Plenty of people insist that prostitution is a "victimless crime". The problem is, it's not.
Okay: you can't point to a dead body, or a person's injuries; there's nothing to fence or replace.
The problem with prostitution is, though, that in most cases there are victims: the women themselves.
After one prostitute missed an appointment and left a "crazy" text message for one of her pimps, the procurer remarks that the girl is on drugs. It seems, the procurer adds, "a lot of these girls deteriorate to this point."Do drugs cause the whoring, or does the whoring cause the drugs? Does it matter?
[snip] Hard to believe these girls would turn to drugs. Having sex with strangers for money, nothing to live for ... just thinking about it makes me want to take drugs.
Prostitution encourages people to treat women like meat, like disposable machines, like anything other than people. Most of the time I've heard prostitution referred to as "victimless", it's been by someone on the left.
I was under the impression that those on the left were interested in realizing the goals of feminism. Prostitution is about as "anti-feminism" as you can get without enacting Sha'ria--so why does it get a pass?
Then again, these are the same people who are defending Spitzer's actions and who defended Bill Clinton's actions. Because they're Democrats.
* * *
Student suspended for buying candy. I guess it's because he bought the candy while in school. I really don't know; that's a guess because the article really doesn't make it clear. The headline subtext says he bought the candy "in school", though. I guess that has to be enough.
This is what passes for journalism these days. Journalism schools (and colleges in general) are too busy indoctrinating students to teach them that a news piece should contain answers for who, what, where, when, why, and how. A news piece should not only answer those questions, but answer them completely, and anywhere you fail to have a complete answer, the reader should know why you don't have a complete answer.
I've been noticing more and more of this lately, though--poorly-written articles by people who are presumably professional journalists.
But you know, WTF. I don't read newspapers all that often anyway, just because they're utterly useless. They don't convey any useful information anymore, just predigested AP and NYT articles which tell only the part of the story that furthers the political ends of the left-leaning editors.
* * *
While reading Kodomo no Omocha (commonly shortened to Kodocha, though I dislike the abbreviation) I discovered that Chisa Yokoyama did Sana's voice in the OVA. I think I have the OVA around here somewhere, though I'm not really sure.
Anyway, I decided to check out the listing on ANN for the TV series, because I was certain she did not do Sana's voice for the TV series. I was right about that, but I also discovered that there are something like 100-odd episodes of KnO out there.
It's not surprising when you consider that it took them 40 episodes to get as far as the end of volume 3 of the comics. But it's still a big series. No wonder Miho Obana can get away with 30 pages per month--she's got mad anime income.
KnO is insane, yet it has plenty of serious moments in it; it's a big-time favorite of mine. The anime has moments where the insanity and humor are running somewhere past the redline, and even when they're going for "ordinary" humor they throw a lot of craziness in whenever they can. The drama is punctuated with it, too.
I had to check the ANN listing to see that Shizue Oda did Sana's voice in the TV series. But I knew it wasn't Chisa Yokoyama in the TV series--Chisa Yokoyama can't speak fast enough to do Sana Kurata correctly. She's really good, but her talents don't lie in that direction, at least as far as I've seen.
It makes me want to dig out the old fansubs and have a gander at 'em.