Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Index

Major NPOV problem here. The whole feminist section is a diatribe against radical feminism. It needs to be fixed.

-Should "whore" redirect here? I thought sex workers viewed that term as a perjorative.

Not all do. See the section at the end on German whores for more information. -Kasreyn 10:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Two points. 1. Regarding the section in history regarding Greek and Roman societies, does the author deliberately use the words "common prositute", because these (at least in the UK) have a very specific meaning.

2. Legality situation in the UK is quite simple: The paying for sexual favours, and accepting payment for them is legal.

It is however illegal to pimp due to regulations regarding living off immoral earnings. Sexual Offences Act 1956? Common prostitutes (that being, prostitutes working on the street which have been cautioned repeatedly by the police) have a number of other restrictions as to what they can or cannot do, and can commit a number of other offences (including loitering with intent). Street Offences Act 1959? Brothels are restricted by various legislation including not having planning permission, and I believe illegality of owning a bawdy house. It is also typically against tenancy agreements. Phonebox advertising is not legal, as far as I am aware, and the is against the BT contracts as well. Kerb Crawling is also an offence, under the Street Offences Act 1984 and was made an arrestable offence in 2001.

ASBO's are also being used by neighbours of prostitutes to stop them working.

So, to summarise, if you were to meet someone and simply pay them for sex, then it's entirely possible neither of you have broken the law (unless you're both of the same sex and then it's possible you might have broken the law) subject to consent etc..

However, if you organise or manage prostitutes then you are breaking the law.

The basis of this information in this discussion note comes from a dinner party I had with someone who works with the CPS and a "working girl". (And yes, I have interesting dinner parties).

--

Prostitution is not prohibited in Holland and most of Europe? Where are the facts to back this up. I believe prostitution is actually against the law in Holland, although the authorities turn a blind eye (i may be wrong about this)

I don't know of any other European countries where prostitution is legal. The only place i know of is the state of Nevada in the US.

Maybe i'm wrong - JamieTheFoool

Prostitution is legal in at least Netherland France, UK, Italy, Germany, Swiss and Spain. (With various restrictions). Do you want more ?

Ericd 22:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

My $0.02 says that it's illegal in Sweden. --Pinkunicorn


Uhhhh - and though prostitution is USED in many (shall we say 'all'?)societies, prostitutes are certainly scorned in scoieties touched by, say, Hinduism and Buddhism. --MichaelTinkler

---

  1. What do you mean hinduism and buddhism are negative about prostitutes? what is that all about?
  2. you guys dont mention lap dances
  3. you dont mention the prostitute's rights movements
  4. you keep saying 'universally shunned' and all that, well, i think some of these sex positive feminists might have a different opinion
  5. how come all the people writing articles are male? Can't you guys advertise in ms. magazine or something? - send us money and we will.

I edited your otherwise valid points to remove troll-like behaviour. These are decent issues, why not research and write about it yourself?

--- Regarding the situation in the Netherlands: Prostitution has always been legal, but holding a brothel was not. That is, the prostitute and the customer were legal, but the pimp was not. However, this was understandably not prosecuted. In October 2000 a new law went into effect where also this was made legal. So, nowadays prostitution is fully legal (provided no minors or illegal immigrants are prostituted, taxes are paid, municipal regulations are adhered to and such).

Regarding Sweden, I think I read somewhere that it was made illegal quite recently. -- Andre Engels

Correction and/or clarification: In Sweden, prostitution itself is not a crime, but purchase of prostitution sevices is. Strange but true. --Anders T?rlind

Oooh - and in a bizarre opposite to the situation in Holland, in the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in the 1980s and 90s in response to the competing pressures of neighborhood groups and the convention trade the City came to a modus vivendi - streetwalkers were prosecuted but houses of prostitution were not. Prostitution remained illegal but tolerated. Now this is mere anecdote - I'm sure you can't find it anywhere stated thus in the Atlanta Journal Constitution archives, but it was all over the alternative press. It wasn't the sex, it wasn't the exploitation, it was the sidewalk nuisance that irritated people. --MichaelTinkler

