Malarek insults Stella, SPoC, etc.
- Thread starter HaywoodJabloemy
- Start date
10-19 said:
I don't remember anyone in this thread making that claim or even mentioning it, other than yourself in your endless, tiresome posts.
But for whatever reason you still pay for women anyways. You're truly a legend in your own mind.
Why did you post in this thread again anyways? It had pretty much run it's course until you came back. Did you get bored with the lynch mob thread over in smurfland?
I am so embarrassed...............
You're right! I might as well 'fess up! I was just trying to mitigate the effects of my sparkling rebuttals to your struggling attempts to present a coherent impression that you had a grasp on the subject at hand. It was very patronizing of me and was a great sign of disrespect. For that I deeply apologize. And I do hope you will be able to see it in your heart to forgive me.
10-19 said:
You're right! I might as well 'fess up! I was just trying to mitigate the effects of my sparkling rebuttals to your struggling attempts to present a coherent impression that you had a grasp on the subject at hand. It was very patronizing of me and was a great sign of disrespect. For that I deeply apologize. And I do hope you will be able to see it in your heart to forgive me.
You bet!
Oh you mean that bit where I demonstrated the natural interdependent relationship between the sexes (which has existed in primitive stone age cultures) has its variations in other areas of society and that parallels can be drawn between that and the interdependent relationship between escort and client? That one? Study the comment carefully. I have every confidence that, in the long run, the logic will not be lost on you. Whoops, look at the time! Pick this up with you later. Have to go out and do a little "hunting and gathering" present day style.10-19 said:Quite amusing coming from someone who presented Inuit societies for counter-argument (not realizing the whole time that he was making my point).
On this Holy Sunday, why don’t we just release 10-19 from his preaching for a moment and join our hands together for a short prayer.
God, please help our beloved fellow merbist go through the hard felt guilt of having fucked hundreds of prostitutes without thinking for a moment of all the harm made.
God, we know you condemned him to preach for the rest of his life.
But please, god, you seemed to have forgotten that with this condemnation you have imposed on us all a far worst condemnation.
God, please help our beloved fellow merbist go through the hard felt guilt of having fucked hundreds of prostitutes without thinking for a moment of all the harm made.
God, we know you condemned him to preach for the rest of his life.
But please, god, you seemed to have forgotten that with this condemnation you have imposed on us all a far worst condemnation.
Well let's see. Preaching is something you do if you have a theme or crusade and you wish to bring a message to people. So it's easy to figure out. If there is a common theme which runs through all his posts then he's preaching. If there is no one theme you can identify then he's playing Devil's Advocate or simply just promoting debate for fun or profit. So is there one idea that he harps on, rags on all members about?La Femme said:I may be wrong but I don't feel 10-19 is preaching, I think that more than anything else, he likes to play the devil's advocate.
Now pontificating, that's a different story all together. That is simply preaching on any topic. So there it is. Now I am sure he is not guilty of either of these. He would be the first to tell you that. He is simply bringing enlightenment to the masses.
Last edited:
It's been great!
In terms of the origins of prostitution I have seen where actually four schools of thought have been identified. And yes the theorists you have quoted support one of these which have identified the influence of patriarchal societies. The school of thought I prefer relates to the roles of men and women based on the unique nature of each. What I find so fascinating about this school of thought is that recent studies of our closest primate ancestors seems to suggest that there is an exchange of resources for sex and the exchange is not based on male domination in chimpanzee social structure but is negotiated. In any event you threw out a list of the theorists considered to be authorities on the subject. You might want to check out Bullough, Vern and Bonnie Tannaskill and Anderson. But you know what? This topic is of such a controversial issue that you will find plenty of argument by many academics on this subject. To bring this aspect of the debate into the merb forum, I don't find, would be appropriate and beyond the scope of it let alone the scope of this thread. As far as I am concerned merbites cab draw their own conclusions based on what they have read so far. I am not really interested in a 15 page pissing contest. Wouldn't that be one of them “feed the trolls things” Naw!10-19 said:
Last edited:
Regular Guy said:
Contrary to the authors you cite, none of the authors cited by 10-19 are authorities on the subject of prostitution. I don’t think that any of them have ever talked, at least substantially, about prostitution. What they have in common is that they defend a patriarchal interpretation of most societies coming after the hunters and gatherers. Understanding more “evolved societies” as patriarchal is one thing (it has some merits but also some limits, especially when it is applied as a revisionism of whole scientific disciplines such as anthropology and history), understanding prostitution as an act of domination of men over women is an other. Abolitionists (see Sisyphe and la cles) link those two statements. It is the foundation of their argument. 10-19 subscribes to that. But I have yet to find serious scientific literature making this link. The authors cited by him, mostly feminist anthropologists, for whom I have all due respect, were concerned with one question: how is it that societies became more patriarchal with the development of the means to conquer nature. We may discuss that as much as we want, and draw all the conclusions we want about what social movements are the most important in our time, it does not help us understand prostitution as an act of domination.
