Talk:Prostitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Prostitution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2004.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Prostitution==

Where shall I start? This is a former Featured Article that has been downgraded due to obvious bad editing. Too much information is contained in the Lead paragraph which should be pushed down into the main article subspace. Some information may be split off into sub-articles as has happened already. Too much slang and unreferenced information is used, too much information being used as a list page, and serious cleanup is necessary as the article is of inappropriate tone for an encyclopedic entry.

This is a big job, should other Taskforce members be enlisted to help?

Added to User:Shell Kinney/Desk Ekantik talk 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, we might just need a team for this. I didn't get much further than Prostitution occurs in many varied and different settings. before despair set in - that poor article has been terribly mangled by a lot of good-willed editors a bit unfamiliar with our styles. I'll get started on the lead paragraph and see where things need to be merged and see if I can find a few others who want to take a stab at a section. Shell babelfish 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You do need a team of 'world' specialists to review the contemporary meaning of the term. A prostitute does not 'commit' the act of prostitution, unless the person is in a country where it is illegal to perform such actions. Not allowing a person to perform consented, regulated prostitution (take example of the Victoria, Australian legislation, Prostitution Act 1994) is against human rights.
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on this talk page.


Archives: /Archive 1

 The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.


Contents

[edit] Australia prostitution legality

Kaitlyn S. is a whore for instance"Street based sex work is illegal all over the world except for New South Wales, Australia, and New Zealand ...but america should pick up on this one very fast." Its actually Canberra, ACT (Australian Capital Territory) where it is legal, *NOT* NSW as stated above. However it is largely de-criminilised in most parts of NSW.

The following are a list of members to the discreet NCWPS (National Center for Whores, Prostitutes and Sluts).

1. Tim Krigel

[edit] World map

A world map on prostitution laws would be great! Especially as a tourist because then you could know where you should go. --212.247.27.196 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmalouca article removal

I'm curious as to why this was considered spam. The article seemed to me to be an investigative look into the daily lives of lower-class prostitutes in Rio. It seemed highly sympathetic and completely non-prurient. Nothing that I could see was advertised on the page. How is this link different from any other news article linked to wikipedia, and why doesn't it deserve the same regard? If no one can answer this question I will restore the link with a warning of adult content. -Kasreyn 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Karsreyn. I did that because I felt the palmalouca links were added using a spammer's reasoning. Normally, good external texts are used to make an 'extension' to the reading of an Article's subject, while spams use the Article to promote themselves. It's a matter of 'who augments who'.
I believe the pamlouca site presence on Wikipedia was more consistent with the spam technique. I noticed that after a simple investigative procedure:
  1. I went to palmalouca's homepage at http://palmalouca.com/.
  2. I noticed that the whole site is a small collection articles.
  3. For each article, I took it's theme and looked on the Wikipedia's Article on this theme.
    (Prostitution, Carmen Miranda, Nelson Piquet, Mangue Bit).
  4. I noticed there was a palmalouca link on each one of them.
So, it seems that it's not that the palmalouca articles increment Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's audience increments palmalouca. Note that we can't say it was someone from palmalouca adding the links. But this just doesn't matters. One fact is that theses links we're added to Wikipedia in a narrow time frame from anonymous IP addresses (no more investigative work from here).
I agree that, if it is a concensus on the comunity that the palmalouca links are valuable to Wikipedia, them should stay. I, for one, don't think they're worthy. The "if no one answer ... I willl...." attitude doesn't please me. As a last reminder, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Regards, --Abu Badali 13:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Your definition of spam seems wise, so I'll agree to leave the link out. It does look like someone is trying to leech eyeballs for palmalouca. As regards "if no one answers" thing, I sometimes put that in to inspire debate. Frequently I've asked what I've considered an important question in an article's talk page and had no replies. Naturally the thing to do is to then go on and make the changes I need to (be bold!). To be civil though, I like to provide some prior warning that I intend to make changes unless someone can make a convincing case against. Which you did! Best wishes, -Kasreyn 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's all o.k. then. Actually, you're right about being bold. My Best wishes to you too. Regards, --Abu Badali 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Another view - the inclusion of a link is best based on how much the linked material benefits the Wikipedia article. To put other priorities first can be a like cutting of your nose to spite your face. SmithBlue 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on "German whore"

