It is a remarkable fact that a great many people in this country are not in the least bit interested if the pronouncements of the print or broadcast media are true or not; even that which is not stated is seen as an affirmation of what one chooses not to believe (Hillary Clinton’s career of crime, for example). When the puffed-up phonies in the media are not pretending that their opinions actually add more “clarity” on world events than your typical beer-guzzling beer couch bum’s, they are disseminating either false or misleading information—or no information at all (Hillary Clinton’s serial lying, for example). One suspects that only public figures concerned about bad publicity, and those people with political or social agendas who like to read about themselves embarrassing public figures or disseminating misleading information as “fact,” actually concern themselves if the mainstream media reports “accurately.”
I suppose that The Seattle Weekly passes for “mainstream” media these days, so it is as guilty as anyone. Take for instance this past week that anorexic rag went off the deep end of illogic and hypocrisy in its opening editorial. After allegedly speaking to local sex workers, they discovered that for most part they were not being “forced” into the “business,” but did it either as a “fun” job, or “persuaded” themselves into it out of economic “necessity.” OK. So this justifies decriminalizing the sex trade, but the way it should be “implemented” is typical gender politics run amok: prostitutes should remain “victims” who should not be allowed to account for themselves, but “johns” should remain criminalized.
One might fairly ask why if it is “shocking” that the “pushers” may be targeted by law enforcement, by what logic should “users” be dealt with much more harshly; because the “pushers” are actually “vulnerable” and “victims”? If this were a drug trade instead of sex trade, most people would find this kind of argument appalling. The truth of the matter is that it is the “johns” who are the most “vulnerable” in this equation, because it is their “weaknesses” are not only being taken advantage of by those plying the “world’s oldest profession” for money (regardless of the excuses “victim” advocates give the “pushers”), but are taken advantage of by the law enforcement for public relations purposes—meaning satisfying the credibility-challenged moral paladins of “advocacy” journalism.
Why would anyone hypocritically suggest that we “decriminalize” sex workers—redefining them as “victims” of society—but keeping being a “john” a criminal act? Because then women wouldn’t be “victims” any more if their trade itself remained “legal”—they’d merely be who they actually are: “businesspersons” offering their “services” for money. Furthermore, prostitutes don’t deserve “sympathy” any more than law-abiding people who don’t have that “option” to make a living; anyone can walk into a temp agency office and walk out with “legal” work within a week, if not the next day, especially women.
The mendacity of the “victim” industry and mythmaking is at times beyond reason, and it will continue as long as the “message” is controlled by self-serving egotists in the media.