Talk:Prostitution/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Legality in Rhode Island

Running a brothel happens to be perfectly legal in Rhode Island. Dick Kimball (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Here is a link to similar maps Category:Maps of status worldwide. Banjeboi 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

a pro to this institute a whore is a wife on a horse==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)

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)

Economic conditions may result in a person seeking out prostitution as a possible course of activity in order to sustain a life style, however so is working at a number of low-paying jobs... the idea of "just find a job, and do it", even if one is well educated. If a woman with a Ph.D. is forced to working minimum wage as a cashier, or any "waged work" rather than "salary work", or working prostitution... is that really that much different? The person is still working entirely outside of the field that they are trained in, and unlikely to spend significant amounts of time in that field... it can sometimes come down to "do I want to fill grocery bags, or condoms?" *shrug* Sometimes prostitution is just by far the more fun alternative to otherwise demeaning jobs... I mean come on, if you earned $45/hour before... wouldn't working minimum wage be just as demeaning as prostitution? --Puellanivis (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Motivating factor for any kind of profession, be it as mechanic, waiter, burglar or teacher, is usually economic. Personally if I didn't need the money, I would not work, are you different? Now there are some professions, that certain people may be attracted too for other reasons, e.g. they become policemen because the uniform and gun makes them feel more secure or they work with fireworks because deep down they are little pyromaniacs, but that humans are motivated to work by money is trivial.118.172.69.107 (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nymphomania isn't a psychological disorder? 76.115.59.36 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Nymphomania is[a psychological disorder]; at least, that's always been my understanding of it. One thing I would like to mention is there are men out there who think that prostitution is simply easier and cheaper than paying for a date, and listening to her talk. (From an email response to "Why men buy Sex" by scientific american :mind)So, with people like that, it also makes it easy for women to sell their bodies, and support their habits.(IF that is why they fell into that trade).Mayabasa (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WHY women of the twenty-first century become prostitutes?

In the twenty-first century (1980-2001), women are prostitutes for many different reasons and these roots of prostitution are similar to the reasons women became prostitutes in the Victorian age. Some women move into prostitution due to economic needs like poverty, emotional neediness and susceptibility to pressure from friends; few women listed only one main reason for entering into the profession (Scambler 7). Some prostitutes’ explanation for becoming involved in prostitution include “having a history of sexual abuse, having grown up without love from the significant adults in their lives, being enticed by a male of female friend or by peer pressure from a group of friends, and needing money. Those who used drugs prior to their involvement in prostitution activities mention their addiction as a major reason for trading sex for money or drugs.” (Sterk 35)

Prositution: Then and Now by Iris Leos Hickenbottom --94.178.37.142 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gigolo?

Collins Dictionary gives following explanation to the word gigolo:

1) a man who is kept by a woman, esp an older woman 2) a man who is paid to dance with or escort women

it seems that first meaning doesn't necessary mean prostitution in a broad sense. That might just mean that a man who is kept by a woman might be financially or otherwise supported by her, providing sexual (?) services in return? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.181.32 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are touching upon an old discussion. Namely whether you can make an unambiguous destinction between prostitution and marriage, or we are basically talking about the same relation, which is then labelled "prostitution" in cases where we happen to dislike it. The younger man who is "kept" (whatever that means) by an older woman could be considered a prostitute (if we don't like their relation) or a lover/husband (if we approve of their relation). I don't think we can pass a verdict on this, but the ambiguity is relevant to the article. Alfons Åberg (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any sex worker, in any country, who uses the word 'gigolo'. Most men call themselves sex workers, whores, prostitutes, hookers, escorts, etc - all the same names that female sex workers use. Ashkara sands (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know *shrug* 'gigolo' seems like a weird term. It's likely a term used explicitly outside of the sex worker industry to refer to a male prostitute. The "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo" movie title at least makes this case. In any case, I doubt it's used inside the industry, and used exclusively as slang out-of-the-industry. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wider Definition of Prostitution

In a wider - but more neutral definition - prostitution would occur whenever in a relationship (be it in a brothel, a short term relationship, a long term relationship, or even a marriage) there is an unforced exchange between the parties of the commodities "sex" and "material benefits" (money, but also things like luxury holidays, jewelry, designer clothes, expensive sportscars, invitations to high profile events, or a luxury lifestyle in general), and at least one of the parties makes the delivery of one such commodity conditional to the reception of the other commodity. For the purpose of this definition, sex becomes a commodity when one of the partners involved performs the sexual acts for other reasons than lust, passion or love. Such partner then becomes the delivering party of sex.

