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 John B123 (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 5 December 2019 (→‎Revisions to the term "prostitute": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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

Template:Friendly search suggestions This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Micag97 (article contribs).

Nomination of Portal:Prostitution for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Prostitution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 07:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the opening paragraph

Are we quite certain that ' A person who works in this field is called a prostitute, call girl, harlot, whore, street walker or lady of the evening[8] and is a type of sex worker' is a better end to the first paragraph than ' A person who works in this field is called a prostitute and is a type of sex worker.' ?

The last sentence as it was explains why the page is titled 'Prostitution'. Two days ago someone added a list of names seemingly at random to the list and this edit has been staunchly defended, insofar as an ANI was opened against me for restoring the longstanding and, in my opinion, obviously superior version.

How far should the names listed continue? What's the process? Do we all just think up names and stick them in? What about 'tart'? Why is 'hooker' not there? What's the difference between 'lady of the evening' and 'lady of the night?'

This is obviously problematic and, more importantly, the addition of names in the introduction cannot possibly be an improvement. It could potentially turn the page into a free for all regarding how many names can you think up.

May I propose we just restore the version before all the names were added and take it from there?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I'm inclined to agree. It's not clear what encyclopedic value this adds, what criteria is being applied for inclusion, or what in the body this is supposed to be summarizing per WP:LEAD. The term "street walker" appears exactly once and only in the lead. "Prostitute", "whore", and "harlot" already have a lengthy hat note. "Lady of the evening" appears twice, in the lead and in the infobox.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a thesaurus, and we generally do not cite literal dictionary definitions in order to include an arbitrary list of synonyms. Those reverting these back in don't seem to have actually offered any rationale for doing so. GMGtalk 11:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. If we included every term for prostitute, it would be a very long lede. After all, there are at least fifty words in latin [1] for prostitute. I suspect there are a similarly large number in english.
And while we are on the subject, I also think we need some inclusion criteria for the words in the infobox. ---- Work permit (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in a position to make the change but it would seem that restoring the opening paragraph to the stable version would be an uncontroversial start. We can then address the infobox later. Should one of you wish to that, consensus seems clear. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a few hours, see if more editors opine. But I have no objection if someone else does.---- Work permit (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Work permit: I object strongly to these changes you have made. On a procedural basis 6 hours is not enough time to allow editors to comment. I would therefore ask you to revert you changes until this is discussed in a proper manner. --John B123 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me to revert my change would imply I agree with the previous state of the article. That would be confusing to other editors. If you do disagree with my edit, lets discuss and form a consensus.---- Work permit (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To revert your edit would imply that you acknowledge you made the change prematurely. As NEDOCHAN has already started a WP:BRD procedure, it is wholly inappropriate to change the status quo until the discussion process reaches its conclusion. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Work permit: Are you going to comply with WP:BRD and revert your edit? --John B123 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We still fairly well have a local consensus in favor of removal. If you would like to propose that this content be added in prose based on reliable sources (i.e., not a list of synonyms in the dictionary), then you are free to do so. I don't personally find the argument from sports terribly compelling. GMGtalk 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of edits and reversions yesterday between NEDOCHAN and myself, Beyond My Ken and user:General Ization leading to a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. This morning NEDOCHAN, quite correctly, left the article article alone and started the discussion on here. For another editor, who has shown no interest in the article previously, to come along and a few hours later, make the changes without giving adequate time for discussion makes a mockery of the whole discussion process. --John B123 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And knee jerk reverting without so much as an edit summary does not count as an argument toward building a consensus. GMGtalk 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To do so would go against the (weak) consensus on this talk page, and as I mentioned would lead some editors to believe I support the change (yes I have seen that happen). In any event, we need to reach consensus either way.