Helen Jones

Prostitution What Is It Really Like?

80 posts in this topic

Following on from a thread that suggested leaviing a bequest to a charity that helps prostitutes, I came across this piece of ermmmmmmmmm from a charity that helps prostitutes! and was quite surprised at the picture of prostitution they portray generally

There are many instances like the one below of course but its easy to see why 'escorts' like to separate themselves linguistically and social class wise from the stereotypical drug infused, beaten and abused street prostitute.

I don't believe a prostitute is a prostitute full stop! and any doubters should read the link supplied. Without doubt here's a massive difference between a professional escort and a street girl.

Tracy Kennett used to be a prostitute and a drug addict. Despite enduring a violent husband, homelessness, prison, losing custody of her children, and a leg amputation due to drug damage, she escaped prostitution and drugs four years ago..............

'Men like the power they have over prostitutes, that’s why the girls get raped. They drive you out to the middle of nowhere and rape you, just because they can.'

Isnt it about time there was an industry push to separate the vision of a professional escort from the street prostitute? or is it happening organically without the need for intervention?

read it here!

Edited by Helen Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very typical story about prostitution and yet another one that makes me think, oh dear, nail that stereotype in further! I've always said there is a huge misconception about prostitution. Most people think they are either drug addled street walkers or else Belle de Jour types meeting the rich and famous and getting jetted off to Paris for long weekends.

I think (and I have no evidence to back this up, so don't shout at me) that a large percentage of women who get paid for sex are actually escorts like most the girls on here who are average looking as opposed to stunning model types, educated, with careers, with families and whose next door neighbours would faint away with shock if they knew what she did. They generally don't have unstable backgrounds or drink/drug addiction, violent partners, abusive parents or some kind of other 'reason' why they chose to go on the game.

Even my mother asked me if I was a drug addict when she found out what I did! *rolls eyes*

However, despite what I said on my first sentence there is part of me that welcomes articles such as this. There are women in horrible situations that do need care and support. I've considered giving financially or volunteering to a charity that helps postitutes in dire circumstances because I do this through choice and in a safe manner. I am very grateful that I am not in the horrendous position some women find themselved and I am thankful everyday that my clients are generally sweet, kind and respectful.

EDIT: In answer to your question, I'm sure there is a desire to seperate the different types of prostitutes by some people, but whether it is a need or how it can be done I'm not sure. I guess the issue is society's perceptions and like most trades there are steroetypes. Interesting thought though Helen.

Edited by EnglishLondonGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very typical story about prostitution and yet another one that makes me think, oh dear, nail that stereotype in further! I've always said there is a huge misconception about prostitution. Most people think they are either drug addled street walkers or else Belle de Jour types meeting the rich and famous and getting jetted off to Paris for long weekends.

I think (and I have no evidence to back this up, so don't shout at me) that a large percentage of women who get paid for sex are actually escorts like most the girls on here who are average looking as opposed to stunning model types, educated, with careers, with families and whose next door neighbours would faint away with shock if they knew what she did. They generally don't have unstable backgrounds or drink/drug addiction, violent partners, abusive parents or some kind of other 'reason' why they chose to go on the game.

Even my mother asked me if I was a drug addict when she found out what I did! *rolls eyes*

However, despite what I said on my first sentence there is part of me that welcomes articles such as this. There are women in horrible situations that do need care and support. I've considered giving financially or volunteering to a charity that helps postitutes in dire circumstances because I do this through choice and in a safe manner. I am very grateful that I am not in the horrendous position some women find themselved and I am thankful everyday that my clients are generally sweet, kind and respectful.

EDIT: In answer to your question, I'm sure there is a desire to seperate the different types of prostitutes by some people, but whether it is a need or how it can be done I'm not sure. I guess the issue is society's perceptions and like most trades there are steroetypes. Interesting thought though Helen.

Good post, could you give details of the charity please, I'm sure that there are lots of girls, and guys, on here that would support it.

This business has its ups and downs (pun not intended) and some girls have more choice than others - I've been quite lucky, but recognise that there are others that weren't.

mP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather not promote a specific charity on here at the moment to be honest, it doesn't seem appropriate somehow (I can't put my finger on why though). Try googling if it's something you're interested in. Most areas have local groups (depending on where you are) and there are lots of charities that are specifically for women or children or the homeless that have sections for specific projects relating to prostitution.

