Talk:Prostitution/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Image:Soi Cowboy night.jpg not up to par

Please use a different lead image than Image:Soi Cowboy night.jpg, which is more about elephants. Jidanni (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in Bangladesh

I am doing a school project about problems in developing countries. I was assigned "prostitution in Bangladesh", but I can't seem to find anything about it. Any help would be appreciated.

Czech "Poverty"

I disagree with Czech Republic being counted into countries where the poverty drives the women to prostitute. The prostitution here is problem caused by mix of high demand (next to germany) low prices here (beer&beef&whore turists) and mainly by the weak law enforcement (the prostitution is not even legal here, not joking). most of the prostitutes are not czech citizen and therefore the problem is mixed with organized crime. there are attemps to make some law on it (for taxation and state supervision) but this is every time blocked by christian party. AS a member state of EU i dont think we do deserve to me mentioned next to thailand or cuba ... we are on 70% of EU average, and we are social state. but i dont want to change it, though. i would like someone from outside change it. (big prostitution - big problems (child prostitution) - but NOT driven by poverty ... outside the organized crime, for those "volunteers", the prostitution just pays of better).

I agree completely with the above. The Americans who run this site should realise - the city they know in the Czech Rep. - Prague - has an average per capita GDP across the EU. Therefore it isn't poor. Ignorance rules on Wikipedia. Yee-ha! --SandyDancer 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

About prostitution levels in sexually-liberal countries

A citation was needed for:
A number of reports over the last few decades have suggested that prostitution levels have fallen in sexually-liberal countries, perhaps because of the increased availability of non-commercial non-marital sex.
I actually have found a report: A Theory of Prostitution by Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn(February 16, 2001)
I'll cite from this report:
Moreover, we also point to the possible role of low male earnings (Section 3.2.1). Prostitution is more common in poor than rich countries. For instance, the Global Program on AIDS/ World Health Organization estimated the proportion of men using prostitutes in any given year to be 11 percent in the Ivory Coast, 10 percent in Lesotho, 8 percent in Togo and 13 percent in Kenya. This can be contrasted with, for instance, a French study that estimated that 3.3 percent of French men had visited a prostitute in the past 5 years (Carael et al. [10]; de Graaf [13], both cited in Atchison et al. [1]:184).
Moreover, prostitution has seen a secular decline in rich countries. For instance, while the Kinsey study, conducted in 1938-47, concluded that about 69 percent of the American white male population will ultimately purchase sex from a prostitute, the incidence among men surveyed in the NHSLS study was 18 percent (Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin [29]; Sullivan and Simon [52]). One may also note that during the half century that separate the two studies, male contact with prostitutes ceased to be considered common and normal. Part of this is undoubtedly due to better and cheaper contraceptives that have increased the supply of non-commercial, non-marital, sex (e.g. Posner[43]:132).--Bruno Junqueira 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of Prostitution in Saudi Arabia ?

I really like to know for since they're a very strict islamic country that is also knowed for it's restircted of women's rights 'cause due to the rights of Women given out in the Qur'an that does so. Thanks. And P.S., can you people please answer my question as quickly as you can. And thanks again for you help too.

Considering women can't drive a car there, have (if I recall correctly) been prohibited until very recently from even being able to sell lingerie, and considering that at least some strict Islamic communities in that general region of the world will stone victims of rape for not being a virgin (and allegedly not even bother to punish the rapist)...

...I'm guessing it's patently illegal. Runa27 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt. But what we don't know is how common it is. Merely being illegal doesn't mean something stops happening - especially not the oldest profession in the world. :P Kasreyn 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You can go to any middle eastern country, sex is forbidden. Hehehe... --212.247.27.196 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a reference, but prostitution occurs there, as probably everywhere else in the world. Beetle B. 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution and Islam: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/008-temporary-marriage.htm

We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet ). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." Bukhari (60:139)

Muhammad allowed his soldiers to take women as temporary wives, in exchange for payment.

Suggest this is added to Historical section under near east topic.

Prostiution is Saudi Arabia is probabaly punished by decapitation like everything else!!! or being boiled alive in a vat of oil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.55.109 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam does not forbid prostitution. Islam encourages prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.9.99 (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is OT, but I would also like to point out that the Qu'ran is not the reason women are repressed and mistreated, the ruling class and society are the reasons. The Qu'ran actually holds women in higher regard than the Bible/Torah does, and in fact Muslim women were treated better than "western" women up until the past century or two. Sorry for that rant, I just hate it when inacurate stereotypes are spoken as facts. Wolf63.76.209.49 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is my kind of page

I don't see why it was stripped (ha!) of its "featured page" title.
"Welcome fellow, to this bordello."
-Bordello 04:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"A person selling sexual services"

• If "a person selling sexual services is a prostitute" then wouldn't that include most of the advertising industry? This wikipedia entry is clearly biased. The laws concerning "prostitution" vary around the world. OrangePeel 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that most of the advertising industry sells sexual services. Though some of their material may be sexual in nature, that does not constitute a sexual service. I think the article does a relatively good job of describing the prostitution laws around the world. Is there some specific area you're upset about? --Eyrian 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not believe we are in the business of adhering to legal definitions of terms here. Dictionary definitions would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the definition you quote, with variations, is the generally accepted dictionary definition of the term "prostitution" in English. We are free to note varying treatments of prostitutions in the legal systems of various countries, but it's important to not give undue weight to any particular country's morals, laws, or opinions about prostitutes. Remember, legal status of prostitution ranges from legal and regulated, to illegal and mostly overlooked, to illegal and punishable by death. This is a vast range of varying attitudes and must be handled with care. However, the definition of what a prostitute is does not appear biased to me.
  • I also do not see how members of the advertising industry sell "sexual services"; they sometimes foster sexual fantasies, but these are not necessarily a "service". The only people they unequivocally "serve" are the organizations whose products and services they advertise. Advertisers primarily serve the makers of products and services for sale, by bringing them business; only in a limited sense do advertisers serve the viewers of the ads, by increasing their awareness of products available to them. (Ie., the relationship is not perfectly two-way: all sellers benefit from their product being advertised, but since not all products are beneficial or work as promised, not all consumers benefit from receiving advertisements.)
  • Would you care to elaborate further? Kasreyn 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Orangepeel, are you still there? Kasreyn 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go ahead and remove the NPOV tag for now. Kasreyn 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of little problems here...

I'll quote the sections and note why I think they seriously need fixing:

• In addition to the first world, this also takes place in countries of South Asia such as India and Thailand, where young girls are sometimes sold to brothel owners. In modern day Thailand and India this is becoming much rarer.

That sounds self-contradictory. :\

• Female prostitutes, especially street prostitutes, may be subject to violence and control of a pimp, a man who lives off the proceeds of several prostitutes. Pimping is one way in which disenfranchised young women are recruited into sex work; the pimp will provide financial and emotional support, acting as boyfriend/friend, but eventually ask the young woman to perform sex acts for money. The relationship is volatile and dangerous to the young woman.

