Humanities desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20

Prostitution (or not) in Ilfracombe

On British TV last week, Bill Shatner joked about Ilfracombe's prostitution scene, to which the former mayor of that sleepy little town has rather po-facedly retorted "there is no prostitution in Ilfracombe" (perhaps he thinks Have I Got News for You is a documentary). That's a tall claim for a town of more than 10,000 people; I have difficulty believing that it's really true. 2005/6 crime statistics do show Ilfracombe has a pretty low crime rate, half or better the national average in most categories. But that doesn't call out prostitution-related crimes as a separate item (I don't know if it falls under any of the categories listed there). Does the ex-mayor's claim stand up to reliable source? (no, I'm not about to phone up the Ilfracombe police and ask "where the hookers at?") 87.115.12.193 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Ilfracombe, but I would have thought it incredibly unlikely that there were any prostitutes working there. The phenomenon is restricted to large towns and cities. Prostitutes have to advertise to get work, and you can see such advertisements in the local press of all the major cities in the UK. I'd be prepared to bet there are no such adverts in the Ilfracombe local press. --Viennese Waltz 13:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The police don't generally arrest people for engaging in prostitution in the UK (the act itself isn't actually illegal, anyway), so crime statistics won't be much help. Viennese Waltz is correct that looking for adverts is the best way to determine if there is prostitution happening. Unfortunately, a Google search doesn't help much due to a large number of sites that just have a page on every town in order to appear in search results. I expect you could find them if you looked hard enough, though. Where there are people, there is a market for prostitutes and where there is a market for something, you'll find people supplying it. There may not be many (if any) street prostitutes there (that generally is restricted to large towns and cities), which is what people usually think of when they talk about somewhere having "a problem" with prostitution (people tend not to care about what happens behind closed doors), but I'm sure there will be call girls servicing the area. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm there are a couple of prostitutes in Inlfracombe. See here for example - note that she has the inbred South-West England look so is probably a native. Egg Centri c 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to Ilfracombe, and can confirm it's a pleasant, fairly sleepy and rather remote seaside resort, with a high proportion of elderly people and quite a longstanding unemployment problem. Obviously there could be prostitutes working anywhere, but Ilfracombe is remote from any major population centres, and there is highly unlikely to be any overt street prostitution, or publicly advertised prostitution, there. Obviously, also, there is no such thing as an "inbred South-West England look", and comments like that are simply ignorant, as well as insulting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's quite a common look in Norfolk as well. Egg Centri c 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being unfunny again. This is a reference desk. Please remove your obnoxious comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a ridiculous thing to get offended about, if you actually are offended. I strongly suspect you are not in fact offended, in which case I suggest that you let provincials look after themselves.

Your comments about it being unfunny, however, are noted. Next time I shall try harder

