On Professional Hot Chicks

 Some on the social activist left point to the example of Hooters waitresses, cheerleaders, and the like as examples of heterosexual sexualization of public spaces. Obviously, these examples are not as bad as drag shows for children. However, I would assert that defending such practices is self-defeating.

I would assert that the fundamental problem is employing what I call a “professional hot chick” in non-adult spaces. I define a “professional hot chick” as a person (traditionally nearly always female) who is employed for the purpose of being physically attractive, even if she is employed in other tasks. Examples of professional hot chicks include sex workers, and also cheerleaders, sexualized waitresses, actresses in certain contexts, beauty pageant contestants, and so on. The definition would exclude women who are not indulging lust as part of their occupation, hence the modifier “professional.” However, for the purpose of this article, I am speaking primarily about professional hot chicks working in non-adult spaces, such as cheerleaders, sexualized waitresses, and the like. 

The concept of a professional hot chick working in general public spaces is a relatively new one. Not that long ago, a person dressed like a contemporary cheerleader or Hooters waitress would have been arrested for public indecency. Such occupations arose in an attempt to engage in soft sexualization while abiding the indecency laws of their day. 

It was argued at the time that such behavior wasn’t wrong, as it was with the letter of indecency laws, and only prudes would oppose such things. However, I would assert the sexualization of general spaces is actually worse than the sexualization of adult spaces, for the reason that degrades a woman going about a mundane and lawful occupation rather than degrading a woman who is engaging in explicit sexualized work. 

The objectification of women in normal occupations was largely opposed by feminists, and much of the left, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That resulted in the passage of laws, forbidding airlines from forcing flight attendants to retire in their thirties, forbidding appearance discrimination in most hirings, and the like. Although the second generation feminists would not phrase the issue in the same terminology as I would, they would be largely correct. It is a generally accepted labor right that employees have a freedom from a sexualized workspace, except in explicitly sexualized industries. 

As Matthew 5:28 says, it is a sinful for a man to look upon a woman lustfully. It is inappropriate for a man to seek out an attractive woman to hire as his personal secretary, so that he might look upon her lustfully. Such behavior degrades the female secretary. Likewise, if he is a married man, he is very nearly conspiring to commit adultery against his wife. In addition, he is disrespecting his secretary’s husband or boyfriend. Essentially, such a hiring is the groundwork for sexual harassment and adultery. 

Likewise, it is also sinful for a person for company to seek out an attractive woman so that the customer base can look lustfully upon her. In the of open sex work, both parties are agreeing to the interaction. Such consensual interactions might be tolerated within the law. However, forcing such interactions on a woman in her usual occupation is degrading and is spiritually sexual harassment. Imposing such behavior while denying doing so is also degrading, harassing, and additionally adds an element of fraud. 

In fact, the fact that the employer of the “PG-13” professional hot chick does not admit that the professional hot chick is in fact a professional hot chick is very nearly proof in itself that something perfidious is going on. In that sense, open adult entertainment is arguably less worse, since the objectified female is not being tricked into objecting herself. (Of course, there are numerous issues with the adult entertainment industry, but such a digression would be longer than this article).

And what is lying and misleading besides an attempt to falsely gain the consent of another person? If a woman is told that she is employed to be waitress, secretary, or flight attendant, but is actually employed as an object to lust after, she has been misled, and did not consent. 

The question then arises, what is a professional hot chick? In some cases, this is obvious. If a woman is hired on the basis of being physically attractive, she is almost definitely a professional hot chick. That should be distinguished from reasonable grooming standards, as well as things like requiring lifeguards to wear a bathing suit. 

Acting is arguably a gray area, but I think it should be obvious that many female acting roles fall into the professional hot chick category. Trying to deny the obvious nature of the role is a form of fraud against the actress, as well as against the general public, as it allows a professional hot chick into general public space. The director or producer who claims a nude scene is needed for “artistic reasons” is a liar, and is exploiting the right of artistic expression for the purpose of