Slog Comments


Comments (29) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 1

She discovered late in life her true skill was with the javelin.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http:// on December 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
a pole vault joke would have been much better
Posted by Revcom on December 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
theophrastus 3
this won't go over well, but i got to ask: what positive aspects of the Olympics remain? (extra-credit: and were they ever positive? "naked young men wrestling?... hell yes!")
Posted by theophrastus on December 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM · Report this
She could have wanted to do it but now has changed her mind, I did read she wanted out before she was caught. Not everyone is shamed by our " puritanical culture" Dan it could be some people felt this was a mistake. Look if people want to be hookers I could care less but lets not assume everybody who says they feel bad about it is lying about that.
Posted by Seattle14 on December 21, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
The story at The Smoking Gun was purely exploitative. Its goal was to increase readership, and give judgemental people someone to look down on. In the process, this woman's life, and her child's life were made miserable. Yet, nobody wants to get involved in child sex slavery, or working to help those kids. People can be such douchebags.
Posted by SeattleKim on December 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Hernandez 6
@4 That may be so, but it's hard to tell in a culture where women are still supposed to react with shame and regret whenever anything that makes them look sex-positive comes to light in the media.
Posted by Hernandez on December 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
fannerz 7
Hobbyist? Really? That is hilarious. Also, TYT are spot on. But, really? Hobbyists? Hahahaha.
Posted by fannerz on December 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM · Report this
@7 In fact, "hobbyist" is a term used all over the Internet for those who frequent sex workers.
Posted by Tyler Pierce on December 21, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
Simone 9
It's been awhile since I watched The Young Turks. I'll have to start watching again.
Posted by Simone on December 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 10
Hmmm 44 years old and still able to sell her talents. See kids, staying in great shape is worth the effort.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on December 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 11
I read this yesterday and had the same reaction; I don't buy the regret either.

It seems to me that a very driven and successful person got bored, and found a way to have some excitement that appears to have been both enjoyable and lucrative for her.

It's a real shame that she (probably) feels compelled to do the public contrition thing. Though it has to be said, it would appear she is largely to blame for outing herself (by telling some of her clients who she really was.)
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on December 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
eclexia 12
If I could sell myself for $600/hr and have complete control over what types I sold to... Hell yes, I would.
Posted by eclexia on December 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM · Report this
@3 - To tie this in to the main theme of the past week, Andy Murray?
Posted by vennominon on December 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
lolorhone 14
Whether she regrets it or not is irrelevant. As long as her husband was aware and her child was not involved in it, it's nobody's goddamn business- including executives at Disney.
Posted by lolorhone on December 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM · Report this
Gerald Fnord 16
It's quite possible that now that she's suffering (unjustly, in my arrogant-but-insignificant opinion, but decidedly so) from getting caught, that could in its turn empower those aspects of her personality that also had their doubts about the rightness of her conduct. It's one of the ways tribal morality works: leaders are never or rarely shamed, so they do as they will without regret, while those below are caught and feel shame as part of their punishment.

I'd also put my money on 'Husband knew and just barely gritted-toothedly tolerated it because he felt he couldn't do any better,' as seems to be the case in a lot of nerd polyamory---there is something between 'desired or accepted' and 'arbitrarily imposed', just as most of us live in an employment universe somewhere between 'truly voluntary' and 'slavery'.
Posted by Gerald Fnord on December 22, 2012 at 5:34 AM · Report this
I disagree about all this. The problem with the war on drugs is that it results in years of jail time disproportionately distributed to members of the black community (many of whom lose their right to vote because of felony charges). That's not an issue with prostitution. Sentences are short and convictions are (relatively) rare.

It's not puritanical to say that a person who accepts money in exchange for sex is doing something terrible. It's not like stoning a girl to death for making out in the back seat. You want to know what's undermining the role of marriage in our society? It's not gay marriage. It's stupid stuff like this.
Posted by DRF on December 22, 2012 at 8:18 AM · Report this
DRF, why is exchanging money for sex terrible? Also, I notice that your scorn seems to land on the person accepting the money, not the one paying it. Odd.
Posted by clashfan on December 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM · Report this
tedb310 19
I can't believe no one has commented on the subtitles. I think they were computer generated from a bad voice recognition program, they are comically inaccurate.

Also, Favor Hamilton? That sounds like a fake name a sex worker would make up.
Posted by tedb310 on December 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
personally, I see no reason why this is "news". Can't believe someone dug in to it and published it.
Posted by abrock_ca on December 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM · Report this
"It's not puritanical to say that a person who accepts money in exchange for sex is doing something terrible."

Uh, yes it is. What is terrible about it? Who is getting hurt? (Your delicate sensibilities don't count.) People get married for money all the time, how is that any different?
Posted by Chase on December 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM · Report this
@17 - If it is undermining to marriage then perhaps married people shouldn't do it?

As for disproportionate punishment... That would be the girls who get arrested and their hobbyist clients who don't - when it was illegal for both parties.

