Book Review: Love for Sale

bookLoveforSale.jpg

“Love for Sale: a world history of prostitution” by Nils Johan Ringdal

I promised a book review about the history of prostitution and by that promise, I write this (and after a little nudge from a regular reader because seems I took too long). :)

It’s taken so long for various reasons but mostly, and sadly, I found this book generally painful to get through though I promise my post about it is much more interesting. The only problem with the book is it read like a history book (yuck) and it triggered some unexpected emotions that were negative as it opened my eyes and mind to patriarchy and sex in general through a new lens. I think it was overload of information that didn’t correspond to my field views so I was overwhelmed by facts, names, historical references and generally uninteresting stuff. It didn’t have chewable information I could digest like other book reviews but rather, it was striking nonetheless. I ended up skipping pages and hunted for good quotes and tidbits to get through, hoping to find that awesome feeling of really putting off real life to read this book. I didn’t find that loving feeling BUT still, it offered food for thought for sure so let’s dive into whoredom.

“What makes a woman a prostitute, a whore, a slut or a second-class citizen via sexuality anyway? It is, of course, the ownership of her goods, that glorious tunnel of sin that also leads towards creation. how she uses it determines the words which describe her.” - tvt

What’s for Sale?

I’m confused why this wasn’t called “Body for Sale” or “Soul for Sale” or “Women for Sale” or “Pussy for Sale” or “Whore for Sale” because love was maybe missed in the pages where I got bored and skipped over. There is no love. Men don’t buy love. Men buy pleasure and service and power. Love cannot be bought even though women buy love bullshit all the time. Love is the catch word, the power word like “all natural”, “organic” or "new and improved.” Love happens on its own but love-like acts can be purchased and so broken down simply, men don’t buy love but instead the actions of love, namely sex and intimacy at best.

This book covered every major culture in history from the Babylonians to current feminist minded societies and the basic unsurprising fact is, women who exchange sex for money - specifically prostitutes - are treated as though lower in all ways than women who do not. Whoredom is a hole that needs filling and it is also a societal balance that demands its (silent) existence. As the author notes, “…historians and social scientists have often seen the two institutions [family and prostitution] as polar oppositions, both morally and culturally.” (2) Families, we all know, are very different but the nuclear family unit of a man, wife (wives) and kids is most dominant. (2) Being that there are differences in this nuclear family though – monogamy vs polygamy for example or free choice for partnership vs. purchased brides – the organization and function of a family unit’s expression will ultimately have “structuring impact on family and prostitution”. (2) Basically, one feeds the other.

On a moral scale, most societies consider a man who takes responsibility for his paternal role as more moral than one who does not. Ringdal notes on this point, “Understood in this way, the family is a positive servitude, while prostitution is a negative freedom. (2)

“Negative freedom”.

Isn’t that an oxymoron? That stopped me and made me really think about the other side of the coin we keep flipping back and forth: “Madonna” and “Whore”; Mother and Wife; Girlfriend and “Hookup”. The difference between these is only in the way money and sex are distributed.

The Guts of the Book

click to view larger

The book itself is great if you’re into historical and Biblical references segregated between chapters that offer a synopsis of each time era and how prostitution was viewed. There’s a lot to learn here. If this were a documentary on Netflix, it would probably be more engaging. What I found interesting and surprising and unfortunate however, was how filthy – for lack of a better term - this book made me feel about being a woman, believing in men or enjoying sexuality. I noticed the front cover quoted it as being “entertaining”. I did not find it so.

To clarify, it wasn’t the book itself but the factual and vast examples culturally on the topic of prostitution it presented: the reality of female sexuality and male gain from it. I can’t explain how much unexpected anger the book provoked within me, and so again, it was rough to get through and much skipped for a variety reasons. One may have simply been the dark reality that this book is a presentation of the ugly truths about sexuality and the sexes and the depth in which they originate is surely as mysterious and difficult to manage through as the Marianna Trench! This wasn’t a philosophical or scientific theory - which I typically read. This was history and on this topic, more impactful on my emotional centers.

One quote below I will share to help illustrate the ugliness I felt. Few concepts could be more offending than understanding that men need porn and then they need to fuck that porn out of themselves and if they do it with a woman who is willing to do it (prostitute, whore, wench – thx lady gaga), assuming their wife, girlfriend, or other female body (or male body) isn’t willing to, then why is the prostitute being put down for filling a need for the man who couldn’t fill his own needs in the first place? Why is SHE getting the heat and not him when he needed HER? Consider this reality:

“The general view of prostitute women… is they continue to be seen as second-class species, with the double stigma of their gender and profession. … The attitude of the police has also remained firm. Gloria Lockett, former California prostitute and present activist, tells stories about the LA police…

Gloria had gone into a drugstore and bought twelve dozen condoms. The boys in blue must have had her under surveillance. In any case, they accosted her outside the drugstore. They grabbed her purse and shook it upside down. Then they punctured every single condom, one by one, pushing the knife down into the latex membrane, slowly and with great enjoyment. Gloria got her purse back…: “G’night, honey! Happy hunting!” (400-401)

To be or not to be

I don’t condone or condemn prostitutes. It’s too complex a topic for such views. Many prostitutes aren’t in this by choice but by need to make money or sadly, get drugs. I watched every sex show on Netflix in the past year that dealt with strippers, prostitutes or porn stars. The stories are harsh. These girls didn’t always have the best life circumstances and yet, as trash they are treated, and eventually shamed they feel. They talk themselves into the state of self-empowerment but you can see there is confusion in what that means intellectually and logically versus what it shows via behaviors and feelings. How can we help them by further punching them into the moral ground and calling and treating them second class when some of these women fuck high class traveling businessmen, the lonely fathers, the kinky bastards or those awkward guys who can’t get a date much less sex? Some prostitutes are in it by choice: I knew one who used the cash to go through med school. I don’t know if she finished or if her career finished her but she used men for her own good. Because she gave sex and not PR consulting, she’s the whore and the guys, they are still the businessmen, the lonely fathers, the kinky bastards and those awkward boys; but if she was good, they are still thinking about her because that’s her only ride up in this field unless you turn stone cold from the inside. You have to because you have to protect your inner-self.

There are plenty of women who go bar hopping and bang a new guy weekly and because they didn’t cash in on a few men a night the old fashioned way but instead got drinks and bullshit pickup lines, they aren’t called prostitutes. What makes a woman a prostitute, a whore, a slut or a second-class sexual citizen anyway? It is, of course, the ownership of her goods, that glorious tunnel of sin that also leads towards creation. How she uses it that determines the words that describe her. Isn’t it really just our perspective with an appropriate slant that allows room for many to be promiscuous without actually being titled “prostitute” (or gigolo) because they are not taking money but basically still giving sex to people they hardly know in exchange for other “things” such as conversation, time, drinks, food, gifts, loneliness, hope, etc.? So it’s okay to accept all that in the name of a maybe potential relationship but taking money for it without strings is not? What makes the difference when meeting a man, having dinner, having sex, having him never call again and doing it again with another guy next month than meeting a “John”, having sex, having him pay her and calling her to do it again? Seems the exchange is more fair for the so-called whore.

Prostitutes and the Johns know what they’re there for: money talks and bullshit walks. In a bar, bullshit talks and money just helps the conversation move forward to the goal, which is, of course, sex with a better quality girl aka not a prostitute. Rarely is conversation the actual goal for a male. It’s a benefit but the goal is sex. Friendship happens by accident, if you don’t mind my forthrightness here.

I consider males mostly the exploited ones in the current modern society in which Westerners live (not counting the women who are truly drug addicted or pimped out or trafficked because that’s another avenue of this that’s too complex to get into right now). It’s not presented that way but every divorced man will agree with me. I think females are better at sexual exploitation of men and the women who don’t know how to use their sexuality are unfortunately the ones exploited by men sexually but men are almost always exploited financially. In other words, men and women exploit each other and the one who can gain an advantage over the other will win. Society doesn’t allow women that advantage sexually but it should because if women didn’t make themselves available, who is left? Male asses and animals? If we keep women in the mix, if they don’t offer consent then we are lead to true rape culture. In fact, current definition of rape culture is a far cry from the rape culture of the Medieval times, where women were regularly raped and it was accepted:

“Gang rape was a common phenomenon in the late Middle Ages. Any woman traveling the streets along at unorthodox times or in unusual places was in danger of being raped. The attackers signaled their approach by shouting ‘whore’, which legalized the deed.” (148) Apparently hundreds of such rapes occurred each year back in the 1400 and 1500s. (148)

