I quoted, and put in bold, two great examples, jesus christ
- being taken to a nude photoshoot in Costa Rica that they didn't know would be surrounded by creepy ogling male sponsors
- afterwards and again without advance knowledge, being demanded to serve as escorts for said creepy men at a nightclub after working all day

You can click on the linked articles to educate yourself a little more

There is a reason I quoted the other part of your post and not that part. Incident described above is obviously terrible. The part I replied to is much more general.

Yes, that NYT story definitely describes a fair contract between two parties who each had complete information about what that contract would entail.

More generally then, the "they knew what they were getting into so who cares" (which again doesn't apply here, but let's just talk about it generally) philosophy is textbook idiotic libertarianism - who are we to get in between two consenting adults to sign any kind of contract?

Indentured servitude? Sharecropping? Sure, why not, they know their side of the deal

(in b4 "Uh, sure, why not indentured servitude?" and this thread just explodes in a ball of fire that hopefully takes the whole planet with it)

You made it to the end? I bailed out halfway through.

To be clear:

^^^^
Not defending this; this is obviously terrible conduct. I interpreted:

as a related but separate statement referring to the job of cheerleading generally (not to the Costa Rica incident specifically). It is the job of cheerleading generally (outside of that incident) that I am trying to discuss.

Dude I am not a libertarian and I'm not like defending the integrity of any contract no matter what but if there is no specific coercion or extenuating circumstances then I don't see the problem. Like, if cheerleading sucks so bad, why don't they just be waitresses instead or something? Is there some reason they can't?

that wasnt really his point. his point was that black ppl are holding themselves back due to their mentality. and that is absolutely a right wing point. its foundational.

a slightly related one is that the real slavers were black ppl in africa and that the slaves shipped to america "won the lottery."

Yes, if cheerleading sucks because of the unanticipated sexual harassment and degradation, women can easily avoid that by <squints at notes> becoming waitresses.

Good talk.

Did you read my post?

I really don't think you should be talking about cheerleading at all, because the nature of cheerleading as described in the one paragraph you've said you're focusing on is not an isolated summary of cheerleading, it is in addition to and inseparable from the incidents I posted from the article. When it comes to this:

I do not concede that you can discuss "the job of cheerleading generally (outside of that incident)". The two are part and parcel. For another example, the "groping and harassment" article I linked describes another Redskins incident where cheerleaders, who are often booked for promotional gigs at hospitals and charities and the like, were instead booked (without their knowledge) to a skeezy house party with a bunch of dudes who wanted the cheerleaders to dance for them.

The job of cheerleading that you are trying to discuss, by taking my paragraph out of context, is not a real job; it doesn't exist. That's why I'm talking about libertarian philosophy and stuff, because the conversation you're trying to have sure seems like a philosophical one and not one grounded in any kind of empirical reality we can frame it around.

How about cheerleading for the other 31 NFL teams? Can we discuss that?

They all think they're the next Paula Abdul most likely. Nobody becomes Paula Abdul from working at a diner except perhaps Donna Summer.

Sure

I mean this post is getting kinda long but I could go on just quoting from these articles that you apparently still haven't read

i knew i should have picked ty cobb instead of pruitt, somehow pruitt man of a million scandals still has a job lol cobb out today in favor of clinton impeachment lawyer

Yes, I read your post. My point was that your "why not become waitresses" question speaks to the "extenuating circumstances" issue. It's hard to characterize a contract as being truly voluntary when the bargaining parties have such disparate starting points. Consider the woman's best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) in the example you gave - it's a waitressing job where she is also likely to be sexually harassed.

So offering that example, to me, illustrates why a woman might agree to be a cheerleader when we think she should know about the harassment and degradation involved. But understanding why that woman would agree to be a cheerleader doesn't make me think, "Aha! Another successful voluntary exchange!" or even "Who cares?".

Yeah, I agree they should remove fans who grab the cheerleaders.

Wat so do you consider all employment contracts as involuntary?

The cool thing about the internet is I've seen and argued with so many TiltedDonkey clones over the years that I can now just have the entire multi page debate in my head, skipping to the end when he says the quiet part out loud.

...

What is the quiet part?

I don't! Have I been checkmated somehow?

The cool thing about this is AFAIK I never even thought about this issue until right now so dth123451 knows what I'm going to say before I do apparently.

It's not a checkmate. I just don't understand why prospective cheerleaders vs. NFL teams is more of a power imbalance than any other prospective employee vs. employer relationship.

People have to eat. Most of them have only one resource to trade for it, their time, which necessarily vanishes when unspent.

Did you read goofy's post?

No ****.

I agree there is always an imbalance between prospective employer and prospective employee.

Yes. It doesn't address my question.