Edited by EnglishLondonGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from a thread that suggested leaviing a bequest to a charity that helps prostitutes, I came across this piece of ermmmmmmmmm from a charity that helps prostitutes! and was quite surprised at the picture of prostitution they portray generally

'Men like the power they have over prostitutes, that’s why the girls get raped. They drive you out to the middle of nowhere and rape you, just because they can.'

Isnt it about time there was an industry push to separate the vision of a professional escort from the street prostitute? or is it happening organically without the need for intervention?

Your link is dated 27 September 2006. While Tracy's story might well be true, perhaps the (doubtless well meaning) people who published this as what "it is really like", might, by now, have actually done some research? (Or perhaps not? If you have pre-conceptions, why bother with research?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from a thread that suggested leaviing a bequest to a charity that helps prostitutes, I came across this piece of ermmmmmmmmm from a charity that helps prostitutes! and was quite surprised at the picture of prostitution they portray generally

There are many instances like the one below of course but its easy to see why 'escorts' like to separate themselves linguistically and social class wise from the stereotypical drug infused, beaten and abused street prostitute.

I don't believe a prostitute is a prostitute full stop! and any doubters should read the link supplied. Without doubt here's a massive difference between a professional escort and a street girl.

Tracy Kennett used to be a prostitute and a drug addict. Despite enduring a violent husband, homelessness, prison, losing custody of her children, and a leg amputation due to drug damage, she escaped prostitution and drugs four years ago..............

'Men like the power they have over prostitutes, that’s why the girls get raped. They drive you out to the middle of nowhere and rape you, just because they can.'

Isnt it about time there was an industry push to separate the vision of a professional escort from the street prostitute? or is it happening organically without the need for intervention?

read it here!

I see no reason to doubt what she said. You have to walk a mile in anyone's shoes to really know what their life is like. She is not a prostitute, not by choice anyway. She is a drug addict, and therefore turns to the easiest way of making money to feed her habit. If there were a better way for her to work she would be doing ANYTHING other than putting her self at risk by being on the street. I have never met a single street worker who enjoys her work, and I have spoken to loads of them. They would rather be doing something else.

I am a prostitute. I sell my body for sex because I can and I want to. That is the definition between girls like her, and those who are trafficked - and me. It's so simple to me, I don't know why nobody else thought of it.

Edited by Sarah Summers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from a thread that suggested leaviing a bequest to a charity that helps prostitutes, I came across this piece of ermmmmmmmmm from a charity that helps prostitutes! and was quite surprised at the picture of prostitution they portray generally

There are many instances like the one below of course but its easy to see why 'escorts' like to separate themselves linguistically and social class wise from the stereotypical drug infused, beaten and abused street prostitute.

I don't believe a prostitute is a prostitute full stop! and any doubters should read the link supplied. Without doubt here's a massive difference between a professional escort and a street girl.

Tracy Kennett used to be a prostitute and a drug addict. Despite enduring a violent husband, homelessness, prison, losing custody of her children, and a leg amputation due to drug damage, she escaped prostitution and drugs four years ago..............

'Men like the power they have over prostitutes, that’s why the girls get raped. They drive you out to the middle of nowhere and rape you, just because they can.'

Isnt it about time there was an industry push to separate the vision of a professional escort from the street prostitute? or is it happening organically without the need for intervention?

read it here!

There is a rad-fem agenda and media agenda with some to stereotype prostitutes as drug addicted street workers and punters as rain mack wearing perverts. Till this image is broken and the true FACTS given many people will believe the stereotypes.

How to get the FACTS out there is the challenge, and i agree it is about time there was an industry push to inform people about the truth. What form that push should take i have no idea to be honest but logic tells me WGs who have made a free choice to become a WG would have to say so like Dr Magnanti which isnt going to be possible with some perhaps many as they wouldnt wish family, friends or whoever knowing for whatever reasons, just like most punters wouldnt. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mebbe someone would make a book with a chapter by a different girl with their experiences and how they view their work. Dunno who tho. would be ideal for a social sciences academic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is generally reported, it will generally be perceived.

It serves no purpose for those in social work/government etc to believe that some Ladies really DO enjoy this line of work for whatever their own reasons may be.

