Two articles in the Washington Post regarding Gov. Spitzer's crime of hiring a prostitute give me cause for concern.
One writer refers repeatedly to the prostitute as a "hooker". There is no equivalent term for male clients that carries the same negative connotation as "hooker" or any of the other negative terms for prostitutes.
Secondly, this is not "personal", as the writer claims. The man broke the law -- he paid money for the "right" to possess another woman's body. For this author -- and many other authors, particularly male writers -- to dismiss it as "personal" negates the seriousness of this crime. I'm curious if these male writers would also be so dismissive if Gov. Spitzer were found with a bag of cocaine? Is the possession of drugs more serious than the possession of another human being?
Most of the articles on this scandal subtly -- or not so subtly -- cast dispersions on the prostitutes while protecting the men who hire them. Using words like "hooker" as well as "call girl" -- even in the title of the article itself -- while referring to the men as "clients" or "johns" is one example. Another is focusing all the attention on the very small percentage of high-end prostitutes, giving them impression that a life of prostitution is a life of luxury, when the reality for the vast number of prostitutes is anything but luxurious. Most prostitutes have been sexually abused and are victims of violence at the hands of their male clients or pimps. Many suffer from drug abuse and sexual disease. So if male journalists are going to write about the high-end services that they seem to be so fascinated with, they should give an appropriate amount of space to profiling the life of the overwhelming majority of women who must sell their bodies to stay alive, in an industry that is fueled by the male demand to possess women.