Prostitution/Male prostitution/Female prostitution

Following the recent debate over naming of the Male prostitution article, and of this article too, it seems appropriate to split this article into Prostitution, a general article about prostitution and sex work; Male prostitution, an article about specifics to do with male prostitutes and prostitution; and Female prostitution, an article about specifics to do with female prostitution. Because there is probably far less to be said about trans and other gender prostitutes, perhaps they can be included in this main article. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty to say about trans prostitution, btw. Banjeboi 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

external links

According to both the wikipedia guidelines (Wp:EL and Wp:SEH) you should try to cut down links. Once subheading come up you know its getting to long.

Also, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

The organization are only indirectly relation to prostitution. These are about specific organization and thus verge on advertising.

"Anti-prostitution writing" starts to bring in opinion (of which there is no pro-prostitute section either). Which as you can see on the latter link is an indication this is getting to long.

As for this: "Whether from Reason or Prejudice": Taking Money for Bodily Services - Martha Nussbaum in The Journal of Legal Studies, 1998 - UChicago Press" I don't understand what it is? Is it a journal? then it should be under further reading. It's not a link at all.

And finally, for the news articles they aren't a "unique resource." If there's something worth citing in there, then it should be cited in the text. its not an "external" link. Lihaas (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cleaning up is needed here, not necessarily deletion. I see the clean-up task force was working on this once I wonder if that effort has stalled? Over the next days I'll clean the talkpage to see what issues are still in play and see if that helps inform what links may be useful or unneeded. Banjeboi 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Banjeboi 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The pro-con link starts opening up a debate and sides. Shouldn't that be cited as per 'arguements to legalize prostitution'? Much better there, IMO.

And the trafikking women thing is only indirectly related to prostitution. Maybe a link to a section on the site detailing trafficking for sexual purposes would be better? Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The pro-con link is an excellent resource with tons of information this article is unlikely to cover even at a FA level. And women are routinely trafficked worldwide for ... prostitution, even in the most developed countries. Banjeboi 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why yes, its never been denied. But see WP:SEH when it starts opening up sides to a debate. its more for citation than EL. the trafficking women CAN be good too, but the website as a whole goes beyond. its only indirectly involved. maybe a section within the webpage that goes to prostitution. Lihaas (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, WP:SEH is an essay, and I already did exactly what it says to trim down and eliminate subsections, etc. The pro-con link doesn't present one side - it presents multiple views and resources. we shouldn't throw it out because others will be added - we instead should simply be vigilant to ensure we new ones are added they confirm to WP:EL (WP:SEH, states that as well). The trafficing sites are international in focus, thus negating the need for country specific ones and they provide exactly the information that WP:EL calls for, that is, beyond the scope of the article even if written at a FA status. Trafficing for prostitution is a huge issue worldwide and these sites provide excellent information useful to our readers looking for exactly such a thing. I understand the concern to limit and be somewhat preventative but I also think we've more than done that. Banjeboi 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The trafficking site is only 'indirectly' linked to this. This article is not about trafficking. Sure it happens for sex, but no ONLY for sex. Maybe a section on the page would be more suitable. Lihaas (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

"Male prostitution was also common in Greece. It was usually practiced by adolescent boys, a reflection of the pederastic tastes of Greek men." This is mere speculation, pederasty was illegal most city states I would like to see references for that.Also the bold part should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basiljabber (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that seems to be accurate - see Prostitution in ancient Greece. -- Banjeboi 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:0405.Annabell 002.jpg

this image Image:0405.Annabell 002.jpg in the Prostitution in Germany article, is labeled "A prostitute in Germany, 1999" in this article, the image is labeled "A German artist's self-portrait as a prostitute.". badmachine (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is correct, the other should be amended. -- Banjeboi 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some attempt at clarification of terms (prostitute, trans inclusion, etc)

As a sex worker, a direct service provider to people in the street level sex trade and an organizer for sex workers rights, I just wanted to briefly join this discussion.