While it's likely that the anon user who changed the image caption to say "whore" was attempting vandalism, the term is ironically appropriate. I have read that many sex workers in Germany feel it is more honest to call themselves whores rather than using a euphemism. This is only hearsay though, and I don't have a source for the claim. -Kasreyn 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The German term preferred by most professional long-term prostitutes is indeed best translated as "whore" ("Hure" in German, same etymological roots AFAIK) -- maybe because the term "prostitute" tends to be very negative when used as a verb (in German: "(sich) prostituieren"). The picture itself also depicts a German prostitute (or ex-prostitute), so the caption might work. I'd personally vote for something along the lines of "A German "whore"." to make it sound less like an attempted insult.
The term "sex worker" is totally unknown in Germany (or at least in common German -- the German word is "Sexarbeiter(in)", but I've never ever encountered that outside the dictionary), probably so because Germany tends to be less prudent about prostitution and thus less concerned with "political correctness" of related terms. -- Ashmodai 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, here goes. I will rephrase it and link the word "whore" to this section of the talk page by way of explanation. -Kasreyn 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, wait. This is all wrong. Just because whore and Hure have the same derivation, and prostitute and prostitutieren have the same derivation, that doesn't mean that Hure should be translated as whore. We should use the closest thing we have to a neutral word in English, i.e. 'prostitute' or, if we're feeling PC, 'sex-worker'. What words people use in German is irrelevant. On a side-issue, I gather that rather a lot of the prostitutes in Germany are not German, so I'd suggest 'A prostitute in Germany'. Mark1 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it bothers you, I guess it's not that important. Still, I've heard that "hure" is how German sex workers identify themselves. -Kasreyn 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
"Whore" is the direct translation. However the question is which word is the best to use in the context of an English article, and that might indeed be the most adequate one in the English language. If sex worker is more than another bogus term resulting from US American political correctness, that may be the word of choice (I've only ever read the word in American articles and English is all but identical with American), otherwise I would feel more comfortable with the word "prostitute" because that is what seems to be the consent when it comes to internationally non-offensive words to describe the whole concept (one word or another eventually becoming an insult does not matter -- only a total fool (or George Orwell, possibly) would assume that inventing new labels would prevent further insult). -- Ashmodai 12:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Try telling that to wikipedians, who on average seem to think that "encyclopedic" means "bowing slavishly to every trend in political correctness".  :-( -Kasreyn 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
'Sex worker' is, I think, reasonably widely used in Britain, mainly by prostitutes' associations and possibly academics. I'd have no problem with 'prostitute', though. Orwell, by the way, would have believed quite the opposite. ;) Mark1 12:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence with unverified claim

I removed the sentence, "Though there is a stereotype that such male prostitutes are rare, a comprehensive study by Nither Tinnakul of Chulalongkorn University at Bangkok found the number in Thailand alone to be at least 30,000, versus an estimated 100,000 female prostitutes.". The only evidence I can find for this is one brief transcript from a radio show, not enough evidence to make this claim. Also, the sentence is misleading even based on the article. --Xyzzyplugh 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sex tourist=paedophiles? NPOV?

"Some pedophiles use sex tourism to have access to sex with children that is unavailable in their home country. These sex tourists organize themselves around a number of web sites where they boast about their conquests, share photos of their victims, discuss tips on how to have sex with men, women and children in foreign countries at the best possible rates and how to avoid detection both at home and abroad."

You are talking about sex crime, not sex tourism. This is a different subject, and should not be listed under 'sex tourism'. The contributor may disagree with the motives of sex tourists, but this is no place to air his/her feelings. Sex tourism is something which is usually legal or decriminalised in the host country and ignored in the tourist's. Sex with children is illegal in all countries, and does not belong in a sensible discussion about sex tourism, particularly not in a paragraph where 'paedophile' and 'sex tourist' are used interchangably as they are here.

The dangers to children in popular 'sex' destinations would be better addressed by giving these concerns their own heading and dealing with them properly and factually, instead of trying to infer, as this does, that child rape and sex tourism are practically the same thing.

I don't see such an inference; however your suggestions sound okay to me. - RoyBoy 800 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree as long as a note remains in this article that sex tourism is in many cases a way to circumvent age of consent laws. Then we can just have a link to the main article on sex crime / pedophilia. It doesn't really deserve such a large chunk of this article. -Kasreyn 05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Should have looked here first. But I fixed the NPOV issues a bit. Oarias 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of terms

Pedophilia is not applicable to sex tourism. The first diagnostic criterion for the sexual disorder 302.2 Pedophilia states that the client must exhibit "Sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)", as classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. There are no countries that have an age of consent below age 13, and many of them do include ages between 21 to 13 that classify adolescents as children. Moreover the second citerion states that the client must be distressed by his or her behavior, which is not the case of sex tourists. The concept of age of consent is important in how it applies to international laws and the laws of individual countries regarding sex tourism, and it is not a clinical concern in terms of pedophilia.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pimp friendship?

"Female prostitutes, especially street prostitutes, are mythologically associated with a pimp, a man who lives off the proceeds of several prostitutes and may offer some protection in return. The relationship between pimp and prostitute is often friendship however, and may be someones partner or family."

Roberta Perkins is a founding member of the Australian Prostitutes' Collective. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part1b.html) I have not read her studies, but I believe they are by default skewed. Her sample base must necessarily be of women who agreed to be interviewed. This information is also based primarily from Australia, and not street prostitution in the US.

Pimps are not friends. It is not a "mythological association." I have edited this paragraph.

I'm gonna make a userbox that says "This user is a pimp". The Republican 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pimp This user is a pimp.

The Republican 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Here it is!


*Comment - I didn't know it was possible to vandalize a talk page, but the above edits by The Republican proves me wrong I guess! :) Can someone tell me what this userbox has to do with the article?? --Oscar Arias 00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, he wasn't exactly vandalizing. Rather, going off-topic. "Pimp" is used as a more positive word in slang than the original meaning would suggest and I guess he figured it'd be funny to have yet-another-user-box for that and that this would be the right place to advertise it. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


I find it annoying how the word "pimp" has become a positive term these days, the image I have of pimps, and correct me if I am wrong, are men who force or ensnare women to sell their bodies and dignities to strange men for his monetary gain, and the relationship between the two are usually one of rape and abuse. the worst moment in television history according to me is when MTV made a 15 minutes long commercial about trafficking and the dangers of those who sell their bodies and directly after showed an episode of "Pimp My Ride". how do you pimp a ride? beat some women, give them STDs and throw them in the trunk to be driven to next stop of semi-consentual sex?

This is Wikipedia, not an opinion forum. The talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Kasreyn 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "pimp" as a slang term has positive cannotations, but an actual pimp is basically an employer of prostitutes. I have met a few women ("friends of friends") who used to be prostitutes, and I can assure you that pimps frequently abuse women. They are not nice people. I know that this isn't a forum, but if there any positive comments about pimps in this artcile or the pimp article, then it would be best to clarify that they mostly refer to a stereotype instead of actual pimps. --Mathew Williams 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (The unsigned comment above isn't me, by the way)

[edit] Nine external links about sex slavery/human trafficking ??

Isn't this excessive and giving the article "bias" ?? Oarias 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some that are ALREADY listed in the Trafficking in human beings article, my reasoning:

  • 1) Link already exists in Trafficking.
  • 2) Excessive trafficking articles is giving the links section a POV feel for anti-prostitution advocates.
  • 3) I left links that DIRECTLY mention prostitution as this is what the article is about.
  • 4) I feel my edits somewhat restore NPOV perspective of the article.
  • 5) There were just too many! One of the complaints that was entered when this article lost "Featured" status was something about "too many links", and I agree, look at the Human trafficking article it's a link nightmare!

Comments? Oarias 05:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed George Carlin Quote

A quote from a old, foul-mouthed comedian? Mildly funny, but inappropriate for this article, I think. Making a joke about legalizing prositution does not merit a quote in an encyclopedia entry. Jboer 09:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he provides a stereotypical quote of a feeling commonly held by those opposed to anti-prostitution laws. It may be a joke, but it also concisely probes what some see as a flaw in the reasoning behind outlawing prostitution. Carlin's quote has become significant (imo) by the sheer amount of times it has been copied and passed on. It makes me wonder whether which you find "inappropriate": George Carlin as a source, or a strongly worded attack on the logic behind outlawing prostitution. I don't agree that it's inappropriate. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. What makes George Carlin notable? He's only one of the most famous comedians and public speakers alive. I'd say that counts for something. -Kasreyn 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, replaced quote per above -Oscar Arias 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical part

[I don't know much about editing Wikipedia sites, but it strikes me that--since our closest living relatives, bonobo apes, often engage in transactions whereby female provides sex for fruit gathered by males--prostitution may be something engaged in by our common ancestor 6 million years ago. In fact, it may be the "world's oldest profession." I didn't want to add anything like this in the actual page, because as noted I am a newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia entries. However, I wanted to make the suggestion here.]

