Would you hire an ex porn star?

You own multiple bookstores. In one of your stores, the shopkeeper is about to retire, and a new shopkeeper is to be hired. Of all the applicants for the job, only two are fully qualified:

1) Jane Henderson, 37, attractive brunette with a professional look.
2) Martin McKay, 42, plain looking blonde man, he too gives a professional impression.

They both have university degrees in economics and literature, and both used to work in other bookstores, publishing companies, and libraries. Of the two, Jane clearly seems to be the best qualified one: Top grades from the university and very good testimonials from her former employers. Martin's grades and testimonials are more mediocre, but still sufficient for him to qualify for the job.

You, of course, want the best one, and you have almost decided to hire Jane. But then you happen to overhear a remark that Jane used to be a porn star!
You investigate this, and you find that indeed, Jane did participate in a large number of hard core porno movies when she was between 20 and 25 years old. She used to work as a porn star and study at the university simutaneously. As a porn star, she was known by the name "Foxy Brown". If you hire Jane, it is likely to spread that the shopkeeper Jane Henderson is identical to the ex porn star Foxy Brown. This might cause some problems, because in the city where bookstore in question is, there lives many right-winged Christian fundamentalists as well as anti-porn feminists. But there are also many people in the city that are pro porn.
You ask Jane about her porn star background, and she admits that it's true. She says she regrets nothing, that it was an interesting experience, but that she finally got tired of it and wanted a job were she could use her university education, and she had such jobs since then. She says she doesn't fear the reactions of the people in the city, and that she would stand up and defend what she'd done for anyone.

Martin has no background of this kind.

Given that, who would you hire, Jane or Martin? Why?

Why not? As long as she's not strutting around in stilettos and looks professional, as you described her, then I think she'd be fine.

It's all about personality. But, I'd have no problem making it clear to not discuss her prior life with the customers or indicate who she was. And if they inquired she is free to say yes and direct them to me.

I'd be glad to let them know that she deserves to be embraced regardless of faith. Aren't we all sinners after all? Love how some will judge who's sin is 'okay' and who's isn't. She isn't practicing that lifestyle anymore and she has no regrets. Those are issues for her to take up with God, not me.

Plus, I gave her the okay and her prior employers (if reputable to me) gave her favorable marks as well. I apparently didn't know what she was until it was pointed out to me. So she obviously knows how to carry herself and be honest with who she is. All qualities that I respect.

Outside of that, how would the Christian's know? After all, shouldn't right-wing believers segregate away from people of this lifestyle and not be watching porn to being with? ;)

I'm glad that I don't own a shop. It can't be easy to gamble the success of your company on one's prior image. I'd like to say I'm above it, but I really can only say what I think I would do. And that, to me, doesn't prove much.

I dont think someones past such as being in that type of industry should effect it. HOWEVER there are many scenerios..who is the best person: If it is Jane will she hinder your business by being an ex porn star OR will people not care.
Its a tough call. I personally would choose the more qualified for the job :)

I would hire Jane. She has not committed any crime, and she has had jobs relevant to the one she is now applying for. Her top grades and good references should tell you she is now serious, she even said she gave up her porn "career" so she could make use of her university education. Seems like she could do a good job.

Of course, Martin might just be bad at taking exams, and be just as smart, but his testimonials are more mediocre than Jane's- which should count in your decision.

Hey, Odd Even.... :D


Nice to see another Agelesslove dude who knows how to have fun with polls. ;)


I would pick Jane for (a) being the best and (b) two remaining reasons of curiosity+increased sales and non-discrimination.

I voted for the curiosity + increased sales only because my feeling was slightly stronger for that than for the non-discrimination factor: above all the store must make a profit. That much is irrefutable.

Aside from that, I figure that the world is full of former porn stars, just as it's full of former hookers and madams. People change; their values and ambitions change; and they deserve a chance to move on and do different things with their lives. It would be totally unfair and unethical to deny them a chance simply based on prior work history.

Great poll! :cool:

I would hire her if she regretted it and had moved on, but the whole "I don't regret it and it was a perfectly OK thing to do!" would not impress me.

I've seen documentaries on porn. These people are not good people, and they have not made good decisions.

I have a very healthy sex drive but I cannot watch porn because it is demeaning, degrading and it fuels mens' poor regard for women. Mainstream porn also fuels the idea that women who look underage are desirable. This is pretty disgusting, and I struggle hard against disrespecting all men for such behavior.

I'm not religious, I'm not a feminist, I've just suffered years at the hands of a misogenist and porn has definitely had a hand in his loss of all regard for women.

I also don't understand why a shopkeeper needs to be so qualified, so I don't see how it matters. I'd argue that it was unfair and unethical to not give people with slightly lower qualifications a chance in a job that does not require anything better and in fact could be done with a lot worse. In this situation it would come down to who was the most respectable person. So what if the guy has had less experience - we all need to start somewhere and the jobs market is getting way too competitive.

I would hire the best person for the job...in hopes that she would do a good job, and that IF she were "found out," the curious people would outweigh the people who didnt approve of her, so business would still be OK.

