Sex In The Public Square - Comments

Farley and methodology

Iamcuriousblue — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:26:25 -0800

I think the most obvious problem with Farley's work is the selection bias you describe. If you look at Farley's papers for what populations of sex workers were surveyed, they are clearly all economically disadvantaged ones. In particular, the American and Canadian studies in particular were done on the abolutely most marginalized street workers, though this represents far from a majority of prostitutes in First World countries. A related problem is that Farley looks at women who often had mixed histories of sex work, including street prostitution, stripping, and massage parlour work, and uses this to say blanketly that her statistics apply accross the board for all types of sex work.

Another is a lack of transparency on how the data was gathered. After reading her methodology section, no copy of the survey that was used is provided and its unclear how the interviews were conducted.

Also very importantly, the study is totally uncontrolled. While questions concerning the experience of prostitution itself cannot be compared to non-sex workers, things like sexual abuse history, rate of post-traumatic stress, and the like can be compared. Asking the same survey questions and PTSD evaluations on non-sex workers from comparable social classes really was called for, both to confirm what the baseline is for the population in question, and also as a check of the methodolgy itself, which might actually be over-determining the incidence of abuse and PTSD.

Certainly, Ronald Weitzer has nailed down the problems with her research in the exchange they had in the journal Violence Against Women several years back.

As to what I'd wish to ask Melissa Farley, it would be hard for me to think of anything that isn't downright confrontational, really. But actually, I really would like to put to her the findings in Elizabeth Bernstein's study published as her book, Temporarily Yours. Bernstein's study was conducted in San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Stockholm. These were deliberately chosen as cities of similar size and demographics, but three different legal regimes. Bernstein found a simlar shift from street prostitution to indoor prostitution in all countries, and suggests that trends in prostitution are really more determined by larger socio-economic factors than by particular legal regimines toward prostitution. Which, of course, suggests that Farley's "attack demand" strategy, at least as practiced in Sweden, has not actually made the difference Farley is claiming it does – street prostitution is in decline in most developed countries, and the "Swedish model" cannot claim credit for this.

Shocked, Shocked!

Iamcuriousblue — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:12:14 -0800

In reply to Visions of Sexual Freedom:

Is this your dangerous sex radical exhibitionism we've been so warned about? :-)

motivations change over time

Chris OSullivan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:27:50 -0800

In reply to Why Young White Unmarried and Non-cohabiting Humans in Psychology Classes Have Sex (In America):

What motivates people to have sex can be different with different partners and different with the same partner on different occasions. I recall having some notions about the reasons for sex that really didn't fit my experience and I've certainly had reasons for sex that my virginal self would not have considered likely. Although the study was well thought out, the hypothetical factor might skew or amplify the results, reinforcing preconceptions or ideals etc.,

In my early twenties I was horrified not motivated by the thought of my partner conceiving. Being older and having changed a few diapers I can say that conception is not currently a motivator but I know friends that schedule their sex for the optimal time.

In glancing through the questions, the options were a little off, while I can see allowing for never having had a particular motivation, always having had the same motivation makes little sense to me unless the respondent has had a very limited or purely theoretical experience. in the setup for the survey they give an example that might mislead the respondent to under report a reason.

For example, if about half of the time you engaged in sexual intercourse you
did so because you were bored, then you would circle “3” beside question 4
1
None of my sexual
experiences
2
A few of my sexual
experiences
3
Some of my sexual
experiences
4
Many of my
sexual experiences
5
All of my sexual
experiences

To me "a few" is one to three times "some" implies between four and 30% of my experiences and "many" might be between 30% and 60%

There is no "most or all" option so many becomes most and half is just some. Getting my head around that might take half the survey.

So according to the instructions I choose 3 if about half of my sexual experiences were led to by that reason. So if significantly fewer than half were influenced by that reason would I call that a few even if that were 20 out of 50 experiences? I would consider that many but not most but the instructions would have me say that it led me to "a few" experiences.

With such an answer set I'd choose answer 2 for most reasons unless I were really stuck on one reason to almost fetishistic levels.

In addition a few of the reasons were state of being reasons such as "I'm addicted to sex" which might lead to sex but is unclear as to frequency within the respondent's experiences.

I would have found the survey arduous and frustrating to respond to frustration might lead to noncompliance and either stopping or rushing through the survey just to not have to deal with it anymore.

Snake-oil surgeries?

