait, how would a black market develop when the legitimate market isn’t constrained in that way. Black markets develop when buyers can’t legally get what they want, not when they can.
I disagree, unless the team leader has a legitimate crippling medical phobia of women, in which case, that should be treated first, not just automatically accommodated. And if not treatable, it should be accommodated the way other disabilities are. Blind people don’t get to drive the bus just because their blindness is legitimate.
And in any case, you seem to only see this as a one-way rights issue, when it is in fact an issue of competing rights. Women have a right (both explicit, and moral) to employment same as men, but I do not have a right to sleep with/be intimate with any person of my choosing. In fact, we have a word for people who override another’s choice in that regard, and it’s not a nice one.
Your experience differs strongly from mine. When I was single, I turned down sex several times, because I did not want to have sex with that particular person - usually because they were mental, but sometimes because of physical turn-offs.
Right, I was thinking a severe social anxiety disorder, maybe with a panic disorder to go with it. Frequent interactions with women send this hypothetical team leader / bossman into panic attacks.
I can’t really think of a way to ‘accommodate’ such a person except by limiting his exposure to women. It is unacceptable to screen out women in the hiring process as an ‘accommodation’, therefore, he can’t work in jobs that require contact with other employees; his disability disqualifies him from almost any job involving coworker or customer interaction.
I don’t get it. The team leader has a right to work just as much as a woman who applies for a position on his team. Denying a job applicant based on personal preference does not implicate the applicant’s right to work at all. The “right to work” does not extend so far as to create an entitlement.
The same thing goes with the right to have sex with people of your choosing. You do in fact have a right to have sex with any person of your choosing, provided they consent and your right hasn’t been waived (for example, by previous commitment to a monogamous relationship). The right to have sex does not create an entitlement.
So both the white person and the person of color have the right to sex, but if the white person refuses to consent, the person of color’s right to sex is unaffected.
Both the team leader and the female job applicant have the right to work. If the male team leader refuses to hire the female job applicant, her right to work is unaffected.
If there’s a conflict of rights here, it is the right not to be discriminated against due to a protected trait.
~Max
This is getting off topic, and I am honestly unsure if you’re serious. Why would a guy turn down sex? Do you really need a list of reasons?
- Not attracted to the specific person (huge variety of possible reasons here)
- Person isn’t the sex I am attracted to
- Person is attractive but in a relationship with someone else and I am not an asshole
- Person is fucking nuts (I note @MrDibble has cited this reason as well)
- Person is more emotionally attracted to me than I am to them and I don’t want to hurt them
- I’m just tired
- I’ve had sex with them before but they did something to piss me off
- Just a general feeling of “this is not a good idea”
- It’s a co-worker
All those reasons have cropped up in my life and I’m sure any guy who has turned down sex, which would be 99.9 percent of all men, can think of a few more. I assure you, if you really cannot imagine turning down sex, you are the exception. A RARE exception.
Incidentally, I am not an unusually attractive person.
This thread is really going off-track. I’m not sure it has an answer. Sex is so intimate. It is all going to come down to the question of what you mean by a bigot. Does it mean treating all people the same in all relationships. Suppose I said that I don’t find five year olds sexually attractive (which I don’t). Does that make me ageist?
I thought ageism only means discrimination against the elderly, not children. People discriminate against children all the time (with or without good reasons) and it isn’t considered bigoted.
~Max
No, he doesn’t have an overriding right to work when that right infringes on the rights of others. Not employing women is not a reasonable accommodation. At least IMO, that would impose a “disproportionate or undue burden”.
The best way of dealing with that kind of acute gynophobia is therapy and/or medication, not just accommodating it. And if all that fails, a suitable alternative job, because the phobia should preclude that person from being a team leader just like being blind precludes one from driving a bus. Do you think blind people have just as much right to being bus drivers as gay people do?
The two are not equivalent, for two reasons.
- Because the right to refuse employment is not absolute, the way the right to refuse consent is.
- Because there is an asymmetry to the employment example - IMO, the woman’s right to work trumps the man’s right to refuse work, because women are historically discriminated against in employment, whereas gynophiliacs have historically not even needed accommodation, so pervasive was patriarchy. So there’s a justice element to favouring the woman against the man, even if all other things were equally-balanced (and they are not equal, because, as noted, there are accommodations possible for the male team leader, whereas the woman will be out of a job)
But the thing is, if you’ve come out as gay then you’ve already realised that what you’re attracted to is not what is commonly acceptable. And an awful lot of gay people, especially women, have tried having relationships (or at least just sex) with the sex they’re not generally attracted to.
So if someone says they’re just not into penises, maybe they’re just not into penises. Trying to persuade someone that they do like something they don’t actually like feels… well, coercive.
It reminds me of men I’ve met (especially when I was younger) that tried to claim I was a bigot for not wanting to sleep with them, and that if I gave them a chance I’d like sex with them just as much as with women.
Yeah. This is something I’ve seen crop up frequently, in conversation and - most often - in movies and on TV - the idea that men will say yes to sex from pretty much any woman. And if the woman is beautiful, they will definitely say yes. It’s a pretty insulting depiction of men. Men are possibly more likely to say yes than women are, but that’s it.
I just always assumed people understood that’s only true in movies, like how women in glasses are magically perceived as ugly even when they look like Rachel Leigh Cook or Anne Hathaway. But apparently some people believe that crap. It’s bizarre.
It’s rape culture is what it is.
What right is being infringed? You point to the woman’s right to work, but as I argued above and will argue below, the woman’s right to work is not infringed.
If you are getting into U.S. law here, you are correct. Being unable to hire women is an unacceptable burden… for the employer. It doesn’t really matter in the case where bossman team leader is the employer or at least holds all the cards. He is not going to sue himself under the ADA for his own decision to accommodate/not accommodate his own social anxiety disorder.
My understanding of law is that undue burden or reasonable accommodation has nothing to do with the rights of the job applicant. It’s all about the employee’s right not to be discriminated for a disability versus the employer’s rights to run their own business.
I agree with you on this part.
The right to refuse employment is nearly absolute. Being employed against one’s will is forced labor, only justified in edge cases such as jury duty, criminal punishment, or military conscription.
Hmm… I understand your point. But I do not understand why it is relevant. I don’t think either of those rights are implicated.
If the woman is hired, her right to work has not been infringed. If the woman is not hired, her right to work still has not been infringed - she still has the right to earn a living through work. You infringe the right to work, for example, when non-citizens are forbidden by law from working. Or if a company has enough clout to effectively blacklist a person, that is infringing upon their right to work.
The man is doing the hiring and so whether the woman is hired or not, his right to refuse work never comes into play.
~Max
No, that’s the right to refuse being employed. I’m talking about the right to refuse to hire people.
Okay, let me see if I have this right.
The gynophobic man’s right to refuse to hire people is trumped by the woman’s right to be hired, because women are historically discriminated against in employment, whereas gynophobic men have historically not faced discrimination in the workplace due to male dominance of workplaces.
That makes sense to me, is that what you are saying?
~Max
That’s part of what I’m saying overall, sure.
While history is part of it, another is an honest examination of the likely results of public policy. Which, honestly, is going to result in more negative outcomes and unfairness; making it legal to say “I can’t hire women because I’m afraid of them,” or making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex? What are the likely outcomes of those two policies? Which could be abused more easily and with greater negative impact?