Would you hire the hobbyist?

[Big Daddy Cool]

The day you'll meet the woman of your life, I have no doubt that you'll "have the morality" to warn her of your affection for street walkers and MP's.

Ok, I really don't know if this is an ego trip for you or something, but if this is ment to raddle my cage, it failed.

Instead I thought this was funny .

But I don't plan to tell her that I was (past tense) in the hobby and I have given the hobby up for her. On the other hand I'm sure she has secrets that she will never tell me eather and that's understandable. The past is the past and belongs in the pass. What's important is the present and when that time comes, I assure you I will not be hobbying. As it is right now I'm trying to cut down as GG was right abot it bringing out the worse in people (myself included).

 

[metoo4]

BDC, I think you should think of it from the point-of-view of a married man. Of course, if you've never been in a serious relationship for a long time (I mean 10+ years here) it's pretty hard to imagine.

I've been with my gf for 20 years. I love her more than anything. But sexually, there's nothing left. What am I supposed to do? Leave her for a "fling"? Push back my urges and start being miserable and unwillingly make her unhappy because I resent the lack of sex?

I decided not to do any of those. Instead I see a few ladies on the side, a few hundred dollars, no commitment, just sex. When I get home,my urges are satisfied, I'm happy, I don't resent any privation and, I can still be nice to my gf instead of getting mad at her.

Things are never black and white. I used to think like you 15 years ago but now, with more life experience, I can see an sp as a safety valve to stay sane while keeping the love in my relation instead of bitterness. To me, a sp is like a therapist for my sexual urges, same as a chiropractor for my back pain.

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

metoo4:
You make some good points and as you pointed out if I have not been maried or in a relationship for 10+yrs, I have no idea how things are from your point of view.

From my point of view loyalty is everything and I've had that beat into my head from cultural customs and family upbringing in a Conservative household since childhood. What's interesting is when the wife knows and approves of what her husband does in the hobby. While I wouldn't do the hobby if married, I can't judge what a married couple agrees to. What bothers me is when the wife is not aware of what is happening and I feel that this is when there is a betrayal of trust and loyalty.

Overall, I do find the differences in opinions interesting as this tends to reflect family upbringing and cultural differences. Thanks for your point of view and inlightenment.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

BDC, I think you should think of it from the point-of-view of a married man. Of course, if you've never been in a serious relationship for a long time (I mean 10+ years here) it's pretty hard to imagine.

I've been with my gf for 20 years. I love her more than anything. But sexually, there's nothing left. What am I supposed to do? Leave her for a "fling"? Push back my urges and start being miserable and unwillingly make her unhappy because I resent the lack of sex?

I decided not to do any of those. Instead I see a few ladies on the side, a few hundred dollars, no commitment, just sex. When I get home,my urges are satisfied, I'm happy, I don't resent any privation and, I can still be nice to my gf instead of getting mad at her.

Things are never black and white. I used to think like you 15 years ago but now, with more life experience, I can see an sp as a safety valve to stay sane while keeping the love in my relation instead of bitterness. To me, a sp is like a therapist for my sexual urges, same as a chiropractor for my back pain.

Naturally I agree with you, Metoo4. I have only been married for somewhere between five and seven years (can't remember exactly), but I have married friends who have been with their partners for ten plus years and they say exactly what you've just written. The system of marriage does not really allow room for all the complexities and changes that take place when two people live together for one or two decades.

But I think BDC's opinion is valid and probably also the most widespread. Two people get married by signing a marriage license and taking vows. It is a contract between two people. From an employer's point of view, the hobbyist breaches the contract he concluded with his partner and his family. Who is to say that he will not breach his employment contract?

Also, we have to consider what being a hobbyist indicates about the person of the candidate. The fact that he is a hobbyist is a clear indication that he is in a disfunctional marriage; that is, he has failed at his marriage. The other candidate, on the other hand, does not see escorts, which indicates that his marriage is functioning normally. What the hobbyist was unable to succeed at, the other candidate managed to pull off. This is a plus therefore in his favour.

There is another question I feel needs asking. It's been said above that as long at the hobbyist manages to engage in his hobby in a controlled and financially responsible manner, the employer shouldn't take consider his hobbying a factor. But if we allow that a weekly or biweekly encounter with an escort is not a factor, then do we also have to allow that the weekly use of heroin (say, only on Saturday evenings) is something that the employer should not take into consideration. If, after all, the candidate is able to engage in the use of heroin in a controlled and financially responsible manner, why should it matter?

