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
This. This is the real social problem we should be fighting. SW should not impinge on career or social status.

As a hiring manager, if anything I'd want to consider sex performers as a green flag in a job history. Speaks to resourcefulness, social skills, courage and self confidence.

>>tpurve+jbc
And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs

last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently

glad that was temporary

booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon

>>yieldc+ypc
Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing.

All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

>>Der_Ei+Ftc
You jest, but it’s easy to retort using their same phrasing

“that sounds gendered” and if it leads to them being unable to distinguish why it isn’t, then you get to call them sexist and they're out of your way and the company forever, you get to morph it to something more entertaining and libido inclusive

alternate path is to talk about the importance of consent, nonconsensual objectification is bad, every objectionable action is okay if its consensual

third path is to point out how they cant speak for the women involved, or how they neglected to elevate the voices of those most affected. many of which are very prideful of their work and are waiting for that kind of representation and allyship. the bonus here is that there likely are secret sex workers in your organization already, and they’ll reveal that to you after you use their even more progressive phrasing against the misandrist