Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

foundsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#11

Post by benreesman »

paisawalla wrote: post #7
pmoriarty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the HN guidelines[1]: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "Eschew flamebait." [1] - https://news.y…

This article is poorly/un- sourced, and ham-handedly forces the class-oppression dynamics in defiance of obvious alternative explanations. This is why it doesn't even attempt to seriously explore causes of popular opposition to open and active red light districts, but just broad brush paints them as products of either puritanism or corruption. It's an insubstantial article and I don't see much there to respond to, fr…

As a protip, assertions like “X is poorly footnoted” that are themselves completely lacking in any links or references or footnotes bum me and a lot of other users out.

I would be fascinated to read a substantive contrary viewpoint that clarifies inaccuracies or highlights controversial assertions in TFA, because I don’t know how accurate it is. Write that!

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#12

Post by Animats »

Here's a look back by some people who were there.[1][2]. Both Danielle Willis and Cintra Wilson took a hard look at the SF sex industry from the inside. Then they teamed up and did a play.

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Another-take-on-The-Part...

[2] https://www.ebar.com/story.php?ch=arts__culture&sc=theater&i...

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#13

Post by paisawalla »

benreesman wrote: post #11
paisawalla wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is poorly/un- sourced, and ham-handedly forces the class-oppression dynamics in defiance of obvious alternative explanations. This is why it doesn't even attempt to seriously explore causes of popular opposition to open and active red light districts, but just broad brush paints them as products of either puritanism or corruption. It's an insubstantial article and I don't see much there to respond to, fr…

As a protip, assertions like “X is poorly footnoted” that are themselves completely lacking in any links or references or footnotes bum me and a lot of other users out. I would be fascinated to read a substantive contrary viewpoint that clarifies inaccuracies or highlights controversial assertions in TFA, because I don’t know how accurate it is. Write that!

Sure, but apart from a rebuttal, it's also a valid critique to simply point out that this is a structurally bad article which insults the intelligence of the reader, without responding to the content. The entire field could be occupied by historians who only believe that class dynamics explain every phenomenon -- such that there's no contrary sources to provide -- and it still wouldn't make it an accurate or acceptable historical essay.

Here's merely one (of many) better articles that explains why people of San Francisco, than as now, might not favor having an openly lawless neighborhood in their city: https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/california/arti...

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#14

Post by chockablock »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? This article seems to walk right over the problems that are endemic to that "industry" in an effort to paint it in an acceptable light. It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and…

> It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and that when the seedy operators are finally taken out of an area the real estate values increase.

I don't think you read the article very carefully. The sentence immediately after the mention of the VCR is about how AIDS led to the closing of many venues. The one after that is about the role of property values (though it claims causality in the other direction--that sex clubs were priced out as neighborhoods got richer).

> What value is this essay supposed to have to this particular forum?

Overall the essay reads to me as being very light on editorializing, and much more of a straight-ahead narration of an important facet of the city's history. I learned a lot from reading it, despite having lived in SF for many years.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#15

Post by paisawalla »

benreesman wrote: post #8
akira2501 wrote: post #4

If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? This article seems to walk right over the problems that are endemic to that "industry" in an effort to paint it in an acceptable light. It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and…

To the extent that it’s accurate: it’s a summary of one aspect of the history, culture, and economy where many of the site users do or have once lived and which has plaid an outsized role in the development of the startup culture this site is explicitly premised on. To the extent that’s it’s inaccurate in its assertions (I wouldn’t know) point it out! Substantive critiques of submissions are welcomed and encouraged b…

No post body was provided.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#16

Post by _8j50 »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? This article seems to walk right over the problems that are endemic to that "industry" in an effort to paint it in an acceptable light. It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and…

Like any business it is the owners that profit.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#17

Post by benreesman »

paisawalla wrote: post #13
benreesman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a protip, assertions like “X is poorly footnoted” that are themselves completely lacking in any links or references or footnotes bum me and a lot of other users out. I would be fascinated to read a substantive contrary viewpoint that clarifies inaccuracies or highlights controversial assertions in TFA, because I don’t know how accurate it is. Write that!

