Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.164.244.76 (talk) at 19:30, 8 March 2011 (→‎Islam and temporary marriage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

{{editsemiprotected}} 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]

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

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution&oldid=417830009"