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

[Electricity Taster]

2 minutes ago, TylerD321 said:

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?

So when actresses, hired to be actresses, had relationships with someone high up in hollywood because it would advance their career, was that consensual?

How power is structured can cause these implicit incentives that totally invalidate any consent given. That's the whole deal behind the #meToo scandal a few years ago.

[illuanonx]

I guess Linus would not pay $500,- for some models

[Electricity Taster]

7 minutes ago, ImpliedSilence said:

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

Please be respectful. 

[Thepyrodex]

3 minutes 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.

by this logic, no person can ever truly give consent to anything at work.

 

4 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

Ad hominem. Nice Spin.

Hilarious that you think that makes your argument valid in any way shape or form when you are the one bring up unfound accusations of forced/false consent. 

 

5 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

That's your opinion/spin on it. 

and someone YOUR opinion and spin on this NOTHINGBURGER is somehow vcorrect and needs to be dealt with?  k bud.

 

6 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

It is about employing models with the sole purpose of modelling your merchandise.

is there modeling that ISN'T displaying merchandise like clothing, cars, or even a McDonalds burger?

 

8 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

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.

So basically, if the company asks "do you want to do this thing?  its 100% optional" and the employee says "yes" and signs the paperwork involved that they could not possibly have actually wanted to do this and was forced by non verbal pressure they interpreted based on no actions or words of the manager asking if they wanted to do the optional activity?  Thats like saying that channel super fun was abuse even though all those who participated volunteered. 

 

 

[RadeonChan]

This is crazy man, implying that Women can't give consent under their own power due to the idea of a patriarchal power structure within the workplace undermines their own autonomy and ends up taking your argument in the complete opposite direction, and makes you look incredibly sexist. Implying that it's ours or anyone else's job to double check given consent is demeaning. Comparing a woman in the workplace under a completely normal "corporate power structure" to her being "too drunk to consent" is also wild.

[Electricity Taster]

14 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.

Who are they?

I am just trying to have a civil debate here. So far I've had a load of people trying to poison the well. It suggests you have no better argument to defend your position, and that's reassuring. 

[Thepyrodex]

2 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

Please be respectful. 

you mean like the respect of believing in the agency of individuals to make their own choices and understand consent that you refuse to show those who were brave enough to put themselves out there by choice modeling?

[TylerD321]

2 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

So when actresses, hired to be actresses, had relationships with someone high up in hollywood because it would advance their career, was that consensual?

How power is structured can cause these implicit incentives that totally invalidate any consent given. That's the whole deal behind the #meToo scandal a few years ago.

Sure. But context matters. If they say "you have to have relations with me to advance your career" then no, you can't give consent. However, if they used their body as a tool of persuasion proactively. Sure, they could have consented. It is not women's fault that men tend to be easily manipulated through sexual favors. Should they not be allowed to do that? Would your argument be that the men cannot consent if the woman is trying to advance her career?

 

What the problem here is that you seem to think that men and women have different "rights". Women are not feeble and can make their own decisions. You need to take gender/sex out of this and think of these situations as "person 1" and "person 2" not man and woman.

[Erioch]

Dude has built up quite a fantasy in his own head about what is going on there.

[Thepyrodex]

1 minute ago, Electricity Taster said:

Who are they?

I am just trying to have a civil debate here. So far I've had a load of people trying to poison the well. It suggests you have no better argument to defend your position, and that's reassuring. 

no you are, you are trying to find grounds for a new shitstorm.  it's sad.  

 

There are real issues happening and you are just acting like a petulant child screaming for attention making up things that nobody else, even those you are white knighting for, sees as any sort of issue. 

[Electricity Taster]

2 minutes ago, RadeonChan said:

This is crazy man, implying that Women can't give consent under their own power due to the idea of a patriarchal power structure within the workplace undermines their own autonomy and ends up taking your argument in the complete opposite direction, and makes you look incredibly sexist. Implying that it's ours or anyone else's job to double check given consent is demeaning. Comparing a woman in the workplace under a completely normal "corporate power structure" to her being "too drunk to consent" is also wild.

Please make an argument to defend your position that my comparison was wild and that it makes me sexist. The argument I am making is the same argument behind #meToo, that is that asymmetrical power structures can undermine consent, even if it is freely given and "double checked".

