Statistical data

First off, for the matter in question, you will never get honest answers as to the proportion of escorts who have been subjected to some form of sexual abuse. In fact, the definition is a bit in doubt because some feminist organizations have defined ALL sexual activity with an escort to constitute violence against women.

So I acknowledge up-front that this information will never be known. Therefore, no statistics are valid. EVEN IF you had to pass a test in order to be an escort that you HAD to have been sexually abused in order to be qualified; a certain proportion of women would lie in order to meet the qualification. That's life.

HOWEVER -- while statistics cannot tell me anything about a given individual; they can tell me enough to help guide wise decision making.

Take registered sex offenders generally. WHY are they registered? Because the rate of recidivism is sky high.

Any given registered sex offender MIGHT have been wrongly convicted; and may not re-offend because he never offended in the first place.

BUT if, as a group, a woman excludes registered sex offenders from her dating pool she will decrease the likelihood that she will be harmed.

So even though we can't tell anything about a given individual from a group statistic; we CAN find enough information to help guide decision-making in improving our odds of successful outcomes.

As yet another example -- look at smoking. I believe it is 1/3rd of people who smoke until the day they die develop a serious smoking-related illness. 2/3rds do not. So, clearly, any individual smoker may not experience harm. However, you never know if you are going to be 1 in 3, or 2 in 3 -- so avoidance of smoking can be a wise choice.

The fact you can't tell something about an individual doesn't negate the value of statistics in decision making because a great deal of life is not about absolutes -- it is about odds.

Same reason that we use condoms. It decreases the odds of disease transmission.

Of course, Laurentius. I hope I didn't say anything to imply that we should not use statistics to our advantage in this way.

Come to think of it, I think I may have left myself open to being misinterpreted. I thought I made it clear that the second half of the post was simply a spinoff of the topic of statistics. It had less to do with the thread that inspired my post than my own personal pet peeves.

As far as taking your point into consideration when discussing this issue, I do hope that most of you fine gents don't often think about such sordid details when booking with escorts. I don't think that this is what you meant, though; I guess I read it as more details on the interpretation of statistical data. Actually, I'm glad you brought it up, because your points really are very important, especially for the safety of the ladies.

I just think it is important to make sure people don't consider statistics useless just because they can't tell you anything about a given individual.

Thankfully, I can say that the odds of my being happy with visits to escorts -- based on past experiences -- approach 100%.

:-)

Would you have me look up some direct quotations from my old college statistics books or relay my resume to you to prove that I know how statistics work? Originally Posted by China Doll

I was under the impression that this forum just may know how stats work...

I was under the impression that people do not need to cite information that is common knowledge within the informational world in question. Originally Posted by China Doll

We have talked about there NOT being reliable stats on sexual abuse causation via escorts. Just what info would you source?

Oh, and by the way, wtf, you are taking this post way too personally. Your post was not even the one I took exception to in the first place. Originally Posted by China Doll

If you actually believe that I am taking any of this personally ... well lets just say define personal before we get into that discussion. LOL

The fact you can't tell something about an individual doesn't negate the value of statistics in decision making because a great deal of life is not about absolutes -- it is about odds.

. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Well said.

Wtf, first you say that this "forum" knows how stats work, again appearing to take my statements personally...that is, unless you mean to say that every single person who reads this is well-versed in statistics. Then you say something about "sexual abuse causation" showing a real lack of knowledge about how statistics work. There will never be any causal data on topics like this because the studies that would be required to show causal relationships would be highly unethical. There is only and (hopefully) will only ever be correlative data. I can get into the intricacies of these two very different types of data if people wish, but I am not going to do it for you and only you. Also, you claim to not be taking things personally, but I do believe that you questioned why I would tell you to rethink things. I am not going to engage with you on this topic any further, because I do not like the direction you are taking. It's nothing personal.

Also, for those of you who are wondering what information I would "source" as far as a lack of data, I would source my own extensive research on this topic. This is a population that has not been studied at any length, and I know this not because I googled it and couldn't find anything....I know this because I spent years doing research on this topic, and I am well aware of the studies we have done. Can I prove that something doesn't exist? Well, no, but that is more a problem with the nature of the thing you are asking me to prove than a problem with my own shortcomings.

I would opine that SW's are certainly different than most internet type escorts or members of the "call girl" set. Yet they are still all prostitutes and so any stats having to do with prostitutes necessarily must include all sub-types.
It would be perfectly valid, however, to have a separate study on the various sub-types.
I also don't see someone asking for stat references as "taking it personally".
Y'all understand that I'm honor bound to protect WTF now.

John Bull, the problem here is that call girls and escorts have not been studied. The studies out there have been performed using the definition of "prostitute" as a streetwalker or a child/young female being forced into prostitution, which means that only that particular subset of prostitute has been studied. This does not mean that we can generalize the data to include all prostitutes. It means that we need more studies!

