Close reading Rhoda.

The consultation! I just thought I’d quickly have a look at Rhoda’s first really substantial reference. (The actual-first reference is the ‘Safer Lives: Changed Lives‘ Scottish government document, which basically amounts to Rhoda arguing, “people who agree with me, agree with me. Therefore we must all be right”. More on this another time, but suffice to say that Safer Lives is neither the apex of feminist scholarship, nor is it written in stone.) The first meaningful reference (i.e, to an academic study) appears in the following paragraph.

“The majority of those who are involved in prostitution are unwilling participants. A number of UK studies provide useful background information in this area. Many of the findings are disturbing. For example 75% of women in prostitution in the UK became involved when they were children … ” (p.6)

That 75% figure comes from a study done called ‘Ties That Bind‘, by Margaret Melrose, and it makes for interesting reading. And no, I’m not going to critique the methodology! To my untrained eye, it looks reasonably howler-free. Ties That Bind “was generated by in-depth interviews with forty-six women, all of whom had become involved in prostitution before they were 18. At the time of the interviews, 32 were still involved in prostitution. Approximately three-quarters of those interviewed were street-working prostitutes.” (I can’t give you page numbers, because the copy of the study that I found online doesn’t have them. But this is from under the subheading ‘Survival Acts’.)

Ties That Bind is a study that focuses on how and why children and young people become involved in the sex industry. To that end, it interviews women (and some children) who became involved in the sex industry as children. It is not a study of the sex industry as a whole. It is a study of a sub-section (those who entered the industry as children) of a sub-section (women who work on the street). Belinda Brooks-Gorden estimates that people who work on the street constitute between eight and ten percent of the UK sex industry.

To cite this study as evidence that 75% of all sex workers entered the industry as children is akin to taking a study on how tigers feel about their identity as cats – by interviewing forty-seven tigers, talking about their relationship to the ‘cat’ label, and then citing that study as evidence that 100% of cats are, in fact, tigers. (But maybe some of them have complicated feelings about being cats.) A different way of highlighting the absurdity of this stat as cited in the consultation is to wonder why it is cited as “75%” and not 100%. After all, all the women interviewed started in the sex industry as children – that’s the point of the study! Rhoda’s got 75% because … not all the women interviewed are still selling sex: 25% of them aren’t. So Rhoda thinks that 100% of women in the sex industry started as children, but, y’know, some of them quit. That’s the premise her 75% stat is based on, having fabulously distorted the findings of the paper she’s “citing”. All cats are tigers, or former tigers.

Interesting how Rhoda cites a study that notes that people who work on the street “are thought to be the most vulnerable and exploited of all sex industry workers” (‘Survival Acts’), and then states in her consultation document that she wants to “bring indoor prostitution in line with legislation covering street prostitution” (p.9). Yes, because the main thing I think when I look at the indoor sex industry is, “man, this would totally be improved if it was more like street work”. The de facto criminalisation of clients (and workers) on the street has obviously worked out so well for vulnerable women.

(You’ll note that Rhoda’s proposals will have no effect on the number of people entering the sex industry as children, because – listen carefully; this is complex – sex with children, whether commercial or not, is already criminalised. It carries a potential life sentence. Furthermore, Margaret Melrose, Rhoda’s expert on juveniles in the sex industry, doesn’t recommend criminalising the clients of adult sex workers. Under ‘Conclusions’, she writes, “in order to tackle the causes of child prostitution, this author would argue that there is a need to tackle the poverty of the communities from which these young people so often come”. Not much I’d disagree with there.)

That Rhoda’s using a study that (perfectly legitimately) interviews only women who started selling sex as children, to ‘prove’ that all sex workers entered the industry as children; and that she’s extrapolating the entire UK sex industry from a small study of street-working women (remember when she told me I’m not representative?), seems to me to be a flat-out unethical misuse of the academic work in question. I’d be interested to find out if there are any consequences for that. Anyone know?