To rape a girl all one needed was to believe she acted like a whore and it was okay. According to the author, “Having sex with a prostitute against her will was considered almost legal…and it was not really a criminal act to rape or gang-rape a prostitute. Fathers were responsible for protecting their daughters and husbands were responsible for protecting their wives.” (149)

It seems logical such ingrained philosophies were passed down through the centuries. They didn’t come from illusion but from truth. “Rape functioned as disincentive to unruly women and a general form of oppression of actual prostitutes; in the corridors of power, it was tolerated, indeed encouraged. (149) … In the canonical registry of sins, rape was only a subsidiary form of whoredom, admittedly more violent in form, but viewed as no worse a sin. And there was much in Church doctrine that legitimized the activity…” (149)

Sex Between Gods Leads to Conclusions

While we’re pretty familiar with all the rape in the Bible and mythology, the Qu’ran has a rather “sex-friendly tone in Muslim texts”. (131) While Allah finds nothing wrong with sexual desire, sex cannot threaten society in any way (131) and the “Qu’ran does not condemn men who pay for sex with women who offer it willingly (133) though Islam discouraged prostitution, among Muslim-born girls in particular, and presumable even more among Shi‘ites than among Sunni Muslims. Some prostitutes were always accessible in the cities but the rule was that a prostitute and her brothel owner were foreign and belonged to one of the oppressed minorities. The girl would either be a Christian slave from the periphery of the Byzantine Empire or Jewish.” (133) Seems Muslims had standards.

So, many such good and interesting quotes were dotted throughout the book, again going back from Babylonians to Greeks, Romans, Asians, and so on. Whoredom was everywhere and where there is need for pleasure in a world full of weight and pain, there will be men willing to pay and women willing to please (vice versa too). If prostitution was legal – and it should be – and if these women had the protection they needed, society would be a more satisfied and safe entity. Sex makes people happier, even sex with a prostitute or the local bar whore. Enough empty sex makes people change for the better usually, not for the worse. Most people have better intentions and hopes for themselves than we credit them for. Interestingly on this point, how is being a porn star not being a prostitute? It’s the same thing except one is accepted and glorified with hand picked “actors” and the other is shamed for fucking non-actors. One is protected and the other shunned. Sex for money equals sex for money but one whore is better than the other. There’s another double standard to add to your mix.

This all boils down to a few simplicities:

Don’t put down women who do what the wives won’t or can’t and don’t put down women who fuck the ugly, creepy, weird, fat or sometimes disabled guys most of us ladies won’t give a chance. Doesn’t everyone deserve the opportunity for sexual pleasure? Why does faking love for sex out-value offering money? Don’t judge the women who give pleasure to the men who didn’t seem to find it on their own or who have fantasies they can’t tell their loved one or have tiny penises and can’t find a woman to make them feel like a man. Don’t assume every John is beating up a girl and using her in a violent way. Yes, men do this but many men don’t and those in a legalized brothel won’t dare because they won’t be allowed back. If you want to play, you must play by the rules and some responsible force HAS to make some rules to protect these women and frankly, men too. It’s a public health matter. Banning prostitution isn’t a solution just like prohibition wasn’t a solution. Regulation is the solution (for now).

Remember the bell curve and most men fall in between the extremes. This means they just need someone to feed them a fantasy and/or pleasure and for that, he deservingly should pay (love or hooker, he pays), but why should she pay? She already did. Prostitute sex is empty sex and so it takes a hard woman (often broken into hardness) to be the bearer of pleasure for others while she’s treated as poison to herself, those she fucked and the society that is too shamed to admit it needs her services.

Prostitutes deserve respect if not on any ground but the one that makes them human beings of consent and no judgment. That’s valuable in a relationship, we profess, but not for money and no strings? A little dogmatic, I think. Morality needs just a little loosening to see what’s within the crevices of judgments and prejudiced minds built over millennia of female abuse and not just physical but verbal, legal and mental. Prostitutes provide two vital values to men: pleasure and power. So do porn stars. There should be no discrimination between the two.

