Talk:Street prostitution: Difference between revisions
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
What concerns me most (I complained about this on the main 'Prostitution' article as well) is the suggestion that contributions by an actual sex worker would be considered not conducive to a neutral point of view. Can I ask - if this was an article about the construction industry, would contributions by construction workers be treated in the same way? More to the point, would contributors who are NOT construction workers be deemed more credible than those who ARE? |
What concerns me most (I complained about this on the main 'Prostitution' article as well) is the suggestion that contributions by an actual sex worker would be considered not conducive to a neutral point of view. Can I ask - if this was an article about the construction industry, would contributions by construction workers be treated in the same way? More to the point, would contributors who are NOT construction workers be deemed more credible than those who ARE? |
||
This article contains way too many stereotypes and gross generalisations. Even the parts which attempt to be neutral, such as the second part of the 'Pimps' section, still use disempowering/negative terminology. For example, it says that sex workers may prefer to 'work for someone' and 'give a cut' to their 'pimp' for protection. What this should say is that those sex workers work for THEMSELVES and EMPLOY SECURITY. We don't say that celebrities 'work for' their bodyguards and give them 'a cut' for protection, do we? |
This article contains way too many stereotypes and gross generalisations. Even the parts which attempt to be neutral, such as the second part of the 'Pimps' section, still use disempowering/negative terminology. For example, it says that sex workers may prefer to 'work for someone' and 'give a cut' to their 'pimp' for protection. What this should say is that those sex workers work for THEMSELVES and EMPLOY SECURITY. We don't say that celebrities 'work for' their bodyguards and give them 'a cut' for protection, do we? |
||
I'm sorry, but encyclopedias are supposed to present the facts and the only people who can provide genuine facts about sex work, are sex workers. We can't go discounting contributions from sex workers just because their experiences don't read like an episode of Law and Order: SVU. [[User:Ashkara sands|Ashkara sands]] 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:45, 5 June 2007
To be written:
- the dangers of being a streetwalker
- drug addiction as driver for need for cash
- privation of street prostitutes' lives as driver for addiction
- crack and heroin as particular problems
- pimps and panderers
- initatives to make life safer for street prostitutes
- initatives to help street prostitutes leave prostitution
- community problems created by street prostitution
- law enforcement initatives
- entrapment of street prostitutes and johns
Fake prostitution:
- the badger game and other scams
Mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was a prostitute?
"Mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, recognizing the dire situation faced by street prostitutes after a lifetime spent serving the sexual needs of men, announced in June 2005 the establishment of the Xochiquetzal Home for elderly prostitutes"
Wait, did I read that right?
Neutrality?
There's a note on the article page that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page." So where's the dispute? This article could certantly be more neutral, not to mention better organized, but I don't see any disputes on this talk page. A better tag would be {{cleanup}}
- I don't see any neutrality dispute, so I changed it to {{accuracy}}. Mostly due to the following line:
- Some countries have tolerance for street prostitution, although only in restricted areas. Some known examples are Holland, Thailand, the Philipines, Mexico and Brazil. In most of these countries were street prostitution is regulated, the girls get medical check ups every month, and follow safe sex procedures.
- It seems like this sentence might be considered to lack a NPOV:
- "Contrary to what is presented in movies (such as Pretty Woman), street prostitutes are sometimes the least attractive of all types of prostitutes."
- It would be neutral to say that street prostitutes are often considered to be the least attractive (I'll assume that's true; I do not know). However, I'm going to vote that {{accuracy}} does seem like the deserved tag, for the article does seem very questionable and inconsistent. -Wild Bill 01:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This sentence stood out for me also. It strikes me as unverifiable, and based on subjective views of beauty. Cnwb 10:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the Philippines and prostitution, though it exists, is not at all legal. I don't know where this article got that from. Perhaps that paragraph/section should be checked for accuracy or removed. TheCoffee 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand too, but in practice it is tolerated. Does the same happen in the Philippines? WhisperToMe 06:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Prostitution is technically illegal in Mexico too, but in practice it is tolerated.
IMO, This article is really POV... Like the drug addicts and stuff... Tons of generalisations. Someone clean this up. I'm putting the NPOV tag back on it. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's not skimp on tags. I have flagged it for all three. Sjc 07:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed paragraph
I removed the following pararaph, as it wasn't good at all. Some form of it could be put back, if it were greatly improved: "In the United States, New York City is the place that immortalized the image of street prostituation in the American psyche. In New York City, mainly Times Square and its surronding areas there is a dearth of prostitues when compared to the plethora seen in past years. However, prostitues still can be found if one is an experienced john. Many prostitues still do their "strolls" in the area a few blocks away from the heart of Times Square. They are dressed less conspicously and in some instances wait to be soilicated by the men. Often times the prostitues will give subtle signs about their profession such as winking at a potential client. One time hot bed areas for prostitution like 29th street and 11th Ave and the even more notorious 44th street and 8th ave do not have the overabundance of prostuites they once had. Finding a street walker used to be a "sure thing" in the Times Square area and while to some extent it still is, it is now hit or miss. Today the prime hours to look for street walkers in the Times Square area are between 12:30- 3:30. Outside of this area of Manhattan street walkers are present but are not nearly as prevalent. Prostiutes can be found in the Meat Packing district (which is pushing to be more "upscale" and "posh" thus causing a decilne in street walkers similar to that found in Times Sqaure) Hells Kitchen (which is a stones throw away from Times Square), the streets around central park on the lower west side (this location is very tenuous) and outside of cheap and less reputable hotels in midtown." --Xyzzyplugh 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I think the paragraph actually originally lamented the lack of prostitutes with words like "sadly" and so on. Might have been original research there :-) Something about how NYC did "immortalize the image of street prostituation in the American psyche" might be good to mention if sourced, movies like Taxi Driver and others I'm sure did shape the image of the street prostitute greatly. --W.marsh 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
this page
okay, by this comment I do not mean to offend any editors who may have worked on this page. I am also certainly not implying that the editors of this page are prostitutes, but after reading this article it seemed to me that the article was written by a prostitute. I'm sure this wasn't the case, but it talks about all the freedoms prositutes have and that it's only the pimps who exploit the prostitutes, and seems very very sympathetic to the prostitutes cause. Hence why it feels like it was written by a prostitute, I think perhaps a more balanced approach of liberal and coservative viewpoints should be used. TotallyTempo 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, check out this earlier version openly bemoaning the decline of prostitution in NYC [1]. As for bigger efforts to fix it, I dunno, it's tough. If you think about it, pretty much everyone who comments or writes about this does so from a pretty strong POV (either law enforcement/religious or pro-prostitution). It would be nice if Wikipedia could be neutral like we're supposed to be, you're right. If you can suggest any relatively neutral sources, or add them to a "further reading" section, that would be a good place to start. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --W.marsh 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you, as a sex worker, this article certainly doesn't come across as 'sympathetic to the prostitute's cause'. Most of it appears to be based on all the standard myths and misconceptions I would expect to find in an article about street-based sex work - plus a few new ones, actually! The most unattractive? The lowest paid? Brothel girls ending up on the street after being disfigured by customers????
What concerns me most (I complained about this on the main 'Prostitution' article as well) is the suggestion that contributions by an actual sex worker would be considered not conducive to a neutral point of view. Can I ask - if this was an article about the construction industry, would contributions by construction workers be treated in the same way? More to the point, would contributors who are NOT construction workers be deemed more credible than those who ARE?
This article contains way too many stereotypes and gross generalisations. Even the parts which attempt to be neutral, such as the second part of the 'Pimps' section, still use disempowering/negative terminology. For example, it says that sex workers may prefer to 'work for someone' and 'give a cut' to their 'pimp' for protection. What this should say is that those sex workers work for THEMSELVES and EMPLOY SECURITY. We don't say that celebrities 'work for' their bodyguards and give them 'a cut' for protection, do we?
I'm sorry, but encyclopedias are supposed to present the facts and the only people who can provide genuine facts about sex work, are sex workers. We can't go discounting contributions from sex workers just because their experiences don't read like an episode of Law and Order: SVU. Ashkara sands 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)