Egg Centri c 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to be offended, because I wasn't. You weren't being funny, and if you want to try harder in future, I suggest you try elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the broader question of whether any city of 10,000 people could be free of prostitution, I suppose that it could be, if it was very harsh on prostitutes, and there was a nearby town which was lenient. Thus, the prostitutes would all service their customers from that other town. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilfracombe has a historical reputation for moral rectitude. Its two beaches, only accessable by tunnels dug in the 1820s, used to be segregated for males and females. I recall reading that an elderly man used to be employed to perch on the rocks between the two, and would blow a bugle should anyone attempt to catch a glimpse of the opposite sex. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, such a degree of repression typically means that the forbidden activities still take place, just in secret. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More info on the Tunnels here. Mixed bathing was banned until 1905. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you take the tunnel reserved for your sex, then swim around to the other beach? Doesn't look very far. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a man tried that, presumably the women would be warned that a shark (Etymology 2) had been spotted in the water. StuRat (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any politician who proclaims "there is no prostitution in ..." is in the same ostrich-like camp as the uniquely unique Bob Katter, who's on record as insisting there are almost no homosexuals in north Queensland and promised to walk backwards from Bourke (about 1,000 km) if they represented more than 0.001 percent of the population; or that Iranian dude who made the same ridiculous claim for his entire country. Such claims have laugh-value only and do not not require any serious analysis or rebuttal. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess... His catchphrase: "They ain't no queens in Queensland!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard him say that. His own half-brother has revealed himself to be gay, and he's publicly told Bob to pull his head in. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ah, but prostitution is an activity, while homosexuality is an orientation. You can possibly prevent an activity, with sufficiently harsh penalties, but can't change an orientation, except perhaps by unethical medical means (hormone treatments or abortions on a potentially "gay" fetus). StuRat (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about, StuRat? Culturocenting again? You want to tell a prison cellmate that homosexuality is not an activity? As for Ilfracombe, well, don't you Brits have Craig's List? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many with a homosexual orientation who never engage in homosexual activity, because they think it is immoral or are afraid of the reaction (execution, imprisonment, getting AIDS, being shunned by friends and family, being fired, etc.). StuRat (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you heterocent to me young man. You're taking coals to Newcastle. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I've often made that distinction here, when OPs ask how many countries still outlaw homosexuality. I reply that no country ever has or ever will, because you can't outlaw feelings. What some have done, though, is to outlaw homosexual activity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, is that true? I would agree that you shouldn't outlaw sentiments, no matter how disgraceful to our common natur'. But can't, really? I bet some countries have done so. (Enforcement, of course, is a separate question.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Note: the "disgraceful" bit was just generalizing — not to be applied to the immediate topic of discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, if you can show me where any country has ever made it an offence simply to feel an attraction to a member of the same sex, regardless of whether one does anything about it - then we might have something to talk about. Heck, it's not even an offence to be tempted to sexually interfere with a 2-year old, or to feel like assassinating the president; acting on the temptation/feeling, that's a whole other ball game, obviously. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In liberal countries, that's true. Is it true in, say, theocracies? If we can bring in fictional examples, it certainly wasn't true in Oceania. Thoughtcrime does not entail death; thoughtcrime is death. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the equivilant here would be outlawing wanting to pay for, or receive money for, sex. Unfortunately the only people who have never, ever, fitted in to at least one of those categories are pre pubescent or severely mentally challenged. Oh, and me of course. Pure as the driven snow. Egg Centri c 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or pure as the driven upon snow, perhaps ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Someone who specializes in Fortran, of all god forsaken things, can never question my purity from a higher ground.