The definition of the term hooker is not only inaccurate, it is offensive to most and this is not stated. People are called hookers whether their sex trading occurs on the streets or behind closed doors, and it is almost always pejorative to those who are called it. The same goes for the term streetwalker, which is also almost never used within these communities.

The use of prostitute throughout most of the article is troublesome for me. I understand that there was likely a long debate on this, as is reflected by the statement that some of us object to its use because it is "too bureaucratic." But this is only a very small part of this argument. The crux of the matter is that prostitute is a legal definition, not one for common parlance. As it is defined by state law here in the U.S., but few know the letter of the law, it is vague and often inaccurate. In Arizona, for example, "bizarre clothing" figures into its definition, in New York it is the vague, "agreeing to engage in sexual conduct in return for a fee," in California and elsewhere it involves some form of "touching genitals." A person could be arrested for prostitution for playing with an individual's nipples in New York, but if most lay people were asked if that made her a prostitute, they would say no. It is a highly stigmatized term that carries deep weight for those who have it flung at us. Lawyers at the Sex Workers Project, the only legal aid and advocacy center for sex workers in the U.S., confirmed the veracity of this statement for me. It is akin to the different between "insane" (a legal term), and mentally ill. Please do your best to ensure that this nuance is better reflected in this article.

UNAIDS had this to say in their 2002 technical update entitled "Sex Work and HIV/AIDS": "The term sex worker has gained popularity over prostitute because those involved feel that it is less stigmatizing and say that the reference to work better describes their experience." (Retrieved from http://data.unaids.org/Publications/IRC-pub02/jc705-sexwork-tu_en.pdf)

Furthermore, where are the definitions of terms on BDSM/fetish work/domination and erotic dancing? Sensual massage? See sexwork101.com

Also, to me it is CRUCIAL to not delineate the articles into male and female prostitution, because it divides the communities and also silences transgendered experiences. Almost all the transgender women I know here in the US have been forced to trade sex or erotic services in order to survive because of a lack of living wage alternatives. And there is excellent writing and research out there about these issues - i.e. Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., Guzman, R., & Katz, M. (2001). HIV prevalence, risk behaviors, health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: Implications for public health interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 91: 915–921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.243.38 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what do you find vague about the definition, "agreeing to engage in sexual conduct in return for a fee"? That is exactly what a prostitute--not sex worker, as you hypersensitive folks wish the world would call you, and they don't--is. "Prostitute" is far more than a legal term; I have never referred to prostitutes by any other term, nor have I heard any serious person do so in a real conversation. I have never, absolutely never, heard the phrase "sex worker" anywhere in the United States except as a reference to European usage by hypersensitive people such as yourself. "Prostitute" always has been and always will be the term for a person who engages in sexual activity for money. Deal with it. -69.47.186.70 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a sex worker in the United States who coined the term (Carol Leigh). And actually, prostitute has NOT "always been and always will be the term for a person who engages in sexual activity for money". The words 'whore', 'harlot' and, later, 'courtesan' were in use long before the word 'prostitute'. These words had neutral, often positive, linguistic origins - like 'desire' and 'companion'. In many ancient cultures, whores worked from religious temples and engaging their services was seen as a means of 'communing with the goddess' or a rite of passage into manhood. 'Prostitute' comes from the Latin word prostituta, meaning 'to offer' and/or 'placed up front' and/or 'publicly exposed'. The term was originally applied exclusively to STREET sex workers, either because they conducted their trade in public or because they didn't cover their faces with a head cloth (like other women in Ancient Greece did). It was a descriptive word, not necessarily derogatory. Later, (as organised religion began condemning women's sexuality), the word 'prostitute' evolved into meaning to 'debase oneself for immoral gain' or words to that effect. Eventually, the two meanings became inextricably intertwined - a 'prostitute' was someone who debases themselves for money, sexually or otherwise. The word became an insult, a moral judgement, a character flaw. It's little wonder that today's whores do not want to be known as 'prostitutes'. Interestingly, the word 'nigger' came into use around the same time as the word prostitute. Like prostitute, it originated as a neutral term for someone of negro heritage, simply describing their black skin. Eventually, though, 'nigger' became a derogatory word and because of that, modern society has now abandoned it. Do we accuse black people of being "hypersensitive" if they object to the use of the word 'nigger'? NO...we understand that the word HURTS people of colour and that's why we don't use it. Sex workers (and yes, I'm one of them) have tried to distance themselves from the word 'prostitute' for exactly the same reason. I apologise for the long rant, but this is very important to me. Language and terminology has changed and evolved over the centuries. We no longer call female bar staff 'barmaids' or 'wenches'. We no longer call holistic/homeopathic healers 'witchdoctors'. We no longer call butlers and maids 'servants'. In the same way, sex workers have asked that they no longer be called 'prostitutes'. Why is that so difficult to understand? Ashkara sands (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors

