Should any EMPLOYEE hired for tasks unrelated to modelling model company underwear?

[Electricity Taster]

For example, let's imagine you employ female X as a graphic designer. Is it OK for it to even be an option for her to model your company underwear? If so, doesn't that create an informal expectation for other female staff? When you know you will model along side one of the owners, is there an unspoken advantage due to the opportunity to mingle with an owner and gain the trust and approval needed to advance?

 

I won't be linking to any specific examples, but just search the underwear section on https://www.lttstore.com/ 

 

I am not saying this is intentional or that there isn't clear communication that employees aren't expected to model, and express consent by those who agree to do it. What I am debating here is that the mere possibility existing creates incentives and unspoken advantages that you cannot control no matter how hard you try. And from the outside looking in, especially for a woman looking to work at LTT, it's icky.
 

And yes, this is precisely the time to talk about this issue because this is when the community is most receptive to considering these issues. Debating these topics when fanboys are in full force is impossible.

[Thepyrodex]

You think they are walking around forcing people to model underwear for them by not forcing them to but allowing those who don't mind or even want to model it to do it?

 

You aremaking a non issue into something it 100% is not, have any employees that are modeling the underwear complained anywhere about any of these accusations or are you just trying to make another issue out of something that REALLY isn't one?

 

[Dedayog]

11 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

For example, let's imagine you employ female X as a graphic designer. Is it OK for it to even be an option for her to model your company underwear? If so, doesn't that create an informal expectation for other female staff? When you know you will model along side one of the owners, is there an unspoken advantage due to the opportunity to mingle with an owner and gain the trust and approval needed to advance?

 

I won't be linking to any specific examples, but just search the underwear section on https://www.lttstore.com/ 

 

I am not saying this is intentional or that there isn't clear communication that employees aren't expected to model, and express consent by those who agree to do it. What I am debating here is that the mere possibility existing creates incentives and unspoken advantages that you cannot control no matter how hard you try. And from the outside looking in, especially for a woman looking to work at LTT, it's icky.
 

And yes, this is precisely the time to talk about this issue because this is when the community is most receptive to considering these issues. Debating these topics when fanboys are in full force is impossible.

Jesus, grow up.

 

If a female (or male) employee says "sure, I'd love to model some stuff", what's the big deal?

 

You're incredibly short sighted in this, advantage and expectation.  It happens any time anything gives two individuals to bond.

 

In the south here, if you don't love college football you're fucked.  If your boss is gay and your coworker is gay, do you imagine some bond they have that you can't be part of?  If they're white and you're black or vice versa... OMFG!!

 

Stop trying to create issues.

 

Really?  Women feeling left out cuz they don't model underwear at a tech company.  Holy shit.

 

Pretty soon I'll start feeling like I don't have an advantage because I'm not transgender or can't breast feed.

 

Why can't we all just be human beings and enjoy life.  Not everyone is a cause to protect, not everyone is in need of saving.

 

[Electricity Taster]

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

Jesus, grow up.

 

If a female (or male) employee says "sure, I'd love to model some stuff", what's the big deal?

 

You're incredibly short sighted in this, advantage and expectation.  It happens any time anything gives two individuals to bond.

 

In the south here, if you don't love college football you're fucked.  If your boss is gay and your coworker is gay, do you imagine some bond they have that you can't be part of?  If they're white and you're black or vice versa... OMFG!!

 

Stop trying to create issues.

 

Really?  Women feeling left out cuz they don't model underwear at a tech company.  Holy shit.

Because structural realities make it so the freedom of that consent is questionable. The same happens with prostitution and the argument that no prostitution is free because structural violence forces women into prostitution. And no, I'm not comparing modelling to prostitution.

Also, please be civil. Telling me to grow up was out of line. Apologize.

[Erioch]

Oh FFS.

[Awsmkiid13]

Oh you are so lost my bro, what's next? That he has employes who has to drive to their workplace?

[Thepyrodex]

1 minute ago, Electricity Taster said:

Because structural realities make it so the freedom of that consent is questionable. The same happens with prostitution and the argument that no prostitution is free because structural violence forces women into prostitution. And no, I'm not comparing modelling to prostitution.

Also, please be civil. Telling me to grow up was out of line. Apologize.

Telling you to grow up is not out of line if you are acting like a child trying to get attention by making up an issue.  You should apologize for your assumptions and baseless accusations.  

[ImpliedSilence]

You are using their lttstore pictures as an example, buuuut every single one of them bar one photo is of the two owners of LTT...and one of James...
 

[Electricity Taster]

5 minutes ago, Thepyrodex said:

You think they are walking around forcing people to model underwear for them by not forcing them to but allowing those who don't mind or even want to model it to do it?

 

You aremaking a non issue into something it 100% is not, have any employees that are modeling the underwear complained anywhere about any of these accusations or are you just trying to make another issue out of something that REALLY isn't one?

