Porn/Depiction of Women

[Skaði]

Yes, thank you :P

[Plu]

You do, but apparently that doesn't go for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if most employers wouldn't hire a former porn star for many kinds of positions, especially the public-facing ones. You don't, as an employer, want someone to google your sales guy and end up at an X-rated website.

[Plu]

I don't think that ignoring a statement really counts as an argument. Unless you don't count "having a job" as a "role", anyway. Male porn stars aren't allowed in most jobs either. At least not where I live.

On the other hand, I've heard a number of stories from female sex-workers who took the job because they needed to pay for their study, and who left the job when they got their diploma and moved on to a new position. That's actually kinda acceptable behaviour it seems, but you never hear of males doing that.

It's probably a different culture where you live (and you're probably right about the situation in Turkey), but I don't think it's a world-wide thing. I certainly don't get that vibe you're talking about here. Remember that most of the people here come from sexually backwards countries (I'm counting both the US and Turkey there), but not all the world is like that. Some countries have already moved beyond some of the issues you talk about. (Not far enough imho, but at least beyond the gender-divide you speak of)

[SilentFutility]

If a male decides to quit that occupation and get a new career he can and in that position you can bet many women would consider that male among eligible life partners -because society does.

I'm not sure that I can bet on that though.
I'm trying to think of young women my age that I've known who would even consider an ex-pornstar as a life partner and I really can't imagine that any of them would. That's not to say that nobody would but I certainly disagree that society as a whole does not view an ex male pornstar as a less suitable candidate for marriage/relationships etc.

That said, I would not consider a female ex-prostitute nor ex-pornstar as a candidate for a relationship. This is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do. That's not to say I would stop someone making their own choices, but I do think that someone who has made that choice is not compatible with me. That has nothing to do with sexism, and it would be the same way if I were a girl considering male companions.

How many women would want to have a family with a male pornstar/escort?

See above. A man always has a chance 'to be accepted to normal life' once he declared that he quit his job and tried to make another life. A woman cannot do that. She wouldn't 'be accepted to normal life' let alone another line of work or start a family after a pron career.

How do you know that a man has a good or much better chance of doing so though?

And the only reason for this is her gender, being a female; having a vagina; and people coming out to this world from a vagina. A penis and a vagina have completely different meanings in social contract. Vagina determines some sort of value and worthiness of a woman, as a mother, as a young girl, as this and that...as a human being.

And throughout history it has been so for men, so much so that castration was used as a social weapon and a method of control. Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.
I'm struggling to see that you're objectifying someone by viewing them in terms of their private parts when they are a pornstar, male or female. If someone's primary marketable skill is removing their clothing and showing off their sexual organs etc. then why is it demeaning to them to evaluate that person based on their job?

This is the real unshakable monarchy created by humans. Genitals organ monarchy. Penis and vagina. Vagina rules over everything if you know how to use it, because that's the only way penis can rule.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

When you work with your brain, you are 'honourable'. When you are working with your hands, you are again somewhat honourable, but somewhat the lower class. If you are working with your vagina you are a low life and you are not entitled to the rights other organs gain you as working tools.

Likewise with a penis.
Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.

Would you knowingly hire an ex-male pornstar or escort for a different job as an employer? I almost certainly wouldn't.

If the person is qualified to do the job, I hire everyone. What he/she did before is none of my -or anyone else's- fucking business.

Your past professional experience absolutely is your employer's business.
If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.

[Plu]

Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.

Errrr, no. You should check out pictures of ideal men and women on billboards. A women's boob-size is definately considered important to "society", which is mostly made up out of idiots.

Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.

Unfair comparison. First off; someone who is being paid to "wave their cock about" is woring hard to better themselves. Second off, you're comparing someone with a job in entertainment with someone who is mastering a "difficult skill"; by this logic you would respect a McDonalds worker less than a porn-star, because the porn worker has a lot more professional skills and a much more difficult job than a McDonalds worker has. And lastly, a porn star is useful to society by virtue of people are willing to buy his work.

