You don't see them because men would be fired for sexualizing their sexual organs the way women do.

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.

> I think women use their sexuality too much at work.

When you mention "using sexuality at work," what is your mental model for this?

Is it something other than:

- A woman does something that I perceive as sexual

- She benefits from this because either my peers or myself respond to this favorably

- This connotes an advantage she has over them or myself

- This puts me at a comparative or direct disadvantage compared to her

Let's refocus back on the codpieces, folks, we have a good idea here.