Talk:Female sex tourism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sugar Mummies[edit]

Useful article in the Observer 23 July 2006.[1] Tyrenius 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no attribution in the text[edit]

It is totally unclear which statements come from which source, and as such the article is not reliable so I've tagged it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed link to account of activities of female sex tourists in Bali[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement as to the inclusion of the most recent external link which was to an article reporting on the activities of female sex tourists in Bali. Unfortunately this debate has progressed on the respective talk pages, and then suffered some 'archiving' by Mindys12345 which leaves us all less informed - never a good thing on Wikipedia!

The link is to 'Horny female sex-tourists in Bali'

Here is what I consider a fair use extract of the first few lines of the article to give people an idea of the content:

In Bali, Japanese and farang women alike are queuing up for paid sex with Balinese men. Bali now rivals The Gambia as a Mecca for horny female sex-tourists on the prowl for a foreign gigolo.

Compared to their effeminate Thai brothers, Balinese gigolos ...

As always, some fresh views would be welcome. I have moved a record of the debate so far (unedited) to this page to let everyone know the issues.

By Mindys12345 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC):

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Female sex tourism. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you.

Responses by 10:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The link added did not fall into the categories cited by you, it was a topical news article of the same nature as those included in the external links section for that Wikipedia article. Further, it provided relevant independent accounts of the practices discussed in the article. Please review any linked material added to a Wikipedia article carefully before deleting it. Wikipedia policy does not require submission of additions or minor modifications to Wikipedia articles (as opposed to significant deletions) to be moderated through the talk pages. Indeed, a proposed deletion is something you probably should have raised on the talk page for this article. Thank you. Taking time to acquaint yourself with the way Wikipedia works - especially when it comes to the issue of making deletions - will help build a better, more objective, and in this case more verifiable, Wikipedia for everyone to enjoy



Please don't delete current discussions from your talk page. As you were advised above, it is considered bad practice, even if you mean well. Thanks again.

The link is to 'Horny female sex-tourists in Bali'[edit]

Not very Encyclopedic is it. Vandalising user pages and reverting archived content on talk pages is inapropriate. Its no way to make you point. AdamJWC 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to User: AdamJWC (a.k.a Mindys1234 a.k.a. Mindys12345)[edit]

I can't agree with you. I think that you'll find that the context is what is decisive in this case. The subject matter itself is still at this stage grossly under reported and, to a certain extent, 'taboo' in some quarters. It's fair to say that not everything written on the Internet is worthy of a link. Accounts of that kind about well known individuals e.g. George W Bush would have no place in a Wikipedia article because he and his actions is otherwise so well documented.

But remember, that we're not anywhere near that point with female sex tourism. Some people still struggle with the idea that Western women actually go and do this kind of thing or are capable of the exploitation that it entails! So, any account of the practice that is on its face an honest empirical account is, at this early stage of communication about the practice, a valuable pointer for Wikipedia users.

Imagine an academic researcher considering this area for a research project. That researcher isn't going to use Wikipedia as a primary source (nor should they), but pointers of this kind would, for example, give that researcher an indication that Bali might be a location worthy of consideration for field study.

Now in 10 or 15 years when this is all 'old news' and openly discussed, the kind of Wikipedia entry (and links) that will be appropriate to this subject will of course be radically different. This is probably the biggest point that you've overlooked. The key thing for you to bear in mind in the future is that Wikipedia is about information, and that is something that must always be evaluated in light of the particular subject matter.

On the question of talk pages, all I can say is that it is important to keep a record of debates so others don't 'reinvent the wheel'. If you place comments on a user talk page, expect a reply on your user talk page, and be aware that it may be one that you might not like. Attempting to delete comments that you don't like isn't the way to go. I won't comment on your change of user name mid way through the process as that, by itself, isn't prohibited and I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, I genuinely accept that you were unfamiliar with some aspects of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. We are all learning here to a greater or lesser degree and I for one cannot claim to know everything. I would agree that user talk pages are not the best record for debates that really are about what should and should not be in a Wikipedia article. Fortunately we are past that now since I have moved the debate to this talk page.

But in short the lessons here are:

- use the talk page for the article, not the user talk pages.