Bolding mine of course. SEVERAL problems with this.

First - are they always necessarily "recruited", or do they sometimes volunteer due to a perception that having a pimp might help them get more customers? I don't doubt that the former is more likely, but that doesn't preclude the latter from being true in a few cases, does it?

Second - according to the disenfranchise article: Disfranchisement or disenfranchisement is the revocation of, or failure to grant, the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly through means such as intimidation. I'm pretty sure a lot of these women can vote, and I don't see what, exactly, voting in particular has to do with prostitution, do you? (This reminds me of a stunt I heard the Man Show did once, where they had a petition in a public area going to "end women's suffrage". Only one person recognized what suffrage was, whereas many people thought it was another way of saying "suffering." Which I'm told was the point of the exercise, of course)

Third - even the stereotypical pimps I've seen haven't always "provided emotional support", yet this paragraph makes it sound like they ALWAYS do.

Fourth - "acting as a boyfriend/friend, but eventually ask[ing] the young woman to perform sex acts for money". Is this ALWAYS the case? Are you positively, absolutely certain that pimps never, ever simply give them a line about how they can make more money if they let the pimp book clients for them or some such?

Fifth - That ENTIRE last sentence in that paragraph is very POV-pushing. It I'm not saying that from what I've seen and heard, it isn't a bad position for a woman to be in, of course, but seriously. The exact phrasing there is horrendously POV, because it sounds like propagandaspeak. (Not that I'm a fan of pimps, but seriously...)

• There are other commercial sexual activities that are generally not classified as prostitution. These include acting and modeling for pornographic materials, even if this involves engaging in sexual intercourse; exotic dancing, which is naked, sexually provocative acting (sometimes involving masturbation) without physical contact with the customer; lap dancing, where the dancer may come into contact with the customer in sexually provocative but strictly limited ways; and commercial telephone sex.

I was under the impression that exotic dancing was simply sexually provocative stage performances, not all of which involve complete nudity (for instance, in some places, certain areas of the body must be consistently covered even during strip club performances). Heck, the page for it says: Emphasis is on the act of undressing along with sexually suggestive movement, not on the state of being undressed. Which basically unequivocally states that it's nto "naked, sexually provocative acting", but performances that include stripteases and frequently end with whole or partial nudity. Note the end with. To make it absolutely clear what my problem with that section is: "naked, sexually provocative acting" very much implies that the exotic dancer is completely naked for the entire duration of the performance, which would seem to me to be completely redefining the term into something more than a little different from its real, original meaning (that of participating in a striptease). I'm so sleepy that I'm frankly having trouble thinking of a good rephrase for this, so I figured I would simply point out the problems here on the Talk page so that maybe someone who's not sleep-deprived can fix it before I get back to it (since it's obviously best to get it fixed as soon as possible!). Runa27 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a better word than "disenfranchisement" would be "powerless" or "poor". Of course, you are right that the phrasing as it currently stands smacks a bit of propaganda. There is a bit of a POV to it that should be expunged, and citations are needed for the claims. Kasreyn 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took out the line in types of prostitution that said something to the effect, "Male prostitutes are also drug addicts who use the money to support their habits" it seemed like a pretty gross generalization and didn't have a citation.

Male non-sexual escorting

I've removed the reference to Cavendish Knights (see sw5.info/cons.htm - it either has less than one female client a day for its claimed 1,400 male escorts or it is committing a very serious tax fraud) and Glimmer Hospitality (appears legitimate, but this is no place for a link to it). I'll think of something better to say about this issue soon. Lovingboth 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Glimmer is now closed - they couldn't make a non-scam 'straight male agency' pay. Lovingboth (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment below probably belongs elsewhere. Prostitution is certainly legal in England and Wales, amongst other places.)

There is a mistake on the part of "prostitution legality": "...is illegal all over the world except for Brazil ..." I am *very* sure (as a brazilian citizen) that prostitution is ilegal. (no one ever said in here that is not ilegal)

Quester67

I have a long standing interest in up-grading the status of what is most widely referred to as prostituion ... although the most serious prostitution has in fact to do with the daily deployment of all sorts of human talents to promote such things as wars, and the development and marketing of junk foods, junk toys, junk insurance, junk security, junk insurance etc. etc.

I don't see why we should be driven into dark and dangerous places ... and made to feel criminals ... when we go in search of some of the most satisfying experiences in life.

I would like to think that we could have something which might be termed "Geisha palaces" ... "Geisha guy palaces" and Geisha girl palaces where things are open, above board, and, to a degree promote continuting relationships with ... forgive me ... guys who spread happiness through my body soul and mind.

But I am told that there is an international agreement whereby countries agree not to set up what are perjoratively termed "licenced brothels".

I came to the site looking for the name of that Agreement ... but can't find it.

So, can anyone help me?

I find the changes in Dutch law to de-institionalise male sex work - to remove the institution's responsibility to ensure that their employees were free of sexually transmitted diseases - entirely regressive. One is now left with the private assurance of some unknown guy to the effect that he is "clean".

On the positive side ... and I have lost those paragraphs ... I was delighted by the entries on male ... sex workers? ... prostitutes? ... rent boys? ... which alluded to the fact that they come from all walks of life and have clients from all walks of life. Too often this industry is presented as engaged in unfair exploitation ... but consider all those PhDs working as shelf-fillers, check out assistants, call centre agents ...

The information presented belies the image.

Indeed, a colleague of mine did a survey of male sex workers in the UK. Why were they there? Yes, of course, money was of some importance to most of them. But many were doing the job looking for love. Its more than one could say for those working in call centres.

But, to return to the point, how to upgrade the status of, and facilities for, this whole enterprise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quester67 (talk • contribs)

I'm sympathetic to your goal, but I must point out that Wikipedia talk pages are for the purpose of substantive discussion on how to improve the article; in this case, how to make the article on Prostitution the most accurate and neutral in tone that it can be. WP isn't a discussion forum or political activism recruiting site. You should look elsewhere online for a place to help you find support for your goals. Best of luck, Kasreyn 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I got carried away a bit. As it stands, the entry says that the UN has been associated with some internatinal Agreement that there will be no licensed brothels. But it doesn't tell us what the name of the Agreement is or where to find it.

Quester67 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be it: Convention_for_the_Suppression_of_the_Traffic_in_Persons_and_of_the_Exploitation_of_the_Prostitution_of_Others. (Though I can't for the life of me imagine why people think there is a moral equivalence between trafficking / sex slavery and pornography / prostitution). Hope this helps, Kasreyn 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. YUK. Another example of illogical thinking and usurpation of decision taking by self-styled authority in this area. How they think that slavery of women points to the need to ban licenced brothels I can't imagine. Seems to me the reverse would be the case. So - the page could be improved by mustering the arguments for and against licensed brothels. Plus maybe some summaries of studies in which a cross section of female sex workers report their experiences. (I assume that such must exist.)

