Despite some senator’s passionate attempts to completely eradicate piracy, I still see little Katie’s sex video sell like hotcakes in the sidewalk. From it came my realization that to rouse someone else’s curiosity is the best marketing strategy. You only need a national issue embellished by a pretty damsel in distress, and there goes Juan counting his riches under the mango tree.

I have watched the series of videos myself (thanks to a nameless officemate who brought the file to the office), and I must admit it was quite an entertainment. What with the perfect casting — an animal-psycho-freak for a doctor and a shamed, helpless victim for a sexy star. And to make things sweeter,  a major bestseller for a soundtrack.

So what’s in it for me?

In the objectivist point of view, the whole clamor goes from the fact that the sex was with consent but the video was not. And so it became utterly shameful and immoral, because every stranger’s eye is feasting on it for free. But come to think of it, is this the first time you ever saw this woman naked under some sexual spell? Would it be any different had it not been with the animal-psycho-freak doctor? Will “not knowing”, supersede the fact of “still becoming”? Clearly, this is not a battle for women’s rights. This is an ugly cry to justify the carelessness of becoming without the integrity of being. Moral ambiguity is a killer. Consistency is the rational winner. Whether you admit it or not, this is moral malpractice for which sequestering someone else’s professional license is not an adequate judgment, but rather a desperate form of revenge. Damage has been done. Who wins or who loses is just a matter of opinion, which we shall all very soon forget.

“I’m never gonna dance again, guilty feet have got no rhythm.”

But someone else surely won’t.