- if you start a debate on the user talk pages, that's where it will normally continue and yours might fill up pretty quickly!

- if in doubt, take time to find out how things work before diving in.

- remember that the object of contributing to any page is to create a positive resource for everyone to use, not to engage in flame wars. Let's face it, there are about a trillion other corners of the Web that are available for you to do that!

As always, any other points of view are welcome!


-- 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to continued vandalism by User: AdamJWC (a.k.a Mindys1234 a.k.a. Mindys12345)[edit]

It's unfortunate that we couldn't agree, but repeated vandalism isn't the answer. I'll ask an admin to have a look. Regards

-- 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I've protected the article so the issue can be discussed without continued reverting. I currently have no opinion on whether the disputed external links should be included or not, as I cannot currently review them. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Parties may wish to review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Third opinion. Thank you. --Geniac 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


At first I thought this was spam, then I checked out the website and was very impressed by the content. Below is an example.

Over 8 Million Girls in Your Area SEEKING SEX - MEET TONIGHT!!

Compare all Adult Dating Sites ! Discover Which Sites GET YOU LAID !!

Adult Sex Dating Meet Singles & Couples Now!
If you want, revert the link and I will take this page of my watchlist. Returning once and a while to find out what I can do in Bali, next time I go there. Thanks AdamJWC 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact[edit]

Those are ads on the website - not at all the point of the link, the link is to the editorial content. Yes, the ads are graphic but they are a fact of life for most websites.

Have a look at some of the sites advertised on the links in the article that you chose not to vandalise, e.g. - indeed have a look through that site generally. Nice racist advice about how to move to the Dominican Republic from the US and take advantage of the poor economic conditions there.

But really, what do you expect to link to when you are dealing with the practice of women travelling to under developed countries and paying young men to have sex with them?

I'd happily include a link to the Uniting Church website if they ever decide to provide any empirical accounts of the practice. As I've said previously this is currently a grossly under reported activity

And for all of that, you've actually vandalised two links not one - the all Africa link has very few ads on it and none of the nature that you've cited.

As for the links being for your benefit or to let you know what you can do in Bali - that too is a misconception on your part. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - there is in fact a separate Wiki for that (WikiTravel I think it is called). Wikipedia is much more about documentation of current and past facts, events and circumstances. Consequently, your plans of what you might like to do whilst in Bali aren't really even appropriate for the article's talk page.

-- 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel and Wikivoyage have nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation; the former is a for-profit website, the latter a spinoff created by users unhappy that their work on the Wikitravel project had been sold out to Internet Brands, Inc. Inclusion of any particular topic on these sites has no bearing, either positive or negative, on whether that same topic is encyclopaedic or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Information for editor(s) giving third opinions re current dispute regarding addition of links to the article[edit]

I have listed the dispute between myself and AdamJWC (a.k.a Mindys1234 a.k.a. Mindys12345 - all one person) for third opinion. The details of the dispute are listed on this page, but can I just point out that the recent edit war it may have been obscured that there are two disputed links, not one. This isn't clear from the early discussion because I added them at different times and in the midst of the edit war. The current (protected) version of the article doesn't have either, as I contacted an admin for assistance rather than continuing with the edit war.

The disputed links are:


So, anyone who is kind enough to offer an opinion on this, could we please get your view on both. Please also look through the entire contents of this talk page to get the context of what is in dispute (sorry about the length).


-- 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

The first link above resembles a blog. Browsing a sampling of articles, they all appear to be posted by the same person. If so, it's hardly an authoritative or verifiable source of information. Blogs aren't appropriate external links.

The second link reproduces a newspaper article. The content doesn't seem newsworthy to me, however it's probably a better source, unless it's from the "gossip" section of a newspaper.

The point of both articles appear to be that some women travel to foreign countries to have sex. If that's the point, then it's hardly necessary to include them, because there are plenty of other references that already support that point. I'd say leave 'em both out. Include the newspaper link only if you can use it as a cited reference in the article, else dump it. That's my opinion.

=Axlq 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree AdamJWC 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[edit]

The only contibution that this guy makes is to reinsert this link.