In the article it says that it is illegal to sell sex in Sweden but legal to buy it. This is wrong. As a matter of fact, it is illegal to buy sex but not illegal to sell it. Maybe someone else would change this cause I can't since the article is partially protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elolisos (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it says "In Sweden it is legal to sell sex but not to buy sex.". Cheers, Alfons Åberg (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

some supplements/corrections: In Germany advertising for prostitution is *not* illegal (but reglemented by "good manners", this means no offense marketing). Ads in newspapers are a singificant way to earn money for newspapers. Some (daily) newspapers have some pages only with/for such ads. As the "Hamburger Morgenpost" once banned such ads the circulation dropped down to 80% ;) Next: sexual slavery in Germany. A high police chief stated that ca 90% of the pros in Germany are working voluntary, 2% are forced, the rest ist captured in the (social) milieu. STDs: official sources say that the rate of prostitutes with STDs is lower than rate of the rest of ppls. Some sources say that Germany (and the Netherlands) are destinations for sex tourism. 83.221.81.183 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pay for Play Redirect

The term "Pay for Play" redirects here. I was looking for a discussion of the act of political corruption that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has been accused of, not the act of political corruption that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer committed. The redirect should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.91.244 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it so it rdrs to pay to play, which covers all the meanings. Thanks for the note. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pornography/Prostitution Misconception

In the introductory paragraph is the sentence, "Pornographic actors and actresses get paid for having sex, but are not generally referred to as prostitutes." While this is technically correct, they are not generally referred to as prostitutes because they are not prostitutes. The current wording seems to imply that although they are not referred to as such, that they actually are. While a prostitute may also work as a pornographic actor or actress, doing so does not make them a prostitute in and of itself. I recommend this be changed to: "While pornographic actors and actresses get paid for having sex, they are usually not prostitutes."

This is backed up by a 2005 court ruling in New York: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050810.html Tethros (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I respect your point of view, but I think there's a lot more ambiguity to the definition of prostitution. In a specific (historical, geographic) context, you may be able to tell what is prostitution and what is not, but this is not universally the case. Frankly, I don't see why pornographic actors should not be defined as prostitutes. In any case, there is no reason why Wikipedia should attempt to set a standard for appropriate application of the word "prostitute". Let us reflect the ambiguity that is actually there. Alfons Åberg (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A ho is da way to go!!!!!!!!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.254.65 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas Hotel Sign

Under that picture the explanation must be "1941 Las Vegas Hotel Sign" insted of simply "Las Vegas Hotel Sign" When looking at that picture most people don't realize it is from 1941 (at least not at first). They might imagine that it is a current sign and that prostitution is legal in Las Vegas...well anyway everbody believes that... The original explanation was "1941 Las Vegas Hotel Sign", but somebody changed that at some point (why??). I can't change it because i don't have an account and the article is protected, but somebody must do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.89 (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Animals and prostitution?

