http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/could-universal-jobmatch-mean-government-enforced-sex-work/
Is another good site on the subject.

Hmm. I dunno. Most adults can distinguish between talking about sex and having sex.

Why doesn’t Gemma Doyle know what “pimping” means?

The Job Centre’s duty is to help people get jobs. It can’t do that if it doesn’t advertise them. While I’m sure plenty of people will be all scandalised and affronted, it’s a legal and legitimate job and shouldn’t be hidden from candidates due to po-faced discrimination.

As for why this isn’t being covered by a sex industry ban, you yourself say the ban was designed to stop potential exploitation, and I don’t see how that’s a risk here.

…Oh, and set a precedent for hiding jobs that people find offensive and you’ll have to hide jobs at abortion clinics, evolution-based science outfits, churches, butchers etc. etc. etc.

At the same time, how far are we away from making women do these jobs when they’ve been ‘feckless’ enough to not find a job in the first 13 weeks of unemployment?

On top of that it’ll probably be workfare too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2238719/Female-porn-stars-higher-self-esteem-better-quality-life-according-new-study.html

Chaise at (4) has it right. It’s not up to Job Centres to determine which jobs “could lead to exploitation”. It’s an impossible remit, given that it all depends on what’s meant by “exploitation”.

Outside of loopy remnants of religious guilt, on any objective measure sitting at home talking to wankers on the phone is far less exploitative than a 12-hour shift washing dishes or cleaning hotel rooms.

8 john b i disagree.

“Outside of loopy remnants of religious guilt, on any objective measure sitting at home talking to wankers on the phone is far less exploitative than a 12-hour shift washing dishes or cleaning hotel rooms.”

i can only assume you have no daughter

Odd thing to assume, and rather sexist. You happen to be right; but I’d rather a future child of mine of either gender worked on a sex chatline than a building site – I don’t have Victorian hangups about sex, but I am strongly averse to people I love returning home in a box.

I’ve done sexual things for money back in the day though: not the best employment I’ve ever had but a very long way from the worst (the worst was piecework flyering letterboxes, in case you wondered).

10. john b
“but I’d rather a future child of mine of either gender worked on a sex chatline than a building site”

i can only assume you have no children and your view “will” change when you have.

@ 11 littleox

Ad homs aside, do you have any actual arguments in favour of your position? It’s not like parents get to order their adult progeny to take certain jobs, anyway, so it’s irrelevant on two counts.

Wouldn’t this ad have breached equal opportunities legislation? Can they insist on female applicants only?

@ 13 James

Equal op legislation makes exceptions where gender and so on are central to the job. Otherwise film-makers would get sued for not casting octogenarian men as female leads in rom coms. T’would be silly.

“Equal op legislation makes exceptions where gender and so on are central to the job. ”

Well as Tim points out, as the job only requires the applicant to talk about sex, then a man should be equally well qualified.

@ 15 Jimmy

“Well as Tim points out, as the job only requires the applicant to talk about sex, then a man should be equally well qualified.”

The job requires the applicant to talk about sex to arouse straight men. And incidentally I’m guessing “internet babe chat” includes video, although I can’t be certain. But the point is, to put it crudely and accurately, that the job requires that the applicant be someone that straight men will like to masturbate over. If there’s no video, then I suppose a bloke who can convincingly sound like a sexy woman is entitled to the job, unless hiring him would constitute false advertising.

Are you two seriously raising this as an issue? There are interesting questions surrounding the “sexiness as part of the job spec” concept, e.g. whether a restaurant owner can legitimately claim that he only hires good-looking women because part of their job is to be attractive to the customers (I’d say that’s dodgy most of the time, but with an outlet like Hooters it seems like a valid point). But “surely straight men will be as turned on by men as they are by women” is not one of those interesting questions.

@ 8 littleox

I don’t have a daughter, but I’ve actually done similar work for around six months. Does that make me more of an expert than you?

It sucked less than a lot of other jobs I’ve ever done. I got to play music and mess around on the net when I wasn’t working. And smoke. That’s so much less shit than call center work.

@ 16

Quite honestly, as a straight man, it’s hardly rocket science working out how to “arouse straight men”.

“False advertising” is arguable here. Yes, but no more so than a close friend of mine who never told men who asked what she was wearing that she was sitting there in her trackie bottoms without makeup on.

And not once did either of us mention that we were cut and pasting particularly stupid lines to each other for mockery purposes.

(I’m sorry if I’ve blown any chat users fantasies here).

So really, if it’s chat only the only question in terms of job specs is “employees prepared to pretend that they’re women attracted to men”.

If this was video chat, that’s obviously different.

The main concern about it being advertised via the job center is the increasing tendency towards punitive action against claimants who refuse jobs. This kind of thing does require a willingness to talk about sex and, preferably, a degree of cynicism. It’s not something I think anyone should be forced to do under the threat of losing their benefit.

@ 17 Waterloo Sunset

“Yes, but no more so than a close friend of mine who never told men who asked what she was wearing that she was sitting there in her trackie bottoms without makeup on.”

LOL, good point.

“The main concern about it being advertised via the job center is the increasing tendency towards punitive action against claimants who refuse jobs. This kind of thing does require a willingness to talk about sex and, preferably, a degree of cynicism. It’s not something I think anyone should be forced to do under the threat of losing their benefit.”

100% agreed. If we’re going to have this kind of carrot-and-stick system, I think there should be reasonable grounds for vegetarians not working in butchers etc. And absolutely anyone, regardless of past employment, should be able to safely turn down any role with a sexual element. I’d extend that as far as waitressing jobs where the uniform requires a miniskirt.

Well this is fantastic sex trade adverts at the job centre how amazing , an this brings hope to me an other disabled people as despite being in agony all across our bodys we have been told if we can
Push A BUTTON we can go back to work
so if we all move into pushing buttons in the sex trade we can still have fiscal support,

so oil your wheel chairs because we need
you all making squeeky cleen dignified wheel chair
pornography an prostitution lets get britain Back to work, an dont let your bad back stop you,
dose up on pain killers an push buttons instead

@ 19 eggsmell

Look, I’m 100% with you on the disability issue. The government’s attitude towards disability welfare is utterly disgusting. But you’re conflating two issues here. I don’t see how this story affects disabled people’s rights, unless you’ve got a serious reason to suggest that disabled people (or indeed anyone) is going to be refused benefits because they don’t want to work in the sex trade.

It appears we’re treating disabled people badly but people in the sex industry reasonably. That’s at least better than treating both groups badly, surely?