A suburban, PhD prostitute. And the point is...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001143.html



Can someone please explain the point of this article? First, I think prostitution among consenting adults should be decriminalized. Second, I don't understand why the WaPo devoted so much ink to this article. It's not a case study in anything in particular, or news helpful to society somehow -- it's just five pages about this woman that seem, to me, to be about prurient titillation or something, along the lines of reality TV maybe. Am I wrong?

I'd be interested in other people's opinions about this article.

i guess the difference is that this woman made sure the woman were getting paid. i wonder how many housewifes visited this house during the day ?

Perhaps because she does not fit the stereotypical mold of a prostitute. I am with you. It should be decriminalized and regulated. Having said that, I would not want it around my house; all those Johns. It needs to be in a red-light district. However, if the article is presented as more tabloidish, then yes, that is stupid. I'll give it a read.

Have to show how corrupt society is so the fundies go out and vote for shit they know they won't get.

Everybody knows that if we just clean this country up from its sinful ways, God will protect us from the terra-ists. :sarcasm:

who may have been framed by an abusive spouse, who may be a disturbed woman, who may be guilty. There's a lot to sift through. The article questions the ownership of the domain of the website on which Brittany is supposed advertising, and the woman seen on the site may not even be her. She may be victim, she may be a devious, manipulative nutcase. The WaPo has laid out a lot of facts, supposition, and unsubstantiated claims for their audience to chew over tomorrow at the water coolers.

Why is it a story? Because she's got a PhD and supposedly all the advantages, and so turns the convential "wisdom" of why women prostitute themselves on its ear. Finally, it's because newspaper readers love a good scandal.

runaway brides and rough alligators. :eyes:

Here's WaPo's first story, from back in January:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903109.html

This is being recycled for ...... ? To inform? Not likely. To provide for the public good? In what way?

To sell ink arranged as letters arranged in words arranged in prose thats tell no story of merit but allows for the sale of more ink? Likely.

Can you say: prurient value?

when I first read this article.

I think they need something to talk about for the next 3 weeks on the MSM.
It will be the top story Monday on the TV news for weeks
.

I have no idea and it didn't go anywhere.
Maybe it's an advertisement?? :rofl:

snip-->
"Alexis's fees rival those of a K Street lawyer.
An "incall" (at her house) service for "individual clients"
runs $300 per hour, $550 for two hours, $800 for three hours.
Couples pay almost double those rates,
and "two-girl services" cost more than double.

The phone number on the site is Britton's cell.

The domain name is registered to her.

Now there's a new Web site, featuring "Claire." <--snip

Sounds like the author owed her money? A favor? :shrug:
The article is in the 'style' section.

Connect 'em.

/sarcasm

... referred to it as a "Pimping and Ho-ing Degree". Maybe this is the case she meant!

Sheesh.
And yes, for sheer dumbness, I guess it does rank right down there with "reality" tv.

Hekate

but this reeks of yellow journalism. All surface, no substance.

are corrupting our society. That college prof? That person who reads stuff? ....Probably luring your daughters into prostitution as we speak.

(does that sound about right?)

on it. It also doesn't make anyone with power angry at the WP.