zlacker

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+(OP)
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.

>>jappga+(OP)
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+Ff
"sexualised themselves"

I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.

>>tpurve+gf
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

>>ghastm+Ff
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.

>>yieldc+vt
only if i can be a booth hunk

>>makeit+fv
You say it won't matter much, but it does matter.

1: This is location specific. You should hide it if you ever want a decent job in a smaller town.

2: It is position specific. Many public jobs or jobs in childcare, teaching, or where the company relies on its appearance in the community will not hire someone with a history of sex work in whatever form it takes, and if you hid it to begin but the truth came out you will at best receive backlash for it and at worst be immediately fired (or fired as soon as the paperwork clears).

I have nothing against sex work in any form, but our society as a whole has a strong reaction to it and it will be at least 50 years before we get over that.

>>yieldc+vt
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.

>>yieldc+vt
Id make sex work legally equal to other work.

Of course a consequence of that would be the engineering boss can ask the team to pole dance, and if they refuse they can be fired as easily as they could be for refusing to take out the trash.

>>jappga+Sv
it’ll absolutely be the inclusive version

>>jappga+(OP)
Entirely unironically I believe that that first line is the prime cause of crashing birthrate. Surely labor exploitation contributes substantially followed by urban over-population, but THAT has to be it.

Japan's actually got the least-worst birthrates among Far East, and everyone knows what it's best known for on the Internet.

>>Der_Ei+Cx
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

>>beagle+yA
Although intended to be a hyperbolic example, pole dancing isn't sex work and will likely achieve that kind of representation for other reasons

>>jappga+Sv
With some waxing and a tan I could probably swing this gig. Not sure it'd be worth the associated male attention though.

>>jappga+(OP)
If transactional sex becomes the norm, while amorous sex becomes scarce, there a few unwanted consequences for the whole society. A few examples: the access to reproduction for the poor is decreased, men in particular feeling unwanted, unable to find a partner and in general feeling uninvested in the common good, which inevitably leads to violence. Yes, it is extreme, but incels in the Western world are a thing and so are 30 million Chinese men who will not have a partner because there are fewer women in that generation.

This is why in general it is frowned upon by "certain members of society" as you call them.

>>jappga+(OP)
It isn't that sex itself is immoral. Sex work has a lot of different forms

Some forms are a lot more taxing on both mental and physical health (plus STD risk). OF doesn't have this same level of risk but people mentally lump it all together

The morals are there for a reason, they just lack nuance

>>Der_Ei+Cx
> Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

No, progressives in general don't. In fact, the assumption on which this attitude rests, that anything, particularly any clothing or activity of the target, causes objectification besides the choice of the objectifier is a conservative, victim-blaming viewpoint that is widely attacked by progressives.

>>jappga+9o
What is the risk you have in mind?

>>dragon+aw5
thats what surprised me about the sf bay area’s “inclusion by exclusion” throughout last decade

there were some women that wanted to excise the presence of other women, because they (purportedly) felt that men didnt take them seriously after being around the other women. but thats a problem with the particular men?

it was masqueraded as progressive and was successful, they were the only women in tech representation and people didn't challenge the inconsistency