Quester67 11:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely think it would be worthwhile for the article to explore the legalization issue... but remember that it's important to avoid taking part on either side (ie., advocating one position). Kasreyn 22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

I notice that the NPOV dispute tag at the top of the article has been there for several days without discussion. It, and the verify tag, were added by Levesque, who has yet to explain his reasons for the tags being added here. Note that such explanation is a requirement of the use of these tags.

Mind explaining to us what precisely is POV and unverified, Levesque? Kasreyn 03:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. It is now 5 days since Kasreyn posted his request and no one has responded. Come now people the POV can't be fixed if you don't tell us the problem.Max The Dog 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV and limited-scope tags which Levesque added, as he has not attempted to defend their inclusion. I've left the verify tag for now, because the article does need better sourcing, but I'm not personally defending the inclusion of that tag; if anyone else wants to remove it, I won't mind. Kasreyn 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive!

OK, I'm fed up with the way this article has degraded since its time as FA. I'm going to attempt to restore it to that level of quality. I'm going by WP's be bold policy here, so I'm going to be making some significant changes. Don't hesitate to contact me if there are any problems. Kasreyn 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it Max The Dog 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I LIKE the prostitution entry. Its informative. But pl respond to my query under e-mail under disussion on your user page. Quester67 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the new description of Sex Tourism on this page is too one-sided? I don't consider it an improvement, expect for the first paragraph containing the direct quote.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it seems a bit one-sided, but I'm not sure where you could find reliable information about the "pro" side of sex tourism. Any suggestions? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I quickly found this site, but didn't review it. It certainly looks like it might contain some useful info. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychological effects = where?

I am interested in the psychological effects of prostitution upon the sex worker, and I'm sure some other people are, too. Why is there no section on this subject? --User:Zaorish

That's really a multi-faceted topic. Any psychological effects will almost certainly vary by country and culture. It's a good idea, but might almost merit its own artical. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doc Tropics. It would be difficult to establish any sort of overall "psychological effects" section, since in any given country the actual psychological effects of prostitution would be difficult to extricate from the psychological effects of whatever degree of opprobrium the community holds prostitutes in. Ie., is the source of the psychological effect the actual act of prostitution, or society's actions and attitudes towards those it recognizes as prostitutes? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that being spit upon and outcast by society is far more psychologically harmful than accepting money for sex could ever be. Kasreyn 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Kasreyn, that's exactly how I would have put it if I could spell "oprobium" :-) I had been assuming just what you specified, that the "psychological effects" would be a result of the prostitute's treatment by the community, based on local "standards". --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language terms

I find the various foreign language terms inappropriate for the introduction. They would be better for the Wiktionary entry. Remove them? - GilliamJF 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i disagree. however, i think the term "sex worker" should be added, especially because it is used several times later in the article. also, the US term "trick" should be added for customer. Isirta 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Names for the customers?

I really find it helpful that the article mentions and describes the different names for prostitutes, so (as a non-native speaker of English) I'd like to see the same for their customers as well, since I'm not trusting the returns of internet translation services I found so far. They return me the word "suitor" or "wooer", and I guess these are ancient words for men who officially proposed to marry women. So, please, what other words than "customer" do you use in English these days in connection to prostitution, and what are the exact meanings? Thanks in advance, -- 85.176.11.42 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of "(ironically)" inappropriate

I deleted the parenthetical "(ironically)" from the following paragraph in the section called Legality of selling sex (bolding mine):


In Turkey, street prostitution is illegal. Prostitution through government regulated brothels is legal. All brothels must have a license, and all sex workers working in brothels must be licensed as well. Municipality based "Commissions for the struggle against veneral (sic) diseases and prostitution" are (ironically) in charge of issuing such licenses.


Inclusion of the parenthetical seems like a clear example of editorializing. One of the benefits of obtaining a license in Turkey is regular health checks and treatment of venereal disease to prevent the spread of disease. As to the "irony" of a "commission against...prostitution" issuing licenses for prostitution, I believe a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of legal prostitution and/or a discussion of the translation of the Commission title from Turkish to English would be more appropriate than the vague editorial inclusion of the term ironically in this sentence.

I have also edited for the correct spelling of the word venereal. Isirta 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly correct about use of the word "ironic". I had previously noted your change and I support it. Also, thanks for your other "tweaks" to the text; every little bit helps : ) Doc Tropics 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lede

I am revising the lede to have some relationship to what the term actually means. Besides compensation being part of the definition, the loose use of the term includes "the satisfaction of feelings of lust." Goldfritha 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this text, because the lede had lost touch with reality. "Feelings of lust or love" do not feature in the definition of prositution. Goldfritha 06:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'Persons Involved In The Sex Trade' move

After a recent attempt to move this page to a new heading entitled 'Persons Involved In The Sex Trade' (or similar), I have moved the page back to 'Prostitution' pending an appropriate discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of such a move. The reasons cited for this recent move were that the term prostitution and / or prostitutes was 'offensive' and 'repressive'; these concerns aside, such a move should most definitely NOT be made without an appropriate discussion here on the talkpage.--Joseph Q Publique 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

@Beyond My Ken: hope all is well. Can you let me know which images you have issues with? I am more than willing to change them if you let me know which. Look forward in hearing back from you. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

The majority of your edits were moving imags around -- none of which were improvements, in my opinion. Can you say why you think the images you added are better than the ones that you removed? It looked to me that the current images were better or equally as good, and that the swaps you made were change for the sake of change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: some images were not in their proper section. I removed the French pic from the Asia section and added two pics (I believe) in the middle ages. I also took away the blurry image of De Wallen and added a clearer image and one more because it was next to the main area of window prostitutes. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

Let me know which image you did not like. I will have it removed once we discuss it. Thanks again! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

NO, it's not going to work like that. I have reverted your edits, which makes them disputed, and now you make an argument for why they should be kept, and a consensus of editors decides. Your "grammar" edits are not improvements, you're removing non-rendering blank lines from after images which assist in editing the page (because you can see where the images are, and, in general, you really don;t seem to know what you're doing by way of layout. These are simply not improvements.

Convince me and others that they are, per WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: no worries, will respond to my proposals soon. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC))

Beyond My Ken, let me know if you agree with  Done or  Not done icons:

• 1. The end of the images should have a period, it is simple grammar. Let me know if that is ok.
  2. The Asia section should not have image of French prostitutes. Instead replaced with Japanese oiran. The image is in my diffs here.
  3. French prostitute image should be in the Middle Ages section.
  4. Adding a Courtesans image in the Middle Ages is helpful to the reader, as they had a big impact.
  5. In the 19th century, adding "Early San Francisco prostitutes" image is helpful.
  6. "Red-light district of Amsterdam by day. 2012." is far more clear than the image we have now. Plus the caption is very informative and referenced.