Regular Guy said:
One thing I find interesting in this, whether or not it fits the reality, is the ability of the researchers to question a thing that looks obvious from direct observation: it may not be domination but negotiation. When Leacock, one of the authors cited by 10-19, was observing the native people in this part our country, it was considered obvious that they were literally dominated and exploited by the fur traders. Now a day, we understand these relations more as a system in which there was a sort of equilibrium. It is easy to reduce prostitution as a simple product of the domination of women by men. The reality is far more complex.
Regular Guy said:
I can’t resist here sorry.
10-19 said:
I know it’s a very bad strategy in life. I should try not becoming a gooner when facing one. Forgive me. I get insistent on occasions, with you especially. It is because of your systematic refusal to answer the questions of the threads. You insist in playing the devil’s advocate? Fine. But please don’t cry when you encounter resistance. Oh man! I did it again.
10-19 said:
Testing the name calling limits of this board again. You should edit a merb dictionary of name calling
10-19 said:
If, at least, you would be talking about that “first hand experience”. Tell us about it. Go first, I’ll follow. I have a lot to say about my personal experience by the way.
10-19 said:
That’s interesting! Aren’t you the first one trying to teach me that there is no such agenda or, more precisely, that the agenda of sex workers in this country is to keep the system as it is?
10-19 said:
You may portrait the escorts participating in this review board as hummer-driving millionaires. Reality is an other thing. My position, by the way, works the other way around: it simply states that if you are to chose to become escort, you’re probably going to do better if you control your means of production (to use a language you may be familiar with).
10-19 said:
It looks like I’m playing the lackey (domination the other way around?) for some ghosts. It looks like you end up, in all of this, looking like a lackey of the abolitionist agenda.
You’re a nice troll 10-19. Just try not being so emotional. It makes you say things too quickly.
The embarrassing, disgusting spectacle.........
Depends on your point of view. If you don't think 4 or 5 males dancing around a female with offerings and kissing her ass to get her to agree to go to bed with the successful bidder isn't solicitation then I don't know what is. She has the valuable resources which they need. Some females are really quite accomplished at this game. Now that I think of it you know? You are right! After witnessing males debase themselves in such a disgusting spectacle the terms aren't on an even basis. Imagine that!
10-19 said:
Depends on your point of view. If you don't think 4 or 5 males dancing around a female with offerings and kissing her ass to get her to agree to go to bed with the successful bidder isn't solicitation then I don't know what is. She has the valuable resources which they need. Some females are really quite accomplished at this game. Now that I think of it you know? You are right! After witnessing males debase themselves in such a disgusting spectacle the terms aren't on an even basis. Imagine that!
The feminist agenda........................
Yes, unfortunately you are quite correct when you refer to political agendas intruding where scientific discourse is concerned. All studies, I don't care what the thrust, should exhibit (in every respect possible) a complete and total disinterest in the outcome. Studies should lead the researcher not be guided. It is unfortunate that the feminist movement has made its influence felt to a great degree in one or two of our most respected universities. Carleton University in Ottawa comes to mind. It is so pervasive there that seminars are conducted in an atmosphere dominated by emotion and political correctness. Having witnessed such disgusting displays I can well understand how studies in prostitution could also suffer from such aberrant influences.
Last edited:
10-19 said:
Supply and demand for raw sex do not equate, I think.