[Electricity Taster]

6 minutes ago, Thepyrodex said:

you mean like the respect of believing in the agency of individuals to make their own choices and understand consent that you refuse to show those who were brave enough to put themselves out there by choice modeling?

No. I mean being civil. Check the rules. And you are misconstruing my argument, which is about how asymmetrical power structures undermine consent.

6 minutes ago, TylerD321 said:

Sure. But context matters. If they say "you have to have relations with me to advance your career" then no, you can't give consent. However, if they used their body as a tool of persuasion proactively. Sure, they could have consented. It is not women's fault that men tend to be easily manipulated through sexual favors. Should they not be allowed to do that? Would your argument be that the men cannot consent if the woman is trying to advance her career?

 

What the problem here is that you seem to think that men and women have different "rights". Women are not feeble and can make their own decisions. You need to take gender/sex out of this and think of these situations as "person 1" and "person 2" not man and woman.

But it is implicit due to the asymmetrical power structure. Imagine you are a female employee and you see another female employee bonding with the boss while doing an underwear photoshoot. Tell me that you would not feel pushed to do the same to gain the boss's trust and advance your career. Tell me you wouldn't be "incompatible with company culture" if you were the only one who said no to another employee taking pictures of you in underwear for everyone to see. Think about it, what does an employee hired for graphic design have to gain by modelling underwear?

5 minutes ago, Thepyrodex said:

no you are, you are trying to find grounds for a new shitstorm.  it's sad.  

 

There are real issues happening and you are just acting like a petulant child screaming for attention making up things that nobody else, even those you are white knighting for, sees as any sort of issue. 

Perhaps this is a justified, legitimate debate and now is the best time to have it however inconvenient that may be to LGM from a PR perspective. This problem points to a larger problem that is at the heart of that larger issue, which is not the topic of this discussion.

[Electricity Taster]

42 minutes ago, Erioch said:

Oh FFS.

 

38 minutes ago, Erioch said:

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

 

12 minutes ago, Erioch said:

Dude has built up quite a fantasy in his own head about what is going on there.

 It is clear that you do not want to contribute to this discussion. You are free to leave.

[TylerD321]

2 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

what does an employee hired for graphic design have to gain by modelling underwear?

Pride? Empowerment? Sense of self worth? Sense of ownership?

 

*Probably* money?

 

2 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

Imagine you are a female employee and you see another female employee bonding with the boss while doing an underwear photoshoot. Tell me that you would not feel pushed to do the same to gain the boss's trust and advance your career. Tell me you wouldn't be "incompatible with company culture" if you were the only one who said no to another employee taking pictures of you in underwear for everyone to see.

This would be evident of a personal issue not a systemic issue. 

[lewdicrous]

23 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

Consent requires certain conditions to be met.

Do you know, with absolute certainty, whether or not those conditions were met in the context of this thread?

[Electricity Taster]

Just now, TylerD321 said:

Pride? Empowerment? Sense of self worth? Sense of ownership?

And don't you think there exists the possibility at least some of it had to do with asymmetric power structures undermining consent?

And yes, a specific example is a specific case, but It can illuminate systemic problems.

[Electricity Taster]

2 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Do you know, with absolute certainty, whether or not those conditions were met in the context of this thread?

No. My argument is that there is no way to know for sure and the asymmetric power structures undermines consent. That should make you doubt the validity of the consent given and that should be enough for you to hire models specifically to model your merch.

[Mertrodome]

Sure, could there hypothetically be some weird power dynamics or peer pressure making people feel like they are expected to model, or will be thought poorly of by refusing. Of course those things do happen in the world.

 

However, absent any reason at all to believe this is true at LTT, I don't really see what the value is in this thread. As far as I'm aware nobody has ever even hinted at pressure to feature on the store, and there are plenty of employees who don't, leading me to assume it's very much an opt-in situation.

 

Hypothetically sure, bad stuff happens in workplaces. But hypothetically they have a rule where everyone has to bring in a selection of cheeses on the first Thursday of every quarter.

 

There is literally no substance in this conversation other than "if this thing is bad, does that mean it's bad?"

[TempestCatto]

28 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

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.

If they're drunk at work that is a whole separate issue...

[lewdicrous]

2 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

No. My argument is that there is no way to know for sure and the asymmetric power structures undermines consent. That should make you doubt the validity of the consent given and that should be enough for you to hire models specifically to model your merch.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

[RadeonChan]

14 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

Please make an argument to defend your position that my comparison was wild and that it makes me sexist. The argument I am making is the same argument behind #meToo, that is that asymmetrical power structures can undermine consent, even if it is freely given and "double checked".

Then I have a legitimate question. At what point does it then cross the line into "unable to give consent", and is anyone even allowed to make that decision on someone else's behalf barring obvious examples?

The problem with this argument is the implication of power structures being 100% influential in the ability for women in the workplace to make unbiased decisions about their own choices eventually leads all the way back to men now telling women that they're not allowed to consent to anything in the workplace.

[DataStorm]

No idea on how exactly the "modelling" comes to fruit at LTT, but I do guess its a company wide mail with an open invitation free to ignore, in any company, some ppl are fine with doing so...

My guess is that they didn't ask anyone to do it, leaving it to the ppl themselves to volunteer, given which people are modelling on it.

 

OP questions:

1. 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?

2. If so, doesn't that create an informal expectation for other female staff?

3. 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?

 

1. ofcourse it's ok for it being an option.

2. Expectations is a tricky word, for that can be derived into: other people's expectations or expressed expectations, or felt expectation by the person. The first 2 do NOT automatically mean the 3rd. Tho there is a strong correlation between the 2nd and 3rd, there isn't with the first, which mainly depends on power dynamics and the form of expression. The difference between "we're looking for models for this" (implicate/searching) vs "you should model for this"  (requesting/pushing) vs "you are going to model for this" (forcing) and the many possible intermediary or maybe even outside those boundaries. All the expressed ways become very fast abusive if not asked broadly without requiring responce (ie: asking for volunteers).

3. I doubt that even the photo shoots between them where at the same time for the different models. As the company has some 200 employees last I heard, everyone is approachable.

 

All this can be fairly quickly be understood by anyone having some basic understanding how companies work how decision making works at such, which is why I agree with the sentiment of others that this is mainly a bait/trolling thread.

[Electricity Taster]

3 minutes ago, Mertrodome said:

Sure, could there hypothetically be some weird power dynamics or peer pressure making people feel like they are expected to model, or will be thought poorly of by refusing. Of course those things do happen in the world.

Exactly, and that possibility, however small, undermines consent. So why not hire models specifically for modelling?

[TylerD321]

6 minutes ago, Electricity Taster said:

And don't you think there exists the possibility at least some of it had to do with asymmetric power structures undermining consent?

I do not. At all. Whatsoever.

 

It does not appear that I am going to be able to convince you to think of women as people rather than feeble beings though.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 hour ago, Electricity Taster said:

For example, let's imagine you employ female X as a graphic designer.

Depends how nice is her butt?  

Oh what Butt jokes are in appropriate now?  
"That's what James said!"  aww bro. 

 

The answer is probably no.  Unless the right kind of process is followed. 

IF the opportunity to do this posted and advertised as models wanted on sites or "papers" that are in the modeling trade, then also internally to a jobs board.  If an employee is not asked to model this but instead must apply and audition with the ad agency that runs this on LMG's behalf then sure it's fine.  Every step is taken, to an annoying degree, to be certain everyone is 100% consenting to this in every way. 

If it is INTERNAL, and there is any hint of peer pressure, then it can be like what used to go on at American Apparel. https://fortune.com/2017/07/12/american-apparel-dov-charney-los-angeles-apparel/

Quote

American Apparel Founder Dov Charney Gives Odd Answer to Question About Having Sex With Employees

I'm sure no one was having sex with Linus.     I  am sure and hope that nothing like that has gone on at LMG.  

 

American Apparel was famous for all their models being employees in their production process.   It at a minimum invites people to think thoughts, or to infer that thoughts are being thought.  You know. 

Now a lawyer like this one can go to town with that kind of information. 

 

From even a cold hard realpolitik perspective ... it is a risk to have employees do that unless a very careful process is followed, and even then it might not be worth it.