John Bull, the problem here is that call girls and escorts have not been studied. The studies out there have been performed using the definition of "prostitute" as a streetwalker or a child/young female being forced into prostitution, which means that only that particular subset of prostitute has been studied. This does not mean that we can generalize the data to include all prostitutes. It means that we need more studies! Originally Posted by China Doll

CD - agree with you about the distinctions...but why more studies?

What is the objective? What do you as a result of all of your study/work (qualitative and quantitative) have as a hypothesis? That is to say, even if you prove your hypothesis what are the next steps?

I'm all for research, in general, but research that leads to something.

John Bull, the problem here is that call girls and escorts have not been studied. The studies out there have been performed using the definition of "prostitute" as a streetwalker or a child/young female being forced into prostitution, which means that only that particular subset of prostitute has been studied. This does not mean that we can generalize the data to include all prostitutes. It means that we need more studies! Originally Posted by China Doll

For many non-statisticians, your post seems out of reach…. If one event comes immediately before another, people naturally assume the first is the cause of the second, for example being an escort, the person naturally assumes there must be a history of abuse. The ability to make such connections between events is a key part of human intelligence and is responsible for much of our understanding of the world. However, people often see connections where sometimes none exist. The larger the group, the more likely any observed effect is real (sample size) ---- if you asked a sample of 1000 escorts in a city if there was a history of abuse and 60% said yes, you can be very certain that between 40 and 80% of all the people in the city actually had a history of abuse, but you cannot be so sure that between 59 and 61% of escorts living in the city have been abused. Just an example to enforce that these numbers have little value. I doubt these number were drone based on socioeconomic status, age of entering the biz, reasons for choosing this profession, divorce or separation of parents and when the separation occurs, the incidence of abuse in escorts community compared to normal population….etc).

Some publications on the net has a very bad habit of using the best "marketing" numbers to make itself look successful and important.

CD - agree with you about the distinctions...but why more studies?

What is the objective? What do you as a result of all of your study/work (qualitative and quantitative) have as a hypothesis? That is to say, even if you prove your hypothesis what are the next steps?

I'm all for research, in general, but research that leads to something. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

To change the mentality of how society perceive this profession.

Lucky40, I applaud you! You're absolutely right about people not understanding statistical data, and I think you might be right about my post being "out of reach." Some of the comments have shown that, haven't they? Your post reeks of understanding.

I also agree with your reasoning in your answer to atlcomedy's question. My personal goal would be to show that this profession is not what people think it is. The problem here is one that you outlined yourself; even if the studies were done, the way the data were reported would be done in such a way that those who lack understanding about the studies themselves or the interpretation of correlative data could grossly misread the true meaning of things. I guess what we need is both more studies and a better way of explaining the results to people. Too bad that's never going to happen.

@CD - sometimes it is not a crime or a failure to be pragmatic

I guess what we need is both more studies and a better way of explaining the results to people. Too bad that's never going to happen. Originally Posted by China Doll

You're very thoughtful to bring this discussion to the table. thank you...

Yes we can I guess that is how we might win an election but not to win the minds of hobbyists …. Why don’t we just team up to do such studies combined with evil thoughts in our time off, too bad we live 5000 miles apart."

It's nothing personal.
Originally Posted by China Doll

Well we are at least on the same page as far as this chapter goes.

Also, for those of you who are wondering what information I would "source" as far as a lack of data, I would source my own extensive research on this topic. . Originally Posted by China Doll

There is no data on the topic but yours, yet you refuse to what....publish it for peer review? That is how it works as far as I know. Of course youself and Lucky seem to be the only ones capable of understanding anything in regards to escorts and abuse. I am starting to feel abused.

For many non-statisticians, your post seems out of reach…. If one event comes immediately before another, people naturally assume the first is the cause of the second, for example being an escort, the person naturally assumes there must be a history of abuse. . Originally Posted by Lucky40

Or you assume that the person assumes that the escort was abused. Which really came first...the Rooster or the Sunrise?

Originally posted by Lucky40:
"Yes we can I guess that is how we might win an election but not to win the minds of hobbyists ….Why don’t we just team up to do such studies combined with evil thoughts in our time off, too bad we live 5000 miles apart."


I like it....I have a mental image....you and I sit in a dark corner, cackling and rubbing our hands together as we plan experiments for the sole purpose of connivance and malicious intent! Bwa ha ha!!



Originally posted by wtf:
"There is no data on the topic but yours, yet you refuse to what....publish it for peer review? That is how it works as far as I know. Of course youself and Lucky seem to be the only ones capable of understanding anything in regards to escorts and abuse. I am starting to feel abused."

You feel abused? Are you going to become an escort now? Ha ha, I kid, I kid! My research was never written up, surprisingly enough. I don't have the time to do it now, but it was something that was planned. I should probably also dispel any idea that I actually did my own studies or performed my own experiments (on this topic, anyway). The research was actually intended to give me and my group the ability to accurately summarize the data that the research community has thus far.