Men sex drive is higher, more vivid, more direct, in search for more diversity, more exclusively directed at the other sex, less susceptible to be influenced by social and cultural environment. Not much originality in saying that. It has been said over and over. True for all men and all women? NO! When I talk with my girlfriend about that, it drives her nuts. We both score pretty high on all factors except diversity where she scores low and me high. She keeps telling me about her divorced friends who complain about their husbands having lost all interest in sex. I keep answering that her sample is not representative (with a zest of bad will I admit). Do men have more sexual partners then women because of that? Of course not. It is mathematically impossible. But the craving is higher. Happy monogamous man keep fantasizing about other women. I mean, not the candle and dining stuff, but having sex with her. Seeing escorts, even for the few paying for the romantic encounter, is a response to that craving.
The fact that supply and demand for raw sex differ does not mean that women and man automatically negociate on uneven terms about it. In fact, I would say that, unless forced into it, women have the best side of the negociation in this specific matter, even more so in the escort-client relation.
Note: 10-19, I don’t get that remark about the showing the beef and fulfilling my part. That thing, if I remember well, occurred on the other board between Eastender and me. We showed each other our beef and we had what I think was a constructive discussion. I think I have fulfilled my part of the deal. If this is not your understanding, I urge you to pinpoint the missing part. I will do my best to complete what has been said.
Money.....thats why Malarek is doing it.
I saw Malarek on BNN business news pumping his book. It all about sales, all he cares about is the money.
I saw Malarek on BNN business news pumping his book. It all about sales, all he cares about is the money.
A thought from Chewbacca!
Hmmmmmmmmm........male defined social settings. Have to try to get my Wookie (fuzzball) brain around this. What was that old axiom? If tomorrow the entire female population of the world would only breed with males who walked on their hands, within a month the entire male population would be walking on their hands. I think that's how it goes doesn't it?
Hmmmmmmmmm........male defined social settings. Have to try to get my Wookie (fuzzball) brain around this. What was that old axiom? If tomorrow the entire female population of the world would only breed with males who walked on their hands, within a month the entire male population would be walking on their hands. I think that's how it goes doesn't it?
All you need to know about Victor Malarek
Here is a good summary of Malarek's views on prostitution. It's a 2008 op-ed piece from the New York Times, co-authored by whack-job feminist and fellow anti-prostitution crusader Melissa Farley. Read this and then read the article below about Melissa Farley.
Malarek's choice of Farley as a co-author of an opinion piece about prostitution should tell you everything you need to know about Malarek. Note that Farley's "book" is described as "self-published." In other words, it's not a real book. At least Malarek got his book published.
The Myth of the Victimless Crime
By MELISSA FARLEY and VICTOR MALAREK
The New York Times
Published: March 12, 2008
WHAT do we know about the woman Gov. Eliot Spitzer allegedly hired as a prostitute? She was the one person he ignored in his apology. What is she going through now? Is she in danger from organized crime because of what she knows? Is anyone offering her legal counsel or alternatives to prostitution?
“I’m here for a purpose,” she said in a conversation with her booking agent after meeting with Governor Spitzer, according to the affidavit of the F.B.I agent who investigated the prostitution ring. “I know what my purpose is. I’m not a ... moron, you know what I mean.”
Her purpose, as a man who knew patiently explained, is “renting” out an organ for 10 minutes. Men rent women through the Internet or by cellphone as if they were renting a car. And now, in response to the news about Governor Spitzer, pundits are wading into the age-old debates over whether prostitution is a victimless crime or whether women are badly hurt in prostitution no matter what they’re paid.
Whose theory is it that prostitution is victimless? It’s the men who buy prostitutes who spew the myths that women choose prostitution, that they get rich, that it’s glamorous and that it turns women on.
But most women in prostitution, including those working for escort services, have been sexually abused as children, studies show. Incest sets young women up for prostitution — by letting them know what they’re worth and what’s expected of them. Other forces that channel women into escort prostitution are economic hardship and racism.
The Emperor’s Club presented itself as an elite escort service. But aside from charging more, it worked like any other prostitution business. The pimps took their 50 percent cut. The Emperor’s Club often required that the women provide sex twice an hour. One woman who was wiretapped indicated that she couldn’t handle that pressure. The ring operated throughout the United States and Europe. The transport of women for prostitution was masked by its description as “travel dates.”
Telephone operators at the Emperor’s Club criticized one of the women for cutting sessions with buyers short so that she could pick up her children at school. “As a general rule,” one said, “girls with children tend to have a little more baggage going on.”