---- Work permit (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with going against consensus, it's a matter of procedure. Whichever way the discussion goes I'll happily make to changes myself when a conclusion is reached, whatever that conclusion is. To make the changes and then discuss is not the way it works. As for what other editors think, it may be viewed by some as you carrying out the changes NEDOCHAN wanted to make but was prevented by the 3R rule. --John B123 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my edit I essentially reverted back to the version of the article that existed on august 26th, before all the back and forth edits, reversions, and counter-reversions occurred. Those edits occurred with no attempt at reaching a consensus. I stand by my edit to bring the article to a stable version and discuss edits from there. I do understand your objection is that "6 hours is not enough time to allow editors to comment", which is a judgement call. I am an editor "who has shown no interest in the article previously" and so I don't see how I can be seen as a lackey for another editor to help them circumvent a 3RR rule. ---- Work permit (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm not suggesting this is the case here, I have seen other editors make changes to support someone who could not make the change themselves because of 3RR. You brought up about what other editors may think if you reverted your edit, this is what they may think if you don't. Presumably you looked back through the edits when choosing which to revert to, and would have seen the change was controversial. As such you shouldn't have made the change until the matter had been fully discussed. Generally a minimum time of 7 days should be allowed for the discussion process --John B123 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look through the edits. The last stable version of the lede was the version before August 26th. On that date an editor made a series of changes. Another editor then reverted those changes. The "right" procedure would have been for the other editor who reverted those edits to bring the issue to the talk page. That is precisely where we are now. The edits in the lede made on August 26th have been reverted, and discussion is being had on a set of proposed edits.
The edit history can be a bit confusing because there were also edits to information in the infobox that were reverted by the same editor who reverted changes in the lede, and were then counter reverted. The reversions of the edits in the infobox appear to me to have been a mistake and are not in the version we are discussing.---- Work permit (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making an argument for the inclusion of the material, or merely raising a procedural objection. GMGtalk 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both. The discussion was opened after I went to work and closed before I came home from work. I'm sure given a reasonable time other editors would express an opinion. I think the common names for prostitutes warrant inclusion in the article. They have been in the infobox since 2013 with no objections. An infobox is meant to be a brief overview of the subject, and more often than not the infobox contents are repeated within the text, so the argument that they shouldn't be included in the text doesn't hold water. I'm not actually that bothered if they are in the text, infobox or both, but they should be in the article somewhere. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be in the article. We normally don't include extensive lists of synonyms, jargon and slang in other atricles. I don't see any reason why this should be an exception. GMGtalk 17:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do, see the lead of BDSM, the opening sentence of Watercraft. The whole Glossary section of Drag racing#Glossary is full of synonyms, jargon and slang. --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do include this when a few terms are clearly widely used alternate titles which redirect to the page. Per MOS:BOLD, we do not do this where they are a great number of such terms. The list at Drag racing isn't really relevant to the issue at hand here, and looks to mostly be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of unsourced original research dictionary definitions besides. GMGtalk 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for the list to include only the most commonly used terms as you describe. Other articles have a section that gives different terms used different countries, boot/trunk/dickie or football/association football/soccer for example. I wouldn't object to the list being dropped in favour of a similar paragraph. --John B123 (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the next question would be "based on what sources"? We can't very well just use the dictionary to pick and choose the ones we personally prefer (more-or-less the current state of affair AFAIKT). GMGtalk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which one was "based on what sources" aimed at? If the first (reduced list) then redirects as you described. If the second (country usage), then reliable sources. I agree we shouldn't be including obscure terms that are not in common use. --John B123 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If your objection is that the words "should be in the article somewhere", most are. By my count call girl is in the article twice (not including a caption and a see also), harlot is mentioned once (in addition to the disambig and a caption), whore five times (not including whorehouse and disambig), and street walker once (without the space, which I just fixed). That just leaves lady of the evening. I certainly don't object to the use of the words when used in the articles context. I question the use in the lede, since it seems to be just a surrogate for a thesaurus (or urban dictionary)---- Work permit (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. streetwalker is used twice in the article.---- Work permit (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we are to have a more fulsome conversation, I will add that words like harlot and  whore are pejoratives, and happen to also be used to attack and degrade women’s sexuality. We don't use words like pig or gumshoe in the police officer article. Nor do we use shark or ambulance chaser in the attorney article.---- Work permit (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to sound like one of the PC conversations on various transgender related pages. What is pejorative is subjective, and a lot of terms are not seem that way by those involved, for example Hookers for Hillary, The Guild of Harlots, Whores of Yore etc. --John B123 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Synonyms

