Just from the photo:

These are the richass wives of NYC. You got them, and the really poor. Everyone inbetween has been forced out.

So, what does this say to you?

...they are afraid of actual, existing conflict. Who on earth would like to watch these boring housewives or horny thirtysomethings?

Almost as an afterthought, ABC News tossed off a two-hour report on 20/20 that was far more fascinating than either of the above mentioned shows. They'd been sitting on it for two years, and only decided to run it because of the recent political scandals. Rather than fantasize about prostitutes, the program showed what they actually look like, how they live, and they came damn near close to showing how they die.

Not surprisingly, it wasn't sexy. Most of the women didn't have people to do their makeup or hair, like reality show subjects. They didn't even have people to restore the teeth their pimps had knocked out. One of them had filled her bathtub with excrement, since she lived in abandoned housing and had no power or utilities. There were even touches of heartbreaking humanity, like the street hooker showing up for free medical care from a bus, who was encouraged to sing a brief refrain from Phantom of the Opera. She once had dreams of being a singer, before she became a repository for the disgusting fantasies of worthless men.

It was very affecting, which I admit might have been personal for me. Moment of genuine self-disclosure, instead of the Havrilesky kind; when I discovered my older brother patronized prostitutes, I broke off relations with him and his family as much as possible. I knew he was a thief, liar and cheat, but this "victimless crime" made him a supporter of human slavery, which was unforgiveable. His funeral was three weeks ago. I didn't go. I might never go to see his grave.

Before anyone claims that I'm hijacking this thread, consider this point. The article's "reality" shows are actually about dodging reality. ABC's prostitution show, or an hour or two examining the destroyed lives of New Orleans, would be examples of genuine reality. It's a moot question as to whether people would actually watch real reality instead of Faux reality, since the megacorporations are determined to remove that choice from us.

tomreedtoon:

"There were even touches of heartbreaking humanity, like the street hooker showing up for free medical care from a bus, who was encouraged to sing a brief refrain from Phantom of the Opera. She once had dreams of being a singer, before she became a repository for the disgusting fantasies of worthless men."

I'm not surprised that tomreedtoon would generalize about an entire cross-section of people (men who have sex with prostitutes, in this instance) without offering anything to back it up. I am somewhat surprised, however, by this:

"Moment of genuine self-disclosure, instead of the

Havrilesky kind; when I discovered my older brother patronized prostitutes, I broke off relations with him and his family as much as possible. I knew he was a thief, liar and cheat, but this "victimless crime" made him a supporter of human slavery, which was unforgiveable. His funeral was three weeks ago. I didn't go. I might never go to see his grave."

I cannot imagine how tomreedtoon's brother could've become so obviously troubled (and, might I conjecture, lonely?) with a figure of such empathy and familial support at his side. A chicken-or-egg question of sorts: was tomreedtoon's brother "worthless", as he seems to describe virtually all johns who visit prostitutes, BECAUSE he solicited sex from hookers, or did he seek out prostitutes because he had ALREADY been made to feel worthless?

...first off, anyone who uses a prostitute is encouraging slavery of women. If you had seen the ABC show even you might have come to understand that. Even the "voluntary" and "high-end" prostitutes showed desensitization and emotional scarring that was depressing.

Any man can achieve physical satisfaction with one working hand and a can of Crisco. If he needs to go to another human being for that, he's seeking to affect that other human in some way. In the case of prostitution, he wishes to change a sentient being into a piece of Howard Stern's Kleenex; something to wipe away the mess and be thrown away.

And as far as my older brother, as I kind of suggested, he was already a scumbag. Want more specifics? Okay. I could barely tolerate his presence when I learned of his robbery of my mother's house as she was out arranging my father's funeral. That was basic theft; who steals my purse steals trash, and all that. But he supported the turning of a woman into a slave, and paid money to her slaveowner. That crossed a line for me.

I'm guessing you're a modern, young man for whom lines don't exist; no difference between kicking a can or a child. Good for you. I'll keep my boundaries, thank you.

HD nature scenes with no people, words, music, story,commercials or anything. The first time I saw it I kept waiting for something to happen. Nothing happens. It's just you, your cup of coffee and your inner zen. Some people get that from dogs, I suppose.

Tomreedtoon's response was considered and substantial- more so than his first comment, which is all I would ask for. At least, it was until the final lines:

"I'm guessing you're a modern, young man for whom lines don't exist; no difference between kicking a can or a child. Good for you. I'll keep my boundaries, thank you."

Exactly the kind of rhetorical sucker punch I've come to expect. I'm no supporter of prostitution, and never claimed to be in my previous post. However, the fact that I called on tomreedtoon to explain his argument in more depth, as he routinely does with Havrilesky, somehow marks me as scum. Absurd.

Before anyone claims that I'm hijacking this thread, consider this point. The article's "reality" shows are actually about dodging reality.

Um...that's kind of the point of the article, dude.