Again, please agree or disagree with the icons above next to my response. We can work one by one after your response. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

@Beyond My Ken: just pinging you for your views. Looking forward to hearing back from you. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC))

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) "No." -- you need to give reasons for not accepting these edits. You are deviating from your earlier statement. I did my part in explaining my reasons. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC))

No, not really, See WP:ONUS. The burden is on you to convince other editors that your edits are improvements. Your general statements above do not convince me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Category:Slavery Oziomoluabi (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: For the Human trafficking article, absolutely. However, this article is about prostitution, which is defined as accepting payment, so I don't see Slavery as a defining characteristic for categorization. I'm not absolutely opposed to it, so if a consensus emerges that disagrees, I'm not opposed - just not ripe for an edit request at this time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

See also the White Slavery section in Sexual slavery. Not really appropriate here.--Auric talk 18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming the page to "Sex work"

Is there a case for changing the title of this page to "Sex work" in line with the now-accepted norm? Clearly there are arguments against this (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jun/06/prostitution-sex-work-pimp-state-kat-banyard-decriminalisation ). However, notwithstanding the ongoing debate, it seems that "sex work" is the term most often preferred / recognised as the least pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.176.38 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really, see Sex worker. They are not the same, as sex work includes prostitition, plus a fairly broad range of other jobs (stripper, porn actor, barman in a strip club...) as well. A prostitue is a sex worker, but not all sex workers are prostiutes. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And we already have a Sex work article. I have talked about merging the Sex work and Sex worker articles, though. After all, we don't have a Prostitution article and Prostitute article; we cover that in one article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Prostitution for deletion

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

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

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

Infobox Synonyms

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

I would exclude them all together. They're perfectly appropriate as redirect, and as hat notes for dab pages if needed, but these are just "under-the-hood" issues. If readers want to explore information about synonyms, then they should go to Wiktionary. If they want to read an encyclopedia article, then they should come here. GMG^talk 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I hope we can gain a consensus.---- Work permit (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. Having an exhaustive list of synonyms in an infobox seems to me an entirely pointless exercise and I'm not aware of there being much precedent for it. As you say, it's the job of a thesaurus / dictionary. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you'all. "I would exclude them all together.", "entirely pointless exercise", "keep this list in check". ~mitch~ (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I also agree that all the synonyms should be removed based on this is an encyclopedia. Synonyms can be found in a thesaurus or a dictionary. Agree with the above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please ping me if there is discussion for changing this consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, I'm inclined to agree. It's not clear what encyclopedic value this adds, what criteria is being applied for inclusion, or what in the body this is supposed to be summarizing per WP:LEAD. The term "street walker" appears exactly once and only in the lead. "Prostitute", "whore", and "harlot" already have a lengthy hat note. "Lady of the evening" appears twice, in the lead and in the infobox.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a thesaurus, and we generally do not cite literal dictionary definitions in order to include an arbitrary list of synonyms. Those reverting these back in don't seem to have actually offered any rationale for doing so. GMG^talk 11:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. If we included every term for prostitute, it would be a very long lede. After all, there are at least fifty words in latin [3] for prostitute. I suspect there are a similarly large number in english.

And while we are on the subject, I also think we need some inclusion criteria for the words in the infobox. ---- Work permit (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not in a position to make the change but it would seem that restoring the opening paragraph to the stable version would be an uncontroversial start. We can then address the infobox later. Should one of you wish to that, consensus seems clear. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it a few hours, see if more editors opine. But I have no objection if someone else does.---- Work permit (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

For me to revert my change would imply I agree with the previous state of the article. That would be confusing to other editors. If you do disagree with my edit, lets discuss and form a consensus.---- Work permit (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To revert your edit would imply that you acknowledge you made the change prematurely. As NEDOCHAN has already started a WP:BRD procedure, it is wholly inappropriate to change the status quo until the discussion process reaches its conclusion. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Work permit: Are you going to comply with WP:BRD and revert your edit? --John B123 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We still fairly well have a local consensus in favor of removal. If you would like to propose that this content be added in prose based on reliable sources (i.e., not a list of synonyms in the dictionary), then you are free to do so. I don't personally find the argument from sports terribly compelling. GMG^talk 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There were a number of edits and reversions yesterday between NEDOCHAN and myself, Beyond My Ken and user:General Ization leading to a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. This morning NEDOCHAN, quite correctly, left the article article alone and started the discussion on here. For another editor, who has shown no interest in the article previously, to come along and a few hours later, make the changes without giving adequate time for discussion makes a mockery of the whole discussion process. --John B123 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And knee jerk reverting without so much as an edit summary does not count as an argument toward building a consensus. GMG^talk 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To do so would go against the (weak) consensus on this talk page, and as I mentioned would lead some editors to believe I support the change (yes I have seen that happen). In any event, we need to reach consensus either way.---- Work permit (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with going against consensus, it's a matter of procedure. Whichever way the discussion goes I'll happily make to changes myself when a conclusion is reached, whatever that conclusion is. To make the changes and then discuss is not the way it works. As for what other editors think, it may be viewed by some as you carrying out the changes NEDOCHAN wanted to make but was prevented by the 3R rule. --John B123 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In my edit I essentially reverted back to the version of the article that existed on august 26th, before all the back and forth edits, reversions, and counter-reversions occurred. Those edits occurred with no attempt at reaching a consensus. I stand by my edit to bring the article to a stable version and discuss edits from there. I do understand your objection is that "6 hours is not enough time to allow editors to comment", which is a judgement call. I am an editor "who has shown no interest in the article previously" and so I don't see how I can be seen as a lackey for another editor to help them circumvent a 3RR rule. ---- Work permit (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not suggesting this is the case here, I have seen other editors make changes to support someone who could not make the change themselves because of 3RR. You brought up about what other editors may think if you reverted your edit, this is what they may think if you don't. Presumably you looked back through the edits when choosing which to revert to, and would have seen the change was controversial. As such you shouldn't have made the change until the matter had been fully discussed. Generally a minimum time of 7 days should be allowed for the discussion process --John B123 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did look through the edits. The last stable version of the lede was the version before August 26th. On that date an editor made a series of changes. Another editor then reverted those changes. The "right" procedure would have been for the other editor who reverted those edits to bring the issue to the talk page. That is precisely where we are now. The edits in the lede made on August 26th have been reverted, and discussion is being had on a set of proposed edits.

