Talk:Sex tourism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Travel and Tourism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality / Sex work  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sex work task force.
 
Notice: KyndFellow is banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been indefinitely banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. The user is also banned from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

Posted by Srikeit 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism.

Archive Archives
2006: early | Knodel1 | Knodel2 | Arbitration
2007:

Contents

cleanup my cite[edit]

someone please format citation 16, as i am inexperienced at the wikipedia coding. maybe you can put it with its proper template. the info is there (and from a good source), just need someone to do the italics etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.178.83 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Feminist bias?[edit]

The article contained such phrases before I edited them out as "romance travel" and "holiday boyfriends" under the female sex tourism section. While I acknowledge that male sex tourists greatly outnumber female sex tourists, is this any excuse for a feminist bias to be present in the article? How are female sex tourists any different than male sex tourists? How is a male prostitute in Jamaica a "holiday boyfriend" but a go-go bar dancer in Bangkok is simply a prostitute? What exactly makes it romance travel as opposed to sex tourism? I'd like these questions answered. Also, why is there not a section of this article listing reasons for sex tourism including such reasons as "romance" like there is in the female sex tourism article? Pasi Nurminen

Beats me. I'm guessing much of the difference is marketing lingo, but I don't have any verification for that hypothesis.
I wouldn't call the bias "feminist" tho. There have been a couple editors on this article who wanted to push a rather rose-colored POV on the sex tourism business; advancing similar descriptions of "female sex tourism" was part of their agenda.
I can't think of a more fair or accurate word than prostitute (your choice[1]), but I would add language like (euphemistically called "holiday boyfriends"). Again, verfication permitting.
Gigolo is the term to use. Netrat (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not working on the Female sex tourism article, but I acknowlege it's a mess. — edgarde 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess use of the term "feminist" was a tad strong, but personal conversations lend to my belief that only those with a female bias do tend to refer to it as "romance travel" rather than sex tourism.Pasi Nurminen

Questionable statistics involving emotive subjects[edit]

"Child sex tourism is a criminal multi-billion-dollar industry believed to involve as many as 2 million children around the world.[10]" Underground industries subject to this kind of pressure are extremely difficult to research. You will find that many of the figures quoted for this emotional subject can be traced back to unsubstantiated "estimates" by NGOs who pull numbers out of a hat for funding applications and policy lobbying purposes. These numbers then get cited as fact in a 'Chinese whispers' manner by the media and other sources (like Wikipedia). This happens with most "shock-horror" subjects where there is substantial aid funding at stake. There is little or no robust research with solid numbers. Just where is this multibillion dollar industry and how was this figure ascertained? This is not to make excuses for the industry or diminish its horrors. However some of the usual rhetoric contradicts itself. One important example: ECPAT and other influential NGOs have clearly stated that the economic driver for child prostitution in developing countries is, overwhelmingly, local clients and that foreign sex tourists constitute a tiny fraction of the clientele (google). Yet activism nearly always concentrates on sex tourism as if this were the source because that results in shock-horror funding.

"Child Sex Tourism" versus "Sex Tourism" and no article yet for it???[edit]

I was a little surprised on returning to this article to find that there is no separate article for "Child sex tourism" although the article on the "Prostitution of children" refers to it but the link simply brings you back here to "Sex Tourism"!!! (On reflection this was probably what subconciously fired me up to make comments here before on the location issue and article tone before.)

This is bad. I think that there is a vast difference between the two subjects: one arguably morally (typically religiously) questionable and the other regarded by the vast majority of human beings and cultures with few exceptions as a heinous crime in contravention of the UN Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) whose predecesor convention dates back half a century ago! (Similar conventions and national laws on industrial exploitation of children date back to the industrial revolution.)

I think splitting article like this would go along way to avoiding objections to the articles pejorative and moralistic sound which makes sense given it oscilates between holiday sex fun and child sexual exploitation!!!??? (I just cannot believe this!?)

I am quite astounded and perplexed by all of this?. Anyone else agree or disagree? (And I dont see how anyone can take the latter position so if you do so please be up front enough to lay bare your cultural and religious prejudicies before doing so!) And I volutneer my efforst to take all the child sex reference out of the article to a link into the "Child sex tourism" article proper! Mattjs 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE THAT DOING SO MAY HELP HALF THE SIZE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAGE WHICH IS MORE THAN 10 TIMES THE LENGTH OF THE ARTICLE! Mattjs 21:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I tried doing that WAY BACK when this article was first created, specifically to avoid the stink of pedophillia on sex tourism in general, but people didn't agree then and merged the articles...Oscar Arias 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Who would even think of meging the two? Regardless of my personal opinion of prostitution, my logical argument is that 1. Child Sex Tourism is a despicable crime upon minors and existing laws in the U.S. and internationally should be enforced 100% to protect children. 2. Adult Sex Tourism (prostitution between two "consenting" adults, where no "forced prostitution" and/or human trafficking is taking place) is no different than a U.S. citizen from California (where prostitution is illegal), simply goes to a "legal" nevada brothel to engage in legal prostitution that is being legally facilitated, organized and widely promoted. Worldedixor (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of Talk Page[edit]

Loud talk page disputes are not sufficient reason to fork the article. As for the length of this page, I'll probably make an archive once the current arbitration is closed. (Follow progress here if you like.) / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction from "child sex tourism"[edit]

The issue of "child sex tourism" has been discussed previously on this page (also in early 2006, and in the current arbitration). There's not much reason to divide the two, other than the (understandable) position of sex tourism advocates not wanting the practice associated with child prostitution, which unfortunately is a major attraction for some sex tourists, while other sex tourists (there's a link to a study somewhere, unless it's been deleted) are happy to sample whatever's on the menu, regardless of age.
Forking the article along those lines would be like creating different pages for "abusive" and "non-abusive" sex tourism. It's an artificial distinction made mostly to avoid NPOV. POV forks are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-links under Tourism involving sex with minors[edit]

Unless I'm missing something, the link that "simply brings you back here to "Sex Tourism"!!!" may have been a temporary by-product of the recent edit war. The child prostitution links currently under Tourism involving sex with minors all link to Prostitution of children. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: go to Prostitution of children and click the Child sex tourism link on the second last line of the first section and it will bring you back here to the top of the Sex tourism article proper. While I accept some of your comments I do not agree at all that separating criminal activities from cultural ones is necessarily a POV issue. I will be up front and suggest a consequence that if this link persists I will come back and personally change it so that it points to a new and empty "Child sex tourism" related article instead. I would only be pacified otherwise if it perhaps dropped you instead into the "Child sex tourism" parts of this article that I take exception to... My argument as always is that "Sex Tourism" and words like "prostitute" are extremely POV and culturally laden labels. Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay I see what you're saying. That would need to be fixed on Prostitution of children. I thought you were reporting a self-link within Sex tourism. To link directly to the article subsection, pipe it like so:
[[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]]
/ edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I will let myself cool off a bit before considering: [[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]] or again a separate article [[Sex tourism and paedophilia]]. But if I dont get around to it in a couple of weeks you are welcome to execute the first option. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll restore it for the time being. Two weeks is too long for the link to lay broken. If you get a decent article together, you can redirect at that time. / edgarde 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For some more examples which I have no doubt cittations can be found for: I suspect that sex tourism within Thailand is almost a traditional Thai male activity there (some huge percentage of Thai men (like 80%-90%)lose their virginity with a "prostitute" as evidenced from studies of the military so that "prostitution" has acompletely different cultural flavour there; and, travel by young rural woman in Iran to cities like the capital Tehran who then marry older men - with full Moslem i.e. Sharia legality - for a short-time only before divorcing again, doing so purely for finacial gain upon entering the "big city" having negotiated before the "marriage" so-called a suitable remuneration. Interesting angles on the Sex Tourism pejorative don't you think? (I shall find citations and put this stuff in the article proper to keep it fair and balanced particularly if the previous poster was correct in suggesting the related article on "female sez tourism" had a somewhat "holiday sun fun" POV! (uhum uhuh uhuh urgh choking...)) ;-) Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely interesting stuff.
  • What you're describing in Thailand would fall more under Prostitution than here. I don't edit that article much, but I think that article mostly describes prostitution from a Western sex industry model — the phenomenon you're describing might add an excellent non-Western perspective. If you can get some citations, let me know if you need help introducing it to that article.
  • I've never heard of the short-term Sharia-legal marriage for quick financial gain before. Is there a name for that practice? It doesn't fit the recognized definition of "Sex tourism", nor does it fit "prostitution" very well. I wonder if sociology has a name for things of this nature. In my country, we refer to it as Gold digging, which interestingly Wikipedia only covers within the articles Age disparity in sexual relationships and Gabor sisters.
  • "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse with prostitutes or to engage in other sexual activity." NOTE CAREFULLY: If that is the definition in the article then moslem girls in Iran travelling to Tehran and earning money therefore from a deliberately short-term marriage for money with an older man so they can set themselves up, by getting fed, accomodated and paid, while they look for a "preferred" i.e. non-sex job fits into this article and it will go in to the article _IF_ I continue to percieve a feminist bias here... THANKYOU. Mattjs 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No, because those moslem girls are not travelling to have sex with prostitutes. One can trivially find examples of prostitutes travelling for work, but this activity is not sex tourism.
I'm not sure how "feminism" became an issue here.

it will go in to the article _IF_ I continue to percieve a feminist bias here

Why is this phrased as a threat? You might not be aware of it, but your writing style is aggressive — this might make it challenging for you in working with other editors on Wikipedia. / edgarde 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I REITERATE: "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse with prostitutes OR to engage in other sexual activity." If this is wrong then this definition needs to be improved. THE GIRLS ARE TRAVELLING TO HAVE SEX. Point blank. And this falls within the definition AS it currently stands. If this is wrong then the correct and unbiased response would I think be in ammending the erroneous definition. 220.240.58.190 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
OK: "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse or to engage in other sexual activity with prositutes or with payment in kind..." Something like that then your arse is coverd and you can say no to me OK!? "Payment in kind" is an investment phrase apparently meaning prcisely "Payment made in the form of goods and services, rather than cash." (from another source). which you could use instead as you wish. So would you prefer something close to this and more precise!? Not suprisngly the Female article mentions non-cash payments this article does not and much sex tourism does include holiday girlfriends/boyfriends where part or all of the remuneration is non-cash as do conventional relationships... again it goes to removing a perceived feminist bias but is the only way to logically exclude the Iraniam Moslem girls... and it this lack of rational and clinical argument in both the article and in the talkback that for the life of me I still cannot understand... Mattjs 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I dont know if there is a name for it but I learnt about it from a teledocumentary that was quite a suprise and eye opener - to find that in a supposedly strict moslem society if not the strictest in the world (though still one of the most sexually repressive in a different way: i.e. is only with respect to women!) there is an ease of sexual relations akin to Thialand's! Not something many people know or hear about the moslem world every day!! 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think studies (sorry I don't have links handy and don't feel like searching now) demonstrate different tendencies between male and female sex tourists. Andy while I think these differences are notable, I don't think so-called "romance tourism" is something distinct from "sex tourism".
    As for the "holiday sun & fun" angle, I think advocates for both male and female sex tourism attempt to promote the activity as harmless (even beneficial) recreation for open-minded adults, and play down the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You may be right there may well be a possibility or suggestion of increased peadophilic activity associated with male sex tourism (and it wouldnt surprise me at all) but one would again need to justify this with citations it rather than implicitly suggesting it by including the two subjects in the one article. Leading here too is your comment "the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries" again uncited and sugestive: in the case of Thailand I would argue that on the balance (male) sex tourism (aside from the introduction of HIV which was probably inevatble anyway particularly given Thai male predilictions) has been ultimately an overwelming positive one - though I confess to you I dont get any pleasure out of saying it - it brings huge wads of hard foriegn cash into the country and improves the lives of many including putting food into the mouths of many very poor north eastern Thai farm girls and their families (not to mention an amazing new industry of western retirees with their thai consorts that has arisen up there now!) and the Thai Goverment knows well its value to the economy too which is by no means insignificant. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no "facts" and objective POVs: all so called "facts" and purportedly neutral POVs are comvenient but culturally laden "fictions" ... you should read David Hume on cause and effect sometime... Regards, Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I take the word "fact" to mean an observable, verifiable phenomenon, and I based on that I think facts exist and can be agreed on by intelligent and thoughtful people given access to the evidence. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is an attempt to root articles in facts, or at least provide a foundation for disputes on facts. As for "culturally laden fictions", I agree such exists, but I also think there are ways to discuss different cultural interpretations of the same information without disputing facts, or even necessarily creating a conflict. That would also be a goal for Wikipedia articles. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Things are never so simple to the philosophically open minded: every supposed fact is embedded in a cultural milieu or context and so open to contestation - point blank - but it would be better if we pass over this one or we will never see the end of it. If I had offered to write a "Round Earth" article for the medieval Wikipedia serveral many hundreds of years ago it would have been rejected without consideration. :-D 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • THERE I am placated now!: the "Child sex tourism" link in Prostitution of children now goes to Child sex tourism and paedophilia where it might be appropriate to discuss the wide difference in POVs between a culturally variable concept of Sex toursim and internationally recognized and long held conceptions of criminal "paedophilic sex tourism with children" and perhaps a better article name even...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattjs (talkcontribs) 2007-01-07T17:35:01 (UTC)
I would recommend you not create a dead link, per WP:DISRUPT. Consider the above instructions on how to link directly to the Tourism involving sex with minors section. / edgarde 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is where I have to pull you up as you are again making some comments that I feel show a bias: I am certain that deep in the Wikipedia policies if I searched I could find a requirement to communicate with etiqete UPON THE TERMS REQUESTED OF THE COMMUNICATOR: i.e. that you lay bare your politcal, cultural and religious biases upon commenting as I had asked and I reiterate my request fopr you to do so now!? I think this is reasonable as they were the terms under which I commenced the conversation on this topic as I made very clear. This is an extremely POV and culturaly laden subject as you are well aware and I think the only way that progress will be made I beleive is if the Political, Cultural and Religious positions of the particpants are made clear at the outset. If you disagree then I will go in search of a Wikipedia policy to support my own request! I confess I havent yet laid bare my own biases but I am more than happy to do so. But all this aside I appreciate and enjoy your comments: these Talk back pages do seem to be a great place to hunt and weed out political biases of one kind or another as well as honing ones own arguments but you are right that one must take care to be discursive and pedagogical rather than adversarial. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Replying to this one on the talk page for 220.240.58.190. / edgarde 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pejorative and moralistic sound"[edit]

Although this page does not consistently portray sex tourism as a harmless activity, I don't see the article as having a moralistic tone. Are there specific passages you are concerned about? / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are and I have been fixing them and leading into legal issues to be expounded upon as the subject of another article. Mattjs 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-arbitration update[edit]

Just made the following changes:

  • Archived most of this Talk page. Linked at top — see file cabinet icon. Permanent link archive method is used to prevent vandalism.
  • Restored more specific language addressing concerns about sex tourism, referencing U.N.[2] Previous editors favored vague language like "some advocacy groups" or "a number of individuals" ... "had expressed concerns" — this was contrary to the spirit of WP:WEASEL.
  • Deleted booklist.[3] None of these books were used to write this article. A similar booklist can be obtained by searching "sex tourism" at Amazon (where I got all the ISBN #'s), so it's kind of pointless in this article.
  • Began footnoting citations for different countries as sex tourism destinations. This will take a while. Some of the countries here are from the "legal prostitution travel guide" version of this article, so it is possible not every country is a major sex tourism destination. This section may be much-edited or reorganized.

