Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 637: Line 637:
:{{ESp|d}}: added a new subsection to the "Exploitation in prostitution" section. — [[User:Bility|Bility]] ([[User talk:Bility|talk]]) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:{{ESp|d}}: added a new subsection to the "Exploitation in prostitution" section. — [[User:Bility|Bility]] ([[User talk:Bility|talk]]) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:Weltoners|Weltoners]] ([[User talk:Weltoners|talk]]) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:Weltoners|Weltoners]] ([[User talk:Weltoners|talk]]) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The paragraphe was not added, as requested, as part of street prostitution but under Exploitation in prostitution. This is a biased choice. While survival sex is certainly not exempt from exploitation, the main article on survival sex do not present survival sex as a form of exploitation. Survival sex is a type of prostitution, very close to street prostitution, not a form of exploitation in itself, unless you have the POV that prostitution is exploitation. [[User:Gustave55555|Gustave]] ([[User talk:Gustave55555|talk]]) 15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The paragraphe was not added, as requested, as part of street prostitution but under Exploitation in prostitution. This is a biased choice. While survival sex is certainly not exempt from exploitation, the main article on survival sex does not present survival sex as a form of exploitation. Survival sex is a type of prostitution, very close to street prostitution, not a form of exploitation in itself, unless you have the POV that prostitution is exploitation. [[User:Gustave55555|Gustave]] ([[User talk:Gustave55555|talk]]) 15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:13, 22 February 2012

Former featured articleProstitution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
April 10, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Definition error

"Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment." ... that's incomplete, it's the offering of sexual services for money, social or professional advantages. Is a woman/man having sex with her/his boss/professor/etc. in order to be promoted professionally, to get a raise, to pass an exam, etc. , not prostitution?

I think the better definition is : the offering of sexual services for obtaining a certain advantage, whether social, financial or professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.167.247 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, it isn't. I believe the existing definition was correct. The way that prostitution is defined in most dictionaries, in law, and in the vernacular of the public is when money is exchanged for sexual acts, not when sex is used in order to gain advantages or even material things. A person who, for example, has sex with their spouse in order to get them to take out the garbage is not a prostitute, nor is someone who has sex with a movie director in the hopes that they will get a bigger role in their next film. I agree somewhat with the poster's assumed sentiment, in that perhaps we shouldn't think of these things as being wildly different, but that does not change the definition of the word "prostitution" in this article. MsBatfish (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)MsBatfish[reply]

Reply 2: The existing definition must be correct. The definition of a prostitute is a person that receive money in exchange for sexual services. If one want to expand the definition of the word "prostitution" to any service or interaction that involve sex for different motivations; anyone can be accused for prostitution. Anyone that has sex with another person can claim to have different motivations to have sex with that person, and in that sense can be defined as a prostitute. This can not be correct, I think, and can not be the case. A person who have sex with a person in order to get a jacket, a bill paid, to get a car as a present, and so on, can not be presented as a prostitute. The only case a prostitute can be defined, is when money is exchanged: before, during or after the sexual act. Otherwise, if the above is not correct, we might all be prostitutes. We all might have sex with other people for different reasons and motivations. The definition of a prostitute should be standing: "Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helgeopedal (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 3: I strongly agree with the statement. Prostitution is NOT carried out just for money, and to assume so is extremely blinkered. Whether or not it's the 'oldest' profession, it certainly predates currency in most parts of the world. Proverbs 6:26 - "The price of a whore is a loaf of bread, but the adulteress is hunting for a precious life." Whether this means an actual loaf of bread or the price of a loaf of bed, it is hard to imagine that, in the Levant at that time, a physical loaf of bread wouldn't be considered fair trade. In Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose (a fairly scholarly study of 14th century monastic life) a monk buys the attentions of a starving peasant girl with an ox heart. In many cities drugs are readily exchanged for sex. Crack whores, by definition, have sex for crack. To someone for whom drugs are the primary motivation for prostitution will care little whether they are paid in money for drugs or the drugs themselves. Exchangable standard currency is a relatively recent thing; and even in the 18th century most people in rural England wouldn't know a pound from a guinea, or the actual value of either. In England, where the king's poet laureate was paid with hogsheads of mead, it seems ridiculous to think that prostitutes were not similarly paid in kind. There are many parts of the world today where money is irrelevant to the transaction. In Cuba and East Africa prostitution is just as readily engaged in in return for clothes or sanitary supplies. In Cuba their clients are tourists who must use US dollars and they are sometimes limited (subject to the state's economic experimentation) to the exchangeable or standard peso. In Southern African truck stops prostitutes prefer to trade sex for canned goods. Prostitution occurs in many places, like Zimbabwe, where the local currency has collapsed and so has no dependable value, and where they have no access to currency exchange. Consumer goods keep their value until eaten or used. Turning this into a conversation about whether getting your spouse to do odd jobs is prostitution misses the point: limiting the definition of this transaction to 'money' ignores prostitution as it happened in thousands of years of human civilisation, and as it occurs in much of the world today. Money presupposes a reliable economy. Prostitution, when carried out in places of dire economic need, occurs where (sometimes because) the economy has been ruined. [Ruraltubeways]

Prostitution in Canada

The world map says that prostitution in Canada is legal : that is not true. The Court of Appeal for Ontario decided that it was inconstitutional to criminalize prostitution in Canada, but the governments of Canada and Ontario decided to ask the Court to suspend the jugdment temporarily. The governments could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groshuard (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: In Canada it is kind of a grey area actually, as prostitution itself is not illegal, but many of the activities associated with it are/were. MsBatfish (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)MsBatfish[reply]

Not only is prostitution legal in Canada, but I think it has never been illegal in it's history. It is not the Court of Appeal of Ontario that ruled unconstitutional the articles of the criminal code making brothels, living of the avails and solicitation criminal acts, but the Superior Court of Ontario. The Appeal Court of Ontario is presently revising the first instance decision. Nobody in Canada has any doubts that the Appeal Court decision will get to the Supreme Court of Canada, whatever the decision. Gustave (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

The following are all external links that may be useful for referencing the article. They have been removed from the article per policy. In essense a link is fine if it covers information not in the article if the article were written at a feature article status. The links below would not pass that level but many would be great sources for the article. Banjeboi 11:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Note: the aforementioned list of links now start below the next post, the question someone posted "Reason why some might..." MsBatfish (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why some might argue to keep prostitution criminalised/on the black market?

I am currently doing a college project about the ethics of prostitution. In short, My lecturer is adamant that the main reason for which some people want prostitution a crime is that members of the older generation were brought up very differently and wouldnt take things like safety, taxes, fueling crime, endangering prostitutes and making people criminals into consideration as they prefere to be formal/traditional. (how could one cite this? I currently cannot edit this page)

And that younger generations commonly dissaprove of prostitution, but do however see very little benefit in making it illegal. Which probably makes sense in terms of taxes, public order and safety and harm reduction. But of course the main benefit would lie in not having to put people in prison or paying to have them prosecuted etc. so that police time and effort can be spent more appropriately.

PS; any other tips/info on anything ive missed would be usefull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.229.218 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

                • Reminder: This is not a forum for general discussion on the topic of prostitution. Nor is it a place to ask for leads or tips regarding your college assignments. Thank you. -taj

Organizations

News articles

Academic papers

Other

POV Forks

I wanted to draw attention to several articles that have been broken out of this one and have had subsequent additions that raise serious WP:NPOV problems. These articles are essentially POV forks. The articles in question are Feminist views on prostitution, Prostitution (criminology), and Legality of prostitution (specifically, the "Debate_over_legalization" section). These forks are quite blatantly one-sided, presenting an anti-prostitution/"prostitution abolitionist" position as basically the sole political and academic view on the subject. These articles are now severely unbalanced and in violation of WP:NPOV.

The thing is, some of these subjects are large enough topics to break out into their own articles. However, it seems that in practice, the purpose of breaking these sections out into independent articles was to create editorializing articles away from watchful eyes in the original article.