Not quite[edit]

Not quite. There's also about 90% of the text on this talk page attempting to resolve this dispute in a rational manner. Oh and FYI, I am not a 'guy'.

-- 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Could you please explain the FYI comment. AdamJWC 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Would still like a view on the 'spam' allegation + proposed further action[edit]

Thanks for the input Axlq. I'm not 100% on board, but I think that you make a good suggestion re citation. That's a structural one and the note about lack of citations has been on the articel for a while I think. The real problem that has distracted attention in this case is the ads, IMHO. The editorial content is good and I would love to lift that and stick in its own document, but the whole point of copyright is that if someone produces useful content, they get the right to show alongside it/inside it whatever ads they want. I previously cited some lines as fair use, but really to go further is to contravene the whole essence of copyright. I guess that we sort of have to put the ads to one side to a certain extent. Just on that, the original argument by the user who was repeatedly deleting the links was about them being 'spam'. Does anyone else have a view on that?

Also, a slight difficulty with the approach suggested is that it really suggests a major clean up to a number of the links, probably starting with the link. At present none of them are cited in the article. My feeling is that the special nature of the topic and the under reporting of the practice in more mainstream accounts leaves open the risk that the nature and extent of the activities will be downplayed. That's a problem in terms of the accuracy goal of Wikipedia.

What I am inclined to do at this point is rework the article substantially and use both links only as citations, not as standalone external links. I won't revise/remove the existing links at this stage, but would suggest that most of them need to come in as citations if they are going to stay at all.

Could anyone who is interested further leave a comment re this proposed course of action?

Thanks again.

-- 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think citing links as sources is preferable to a list of external links. However, I would avoid citing blogs or non-authoritative web sites, as I wrote above. One of the two links above really seems nothing more than a blog by one guy. =Axlq 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Outsider view[edit]


The first link looks great to me- what isn't scholarly about such articles as: "Pattaya Girls Disarmingly Sexy Arse?" [[2]] or "Boom Boom now or your testicles fry." [[3]]

Sethie can see no reason why this would be an EL or used as a source. It is a blog, and doesn't appear to be the blog of anyone notable.

The 2nd link looks like a newspaper article. Sethie doesn't think it belongs in the external link section (unless it was a super-duper freaking magical special article, which it does not look to be). Why link to one little article? It could be used as a source though.

btw here is a great source: [[4]]Sethie 09:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to source this more, guidance please[edit]

Hello there. I wrote the original Wiki article on based on my six years of research into female sex tourism.

My remarks to follow are in reference to "There is no attribution in the text," see way above here, I think second item from top. ^^^^

At one point, I had many of the statements cited, but I think someone edited them out.

Be that as it may, I wrote the article in one afternoon as a summary of the topic and it sort of flowed out of my book on this topic, entitled Romance on the Road. The book is itself annotated throughout, phrase by phrase, with references to 800 scholarly and popular books.

This condensed look at the topic could more easily be sourced basically to Romance on the Road than to the individual source materials, since it is an overview, condensed, and one condensed sentence may be based on literally a dozen or so references. I did add, per request of other Wiki scholars, the section on major academic publications.

If there are three or four specific items that people would like referenced, I would be happy to dig those out, either the original source material or the page in RotR that contains the analysis if it is my own. JBelliveau 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Jeannette Belliveau

Some more neutral wording[edit]

Seems a slightly impassioned article at present. I'm not too bothered. I think standards can slip for such a subject.

Can I help add some neutral writing as inspiration?

To aide this viewpoint start from a viewpoint of global citizenship, no borders, no nationality. Then start to look at it as a scientist.

I think you can say Female Sex Tourism is just an unconscious response to access a larger gene pool - entirely understandable.