My goal here is not to establish a canonical version of this article, but to undo some of the damage from the edit war. / edgarde 09:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The other option: merge Female Sex Tourism with Sex Tourism[edit]

Just checked it out over there as although they decided to keep the article they left open the possibility of a merger. This would be one way of placating me as the undesireable elements of peadophilia here would get watered down with "holiday fun in the sun" from Female Sex Tourism. User:Edgarde couldn't possibly have any objections to it as it either suits the arguments he has already used or will prove to be his "reductio ad absurdam". So which is it User:Edgarde??? Mattjs 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

First an answer to your question. Presuming Female sex tourism would be merged into Sex tourism, the discussion should start over there. I don't know enough about that article to decide if it can stand by itself. I have no objection to the merge. Check the merge procedure if you want to initiate that discussion.
I'm not sure who edits that article, so also mention the merge proposal on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.
However, if your objection is that "the undesireable elements of peadophilia here would get watered down" (as you put it), that by itself is not a good reason for the merge. (I'm not sure if that is your intent because some of what you are saying is ambiguous to my reading.) If that really is your goal, perhaps you should ask a neutral party for help in performing the merge. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"the undesireable elements of peadophilia"[edit]

Option to what?
I don't understand why you're linking everything back to pedophilia, as if other topics within sex tourism needed some kind of parity or set some kind of precedent with how pedophilia is treated. One topic is not equivalent to another, and everything worth considering is worth considering on its own merits. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "peadophilia"[edit]

One more thing. You've used the term "peadophilia" a few times now. This term often (especially in clinical and scientific usage) specificly means a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent persons. The term "child prostitution" (which is what I think we're talking about) is preferable because it includes young adolescents below legal age. I mention this not to nit-pick with you, but for clarity's sake. For what it's worth, another editor on this discussion page has been quite snitty over this distinction, and while I think you and I are talking about the same thing, going off on that tangent again (presumably in the event another editor joins) would waste us much time. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why so personal?[edit]

My questions:
  • Why is this addressed personally to me in this So which is it User:Edgarde??? fashion?
  • Why is "placating" you my responsibility?
I wouldn't bother with it here, but this is the 2nd time you've turned this into some kind of personal attack. It's not necessary, and I think I have explained my reasoning at some length. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I get your drift and I think I have adequately explained mine. It seems you have no objections as in fact a complete merger is in tune with your own arguments about the whole field being one subject. I just see child prostitution as a separate field entriely though I don't see female "fun in the sun" as essentially any different although the articles seemingly are: "Sex Tourism" effectively "Male Sex Tourism" since that is clearly the articles target versus the "Female Sex Tourism" article and there of course are few Female Child Sex Predators. I only used the term "paedophilia" to emphasize the distinction I was making and don't want to spilt hairs either. Though one hair is: I dont know if there is any difference at law between prebuscent or non-prepuscent child sex as usually it all seems to I think fall under the general ambit of "carnel knowledge with a minor under the age of consent" and in most modern countries this is always way above the age of puberty. For me both are vastly different activities compared to travelling to have sex with someone, whether with payment in money or in kind or not, in a foriegn country where sex between consenting adults even with the exchange of money is perfectly legal activity in my country and in theirs. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there are conflicting cultural issues here too as I live in a country - Australia - where prostitution has for as long as I can remember (all my life or adult life probably) in all our states has been perfectly legal. Whereas Wikipedia may well be hosted in the US and most importantly where prostitution is still a serious crime in many if not most of your states, and you yourself may well be American. The leap then from underage sex or child prostitution to consenting sex for money with an adult may not be such a big one for someone who lives in a country where adult prostitution is itself a serious crime whereas for me that is an enormous leap indeed. We in Australia have "Child Sex Tourism" laws, and were probably one of the first countries to introduce them, such that Australians are not permitted to engage in sex with a minor in or outside of Australia under the age of 16 years. The same may not be true for an American overseas. What is true is that Bush has further criminalized prostitution with new "Sex tourism" laws in the US though I dont know the exact details but they have effected those companies doing internet bride business and organising sex related to travel. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My asking about politics, culture, religion may not have been so far out of line as you thought: cultural issues do predominate here. I hope this clears up for you as it does for me as I may have a better handle on where perhaps you or other people like you may be coming from and ditto for my own perspective. I didnt mean for it to get personal but I think I just explained more adequately again why I persoanlly draw huge distinctions between the two types of sex tourism one of which I wouldn't even dignify with the label of "tourism" at all but would rather have used an admittedly more pejorative label by subsuming Child Sex Tourism information under another article like Child Prostitution, Paedophilia, Child Predation whatever... Its been interesting and I hope you can see my point of view also and I think we have more than adequately argued over all of this. finis. I will ses about an article/contrubution/merger. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heya Mattjs. Although wikipedia is vastly complex, in some ways, it is really easy. All you need to do is find reliable sources that say what you wish to include in the article, cite them, and viola.
You writing your thoughts and feelings on this page don't help. For example, the sources we have in the article do use the term, "Child Sex Tourism." Regardless of whether you like it or not, it is a term that is used.
So, if you want to "clear the name of sex tourism" you need to find reputable sources who have done so. And then include them. Devalover 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Child Sex Tourism Laws[edit]

In fact as an afterthought splitting the article which is currently messy would present the opportunity the expound on Child Sex Tourism Laws as I mentioned above and would be a very positive thing. I actually responded in the Prostitution in Thailand article in detail to a question in the talk back regarding age of consent and researched the UK and AU extra-terrorial laws in the space of an hour. None of this information is contained in Wikipedia and someone looking into Child Sex Tourism and arriving here will be very interested. It interested me enough to clarify the details as I am a dual UK/EEC and AU citzen so both sets of "Child Sex Tourism" or age of consent laws are simultaneously applicable! So Child Sex Tourism Laws would be a good start I have the AU and UK info and mentioned here are only Singapore and Canada but with nil details whatsoever. Mattjs 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds ambitious. My suggestion would be to start the general "child" sex tourism one, then break off the legal section when it becomes sufficiently long to merit its own article. A long list of country-by-country sex tourism laws would definitely be better in a separate article, but right now there's nothing and no point in creating stub articles.
My understanding is (was?) that you're developing a new article (or articles), not simply "splitting" this one, which risks creating a POV fork. This article doesn't need to be a whitewash of sex tourism, child or otherwise. Presumably the new article(s) would supplement the existing one. / edgarde 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism may be better as another poster suggested. I prefer it as a more well defined topic that this current sloppy article and about as long as the current article though likely to get longer and I certainly expect it to receive more links to it from other articles like Age of consent, law etc etc. i will get around to it - I have downloaded the two off-line Wikipedia Editors I have found: the standalone one and the Eclipse plugin. It might well lead to an evetual split down the track but that is not my major nor entire motivation! ;-) 220.240.58.190 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Offline editor? Whoever you are, please keep in mind other people are editing this article. / edgarde 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

I am curious Edgarde about why the intro in this version was not sufficient for you? [4]

For me, an intro is about defining terms and setting the stage. I have shortened it some and will await your feedback. Devalover 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think intro needs to be that short, but since that's where your going, how about what I have now?[5]
I think the child prostitution law enforcement difficulties were worth having in the opening, especially since the issue seems to come up in most general discussions of sex tourism, and that paragraph was pretty concise. However, since there's so much initiative to bury it I've moved all mention of child prostitution to Tourism involving sex with minors; not my preference but if other editors can't agree it fits in the intro, I'm tired of arguing it.
The 2nd sentence in the version you link is so short it's weaselypeople not worth identifing say there are problems not worth specifying. I've restored that and instead snipped the first repetitive U.N. mention, which was introduced by User:Addhoc to appease User:KyndFellow at some point. Assuming no one here is advocating for KyndFellow's novel definition (also discussed in the archives for this Talk page), and the in-line reference is considered sufficient, I'd say the first U.N. mention is more dispensible than the 2nd. / edgarde 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I appreciate your willingness to work with me, and I actually don't like your version! :) I don't like removing ALL refference to Child Sex Tourism in the intro, and for me the intro you created it TOO brief with too many citations- 5 citations for 2 sentences! I am going to revert back to my last version.
The reason why I don't see the law enforement piece as "big" at least for an intro is that it is a sub-topic of a sub-topic of a sub-topic Topic: Sex Tourism. Sub-topic: Child Sex Tourism Sub-top of sub-topic: Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism. Sub topic of sub topic of sub-topic!: Challenges with Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism.
So, I have reverted back to my version and included the LE sentence down lower. Hope you like it. Thanks for heads up on weasel words, I had never heard it invoked in this context- I'll sit with it. Devalover 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you like this version?[6] Restored (and then deleted) a citation (those are good to keep), turned a line break into a paragraph break. / edgarde 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I like it. Devalover 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

International Law[edit]

"A tourist who has sex with a child prostitute possibly commits a crime against international law, in addition to the host country, and the country that the tourist is a citizen of. Several countries have recently enacted laws with extraterritorial reach, punishing citizens who engage in sex with minors in other countries."

What International Law?

There are national laws with extra-territorial applicability (on which subject - at least compared to anyone else here - I am an expert). Whilst there is an international court of criminal justice its ambit usually includes such matters as war crimes and not sex under the age of consent nor prostitution. And though there are international agreements and conventions like the CRC, GATT, WIPO agreements etc. these are covenants which are binding only upon "nation states" and _not_ "individuals".

Rephrase something like as follows: "A tourist who has sex with a child prostitute offends against the spirit of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and, in addition to breaking the law in that host country, might well also be doing so in the country the tourist is a national of. A growing number of countries are enacting laws with extra-territorial reach in order to meet their obligations under the covenants above, and consequently punishing citizens who engage in sex with minors whilst overseaes."

ok edgarde? Mattjs 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifics on internation law[edit]

I've had issues with the sentence you quote before. However, the solution we came up with last November is something Devalover now has problems with.
I think the best arrangement would be to keep the sentence you quote (which is concise and readable), along with These laws are rarely enforced since the crime usually goes undiscovered, then elaborate with details you're adding — that would definitely be an improvement. All this would go under Tourism involving sex with minors. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


I had issues not with the sentence, but with placing it in the intro paragraph. Devalover 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


AGAIN: As I explained there is no "crime against international law" this is incorrect and a fallacy - legally incorrect - and a non sequitor, there is no intertional crime under international laws or conventions ... need I go on???... 220.240.58.190 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"perfectly legal"[edit]

Conversely, prostitution is a perfectly legal activity in a growing list of other nations worldwide: see prostitution.

This sentence is redundant and argumentative. It should come out. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree here: it is fair and balanced - the US only is cited which bans prostitution touristic or otherwise and the interational trend is for the decriminalization if not complete legalisation of prostitution including touristic. 220.240.58.190 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Personally, I found the sentence informative.... at least take out the "perfectly" and conversely part of the sentence and I think it fits. Devalover 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"pedophilia" again[edit]

Your use of "pedophiliac" is misleading here and needs to be removed. It is normal for adult men (not a "minority") to find women below legal age (whatever that may be) sexually attractive — this does not make them pedophiliacs. As for whether or not any practice is by a "minority", that would need a citation. Otherwise, "some" is the least POV term here. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought my new final sentence was getting close to right. How about something along these lines: "In this case an attraction for a minority of sex tourists with pedophilic predilections that they seek to satisfy may well be access to child prostitution." Something along these lines would avoid your criticism. "or who seek to satisy their pedophilic fantasies" etc. etc. 220.240.58.190 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New intro verbosity[edit]

I think that legal ladder in the 2nd paragraph is a little difficult for the intro, and should be moved to Criminality and controversy, per Devalover's comments here. As currently written, a simple, clear statement has been turned into something the eye wants to skip over.
In your edit summary here are you disputing this sentence?

An attraction for some sex tourists is access to child prostitution that is unavailable in their home countries.

I don't think WP:WEASEL applies here, but if you want I can start collecting references[7] [8]. This referencing shouldn't really be needed in the intro since the statement is elaborated upon under Criminality and controversy.
I think the sentence is worth having this in the introduction because — long pause ... I'm really tired of explaining this repeatedly — it's an issue that comes up frequently in discussions of sex tourism. The only reason I moved it to Criminality and controversy is I felt some editors would feel a need to obfuscate it; now that seems to be happening.
Devalover expressed an opinion about appropriate content in the intro section. Since your style seems to be addressing other editors indivudually, perhaps you might ask him as well. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point but I think it slants the nature of sex tourism the vast bulk of which overall does not take place with minors. Although in certain places it may do and do I agree it is a significant issue. The most important issues are legal ones and we have three sets of issues in mulitiple jurisdictions to consider: prostitution, age of consent, and under age sex... 220.240.58.190 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And it is not the sentence per se I dislike but its location and its isolation. I prefer it either expanded and balanced like I have attempted or else moved further into the article where it belongs...
I am sure that we can come to some compromises. There isn't too much in the article really that I dislike and I am not unreasonable and haven't actually deleted anything. Indeed I would like to actually expand the child sex tourism section and that in itself tilts the balance of the article but as long as it has its place as a clearly defined subsection of interest and research I have no problems with that... as it is it is rather sloppy with little one liners and comments here with no depth or substance and even less cohesion. 220.240.58.190 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A POSSIBLE compromise is the make it the third sentence rather than the second in the article. It would flow better and be less of a eyesore I might be less annoyed with it then myself. BUT what I have wriiten is important and relevant as ultimately the legal issues (and sociological ones) are at the core of the article so the 2 or 3 sentence summary of the issues should go somewhere else in the article then. Unless of course the article is intended by its editor(s) to be a feminist mouthpiece: if that is true just let me know and I can pack my bags and either go elsewhere (like to the Child Sex Tourism Laws - which will mention age of consent but not prostitution in and of itself - as I had no intention of whacking all that stuff in here but it will have to be referenced from here...) or else up the editorial chain... Mattjs 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
How about now?[9] I made the last sentence into a list (since it was ordered, but also to increase readability). I also snipped some of the explanation from "child prostitution" — I realise some editors are uncomfortable with the subject, but listing "fantasy" motivations is presumptuous and anyway tangential in the intro, and some uncited assertions had been introduced.
"Verbosity" is still a problem, but since you're still editing, I don't want to fuss with it much more. Is "or gigolos" indispensible? I think prostitutes is prostitutes, whether boy or girl. / edgarde 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I took a crack at the verbosity problem.[10]. Could we replace "or gigolos" with "(male or female)"? If someone also feels a need to tersely mention that sex tourists come in both genders, that would be okay too. / edgarde 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Took another crack. I'm now thinking the term "gigolos" was introduced to imply the traveler might be female (tho I'm pretty sure men can hook up with gigolos as well). I removed this (cos prostitutes is prostitutes) and changed "traveling" to "travel (by men or women)". Since there's a Female sex tourism section, I didn't see a need for that, but apparently other editors do.
I must say I think the intro section is now much improved over how it was before Mattjs (and 220.240.58.190 (talk · contribs), if that's a separate editor) started editing, especially the first paragraph.
So does this work?[11] Or is someone positively enraged? / edgarde 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is all getting much much better. I made some ever so slight tweaks to yours. The problem with sexual mores is they vary so significantly not just from culture to culture but from individual to individual and are therefore so damn easily offensive!
Anywway that will do for now - we are getting somewhere. (I didn't add the "gigolo" by the way that was someone else.) Mattjs 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I understood that "or gigolos" was added by Vladko (talk · contribs), but at least 3 editors on this talk page have suggested that sex tourism by women was underemphasised. I presumed the "gigolos" addition was an attempt to address that. If it didn't, then "(by men or women)" does. / edgarde 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"in order of increasing potential criminality" list[edit]

So far [12], so good. But I'm not sure the following two changes made sense:

  1. prostitution, if illegal, or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
  2. lower age of consent, or indifference to this consideration,

I think these should say:

  1. prostitution, either legal or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
  2. lower age of consent, or legal indifference to this consideration,

... my understanding of this part is that tourists are looking for either legal prostitution, or at least prostitution they won't be hassled over.

  1. In the first item, "or subject to indifferent law enforcement" should imply "if illegal" (otherwise why would it matter?), the word "or" separating the two possibilities.
  2. In the second item, again I presume it's more a law enforcement thing, "legal indifference" meaning either the absense of law or the absense of law enforcement.

