There are many factors to consider. Firstly, it is inappropriate for subordinates and superiors not because of coercive incentives, but because positions in government or military or good grades at university are supposed to be out of qualification, not nepotism, because they're good buddies, or because they made some exchange for it. This isn't as obvious in business in general, or Hollywood. As there generally isn't anything wrong with giving positions based on relationships, or sexual exchanges, and everyone knows it. It isn't a big secret, it's a cliche, the opposite of a secret.

It isn't as if buddy drugged or raped them, they willingly prostituted themselves

They are both scumbags and Hollywood collectively is a scumbag (in terms of how it works). — Baden

Yes. But Hollywood should be attacked first, because that's the source of the problem. Otherwise, if we focus on Trump, etc., this source is masked, and it will continue to produce little Trumps.

Again, I don't hear you making these excuses for Clinton. Who taught him? Who cares? They did it. They're responsible.

Again, I don't hear you making these excuses for Clinton. Who taught him? Who cares? They did it. They're responsible. — Baden

It's not an excuse though. Both Clinton and Trump are fully responsible. My point is that the focus should be on the source of the problem, which isn't them in this case.

I stopped really at the "firstly", as I didn't feel like going to equality dynamics, and incentives in general, both of which are more complex.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way.

It isn't as if buddy drugged or raped them, they willingly prostituted themselves — Wosret

Okay, but that doesn't make it moral or right.

As there generally isn't anything wrong with giving positions based on relationships, or sexual exchanges, and everyone knows it. It isn't a big secret, it's a cliche, the opposite of a secret. — Wosret

Well, just because it happens and everyone knows it (which I agree with you) doesn't mean it's right. it means people have a very twisted sense of morality.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way. — Baden

What's the cause then?

Desire and the power to satisfy it.

Desire and the power to satisfy it. — Baden

And desire just arises all by itself, it isn't mediated through your culture? We're not told that we should desire women and lust after them, especially when scantily dressed, in red high heels, with long finger nails, etc. etc.? Precisely by being shown these things on TV, we're taught to imitate them, and hence start having those desires.

You don't think there were Trumps and Clintons before Hollywood? There are Trumps and Clintons in chimp tribes, Agu, not to mention throughout human history.

Did Attila the Hun need high heels to turn him on. Give me a break.

Hollywood manufactures desire. Yes, there is a biological component to sexuality, but all research that I've read shows that this is highly mediated through society and culture. Meaning that human sexuality is 99% not biological.

You don't think there were Trump's and Clintons before Hollywood? There are Trumps and Clintons in chimp tribes, Agu, not to mention throughout human history. — Baden

Yes, in part also because those societies had something wrong with their culture. But in our society, culture is dictated by Hollywood - manufacturing culture is what they do.

Meaning that human sexuality is 99% not biological. — Agustino

Non-sequitur. Time to get out your references.

Did Attila the Hun need high heels to turn him on. Give me a break. — Baden

No, but you can bet that his society taught him that a real man forces himself on as many women as he can. Even the Greeks and the likes of Alexander the Great were taught that the more women you have, the greater you are as a man.

If I was like in an important producer position, and totally could just give roles to anyone, without breaking any laws, and like some of the hottest women in the world were rubbing elbows, and other things, then it would be difficult to resist that. I don't imagine a caricature of some snarling goblin being all...



I'm not made of stone. Clearly forcing someone, or being cruel or sadistic is always wrong, but suggesting that people can't use their riches and influence to get laid at all is silly.

In fact, your retort is laughable precisely because there's nothing about high heels that is supposed to turn you on - this is manufactured by your society.

. But in our society, culture is dictated by Hollywood - manufacturing culture is what they do. — Agustino

Yes, but in my view you tend to overestimate their influence and underestimate our natural tendency towards "evil" or "sin", or whatever you want to call it, in the sexual arena.

Non-sequitur.

A lot of things people freak out about reduces to them never having been in a position to do it, rather than just not doing it out of their virtue.

I know that I definitely never use my riches and influence to get laid. Never.

I don't know what you think I said to be honest, Wos. You need to quote me. If you think HW was some kind of victim of his position though, no, I disagree. But go ahead and clarify.

Yes, and some of us have actual experience of being in that situation as I have.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way. — Baden

I was talking about this, and I clarified some with my subsequent post. I simply don't believe people when they say that they're immune to such things unless they've already been able to do it, and then didn't.

I excluded teacher and student positions.

OK, I was able to do it and didn't.

Damn you. That's gerrymandering.

I also mentioned like hollywood star level hot, man.

Yes, but in my view you tend to overestimate their influence and underestimate our natural tendency towards "evil" or "sin", or whatever you want to call it, in the sexual arena. — Baden

I'm not so sure that the natural tendency is clearly towards "sin" and "evil". I think we are corrupted by society to large extents - when society decides on what we should expect, and then creates hope and fear in us, it makes us irrational and immoral. For example, if I expect not to marry my high school girlfriend, then obviously I won't take my relationship with her too seriously - nor would I want to get too close for fear that it will be more painful to separate later on. Then because of that, I will actually make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy by changing the way I behave, motivated by hope and fear, based on expectations and desires that aren't even mine in the first place, that are actually imported from my society.

Non-sequitur. — Baden

How is it a non-sequitur if your desire being turned on by high heels is shown to be a product of your society? Then no wonder that Atilla the Hun didn't need high heels to turn him on - he had other objects/features that turned him on, as his society taught him. Clearly this shows that even in the example that you gave, you don't refute me, but merely prove my point.

Haha. You know if I didn't have sisters I think I really would be a worse person.