Sex In The Public Square - Melissa Farley - Comments

Farley in Chicago

Michael — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:23:00 -0700

We became aware last night that a similar report to that published in Scotland, was going to be released shortly in Chicago, although we have not yet seen this. As in the Scottish study, it was produced in conjunction with a local group with a similar philosophy, the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation. An article about this by David Heinzmann appeared in the Chicago Tribune today.

I agree that it's very

Adele — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:39:21 -0700

I agree that it's very important to deconstruct faulty, skewed "research" like this. Farley also has an article in the Spring 2008 issue of Ms. Magazine called "The New Abolitionists; Taking on the Global Sex-Trafficking Industry", which will serve to popularize her views that there's never consent in sex work and that not listening to the actual sex workers is "the" feminist response.

Emotional labour

Michael — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:38:00 -0700

The problems with this report are so many that it would not be possible to catalogue them all, rather it is important to look at the bigger picture of how these responses were obtained from men and how they were interpreted and reported, to demonstrate that one can deduce no new knowledge from it.

One objective appears to have been to provide a vehicle into which they could inject their largely erroneous interpretation of research in sex work. This demonstrates their remarkably facile understanding of sex work. For instance they attempt to compare men's assesments with that of the women, which led to headlines about 'deluded punters'. They never actually asked the women, but relied on an ideological position that women in sex work hate their job and derive no satisfaction from it. There are two major problems with this. The first is the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sex work, which Elizabeth alludes to, and has described in her research on strip clubs . This is work and the successful sex worker strives to satisfy her client, even if it is providing the illusion of a consensually satisfying relationship. Both partners indulge in a certain degree of fantasy. The other problem is that there is research on sexual satisfaction in sex work, for instance Anna Kontula' s paper "Sex workers view to sexual pleasure¹ ".

Finally this research is seriously compromised ethically, without any oversight or consent, or intent to benefit the population of men studied, in fact the opposite. There is no attempt at confidentiality, researchers were traumatised and most likely the subjects too, on learning of the deception. Unethical research should not be published, and indeed could not have been published, had they not resorted to publishing it themselves.

Updates

A consortium of researchers and other experts in sex work have submitted a critique of the report to the Scottish Parliament, and investigations are under way as to how public authorities funded unethical research.

Margo MacDonald MSP (Member of Scottish Parliament), has also written a critique in Scottish newspapers. Another article was published on May 5th in the The Scotsman.

^1. Seksuaalisuus seksityössä (In Finnish with English summary, as pdf . English translation in press, as 'The sex worker and her pleasure' Current Sociology ✦ July 2008 ✦ Vol. 56(4): 605–620)

Julie Bindel's articles in UK are even worse

RonWeitzer — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:27:35 -0800

If you haven't seen the series of op-eds and apparent "news" articles written by Julie Bindel, in The Guardian (UK), her writings are much worse than Bob Herberts.

Not really – just a much-needed response

Iamcuriousblue — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:41:12 -0700

The way I see it, the nature of Farley's research has a direct bearing on the issues. And if that research is going to be used to craft public policy and put laws into place that we're all supose to live by, then I think that in a democratic society, people have a right to quite ruthlessly question the nature of the claims that are being used to justify such policies and laws. Farley makes some sweeping claims as a result of her research, far more sweeping than most other researchers who done research on prostituion. The natural question then, is whether her research results are really as active as she claims they are. Especially given Farley's degree of access to the media and policymakers, which is far greater than other researchers have had.

Not a place for rumors

Elizabeth — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:16:36 -0700

This is a place for open discussion but not a place for rumor-mongering. We encourage people to disagree and debate and challenge each other, but it is important that those debates and challenges be grounded in reasoning and evidence.

Raising questions without answers is fine, hinting at rumors is not.

One of the reasons we encourage people to register and sign in, or to at least leave a link that leads back to some other place where they write or have a profile is so that we can get to know each other as a community of people who are all acting in good faith regardless of our differences.

Sorry, the Weitzer thing is

Visitorr — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:08:10 -0700

Sorry, the Weitzer thing is a rumor heard from a fellow worker. I don't want me or you to get sued. I'm just saying keep your eyes open.

