Porn/Depiction of Women

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I would like to say that I'd be willing to hire any male that has been involved in porn, just note that weekly reviews can be quite strenuous...to say the least. :P

Quite seriously, I'd hire anyone as long as they have demonstrable skills relevant to the job. If the ONLY thing they did was work in porn, then no, I wouldn't hire them. If they spent time on the side learning a skill or trade relevant to the job I was offering, then I would consider their qualifications vs. the qualifications of other candidates.

I realize that, sadly, it doesn't work like that in today's world, but what can be done about it other than working to change society's preconceptions about sex workers and waiting for society's views on sexuality in general to change? It's certainly not going to change overnight, but I do believe the situation for women in porn is better than it was in the 70s, if only by a little.

[GSOgymrat]

What would porn for women be presented as?

Something involving chocolate and aisles and aisles of shoes I imagine.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

"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.

Actually I read SF's point as invoking ceteris paribus, which would actually make his point a fair one.

Bracketing out that, "Damn close" also isn't the same, and still makes SFs point valid, IMHO.

I didn't read SF say 'in any case', could you point that out? It'd allow me to reevaluate.

[aitm]

ah..SF and shoe disagree...hmmmm. who woulda thunk...

splendid I would think.

[Plu]

SF said:

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.

Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.

If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.

I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

SF said:

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.

Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.

If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.

I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.

Yes.

Ceteris paribus. SF didnt qualify his statement beyond the initial premise making his point.

You're inferring beyond the limit of the hypothetical. I can do that:

One is working at McDonalds part time to supplement their study at medical school. A porn star, doing comparatively less hours, spends his spare time doing airfix models after shoots because his dad has a passion for planes from WWII.

Ceteris paribus, who would you hire for the new junior doctors position in graduate oncology?

Anyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.

Unless you can point it out?

[TrueStory]

SF said:

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.

Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.

If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.

I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.

Yes.

Ceteris paribus. SF didnt qualify his statement beyond the initial premise making his point.

You're inferring beyond the limit of the hypothetical. I can do that:

One is working at McDonalds part time to supplement their study at medical school. A porn star, doing comparatively less hours, spends his spare time doing airfix models after shoots because his dad has a passion for planes from WWII.

Ceteris paribus, who would you hire for the new junior doctors position in graduate oncology?

Anyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.

Unless you can point it out?

Picked up a new phrase from the Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply thread?  I'm stealing this anyways.  I should have learned about it in school but I was too busy showing off my hot bod.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.



[spoil:q6s7erzv]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:q6s7erzv]

[TrueStory]

Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.

[ Image ]

[spoil:3gfouivb]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:3gfouivb]

LOL.   I saw your post before the edit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.

[ Image ]

[spoil:1jew55sl]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:1jew55sl]

LOL.   I saw your post before the edit.

;-)

But now it's lost forever!

But still, pics or GTFO.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Anyway, I'm just trollin' because I'm up late and can't sleep.

Plus I know SF prefers it when a Bro has got his back.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You got your bro's back with trolling by picking a few words to force them into some 'logical context', ignoring his overall attitude and stand?  #-o

That gif's a bad choice. Younger one was dead and he was 'resurrected' with a demon deal his bro made to save him by selling his soul, but he has no idea what happened and also why he is hugging him that tight. :P

I have no clue what the show is from, but I do know bros before hoes ;)

The only thing I want to force is my penis into Megan's fox hole.

I didn't cherry pick either, I quoted in black and white. His attitude and 'stand' is irrelevent to the point I was examining. Come on shoe, you know what I pointed out was 120% correct. 120%. In not one single place did SF say that he wouldn't hire a pron star 'in any case'.

He could be a serial rapist, but it doesn't detract from the fact accusations contrary to the above are unfounded. You know I'm right. Lets hug.

[Plu]

Anyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.

Under a Ceteris paribus, you need two people with a past job unrelated to the current field who worked towards their new job in their spare time. There is no proper "all other things equal" if there are multiple deviating factors between two people. That just makes the argument incredibly silly. OBVIOUSLY someone who worked in porn and never did anything else in his spare time is less qualified than someone who worked at MacDonalds and studied in the side. But under that comparison you cannot conclude that being a pornstar is thus detrimental to your skills, because you're comparing a collection of things that together make you less qualified. And it's easy to see that if you discard both pornstar and macdonalds worker, that it still holds, which means that the issue is with what you did on the side, not what you got paid for when you did things on the side. Which is my whole point: your previous job at worst has 0 relevance to your current job, it cannot make you less qualified than any other jobs you previously had with 0 relevance to your current job.

If you would hire someone who once worked at MacDonalds (assuming the new job is unrelated to flipping burgers), then you should also be able to hire someone who once worked in the porn business (assuming the new job is also unrelated to having sex with people), Ceteris paribus.
Both people wasted an X-amount of time doing something irrelevant to the new job. (The pornstar probably wasted less, but we can easily just assume he spent an equal amount and the whole statement still holds). Both people should be at least equally eligble for being hired, based on their skills and experience.

Of course the best source to ask is SF himself... so I'll just the simple questions:

Ceteris paribus, would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked the same number of hours doing porn? Would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked less hours doing porn and spent more time preparing for the new job? Would you consider someone who spent 8 hours a week sitting in front of the tv watching the static better qualified than someone who spent the same time shooting porn?

(And of course the kicker; would you consider your colleagues suddenly less qualified to do their job if you found out that when they said their hobbies were 'drinking beer and watching football' they actually meant 'getting paid to be bummed up the arse', even though both are equally irrelevant to their day-job?)

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yeah but Plu, you're still not showing me where SF said 'in any case', which is the accusation you levelled at him.

Other issue then are moot. Show me, and we'll move the discussion on.

[Plu]

There is not going to be a literal small quote I can make that says that. He has placed pages of text. That's why I'm asking him the direct question, so we can settle it. I could repost everything he's posted so far and try to make my point, that won't be as useful.

Which is why I posted the questions above.

I could shorten it down even further, and ask the even simpler question of SF:

Would you, under any cirumstance, hire a former porn star to do a job?

If he's willing to answer it, we'll have our answer. And if he says "yes"... well he should explain how that meshes with all his other posts, because all of those are screaming "no".