Michael: the 'sidewalk nuisance' is what is frequently legislated against worldwide. Do a find on 'loitering with intent' on this talk page. Sorry to deflate your righteous indignation about perfidious southerners. Or something. -User:Herdrick

... Prostitution is legal in small counties in Nevada. It's heavily regulated though and can only legally take place in licensed brothels. --AxelBoldt

It is not legal in Las Vegas, itself, or the rest of surrounding Clark County. An interesting bit of trivia is that the IRS briefly owned and auctioned off the Mustang Ranch, the first legal brothel in Nevada. --[User:Belltower]]

The relevant law is NRSNRS 244.345 (Dancing halls, escort services, entertainment by referral services and gambling games or devices; limitation on licensing of houses of prostitution.):

8. In a county whose population is 400,000 or more, the license board shall not grant any license to a petitioner for the purpose of operating a house of ill fame or repute or any other business employing any person for the purpose of prostitution.
Which I believe only rules out Clark (Las Vegas) and Carson (State Capital) Counties. ---Jagged
There is no Carson County in Nevada. The city of Carson City is an independent city, and it only has a population of 50,000. Even Washoe County, where Reno is, only has 350,000, so the law only applies to Clark County, I guess. -- Zoe

Not sure about Europe, but there would be at least a few countries there where it is legal. Holland, Germany, and the England would be my first guesses.

I visited a brothel in Germany with some friends, that certainly seemed legal. It even had a neon sign in front. There was a nightclub on the ground floor with nude dancers, and rooms upstairs where the clientele visited with the girls. -- Zoe

It is legal in parts of Australia, with regulations that vary from state to state. Definitely legal in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, for prostitutes working in brothels. For further information try http://138.25.65.50/databases.html then go to the relevant state or territory link and search for "prostitution". Then try to understand the maze of ammendments and horrible legal language:-) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/pa1992205/index.html gives (some of) the ACT rules. The NSW situation is spread over lots of acts and ammendments and will be harder to pin down. Alternatively, just look in the phone books for Sydney or Canberra where there are plenty of brothels openly advertising.

out of idle curiosity, what classificatory heading do they use in the Yellow Pages or Business Listings?
Adult Services - the videos retailers have small colour ads, the brothel's entries are very benign, just the name. I guess it's up the the reader to make the inference (from the ACT Yellow pages).

Escorts and brothels are legal and common in Victoria as well, with restrictions (zoning restrictions, maximum size, can't advertise for sex workers, etc. etc.). Streetwalking is illegal, but there have been serious discussions about whether the restriction should be lifted in certain areas. -- Robert Merkel

Prostitutuin is definately not legal in England or any other part of the United Kingdom, or Ireland for that matter. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Germany too, and france, and Spain. - JamieTheFoool

Prostitution itself is legal in the UK, but there are laws against various related activities. --Zundark

On a totally different note, I believe I heard somewhere that various primates also show behaviour that could be classified as prostitution. Anyone who have information about this would do well to add it to the page. --Anders T?rlind

Prostitution is legal in Germany. All big cities have areas where streetwalkers are allowed; these zones are set my municipal governments. Most cities have city-licensed brothels. Apartment prostitution is widespread and legal. Prostitution does not count as a regular profession and prostitutes are not elligible for typical German worker benefits such as health, unemployment, accident and disability insurance, social security, guaranteed vacation, right to strike etc. They cannot join private health insurance plans unless they lie about their job. The current government is about to change that and accept prostitution as a profession.

A quirk of civil law makes it possible that a customer of a prostitute may refuse to pay after the fact without culpability (since the contract was "against the good morals"). If the prostitute refuses services after having been paid, she is prosecuted for fraud. This is also being changed.

Maintaining a luxurious brothel is a grey area: the owner can be prosecuted for "furtherance of prostitution" which is, along with pimping, illegal. Mostly, the luxurious brothels are tolerated though, unless they employ illegal immigrants or are owned by organized crime.

There are also lots of fly-by-night brothels where foreign prostitutes (from Eastern Europe, Thailand, Africa, South America) are held against their will, which is of course illegal.