For the german Wikipedia I actually write an article about ancient prostitution (de:Prostitution in der Antike). Since I've started at the University in 1996 this is one of my special fields. But now I'm reading the first time the historical part of the english Prostitution-article and must say: It's horrible. It's pure yellow press. There's nothing to find what's in a little way scientific. The part about the temple prostitution I'va already removed totaly. Modern science says, thers no evidence for this. Herodot and other greek authors are bad wintnesses. The histirical part of this article ist - so wide I can tell it - very bad and needs a revised version. Kenwilliams 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references, not simply blank. The passage should look like: "according to the Ancient Greek authors..., but according to the modern authors (references!) it was ...". Do not consider this as a personal attack, but if we compare words of Herodotos to words of a Wiki-user, I will prefer Herodotos abakharev 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That a fault. Herodotus is for such things not trustworthy. I would write it new by myself, but my english is much to bad. Actually it's definetly not OK. It's pure Horror for every serious historian. Kenwilliams 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Then go to my talk page and describe it as best you can. I don't speak German any further than guten tag, but I am a native speaker of English, and I find anything about ancient times fascinating. :) ...
...or, maybe you could request a translation into English of that German article and link to it from this article here? Runa27 06:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first part of the history chapter, it was speculative cliches, no citations and even a dash of Anthropomorphism!! Ingaemm 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest some spelling corrections and linking with relevant articles on Wiki. First of all, Aphrodite Pandemos for "Aprodites Pandemo". I guess that was just a typo, but linking would be helpful. More importantly, "Ateneo" should be Athenaeus, and the item should be linked with the article on him. Other than this, i think you should delete the "(from the Indo-European root kā meaning "desire")", or you should reference it. For example, the Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology s.v. whore p. 540. gives its root as I-E *kār, and compares Latin carus and Old Irish cara. And, finally, the "Old English word hōra" should be changed. It is hōre (cf. Bosworth-Toller s.v. it is in public domain and can be found on this page:http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/texts/oe_bosworthtoller_about.html). I didn't want to tamper with your article, so I'm leaving it to you. I hope I helped. IlAkkad 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is photo necessary?

What does the photo on the article convey? Is there something special in the photo that qualifies her to be a prostitute? In my opinion, it is not needed at all. Thanks. 195.150.224.236 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Ther is nothing wrong with the photo. It's a picture of a prostitute, she appears to be in her "work room" and dressed in appropriate prostitute wear. Leave the photo alone. -Oscar Arias 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The photo is true, I know her very well (we are friends, not more!) - it simple shows the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Kenwilliams 09:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
While it's true that just wearing sultry or revealing clothing doesn't make a woman a prostitute, the woman in question in the photo is actually a real prostitute who works in Germany. The photo serves to provide a general sense of what a prostitute might look like if you encountered one; in this case, extremely general, since there are so many different ways a prostitute can look. Look at the fifth picture down from the top on Construction; is there anything about that man that qualifies him as a construction worker? No, but he is wearing typical construction worker garb and is seen in a place where one might expect to find a construction worker working. The same principle is at work on this page. -Kasreyn 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, the woman seems somewhat happy, the surroundings serene. I am certain that happiness and serenity are not closely associated with the world of prostitution.

