jump to navigation

Singles (and Seduction?) on Sailboats February 25, 2014

Posted by Onely in Food for Thought.
Tags: , , , , ,
3 comments

Copious Readers,

It’s been a long time since our last post. Sorry if anyone missed us. (We hope someone missed us.) But never fear, even though we weren’t posting, we constantly had our eyes peeled for examples of marital status discrimination against singles. There are examples all over the news (thank you, Google feed), but we prefer to write about incidents we personally experienced. And our favorite kind of personal vignette is when the marital status discrimination is reversed–when married people experience a little bit of what singles live with every day. Mean but true. 

water-14687_640You may or may not know my stance on singles’ groups. I personally find them kind of icky (I explained why here) but some people like them, so whatever. My friend Kisha is part of a beautifully-alliterated group, Singles on Sailboats (that also happens to have the unfortunate acronym SOS). But here’s the thing–Kisha is in a relationship. She’s not single.

So what’s she doing in a singles sailing club? Does this mean that Kisha is stepping out on her  current man Dean and scanning the sailboats for a smarter, richer, tauter, funnier version of Dean?

Well, no.

First, because Dean owns the boat. You can be single as George Clooney, but you can’t be in SOS unless you have a boat (which is a dumb example, because of course George Clooney has a boat). Second, SOS allows couples like Kisha and Dean to join. Because they are not married.

Did you get that? Unmarried couples ok, married couples not ok. Perhaps SOS thinks that until a couple signs that piece of paper–until they become legally coupled as opposed to merely socially coupled–SOS should not deprive them of the chance that, while attending a SOS function, one of the unmarried pair might find, well, a smarter, richer, tauter, funnier version of Dean.

I would go to SOS myself and try to seduce some socially-but-not-legally coupled men, just to test this theory, except I don’t have a boat. Or any seduction experience or equipment.

I heard about the marital discrimination information straight from Kisha. “We’re trying to get them to allow married couples,” she said, and more power to her. Maybe if they add married couples they can become People on Sailboats, which sounds kind of stupid but at least they’d lose that unlucky SOS acronym.

(Full disclosure: The SOS website, technically you can be married in the club, but you must have joined as a single person. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing I’ve been yapping about above.)

All that said, here are the people that SOS does welcome unconditionally:

single members with all levels of sailing experience, from novice sailors to seasoned skippers. . . all single persons twenty-one years of age or older, regardless of race, color, creed, sex or national origins

Which just shows how discriminatory singlism (or, in this case, marriedism) is ingrained in our society. The club has no qualms about making policy based on marital status, but they go out of their way to advertise their lack of racism, colorism, creedism, sexism, or national originsism.

Until they fix their marital status discrimination, they cannot legitimately say, as they do on their website, SOS is a sailing club, not a dating club.”

Copious Readers, can you think of better acronyms for this club, either reflecting their current status as a dating club, or their future status as a non-singlist, non-marriedist club for everyone?

–Christina

Photo credit: Pixabay, Public Domain

Valentine’s Day: Scourge of the Onelys (Nature Edition) February 1, 2010

Posted by Onely in "Against Love"...?, Pop Culture: Scourge of the Onelys, Singled Out.
Tags: , , , ,
12 comments

So last week I was reading one of my favorite blogs, a local site that announces public events and gatherings located in the Louisville area. (I really appreciate the site and the owner, who obviously cares about our little city and runs the site pro bono, so I’m not going to link to it here.) On the site, there was an announcement for an event held at a beautiful forest about 20 minutes outside of the city — my dog and I love hiking at this forest, and so I read the following with enthusiasm — and then jarring disappointment:

A romantic Valentine’s Day evening awaits Friday, February 12 and Saturday, February 13 at — Forest. For only $25, couples will be treated to a romantic candle-lit hike that ends with a view of Louisville’s lights from the scenic — House.

Following the hike, couples will enjoy a roaring fire, hot drinks and gourmet desserts within the — House. … The evening begins at 7:30 p.m. and is expected to wind up by 10 p.m. Couples are also invited to bring flashlights to the hike for added visibility along the trails.

Because of increased demand for the hikes, an additional date was added this year.

“The natural beauty of — Forest is a great fit with Valentine’s Day,” said —, public education coordinator at — Forest. “Couples can have a romantic evening by taking a stroll through the grounds, then relaxing in front of the fire. We have many couples who have made this part of their Valentine tradition. They look forward to seeing other couples they have met in the years past. The — House offers enough room to sit together or find a romantic spot away from the group.”

I’ll admit: I’m not normally all that surprised — or even bothered — by V-day events. They often sound boring and/or cheesy; they’re usually activities I’d rather not participate in, even if I were coupled. But being the outdoorsy kind of woman I am, I feel completely offended by this event. I am simply horrified by the idea that this cool night-time nature hike — which I would truly enjoy! — has become a couples-only activity! The strangest part about the announcement, which Christina pointed out to me, is that it doesn’t even say explicitly that the event is only for couples… But the language used in the announcement is clearly grounded upon that basic premise (especially the last paragraph — which makes me nauseous!).

To which I say, F*** you, — Forest!

Copious Readers, what do you think? Am I overreacting?

— Lisa

photo credit: asiastockimages

%d bloggers like this: