Malarek insults Stella, SPoC, etc.

[Techman]

I am not putting the past at Malarek's feet. What I am saying is that by using false and invented 'facts' and 'studies' he is currently making sure that the situation does not have a chance of changing for the better. By insisting that the majority of prostitutes are being forced into the profession he is reinforcing stereotypes that should be being torn down instead of built up. Attempting to put an end to prostitution is a exercise in futility just as the attempt to stop the drug trade is or prohibition was in the past.

By using false information to insist on his vision of a global sex trade which in fact may not even exist, at least not to the extent that he insists it does, he is doing more damage than good. False information is never to anyone's benefit other that the one who is spreading it to keep himself relevant and earning money.

As long as there are women willing to sell sex, there will be men willing to pay for it. This will never change.

 

[wet_suit_one]

I am not putting the past at Malarek's feet. What I am saying is that by using false and invented 'facts' and 'studies' he is currently making sure that the situation does not have a chance of changing for the better. By insisting that the majority of prostitutes are being forced into the profession he is reinforcing stereotypes that should be being torn down instead of built up. Attempting to put an end to prostitution is a exercise in futility just as the attempt to stop the drug trade is or prohibition was in the past.

By using false information to insist on his vision of a global sex trade which in fact may not even exist, at least not to the extent that he insists it does, he is doing more damage than good. False information is never to anyone's benefit other that the one who is spreading it to keep himself relevant and earning money.

As long as there are women willing to sell sex, there will be men willing to pay for it. This will never change.

As well, as long as there are men willing to pay there will be women willing to sell. I think that the demand has to come first and supply follows, not the other way 'round.

I'm just sayin'

 

[wet_suit_one]

What else then?

Prostitution only exists in the context of male-defined cultures: the civilized world in other words, where women were long known and to a certain extent are still known as inferior. Civilization is partly defined by division of labour where women were long confined to static roles of housewives and child-bearers...

Conversely, in the context of generally egalitarian ethos of hunter-gatherer or foraging societies, prostitution does not exist.

Same with matrilineal Iroquois, Crow and Pueblo societies: prostitution is alien.

So what you're saying is that in those societies, sex is given away quite freely by women and women suffer no stigma for giving it away. I'm sure the males in those societies have just as insatiable a desire for sex as in every other society, but the women are able and willing to give it away freely to such an extent that no man would actually pay for what is freely available.

Is that what you're saying? If so, I may have to move! Imagine that, a society where women give it up freely and for free such that I don't have to pay.

I honestly think you're mistaken, don't have the full facts or are subject to some other error. I don't think that a society where women give it up for free exists. Somehow or another men have to pay. Maybe I'm wrong. All I know is that sex isn't not nearly freely available enough in our society that I can get by without paying. Too many hassles, hardships and shortcomings with "free sex." Paid sex is so much freer.

 

[CS Martin]

******editted************

 

[Regular Guy]

Malarek is being interviewed right at this moment on 580 am radio CFRA Ottawa. He is a guest on a talk show. This station is powerful enough to be easily heard in Montreal. You can also get it in streaming online at www.cfra.com.

 

[Techman]

In what way?

By keeping the status quo intact as far as the laws are concerned. By allowing those who fight decriminalization to use his false information and studies as ammunition to back their case, his fear mongering and disinformation pretty much guarantee that prostitution will always remain in the shadows of society and that the ladies who work in the sex trade will always be looked down at by society at large.

Malarek's claims that the majority of prostitutes are forced into the trade are very similar to those who claim marijuana leads to hard drug use because the majority of hard drug users started with marijuana. I could make an equally stupid claim by saying that 100% of hard drug users have consumed water so water must lead to hard drug use. Both statements ignore the fact that the vast majority of pot smokers, or water drinkers , never advance to hard drugs.

Statistics and studies can be manipulated to support the position you are presenting, especially when the stats and studies used are never asked to be produced. And in Malarek's case, probably don't exist in the first place.

 

[La Femme]

By keeping the status quo intact as far as the laws are concerned. By allowing those who fight decriminalization to use his false information and studies as ammunition to back their case, his fear mongering and disinformation pretty much guarantee that prostitution will always remain in the shadows of society and that the ladies who work in the sex trade will always be looked down at by society at large.

Co-sign.....

 

[Techman]

10-19...seeing as prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money, how about we limit the discussion to societies which have had some kind of monetary system in place along with some semblance of a civilized society.

In other words, let's forget wandering tribes, cavemen, troops of monkeys, etc... and keep the discussion focused on actual civilations of the last few thousand years with an established system of laws and government.

If not I'm pretty sure that before long you will be bringing the discussion down to the single cell organism level.

 

[Dee]

Co-sign.....

tangent.....

 

[Dee]

The relationship you describe between prostitutes and the authorities pre-dates Malarek by many centuries.

Yup, the PBI* treated sex workers like shit... all the literature backs it up.**

* Piltdown Bureau of Investigation
** See for example: "Money Changers, Fishes Multipliers and Whores: The Battle Continues - the Life and Times of Fred F., PBI (Forward by Barney R.) (DVD 32 BC).

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

If you're interested in a relevant historical parallel to the recent misguided hysteria fuelled by Malarek and his ilk, read some things about the "white slavery" panic of 100 years ago.
http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/doezema-loose.html
http://slate.com/id/2094896/

 

[Regular Guy]

It is not. Anyone with a bit of interest in the works of the anthropologists whom names I cited above knows that prostitution is a phenomenon strongly correlated to patriarcal societies.

Got to go for now but will be back to comment on RG, HJ and Techman's posts.

C'mon Zig! Though I also took several courses in Anthropology I am not going to trot out a list of published authors. Let your arguments and theirs stand on their own merits. You and I both know that name dropping without substantiation of argument is a fallacy of argument.
And if you are going to refute my points would you first be so kind as to supply your working definition of "prostitution as it applies to stone age cultures. This one I gotta see.

 

[Regular Guy]

A Sham!

Malarek was on a radio talk show for two hours this afternoon in Ottawa. One point shone through his whole presentation. He painted the activity as black as he could. In no way could anyone in their wildest dreams classify this as a balanced and unbiased presentation. It was a textbook workshop on how to employ omission of fact as an instrument of fallacy of argument. To me (and I suspect many academics) this is one of the mortal sins of journalism. There is a whole other side to the industry within which it is completely questionable as to where the source of exploitation really has its roots (who is exploiting who?). Or even if in many instances there is an attitude where the activity is mutually beneficial and there are good relations between client and SP.
The unfortunate crux of the whole matter is that where he would never get away with this where any other topic would be concerned, he will get away with it here. This is one of those cases where automatic public condemnation awaits any who might rise to refute this piece as a valid study replete with all the bells and whistles of a valid scientific study. Very disappointing.

And Victor, if you are lurking, shame on you! I expected better!

 

[eastender]

Benefit

10-19...seeing as prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money, how about we limit the discussion to societies which have had some kind of monetary system in place along with some semblance of a civilized society.

In other words, let's forget wandering tribes, cavemen, troops of monkeys, etc... and keep the discussion focused on actual civilations of the last few thousand years with an established system of laws and government.

If not I'm pretty sure that before long you will be bringing the discussion down to the single cell organism level.

Exchange of sexual services in return for a benefit would be most accurate.

 

[eastender]

Victor Malarek

Malarek was on a radio talk show for two hours this afternoon in Ottawa. One point shone through his whole presentation. He painted the activity as black as he could. In no way could anyone in their wildest dreams classify this as a balanced and unbiased presentation. It was a textbook workshop on how to employ omission of fact as an instrument of fallacy of argument. To me (and I suspect many academics) this is one of the mortal sins of journalism. There is a whole other side to the industry within which it is completely questionable as to where the source of exploitation really has its roots (who is exploiting who?). Or even if in many instances there is an attitude where the activity is mutually beneficial and there are good relations between client and SP.
The unfortunate crux of the whole matter is that where he would never get away with this where any other topic would be concerned, he will get away with it here. This is one of those cases where automatic public condemnation awaits any who might rise to refute this piece as a valid study replete with all the bells and whistles of a valid scientific study. Very disappointing.

And Victor, if you are lurking, shame on you! I expected better!

"...employ omission of fact as an instrument of fallacy of argument."

And of course you present these omissions while providing examples to support your characterizations. Pot and Kettle.

Could you show where Victor Malarek claims that his work is a scientific study? Simply Victor Malarek is an investigative journalist. He nevers claims to be an academic. As such he is an actor who shines a light on a situation and lets the audience re-act.

 

[CaptRenault]

A couple thoughts:

I sure am glad that I was born into a civilized society and not one of "hunter-gatherers." I've always preferred getting my food at the grocery store rather than killing it or growing it myself. And now that I know that there's no prostitution in those primitive societies, I'm really glad to be part of civilization.

I wonder whether Malarek uses his anti-prostitution schtick as a way to gain the favor of feminists (at least those who are heterosexual ) so that he can have sex for free with them.

 

[Regular Guy]

If the shoe fits.................

"...employ omission of fact as an instrument of fallacy of argument."

And of course you present these omissions while providing examples to support your characterizations. Pot and Kettle.

Could you show where Victor Malarek claims that his work is a scientific study? Simply Victor Malarek is an investigative journalist. He nevers claims to be an academic. As such he is an actor who shines a light on a situation and lets the audience re-act.

Well first off I am not writing a term paper here. This is a forum for expressions of opinion and as such I have written in a style commensurate with that genre. I listened to that radio show interview, found inconsistencies, especially omissions, which directly contradict the reality. I am sure that many of the independent SP's here whom he purposely chose to ignore simply because they failed to fit his model of total and complete exploitation (at least as he posited it in his interview) might have a few choice words to refute his claims.

Victor Malarek has not written a scientific study nor have I suggested that he has or that his work is presented with that goal in mind. But as a journalist, especially an investigative one, in my mind playing fast and loose with the facts is a breach of ethics. To give an opinion is one thing but when reporting the facts it is incumbent among all journalists to be ethical in all they do. Are they all ethical? Well you may dispute that ad infinitum. It still doesn't change the fact. What you have given here with the statement, “shines a light on a situation and lets an audience react” is a textbook definition of the term “opinion.” And he is quite clear that what he presents is factual. And that is a breach of ethics.

 

[eastender]

Victor Malarek

Well first off I am not writing a term paper here. This is a forum for expressions of opinion and as such I have written in a style commensurate with that genre. I listened to that radio show interview, found inconsistencies, especially omissions, which directly contradict the reality. I am sure that many of the independent SP's here whom he purposely chose to ignore simply because they failed to fit his model of total and complete exploitation (at least as he posited it in his interview) might have a few choice words to refute his claims.

Victor Malarek has not written a scientific study nor have I suggested that he has or that his work is presented with that goal in mind. But as a journalist, especially an investigative one, in my mind playing fast and loose with the facts is a breach of ethics. To give an opinion is one thing but when reporting the facts it is incumbent among all journalists to be ethical in all they do. Are they all ethical? Well you may dispute that ad infinitum. It still doesn't change the fact. What you have given here with the statement, “shines a light on a situation and lets an audience react” is a textbook definition of the term “opinion.” And he is quite clear that what he presents is factual. And that is a breach of ethics.

Victor Malarek has been around for a long time, almost 40 years as a journalist. Readers have figured out his approach a long time ago and have learned how to evaluate his work, discounting when necessary, looking for counterpoints, etc.

For the most part the reaction is simply Victor Malarek being Victor Malarek. Now let's see if any parts of the story are worth going forward with.

Your definition of opinion is rather faulty. The factual aspect of the presentation is simply that there is prostitution. You certainly would not deny this fact. The rest is interpretation.

Your issue with facts is rather interesting. Something may be statistically true but impossible. A legit statistical study could show that a typical family in a defined group has 2.3 children or the a typical fatal car accident claims 1.2 people. No one has ever seen .3 of a child or .2 of a person. Never will. But this truism does not dispprove that fatal car accidents happen or that families have children.

 

[Regular Guy]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.............

As EE wrote: 'Exchange of sexual services in return for a benefit' (for women and/or for some stone-age pimp) would be a working definition. No record of such thing neither in pre-agricultural societies nor in what's left of what we know as 'the non-civilized' world.

No sir, I don't subscribe to that self-serving 'whore-within-women' mumbo-jumbo.

Exchange of sexual services in return for a benefit is the definition of the basic relationship between human male and female, period, in all societies let alone pre-agricultural. But looking at primitive cultures for a moment: The human female was essential for the success of any band or group. Procreation was a matter of life and death. As was the task of gathering forage. The human male was essential for defense and hunting. Just some of the roles. And please don't quote me the very few relatively rare anomalies(i.e hermits or the women warriors of ancient Greece). It is not an issue whether the drive to pair bond is innate. Similarly there are too many extraneous factors governing the duration or lifespan of a pair bond. The character or predicates of the primitive pair bond then are moot. I have already quoted the Inuit custom of the courtesy of providing the sexual favours of the female mate to visitors. Does that make the primitive Inuit male the first pimp? It would seem that bonding among primitives was characterized by more of a utilitarian function than by any particular emotional attachment. The impetus towards sexual exclusivity among males, or females for that matter, was not a universal initiative. Life was hard and the attrition rate significant. A female who lost a mate would simply and unceremoniously hook up with a new provider. Emotional attachment, and this is merely assumption, would seem to come a distant second (though I am not discounting it completely). Ergo short term liaisons devoid of the level of attachment we understand today, as an essential element of a relationship, for mutual benefit was not uncommon in many primitive societies. And in the end analysis is this not what we have come to define today as prostitution (if one accepts how you have defined it)?

 

[Regular Guy]

Victor Malarek has been around for a long time, almost 40 years as a journalist. Readers have figured out his approach a long time ago and have learned how to evaluate his work, discounting when necessary, looking for counterpoints, etc.

For the most part the reaction is simply Victor Malarek being Victor Malarek. Now let's see if any parts of the story are worth going forward with.

Just a guess but I would venture to say that not everyone has read his work or knows the man and really, in the end analysis, this fact is irrelevant to a discussion on ethics in journalism.

Your definition of opinion is rather faulty. The factual aspect of the presentation is simply that there is prostitution. You certainly would not deny this fact. The rest is interpretation.

Hold the phone a minute. I think you have the cart before the horse. First comes the proposition then the facts to back it up.

Your issue with facts is rather interesting. Something may be statistically true but impossible. A legit statistical study could show that a typical family in a defined group has 2.3 children or the a typical fatal car accident claims 1.2 people. No one has ever seen .3 of a child or .2 of a person. Never will. But this truism does not dispprove that fatal car accidents happen or that families have children.

Never made that claim. I simply stated that a fair and unbiased study must be comprehensive both by intent and design. To selectively choose the facts to support one's proposition and fail to account for other variables is either a mark of incompetence or a lack of ethics.