Weitzer's research

alex dumas — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:09:34 -0700

Yes, "Visitor", I'm also curious what you mean by Weitzer's "preferences." If you only read Weitzer's articles before you engage in character association, you might get enlightened (email him at GWU and he will send you his work). I would think that you, and others in this community, would appreciate researchers like Weitzer who have continually challenged (in several publications) the flawed and ideological writings of Farley, Hughes, Raymond, etc. Instead, you prefer to engage in an unwarranted attack on him. Mindblowing!!!

The links

Elizabeth — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:07:37 -0700

I tried fixing the links in Iamcuriousblue's comment itself but couldn't get the system to let me save the edited version, I think because IACB wasn't logged in when he made the comment. (I kept being asked for a "valid author." So, IACB, if you get back here and feel like registering, that'd be really cool. We'd love to have you on board anyway!)

Meanwhile, here are the links to the sources and resources he mentioned:

Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and their report "Trafficking: A Demand Led Problem?" ("excellent overview of the multifaceted nature of the sex industry and the relationship of sex trafficking to parts of that industry")

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, NGO that takes an prohibitionist position on prostitution and supports US funding policies tha deny aid to any organization, even outside the US, that does not actively oppose prostitution.

The Mother Jones article that gives lots of good info on the US aid policies, and the issue of trafficking "Sex Trafficking: Zero Tolerance".

La Strada Association, "one of the main groups doing actual work on the ground in Eastern Europe trying to help trafficked women there."

I'll add the organizations mentioned to our links page. I need to create a category for reports and studies, I think!

A focus on the issues

Elizabeth — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:50:02 -0700

I think a focus on the issues is exactly what is being called for here.

For example, one issue is that the mainstream media very often relies on flawed research or very narrowly defined research questions to then make broad claims about an entire population. When that happens, it is important for critical voices to speak up.

Another issue in the case of sex work in particular is that there is a great deal of variation in working conditions, autonomy, risk, and so on across the "industry." To take the situation of some of the most vulnerable sex workers and then use their stories to support overreaching claims about how exploitive and dangerous "all prostitution" or even "all sex work" is, is irresponsible at best and conscious deception at worst.

It is true that Melissa Farley's work will certainly be directly criticized during the proposed blog-in. That is precisely because well respected journalists and columnists, like Bob Herbert, have relied heavily on it without revealing to their readers any of its weaknesses. Readers need to know as much about her research as possible if they're going to be using it to formulate or support their opinions.

So is this a smear campaign? It doesn't sound like one so far, and I'd bet given the intelligence of the people at Desiree Alliance that it won't turn into one. It is a broadening of the discourse around sex work to include a range of voices and a critical perspective on the mainstream media and its sources.

Smear campaign?

CrampsHurt — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:06:40 -0700

Doesn't this sound like a plan for an online smear campaign? "Let's all get together and smear this person's reputation because we don't like what she says."

Can't we just focus on the issues and leave the smearing out of it?

Thank You Iamcuriousblue, Would you mind

JanieBelle — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:53:44 -0700

if I fixed the links in your comment? I really appreciate the info, and of course when I finish the piece it'll be cross-posted here.

Another organization that

Iamcuriousblue — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:46:36 -0700

Another organization that clearly makes this distinction is the NGO Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Their report "Trafficking: A Demand Led Problem?" is excellent overview of the multifaceted nature of the sex industry and the relationship of sex trafficking to parts of that industry.

The positions of GAATW are, naturally, opposed by the abolitionist NGO Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, which has managed to get them largely cut off from any US-based government funding based on their non-abolitionist stance on prostitution. The Mother Jones article Sex Trafficking: Zero Tolerance" gives more info about this.

One of the member groups of the GAATW, the La Strada Association, is one of the main groups doing actual work on the ground in Eastern Europe trying to help trafficked women there.

"Preferences?"

Chris — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:39:09 -0700

Do you think that you could be more specific about these "preferences" in a non-libelous way, preferably with a link or two?

Really, Weitzer?

Visitorr — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:30:17 -0700

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but isn't Weitzer the sociologist at GWU who has certain "preferences" that we really wouln't want to be associated with? I'd be careful of promoting him. Word up.