New York Times Changes Whores into Sex Workers

Posted: March 24, 20091:00 am Eastern Les Kinsolving © 2009

From the editorial page of the New York Times comes the following, which may be one of modern history's most memorable euphemisms.

"From a national perspective, condom promotion has been effective in slowing epidemics in several countries among high-risk groups such as sex workers and their customers."

"Sex workers"?

Not "prostitutes," nor "harlots," nor "tarts." And surely not "whores"!

Will The Newspaper of Record (as it likes to call itself) also revise the words "pimp" and "procurer" to S.W.F. – (for "Sex Work Facilitators")?

The Times unveiled this rather astounding new terminology in the course of taking issue with what was the first statement on condom use in the four-year pontificate of Benedict XVI.

In Yaonde, Cameroon, the Holy Father, in his first papal visit to Africa, declared that his church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.

And the AP quoted him as saying to reporters on his plane: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Don't miss David Kupelian's culture-war classic, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

But, as the Times editorial noted (before mentioning that astounding euphemism "sex workers"): "Condoms work very well in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus from infected to uninfected people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites 'comprehensive and conclusive' evidence that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are 'highly effective' in preventing heterosexual transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. The most recent meta-analysis of the best studies, published by the respected Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that condoms can reduce the transmission of the AIDS virus by 80 percent.

"However, both groups warned that condom use cannot provide absolute protection. Condoms sometimes break, slip or are put on incorrectly. The best way to avoid transmission of the virus is to abstain from sexual intercourse or have a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected person.

"Pope Benedict XVI has every right to express his opposition to the use of condoms on moral grounds, in accordance with the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. But he deserves no credence when he distorts scientific findings about the value of condoms in slowing the spread of the AIDS virus."

The Washington Post, in an editorial headlined "Condom sense," noted:

"In a perfect world, people would abstain from having sex until they were married or would be monogamous in committed relationships. But the world isn't perfect – and neither is Pope Benedict's pronouncement on the effectiveness of condoms in the battle against HIV/AIDS. The evidence says so."

The Post recently published the Page One story headline:

"D.C. HIV/AIDS rate up 22% since 2006"

And in this story the paper reported: "Men having sex with men has remained the disease's leading mode of transmission."

The population of the District of Columbia is surely not a majority of males who are homosexual. Yet this minority sexual orientation of homosexuals are the majority of those afflicted by this deadly disease.

The majority who believe Pope Benedict is wrong about condoms most probably believe the holy father correct in his opposition to the deadly behavior of homosexuality's anal intercourse.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92699