What's interesting about Gavon's post is not the photos, but the comments beneath them. There is a mad rush away from judgment and Gavon is taken to task over and over again for labeling these girls as "prostitutes". In a positively Jon Haidt-ian way, one commenter, Nat Quinots Uhing, hits the trifecta of ignorant prude stereotyping with this gem.
LOL What is this photographer? A 70-year old Catholic priest or a 14-year old goof from the Ozark mountains? Does the word 'prostitute' generate so much frisson that he's trying to put it as many times as possible into the sub-titles? Working girls aren't aliens from outer space, dude, you should get out more.Prudes are old, religious and from the South. Man, you got that right. You can read us like a book. Awesome job, Nat.
Meanwhile, speaking of people who need to get out more, we've got Al Hutcheson weighing in with this bit of naivete.
As photojournalism these pictures suck. So every woman dressed like the ones in these images must be a prostitute? WTF! The photographer has made no effort to get in close to these people, ask them questions, find out a little bit about them, earn some trust, or if he did it does not show.I dunno, Al, I've been in plenty of distant cities late at night and you could easily pick out the hookers on the street corners. In Tokyo, young, white chicks dressed like sluts standing around alone or in twos on street corners around 11 PM were hookers. They did everything but wear hooker name tags. As Nat might say, you need to get out more, Al.
So what's the deal here? Why the deliberate effort to maintain ignorance? Nat clearly doesn't know any straight-laced Catholic men and Al wants to hold off judgment on chicks who are clearly pay-for-play. Yes, I know there's a chance Gavon got some of them wrong, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because his photos match my prudicious experience.
Is it just one more Internet echo chamber in those comments or is it something else?