Talk:Sex work

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adcurrie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DSulli2, Hradermacher. Peer reviewers: Hradermacher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjames2020. Peer reviewers: IIT JPeters, LayYifan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

New edits to Sex_work#Risks section

First, thanks for the edits to this section, which will hopefully be the beginning of a much-needed cleanup of this article and removal of tendentious claims that have made their way into it.

I have a concern over the paragraph on HIV rates being lower in developed countries/Global North in relation to this section. If this piece of info is in a publication about sex workers and explaining why sex workers in wealthier nations have lower HIV rates, then it's absolutely relevant here, albeit, needs clarification and a source. However, if that's a fact being cited independently of anything to do with sex work and is just your own addition, that's original synthesis, which is treated as a type of original research and not allowed.

I realize that the bulk of Wikipedia is unsourced, in violation of its own stated rules, but properly sourced material is stronger and much more likely to survive challenges at a later date, and sex work and related topics are among the topics most likely to be challenged. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

These are somewhat outdated but may provide useful starting places for citations regarding HIV, S Day, H Ward, JRW Harris, ‘Prostitute women and public health’, BMJ, 1988, 297:1585; H Ward, S Day, J Mezzone, et al., ‘Prostitution and risk of HIV: female prostitutes in London’, BMJ, 1993, 307:356–8; H Ward, S Day, A Green, K Cooper, JN Weber, ‘Declining prevalence of STI in the London sex industry, 1985 to 2002’ Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2004, 80:374–6

As I say a little bit older now but maybe someone will have more recent studies. 146.90.98.93 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good! Either you can add the references, or I'll incorporate them in in the next day or so. All three of these are publicly available - I'll link to them if anybody wants to used these as source material:

• "Prostitute women and public health"
• "Prostitution and risk of HIV: female prostitutes in London"
• "Declining prevalence of STI in the London sex industry, 1985 to 2002"

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge with the Sex worker article

This article was created in May 2013 by Wpatrickrussell (talk · contribs), in what seems to have been a WP:Class assignment. We already had the Sex worker article, and I don't see why we need both the Sex work and Sex worker articles. To me, it looks like a WP:Redundant fork situation. And let's not forget that we also have the Sex industry article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The above argument makes no case but shows exactly why we do need all three because people like Flyer22 and many others in the general public just don't know the differences. Flyer22 discussion equates to saying the clothing industry, an employee of the clothes industry and what jobs the staff are employed to do are all the same thing. There is not difference. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/4062/2016/en/ Terminology are found here] page 3 Sex work: the term “sex work” is the exchange of sexual services (involving sexual acts)6 between consenting adults for some form of remuneration, page 2 Sex worker: are adults (aged 18 and older) of all genders who receive money or goods in exchange for the consensual provision of sexual services, either regularly or occasionally

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sex+industry

The sex industry consists of businesses which either directly or indirectly provide sex-related products and services or adult entertainment. With the issues of abuse happening in the world it is important to educate people on what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.2.202 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I understand these topics quite well, just like I understand most sexual topics quite well. And I see no need for both a Sex worker and Sex work article. Do read WP:Redundant fork, WP:No split and WP:No page. I will eventually get around to bringing more editors into this matter for discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)

More: Also, the amnesty.org reference you cited states, "This policy has been developed in recognition of the high rates of human rights abuses experienced globally by individuals who engage in sex work; a term that Amnesty International uses only in regard to consensual exchanges between adults." Note that it attributes that definition to Amnesty International. That is its definition, but not the definition found everywhere or in most sources for the term. As made clear in the Sex worker article, forced sex work exists; those forced into sex work are still called sex workers or prostitutes. And the encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com source you listed is an old copy of the Wikipedia Sex industry article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As no consensus has been reached, and nothing added to the discussion for 18 months, I have removed the merge template from the page. --John B123 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

John B123, I'll start a WP:RfC on the matter at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And that will either be later this month or January 2018. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Prostitute is a slur

It's simple. The word prostitute is a slur. I changed the word to "sex worker" on the page. There are some places where it is unavoidable, such as titles of books and quotes, but in general the phrase "full service sex worker" is more respectful. BlissFollower (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been undone three times now, by two different editors. It should remain as the original term while it is being discussed. If and when there is consensus to change it the article can be changed. Meters (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sex work" is not a synonym for "prostitution" and "sex worker" is not a synonym for "prostitute". As this article clearly points out, not all sex work is prostitution, and not all sex workers are prostitutes.

