Sunday, September 16, 2007

Melissa Farley's latest + Bound Not Gagged blog-in, 9/17

We only occasionally blog about non-porn sex work topics here, but this is simply a matter of focus on issues around porn. Other issues around sex work are important to pay attention to as well, though, and the issue of whether its OK to produce commercial porn using real human beings ultimately rests on the issue of whether its OK to pay for sex at all. The latter is coming under increasing attack, as illustrated by the publicity surrounding the release of a new report on Nevada prostitution.

Melissa Farley, Nevada Brothels, and the effect on the legal sex work debate

Recently, radical feminist anti-prostitution activist Melissa Farley published a report called "Prostitution and trafficking in Nevada: making the connections". Many readers are probably familiar with Farley's "research", since it is often used as a stick to beat proponents of any kind of legal sex work over the head with, whether that's legal prostitution, stripping, or porn modeling. The story goes that sex work is inherently a horrible form of abuse and that "90%" of all sex workers show symptoms of post-traumatic stress, want to leave prostitution, but are prevented from doing so by drug addiction, economic desperation, or some pimp basically keeping them as a coerced sex slave. These data were gathered mainly from urban street prostitutes and from very marginalized prostitutes in developing countries, but the findings are generalized to be applicable to women in any and all situations of sex work.

Farley's study of Nevada brothel prostitutes claims similar findings as for her earlier findings about street prostitutes, this time claiming a figure of "81%" (of a total sample of 45 brothel prostitutes) who want to leave prostitution, most of whom are supposedly prevented from doing so. This has been quite a coup for Farley, because she now has been able to claim that even in a controlled, legal setting, she still has been able to find damning evidence against the effects of prostitution. The report has gotten an enormous amount of attention in the press, most notably in a series of op-eds by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who seems to have bought completely into Farley's views on sex work. (Herbert's columns get a much-needed fisking in this post at Sexinthepublicsquare.) These columns, as well as a similar op-ed by Guardian columnist and dyed-in-the-wool radfem Julie Bindel, have gotten a lot of circulation around the liberal and feminist blogosphere, and a lot of people who were more or less on the fence on the issue have now come out against legalization of prostitution, for greater enforcement and penalties against customers, in other words, for the so-called "Swedish Model" of prostitution law. In an ironic turn, Bitch PhD even came out for the Swedish Model in a column on none other than Suicide Girls, a site that, while not exactly entailing prostitution, does entail a mild form of sex work that radfems like Farley would ultimately like to see penalized as employing prostitution. (Not to mention the exploitative reputation of SuicideGirls even among many of us on the pro-porn side.)

As the above example illustrates, I have yet to see many liberals or moderate feminists fully advocate the criminalization of strip-club customers or porn producers, or even make the connections about how their newly hardline stance on prostitution might ultimately implicate areas of sex work they consume or are otherwise involved in. Such implications are quite clearly on the long term agenda of anti-porn abolitionists, however, as the Captive Daughters report I blogged about last month makes clear. The fact that many of the leading sex work abolitionist individuals and organizations have their roots in the 1980s feminist anti-porn movement is no coincidence. The prostitution anti-legalization argument is getting some support now even among relative "liberals", and its only a matter of time before such arguments will be employed against porn and stripping.

Farley's methods

Just how reliable Farley's findings actually are is an open question. Admittedly, I have not seen a copy of Farley's Nevada prostitution report. (Basically, its a self-published thing by Farley – there is no electronic copy to download and an OCLC search does not show it to be deposited in any libraries. One has to buy a hard copy from her in order to even see the thing.) Farley states (in a September 7th TV interview on the LV news program "Face to Face") that she uses the same methodology as she did for her earlier studies, so presumably, many of the same criticisms of her methodology in those studies applies here. To quote from the Ronald Weitzer (2005) critique of Farley's methodology:
What about Farley’s own research procedures? Much is left opaque. In one study, Farley and Barkan (1998) interviewed street prostitutes in San Francisco. No indication is given of the breadth or diversity of their sample, or the method of approaching people on the street....No information is provided as to how these locations were selected, or whether alternative locations were rejected for some reason....Finally, though Farley lists the topics covered in the interviews, none of the actual questions is presented. It is especially important to know the exact wording of questions, especially on this topic, because question wording may skew the answers.

Farley reports (in the "Methods" sections of her various papers, for example, here) that she uses a combination of "structured interviews" and questionnaires to elicit information from her subjects. However, the raw findings are not reported, but rather, Farley distillation of those findings. Thus, when we are confronted with statements like "92 percent stated that they wanted to leave prostitution" (an answer that's open to some interpretation, in any event), we have no idea exactly what question or questions were asked and whether there this was subject to interpretation by Farley. Nor do we have any idea as to how Farley chooses her interview subjects. The findings may or may not be valid, but there's a lack of transparency in her methods that casts doubt upon them. And in the case of Farley's Nevada report, the fact that the thing is self-published would seem to indicate that there's been no independent peer-review of this study, a fact that does not speak well for it.

(I also recommend having a look at this recent comment (scroll down) by Jill Brenneman regarding her experiences with Farley back when she was still in the radical feminist camp. The comments on how Farley would elicit information and coach ex-prostitutes on their statements are very illuminating.)

One method of evaluating Farley's findings is simply to compare them to the findings of other researchers who have done similar work. As it happens, other researchers have had entry into Nevada's legal brothels and paint a picture a much more nuanced (if not entirely rosy) picture of Nevada brothel work. Notably, Kate Hausbeck and Barbara Brents have published a number of journal on the topic and are in the process of coming out with a book of their own on the topic, "The State of Sex: The Nevada Brothel Industry". (Brents also states in the above-mentioned "Face to Face" program that she strongly disagrees with Farley's conclusions, based on her own 10 years of research in Nevada borthels. The full interview with Brents from September 5th is no longer up on the Face to Face site, unfortuntately.) Also, Alexa Albert, who recently published an ethnography titled "Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women".

That Farley seems to have a knack for coming up with a litany of horrors not reported by other researchers, combined with the lack of transparency in her methodology raises questions as to how much Farley's findings represent the ugly truth about prostitution and how much, as has been shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifaid about Margaret Mead, is a talent for finding what she wants to find.

(Update, 9/17: Barabara Brents, one of the above-mentioned authors, has reviewed Farley's book here. Sure enough, it suffers from the same lack of methodological transparency as her earlier papers, and "presents none of the elements contained in social scientific peer reviewed research.")

Some responses

The "Nevada Model" of legal, controlled brothels has never been a popular one among sex worker's rights activists, as it places far to much power in the hands of brothel owners and corrupt local law enforcement, provides only limited protections for sex workers while limiting their freedom of movement and disempowering them in other ways. According to Alexa Albert, the brothel system has not succeeded in getting pimps out of the equation, and in the past, the brothels even required the women to have pimps as a condition of employment. (Farley's accusations go beyond anything claimed to date by other authors, however, claiming that brothel prostitutes are literally prevented from quitting and leaving if they so choose.) And, in any event, the legal brothel system is largely irrelevant in the larger context of Nevada prostitution, since it in no way legalizes prostitution where it actually takes place, namely, in Nevada's cities, particularly Las Vegas.

Nonetheless, Farley's study is being used as propaganda not for reforming the Nevada system and other poorly regulated forms of legal prostitution, but for paternalistic Swedish-style laws, that, while in theory decriminalizing sex work, nonetheless make it much more difficult for sex workers who are there by choice to actually make a living and at the same time, increasingly criminalizes sex industry customers, even those involved in entirely non-violent, consensual transactions.

So where are the voices of sex workers, especially Nevada ones, in this debate? Largely shut out of it, except as reported by academics and social workers who claim to speak for them. However, the sex worker blog Bound Not Gagged is planning a response this coming Monday evening, 9/17, starting at 6PM EST, which will be a response to Farley and the abolitionists in general. I encourage everybody to check it out, and contribute information if you have it.

Also, Ronald Weitzer came out with an absolutely excellent paper this month in the journal "Politics & Society". The paper is called "The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade". It describes the sex trafficking issue as one that, while having a basis in reality, clearly has all the hallmarks of a moral panic. The extent of sex trafficking is exaggerated and sex work as a whole is conflated with it. Sex workers are being cast universally as unmitigated victims, while customers are entirely demonized, and all of this being done to advance the political agenda of a particular set of moral entrepreneurs, in this case an alliance of religious conservatives and radical feminists. The paper also exposes many of the myths and exaggerated claims of the prostitution abolitionist movement. Highly recommended, needless to say.

10 comments:

  1. "Basically, its a self-published thing by Farley – there is no electronic copy to download and an OCLC search does not show it to be deposited in any libraries. One has to buy a hard copy from her in order to even see the thing."

    Creepy. That more than anything makes me wonder why the fuck there are all these positive editorials citing it in major papers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sure people like Bob Herbert and the like actually got copies of the report. But I have to wonder about whether some of the news organizations who have reported about have actually seen the thing either, since one Las Vegas TV report I saw reported it as being published by the State Department.

    But it is weird – usually papers that are cited to influence public policy are either journal articles, government reports, or reports by a large NGO – something with wide circulation that actually gets into libraries and/or has an electronic copy available.

    With this, I keep hearing from the other side that I need to read the thing before I have anything to say about it, yet the report isn't actually readily available. Not unless I give money to Melissa Farley, which I really don't want to do.

    In the meantime, I'm just going on Farley's prior research – I have seen that and know what its weaknesses are. Farley stated in one interview that she used the same methodology in this new report. Whether the new report contains any more transparency about her methods of deriving her numbers remains to be seen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The thing that just drives me crazy is... if Farley is right, wouldn't it be to her benefit to have the study officially published, peer reviewed, etc?

    Even if she is right, it discredits her horribly to do that. It stuns me that she would somehow ignore that, when her whole deal is this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trinity –

    You might also want to check out this review by Barbara Brents that just went up on Bound Not Gagged.

    And yes, I do think Farley would have benefited from having the report more officially published – I'd think CATW would have been happy to do that. Serious peer-review would have benefited this work too, though I think it also might put her in a situation where somebody might have called her on how she reaches such alarmist conclusions from the raw data. To be sure, she actually has been published in peer-reviewed publications before, however, most of these have been feminist journals where the reviewers were colleagues already sympathetic with her perspective and willing to cut her some slack based on that.

    But the thing of it is, the media rarely looks at issues like that. As long as the research looks scientific, its likely that reporters will accept the conclusions as objective fact.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Herbert is very skeptical about anything and anyone associated with our current President.

    He does note in one column that Bush's State Department is working with Farley. So why does that not set off his alarm bells? Why accept Bush here but not on any other issue?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "He does note in one column that Bush's State Department is working with Farley. So why does that not set off his alarm bells? Why accept Bush here but not on any other issue?"

    You could ask that of any of the feminists or liberals who are in the prostitution abolitionist camp. The fact that Coalition Against the Trafficking in Women is very much politically in bed with the Bush administration and the religious right has been documented many times over, yet when you confront radical feminists with this, in fact, even name people like Laura Lederer and Donna Hughes who are both radical feminists and pretty much out-and-out conservatives/Republicans, and powerful international anti-prostitution activists, and you're typically met with a chorus of "who are they?" and various denials that there's ever been an alliance between radical feminists and conservatives.

    About the only person I've seen in the radfem camp actually raise a fuss about this alliance is Nikki Craft (though she's still very close to, and in fact rather protective of, Melissa Farley).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm more troubled by Bob Herbert's participation in credulously amplifying Farley's tired wheeze - nothing new in her "new" research to those already familiar with her dreary brand of agitprop - than I am by Farley's latest assaults on the basic validity of women's consent.

