It’s lovely how the story changes, isn’t it?

Whittingdale’s supposed great shame was that he’d dated a woman who was a sex worker. He hadn’t known, and he’d chucked her the moment he found out. Maybe he broke up with her because she had misrepresented herself to him. That’s fair enough. But the idea seems to be that it was simply because she was a sex worker. Which would certainly explain why she didn’t tell him.

One moment all whores are sex slaves cowering beneath those who have trafficked them. Next they’re delightfully independent women who should be able to go out on a date without anyone thinking anything of it.

Consistency? That’s just for the little people, not The Guardian.

9 thoughts on “It’s lovely how the story changes, isn’t it?”

  1. That’s fabulously muddle headed story at the end of that link. I’ve read it three times and I’m still none the wiser.

    She hates the sex industry, waits in judgement on those who work in it (it seems the reasons for being a pro determines whether they are a good or a bad hooker), and despises whasisface for ending a private relationship with a strumpet, whilst defending (some?) Women’s rights do do with their bodies as they please.

    She’s either grubbing round for stuff to sling at Whittingdale, or she’s genuinely confused

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    They are just shameless and vicious people. As Anna Raccoon says, whatever the Tory may or may not have done to deserve this, the hooker has done nothing. Much.

    She is still being dragged through the mud.

    If they were not so self-righteous they might see what vile little petty people they are.

  3. “She’s either grubbing round for stuff to sling at Whittingdale, or she’s genuinely confused”

    I fear it’s both JS.

  4. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Yet another example, if one were needed, of the Guardian’s rank hypocrisy. If ‘whorephobia has gone mainstream’ it’s because most of their writers despise sex workers for providing pleasure to men.

    Along with women who choose the burqua and women who choose to abort based on foetal gender, sex-workers are effectively non-women according to mainstream feminists. It is literally unthinkable for them that a woman would choose to do these things of her own free will. Therefore she must be being coerced or manipulated into doing them. By a man obviously. As such, her tainted opinions are worthless, and her perspective can be ignored.

    Next week, they’ll be back banging on about the ‘Nordic model’ and the women who believe that this would make their working conditions worse will be conspicuous by their absence.

  5. The ‘Nordic model’ ….

    which I still don’t quite understand: you can sell something but it’s illegal to buy it (and the thing you’re not allowed to buy is itself legal). Was selling sex illegal in Nordic countries? If selling it were originally illegal, but it was legal to buy, I suppose I can see the argument for switching liability. Are there other things where illegality of trade is one-sided? Currently in Britain it’s legal either way (subject to some constraints).

  6. I left a comment pointing out that it was a bit odd and inconsistent the way the article calls the sex industry “vile” one moment, then bemoans the “taboo around sex work” the next.

    I also pointed out how some of the claims pushed by feminist organisations featured in the Guardian, such as statistics presenting all prostitutes as junkies and damaged victims, or the idea that legal prostitution increases rape, don’t exactly help to reduce stigma against women like her.

    Of course my comment got deleted – didn’t comply with community standards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *