SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Discussion Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (3578)3/3/2010 3:19:20 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 3816
 
when you've already conceded, there would be no difference, or at least no legal argument against any other employer who then used sexual compliance as a condition of continued employment.

I conceded no such thing.

I conceded that there is no difference (except the one I specified) between the regular employer forcing sex, and the pimp forcing sex, which means they are both wrong, not that they are both ok.

In the context of fully legalized prostitution, if the prostitute still has a pimp (who might be more like a manager, than a street thug), than if the sexual harassment laws where retained (and getting rid of them would be an entirely different action and different issue than legalizing prostitution), the prostitute could sue the pimp/manager for sexual harassment if sex with the manager was a requirement for continued employment. (Or she could become an independent contractor and dump the manager.)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News