I am requesting more eyes on these articles and help in reintegrating these related articles (note: I don't mean merging them back) back into simple content breakouts rather than overlapping or POV forks. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what exactly is POV in the article prostitution (criminology)? An article which, by the way, I did not create, and didn't much contribute to?
What exactly is POV? The fact that there is an academical consensus that there can be no real consent to prostitution? (A fact which is perfectly sourced and was in the article before I made any change to it?) Consent to prostitution sex is nearly impossible, according to the vast majority of the researchers (the only people who claim otherwise are sex-worker activists), in the sense that when the prostitute tells the client "let's have sex" she doesn't say it because she wants to have sex with him, because she feels like having sex with him (this is what is understood by consent in this context), but because she is coerced by the circumstances (poverty/lack of education/lack of opportunity/drugs/a history of child (sexual) abuse/history of mental illness/pimps/abusive boyfriends/human trafficking etc)--most prostitutes don't do this job for pleasure, most prostitutes would never agree to have sex with these men if they weren't forced by the circumstances; the women did "choose" to become prostitutes, but the choice was between this and other unpleasant circumstances. This a simple fact, which was in the article before i made any change to it. Researchers who argue otherwise represent a small minority, as pointed out in the source.
"In the academic literature on prostitution, there are very few authors who argue that valid consent to prostitution is possible. Most suggest that consent to prostitution is impossible or at least unlikely"--can you please explain why you taged this??
Do you find the statement that there are negative psychological long term effects associated with prostitution POV?? Please do some research.
Of course, you can argue that prostitution should be regarded as work and compare it to McDonald's and say "well, people who work at McDonald's didn't trully consent to it either, they were also forced by poverty" or you can argue that there are also other jobs which lead to negative psychological effects, but what does this have to do with the fact that most researchers point out that true consent to prostitution is nearly impossible and that there are serious psychological effects associated with prostitution??
123username (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a word – nonsense. There is no academic consensus of the kind you describe, but rather a very large academic and political debate around the issue of prostitution, consent, and law. To present the point of view that prostitution is inherently non-consensual and harmful, either as the opinion of a "vast majority", based on one quote from an academic that happens to be on the anti-prostitution side is the worst kind of POV pushing.
As to what POV issues are in Prostitution (criminology), the fact that it blatantly editorializes toward a "prostitution abolitionist" point of view and gives absolutely no other views on the topic is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, there is an academic consensus, and by the way, Barbara Sullivan, who wrote this, is not on the "anti-prostitution side". `123username (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think "Oh yes there is" is an adequate response to this question. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the view that prostitution is inherently non-consensual is anywhere close to "an overwhelming majority" in academia. I can bring up citations of numerous academics who would say otherwise. Quite simply, you have no justification for slanting prostitution articles in this way – its POV pushing and it needs to stop. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since I think its pretty obvious that we're just going to go around and around in this dispute, I'm creating a request for discussion in a new section. Some third-party intervention would be very helpful here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I know my response is a bit belated, but since other people might be reading this I figured I would put my 2 cents in :-) I agree with Iamcuriousblue here. Stating that there is an academic consensus on the issue of prostitution is totally false & saying "oh yes there is" is not a strong argument to convince anyone that that is true. Anyone who takes the time to do even a little research will find that this is the case; there are many differing opinions among academics, feminists and even prostitutes themselves - there is not even a general consensus, let alone a complete consensus. I will keep my personal opinions to myself here because I don't believe this is an appropriate forum to soap-box about one's opinions on the "morality" of prostitution or what should be done regarding changing laws etc. As to the original subject, I agree that "POV" articles - one-sided biased viewpoints - do not belong on Wikipedia. MsBatfish (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Views on prostitution and content forking

There is a significant disagreement over 1) whether there is a consensus among academics and among feminists that prostitution is inherently non-consensual, and 2) how this affects the balance of views given on articles about prostitution and its legal status. This discussion affects not only the Prostitution article but several articles that have been broken away from it, Feminist views on prostitution, Prostitution (criminology), and Legality of prostitution, all of which are the subject of POV disputes at present. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the discussion has already started in the above section, but should be continued here.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( Really Long Comment Alert! )
This is in response to a Request for Comment initiated on 30 August 2009 (UTC) by user Iamcuriousblue.
I certainly didn't intend to spend so long reviewing the sprawling history that led up to this request, nor in reviewing the edit histories of those involved, but I've now spent well over three hours doing so. It's so acrimonious that it forms a kind of lurid spectacle that draws one in, almost involuntarily.
At this point my inclination is to not comment at all, since I have reason to doubt whether any party will allow himself to be influenced by the core opinion I have to offer, and because the length of my response will probably reflect the amount of time I've spent considering this matter.
But since opinions were asked for, and since I have become pretty familiar with the articles and edits involved, I feel some obligation to the process here to offer mine. I offer them with a disclosure and a caveat: The disclosure is that I feel some measure of distaste at most of the actions that have been undertaken on either side of this conflict. The caveat is that although I've done my best to understand and follow the edits this comprises, it's entirely possible that I've missed some critical ones and that my view of the matter might be incorrect for that reason. It would take days, rather than hours, to review this anything like comprehensively.
That brings up an important point. The process of following edit history in this has been made much more complicated than it needs to be, in several ways: (1) splitting an edit session up into minuscule changes; people are sometimes hitting "Save" twice every minute, and 40 times or more in a brief editing session; (2) Neglecting to provide edit summaries; (3) Reverting or moving large amounts of text without explanation or talk_page consensus. (4) Editing extensively without logging into an account. Parties from both sides involved in this have engaged in the first three of these behaviors.
That said, it's my impression that Iamcuriousblue is correct in his assertion that the recent forks made from the original Prostitution article resulted in articles that carried or still carry an inherent bias. As he remarks somewhere, the titles of some of the forks are certainly of sufficient interest to merit their own articles, but the articles that resulted were very regrettable with respect to point-of-view bias. The current state of the Prostitution_(criminology) article illustrates this very clearly, for example, and a similarly unfortunate bias is evident in other forks as well.
But no one really has any stones to throw, here. Iamcuriousblue, I accept that you feel exasperated, and that you might plausibly offer some variant of "he started it!" to justify that feeling, but it's my opinion that wholesale deletions, without talk_page discussion, like this one to the Sex_worker article aren't helpful, and that this one to Feminist views on prostitution, for which you provide the edit summary, "OH BULLSHIT!" just fans the flames of an already acrimonious conflict.
Nor, I must say, does it exactly shout "NPOV" to me, when your user name coincides with that of a prominent pornographic film. Would you have responded with an automatic assumption of good will and NPOV, I wonder, if one of your opposing editors had a user name of, say, "Moralmajor"? Would you not make a negative inference about what might cause a person to self-identify in so provoctive a way? This consideration is mere opinion, of course, but it's one of the first things that occurred to me when I saw your user name along with your Rfc, and I doubt others are so very different in that respect.
Iamcurious, I'd suggest that it might be time to try undertake a fresh look at your opponents' motives, to see what you might be able to respect in them rather than focusing upon the bias in their edits. They see the devastation that so many prostitutes incur, and rightly abhor that. They abhor it to such an extent that they allow a consistent bias into their contributions.
I wonder whether that might seem less provoking to you if, for example, you were to spend a few years following an eleven or twelve or sixteen year old girl through her experience of life as a third-world prostitute in a situation where she had been subjected to even mild coercion in the matter, and where she is expected to have intercourse in utterly squalid conditions with ten or twenty strangers a day, six or seven days a week? Please take a few moments and really try to imagine that.
No; please take ten seconds and try to imagine what that would mean....
Can you expect that you'd be unmoved in such a case, that you'd feel no desire to rescue and protect a girl in that circumstance by whatever means you could? And do you imagine that your view of prostitution in general, and the arguments you make about it, might not be skewed by such an experience?
I'm not saying it'd be right to skew them in such a way, e.g. by reasoning from the worst-case, most emotionally-charged particular to the general, and so championing the premise that no act of prostitution could ever be truly consensual. I'm asking you to consider that it would be understandable in such a case, and am proposing that admitting that would beneficially and appropriately allow you to dial back the anger that you've brought to this conflict. I'm asking you to consider that such an understanding might allow you to appropriately reinstate one of Wikipedia's most important principals in your cranium, viz. "Assume good faith."
It also occurs to me that the benefit of trying to dispassionately examine one's own motives in an angry conflict can hardly be overestimated. "Why am I so energized by this particular issue; why this one, out of all the possible injustices that I could get angry about?" My own experience in assaying that extremely difficult task hasn't been encouraging: I've usually failed at it by redirecting my attention back to the other's faults. When I have succeeded, however, the answer has often been the unwelcome realization that I've had some unacknowledged vested interest. It has often been the case with me that it would, for example, injure my self-esteem in some way to concede any truth in my opponent's view of the matter, and that I've been arguing so strenuously, at least in part to convince myself. Your mileage may vary, but my own experience has been that the idea is worth trying to examine dispassionately after tempers have had time to calm down.
Those who've been opposed to Iamcurious' edits could, I believe, benefit at least as much by undertaking a corresponding reflective process.
I'll summarize this (for me) very disagreeable business by suggesting to all parties that when edit conflicts become this aggressive it would be more appropriate to go work on an unrelated article that needs attention, and leave the conflict alone until you can re-approach it without letting it push your buttons, or to leave it alone permanently if you can't do that. If the article really is as biased as you believe it to be when you leave it, some other editor with less emotional investment in the process will certainly step in and correct that with the support of community consensus developed without resorting to extraordinary means.
If that isn't clear enough, let me make it more so. I referred at the outset to "the core opinion I have to offer" in this conflict. That opinion is that we need community consensus on Wikipedia, and the assumption of good faith that makes it possible, far more than we need champions on any particular issue. All that champions achieve in the long run is the waste of everyone's time.
That's all I'm going to say about this. Ohiostandard (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the name of the erotic movie (not porn, BTW) I Am Curious (Blue) is high provocation? One would have to have a rare hatred of any and all erotic material to find that name in itself so provocative. I suggest that an equivalent name for somebody on the other side wouldn't be "Moralmajor", but something like "LionWitchWardrobe", which might in fact suggest a certain cultural/ideological orientation, but is not in ones face, either. That's all I have to say about this, and I don't think such nonsense about my username merits further conversation.
As for assuming good faith, I guess I define it differently than you. To me, it means, barring emphasis to the contrary, that others are editing to improve Wikipedia, and if they're not working within Wikipedia's policies, then its because they don't understand those policies and need a gentle reminder. I think its a different case when somebody is clearly violating such policies and has had this pointed out – I don't think assuming that they're working from noble motivations is much better than assuming they're working from malign ones. Motivation is irrelevant – Wikipedia is a community with rules and guidelines, and those should be adhered to in editing articles. And, yes, I think this applies to me as much as anybody else, and I do make an effort to edit toward NPOV and "write for the enemy". I only ask that others do likewise.
As for my edit summary of "OH BULLSHIT", mea culpa. It was a response to what I saw as a deliberately provocative edit – the other user knew, or should have known, that a key reason for the dispute was still in play and not unanimously untagged the article. If it were to happen again, I would definitely revert it, but would not use the same language, or perhaps just revert without saying anything. As for the edits to "sex work", I actually was trying to improve that article and it happened to have a hell of a lot of off-topic material in there. Its not like the material is lost, and it can be placed in a more appropriate article. Still not quite sure which article that is, especially given the mad content forking that's been taking place here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This description of "abolitionism" and "neo-abolitionism" is unreferenced and inaccurate. The established legal situation in France, UK, Canada, etc, is not "abolitionist" and I don't think its ever been described as such. "Neo-abolitionism", a term I haven't heard before, is what's generally referred to as "abolitionism", with the additional definition that prostitution is defined as inherently a form of slavery, which is why it uses a term borrowed (or, critics would say, appropriated) from anti-slavery. I'm unclear what the accepted term is for what is being referred to here as "abolitionism".