Yet it is also sooo true that many others get caught in the often downward spiralling trap of substance abuse, pimps and God alone knows what else. It is in these particular cases where, if it is requested, help should be readily available to any that seek it. Their are a good many outreach programmes around the country which assist in as many ways as possible thankfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its people making Prostitutes look Fair seaming to the naked eye', so people glamouratize bad with good. A 'Brothel House' is called a 'Massage Parlour', A 'Fornication' taking place is called a 'Love Affair'.

Wheather children offer themselves for sex on the streets or behind Massage parlours its still incorrect and hated by most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who have never sold or paid for sex do not qualify to judge those that have, but I applaud anybody who helps somebody to escape what can be a damaging lifestyle or existence. Yes, they can generalise and to an extent they may be right, but there are real people behind the prostitutes and punters - some good, some bad and some downright evil. I no longer punt, wish I never had to be honest, but it will always interest me and I will defend the right of those that choose and benefit from this lifestyle to the hilt. I met somebody just recently and have been very open about it all and it was exhilarating to open up and tell the story as it were. She doesn't agree with what I have done but doesn't judge me or the girls I met. She has helped my thinking in a positive way and the relationship is stronger for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said recently in another thread, I believe what is needed at this point is an awareness-raising campaign - an "industry push", as smiths puts it in his post - to promote a realistic and three-dimensional picture of both WGs and punters and counteract all the damaging stereotypes, nonsensical assumptions and foolish dogma. Not an easy thing to get together, both in terms of resources and in terms of enough WGs and punters actually being prepared to stand up and be counted. I don't know if we'll ever see it in our lifetimes, but that's what we need. Because until that happens, the "other side" (be they radfems, prudes, career politicians, sensation-seeking journos, just plain ignorant or whatever...) will continue to make most of the running and set the agenda, because their voices are louder and they get a lot more coverage.

Remember, one big advantage the other side have is that in principle, given the opportunity, they're free to pop up on TV and show their faces whenever they please - and God, some of them do love doing that! - while a large proportion of us won't and/or can't do the same. And they can even point to that and make us look furtive, shifty and sleazy. Meanwhile, their arguments, theories and "statistics" are the ones that get listened to and believed, because ours don't get voiced often enough or prominently enough.

Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there. I'll try to end on a positive note: fifty-odd years ago, many of the same problems we face - severe stigmatisation, widespread negative misconceptions and stereotyping, hostile and unrealistic legislation - also applied to the situation of the gay community. Look at where they are now, and how far they've come (maybe not 100% of the way, but pretty damn far). It can be done. Not easy, and not without pain, but it can be done. I realise the comparison is not entirely on all fours with our own situation, but hey, maybe food for thought at least...

Edited by Beauregard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ve said pretty much all I would, Beauregard. The media and the anti-prostitution lobby have all the trump cards at present and continually push out the stereotypical image whenever they have anything to report – good or bad. Tell me a newspaper article which isn’t supported with a stock photo of a scantily clad girl poking her head through a car window!

However, to take Helen’s point, I think there is a slow realisation that prostitution isn’t a one size fits all industry, but change will – and is – happen organically. The internet is largely responsible for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, even if prostitution (in its safe and unforced form) becomes acceptable I think the chances of men being any more willing to admit to paying for sex is low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said recently in another thread, I believe what is needed at this point is an awareness-raising campaign - an "industry push", as smiths puts it in his post - to promote a realistic and three-dimensional picture of both WGs and punters and counteract all the damaging stereotypes, nonsensical assumptions and foolish dogma. Not an easy thing to get together, both in terms of resources and in terms of enough WGs and punters actually being prepared to stand up and be counted. I don't know if we'll ever see it in our lifetimes, but that's what we need. Because until that happens, the "other side" (be they radfems, prudes, career politicians, sensation-seeking journos, just plain ignorant or whatever...) will continue to make most of the running and set the agenda, because their voices are louder and they get a lot more coverage.

Remember, one big advantage the other side have is that in principle, given the opportunity, they're free to pop up on TV and show their faces whenever they please - and God, some of them do love doing that! - while a large proportion of us won't and/or can't do the same. And they can even point to that and make us look furtive, shifty and sleazy. Meanwhile, their arguments, theories and "statistics" are the ones that get listened to and believed, because ours don't get voiced often enough or prominently enough.

Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there. I'll try to end on a positive note: fifty-odd years ago, many of the same problems we face - severe stigmatisation, widespread negative misconceptions and stereotyping, hostile and unrealistic legislation - also applied to the situation of the gay community. Look at where they are now, and how far they've come (maybe not 100% of the way, but pretty damn far). It can be done. Not easy, and not without pain, but it can be done. I realise the comparison is not entirely on all fours with our own situation, but hey, maybe food for thought at least...

Excellent post, spot on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said recently in another thread, I believe what is needed at this point is an awareness-raising campaign - an "industry push", as smiths puts it in his post - to promote a realistic and three-dimensional picture of both WGs and punters and counteract all the damaging stereotypes, nonsensical assumptions and foolish dogma. Not an easy thing to get together, both in terms of resources and in terms of enough WGs and punters actually being prepared to stand up and be counted. I don't know if we'll ever see it in our lifetimes, but that's what we need. Because until that happens, the "other side" (be they radfems, prudes, career politicians, sensation-seeking journos, just plain ignorant or whatever...) will continue to make most of the running and set the agenda, because their voices are louder and they get a lot more coverage.

Remember, one big advantage the other side have is that in principle, given the opportunity, they're free to pop up on TV and show their faces whenever they please - and God, some of them do love doing that! - while a large proportion of us won't and/or can't do the same. And they can even point to that and make us look furtive, shifty and sleazy. Meanwhile, their arguments, theories and "statistics" are the ones that get listened to and believed, because ours don't get voiced often enough or prominently enough.

Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there. I'll try to end on a positive note: fifty-odd years ago, many of the same problems we face - severe stigmatisation, widespread negative misconceptions and stereotyping, hostile and unrealistic legislation - also applied to the situation of the gay community. Look at where they are now, and how far they've come (maybe not 100% of the way, but pretty damn far). It can be done. Not easy, and not without pain, but it can be done. I realise the comparison is not entirely on all fours with our own situation, but hey, maybe food for thought at least...

It's closer to our own situation than I previously thought.

In southern Ireland where I come from, for many years the older generation were living in a state of fear perpetuated by the Catholic Church to the point where in some believer's minds, there was very little difference between homosexuals and paedophiles, they were all thought of as "queer" and to be avoided and ostracised.

Homosexuality has come full circle now with legal rights surrounding co-habitation, adoption etc. and although there are still some members of that older generation in existence, even they begrudgingly accept the new norm. Of course, the ironic part of it all is that the Catholic Church was the one place which provided a convenient hiding place for paedophiles for generations and I think the lessening of the Church's power certainly went a long way towards more liberal attitudes.

I think the anti's do a magnificent job when it comes to creating moral panic around prostitution. It's not just the exchange of cash for sex that they urge Joe public to find abhorrent, but the assumed anti-social behaviour that goes with it - trafficking, pimps, drugs, damage to property, causing nuisance to neighbours etc. If prostitution was to be brought out of the dark ages and all of the layers of mystery ( and lies ) stripped away, there is very little most right thinking people could object to. What they could and should object to is prostitution where there is coercion involved and a lack of consent. I really hope that the afore mentioned change happens before I start going to bingo, but I'm starting to wonder if that will be the case. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's closer to our own situation than I previously thought.

In southern Ireland where I come from, for many years the older generation were living in a state of fear perpetuated by the Catholic Church to the point where in some believer's minds, there was very little difference between homosexuals and paedophiles, they were all thought of as "queer" and to be avoided and ostracised.

Homosexuality has come full circle now with legal rights surrounding co-habitation, adoption etc. and although there are still some members of that older generation in existence, even they begrudgingly accept the new norm. Of course, the ironic part of it all is that the Catholic Church was the one place which provided a convenient hiding place for paedophiles for generations and I think the lessening of the Church's power certainly went a long way towards more liberal attitudes.

