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

21–30 of 41 posts

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

#21

Post by shzusnwxbwj »

benreesman wrote: post #17
paisawalla wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

No post body was provided.

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

#22

Post by tptacek »

ruined wrote: post #6
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? there are, they just aren't public about it because it's illegal. and, a large number transition into other lines of work before they retire, and that's what they end up known for. >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 e…

That seems like a just-so story; plenty of sex workers are extraordinarily public about their work, legal and otherwise; why is it just the millionaires who are hiding? Is this meant to be an IRS thing?

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

#23

Post by implements »

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…

I’m puzzled as to why posts critical of sex work are being downvoted on HNs lately?

Downvotes aren’t supposed to be for “I disagree” or “I think differently” - they’re supposed to be for contributions against the spirit of the site.

It’s perfectly fine to think prostitution is a bad thing that shouldn’t be encouraged - that’s not hateful lack of inclusivity for sex workers - it’s an ethical viewpoint concerning human dignity and likely negative social outcomes that’s reasonable to express.

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

#24

Post by thephyber »

bsder wrote: post #19
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 se…

> So, for every person who is there because its a voluntary job choice, there are 100x there because they have no other choice.

Citation needed.

As someone who is very interested in epistemology, I would like to know where you came up with this number. From what I can tell, we don’t have any accurate way of arriving at the numerator or denominator.

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

#25

Post by thatguy0900 »

tptacek wrote: post #22
ruined wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the "sexual economy" is so rich, why aren't there any rich and retired prostitutes? there are, they just aren't public about it because it's illegal. and, a large number transition into other lines of work before they retire, and that's what they end up known for. >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 e…

That seems like a just-so story; plenty of sex workers are extraordinarily public about their work, legal and otherwise; why is it just the millionaires who are hiding? Is this meant to be an IRS thing?

There is plenty of young woman publicly getting amazingly wealthy off of only fans and what is effectively softcore porn on twitch. They retire into obscurity as well when they start loosing their youthful good looks.

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

#26

Post by brundolf »

implements wrote: post #23
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…

I’m puzzled as to why posts critical of sex work are being downvoted on HNs lately? Downvotes aren’t supposed to be for “I disagree” or “I think differently” - they’re supposed to be for contributions against the spirit of the site. It’s perfectly fine to think prostitution is a bad thing that shouldn’t be encouraged - that’s not hateful lack of inclusivity for sex workers - it’s an ethical viewpoint concerning human…

The GP came across to me as having personal, preconceived emotional reasons for taking issue with the subject, and then skimming the content for things to support that without actually reading it very closely. To me that's a low-quality comment

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

#27

Post by bsder »

thephyber wrote: post #24
bsder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

> So, for every person who is there because its a voluntary job choice, there are 100x there because they have no other choice. Citation needed. As someone who is very interested in epistemology, I would like to know where you came up with this number. From what I can tell, we don’t have any accurate way of arriving at the numerator or denominator.

You're so full of crap. You can walk out your door and for a couple hundred bucks start gathering data.

Do you know of no one who works in that economy? Do you know of no one who has availed themselves of services from that economy? You probably know more of those people than you think...

Simply out of my acquaintenances that I know who have worked in that economy, I know exactly 2 who worked it specifically for the money and then got out well--not rich, but they used their money to bootstrap themselves to something else. The rest got sucked into it and got used up by it and definitely didn't come out ahead. That's >x10 right off the bat out of the people I actually know. So that's the bottom estimate.

If I match against the stories of the ones who got out, that x10 is low. By a lot. There are a lot of shady people actively always trying to put workers in the category where they can use them up. Is x100 high? Maybe, but not off by an order of magnitude.

And this is just a standard, middling blue-collar kind of area. We're not talking desperate poverty or sex trafficking as part of those numbers.

Now, Covid and OnlyFans has probably shaken this up some. That combination has meant that online interaction has gone way up. That will certainly change the calculus. But probably less than you think--after a bit of grace period, OnlyFans pimps started organizing things.

Nevertheless, very few people voluntarily choose to go into the sex economy if they have other valid options. The combination of stigma that may follow you due to permanent record (cell phone cameras, porn posting sites, etc.) as well as the possibility of getting something on your legal record permanently are both strong disincentives.

I recommend going and collecting some data, Mr. Epistemologist. Meeting some working stiffs who are just trying to figure out how to navigate life will do you some good.

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

#28

Post by pstuart »

varelse wrote: post #10

Legalize it all and regulate it to protect sex workers. Make pimps and their equivalents obsolete. It would be better if we could provide better options to those who end up turning to sex work, but that's crazy talk. So let them make the best of a crappy situation that most Americans seem to favor them being in instead of punishing them for not being born rich. Come on guys you can vote this one down, you just know y…

What HN needs is an YC entrant to do AirBnB for sex workers -- and how to remove "middle management" from the equation.

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

#29

Post by swatcoder »

implements wrote: post #23
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…

I’m puzzled as to why posts critical of sex work are being downvoted on HNs lately? Downvotes aren’t supposed to be for “I disagree” or “I think differently” - they’re supposed to be for contributions against the spirit of the site. It’s perfectly fine to think prostitution is a bad thing that shouldn’t be encouraged - that’s not hateful lack of inclusivity for sex workers - it’s an ethical viewpoint concerning human…

> Downvotes aren’t supposed to be for “I disagree”

That’s incorrect.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

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

#30

Post by shkkmo »

bsder wrote: post #27
thephyber wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, for every person who is there because its a voluntary job choice, there are 100x there because they have no other choice. Citation needed. As someone who is very interested in epistemology, I would like to know where you came up with this number. From what I can tell, we don’t have any accurate way of arriving at the numerator or denominator.

You're so full of crap. You can walk out your door and for a couple hundred bucks start gathering data. Do you know of no one who works in that economy? Do you know of no one who has availed themselves of services from that economy? You probably know more of those people than you think... Simply out of my acquaintenances that I know who have worked in that economy, I know exactly 2 who worked it specifically for the…

Your response here is very kneejerk and innappropriate. It would have been much better if you left out the name calling at the beginning and end and just kept the part in the middle that was focused on explaining how you came to the "100x" number.
Post reply on HN