Mar 15, 2008 19:20
I don't usually comment on politics here, but something related to the recent Spitzer scandal rubbed me the wrong way. In an article about how parents should explain the scandal to their children, there was this quote:
Judy Kuriansky, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University Teachers College, said parents should be ready if children ask what a prostitute is.
"If they ask,' she said, "You say, 'Sadly there are some women who feel that when they have an intimate experience with someone they need to get paid for it. This is something that is not healthy and I don't accept it or condone it.'"
Anyone notice how this prof puts all the blame on the woman, and how she makes generalizations that assume that prostitution is always about a man paying to have sex with a woman (recent high-profile scandals to the contrary)? And how she assumes that no parent would accept or condone prostitution? The moral side must obviously be more relevant than the legal one. And apparently it never crossed her mind that prostitutes might also be capable of intimate experience outside of their profession. It seems to me that Prof. Kuriansky's approach is about as bone-headed as it gets.
Grrr.