Talk:Prostitution/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Prostitution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

First of all, I do apologise if I failed to follow proper wikipedia conduct. However, the reasons for changing the terminology in this article are valid. Furthermore, I spent hours on that edit, and it is unfortunate to just have it removed. Nevertheless, I will work with the system here.

Through what means can the language of the 'prostitution' article be replaced? Who needs to concur that the discussion of sex trade needs to be respectful to the individuals involved?

Also, some of the things that I deleted in the article, which have been replaced, are discussions of "crack whore" and "stat whore". I could not see how this was relevant to sex trade at all. Perhaps a new thread could be created, such as "Sex trade: derogatory terminology". Hurtsmyears 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer my sincerest apologies that for deleting the edits you made, which I'm sure took a long time and were made in good faith; however, since moving a page like this is potentially quite disruptive without prior discussion, I felt it necessary to restore the page to it's prior state pending some kind of general consensus as to the course of action to be taken.

I share your desire to ensure that this article, like any other on Wikipedia, treats it's subjects with appropriate respect; however, speaking personally, what I'm a little unclear on is how the term 'prostitution' or 'prostitute' themselves are words that are so offensive that it is necessary to changing the name and wording of the entire article in order to remove them. I could understand if this article was titled 'whores' or 'sluts' or something similar, as those are clearly derogatory and offensive terms, but I honestly don't understand what is so offensive about the term 'prostitution'. I was under the impression that it was simply a descriptive term used to describe the employment that the people it referred to are engaged in, the same way that 'police officer' or 'accountant' are used to quickly and simply describe these particular professions. Granted, these other occupations do not have the same connotations that the subject of this article possesses, but it seems to me that any term used to describe this industry will carry similar baggage, and 'prostitution' is a short and, in my thinking at least, relatively inoffensive term to describe the profession. Perhaps you could explain what exactly is so offensive about this term and the related terms?

Furthermore, a perhaps more practical reason for keeping this title is because, as I see it at least, the simple fact that this is the term that the trade is widely known by, and therefore for ease of reference for those seeking information about it, it is perhaps easier to refer to the article by this term. It is also shorter and snappier as, with all due respect, the alternative title you used was perhaps a little long and cumbersome. Depending on the product of discussion, of course, this does not rule out, say, an explanatory note discussing why this term is considered offensive - but for ease of reference of the encyclopedia, since this is the term that this particular trade is known by, it just seems easier and more convenient to use this particular term.

I do agree with you, however, that the current use of terms such as 'crack whore' and 'grade whore' seem unnecessary in their current use in the article, as there appears to be no need to use these terms in the context in which they are used and as such they seem rather gratuitous. As such, I've deleted them pending further discussion.--Joseph Q Publique 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The connotations are of prime concern. When one thinks 'police officer' or 'accountant', these tend to be thought of as roles that people occupy. When one thinks 'prostitute', however, the label is the dominating factor, and the person is forgotten. This happens with any terminology around deviance, such as 'thief' or 'murderer', where the human being behind the label is lost.

As a social care professional, I have worked directly with individuals who are involved in the sex trade. When the individuals I worked with called themselves 'prostitutes', they were demeaning themselves, expressing sentiments of worthlessness, and they had no pride in who they were. This is where I learned that the term 'prostitute' was inappropriate. Certainly some individuals who are involved in the sex trade do not mind the terminology, but for the sake of those who do, a more respectful approach is required.

Joseph, you are correct in saying that my proposed change of terminology is quite wordy. I see this phrase of 'persons involved in the sex trade' as being the most respectful thing to do, but I am willing to compromise. How about 'prostitution' be changed to 'sex trade' and 'prostitutes' be changed to 'sex trade workers'? The term 'sex trade worker' would at least give a bit of respect to these individuals, that they are persons with a trade, and not just persons who are deviant.Hurtsmyears 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the proper place to engage in social activism to alter people's perceptions.

