Actually, yes, you could have.

The point I was making is that, when someone reads your article, they assume that your presentation of those statistics reflects the situation across the spectrum that is all sex workers, not just the streetwalkers. Since you don’t bother to explain that streetwalkers represent only a tiny fraction of sex workers overall, the uninformed (i.e., the average reader) will assume that 95% of all sex workers are strung out on drugs. Do you not see how that is misleading? Even though, within the context of your specific story those figures may be accurate (and I don’t doubt that they may be), the average reader isn’t going to realize the limitations inherent in your story and will misinterpret them. This goes to the larger point that Amber is making in her post here.

How the fuck is that ‘catastrophically misleading’? In what sense does that sentence ‘not provide context’? I couldn’t have made it any clearer, could I?

If you can’t read what I write accurately, I somehow fail to see how reasoned debate is possible here.

This statement: “I’m a leftist who is hard-headed enough to look at the facts. And if we are going to get anywhere on this issue, there’s no point in denying realities.”

Makes it sound like any of us who are disputing what you say, ARE NOT looking at the facts. Please. You stumbled onto an activist’s website, dude. Might want to acquaint yourself with your surroundings before you go charging in.

At which point, everyone, including the media, took that stat and applied it across the board…strippers, porn performers, pro dommes, phone sex people, nude models, erotic massage people, EVERYTHING…suddenly, the number for the whole of the sex industry was 90%….based on the study of 200 street level workers in San Francisco.

And that statistic is used repeatedly to dismiss any sex worker who doesn’t hate it when they speak. It is used to hamstring the Sex Workers Rights Movement. It is used, basically, to shut sex workers up when they attempt to speak for themselves.

Its right damn annoying, really.

The problem is that street sex workers represent only a tiny fraction of the overall sex industry, even in Britain. People read those stats and don’t understand that they only represent that small fraction of the totality of sex work and they construe your “reality” as the reality, when that is not the case, at least, not within the framework Amber is discussing the subject here. 95% of all sex workers in your country are not users of heroin or crack (or any other drug). Your article is therefore catastrophically misleading because you fail to provide any context for your statistics.

Excellent post, Amber, as always.

I’m one of the bloggers this post links to, presumably because I quote a statistic that 95% of British street prostitutes use heroin or crack.

A couple of points to note here. One, I am not coming from the moralistic political right. Mine is a socialist blog, well beyond what would be classed as far left in the US. I am openly for the legalisation of sex work.

Two, the figure quoted explicitly refers to street prostitutes, not sex workers in general. I don’t know the situation in your country, but in Britain, street prostitution is the lowest rung of the sex work ladder.

I’m not talking about telephone sex workers, lap dancers, porn actors or whatever, but specifically the women I see streetwalking in inner London.

The post you link to refers explicitly to a situation in which five street prostitutes in a provincial English town were murdered by the same John. Four of the five were heroin users. That’s just a statement of fact.

For the record, I live in one of the poorest districts of London, a couple of minutes walk from a major streetwalker strip. The majority of those women are very obviously substance abusers.

So my point is, I’m not a Christian fundamentalist jumping to conclusions. I’m a leftist who is hard-headed enough to look at the facts. And if we are going to get anywhere on this issue, there’s no point in denying realities.