    What concerns me are the inroads made in recent years by Farley's stripe of rad-fem non-logic among otherwise reasonably rational liberals and supporters of individual rights.

    This bodes ill for all of us who embrace the right and ability to engage in explicit speech and expression concerning sex, whatever our various perspectives and means of depicting them, under a nominally liberal administration.

    It would appear that Farley, Dines, Kraft and the rest of their gang have managed to shame a good many influential liberals into abandoning their tradition of upholding First Amendment rights where sexual expression is concerned, beginning with the whole ugly uproar over Larry Flynt's contribution to NION and Aura Bogado's successful browbeating of the NION leadership into returning it.

    This does not bode well for our future relations with an incoming Democratic administration. Though we would like to think that the persecutioin of sexual speech under the Bush regime will come to an abrupt halt once he's outta there, the defection of liberal stalwarts like Herbert suggests more a change in tactics under a different party than a change of sex-work abolitiionist goals.

    It would be more the style of DLC Democrats to attempt to squeeze the commercial porn biz out of existence with onerous regulations than to go after individual pornographers with criminal prosecutions. Neither approach leads to anything constructive, but as to which is actually worse, I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Will a government forming its policies toward us on the basis of Farley's ideas be any better than one taking its cues from James Dobson? Objectively, it's hard to see much of a distinction in practical terms.

    Two immediate drawbacks to a model built on regulation as opposed to prohibition are 1) it's more difficult to challenge directly on First Amendment grounds and 2) it's more likely to impact small, indepedent porn producers with genuinely creative and humanistic sexual agendas who can't afford to lawyer their way through a maze of 2257-like barriers than big, established purveyors of standard commercial fare who can buy their way around the regs.

    When I hear people in my business ranting about the miseries of the past seven years and the continuing dangers posed by the rise of a virulent strain of religious fanatacism on the right, I certainly don't disagree, but I can't help being reminded of old generals still fighting the last war.

    It would be a pleasure to dismiss Farley and her ilk as a small splinter-group of marginalized cranks with little power to influence, but I'm very much afraid, when I see the likes of Frank Herbert falling into lock-step with them, that after years of rumbling with the right, we may soon find ourselves out-flanked from the left.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ernest –

    I also share your concern that a lot of liberals are suddenly sounding very "radfemmish", parroting the Melissa Farley line on prostitution, and Pamela Paul, Robert Jensen, and Ariel Levy-influenced rhetoric about "pornification" and "raunch culture". Witness this latest crap from Alternet.

    I think its really important to emphasize that "right" and "left" aren't the only axis in politics and that there are many other important dimensions as well. The polarity between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" is important as well, and it I think its important for both right and left libertarians to make some noise on both sides of the right/left axis to let it be known that there's definitely no consensus toward the kind of sexual authoritarianism that we're hearing from religious conservatives, authoritarian leftists and feminists, and from not-so-liberal liberals.

    In regards to the leadership of Not In Our Name, I'd hardly call them "liberals". NION is one of the many front groups for the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist group that's been operating through various "popular front" type groups since at least the 1970s. Their anti-porn stance doesn't surprise me – generally among Marxist-Leninists, I've found that Trotskyists (even "hard-line" factions like the Spartacus League) seem to be pretty anti-anti-porn (reflecting the relative sexual liberalism of the early Soviet state, I guess), whereas Maoists, in keeping with their overall revolutionary puritanism, are very strongly anti-porn. (The RCP was also officially anti-gay up until 2001, when they altered their "party line" on the subject.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. To me the obvious flaw in this study would be the ignoring of the correlation/causation distinction. Even if a huge proportion of prostitutes would like to leave the industry, is that different from the percentage who'd like to get out of migrant farm labor or poultry processing? And is wanting to get out about something qualitatively oppressive in the work, or about its low/stigmatized status?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Merry Christmas! Good luck on your exams.



    ...............
    Janaka

    Wow, check out this site called www.fluc.com
    . Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic

    ReplyDelete