Furthermore, altering the term will merely alter which term causes the people to have the attitudes to which you object. It is the role that is objected to; you can not change that by changing the name. Goldfritha 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What is being proposed is not to change 'name a' to 'name b'. Separating the person from the activity, instead of making the two synonymous, is not social activism, it is simply accuracy (which also happens to be respecful to the people being discussed). Hurtsmyears 08:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly share your desire to be respectful Hurtsmyears, I think that the appropriate choice of article title must come down to a word or words that (a) most people associate with the concept, and (b) almost all people feel is respectful. In my mind, the words "prostitute" and "prostitution" have no negative connotations at all, and I suppose (well, guess really) that that is also the case for almost all other people (please, others speak up and tell me if I am wrong (or right!)). You claim that, When one thinks 'prostitute', however, the label is the dominating factor, and the person is forgotten. This however is not the case at all for me; you realise I'm sure that whether or not a word appears to "separate" a person from an activity is very much a personal and subjective thing. --JRandomHacker 130.123.128.114 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole notion is absurd. 'Prostitution' is a perfectly appropriate, encyclopedic, non-perjorative term. I look forward to seeing Disability moved to Differently abled and Obesity to People of mass. 86.16.117.32 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, sex trade worker is no more respectful than prostitute. As prostitute is the more commonly used word it should probably stay as it is. A quick check shows that other are encyclopedias using the same terminology. --h2g2bob 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss this in isolation from Criminology, so I added the link in 'see also', particulaly in view of the intense debate in the UK provoked by the Ipswich murders, and recent developments in Canada. --Mgoodyear 18:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just thought I'd say that the Lead of this article is far too long and the information can and should be pushed down into the main article, see WP:LEAD for more information. Also, submitting a request at Cleanup Taskforce might be a good idea. Ekantik ^talk 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm going ahead and submitting it to the Taskforce, this article is way too messy. Ekantik ^talk 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I broke out the terminology to a new section; there was definitely too much of that. Goldfritha 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed the tag. I think it's short enough. Goldfritha 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see a lot more material on historical and cultural approaches to prostitution. Especially in Asia and Islam but also Africa. SmithBlue 12:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

69.31.209.169 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) This was taken from the 'Pimp' entry

"In 2005, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is a matter of sexual choice and should be legal throughout the UN, repealing the 1949 statute. Most voters voted for the resolution, and 165 countries legalized prostitution. The most notable non-signatory was the United States."

If the above is accurate, please update the reference to the UN in this article.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.150.179 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing this sentence from the lede. Many prostitutes have been, historically, slaves who had no choice in the matter; it can not be part of the definition that a prostitute voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse. Goldfritha 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

...that's just dense

I quote the manual of style:

Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted.

I am removing.Goldfritha 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinions, please. User:TRFA just reverted this edit. It makes no sense at all to delete this link to the main human trafficking article:

There's no dispute that human trafficking for purposes of prostitution is a huge international problem, so I'm really struggling to understand the WP:NPOV argument for removing this material. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Human trafficking and prostitution have connections. The article should mention (and link to) Trafficking in human beings Chwyatt 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs protecting from unregistered users from near daily vandalism.

I thought so, too. The admins didn't agree: [1] Do your best to keep up with it, and we can request protection again if it doesn't get better. --Mdwyer 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone instantly censored my addition to the trafficking section, about the girls and women enslaved by the Japanese military during World War II. I wonder why they did that: rvv would seem to brand my edit as vandalism, but this is a content dispute. Here is what I wrote:

During World War II, women and girls were kidnapped and enslaved by the Japanese government and forced to work as unpaid prostitutes for the military (see Comfort women). [2]

I've spent the last three hours defending edits like this. Why so many reverts?

Was my link inappropriate, or did the reverting editor simply believe that the "comfort women" episode never occurred? --Uncle Ed 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - the rvv referred to a previous edit, not to mine. --Uncle Ed 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why the picture was changed, but it seems that the old picture was far more illustrative for people to use now, so I have changed it back. I would like to get more input though if people disagree. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture which shows a prostitute, together with the caption "A prostitute in Germany," should be removed for the sake up protection to children.PRhyu 11:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why; the picture IS of a prostitute in Germany, so it's an appropriate image for an article dealing with the subject of prostitution, it's hardly an explicit photo - I'd imagine that any child who happened to come across it would just see a lady in a dress - and in any case, Wikipedia is not censored.--Joseph Q Publique 12:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I mess this up - I haven't used Wikipedia before. :)

I've just got through reading the article and the talk page and to tell the truth, I don't know where to start! Comments on the picture say a prostitute wouldn't be happy and smiling - comments on using the word 'voluntary' say that prostitutes are always forced/coerced. Would we discuss and debate the feelings/experiences/lives of, for example, indigenous people in this way? Would we pull rank over an Australian Aboriginal and TELL him how he feels and how he thinks and what name he should to be known as? I think not.

Like I said, I don't know where to start, so I guess I'll start at the top - the word 'Prostitution'. I noticed there is another article titled 'Sex Work' which contains only a few brief paragraphs and is apparently just a sub-page of the 'Prostitution' article.

'Sex Work' is not a euphemism for prostitution, nor is it an example of political correctness gone mad. It is the word chosen by sex workers around the world to describe their occupation. You can argue the appropriateness of the word 'prostitute' all you like, but common courtesy and basic respect dictates that you should adopt the word that sex workers themselves have asked to be used.

