Fin Fang Foom Shares An Article About Whores

[phage]

Amusing read and thanks for sharing. I like attitude – even when it’s a bad one – and I couldn’t help but snicker at the “gash for cash” line. And “leaving a trail of Twat Slime up and down a brass pole” evokes a rather vivid mental picture!

 

However, I wouldn’t choose a convicted felon who did two plus years in prison for domestic violence (obviously more than a slap or two) for my hero. It doesn’t invalidate anything he said, but the dude obviously has some issues with women.

[Guest fukamarine]

>Reading this article, it almost sounds like I could have

>written it. This is my favorite part:

 

>He's my hero.

>

>Informatively yours,

>

>FFF

 

How come I'm not surprised that FFF identifies with a guy who has just been released from prison after serving a 2 year sentence for domestic violence. Maybe he is a masochist looking to get thumped???

 

fukamarine

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

http://nypress.com/15/52/news&columns/feature.cfm

 

Reading this article, it almost sounds like I could have written it. This is my favorite part:

 

All the whores responded with the sort of outrage peculiar to those who’ve been hurt by the truth, the oddly familiar shock that comes when the obvious is articulated clearly for the first time. If you aren’t really whores…if we didn’t really hit a nerve…if you weren’t really ashamed deep down of what you were doing…then why are you freaking the fuck out?

 

He's my hero.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

[Donnie]

>Reading this article, it almost sounds like

>I could have written it.

 

And yet, you didn't.

[Justice]

I don't necessarily disagree with what he said, but there's really nothing new here. Much of what he says has aready been said (not in those exact words), by people like Gloria Steinem (sp?) and groups like Women Against Pornography. Unfortunately, this author is not exactly without flaws and/or bias. He admits to spending 2 1/2 years in prison for domestic violence against a woman who used to be a stripper. Yes, I know. He alleges that she was more violent then him. I don't necessarily buy that allegation. He clearly has some serious issues. I can't tell if he's a misogynist or if he just has a problem with women who work in the sex industry.

[guyinsf]

The thing that strikes me most about this article:

 

1. The guy is surely obsessed about something he finds distasteful. I always find it curious when someone seems to know so much about something one allegedly hates.

 

2. His hatred of women comes across loud and clear. (He, in fact, sounds as if he doesn't really like people.) If he truly had the point of view that cash for sex (in all its variations) was just silly, he would speak about his subjects with a more sympathetic and not such a damning eye.

 

3. His attempt to inflate himself by saying he was given a job for his writing skills is particularly funny: He hates the entire porn/sex industry and makes fun of the mostly-advertising papers, yet he is proud that he was given a job because of his writing skills (oh, yeah, and because he had to have a job as an ex-con). He later goes on to say that he basically took over the paper, fired "sex positive" writers and hired others whose writing he admired -- but he doesn't let you forget that he still had to write over half of the paper. I guess he has few literary peers. And again -- why is he working full time for a newspaper whose subject he loathes?

 

4. He clearly has yet to take responsibility for being so violent that he spent a couple of years in prison. He claims that the stripper he physically assaulted was more violent than him. (If she was so violent and he thinks stripping is so wrong, why was he spending time with her?) He later goes on to say that the legal system goes after men in the sex business much more than women, and uses as an example a man who pimped a minor. And, you guessed it, that pimp was much more of a victim than the kid because that kid was so "aggressive," just like the stripper the author beat up. In case we didn't get his point -- that women are really the violent ones -- near the end of the article he cites examples of a couple of articles in the paper: women's murderous fantasies and violent acts with johns are overlooked while a man "telling the truth" about looking into a woman's asshole causes his, and the author's, downfall.

 

5. For a glimpse of the author's ability to think logically (or tell the truth), one interesting example is the paragraph about how the readership of the paper changed because of the "buzz" around town. The readers were no longer the type of people who frequented the paper's sponsors. The sponsors were too stupid to understand what was happening and continued advertising anyway. And the magazine continued to get "countless phone calls" for directions to a strip club -- hmmm, if the readership changed so much, who was making these countless calls?

 

How much longer before this guy is in prison for beating up someone (probably a woman)? And where is his Pulitzer Prize?