San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)
foundsf.org
foundsf.org
[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...
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.
It seems to me to be trying to out of it's way to flatly ignore the human cost of these "sexual markets," where the profit comes _from_ and where it ultimately _goes_.
I'm left wondering: What value is this essay supposed to have to this particular forum?
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 epidemic related to these sexual encounters,
it's speaking specifically about pornographic theaters, which VCRs obviously compete with. AIDS is mentioned immediately in the next sentence
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 by basically everyone around here. Projections of personal morality judgements unannotated by clarification that they are just that go over, less well.
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”.
I don't like drugs but I know that millions need their snuff snuff to get through life so may as well legalize it and keep the worst atrocities at bay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My overriding point is that “collecting some data” in this industry is fundamentally faulty.
It’s not that we have zero anecdotes or data. It’s that we can’t know if the little data we have is truly representative of the wider data set.
> You probably know more of those people than you think...
Of course that is likely. That just reinforces my point that there is more that we _don’t_ know about statistics in the industry than we _do_ know.
> That's >x10 right off the bat out of the people I actually know. So that's the bottom estimate.
You haven’t proven that your sample is random, so you have no basis for calling this the floor.
> Is x100 high? Maybe, but not off by an order of magnitude.
How do you know it’s not off by a magnitude?
My whole point with epistemology is that this entire data set is shrouded. We can’t know if our estimates are accurate or not.
Your methodology is clearly not accurate. I don’t have any confidence that mine would be any better. But at least I’m intellectually honest enough to know what I don’t know.
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.
That’s incorrect.
When you look at the consequences for said viewpoint, they're all extremely negative for sex workers. At that point it stops being so philosophical.
There are two problems here. First is that US has a long history of trying to handle the problem by prosecuting the victims (sex workers) instead of offenders (clients). Another is that this happens to be usually justified using religious gibberish.
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 you can vote this one down. If you even see this one, please vote this one down. I need 2,979 more down votes.
Please don’t do this kind of thing here. I’m not even sure what it is trying to accomplish. The first part of your post would have stood on its own.