Whether the woman is in a hotel room or on a side street in someone’s car, whether she’s trafficked from New York to Washington or from Mexico to Florida or from the city to the suburbs, the experience of being prostituted causes her immense psychological and physical harm. And it all starts with the buyer.
Melissa Farley is the author of “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.” Victor Malarek is the author of “The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade.”
Bewildered, academics pore over sex-trade hysteria
They try to figure out how they got steamrolled
The Las Vegas Sun
By Abigail Goldman
Thu, Jan 31, 2008
It’s four months later, and they’re still licking their wounds.
In September, UNLV sociologists Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck were steamrolled by a publicity-savvy out-of-town researcher who courted the media with a crude picture: Las Vegas prostitute as poor wretch.
For Brents and Hausbeck, who have spent more than a decade researching Nevada’s prostitutes, this was like watching an Etch A Sketch being hung in the Louvre. And it worked. The media sucked up sensationalized stories of women ground up like meat by the Vegas sex industry while the researchers were silenced in the stampede.
What happened? they wondered at a quiet academic gathering Sunday. And why was Las Vegas, that bastion of anti-puritanism with its short-skirted cocktail waitresses and its women direct to your room, so quick to hitch up to the anti-prostitution bandwagon? So quick to bite the hand that feeds it?
The duo was caught off guard by a media blitz over San Francisco researcher Melissa Farley’s self-published book, “Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.” Days before Farley started selling it, the book was catapulted into credibility by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who swallowed Farley’s thesis — that sex work is violence against women and Nevada is the epicenter of that violence in America — and repurposed it for an article in which he declared: “There is probably no city in America where women are treated worse than in Las Vegas.”
This national coverage horrified the professors, who questioned Farley’s methodology and said she cited their academic work but misinterpreted it in her text. They say her research is anecdotal, not peer-reviewed, and funded by questionable sources.
Why didn’t Herbert, the professors asked, stop to suggest what their own research bares: That some women choose to sell their bodies. And why was Farley’s viewpoint presented as gospel by local reporters, though whenever either Hausbeck or Brents winds up in the media, asserting that not every woman is so helpless as to fall into sex work without a say in the matter, a reporter inevitably seeks out someone like Farley for a flaming counterpoint? Why, they want to know, does the quest for journalistic balance cut only one way?
The tone of the conversation was almost bewilderment when Brents and Hausbeck joined UNLV women’s studies professors Lynn Comella and S. Charusheela and grad student Krystal Jackson at the Far West Popular Culture Association’s convention Sunday for an 8:30 a.m. round-table discussion, “Commercial Sex in the Media.” It was a what-happened-here kind of wallowing, not just because they disagreed with Herbert’s sentiment and questioned Farley’s research, but because of a subtle and shared sense of abandonment.
They are left with a feeling that Las Vegas residents who have historically agreed that sex work isn’t all good or all bad, that the commodification of intimacy isn’t so simple, are being won over by fast-talking prostitution abolitionists who stormed into town with blinders on.
Perhaps, they volunteer, it’s the reemergence of what the round-table widely agreed was a “nostalgic feminism” — one that recalls a time when pornography was widely seen as exploitative and dangerous. That was before it became accepted that some adult starlets had chosen their path and enjoyed it, before such liberated sexuality became almost chic.
Perhaps Farley and the people who think as she does are situated in the right place at the right time, researching prostitution in a period when the government will not give academic grants to people who research sex work (as if it’s a contradiction in terms) or to academics who study the plausibility of legalized prostitution. Farley’s research was supported in part by a federal grant, Brents said, implying that any conclusion she drew about prostitution in Nevada was foregone before the research began.
And, Comella said, the presentation of sex workers as women who are universally exploited, trafficked, raped and coerced also plays perfectly into the commercial aspect of the media, which must sensationalize and oversimplify if they’re going to sell.
But if five academics sit in a casino conference room on a Sunday morning to discuss how Vegas sex workers are being manhandled by the media and misrepresented by researchers of dubious authority, does anybody hear it?