I've changed the infobox "offical_name" to "synonym", since thats what the box currently contains. I've removed some of the words which do not directly mean a prostitute. We need to develop some inclusion criteria to keep this list in check. Thoughts? ---- Work permit (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would exclude them all together. They're perfectly appropriate as redirect, and as hat notes for dab pages if needed, but these are just "under-the-hood" issues. If readers want to explore information about synonyms, then they should go to Wiktionary. If they want to read an encyclopedia article, then they should come here. GMGtalk 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for that. I hope we can gain a consensus.---- Work permit (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support that. Having an exhaustive list of synonyms in an infobox seems to me an entirely pointless exercise and I'm not aware of there being much precedent for it. As you say, it's the job of a thesaurus / dictionary. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all three of you'all. "I would exclude them all together.", "entirely pointless exercise", "keep this list in check". ~mitch~ (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, I've removed all synoymns.---- Work permit (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is a list of articles using the occupation template. I don't see many occupations using the optional synonym field, even occupations like police officer. ---- Work permit (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that all the synonyms should be removed based on this is an encyclopedia. Synonyms can be found in a thesaurus or a dictionary. Agree with the above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me if there is discussion for changing this consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

The lede image was just changed from Femmes de Maison to "A prostitute in the Middle Ages". I reverted, simply because I feel we should have some criteria for the lede image. Thoughts?

Brothels do not need to be specifically dedicated to prostitution.

The article says this: "Brothels are establishments specifically dedicated to prostitution.". The English Crown Prosecution Service says at this link https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/prostitution-and-exploitation-prostitution this: "There is no statutory definition of a ‘brothel’. However, it has been held to be “a place where people of opposite sexes are allowed to resort for illicit intercourse, whether…common prostitutes or not”:Winter v Woolfe [1931] KB 549.

It is, therefore, not necessary to prove that the premises are in fact used for the purposes of prostitution, which involves payment for services rendered. Sections 33 – 35 apply to premises where intercourse is offered on a non-commercial basis as well as where it is offered in return for payment." -- so in at least one legal jurisdiction brothels may not involve prostitution. DanBCDanBC (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst that is true, if you look further down the page at the "Charging Practice":

When considering charges, the following public interest aims and considerations should be considered:

  • The need to penalise those who organise the selling of sex and make a living from the earnings.
  • The vulnerability of those who sell sex and the position of those living off their earnings will be relevant.
Therefore prosecutions are made under SOA 2003 S33A, which deals with "a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution", rather than the ambiguous, undefined "brothel" of section 33. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the term "prostitute"

All of my revisions changing the word "prostitute" to the word "full-service sex worker" were deleted. I believe that my changes presented this topic in a more neutral light, and created a more modern, politically correct and unbiased look at sex work. I also revised poorly written sentences, provided better academic sources, and created a better layout of the "types" of full service sex work. "Window prostitution" is not a type of sex work, it would fall under an in-call or brothel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micag97 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits. The article is called "Prostitution" not "full-service sex worker", a term that is not the common name. You cannot simply change the title of organisations, such as International Committee for Prostitutes' Rights or the names of published works, eg Prostitution, Considered in Its Moral, Social, and Sanitary Aspects simply to suit your own views.
There were inaccuracies introduced, such as " Abolitionists consider all sex work violence against women". You confuse "abolitionism" with "neo-abolitionism". There is a significant difference between window prostitution and brothels. A brothel is a place where more than one women work. In window prostitution the women work alone. --John B123 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prostitution is not an organization, it is a term to describe an occupation, and full-service sex work is a destigmatized (and therefore more neutral) term. Because of it's history, the term "prostitute" carries with it the stigma of "prostituted women", which is abolitionist rhetoric. I have found conflicting sources on "window prostitution", but it seems to be a variation of a brothel. I will revise my sections, but nonetheless make some more changes. There is no reason to continue to enforce stigmatized language, and wikipedia is where many people get their first information on a topic. Thus, to include that the rhetoric around "prostitution" is changing (while keeping the word prostitute for organizations, book titles etc) will help educate people. Many of the initial sections contained no sources, or poor sources linking to things like pop-news articles, so I see no reason why all of my edits were deleted. In terms of Abolition/Neo-Abolition, abolitionists want the complete abolition of the industry (hence the name), neo-abolitionists want the same end goal but are preoccupied with protecting the sex worker while criminalizing the john[1]. If you have issue with specific things please just revise my edits rather than deleting them entirely.

