"...although all three had been reviewed by an erotic review site." I found myself incredibly bothered by this, and wanted to share why - it feels like the equivalent of victim shaming. Thanks for listening.
"...although all three had been reviewed by an erotic review site." I found myself incredibly bothered by this, and wanted to share why - it feels like the equivalent of victim shaming. Thanks for listening.
I've made other comments here about the horrible way we shame girls and victims of crimes like this. However, here I want to say that I sort of appreciated this clarification because as a professional licensed massage therapist, and I speak for all of us I believe, as a profession, we are always trying to distance ourselves from what are legally called "massage parlors" but are actually places where sex is for sale, because we don't want to attract clients looking for sex. We've all had this happen despite our best efforts. I have nothing against sex work or sex workers if they have chosen the profession freely, and some do. But because of high level of societal shame and illegality around it, they can't call it what it is, so they fly under the radar as massage parlors. So in this case, the reference to "legally operating massage parlors" needed clarification of some sort, and this statement that they had been reviewed by an erotic review site helped clue me in that indeed, these were more likely places where money was exchanged for sex in some form, and tragically, most likely by trafficked or otherwise manipulated women.
That bothered me too. Why was it even newsworthy? It wasn't. It was sufficient to report what the mayor had said about the businesses being legal and not on the radar of law enforcement. Period.
"...although all three had been reviewed by an erotic review site." I found myself incredibly bothered by this, and wanted to share why - it feels like the equivalent of victim shaming. Thanks for listening.
I've made other comments here about the horrible way we shame girls and victims of crimes like this. However, here I want to say that I sort of appreciated this clarification because as a professional licensed massage therapist, and I speak for all of us I believe, as a profession, we are always trying to distance ourselves from what are legally called "massage parlors" but are actually places where sex is for sale, because we don't want to attract clients looking for sex. We've all had this happen despite our best efforts. I have nothing against sex work or sex workers if they have chosen the profession freely, and some do. But because of high level of societal shame and illegality around it, they can't call it what it is, so they fly under the radar as massage parlors. So in this case, the reference to "legally operating massage parlors" needed clarification of some sort, and this statement that they had been reviewed by an erotic review site helped clue me in that indeed, these were more likely places where money was exchanged for sex in some form, and tragically, most likely by trafficked or otherwise manipulated women.
That is exactly what they were alluding to and it is demeaning and disgusting!
I agree.
I get what you mean LisaтАФerotic review siteтАФ as if the erotic nature of the work naturally led to their demise.
Agree.
That bothered me too. Why was it even newsworthy? It wasn't. It was sufficient to report what the mayor had said about the businesses being legal and not on the radar of law enforcement. Period.