I think we all need to remember how statistics work. Saying that a group of 10,000 independent providers shows a higher incidence of past sexual trauma than a similar group of 10,000 non escort women is very different from saying that most escorts have been sexually abused. Also, statistics on teenage streetwalkers are useless. They cannot be extrapolated to our population. It does not quite work that way, I'm afraid.
I did a lot of professional research on this very topic, and I can say with confidence that there is little to no research on prostitutes who were not streetwalkers. Teenage prostitutes are an entirely different population; how many are on the streets by choice? I’m not going to outline the differences between an adult escort and a teenage streetwalker, because I doubt that it is necessary. My point is that such data are useless to us.
Would I be surprised if I saw statistics that showed a higher incidence of sexual abuse in the escort population? No, I don’t think I would be. Would I be surprised if most escorts had been sexually abused as children? Absolutely! I once heard someone state that “More often than not, abusers were abused as children.” Wow. That is quite a statement. Actually, it has been shown that far fewer than half of people who abuse others were abused themselves. This hardly translates to “more often than not.”
In summary, we have to remember the differences between “tendencies” and “majorities.” A pet peeve of mine is the misinterpretation of statistical data. Example:
Person A hears that there is a tendency for escorts to be more likely to have experienced child sexual abuse (CSA).
Person A takes this to mean that this means a strong tendency. Well, guess what? A difference of 1 or 2% could be statistically significant! In other words, if 34% (made up number) of nonescort women (similar in socioeconomic status, race, age, etc.) had experienced sexual trauma in their pasts and 36% of escort women had, this would be a comparative tendency for escorts to have experienced sexual trauma in their pasts.
The following is my own personal rant that is more of a spinoff on this topic than a direct response to other threads:
Statistics are also about averages, not individuals. Let’s pretend that there is a relationship between escort vs. nonescort professions and incidence of past sexual trauma. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable idea as long as we don’t blow it out of proportion. So, are escorts more likely to have experienced past sexual abuse than nonescorts? Statistically yes, but remember not to make inappropriate extrapolations by misusing the data at hand. Is an escort more likely to have experienced past sexual abuse than a nonescort? NO! No one woman is more likely to have experienced anything because of her profession. The data is not useful for individuals.
Pardon my abrasive “tendency” to place emphases here, but it’s a pet peeve of mine. I actually had a discussion with someone recently that irritated me to no end. Perhaps this will put my reason for caring enough to post this thread into perspective for some…
This person said something about how another person was “unintelligent” because she was “pretty.” Hmm. I informed him that countless studies have shown a positive correlation between good looks and intelligence (Positive correlation = As one increases, so does the other). His response? “Well, no, that can’t be true, because I know pretty person x and she is not smart. I also know unattractive man y who is very smart. So I disagree.” Oh dear…
So, kind sir, do you disagree that countless studies have been done that show this? Or do you think that those countless studies are all wrong?
The explanation of these data is quite simple. The third variable that controls these two other variables is the gene variable. What goes along with intelligence and good looks? Good genes. He couldn’t grasp the concept that statistics are averages and not individual absolutes. I could have played his game, too, by naming people who were attractive/intelligent and unattractive/unintelligent, but I’m not going to spout nonsense to convince someone who doesn’t understand a simple concept.
If I did fail to properly outline this concept in this thread, there is a great example using overlapping bell curves that I could use, so let me know if my explanation is insufficient!
In conclusion, does abuse play a huge role in the escort world? I’m sure it does, just like it plays a huge role in any definable world. Abuse numbers seem to be high for most groups, don’t they? So if the difference between abuse rates is a small but statistically significant, do we really want to say that abuse plays a huge role in this world in comparison to others? Rethink it.
Originally Posted by WTF
That said, I agree with your broader point, with or without numbers.
