3 ms·

> why is 100% sex work less exploitative than 50% sex work? I oppose receptionist that also has sex with the boss. Exploitation has nothing to do with that. A

> why is 100% sex work less exploitative than 50% sex work? I oppose receptionist that also has sex with the boss. Exploitation has nothing to do with that. At least in my world view, having sex at workplace is unprofessional. First of all, spending corporate or investor's money on paying sex workers is wrong. Even if the boss is the sole owner of the company i.e. spending their own money, boss fucking a receptionist causes unhealthy atmosphere in the company. The company gonna have hard time attracting female candidates on other positions. Employees who have families gonna have interesting conversations with their SOs.

throwawayhehe 6y ago
Why is spending investor's money on sex workers any more wrong then spending it on other job perks? What's "unhealthy" about boss having sex with receptionist. Got news for you: it already happens a lot :) As far as employees who have families, can't they just go poly if they don't want to risk being fired?
- Const-me 6y ago
  > Why is spending investor's money on sex workers any more wrong then spending it on other job perks? Because it harms the company. This perk gonna reduce hiring pool by a factor of 2-4. I think many married people, women, and probably many lgbtq+ people wouldn’t want to work there. > What's "unhealthy" about boss having sex with receptionist. Sex between consensual adults is fine. The unhealthy atmosphere is caused by other people in and around the company knowing, and discussing, what’s going on. > can't they just go poly if they don't want to risk being fired? Gonna be hard to sell that idea to wives/husbands of these employees.
z3phyr 6y ago
Did you just assume that the receptionist is going to be female?
ALittleLight 6y ago
You seem to be suggesting there would be logistical problems with the idea of the prostitute/receptionist, but I think that even if those problems were solved it would still be a bad idea. If there was a clause in the contract that sex had to be outside the workplace and the money to pay for the sex act had to come from the entertainment accounts and the company had no problem attracting female employees or retaining workers, would you support it then? That would seem to answer all your logistical concerns.
- Const-me 6y ago
  > even if those problems were solved I think the only way to solve them, pay all employees way above market. If you do that, it doesn't matter the money to pay the receptionist comes from entertainment accounts. Another hard to solve issue is envy. A manager in the company might want to have their own receptionist. > would you support it then? In a hypothetical world where all parties are totally OK with a boss sleeping with a receptionist - sure, why not?
literallycancer 6y ago
It's OK to spend investor's money on massages or fitness coaches to keep the team in top shape, but not OK to add a happy ending and blow off some steam?
- Const-me 6y ago
  Some people aren’t gonna be interested in sex at work. I would expect many women and non-binary people gonna pass. This means they’re unfairly compensated. While you can argue employer-provided or subsidized childcare is unfair too because people without children don’t benefit, I think there’s a consensus that productivity hit is too expensive for the company. Other people have families, for them it’s even harder to solve in a good way. You can’t just pay them more money, they might find themselves in a position to choose between job and marriage, that’s not a good position to be. Sex at work might be a great perk for single male employees, but I think issues caused for the rest of the people are worse, gonna affect bottom line in a negative way. Hiring is the worst of them, IMO.

throwawayhehe 6y ago

Why is spending investor's money on sex workers any more wrong then spending it on other job perks? What's "unhealthy" about boss having sex with receptionist. Got news for you: it already happens a lot :) As far as employees who have families, can't they just go poly if they don't want to risk being fired?

Const-me 6y ago
> Why is spending investor's money on sex workers any more wrong then spending it on other job perks? Because it harms the company. This perk gonna reduce hiring pool by a factor of 2-4. I think many married people, women, and probably many lgbtq+ people wouldn’t want to work there. > What's "unhealthy" about boss having sex with receptionist. Sex between consensual adults is fine. The unhealthy atmosphere is caused by other people in and around the company knowing, and discussing, what’s going on. > can't they just go poly if they don't want to risk being fired? Gonna be hard to sell that idea to wives/husbands of these employees.

z3phyr 6y ago

Did you just assume that the receptionist is going to be female?

ALittleLight 6y ago

You seem to be suggesting there would be logistical problems with the idea of the prostitute/receptionist, but I think that even if those problems were solved it would still be a bad idea. If there was a clause in the contract that sex had to be outside the workplace and the money to pay for the sex act had to come from the entertainment accounts and the company had no problem attracting female employees or retaining workers, would you support it then? That would seem to answer all your logistical concerns.

Const-me 6y ago
> even if those problems were solved I think the only way to solve them, pay all employees way above market. If you do that, it doesn't matter the money to pay the receptionist comes from entertainment accounts. Another hard to solve issue is envy. A manager in the company might want to have their own receptionist. > would you support it then? In a hypothetical world where all parties are totally OK with a boss sleeping with a receptionist - sure, why not?

literallycancer 6y ago

It's OK to spend investor's money on massages or fitness coaches to keep the team in top shape, but not OK to add a happy ending and blow off some steam?

Const-me 6y ago
Some people aren’t gonna be interested in sex at work. I would expect many women and non-binary people gonna pass. This means they’re unfairly compensated. While you can argue employer-provided or subsidized childcare is unfair too because people without children don’t benefit, I think there’s a consensus that productivity hit is too expensive for the company. Other people have families, for them it’s even harder to solve in a good way. You can’t just pay them more money, they might find themselves in a position to choose between job and marriage, that’s not a good position to be. Sex at work might be a great perk for single male employees, but I think issues caused for the rest of the people are worse, gonna affect bottom line in a negative way. Hiring is the worst of them, IMO.