Am I missing something? / edgarde 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah both absense of law and absense of enforecment I guess. Age of consent is so inconsistently and crappily handled around the world and the law is auch an ass anyway. Even Australia's progressive Child Sex Tourism laws have a legal loop hole of marriage if the marriage is legal in the destination country and some countries have a very low "age of marriage" which is necessarily not the same age as "age of consent" i.e. there can be consent I guess by virute of marriage below the "age of consent" for sex outside of marriage... you see what I mean - its a very big ASS INDEED! Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I had the tourists indifference to 2 in my mind when I wrote it but you it is probably better the way you are looking at it. Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph is still to go through developemnt as I have just realised that the size of punishment is a significant factor also. Take Garry Glitter the big poof --- who will sleep with any thing male or female under the age of 12 if you can classify anyone under the age of puberty and procreation as of any particular sex --- he's been in the news again here recently I think its Cambodia again so it should fit nicely into the article somewhere around that point. But anyway what I wanted to say was that in Cambodia as in Thailand as I discovered just the other day searching for citations on the web the penalties for under age sex as significantly lower in these countries than in the west so that even if you get caught by the authorities there the penalties for these people are minor hence yet another attraction for these child sex tourists. SO YES punishments and enforcement both are significaant factors so I will get around to this and submitting submitting something about the infamous Garry Glitter no doubt a link to somewhere else in Wikipedia where his exploits should be well documented and he is a classic child sex tourist of the lowest order... Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should drop the "in order of increasing potential criminality" and instead list factors or simply add (or preceed it perhaps) with another factors list: low cost of services, poor enforcement, low punishments etc. something like that we will work it all out in time i am sure! Regards, Mattjs 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Or: "access to child prostitution which may be similarly influenced by the degree of enforcement and level of punishment provided for in the destination country..." ... Mattjs 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up bias and sloppy citations[edit]

If no one else is as active I am going to carry on cleaning up bias and sloppy citations. Broad sweeping generalizations like the following: "While most sex tourists only engage in this activity with other adults, some actively look for child prostitutes, while others are not very selective either way, regarding age."

That now reads: "While most sex tourists only engage in this activity with other adults, some actively look for child prostitutes, while others are not very selective either way regarding age, according to a study of the Dominican Republic." as it should be as the study ONLY refers to that country, and as does, I believe, the UNICEF report also cited within it.

It has just dawned upon me the source: I suspect that one of our major contributors is probably American, Christian and Female (or Feminist), or a least I reckon I got two out of three (or four) right. Not of any signifigance in itself excepting that it would explain why the above poor citation wouldn't be considered biased by such a person or persons. And then we have happy go lucky "holiday fun in the sun" female editors in the "Female sex tourism" artcle obviously.

I have to find a citation and _ADD_ something about child sex under the Cambodia reference. It is well known that aging Thai men particularly including those of high office have a prediliction to picking up very young women in their limosines and taking them to "drive-in" "love-motels" (I know as I have been to one (with an "over-age")) it being a popular cultural notion or superstutition there that an old man sleeping with a young <~15 year old, especially virgin, will thereby renew his virility if not his aging vigour. That said, underage sex in Thailand in or outside of "sex tourism" is a very minor part of the overall sex trade there. I am well aware that the same cannot be said of Cambodia, and as I now know the Dominican Republic, where an entirely different scale of child sexual exploitation occurs. I am glad I haven't visited either of them.

About Thailand though I am an expert and as Pattaya is _THE_ sex tourism destination after all, and poorly cited generalizations like the above therefore just do not cut the mustard i'm afraid. Mattjs 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good find on the DR citation.Devalover 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries With Sex Laws With Minors Overseas[edit]

What countries have these laws? To my knowledge USA, Canada, and Australia have overseas laws. I think the UK does as well. Are there any other countries (in Europe or elsewhere)? Zachorious 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The countries you mention and listed in the Article.
I am absolutely certian of Australia and the UK as I have researched them both in detail - and from link in the Article - the US new law also. I have no doubt there are others...
Would you like to see such an article? I have proposed it and have the details on the big three above. If you would like to help let me know on my home page send me a message etc. as you might like to help research the other countries. I can rapidly do these three in detail and interest like yours might prompt me to do so... Mattjs 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Female Sex Tourism Destinations[edit]

Angeles City in the province of Pampanga, Philippines is famous for prostitution during the 80s and 90s mainly because of a foreign military base there. The contract of this military base didn't get an extension from the Philippine government (end of contract: 1992) and after the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the base was evacuated and so as the prostitution industry was greatly affected.

I am not sure if the article written here about Angeles as a "primary destination for female sex tourism still applies" for it happened more than 2 decades ago unless somebody could cite that. Angeles may not be the present primary destination right now, they may have transferred somewhere else. Fddfred 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • AC has been re-discovered by German as well as American ex-military sex tourists. Sex tourism there is going strong...Oscar Arias 03:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


The situation in Angeles is worse then ever, here are some links that will give you an update on the situation... http://qc.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/2736.php http://www.preda.org/archives/2004/r04062801.html http://www.preda.org/archives/hl/wvb.html

even worse is that human rights workers in angeles are getting murdered by thse gangs.Susanbryce 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, you need to state references when making outrageous claims like that. otherwise people will think you are spreading misinformation just like you did on the Angeles City page. RodentofDeath 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Angeles may be a destination for male sex tourists but definitely not for females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.217.18 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't! Buy! Thai![edit]

Removed the following because it seems poorly sourced, outdated, in need of substantial re-writing, and contained broken wikilinks. Would fit better under Prostitution in Thailand, but a short mention in Sex tourism would be okay.

In the mid 1990's, a consumer boycott named "'Don't! Buy! Thai!!'" was organized to publicize and discourage child sex tourism in Thailand. The premise was that participants would not buy anything made in Thailand until the Thai government and international agencies significantly reduced the use of children as prostitutes in Thailand, as well as the ready access that foreign tourists had to these vulnerable and often reluctant sex objects.



Travel bureaus and airlines have been organized to facilitate visits to the fleshpots of Thailand. For example, Lauda Air runs scheduled and charter flights between Vienna and other European cities and Bangkok. One Lauda Air commercial shows a Western tourist talking on a cell phone: "...Got to go: The girls at the Bangkok Baby Club are waiting."

Attorney/novelist Andrew Vachss has written at least one novel and a number of articles on the matter (http://www.vachss.com/).

DBT ceased operations in 2000. The http://www.dbt.org/ domain has been acquired by another business. Other possibly helpful links:

/ edgarde 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed my one liner after this: "According to the Cambodia minister for Woman's Affairs, it is not tourists who are the prime culprits of pedophilia in her country, but the locals.[18]" but it would be nice to find a reference to support indicating that "non-tourist" child prostitution in general is relatively prevalent in these countries anyway as this sentence is a bit short which was why i added the thai love motel bit in the first place. Maybe I am lazy I should go google "child sex in asia" or something liek that and see what i can find to add just a little to this sentence... regards edgarde, Mattjs 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you mean this change:

For example, it is a popular local superstition in Thailand that an older man sleeping with a young woman will thereby renew his virility, if not his aging vigour, and one consequence is the drive-in love-motel where few questions are asked.

I think the fact that it's a "local" superstition makes it irrelevant to the topic of Sex tourism (unless you consider it strong evidence that Thai Sex tourism does not involve child prostitution). Anyway, various beliefs about the health benefits of sex with young or virginal women exist in many cultures (too many to list here). Such a list might more relevant to the article Prostitution of children. / edgarde 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I am not disagreeing. Just would be nice to add to the short "one liner" before thats all i was trying to do... Regards. Actually I need hlep with reverts and POV bias in another article - this time I am on firm ground but there is wierd stuff going on over there... you can see my edits and my comments in the talkback also... you could help as a third opinion or arbiter thanks edgarde and I glad we are on good terms now... keep up the good work... Thanks. This is my fixed IP when I occassionally (and sometimes deliberately) forget to log in. :-) oops: its at iTunes in the infamous (apple) biased intro yet again... Mattjs 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited iTunes as: 220.240.58.190 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Mattjs.
I think I am going to stop contributing to Wikipedia as it all gets to damn frustrating with even biased editors - you are an exception - and I dont know anyone higher up the chain to back me up when trying to point out editorial POVs. It is all quite a joke really: groups of POVed people get their way with articles and that can include the employees of large companies who through shear numbers can have their way set the own tone and agenda (along with the cronies) with articles on their own products. I strongly suspect that some large computer companies might be monitoring Wikipedia and doing this. Regards again and better you than me. Mattjs 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If I keep seeing POV bias at iTunes its adios to Wikipedia! (After all i've got a "life"!) 220.240.58.190 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Local superstitions encouraging child prostitution[edit]

I'm yanking this again because it's both off-topic and unsourced.

Similar claims can be made for other destinations including in Asia where local superstitions may serve to encourage child sexual exploitation.