I would hire Martin. Jane obviously does not have any problem with what society calls "immoral". I rather have a more straight person for my business.
In my business I have hired people with non-conventional backgrounds, like gays, single mothers, divorcees, AGR people, alcoholics, but not for managerial positions. I was burned once by giving a known liar a chance and she end up stealing from me.

You know I am not sure who I would hire. I have to think more about this...

But this made me think of an Oprah show I saw. Where a women was fired from her teaching job (high school I believe), because they found out she was a in a porno previously. She was suing the school, but I am not sure whatever happened with it. It was really interesting to watch parents and other school administration weigh in on whether they thought she should be teaching high school students and the opinions were all over the board. In the case I would tend to think that when she made the porno she gave up the chance to teach children... but it really is a hard call.

....Where a women was fired from her teaching job (high school I believe), because they found out she was a in a porno previously. She was suing the school, but I am not sure whatever happened with it. It was really interesting to watch parents and other school administration weigh in on whether they thought she should be teaching high school students and the opinions were all over the board. In the case I would tend to think that when she made the porno she gave up the chance to teach children......

Great comparison, Kurtney.

Many professional jobs (lawyer, teacher, state trooper) have 'morals & character' qualifications to them. If you don't meet those requirements, you get the boot.

I don't think that porno-activity ITSELF should get the teacher fired. That's just plain hypocritical since a large number of parents - maybe the majority of Dads - will have watched, enjoyed, and masturbated to, porno at some point in their lives. I mean, "Come on, folks!!" LOL Who are we kidding??

I'd look at what kind of porno we're talking about. I would say that the teacher engaging in any illegal and/or sexually deviant activity on-screen that clearly violates the laws of that state, should get her fired. Like having 'the pool boy' (who's obviously 15) wander into her bedroom and do the wild thing with her.

Even something that may not be illegal but raises serious moral issues - like having sex with an animal (bestiality) - would make me want to see the teacher fired.

That's how I'd make the call.

I'd hire Jane - as long as she's not doing the customers in the back room, is there really a problem?

In my business I have hired people with non-conventional backgrounds, like gays, single mothers, divorcees, AGR people, alcoholics, but not for managerial positions. I was burned once by giving a known liar a chance and she end up stealing from me.

Shiela are you saying all people in these groupings arent suitable for management positions.....or that they are known liars....or have I misread

Many professional jobs (lawyer, teacher, state trooper) have 'morals & character' qualifications to them. If you don't meet those requirements, you get the boot.


Agreed. Managing a bookstore, however, is not one of them. That said, I'd hire the best person for the job, past notwithstanding as long as it truly is part of her past and not something she continues to engage in. So what if conservative Christians have an issue with it? Jesus himself said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Hire who is the best qualified, regardless of sex or past "positions"

Shiela are you saying all people in these groupings arent suitable for management positions.....or that they are known liars....or have I misread
No, you did not misread. My post was very badly drafted. That is the result of posting in a hurry. Thanks for asking for clarification.

My point was that I would give extra points to somebody who has not been a porn star. I would want somebody with whom I share the same moral values.

My point about gays, etc. was just to indicate that I have hired them, no problem.

No, you did not misread. My post was very badly drafted. That is the result of posting in a hurry. Thanks for asking for clarification.

My point was that I would give extra points to somebody who has not been a porn star. I would want somebody with whom I share the same moral values......

What if the person you hire later mentions in a casual way that he's been watching some porn videotapes at home?

Is he then someone who ranks low on your morality scale? Or is it not an issue because he only watched - instead of participating. :eek:

I have personally watched porn, yet I would not dream on participating in making a porn movie. Those are my personal values. When I hire somebody to work closely with me, I try to pick people I am compatible with. After all, it is my business.

Okay. I am not sure I understand the moral distinction between consuming pornography and manufacturing it since the former is dependent upon the latter...

but I will take your word that those are your personal values and leave it at that.

I would hire Jane, of course, because she is the best qualified one. Period. Although I didn't vote for that alternative, it is also true that it would be discrimination not to hire her. Today, there is some focus on the rights of homosexuals, and that is good. But who would fight for the rights of porn stars and similar people? Ex porn stars, and nude models etc, are often met with prejudice and contempt in their home neigbourhoods and they have difficulties to get other jobs. This is often hypocrisy, since the people who despice them often watch porn themselves. Especially disgusting is the hypocrisy of Hollywood, who freeze out everyone that participates in a porn movie or even is photographed nude in a magazine.
If one believes, as some moralist Christians or anti-porn feminsts, that pornography or public nudity is immoral or degrading for women, or that the porn industry uses people in a damaging way for them, then the right thing would be to help people from the porn industry to other jobs and acceptance in society, but how many anti-porn feminists and Christian moralists do that? Well, perhaps some do, I don't know, but most of them just condemn pornography, without helping the people inside, who they often consider as victims. This only increases the stigmatization of these people.