The resulting disapproving view here on Wikipedia is trying to limit this by people (males, females; associated society) who cannot cannot access this resource. Not enough money to travel, religious doctrine. This area of genetics is then losing appropriate mates across the borders. So this is a social attempt to defend this - entirely understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jago25 98 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, society condemns male sexual tourism as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Article says "In other destinations, especially in Southern Europe, Turkey, and the French Caribbean, men do not expect to be compensated". Should they be called gigolos or prostitues is such case? Netrat_msk (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been spending the last six months carrying out an ethnographic study amongst men in southern Europe, who provide sex to female tourists. I would dispute the suggestion that they don't expect to be paid. There appears to be a form of currency in operation based on the age and perceived desirability of the female client. Local men will expect an older woman to pay for meals, clothes etc and in some cases outright payments of cash. However, they are usually careful to phrase this request in a subtle way so as not to offend the womans ego or puncture the "holiday romance" fantasy the woman has constructed to render palatable her actions. Nonetheless, local males definitely look for some form of material reward. In fact, this kind of pricing based on desirability also operates amongst the female clients of male sex tourists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


The section in this article on HIV/AIDS feels out of place, with female sex tourism only briefs mentioned in the last of several sentences. I feel that, lacking much relevance, it should be removed. -- (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

--I vote for this as well. I improved some of the wording to improve NPOV and added mention of use of protection lowering chances of an STD. I think this section should be removed. digitwoman (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Additionally, this section only mentions the Caribbean...but the rest of the article mentions sex tourism in many different parts of the world. A bit unbalanced, I think. High rates of HIV infection are a fact in the Caribbean, but how does that directly relate to the issue of sex tourism especially? HIV exists everywhere, and everyone who sleeps with someone else, no matter what part of the world you're in, is at risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

History: first wave feminism!?[edit]

Probably because of an inherent technological built-in gender disparity in wikipedia, for some reason this article cites first wave feminism as beginning in the 1840s - an assertion that i would dispute on all counts. The "First Wave Feminism" page itself is incredibly threadbare and could use buffing up (which I may try to do, though I'm new to editing wikipedia) but isn't relevant to the error shown here. I would merely point out that, for all intents and purposes, "first wave feminism" as understood culturally, among feminists (who are, after all, the group who use that term as sign, referent and historical marker) could be said to start around Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggyshorty (talkcontribs) 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


"romance holidays".

No, you're right with the article title. Romance has f*** all to do with it. Scandinavian women soliciting teenage Gambians in the street, then their parents having to retrieve them from Sweden when their "benefactors" got fed up of them is hardly romantic. That's documented at least as far back as the early 70s.

"Southern Europe (mainly Italy, Greece, Republic of Macedonia, Croatia, Turkey, Israel, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kherson, Crimea)".

Turkey and Israel are in Southern Europe? Sure you don't mean "Western Asia"?

"In other destinations, especially in Southern Europe, Turkey [note above], and the French Caribbean, men do not expect to be compensated".

Plenty of young male Turks have an easy way to get residency in the EU by getting hitched to middle aged Brits and Irish women. They might not get direct monetary compensation but they'll get it in "gifts" or visas. (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why this article is so wrong?[edit]

The main female sex tourism destination is Turkey, definitely. At least here in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not neutral article[edit]

The Sex Tourism is defined in the article as Sex tourism is travel to engage in sexual activity with prostitutes. Here, Female sex tourism is travel by women, partially or fully for the purpose of having sex.

And cant a man travel also for the purpose of having sex? Or that's is impossible and men only go with prostitutes? The article is a little bit sexist and the way is written sensationalistic, the article can be merged with the sex tourist one, no need to make a distinction. --Living001 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


This whole article is full of opinion, unreferenced claims, apologetics, and outdated pseudo-academic pronouncements. It needs to be deleted or re-done from scratch. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

e.g. Female sex tourists define “prostitution” as a gendered power structure. They do? Really? So female sex tourists are all sociologists who stopped reading in 1972? Ordinary Person (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

i think the map should be removed[edit]

Its quite debatable since there are mans brothers in developed countries as well, it portrays many not colored countries as not good lovers and its simple bias. I could also be biased and question this map, why it does apply that western women would go to asia with this map?? you see this the bias i mean so: I would recommend removing it.--Shokioto22 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Female Sex tourism has fallen out of popularity by the Mid 2010s"[edit]

This part should be removed, I don't see how a Google trends page is reliable evidence as to how popular female sex tourism is. The evidence on the page certainly can't be used to suggest that female sex tourism has become less popular or is less prevalent. I think there needs to be better evidence for this claim to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Female sex tourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)