I read the last part and went to the reference attached to it. I read the article about penguins. It looks like somebody has NOT read the full article, because the article says specifically that the scientists are not sure if this occurs everywhere. They only observed in small populations. More supportive references should be added in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.8.77 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind. The second reference is more convincing.

Introduction sounds like a legal document

It seems to me that the style of the beginning of the article is not very encyclopaedic, and looks like the style of a dictionary, or a legal document. The style of the older version of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution&oldid=268254216, seems to me much more comfortable to read. Gakrivas (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guaranteed munimum income

Could we add a link to Guaranteed minimum income which would eliminate prostitution worldwide, because those poor people don't want to be prostitutes, they're obviously forced to for an income? Stars4change (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The hypothesis that a guaranteed minimum income would eliminate prostitution can be easily disproven by examining the example of Germany, where such a guaranteed minimum income exists, but prostitution is alive and well.77.22.123.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

What amount is that income? Probably not enough to live on. EX: In USA a GMI would be considered enough to live on comfortably would be $3,000 a month in some cities, which would be enough for most people so they don't have to work as prostitutes. But if the income is only $1,000 some wouldn't consider that enough & would still work as prostitutes because they might not be happy just getting by; some would like to have better health care for themselves & their kids, &/or take nice vacations, buy nicer clothes, etc. That's not "greed" to want a better life. "Greed" is only when rich people want to be richer. But most people think greed is when people want a living income/wage. Stars4change (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution in animals....

I came across this article and was rather annoyed to see this section. As a biologist, I'm well aware the only animal proved to have sex for reasons beyond copulation are dolphins. I was sorely tempted to remove the whole thing, so I read the references to see what proof there was. The first article, hosted by BBC, is basically a sensationalist piece that I would call trash, written for the sole purpose to catch the attention of the less than academically interested. The research is (vaguely) there, but it's spun so hard that I can clearly see what's been re-written, through speculation and semantics, to prove the point. The second article is much better, a truer representation of what a real paper written on the subject would say with less imagination and more evolutionary theory. My point: I rewrote it to be clearer about what is actually known about the subjects. "Penguins prostitute themselves for rocks hee hee" may sound cute, but we're trying to get it accurate here, not write a fluffy interest piece about currently inscrutable mating behaviors. Garnet avi (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Why is prostitution alays defined as sex for money? When I checked Websters dictionary (granted it's and edition from the 70's), it defined prostitution as "promiscuous sexual intercourse, especially for money". Doesn't this mean that one could be a prostitute and not get paid? In the Bible, the term prostitution was pretty much used to mean any kind of fornication, whether money was exchanged or not (granted there's one verse where God says that Israel is the opposite of a prostitute as prostitutes are paid for their services whereas Israel was paying). Emperor001 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

The 'Feminism' section of this page is extremely one-sided. Feminist discourse is quoted as though it's FACT and people like Andrea Dworkin are given additional credibility as an 'ex-prostitute', but the sex work history of (for example) Norma Jean Almodovar, isn't mentioned. The feminist sex worker rights movement is active all over the world, but it only warrants two sentences at the bottom of the section? I don't believe the feminist argument should be portrayed AT ALL in this so-called 'encyclopaedic' description of sex work, but as a sex worker activist AND a feminist, if this section exists at all it should at least be broken up into TWO sections - 'Anti-sex work Feminist Discourse' and 'Pro-sex work Feminist Discourse'. Pro-sex work feminists believe that the prohibition of sex work is a direct result of the 'patriarchy' placing conditions, shame and control over female sexuality. They don't want us charging for something that men (excuse the generalisation) expect us to give up for free. We also believe that anti-sex work feminists have done more damage to the health and safety of sex workers than the 'patriarchy' ever did. Ashkara sands (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Feminism" section is not biased, it only presents the opinion of some (I would dare to say most) feminists; this section details and explains these views so people can understand them, and then it offers an example of feminists who hold such views (Dworkin, Farley, Bindel, Jeffreys, MacKinnon and Lederer). These feminist views are not quoted as "fact" as you say, they are described only as opinions, and there is nothing implying that these opinions are the "correct" ones.

