Talk:Prostitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prostitution is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sexuality and Sex-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
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.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy Prostitution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2004.

Archives: /Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Australia prostitution legality

"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 memebers 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)

[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)

[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

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)

[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] 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)

[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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProstitution_d13e.html"