Replacing the word 'prostitute' and 'prostitution' with 'sex worker' and 'sex work' is more than simple semantics. First and foremost, it identifies the practice as an occupation and puts sexual services into an industrial framework. Plus, it is more inclusive and also gender-neutral. This change in terminology affects not only how society perceives the sex industry, but also how the sex industry sees itself. It is unifying and empowering and encourages dignity and self-respect.

By refusing to use the term preferred by sex workers (and also repeatedly conflating sex work with sex slavery, trafficking, child abuse and sexual violence) the 'Prostitution' article does not inform people of the realities of sex work - it only reinforces myths and misinformation. I noticed in some parts, factual information from sex workers and sex worker activists has actually been REMOVED because it didn't fit with society's stereotypical perception of sex work. Are the editors/moderators suggesting they know more about sex work than sex workers do?

Apologies for what almost amounts to an opinion piece. I felt I needed to fully explain my position. And for the record...yes, I'm sex worker. I've been involved in sex worker advocacy and activism for eight years, part of a large (and very vocal) international sex worker network. Ashkara sands 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. How exactly do we know that the clearly identifiable person in the photograph is a prostitute? Is it because the uploader says so? If she isn't, could she sue Wikipedia? How much could she get? Should we be more careful? I'd like to remove it. Best regards 195.137.96.79 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I now notice that the image description also gives her name. I strongly suggest this image is removed at least for now. It is simply unethical to show this woman's image and label her a prostitute without proof. Even if she is, there is a privacy issue here. Best regards 195.137.96.79 05:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation - this image is a hoax. It is a self portrait. She claims to be an art photographer on her user page. She does Not claim to be a prostitute or sex worker, although she has labelled the image as "German prostitute". This label is wrong. Please remove the image - the page is protected. 195.137.96.79 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove this picture. The artist has created it as a representation of what a prostitute looks like. The owner of the image has also placed it into her profile for public viewing. That fact that she is not actually a prostitute is unimportant as this article is not about a particular prostitute but about the class. Hence the image is quite suitable for this page and should only be removed if the owner of the image requests it to be. Given that the image is linked from her page to this article (assuming she cares) she will know it is being used. --Rbaal 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the picture's still worthwhile as a representation of the stereotypical image of a prostitute, but if she's not actually one then that renders the caption ("A prostitute in Germany") somewhat misleading. Perhaps this could be altered so that it reflects more closely what the image represents?--Joseph Q Publique 02:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I love that picture, keep it. Jmm6f488 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Crack whore" redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence "A prostitute is paid by the person with whom she/he has sex." seems to be incorrect. Isn't it possible that someone pays a prostitute to "service" his/her friend (or guest, or whoever)? In this case the payer doesn't have sex with the prostitute.

Don't you think there should be a section outlining the arguments on both sides regarding the morality of prostitution? I think it is a fairly rich topic.

Jester24 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Jester24

{{editprotected}} "Male prostitutes offering services to female customers are known as "gigolos" or "escorts"."

Should be:

"Male prostitutes offering services to male or female customers are known as "gigolos" or "escorts"."