  • She is smiling for a customer, she isn't happy. EamonnPKeane 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that it matters, but she doesn't particularly look "happy". Who knows, she may be... In Germany I've met a pro who drove a new Benz and made more money than me, it's quite a lucrative business there. Why does it seem that people always wish to paint the negative on this issue, geesh. Just because your limited exposure to pros was driving by "toothless Wanda" the local crack whore in "Bumfudge, Georgia" does not mean that all prostitutes live that lifestyle. Interesting that no-one seems to want to get rid of the picture of the grotesque streetwalker further down in the article, but it must be all right because it portrays prostitution in a negative light. Whatever... (anonymous poster above) it's obvious to me that you are trying to insert POV into the article by selectivly removing photos. -Oscar Arias 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. It seems quite plausible to me that, in nations where prostitution is not criminalized, prostitutes might be happy. Much of their misery in the United States is directly attributable to their outlaw status, nothing more, nothing less. -Kasreyn 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, we don't need to discuss this here. I think it's enough to now, that's not a fake. She can handle with this and has loaded up the pictuere by herself. She's fine with her life, can handle with all. It was a Job - not more, not less. Kenwilliams 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the photo? Since there's no explanation on the talk page, I'm putting it back.--Frenchman113 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The typical image of a prostitute in Western films and television is a woman, sometimes among a group, on a street corner at night. I understand that this is simplistic and boiled down. However, a lounging, seductively positioned woman showing skin is not only not defining as a prostitute (whether the real life woman is one or not), but it doesn't add any information, as an image should do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.49.207 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I understand your point about information content. The point could be made that the woman in the image might merely be a model, or might not really be a prostitute and simply is being interpreted as such by us, and/or that even if she really were a prostitute, the image does not show anything worth showing.
First off, I'd point out that according to the image's upload information, it was taken in Germany of a German woman. As prostitution is quite legal in Germany, I'd say WP:AGF requires that we assume that the editor who uploaded the image was telling the truth: the woman is a real-life whore.
As to what information content is contained, this is harder to answer. The ideal you describe rightly as overly simplistic is specifically of a streetwalker, a specific kind of prostitute - but we already have an image of a stereotypical streetwalker lower down in the article. I can't think of any reason for prostitution to take the form of streetwalking except its criminality; I have no data for this, but I would suspect that in countries where prostitution is legal, streetwalking would be less common, as it would be easier for prostitutes and pimps to acquire shelter in which to regularly engage in their business. Ie., they wouldn't be restricted by their outlaw status to the streets and cheap motels; they could actually set up a brothel, and if they had a brothel, why risk the prostitutes' safety by walking the street? Would make no sense. Conclusion: I would expect that in countries where prostitution is legal, in-call or "escort" style prostitution would be more common than streetwalking, so it's worth having a picture of such a setting.
It might be even better to get an image of a prostitute actively engaging in her trade; if we wanted to be extremely anal-retentive in our requirements and take this logic to extremes, we would have to construct a slideshow or gallery depicting negotiation, exchange of money, and provision of service. But I'd say that would be somewhat over the top, not to mention that it would still be impossible to prove it wasn't a staged photoshoot of a woman who wasn't a real prostitute. (Though one wonders occasionally at the bizarre legalisms that protect, say, Chasey Lain or Mary Carey from being classified as prostitutes; after all, they have sex as part of an activity for which they're being paid.)
In all, I'd say it's better to leave the image where it is and trust in the uploader that the woman actually is a whore. It would seem to be quite a headache to insist on more. Kasreyn 07:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New photo?

I'm not sure the new photo with the man having sex with two prostitutes helps? It should at least be reduced in size as it obstructs the page. And no, I'm not proposing censorship--Frenchman113 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I'm completely against censorship in Wikipedia, but the photo is not educational or encyclopedic in the context in which it has been placed. There are images of copulation in the article on sexual intercourse, which I have to constantly protect from censors. This article doesn't need them. We have photos of prostitutes; if people want to know what prostitutes do, they can go to the article on sexual intercourse where there are images.
The new photo is redundant, uneducational, unencyclopedic, and was likely inserted for prurient aims. It should be removed. Does anyone object? -Kasreyn 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Aye, the article has far too many pictures, and this one seems least helpful. It should be removed (but not because it's offensive).--Frenchman113 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a user but i OBJECT, i think it was educational, in its way. It was very striking in that this was a Victorian image, i know it prostitution existed at this time obviously, but this advertisement is out in the open and quite explicit not just a covered up girl (as i would have expected). So it demonstrates, in a way i don't think words can, exactly what the conditions were like or partially like in some circles. It is clearly not redundant for this reason as it shows how the Victorian society functioned 'behind the scenes' (and has at least for me dispelled some myths i had held true). It is also evidence for what is written in the very least. You can't just take it away because they are naked or because they are having sex, it is still valid for the other points, even if this article isn't about pornography or sexual intercourse. I think these points are valid.

FURTHERMORE this has appeared on the main page... was this before or after this photo was added, if the when it was featured as a main article it included the picture i do not think that you should just remove it as you object, or think it is "unencyclopedic"; it clearly is considered encyclopaedic enough if it appeared at this time by people who are probably more qualified to make that decision that you or i.

I do not have strong feelings about this - but think this may have been removed for the wrong reasons. You have not really provided any reasonable explanation as to why the point i have made above does not make it educational to this article.

I will restore when i figure out how. Unless you can explain to me why I am wrong, and the administrators were wrong when they chose this to be a article of very high quality, and you are right addressing the points I’ve made. Thanks.