Also, the belief that prostitution is a form of exploitation of women and that true consent to prostitution is nearly impossible, is not a fringe idea supported only by "radical feminists" (as I believe you are trying to imply) - in countries such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland these beliefs are widely accepted and they have already been translated into law, as paying for sex is illegal there, these views on prostitution are fully accepted among all the major political parties from those countries; there are also other European countries which have disccused/are currently discussing adopting similar laws (Denmark might be the next country to ban the buying of sexual servicies [1]), and very many prominent European politicians hold such views on prostitution. When you say "I don't believe the feminist argument should be portrayed AT ALL in this so-called 'encyclopaedic' description of sex work", you ignore the importance and the impact that these feminist arguments have all over the world.

In fact, most academical research appears to support such views on prostitution: "(...) most authors suggest that consent to prostitution is deeply problematic if not impossible(...)[2] "(...) However, most authors have argued that consent to prostitution is impossible. For radical feminists this is because prostitution is always a coercive sexual practice. Others simply suggest that economic coercion makes the sexual consent of sex workers highly problematic if not impossible..." "(...) In the academic literature on prostitution there are very few authors who argue that valid consent to prostitution is possible. Most suggest that consent to prostitution is impossible or at least unlikely."

[3] 123username (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to go to deep in the "one-sided" argument, even if I can't help myself of thinking that referring to Andrea Dworkin, as an "ex-prostitute" in this article can only be due to lack of information or partiality: she had had actually separated from her husband, had really serious money problems, and was even often homeless in her last months in Amsterdam and did incur in some prostitution activities for a little while (see the article Andrea Dworkin); not only this facts don't make her the really best person to talk about the legitimacy of the sex work (she was, I guess one could say, in a very specific personal situation when she prostituted herself - it would be like asking some poor fisher who had to be it despite of being affected by a Chronic Bronchitis to talk about the fishing profession and it's dangers for the breathing system), also the word "ex-prostitute" it's a litle bit pushed forward, specially here in an article about prostitution: if you would be a engineer and, while unemployed, would have done a few jobs selling some mattresses or some hovers, once you would have got an engineering job once again you wouldn't refer to yourself as an ex-salesman, would you???...instead, I would like to ask if an article of an encyclopaedia should reproduce arguments from a group or ideology even when they are clearly the outcome of the most common prejudices, and this without pointing out at least that one should use of prudence when facing this arguments. Like the follow: "Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation.[45] Prostitutes have sex with hundreds of strangers during a short period of time, an experience which will most likely traumatize them and have negative long term effects on their life". I guess there is no need to explain why I claim this to be the fruit of prejudice. Why should most prostitutes be in a difficult period of their lives? Should it be because the radical feminists case study was Andrea Dworkin??? Or just because most (and not even all) prostitutes one sees on the street look quite lousy and are often drug-addicted? What about the thousands who use agencies, cell phones, e-mails and other types of enrolling with costumers? Don't they often chose to be prostitutes because they like it and make more money in much less time? As for the hundreds of men during a short period of time... why not thousands or dozens, and how long is this short period? And for last, why should this "multiplicity" of men be likely to traumatize them? Many have said this to be the most exciting thing about their job. --Libmind (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the section was 'biased'. I said it was one-sided. It really only presents the anti-sex work feminist view, with two pro-sex work sentences tacked onto the bottom. That makes pro-sex work feminism look like some kind of fringe belief and therefore, does kind of imply that anti-sex work opinions carry more weight. I think the best way to portray these opposing views is with two separate feminism sections, each presenting as a stand-alone viewpoint, rather than pitting them against each other in one section.