No, not really. And perhaps this is the answer to their questions. The very format of the discussion, the nature of their dissent and dismay, expressed in erudite dialogue and scholarly musings, is the stuff of academic journals, not of the 11 o’clock news or the morning paper. And they’re up against an agenda, not an academic inquiry. It’s a cause that will be advanced at any cost, not in quiet conference rooms but in dramatics and hysterics that are hard to ignore.
So the professors must watch as a very dangerous assumption, advanced by anti-prostitution activists, is paraded with all the tact of a Tupperware salesman: If you aren’t saying prostitution is bad, you must be saying it’s good.
This is where the dialogue gets dangerous, the round-table agreed. Dangerous because it is anti-intellectual, so black and white that you’re either in the dark or snow-blind, so reductive that even the people who want to use such reasoning to stop prostitution won’t be able to — not for want of trying, but because they’ll never elevate the discussion to the root causes of the problem.
And perverse though it may sound, the more Brents and Hausbeck are criticized for their research, the closer it seems they can get to their subjects. Sex workers and brothel owners have decided in the past that they’d let the researchers into their intimate lives — because the researchers wanted to study them, not save them.
Here is a good summary of Malarek's views on prostitution. It's a 2008 op-ed piece from the New York Times, co-authored by whack-job feminist and fellow anti-prostitution crusader Melissa Farley. Read this and then read the article below about Melissa Farley.
Malarek's choice of Farley as a co-author of an opinion piece about prostitution should tell you everything you need to know about Malarek. Note that Farley's "book" is described as "self-published." In other words, it's not a real book. At least Malarek got his book published.
The Myth of the Victimless Crime
By MELISSA FARLEY and VICTOR MALAREK
The New York Times
Published: March 12, 2008
WHAT do we know about the woman Gov. Eliot Spitzer allegedly hired as a prostitute? She was the one person he ignored in his apology. What is she going through now? Is she in danger from organized crime because of what she knows? Is anyone offering her legal counsel or alternatives to prostitution?
“I’m here for a purpose,” she said in a conversation with her booking agent after meeting with Governor Spitzer, according to the affidavit of the F.B.I agent who investigated the prostitution ring. “I know what my purpose is. I’m not a ... moron, you know what I mean.”
Her purpose, as a man who knew patiently explained, is “renting” out an organ for 10 minutes. Men rent women through the Internet or by cellphone as if they were renting a car. And now, in response to the news about Governor Spitzer, pundits are wading into the age-old debates over whether prostitution is a victimless crime or whether women are badly hurt in prostitution no matter what they’re paid.
Whose theory is it that prostitution is victimless? It’s the men who buy prostitutes who spew the myths that women choose prostitution, that they get rich, that it’s glamorous and that it turns women on.
But most women in prostitution, including those working for escort services, have been sexually abused as children, studies show. Incest sets young women up for prostitution — by letting them know what they’re worth and what’s expected of them. Other forces that channel women into escort prostitution are economic hardship and racism.
The Emperor’s Club presented itself as an elite escort service. But aside from charging more, it worked like any other prostitution business. The pimps took their 50 percent cut. The Emperor’s Club often required that the women provide sex twice an hour. One woman who was wiretapped indicated that she couldn’t handle that pressure. The ring operated throughout the United States and Europe. The transport of women for prostitution was masked by its description as “travel dates.”
Telephone operators at the Emperor’s Club criticized one of the women for cutting sessions with buyers short so that she could pick up her children at school. “As a general rule,” one said, “girls with children tend to have a little more baggage going on.”
Whether the woman is in a hotel room or on a side street in someone’s car, whether she’s trafficked from New York to Washington or from Mexico to Florida or from the city to the suburbs, the experience of being prostituted causes her immense psychological and physical harm. And it all starts with the buyer.
Melissa Farley is the author of “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.” Victor Malarek is the author of “The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade.”
Bewildered, academics pore over sex-trade hysteria
They try to figure out how they got steamrolled
The Las Vegas Sun
By Abigail Goldman
Thu, Jan 31, 2008
It’s four months later, and they’re still licking their wounds.
In September, UNLV sociologists Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck were steamrolled by a publicity-savvy out-of-town researcher who courted the media with a crude picture: Las Vegas prostitute as poor wretch.
For Brents and Hausbeck, who have spent more than a decade researching Nevada’s prostitutes, this was like watching an Etch A Sketch being hung in the Louvre. And it worked. The media sucked up sensationalized stories of women ground up like meat by the Vegas sex industry while the researchers were silenced in the stampede.