The edit history can be a bit confusing because there were also edits to information in the infobox that were reverted by the same editor who reverted changes in the lede, and were then counter reverted. The reversions of the edits in the infobox appear to me to have been a mistake and are not in the version we are discussing.---- Work permit (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you making an argument for the inclusion of the material, or merely raising a procedural objection. GMG^talk 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Both. The discussion was opened after I went to work and closed before I came home from work. I'm sure given a reasonable time other editors would express an opinion. I think the common names for prostitutes warrant inclusion in the article. They have been in the infobox since 2013 with no objections. An infobox is meant to be a brief overview of the subject, and more often than not the infobox contents are repeated within the text, so the argument that they shouldn't be included in the text doesn't hold water. I'm not actually that bothered if they are in the text, infobox or both, but they should be in the article somewhere. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should they be in the article. We normally don't include extensive lists of synonyms, jargon and slang in other atricles. I don't see any reason why this should be an exception. GMG^talk 17:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We do, see the lead of BDSM, the opening sentence of Watercraft. The whole Glossary section of Drag racing#Glossary is full of synonyms, jargon and slang. --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We do include this when a few terms are clearly widely used alternate titles which redirect to the page. Per MOS:BOLD, we do not do this where they are a great number of such terms. The list at Drag racing isn't really relevant to the issue at hand here, and looks to mostly be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of unsourced original research dictionary definitions besides. GMG^talk 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy for the list to include only the most commonly used terms as you describe. Other articles have a section that gives different terms used different countries, boot/trunk/dickie or football/association football/soccer for example. I wouldn't object to the list being dropped in favour of a similar paragraph. --John B123 (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But the next question would be "based on what sources"? We can't very well just use the dictionary to pick and choose the ones we personally prefer (more-or-less the current state of affair AFAIKT). GMG^talk 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Which one was "based on what sources" aimed at? If the first (reduced list) then redirects as you described. If the second (country usage), then reliable sources. I agree we shouldn't be including obscure terms that are not in common use. --John B123 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If your objection is that the words "should be in the article somewhere", most are. By my count call girl is in the article twice (not including a caption and a see also), harlot is mentioned once (in addition to the disambig and a caption), whore five times (not including whorehouse and disambig), and street walker once (without the space, which I just fixed). That just leaves lady of the evening. I certainly don't object to the use of the words when used in the articles context. I question the use in the lede, since it seems to be just a surrogate for a thesaurus (or urban dictionary)---- Work permit (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction. streetwalker is used twice in the article.---- Work permit (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If we are to have a more fulsome conversation, I will add that words like harlot and  whore are pejoratives, and happen to also be used to attack and degrade women’s sexuality. We don't use words like pig or gumshoe in the police officer article. Nor do we use shark or ambulance chaser in the attorney article.---- Work permit (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like one of the PC conversations on various transgender related pages. What is pejorative is subjective, and a lot of terms are not seem that way by those involved, for example Hookers for Hillary, The Guild of Harlots, Whores of Yore etc. --John B123 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Brothels do not need to be specifically dedicated to prostitution.

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

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

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

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

• The need to penalise those who organise the selling of sex and make a living from the earnings.
• The vulnerability of those who sell sex and the position of those living off their earnings will be relevant.

Therefore prosecutions are made under SOA 2003 S33A, which deals with "a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution", rather than the ambiguous, undefined "brothel" of section 33. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Revisions to the term "prostitute"

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

I reverted your edits. The article is called "Prostitution" not "full-service sex worker", a term that is not the common name. You cannot simply change the title of organisations, such as International Committee for Prostitutes' Rights or the names of published works, eg Prostitution, Considered in Its Moral, Social, and Sanitary Aspects simply to suit your own views.

There were inaccuracies introduced, such as " Abolitionists consider all sex work violence against women". You confuse "abolitionism" with "neo-abolitionism". There is a significant difference between window prostitution and brothels. A brothel is a place where more than one women work. In window prostitution the women work alone. --John B123 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Prostitution is not an organization, it is a term to describe an occupation, and full-service sex work is a destigmatized (and therefore more neutral) term. Because of it's history, the term "prostitute" carries with it the stigma of "prostituted women", which is abolitionist rhetoric. I have found conflicting sources on "window prostitution", but it seems to be a variation of a brothel. I will revise my sections, but nonetheless make some more changes. There is no reason to continue to enforce stigmatized language, and wikipedia is where many people get their first information on a topic. Thus, to include that the rhetoric around "prostitution" is changing (while keeping the word prostitute for organizations, book titles etc) will help educate people. Many of the initial sections contained no sources, or poor sources linking to things like pop-news articles, so I see no reason why all of my edits were deleted. In terms of Abolition/Neo-Abolition, abolitionists want the complete abolition of the industry (hence the name), neo-abolitionists want the same end goal but are preoccupied with protecting the sex worker while criminalizing the john. If you have issue with specific things please just revise my edits rather than deleting them entirely.

References

I think you need to do more research on the subject and learn more of the principles of Wikipedia.

* Wikipedia should use the common name for the title and this terminology should follow through the article. "Full-service sex worker" is not the common name.

* Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the frequently changing fad of "politically correct" terminology, which may well be unknown to the reader and therefore the article will confuse not inform.

* The article should be from a neutral point of view, relying on neutral reliable sources

* Your referenced source is biased and inaccurate. For example, the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others does not seek to abolish prostitution, but to prevent the "Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others".

* "Abolitionism" was formerly known as "partial criminalisation", a far more accurate term. This illustrates my point above about using politically correct terminology confusing people, as you are conflating abolitionism with neo-abolitionism. The reference you rely on seems to have been written before this change of name, so "Abolitionism" in that article refers to Neo-Abolitionism, not was formally called "partial criminalisation".

* Great Britain is usually given as the best example of "abolitionism". Please read the UK Governments [The Home Affairs Committee interim report on prostitution https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/26/2602.htm] You will see the position is not the total abolition of prostitution, or that all prostitution is considered as violence against women.

* Please also read the article Prostitution law and its many cited sources for a fuller understanding of the various models of prostitution. --John B123 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we are differing on the way that we are referring to "abolitionism". Since it is in reference to the "attitudes" section, it should refer to the abolitionist attitude of opposing sex work. The neo-abolitionists adopt the same attitude, but lobby for asymmetrical punishment in the judicial system. Both, ultimately, want the abolition of the sex industry. Please have a look at references I've found on this. If it's in the "attitudes" section, it should reflect the general attitudes of "abolitionism" versus "humanitarianism", and the legal definitions should be differentiated.

