The Grumpy Guinea Pig

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the core of many libertarian social theories. In essence, it states that men should be free to enter to engage in any action or contract which does not violate the rights of others. On the surface, this may seem like a reasonable social principle, or at least a reasonable one at the theoretical level, even if it can’t be put into practice in reality.  However, it has a fundamental flaw: it would permit, and in fact, discourage every form sexual harassment or technically “consensual” sexual assault. According to the NAP, an employer should have the right to demand sexual favors from his female employees (or male/non-binary ones for that matter.) The NAP principle is not merely silent on the issue of prostitution and contractual sexual harassment, but asserts that these things must be protected, as part of the right of contract, which flows from the right of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.  Not only should employers have the...

 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...