Comments on: Numerology

By: Maggie McNeill

Maggie McNeill — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:26:59 +0000

You’re right, Andrew, and in other columns referring to this one I usually just say “450,000″. I certainly didn’t mean anyone to believe the figure was intended as an exact one.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:44:12 +0000

That’s a good estimate, yes, but numbers can’t be exact. There’s always some slight inaccuracy. Yeah, them researchers must have worked hard, but what if there was really not 5931 but 5929 prostitutes in New Zealand at the time? Very probable, such as it being 5731 +- 10 etc. I’m no geek, nerd or whatever like that, i just consider you (Maggie) a wise person and i am kind of sorry to see things like and instead of or or , whatever sounds best. it’s no good to speak of some estimate’s results like that: . The number should be . Yeah, and i’d be happy if that inaccuracy was measured (though here it’s not possible), like (here relative inacuracy is around 100/15700 – less than 1% – seems OK for an estimate. Please, don’t do these exact numbers, do numbers . I’m no geek, i’m no scientist, what I said is school level thing, that’s basics, that’s elementary – big numbers can’t be exact, actually, no measurement is exact, and the best thing you can do is to say .
I’m some russian guy, and I don’t know english good enough. Please tell me of any mistakes, alienity (i mean speaking like native speakers don’t) , weird stuff etc. in my writing – that’d be very helpful for me.

By: Columns: Straining at Gnats - Cliterati

Columns: Straining at Gnats - Cliterati — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:39:34 +0000

[...] since at least Edwardian times). And despite sensationalized claims to the contrary, only about 3.5% of all prostitutes in Western countries are below 18, and the majority of those are 17; the average age at which a so-called “child prostitute” [...]

By: Maggie McNeill

Maggie McNeill — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:30:43 +0000

Welcome to the blog, Hayley! As I and many others have argued, the overly-broad definition is most of the problem; many people are classed as "victims" when they actually aren't by any valid definition. You might find my columns "A False Dichotomy", "Thought Experiment" and "The Lion and the Ox" explain that more fully, and I would strongly encourage you to read Sex At the Margins by Laura Agustin, an anthropologist who has studied migration, sex work and the laws which interfere with them for about 20 years. There are also a LOT of good papers on my "Resources" page; I think you'll find the works by Ann Jordan and Elizabeth Bernstein especially enlightening.

By: Hayley Bush (@hayleyybush)

Hayley Bush (@hayleyybush) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:27:25 +0000

I was hesitant about the 300,000 figure as well, but once you clearly look at the definition of trafficking, it is possible. Human trafficking can be someone who lives in their home and is exploited or under the control of someone else for that person’s gain. This gain could be money or it could be the assertion of power. This is a situation that is likely to occur in sex trafficking cases. If you look at the number of runaway or missing children in the US each year, 800,000 (This is according to the US Department of Justice. Some sources suggest up to 1.5 million), it can be possible for the number to be that high. Runaway and missing children are a large supply for sex trafficking. The 300,000 also includes labor trafficking, which is mostly foreigners in large groups.
I wrote an article for my school newspaper, and someone commented with the link to your post. I’m not trying to discredit your figures in any way, but I wanted to share what I have found in my research and personal interviews. It’s great that you put thought into this and took time to research the numbers. Human trafficking is a subject that gets thrown around in the media, in many cases to gain some type of political or social leverage. More people definitely need to take your approach instead of just absorbing the media!

By: Maggie McNeill

Maggie McNeill — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:19:31 +0000

I’m not sure where you’re getting the 1%, but I suspect you’re incorrectly comparing 0.285% of women who are prostitutes NOW, and 1% who have worked as prostitutes at SOME POINT in their lives.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:21:24 +0000

I just had a question about your statistics. It seems to me that .285% is pretty far off of 1%. When you try and do a percent error you get something like 250%. Combine that with the magnitude of the study and I would think that the 1% seems rather high.

By: Robotic sex workers and the pleasure principle | The Claudia Chronicles

Robotic sex workers and the pleasure principle | The Claudia Chronicles — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:43:30 +0000

[...] trafficking for the purposes of sex are highly questionable as pointed out by Dr. Laura Agustin, Maggie McNeill, and sex worker-run organizations all over the world. Robot or [...]

By: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics | Nobody's Business

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics | Nobody's Business — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:23:00 +0000

[...] that 210 of the country’s 5932 prostitutes (in other words, 3.54%) were underage. Assuming that the same percentage of women (0.285%) are prostitutes in both countries (a reasonable enough assumption) we arrive at a figure of 443,323 whores in the U.S., of which [...]

By: If You Can’t Accept Facts, You Can’t Be An Ally

If You Can’t Accept Facts, You Can’t Be An Ally — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:23:31 +0000

[...] claims that the most commonly quoted statistics have “never been contested,” they’ve been decried and disproved by many sex workers, advocates, allies, and even the occasional mainstream journalist [...]