ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
OAP home allows residents to book sex workers(262 Posts)
I worked briefly in an old people's home and the matron there was quite vigilant in making sure none of them developed sexual or romantic relationships. It was horrible. She felt it was up to her what they did, as if they were kids. One old boy liked going to the pub for a few pints, and she tried to stop him too. He didn't get drunk or difficult, she just felt it wasn't appropriate. I thought she was a cow, and was very pleased to see this news story. If the residents want to do private things in their private space, good luck to them!
The thing is, statistically, it's not possible to devise a meaningful representative study on harm or consent by asking prostitutes for a number of reasons.
- Those who are in forced situations will not be able to participate.
- Those who have left would be unlikely to participate or too difficult to find.
- The responses are largely subjective and therefore unverifiable.
- Dilbert always has something useful to add
- To paraphrase a famous prostitute: they would say that, wouldn't they.
The Suzanne Jenkins study you linked to OLKN was written as a PhD thesis. Suzanne Jenkins now seems to be a Policy Officer at Staffordshire County Council. She doesn't seem to have published anything else on this topic, that I can find on the internet.
This article in the New Statesman questioned Brooke Magnanti's reliance on the study:
Interestingly, Ms Jenkins seems to have commented BTL on that article:
"Just for clarity, as author of the study under discussion, I certainly don't claim my sample to be representative of the population, the sex-working population, or even escorts advertising on the internet. I would add that although I aimed to study 'escorts, many men, and women, work in more than one way/place simultaneously. e.g., many escorts work some of their week in a parlour, many started as street walkers or parlour workers before going independent. I personally interviewed over 100 sex workers and their experiences were wide-ranging - but that doesnt mean others didnt experienced sex work differently. Also, the question about plans to leave escort work were one of large bank of questions, and respondents were able to add explanatory data to their response, so some clarification of their meanings were elicited. Having said all that, my intention is not to promote sex work or to condemn it it more about how the law infantilises and pathologises women and how in the name of protecting women it can place them in a more vulnerable position."
This is the only public statement I can find from Ms Jenkins.
Her belief that the law infantilises women is a subjective, political belief. She states herself that she does not believe her sample to be representative. I don't see that her paper adds anything of value to the discussion.
No that's not what I asked for and I've repeated the specific request several times now.
In a discussion about criminalising prostitution in Scotland and what yours and other posters' practical fears about the proposals might be, the issue of threats to safety was raised by Jaans.
You didn't reply. Earlier in the thread, you said you would have no such concerns about safety yourself.
I queried why safety would be a concern when as I understood it, a significant proportion of prostitutes currently work on their own or clients' premises. You said that only about 10% of prostitution was street-based and that the majority worked in brothels. I asked you this:
"Got any stats for that?
The internet's been around for 20+ years now. How do you know there aren't now more prostitutes working as independents than in brothels or on the street?"
to which you replied with a link to a 312 page thesis that didn't contain the answer - and consistently evaded my polite requests for you to direct me to it.
Then you linked to a 2006 report about Canadian prostitution that mentioned nothing about how many prostitutes in Scotland (or even GB generally) work in brothels compared to own/clients' premises.
If you don't know, just say so.
The link was in support of my earlier claim that only "about 10%" of prostitutes are streetworkers. I was asked to supply evidence, and did.
Huh? That link is a 2006 study of prostitution in Canada, whereas the question was about the percentages of prostitutes working on the streets, in brothels and as independents in Scotland where the consultation is taking place. At a push I'd have accepted ratios for England, Wales or NI, but none of this answers the questions. Especially as even the Canada report isn't precise, stating that "street prostitution accounts for just 5% to
20% of all prostitution activity in the country". It doesn't break down percentages of the remaining 95-80% in terms of where they work.
The poster claiming that the main objections to the proposals related to safety, appears to have been banned. As other pro posters were earlier claiming that working as an independent would give them no safety concerns, we're still none the wiser about what these posters fear from the proposals.
Ah, well. At least MN are getting on top of the more obvious trolls. Mwah mwah, dahling.
Why were the posts by Jan deleted? A lot of those posts had very valid arguments.
For some reason posting a link to the consultation response by Scot-Pep is "against mumnet talk guidelines". There must be something about that document MNHQ don't want us to see?
What's the relevance of this document? It's a report on prostitution in Canada.
Still not sleeping...
No, my argument is that I do know what it takes to get a PhD from some disciplines and some institutions. Some are rigorous and significant and some are not.
My point is that I think you are placing too much emphasis on the significance of a paper from someone who happens to be have a PhD. Some are meaningful and some are not. I assumed that since you wrote it incorrectly twice, you don't know much about it and I do accept that may be unfair.
People write stuff all the time about prostitution. There's more stuff out there than you can read in two lifetimes. Unless you can make a case for why this paper is important, it's not really on to ask everyone to read it as a precondition to engaging in a discussion.
Oh, those comments really work, i make a typo and that's your argument? Well done.
How about the points you're trying to make? Signing off now.
have you any idea what getting a pHd means?
In what discipline? At which institution? Have you not even gleaned from my posts that it is PhD, not pHd or pHD? You're not covering yourself in glory here.
Ok, which points would you like me to summarise? I'll do my best.
I didn't fib. I said 'yes I was a quick reader' in response to your compliment about my speed-reading skills. I never claimed to have read the whole thing and I don't intend to. I'm only interested in finding the answer you wouldn't supply in a post. If it doesn't support your claim, then just say so. If it does, please direct me to it and I've been politely asking you to do that, but you either can't or won't.
So I'll just wait for you to back up your claims and answer the questions - and as is my right, draw my own conclusions if that's not forthcoming.
If you can summarise the salient points and they do actually seem like they're shedding new light, I will read it. If you can't or they don't, I won't.
And neither of you have actually read the paper fully (total credit to badinage who is at least giving it a go) and Flora, have you any idea what getting a pHd means? It is not just "someone's opinion"!
Read the paper.
And again, what are the facts? It's a thesis. It's someone's opinion.
This might be the only issue you
have a vested interest in engage with so you might not know that when people are debating Clever Stuff, the done thing is to say: "here is an interesting paper by W who has X credentials. In it she says (summary of Y). I think that's relevant here because of Z."
Not, "I believe A. A PhD somewhere wrote something. Read it."
Hah! Even worse to expect someone to break off and wade through 312 pages just to get some stats! Not 132 as I stated. Nighty night.
Badinage, you said you'd already read it! You big fibber!
Going to sleep now, will reconnect, with more references, later.
So you'd be happy enacting new legislation on the basis of one person's "feelings"?
<resists urge to quote Godwin's Law>
I prefer a bit of fact-based stuff, myself.
It's a democracy and all.
Still reading, but it's irredeemably dull and full of personal bias. Still no sign of the data you claimed was in it either....
I think supplying a link which is 132 pages long as an answer to a question about the stats to support your claim about ratios, is a silencing technique in that it diverts attention from what I was asking you and Jaans about what your objections were, beyond the philosophical 'rights' issue, to these proposals.
Jaan mentioned safety but has failed to follow that up and OLKN you haven't answered those questions at all.
I'm really not interested in pausing a discussion to read a thesis. I only looked at it because you linked it as an answer to my question. So I'll look tomorrow to see whether you and Jaan11 are more forthcoming and whether you've found those stats. For now, I'm grateful to Jenkins for a sudden onset of drowsiness.....
You're not selling this very well. 300+ pages written by someone somewhere - why should I read it? Because you think it's Very Weighty. And Sheds New Light. Whereas I have a strong suspicion I'll waste my time reading pomo / third wave bullshit. Saying Nothing New.
Join the discussion
Please login first.