A prostitute has much more value than the average person who shuns her. One way to help her is to legalize prostitution and create safer environments for her and the men who support her offerings. Morality is relative and must be placed aside to the valuable cause of safety and necessity, both individually and publicly. That’s a big statement on a slippery slope topic but fact is, like pornography, prostitution will never go away so treat it right within the domain it belongs in, or put down the men who buy sex and stop calling prostitutes whores and derogatory names. Is there a personal subtle insult within the buyer of sex that somehow suggests he’s a looser because he has to pay for something he could get for free? Maybe but women want relationships and those are not free; thus, men find value in the hooker as much as in the hook up and there will always be a willing girl. That being the case, it’s time for a paradigm shift in the way we view prostitution and the mental and physical health matters that surround the issue.

-tvt

Kavanaugh, Character & Whorehood

(this post is the continuation of my Kavanaugh views from my previous post. )

Regarding Kavanaugh, I quote this (though there were a bunch of great articles I could quote from, this one sums it up both about him and the US President):

At a campaign rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, Trump openly mocked Ford’s testimony. The display was condemned by three Republican senators — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Jeff Flake (Arizona) — who are seen as swing votes.

“There’s no time and no place for remarks like that,” Flake said on NBC’s “Today” show. “To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. It’s just not right. I wish he hadn’t done it. I just say it’s kind of appalling.”

“The president’s comments were just plain wrong,” Collins said.

After an initial review of the FBI report, Collins told reporters that it appeared “to be a very thorough investigation.” Flake said the same, adding that he saw no additional corroborating evidence to substantiate the allegations against the nominee.

Meanwhile, more than 1,200 law professors have signed a letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation, arguing that during last week’s hearings he “displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court.” (emphasis is mine) (source)

One thousand two hundred law professors are a lot of legal minds to pass concerned judgment over a few handfuls of “experts” in the Judiciary Committee and of course, Donald Duck himself. It is only on faith we may support the idea that the FBI interviews were “very thorough”.

I watched the hearings. I felt Ford, her pain and struggle. She didn’t convince me her assailant was in fact Kavanaugh but she definitely experienced sexual assault (though, honestly, drunken teens in the 80s it may have sincerely been more horseplay than assault but her assailant, whoever it was, didn’t rape her and fact is, who knows if that was an intent. Maybe the intent was not even intended to be more than dumb teens fucking around so, while she was in fact rightfully fearful, there’s no way to know that the assailant was in fact going to rape her or just fuck with her head so to speak — and he did succeed in that point, we must agree there). Ford brought heroism to America and real heroes are those who take the risks because it’s for the greater good, not for titles, praise or fame. Her testimony was compelling and riveting. I waited to hear Kavanaugh with an open mind. He deserved that; we all do. Within five minutes of his opening statements, I felt totally stunned by his outcries. Just shocked he displayed himself so angry and accusatory - as a judge! Isn’t he supposed to show he can rise above the commoners and walk the tight rope like a professional? Ford did.

If you read my last post, you know I oppose Kavanaugh but not necessarily because he committed, maybe, a sexual assault. We don’t know he did factually and so in fairness, being we are in America, he must be taken as innocent and proven guilty. It’s the right thing to do on the foundation of our Constitutional gifts even if it may feel very wrong for some citizens. One can’t just “believe her” and make assumptions. Sure protest and be heard but seriously realize that beliefs are not facts in law terms and it has to be this way. Constitutional laws are in place to protect everyone, not just your views. The deeper problem isn’t if he’s guilty or not at this point in time; but Kavanaugh’s very character is flawed in so that he reeks of beer and disorientation of what “good character” looks like from a truly strong, honest and honorable man vantage point.

Alcohol forces your inhibitions down and nothing pushes people into their fantasy zone faster. If you want to fuck up, drink too much. It’s a guarantee, except, the depth of your fuck up is the unknown variable. So, we know this and thus shouldn’t expect Kavanaugh to have behaved better in a time pre-MeToo movement. He’s grandfathered in so to speak. However!

Kavanaugh’s demeanor during the hearing was unbecoming of an honorable, disciplined, compassionate, sympathetic, intelligent man. It was difficult to sympathize with his misfortune the same way I sympathized with Ford’s misfortune. The Supreme Court demands an honorable demeanor because it is the most honorable seat. He couldn’t even fake his demeanor. Do you understand this? He couldn’t rise above it and fake it.

