zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it.

With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that.

I am not sure if there's the same this new army of "civilians" joining OF, let alone the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health.

>>braza+3yb
The problem here is that ceratain members of our society think sexuality is immoral and that sex performers deserve ostracism.

The idea that someone shouldn't be hired for a job because they have/had an OF is puritanism plain and simple.

I expect that fewer people actually care about the "morality" and simply want to use morals as a weapon against women in the workplace.

>>jappga+3Wb
There's an inherent risk to hiring someone who has sexualized themselves. False allegations or true allegations are more likely to arise that put the employer in legal jeopardy.

It adds risk that another hire may not have.

>>ghastm+Ibc
In this day and age it won't matter much.

You can hire anyone and have them target of allegations from colleagues. Them having a higher social status won't really help, we're post #metoo and there has been way too many cases of well regarded people being predatory. Whether the employee had some arguable past jobs, you'll have to do due diligence and get to the bottom of it either way.