Feminist protesters vs new Playboy club

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

and would definatley have a wobbly

You like fat women?

[Alien 10]

No, what I was saying is that if you don't fit the job description, then it's hoghly unlikely you will get the job isn't it.

I don't fit the job description for heart surgeon but i'd love to crack at it. Is it unfair that I wouldn't get the job or is it just common sense?

 

 

You can be born unattractive and aspire to a brain surgeon. Unattractive and strutting your booty as a career seems to be an aspiration a little too far.

[sccsux 10]

Can't see it somehow, can you?

 

Not really;). Which is why I don't understand this current protest. It's just hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BettyBooHoo! 10]

You can be born unattractive and aspire to a brain surgeon. Unattractive and strutting your booty as a career seems to be an aspiration a little too far.

 

You can aspire to be anything you want but it doesn't mean it will work out, and that's whether you are male, female, pretty, ugly, fat or thin.

[Alien 10]

You can aspire to be anything you want but it doesn't mean it will work out, and that's whether you are male, female, pretty, ugly, fat or thin.

 

 

Rubbish. How can you aspire if you're judged on what you were born with? You telling me unattractive people can't dance around a pole, unattractive people don't have a tush, dik, tits? The clubs are full of them, doesn't stop them dancing or pulling.

What if your qualification was the same as that of another as a brain surgeon, but you found that your competition won because you were seen as a hairy minger?

[sccsux 10]

The clubs are full of them, doesn't stop them dancing or pulling?

 

But they are not paid to do so. In order for them to earn money from their dancing "skills" then they would need to have addition attributes.

[Alien 10]

But they are not paid to do so. In order for them to earn money from their dancing "skills" then they would need to have addition attributes.

 

And those additional attributes from your perspective would be? Let me guess...what a woman should be rather than what they are?

[plekhanov 10]

In the case put forward by your inference (job description) yes. Otherwise why not inc any woman? By splitting the criteria (ugly/pretty) you objectify. If you didn't objectify the criteria would be woman or man only.

By this bizarre anti-logic all job descriptions "objectify" people, as they all set out a series of criteria aside form mere humanity that a successful applicant must have.

 

Be it the ability to solder, program java script, lift & carry a given weight or sexually excite your average male in order to separate him from his cash.

 

When I was younger I had a summer job working in a warehouse loading & unloading lorries, I only got that job because I had the necessary physical attributes they of course weren't all that exacting but a very slight, old & frail, physically disabled... person couldn't possibly have done it and would have been rejected. My employers then didn't give a crap about me as a person they simply needed an object able to shift boxes about as required, if they could have got a robot to do the job for less they would happily have done so. Presumably you don't find this objectionable.

 

Why then do you seem to object to people in the sex industry being chosen by whether or not they have the necessary physical attributes to do the job? Be it being generically attractive for mainstream stripping, porn... or morbidly obese, a dwarf, an amputee... for less mainstream tastes? By selecting employees deemed suitable to the job the sex industry operates in exactly the same manner as all the rest.

[sccsux 10]

And those additional attributes from your perspective would be?

 

It's not for me to decide what attributes a business requires of it's employees.

[plekhanov 10]

You can be born unattractive and aspire to a brain surgeon. Unattractive and strutting your booty as a career seems to be an aspiration a little too far.

You however can't be born stupid & clumsy & reasonably aspire to be a brain suggestion.

 

To make it as a brain surgeon you need the innate mental capacity & fine motor control necessary to make it in what I understand to be quite a demanding profession.

 

Those born dumb or uncoordinated simply won't make it even with the best of educations. Similarly some people (though I would suggest a far smaller proportion than for brain surgeons) are unlucky enough not to have the physical attributes to make it as a mainstream sex worker no matter how much time they spend in the gym or applying beauty treatments.

 

I can't think of any profession that doesn't require a combination of inherent characteristics and applied effort, why do you single out professions in the sex industry as being somehow wrong for doing so?