In terms of defining "prostitution", it does not take away from the common name to include more neutral language throughout most of the article. I will cite some sources that provide a meaningful explanation of the recent shift in sex work rhetoric. One of the biggest reasons is confusion between "prostituted women" (trafficked) and consensual sex worker. Blurring of these two definitions directly impacts sex work legislation, which often refuses to define a consensual sex worker and a trafficked person. This is important because this legislation directly impacts sex workers. Here's a good article about why this distinction matters. This next source discusses the word "prostitute" as "culturally loaded" -- it carries with it inherent bias, similar to other slurs. It is gendered, reflecting an untrue bias in our notion of who practices sex work. The whole section on the Wikipedia page discussing the word "prostitute" as being alternately used to describe someone who has "debased themselves" should reflect how biased a term this is. Considering that "whore", "harlet", etc redirect to this page (i.e the page itself is not called "whore"), I see no reason why this page should not reflect the changing nature of sex work rhetoric. Another good source on the politics of abolitionist rhetorics is this Micag97 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree that in regards to attitudes, "abolitionism" refers to the goal of ending prostitution. However, this not solely on the grounds of "prostitution is violence against women", but for others it is based moral or religious beliefs. Unfortunately the feminist inspired Nordic Model, seems to have hijacked the term and made it exclusively defined by their beliefs. (On a side note, the the "violence against women" assertions fall down when it comes to gay prostitution. Dependant on which statistics you look at, between 12 & 20% of prostitutes are gay males.) When it comes to models of prostitution then "abolitionism" has a different meaning and is misnomer, the aims of the countries adopting that model are not to end prostitution, but to end the exploration of prostitutes by others. The names of the models have changed in recent years. What was "abolitionism" is now "neo-abolitionism" and what was "partial criminalisation" is now "abolitionism". I think this stems from claims from supporters of the Nordic Model that countries like the UK have a watered down version of the Nordic Model, which is factually and chronologically incorrect. The framework of the UK's legislation dates from 1956, 40 years before Sweden's current laws, but is based on principles in the UK enacted a century before. Whatever the reasons for the name change, it leads to confusion.

Whilst I can understand the desire to differentiate between those who are prostitutes by choice, and those who are not. The use of "sex worker" is ambiguous, as the term also includes pornographic actors, strippers, cam girls etc (Which is why we have separate articles for Sex work and Prostitution. Even "full-service sex worker" is ambiguous (could equally apply to porn actors) and at times inaccurate (not all prostitutes offer a full service). "Prostitute" can be used as a derogatory term, but as with many other words in the English language, it depends on context and, in spoken English intonation. Changing the terminology will only be a temporarily fix of the derogatory use. If everybody started using "full-service sex worker" rather than "prostitute", then within a short time all the arguments against using "prostitute" would apply to "full-service sex worker".

With regard to the article, as per other articles, the title, which is the common name, should be used as the main term through the article. I have no objections to you including a section on terminology and for the reasons you have given above why some use "full-service sex worker". Whilst this may be the latest term, it's worth including most NGOs use FSW (female sex workers). --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Just dropping in to state that I agree with John B123's reversion on this matter. Like he stated, "sex worker" is a broad term. The newer generation treating it like a synonym using it as a synonym for "prostitute" because they find "prostitute" offensive or because of the stigma attached to it is a problem because of the many occupations "sex worker" may refer to. "Prostitute" is specific. And there is stigma attached to "sex worker" as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Micag97: I think the "Modern terminology" section of the article needs a revisit. Two of the sources you give, "Sex Work Politics: From Protest to Service Provision" by Samantha Majic and "Wild guesses and conflated meanings? Estimating the size of the sex worker population in Britain" by Cusick et al don't actually use the term "full-service sex worker", Majic actually uses the term "prostitute" frequently.

The section reads as if "full-service sex worker" is now the accepted term. "Sex worker" or "Female Sex Worker" are still the terms used by NGOs such as UNAIDS, WHO etc. Additionally it should be brought out that the term "full-service sex worker" is only being advocated by US activists not globally.

In order to balance this section, it should be noted that support for the use of "full-service sex worker" is not universal. Some workers, activists and prostitute organisations oppose the change away from "prostitute", arguing that efforts should be made to destigmatise prostitution rather thinking up new names. --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I don't have time to revisit the section right now, but will supplement it with additional material in the next week or two. Micag97 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. As it's part of your course assignment I thought it better if you revised it rather than me. --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019

The idea of prostitution as the "world's oldest profession" comes from 1889 Rudyard Kipling's short story, "On the City Wall," set in colonial India, where Kipling describes it as the "most ancient profession" to characterize the timeless sexuality of Indian women. Scholar sexuality (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a change to the article you are proposing?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Note that Sweden was the first to introduce the "Nordic model" in the lead

Sweden isn't listed in the lead as the first country to introduce the "Nordic model", and should be. 216.66.124.26 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

@Rebeccaberger: I have reluctantly reverted your edit to the article. Whilst I realise this is part of an education project and you have obviously put a lot of edit into it, the "Economic Models of Prostitution" does not give a realistic overview of the topic. It seems to deal with street-based prostitution in the US only, so only represents one type of prostitution and in a limited geographic area.

"Prostitution is usually somehow involved with the drug market." - from the source you quote, again this is again US based and centred on sex-trafficking victims and street prostitution.

Courtesy ping to @Prof grant and Shalor (Wiki Ed): --John B123 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you John B123! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) (resigning with my work account)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Comment removed

 Not done: Be serious --John B123 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Private shows" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Private shows. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Private shows until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Prostitute" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Prostitute. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 21#Prostitute until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

The lede image was just changed from Femmes de Maison to "A prostitute in the Middle Ages". I reverted, simply because I feel we should have some criteria for the lede image. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I had added this image which I thought well-illustrated the subject by depicting how some brothels appear from the street with a pink light to identify them. The change was reverted back to the image of a painting which I feel is not educational. How do folks feel about this image of a "salon"? It could be cropped closer, but I like that it shows the view from the street. The faces seem blurry enough up close to protect their privacy. The image is found at Prostitution in China. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A concern I do have with the salon image is that it does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page per MOS:LEADIMAGE. This image from Amsterdam would accomplish that, but the sex worker's face would need to be blurred and the woman on the right should be cropped out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A hair salon where prostitutes work in Bao'an District, Shenzhen. Brothels are often disguised as hair salons, or they operate out of working hair salons.

My response to the September 3, 2020‎ edit is here. I stated, "Regarding the new lead image replacing the long-standing lead image, this topic is prostitution, not brothel. Sure, it's not called 'Prostitute', but 'Prostitute' redirects here and the article mainly concerns female prostitutes. But I'm not going to get into some debate with the editor on this matter. So noted for the edit history." I stand by that since I feel that the current image aligns more so with what MOS:LEADIMAGE states better than any image of a brothel, and since the editor who made the September 3, 2020‎ change by replacing the long-standing image will show up at an article they never edited and incessantly debate to add their preferred image. The most recent instance of the editor doing that is this discussion and a related one on their talk page regarding the Drag king article. Despite objections from SergeWoodzing and Seraphimblade, the editor re-added the image they wanted to add. So editors' objections to their suggestions for changing the prostitution lead image will not matter much if the editor is just going to change the lead image anyway (even if it means edit warring and being reported for edit warring and them not getting their way in the end). I don't feel passionately enough about this "prostitution lead image" topic to debate this editor for hours on end.

