Sexual Intelligence
An Electronic Newsletter
Written and published by Marty Klein, Ph.D.
Issue #19 -- September 2001 Contents
1. European Nudity--Asset, Not Liability
2. Teen Mag Boob Job
3. Drafting Child Porn Stoolies
4. Funny As A Rubber Crutch
5. Mademoiselle: Women Are Office Animals
6. Banned Books Week
7. Calendar: Marty Klein's Speaking Schedule* * * * * * * * * * * *
1. European Nudity--Asset, Not Liability
Some of our European cousins have a different take on nudity than most of our state legislators and the Moral Minority of their constituents.
A tight labor market in the Netherlands has made it hard for one telemarketing firm to fill staff vacancies in conventional ways. They therefore placed a newspaper ad that asked: "Always wanted to work in the nude?"
According to advertising director Michel Voulon of Rotterdam's De Telegraaf, the response to the ad was excellent--75 calls in four hours. "The quality of the candidates has been very good." he added.
"In an office job like a phone center, it doesn't matter what you wear because the client does not see you. It's a small step from there to working naked," Voulon said.
"Au Naturale Tele-sales" will be a separate unit of the Rotterdam business. Applicants will be interviewed fully clothed, which makes perfect sense. They'll be evaluated on their office skills--unlike many fully-clothed American workers, whose skills appear to be primarily in their sweaters.
Now, where to go after a hard day of working nude?
A pleasant trainride away, a Viennese shopping center has been inviting women to shop topless. All women appearing topless at Lugner City have been offered $40 vouchers, champagne and a free meal.
Dozens of women have pursued the reward, shopping topless. Lugner City's advertising department reported that since the campaign is successful, they've extended it.
True, wanting to work or shop nude is unusual. On the other hand, it does cut down on the concealed weapons problem, which the U.S. Post Office might want to consider for its employees. Topless grocery shopping would, of course, challenge workplace language restrictions. Conversations about melons, ripeness, and freshness would take on new meaning.
Teen Vogue and Seventeen magazines have caused some buzz by accepting ads for Bloussant breast-enhancement pills, breaking an industry taboo. Competitors are self-righteously sniffing about "responsibility to the teen audience" (Teen Magazine) and "celebrating [the teen's] independence and individual style" (Elle Girl).
These publishers are jiggling out of both sides of their bras. Magazines aimed at teen females are all about insecurity, image, and dependence. Covers feature perfect faces and bodies, articles focus on how to become more likeable, and pages are a seductive sea of colorful makeup ads--often accompanied by articles describing makeup as part of a personal hygiene regimen.
The only reason CosmoGirl and other teen books turn away ads for breast enhancement is because there aren't enough of them. Offer these girly mags dozens of boobifying ad pages per year, and they'll not only run them, they'll also run articles about women who could go on to better careers and husbands because of the self-esteem their bigger breasts gave them.
These magazines are in the business of telling girls what's wrong with them, and selling answers in their formulaic articles and state-of-the-art ads. It's a shame for 15-year-olds to want bigger breasts, but let's not just blame Bloussant--let's give some responsibility to magazines that say "your personality is your most important asset," but show perfect bodies and faces as the route to success and happiness.
3. Drafting Child Porn Stoolies
South Carolina has become the latest state to demand that untrained service workers become snitches about alleged child pornography. Along with the state's photo developers, computer service techs are now required to report any images of people who appear to be under 18 having sex or in "sexually explicit postures." Neither photo developers nor computer technicians will receive any training with which to implement this mandate.
To see how this is going to work, we turn to Portsmouth, NH, where reports of child pornography came from not one but two computer repair shops last week.
First police responded to a call from Better Technology Here, reporting child pornography supposedly found on a client's computer. After talking with technicians, police said they had insufficient information to warrant a seizure--but the computer's owner was asked for, and consented to, a search of its files. Police discovered nothing illegal.
When an employee at Botnay Bay Computers reported possible child pornography during a routine repair task, police seized the computer. Again, no illegal material was found.
Laws like these guarantee more and more calls to police, as citizens with what used to be ordinary jobs work defensively--i.e., erring on the side of caution (snitching) so they can't be busted later for failing to report something judged illegal.
In turn, police will have to make spot decisions about demanding "consent," seizing pictures and equipment, and getting warrants for further searches. Since the age and eroticism of those photographed and digitized aren't always clear, police judgement is crucial to citizen security. But there's only one way we can reasonably expect police to respond to these subjective statutes: When they're called to look at images that could be illegal, they'll try to find ways to see them as illegal. It's a new war on citizens, as the burden of proof of innocence is shifting from government to citizen.
Medical, legal, and mental health professionals already struggle with their roles as mandated reporters. Children are being removed from their homes in record numbers as many professionals report anything ambiguous simply to protect themselves.
Interestingly, the age of consent in both South Carolina and New Hampshire is 16. And yet pictures of 17-year-olds' consensual activity are illegal. In the upside down world created by child porn paranoia, the map (picture) is considered more real than the thing (sexual behavior).
Here's a predictable and not-so-funny application of peoples' increasing fear of being accused of consuming pornography.
British publisher Emap has been criticized over a promotional email that denounced its recipients for viewing internet porn. Some 50,000 people were accused of accessing "material of a violent, sexually explicit or immoral nature," and were told that full details of their supposed activity had been given to police. Recipients were told they could appeal the charges by clicking on an internet link--which showed an ad for the car show Emap is sponsoring.
Emap claimed its target audience of 18- to 25-year-old men would realize the email was a practical joke. After many complaints, however, Emap admitted that it might have "misjudged" the sensitivity of some of its readers. What's next, fake police dragging people away to "jail"--which happens to be a car show, ha ha ha?