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

I think what Ziggy was trying to point out is that you're not really in the position to pass that kind of 'moral' judgement.
t76

Why isn't BDC in the position to pass judgement? He is single. In response to Ziggy's question about whether he would inform his future wife of his past adventures with escorts and streetwalkers, BDC responded that he wouldn't because "the past is the past" and he wouldn't feel any obligation to reveal all his secrets from the past. His response was very clear and well-reasoned.

I also applaud BDC's statement that "loyalty is everything." Loyalty is everything. There is nothing worse than a disloyal friend or a disloyal employee. Even within the merbite community, we expect loyalty from one another.

But, as Roland pointed out, life isn't always so clearcut. Sometimes a man has to choose between breaking up his family or visiting escorts. For those on the outside, it is easy to say that he is just being selfish. Once on the inside, everything is much less clear.

Roland and metoo4 explained very graciously that BDC might not fully understand since he has never been married. BDC agreed that this might be true.

 

[Dee]

BDC, I think you should think of it from the point-of-view of a married man. Of course, if you've never been in a serious relationship for a long time (I mean 10+ years here) it's pretty hard to imagine.

I've been with my gf for 20 years. I love her more than anything. But sexually, there's nothing left. What am I supposed to do? Leave her for a "fling"? Push back my urges and start being miserable and unwillingly make her unhappy because I resent the lack of sex?

I decided not to do any of those. Instead I see a few ladies on the side, a few hundred dollars, no commitment, just sex. When I get home,my urges are satisfied, I'm happy, I don't resent any privation and, I can still be nice to my gf instead of getting mad at her.

Things are never black and white. I used to think like you 15 years ago but now, with more life experience, I can see an sp as a safety valve to stay sane while keeping the love in my relation instead of bitterness. To me, a sp is like a therapist for my sexual urges, same as a chiropractor for my back pain.

Very interesting post for me,,,, I can relate....

This may be too personal of a question if so my apologies and please ignore it....

What would your gf's reaction be if she found out?

Mine would say, and very likely mean it: It's all over between us.

In a way I can understand, in a way I can't....

 

[Big Daddy Cool]

t76:

My point is that I beleive loyalty is everything. I don't beleive that prositution is immoral as long as you are singel as you have nobody to be accountable to but yourself. But, seeing another partner for sex regardless if it's in the hobby or someone you know is immoral IMHO.

At the same time I'm trying to understand the point of view of others as I have no right to force my opinions on others.

metoo4 and Roland makes some goods pints about the lines not being as black and white as we like it to be.

 

[CoolAmadeus]

Very interesting post for me,,,, I can relate....

This may be too personal of a question if so my apologies and please ignore it....

What would your gf's reaction be if she found out?

Mine would say, and very likely mean it: It's all over between us.

In a way I can understand, in a way I can't....

I can relate too. My (now ex-)wife DID take it bad at first, but was totally forgiving in the end (forgiving, not forgeting)... With conditions, of course.

We have no idea what the significant other can accept from us until the situation happens. Reverse the roles and ask yourself the question: If you really love her dearly, what would YOU be ready to accept from your GF/wife in order to continue being together? Here is my guess: A LOT!

It's all based on trust IMHO. If you/she feels trust can be rebuilt (assuming it really can), then chances are your couple may end up much stronger.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Fat Happy Buddha,
Out of all those people who come with the 'adultery is immoral' belief, I wonder how many of them also think consuming street prostitution is immoral? It is only ironic.

I don't know BDC and my point is not to bash him personally. I don't really care about what he does in his life. What he says is contradictory, as I tried to show in post #31.

BDC clearly stated that if a candidate was single, he (as the interviewing employer) wouldn't take the candidate's hobbying into account. On the other hand, he would consider it a negative factor if the candidate was married, since it would indicate the candidate couldn't remain loyal.

There was no contradiction. Even I, as a married man who engages in the hobby, can understand BDC's opinion and wonder if, from a purely practical point of view, he isn't correct. On the other hand, bringing up BDC's adventures with streetwalkers and insinuating he is being hypocritical is outside the scope of this thread.

As for post #31, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make. I read over the passages you selected several times, but I don't see any contradiction.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Bdc, Fhb...

So you meet someone meaningful enough to give up your ways. One fine day that meaningful someone asks: "have you ever resorted to prostitutes?", what would your answer be?

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

So you meet someone meaningful enough to give up your ways. One fine day that meaningful someone asks: "have you ever resorted to prostitutes?", what would your answer be?

BDC already answered that question above in his "the past is past" post. As for me, my wife comes from a culture where there is not such a stigma attached to prostitution, so it is not a big issue.