References

  1. ^ https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CLES-What-We-Know-About-Abolitionism.pdf
I think you need to do more research on the subject and learn more of the principles of Wikipedia.
* Wikipedia should use the common name for the title and this terminology should follow through the article. "Full-service sex worker" is not the common name.
* Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the frequently changing fad of "politically correct" terminology, which may well be unknown to the reader and therefore the article will confuse not inform.
* The article should be from a neutral point of view, relying on neutral reliable sources
* Your referenced source is biased and inaccurate. For example, the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others does not seek to abolish prostitution, but to prevent the "Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others".
* "Abolitionism" was formerly known as "partial criminalisation", a far more accurate term. This illustrates my point above about using politically correct terminology confusing people, as you are conflating abolitionism with neo-abolitionism. The reference you rely on seems to have been written before this change of name, so "Abolitionism" in that article refers to Neo-Abolitionism, not was formally called "partial criminalisation".
* Great Britain is usually given as the best example of "abolitionism". Please read the UK Governments [The Home Affairs Committee interim report on prostitution https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/26/2602.htm] You will see the position is not the total abolition of prostitution, or that all prostitution is considered as violence against women.
* Please also read the article Prostitution law and its many cited sources for a fuller understanding of the various models of prostitution. --John B123 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are differing on the way that we are referring to "abolitionism". Since it is in reference to the "attitudes" section, it should refer to the abolitionist attitude of opposing sex work. The neo-abolitionists adopt the same attitude, but lobby for asymmetrical punishment in the judicial system. Both, ultimately, want the abolition of the sex industry[1][2][3]. Please have a look at references I've found on this. If it's in the "attitudes" section, it should reflect the general attitudes of "abolitionism" versus "humanitarianism", and the legal definitions should be differentiated.
In terms of defining "prostitution", it does not take away from the common name to include more neutral language throughout most of the article. I will cite some sources that provide a meaningful explanation of the recent shift in sex work rhetoric. One of the biggest reasons is confusion between "prostituted women" (trafficked) and consensual sex worker. Blurring of these two definitions directly impacts sex work legislation, which often refuses to define a consensual sex worker and a trafficked person. This is important because this legislation directly impacts sex workers. Here's a good article about why this distinction matters[4]. This next source discusses the word "prostitute" as "culturally loaded" -- it carries with it inherent bias, similar to other slurs[5]. It is gendered, reflecting an untrue bias in our notion of who practices sex work. The whole section on the Wikipedia page discussing the word "prostitute" as being alternately used to describe someone who has "debased themselves" should reflect how biased a term this is. Considering that "whore", "harlet", etc redirect to this page (i.e the page itself is not called "whore"), I see no reason why this page should not reflect the changing nature of sex work rhetoric. Another good source on the politics of abolitionist rhetorics is this [6]Micag97 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Yannick RIPA, « Abolitionism », Encyclopédie pour une histoire nouvelle de l'Europe [online], ISSN 2677-6588, 2016, published 06/09/2016, consulted 30/11/2019. Permalink : http://ehne.fr/en/node/791
  2. ^ Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2017). Sex work criminalization is barking up the wrong tree. Archives of sexual behavior, 46(6), 1631-1640.
  3. ^ Dempsey, M. M. (2010). Sex trafficking and criminalization: In defense of feminist abolitionism. University of Pennsylvania law review, 158(6), 1729-1778.
  4. ^ Sawicki, D. A., Meffert, B. N., Read, K., & Heinz, A. J. (2019). Culturally Competent Health Care for Sex Workers: An Examination of Myths That Stigmatize Sex-Work and Hinder Access to Care. Sexual and relationship therapy: journal of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2019.
  5. ^ Mulvihill, N. (2019). Is it time to drop the term ‘prostitution’from policy discourse?. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 3(3), 385-393.
  6. ^ Samantha Majic. (2013). Sex Work Politics: From Protest to Service Provision. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1-32.
I agree that in regards to attitudes, "abolitionism" refers to the goal of ending prostitution. However, this not solely on the grounds of "prostitution is violence against women", but for others it is based moral or religious beliefs. Unfortunately the feminist inspired Nordic Model, seems to have hijacked the term and made it exclusively defined by their beliefs. (On a side note, the the "violence against women" assertions fall down when it comes to gay prostitution. Dependant on which statistics you look at, between 12 & 20% of prostitutes are gay males.) When it comes to models of prostitution then "abolitionism" has a different meaning and is misnomer, the aims of the countries adopting that model are not to end prostitution, but to end the exploration of prostitutes by others. The names of the models have changed in recent years. What was "abolitionism" is now "neo-abolitionism" and what was "partial criminalisation" is now "abolitionism". I think this stems from claims from supporters of the Nordic Model that countries like the UK have a watered down version of the Nordic Model, which is factually and chronologically incorrect. The framework of the UK's legislation dates from 1956, 40 years before Sweden's current laws, but is based on principles in the UK enacted a century before. Whatever the reasons for the name change, it leads to confusion.
Whilst I can understand the desire to differentiate between those who are prostitutes by choice, and those who are not. The use of "sex worker" is ambiguous, as the term also includes pornographic actors, strippers, cam girls etc (Which is why we have separate articles for Sex work and Prostitution. Even "full-service sex worker" is ambiguous (could equally apply to porn actors) and at times inaccurate (not all prostitutes offer a full service). "Prostitute" can be used as a derogatory term, but as with many other words in the English language, it depends on context and, in spoken English intonation. Changing the terminology will only be a temporarily fix of the derogatory use. If everybody started using "full-service sex worker" rather than "prostitute", then within a short time all the arguments against using "prostitute" would apply to "full-service sex worker".
With regard to the article, as per other articles, the title, which is the common name, should be used as the main term through the article. I have no objections to you including a section on terminology and for the reasons you have given above why some use "full-service sex worker". Whilst this may be the latest term, it's worth including most NGOs use FSW (female sex workers). --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in to state that I agree with John B123's reversion on this matter. Like he stated, "sex worker" is a broad term. The newer generation treating it like a synonym using it as a synonym for "prostitute" because they find "prostitute" offensive or because of the stigma attached to it is a problem because of the many occupations "sex worker" may refer to. "Prostitute" is specific. And there is stigma attached to "sex worker" as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Micag97: I think the "Modern terminology" section of the article needs a revisit. Two of the sources you give, "Sex Work Politics: From Protest to Service Provision" by Samantha Majic and "Wild guesses and conflated meanings? Estimating the size of the sex worker population in Britain" by Cusick et al don't actually use the term "full-service sex worker", Majic actually uses the term "prostitute" frequently.
The section reads as if "full-service sex worker" is now the accepted term. "Sex worker" or "Female Sex Worker" are still the terms used by NGOs such as UNAIDS, WHO etc. Additionally it should be brought out that the term "full-service sex worker" is only being advocated by US activists not globally.
In order to balance this section, it should be noted that support for the use of "full-service sex worker" is not universal. Some workers, activists and prostitute organisations oppose the change away from "prostitute", arguing that efforts should be made to destigmatise prostitution rather thinking up new names. --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't have time to revisit the section right now, but will supplement it with additional material in the next week or two. Micag97 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As it's part of your course assignment I thought it better if you revised it rather than me. --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution&oldid=929437909"