As for using the terms "full service sex work/worker" instead of "prostitution/prostitute" that should be decided by what term the reliable sources use predominantly. From what I can see find "full service sex work/worker" are still fairly rare usages, and are used far less often than "prostitution/prostitute". It is not a case of which term sex trade workers prefer. We use the term that the majority of the reliable sources use. Meters (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The best I have found for a link for this is WP:COMMONTERM "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". This actually refers to article titles, not to terms used inside the article, but it still seems to be applicable. If anyone knows of a better link please add it. Meters (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The "full service" addition to the commonly used sex work and sex worker phrases is not difficult to parse. The idea behind using commonly used words is so that people can understand what's written and so that people can find the appropriate page. Changing prostitute to full service sex work does not hinder that. It does not make the page less accurate or more difficult to understand...it simply removes the stigma of the slur. Also, just because prostitute is more commonly used by non-sex workers doesn't mean it's not a slur. Also, more and more articles written by sex workers about being sex workers use the phrase "sex work " and "full service sex work." These are the terms the people who perform this labor use. BlissFollower (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What's more, the term "sex work" is common enough to have been used in fictional media, such as the television shows Kingdom and In the Flesh. BlissFollower (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes "sex work" is a common term. That's why it is the title of this article, but it is not synonymous with "prostitution", as this article clearly shows. It's simply not valid to just replace prostitute with sex worker. You still have not addressed the issue of WP:COMMONTERM at all. Again, we use the term that the majority of the reliable sources use. I have found very few reliable sources that use your suggested "full service" term. Meters (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not simply replacing the term prostitute with sex worker. I am replacing it with full service sex worker where applicable. What I am saying, however, is that sex work is a commonly enough understood term that the phrase "full service sex work" can be understood easily. If you Google search "full service sex work" you'll find articles written by full service sex workers who use that phrase. Surely the very people who engage in this work count as "reliable sources." As for, WP:COMMONTERM, it is, as you admitted, about article titles which I am not trying to change. It is not applicable to this discussion. Commonly used words/phrases for titles are preferred in order to facilitate finding an article; changing a specific term in the body of the article does not hinder that in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlissFollower (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your replies with colons.

You did indeed replace the term "prostitution" with "sex work" in some cases [1]. Four times in ==Types== and once in ==Risks==, to be precise.

Still see no reason for WP:COMMONTERM not to apply to the terms used in the articles. We have the article Prostitution which uses the terms "prostitute" and "prostitution" (but not "full service sex worker/work"). That article discusses the issue of what term sex worker activists groups prefer be used, but the article is still called "Prostitution". This is not about what term the practitioners want to be called. It's about what term the reliable sources use, and that is overwhelmingly not "full service sex work/worker". Meters (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add my two cents here - I reverted the changes made by IP 12.131.200.186 (which I can only assume is now User:BlissFollower). It should be added that Wikipedia is not censored. There is no need to censor every usage of the term "prostitute" by changing it to "full service sex worker". Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem more than a little suspicious that the named account was created immediately after the IP was warned. Meters (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Feminist debate

Multiple red flags exist in the first paragraph: One side of the purportedly two-sided dispute is quoted directly and given about six sentences, one is described in vague terms ("tend to be founded in the notion") and given one sentence. The sentence beginning "Feminist arguments against these occupations tend to be founded" asserts that a notion is a trend among a group of people but seems to point to only one person who purportedly asserts the notion. The sentence beginning "This attack on a women’s sexual autonomy which can be seen in other policies" explicitly frames certain opinions as harmful/negative.

The "Debates on sex worker agency" subsection continues the same lack of NPOV, flat-out asserting that "[a] perspective fails to recognize male and non binary sex workers and the varied forms of oppression..." with no citation. 2604:2000:F882:CE00:227:10FF:FE78:86E4 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC) lamentoid

As there has been no comment from registered users, can we assume the above view is not supported and the tag can be removed? --John B123 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed as there have been no further comments. --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Are full table excerpts from Medline research acceptable to incorporate.

The many faces of sex work - C Harcourt, B Donovan - is already cited #5 at time of this writing. It has two excellent charts, one for direct sex work and a second for indirect sex work, that would be worth incorporating if allowed. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiESPLERP2 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Sex work for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)