So sorry, I didn't realise you were winning this debate. Congratulations. 8-)

Maybe, just maybe, the rest of us will reach your level of moral and spritual education one day. I guess there's hope yet.

Hi Cleverclogs,

Would you mind answering the brief question I put to you earlier?

Thanks

Sleepyhead... I'm from the UK.

I said that you are not interested in a proper debate because you have already 'declared victory'. I can see no evidence of this, to be honest. I feel that others have brought forward much more reasonable arguments. You don't really seem to properly engage with these arguments, but just resort to claims of spiritual/moral education (sorry, can't remember your exact words and I'm not going through all the posts again!).
:-)

Wow, didn't this get out of hand while I was away! Before it turns into too much of a slanging match though, I thought I'd put in my twopence worth. Many many years ago I did some research into prostitution and it made only one thing clear to me: however much I may not like the idea that one person would pay for sex with another and however much I recognize that in some (but very much not all) circumstances the people who work in the sex industry are forced into it for one terrible reason or another, the primary tactic for dealing with this is to recognize the industry as ancient, ongoing and very much a reality and legalize it. This would make it much safer for all involved: rates of assault would go down, drug use could be controlled and the people in need would be able to seek help in safety. Obviously the illegal work would continue to some extent, but for the most part the people involved would be safer and work in more healthy environments, prostitutes would not lose large amounts of earnings to pimps and would be in position to defend their own rights, and they would be able to work in a legitimate financial situation too. It seems nonsensical to me that governments can't see this: they could tax it too!

I don't think we should be criticising Dr Magnanti... I am in the same situation she was in 2003,  correcting final chapters of my PhD and watching as my savings literally melt on my bank account. In a couple of months I'll be pretty desperate for money. I keep asking myself: WHY WAS THE FUNDING FOR 3 YEARS ONLY if most students don't manage to complete their theses during that time? WHY INSIST THAT PhD PROGRAMMES LAST 3 YEARS IF IN FACT THEY LAST 4??? Finally, shouldn't we be talking about universities turning into ruthless businesses that don't really care whether their students have the means to support themselves? Why does none understand that lack of money can be demoralising? Why don't we move the stress from 'demoralising' effects of prostitution and focus on demoralising effects of funding-short life?

I too am rather worried that Clever Clogs doesn't answer questions and doesn't get into the debate beyond continually spouting 'spiritual education' lines. I don't like the concept of prostitution, but I accept that it has been around forever, will be around forever, and has very little to do with the perceived degradation of society. Being a historian studying just this kind of topic I can see that in truth our world now is significantly LESS degraded than it has ever been, thus I find the argument confusing and lacking direction.

I also consider, when thinking of BdJ herself, that she, being a high-class hooker, didn't street walk, didn't do drugs, wasn't beaten, didn't cause nuisance of any kind, didn't solicit, I don't have a problem with what she did in the slightest, she provided a business service and I'd argue the men were mugs who paid a fortune for a quickie!

I've read the BdJ blog for a while now and had my suspicions that she was an academic. I can't remember exactly what she said but she talked about her degree subject being obscure and of limited value - an academic if ever I heard one.

My parents showed me the article on Sunday in the Times and said to me "please come to us if you ever need money". I've been thinking about her "coming out" a lot. Still don't really have my thoughts completely in place but I just wanted to add a little something. Whilst it's not my area, a while ago I co-authored a paper on women involved in prostitution. I genuinely think there is a big difference between the women working the street for a tenner a time and the women in the brothels. And then again, the women working the high-end market. £300 an hour really is a very different kettle of fish. The motivation of women doing it is going to be very very different to the women working the street etc.

Without getting into the moral issues, I just wanted to suggest that you really can't just talk about all sex workers or prostitutes as the same. As well as the obvious individual stories, there are considerable differences between groups of workers.

Belle/Dr Magnanti was not a typical sex worker, however, she wasn't an rarity either.

A

p.s. - I know nothing about men hence the focus on women!

I don't agree. Being a sex worker is a choice; being a victim of racism or sexism is not.

Guys, is there any point in arguing with this person? I have suddenly lost interest because of the sheer absence of any argument from their side. Perhaps let's truly just let this drop and let them be, in the world.

I wonder if CC is a man or a woman...