wino "mysogenistic" - haha! I actually thought you were using a different word that I had never heard before and googled it! More fool me for giving you that credit. Please don't confuse "abuse" with "contempt", this is Mumsnet and I'm free to tell you to fuck off with your tone policing.
It is a very common derailing tactic for pro-pimp lobbyists to come into any discussion and demand that posters wade through reports, surveys or even books in order to continue with the discussion. They generally can't summarise generally what the report, surveys or book says, why it is important to the discussion or how it overcomes some fundamental problems in trying to represent a population that is generally hidden. When I have done this in the past, I have generally found the report or whatever does not contribute much to the discussion but derails the discussion into a debate about the report. This thread is about the choices punters make and the language they use to describe the women they buy. Since that discussion was largely winding down, I have continued a broader discussion with prostitution about you. You are even derailing that derail by insisting that I read hundreds of pages of reports without presenting your case as to how they overcome some fairly fundamental problems. I raised these issues with you after your first post and you have still not addressed them. You have not established yourself here as a poster who only contributes high quality information so I'm not going to waste time going through PubMed or Google based on your assertion that something is important or brings anything useful to this discussion.
For example, the Keele thesis was based on data obtained using Survey Monkey, it was written by a PhD candidate who no longer works in the field and who has not written or commented further about the subject other than BTL comments in a New Statesman article where she said:
"I certainly don't claim my sample to be representative of the population, the sex-working population, or even escorts advertising on the internet."
So I conclude that this report is not authoritative. I believe it is being misused by pro-pimps to further their agenda by trying to suggest that it is "evidence" for their "happy hooker" bullshit. Punters love it feeds their cognitive dissonance when someone has written Something Important that says "Carry On Chaps".
I believe that prostitution must be approached from a political analysis. Surveys or reports can produce some interesting facts and I have read many about prostitution. I have found that even those which tend to support my political viewpoint have the same fundamental difficulties in producing anything authoritative. If you want to bring reports and surveys into an issue which is fundamentally political, you will need to explain how these problems have been addressed or overcome if you are demanding that others read them, particularly when asked. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time (which is sometimes the point).
You can't answer my issues about the reports you have previously cited by citing another one as an example and not addressing the issues for that one. Do you see how that is circular? Do you see how that does not further the discussion?
I know what purposive sampling is. Can you indicate how it was handled in the reports you cite? Since the Keele report used Survey Monkey, I'm not going to take your word for it that the other reports achieved (or even attempted to achieve) good representation of women in prostitution and women who are no longer in prostitution. Many of these types of studies are actually very limited in the population they survey (e.g. only women advertising on the internet, only women who entered prostitution after the age of 18, only women who speak English, only women who respond to a survey request) and some are overly broad (e.g. including male and female prostitutes in the same survey, including people from different countries). Statistics and surveys are also massively susceptible to manipulation by the author in the selection of questions or even the way the questions are asked. If the author has a political bias or represents or is being paid by someone who has a political bias (in either way), this affects the credibility of the study.
All you have said about abuse, addiction, mental health and poverty is "what is the motivation for telling untruths".
So you can see that I think the battle of the stats on any issue, but particularly this one, is ultimately fruitless or fruit-lite. It is particularly problematic on the issue of prostitution and I wonder if there is a connection in the sort of shared mentality of the people who write p net reports and those who love to gather up facts and figures and bore their friends or random strangers down the pub with them.
On the political point you say your position is based on agency and harm reduction. What do you think about structure?