Prostitution is legal in Spain too, but I don't have details.

please understand that I am not trying to be snide about German bureaucracy, but if it's not a 'regular' profession with health care access, is it legal or is it a tolerated sideline for some people who need grey income? In America this would be like that lovely line on a 1040 tax form where one may report illegal earnings. The difference between Code law and Common law (not that I'm an historian of law with good examples at my fingertips) leads me to wonder if toleration is a more important classification in Code law states. The existence of zones in cities - again, are these zones of non-prosecution or are they zoning code in the American sense? I ask, Axel, because you - ahem - seem to know.
It is legal in the sense that there is no law against prostitution. When I hear "tolerated", I usually think of something that is technically illegal but generally not prosecuted, such as driving 60mph on an US highway; this is not the case for prostitution in Germany. Prostitutes have to pay taxes but often don't since they work for cash. Until recently, prostitutes were required to get (free) regular health checks, but that has been stopped beginning this year I believe, except in Bavaria. Prostitutes have to be registered with health authorities, but many aren't. Prostitutes who work the streets outside zones or who work in a brothel without a license are subject to fines, but mostly it is ignored. When police raid brothels, they only look for illegal immigrants. --AxelBoldt
That's my understanding as well. Throughout most of the world, there are few actual statutes prohibiting prostitution itself except in the US and Muslim countries, though many prohibit associated activities. In most of the the US, there are speecific statutes against prostitution, except in a few rural areas in Nevada, Wyoming, and elsewhere. There are also places like San Francisco where it is in fact illegal, but generally tolerated, in the sense that police rarely exercise their prerogative to prosecute prostitutes unless they do something else to bother someone. There are also many places where one can purchase services that might be considered prostitution in some jurisdictions but not others. To answer an earlier question in this discussion, look in the phone book under "Escorts", or "Outcall Massage". -- LDC
I could not verify the Wyoming claim. See [1] --AxelBoldt
Guess I'm out of date or misremembered that one. There is some other western state that had legal brothels relatively recently. --LDC

The comment that male prostitution for female clients is negligible sounded like an exaggeration. While they are undoubtedly rare compared to female prostitutes, they do exist.

Then there's arrangement like the one that George Peppard's character had in My Fair Lady. I wonder how common those are? But that might fall outside prostitution proper (ditto Anna Nicole Smith).

Where do people who work in porn films fit in this article?

They don't. A Californian prosecutor once tried to prosecute porn actors as prostitutes and was laughed out of court. Porn actors don't offer sexual services for money, they act out sexual situations for money. --AxelBoldt
Well, then, do you think it's worth explaining that distinction in the main article? --Robert Merkel


Could surely be done if it is considered to be necessary. Frankly, personally I never saw the connection between porn actors and prostitutes; isn't it clear that they are different occupations? --AxelBoldt

I wrote: "In many rich countries, illegal immigrants work in prostitution, quite commonly against their will." I'm not sure if "quite commonly" is the right choice of words. I know only the situation in Germany, and you'll find news reports maybe once a month about prostitutes being freed by police, so it definitely exists. It also is doubtlessly true that many foreign prostitutes work in Germany on their own choosing: it is the quickest way to make lots of money without an education. Now I don't know whether forced or unforced prostitution among immigrants is more common, and I don't think there are any statistics. So is "quite commonly" a good choice of words or is it not neutral enough? --AxelBoldt

"Law enforcement is typically concentrated against establishments engaged in sexual slavery, against establishments owned by organized crime and against forms of prostitution that generate citizen complaints." ... For this to be balanced, it should be added that the police have traditionally participated by accepting favors from prostitutes and in extorting money from prostitutes.