Sure, but apart from a rebuttal, it's also a valid critique to simply point out that this is a structurally bad article which insults the intelligence of the reader, without responding to the content. The entire field could be occupied by historians who only believe that class dynamics explain every phenomenon -- such that there's no contrary sources to provide -- and it still wouldn't make it an accurate or acceptab…

So I thank you for the reference and it was also an interesting read.

But… as a relatively disinterested observer I feel compelled to point out that the link you provided is at least as loosely footnoted and uses at least as much (if not probably more) charged language. It has the word “Bloody” in the title.

TFA is clearly written by someone who believes that prostitution is not inherently bad, bordering on a tacit endorsement of the practice. To its credit it doesn’t use language like “unfortunate men seduced by the temptations of…”

If I missed it please correct me, but I didn’t find anything like: “Having been seduced by prostitutes affiliated with the Sydney Ducks, the unfortunate men who entered these brothels…” or “den of violence and vice” or “Gone were the scheming criminals and overarching sense of moral decay”.

It’s a bit much with the purple prose about scheming this and degenerate that.

It’s only my opinion, but I don’t really see any controversy over which of these things is a relatively sober précis with a subtle but detectable slant, and which is a breathless tale of sin and lawlessness.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#18

Post by chockablock »

paisawalla wrote: post #7
pmoriarty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the HN guidelines[1]: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "Eschew flamebait." [1] - https://news.y…

This article is poorly/un- sourced, and ham-handedly forces the class-oppression dynamics in defiance of obvious alternative explanations. This is why it doesn't even attempt to seriously explore causes of popular opposition to open and active red light districts, but just broad brush paints them as products of either puritanism or corruption. It's an insubstantial article and I don't see much there to respond to, fr…

As it says at the top of the page, this article is basically a precis of a journal article, which--hurrah! is on Sci-hub: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144205282713 . As you'd expect that article seems to be better sourced and has citations.

Your critique of the posted article as being part of an ideological battle advancing class oppression dynamics seems overblown to me. This particular article reads like museum-pamphlet history to me.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#19

Post by bsder »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? This article seems to walk right over the problems that are endemic to that "industry" in an effort to paint it in an acceptable light. It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and…

> If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes?

As I recall, during the Gold Rush the prostitutes were some of the wealthiest in the towns and had quite a lot of influence.

Remember Heidi Fleiss? She made a whole lot of money. Her mentor did, too, and was a lot quieter about it. I suspect there was a successor who was also a lot quieter.

Eliot Spitzer spent like $3K-$4K per session. We know for a fact that top Playboy centerfolds will do it for $100K.

Like any market, though, the majority of the money goes to a very few and the Power Law means that a whole lot make very little.

The other issue is that the sexual economy also often attracts the desperate. So, for every person who is there because its a voluntary job choice, there are 100x there because they have no other choice.

Re: San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)

#20

Post by benreesman »

benreesman wrote: post #8
akira2501 wrote: post #4

If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? This article seems to walk right over the problems that are endemic to that "industry" in an effort to paint it in an acceptable light. It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and…

To the extent that it’s accurate: it’s a summary of one aspect of the history, culture, and economy where many of the site users do or have once lived and which has plaid an outsized role in the development of the startup culture this site is explicitly premised on. To the extent that’s it’s inaccurate in its assertions (I wouldn’t know) point it out! Substantive critiques of submissions are welcomed and encouraged b…

The child comment got flagged into oblivion, which I feel is a bit harsh.

I express personal moral judgements on HN, and I read tons of others doing so every time I come here. I just try hard to annotate them as such.

I don’t have any problem with, and IMHO the community shouldn’t have any problem with, moral opinions of users who hold minority (on HN) views.

I think the commenter just needs to clarify that “substantive critique ends here, personal opinion begins here”.

Post reply on HN