You won't find many parents who hope their daughters grow up to be strippers, but you'll find plenty who hope they grow up to be supermodels. Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference.
In an interview to promote the 2013 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (which should be subtitled More Women Who Would Never Talk To You), cover model Kate Upton said her shoot took place in Antarctica in 20 degree weather, with a wind chill of -1. And yet, in most of her shots, she's almost completely naked. There's no swimsuit, just a scarf or a pair of boots. She was willing to take off all of her clothes in a place that cold because there was a large payday involved.
So, how is she different than a dancer at any strip club? True, Upton made a lot more money than those women, although I've read articles about some of the strippers in the top clubs in Vegas who make more than a thousand bucks a night. She didn't have drunken men stuffing dollar bills into her non-existent g-string, but the strippers didn't have to undress in frigid climates. In both cases, the women are doing essentially the same thing, willing to get naked at the behest of men who will pay them, regardless of the conditions.
Yet, you don't see many strippers invited to sit down and chat with David Letterman on his show, as Upton did last week (exception: ex-stripper-turned-screenwriter Diablo Cody). Nor does he invite ten of them to do a Top Ten list, as he did the night before with some of the models from the swimsuit issue.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against any of these women doing whatever they want with their bodies. I just don't understand the hypocrisy of those who would denigrate one profession while hailing the other.