The implications that

  • Asians are more likely to have sex with children
  • and when they do, it is not really pedophilia, but part of their culture

... are really just noise in this article. If you can find a source for these this statement, add to a more appropriate article, perhaps something child prostitution related.

I understand that some editors are really eager to share this information, but Sex tourism really isn't the place. / edgarde 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem edgarde. That is a reasonable argument I guess. I wont submit any more experimental attempts at an acceptable edit here unless maybe I can one day finally find a decent source... (but dont hold your breath)... BTW: I finally got the iTunes problem fixed and on this (one) occassion (at least) my argument was on solid ground and so I won it through to a concensual completion with another excellent editor's help! Yipee! So I am not so down on Wikipedia now. Warmest Regards, Mattjs 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear the iTunes situation is worked out.
Experiments in good faith usually don't hurt, as long as one doesn't mind be "edited mercilessly" (as it says here somewhere). / edgarde 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a reference quite by accident during my (online) travels and I am sure others exist: Louise Brown, Sex Slaves: The Trafficking of Women in Asia, Virago Press, 2001, ISBN 1860499031. Indeed, quoting from the book's back cover:
Some of the cultural issues I alluded to are examined and explained. SO: What should we now put back in: the quote? or?:

"Arguments can be made that local cultural traditions in Asia (may) serve to encourage child sexual exploitation."(+Ref here)

I prefer the back cover quote myself as it speaks for itself and rounds out the Burma one liner with respect to Asia otherwise I think we should in the alternative take out the Burma line entirely as irrelevant to the article. (Just to forewarn you) the alternative of not putting anything (of the suggestions here) into the article at all is an option with which I would be most unhappy edgarde.
Leave a note on my talkback page and/or insert a similiar suitable edit of your own. Regards, Mattjs 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Child sex by sex tourists raises the hackles of many drive-by editors for this article, but whatever you can add that's relevant to Sex tourism (i.e. why would someone travel to another country to do this), would be worth including. Give it a go.
"Asian men" (from the quote) doesn't necessarily mean nationally native men. Japan (for example) is a major Sex tourism sending country, and word on the street is they like women very young. If the book you're looking at (and I can't see from here) says sex "tourism" (as opposed to trafficking or prostitution), that's good to include.
Sexual practices by locals are not by themselves relevant to Sex tourism; those should go in Prostitution of children, Pedophilia, Prostitution in Asia, Trafficking of children somewhere like that. Is there an article for "sex customs in Asia" or something?
P.S. I'm okay with de-headlining the Philippe Servaty situation, but "Recent" shouldn't be in the title per WP:DATED. How about just Scandals, or Arrests?. You decide, I have to run. / edgarde 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. Your happiness is your responsbility, not mine. Don't be laying guilt trips on me, man! ;) / edgarde 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I will fix that but then I would also like to take out the Cambodia (not Burma sorry) line if you don't want my suggestions in as by your own arguments above it too is not relevant to the article. Comments(/actions hehe)? Regards, Mattjs 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the Cambodian minister for Woman's Affairs, is replying to accusations that sex tourism is an industry so I think it's relevant. It is however awkward having it hanging there like that, without a preceding reference to the country. I could take or leave it. Is there an article like Prostitution in Cambodia? / edgarde 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Lets just leave this for now while I/we think some about it... It is an enlightening bit of information that should go in Wikipedia somewhere I will check for Prositution in Cambodia, Child prostitution etc though unfortunately there is no Prostitution in Asia article that I am aware of. Hmmm... It is a doubly useful bit of information - by analogy i guess - in that it is suggestive of the locations for child sex tourists: i.e. those local or native cultures that historically (hence legally also) lack the same degree of prohibitions towards child sex and sexual exploitation in general and that is why i feel it is a tantalizing tidbit that is equally relevant here and fits appropriately as the final suggestive comment in the child sex tourism section of the article (thanks to the lead in by the Cambodia reference) but I have a feelign that you are always going to disagree but do note that my intention is not to provide excuses for child sex tourism but rather - and very relevantly i believe - elaborate upon the cutural context of the problem. By way of comparison the "Servaty" reference for example adds very little to the article and certainly nothing in terms of sociological research and understanding of the field unlike my sugeestion above... 220.240.58.190 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Prostitution in Asia certainly exists. Generally, if an article link isn't red, there's an article there.
It is just a list of links to other articles there... seee my comment following on a suitable place to put it. Regards, Mattjs 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Minor concern: consider loggin in. I can't always guess the user behind the IP from context. / edgarde 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW: If after some time and reflection you still disagree with my argument above there is a "Causes and context" section in the Prostitution of children artcle where it could go in (probably at the very bottom of the section as there is an uncited comment along the same lines at that point that actually needs a reference just like this one. Mattjs 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

suggested new section on Article[edit]

Can i suggest a new section for the article, ==Welfare Agencies== The welafre agenceies at the frontline in dealing with the problems caused by sex tourism, and I thought iot might be a valuable addition to people doing research on sex tourism if we added a section on specific welfare agencies, both international and more area focused. What do people think, and are there any suggestions on this and how it should be constructed?Briann3232 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be more useful would be documentation of what "the problems caused by sex tourism" actually are. We're a bit sketchy on that.
A couple welfare agencies spam all the sex industry related articles with links to their programs. It really doesn't tell the reader much about sex tourism, and I really don't need more self-promoters to argue with. / edgarde 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also (and this is a minor thing), it helps to avoid terms like "at the frontline in dealing with the problems" which fall under WP:PEACOCK, saying these programs are great, Great, GREAT!! without actually giving the reader any information. Concise, informative writing should be the goal. / edgarde 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

overall, i think this is a good article with very little outrageous accusations. i am slightly concerned about wikipedia's living persons policy being in violation by putting in the belgian journalist's name. perhaps i just dont understand the policy that well but it seems to me that this one instance of sex tourism is not very notable and singles out one person in particular. also, i made the second half of the big apple sex tour paragraph its own paragraph since it seemed to be changing subjects. RodentofDeath 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More Countries and Cities[edit]

i'll have to come back later with citations to add the following locations but i am surprised some of these are missing from the list. i am in angeles, where we have lots of sex tourists, and often hear people discussing the following locations:

China (including but not limited to hong kong). very popular destination for koreans, taiwanese and japanese.
Cambodia, particularly Phnom Penh
Philippines. only a very small percentage go to angeles. most tourists, including sex tourists, go to manila or cebu as there is direct flights.
Vietnam. RodentofDeath 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

76.126.29.166 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Within the US, the map shows the entire country as having prostitution illegal. In Nevada, it is legall and regulated.

Intro[edit]

Heya all.


I have sat with the intro for awhile and the last paragraph doesn't work for me:

I am going to nix the "in order of increasing potential criminality)" it's an interesting idea but is it neccesary in the intro and I don't know... it just feels off to me for some reason; and and the lower age of consent. I'd like to see a source for that, saying "sex tourists go for countries with a lower aoc."

I also nixxed the "where legal prohibitions are weak or unenforced." Again it is an unnecsarry point for the intro- and is it really the motive to travel? I'd argue that the motive, for child sex tourists, is access to sex with children, plain and simple.

Attractions for sex tourists can include reduced costs for services in the destination country, and (in order of increasing potential criminality):

   * prostitution, either legal or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
   * lower age of consent, or legal indifference to this consideration,
   * access to child prostitution where legal prohibitions are weak or unenforced. 

