looking for GREAT sex on craigslist

I think most of us could agree that the New York Times has set the bar fairly high as far as reporting goes.  Most of the articles and columns they publish are thought-provoking and fairly well-balanced (okay, the opinion section leans a little more than slightly left, but I would argue it's a result of intellectualism rather than party affiliation).  I also generally agree with the NYTimes endorsements, and the writers seem to take an informed and progressive stance on most issues.  So, could someone please explain the piece about hooking up for sex on craigslist that was published this past weekend?  Even the title reeks of bias (and is not even factual!) Recklessly Seeking Sex on Craigslist.  The author, Douglas Quenqua, relies on a few antidotes anecdotes, selects a couple of instances solely for the purpose of sensationalizing, and perpetuates myths and lies about internet sex that does nothing more than demonize people and use sex-negative stereotypes that have been used by puritanical groups to police and restrict individual sexuality for ages. 

First, this could have been a great article about how to safely hook up online for those who are into that kind of thing.  There are tons of people who meet their sex partners and even future long-term relationships (LTR) online - present company included and almost eight years later I still promote looking for love online to my single friends.  Instead, Mr. Quenqua uses a couple of  instances (and practically blames the victims of these horrible crimes by portraying them as careless fools who should have known better) utilizing scare tactics that have traditionally been reserved for the FOX News Network and Sarah Palin supporters. 

Second, Mr. Quenqua launches into judgmental rhetoric and name calling (and honestly, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks") using phrases such as the "erotic underbelly of society" and quotes "experts" who says of those who like to seek sex online that "'...these people have a narcissistic, sociopathic side where they don't have a lot of empathy for other people.'" And insinuates that people looking to find sex or love online are suffering from "sex addiction" - the existence of which is still up for debate (yes, people have compulsive disorders and impulse control problems, but I personally think that most cases of "sex addiction" are the result of articles such as this that cause people to feel shame and guilt about their sexuality.).

Third, this article is sexist.  It portrays women who seek partners online as desperate, ugly, unwanted, and with no choice left than to "trick" men into meeting them.  WTF? Seriously? Did anyone else at the New York Times other than this writer take a look at this article before it went to press?  I can't even say anything about this one except for SHAME ON YOU!

Finally, the generally prude tone of this article seems a little old fashioned and unrealistic. Courtship? While I agree that waiting to have sex past the first date might be the best choice for some people, it is about personal choice that should be made from an informed and thoughtful place that promotes one's happiness and health.  This article could have taken a very different angle that acknowledges the reality of people using the internet to meet partners, both sexual and potential LTR.  Mr. Quenqua could've interviewed people who had enjoyed using it to hook up for sex and spoken to people who found love and happiness through both online dating services and casual hook up sites.  He could've gotten advice from health professionals who could educate the public about how to safely go about meeting people online from the obvious letting friends and family know where you are, to meeting in public, to using condoms to protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections including HIV. 

I suggest that many of these people who are looking for love and sex online are doing so because they percieve it to be safer than doing so in person.  They may feel that they have some control over the situation.  I would assume that many of them read profiles or ads and chat with individuals before meeting as a way of evaluating the other person (and any potential negative risks).  Some people may be more comfortable going online rather than going to bars or other cruisy places to meet potential sex partners. Rather than thinking about how the internet puts us in danger and allows "sociopaths" to act out their perversions, let's focus on  how it allows us to free ourselves to experience our own sexuality in ways that were never possible before.  Consider how it allows lonely people to connect, even if it's just for a fleeting moment. Or permits that lonely gay kid in rural America to find other gay kids like himself.  And let's stop the puritanical b.s. about pleasure and desire - these are positive things that allow us to experience life to its fullest. 

I know there are millions of people online looking for mr./ms. "right" or just mr./ms. "right now" every day in the United States.  I say good for them!  If we spent more time having sex and less time judging those around us, think of how much more pleasant the world would be.