Can you give some source for this claim? Od Mishehu 07:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the term gigolo was only applied to men who have sex with women Franny-K (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is self-contradictive: "it is common for girls to be trafficked into Hong Kong from mainland China for prostitution services. However this trafficking is not forcible; most women working as prostitutes in Hong Kong are of age and are doing so voluntarily.". Prostitution under these circumstances does not constitute trafficking, regardless if the prostitutes have arrived from elsewhere. I'm going to rephrase this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfons Åberg (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence about criminalization in Sweden is also flawed: "The reason for this law is to protect prostitutes, as many of them have been forced into prostitution by someone or by economic necessity." 1) It cannot be substantiated that the law was introduced in order to protect prostitutes. 2) It cannot be substantiated that "many" (weasel word!) were forced into prostitution by the time of the passing of that bill (unless you claim that _all_ prostitutes are per definition being subject to exploitation, which is a POV). I'm removing the sentence. Alfons Åberg 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Denmark is targeted in this sentence: "Nonetheless, women are being trafficked into the contry to serve as sex slaves". Just about any country in the world has problems with trafficking for sexual purposes, but this is in fact a relatively small problem in Denmark. So unless we should add this type of comment about every nation mentioned in the article, this is giving the problem undue attention in this specific case. I'm removing the sentence. Alfons Åberg 23:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now for a sentence about Sweden: "the Swedish legal approach represents an attempt to understand prostitution from the prostitute's point of view, rather than that of the buyer". This cannot be substantiated. If this was so, one might expect that the Swedish government had at least conducted a survey among the prostitutes prior to passing the bill. This is not the case. I'm removing the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfons Åberg (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a sentence about Germany: "In Germany most prostitutes' organizations deliberately use the word Hure (whore) since they feel that prostitute is a bureaucratic term and an unnecessary euphemism for something not in need of euphemisms.". This statement is unsourced. The usual criticism of the word 'prostitute' is that it is disempowering, rather than euphemistic. I'm deleting the euphemism part. If someone disagrees, please come up with a source. Alfons Åberg 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently, an image of a 1913 statuette depicting a girl child being sold by a working class man was uploaded in the articles “prostitution”, “pimp” and “child prostitution”. While this statuette has no doubt had the effect of moral resent and repugnance in general on its 1913 upper class audience, the informational value of it in the “prostitution” and “pimp” articles is hard to see. The only justification of it would be to visually describe what prostitution is supposedly like. In the latter case, this amounts to emotional manipulation and POV. Current prostitution should be described through 21st century documentation, rather that 1913 art. I’m removing it. Alfons Åberg 05:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, it deals with historical, as well as contemporary, accounts of prostitution. The statuette caused a minor uproar at the time it was commissioned - and as long as the image caption says that it is depicting the "white slavery" of the time, and not meant to be indicative of all prostitutes, it is not "emotionally manipulative" in any way. Restoring image, unless you want to try an RfC. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sherurcij! OK, I don't want to quarrel too much about this. I will specify my considerations though. You say that "The statuette caused a minor uproar at the time it was commissioned". I do maintain, however, that the statue is an artists enterpretation of something, regardsless if it was a real issue in real life. We need to distinguish between prostitution _per se_ and _popular perceptions_ of prostitution. Your image illustrates perceptions among artists and their audience. I sincerely think this would fit nicely in an article that could be named Popular perceptions of prostitution. I look forward to constructive cooperation. Alfons Åberg 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No single image can fulfill every function that you want to illustrate in an article, that's why I added, eight images to Prostitution last night, all illustrating different aspects of the trade. Some are "positive", some are "negative", but claiming we therefore shouldn't use this image is like claiming that Image:Bmc perrache.JPG "gives the impression that all prostitutes work in vans" or that Image:1787-prostitutes-caricature.jpg shouldn't be used because it suggests all prostitutes are cheerful tax-evaders. The image fills its role in the article - it just needs other images to balance out and show other sides as well. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone just added a section on 'animal prostitution': "Nonhuman animal prostitution Prostitution has been observed in nonhuman animal species, notably in Adelie penguins and in hangingflies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/60302.stm http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2004spring/stories/materialgirls.html". If anyone is going to argue that various strategic mating activities among animals belong to this article, I think he/she needs to expain why this subject deserves inclusion, particularly when considering that the production of pornography is not included in the article. Alfons Åberg 13:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this subject deserve inclusion? Because prostitution is when someone trades sexual favors for a material benefit. And trading sexual favors for a material benefit is described in these two references. The article on homosexuality includes the subject of nonhuman animal homosexuality; this is similar. Nnemo 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare the case of the homosexuality article with this article. In the case of homosexuality, a reference to animal homosexuality is relevant because this practise has been perceived as 'unnatural' and contrary to nature's proper functions. I cannot recall having heard of any dispute about whether or not prostitution is 'natural'. You may argue that the penguins etc. are "trading sexual favors for a material benefit", but in this case, marriage, strip tease and porn production also constitutes prostitution. So we are going to have a very inclusive article indeed, if the penguins are to be included by principle. Alfons Åberg 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a reference to nonhuman animal homosexuality is relevant in the article on homosexuality because some people say homosexuality is “unnatural”. It's much more simple than that: I think that a reference to nonhuman homosexuality is relevant in the article on homosexuality because nonhuman animal homosexuality is homosexuality.

Marrying only for money is not trading sexual favors for money; it is trading one's marriage for money. Strip-tease as a job is not trading sexual favors for money; it is stripping for money. “Sexual favors” means “having sex”; “stripping” means “taking off one's clothes”. Porn production can be viewed either as “acting for money” or as “having sex in front of a movie camera for money”. In the second view, I agree that it is prostitution. If you want to include porn production in the article, I will not disagree. The first view is the approach taken by the numerous countries which forbid pimping and allow porn production. Nnemo 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard repeatedly that "animals only have sex for reproductive purposes" and not because "it feels good." I don't think most animals think of the consequences of having sex, so this seems ridiculous; but it's a common argument. Animals engaging in prostitution is extremely relevant to the article, and also in itself interesting because most people don't see animals as something that desires sex as a material good (like humans) but more like a casual happening (hormones, scents, and it just happens due to instinctive reactions). --John Moser (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Does someone knows something about that? It was a matter of much speculation when I was there (feel free to edit the article :) --Victor falk 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has this page got so many messy catagories at the bottom can't see how to clean it up - does anybody know? --Rbaal 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)