To return to the hypothetical situation in this thread, there is no morally valid reason not to hire Jane. If the employer himself/herself dislikes pornography or the porn industry, then he/she shouldn't hinder an ex porn star to get another job, thus increasing the probability that she must return to porn. It would also be wrong to demand an apoplogy from her: having her saying that it was a mistake to do porn and to denounce porn and dissociate herself from her past. Her evaluation of her past and of porn in general is her business, and noone can do that for her, that would be a violation of her integrity. The only thing that the employer can demand from her is that she does her job, and since this job has nothing to do with pornography, she would have no reason to discuss her past with the costumers.
It would also be morally wrong to not hire her because of possible neagtive reactions from costumers and other people, no matter what they think of pornography. It would be no more defendable than not to hire a black person for a job in a white racist community, saying that "I'm no racist, but my costumers are, and therefore, the sales from my store will drop if I hire a black person, even he/she is the most qualified for the job". I hope all of you agree that this would be unacceptable discrimination, and this case is analogous to our case...

I think that if you work to start a business from scratch and you make it successful, and you meet your financial obligations, you have the full right to hire whoever you want, within the restrictions of the law, no need to give explanations to anybody.

If a customer of mine does not like one of my staff, I will not send this staff ever again to this customer. If enough customers reject that particular member of my staff, that member of my staff is out. Sorry. My business goes first because if I do not get business it closes, it dies. Period.

If I live in a community that would boicot my bookstore because I hire a porn star (How do they know she is a porn star unless they watch porn?). I would not hire a porn star. Let the porn star go work for a company that will not be affected by her background.

Sheila, what if you were to hire a black shopkeeper in a community with a lot of white racists, threatening to boicot the store, would you still refuse to hire him/her, even if he/she is the best qualified one? Such episodes must have occurred numerous times during the era of civil rights movement.

Although the poll is formulated in that way, it is not really an individual problem. It is hard to blame a small employer for discrimination when he/she is under pressure from racist or otherwise prejudiced costumers, if the employer's living is at risk. It is really society that has to change in such a case. And the moral obligation of all of us, not only employers, is to fight against all discrimination, including discrimination of porn stars, to obtain a better society.

Sheila, what if you were to hire a black shopkeeper in a community with a lot of white racists, threatening to boycott the store, would you still refuse to hire him/her, even if he/she is the best qualified one? Such episodes must have occurred numerous times during the era of civil rights movement.

Although the poll is formulated in that way, it is not really an individual problem. It is hard to blame a small employer for discrimination when he/she is under pressure from racist or otherwise prejudiced costumers, if the employer's living is at risk. It is really society that has to change in such a case. And the moral obligation of all of us, not only employers, is to fight against all discrimination, including discrimination of porn stars, to obtain a better society.

Well put.
I don't think someone should be held accountable for their past. By not hiring a qualified person just because of a past is ridiculous if you ask me. Maybe Jane regrets it. If she did not then why would she apply for the job in the first place? We all make mistakes and to have an employer who says NOPE because my morals do not match with yours is just unreal. We are not suppose to discriminate, yet this is discrimination to the fullest.
No one should have to pay for what they did in their past IF they are trying hard to make a clean break of it and wanting a second chance.
If that person is qualified for the job over someone else..THAT person should be able to get that position..plain and simple

Sheila, what if you were to hire a black shopkeeper in a community with a lot of white racists, threatening to boicot the store, would you still refuse to hire him/her, even if he/she is the best qualified one? Such episodes must have occurred numerous times during the era of civil rights movement.

Although the poll is formulated in that way, it is not really an individual problem. It is hard to blame a small employer for discrimination when he/she is under pressure from racist or otherwise prejudiced costumers, if the employer's living is at risk. It is really society that has to change in such a case. And the moral obligation of all of us, not only employers, is to fight against all discrimination, including discrimination of porn stars, to obtain a better society.
I already said that acting in porn goes against my personal principles. I have seldom watched porn and I do not watch it anymore. The movie 8mm changed my views of porn forever. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

If I am going to put my business at risk, which is something I would really think twice before doing, it would be for a cause I believe in. I am responsible for the livelihood of all my other employees, and my own family.

A person cannot choose to be hispanic, black, gay or handicapped. Yet a person can choose to willingly participate in an industry that encompasses child pornography, prostitution, demeaning of women, bestiality, etc.

I don't see it that way, odd even. Discrimination against porn stars? I'm with Sheila on that one. Ehh. That's a whole other conversation.

All I really came here to say is that, in work and play, I'm that person who doesn't think twice about making waves when I see people being treated badly. Sometimes I make new friends that way; more often than not, I lose "friends" who don't take kindly to my ruining their fun. Doesn't phase me in the slightest - with friends like that, who needs enemies?

Anyway, although I think the illustration you chose is a bit skewed, I get it overall and, if you're asking, yes, I do feel an obligation to fight openly and assertively against discrimination of any kind. In business, my employees know this about me and, while I'd hate to see them go, they always have the option to not work for me if my firm stance against prejudism is too much for them.