Talking points

Melissa Gira thought she noticed a pattern behind some of the language being used by “abolitionist” folks at various blogs, as she mentioned a few posts back under You’d Think On a Blog Called Jezebel There’d Be Some Sense About Prostitution. I guess she was right.

Melissa noted this comment over on the blog Jezebel as being similar to the language coming up in some of the blog-in comments that we were seeing:

SARAHMC AT 09/19/07 03:02 PM

[…]

Amsterdam, Sweden & Germany are all changing their laws because it’s not working.To truly regulate prostitution you’d need a cop in every room, making sure there’s no abuse. You’d also need to ensure that cops respected sex workers and treated them like people; they do not.

There is no humane way to legalize and regulate the selling of human beings for the sexual gratifcation of others.

Compare this comment at Torduange’s blog:

#4 josie Says:
September 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

[…]

Germany, Sweden, and Amsterdam were the pioneers in trying out legalization as a solution. All are now in the process of reversing those policies. They simply found themselves swamped by the human disasters of the sex trade.

There is no humane way to sell people for sex.

And this comment at The Curvature:

unfortunately on September 15th, 2007 3:43 am

How on earth do you regulate prostitution? They tried in Amsterdam and Germany, and they are giving up and reversing their pro-prostitution laws.

You would need to have a cop sitting and watching every session of intercourse to make sure it was not abusive. What if the john slaps her? Is that a health code violation? What if he calls her a whore? Is that creating a hostile work environment? What if he wants her to talk baby talk and call him daddy, do we have automatic child abuse reporting paperwork to fill out?

How do you regulate the use of one person for another person’s sexual gratification? It’s not possible to create humane prostitution working conditions.

[…]

This can’t all be a coincidence and the above doesn’t read like it was written by the same person. So somebody in the Farley camp is actually issuing talking points to post on the blogosphere wherever the subject comes up. Taking one from the Karl Rove playbook, I guess.

12 Responses

  1. you don’t think they could all be the same person? she already said she’s letting other people use her computer, whatever that actually means…

  2. With different writing styles to go with the different personalities – that’s a thought.

  3. tbh i don’t see the styles as markedly different.

  4. I guess I can’t be positive that all three contributions were from the same writer on different blogs using different names. There was also a fourth place I saw some very similar rhetoric, a few days ago when I was debating somebody calling themself “observer” over here on the Steve Sebelius blog:

    If legal prostitution is so great, why are Germany and Amsterdam moving to shut it down? Because it legal prostitution is a failed social experiment that leaves thousands of damaged people in it’s wake.

    My gut feeling when reading the the statements I posted about and this other one above is that they were written by different people and in different words, but seemed to hit many of the same “points” over and over. So its possible that you’re right, and its just one prolific commentator that’s using several different names. But if they are different people, then where are the common “talking points” coming from?

    (And the whole thing that Amsterdam and Germany are now moving to reverse legalization isn’t even accurate, BTW.)

  5. yeah, the “on message” spamming is suspicious, regardless of how many people are actually posting the same thing more or less.

  6. “(And the whole thing that Amsterdam and Germany are now moving to reverse legalization isn’t even accurate, BTW.)”

    This is what I thought too, and questioned if maybe I was really behind the times or out of the loop!

  7. Pathetic. Do they not think it’s a little obvious? It’s a hell of a lot harder to get away with that shit in the blogosphere than it ever was in MSM.

  8. Paranoia will destroy ya.

    Speaking of talking points, I must say the attacks on Farley all seem to carry a similar odor.

    Do you really have nothing better to do than wonder if we are one or many?

    It’s Friday night, get out there and have some fun!

  9. It’s Friday night, get out there and have some fun!

    …as long as we don’t accept any payment for it, right?

  10. Actually, Josie, we’re a pleasant and often disagreeing little cacophony of voices over here in Sex Worker Land. And yes, some of us do stay in on Friday nights. We don’t all parrot a party line.

    Not that you folks do. Not that we are two disparate camps. It’s just a little creepy to see the same half-truths repeated over and over across the blogosphere in the course of a few days. Especially when said half-truths are so damaging to so many people.

  11. “Paranoia will destroy ya.

    Speaking of talking points, I must say the attacks on Farley all seem to carry a similar odor.

    Do you really have nothing better to do than wonder if we are one or many? “

    Well, maybe you could dispel some paranoia real quick by shedding some light on the subject, Josie, since you posted some of this boilerplate. Are you the same person as SarahMC? Or “unfortunately” or “observer”? And if not, what source exactly are you quoting? Because the odds of three or four different people coming up with more or less the exact same arguments is a tad unlikely.

  12. On the subject of Farley’s internet shock troops, I might also point to the most recent outbreak of this whole controversy on the Wikipedia article on Melissa Farley and her research, which I’ve had no small part in writing – something that Nikki Craft and other Farley supporters have taken me to task for. Anyway, there are now a couple of Farley supporters actively pushing to have *all* references to criticism of Farley’s views and research expunged from the article (which flies in the face of Wikipedia’s guidelines to present all sides of a controversy fairly). The version I favor can be seen here, while the version the Farley folks want is here. (Which state the article itself will be in at any given time is anybody’s guess.) The most recent incarnation of the argument over the direction of the article can be found here.

    I’ll note that anybody can edit Wikipedia articles or comment on them and that people here who are interested in keeping a balanced article or otherwise have (referenced) material to add to the article might want to join me in the editing process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: