Complaint filed against Dr. Mellisa Farely...FINALLY!!

[susi]

Over the years, Dr Farley has published a number of papers and documents about sex work, making claims that all sex work is a form of violence against women. She has used several of her studies to back this up. In 2008 Dr Farley published the paper What Really Happened in New Zealand afteron her website critiquing the Report of the Prostitution Law Prostitution was Decriminalized in 2003? Review Committee. This critique contains several errors of fact that appear to be deliberately designed to mislead people. Many of the false allegations made by Dr Farley in this paper have been repeated by her in her efforts to stigmatise sex workers and keep them criminal. Dr Farley appears to have read the complete report, but has only reported or critiqued those parts that match her ideology. In investigating her comments on this paper further, it was discovered that Dr Farley had completed research in New Zealand in 2003 without seeking ethical approval from the New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPsS). It was also discovered that during the course of this research, she claimed to be able to diagnose sex workers as having post traumatic stress disorder, despite using a flawed questionnaire, and not doing in depth interviews. It is noted that Dr Farley has also completed other studies overseas, and investigations this year indicate that she never sought ethical approval, and sought to deliberately deceive the groups who facilitated the research for her. She has also been cited as an expert witness, yet the testimony given is false or misleading. Finally, the Canadian courts have found Dr Farley to be a less than reliable witness, finding her evidence "to be problematic". For the reasons in the text below, I believe her work is unethical, unbecoming of a psychologist, and is in breach of at least sections 5.01 and 8.10of the APA's Code of Ethics, perhaps more. I believe that because of these breaches, Dr Farley should be removed from the membership of the APA.

Calum Bennachie

http://sex-work-2010-reference-grou...EWmeV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw&view=1&part=4&hl=en

 

[johnjxxx]

Good post Susi. I've read Farley's arguments as well as some of the criticisms and I think they've shown how flawed her reasoning is. That said, I still think she adds a useful view of the other side of the coin. I've also read a couple of blogs and posts from girls who are either out of the business or are still in it. I believe girls thinking of choosing this vocation, and the men who want to enjoy their companionship with a good conscience should be reading and thinking about these arguments against it.

A core flaw in Farley's work is that respondents were self selected. In other words, it mainly heard from people who were unhappy, the ones who were most likely to complain. With that in mind, I also have to expect that SPs currently in the business have to work hard at looking like they're loving every minute of it.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Good post Susi. I've read Farley's arguments as well as some of the criticisms and I think they've shown how flawed her reasoning is. That said, I still think she adds a useful view of the other side of the coin. I've also read a couple of blogs and posts from girls who are either out of the business or are still in it. I believe girls thinking of choosing this vocation, and the men who want to enjoy their companionship with a good conscience should be reading and thinking about these arguments against it.

A core flaw in Farley's work is that respondents were self selected. In other words, it mainly heard from people who were unhappy, the ones who were most likely to complain. With that in mind, I also have to expect that SPs currently in the business have to work hard at looking like they're loving every minute of it.

For that matter, I have a hard time looking like I enjoy it while I am dealing with clients too.

The main flaw pointed out in Farley's "research" is not what you say, but that she begins with a firm conviction of the what the results should be and ignores everything that does not support her pre-conceived opinions. If you want to see "the other side of the coin," read the personal stories and and the many anecdotes that paint painful pictures -- they are real enough. Just don't confuse it with actual research.

 

[susi]

totally and don't base government actions moving forward on it either....

cheers men!
love susie

 

[who]

For that matter, I have a hard time looking like I enjoy it while I am dealing with clients too.

The main flaw pointed out in Farley's "research" is not what you say, but that she begins with a firm conviction of the what the results should be and ignores everything that does not support her pre-conceived opinions. If you want to see "the other side of the coin," read the personal stories and and the many anecdotes that paint painful pictures -- they are real enough. Just don't confuse it with actual research.

She should work for the Fraser Institute

 

[Miss*Bijou]

She should work for the Fraser Institute

No kidding.

It was an enlightening read. (The actual complaint is only about 17 pages in case anyone got turned off by 115 pages and decided not to read it for that reason. Well worth it.)

 

[johnjxxx]

She should work for the Fraser Institute

Farley? I don't think so at all, since the Fraser Institute is about economic freedom not social conservatism. Diana Hsieh in the Objectivist Journal (ie rational self interest, free markets) bats down Farley, and others provide good arguments as well here: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000106

I think it took some real tragedies with marginalized women to get society/VPD to start thinking about the real problems that need solving, such as harm reduction and especially providing equal protection and benefit under the law to everyone, regardless of their status.

With more "nice" girls getting in to the business I think society will have to wake up here and accept reality, but I'm sure there'll be kneejerk reactions against it as well.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Farley? I don't think so at all, since the Fraser Institute is about economic freedom not social conservatism.

Sure, so long as you define "economic freedom" as freedom for corporations and for people who already have money. Advocacy against gun control, tobacco regulation, public schools, and public health care (while certainly representing "freedom" for business), are all also right wing issues -- and it is difficult to see them accepting any results of any study that disagree with their agenda. In that sense, they are hardly impartial.

However, I agree that they would not be interested in Melissa Farley -- her agenda is not likely to increase private profit (except in the underground economy).