Hampton

New "research" From Farley

5 posts in this topic

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

“We had big, big trouble finding nonusers,” Farley says. “We finally had to settle on a definition of non-sex-buyers as men who have not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, have not purchased a lap dance, have not used pornography more than one time in the last month, and have not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.”

and

Sex buyers in the study used significantly more pornography than nonbuyers

Well there's a surprise. If you define non sex buyers as people who've not used porn more than once in the last month, you find that sex buyers use more porn. That must have been such an unexpected result :rolleyes:

Edited by Hampton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One man in the study explained why he likes to buy prostitutes: “You can have a good time with the servitude,” he said. A contrasting view was expressed by another man as the reason he doesn’t buy sex: “You’re supporting a system of degradation,” he said

Quoting extreme opinions gets us nowhere; data is not the plural of anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depressing that Newsweek will run such radfem rubbish.

The subtext: Users, as defined, are bad. Nearly all men are users (implied by saying that they struggled to find non-users). Ergo nearly all men are bad. The radfem mantra.

You'd think as an academic that she might ask herself the really interesting question, 'how come most men are users ?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One man in the study explained why he likes to buy prostitutes: “You can have a good time with the servitude,” he said. A contrasting view was expressed by another man as the reason he doesn’t buy sex: “You’re supporting a system of degradation,” he said

Quoting extreme opinions gets us nowhere; data is not the plural of anecdote.

Conflating extreme anecdotes with large, albeit unrelated, numbers is a classic tactic of the scaremonger.

If she is a qualified clinical psychologist she has allowed her prejudices to get in the way of her professional discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the title be new propaganda from Farley?

But it's the same old regurgitated falsifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now