If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.

You sound like you wouldn't hire people with hobbies either. Just because people spend time on something doesn't mean they can't do anything else. It would probably be a better idea to ignore what they did at the start of their carreer and simply check how good they are now, which is the only relevant thing for being able to do their job.

I spent the "formative years" of my carreer doing something completely different from what I'm currently paid to do, but my boss didn't care about how I spent my time; he only cared about my current abilities, and those were good enough for a hire.

And seriously, would you refuse to hire someone who spent the first part of his career working at McDonalds before getting into his current field, simply because he didn't spend the "formative part of his carreer" working in his later field of choice? I'm betting you'd still consider him based on his current skillset.

[SilentFutility]

Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.

Errrr, no. You should check out pictures of ideal men and women on billboards. A women's boob-size is definately considered important to "society", which is mostly made up out of idiots.

Yeah you're not actually allowed to show huge phalluses on billboards...as hilarious as I'm sure that would be.
I didn't say breast size was considered unimportant, I'm saying that a man with a tiny penis is ridiculed and laughed at more than a woman with small breasts.

Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.

Unfair comparison. First off; someone who is being paid to "wave their cock about" is woring hard to better themselves. Second off, you're comparing someone with a job in entertainment with someone who is mastering a "difficult skill"; by this logic you would respect a McDonalds worker less than a porn-star, because the porn worker has a lot more professional skills and a much more difficult job than a McDonalds worker has. And lastly, a porn star is useful to society by virtue of people are willing to buy his work.

I see no self-improvement in someone who is paid to reveal themselves and have sex on camera.
Have you worked in McDonalds? I haven't but I've seen and heard that it is quite high pressure and not very pleasant.
I don't hold anyone in disdain for working and earning their keep, but of course I respect someone professionally who has made great personal sacrifice and done something extremely difficult to become, say a doctor, more than someone who simply takes their clothes off. That doesn't qualify them for special treatment, but it is certainly a better and more impressive achievement.

If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.

You sound like you wouldn't hire people with hobbies either. Just because people spend time on something doesn't mean they can't do anything else. It would probably be a better idea to ignore what they did at the start of their carreer and simply check how good they are now, which is the only relevant thing for being able to do their job.

I absolutely would not hire someone with no hobbies given the choice, but keep on assuming things about me.
Someone who has lots of interesting hobbies and greatly enjoys and makes the most of their free time is likely to be a more productive employee as well. I wouldn't want to hire a robot, I want to hire interesting, problem-solving people who like to excel at things, and so would most people if they were trusting them with their business.

Take myself, I have worked hard in education and have nearly earned a degree in my chosen field, I have worked through the holidays at various companies to gain professional experience, my hobbies suggest taking genuine interest in thing and exploring my interests and myself, self-improvement and dedication, rather than watching TV 24/7, although obviously most people like to veg every now and then. I have references from those jobs suggesting that I am not content to simply turn up, get through to the end of the day and then leave, but that I genuinely strive to not only do my job, but to do it well and improve things around me, as well as constantly looking at myself. At my current job I have proven myself useful and trustworthy enough that as an intern, they trusted me to make manufacturing changes on a vehicle that will be mass-produced and shipped all around the globe.

Do you think future employers will look at me, having ALWAYS chosen the difficult route in order to better myself, and think "nah I'd rather chose the other 21 year old who took the easy way and showed their tits/penis/vagina/ass on camera for the past few years"?

I spent the "formative years" of my carreer doing something completely different from what I'm currently paid to do, but my boss didn't care about how I spent my time; he only cared about my current abilities, and those were good enough for a hire.

Yeah, and how did you get your current professional abilities? I doubt it was with your penis. Also, just because professional experience is different, does not mean it is invalid. Someone who has demonstrated that they have great ability to work with others, and to get the job done no matter what it is, and to be reliable and dependable is very valuable to an employer.

