My Kink, My Business

Topic: Human Rights vs. Majority Rule

It's interesting that even now in 2007, people in the US are still worried about what happens behind closed doors. In our media, America is represented as a cultural beacon of tolerance and freedom. This is the view of our liberal bicoastal elite. In mainstream America, things are different.

However, in spite of all the hype of what America represents, the cold hard truth is, this is a Christian nation based upon traditional values. Christian morality and intolerance supercedes the will of the freaks: the homosexual, the body art afficianado, the pain freak, et al. Where human rights comes into play is that these so-called "wretches of society" have a right to employment, freedom of expression, the freedom to vote, etc. However, those people aren't allowed in traditional areas of influence. They must be relegated to stereotypical roles in order to appease traditional mores: the effeminate gay man should be in interior decorating, the person covered in body art should be working in a tattoo parlor or as a bouncer, etc. This is the informal compromise that has been worked out between the liberal and conservative camps: the "freaks" can be employed but in more "traditional" roles suited to their lifestyles. Thus, it became the responsibilty of the liberal media to provide roles for these people and it has failed miserably because it has stifled the contributions of people of particular tastes by placing them into roles that mainstream America will tolerate. Those that do live a particular lifestyle in order to get better employment have to live a life of deceit in order to appease society.

This is not to say that there is not an ettiquette to be followed. In my former job as a therapist in a local cardiologist's office, we had a male nurse practitioner that did an excellent job as per his duties. In the workplace, he was somber and thoroughly professional. It wasn't until the Christmas office party that he decided to "come out" and he did in a pretty dramatic way: wearing women's clothes and makeup. He was a crossdresser and a bisexual. Nothing is wrong with that. It cerrtainly did add for shock value that night and it didn't help much that he was horribly drunk at the time. Later he was apologetic about his behavior but think about it: having to fit yourself into a stifling role where you cannot express your individuality for so long can be extremely stressful and I believe it was the case for this particular gentleman also. He later confessed that he was afraid that he would not have a job the following day, but his work stood for itself, depite his coworkers' opinions and gossip mongering. This isn't to say that one should throw established decorum to the wind. A professional should dress as a professional. If a person goes for an interview, the standard dark navy or black suit is worn. These are established and generally accepted as far as being considered for employment along with a good CV. If a person has tattoos or body piercings underneath that suit, that's his/ her business and he/ she can display them in the appropriate setting.

So what happens when, for example, a homo-/bisexual teaching children in school? What is the real fear? Is the fear that those teachers might teach children that it's okay to be gay? Is the fear based upon the safety of the child eg child molestation? Is it the fear that the child will reject traditional gender roles and become gay? I don't think any responsible adult in that position of authority would abuse that power. Sure, there are those in every proffession that do, straight or gay, but it's not based upon sexual identity. That falls under pathopsychology.

The will of the majority sets the course of society. It is the responsibility of the majority to protect the rights of the minority. Likewise it is the responsibility of the minority to respect the views of the majority. A person goes to work to earn a living; not to hook up. Whether you are straight, gay, or asexual, it isn't a person's responsibility to declare his/her sexual preference and it isn't the responsibility of the employer or employees to know anyone else's sexual preference. Homosexuals may fear that they are being underrepresented and have to express themselves colorfully to make a statement or to be generally accepted but to use provocative means is not the manner of gaining acceptance. It is counterproductive. The potential problems that do arise are that an employer has to work harder to prove that his/her rejection of an applicant is not based upon arbitrary descriptions such as gender, race, color, creed, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. A possible solution is having a criteria for eligibility for employment at the place of business or a national standard for employment based upon merit and experience. Otherwise what happens is that the rights of one group are trampled upon the rights of another and vice versa and that further deepens the intolerance.