I think the anti's do a magnificent job when it comes to creating moral panic around prostitution. It's not just the exchange of cash for sex that they urge Joe public to find abhorrent, but the assumed anti-social behaviour that goes with it - trafficking, pimps, drugs, damage to property, causing nuisance to neighbours etc. If prostitution was to be brought out of the dark ages and all of the layers of mystery ( and lies ) stripped away, there is very little most right thinking people could object to. What they could and should object to is prostitution where there is coercion involved and a lack of consent. I really hope that the afore mentioned change happens before I start going to bingo, but I'm starting to wonder if that will be the case. :(

I have not read the offending book but this is a class example of how uncomfortable the anti sex feminist gets when faced with an intelligent argument accepting that sex exists

Edited by akanostromo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read the offending book but this is a class example of how uncomfortable the anti sex feminist gets when faced with an intelligent argument accepting that sex exists

Ah! A review by Zoe Williams. Am I being a bit harsh if I call her a left-wing feminist bigot? She certainly has form in that department going back years. I recall her diatribe on private education a couple of years ago.

Still, it’s nice to read a book review and interview where the reviewer starts with an open mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, even if prostitution (in its safe and unforced form) becomes acceptable I think the chances of men being any more willing to admit to paying for sex is low.

I don't think it is necessarily the act of paying for sex more likely the deceit, the cheating, the lack of trust and such like. I don't think that will ever become acceptable, however sexually open we become. Sex in itself can be easily commodotised and for want of a better word devalued from any emotional meaning in terms of mutuality but reality tells us that by and large women don't like and will never accept being cheated on. You never know, perhaps in a hundred years time the wife will order a prostitute for her husband's birthday or Christmas treat and nobody will bat an eye lid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's closer to our own situation than I previously thought.

In southern Ireland where I come from, for many years the older generation were living in a state of fear perpetuated by the Catholic Church to the point where in some believer's minds, there was very little difference between homosexuals and paedophiles, they were all thought of as "queer" and to be avoided and ostracised.

Homosexuality has come full circle now with legal rights surrounding co-habitation, adoption etc. and although there are still some members of that older generation in existence, even they begrudgingly accept the new norm. Of course, the ironic part of it all is that the Catholic Church was the one place which provided a convenient hiding place for paedophiles for generations and I think the lessening of the Church's power certainly went a long way towards more liberal attitudes.

I think the anti's do a magnificent job when it comes to creating moral panic around prostitution. It's not just the exchange of cash for sex that they urge Joe public to find abhorrent, but the assumed anti-social behaviour that goes with it - trafficking, pimps, drugs, damage to property, causing nuisance to neighbours etc. If prostitution was to be brought out of the dark ages and all of the layers of mystery ( and lies ) stripped away, there is very little most right thinking people could object to. What they could and should object to is prostitution where there is coercion involved and a lack of consent. I really hope that the afore mentioned change happens before I start going to bingo, but I'm starting to wonder if that will be the case. :(

Laura, Ireland is not the only country where homosexuality has been associated with paedophilia. That assumption has certainly been made quite often in the UK (and doubtless still is in many quarters). Those of us who remember the Parliamentary debate on Edwina Currie's proposal to lower the gay age of consent to match the straight one have fond memories of Ian Paisley spluttering about this being a "buggers' charter".

Meanwhile, further to my previous post: I happened to catch last night's BBC2 drama-documentary about Hans Litten - for those who missed it, he was the German Jewish lawyer who in 1931 subpoenaed Adolf Hitler as a witness in a trial about Nazi violence, the aim being to undermine Hitler's position as a politician fatally through cutting cross-examination. One thing struck me as potentially quite relevant to our situation: early on in the preparations, Litten and his colleagues discussed how Hitler must not be allowed to turn his court appearance into an opportunity for a monologue, because monologues were what he thrived on. Lots of rhetoric, all his assertions and assumptions and lies unchallenged. So, they said, don't let him go off into a monologue - force him to engage in a dialogue instead. In a dialogue, false assumptions can be debated and their weakness highlighted. Lies can be exposed for what they are: lies. Dialogue's the key, not monologue.

And that's where we are now really, isn't it? What the anti's want - and mostly, what they get - is a monologue. What we need, if we're ever going to move forward, is to turn it into a proper dialogue.