I deleted "eliminating sexual slavery" from the list of reasons given for heavy regulation of prostitution. I have never heard that as a justification, nor can I see how it would work. Nevada for instance explicitly mentions STD control (and mandates condoms), but sexual slavery is not mentioned. Countries usually focus on public health issues, making sure that the workers get health checks and are registered with the government etc., and they also want to control where prostitution takes place. Sexual slavery is as prevalent in regulating countries as it is in prohibitory countries. Illegal immigrants in Germany for instance cannot be registered as prostitutes and are therefore easy to exploit by organized crime. Complete decriminalization like in the Netherlands seems to be the better strategy if one wanted to give exploited women a way out. --AxelBoldt

Axel, the theory goes something along the lines of that customers of prostitutes will prefer to use legal rather than illegal brothels, because of the reduction in risk of catching STDs and of legal sanction. In legal brothels, authorities can monitor the situation to ensure that all workers are legally entitled to work in the jurisdiction concerned, are not coerced into working there, aren't addicted to drugs etc. etc. Of course, the continued existence of illegal brothels puts the lie to that argument, as you say, but it is advanced in Australia.

One, George Peppard was not in My Fair Lady -- it was Breakfast at Tiffany's a howling mistake!

Two, This article reads like a prurient high-schooler's views of prostitution -- based largely on TV movies.

This needs to have some serious analysis of social implications, political positions, and generally some meat injected.


Nobody ever claimed the article was perfect in its present state. If you have knowledge in the area, please share it with us. --Robert Merkel

I don't know the details of the new German law, but I wonder if the German and Dutch situations are now sufficiently similar that we can mention them together in the preceding paragraph. Can prostitutes in Germany now buy health insurance, and can they join the social security system? --AxelBoldt

'The term "prostitution" is sometimes used in the more general meaning of having sex in order to achieve a certain goal different from the pleasure of having sex.'

i'm new and my shift key is broken, so i don't want to edit the actual article just yet, until i repair my shift key and get the feel of wikipedia.

anyway i think the quoted statement, in the beginning of the article, isn't totally accurate. lets say a couple wants to have a child, usually it takes some tries. after about ten tries some couples will continue not for the pleasure of the sex, but for the child. or if i'm feeling particularly horny and my wife isn't, or vice versa, she might give in to satisfy my needs, and with a happy hart of course, nobody wants sex with an irritated person , i think.

i think it should read something like

'The term "prostitution" is sometimes used in the more general meaning of having sex in order to achieve a certain goal different from the pleasure of having sex and with a motive other than an emotional feeling towards a person.'

thats my two cents, put in yours, salt28.

Yup, I think your defintion is better. Please change it. AxelBoldt, Saturday, June 22, 2002

Axel, you wrote:

In many rich countries, illegal immigrants work in prostitution, often against their will.

First off, I wasn't aware that there were "many" rich countries. Secondly, could you provide a source for illegal immigrants working as prostitutes against their will? Not that I'm doubting you, of course, but I'd like to be able to call the user's attention to sexual slavery, both in peacetime and in war conditions. --Ed Poor

See for instance the last paragraph in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1948407.stm. Similar articles appear daily in the European press, so you should easily be able to find more examples.

In The New York Times, June 9, 1993 "In Europe's brothel's, women from the East. (Eastern European women emigrate to Western Europe to become prostitutes, many times against their will)" Marlise Simons. AxelBoldt

Axel, since you seem to know more about this than I do, would you please add to debt bondage some information on women forced to be sex workers? --Ed Poor

I changed "generally stigmatized in western societies" back to "almost universally stigmatized", as non-western societies are typically much harsher towards prostitutes than western ones. AxelBoldt 00:23 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I suppose we should specify which cultures we are speaking of. Japan was the example I had in mind as a non-western culture where prostitutes aren't really stigmatized.
I think even there women typically don't tell their parents or their dates that they work as prostitutes. Geishas of course are highly regarded, but not really prostitutes. AxelBoldt 01:22 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

We keep hearing about middle-class Japanese teenage girls who use cell phones to arrange prostitution work. Recently, with the rise of phones that can transmit images, they can even screen potential clients by, say, whether they look "kind".

I think we should mention the Japanese schoolgirl thing in the article. Also, we should address the ethical and/or moral issues. Like, do people apply different standards to the behavior of minors? How about the age of consent issue? What differentiates teen prostitution from child abuse (legally, at least)? And my favorite: what sort of man hires a 15-year-old girl to have sex with him? --Ed Poor

"Prostitution occurs in massage parlors and, in Asian countries, in barber shops, where sexual services may be offered for an additional tip."

