Or at least the use of packers. Oddly, enough we don't seem to see men utilizing these apparatuses too often. Given their supposed advantage, I wonder, why is this?
There is some historical evidence this is possible within societies. See Léon Cogniet's Louis Philippe I[1]. However, I don't exactly have any evidence that our society today, specifically in the workplace, that this holds true.
Why don't you subscribe to the more reasonable explanation that accenting male genitalia doesn't confer an advantage and instead seem to be advocating for a "it does, but it's illegal," stance which doesn't seem to be rooted in reality?
Based on your comments, what seems to be driving your position instead is an assumption that there is a grave social injustice aimed at men. Is it not?
My main point is that women are already so coddled, and allowed to use their sexuality in the work place so much, that OPs company not hiring one chick is basically irrelevant.
Is this unlike the idea that women's bodies are inherently sexual? The idea that women's sexuality has power over men (usually as described by men) comes up a lot in discussions about the sexualization of women's bodies. Is this something different than that?
Is the idea that women spend an absurd amount of money to look hot at work similar to the idea that womens bodies are sexual in the first place? I think women sexualize themselves for the most part. Obviously there are some conservative women, and some full on prostitutes with day jobs, so sure all types exist. But in general I think women use their sexuality too much at work.
There is some historical evidence this is possible within societies. See Léon Cogniet's Louis Philippe I[1]. However, I don't exactly have any evidence that our society today, specifically in the workplace, that this holds true.
1. Painting, 1792. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%C3%A9on_Cogniet_-_...