Many poeple I know outside the hobbyist community beleive that most providers have sexual abuse as children in their backgrounds.

I don't beleive it is most. I have no idea what percentage it may be.

There must be a source of reliable statisctics or some sort of objective studies.

Ok, Kaz2001,
We have had discussions on this topic before, and please, take it from this social scientist/therapist who is very informed and well read on the topic: NO, THERE ARE NO RELIABLE STATISTICS ON THE TOPIC.

This is for obvious reasons:

- trying to get a representative sample of "providers" has proved notoriously difficult, since this is an illegal profession;

- viewing the category of prostitutes as a monolithic entity has been the mistake of every single sociological study out there;

- obtaining the funding for such a study is extremely difficult, if not impossible; in our sexually repressive climate, what social/cultural institution is going to pay for this data gathering?

In epidemiological studies concerning streetwalkers and STDs, there have been some tentative conclusions as to sexual abuse backgrounds and other forms of violence in prostitutes' lives. But this has not been correlated with any REASONS for why someone chooses prostitution as a profession, or even that there is one single correlation between child abuse or prostitution in general.

Now, I conducted my own study of 100 providers on TER, the results of which you can find in the link below. In my opinion, this sample, WHILE NOT REPRESENTATIVE, shows that this is a pretty stable and regular bunch of women who just happen to work as providers. But due to the constraints of the study, I never did ask about CSA [childhood sexual abuse], nor do I find that this is an important problem. And here's why:

As a social scientist/therapist/sexologist, I have been bombarded with such studies, simply because there are ZILLIONS of civvie women who have, unfortunately so, been victims of CSA. And so we don't need to prove a point about prostitutes, we need to prove points and create prevention among THE GENERAL POPULATION. Hence, you have to ask yourself why any institution would like to fund a study of CSA among prostitutes, when it doesn't change the picture significantly [I mean, the big reason for prostitution is not the fact that someone was abused - or not - it's that it's so damn lucrative when done right!].

In my own research with therapy clients and personal friends who have been providers, I can tell you that the incidence of CSA is no more than in the general population. And, as a clinician, I would venture to say that it would be difficult for some victims of CSA WHO STILL SHOW SEQUELAE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF LIVING AS NON-ABUSED ADULTS, to participate SUCCESSFULLY in a job that requires stamina, solid mental health and some intelligence. Granted, there are plenty of sad cases out there, but for the most part, those who operate out of their own homes or who are solvent enough to rent/own a trick pad, are also among those fine upstanding citizens who keep the economy humming by sending their kids to good schools, living in nice communities and being productive members of society. And of course, you're NEVER going to see them discuss their jobs openly, since they'll be instantly stigmatized.

Think of it this way: it's much easier to pretend that someone who chooses commercial sex work freely and willingly must do so because of some traumatic incidents/childhood, than actually a woman who is in tune with her sexuality and who likes exposing her hot body and enjoys the adulation and the erotic interaction...for some nice, reasonably big bucks. You tell me that's not threatening to a bunch of males out there? You BET it is! Not to mention the many anxiety-ridden females out there who try to regulate sexuality in the most absurd fashion...no names mentioned, but a bun-haired, stocky Alaskan with greasy face make-up comes to mind, LOL.

So there you have it. I'm more worried about young girls in the Bible Belt who have to sleep with their Daddies and then become Church Ladies, than I am about a bunch of self-determining women who may or may not have been sexually abused but who take matters in their own hands and are able to enjoy their jobs and their lives, despite society frowning upon them and trying to create some kind of cause for this subversive sexual rebellion....

Ok, agitprop over and out,
the Love Goddess

-- Modified on 9/7/2008 5:30:54 PM

I admit I have not read the study thoroughly yet but it tends to correspond with my perceptions of the women I have met. They are articulate and able to converse about a wide variety of subjects. I have also been struck by their intelligence, creativity and emotional stability. This has made my experiences more comfortable, satisfying and fun.

The idea that  childhood sexual abuse would cause or be a primary factor why a woman would choose this profession seems very unlikely to me but that is just my opinion. In fact as a clinician I have also seen many women who were sexually abused as a child  that are not comfortable with sexuality. That can be improved if they get help.

As far as the bible belt I have a feeling their is a correlation between repressed sexuality of males ie those who spout off about the evils of masturbation and sex with the perpetration of incest. In other words the holier than thou are more likely to commit incest. That again is just conjecture and I have not read any literature on it.

