I am one of the many people who were offended by the article about the topless dancer. I still have issues that were not addressed with your From the Editor column. It was not an objective article and it did appear to glorify the "profession" (if you can call it that) and make the girl appear rather saint-like, caring for her mentally challenged brother.
You don't mention the money that she entices away from men who go there -- money that should be used to feed and clothe the men's families, not in a stripper's G-string.
Those women don't have to come up here to get work -- you stated so yourself in the article, indicating they could make approximately 25 percent more in the Valley.
I don't care what page the article was placed on in the newspaper, it cannot diminish the fact that women who are strippers, or topless dancers are exploited and degraded. Many voluntarily participate in prostitution or are forced into prostitution. Many are involved in drugs. So if you are interested in providing an objective article you should show all sides of the "profession." Talk about the guys who blew their entire paycheck on strippers and don't have anything left to feed their families.
I also noticed there was no mention about it being primarily a cash-based business. I wonder how much of this cash is omitted when declaring wages/ tips/revenues generated to the IRS and Arizona Department of Revenue. There are few other legal businesses that can cause such detriment to the American family and to society itself.
I do, however, agree with one point which I find absolutely disgusting that a topless dancer makes more money that people who are integral to maintaining a healthy society, i.e. schoolteachers, police officers and EMS providers.
Peggy Hasty, Payson