Women are good at faking it because that is what we all must do to get ahead at some point in our lives. For some it’s rarely or occasionally and for others it’s often. We, as in women, deal with so much male bullshit that we bathe in hot tubs and pretty perfume so we may smell of flowers rather than the shit stink manifested in all sorts of creative ways upon us. There’s always a new generation that isn’t into the bathing, smelling pretty path of faking it. They don’t want to fake it so they’re saying fuck it instead, fuck you to be more exact, I think. They are rebels and we all need a dose of rebel yell to shake up the monotony of life’s yes-men (or women). If this didn’t happen, most of America really wouldn’t know or care about who Kavanaugh was. Agree or not, this made us all think deeper about a variety of important issues facing Americans today.

If a woman displayed Kavanaugh’s demeanor in a hot-seat situation, she’d be devoured by ridicule, played as too weak to take the pressures of the job. She would be - unfortunately - a false testament to how “emotional” women are and thus unfit to serve. I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton but if she acted this way, she would just never live that down. She would have broken all the power she took years to cultivate. And, in the process, sadly I say this, but she wouldn’t make women look any better than our stereotype. The same holds true for Anita Hill or any woman put before a group of men asking loads of testing questions. So how did Kavanaugh make good men actually look good?

I simply didn’t see in Kavanaugh, the kind of man worthy of a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court, the final word of the land. Kavanaugh did lie under oath before and his emotional outburst was difficult to witness. He dodged questions, was rather rude and obnoxious and was a complete turn off to me. I couldn’t tell if he was authentically hurting, acting or just stuck in puberty like a little lost blame-it-on-others boy. I felt he embarrassed himself. I cringed from it. I spoke with a Republican friend of mine and he felt totally the opposite of me. It’s hard to argue the perspective in the way one sees another because we skew our perspective to suit our visions. I’m not right or wrong; I’m just an embodiment of a particular view that suits the way I view the privilege of serving on the highest court in our country. Step it up if it you want the highest step. I simply expect more but for others, there isn’t more to expect. Ultimately, our expectations determine the kind of life we end up creating. Unity is a tough road for us all.

***I said I’d not discuss this til the vote was over. I am impatient on this and very busy the next week and won’t get back to this for several weeks. I expect Kavanaugh to be voted in now that two of the senators stated a yes vote. It’s not a huge disappointment because I expected this but I was hoping he would at least not get voted in due to his expression of character so that surprises me and disappoints me but politicians usually do… so back to my painting corner I go, a world that makes sense to me. Plus, I picked up a new book to tell you about in the near future. It’s about the history of prostitution aka whorehood if you were wondering how I folded that word into the title. :) It should be interesting to add that info to the history of pornography knowledge I’ve gained. ***

Judging the Judge: Oh, K...

“None of us ought to be defined by the ugliest moments of our lives — and especially not our teenage lives.” - Matt Bai

I felt I had to share an excellent opinion article with you on the current situation with Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh and his sexual assault accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. I haven’t broke into political feminist lines in years on my blog and that’s been a conscious choice. I can tell you my blood pressure is way lower and my love of life way higher; however, in this instance, I feel the need to pay attention and in some way nudge the views out there and not even for “my side” but whatever side you side for but with an intelligent and educated viewpoint, not news hype. This is important.

The last presidential election absolutely disgusted me and as many of my regulars (friends, readers, collectors) have noticed, I removed myself from Facebook and most social networks and I have minimized, if not eliminated, my opinions about feminism, politics or controversial topics — the exact opposite of my past blog on WordPress many moons ago and when I wrote for a law blog as a resident feminist writer for an attorney now quite big on the national lines. (that makes me proud though)

I don’t want Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court but this is because Wade vs. Roe is the most valuable law women have in our country. I want no one who may put that in jeopardy. I’m so personally triggered by this topic that I chose not to submit some of my Sexibition artwork (circa 2005-2010 approx) I’m certain would have had good chance to be included into a current local show titled Wade vs. Roe at Sulfur Studios in Savannah, Ga (see the show if you’re in the area). I could have submitted newer work but the Sexibition collection was all about the feminism that I stood for which I think represents still the big feminist issues facing us today. Many of the artworks are still relevant today, such as these, “United States of American Freedom” and “My Body”:

Justice_for_all_Web.jpg

Purchase these and other available prints from the collection in my shop.

