Sex Licensing - Anti -discrimination

Anti-discrimination

If you think I'm joking click here.  

Discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, mental or physical handicap, income, receipt of social assistance, age, personal hygiene, the type of car one drives, whether or not one can play a guitar and, of course, gender are known to be rampant. Sexual orientation is unique in that it leads to numerous instances of reverse discrimination.

Such widespread discrimination is scandalous in a society which demands that all groups be proportionately represented in the statistics which measure success. On the grounds that discrimination can severely damage the self esteem of members of certain designated groups, such discrimination is prohibited by law in the areas of, for example, employment and housing. Should it not also be prohibited in the vital area of romantic happiness?

Some people report emotional devastation when rejected by present or potential lovers almost as severe as that which accompanies having a lease application rejected in a rent controlled city.

The emotional impact of the competition for sex and love can be overpowering for some people. Failure to achieve one's desires can, in some cases, lead to drug addiction, drunkenness, financial problems and even murder and/or suicide. The housing and medicare crises are exacerbated by the existence of this sociosexual injustice.

Systemic discrimination is also a serious problem. Often, the opportunities for satisfying romantic relationships are not properly advertised. Instead, contact is made orally, through family and friends, through social clubs or church affiliations, and through bars, street corners, alleyways and public restrooms. Seldom do prospective lovers advertise in minority publications. Bad breath or extreme body odour may frustrate the ambitions of a potential suitor if the suit(ee) has not taken reasonable measures to provide mouthwash or soap.

Part of the mandate of Togetherness Canada should include a mandate for the achievement of Love Equity.

All members having received the benefits of compulsory education should have the basic skill necessary to write reports. Thus there should be no problem with the additional requirement, modeled along the lines of the (former) Ontario NDP government's Employment Equity Act (Bill 79), that all members submit a Love Equity plan that sets goals and timetables and describes what the individual will do to break down the barriers and give all suitors equal opportunity in the sex market place.

An overview of Bill 79 published by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship indicated that Employment Equity plans should include "positive measures to help members of designated groups secure equitable treatment in the workplace -- for example, mentoring or bridging programs". Sex equity plans would have to include similar measures to assist members in meeting, dating, marrying and satisfying members of designated groups.

Sections of the EEA also required "supportive measures that benefit all employees -- for instance, flexible working hours".

Of course, no Love Equity program would be complete without borrowing from another part of Bill 79, "accommodation measures -- for example, providing a work related technical device that would enable a person with a disability to do the job." Technical devices with love equity applications which enable a person with a disability to do the job are already on the market.

The question arises as to who should pay for the accomodation measures. Borrowing again from the spirit of Bill 79, the one who does not require the aid is the one who should pay for it. I.E., since it is the proposed employee who requires accomodation measures, liberal/socialist logic mandates that someone else (the employer) should pay for it. The same should apply to sex equity. For example, if the male partner (assuming a heterosexual assignment) requires Viagra, the woman should pay. The argument could be raised that the woman too requires Viagra, in which case the cost should be split, unless a committee appointed by the state can determine which of the parties has the stronger desire, in which case, again in accordance with liberal/socialist logic, the other (I.E. the party with the lesser desire) should pay.

Popular gathering spots where individuals in pursuit of romance are known to assemble should also be required to implement certain accomodation measures. For example, parking spaces closest to the entrance ways should be reserved for those who are commonly recognized as lacking physical appeal. If the proportion of people lacking physical appeal (overweight, bad skin, big noses, messy hair, body odour etc.) should be so large as to consume all available parking spaces more attractive people should be required to park on adjacent side streets or use public transportation. Extremely sexy and good looking people should be prohibited from driving altogether. (Driving is a privilege, not a right.)

Love Equity could create jobs as well. From California, always at the forefront, it seems, in the battle for social justice, we can get an idea of what this might mean in practice. From Reason Magazine Brickbats section (July, 1994):

" The city of Los Angeles has ordered a nude dancing club to take down or modify a shower enclosure where it's ladies perform. The reason: The shower isn't handicapped accessible. If the owners want to keep the shower, they'll have to redesign it so that a woman in a wheelchair can perform in it."

Regulations would have to be devised to ensure that the bedding industry conform to similar regulations. Makers of the Kraftmatic bed and other equivalents should have their profits carefully scrutinized and any windfalls should be clawed back by the state.

Finally, to make the new legislation truly progressive the concerns of animal rights activists must be addressed. Question 23 on Togetherness Canada's compatibility form, "are you a leg man or a breast man?" Question 24, "are you allergic to wool?"

continued...

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40