And seriously, would you refuse to hire someone who spent the first part of his career working at McDonalds before getting into his current field, simply because he didn't spend the "formative part of his carreer" working in his later field of choice? I'm betting you'd still consider him based on his current skillset.

No, I wouldn't refuse to hire someone who worked at McDonalds.
I would consider someone based on their current skillset, and those skills don't just fall out of the sky, they would have gotten them somewhere. Working in McDonalds is professional experience, and a necessity for some people to keep them sheltered, fed and clothed in the absence of any other work to do and they must have a minimum level of usefulness if they were able to cut it there without fucking up or getting fired. If someone has that among other necessary skills for the job, they've a decent chance of being hired. If they took the easy route and showed their body off for money instead of doing a real job then the chances are they haven't gained the same skills even as someone who worked in McDonalds. I've done a job where my main role was to clean shit, carry shit and to get shouted at, all for barely enough to cover rent, food and getting to work. In fact at that job I had a month where I did not have a single day off, including weekends, and worked dawn until night most of those days. You're sitting there assuming that I think people who work their fucking arses off at shit jobs don't know hard work and have developed no skills? Laughable. They're far better professionally than people who take the easy route of waving their bits about on camera.

I have a hard time imagining that if you'd poured blood, sweat and tears into building a successful business you'd not want to hire the most all-round competent people you possibly could to trust it with. Someone who made the career choice of being a porn star instead of something else is hardly going to be competitive with other applicants, especially these days in such a tough job market.

This discussion is pretty off-topic, given that it has little to do with the depiction of women, but I feel it was worth saying all of this, as the topic of women being unfairly disadvantaged with their future career choices was brought up. I do not think that being disadvantaged career-wise after making such a shitty career choice is a problem uniquely faced by women. Do people leave the porn industry and find it tough to get a good job as something else? I'm sure they do. People leave education and hard work in other fields and find it tough as well in this day and age. Is this problem unique to women? I don't think so, for the reasons dictated above.

[SilentFutility]

Of course they do view it as a less suitable candidate, but more suitable candidate than a female one.

How do you know?

That said, I would not consider a female ex-prostitute nor ex-pornstar as a candidate for a relationship. This is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do. That's not to say I would stop someone making their own choices, but I do think that someone who has made that choice is not compatible with me. That has nothing to do with sexism, and it would be the same way if I were a girl considering male companions.

Then you think what people do for a living define everything about themselves and I couldn't disagree more.

Of course I don't think that. I think that someone's attitude towards sex is an important aspect of a relationship and if their attitude towards sex is very, very different to mine then we're unlikely to be compatible life partners. That is exactly what I expressed above as well.

What is this completely different attitude these people have towards the value of sexual expression and the 'sanctity' of their own body than you do? What 'sanctity' can human body have for fuck's sake? What bullshit is this?

In my opinion, sex is a very important way of expressing your feelings towards someone, and expressing myself sexually is something very intimate to me. That is just my opinion, but I only want to share this extremely close intimacy with people I love and trust. I would look for a similar attitude in people I'd like to spend the rest of my life with as a partner, simply because they would be suitable for me.

If someone else does not view sex in this way, and is okay with doing it with someone they do not love as a job, then they are well within their rights to do so, but they are probably a very different person to me, so them and I would probably not make compatible life partners.

My choice of potential candidates for relationships is entirely my own and simply dismissing my right to chose people I feel are similar to myself as bullshit is making you far more guilty of shaming someone for their choices than I am.

This is the 'monarchy' I am talking about. The monarchy of genital organs over other parts of human body. You can work with any part of your body, but if you work with your genitals you are worthless, lazy...etc.

I don't think that.

Are you aware that You are practically saying, people who earn their lives with sex (porn or prostitution) cannot love or have sexual relationship with someone or any other relationship. And that's abhorrent.