I would like to see the evidence to backup this claim, it seems like anti-asian propaganda to me.

Try google for "barber shop prostitution asia" AxelBoldt 20:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Very late reaction but still: I would like to change some massage parlours in many masage parlours. I have been living in Thailand for 5 years, and travelled in the region from China to Indonesia and in every country even when you get a footmassage "extra" services are offered. Waerth 19:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restored the Carribean as a sex tourist destination (which contains Cuba); in Europe, the Dominican republic especially is openly advertised for sex tourism. AxelBoldt 20:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)

the pictures shows a particular viewpoint on 'prostitution' as being ilicit or seedy, which is not necesarily true! it doesn't really ilustrate prostitution much, so i think we should get rid of it. no? qqq

Keep it.Vancouverguy 01:41, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is street prostitution we can add a legend. I hesitated a lot before uploading this photo. It's blurred enough not to hurt anyone. Of course this can't be very explicit. Ericd 01:46, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

put the pic. down with the 'street prostitution' bit ?qqq

Done. - Patrick 11:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

pimp, madam

Pimp includes both males and females, madam is female-only and brothel-specific. Martin 23:47, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, ok, so m-w.com and some others think that pimp is male-only. But I'll maintain that the terms are not parallel - m-w.com agrees with me and dictionary.com that madam is brothel-specific. Martin 23:53, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Also, the modern hiphop usage of "pimp" seems very different, more denoting something like a person showing off his style and money.

Question

"Some municipalities in the Netherlands would like a "zero policy" for brothels, i.e. not allow any, on moral grounds, but by law this is not possible. However, regulations, including restrictions in number and location are common. Whether a zero policy on planological grounds is allowed is still unclear."

What does that last sentence mean? "Planological" doesn't appear in dictionary.com, and I have no idea what it is. Meelar 07:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. I meant spatial planning and have fixed it now.--Patrick 00:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"various Communist countries being notable exceptions." As there's not so many communist in the world today I would wrote "were" can someone rework this phrase, please ? Ericd 22:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be informative if someone could give an idea of the different classes of prostitutes and how much they charge; I'm afraid I don't know much about this.

Deco 17:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ordering of prices, approximate, from lowest to highest:

street prostitutes

brothel prostitutes

in-call escorts

out-call escorts

social escorts

The distinction between a brothel prostitute and an in-call escort is a bit blurry at the edges, but in general brothels have a walk-up trade and in-call escorts require booking. Of course, in some cases a "regular" might have a walk-up arrangement with an in-call escort.

Many escorts do both in-call and out-call, usually charging a little more for out-call.

"Social escorts" are those who don't just offer sexual services, but will also accompany their client to a social event. Because they have to have social graces, intelligent conversation, etc. as well as being physically attractive, they tend to be a lot more expensive.

The most expensive fees are actually charged by well-known women from the sex industry who escort; generally that's either in-call in a hotel room booked for the purpose or out-call to a hotel. By no means do all porn stars escort, but many do, or have, or will. --Po8crg 6 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Geisha is not prostitute

Geisha is not prostitute. "The body is not sold if it sells an art" (芸は売っても身は売らない). Some geishas sell herself and they are looked down as "Daruma Geisha". So, they denied ask for Recreation and Amusement Association. --Kadzuwo 14:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Geisha trade in Japan has often been connected with prostitution but is more along the lines of a courtesan or entertainer for the wealthy and well-connected of Japanese society. There are many similarities with the Tawaif system in India which was a similar system of female dancers and entertainers for the Muslim nobility. Sex services were typically not a part of the system (Although lower-grade Geisha or Tawaif may have supplemented their meager incomes as dancers by indulging in this to some extent).

Geisha would generally end up becoming mistresses for one of their rich and wealthy clients. This would, however, be a strictly one to one relationship and may last for several years, or in some cases for life. From a Western viewpoint the Geisha or Tawaif may seem to be simply a type of high class prostitute, although their services are primarily in the areas of entertainment, dance, song and evening entertainment rather than merely sexual services. Japan traditionally did have a highly developed prostitution trade which would have been distinct from the Geisha.