Generally, this section is roughly accurate on the 5 legal systems that, with some variation, different countries have adopted in regards to prostitution. "Regulation" is often referred to as "legalization" – if anything, that's the more common term. I think that the New Zealand system is simply a variation on legalization rather than decriminalization, but I'll have to look up in various references how this is treated. "Decriminalization" might be said to more accurately describe the situation in Spain, which has no laws on prostitution one way or the other.

example: Katie L

Some fact-checking from strong, verifiable sources is called for here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind – I see that there's some clear literature on this, notably Jyrkinen, M. (2005). The Organization of Policy meets Commercialization of Sex. The terminology still represents a relatively recent usage (ie, last five years) and it may not be in wide use, so giving alternate terminology may be called for. I'll add the citation later if nobody else does. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cause: forced to need money

Could you please use this to show what causes prostitution, why we're still forced to need money? From "When Corporations Rule the World": "One of the major challenges faced by colonial administrators was to force those who obtained their livelihoods from their own lands and common areas to give their lands and labor to plantation development, that is, to make them dependent on a money economy so that their resources, labor, and consumption might yield PROFITS to the colonizers..... "In many colonized countries, the imposition of TAXES payable only in cash was used to force people into the cash economy.....Taxes were imposed on whatever villagers would find it most difficult to do without. In Vietnam, the French imposed taxes on salt, opium, and alcohol. The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, and households. In their West African colonies, the French punished tax evasion by holding wives and children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, and leaving people tied up without food for several days....." Stars4change (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That info about forced to need money is the most important info in the history of the world. A Guaranteed Income &/or Socialism (all people own ALL things) will eliminate money. Stars4change (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "causes" of prostitution are many, varied, and the subject of a great deal of sociological study and political debate. So, no, I don't think this article should "use this". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly about is prostitution? Who are the prostitutes?

Prostitution not means only exchange sex for money, but also all the forms which included a recompense- money or products for sexual acts(which is not the same thing with every sexual activity such is masturbation for example).So, porno movies included sexual activities, precisely sex acts, and for this,pornographic actors can be considered, and they must be considered prostitutes.Is not the same kind of ordinary prostitution, but is a very real form of prostitution anyway.I can`t imagine a different right explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.100.249 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

outreach

In the politics section there needs to be more on the Sex Workers Outreach Project and Hookers, Escorts, and Masseurs Association SWOP & HEMA and other NGOs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.132.8 (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Woman

(Note: cross-posting to Talk:Babalon, Talk:Whore of Babylon, Talk:Prostitution)

At present the term "Scarlet woman" has three possible articles:

Scarlet woman is a redirect to Prostitution
Scarlet Woman is a redirect to Whore of Babylon
Babalon opens with Babalon — also known as The Scarlet Woman...

