IMOS.org.uk

Pearls of Wosdom

Warning: Many people would consider this book to be deeply offensive!

Sexy Staff

  Should an airline be allowed to specifically recruit young, attractive females as cabin crew? Should the airlines be allowed to insist these staff members wear uniforms and make-up that deliberately enhance their attractiveness? What about restaurants - should they be allowed to preferentially recruit young, attractive female staff with ample bosoms, prepared to wear low-cut tops and short skirts?
  When it comes to air stewardesses and waitresses, many customers, of both sexes, prefer to be served by a young, attractive, female member of staff, rather than by an ugly, fat middle-aged bloke. Is it wrong, then, for companies to try to please their customers and improve their customers' travel or eating experience by specifically recruiting young, attractive female staff?
  'It's sexist! It's ageist!' people may say, pretending that they're working on a principled basis of not allowing sexism or ageism.
  The thing is, though, that we accept that some employers are allowed to specify the age, sex and attractiveness of the people they recruit. In some roles, it would be considered utterly absurd if employers were not allowed to recruit staff specifically on the basis of their attractiveness. A marketing company is allowed to specify that a model must be of a certain sex, age and height, for example - and even specify the size of her tits. And who's going to suggest that a modelling agency or lapdancing establishment cannot recruit on the basis of physical attractiveness?
  In other industries, however, the laws in many countries don't allow such selection rules, even though many of the customers within those industries would consider the attractiveness of the staff to be a major factor in enhancing the customer experience.
  "Ah, but a waitress is there to serve food, not to serve as eye-candy for the customers" is what some people will say - but why can't a waitress do both?
  The PC brigade want to have these absolute distinctions between functional jobs, such as that of a waitress serving food in a restaurant or that of bar staff serving drinks in a pub or nightclub, and aesthetic jobs, such as model or lapdancer (and even actress), where you can specifically require a recruit to be young and attractive - and even specify her tit-size, hair colour or even race.
  This, however, is a ridiculously false distinction. Why shouldn't an employee have a dual role? A waitress may have the primary function of serving food, but can also be attractive enough to make the customers smile.
  The PC fanatics want to say, "No, you're a barperson - you're just serving drinks." But no they're not! Bar staff are in the business of helping customers have an enjoyable evening out - something that would be made more likely if bar staff are both friendly and attractive!
  If customers want attractive waitresses, bar staff and cabin crew, then what business is it of the state to say that it is illegal for firms to specifically recruit attractive staff?
  Of course, you could apply the same argument to say that businesses should be allowed to recruit on the basis of race. However, in the case of racist customers, you can fairly make an argument that racial prejudices are wrong and that businesses shouldn't pander to them. You can't in the same way make an argument that it is wrong for men to enjoy being served by young, attractive females with nice tits! There's nothing inherently wrong about this - so why should businesses who want to specifically cater for such customers, be prevented from doing so?
  In any case, isn't it ridiculous to say that a young woman can use her attractive looks to find employment if she wants to be a stripper, but not if she wants to be a waitress?

- - - End of Sample - - -

Other chapters include: Compensation - The Gay Insult - Slavery - Sex Crimes - Euthanasia - Retrofitting History - Insurrection - and many more!