By DeeJay Gordon
Oh, Dee Jay! Is this the enlightenment of the '90s? I have met you several times and I have a lot of respect for you, but I must respond to your article. Please don't take it as an insult!
Just to get the technicalities out of the way, I would hope Jarboe was referring to the developer's responsibility for funding the demolition of Rose's and that his "landmark" statement was no more than a political blunder; however, I would never assume to know his intentions. I do agree the profiteer should pay his own way.
And I do vaguely remember seeing the letter from "Sis" under Letters To the Editor, I did wonder where she got some of her information and how accurate it is. I put her conclusions down to small minds and lack of vision. But no more so than you! What ever happened to standards of morality?
What is right and wrong? Certainly most of the gray area in between is difficult to decide, but it is not negotiable. Rationalization doesn't make it right. Let's explore those faulty hypothesis made by raging women you refer to. Firstly, If you think pornography is not related to power, look again. Much of it is related to S&M, either subtly or to extreme. A high exposure to sexuality and/or S&M, as with anything else, is desensitizing. The theory has been tested. I wonder what the effects of the combination of desensitization, pornography and alcohol are on those lascivious men you referred to.
So, you would pose in the buff for $1,000,000? Would you do it for $10,000? How about $5,000? For a million dollars, would you commit adultery? Would you kill someone? Where would you draw the proverbial line? What is TOO wrong? For money, you say you would disregard the feelings of those you love? And what kind of a message would this be to your children? "Well, Honey, for a lot of money, I would....." We teach by action. Still, I suppose your kids would be good swimmers. I assume you don't realize how much money a prostitute makes.
You also seem to be assuming strippers and bunnies are all well adjusted, confident women that rationally made a mature decision to pursue this as a career. I don't claim to know different, but I wonder what percentage would prove victims of exploitation, abuse, misuse, perversion ...not to go into the many facets of corruption. Maybe nobody is holding a gun to her head except herself (or society)
And then you try to compare this district of our society with corporations taking advantage of women for their intelligence? Obviously this was tongue in cheek, but, really! What an unconvincing simile! Your article assumes the stripper's only alternative is McDonalds and that all corporations are run by ruthless men!
Now, here I go. I am about to be a raging women drawing what very well may be faulty hypothesis based on opinion, not evidence or study.
Pornography commercializes, demoralizes and desensitizes sexuality to capitalize on those same powerless little men you referred to, who haven't the imagination to foster a powerful and respectful relationship. And, more important, in the wake of their profits are the average women who wonder why they couldn't live up to the naughty image and still maintain her own self respect and the powerless little men that think the self respect should be second to an image.
I went to see male strippers some years ago. I thought the men were physically beautiful, but their dance lacked any strength or dignity. I didn't find them very manly and I certainly had no interest in talking to them. Still, although I, like you, hoped none of them would get too close, I can't say them made me reminiscent in any way of my children's diapers!
Rationalization is only needed when one is not being honest with one's self, or when one doesn't understand and wants to pretend she does.
By the way, I think your article was well written and although I perhaps take a antiquated stand. Realistically, I do agree with alot of your points, but without Idealism what do we have to aspire to?