I would propose that both Scarlet woman and Scarlet woman be directed to a page giving links to each of the above articles. If there is no objection I will create the disambiguation page and change the redirects accordingly - does 48 hours seem like a reasonable interval? ElijahOmega (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence

The occurrence section needs to be seriously overhauled -- stating prevalence in Colorado (even if typical of the US) and Amsterdam (which is typical of what, exactly?) does not lead the reader to a more comprehensive understanding of the occurrence of prostitution. The occurrence section should talk about the rates of prostitution globally, illustrating this with case studies which could include Colarado/US and Amsterdam-London (Europe), however these studies should also include prostitution rates in specific areas of S America, Asia and Africa in order that the best overview of the topic can be obtained. Additionally, the global number of people estimated to be engaged in prostitution should be in a prominent location in the article's summary. With thanks, User:DJCF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.254.95 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advertising

"In countries where prostitution is legal, advertising it may be legal (as in the Netherlands) or illegal (as in Germany)." This is not correct. Advertising prostitution in germany is legal. Just take a look at the german daily tabloid newspapers (Bild, Express, Abendzeitung) and you will see a lot of advertising for it. Please correct it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.46.168.109 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation needed for both claims as I don't live in Germany so can't check for myself :p. Are you sure they are explicitly talking about prostitution? Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did. some newspapers have extra pages for such ads (some day (wednesday or friday/saturday) they are about over 50% of the newspaper *lol*). And the announces are not cheap, its normal that a prostitute pays upto four figured sums per year for newspaper ads. If you want I can scan such a page;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.173.97 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The fact that advertising that is assumed to be or appears to be for prostitution occurs somewhere does not mean that advertising prostitution (or some/all activities associated with prostitution) are legal in that place. There are many places where communicating for the purpose of prostitution is illegal where prostitutes do advertise in newspapers/magazines. For example, many prostitutes advertise in ways that do not explicitly offer sex for money. MsBatfish (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The German Supreme Court decided in 2003 that advertising prostitution cannot generally be considered illegal, unless it is too explicit to be considered "acceptable by an average citizen". Photos showing sexual acts, price lists for individual services or advertising in places primarily frequented by minors are examples for inappropriate advertising. The subway station near my house has had a huge ad for a big chain of brothels for at least a year now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.230.143 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to previous version

I reverted these edits that replaced citations with original research.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth Century Prostitution

I'm taking a class about the history of crime in the US. Wikipedia is presently very light on 18th century prostitution, but there's a very good book about the subject: Clare Lyon's "Sex Among the Rabble." You can read sections of the book at http://books.google.com/books?id=aLeWfe-oamcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false. There are also decent academic reviews about the subject--I'll see if I can find any that are open-sourced, as well as other reliable sources for this information. I'm not asking others to write a section--I'll work on it myself when I have time. But I started this thread to see if other editors want to work on it, and to share sources.69.94.192.147 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIV and prostitution

Hi, I am a student taking a class on HIV, so I am not the most knowledgeable person writing here. This article suggests that prostitution has a very prominent role to play in the spread of HIV, and while it certainly is a factor, credible scientists and anthropologists have shown that it may not be the largest factor. The book The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight against AIDS, written in 2007 by Helen Epstein, states that Roy Anderson's "sexual mixing" theory, which argues that prostitution is mostly spread from prostitutes to truck drivers and migrant workers and then to the workers' communities, is no longer thought to be the major cause of the spread of HIV in most places. Prevention programs aimed at prostitutes and their clients had little effect. Moreover, Thailand's national HIV infection rate never exceeded 2 percent in the early 1990s, which doesn't make sense considering the number of prostitutes and their clients. Africa, with a much lower prostitution rate, had much higher rates of HIV. The book says that HIV is spread much faster in communities in which having a couple or a few concurrent relationships than in communities with a thriving sex trade. People who see prostitutes are not likely to do so often, and use condoms because of the high risk rate. Because HIV infection is a random process, the infection rate is low among clients who are not repeat customers. But in communities where people have concurrent relationships, there is a much higher level of trust and condoms are not often used. Because partners are having sexual intercourse many times, the likelihood of infection increases dramatically. This provides a breeding ground for HIV.

I think this article implies that prostitution is by far the most predominant, if not the only, cause of the spread of HIV. The concurrent relationship theory should be mentioned in addition to the sexual mixing theory. Laura Alexander2 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Laura Alexander, March 6, 2010[reply]

I agree with some of the statements made above. The section on HIV and prostitution has extreme bias and is misleading. It addresses only prostitution in under-developed countries and does not discuss developed countries. Prostitution can be a vector for disease transmission, there's no doubt about it (as we see in Africa). However, injection drug use and concurrent relationships are the major method of transmission of HIV to sex-workers in many developed countries. Condom use by sex-workers is extremely high in the developed world and greatly reduces the risk of HIV transmission.... although I would not recommend enjoying the company of prostitutes.... I can direct towards some papers/references when I have more time. NN January 12, 2011

violent prostitutes

I've heard a lot about pimps or johns being dangerously violent towards these girls, but have there been any cases where prostitutes were violent against one another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.128.166 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am not sure what this has to do with the article? Are you just asking out of curiosity or are you implying that you think this is something that should be covered in the article on prostitution? MsBatfish (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and temporary marriage

Prophet Mohammed had banned temporary marriage, some of what written in this article is based on no fact. The temporary marriage as explained in the article is unaccepted in Islam.Bombastic4ever (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. What is written in the first line in the article at section 2.5 i.e. 'Asia' is wrong. That line needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.70.4 (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, you can't be writing such stuff here without any proof. The reference provided is a book written by some person (anyone can write a book without knowing the facts). Also even that book doesn't contain what has been mentioned in the first line. Please remove the erroneous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.244.76 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first line under the heading of Asia is nonsense.It is not fact,and is insulting towards the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's peace and blessing be upon him).Concerning the temporary marriage I will quote from "Mut'ah: The sunni and shi'ah perspectives on marriage" by Dr.Ahmed Abdullah Salamah,Abdul_qasim Publishing House,1995.Pages 2-4©ABDUL-QASIM PUBLISHING HOUSE,1995 ing Fahd national Library Catalogin-Publication Data Salamah,Ahmad Abdullah Mut'ah-the sunni and shiah perspectives on marriage 32p 13.5x21 cm ISBN:9960-792-53-6 1.Muta2.Marriage (Islamic Law) I.Title 254.16 dc Legal Deposit no.1030/16 ISBN:9960-792-53-6 are quoted below;

"Sunnis acknowledge that mut'ah was a common practice during the pre-Islamic days of ignorance (jahiliyyah) in Arabia.It is stated in at-Tirmidhi's book of hadith in the chapter on marriage that when a man would go to a strange village where he had no acquaintance,he would marry a woman for as long period as he thought that he would stay so that she could take care of him and his property.This practice continued during the early days of Islam until the Qur'an revealed "...And those who abstain from sexual intercourse except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess."(Surah al Mu'minun,23:5-6)

The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam(Gibbs,H.A.R. and Kramer,J.H.,Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam,Leiden:J.R.Brill,1961.) also states that mut'ah was a common practice among Arab travelers and goes back to the fourth century A.D. "When a stranger came to a village and had no place to stay,he would marry a woman for a short time so that she would be his partner in bed and take care of his property."Caeteni also concluded that mut'ah in the pagan period was religious prostitution that took place during the occasion of hajj.(Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam,page 419)".

Thus,mut'ah was a loose sexual practice during the pre-Islamic days of ignorance in Arabia.Being an old and established institution ,it continued during the early days of Islam.The Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) also allowed it temporarily on two other occasions,but only under strict,exceptional conditions-during the conquest of Khaybar and during the conquest of Makkah-fearing that those Muslims whose faith was not yet strong might commit adultery during Jihad.Shi'ahs widely quote hadiths in relation to these events to support their continued belief in mut'ah.Sunnis accept these hadiths but add that they happened before all of the revelations of the Qur'an were revealed and the religion completed.