Still, I will state now that I object to changing the current lead image. I prefer the current one. I don't see how any reader will think they've arrived at the wrong page when seeing it. On the contrary. John B123, who reverted the latest lead image change, might also prefer the current lead image. Also pinging Beyond My Ken since he is a long-time watcher of this article and may have something to state on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and since there is a reply to Work permit above, I've just now pinged Work permit. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I got pinged here, I'll note that my only objection on the drag king article was on BLP grounds. Once a reliable source was found and those were alleviated, I do not particularly object to the use of that image. So far as here, I don't think the "pink light" image is a good lead image, since it does not provide a particular visual cue to having arrived at the right place. The painting both does that, and does not raise any BLP concerns, so I think it is the best choice of the options available. I would not want to see an image with deliberate blurring being used as the lead image anywhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I would ask you to assume good faith. I BOLDly added a new image; you expressed that you didn't like it at least partly because it depicted a brothel and not prostitute(s), and it was later reverted by someone else. I went to the talk page with two new suggestions taking your criticism into account. While the first image is still in the context of a brothel, both images do depict prostitutes. You narrative is skewed, but it is unrelated to the present article. I note that you have stated no policy reason for objecting to the two proposals. I don't know that I can presume that you feel the current image better confirms to the reader that they have arrived at the right place than the two proposed.

Seraphimblade, would you object to shadowing the face of the woman under the awning if it can be made to look natural? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

What about this photo? Editor Jucos has given her permission many times to use this photo of her, so I don't want to ping her right away. The deletion discussions should be read first if there are concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