This needs to be legal, period. The Young Turks have hit the nail on the head once again.
Posted by subwlf on December 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM · Report this
@18 Ah yes, thank you for reminding me. The person accepting the money was the object of the video above. That may be why I forgot to say that if it is illegal to sell sex then it should also be illegal to buy it. Punishing the prostitutes' customers would probably be a far more effective way of cutting down prostitution than putting prostitutes in jail is.

Prostitution is bad because in addition to being exploitative to the prostitutes the gross majority of the time, it cheapens and trivializes something that should be considered, if not sacred, then at least deeply personal. Even the self-professed promiscuous (their words) individuals with whom I've spoken on other threads talked about choosing their partners with great care.

@21 Puritanical, adjective, excessively strict in moral or religious matters. Saying that anyone who has premarital sex for any reason is a slut and no good is puritanical. Saying that a prostitute is a prostitute is not excessive.

The difference between prostitution and marrying for money is that a person who marries for money is making a long-term promise to be loyal to his or her spouse. People can't decide to fall in love with someone, but they can decide to be loyal.

Have you guys listened to what you're saying? Sexual freedom is one thing, but this is an actual prostitute! People toss the word "whore" around as an insult for people who sleep with boyfriends and girlfriends, for spouses who perform non-missionary sex acts for each other, but this woman is a real one! Have you heard the expression "Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out"?
Posted by DRF on December 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
Come on guys, lighten up! How is it puritanical to dictate when consenting adults can and cannot have sex, and then punish people with criminal charges because you personally disapprove of their sexual choices?

Someone's brains have clearly fallen out...
Posted by DrVanNostrand on December 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
This isn't about dictating when consenting adults can and cannot have sex. It's about whether we should be so willing to accept actual prostitution as something that isn't immoral. Calling someone who isn't selling sexual services a prostitute is puritanical. Calling someone who is selling sex a prostitute is just speaking English.

Look at it this way, when the Obama administration required that all employers offer access to birth control, the Catholic Church objected, claiming that it violated their religious freedom. The response, "Employees who work in churches and other specifically religious positions are exempted, but if the Church wishes to venture out into the business world, then it must play by the same rules as everyone else." Whether it's hospitals or sexual services, turning it into a business makes it a public matter.
Posted by DRF on December 24, 2012 at 7:13 AM · Report this
"This strange neo-Victorian desire to save prostitutes and porn actresses"…

Posted by seeker6079 on December 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
You're being seriously dense here. No one has called you puritanical for calling a prostitute a prostitute, and no one has disputed the definition of prostitute. You're being called puritanical because you are explicitly advocating the criminal prosecution of consenting adults for having sex in a way you don't approve of. So, yes, that is dictating when people can and cannot have sex. Rigidly enforcing your personal beliefs about sex onto everyone else is puritanical.

Your Obamacare analogy is barely coherent, but prostitution businesses would be covered by all applicable employment regulations, which is one of the reasons why a legal and regulated market would be better than the status quo.

A better analogy would be me criminalizing Catholocism because I personally disapprove of the Catholic church. I don't have the right to do that any more than I have the right to dictate when consenting adults have sex.
Posted by DrVanNostrand on December 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM · Report this
Ophian 29
@DRF, Hahahahahaha.

Oh, you were being serious?
Posted by Ophian on December 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM · Report this
@28 I am not saying that it's bad for people to have sex in private ways that I don't approve of. I'm saying that charging money for sex should not be legalized. If she wants her sex life to be none of my or society's business, then she has to refrain from turning it into a business.

Your Catholicism analogy would only hold up if, instead of criminalizing being Catholic or performing Catholic religious ceremonies, you made it illegal for the Catholic Church to charge for religious ceremonies. "You can still do whatever you want in your own building behind your own doors, but you can't charge money for it or make a business out of it." If you'll notice, no one collects tickets when people walk into church. This woman can do whatever she wants with whoever she wants. I'm not saying that sex acts should be illegal; I'm saying she doesn't get to charge for it. I support sexual freedom, but prostitution isn't sexual freedom. The introduction of money into the equation invites coercion. That's why we don't let people sell their kidneys.

I have it hard to believe that you think it's puritanical to call someone a whore when she is literally charging money for sex. It's puritanical to call someone who's not doing that a whore.
Posted by DRF on December 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM · Report this
Ophian 31
It is not puritanical to call a whore a whore. It is puritanical to say that whoring should be illegal.

Because, seriously, why is it your business? If a meet a guy and I want to suck his cock, and he wants to give me $100 to suck his cock, and I want $ what point do your values and moral framework get the honor of being invited to the party? When does that happen?

You don't get to claim that you support sexual freedom if you say shit like: "[sex work] cheapens and trivializes something that should be considered, if not sacred, then at least deeply personal."

You just tossed out what YOU think sex is about/for as a guiding principle for all.

Fucking puritan.
Posted by Ophian on December 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.