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Close reading Rhoda.

  1. Pingback: Anti-sex work NGO’s use 1997 interview to further agendas « Diary of a VirginWhore

  2. Better, what Melrose actually says is:
    “In fact, approximately two-thirds of participants had become involved before they were sixteen and of these, three-quarters (24) actually became involved when they were 14 or younger.”

    Now, on my planet, that would be “half”…not a happy fact, but why attribute “75%” to Melrose when Melrose says half? (Or, on the other hand, if you are going to make things up and misattribute them, why not go for broke and say “100%”?). What Grant completely overlooks is that Melrose highlights a far greater scandal, that at least half of these precious young people HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME WITH WHICH TO FEED AND HOUSE THEMSELVES in third world Britain. That is real, I have seen it with my own eyes, and even lived it. So anyway, having read Melrose in minute details, the best solution to that longstanding right wing abomination Grant can come up with is to legislate to take away the only income they *can* get…oh that will SO work…

    They may be found one side of the road dead with a mouthful of grass they were chewing in desperation…but at least they will not have the PTSD from the selling of sex. (!?!)

    Where do these certifiably insane social priorities come from?

    “Prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanising”…but hunger and homelessness are character building learning experiences on the right path to mental and emotional wellness I suppose?

    • YES. I was going to quibble with Melroses’ tone at points but I didn’t – okay, partly because I had no time, but mostly because I felt like her conclusions were an absolute indictment of precisely the right target, and reading her study made me FURIOUS with the state of the world, and FURIOUS that anyone could read her study and conclude that adults selling sex to other adults is the problem that needs to be fixed here. LIVID.

      And like, as you say, Rhoda’s use of the stats makes NO SENSE. 100% would make more sense (in a nonsensical way), but obviously she’s thought “100% looks a bit unlikely, let’s round that down” – and like, what, we won’t check?

  3. If only. At best, if you have a professional organisation, it might earn you a rebuke from them. But even that is unlikely in most cases.

    BTW, a good counterpoint study would be Jeal and Salisbury’s 2007 piece “Health needs and service use of parlour‐based prostitutes compared with street‐based prostitutes”, which you can download here. It looked at 142 Bristol sex workers, split equally between those two sectors, and found an average entry age of 20.8 years for street workers and 23.1 for parlour workers.

    • Auuuuuggghhjllhkt dytrs.kb lumytretawfj,bjh. I AM SO CROSS ABOUT THIS. THERE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE A PENALTY. *roars at the sky*

      … It’s been a long week, and I’ve got no smarts left to reply to this comment with – it’ll have to be roaring, y’know? (But, er, thank you for the link! Book marked for the future, when I can read again.)

  4. I think a person is a child up to 16, so 66% of those starting sex work before the age of 18 would have been the correct figure. Of course the problem lies with the sample which makes Rhoda’s interpretation ridiculous. She is presumably just regurgitating something she has read elsewhere. I don’t see the author making the claim, which is no surprise.
    I had a look at the code of conduct for MSPs; honesty and integrity are listed as key principles but are strangely not an obligation. So sanctions are unlikely, the most likely outcome of a complaint would be a decision that it isn’t relevant. However, it may be worthwhile just to make the point. I had looked at this source myself, come to the same conclusion and had considered complaining before deciding it wasn’t worthwhile. However…having found your blog. I reckon the correct procedure would be via the public standards commissioner http://www.publicstandardscommisioner.org.uk The problem is you have to identify yourself which you may not want to do. Can I ask if you made a complaint?

  5. Pingback: Response to the Rhoda Grant Consultation on Criminalising sexwork « Diary of a VirginWhore

  6. Pingback: Anti prostitution rhetoric is an agenda for mass irresponsibility (especially you, Stella Marr) « Diary of a VirginWhore

  7. Pingback: The Prostitution Debate: Extended Edition | Slutocracy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s