This is one of the most puzzling and annoying stereotypes that I see applied to both providers and also exotic dancers as well.  Annoying because there is no real data and puzzling because I simply don't see the tie-in. I don't understand what the connection is.  What is it about possible childhood sexual abuse that would lead a women to accept money for sex or entertain men as a nude dancer?  The women I know in the sex business do it for the money. In my thirty odd years of adulthood I have gotten to know literally dozens of women involved in the sex industry quite well. Honestly, only one of them has ever told me of being abused as a child and, quite frankly, she is one of the most well adjusted women that I have ever known.

Not only do I not believe that is most, I do not believe it is even "many".  Again, sex workers in general are some of the most down-to-earth, intelligent and well-adjusted women I have known. Honestly, I connect  much better with these gals than I do with civie women...

Somehow I doubt the accuracy of your diagnosis on this one. Anxiety-ridden? Hardly. Regulating sexuality in the most absurd fashion? How, by being pro-life and mildly opposing gay marriage? Last I checked, those are popular, mainstream political positions. Maybe you disagree with them, but they hardly warrant Palin being singled out by you for petty personal insults.

As for her being "a bun-haired, stocky Alaskan with greasy face make-up", it comes off as catty and jealous.

Now, I happen to agree with you that the whole "prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars were all sexually abused" line is a pack of nonsense, but bear in mind that this particular pack of nonsense isn't exactly from the Bible Belt, although those groups might have bought into it.

In my experience, the people who push the abuse theme are the same people who claim that no prostitute could possibly rationally choose the profession of her own free will, and therefore all of the women involved are basically slaves to be bought, sold, trafficked, etc. Who are they? Feminists. The same types who have kept silicone breast implants banned in this country for decades even though the rest of the world has enjoyed their widespread use for many years.

What about childhood sexual abuse among male hobbyists? Why dwell only on whether providers were sexually abused?

Oh dear, lawfin,
This isn't a political forum, but since you asked...I'm singling out Palin because she advocates abstinence-only as sex education for teenagers. If that's not regulating sexuality in the most absurd fashion, then I don't know. Considering her own daughter got into such a pickle, maybe some sex ed would not have been misplaced. We need teenagers to have complete access to sex ed and prevention, in order to avoid situations like Bristol Palin's. Maybe the Palin family can support this infant with their resources, but most American families do much better when conception is controlled. As for Palin's views on pro-life and gay marriage, I did not address those, nor did I imply. But I do stand behind my opinion on providing contraception and explicit sex ed to ALL TEENS.

As for catty and jealous? Catty - maybe. But I have the privilege of being 5'8, weigh 118 lbs and look 10 years younger and much more beautiful than Mrs. Palin - without makeup, even. Jealous? Of her? Five children and a redneck husband without a college degree? Surely you jest.

As for the rest of your posting - I happen to agree with you, so I guess we're fair and square.

I still think she's short, chubby, greasy and has absurd ideas about regulating sexuality
the Love Goddess

-- Modified on 9/8/2008 2:39:55 PM

Dear LG,

"I'm singling out Palin because she advocates abstinence-only as sex education for teenagers."

Except she doesn't:
"Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception... 'I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also.'"
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story
__________________________________________________

"I have the privilege of being 5'8, weigh 118 lbs and look 10 years younger and much more beautiful than Mrs. Palin - without makeup, even. Jealous? Of her? Five children and a redneck husband without a college degree? Surely you jest."

I'm sure you are more attractive than she is, but as far as accomplishments, she IS a governor and is on track to possibly end up as VP and then become the first woman President. I doubt you have any such political ambitions, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be jealous on Hillary's behalf.

And as for her appearance, what's the saying, that Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people?

I was interested to read the results of your survey. You allude to the fact that you had a self-selecting group and mention this may have shaded responses. To what degree do you feel this self-selecting group colored the results? I was happy to see a rather sunny depiction of the women in the business, though I wondered if this was a situation where the happiest and most secure were the ones to respond.

Since he part Native American (Yupik Eskimo).

1. I am never jealous on behalf of another, nor do I have any public political aspirations for myself. On the other hand, when anyone talks about sex, the personal becomes the political, so yes, I do take official positions on the various matters - not just here on this board, but every time I lecture to a crop of college or grad students (you can come hear me at Pace University in New York on October 22, 2008, if you really are interested).

2. Sarah Palin may equivocate on the use of contraception, but according to the information provided in the link, she is against "explicit sex ed." That, in my opinion is dangerous and yes, absurd. Here's why:

3. As a trained sex educator with clinical experience, you'd better believe that I am for the most explicit sex ed as possible as soon as humans hit adolescence. This is the only way that we ALL can make educated decisions on what kind of sex we are going to have, with whom and under what circumstances. The less sexual education humans have, the less equipped they are to deal with issues such as pregnancy, STDs, and sexual dysfunction, just to mention a few crucial issues.