I absolutely did not say that, nor did I even hint at that.
I said that someone who chose to do this would be very different to me, and that I did not think that we'd be suitable for eachother. That is in NO WAY trying to enforce control over what they can and cannot do. What is abhorrent is you trying to shame ME for my choice of who I would and wouldn't like to have a relationship with.

How do you know that a man has a good or much better chance of doing so though?

Are you serious?

If it is so obvious then it should be easy to tell me how you know this.

And throughout history it has been so for men, so much so that castration was used as a social weapon and a method of control. Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.

Of course it is. And it is funny you expressing this as against what I said because that was exactly what I stated. Penis, vagina..etc are defined by patriarchal values. Or 'male culture' if you prefer. Otherwise I could have gone and walked around or work in the garden of my house topless in a summer site in this heat, as men can do.

But I can't because my breast are to be covered because they are highly sexual for the male, while their actual function is to feed an infant.

You have organs involved in sexual reproduction on your chest, men don't. The patriarchy didn't put them there. Society as a whole considers openly displaying organs involved in sexual reproduction as unacceptable (although I don't think it should be unacceptable, it's only a human body). Nuturing offspring is a part of reproducing.

I'm struggling to see that you're objectifying someone by viewing them in terms of their private parts when they are a pornstar, male or female. If someone's primary marketable skill is removing their clothing and showing off their sexual organs etc. then why is it demeaning to them to evaluate that person based on their job?

Err...I am not sure why you wrote this, because I am the one who keeps repeating that they shouldn't be objectified in their lives just because of their occupation. And as it is the thread's titles I am making a comparison.

It's demeaning because that specific job(s) result them to be defined and viewed in the most primitive and abhorrent way as you did above. As people who cannot love or have healthy sexual relationships, because of some made up bullshit idea of 'sanctity' of human body. It's laughable.

I did not view them in that way, as I have said multiple times above. I have every right to chose who I would and wouldn't like to have a relationship with, just like you do, just like anyone does, pornstar or not. I would never try to prevent a pornstar, male or female, from making their own choices. That does not mean I am not entitled to make my own choices as to who I sleep with. To assume that because I would not like to sleep with someone or be in a relationship with someone that I am a bad person and to attempt to shame me for it is to be guilty of the thing you're accusing me of: shaming people based on their choices.

That's interesting, because this is how you exactly define the whole issue as seen from your post.

No it isn't. It's what you assume I think based on the fact that I'm a man so I can't possibly make my own choices about who to be in a relationship with without being an oppressive, patriarchal monster. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOSE MY RELATIONSHIPS. So does a pornstar, before, during and after their career. Me making MY OWN CHOICE not to have sex with someone for ANY REASON is not abhorrent and it is not oppressing anyone. To deny me that right is.

Likewise with a penis.
Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.

No, not likewise with penis. A man is not defined as unpure, dirty or worthless, 'slut', 'whore' for having 'too much sex' or being open about it. For example in ALL religions females ARE punished far more violently and readily than men when 'sinned' in sex.

I view both men and woman in the sex trade equally.
Do you actually watch porn? I have yet to see much that makes the guy look intelligent, interesting, better than the woman, in control of his own actions etc. etc.

Do I agree that attitudes to women having sex in society are outdated and primitive in some cases? Yes.
Is it sexist to think less of both men AND women who do pornography? No. We can debate whether or not it is justifiable to think less of anyone for it, but it is not giving men nor women any kind of special treatment.

And could you please define what is the meaning of 'WORKING HARD' here? Do you seriously claim porn stars and prostitutes cannot be considered HARD WORKING just because of the job they have to do? Or what they do is NOT useful to the society?

I think that most people would agree that the sex trade is not only not very useful to society, but that it brings with it social problems.

But you are hard working, because you went to some college and dreaming of building race cars? And that is more useful to society because you didn't use your genitals to do it, but went to a school? Because everyone is born with equal circumstances...and who 'chooses' porn or prostitution is just lazy and stupid? Riiiight.