 

No. I am making a much more sophisticated argument here. I will quote this piece by slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

 

Quote

 

"Imagine you or me, I'm a small boy. It's Sunday afternoon. My father wants me to visit our grandmother. Let's say my father is a traditional authority. What would he be doing? He would probably tell me something like, "I don't care how you feel; it's your duty to visit your grandmother. Be polite to her and so on." Nothing bad about this I claim because I can still rebel and so on. It's a clear order. But what would the so-called post-modern non-authoritarian father do?

I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this, "You know how much your grandmother loves you, but nonetheless I'm not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it." Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message. Because basically your father is not only telling you, you must visit your grandmother, but you must love to visit it. You know he tells you how you must feel about it. It's a much stronger order. And I think that this is for me almost a paradigm of modern permissive authority. This is why the formula of totalitarianism is not — I don't care what you think; just do it. This is traditional authoritarianism. The totalitarian formula is I know better than you what you really want and I may appear to be forcing you to do it, but I'm really just making you do what without fully knowing what you want and so on. "

 

It's worse precisely because consent is given, and the reason is the context it is given in. Consent is not just about "she said yes", my god...

[saintlouisbagels]

16 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

I won't be linking to any specific examples, but just search the underwear section on https://www.lttstore.com/ 

How polite of you to not point to any specific examples when you had zero problems with linking to very specific image of Sarah yesterday.

 

But seriously, you're using the argument of "should employees be modeling for underwear" as your veiled attempt to whine about the unfairness of certain employees getting unequal opportunity to talk to other employees? Holy crap please step outside into the real world.

[Electricity Taster]

1 minute ago, Thepyrodex said:

Telling you to grow up is not out of line if you are acting like a child trying to get attention by making up an issue.  You should apologize for your assumptions and baseless accusations.  

I have not made any accusations. I am asking a question, hoping to have a civil, respectful debate. 

[Dedayog]

Just now, Electricity Taster said:

No. I am making a much more sophisticated argument here. I will quote this piece by slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

 

It's worse precisely because consent is given, and the reason is the context it is given in. Consent is not just about "she said yes", my god...

Basically he states that you cannot exist without succumbing to outside influences.

 

Did no one ever tell you "life isn't fair"?

[TylerD321]

I am certain that LTT would never require or ask anyone that is unwilling to model their underwear. That would be immediate grounds for a lawsuit. However, if people are willing to model them there is no reason they shouldn't. I would not at all be shocked if they are paid a bit extra to do that as it is likely outside of their immediate job description.

 

I am sure that those who DO model the underwear would consider it empowering and not weird. Not everyone is perverted and/or uncomfortable with their body. This is a can of worms no one should really open. However, those who are willing to post pictures of themselves in various swimwear will likely have no problem with this as that is basically how LTT underwear looks and has similar coverage.

[Thepyrodex]

Just now, Electricity Taster said:

No. I am making a much more sophisticated argument here. I will quote this piece by slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

 

It's worse precisely because consent is given, and the reason is the context it is given in. Consent is not just about "she said yes", my god...

so let me get this straight, its WORSE because people consented and you ASSUME they didn't do it in a context such as "with HR witnesses" or "signed paperwork"? 

 

So your ASSUMPTION of context is more important than reality?

[Electricity Taster]

2 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

The fact you bring up prostitution is a desire to have us subconsciously equivocate it in our brains.  See Freud 101.

 

"Also, please be civil. Telling me to grow up was out of line. Apologize."

 

Two words:  No fucking way.

Please quote me the book where Freud makes such a claim. I would be very interested to know. Was it the book where he tells us about the Oedipus complex? And If it's true because Freud said it, do you agree with the Oedipus complex?

[Camoxide]

This thread is bait.

[shrimpboyho3]

21 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

For example, let's imagine you employ female X as a graphic designer. Is it OK for it to even be an option for her to model your company underwear? If so, doesn't that create an informal expectation for other female staff? When you know you will model along side one of the owners, is there an unspoken advantage due to the opportunity to mingle with an owner and gain the trust and approval needed to advance?

 

I won't be linking to any specific examples, but just search the underwear section on https://www.lttstore.com/ 

 

I am not saying this is intentional or that there isn't clear communication that employees aren't expected to model, and express consent by those who agree to do it. What I am debating here is that the mere possibility existing creates incentives and unspoken advantages that you cannot control no matter how hard you try. And from the outside looking in, especially for a woman looking to work at LTT, it's icky.
 

And yes, this is precisely the time to talk about this issue because this is when the community is most receptive to considering these issues. Debating these topics when fanboys are in full force is impossible.

This is your worst take yet.

 

I suppose the fact that there are 3 people modeling underwear on the site greatly disproves your point.

 

Regardless, it seems awfully "unfeminist" to not allow employees (namely female employees) to model what they want due to the possibility that it could make their peers uncomfortable.

 

An action of equal weight would be not allowing employees with an onlyfans/any other potentially uncomfortable platform presence to interact/work at their workplace.

 

Of course, then that would be an issue, right?