Do+Not+TouchWeb.jpg

I am so passionate about the need for pro-choice for women that I have to remove myself from the conversations around it, as I’ve been putting myself into them since I was 14 or 15 - hey! high school! - because after all this time my heart will pop and I will drown in my own blood. Harsh, I know. I remove myself from the pool because pro-choice is so clearly constitutional and a rightful choice of an autonomous, sentient, interdependently embodied human being that I cannot comprehend how it is not except for any other reason than to take control from women and ensure breeding of the human species. Period. If Life itself actually mattered, it would matter across all sectors and ethically delicate situations but life’s value is a relative one. It’s valuable for those who control it and life seems to be all about power (money and sex manifest one’s power).

I am on the fence about Kavanaugh’s accuser, Ford, primarily for the reality that she is bringing to the table what happened in high school 36 years ago, while intoxicated no less! However, that’s a thought we all had. Rightfully, she deserves to be heard but about something that happened while intoxicated? I can tell you a few people I know who drink and don’t recall what they did last night so it’s very, very difficult to understand this without Ford’s testimony.

All of us have done things we wish we had not in high school (maybe even last week). This hits ALL of us. Who is, in fact, safe from their past under the new era of “The Past Matters”? All of these new “movements” and “matters” and finger pointing social norms that are popping up in our landscape are sadly so hyped up that they shape minds with emotion and that is what has gotten us here today, to our status quo as an American society.

This said, I read this opinion piece by Matt Bai and it deserves to be read because it answers what we need to ask and think about regarding anyone who is questioned in their character running for public office, not just Mr. Kavanaugh. Bai presented an intelligent view and a fair objective perspective. He tweaked the public hype for me and put a spin on the true context, which is most important to keep in mind and I really needed that clarity to view this and much more with a broader vision. In Bai’s words:

“Character demands context. The moral arc of a lifetime matters. Not everything is equally relevant…

He could have said [states the author of Kavanaugh], in effect: Judge me for my lifetime of service, not for whatever may have happened at 17 that I was too stupid and drunk to remember.

But that’s not what Kavanaugh is saying. He dismisses not only the allegation but the context around it. He says he wasn’t that kind of kid. He says he wasn’t there, in the house Ford can describe in detail.

He makes a victim of her all over again, by essentially calling her delusional. He makes no allowance for the possibility that his own memory is blurred by inebriated youth.”

I think this is an intensely valuable point that nutshells the article. It’s not so much what he did as a teen or didn’t do exactly in this case on a broader scale than merely feminism and the #MeToo movement present; it’s what character will admit to now and how and that is the character that defines the man. And, Bai is right: Kavanaugh victimizing Ford (now if not again) by keeping himself clean of such activity. Not being fully honest with himself and others (assumption based on this article’s presentation), shame will directly affect Kavanaugh’s decisions as a Supreme Court Justice and that will touch all of our lives directly or indirectly for years to come, and not only on feminist issues. For him or against him, Bai provides good thought about how to enhance our views on this vital American matter and the way in which we choose our politicians — as though our President wasn’t enough of a lesson.

If this topic interests you, I highly suggest Bai’s article.

-TvT

*UPDATE 9/26/18

…third accuser. Kavanaugh is toast. This is going to be tough to overcome so let’s see how the circus plays out. I can’t wait until the hearings Thursday. I won’t comment further until this is over, but I will say that it truly disappoints me when men fail because when they do, it is because of sex and their relationship with it and not particularly with us, with women. However,it directly affects our relationships with them. A truly honorable person is one who can control their sexuality, understand its appropriateness and take “No” for an answer at anytime in the act. There is a fine line between nudging boundaries to ignoring and disrespecting them. What disappoints me in Kavanaugh — if proven guilty or not because a movement’s movement doesn’t need evidence to move — is he just added more evidence for a stronger #MeToo movement (which is good for the movement but bad considering what the movement is exposing) AND he made men look worse as though they don’t already look like a bunch of fucking bastards who rape women. I mean, fact is, most are not but when I listen to the #MeToo hype, that’s what I hear and that’s not what I’ve experienced. It’s a shame for all of us that another man is looking like he’s going be be burned at the stake in the public eye. My, how the times have changed: are we in an era of the male “witch hunt”?