I was told at school that I wasn't good enough at maths to do it. I almost joined the Royal Marines because I'm just not that good academically and I didn't see many other options. I didn't though, I tried anyway, and worked my ass off to get through it even though I find it extremely difficult. Also my job is manufacturing road cars at the moment, which are probably one of the most useful things ever concieved, but this is irrelevant.

Someone has every right to chose to be a pornstar if that's what they want to do. That doesn't mean I have to think it is a good career move, and that doesn't mean I have to want to hire them. If by equal circumstances, you are referring to people who are forced to do pornography, that is an entirely different debate altogether, as that is hardly a deliberate career move.

Your past professional experience absolutely is your employer's business.
If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.

I am the employer here. You asked me if I would hire someone with that occupation in the past, I said I would.

You also suggested that someone's past experience was none of an employer's business, which it is.

Over all, your attitude of If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something shows how delusional you look at porn industry and prostitution...life, world.  If you really think these people work and continue to work in a line like this, because that's their dream job or what they chose to do, you have lot to learn, not to mention some empathy to build.

Please show me when and where I said it was someone's dream job. Oh wait I didn't.
In fact, what you just said right there, illustrating that you don't seem to think that it *is* someone's dream job, illustrates that you don't view it as an ideal job either.
I am absolutely not deluded about prostitution, and wish people who engage in it no harm. That doesn't mean that I should be obligated to give them tens of thousands of pounds a year to look after my property and my company though, if I were to have one.

[SilentFutility]

You wrote a post full of condescending, judgemental, high and mighty bullshit remarks to define these people/the occupation they have; used nonsense, made up words like 'sanctity' to define yourself as their opposite; defined them as 'lazy', yourself as 'hard working' and then picked up a word like 'dream job' as in "I didn't say that!" -which perfectly defines your narrow vision of life by the way- and now you're trying get back with a brazen faced, amazingly clueless air 'oh no, I didn't do that!' in a politically correct way.

Sanctity isn't a made up word.

I also said that I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a pornstar because I had just as much right to chose who I do and don't have sex with as they do, and that therefore chosing not to be in a relationship with a pornstar was not a matter of sexism, a point which you're now conviniently ignoring, having used it as your main justification to declare me to have terrible attitudes etc.

Yes that's what you did, go read your post. Either own up to what you said and say, 'yes that is my opinion' or if you find your opinion changed or sounded different than what you intended -which is highly unlikely in this case, because these things are not that relative really- try to rephrase yourself. But stop pretending like you didn't do such a thing, when it's so fucking obvious. A little self respect, if you want some in return.

"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".
Secondly, another major point of yours is that women have way worse chances in employment after being one than men, and my response was to say that across both genders I would consider it a disadvantage, thus responding directly to your point. Of course that means I'm narrow-minded and all manner of other things, when really I'm illustrating a point: if you put "pornstar" on your CV, it will raise red flags for most employers, regardless of gender.

I am not going to get sucked into this bullshit with you again, because I KNOW after we stopped talking about it and as soon as you started to talk about it with another poster -in more [s:208hfp0c]bullshit[/s:208hfp0c] politically correct way of course- some way in the middle, you'll start to say similar things to what I have been saying and even agree with them.

Keep postulating about what I'm going to do, which I'm sure is going to be extremely accurate given that you can't read me saying who I'd chose to be in a relationship without trying to twist it into saying that I think all pornstars can't have relationships etc.

You perfectly know I am going to be straight, why do you keep doing this? If you want some politically correct bullshit exchange on the subject by extent a masturbating session over your 'high value life status' go pick someone else. And don't you dare say this has nothing to do with your life status. The comparisons and definitions you made in your post are clear than baccarat crystal.

I don't want political correctness. It seems that it is you who does, it is you who is defending a group of people by throwing accusations about what you think I think around.