Now you, Sarah Palin, and millions of others may disagree with me on this issue, but the United States still has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world among industrialized nations. One of the correlates are still because REPEATED and EXPLICIT sex education is not widely available to American teenagers. So yes, you'd better believe I'm for the most explicit SEX EDUCATION as possible. Mind you, just because the education is explicit doesn't mean that I'm advocating showing hard core pornography to 10 year olds. Explicit SEX ACTS and explicit SEX ED are two different concepts. As evidence, I give you Scandinavia, where sex education, increasingly explicit according to age, is given starting in elementary school. These countries - Norway, Sweden, Denmark - have some of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates AND sexual dysfunctions in the world. Clear, universal, repeated and yes, explicit education does have something to do with it.

And with this, I close my argument of Sarah Palin who isn't even attractive in Washington...now Ms. Dana Perino on the other hand....that's more my style of eye-candy, LOL..and she's a Bushie, so I'm not partisan when it comes to cute chix in politix!


the Love Goddess

-- Modified on 9/8/2008 5:24:12 PM

-- Modified on 9/8/2008 4:46:29 PM

Good question, MyTube,

Whenever you do a convenience sample, i.e. when anyone solicited can respond (in this case, any member of the Provider Board,) the sample is never representative. So I have no idea, although I clearly believe that had I sought respondents among substance-dependent prostitutes in urban, blighted areas, I might have had a different response. I'm not necessarily sure that these women are even the sunniest and "happiest," depending on how you wish to operationalize the definition of "happy." But I believe that they provide a good cross-section of long-term, stable providers who advertise and solicit through TER, which in itself indicates some form of consistency and dependability - or else their reviews would tank and they'd eventually be out of a good job. So if these are stable women, chances are they are pretty secure. Are there ones who are "more secure?" Dunno. Good question...

Social science is not an exact discipline,
the Love Goddess

No LG, Palin didn't equivocate, she just clarified her position after a response to an ambiguous question was misconstrued. She came out quite clearly in favor of contraception and has stuck to that position ever since. The questionnaire presented a false choice: between abstinence and explicit, she chose abstinence, but that does not mean she prefers abstinence-only as the ideal solution, and she clarified that later.

If I asked you, LG "Yes or no, would you support clubbing baby seals instead of killing and eating orphans?" and you said "Yes, killing and eating orphans does not find my support" that does not mean you support clubbing baby seals.

It all comes down to the meaning of explicit. She already said that explicit does not include contraceptives, which is THE criticism of abstinence-only education: that it interferes with contraceptive use. If the STD and pregnancy issues are covered, why go further and get into gratuitous details like: "how does come taste?" or "what is a dirty sanchez?" or "the how-to of anal sex" or "an introduction to fisting".

You can point to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, but I can point to South Korea, which has even less sex ed than the US, and has even lower teen pregnancy rates than Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Any fool can get data and mistake it for fact.  But doing good research is really, really challenging.  As a result, most of the studies we hear about, regardless of the field, lie anywhere between somewhat to seriously flawed.  In many cases, they're flawed either consciously to promote an agenda, or unconsciously because it's so easy for bias to creep into a study if you're not both trained and vigilant .

You learn to worry about this when it's your own money being spent on the study, and your own money that's riding on the results (and not some bullshit political poll).  Then you'll realize the challenges involved in getting data that's truly representative of the larger sample it seeks to describe.

While market research wasn't my area of expertise, I had the research departments of two major companies report to me, to support my market strategy and product development functions (which were my areas of expertise).  Millions of dollars were spent to get actionable data, and hundreds of millions of dollars were then spent, at least partially, on the results of that research.

When the stakes are that high, you come to realize how sloppily most research is conducted, how easy it is to skew data (whether accidently or on purpose) and how every word or every question needs to be examined for possible bias.  Just as every qualifying (screening) question for every respondent needs to be studied, or how tough it is to get a good sample, even if thousands of individuals are surveyed.

Very few people have the time, expertise, desire, or money to perform really good research.  That is one the reasons why we hear about so many studies presenting conflicting results.  

I had a staff of really intelligent people spend weeks crafting a questionnaire before we'd field a study.  Do you think USA Today makes that sort of effort when they anxiously try to scoop everyone with another overnight poll that is little more than an agenda passing as research?  They come up with a few questions, hire a firm that then hires untrained students to man the phones, and the next day you're hearing the results presented as fact, or I should say news- the two haven't been the same for decades.  And naturally, many of the doctoral or other university research studies simply lack the necessary resources to do what is required to get results.  

