mart478

Guardian Article

49 posts in this topic

Read this today.............

http://www.guardian....not-wished-away

PunterNet gets a mention.

Punternet may be a medium but Guardian readers seem to be getting the message, judging from the overwhelming percentage of comments deriding the reviewer's comments about Brooke's book and prostitution, in general. It does seem that Guardian reviewer's of books relating to the adult entertainment industries are all housed in the same stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will read i once it hits the charity shops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to read Magnanti's new book. I pre-ordered it, so it may even arrive today.

The review is, of course, thick with anti-prostitution rhetoric. The comments are a mixture of reasonable insight (the acknowledgement that within such a massive industry there may exist both those happy and unhappy is particularly radical!) and absolute idiocy (punish women for violating standards of social morality! Er, what? The nineteenth century called, love, they need you to come back lest their standards slip ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A grudging review by Gold. You can tell where her sympathies lie but she cannot unpick the argument. Her strongest argument is that opinion is divided but she fails to acknowledge that all the quality research is on one side and all the propaganda is on the other.

It's a disgusting review that should have been spiked and replaced with something more objective. She wants to dismiss De Magnanti as a sex addict, an aberration, so she does so by saying you can't, thereby planting the seed.

She quotes the Farley paper. Farley has had her research accreditation withdrawn by the American Psychological Accociation for bias. Nuff said. She uses weasel words like 'conjure'.

Shameful appalling journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Brooke was intervieved on LBC radio yesterday afternoon and I was lucky to catch it . It was interesting to listen to someone who was in the business .

An interesting point was that not all men who visit escorts are looking for sex .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A grudging review by Gold. You can tell where her sympathies lie but she cannot unpick the argument. Her strongest argument is that opinion is divided but she fails to acknowledge that all the quality research is on one side and all the propaganda is on the other.

It's a disgusting review that should have been spiked and replaced with something more objective. She wants to dismiss De Magnanti as a sex addict, an aberration, so she does so by saying you can't, thereby planting the seed.

She quotes the Farley paper. Farley has had her research accreditation withdrawn by the American Psychological Accociation for bias. Nuff said. She uses weasel words like 'conjure'.

Shameful appalling journalism.

Totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at that title......"The sex industry is repulsive but.....'

Oh how objective! You just know you are going to get a well thought out article there immediately don't you?

I am ashamed to say I used to read The Guardian, until the unabashed tosh some of their journalists wrote began to stick in my craw too much. Classist, sexist, patronising, condescending claptrap.

She quotes statistics from Punternet saying 77% of us feel we are treated respectfully, that only 3% intend to stop anytime soon, and then gaily carries on to completely ignore that. Now, I am not a journalist, but if I was finding statistics like that, I'd be thinking 'Ooooh, thats interesting!'

On the grounds of a bit of balance, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Guardian . In reality, the least liberal of all the dailies. Inhabited by a gruesome collection of ugly lesbian feminists and patronising dickheads. They wouldn't understand fun if someone stuffed them full of coke and stuck them in a Berlusconi bunga bunga shindig. imagine being married to Polly Toynbee - you would be straight down the knocking shop as fast your kegs would carry you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Guardian . In reality, the least liberal of all the dailies. Inhabited by a gruesome collection of ugly lesbian feminists and patronising dickheads. They wouldn't understand fun if someone stuffed them full of coke and stuck them in a Berlusconi bunga bunga shindig. imagine being married to Polly Toynbee - you would be straight down the knocking shop as fast your kegs would carry you.

I love you Arcadian. Thats what I was trying to say as well, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She quotes statistics from Punternet saying 77% of us feel we are treated respectfully, that only 3% intend to stop anytime soon, and then gaily carries on to completely ignore that.

I missed the fact that that particular statistic was gathered from Punternet. Mind you, most surveys are going to have their figures skewed to at least some degree by who is being questioned, who is doing the questioning and even the environment within which the questions are being asked.

I noticed that there were a lot of readers' comments alomg the lines of it being about time that prostitution was legalised, but seemingly nobody pointing out that it's already legal. If that fact was more widely known, I think it would have quite an effect on many people's perceptions of the sex industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the fact that that particular statistic was gathered from Punternet. Mind you, most surveys are going to have their figures skewed to at least some degree by who is being questioned, who is doing the questioning and even the environment within which the questions are being asked.

I noticed that there were a lot of readers' comments alomg the lines of it being about time that prostitution was legalised, but seemingly nobody pointing out that it's already legal. If that fact was more widely known, I think it would have quite an effect on many people's perceptions of the sex industry.

I did :). It's been bumped down to the third page now, but I had a spare couple of hours yesterday afternoon and the weather was too foul to go for a walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did :). It's been bumped down to the third page now, but I had a spare couple of hours yesterday afternoon and the weather was too foul to go for a walk.

Well done, Amy! I must admit I only read the first page of comments, so I probably didn't get to your message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did :). It's been bumped down to the third page now, but I had a spare couple of hours yesterday afternoon and the weather was too foul to go for a walk.