At this point, I will confess a very strong bias I have.... intros should be as short and simple as possible and only cover major points which will be elaborated later in the article.Devalover 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I was okay with the bullet list (and maybe I introduced it, can't remember), but the parenthetical never worked for me. It seemed like the tourist planned his or her activities by first choosing a desired level of criminality, and then choosing activities accordingly. / edgarde 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvia[edit]

Many in Latvia believes, that there is sex tourism (destination). There even exist anti sex tourism campaign. Here is site: sex-terrorism Throught in Latvia there realy isn't sex tourism 91.135.18.243 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nongovernmental organization «Re!Action» in collaboration with advertising agency «Alfa Centrs» has launched a social campaign «STOP sex-terrorism!», which challenges the opinion that Rīga is a place for cheap debauchery with easily available sex services not only in dedicated places but also from the local girls at nightclubs, bars and other venues.

edit war over scandals[edit]

there seems to be someone trying to insert an unsupported claim into scandals and it is getting deleted (as it should be). this made me look again that the scandal section and i dont really see what the Philippe Servaty scandal has to do with the definition of sex tourism given here. clearly this man was not engaging in sex with prostitutes. i think either the definition at the top of the page needs to be updated or the scandal section deleted as irrelevant. RodentofDeath 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I've deleted it. Sex tourism is essentially travelling to patronise prostitutes overseas; cheating women in any country by falsely promising them marriage should not come under this heading. Rodparkes 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Depictions in fiction and popular culture"[edit]

I disagree with the last editor's removal of this section. There is a reason why many Wikipedia entries have such sections: the way a subject is treated in novels, films etc. can often offer us levels of insight into it that a documentary cannot. I would like to see this section restored, but rather than simply revert the change, I'd like to see what others think first. Rodparkes 04:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the Talk page. This is the deletion in question. In addition to snipping the entire Depictions in fiction and popular culture section, I also removed an advertisement that has been appended to the Academic study section. (This article attracts spammers.)
This article has problems which I won't go into just now. I don't think an In popular culture section benefits this article. The movies and TV shows listed were not informative or insightful on the subject, and whether the South Park "Super-Adventure Club" episode is notably even about "sex tourism" is hardly worth nitpicking over.
In popular culture sections are often a problem because they tend to be trivia lists comprising every time some editor saw the subject in a movie, TV show or video game. In my opinion, a good IPC section makes a point.
The list I deleted didn't demonstrate anything, and wasn't informative or useful. No one searches for this article so they can find a good cartoon or movie about "sex tourism". If the reader is serious, we have a couple documentaries listed, but if they're just looking for erotica or sexual humor or a story about hookers, whatever, there exist more likely paths to such information than this article about the exploitation of geoeconomic inequalities.
The most recent addition was The Boatman (Bangkero, Ang at the Internet Movie Database), a "bomba" (as more or less high-class sexploitation movies with a moral messages are called in the Philippines). And no matter how great or realistic or insightful it may be, it's still the director's vision of a story that needs to recoup in the entertainment market. Fiction has no firm allegiance to reality — it's not a reliable source, so to speak.
Come to think of it, none of the items listed had sources describing these programs as being about sex tourism. Their inclusion here is original research; we'd have to take the contributing editor's word that they were relevant. If I wanted a wikilegal reason to gong that section, there would be a good one. However, I'm trying to give practical reasons.
There exists many a movie about prostitution and the sex industry. Maybe someone should make a list article on those. It's just not pertinent here. / edg 06:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You make some good points, though I would just like to say that I find the Ang Bangkero review on IMDB very misleading. The review seems to suggest that it is primarily a piece of titillatory erotica, whereas if you actually see them, both this film and the somewhat similar but gay-oriented Macho Dancer, though they take the form of melodrama which is characteristic in Philippine cinema, are concerned to make serious points using sexual exploitation (including sex tourism) as a metaphor for the general exploitation and powerlessness of the poor under the then Marcos regime. Certainly neither presents sex tourism in an attractive light - the prostitutes are essentially depicted as victims of an unjust economic system. Rodparkes 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This issue comes up in a lot of articles. I'm not doing this simply to exclude Ang Bangkero; if anything, it's quite an improvement over the South Park reference.
Wikipedia has no article for this film that I'm aware of. Do you feel up to writing one? For starters, you'd need enough references (beyond IMDB and filmfest calendars) to establish notability — check Wikipedia:Notability (films) so you'll know what to include to prevent a speed deletion. If this film is believed to have influenced Filipino politics or something, that would be quite notable, however even a few awards would probably be sufficient. A link in that article back to Sex tourism (provided the film is really pertinent to that subject) would link from this article via "What links here", which is entirely appropriate. / edg 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Adding Sri Lanka to the list of western white female sex tourist destinations[edit]

It would appear Sri Lanka is missing on the list of major sex tourist destinations. There are multiple reliable sources that would indicate its the case, [13],[14],[15]. Sinhala freedom —Preceding comment was added at 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Female sex tourism destinations - Spain[edit]

I've lived on the coast of southern Spain for 4 years and have seen no evidence of this tourism trade (although there is a thriving trade in prostitutes for men), so a reference would be essential to keep this in, I'd say. EdX20 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex tourism in the Caribbean page[edit]

Hi,

How do I improve the page I created on sex-tourism in the Carribean; I need to make it verifiable. Do I simply do this by saying that a specific author says?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex72 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences in locations between those visited by [heterosexual] male and female sex tourists[edit]

All of this information needs references to reliable sources, and any explanation of the differences would need to avoid original research, but I may as well ask people here what they think the reasons for these discrepancies are. I'm really interested.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

An overview section[edit]

I had created an overview section, which I thought was well balanced, and which I thought would provide the start of a summary of the issues involved with sex tourism, such as that sex tourism exists because of laws and enforcement (or the lack thereof) by the destination country. I was taken by surprise when the whole effort was unceremoniously reverted. I feel this article needs more than a statement that some countries are favoured by sex tourists - unless the background and circumstances of why that is are considered. The article is much too limited in its scope. Before I waste more time, I would appreciate some feedback.Ewawer (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Overview section introduced in these changes, appears entirely speculative, and is unsourced except for one off-topic general item about Tourism. If reliable sources can be found stating these things have a specific effect on sex tourism, that might be worth including, but current news about the general economics of Tourism is beyond the scope of this article.
This statement:

Some destination countries have become [...] dependent on the revenue which tourists bring into their countries ...

might be of interest, but it is unsourced, and it is not made clear that this applies in particular to this article's topic. It is also possible that the rest of that section might have been getting at something that I couldn't extract from the vague and prolix writing style; if that was going somewhere, please let us know.
Can we agree at least that the changes introduced above to the definition of sex tourism just made it more vague? / edg 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll think about the overview section more, when I have more time. As for the definition, I think the proposed definition is better because it must be restricted to those tourists who travel for the sole or predominant purpose of sexual activity. For example, a couple on a honeymoon obviously do not qualify, nor do people out for a good time and finish up having a sexual relationship, nor presumably would it cover two tourists have casual sexual relations, etc.Ewawer (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The definition you left here would include both of the situations (honeymoons, casual affairs) you wish to exclude. Sex tourism could be more specifically characterized as tourism for enjoying another country's sex industry, but the definition you proposed removed all mention of that. / edg 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, a further comment - the reference to the sex tourists coming from wealthier countries is a bit redundant because most tourists in fact come from wealthier countries. So, what political point is being made?Ewawer (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Tourist-receiving countries are characterized as "economically underdeveloped" later in the article, and economic imbalances are emphasized in the U.N. materials quoted in this article, though the article itself does not emphasize this at all. Since some countries mentioned in this article (Netherlands being an obvious outlier) don't fit the "underdeveloped" description, the lede characterizes the tourist-sending countries instead.
This can probably be better handled, or simply omitted from the lede since the article does not cover economics in detail (other than describing it as entirely beneficial in the Adult sex tourism section). However, simply saying that wealthy countries send more tourism in general is burying the lead, since the effect of poor countries becoming sex tourism destinations is a major concern. / edg 12:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation[edit]

There ought to be additional information about the sexual orientation of sex tourists. The reason for this is that there is a fairly widespread urban legend that sex tourists are disproportionately of a homosexual orientaton. [16] ADM (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns[edit]

I have uploaded an image. This image was taken with the express purpose of being added to this article, with the full permission of the two gentlemen involved. Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that there are three people in that article, I'm afraid that there are personality issues involved. I have removed this image pending consensus that it does not represent a BLP concern. I will be raising the matter at WP:ANI for further evaluation. Until consensus is reached, it must not be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Added photo[edit]

I added a photo for the lede. I think photos add a great deal to an article. The photo I added is from the Wikipedia cmmons web site, anmd was taken by Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department. It is described by the photographer as "Prostitutes talk to potential customers on the street in Pattaya, Thailand."

The appearance of the photo suggests that the prostitutes are from Thailand, and the potential customers are foreigners.

