4 ms·
I don't think it said they were forcibly raped; but that the sex was in exchange for something of value, like opportunity or promotion. So long as both parties
by eplanit 6y ago
I don't think it said they were forcibly raped; but that the sex was in exchange for something of value, like opportunity or promotion. So long as both parties are adults and in agreement, the "not willing to engage" part doesn't apply. Maybe it's still unethical, though.
- leetcrew 6y agothe point is that even if the participants are okay with it, it still harms people who are unwilling to participate. if I'm a sex worker, my work is sex. nothing wrong with charging money for that. if I'm a software engineer, my work has nothing to do with sex, and my career progression should not be impeded by my refusal to have sex with my boss.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Jochim 6y agoI was intending to make a more general statement on the effects of the practice on all participants and in other industries. The disadvantage for being "not willing to engage" would be applied to those potential artists who refused the sexual advances of these people and were therefore passed over; despite potentially being a better candidate. I think you could even argue that there may be an element of coercion if the person was willing to engage originally. Now that your manager is responsible for your career are you really safe in saying no the second time? The question is really whether we're okay with allowing sexual favours to be placed over merit when accepting people into an industry. I think the answer is unequivocally no, even in industries where sex is the product.