A paradox by any name

Dear Mr. Editor:
Congratulations to all concerned for offering us a full-fledged paper, which gives us a broader view of the world, confirming our need and willingness to open our mind, enlarge our views, and share our concerns with each other and the world at large.
Thus the burning hot issue (tongues have been wagging!) of an escort service, which may be provided in our town.
Undeniably, the word “escort” is deceiving; the whole business–for such it is–is a masquerade; even the representatives of the law are well aware of it.
This kind of service caters to certain men of a certain age in providing girls–“busty, very beautiful, with long blonde hair,” for example, as we read in your/our paper–for a price.
It is the millennia old chauvinistic scheme.
This scheme, and the manner in which it is regarded by the law and its agents, lead us to considerations whose extent of significance include questions of morality, integrity, and lawfulness.
Morality is the word in any language which permits the widest interpretation. Integrity is supposed to reign supreme among lawmakers and their agents. Lawfulness, obviously, is dictated by the lawmakers and their agents.
My present concern is this: the law has decreed that prostitution is illegal but that whatever happens between two consenting adults is no concern of the law. It also has decreed that it is illegal for an escort service to advertise its “sex for sale.”
However, as we read further in your article, the law and the police are well aware that this kind of sale is “kind of implied in the escort service,” but as long as it does not spell the word “sex” in its advertisement, it is “a completely legal business.”
It is everyone’s privilege to call this paradoxical presentation of this question by any name. I heard the word “hypocrisy,” among others, like “rottenness,” etc. What should be seen clearly is that the stipulation, “two consenting adults, etc,” is concerning private lives, and not a service for the public, a business, it is called, for which a licence has to be provided by the municipal authorities.
And here, I would like to be allowed to ask a few questions:
Would an escort service, such as it really is, increase health hazards?
If an escort service or a massage parlor’s licence is applied for in Fort Frances, “there wouldn’t be any reason for the town’s administration to deny it.” But couldn’t and wouldn’t the town hall request the will, or at least ask the opinion of the community it represents?
Would such “emancipation” encourage a migration of towners to “safer” municipalities, out in the countryside, in order to “breathe” more freely in raising a family?
Thank you, Mr. Editor, for giving me the opportunity to present some of my views on this controversial subject.
Rosemarie von Niebelschutz
Fort Frances, Ont.