Of course, the cynical amongst us use that as an excuse to discount the results of all research.  But in fact, it simply points to the need to really scrutinize the things you hear reported that are being taken for fact- something which is difficult to do since you don't usually have access to the study or methodology in most cases.  

Just remember,it's easy to acquire data, any survey will give you results.  It's extremely difficult, however, to gain true insight- regardless of the topic.    



-- Modified on 9/9/2008 12:54:06 AM

-- Modified on 9/9/2008 12:59:29 AM

Do you expect LG to concede your point because you come up with an analogy about killing baby seals vs orphans? Oh I see baby seals or orphans now I understand.  How silly of me.
By the way despite your most eloquent musings my opinion about Palin have not changed. I'll just say I don't plan any donations to her campaign in the near future and I hope I never here the words President Palin uttered in my lifetime.  

Let it go or move over to the P&R board.  They will love this stuff.

-- Modified on 9/9/2008 3:08:31 AM

South Korea? You know how they keep teens from getting pregnant? They take away women's freedom. No thanks. Sticking with this hemisphere, sex ed is clearly the way to go.

Comparing realities about STDs and pregnancies to "how does come taste" is clearly spurious. "In loco extremis." If we can't teach about STDs, maybe kids shouldn't be told what a penis or vagina if for at all?

“On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl."- Bill O'Reilly

Women have freedom in South Korea. It is a modern democracy.

They keep teens from getting pregnant by keeping them busy with school, and with cultural pressure. Teen pregnancy would be very shameful, so teens are careful to avoid it.

It isn't like people don't have sex though. South Korea has tons of "love motels", some very upscale and expensive, where couples can rent rooms by the hour, something that would be seen as scandalous here in the US.

I don't think teaching the realities of STDs and pregnancies comes remotely within the meaning of "explicit" Palin was talking about, since she came out in clear support of teaching contraception, which is the only controversial aspect of the issue.

Am I not allowed to respectfully disagree with LG?

Yes, I used extremes to illustrate an example about false choices because a lot of people are using the survey question to misrepresent Palin's position.

I'm not trying to lobby for Palin here, my original post merely took exception to what I thought was a gratuitous shot at Palin, then when LG backed it up by making an incorrect statement about Palin's beliefs, I provided her with a quote of Palin's actual position.

I'll be happy to let it go, just stop giving me things to reply to.

you must always agree with my enlightened  opinions er facts.

Who's footing your bill for this thread?

In my opinion, this sample, WHILE NOT REPRESENTATIVE, shows that this is a pretty stable and regular bunch of women who just happen to work as providers.

When you say this, are you insinuating that women who were Sexually Abused as children aren't stable and regular women?

I will openly state, "I went through complete hell for years being sexually abused as a child and I feel that I'm as stable-minded and regular as any other woman...if not more so in some instances!" I'm a college educated woman who chose not to allow my past to determine my future. My negative experiences has made me what I am today...and that is strong, intelligent, street smart, understanding and sympathetic.

For the record, I don't believe that my childhood has influenced or directed me into this field. It just irks me to no end when people insinuate that the two are linked together. I would place a small wager that the number of providers/dancers that were sexually abused are a minority and that most had a normal childhood and chose this profession for the money and sexual gratification.

that's the last thing on my mind. You'll need to read the study to understand its context. It has nothing to do with sexual abuse whatsoever. In addition, please see my comment in my first posting of the thread:

"I can tell you that the incidence of CSA is no more than in the general population. And, as a clinician, I would venture to say that it would be difficult for some victims of CSA WHO STILL SHOW SEQUELAE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF LIVING AS NON-ABUSED ADULTS, to participate SUCCESSFULLY in a job that requires stamina, solid mental health and some intelligence."

What does this mean? This means that EVEN IF someone has been sexually abused, if they show NO sequelae (i.e. lasting damage) after several years, they can and sometimes DO work as escorts, quite successfully. Conversely, if they DO show sequelae, then they probably can't. In this case, lasting damage would be interpreted as sexual phobia, PTSD or any other serious impediment to sexual enjoyment with complete strangers.

Now, the comment about stable women is that IN MANY INSTANCES, escorts are portrayed as labile and damaged individuals IN GENERAL. This has nothing to do with sexual abuse implicated as a SINGLE cause, despite the original poster's question. Unfortunately escorts are often portrayed as damaged from a variety of childhood causes, sexual abuse just being one presumed cause. Neglect, violence in the family and other factors are also believed BY THE GENERAL POPULATION to be causes of prostitution. In fact, I am REFUTING that sexual abuse or any of these other factors have anything to do with someone being an escort.

Please re-read all my postings and it will become clear to you,
the Love Goddess

-- Modified on 9/12/2008 11:52:11 PM