First off, please get a user account! It will make it easier to talk to you. I should also warn you that some of the editors and admins are working on a proposal to get anonymous IP-address editing banned. I'm against the idea, but it's looking like the vote is going to be in favor of banning anon editors. So my advice is, get a user account!
Secondly, I still disagree. As I said above, I did not remove the photo for purposes of censorship. I've reverted many users who attempted to censor this article, and reminded people that Wikipedia is for adults. The reason why I removed the picture is because Wikipedia is an information resource, an educational tool, and the photo taught nothing. It explained nothing, it imparted no useful information.
It specifically did not, as you claim, give a glimpse into Victorian life. It was a photo of what were very likely to have been professional actresses and a professional actor, posing for a tableaux. This is even assuming that the photo was from the time period it claimed to be from, and not a modern re-creation! Unless you can verify the provenance of the photo, we can't make any claims about what it represents. More simply: unless we can prove that the photo was really taken during "Victorian" times, we can't make the claim that it depicts a Victorian scene.
Even if the photo can be proved to be a genuine historical artifact, the problem persists that it doesn't really teach anything. Perhaps if there were an article on Prostitution in Victorian England, it would be appropriate there. As it is, it is off-topic for an article whose focus is more broad.
Thirdly, we have no proof that the women depicted in the photograph really were prostitutes. It's quite possible they were paid actresses. (Yes, there was a professional pornography industry back then, it was just much smaller than today's and more underground.) In fact, the glamorous appearance of the ladies and the stylized poses of all the people in the shot definitely looks to me more like an example of Victorian-era pornography, which is not what this article is about. Perhaps Pornography in Victorian England would be an appropriate place for the image.
Finally, I strongly suggest you engage in discussion on this talk page before restoring the image. If you do not attempt to build some consensus for your actions, you're more likely to be reverted by other users. There is also a Three Revert Rule which forbids a single user from reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours. Breaking this rule can result in a temporary block from using Wikipedia. Please try to reach some consensus.
Please don't feel that I'm saying all this to attack or threaten you. I've seen many new users who were never warned of these things, who managed to get reprimanded or blocked due to ignoring consensus or violating 3RR. I'm trying to help you make a better first impression. So please, create a user account and help us make Wikipedia better. I look forward to what you have to say in reply.  :) -Kasreyn 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] Changing "Prositution" to "Persons involved in the sex trade"

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)

[edit] Criminology

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)

[edit] Cleanup?

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)

[edit] More on history and culture

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)

[edit] voluntarily

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

[edit] list in overview

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)

[edit] Human (or sex) trafficking

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

Main article: Trafficking in human beings

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)

[edit] Vandalism

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)

[edit] Prostitution law map

Anyone want to make a map like Image:World-cannabis-laws.png? --Joffeloff 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


This is an excellent idea.. It would show that there is no universal legal approach

[edit] POV dispute

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)

[edit] Picture change

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)

[edit] Info Database

I don't have time but someone should go through prostitutionprocon.org and clean this back to featured NapalmSunday 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screening

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)

[edit] Sex Work

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)

[edit] Image

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)

[edit] Crack whore

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (July 2007)

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

[edit] Person who pays a prostitute doesn't necessarily receive sexual service.

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.

[edit] Debate on the morality of prostitution

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

[edit] Requested edit

{{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)

[edit] POV problems

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)

[edit] Emotionally-manipulative image

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)

[edit] Animal prostitution?

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)

[edit] Prostitution official reason for banning sexual relations between Lao and foreigners in Laos?

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)

[edit] Catagories On Page

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)


[edit] Removal of items about current cases of violence

The article is getting very messy with refrences to current examples of violence against sex workers. Why are these items there? very north americian centric. I think other than Jack the ripper all other references should be removed or moved to a seperate page as they add nothing to the article

discuss!

--Rbaal 07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question

If a prostitute is raped, is it rape or shoplifting? 64.178.175.154 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you were joking with this question or not, but rape is generally defined as sexual penetration without consent. If a sex worker does not consent to having sex and the man forces it on her, it's rape. Even if she's agreed to perform another sex act, like hand relief or oral sex, if the man has sex without her consent, it's still rape. A case of non-payment, on the other hand, could be tried as anything from rape, to theft, to a breach of contract. In a commercial context, it could probably be considered the same as refusing to pay your hairdresser after a haircut (breach of contract) or walking out of the store without paying for your groceries (theft). But sex workers, by definition, only consent to having sex in exchange for money. I would argue that refusal to pay negates the original consent - and sexual penetration without consent is rape. This subject could be good to add to the main page. The common belief that you 'can't rape a whore' is a major contributing factor to the high levels of violence and sexual assault experienced by sex workers the world over. Ashkara sands (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of Ads

Advertizing is not illegal heer in Germany, you have it in every newspaper. --89.196.65.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lack of info on male prostitutes that offer their services to women

why is this article lacking this info... please. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gothgirl, see Gigolo: word was misspelt in original article (I will correct the next). Cheers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