[Suffragette1 10]

Just because there's a limited window of opportunity in which a choice can realistically be made that doesn't magically stop it being a choice.

 

There's a very limited time in which a woman can choose to have an abortion, a decision which is rarely actively planned well in advance & which is often strongly influenced by short term financial pressures, does that mean it's "specious" argument to say that abortion can be a choice?

 

The principle that a woman's body is her own and that she should have the freedom to do whatever she likes with free from coercion is pretty much a foundational principle of feminism. At least when you look at feminist approaches to sexual harassment, rape and abortion. Yet strangely many feminists seem to completely abandon the principle that a woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases if what she chooses to do with it is use it to earn money in the sex industry.

 

It seems unpleasantly ironic how closely the reasoning of anti-sex feminists attempting to deny the validity of a choice to work in the sex industry resembles that of anti-choicers attempting to deny the validity of a choice to have an abortion.

 

A good way of evaluating the strength of your own position is to imagine how you'd respond to it if it was flipped and employed to argue for something you disagree with. I put it to you that your "sex work isn't a valid choice" argument badly fails this test.

 

I see what you're saying, however, my argument, Plek, is the normalisation, mainstreaming and claims of 'harmless fun' of these types of pseudo-sex venues where breasts (and arse in the case of Playboy) are clearly how they are marketed along with the image of the sexed up servile woman, whether that be Hooters or Playboy. They validate the notion of women are playthings, adornments and whose raison d'etre is to be in servitude to men and this has a knock on effect on wider society. I personally do not buy the 'no one is forcing them to do it' or 'it's their choice' arguments to justify their existence, regardless of whether or not it is a choice. I'm not undermining sex work as a valid choice at all, just highlighting how superficially it may not be what it seems. I base this on having spoken to numerous sex workers over the years, through various lines of work and research, however, I appreciate that they will not speak for all women working in the industry.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with the abortion analogy, for a variety of reasons which haven't time to enumerate (school run beckons). However, I am in totally agreement with you about the inherent contradictions in some schools of feminist thinking. I'll never ever be part of the anti-prostitution/porn brigade and those who were/are anti-the pill and abortion I will never understand and have argued with them till I am blue in the face.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Suffragette1

[Alien 10]

By this bizarre anti-logic all job descriptions "objectify" people, as they all set out a series of criteria aside form mere humanity that a successful applicant must have.

 

Be it the ability to solder, program java script, lift & carry a given weight or sexually excite your average male in order to separate him from his cash.

 

When I was younger I had a summer job working in a warehouse loading & unloading lorries, I only got that job because I had the necessary physical attributes they of course weren't all that exacting but a very slight, old & frail, physically disabled... person couldn't possibly have done it and would have been rejected. My employers then didn't give a crap about me as a person they simply needed an object able to shift boxes about as required, if they could have got a robot to do the job for less they would happily have done so. Presumably you don't find this objectionable.

 

Why then do you seem to object to people in the sex industry being chosen by whether or not they have the necessary physical attributes to do the job? Be it being generically attractive for mainstream stripping, porn... or morbidly obese, a dwarf, an amputee... for less mainstream tastes? By selecting employees deemed suitable to the job the sex industry operates in exactly the same manner as all the rest.

 

I know the difference between an able bodied person who is capable and one who is not. What I'm implying is who or you or I for that matter to judge on who is unattractive or not?

 

You may be able to write into law for obvious reasons a disability because that disability is blatantly obvious. Being unattractive isn't obvious..or is it? And who quantifies that? Is there a special criteria? Honestly you tell me what unattractive is, whatever your reply the answer would be...well that's your own interpretation.

 

I understand your logic regards amputee, dwarf, etc..But defining our looks by spending a fiver on dodgy DVD would have 99% of the worlds population down as munters, as a rule of thumb.

 

I may not have got my own specifics spot on by I know where i'm coming from..even though you have jogged a few issues.