The worst part of this story is the advertiser's keen understanding of how frightening it is to be accused of enjoying even legal erotica. Outracing the already shameful '90s, our new decade is witnessing an even greater number of custody cases, employment terminations and, sooner or later, suicides based on innocent or meanspirited accusations of porn-loving--now one of the biggest stigmas in our culture.
5. Mademoiselle: Women Are Office Animals
The results of the 2001 Mademoiselle Magazine Sexual Harassment Survey are fascinating.
According to its (admittedly unscientific) poll of thousands of women, 3/4 admitted flirting with co-workers. Two-thirds "party regularly" with co-workers outside the office, and 1/3 have dated co-workers. Almost half of the respondents admitted to undressing a co-worker with their eyes.
American women. You gotta love 'em.
Despite this reality, workplace harassment law targets male behavior, attempting to prevent men from creating a so-called hostile sexual atmosphere. Note how the behaviors described above, when done by women, are considered less egregious--and are virtually never prosecuted. The Mademoiselle numbers suggest that there are plenty of women who need no more protection from non-coercive sexualized work environments than their male colleagues.
Now there's no question that quid pro quo harassment ("put out or get out") should be illegal--not because it's about sex, but because it violates the most fundamental dignity and rights of employees. "Change your religion or you're fired" and "Quit the Republican Party or you're fired" should also be illegal.
It's the "creation of a hostile sexual atmosphere" part of the law that's gotten totally out of hand. It codifies the right of people to not be uncomfortable in their work environment--if their discomfort is about sex. You can wear a cross around your neck in the office, but not a penis pendant; you can put a picture of Jesus on your desk, but not a picture of Pamela Anderson; you can put a scene of hunters killing a deer on your wall, but not of two hunters kissing. People have even sued municipalities to remove classic masterpieces like Michelangelo's David from city halls in California, claiming they create hostile sexual environments. But if your discomfort is about others' religion or sports, rather than sexuality, it has no legal standing.
The workplace is a prime place that men and women meet others for dating. In fact, it's also where married and other coupled adults experience the zest of erotic interaction. After all, work is where most people look their best, have the most energy, and are their most creative. Not surprisingly, our co-workers often think we're more attractive than our mates do, who see us tired, unbathed, and burping.
It's impossible to maintain the possibility for erotic energy and ambiguity that most adults enjoy, while also maintaining the pristine, humorless environment that lawyers and the erotophobic demand. Harassment law will only become more reasonable if more women speak up. True, their eroticism-is-bad sisters (and brothers) might stigmatize them. The alternative is colluding with the demonizing of the out-of-control, dangerous male erotic animal. This is a cult that exacts a terrible toll on everyone.
Fortunately, those who want to eliminate sexual energy from all non-private places don't take flowers seriously. If they did, they'd be demanding the removal of these plant kingdom sexual organs as well, leaving all public spaces barren. That's part of what Joni Mitchell must have meant when she sang about "paving paradise to put up a parking lot."
September 22-29 is Banned Books Week. The American Library Association's goal is to call attention to the dangerous censorship activities that are actually increasing in the United States. Last year, there were almost 700 formal demands that one or more books be removed from school or public libraries. The most challenged book in the United States wasn't Marx's Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf, it was the Harry Potter series--for "occult, Satanic, and anti-family themes." The Chocolate War, Of Mice and Men, and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings were also among the top ten.
When it comes to censorship, the content of books is irrelevant. The consequences of preventing the public--yes, "even" children--from having access to certain books is always worse than whatever is in those books. When one person or one group has the right to tell people what they cannot read or see, no one is free. And no one is really safe.
So help un-ban books today. Write a letter to your newspaper, declaring your support for true diversity in your local libary. Or call your congressmember, requesting s/he vote against proposed restrictions on library internet access. Best of all, run for school board.
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas7. Calendar: Marty Klein's Speaking Schedule
September 14, 2001
Milwaukee, WI
414/774-4111
Diagnosis & Treatment of Sexual Issues
Pathway Counseling CenterSeptember 20-21, 2001
San Francisco
800/538-2565
Human Sexuality
(satisfies CA licensing requirement)
National Association of Social WorkersSeptember 29, 2001
Los Angeles
800/584-5111
Start of next case consultation series for psychotherapists
For more information, click hereOctober 25, 2001
San Diego
610/530-2483
Diagnosis & Treatment of Sexual Issues
Society for the Scientific Study of SexualityOctober 27, 2001
San Diego
610/530-2483
Sexuality in the Age of Technology: Has Anything Really Changed?
Society for the Scientific Study of SexualityNovember 15-16, 2001
San Francisco
800/538-2565
Human Sexuality
(satisfies CA licensing requirements)
National Association of Social WorkersFebruary 22-23, 2002
Oakland, CA
800/538-2565
Human Sexuality
(satisfies CA licensing requirements)
National Association of Social WorkersMarch 15-16, 2002
San Mateo, CA
800/538-2565
Human Sexuality
(satisfies CA licensing requirements)
National Association of Social WorkersApril 5, 2002
Manhattan Beach, CA
650/856-6533
What Are Sexology's Assumptions? Do We Really Believe Them?
Society for the Scientific Study of SexualityApril 27, 2002
Santa Cruz, CA
831/459-9351
Existential Issues in Psychotherapy & Couples Counseling
Family Service AgencyMay 17-18, 2002
Walnut Creek, CA
800/538-2565
Human Sexuality
(satisfies CA licensing requirements)
National Association of Social Workers
You may quote anything herein, with the following attribution:
"Reprinted from Sexual Intelligence, copyright © Marty Klein, Ph.D. (www.SexEd.org)."