Well done Amy. ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done Amy. ;):D

I was a bit pissed, to be honest. Two glasses of wine at lunchtime as a virtual non-drinker had me fancying a scrap and happily, the CIF page rarely disappoints :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punternet may be a medium but Guardian readers seem to be getting the message, judging from the overwhelming percentage of comments deriding the reviewer's comments about Brooke's book and prostitution, in general. It does seem that Guardian reviewer's of books relating to the adult entertainment industries are all housed in the same stable.

Interesting to note that most of the initial readers' comments were either supportive of prostitution (especially if legalised and regulated) or neutral/open-minded on the subject. However, the jungle drums obviously began beating frantically soon after my 0405 post (insomnia) yesterday and the usual suspects have come flooding onto the Guardian comments blog. Since they all appear to feed at the same trough as Gold does, I'm surprised that a 'red alert' wasn't sounded so that they could all march lock-step to their computers and repeat the radfem mantra. The overall response has been quite mixed but the ballot box has been stuffed. :angry: Edited by Tiggy 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Guardian . In reality, the least liberal of all the dailies. Inhabited by a gruesome collection of ugly lesbian feminists and patronising dickheads. They wouldn't understand fun if someone stuffed them full of coke and stuck them in a Berlusconi bunga bunga shindig. imagine being married to Polly Toynbee - you would be straight down the knocking shop as fast your kegs would carry you.

And you wonder why The Guardian takes a dim view of prostitution and its punters when amongst all the sensible comments on this thread we get a crass illinformed post like this. Why should a feminist be either a) ugly, B) a lesbian or indeed c) gruesome? I imagine they'll all know who Charlie is down Guardian way as well.

Polly Toynbee lost her first husband (Peter Jenkins), has a 2nd partner and is understood to be a fun person in her private life albeit through her writing she does seem to take herself rather too seriously. But what have her looks got to do with it? Being a public school girl she probably goes like the clappers for all we know!

The article was, of course, rubbish and drew incorrect inferences from the surveys and I suspect Tiggy is right in that the usual contibutors/gerrymanderers conspired to tilt the responses

Incidentally feminism itself is completely split on prostitution: either liberating women or keeping them in demeaning bondage serving men. So it's not entirely cut and dried with them. Also a male cant be feminist but can have sympathy with feminism. A technicality, I know

I dont expect to be popular after this post but insulting them and putting them all in one group doesnt help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Southernboy.

I don't feel it's necessary to insult my clients wives either.

For the record, I regard myself as a Feminist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you wonder why The Guardian takes a dim view of prostitution and its punters when amongst all the sensible comments on this thread we get a crass illinformed post like this. Why should a feminist be either a) ugly, B) a lesbian or indeed c) gruesome? I imagine they'll all know who Charlie is down Guardian way as well.

Polly Toynbee lost her first husband (Peter Jenkins), has a 2nd partner and is understood to be a fun person in her private life albeit through her writing she does seem to take herself rather too seriously. But what have her looks got to do with it? Being a public school girl she probably goes like the clappers for all we know!

The article was, of course, rubbish and drew incorrect inferences from the surveys and I suspect Tiggy is right in that the usual contibutors/gerrymanderers conspired to tilt the responses

Incidentally feminism itself is completely split on prostitution: either liberating women or keeping them in demeaning bondage serving men. So it's not entirely cut and dried with them. Also a male cant be feminist but can have sympathy with feminism. A technicality, I know

I dont expect to be popular after this post but insulting them and putting them all in one group doesnt help

I've met Toynbee. "fun" is the last adjective I would apply to her. Like you , she is po faced killjoy. The thought of her going like the clappers makes my stomach churn. A feminist needn't be ugly, I agree. I guess it is just a visceral hatred I have for that newspaper ang those who write for it that colours my judgement. Lara - is Polly's husband one of your clients then? Oooh er.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I follow your logic now, Arcadian: I'm a killjoy because i think describing all the female writers at The Guardian as " a gruesome collection of ugly lesbian feminists" may be slightly counterproductive to the general view on this thread? Do you really think it advances the argument for the wider acceptance of prostitution provided it is uncoerced and with free will?

Given she's met you, she may not also be entirely enthused at the thought of you in all your glory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was all over me like a rash. I think it was my rejection that has made her the sour faced harriden she now is . A drop of the old arcadian magic might have sweetened her up, poor thing. Or not, as the case may be.

Sorry about the levity and crass insulting - I thought were on Punternet, a prostitute review site, not feckingQuestion time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you've got that bit right: we are indeed on Punternet and not Question Time. But we're on the public boards here and specifically General Discussion about all things prostitution of which this topic is a very relevant one. Unless, I've misunderstood something, its more than a review site

I'm off for a pint of Po Face now. Fullers - I can recommend it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought were on Punternet, a prostitute review site, not feckingQuestion time.

"And now a question from the gentleman in the gimp mask"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit late but

An Evening with Brooke Magnanti

Waterstones Piccadilly, 203-206 Piccadilly, London

About the event:

Brooke Magnanti will be talking about her new book 'The Sex Myth: Why Everything We're Told is Wrong

Times:

Thursday 19th Apr 2012 19:00

Admission:

£5 / £3 for Waterstones Loyalty Card Holders available in store, via 020 7851 2400

Edited by starman

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