… despite the fact that the story is framed, predictably, in terms of the hoary [pun intended] old Scarlet Letter morality play. Thus, the article really can't be taken as seriously as it might presume to be worthy of.
At bottom, The Times continues to display its hierarchy of preferences regarding alternate lifestyles and presumably unlawful behavior. Again, not that this should be surprising to anyone.
For all the physical and emotional relief, peace of mind —at a price, let's not forget— and, among other things, preservation of sexually unfulfilling marriages that these pay-per-play arrangements provide, prostitution will never be equated with civil rights, and there will never be a cry for bringing call-girls, et al., "out of the shadows."
In between the lines and amidst the display of politically correct thinking on the subject, however, the reader will find some nuggets of real, pertinent information. Thanks to those posters who have brought the piece to everyone's attention.