Iamcuriousblue — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:04:58 -0800

In reply to Vagina in Vogue:

"G-spot ‘amplification’ (collagen injected into the G-spot, which swells it significantly)"

This (and possibly other procedures listed) also really need to be critically looked at in terms of scientific and medical validity. While not denying the reality of "g-spot" orgasms for many women, the anatomical nature of the g-spot is still very poorly understood. Since there is no agreed-upon anatomical definition for the "g-spot", procedures that promise to enhance it need to be looked at with a considerable degree of suspicion. Is there any peer-reviewed study demonstrating increased orgasmic frequency or intensity after undergoing this procedure? My admittedly brief search of the scholarly literature shows only brief mentions of this procedure as part of longer lists of vaginal surgery procedures used in current practice. I see no literature whatsoever on its efficacy and somehow suspect there probably are no such studies.

Hi Wendi

Chris OSullivan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:48:43 -0800

In reply to No. More. Silence.:

Thanks for coming by, truth be told even statistics that misrepresent can still be informative as an insight into myth creation, superstition and spin doctoring.

I think that while stats can reveal truth they can also obsfucate and mislead. a well crafted study should have some level of surpise potential for the people conducting the study. If questions and methods preclude answers other than those expected by those conducting the study then the study is fatally flawed.

Chris O

Social problem or moral panic?

Iamcuriousblue — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:11:05 -0800

In reply to Vagina in Vogue:

I've seen a lot written about vaginal surgery, but I have yet to see evidence that this is in fact a widepread procedure, practiced on anywhere near the scale of breast enhancement or rhinoplasty. Certainly it exists, and publicity about its existence, and panic over the already hot-button issues of body image, "sexualization", "porn culture", and the rest may be causing a disproportionate focus on what may be an unusual procedure. I also think pointing to porn models as examples of women who are modeling surgically modified vaginas is misassigned blame. While there are a few performers who have undergone this procedure (probably ones that have had a lot of other plastic surgery, and hence appeal to certain fetish), I see no evidence that this is actually a widespread practice at all, even on the more narrowly-focused, beauty-obsessed "glamour porn" end of the scale. Anecdotes like the ones related by the Chicago plastic surgeon are fine as far as they go, but some actual comparitive numbers are called for here.

On the issue of pubic shaving and ideals about body hair, this has certainly undergone a marked change since the 1970s, but then styles of intimate grooming are as vulnerable to the vagieries of fashion as hairstyles, clothing, and the rest. A lot of people have been very quick to blame porn in this regard, but like all media, porn as much reflects fashions as drives them. I think there's been a move from the hairy body ideal of the 70s for a lot of reasons – one is that since the sexual revolution, people are more likely to see a lot of other bodies, both in the flesh and in the media, and hence there's just inherently going to be move towards aestheticization of naked body in a way that didn't previously exist. Two is that the 1970s reflected a very different ideal in a lot of ways – the idea of the Rousseuist, noble savage, hairy, "natural" man and woman very in at the time – think of the long hair, full beards, and open shirts revealing a hairy chest that were such a popular male fashion at the time. Its an aesthetic that seems to be rather anachronistic and even a bit comical today. (Albeit, Russell Brand seems to get a lot of mileage out of it - more power to him.) Its not surprising that as fashions changed to a more lean and groomed look, bodily grooming changed similarly.

Statistics

Visitor — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:56:40 -0800

In reply to No. More. Silence.:

Hi all,

Thanks for bringing attention to the issue regarding the statistics - I *did* just copy and paste the list from a source I thought to be credible, but probably did not give enough weight to my decision to do it. Truthfully, I was angry at the time and not as focused as I may have been regarding the accuracy of the statistics if I'd posted it with a clearer head. I have no problem with them being removed. I'd hate for them to distract from the real message I wanted to convey, although, I agree they seem to have sparked some interesting diaglogue!

Teasing...

Elizabeth — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:46:30 -0800

In reply to Visions of Sexual Freedom:

How else could I get you to buy a calendar? You have ordered yours, haven't you?

awesomely alluring

Chris OSullivan — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:24:42 -0800

In reply to Visions of Sexual Freedom:

Elizabeth,

The three faces of Eve, you have presence in front of that camera.

Words fail to touch the barest hint of how much hotter than the furnace of a steamship at all ahead full you are.

Worthy photos for a worthy cause and you save the best for the calendar, you tease. ;-) Seriously my regret is not pushing the board to buy ad space for SFSI.

Chris

::Blush::

Elizabeth — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:05:18 -0800

In reply to Visions of Sexual Freedom:

Why thank you Alexa. Now, if only you could come to the party ;)