Of course I used an example of my own career, however fledgling, to illustrate a point. I cannot tell you about someone else's. My point is that of course they will be at a disadvantage in the job market compared to someone who made different choices, and that isn't a problem of their gender, it is a problem to do with their choices alone.

You say I want political correctness, but it seems I'm the only one actually responding to points and talking on topic rather than assuming what you think and then attacking that instead.

[Plu]

"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".

It's quite literally saying "all ex-pornstars are by definition less qualified than whatever else happens to be available". It's not the same, but it's pretty damn close. The fact that you wouldn't hire them in any case, regardless of the skill level of the other available people, says enough about how capable you consider them.

[Plu]

Over all, you need to think that you are above and worthy than these people as a human being, because you NEVER HAD to whore yourself out. Don't start with they can do other jobs. Porn industry or prostitution OR any trade related to sex is NOT some business you could start by going out and buying some capital. People are needed to be EXPLOITED, FORCED, BLACK MAILED into it. There is no other fucking way to it. Nobody, but nobody does that job because they desire. If you have a tiny bit of ability to build an empathy you can think this yourself. But all you can think is quoted above. And then why do I think this and that 'insert negative remark' here about you.

Uhm, this is also just blatant bullshit. There's plenty of people who go into it for the money, out of their own free will. In addition to the black market part, there's also all the normal reasons for going into the porn industry. If all of these people had to be "exploited, forced, or black mailed" then there wouldn't be a legitimite porn business in the world, they'd all be operating in secret. Most of those companies just hire people who don't mind having sex on camera, especially not if they receive a good paycheck out of it.

[Plu]

Wait, are we talking about the legal porn industry? The one with workers with an official contract, health insurance, fixed working hours, a worker's union, and all that stuff? Or are we talking the black market illegal porn industry?

Because the former is not as bad as you claim it is, and the latter is mostly bad because it's illegal, and all illegal businesses treat their workers like shit.

[TrueStory]

I'm fine with porn- although I agree with drunkenshoe about there being no porn for heterosexual women..

What would porn for women be presented as?

[Nonsensei]

What the fuck? Do I need to post that lmgtfy link AGAIN?

[SilentFutility]

"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".

It's quite literally saying "all ex-pornstars are by definition less qualified than whatever else happens to be available". It's not the same, but it's pretty damn close. The fact that you wouldn't hire them in any case, regardless of the skill level of the other available people, says enough about how capable you consider them.

I'm not sure what the job market is like where you all live, but in the UK most jobs even half worth having are severely, massively, hugely, insanely over subscribed to the point that even if you are literally the model human being and a great candidate that is maybe enough to get them to respond to you contacting them, let alone interviewing you or considering you.

In light of this, if I were an employer, I wouldn't hire someone who had spent a few years being a pornstar or a prostitute. That is not very good professional experience that translates to other fields very well, in my opinion, and there will be countless others to choose from. Clearly this opinion is shared with a fair few other potential employers given that we all seem to be agreeing that it is difficult to get work in other fields as a pornstar.

By explaining why it wouldn't be good business sense to hire an ex-pornstar or prostitute, I was actually pointing out that removing gender from the equation, it isn't an attractive proposition for most businesses, thus countering the point that it is only female sex workers who find it difficult to find work in other fields.

In an ideal world everyone would have a great job, but they don't. It's a very tough world out there job-wise, and certain types of professional experience just aren't as good as others. You might not like that fact, and I don't particularly either, but it's the way it is, and I literally can't understand why people are getting buttmad at me for pointing this out.

Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.

If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.

Well, you wrote these and I am skipping other bullshit you keep adding. And the answers were given in the first post you received.

To be able to make the above statements;

-You need to think that people born into pretty much same circumstances or at least similar ones.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars are not useful to society.
-You need to think that only people with certain education is useful to society.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars just doing a very simple job, and they chose this one because they cannot be bothered by any other.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars who were 'offered' any opportunity refused it with back of their hands just to do this job.
-You need to think that being a sex worker or a porn star does not require any skills or something easy to do.
-You need to think that being a sex worker or a porn star is making someone 'worse' than anyone else with other occupation.

See my reply to Plu above. Read what I wrote again, and again, and again. Read the words that are there, and only those. That is what I said, and what I mean.
"Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves."
I wouldn't hire them because there are countless other people out there needing jobs who would be better for them. That is what businesses do, they are money making ventures, not social inclusion clubs. Many other employers likely feel the same as I do, given that, like you said, sex workers find it difficult to get hired for other things.

Over all, you need to think that you are above and worthy than these people as a human being, because you NEVER HAD to whore yourself out. Don't start with they can do other jobs. Porn industry or prostitution OR any trade related to sex is NOT some business you could start by going out and buying some capital. People are needed to be EXPLOITED, FORCED, BLACK MAILED into it. There is no other fucking way to it. Nobody, but nobody does that job because they desire. If you have a tiny bit of ability to build an empathy you can think this yourself. But all you can think is quoted above. And then why do I think this and that 'insert negative remark' here about you.

Fuck you for accusing me of thinking that (which I don't and never suggested that I did) based off of what you're telling me I think instead of reading what the fuck I wrote.

All I did was explain the reasons why someone who has worked as a pornstar or prostitute is not very employable in other fields, and why I wouldn't hire them as a result. Of course, a few posts ago you pretty much said the same thing; they find it hard to get other jobs. Of course when I say it you assume all sorts of terrible things about me for no fucking reason other than absolutely loving to make a scene.

Every post man, every post I make. You fly off on a huge tagent about how much of a terrible person I am because of some random horse shit you tell me I think which I clearly don't, reading the posts. My only explanation for this is that you must have your head stuck so far up your own arse that you can't see what I've written. Case in point: I say (paraphrased) "Someone who sells sex clearly has different views on it than I do. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone with totally different views on sex and the value of their body to me."
You respond with (paraphrased): It's absolutely abhorrent that you think that pornstars and prostitutes can't have relationships, families and normal lives".

It's the same shit every time. I write something, you read something literally completely unrelated, and then use that as justification to get pissed and make up tonnes of shit about what you think I think.

This is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do.

'Sanctity' is a made up word. You perfectly know what I mean when I say made up. Just like the words, creation, sacred, holly, soul, spirit, god...sanctity is a nonsense, made up word, a meaningless accumulation of some letters. It exists as a word, it doesn't mean fuck, it is also highly comical in this context.

'Sanctity' of their own body... :rollin:

My sacred vagina says hi, but my divine clitoris thinks you are a bit too clueless at times, while my blessed breasts are indifferent to pretty much anything around. And none of them gives a fuck to what they are, be it they are only horny or just in love.

Have you ever heard the standard turn of phrase "my body is a temple"? Same fucking thing with a different word. Well done for making yourself look silly because you have no grasp of basic metaphors.

Secondly, if we're mocking made-up phrases, the patriarchal cock monarchy (fucking lol) that I apparently rule with would like you to stop using your standard tactic of responding to what you accuse me of thinking instead of what I wrote.

[SilentFutility]

Fuck you, too, sweety. You yourself wrote what you thought, I didn't add anything. By the way, do you even know on what part of this subject you disagreed with me?

Yes I did write what I thought, then you said I thought countless other things, examples of which are given above, which is what you often do, which is why talking to you is exceptionally frustrating. You even have one sentence up there that pretty much says "to say this, you must think:" with a list of loads of (incorrect) things I supposedly think. Now you turn around and say you never added on anything? How do you even cope with the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance in your mind? I'm genuinely amazed by it.

As far as I'm concerned a major point of contention was me explaining why pornstars and prostitutes have a hard time finding work in other fields, and why I wouldn't hire one (which was the current topic of conversation), then you got very pissy and made a scene.

I also disagree with you on a number of things that you say I think, and I'm the number one expert on what I think, not you so that puts that one to rest.