The drug use, and the casual mention of it, disturbed me. I especially liked how the writer said the two featured strippers had used drugs, but it was "a long time ago". These women are so young that nothing in their post-childhood lives happened "a long time ago". Then she (I think the author was a she, but I might be wrong) blithely went on to say that another of the strippers they worked with did so to "support her heroin" use.
And, you know, these women aren't even "strippers" or "exotic" dancers, they're nude dancers, or most likely topless dancers. A much lower skill set than a real stripper or a belly dancer.
That's not an environment I'd want my daughter in, nor are these the type of people I'd want my son "hiring" or associating with in any way. I don't care HOW much money they make.
The breezy, devil-may-care, tone of the article is what really disturbed me. I don't THINK that most colleges have become dens of porn and iniquity, but this article made is sound like it was OK if they have.
The left wishes to legalize prostitution. Some are even arguing for minimum wage laws.
San Francisco has a prostitute's union. Has been operative for a number of years.
This union got organized by a cab driver.
That cab driver was Willie Brown, as legend has it.
He was speaker in CA for 25 years. And then mayor of San Francisco. He was not re-elected (You KNow Who Got the Job) and because he had to make a choice: Support Gay Agenda or Support the Black Agenda. He chose the The Black Agenda.
Asidem stuff. Anyway..
The feminist movement is actually split about the issue of prostitudes, porn and nude dancers. One side rails: Objectification of Women! The other side rails 'Her Choice".
It's a headon, to see which side is more bullish than the other. The Side which will bring in the most money and power politics will win. Therefore, I say, those supporting women debasing themselves will win. It's a money maker for their candidates.