As I asked travellor76 however, how does this question relate to the issue of whether to hire a hobbyist? BDC gave a clear and reasonable answer. The question you've asked however seems designed to imply that BDC is being hypocritical.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

I want to ask again the following question. If we say that hobbying, as long as it is conducted in a controlled and financially responsible manner, is not a factor to be considered when choosing candidates, then can the same be said regarding the controlled and financially responsible consumption of heroin?

Two socially unacceptable activities, both potentially addictive, both legally ambiguous and both having the potential to harm the reputation of the company: from a purely business and practical perspective, the hobbyist clearly presents greater risks than the non-hobbyist candidate.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

BDC already answered that question above in his "the past is past" post.

He did not. Omitting to say (which is what BDC said he would do) and lying (if he were to answer negatively to the question) are two distinct categories.

Perhaps you should let BDC defend his point by himself as he's quite capable. Any doubt on your part?

As I asked travellor76 however, how does this question relate to the issue of whether to hire a hobbyist? BDC gave a clear and reasonable answer. The question you've asked however seems designed to point out that BDC is being hypocritical.

My reaction was off topic. Basically, I was putting his post in the context of the numerous posts he wrote in which he was passing judgment on married men who are resorting to escorts. I'll take this opportunity to remind you that your own reply to a certain beautydigger who was passing that same kind of judgment, was very much in line with mine and just as ironic.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Two socially unacceptable activities, both potentially addictive, both legally ambiguous and both having the potential to harm the reputation of the company: from a purely business and practical perspective, the hobbyist clearly presents greater risks than the non-hobbyist candidate.

Not that clearly. If a given company's staff hiring policies are focused on the candidate's potential ROI, the risk of hiring a hobbyist would normally be mitigated using managerial resources.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

He did not. Omitting to say (which is what BDC said he would do) and lying (if he were to answer negatively to the question) are two distinct categories.

He said:

But I don't plan to tell her that I was (past tense) in the hobby and I have given the hobby up for her. On the other hand I'm sure she has secrets that she will never tell me eather and that's understandable.

"I don't plan to tell her" is unambiguous and incorporates omission and, if necessary, lying. So as I said, his answer was complete and satisfactory.

Perhaps you should let BDC defend his point by himself as he's quite capable. Any doubt on your part?

Doubt? None at all. I was merely quoting BDC from his post above. Besides, you did address your post to "BDC, FHB", right?

My reaction was off topic. Basically, I was putting his post in the context of the numerous posts he wrote in which he was passing judgment on married men who are resorting to escorts. I'll take this opportunity to remind you that your own reply to a certain beautydigger who was passing that same kind of judgment was very much in line with mine and just as ironic.

Ah yes, beautydigger. Those were the good old days. I hear he got a job in Alberta castrating cattle......

But to get back to your post, I find disturbing this idea that a poster has to remain consistent to his entire body of posts. Shouldn't it be enough that a person's opinion in any given post is clear and reasonable? Why can't we just respond to that particular opinion as it was presented? To do otherwise not only risks taking the thread off topic, but also cutting out any readers who are not as thoroughly well versed in the entire body of Merbite literature.

As for my own opinion and any apparent contradictions it might appear to contain, let me say first that I initially adopted it as out of intellectual curiosity. I now find however that it is a much more serious and challenging matter than I expected. Essentially, I am asking whether I see myself as fitting to hold a responsible position. Assuming that I answer in the affirmative, then why do I feel that it might be in my best interest to opt against a fellow hobbyist where the company's financial and business interests are concerned. This is the question I am asking myself and I still haven't arrived at an intellectually satisfying answer.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

He said:
"I don't plan to tell her" is unambiguous and incorporates omission and, if necessary, lying. So as I said, his answer was complete and satisfactory.

Not that it's really important but it is not unambiguous: "I don't plan to tell her", besides being semantically different than "I would lie about it", doesn't imply that he and she would ever engage on the subject. How about letting him answer the question?

Doubt? None at all. I was merely quoting BDC from his post above. Besides, you did address your post to "BDC, FHB", right?

Right, as two different individuals each with his own life experience, not as mutual spokespersons. Not important.

But to get back to your post, I find disturbing this idea that a poster has to remain consistent to his entire body of posts.

Oh don't lose sleep over that one because I did not suggest that.

To do otherwise not only risks taking the thread off topic, but also cutting out any readers who are not as thoroughly well versed in the entire body of Merbite literature.

My reply to BDC was a one-line piece of irony delivered with no follow-up on my part. Hadn't been for the ensuing exegesis I essentially took no part in, the thread would have remained on topic. Again, not important.