We do not know absolutely for certain that this is specifically "sex tourism". Like many other photos on Wikipedia, this photo represents the topic well. It is shows people who have gone to Thailand obviously for the purpose of finding a prostitute. This is imagery that serves the topic of the article very well, in my opinion. Atom (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regards, Atom. My only concern was that it implied that the guys were sex tourists, which we do not know, and probably were not. But I agree with you as to the importance of including photos, and see the link of the US State Department. Nothing personal--I respect your judgment and contribution. รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Further rounds of attempts to remove this photo. It's not clear what the objection is. It's certainly possible that the men aren't sex tourists or even that the women aren't prostitutes, despite the caption. The whole thing could have been a staged photo, maybe not even taken in Thailand at all! Obviously this sort of reasoning would lead to the removal of most pictures on Wikipedia if applied. It's a good picture, well sourced, and adds to the article. TJ Black (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Good picture? Well sourced? Adds to the article? This is an encyclopedia, not a supermarket tabloid. WP photos must illustrate the subject of the article. That photo did not. รัก-ไทย (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. see Wikipedia:images. รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue is clearly expalined above. Just insisting "no" is not a valid argument, and in this case suggests a significant POV slant on your part. TJ Black (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You need to read WP guidelines. Images MUST be relevant. This image is clearly NOT. รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP guidelines. This image is directly relevant to the topic of the article. Continuing to push for it's removal will likely lead to administrative action. TJ Black (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am also of the opinion that it is potentially libelous to depict people with an implicit assertion that they are sex tourists. Even if they have been approached by prostitutes, that does not make then sex tourists (I have been approached by prostitutes myself in Thailand, and have most certainly never been a sex tourist). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this photo, and placing it on this page in no way violates any WP policy, any more than it would to say this photo depicts a baker. The opinions expressed above are complete POV. TJ Black (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really a classic example of #8 on my list of recurring issues in the editing of sex work-related articles. And while my attempts to engage in discussion over a long period of time were ignored, and a constructive edit is repeatedly reverted by a tendentious editor, I'm the one being accused of edit warring and failure to assume good faith. If you're not willing to engage in a reasonable discussion and respect Wikipedia guidelines, especially NPOV than I may have to take other steps. I really don't want to do that, but the first step is for the other editors to start engaging in reasonable discussion. TJ Black (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the objection primarily to the caption? We can fix that. TJ Black (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have it on good authority that these men are prostitute's clients, including a photo like that in this article is probably defamatory, whatever caption we give it. PatGallacher (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's being used illegally as it isn't attributed to the photographer, see the website.It's also a BLP violation as we don't have the permission of the subjects pictured in the photo. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Image BLP.3F Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please try to engage in discussion instead of just repeating the same claims. "Unless we have it on good authority that these men are prostitute's clients, including a photo like that in this article is probably defamatory"? No, absolutely not, unless we decide sex work is inherently shameful, in violation of NPOV. At any rate the faces are blurred and unrecognizable.
The photo is not the same as the one you linked to the discussion for. It is used with the photographer's permission and is attributed on the file page. Please take a look. Should the attribution be on the article page as well? I've never seen that on any photo on any article but if that's the correct format than please fix it.
There is no compelling reason to remove this photo. If you have one I'd be glad to hear it and have a reasonable discussion. So far none of the claims made have had any merit. If we are going to start removing photos based on the idea that we can't really know what's depicted, then we must ultimately remove nearly all photos. As in the baker example given above, we have no way of knowing that the man pictured is really a baker. He's just dressed like one, in a kitchen, engaged in activity that appears to be baking. For all we know, he might consider being called a baker defamatory. Should that picture then be removed? If we were to accept the argument given here, then yes. TJ Black (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion I linked to is relevant to my point that we do not have permission of the subjects in the photo. As for attribution, you should have read the source website, but that could be fixed. What can't be fixed is the lack of permission from the subjects. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have the permission of the man in the baker photo? TJ Black (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As for attribution, from the website: "The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) assigned a U.S. photographer, Kay Chernush, to take these photos in India, Thailand, Italy, and Hong Kong in 2005. They are available for use with the credit: "Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department." TJ Black (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly we can use our common sense to accept that it is a fair bit less controversial to be shown to the world as a baker than portrayed in a sex worker article. As the inclusion of this photo is already contentious and disputed, I also support keeping it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we can accept that a photo of Seaman Mark Andaya on a US Department of Defense site is there with his knowledge and is not at all comparable to the photo in question. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who are critical of inclusion of this photo. The sex workers in the photo are shown from behind and have a certain amount of anonymity, but the two would-be customers are clearly identifiable if they were to be recognized by someone in their social circle. The context of the article strongly implies they are "sex tourists". I don't think one needs to be anti-sex industry at all to see the fact that being either a sex worker or sex tourist is something that is socially stigmatized, and depending on their country of origin, might actually be illegal. Hence, splashing their faces all over the internet raises serious privacy issues. Clearly, the US State Dept doesn't feel any qualms about doing this, but we have our own editorial standards.

If this is an image that has already been widely circulated, particularly in the press, then maybe, depending on how the men were already characterized in the press articles. However, barring that, I'm against using those images here, especially if its for no greater purpose than "the article should have an image". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had another look at the photo in question, the men's faces are NOT blurred, they are easily recognisable in a fairly high quality photo. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different photo, the men's faces are completely unrecognizable smudges at any level of zoom. A quick look will confirm that.
Since I'm trying not to reinforce the systemic bias on wikipedia, and strongly support the policy on NPOV, I can't agree with biased statements like "it is a fair bit less controversial to be shown to the world as a baker than portrayed in a sex worker article" or "we can accept that a photo of Seaman Mark Andaya on a US Department of Defense site is there with his knowledge and is not at all comparable to the photo in question". But at any rate the discussion on the photo itself is occurring here, making further discussion here moot. TJ Black (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Many broken links[edit]

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting—a major source for this article—has moved its website from pulitzercenter.typepad.com to pulitzercenter.org and also renamed many of its links. One or two I could do by hand but this is a little too much for me to fix. To get all(?) the current links, go to the Pulitzer Center website and search for "sexual exploitation", or click http://pulitzercenter.org/search/apachesolr_search/sexual%20exploitation directly. There are a couple of pages of results. Thanks. --96.233.87.183 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. HairyWombat 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Nevada be marked as legal prostitution? Too specific to identify a state?[edit]

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In Nevada, a woman who attempts self-employment as an "independent escort" and accepts sex for money is still hunted as a criminal, same as the other 49 states. All that has been done is to exclude a number of specific houses of prostitution in rural counties (the list quite deliberately excludes Las Vegas) from what is otherwise a sweeping criminal prohibition. It's the sort of law only a mafioso could love, and then only if he owned one of the establishments licensed to keep operating while everything else is shut down... certainly no substitute for legalisation by a long shot. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Catching and punishing innocent people[edit]

'General "buyers" are prone to repeatedly engage in the “sex market” because they aren't being caught nor are they being punished.' And potato eaters are prone to repeatedly engage in the “potato market” because they aren't being caught nor are they being punished. Is there a reason they should get caught and/or punished? This whole article stinks like political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.78.70 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes[edit]

Hello, I am a student at Rice University and am planning to update and expand this article as part of a class project. I think this article is highly relevant and needs significant updates and expansion. I would like to first expand the general information section to include a discussion of motivations for sex tourism, as Pasi Nurminen suggested in her comment, focusing on differing policies surrounding prostitution and social norms in sending and receiving countries. I would also include more information on how sex tourism operates, and the kind of revenue it generates in destination countries. I also plan to add a "cultural attitudes" section to discuss social stigmas surrounding sexuality and prostitution, and how this motivates or influences sex tourism. I plan to expand the "oppositions" section to include a more thorough discussion of this issue's connection to human rights and capabilities. Finally, I would like to add a section for "economic and policy implications," outlining the effects of sex tourism on national economies and the resulting influence on policies. This section will also include academic research about different possible approaches to the issue of sex tourism.

I am planning to delete the sections "prostitution laws across the globe," "documentaries," and "academic studies." I will incorporate relevant information from these sections into other areas of the article. I hope this will make this article more thorough, informative, and well-organized. Please comment with any recommendations or possible other changes you think I should make. I would appreciate feedback on how best to proceed with this article. Thank you! LHall19 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

LHall19, I moved your section down, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)