And no, I'm not comparing the anti's to Hitler and the Nazis. It just seems to me that the principle is entirely valid, and pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

OK, second rant over, see you down the bingo. ;)

Edited by Beauregard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Laura, didn't make myself clear in my first paragraph: what Paisley was saying in his "buggers' charter" speech in the House of Commons was that if you gave gays the same age of consent as straights, you'd get paedophiles loitering at the gates of every school in the hope of picking up young boys. Apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Laura, didn't make myself clear in my first paragraph: what Paisley was saying in his "buggers' charter" speech in the House of Commons was that if you gave gays the same age of consent as straights, you'd get paedophiles loitering at the gates of every school in the hope of picking up young boys. Apologies.

That doesn't surprise me in the least, Paisley was the very epitomy of ill-informed bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laura, Ireland is not the only country where homosexuality has been associated with paedophilia. That assumption has certainly been made quite often in the UK (and doubtless still is in many quarters). Those of us who remember the Parliamentary debate on Edwina Currie's proposal to lower the gay age of consent to match the straight one have fond memories of Ian Paisley spluttering about this being a "buggers' charter".

Meanwhile, further to my previous post: I happened to catch last night's BBC2 drama-documentary about Hans Litten - for those who missed it, he was the German Jewish lawyer who in 1931 subpoenaed Adolf Hitler as a witness in a trial about Nazi violence, the aim being to undermine Hitler's position as a politician fatally through cutting cross-examination. One thing struck me as potentially quite relevant to our situation: early on in the preparations, Litten and his colleagues discussed how Hitler must not be allowed to turn his court appearance into an opportunity for a monologue, because monologues were what he thrived on. Lots of rhetoric, all his assertions and assumptions and lies unchallenged. So, they said, don't let him go off into a monologue - force him to engage in a dialogue instead. In a dialogue, false assumptions can be debated and their weakness highlighted. Lies can be exposed for what they are: lies. Dialogue's the key, not monologue.

And that's where we are now really, isn't it? What the anti's want - and mostly, what they get - is a monologue. What we need, if we're ever going to move forward, is to turn it into a proper dialogue.

And no, I'm not comparing the anti's to Hitler and the Nazis. It just seems to me that the principle is entirely valid, and pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

OK, second rant over, see you down the bingo. ;)

I agree with you again, a dialogue rather than the present monologue is what is required to move forward, thing is a monologue suits the antis of course and many know a dialogue would expose their present positions as untenable, and they dont want that to happen obviously. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is necessarily the act of paying for sex more likely the deceit, the cheating, the lack of trust and such like. I don't think that will ever become acceptable, however sexually open we become. Sex in itself can be easily commodotised and for want of a better word devalued from any emotional meaning in terms of mutuality but reality tells us that by and large women don't like and will never accept being cheated on. You never know, perhaps in a hundred years time the wife will order a prostitute for her husband's birthday or Christmas treat and nobody will bat an eye lid.

Clearly I'm ahead of my time! But yes, human emotions and jealousy can not be changed as easily as legislation. Whatever the law and even if there is a change in society's views of prostitution most people (particularly women) are more comfortable with a monogamous relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countering the Radfem propaganda

As mentioned a lot on these pages there is a distorted image put out by Radfems and their allies in the press about the nature of paid for sex. What is needed is a sober evaluation and refutation of their propaganda and in poking around the internet I came across the work of Ronald Weitzer who is professor of sociology at George Washington University (http://departments.columbian.gwu.edu/sociology/people/90) –and an excellent article he wrote (Weitzer R 2005 Flawed Theory and Method in studies of prostitution published in the journal Violence against women 11, 934-949) the full text of which can be found by searching Google Scholar as can his other articles . In that article he takes apart the Radfem propaganda and so-called “research” and shows it up for what it is- a pack of lies and half-truths.

Now the posters on this board seem to be frequent bloggers-perhaps the next time Julie Bindell or her ilk spout the usual lies and distortions we should be prepared to calmly point out (using evidence-much supplied in the articles of Weitzer and those he cites ) that much of what they claim are untruths-then perhaps we can begin to change perceptions?

(for the latest example see a story in Newsweek

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

based on “research” done by Melissa Farley-a well known anti-prostitution campaigner-so hardly a disinterested party-see her article here- http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdfs/Farleyetal2011ComparingSexBuyers.pdfand no prizes for picking large holes in it, but if you want a few clues try (http://eminism.org/blog/entry/257 and http://titsandsass.com/?p=3669)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now