Office Flirtations

The Iowa Supreme Court filed an opinion yesterday, Nelson v. Knight, which resulted from office flirtation between a female employee and a male employer. Sex had not occurred but certainly was on the horizon when Mrs. Employer determined that her husband should fire the attractive, flirtatious, and suggestive employee. Well, Employee didn't think much of being fired, was apparently somewhat bitter about the whole experience, and brought suit alleging sex discrimination. Basically, she, Employee, was fired so that sex would not occur. Mrs. Employer was concerned that Mr. Employer might take advantage of the obvious offer of sexual gratification through his long acquaintance and growing affection for Employee and declared that Mr. Employer fire Employee forthwith. Which he did. Employee brought a sex discrimination suit against Mr. Employer alleging that she was fired because of her sex. The Court spends considerable time developing the thesis that this was not the case; that Employee was fired because she was a threat to Mr. Employer's marriage. She was fired so that a flirtatious and suggestive situation not become sexual. Employee believes this to be sex discrimination. The Court thinks otherwise. Sex at the office is not sex discrimination. If an employee is fired because of a jealous wife, too bad. It may not be fair, and it may be in poor taste, but it isn't sex discrimination. Personal jealousy resulting from office sex is not actionable especially when pastors are involved as they were in this case. The church is involved when sin is imminent. Mr. Employer properly admitted to violating the tenth commandment and properly atoned for his sin. The Court certainly can not determine otherwise. We can now all rest easier when we realize that consensual office sex will not result in onerous litigation when things go wrong with the arrangement. Considering the fact that most of us work in offices with people of the opposite sex these sort of situations are bound to happen on occasion. What one does need to keep in mind though are angry spouses who may object and interject themselves into such a cozy tete-a-tete-they very seldom become a menage a trois.

Legitimate Rape

Its election day and we can only hope that the Republicans will prevail here in Iowa so that we can then have an intelligent discussion of rape. Our criminal code does not distinguish between legitimate rape and illegitimate rape which is a legitimate concern-hopefully not being unduly playful with the wording. This being a serious subject and one that needs clarification, readers should not believe for an instant that I am not serious when I say we need clarification which clarification should be enacted this next legislative session. Too many men are subjected to prison and requirements of life-time sex offender registration where the rape has not been legitimate. Is one "No, I don't want to have sex", enough to classify the sex act rape. Should the person being raped be required to say it three times? If one of the sex partners is immobilized by ropes, handcuffs, or other devices, can we call this legitimate rape? The popularity of the book Fifty Shades of Gray would seem to indicate that this would not be legitimate rape. If one of the sex partners is drunk, should this be classified as legitimate rape? It would seem to me that the whole purpose of getting drunk would be to have sex especially in a frat house or some like establishment. We need clarification. The police and prosecutors need better guidance as to what may be deemed legitimate and what illegitimate. There are instances where women have been charged with rape and in most cases these are instances of illegitimate rape. The latest example to read about in the papers is the female teacher having sex with high school boys. Being a man myself and having once been a high school student, it is difficult to think that I or any of my friends would have objected to having sex with an attractive, young high school teacher. From what I gather from the Des Moines Register, this young, attractive, female high school teacher is being prosecuted for sexual abuse and faces prison and sex offender registration. This is but one more example of what should be considered illegitimate rape. The new legislature must immediately put together a study committee to examine the current laws on this subject and make recommendations for changes. I would advise strongly against inviting experts, social workers, sex counselors, prosecutors, or police to be on the committee for they usually have an economic interest in the number of people prosecuted for rape. The committee should only consist of legislators and ordinary citizens who have no economic interest in the matter.

Sex Crimes

I reacted in horror when I discovered that the crime of public intoxication was not considered a sexually motivated offense under 692A.126 of the Iowa Code requiring a person convicted of it to register as a sex offender thereby warning the public of the person's proclivities to think about sex. It appears that the Iowa legislature enacted 692A.126 in 2009 adding 23 crimes for which a person is required to register as a sex offender. These crimes specifically require the person convicted, if having any sexual thoughts while committing them, to register as a sex offender. These 23 crimes are in addition to the 89 crimes for which a convicted person must register as a sex offender whether he or she was having sexual thoughts or not. They simply are presumed. Public intoxication must have been an oversight when the Iowa legislature was considering what crimes to include in 692A.126. the major reason, if not the only reason, to become intoxicated is to think about sex. It is a scientifically proven, well-known fact that intoxication causes a person to lose his or her inhibitions, i.e. to think about, to act upon, and to engage in sex if possible. When one is drinking heavily at a social function one is eyeing lecherously the married woman or man standing nearby or with which one is engaged in conversation. It can't be helped. Normally if one appears in public in an intoxicated state, one has been thinking about sex, engaging in sex, or wishing, at that moment, he or she was having sex. This is why it is difficult to understand how the legislature could have missed such an obvious crime to include in the list of convictions for which one must register as a sex offender. I believe it is imperative that any of us who care about the safety of our children should contact those running for the legislature now, before the election to determine where the candidates stand on this issue. We must voice our concern and obtain a positive response from those who intend to represent us in the next legislative session.