[HN Gopher] San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)
___________________________________________________________________
San Francisco's Postwar Sex District (2006)
Author : samclemens
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-09-10 18:33 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.foundsf.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.foundsf.org)
| akira2501 wrote:
| 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 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?
| implements wrote:
| 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.
| brundolf wrote:
| 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
| chockablock wrote:
| > 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.
| ruined wrote:
| >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 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
| tptacek wrote:
| 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?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| 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.
| bsder wrote:
| > 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.
| thephyber wrote:
| > 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.
| bsder wrote:
| 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.
| benreesman wrote:
| 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 by basically everyone
| around here. Projections of personal morality judgements
| _unannotated_ by clarification that they are just that go over,
| less well.
| paisawalla wrote:
| benreesman wrote:
| 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".
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Sex work is an outlet for people. Prostition ensured that men
| could do their thing in an age were good decent women remained
| virginial. And even in the modern age men have kinks that they
| can't get anywhere else.
|
| 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.
| badrabbit wrote:
| Like any business it is the owners that profit.
| varelse wrote:
| 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 you can
| vote this one down. If you even see this one, please vote this
| one down. I need 2,979 more down votes.
| Animats wrote:
| 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...
| paisawalla wrote:
| Embarrassingly shallow "historical essay".
|
| TLDR -- everything that cut in favor of libertinism and public
| depravity was an expression of true public will and therefore
| Legitimate Democracy. Everything cutting against was the result
| of corruption, miseducation, and false consciousness.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| 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.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| [deleted]
| paisawalla wrote:
| 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, frankly.
|
| > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological
| battle. It tramples curiosity
|
| This article is on HN only for such a reason. There are many
| better treatments of the history of the Barbary Coast
| neighborhood, if that's of interest.
| chockablock wrote:
| 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.
| benreesman wrote:
| 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!
| paisawalla wrote:
| 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...
| benreesman wrote:
| 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 precis with a subtle but detectable slant, and
| which is a breathless tale of sin and lawlessness.
| shzusnwxbwj wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-11 23:01 UTC)