I now find however that it is a much more serious and challenging matter than I expected. Essentially, I am asking whether I see myself as fitting to hold a responsible position. Assuming that I answer in the affirmative, then why do I feel that it might be in my best interest to opt against a fellow hobbyist where the company's financial and business interests are concerned. This is the question I am asking myself and I still haven't arrived at an intellectually satisfying answer.

Now I'm interested. I posted something to ponder on minutes ago though it spoke only from the corporation's standpoint. Here, on the other hand, you express concerns from the candidate's perspective, quite different, but let's take it from there and get with the program, if we may.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Not that clearly. If a given company's staff hiring policies are focused on the candidate's potential ROI, the risk of hiring a hobbyist would normally be mitigated using managerial resources.

First, the primary gist of the question was contained in the first part:

If we say that hobbying, as long as it is conducted in a controlled and financially responsible manner, is not a factor to be considered when choosing candidates, then can the same be said regarding the controlled and financially responsible consumption of heroin?

Of course, few companies would fill an executive position with somebody they knew was a heroin-user. But assuming the heroin use did not affect performance, what exactly is the issue? It is foreseeable risk. Why shouldn't the same principle be applied to we hobbyists?

Regarding your point about ROI and the mitigating role of company mechanisms, I agree that such management resources might be able to protect the company to a certain extent. Nevertheless, when six months down the road the individual's marriage fails or he steps up his rate of usage because he has become enamoured by a particular escort, there is a distinct chance that his performance and ROI will suffer. Not only will the company lose income, but it may also have to reinitiate an expensive hiring process. By this time, the non-hobbyist candidate will have already found a position in another organization, so the company will be forced to invite individuals that were further down the list.

What we need to understand here is that the risk I am talking about is an amoral consideration. The company chooses the non-hobbyist candidate not because the hobbyist is a bad person, but simply because he presents a greater possibility of future problems for the company.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

......you express concerns from the candidate's perspective, quite different, but let's take it from there and get with the program, if we may.

All your points above are well taken. Let's move on as you suggest.

You might be disappointed with the post I just made, since it is once again from the corporation's perspective. The post I made is largely in response to your point on ROI and management resources.

But maybe the perspective (the company's or the individual's) is not so important. The key question is why shouldn't the company take a candidate's hobbying into consideration?

Also, I want to two more questions:

First, to those who said that a candidate's hobbying should not be an issue, would you maintain the same opinion if the candidate was primarily using the services of streetwalkers?

Second, since most companies would offer their executives various health-related benefits (insurance, sick leave, etc.), doesn't the additional risk of health-related costs become a consideration when deciding whether to hire the hobbyist? If I'm not mistaken, companies have the right to refuse employment to smokers. How is hobbying different?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Why then should we hobbyist expect different treatment?

Point taken, we should not.

Regarding your point about ROI and the mitigating role of company mechanisms, I agree that such management resources might be able to protect the company to a certain extent. Nevertheless, when six months down the road the individual's marriage fails or he steps up his rate of usage because he has become enamoured by a particular escort, there is a distinct chance that his performance and ROI will suffer. Not only will the company lose income, but it may also have to reinitiate an expensive hiring process. By this time, the non-hobbyist candidate will have already found a position in another organization, so the company will be forced to invite individuals that were further down the list.

Possible scenarios include but are not limited to the one you just described, the diametrically opposite scenario according to which the hobbyist's rate of usage doesn't escalate or decreases, etc., and a multitude of in-between scenarios. In any case, the decision of hiring or not hiring the hobbyist will base itself on the metrics of payback (the cumulative benefit over a time period/risk ratio) or, better yet, "discounted payback" (which takes the time value of the said ratio into account).

Over and above the standard metrics, a manager might make it conditional for the candidate to clean up his act or undergo therapy. Solutions exist.

What we need to understand here is that the risk I am talking about is an amoral consideration. The company choose the non-hobbyist candidate not because the hobbyist is a bad person, but simply because he presents a greater possibility of future problems for the company.

I undersand the point. Again, anticipated problems are usually dealt with according to the payback. When the potential ROI is high enough to take a chance on a candidate at risk, managers usually accommodate and look for ways to mitigate the risk.

p.s. As a manager, I would have more concerns over a candidate suffering from internet addiction than one who resorts to prostitutes (though both addictions are not mutually exclusive)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Corollary question: what if the best candidate is a hobbyist and he happens to be way better than the second best who is not a hobbyist. You're the manager, who do you go for? And how do you decide? (I'm your president and your job is on the line. You make the wrong choice, you're fired!)