Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahthat | Hacker News Reader

I think people are confusing the notion of being a secretary and having sex with your boss with the idea that it is inherently wrong for superiors to use their workplace capital to exploit those who work under them. It is completely correct that the latter idea is exploitative; however, if a woman is a secretary and is also arranged to have sex with her boss via her job description, and she consents to this when accepting the job offer with full understanding of what her job entails -in effect being a fifty fifty secretary sex worker- then there is nothing wrong with this at all, quite self evidently. It would be consensual and in writing. If she is not coerced into the job, it is not exploitative.

View on HN

What about when all of the unfilled job listings include this requirement?

The only way I can see prostitution as ethical is if someone can choose to have no job and be fairly comfortable.

I get what you're saying and think that's a pretty reasonable view. But why do we see having to use your brain to earn a living, or use your muscles to earn a living as any less exploitative? Why is any job ethical unless someone can choose to have no job and be fairly comfortable? Either way, you're essentially forced to do something you'd otherwise not do.

So you'd wank a stranger off as soon as carry their bag?

Depends entirely on how much you're paying now doesn't it.

But that wasn't the condition that the OP said made him comfortable. He said he'd be okay with legal sex work only as long as the person could otherwise live a life of comfort without the need to work. He didn't say he'd be okay with legal sex work as long as the person could have chosen to carry a bag instead.

Well they're pretty identical in effort, so the same - you apparently consider them to be entirely the same class of work with no moral/ethical difference.

Lifting a pen to write a cheque for 10,000 is identical in effort to doing the same thing to write a cheque for 10. Physical effort is not the only criteria we use to assign value. I don't believe that it's ethical to enforce my moral/ethical beliefs on other consenting adults.

So you would, I'm assuming they asked you so there's no issue of forcing beliefs on people.

Why is 'forcing beliefs' even at question, you surely don't think whether you're forcing your beliefs on someone when the issue is carrying luggage?

Or, maybe they're different classes of activity and you already realise this ...

Buying the time of a Nasa engineer and buying the time of a day labourer are different classes of activity. Just because it costs more for one than the other does not change the ethics of the situation.

You feel differently about someone charging for sex than someone charging to use their brain or their brawn, but that does not mean that everyone feels the same way. Why should your feeling rule the day and be enforced on adults who feel differently about it? Sounds like the church of old.

My initial post in this thread was about the legality of consenting adults engaging in whatever activities they both agree to. I tried to highlight the distinction being made and think it has a lot to do with slightly prudish notions of sexuality and frankly a notion that men and especially women aren't capable enough to make the correct choice for themselves.

I’m not sure I can describe to you why I feel this way in logical terms. Perhaps it’s just cultural but I know I, and the vast majority of the population finds mental and physical work far less undesirable/bad than sexual.

Yes, that all makes sense. Will just note that there was a time not so long ago when just as large a majority of people thought homosexuality was a horrible abomination, or worse.

Attitudes change and in my view it's time to stop being so emotionally negative toward sexuality and the diverse choices made among consenting adults.

I think there is something very wrong with that requirement. In the name of sexual liberation you would make sexual wage slavery common. In a world where this is normal or acceptable corporate lawyers and HR departments may write in such clauses into employment contracts just to cut down on the number of sexual harassment cases and issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com