Historians and commentators on the Qur'an and hadith agree that Islam eradicated most social evils in a gradual way.It is well known that practices like gambling,drinking,and the eating of pork and blood were common during the early days but were gradually prohibited.Likewise it seems probable that mut'ah was first forbidden to those at Khaybar in the year 7 A.H and was then completely prohibited to all upon the conquest of Makkah in 8 A.H

several traditions of the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) regarding mut'ah are well documented in books of hadith,such as the following: 'Ali reported:"On the day of the conquest o Khaybar the Prophet(may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) forbade mut'ah and [eating] the flesh of a donkey."(narrated in Muslim) 'Sabrah bin Ma'bad al-Jihani reported: "I went forth with the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) for the conquest of Makkah,and he (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) allowed us mut'ah with women.But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him)."(narrated in Muslim)

According to al-Bayhaqi,Ja'far as-Sadiq,the sixth Shi'ah imam,regarded mut'ah as fornication(Fath ul-Bari,p.173).And Ali is reported by ad-Darqutni to have said that mut'ah was abrogated when the Qur'anic verses about marriage,divorce,iddah(Mandatory period of waiting before a widowed or divorced woman can remarry.),and inheritance was revealed(Muslehuddin,M.,Muta,Lahore,Pakistan:Islamic publication Ltd.,1974,page 11).Additionaally,there are four hadiths quoted in Shaeeh al-Bukhari under the title "The Prophet Finally Forbade Mut'ah."Three of these relate to the incidents of mut'ah during the early period of Islam.IOn the fourth hadith Ali said to Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) forbade mut'ah and the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar.And in Saheeh Muslim a group of traditions which go back to Sabrah bin Ma'bad substantiate the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) permitted mut'ah in the year of the conquest of Makkah.Sabrah went with a companion to a woman,and each offered her a cloak in exchange for mut'ah.She chose the younger person with a shabbier cloak (i.e Sabrah) and slept with him for three nights.Thereafter,the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) forbade it forever."Textcorrectorsir (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)textcorrectorsir[1][reply]

Edit request

My name is Laura Agustín PhD, my book on prostitution is Sex at the Margins, Zed Books 2007, my website is Border Thinking www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin . I have published extensively on prostitution and trafficking, am considered an international authority and have no intention of bashing any page on these subjects. There are links and ideas that I believe would enhance some pages; I was just going to start by adding a link to my work on the cultural study of commercial sex, or just my website. Time passes, there's more knowledge, etc. There's a wikip entry for me that isn't up to date but that's not so important. I don't want to do the work to add things if you are opposed.


Manyatlantics (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've added the link as it does look relevant to the topic. However, there is a possibily for a conflict of interest since you are requesting that your own article be added to the list, but I'm pretty sure that it would be added if it were asked by an uninvolved third party. Thanks.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 223° 6' 15" NET 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Wikina, a researcher about the sex industry. I would be willing to add a few of Agustin's references to the prostitution entry if you agree. She is a light in the darkness for a lot of young researchers. My email is [details removed]

"modern day prostitute"

I'm referring to the picture on the top of the page, with the caption "A modern day street prostitute in Tijuana, Mexico". Do we have ANY evidence that she's actually a prostitute and not just, like, a girl an editor doesn't like?Josh (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! IMHO the photo needs to be removed. USchick (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this now! At the very least it violates WP:BLP. There are 4 or more comments in the discussion on the photo file page that agree. It's actually pretty disgusting that this is there. 96.251.96.102 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.risqueescorts.co.uk/

this is an escort agency i have found to have a blog section, in the white bit at the bottom, it covers legal issues in UK surrounding escort agencies and protitution, immoral earnings etc, collated from various sources.

check it out, and add link, as it is a live link to an escort agency that talks on legal issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi gosain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Rishi Gosain 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Is anyone interested in reworking the intro copy? It's not very accurate the way it is written now. Prostitution is the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. There are other people who engage in sex acts for hire who are not prostitutes, porn models for example. As an extreme example, doctors perform various "sex acts" including sexual penetration and get paid for it, and their acts are not considered prostitution.

I suggest: A prostitute is a sex worker who works in the sex industry and provides sexual services for hire. Prostitution is known as the world's oldest profession, dating back to as long as people can remember. In most modern cultures, prostitution is either discouraged or illegal. However, the global sex industry generates over $100 billion in annual revenue.

The next section can be etymology, addressing how the word came about and its metaphor.

I recommend moving human traficking to its own section.

Feel to write your own version. USchick (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and I think you're absolutely right about the "human trafficking" mention in the intro. This is unfortunately part of a highly politicized effort to always link prostitution to human trafficking. There, of course, is a such thing as human trafficking for purposes of prostitution, but nevertheless, the two are not the same and should not be conflated. The only thing I would leave out from your suggestions is the cliched phrase "world's oldest profession". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the definition to one derived from the legal Dutch definition. It excludes sex acts for another person against payment, like in a sex show or peep show.--Patrick (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. I moved the trafficking and terminology to their appropriate sections and changed "against payment" to "in return for payment. "Against payment" sounds like a legal term that's not widely understood. USchick (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the most recent changes back to the previous intro for the following reason.What does everyone else think. Fisrt, I changed sexual intercourse to sexual services because I think intercourse is too limiting. If intercourse does not occur, does it mean prostitution did not occur? Second, the very aspect of prostitution involves money, and I think the source I put in is not "weak" as the previous edit said. I think any discussion involving prostitution should include the aspect of money and possible estimates, and the link shows an accumulation of various prostitution industries around the world Hawaiianfighter (talk)

I agree. Money is a huge part of prostitution. I say leave it the way it is. Evanmcmike (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the statement "In most modern cultures, prostitution is either discouraged or illegal" backwards? Most of the countries where prostitution is legal and regulated are western countries. I'd remove that but the page is protected. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with this line too, although I see it as an instance of Ethnocentrism to claim that Western Cultures are necessarily the "modern" ones. Anyhow: To me it is implicit POV to write "In most modern cultures, prostitution is either discouraged or illegal." (my emphasis). "Modern" generally has a positive connotation, similar to "advanced", "enlightened" or "developed" and therefore the implication is created that this is also true for prostitution being illegal or discouraged. It may well be true that prostitution is illegal in most of today's countries (how are the "cultures" in the lead defined and counted, anyway? Is every country exactly one culture? Can several countries share one culture? Can there be several cultures in one country?) but in this case we would have to write it that way ("countries", not "cultures", "today's", not "modern") and need a source for that claim (there is none even further down in the article). Also, the issue would have to be quite one-sided on a worldwide level to justify a strong claim such as this. However, Prosititution is fully legal in (amonst others) Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Turkey, Greece, Mexico, significant parts of South America, Australia and New Zealand. These examples alone stand for almost 500 Million people. Then there are quite some countries in which prostitution is legal but procuring (i.e. taking financial advantage of prostitutes) is not. It is simplistic to call this a "discouragement" of prostitution. The situation within this group of countries may differ a lot, with some indeed discouraging prositution legally and others just averting the financial exploitation of sex workers by pimps. These countries stand for about another 2 Billion people. I have therefore taken out the statement until it is reformulated in a more neutral manner and there is sufficiant sourcing for it. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Shanyman, 15 July 2010

In the paragraph titled "Other meanings" the quote, "Now he's out in Hollywood, D.B., being a prostitute. If there's one thing I hate, it's the movies. Don't even mention them to me." is followed by "D.B. is of course not literally a prostitute; Holden feels that his job writing B-movie screenplays is morally debasing."

The "of course" in this paragraph is an opinion and should not be included in a encyclopedia. Sry for being picky lol.

Shanyman (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you. sonia♫♪ 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

What do people think about the See alsos? Currently they are:

That's a pretty random collection of topics related and tangentially related to prostitution. I'm not sure what a good standard is, and I think inevitably there'll be some POV pushing on what to include or not. Any thoughts? TJ Black (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Some of them don't even seem to be related to prostitution at all!?! And there are articles that are far more significantly related to prostitution than any of these which are not linked in the "See Also". Personally I think the following should be removed, as most of them or not related to the topic at all, or if there is any link it is only a very fine thread ("tangentially related" as TJBlack said): - Köçek - Turkish bath - Bacchá - Hijra (South Asia) - Nikah mut‘ah - Top (BDSM)

In addition I don't see the need for including Recreation and Amusement Association when the main article on Comfort women is already included on the list.

Does anyone object to any of these article links being removed from "See Also"?? Ideas on which articles should be added? Thanks :-) MsBatfish (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this?

"See also:

  1. Köçek, Turkish bath, Bacchá, Hijra (South Asia), Nikah mut‘ah" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gortag (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Crime section/lack of citations

There is a short paragraph directly under the heading of "Relation to Crime" that states.

"One of the most serious problems associated with prostitution is the fact that the sex trade is surrounded by illegal, abusive and dangerous activities.[citation needed] One view insists that such situations occur because prostitution is kept illegal and the industry operates on the black market.[citation needed] "

I'm not so sure if these two sentences should even be in there. Especially since you may notice, there are NO citations for either of these ascertaitions (sp). Actually, the main issue I have is with the first sentence and the phrasing of, "....is the fact that the sex trade.... " If these things are facts, where is the research(or citation) that shows such things. At least change it to "it is believed" or something similar. But, stating something as a fact(especially in a hotly debated article such as this one), and then not at least provide a citation, isn't right imo.

The second sentence isnt as bad. But saying, "One view insists...", and then not having a citation to at least let us know who's view it is that "insists" these things, doesn't really make any sense either.

I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.248.24 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary info

Surely this paragraph is irrelevent here:

"During the late 1980s, The Newhall Signal, a weekly newspaper published in Ventura County, California, presented a series of articles about the Church Of The Most High Goddess, founded by Mary Ellen Tracy and her husband Wilbur Tracy, where sexual acts played a fundamental role in the church's sacred rites.[30] The articles aroused the attention of local law enforcement officials, and in April 1989, the Tracy's house was searched and the couple arrested on charges of pimping, pandering and prostitution. They were subsequently convicted in a trial in state court and sentenced to jail terms: Wilbur Tracy for 180 days plus a $1,000.00 fine; Mary Ellen Tracy for 90 days plus mandatory screening for STDs.[31][32]"

It definitely doesn't belong in the Legal and socio-economic status section, and it isn't important enough to be in the rest of the article either. --118.208.114.96 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Oldest Profession"

I suggest removing "the oldest profession" entirely from the intro. It probably isn't the oldest. Even if it is, you can't prove it. This term is merely slang. I removed the redirect elsewhere in wiki from "oldest profession" to "prostitution" which, in my view, leads the reader into thinking wikipedia considers it ACTUALLY the oldest profession. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckubica (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

No it's not. The oldest profession still redirects here. Vaskafdt (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "The oldest profession" is a frequently-used vernacular term for prostitution (particularly used in North America) - it doesn't necessarily imply (IMO) that prostitution has been proven to in fact be the first profession that ever existed. I think "the oldest profession" should continue to re-direct to the prostitution article. Perhaps putting a note explaining along the lines of what I just said above somewhere in the article would be helpful? There must be some information out there on how this term evolved and came into common use in the first place? MsBatfish (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

Prostitution in Iran is legal. They call it "marriage for one day". They officially merry and divorce in one day.--MathFacts (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More balance, more reliable cites

I realize we're never going to eliminate the blatant and outrageous anti-sex work bias on wikipedia, but could we try to have a semblance of balance and truthfulness? I know it's a lot to ask, but it is the underlying mission of Wikipedia. These article are all a mess, full of uncited claims and questionable refs. It's not necessary to put exaggerated "facts" about trafficking or child prostitution in every other sentence. In fact, it doesn't even belong in most articles unless directly relevant. TJ Black (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it really hard to believe that anyone would consider this, or most other sex work-related articles on wikipedia to be anything but outrageously unbalanced. As the vast majority of prostitutes are consenting adults, there is no justification mentioning human trafficiking in every other breath. It should be mentioned, in it's own brief section, with a link to the main article. And since it's hard to find reliable references, we should be carefull not to give the impression that the estimates are anything else. Estimates of sex trafficking as a percentage of all trafficking range from 10% to 80%, but the latter number is given as a fact without any qualification. And somehow the article isn't unbalanced? How is that possible?

On human trafficking in general (while this would belong in the main article, not here), numbers range from under 1 million to around 27 million. That a difference of 2 orders of magnitude. Do you really think that presenting the higher numbers without any qualification is balanced? It strains crediblity to say the least.

But there's really no point in me fighting it. Even if the editors who are pushing POV now suddenly stop, once it's sweeps weeks, there'll be a new batch who saw some "OMG Hookers!!!1!" report on the evening news that comes along to make sure all their new "facts" that they've accepted unreservedly dominate the narrative.

So I'll propose this compromise: since it's unlikely that wikipedia's policies will ever be in effect on this page, or any other sex work related page, why not explicitly mark them as such? I can make up a little template that says something like "As this is a controversial topic, Wikipedia's core polices, in particular NPOV, Verifiability, and No original research, do not apply. Attempting to add, delete, or edit material on this page in such a way as to not conform to Wikipedia's official policy on the topic will result in administrative action."

Does that seem reasonable? The POV pushers still get their playground, but serious editors are warned to not bother trying to fix it, and readers are alerted that the page is inherently biased. Win-win, right? Well, other than the abandonment of wikipedia's core principles, but if that was a problem we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. TJ Black (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some sensationalism in this article. There is definitely a need for more citations. I am not sure however that the sensationalism is due to Wikipedia itself or is simply a reflection of a negative US media picture and lack of serious US debate on the subject. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea TJBlack. I wonder if some sort of "solution" like that would be possible? Does anyone know if there anything similar to that on other articles in Wikipedia? Like is there a warning at the top of articles that are frequently drastically edited and/or that may be biased? Or another possibility is to make even tougher restrictions on who can edit this article? Like every edit has to go through some kind of approval process? Right now it looks like anyone can edit provided they have had an account for more than 4 days & have edited 10 other articles first (which anyone could easily & quickly do deliberately to get access to the semi-locked article). MsBatfish (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: I noticed some articles have the warning "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." How does one go about getting such a warning added to an article? Would this be something that people think is worth pursuing or would be helpful? MsBatfish (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The warning you are referring to, MsBatfish, is a tag. The easiest way for new editors to add tags is to find a page with the tag they want, click edit to view the source of the page, and then cut and paste the tag into the target article. The tags are usually surrounded with curly braces. With respect to tags specific to Wikipedia:NPOV, you may want to look here. Tags just go in the source of the article -- usually at the top. Always be sure to preview before saving, so that you can admire your work before sharing it with the world at large. ;-) Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whats the matter? no links to capitalism for prostitution? is this website too liberal to challenge capitalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4535t43g (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed sentence

I think the lead sentence that TJ and others are arguing about is sensationalist commentary since there is no reason to emphasize the size of the slave trade in history, it being true that the whole human population is far larger than in past periods and so that the comparison is highly misleading, and since for the same reason its absolute rate of growth is equally doubtful as important.

BUT I do not support replacing this sentence immediately because it simply reflects its section, the whole of which is a complete mess. What is really needed is for the section to be cleaned up and THEN the unneeded sentence can be replaced with another. It should not simply be removed. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes there is such a reason, and no, this is not sensationalist--unless one forgets that in the modern world such trade is not supposed to take place and that the scale of it is shocking. The reference is used to emphasize the extent of the sexual slavery trade, and surely an encyclopedic article can state such facts. Why TJ Black wants to remove it is not yet clear. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you think it's fine to mislead readers as long as the topic is seen as shocking. Sorry, but no. I'll agree that the section does need reworking before lead changes. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that at all, and you would do well not to insult others by accusing them of misleading. Don't go putting words in my mouth, though you can quote me on this: you don't know what you're talking about, and your weasel words ("is seen as"--by whom? me?) indicate that you're playing fast and loose. Read the opening sentences of the article and tell me why the UN official should have calculated and calibrated for an increased population. The article says "A United Nations official has described the trafficking of women and children across Asia as 'the largest slave trade in history.'" So you want to build in some caveat that explains that population growth has been such-and-such over the period that the UN official might be talking about? You can't just accept what is described as a fact by someone who probably knows more about it than you and me? Or, worse, do you think that talking about sex slavery and child prostitution is by its very definition "shocking"--and perhaps we shouldn't talk about it? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The level of detail given is very rough. Read the first page here. After the typical hook line at the beginning you get to a more sober assessment.
Yet despite this new largely unacknowledged slavery epidemic, Dr. Bales is optimistic. While the real number of slaves is the largest there has ever been, he says, it is also probably the smallest proportion of the world population ever in slavery.
There are many takes on "largest." Proportionately is most important from a social point of view. Confusing this with the less socially relevant absolute figures is no good. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the 30 million children who, according to the article, have been sold into sexual slavery in the last three decades. Surely that's a relevant number. Sensationalism? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell it to everyone by adding the source to the article. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done with this? POV-pushers like Drmies can have the sensationalist material in the relevant section until we get better cites, but it absolutely needs to come out of the article lede. TJ Black (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

On the map, prostituion is marked as legal and regulated in Denmark. This is not the case. It is legal to sell and buy sex, but it is not regulated as such. Totally different from the forms of prostitution in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.66.145 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Denmark is NOT marked on the map as regulated, Denmark is shown in blue, the color of regulated prostitution is green.123username (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help and support for male sex workers

While I fully support this subject, why are there none for female sex workers? There should be tons of interesting and suitable stuff to write about this. Just that it hasn't been started? (46.239.122.40 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Adding reference to "Paying For It"

Paying For It is a autobiographical book published in 2011 that is all about a person's experience being a "John" in Canada. As it is written intellectually with a lot of arguments in favor of legalizing it, it should be considered addding it to this article as a reference. Would others agree? Or does this rather not belong here? Tempel (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help and support for male sex workers

This entire section seems irrelevant. I would delete it all, or if possible transfer the information into an article specifically about the organisation in Rhode Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.21.79 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I highly agree. They might as well rename the article "Female prostitution" because this is suppose to be an article about prostitution in general and it depicts that females are the only prostitutes. Regarding the section, that section seems to be from a biased point of view, not a neutral point of view. There should be a seperate section about male sex workers from a neutral point of view. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --75.1.139.211 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also agree. The section contains emotionally-charged/biased language that doesn't meet the Wikipedia Neutral POV requirement. Fshepinc (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Was there a reason this section has still not been removed or at least drastically altered?? It still seems to be solely about a particular organization in Rhode Island, and is also written in somewhat biased and leading wording (just one example: "if recovery from this traumatic lifestyle is possible"). In addition, it seems to not be properly cited, especially the first paragraph. If there was someone who objected to the section being removed entirely, perhaps replacing the section with a section about male prostitution in general (since most of the Prostitution article is currently about female prostitution) & having "Help and support for male sex workers" as a sub-section, would be a compromising solution? (combined with some re-wording and additional info and citations).
If I don't hear any feedback on this within a reasonable timeframe I am going to "be bold" and remove the section entirely, (on the grounds that this information would be better put to use in its own article about the organization). MsBatfish (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This section does not belong in this article. There is an article on male prostitution in which a NPV version of this section might be more appropriate. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest deleting the section on consent for the following reasons:

1 It is heavily biased. The two authors cited are well known anti prostitution activists, MacKinnon presented as so (lawyer and activist), but not Farley (psychologist and researcher). No other POV are presented.

2 The use of wording like “vast majority” (MacKinnon) and “she estimates that only 5%” (Farly) suggests that they rely on empirical evidence. They do not, or at least none of the reference links provided come close to help finding such empirical evidence. It is said that “Psychologist and researcher Melissa Farley offers a great deal of research suggesting that very few prostitutes (she estimates that only 5% of women) make the choice freely”. If there is such of great deal of research, a few of them should be cited. Farley’s Internet site on prostitution sometimes says that some of their numbers are “educated guesses”. These guesses, I suggest, are often heavily biased by the ideological POV of their authors and are not materiel for an encyclopedia.

3 Consent is a complex term that may be defined differently by the tribunals, by the psychologists and labour management organisations. The lack of definition seems to permit the citation of a the New York Times columnist Bob Herbert saying “Surveys consistently show that a majority of prostitutes would like to leave the industry.” That is by no mean a proof that there is a lack of consent. A prostitute may want to leave because of the social pressure, job conditions, money matters, a better project, etc.

4 Prostitution being largely an under world, even in countries where it is legal, it is virtually impossible to get representative samples. Serious attempts to build good and large samples such as those made before and after the Prostitution Reform Act in New Zealand are indeed very rare. When reading the section about avoidance and exiting the sex industry, we find quite different conclusions than the “educated guesses” of Farley and MacKinnon (http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/5-avoiding-or-exiting-the-sex-industry#521). When analysing all the “push and pull” factors explaining entering/remaining/exiting prostitution, it is hard to reduce the notion of consent to a yes or no answer.

5 Some authors conclude easily that there is rarely a true consent based of the presumption that entry in prostitution is at an early age, using average ages as low as 12 to 14 years old. Professor and activist Richard Poulain, for instance, says that the average age of entry in prostitution in Canada is 14 years old, a number inferred either from outside Canada or from small samples of street prostitutes. The New Zealand sample (N=771), a country comparable to Canada in many respects, shows different figures: the vast majority (81%) of prostitutes entered the industry when they were 18 or over. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/impact-health-safety/4.-socio-demographic-characteristics-of-the-survey-and-qualitative-samples#table41) see section 4.2.3

My first contribution on wiki, sorry if any rule infringement.

Gustave55555 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I second this motion. This section needs re-working. I think the idea that there can be no consent in prostitution is not only untrue, it is totally biased and inherently offensive towards women. If the viewpoints of anti-prostitution activists are going to be included they should at the very least be properly attributed as such and countered with quotes and studies which offer other viewpoints. MsBatfish (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new workpage for this article

I would like to make a new workpage so that I can work on this article with the idea of then being able to make all my edits at once, as opposed to making several small edits a day. I will create this new workpage here: Talk:Prostitution/MsBatfisharticleworkpage. I am going to copy the current version of the article there & gradually add additional material and perhaps revise some things. Please let me know if I have done anything wrong in this procedure or if you would like to use the workspace. I am not trying to take any ownership over the article, I just felt that making my own workpage would make it easier to do this and that it will be less confusing if others don't edit it without letting me know. Please let me know if you have any objections or suggestions at all. Thanks! MsBatfish (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to create a user sub-page User:MsBatfish/Prostitution and copy the article there. Editor sub-pages are generally better than article sub-pages. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeep - just noticed that it says you have to manually disable the category links, I will do that as fast as I can right now (it might take me a few minutes) MsBatfish (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: Done, to the best of my knowledge at least - if anyone notices any other such issues, please edit the workpage to fix them and let me know! Thanks MsBatfish (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE: I don't seem to be using the above-mentioned workpage as much as I thought I would, so am considering deleting it. My initial idea was to try to work on improving the Prostitution article by making a draft of all potential edits there and not actually editing the real article until I was "done", but that no longer seems as appealing or necessary to me. I haven't been spending as much time on it as I thought I would, and any edits that I have made I thought were important enough to go live right away. Plus I have to continuously update the draft just in order to reflect all the recent changes made to the article by other editors. So, unless anyone thinks it's unnecessary to delete it or wants to use this workpage themselves etc, I will probably propose it for speedy deletion fairly soon. MsBatfish (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trafficking data

The section on human trafficking starts with this statement: "The United Nations estimates that about 79% of human trafficking is for prostitution."

I would consider changing it or, at least provide other references for the following reasons:

1 As is too often the case, the reference given is not the document itself but someone citing the study or citing someone citing an other one talking about the study. And, as is too often the case, when going to the original document we find that either the data is not there, either it is a different data either the data is presented in a different context. In the present case, the original document is the 2009 UN Report on TIP available here http://www.unodc.org/documents/Global_Report_on_TIP.pdf (This document should be reference given).

The data comes with an important mise en garde (page 6): “Third, sexual exploitation is by far the most commonly identified form of human trafficking (79%), followed by forced labour (18%). This may be the result of statistical bias. By and large the exploitation of women tends to be visible, in city centres, or along highways. Because it is more frequently reported, sexual exploitation has become the most documented type of traf- ficking, in aggregate statistics. In comparison, other forms of exploitation are under-reported: forced or bonded labour; domestic servitude and forced marriage; organ removal; and the exploi- tation of children in begging, the sex trade, and warfare. »

It should also be noted that the methodology to show how it was obtained is not clear in the document apart from the fact that it was compiled from 56 countries in which data is available. It seems that is is a combination of prosecution data and information obtained from organisation providing services to trafficked people but it is not clear.

2 The Interntional Labour Organisation (ILO), which, IMHO, have a greater credibility on that matter because it has worked on forced labour issues for a long period, provide different figures. In a working paper published in 2005, “Forced Labor and Human Trafficking: Estimating the Profits » (http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=forcedlabor&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%25E2%2580%259Cforce%2520labor%2520and%2520human%2520trafficking%253A%2520estimating%2520the%2520profits%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2520%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCQQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1016%2526context%253Dforcedlabor%26ei%3D5d3NTsm3I8Lh0QH8jqH-Dw%26usg%3DAFQjCNExDZqJWrsss6WYjlKwRrVFl4PpKw#search=%22“force%20labor%20human%20trafficking%3A%20estimating%20profits%2C”%22), the ILO figures are presented like this (pages 4 and 5) : there were at least 12,3 million peoples in forced labour worldwide, of which 9,8 million are exploited by private agents and enterprises. Among those, 2,5 million were exploited as a result of trafficking. Within that group, they estimate that 1,4 million are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and 1,1 million for other economic exploitation. That is 56%.

3 It is interesting to note that the2005 ILO numbers are the ones cited by the US State Secretary, not exactly a traffic sceptic , in its 2009 Trafficking in persons Report available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123357.pdf. As they summarize it(page 8) « The International Labor Organization (ILO)—the United Nations agency charged with addressing labor standards, employment, and social protection issues—estimates that there are at least 12.3 million adults and children in forced labor, bonded labor, and commercial sexual servitude at any given time. Of these victims, the ILO estimates that at least 1.39 million are victims of commercial sexual servitude, both transnational and within countries. »

With their tendency to define forced labour and trafficking the same way, the ratio of trffick for sexual exploitation would come down to 11%. Gustave (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gustave. I am surprised that this is the only part in this article where you have noticed statistics being mis-used in this manner. In my opinion, the article still needs a lot of work. Many statistics have been mis-represented, have been portrayed as fact when they are really just something a prostitution "abolitionist" said somewhere (instead of from an actual study), or worse. In addition, there are so many wildly varying statistics relating to prostitution out there, yet in many cases only the most shocking numbers have been presented in the article. Studies on very specific groups of prostitutes have been extrapolated to stand for prostitution as a whole. And so on and so on. I will try to do something to fix this particular instance as soon as I have time, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Any help going through & fixing up this article & making it more comprehensive would be greatly appreciated :-) --MsBatfish (talk •

contribs) 10:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some other articles you may be be able to help edit include: Sexual slavery, Human trafficking, Prostitution and the law, or pretty much any article related to the sex industry in any way. Any help in making these articles a little less biased and more accurate would be greatly appreciated :-) Thanks, --MsBatfish (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

I have some information pertaining to the use of contraception and abortifacients by prostitutes in the Middle Ages that I would like to add.

Some of my sources (in MLA) include: Bullough, Vern L., and James A. Brundage. “Contraceptive & Early Abortion.”

Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York: Garland Pub., 1996. 261+.

http://faculty.bsc.edu/shagen/STUDENT/Joy&Chris/main.html

Jutte, Robert. “Transformations: Middle Ages to Modern times.” Contraception: a History. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. 72-75. Print.

Karras, Ruth. “Becoming a Prostitute.” Common Women: Prostitution and Sexuality in Medieval England. Oxford UP, 1998. 48-50. Print.

Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Alexandre. Thomasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1988. Print.

Riddle, John M. Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1992. Print. - I can expand on the topic if more information is needed to add this.

Also, there is very little information under the "Middle Ages" heading, as it starts with the Rennaisance. This information could flesh that out as well.

Moorek0120 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of the information that I would like to add.

In the Middle Ages, contraception and abortion were one of many aspects of sexual health being improved. Premodern medicine recognized prostitution to carry great risk for pregnancy, which complicate a prostitute's income and cause legal trouble. The Catholic Church's great influence made subjects such as birth control secretive. There were many abortifacients and contraceptive methods known among prostitutes to prevent pregnancy. Contraceptives were used to prevent pregnancy and inhibit fertility, while abortifacients were used to terminate pregnancy. [2] In a study done at Birmingham-Southern College, it was found that there were many ingredients used in potions to influence menstruation. Other ingredients, such as blackberries, black pepper, chamomile, and celery were also thought to be abortifacients. Behaviorally, there were suggestions such as women jumping backward 7-9 times after intercourse to remove semen to avoid pregnancy. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). There was a secretive nature of surrounding pregnancy prevention due to a lack of clarity concerning whether men were aware of women’s intentions with the practices.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Because the Church saw abortifacients (mostly potions) as magic, and the reason behind abortion determined the punishment brought by both secular and Church law. The frequency of pregnancy in prostitutes was noticeably low when compared to how often they had intercourse. Medical students in the Middle Ages assigned to research how prostitutes were able to engage in frequent intercourse and were able to avoid pregnancy. It seems that the medical students’ theories did not have very much scientific detail, but are considered important because of the fact that prostitutes’ less frequent pregnancies were acknowledged.[3] There was also evidence of contraceptives used by prostitutes in legal records that highlighted wide knowledge of contraceptive methods. When a prostitute was questioned in court on why she had not become pregnant over years, she was found to be using an unspecified liquid contraceptive that “ran down her legs”. [4]. As the rest of society became aware that prostitutes were using birth control methods authors would leave birth control out of medical treatises purposely so that prostitutes could not use the information. Others attributed prostitutes’ inability to become pregnant to infertility resulting from their repeated sin. Other theories included that prostitutes’ wombs were clogged after having frequent sex and so the wombs rejected sperm. [5] As conception became associated with pleasure and unification of male and female sperm, it was thought that because prostitutes did not have intercourse for pleasure, they could not conceive. However, if a prostitute was with only one man she would be able regain her fertility. This led to a belief that the body’s processes justified moral behavior. If a woman or a man had sex with someone other than his or her spouse, they would then be cursed with a “slippery womb”. [6] Moorek0120 (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

the word "prostitute" comes from the fords "TJ" for professional and "substitute", or a professional substitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk)

Survival sex

Could someone add a mention of survival sex to the section on street prostitution, please? E.g., the first sentence of the Survival sex article? Weltoners (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: added a new subsection to the "Exploitation in prostitution" section. — Bility (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Weltoners (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphe was not added, as requested, as part of street prostitution but under Exploitation in prostitution. This is a biased choice. While survival sex is certainly not exempt from exploitation, the main article on survival sex does not present survival sex as a form of exploitation. Survival sex is a type of prostitution, very close to street prostitution, not a form of exploitation in itself, unless you have the POV that prostitution is exploitation. Gustave (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Mut'ah: The sunni and shi'ah perspectives on marriage" by Dr.Ahmed Abdullah Salamah,Abdul_qasim Publishing House,1995.Pages 2-4©ABDUL-QASIM PUBLISHING HOUSE,1995 ing Fahd national Library Catalogin-Publication Data Salamah,Ahmad Abdullah Mut'ah-the sunni and shiah perspectives on marriage 32p 13.5x21 cm ISBN:9960-792-53-6 1.Muta2.Marriage (Islamic Law) I.Title 254.16 dc Legal Deposit no.1030/16 ISBN:9960-792-53-6
  2. ^ Common Women: Prostitution and Sexuality in Medieval England
  3. ^ Jutte, Robert. “Transformations: Middle Ages to Modern times.” Contraception: a History. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. 72-75.
  4. ^ Jutte, Robert. “Transformations: Middle Ages to Modern times.” Contraception: a History. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. 72-75.
  5. ^ Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Alexandre. Thomasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1988.
  6. ^ Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Alexandre. Thomasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1988.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution&oldid=478259444"