Egg Centri c 22:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come back when you've programmed Fortran 2 on a PDP-8, via punched paper tape. Edison (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egg_Centric, I really don't think your premise is true. Some people can be strongly repelled by the tawdry or sordid without being especially "pure" or asexual. An instinctive fastidiousness can be just as strong as any moral sense (and people are much less often conflicted about fastidiousness than conflicted about morality)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has gotten very much off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Actually since you're obviously referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, there is disagreement over what was actually meant. See Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Columbia University where it's mentioned it was later claimed he meant there weren't as many as in the US (which may not be true but is difficult to ascertain). For an alternative view from someone who grew up in Iran (but had been away for 35? years) see Talk:Iran/Archive 11#Demographics & Homosexuality where it's suggested what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually meant was that gays in Iran were generally predators of children (based on his cultural misconceptions), which isn't accurate but isn't the same thing. I don't know what he actually meant, but I do know it's easy to misunderstand what people are saying when language and cultural barriers come in to play. In fact, in such cases it can sometimes take considerable effort to really understand what people are saying. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been one of the favourite punching bags of many particularly in the US for a long time. It's clear no one was particularly interested in a genuine dialog or trying to understand where he's coming from or what he meant (not that I think he was really that interested either). Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's the one. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ahmadinajad was a "punching bag" in the U.S. during his 2007 NYC visit because he made absolutely no conciliatory rhetorical gesture which the U.S. public could understand. He didn't have to announce any major substantive change in Iranian regime policies, but a noteworthy conciliatory verbal gesture (phrased to appeal to the American people, and not in code words understood by few other than Shi`ite clerics) would have assisted greatly in preserving some of the usual courtesies, while the absence of such a gesture guaranteed him a rather negative/hostile reception. AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any topic less relevant to prostitution in Ilfracombe than Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Only on RDH. By the way if the OP needs an answer s/he should Google for massage parlours, saunas and escort agencies in north Devon. I'm not going to do it on their behalf. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it may appear if taken out of context, but look back to see how he first got into the discussion and you'll discover a meandering pathway of fluctuating relevance. Remember, no matter how absurdly off track these refdesk discussions may go (and I'm not saying this one is like that), it's the journey that matters, not the destination. If you come from the right place (and Ilfracombe seems to be "a place of love"), this awareness will empower you to fully experientiate your self-actuation, and you will finally become all of who you are, and probably parts of other people as well. :) :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Someone above already found what appears to be an answer, before I replied to JoO. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get the relevence of your comment to mine. I didn't discuss much in my original comment whether or not the punching bag etc was justified since it was a moot point and IMO too OT. My main point was given the context at the time, it's difficult to be sure of what was actually meant. But we definitely can't assume the later claims by a spokesperson are simply attempts to rewrite history or that the bulk of media reports of the time are an actual reflection of what was meant. And as for the punching bag bit, I said he had been a punching bag for a long time, not just in 2007. I also don't see why it was necessary for him to make any 'conciliatory rhetorical gesture' for people to actually be interested in what he was saying, rather then just pretending to understand what he was saying when they didn't (which they had already been doing for a long time). It's not like he promised to make such a gesture, and it's questionable why you would want invite someone for discussion if you're not actually going to bother to try to understand what they're saying, unless perhaps you're Fox News. (Note that this doesn't mean you have to agree with what they say, just that it's better to try to understand them and debate or criticise what they actually said rather then simply mock them for things they may not have said.) He wasn't even in the US because of the US government. It's not like many US presidents (etc) always make such gestures when visiting other countries on their invitation, if anything, they far more often berate them. And it's not like such gestures when visiting the US have generally been successful anyway despite your claims to the contrary. Note that as I said in my first comment, I'm not convinced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was particularly interested in genuine dialog anyway (although then again who could blame him?) but this doesn't mean it's best to just make him a punching bag and not try to understand what he was saying. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his interview with Charlie Rose (who always tries his best to treat his guests fairly and try to understand their POV), but Ahmadinejad still came off as a nut-job. His comment that a study is needed to determine if the Holocaust actually occurred was one such example. At some point you do have to write certain people off and wait for a (hopefully saner) replacement. I believe he announced he plans to retire soon, so let's keep our fingers crossed. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The guy holds offensive views but he's not mentally ill. Trying to make sense of his Holocaust denial without taking the Middle Eastern context into account is like trying to make sense of the Republican Party's climate change and evolution denialism without taking the modern American political context into account. Dismissing those who you disagree with as "insane" is not only a cop-out, it's bad analysis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter much. Khamenei or whoever succeeds him is the real authority anyway. It concede that it did seem a little better under Khatami. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne -- A conciliatory rhetorical gesture would have been highly useful because of the previous tremendous ill-will and negative feelings toward him in the United States, which his previous actions and sayings had generated (starting with the international "I love Adolf Hitler" conference which he convened, and going down the whole long list). A conciliatory verbal gesture would have been a cheap way of presenting himself as a person of some degree of good will, and could have done something to smooth things over slightly and preserve a semi-façade of politeness. The lack of any such gesture convinced a significant segment of the American people that Ahmadinajad was proud of being an insufferable asshole, and was determined to continue as such... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance of someone who knows how folding the acres of political posturing above into one of those handy fold-up hidey things? For the benefit of those who still want to use this page as a reference desk. 180.148.3.62 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Adams

Did Henry Adams write two books: Memoirs of Arii Taimai and Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti or was it one book? Is it just the same book that has the encompassing title Memoirs of Arii Taimai e Marama of Eimee, Teriirere of Tooarai, Terrinui of Tahiti, Tauraatua i Amo; Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti as abbreviated on the wiki page, or is it two different books. FYI Arii Taimai is the mother of Marau Taaroa, who was coauthor of the book(s) as her mother's translator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's all one book. It was not one of his better known works. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly, there were two books but not in the way you mean. As I understand it, the first version was short and only distributed to a few of his friends, the second version was enlarged and published for a broader audience. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]