Etymology

The article says this:

The English word whore, referring to (female) prostitutes, is drawn from the latin word hora meaning hour, hence a whore is an hour-woman, somone you own for an hour, but usage of that word is widely considered pejorative and prostitute is a less value-laden term. See also: call girl, courtesan.

This goes contrary to every etymological dictionary I've looked at, all of which conclude that the English word whore is a Germanic word, hâra in Old English, cognate with Gothic hors, and also with Latin cara, "dear one." The Latin word hora was in fact borrowed into Old English and is the root of Modern English "hour", where its pronunciation /'aU ,@r/ represents what you would expect from ordinary phonological laws from that input. I believe this etymology is incorrect. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I have corrected the page. -- The Anome 15:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Afaik, "whore" has common cognates in all major germanic languages. At least the german, dutch and swedish cognates are still very common.

NPOV problem?

The verb to prostitute may be used thus: A writer prostituted his talents to write pamphlets supporting a political cause in which he did not believe. Given that use of the verb, perhaps using the word prostitute to refer to a person selling sex is not NPOV. Besides, shouldn't that more basic meaning of the word be the topic of an article? Michael Hardy 20:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC) padpad

Problem is, the basic meaning is the sexual one. The more general meaning is a later one reached by generalisation.

Wikipedia is not a dictionnary and this article is about "prostitution" not "prostitute".

Extent of Prostitution's Legalization in the World; Need Clarification

In one sentence in the article, it states:

The basic act of exchanging money for sex among adults is legal in most countries.

Shortly thereafter, it states:

In most countries, it is almost impossible to engage in most forms of prostitution legally because surrounding activities such as advertising, solicitation, pimping, and owning, operating, or working in a brothel are illegal.

These two sentences seem to say the opposite; is prostitution in the world mostly legal or mostly illegal — or something in-between? To whoever can clarify this, thanks. —Catdude

It says that often the basic act is legal, but surrounding activities are illegal, that is not a contradiction. It is impracticable if a prostitute and a client can not find and recognize each other.--Patrick 10:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Patrick. BTW, I thought that brothel prostitution was more widespread in the world, but maybe I'm wrong. —Catdude
Brothels are widespread, but not legal ones.--Patrick 20:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

Organizations

News articles

Academic papers

  • Working girls: prostitutes, their life and social control – Roberta Perkinsin, Australian studies in law, crime and justice (1991); Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology; ISBN 0642158770
  • Marxism versus Moralism by Doctor Helen Ward
  • "Whether from Reason or Prejudice": Taking Money for Bodily Services - Martha Nussbaum, in The Journal of Legal Studies, 1998 - UChicago Press

Other

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)

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)

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)

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

( 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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reverting to previous version

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

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)

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

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

Edit request

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


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

 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)

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)

Exactly! IMHO the photo needs to be removed. USchick (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
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)

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 unsignedcomment added by 82.30.229.218 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

                • 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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request from Shanyman, 15 July 2010

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Unnecessary info

Surely this paragraph is irrelevent here:

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

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

  • Strongly agree, and therefore I'm removing it. Undue weight to a piece of pretty trivial info, given the topic. If anyone objects, discuss below, and of course it could be reinstated with some consensus. WP:BRD.  Chzz  ►  21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll tell it to everyone by adding the source to the article. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denmark

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

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

Help and support for male sex workers

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

Adding reference to "Paying For It"

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ "Mut'ah: The sunni and shi'ah perspectives on marriage" by Dr.Ahmed Abdullah Salamah,Abdul_qasim Publishing House,1995.Pages 2-4©ABDUL-QASIM PUBLISHING HOUSE,1995 ing Fahd national Library Catalogin-Publication Data Salamah,Ahmad Abdullah Mut'ah-the sunni and shiah perspectives on marriage 32p 13.5x21 cm ISBN:9960-792-53-6 1.Muta2.Marriage (Islamic Law) I.Title 254.16 dc Legal Deposit no.1030/16 ISBN:9960-792-53-6
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution/Archive_1&oldid=1137101303"