[[File:A German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg|thumb|German prostitute image moved below] The only narrative here that is skewed is yours. I stand by everything I stated above. Noting how you behave is not a WP:Assume good faith violation. And I'm letting you know now that if try to force a lead image in this article (like you've done or tried to do at other articles) that lacks consensus, I will be reverting you. I'm sure that others will be reverting you as well. And this will be escalated to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard and/or WP:ANI. I am beyond tired of your WP:Tendentious editing when it comes to lead images. Editors should not have to keep debating you because you can't take no for an answer. My answer is no. I will not approve of any lead image change you propose or make for this article. Your image selections are often poor and POV-motivated. I prefer the current lead image. And stating "I feel that the current image aligns more so with what MOS:LEADIMAGE states better than any image of a brothel" is a policy (guideline actually) reason for objecting to the two proposals. That one proposal has a caption that states "Brothels are often disguised as hair salons, or they operate out of working hair salons." That the image shows (presumably) prostitutes does not mean it is more focused on prostitutes than the brothel. I agree with Seraphimblade that "So far as here, I don't think the 'pink light' image is a good lead image, since it does not provide a particular visual cue to having arrived at the right place. The painting both does that, and does not raise any BLP concerns, so I think it is the best choice of the options available." And the other proposed one? So? The third one? Sigh. Rationale for lead images are often subjective anyway. As seen at Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 7#RfC for photo, a discussion you participated in, consensus regarding images (and some other things) is not always about some policy or guideline-based reason. Later, the following discussion was had without you: Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 7#New lead image. I will very likely ignore your next reply to me; so go off with whatever skewed logic or WP:Wikilawyering you have. My response remains the same. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Fixed typos. Then tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)     File:沁樂園 (35).jpg, when you enlarge it, shows a bike lit by a red light. Not sure how that illustrates the subject. File:Barber shop Bao'an Shenzhen China.jpg isn't too bad at full screen, but at infobox size it becomes indistinct. I'm surprised the "Amsterdam" image hasn't been deleted under Photographs of identifiable people. The image also has a political message, as demonstrated by the filename File:Non-physical cheat, Red Light district, Amsterdam (27536327901).jpg and the description Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe - Jackie Mason but the sex worker's face would need to be blurred and the woman on the right should be cropped out and the guy's face remains unblurred? --John B123 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC) My being notified of this discussion seems to be because I have objected to bulldozer tactics and incessant excessively argumentative, largely irrelevant discussions and dogged efforts to get one's own way no matter what and the display of no respect whatsoever for an administrator's point of view. It looks to me like the same syndrome can be identified here. I can only condole us for that, and I'm not willing to get into it again. On the issue: no change should have been made to the current long-standing, excellent image and no posed or authentic photo of some girl, whoever she is, should be on top of the article. Since my being called here can be considered canvassing, my opinions probably don't matter anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Your opinions matter regardless of the fact that I pinged you. Canvassing with regard to pinging an editor when making a point about a related matter has been discussed at Talk:Canvassing Wikipedia talk:Canvassing before and rejected as canvassing (depending on the intent). I had no way of knowing your opinion on the prostitution image matter. I also wasn't expecting you to comment. But, yes, I could have stated "Despite objections from two editors" instead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you - no problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC) I reject these narratives, but I would like to focus on feelings about the images rather than about me. Serge, could you share why you would not like to see a photo of a girl as the lead image? I'm not sure what you mean by that and what policy you feel it violates, unless you are saying you don't want any images of real females, perhaps for privacy reasons, and you only want a painting? If that is so, all I can say is that she has given her permission, and I'll have to agree to disagree with you. John B123, my thinking was that the man is not recognizable with his face turned, but I note your disapproval. What are your thoughts on the image of the woman in red? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Is she a prostitute, or a model selling the bed she is on; a snap of somebody's girlfriend? It wouldn't be out of place on Tripadvisor as a shot of holiday accommodation. Psychology Today think it suitable to illustrate the article Internet Porn: Its Problems, Perils, and Pitfalls, so perhaps it suggests the start of a porn movie? --John B123 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC) According to the subject of the photo, this is a self-portrait of a German prostitute. She confirmed she has been a sex worker.  I hear your concerns about whether the image actually depicts a prostitute, but how do you otherwise feel about the image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC) This is not an argument for blurring faces, but I did find that blurring faces is permitted by policy.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC) The previous lede image was vastly preferable, and should not be changed. Prostitution is well known as the "oldest profession", and there is no need to have a moden photograph about which there are serious doubts in the lede, when a historic painting will do the job just as well. This seems like a case of change for the sake of change, and I oppose it strongly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC) To add: if an attempt is made to force a lede image change against consensus, I too will be reverting to the long-standing image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Everyone so far has also expressed a very strong preference for the current lead image. Can you help me understand what folks like about it? I may be dense, but I just see a painting of a nude woman; I am not able to recognize prostitution from the image. Personally I strongly prefer lead images that provide real life illustrations of the subject whenever possible, as opposed to a painting. I have not heard that folks here feel the same way. I have heard arguments against the images of the brothels, and I have heard concerns about privacy and authenticity, but I don't know what people think about the actual content of the photographs of the prostitutes in Amsterdam and Germany. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC) References German prostitute photo use I found that the photo of the woman in red above has been the lead image off and on since 2005.[5] Daniel.Cardenas has edited it here and Patrick has at Sex industry, where it is also currently used. Genericusername57 and Levivich have worked hard analyzing the criteria of controversial pictures of women so they may have some insight to offer. What do folks think of the German prostitute image (or the others) and the current lead image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC) I think it's time to drop the stick. Beyond My Ken has already summed up the situation well. --User:John B123 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC) John, there is no stick to be seen here. I did not hear anything from BKM about their opinions on the content of the images. They shared that they felt a historical image is just as good as a new image, so I infer that they feel no change is needed on that basis. They have not commented on my stated opinions on the images. Change for the sake of change this is not. I observe that folks are very unhappy to see a longstanding image be challenged (and a couple particularly don't like me), but a fruitful discussion may still be had. I also noticed that the German prostitute image has been the lead image of Prostitution in Germany since 2005,[6] and you've made a few dozen edits there so I presume you aren't strongly opposed to the image (although obviously it is precisely fitting there for being German). I haven't heard what you think about the photo's content vs the status quo, but iwon't ask you to participate in a discussion you don't want to have, but others may want to discuss this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC) The suggested replacements are inferior to the original one for various reasons, all of which have been expressed above. There is no compunction for a discussion such as this to continue to recycle the same arguments over and over again, and it seems highly unlikely that a "fruitful discussion" is in the offing, since you are the only one pushing this. There is clearly no consensus here for the change, so the stick-- yes, there is indeed a stick, and you are carrying it -- needs to be dropped. Please move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC) As I stated, the various reasons expressed have not been responsive to my reasons for initiating this discussion.[7] I hear your concerns, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Options for RfC I propose we have an RfC with four images: the existing lead image, the German prostitute, and the following two: Existing lead image German prostitute Cropped image from above with faces pixelated for privacy.[2] Painting by the same artist as the current lead image but more clearly related to prostitution Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I see nothing wrong with the current image, which was the view of every other editor but you in the discussion above. I am strongly opposed to having an RfC for a matter on which the consensus is strongly against you. In other words, WP:DROPTHESTICK please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I feel like I addressed all of the concerns expressed by others, but my concerns were not addressed because of how misguidedly guarded everyone was. I'd like to hear from fresh eyes, but there's WP:NORUSH. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC) That is not the case. Your concerns were more than adequately addressed, although you adopted an [[WP:IDNHT}} atttitude, and an RfC is not necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC) As I've expressed, I object to the current image because it is simply a nude and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, per MOS:LEADIMAGE.[8] There has been no response to this besides assertions to the opposite, which I feel is WP:STONEWALLING. There is no reason for us to rehash this, so I would like to hear others' opinions about my suggested photos and the possibility of an RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Again, you are the only editor who has those concerns with the current image, so the problem seems to be on your end and not in the image. An RfC will not alleviate that. 04:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I can't see the need for an RfC either. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Same here. Reasons given above. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC) "Not to be confused with" I've had a quick scan of the archives for this talk page - apologies if I've missed previous discussions of this. It seems to me that the "not to be confused with sex work" disambiguation link at the top of the article is not the right one. Sex work is an umbrella term, and prostitution is a form of sex work, so I'd propose that the right sort of redirect would be "see also" or something similar. They're not two unrelated topics that are often confused by the general public; rather, they are an umbrella term and a sub topic. It would be especially helpful to have advice from experts in this area (sex workers (current and former), people who work in this area in service organisations, academics specialising in research on sex work etc.) Atiru (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Overnight Often prostitutes advertise a rate for an hour or two but a much higher rate for overnight. I think it would be useful for this article to be clear for those who don't know what overnight means.87.114.23.43 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Micag97. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rebeccaberger. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC) PRESStitution, though not much liked by parents of minors, often found in Bild and Morgenpost, rest does not own this phenomenon in Germany ... it's a weird find to see that Bild and Morgenpost offer people like a s**t ton of female presstitutes, but no males! Is this phenomenon linked to misandry? Or to mysogyny? Or both? Are in this case Morgenpost and Bild simply RACIST to buy? At least, only the youtube channel of this presstitute German fake news press sort is visitable without ads laid down on mind in many ways. IN THIS WAY, NO MORE NEED TO PAY FOR THIS LEVEL OF PRESSTITUTION! AND BIGORTRY! NEVER KNOWINGLY PAY FOR SHADY MAGAZINES ANYMORE! Or unsafe to use Wifi and the likes being exorbitantly far too highly priced on average. I have found illegal routers being too pricy and too illegal for me to ever own anyways. TOO COSTLY FOR STUDENTS NOWADAYS!!! DO NOT BUY UP THIS CRAP! THIS IS CRAP AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN ON A BONFIRE! --82.207.238.129 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC) --82.207.238.129 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Middle ages Reference in the last paragraph does not support the claim. Globokivisoki (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Actually, it does, quite specifically. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC) As I see it, this paragraph: According to the medieval Jewish literary works of Zohar and the Alphabet of Ben Sira, there were four angels of sacred prostitution, who mated with archangel Samael. They were the queens of the demons Lilith, Naamah, Agrat Bat Mahlat and Eisheth Zenunim. is supporetd by this wabsite. Am I missing something? Globokivisoki (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Excluir sexo virtual de tipos de prostitución. (Virtual sex) Sugiero la exclusión del sexo virtual en ' tipos de prostitución ' de su artículo sobre 'Prostitución ', debido a que el sexo virtual de pago, si bien se trata de un trabajo sexual, pero más asemejado al stripper o a la pornografia, ya que el cliente en ningún momento tiene contacto directo ni físico con el trabajador, como si sucede en la prostitución. 77.225.229.215 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC) This is English Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Google translation: "I suggest the exclusion of virtual sex in 'types of prostitution' of your article on 'Prostitution', because paid virtual sex, although it is sex work, but more similar to stripper or pornography, since the client at no time has direct or physical contact with the worker, as if it happens in prostitution." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Virtual sex is a type of sexual work, but not a type of prostitution, because the sexual service is more limítate and haven't contact (like striptease, for example). MiguelATM1903 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC) In the 'types of prostitution' section, we should omit the 'virtual sex' section, since although it is a sex job, it does not share the common denominator with the rest of the types of prostitution mentioned above in the section, since prostitution offers a direct and physical sexual service with the client, and this does not happen in virtual sex, since it is a simulation. Virtual sex is sexual work, but it is not prostitution, it is more similar to, for example, the stripper who does not offer his body either, only his image. In addition, Wikipedia itself, in other articles such as 'sex worker' or 'sex industry', makes a distinction between prostitute and virtual sex operator, considering them different branches within sex work. 77.225.229.215 (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Yes, you made that exact point already, please don't continue to post the same thought again and again, and don't start new sections when old ones already exist. If you do this again, your new post will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Please modify Please modify "In pre-modern Korea, women from the lower caste Cheonmin, known as Kisaeng, were trained" to "In pre-modern Korea, the Kisaeng were women from the lower caste Cheonmin who were trained" or add "some" before women. The current sentence makes it sound like all women from the Cheonmin became Kisaeng. The Cheonmin class/caste was actually large and varied, and only some women from it became a Kisaeng. Thank you. 104.4.30.233 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)