 |
1. “Is Prostitution Just Another Job?,” asked last issue’s cover story, by Mac McClelland, on the debate over decriminalizing sex work (March 21–April 3). One point of contention is whether legalization contributes to human trafficking. Sex-work researcher Sonja Dolinsek weighed in, citing the impact of decriminalization in Germany, which loosened prostitution laws in 2002: “The official stats by the Bundeskriminalamt (German Federal Crime Office) suggest a steady decrease of cases of trafficking since 2006,” she wrote. However, she added, “numbers don’t tell us stories and experiences, they only tell us who the state has decided will be considered ‘enough of a victim’ and is afforded victim protection.” Commenter luvtoroam wondered if, for those in favor of legalized sex work, “prostitution would be a fine choice for their daughters to take up as a profession,” and Chelsea Lane, one of the sex workers in the article, responded, “If I were to ever have children (not gonna happen, but let’s humor the theoretical), if they were to enter the sex industry, I would want them to be able to work safely, consensually, and healthily, under decriminalization.” Jdz00, a male sex worker, argued that the industry was too diverse for one-size-fits-all legislation. “Prostitution is a massive industry,” he wrote. “Not a small company. We should push to make laws as careful and as complex as the issues they are meant to address. So please stop ignoring my experience because someone in a completely different situation has different needs … A bank teller in Baltimore and an investment banker in San Francisco are both in banking, but that does not mean they deal with the same issues.” Scott Campbell, the executive director of the Elton John aids Foundation, felt that one particular experience that is often ignored is that of transgender sex workers. “Transgender women are ten times more likely to engage in sex work than cisgender women,” he wrote. “They are subject to disproportionally high rates of violence. They are more likely to be homeless. They are more likely to be victims of discrimination in employment, housing, and education. And they are almost always more likely to be left out of the conversation.”
 |
2. Frank Rich’s argument that Donald Trump isn’t hijacking “someone else’s party” struck a chord with readers (“There Was No Republican Establishment After All,” March 21–April 3). “I too repeatedly thought the Establishment would rescue the Party by consolidating around someone,” wrote gilzilla. “Now we see the whole menagerie is one big Potemkin village.” Commenter mollysgaga felt that the tea party is to blame for the lack of leadership in the GOP: “If you look at the tea-party protest against the Iran agreement, the two headliners were Trump and Cruz.” “The single biggest mistake the Republicans ever made in the Obama era,” agreed bareshark1975, “was to aid and abet the tea party in the vain thought that they’d either be manageable (John Boehner found out that they weren’t the hard way) or that they were the stepping stone to a 21st-century iteration of the party.” @ ggreeneva agreed, tweeting: “Frank Rich is right: Trump isn’t hijacking the GOP, he’s representing it.”�
3. “Astonishingly,” wrote Adam Sternbergh in his story on the persistent appeal of Friends, “the show is arguably as popular as it ever was—and it is popular with a cohort of young people who are only now discovering it” (“Is Friends Still the Most Popular Show on TV?,” March 21–April 3). “I am 25 and fall asleep to Friends every night,” wrote papadaki. “During the day I have the stress of being an attorney and working long days, fitting in relationships, working out, eating decently, networking, managing student loans, etc. STRESS … I like forgetting who I am or what year it is and just sitting in the coffee shop as I doze off to sleep.” DRF55 had a simpler reason for the show’s enduring popularity: “The show was consistently outstanding. I find that I can rewatch episodes often; even when I know exactly what’s coming. I can enjoy the delivery of the lines — the timing, inflections, and body and facial expressions.” Lem326 agreed, writing, “Sure, there’s nostalgia for the years before we all had a phone in our hands 24/7, but ultimately this show is well done. The chemistry of the actors, also, was unrivaled in a sitcom cast.” Some readers were more dismissive. “This show is as awful now as it was then,” said kds310. “The comedy is lazy, the depiction of New York was inaccurate, and the utter lack of color in a period where they had a lot more license than the previous decade to do so was shameful.” Hcetigol concurred, writing, “I had to stop around the fifth season due to the incessant homophobia and sexism. Friends wasn’t the only culprit, but the nonstop dude-that’s-gay-haha-you’re-wearing-pink jokes and its hundreds of variations are woven throughout the show.” Even if some thought the jokes didn’t hold up, the same could not be said for “The Rachel”: “My boyfriend’s daughter is 12 and has watched the entire series through twice on Netflix,” commented Paradoxal. “When she recently got a new, layered haircut, we asked what inspired her, and her answer was ‘Have you ever heard of Rachel from Friends?’ ”