I stand corrected about the feminism section - it does make sense to explain the feminist discourse that contributed to the creation of particular legislative models. However, this article only presents one side of the story. Sex worker activists around the world have also influenced law reform, achieving decriminalisation in places like Australia, New Zealand and, just the other day, Taiwan. The fight for decriminalisation comes from an equally feminist belief that women should be able to have control over their own bodies, support themselves financially and not be punished for engaging in consenting adult sexual behaviour. The sex worker rights movement also condemns anti-sex work activists for routinely discrediting and/or talking over sex workers in the public and political arenas. Ensuring women have 'a choice and a voice' is a basic tenet of feminism. Ashkara sands (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the whole "Feminism" section be moved to wikipedia's Feminism and Sex-positive feminism pages, with a brief summary & links here. Foxhead (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here a translation of the feminism section on german wikipedia: "Feminism has changed its view from strictly opposing prostitution to supporting those women who choose prostitution based on free will." thats all, and for me this sums it up pretty much (maybe missing is the feminist struggle to get woman out of prostitution who are forced into) but i guess the situation in german speaking countries is much more relaxed and can not be compared to the large community of english speakers from all over the world. Anyway, i am quite disturbed by this feminism section, because sex workers are almost portrayed as beeing abused nerve wrecks exclusivly, and this in the name of feminism, thats not advanced enough, and it beshames those women who enjoy their profession...(i know that the nordic countries are getting very restrictive towards prostitution, but in the netherlands prostitution even is a regular part of healthcare, as physically handicapped persons can get their visit to a sex worker paid by their health insurence...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.155.116 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Feminism has changed its view from strictly opposing prostitution to supporting those women who choose prostitution based on free will." Actually feminism continues to strictly oppose prostitution, in fact feminism is more opposed to prostitution today than it was in the past. That's why paying for sex was made illegal in Norway and in Iceland in 2009; feminists from those countries celebrated the decision: “This is a historic moment in Iceland, and in the international world of feminists"-said the feminists from Iceland.[4]

And that is why several European countries are currently discussing adopting similar laws against buying sexual services. You may not agree with these views, you may find them "disturbing" as you said, but these are the views held by most feminists, and they are gaining more and more acceptance around the world, and being translated into law in several countries.

123username (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be great support of this law in sweden not only by feminists and the government but also by large part of the population. Sexworkers and their organisations mainly critisize the law, fort he worsened working conditions, and even more because they are let out oft he political process of creating the law. Many sex workers are struggling for recognition and legalization of their work and their patience is growing thin. They were kind of expecting, also from feminists, that they would help them to improve their working conditions, now it looks like prostitution is fought on their expense. The unability oft the government to prevent trafficking schould not result in such onedimensional laws. Please somebody balance this extremly onesided view on feminism and prostitution, i have nothing to say against the apparently strong view now represented, but it seems that the views of those sex workers who want to work in a save environment and the reflection of this in feminist thought is underrepresented here… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libmind (talk • contribs)

Just a reminder to format your talk page comments for ease of readability. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Article lenghts/History of prostitution

This article is too long (and it will become even longer in the future); I think the section "History" sholud be shortened and it should redirect to a new article called "History of prostitution". "History" sholud have its own separate main article, the same as other sections of the article do. 123username (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. I was just thinking the same thing.

Omit the second line?

Or at least please edit it (it's currently locked).

"Persons who engage in the activitiy are generally called a prostitute or a whore."

Aside from the "activitiy" misspelling, "persons" is plural and "prostitute" and "whore" are singular. Further, a value-laden term like "whore" hardly belongs here. And is an explanation of "prostitute" necessary? Anyway, the terminology is discussed below under "Terminology". Foxhead (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ceca redirects here

As hilarious as it may be, Ceca redirects to this article, instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Ra%C5%BEnatovi%C4%87

Could anyone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.66.126 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A redirect bot went wrong fixing previous vandalism. Ceca now goes to a disambiguation page where you can choose which meaning of Ceca to read about. Choose Ms. Ražnatović from there. Astronaut (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical Situation

Someone more familiar with the article may want to verify, but it seems as though the 3 response types mentioned under "Medical Situation" have had their order swapped, possibly for political purposes. The response types are (1)Banning, (2)Education regarding Barrier Methods, and (3)Registration. The following paragraph talks about "the first two measures" as counter-productive, but implies it is referring to (1)Banning and (3)Registration as counter-productive, not (2)sex education. It may need to be corrected or adjusted for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.189.136 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)