Let's Party

Why is the State's First Lady to be on the stage with ladies of the night?

Why is Trudi Inslee, First Lady of Washington State, appearing on stage with – for lack of a more discreet term - ladies of the night?

Trudi Inslee, wife of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, will join Miss Indigo Blue, Head Mistress of Academy of Burlesque and Reigning Queen of Burlesque 2012; and Inga Ingénue “The Little Blond Bomb,” winner of “Miss Viva Las Vegas, 2011” whose scantily-clad – and less – stage performances include “Immodesty Blaize’s  ‘Burlesque Undressed Tour,’' Seattle; and “Nude Nite Exotic Art Festival,’ Orlando and Tampa, Florida. 

Lindy West, writer for “Jezebel”, will also put in an appearance.  “Jezebel,” a magazine that promotes “sex for women” includes a column on porn, the latest entitled “How I Became a Feminist Porn Star.”

Whatever your view of abortion, funds for which these ladies are joining forces to raise, there would appear to be, at minimum, a major conflict of interest between the sexual promiscuity – certainly explicit pornography – as paraded by Inslee’s costars whose revealing websites are all provided, and that of the stated interests of the Governor’s wife – whose website is linked as well, at which website Inslee declares herself to be in “support (of) social service programs and organizations that provide services for women and children who are victims of sexual assault.”

Does the end justify the means?  Can Inslee, with integrity, trumpet her cause and speak honestly as an advocate to stop sex trafficking while at the same time align herself with those who perpetuate the very pain that the Governor’s wife would, from her position, lend her voice to stop?  Would the Governor’s wife not have sent – and could she not still – a more powerful message from a far higher platform with multiplied greater impact by declining to participate?  And is there something in all of this that has been lost?

To the first two questions, no.  To the last two, yes.

Integrity, wrote Stephen L. Carter, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of law at Yale University, in a book by that title, “comes from the same Latin root as integer (conveying) the sense of wholeness, undivided, completeness.”

In other words message, mannerisms, methods – and associations – must, if they are to reflect integrity at any rate, be consistent or integrity cannot be claimed.

Take the FBI for example - “which touts an agency motto of ‘fidelity, bravery, integrity’ – (and is) battling a sexting scandal.”  ‘No more naked photos,’ is the message circulating throughout the agency.  The reason being, of course, the position and the reputation of the FBI is at stake and pornography and employee association with attendant consequences are not befitting those who most certainly should know better. 

Of course.

Goes without saying.

But they’re saying it anyway.

From our state’s First Lady to our nation’s First Lady - whose appearance at the just concluded Oscars has engendered much controversy, one critic calling her participation not only "tacky and tasteless" but one that cheapened the Presidency -  principles have  been trumped by party, not political party, just party.

As concerns the State of Washington’s Governor’s office, Trudi Inslee has done the same.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Cindy Peak March 01, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Excellent points, F.W. Gregory. Thank you for your clarity.
Chris Comte March 01, 2013 at 11:41 PM
It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, F.W. In this case she's attending a pro-choice event, supporting a position with which she presumably agrees, and appearing with other like-minded individuals, some of whom just happen to be burlesque performers. So, in that sense, there's no inconsistency, as might be the case in the hypothetical examples you posit, since she's not being hypocritical by condemning it on the one hand, but appearing with those who support it on the other. What we have here appears to be an example of Ms Inslee supporting an organization that promotes sexually-positive programs and practices for women, in the company of other women who are showing similar support. The only people who are objecting are those who already exhibit a strident, fundamental opposition to anything that promotes or endorses non-marital, non-procreative sex, or the right of women to sexual self-expression. As much as Mr. Anderson and others may appear to be clutching their collective pearls over some vague impropriety on Ms Inslee's part, let's not forget, that's just an excuse to cover their REAL objection, namely, her public support for women's choice.
employee March 01, 2013 at 11:50 PM
I have to ask, who does Mrs. Anderson associate with?
F. W. Gregory March 02, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Chris, you make good points, but you base your arguments on the contention that these are, indeed, sex-positive programs and practices. As if it were an undisputed fact. Maybe you'll grant me that there is still a whole lot of disagreement about that. Sure, I grew up in the 60's, and we went through the sexual revolution, sneering at our elders about their puritanical views. And, for goodness sakes, I would not want to go back to the days where you couldn't even say the word "pregnant," TV couples had to have separate single beds, and June and Ward Cleaver never heard of "business casual." (Loved those pearls!!) We HAVE, as the Virginia Slims commercials of the time touted, come a long way baby, but we still have a long way to go. And part of that process, in my view, is about talking these things over, and not castigating people who have views that are driven by their moral convictions. My point, all along, has been that Mr. Anderson's views--while they might grate on you, me and others, are not extreme and raise legitimate points for discussion. In any case, all this engagement ought to make the Patch folks happy. Don't see that many posts going back and forth usually. Namaste.
Chris Comte March 02, 2013 at 12:47 AM
F.W., I agree that we have indeed "come a long way" from the patriarchal sexual repression of last mid-Century, and that we do have much farther to go in terms of complete sexual liberation for both women and men. But I fail to see how Mr. Anderson's prudish tut-tutting, or other commenters vehement anti-sex beliefs "raise legitimate points for discussion". If anything, they appear bent on pulling society back to a level where we would once again view women as essentially a-sexual at-best, or at worst, relegating them again to the status of chattel: silent, submissive, and enshackled. IMO, those ARE extreme views that must be challenged on every occasion they're presented.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »