Talk:Prostitution

Template:FormerFA Template:Mainpage date

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)[reply]

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:

I went to palmalouca's homepage at http://palmalouca.com/.
I noticed that the whole site is a small collection articles.
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).
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'. Mark ¹ 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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. ;) Mark ¹ 12:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should have looked here first. But I fixed the NPOV issues a bit. Oarias 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pimp

This user is a pimp.

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

*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)[reply]

Nine external links about sex slavery/human trafficking ??

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- Agreed, replaced quote per above -Oscar Arias 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]