What happened? they wondered at a quiet academic gathering Sunday. And why was Las Vegas, that bastion of anti-puritanism with its short-skirted cocktail waitresses and its women direct to your room, so quick to hitch up to the anti-prostitution bandwagon? So quick to bite the hand that feeds it?
The duo was caught off guard by a media blitz over San Francisco researcher Melissa Farley’s self-published book, “Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.” Days before Farley started selling it, the book was catapulted into credibility by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who swallowed Farley’s thesis — that sex work is violence against women and Nevada is the epicenter of that violence in America — and repurposed it for an article in which he declared: “There is probably no city in America where women are treated worse than in Las Vegas.”
This national coverage horrified the professors, who questioned Farley’s methodology and said she cited their academic work but misinterpreted it in her text. They say her research is anecdotal, not peer-reviewed, and funded by questionable sources.
Why didn’t Herbert, the professors asked, stop to suggest what their own research bares: That some women choose to sell their bodies. And why was Farley’s viewpoint presented as gospel by local reporters, though whenever either Hausbeck or Brents winds up in the media, asserting that not every woman is so helpless as to fall into sex work without a say in the matter, a reporter inevitably seeks out someone like Farley for a flaming counterpoint? Why, they want to know, does the quest for journalistic balance cut only one way?
The tone of the conversation was almost bewilderment when Brents and Hausbeck joined UNLV women’s studies professors Lynn Comella and S. Charusheela and grad student Krystal Jackson at the Far West Popular Culture Association’s convention Sunday for an 8:30 a.m. round-table discussion, “Commercial Sex in the Media.” It was a what-happened-here kind of wallowing, not just because they disagreed with Herbert’s sentiment and questioned Farley’s research, but because of a subtle and shared sense of abandonment.
They are left with a feeling that Las Vegas residents who have historically agreed that sex work isn’t all good or all bad, that the commodification of intimacy isn’t so simple, are being won over by fast-talking prostitution abolitionists who stormed into town with blinders on.
Perhaps, they volunteer, it’s the reemergence of what the round-table widely agreed was a “nostalgic feminism” — one that recalls a time when pornography was widely seen as exploitative and dangerous. That was before it became accepted that some adult starlets had chosen their path and enjoyed it, before such liberated sexuality became almost chic.
Perhaps Farley and the people who think as she does are situated in the right place at the right time, researching prostitution in a period when the government will not give academic grants to people who research sex work (as if it’s a contradiction in terms) or to academics who study the plausibility of legalized prostitution. Farley’s research was supported in part by a federal grant, Brents said, implying that any conclusion she drew about prostitution in Nevada was foregone before the research began.
And, Comella said, the presentation of sex workers as women who are universally exploited, trafficked, raped and coerced also plays perfectly into the commercial aspect of the media, which must sensationalize and oversimplify if they’re going to sell.
But if five academics sit in a casino conference room on a Sunday morning to discuss how Vegas sex workers are being manhandled by the media and misrepresented by researchers of dubious authority, does anybody hear it?
No, not really. And perhaps this is the answer to their questions. The very format of the discussion, the nature of their dissent and dismay, expressed in erudite dialogue and scholarly musings, is the stuff of academic journals, not of the 11 o’clock news or the morning paper. And they’re up against an agenda, not an academic inquiry. It’s a cause that will be advanced at any cost, not in quiet conference rooms but in dramatics and hysterics that are hard to ignore.
So the professors must watch as a very dangerous assumption, advanced by anti-prostitution activists, is paraded with all the tact of a Tupperware salesman: If you aren’t saying prostitution is bad, you must be saying it’s good.
This is where the dialogue gets dangerous, the round-table agreed. Dangerous because it is anti-intellectual, so black and white that you’re either in the dark or snow-blind, so reductive that even the people who want to use such reasoning to stop prostitution won’t be able to — not for want of trying, but because they’ll never elevate the discussion to the root causes of the problem.
And perverse though it may sound, the more Brents and Hausbeck are criticized for their research, the closer it seems they can get to their subjects. Sex workers and brothel owners have decided in the past that they’d let the researchers into their intimate lives — because the researchers wanted to study them, not save them.
Similar threads
