- Sep 20, 2009
- 67
- 0
- 6
This would be better if I could put in a link, but the stupid Courier Mail site just comes up with an error message (i read it in the hard copy just now), so look it up in the paper or wait till the link works on their site...
Last week there was a particularly ignorant op-ed piece about sex workers in the Courier Mail by Chuck Brooks. I think the highlight was when he compared the decision to become a sex worker with deciding to become a hitman for the Mmpia. Because they're both illegal - oh wait, sex work isn't - well, they're both immoral. Fucking someone for money is obviously as bad morally as shooting them. There were further amazing items in it, but it depressed me too much last week reading it to make a post at the time.
BUT! A sex worker (using the name 'Melissa' in the paper - it's not Melissa Reviewom AE by the way) responded and her op-ed reply is in the paper today. It's excellent - not much that regular users of this site would be surprised by, but it's great to have it out in the everyday community. The idea that a sex worker can be a normal human being, with a regular family life, be a uni student, not be on drugs, and enjoy their job*, is a surprising one for many people and I would like to thank 'Melissa' for her writing whoever she may be. She mentioned that she advertises on line, so whoever you are, good job :grin:
*this is not to ignore or denigrate those WLs who do not fall into these categories or to assert that non-'regular' families are somehow lesser in status
Last week there was a particularly ignorant op-ed piece about sex workers in the Courier Mail by Chuck Brooks. I think the highlight was when he compared the decision to become a sex worker with deciding to become a hitman for the Mmpia. Because they're both illegal - oh wait, sex work isn't - well, they're both immoral. Fucking someone for money is obviously as bad morally as shooting them. There were further amazing items in it, but it depressed me too much last week reading it to make a post at the time.
BUT! A sex worker (using the name 'Melissa' in the paper - it's not Melissa Reviewom AE by the way) responded and her op-ed reply is in the paper today. It's excellent - not much that regular users of this site would be surprised by, but it's great to have it out in the everyday community. The idea that a sex worker can be a normal human being, with a regular family life, be a uni student, not be on drugs, and enjoy their job*, is a surprising one for many people and I would like to thank 'Melissa' for her writing whoever she may be. She mentioned that she advertises on line, so whoever you are, good job :grin:
*this is not to ignore or denigrate those WLs who do not fall into these categories or to assert that non-'regular' families are somehow lesser in status