Point taken. That was primarily a speculative point on my part. I am willing to accept the notion that for many sex abuse victims - perhaps even for most - sex work may not be a healthy step. However, I don't believe that there is any one-size-fits-all solution to the problems that plague sex abuse victims. As I have repeatedly stated in several of my recent posts on this thread, everyone must find their own way through their own travails, and I am not willing to entirely rule out the possibility that sex work can be a positive thing for some sex abuse victims.

I tend to think that what sex abuse victims really gravitate toward is not sex work per se, but sexual promiscuity. My thought was that, by giving some structure to sexual activity, and imposing on it a power dynamic that favors the seller and not the buyer, legal sex work could possibly set some boundaries and parameters, and channel that otherwise reckless promiscuity into a safe space.

At any rate, I think for a lot of sex abuse victims, sex work is a matter of fate. The tendency toward sexual promiscuity that drives them into that line of work is present in them whether they like it or not, and will be there until they face that demon. That is not the fault of the brothel, club, or escort service that employs them, nor is it the fault of the customer who pays them - who, as I have previously stated, may be being driven by their own unconscious demons.

I was aware, after I posted it, that the post you referenced and critiqued was a little half baked. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to flesh out my thoughts a little more here. I am also aware that this post may be a little half baked as well, so if you have any further criticism of my thoughts here, please don't hesitate to enlighten me.

Whether or not they were trying to be euphemistic about it, sadness is the feeling that the image of the stitched rose evoked in me.

I would also like to say that I, too, really like the new video features Salon is adding. Its nice to be able to put a real face and voice to the people I've been reading, and occasionally arguing with.

...don't deal with abortion is because the are not about abortion. They are about pregnancy. It is unfair for you to expect your political agenda to be addressed every time this subject is discussed. Feminists don't own the topic.

Rather than yet another round of discussion about why only one of the three pregnancy movies this year addressed abortion to your satisfaction, a more interesting subject to examine would be why Hollywood is suddenly so interested in making movies about pregnancy. Is it some kind of an agenda to idealize motherhood? Are they reflecting a societal urge in that regard? Could it be reflecting a generalized resentment in society, or at least in Hollywood, at the responsibilities required to avoid pregnancy, and a subverted - and sometimes not so subverted - desire to simply leap into the moment, come what may (as many celebrities, at the moment, appear to be doing)? These are the kinds of questions you should be asking about this phenomenon.

Health care is the issue that swung me away from Hillary - and Edwards - and positioned me in the Obama column. Simply forcing people to buy insurance whether they want it, need it, or can afford it, is an intrusive, ham-fisted, and unfair approach to the problem. It also does little to address the underlying causes of healthcare cost inflation - it just forces everyone to pay the inflated costs anyway.

I disagree with you that health care was a weakness for Obama. For my support, it was his critical asset.

I, for one, don't believe in anonymous posting. I don't even believe in pseudonymous posting. Words have consequences, and I take full credit and responsibility for mine.

If the national party proposes such a solution, and the state party leaders in these two states continue to refuse, then the national party should hold firm and refuse to seat these delegations, and the blame for that situation should rest squarely on the state party leaders who put us in this situation in the first place. They would be the ones disenfranchising their voters in this situation, not the national officials.

Contrary to Ethics Professor's sentiments above, I do not want to see you begin policing your letters for proper politeness any more than you already are. I agree that people should not be allowed to post anonymously - I would even say they shouldn't be posting pseudonymously - because words have consequences. However, requiring a regular Salon moniker is all that is needed to address that. Now that you have done that, everyone who posts here is responsible for what words they put out, and no further content policing is necessary. Please treat us like adults here.

And remember, dear readers, should you be offended by anything you see here: they are only words. Grow up and deal with it. Or, better yet, speak up for yourself, on your own behalf.

...is not that the candidates didn't campaign in the state, but rather that the people of Florida were told, and had reason to expect, that the Primary held in January would not count. It is likely that many people, based on that assumption, stayed home, when they otherwise would have voted. These are the people who have been disenfranchised, and this is why a re-vote there is justified.

...for giving words to exactly what I was thinking, and wishing that someone would publicly say.

"Salon.com: Telling it like it is since 1995." In this instance, at least, the ad rings true.