Talk:Sex tourism

Notice: KyndFellow is banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been indefinitely banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. The user is also banned from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism.

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

Feminist bias?

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

Beats me. I'm guessing much of the difference is marketing lingo, but I don't have any verification for that hypothesis.

I wouldn't call the bias "feminist" tho. There have been a couple editors on this article who wanted to push a rather rose-colored POV on the sex tourism business; advancing similar descriptions of "female sex tourism" was part of their agenda.

I can't think of a more fair or accurate word than prostitute (your choice[1]), but I would add language like (euphemistically called "holiday boyfriends"). Again, verfication permitting.

I'm not working on the Female sex tourism article, but I acknowlege it's a mess. — edgarde 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess use of the term "feminist" was a tad strong, but personal conversations lend to my belief that only those with a female bias do tend to refer to it as "romance travel" rather than sex tourism.Pasi Nurminen

"Child Sex Tourism" versus "Sex Torusim" and no article yet for it???

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

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

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

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

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

Length of Talk Page

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

Distinction from "child sex tourism"

The issue of "child sex tourism" has been discussed previously on this page (also in early 2006, and in the current arbitration). There's not much reason to divide the two, other than the (understandable) position of sex tourism advocates not wanting the practice associated with child prostitution, which unfortunately is a major attraction for some sex tourists, while other sex tourists (there's a link to a study somewhere, unless it's been deleted) are happy to sample whatever's on the menu, regardless of age.

Forking the article along those lines would be like creating different pages for "abusive" and "non-abusive" sex tourism. It's an artificial distinction made mostly to avoid NPOV. POV forks are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-links under Tourism involving sex with minors

Unless I'm missing something, the link that "simply brings you back here to "Sex Tourism"!!!" may have been a temporary by-product of the recent edit war. The child prostitution links currently under Tourism involving sex with minors all link to Prostitution of children. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary: go to Prostitution of children and click the Child sex tourism link on the second last line of the first section and it will bring you back here to the top of the Sex tourism article proper. While I accept some of your comments I do not agree at all that separating criminal activities from cultural ones is necessarily a POV issue. I will be up front and suggest a consequence that if this link persists I will come back and personally change it so that it points to a new and empty "Child sex tourism" related article instead. I would only be pacified otherwise if it perhaps dropped you instead into the "Child sex tourism" parts of this article that I take exception to... My argument as always is that "Sex Tourism" and words like "prostitute" are extremely POV and culturally laden labels. Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I see what you're saying. That would need to be fixed on Prostitution of children. I thought you were reporting a self-link within Sex tourism. To link directly to the article subsection, pipe it like so:

[[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]]

/ edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will let myself cool off a bit before considering: [[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]] or again a separate article [[Sex tourism and paedophilia]]. But if I dont get around to it in a couple of weeks you are welcome to execute the first option. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• For some more examples which I have no doubt cittations can be found for: I suspect that sex tourism within Thailand is almost a traditional Thai male activity there (some huge percentage of Thai men (like 80%-90%)lose their virginity with a "prostitute" as evidenced from studies of the military so that "prostitution" has acompletely different cultural flavour there; and, travel by young rural woman in Iran to cities like the capital Tehran who then marry older men - with full Moslem i.e. Sharia legality - for a short-time only before divorcing again, doing so purely for finacial gain upon entering the "big city" having negotiated before the "marriage" so-called a suitable remuneration. Interesting angles on the Sex Tourism pejorative don't you think? (I shall find citations and put this stuff in the article proper to keep it fair and balanced particularly if the previous poster was correct in suggesting the related article on "female sez tourism" had a somewhat "holiday sun fun" POV! (uhum uhuh uhuh urgh choking...)) ;-) Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely interesting stuff.

• What you're describing in Thailand would fall more under Prostitution than here. I don't edit that article much, but I think that article mostly describes prostitution from a Western sex industry model — the phenomenon you're describing might add an excellent non-Western perspective. If you can get some citations, let me know if you need help introducing it to that article.
• I've never heard of the short-term Sharia-legal marriage for quick financial gain before. Is there a name for that practice? It doesn't fit the recognized definition of "Sex tourism", nor does it fit "prostitution" very well. I wonder if sociology has a name for things of this nature. In my country, we refer to it as Gold digging, which interestingly Wikipedia only covers within the articles Age disparity in sexual relationships and Gabor sisters.
• Yes I dont know if there is a name for it but I learnt about it from a teledocumentary that was quite a suprise and eye opener - to find that in a supposedly strict moslem society if not the strictest in the world (though still one of the most sexually repressive in a different way: i.e. is only with respect to women!) there is an ease of sexual relations akin to Thialand's! Not something many people know or hear about the moslem world every day!! 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think studies (sorry I don't have links handy and don't feel like searching now) demonstrate different tendencies between male and female sex tourists. Andy while I think these differences are notable, I don't think so-called "romance tourism" is something distinct from "sex tourism".
  As for the "holiday sun & fun" angle, I think advocates for both male and female sex tourism attempt to promote the activity as harmless (even beneficial) recreation for open-minded adults, and play down the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• You may be right there may well be a possibility or suggestion of increased peadophilic activity associated with male sex tourism (and it wouldnt surprise me at all) but one would again need to justify this with citations it rather than implicitly suggesting it by including the two subjects in the one article. Leading here too is your comment "the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries" again uncited and sugestive: in the case of Thailand I would argue that on the balance (male) sex tourism (aside from the introduction of HIV which was probably inevatble anyway particularly given Thai male predilictions) has been ultimately an overwelming positive one - though I confess to you I dont get any pleasure out of saying it - it brings huge wads of hard foriegn cash into the country and improves the lives of many including putting food into the mouths of many very poor north eastern Thai farm girls and their families (not to mention an amazing new industry of western retirees with their thai consorts that has arisen up there now!) and the Thai Goverment knows well its value to the economy too which is by no means insignificant. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are no "facts" and objective POVs: all so called "facts" and purportedly neutral POVs are comvenient but culturally laden "fictions" ... you should read David Hume on cause and effect sometime... Regards, Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I take the word "fact" to mean an observable, verifiable phenomenon, and I based on that I think facts exist and can be agreed on by intelligent and thoughtful people given access to the evidence. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is an attempt to root articles in facts, or at least provide a foundation for disputes on facts. As for "culturally laden fictions", I agree such exists, but I also think there are ways to discuss different cultural interpretations of the same information without disputing facts, or even necessarily creating a conflict. That would also be a goal for Wikipedia articles. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Things are never so simple to the philosophically open minded: every supposed fact is embedded in a cultural milieu or context and so open to contestation - point blank - but it would be better if we pass over this one or we will never see the end of it. If I had offered to write a "Round Earth" article for the medieval Wikipedia serveral many hundreds of years ago it would have been rejected without consideration. :-D 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • THERE I am placated now!: the "Child sex tourism" link in Prostitution of children now goes to Child sex tourism and paedophilia where it might be appropriate to discuss the wide difference in POVs between a culturally variable concept of Sex toursim and internationally recognized and long held conceptions of criminal "paedophilic sex tourism with children" and perhaps a better article name even...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattjs (talk • contribs) 2007-01-07T17:35:01 (UTC)

I would recommend you not create a dead link, per WP:DISRUPT. Consider the above instructions on how to link directly to the Tourism involving sex with minors section. / edgarde 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is where I have to pull you up as you are again making some comments that I feel show a bias: I am certain that deep in the Wikipedia policies if I searched I could find a requirement to communicate with etiqete UPON THE TERMS REQUESTED OF THE COMMUNICATOR: i.e. that you lay bare your politcal, cultural and religious biases upon commenting as I had asked and I reiterate my request fopr you to do so now!? I think this is reasonable as they were the terms under which I commenced the conversation on this topic as I made very clear. This is an extremely POV and culturaly laden subject as you are well aware and I think the only way that progress will be made I beleive is if the Political, Cultural and Religious positions of the particpants are made clear at the outset. If you disagree then I will go in search of a Wikipedia policy to support my own request! I confess I havent yet laid bare my own biases but I am more than happy to do so. But all this aside I appreciate and enjoy your comments: these Talk back pages do seem to be a great place to hunt and weed out political biases of one kind or another as well as honing ones own arguments but you are right that one must take care to be discursive and pedagogical rather than adversarial. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pejorative and moralistic sound"

Although this page does not consistently portray sex tourism as a harmless activity, I don't see the article as having a moralistic tone. Are there specific passages you are concerned about? / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-arbitration update

Just made the following changes:

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

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