This talk page is 89 KB (14318 words) long. Because of possible technical problems, this page should be WP:ARCHIVE. I'd use the cut-and-paste subpage method, leaving the most recent (and therefore possibly active) discussions here. Any objections? Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sexual prostitution

Although it is appropriate that this article should focus on the sex trade, because the most common usage of the term prostitution is sex for hire, it should be pointed out somewhere within the article that prostitution is not primarily about sex but about selling out. And that the word prostitute applies to anyone who willingly engages in an unworthy or debased enterprise. The term has gained sexual moral condemnation while it has lost the sense of betraying an obligation associated with sacred gifts in all walks of life, in the same culture where selling out in general has come to be considered to be doing the work of the unseen hand of providence. The result is a sense of "greed is good" in general, and that opposition to sex for hire is based mainly on disdain for sex. It would be debatable wether a person who views sex work as their life's work would properly be called a prostitute, or that a person who is forced into sex slavery should be called a prostitute. Neither one willingly engages in an enterprise that compromises their morals. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the primary reasons why people who work in the sex industry prefer the term 'sex worker' to 'prostitute'. The intimation that a person is 'selling out' or 'debasing' him/herself by choosing to sell sex services is what makes the word prostitute so demeaning and offensive to sex workers. Ashkara sands (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole could be improved by noting that people forced into sex work as a form of slavery do not fit the definition of prostitute. Slaves, both male and female, young and old, have probably always been sexually exploited, if human nature is to be relied on. And vilified by their exploiters. Also, in the U.S. culture, the focus is on the prudish disdain for sex and the the low social status of some sex workers. Actually debasing oneself for money or political power is seen as a fundamental act of commerce, or politics. The condemnation is not aimed at moral degradation. That part is assumed. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quibbles about wording of the Lead section

QUOTING FROM THE LEAD SECTION:

"The term is also used loosely by some to refer to sexual activities of which they disapprove,[1] such as sexual promiscuity or sex outside marriage."

"Male prostitutes that offer their services to females are known as escorts, or gigolos."

The reference [1] is in the middle of a sentence, but I can't find anything in that reference about the point of the sentence.
Are male prostitutes that offer their services to males NOT known as escorts?

I see above on this page the suggestion that the lead section is too short. That may well be, but the last paragraph of the current lead (which I'll paste in below) is specifically "not about prostitutes" and does not belong in the lead. (IMO)

Pasted in for ref: "Pornographic actors and actresses get paid for having sex, but are not generally referred to as prostitutes. If a woman has sexual intercourse with a man who supports her financially but doesn't live with her, then she is called a mistress, and is again not normally considered a prostitute."

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

this stuff is cool  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.60.221 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

your moms a prostitute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.60.196 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Link POV

Why are there anti-prostitution writing links and not pro ones?

[edit] Lesbians and prostitution

Are there any lesbian prostitutes around? This article mentions female-male, male-male, male-female prostitution, and even child prostitution, but not female-female prostitution. It would be nice if some body with information about this topic could add more about it in this article. I know it is probably a not well studied area of prostitution, but there must surely be some lesbian prostitutes in the world considering the amount of lesbians that there are in the world. I think this is an overlooked are of the topic, and I mean this as a serious point. Franny-K (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No reference.

However, in countries and areas where safer sex precautions are either unavailable or not practiced for cultural reasons, prostitution appears to be a very active disease vector for all STDs, including HIV/AIDS.

Removed due to lack of reference.

- "The number of American and European heterosexuals who have had sexual relations with a prostitute, who have no other admitted risk factors (such as drug abuse), and who have subsequently developed antibody to HIV can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Sex with a prostitute is not even listed as a risk category by the American CDC." (Rethinking AIDS, Root-Bernstein, 1993)

- "Non-drug abusing prostitutes have no higher risk of AIDS than other women." (AIDS: the second decade, report from the National Academy of Sciences USA, 1990)

The same is true for prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), and Athens. (Klinische Wochenschrift 65: 287 (1987), Luthy et al.; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 98: 697 (1986), Kopp & Dangl-Erlach; Lancet ii: 1424 (1985), Brenky-Fandeux & Fribourg-Blanc; British Medical Journal 297: 1585 (1988), Day et al.; Scand J Infect Dis 21: 353 (1988), Hyams et al.)

AIDS CASES IN 2001

http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm

France 1528

Holland (legal prostitution) 45

Sweden (legal prostitution/very sexually liberated) 42

Denmark (as above) 74

These current statistics hardly suggest a link between AIDS and sexual activity.

