An Open Letter To Suzy Favor Hamilton

Just a few words wrote:

And yet another who does not seem able to speak only for him/herself.

How do you know what most "of us" would or would not do?

Good point. I was responding in such a way because of the countless number of posts saying that almost all of us would pay to have sex with Suzy if we had the chance, which is clearly not true. I do know that the people I associate with would not do this, but you are correct that I can't speak for everyone, just as those saying we would all do it if we could, shouldn't be saying it.

I like the open letter but if Suzy wanted to be a true revolutionary she ought to go and join the IWW and start organizing her cohorts into a sex workers union.

I do write this from a religious/morality point of view. However, there are consequences when people like SFH cannot control their impulses. One cannot avoid causing pain to one's spouse and child(ren) when one abandons them no matter how one parses it. The posters (I suspect they are very young people who do not know any better.) who espouse just do what you want are puerile and immature especially when they make statements about sexual repression etc.

No body is perfect and perhaps if she did not have a legacy to protect, lots of people who looked up to her, if she was in need of money and didn't have daughter and a husband...perhaps them I could understand. Under the current situation, she made a mistake, a big mistake and should suffer the consequences for the hurt, shame and disappoint she has become to the running community, her family and to herself.

...I really can't see this any other way

so many smart people!

Hmm, seem to have struck a nerve there.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

We have such a clear double standard in this country. If this had been Michael Johnson selling his body with his wife's knowledge, there wouldn't be a whole lot of disgust.

More often than not, those who loudly condemn others for their sexual impurity have something bigger to hide themselves.

I think in sexual matters, humility is a better approach.

Prostitution is a system under the auspices of which rape is legitimized by introducing the element of monetary compensation as a mitigating factor. The word “rape” rankles those with a heavy investment in the status quo. Likewise it rankles the prostituted ladies because they are "sex professionals", not victims.

The men who use prositutes treat these women as toilets. By this, I’m describing the institutionalized, enpornulated male contempt of the sex class. It applies to the unknowable legions of women and girls who have been coerced into the life of prostitution by thugs and drugs and who remain abused and marginalized by misogynist cultural mores and antediluvian jurisprudence. It applies to all exploited women and girls for whom the bitter, grinding reality of misogyny as a human rights crisis cannot be glossed over with fantasies about women’s empowerment and delusions about agency and choice.

The patriarchal set-up has it fixed so that the practice of commodifying women’s bodies necessarily creates a rich and fetid growth medium for violence and exploitation. The persistent condition of women as an underclass of rape-receptacles relies on this concept of body-commodification. Abuses are not limited to prostituted women, but extend to the entirety of the sex class.

Unless patriarchy is smashed, prostituted women will always be oppressed, because all women will always be oppressed.

dmb wrote:

THIS.

SFH is a deeply screwed up individual who seems to be unable to handle not being in the spotlight. Remember Sydney? She had to flop down on the track the minute she knew that she wouldn't win.

That's why she's screwed up, not because she has a sexual appetite. She humiliated her husband and someday her daughter is going to be mortified by all this? For what? Some sense of adventure and being wanted? That's selfish as hell and speaks to extreme narcissism.

If she and her husband can work out swinging, then it's none of my business. But the fact that she was outed because she couldn't keep her mouth shut around her johns is pathetic. She needed attention so bad that she out her family in jeopardy.

Thank you. Very well said.

Yes, if Galen Rupp were exposed as a male prostitute, there would hardly be a mention on these boards. Of course, the few posts made would all be positive and supportive in nature.By the way, your pet gerbil called... it wants its brain back.

Face It! wrote:

We have such a clear double standard in this country. If this had been Michael Johnson selling his body with his wife's knowledge, there wouldn't be a whole lot of disgust.

Yes Suzy. How much for ATM?

Face It! wrote:

Hmm, seem to have struck a nerve there.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

We have such a clear double standard in this country. If this had been Michael Johnson selling his body with his wife's knowledge, there wouldn't be a whole lot of disgust.

More often than not, those who loudly condemn others for their sexual impurity have something bigger to hide themselves.

I think in sexual matters, humility is a better approach.

Oh, such a cute phrase.

What the hell are you talking about? If you want to respond to one of my posts you might want to include it so I have some idea what the hell you are talking about.

But, hey, cute phrase anyway. Did you make that one up all by yourself?

when it comes to rape, women are currently considered to exist in a state of perpetual “yes!”. This is because “yes!” is consistent with global accords governing fair use of women. Victims of robbery or attempted murder don’t have to prove that they said no to being robbed or murdered; the presumption is that not even women would consent to being killed. But because penetration by males is what women are for, if we are raped we have to prove not just that we didn’t say yes, which is impossible to prove, but that we specifically and emphatically said no, which is also impossible to prove.