 

I won't even get far into disproving you. Your point is simply incorrect and farfetched.

[Thepyrodex]

8 minutes ago, saintlouisbagels said:

How polite of you to not point to any specific examples when you had zero problems with linking to very specific image of Sarah yesterday.

 

But seriously, you're using the argument of "should employees be modeling for underwear" as your veiled attempt to whine about the unfairness of certain employees getting unequal opportunity to talk to other employees? Holy crap please step outside into the real world.

I think they call it "touching grass" but to each their own

[TempestCatto]

Ever since this GN video came out there's been nothing but weird and unnecessary threads like this. OP I get your concern, but they more than likely were asked "hey, do you feel comfortable modeling the underwear?" And they said "sure, I'd love to!" I mean, they were most likely working on it in some way to begin with. I personally would not model anything like that. But that's just me.

[Thepyrodex]

8 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

I have not made any accusations. I am asking a question, hoping to have a civil, respectful debate. 

yeah, one in which you will accept no counter point

[Electricity Taster]

6 minutes ago, saintlouisbagels said:

How polite of you to not point to any specific examples when you had zero problems with linking to very specific image of Sarah yesterday.

 

But seriously, you're using the argument of "should employees be modeling for underwear" as your veiled attempt to whine about the unfairness of certain employees getting unequal opportunity to talk to other employees? Holy crap please step outside into the real world.

Wait, are you saying linking to a photo hosted on the LTT Store is somehow unsavoury to share here? And I am not mentioning any specific employees because this is not about any employee in particular. 

5 minutes ago, Erioch said:

The phrase you're looking for is "concern trolling".

Ad hominem. Nice Spin.

4 minutes ago, TylerD321 said:

I am certain that LTT would never require or ask anyone that is unwilling to model their underwear. That would be immediate grounds for a lawsuit. However, if people are willing to model them there is no reason they shouldn't. I would not at all be shocked if they are paid a bit extra to do that as it is likely outside of their immediate job description.

 

I am sure that those who DO model the underwear would consider it empowering and not weird. Not everyone is perverted and/or uncomfortable with their body. This is a can of worms no one should really open. However, those who are willing to post pictures of themselves in various swimwear will likely have no problem with this as that is basically how LTT underwear looks and has similar coverage.

That is not what I am arguing at all. I am assuming there is written "consent". What I am arguing is that consent cannot be freely given in that context.

1 minute ago, Camoxide said:

This bread is bait.

That's your opinion/spin on it. 

1 minute ago, shrimpboyho3 said:

This is your worst take yet.

 

I suppose the fact that there are 3 people modeling underwear on the site greatly disproves your point.

 

Regardless, it seems awfully "unfeminist" to not allow employees (namely female employees) to model what they want due to the possibility that it could make their peers uncomfortable.

 

An action of equal weight would be not allowing employees with an onlyfans/any other potentially uncomfortable platform presence to interact/work at their workplace.

 

Of course, then that would be an issue, right?

 

I won't even get far into disproving you. Your point is simply incorrect and farfetched.

This is not about banning women from modelling on the site. It is about employing models with the sole purpose of modelling your merchandise. Otherwise, a person employed say for graphics design, might feel it is expected of her to model underwear, even if it is clearly stated this is not the case. Consent is never as simple as "she said yes". Context is paramount.

[ImpliedSilence]

5 minutes ago, micha_vulpes said:

If there is a bonus commensurate skin exposure I'll model damn near anything. Topless costs more though. I'll wear a bodysuit with a server strapped to it if it pays.

 

As are the other ones they have started.

 

Stirring the pot, hypethetical situations and slippery slopes or arguments  in bad faith abound. Makes for good idle entertainment at least when I'm stuck on a boring phone call, I can just read the posts.

This bread is definitely bait, It was eminently obvious the moment they started quoting the Borat of philosophy, Slavoj Zizek.

[TylerD321]

1 minute ago, Electricity Taster said:

That is not what I am arguing at all. I am assuming there is written "consent". What I am arguing is that consent cannot be freely given in that context.

Implying that women can not give consent to model when that is not their primary job is incredibly sexist. While generally you can not make assumptions, it is likely that there was consent given as they are quite literally modeling and posing for the pictures.

 

Sarah for example, if I remember correctly, helps design some clothes. Why would she NOT want to model something she designed? Can't she be proud of her design?

[castlev]

If it's not mandated but they're just looking for volunteers, why not.

[Electricity Taster]

3 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

Ever since this GN video came out there's been nothing but weird and unnecessary threads like this. OP I get your concern, but they more than likely were asked "hey, do you feel comfortable modeling the underwear?" And they said "sure, I'd love to!" I mean, they were most likely working on it in some way.

So if a woman is drunk and she says "yes, i'd love to", would you consider that consent valid? No, and the reason is context. Power structures inside an organization can have the same effect if not worse. Look at the #meToo allegations. "She said yes" is not the same as consent. Consent requires certain conditions to be met.