....so does that mean that people in France are less likely to use condoms than in Holland, Denmark and Sweden?

Actually the EXACT REVERSE IS TRUE.

Durex study: -


"The number 2 country in the Durex survey (amount of sexual activity) is the Netherlands, where people say they have sex 158 times a year, followed by Denmark at 152. The average among all the countries is 139, with the USA falling just short at 138.

While people are still underprotecting themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancies, according to the Durex Global Sex Survey, the French are the least likely to have had unprotected sex. Just 22 percent said they have not used protection, compared to 61 percent in Sweden who did not take precautions."

___


France had over 1528 AIDS cases in 2001 (http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm) compared to 42 in Sweden BUT uses condoms almost 300% more than people in Sweden.

Confused? The lower the condom usage the lower the AIDS. Not exactly what you have been taught?



HERE ARE THE ORIGINAL FIGURES ADJUSTED FOR THE POPULATION'S OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES INVOLVED.

AIDS CASES (RATE PER THOUSAND POPULATION).

Sweden .047 Denmark .139 Holland .028 France .268

CONDOM USE (as percentage of population) FRANCE 78% DENMARK 39% (EXACTLY HALF OF FRANCE)

and yet the rate of French AIDS cases is 1.93 (nearly twice as high*) compared to Denmark. In other words half the condom use creates twice the AIDS (cases not death) rate.


_____

In Spain, of 519 non-intravenous drug-using (NIVDU) prostitutes tested between May 1989 and December 1990, only 12 (2.3 per cent) had positive WB. Some prostitutes had as many as 600 partners a month and the development of a positive WB was directly related to the practice of anal intercourse.

The authors also noted: "A more striking and disappointing finding was the low proportion of prostitutes who used condoms at all times, despite the several mass-media AIDS prevention campaigns that have been carried out in Spain." In 1990 and 1992, in two Scottish studies, not one NIVDU prostitute was found WB positive.

In the 1993 "European working group on HIV infection in female prostitutes study", only nine (1.2 per cent) of 756 NIVDU prostitutes were found WB positive. These nine included three with another risk factor (blood transfusions) but not withstanding, the prevalence of a positive WB among these prostitutes is the same as that for a population of 89,547 hospital patients at no known risk for AIDS or HIV infection studied at 26 hospitals in 1988-1989 in the United States (1.3 per cent). Closer to home, of 53,903 Filipino prostitutes tested between 1985 and 1992, 72 (0.13 per cent) were found positive. In September, 1985, we collected 56 samples of blood in the rue Saint-Denis, the most notorious street in Paris for prostitution. [...]

No prostitute was seropositive.

These women, aged 18-60 have sexual intercourse 15-25 times daily and do not routinely use protection. Altough contracting AIDS is greatly feared by these women, only 15 used condoms with all their customers.

[...] none of the Paris prostitute was a drug addict.

Brenky-Faudeux D, Fribourg-Blanc A. HTLV-III antibody in prostitutes. Lancet. 1985;2:1424.

The same results were reported from Amsterdam, one of the world's centers of legalized prostitution. When several hundred non-drug using prostitutes were studied, investigators found no HIV-positive women even though they averaged more than 200 clients per year

Coutinho RA, van der Helm TH. [No indications for LAV/HTLV-III in non-drug-using prostitutes in Amsterdam]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, 1986;130(11):508. As reported by David W. Rasnick, Ph.D., in a letter published by the British Medical Journal Sex has nothing to do with AIDS. Aimulti (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soi Cowboy caption

Soi Cowboy is a single short street NOT a 'red light district' unlike Pat Pong. It is off Sukhumwit Soi which boasts a number of the major hotels (Ambassador Hotel for example) and is a major tourist shopping area in Bangkok. Aimulti (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whore redirects here

Whore is a derogetory term. Why does it redirect to a job? Cunt is also a derogetory term. It doesn't redirect to tax collecter, even though they're often refered to it. I say we change the redirect, what do you think? Matt (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you want to make a seprate page for the word "whore," I think not.

[edit] Motivations for Prostitution

Motivating factors for a person to engage in prostitution are almost always economic - either the prostitute needs money as an income source or they are coerced into it by a pimp that wants the money. There are some other motivations though: Women that are unattractive or have low self esteem will engage in sex for money to gain attention or a sense of being desired. Some women are nymphomaniacs and enjoy the sex. Others are motivated out of some psycological disorder. Traveler086 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)