There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the “I said no” argument in court. Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don’t dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to “no,” women who didn’t fight back hard enough, women who didn’t tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a “reputation,” and prostituted women.

Prostituted women are indistinguishable from sex itself. This is true to varying degrees of all women, but prostituted women particularly are imagined to manifest so cavalier an attitude toward being used at any and all times by any and all comers that it is considered impossible to rape them. Prostituted women can never say no to sex because they are sex.

au contraire wrote:

Sex between consenting unmarried adults is a private matter. When you add in marriage (not just SFH's, but the men she was frolicking with), lots of cash, potential violation of the laws (including tax laws).....

I'd say that you've completely missed the point.

Couldn't have said it better.

You posted this ^ clap elsewhere and now again here. What in the world are you trying to say?

Gayloord foocker wrote:

Long time married male here, much longer than mssr. contraire here, and have remained faithful as well. Not at all condoning what SFH did. She needs help. However, the moralizers here make me sick. F-them!

Gayloord,

I'm glad you have been faithful to your long-time wife.

But do you still not get it - that you, too, have moralized here? You've been saying, effectively, that it is immoral to moralize. Now do you get the internal inconsistency of your argument? You, further, have expressed a seething anger, moreso perhaps than anyone else in this thread.

Irony detector wrote:

Gayloord foocker wrote:

Long time married male here, much longer than mssr. contraire here, and have remained faithful as well. Not at all condoning what SFH did. She needs help. However, the moralizers here make me sick. F-them!

Gayloord,

I'm glad you have been faithful to your long-time wife.

But do you still not get it - that you, too, have moralized here? You've been saying, effectively, that it is immoral to moralize. Now do you get the internal inconsistency of your argument? You, further, have expressed a seething anger, moreso perhaps than anyone else in this thread.

And once again that brilliant argument pops up that one cannot judge someone to be judgmental, prejudiced, moralizing...because that act is then being judgmental, prejudiced, moralizing...

Please grow up and recognize that such childish word games are devoid os substance.

Thank you.

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by someone who is not quite as idiotic as you.

It really depends on which world view you hold.

If you hold an atheistic world view there is absolutely nothing

wrong with what SFH did. Under this world view moral values

are relativistic, and one can not clearly define good or bad, for

there is no reference point. Without god you can not define morals

because what might seem right to one person, might seem wrong

to another.

An extreme example would be Adam Lanza, under

an atheists world view nothing he did was wrong, because

there is no standard to judge right and wrong.

However if you hold a theistic world view such as christianity,

(which by the way there are quite intelligent reasons to believe

this world view, but this is subject to another debate.)

Then there is every reason to believe what she did was wrong

for now she has broke a well defined moral standard.

So it all depends on how you look at it. Personally I think she

is a horrible person for cheating on her husband, thus damaging

her child in the process. Just as horrible as any man who has

cheated on his wife.

Math is fun wrote:

It really depends on which world view you hold.

If you hold an atheistic world view there is absolutely nothing

wrong with what SFH did. Under this world view moral values

are relativistic, and one can not clearly define good or bad, for

there is no reference point. Without god you can not define morals

because what might seem right to one person, might seem wrong

to another.

Stop spreading your ignorance and learn about secular morality.

Femininity, the practice of femininity, and the fetishization of femininity degrades all women. That femininity is not a “choice” when the alternative is derision, ridicule, workplace sanctions, or ostracization. That femininity is a set of degrading behaviors that communicates one’s level of commitment to male authority and women’s oppression. That femininity is coerced appeasement, regardless of how successfully it is now marketed to young women as feminism.

Dove sells butt cream by telling an increasingly funfeminist audience what they want to hear. Dove knows that beauty standards are impossible, Dove is the first to admit that models are all fotoshopped, Dove agrees that being super-thin isn’t good for you. So, for you “real” ladies out there, Dove piously continues to take a stand against all this phony beauty nonsense, by gum. Beauty is now healthy and clinically therapeutic and desirable and attainable (through Dove products) by regular women.

This confidential-yet-authoritative “we’re on your side” tone is so transparently calculated to erode consumers’ defenses against the actual message, it makes me want to pull my own head off. This actual message, which has remained unchanged since the dawn of time, is the same for all purveyors of femininity swag:

“Beauty is your sacred duty.”

No matter how the beauty industrial complex defines it, as a member of the sex class you are obligated to concern yourself inordinately with the pursuit of it. Of course, by universal decree, you’ll always be a day late and a jar of carcinogenic, ecotoxic butt cream short.