Talk:Forced prostitution

fatal prejudice
What on earth is fatal prejudice? 220.233.38.237 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've fixed it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Started article
a number of existing article (Sexual slavery, Prostitution and Human trafficking etc) cover aspects of the subject which should be pulled together. Have made a start, still needs work. I had trouble finding a definition (sources!), hence any help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Untitledg.JPG
The image File:Untitledg.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An IP address edit has re-added this image to this article, can a fair use rationale be added to the image? If not I'll revert the addition. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reverted this addition. If it is to be added can a fair-use rationale be added to the image for this article, using Template:Non-free use rationale or a similar template is the best way to do that. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand piece
Why was this removed from the article? As per Wikipedia's policies articles should attempt to stay free of bias - thus both sides of the argument should be presented - and the other side is valid as good sources have been provided to back it up. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The same also applies to the more detailed text for sex-workers rights copied over from the sexual slavery article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"This approach empowers women to refuse clients as well as minimising the number of prostitutes under the age of majority and those forced to work in the profession" is claerly biased and is NOT supported by evidence.

Evidence about legal & regulated prostitution:

Netherlands & Germany-legal & regulated prostitution and the result: they are both listed as top destinations for human trafficking.

Queensland, Australia-legal & regulated prostitution and the result: According to a 2009 report, only 10% of prostitution happens in the licensed brothels, the rest of 90% of prostitution remains either unregulated or illegal. 

New South Wales Australia: legal & regulated prostitution and the result: According to a report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, illegal brothels in Sydney now outnumber licensed operations by four to one.

Victoria, Australia: legal & regulated prostitution and the result: 400 illegal brothels in Victoria.

...and many more examples from countries where prostitution is legal & regulated.

"This approach empowers women to refuse clients as well as minimising the number of prostitutes under the age of majority and those forced to work in the profession" is clearly POV and not supported by evidence.


 * From the Economist article I citied: "A study published by the government in May, measuring the impact of the new law, was encouraging. More than 60% of prostitutes felt they had more power to refuse clients than they did before. The report reckoned that only about 1% of women in the business were under the legal age of 18. And only 4% said they had been pressured into working by someone else." Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this study-the review of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003-was accused by numerous persons of being severely biased. A study by Melissa Farley "What really happened in New Zealand after prostitution was decriminalized in 2003?"[], presents a very different picture and states that: "Prostitution has increased dramatically in New Zealand since decriminalization in 2003, with a 200-400% increase in street prostitution in Auckland" and the NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee "was biased and blatantly favored the sex industry". Her report states that there are serious problems of exploitation related to prostitution in New Zealand.

Others examples of legal & regulated prostitution:

Greece: legal & regulated prostitution and the result: It is estimated that fewer than 1,000 women are legally employed as prostitutes and approximately 20,000 women, most of foreign origin, are engaged in illegal prostitution. and According to NGO estimates, there are 13,000-14,000 trafficking victims in the country at any given time. Major countries of origin for trafficking victims include Nigeria, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, Romania, and Belarus. 

Turkey: legal & regulated prostitution and the result: the country is listed as a top destination for victims of human trafficking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydeepblue (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * None of those other examples you've given are New Zealand... Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave you an example about New Zealand: the study by Melissa Farley [] which states that there are serious problems related to prostitution in NZ, and that decriminalization has not worked, and that the report that you cited was severly biased. And she is not the only one to say so. Anyway sating in this article that legalizing prostitution has beneficial effects is cleary POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydeepblue (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My piece isn't "clearly POV" as I have a reliable source (i.e. the Economist) to back it up. As we both have reliable sources claiming opposite views as per WP:Cite where reliable sources are in conflict you add a piece qualifying the source. Giving the following:


 * In contrast New Zealand has legalised prostitution and brothels are allowed to operate provided they are registered. According to the Economist this approach empowers women to refuse clients as well as minimising the number of prostitutes under the age of majority and those forced to work in the profession. 


 * Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look "In contrast New Zealand has legalised prostitution and brothels are allowed to operating provided they are registered According to the Economist this approach empowers women to refuse clients as well as minimising the number of prostitutes under the age of majority and those forced to work in the profession" is clearly POV pushing-that is, you are deliberatly choosing this example in order to try to prove that there might be beneficial effects from legalizing prostitution. Instead of "In contrast New Zealand...." I  could easily write "In contrast Netherlands and Germany have legalized prostitution and they are listed as top destinations for victims of human trafficking" or "In contrast New South Wales had legalized prostitution and now illegal brothels outnumber legal ones by 4 to 1" and so on...
 * Then you are entitled to add those to the article as well. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is, that out all these countries you are deliberatly choosing NZ in order to try to push a POV, or at least that's how I understand it.
 * Then we better remove the stuff about 'defacto slavery' and other such comments from other examples.Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of studies which state that legalizing prostitution in various countries has had devastating effects, I could easily choose one of those studies to illustrate that legalizing prostitution doesn't work. We can simply say: "In contrast some contries such as Netherlands, Germany, some Australian states, NZ etc have legalized prostitution" without stating anything about any alleged effects, as this does not belong in this article anyway. As a matter of fact, there is nothing here about the effects on prostitution in Sweden, and there is research showing that criminalizing clients works very well: "In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%., and there is also research that states that criminalizing clients has reduced the number of trafficked women. There is no need and no purpose of discussing the alleged effects of a certain legal system here.
 * Then add that content too - it'll make for a better article.Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Can you please use :'s to indent your replies and sign your comments with four tildes. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If we were to to use all these studies, 90% of all this article would be only about the alleged effects of certain prostitution systems. Do you really think it's a good idea to start taking all these countries one by one and start dumping here all the dozens of studies which have been done on prostitution in these countries, in order to try to "prove" which is the best prostitution legal system? That is not the purpose of this article.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Either examples should be found to show both sides of the argument or they should all be removed.Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Criminalisation of voluntary prostitution
The reason I added a whole bunch of "citation needed" to this section is so that each individual claim can be correctly sourced to one of the sources given (or another source). Maybe I am mis-understanding Wikipedia's policies but that is the usual way of sourcing for Wikipedia's articles. If the individual sources do show all of the given points then this should be really easy to do. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it some more, this whole section should probably be removed from this article.Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed this section from the article as it was poorly written and not really relevant. I've added a link to the article in the See Also section. Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary vs involuntary prostitution sourcing
Can you please read Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources and original research before you continue editing this article. You can not write an essay based on a series of facts you have researched from different sources - that is original research.
 * To quote the Wikipedia article on Original Research - Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). - I've clearly just presented existing knowledge in a new form. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, personal blogs are not reliable sources as per wikipedia criteria. This is a very controversial subject so using sources that are not judged to be reliable is likely to cause an edit war. Try Google Books for reliable sources on the subject.
 * See User talk:SasiSasi Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please not mix sources - I will reinstate part of the old version of this section, so its clear what is referenced by which source. If you add please reference each addition seperatly.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All my changes to the section "Criminalisation of voluntary prostitution" have been reverted. PS for clarity I've moved the sourcing discussion into its own section. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike that first sentence, it makes no sense :o. PS I've moved all this sourcing discussion into a single block. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the whole Voluntary vs involuntary prostitution section because it was hugely unbalanced. All the arguments in favour of the criminalization of prostitution were expelled from this article, but "Dennis Altman in turn argues that the criminalisation of prostitution, and the denial of basic human rights for sex workers, is a significant factor in the perpetuation of practices which amount to sexual slavery." was kept. Also this section contained 6 lines in support of the idea that prostitution is never voluntary but 11 lines for the sex-worker position, which is unacceptable and severely unbalanced and POV. Clearly there is a need for this section here, but it should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Skydeepblue (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable point. As you say that this section should be present can I return this section to the article with a "neutrality is disputed" header? Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I'm sorry I removed the "Criminalisation of prostitution section so quickly - as the recent contributors were active when the comment was made I assumed there were no objections to its removal. Really I should have waited a bit longer for responses :o. I removed that section because I thought it should only be on the main prostitution article as it isn't directly related to forced prostitution - maybe some more detail could be added to Prostitution. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the "criminalisation of prostitution" section should be moved to the prostitution article.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-added this section with a POV notice. Definitely at least the final point needs a counter-argument made. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which has now been done. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the POV notice from this section now? I contacted SkyDeepBlue a week ago on his talk page to comment on this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Skydeepblue posted the following on my talk page (I'll take a look at the page a bit later) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC):
 * "Hi, I got your message. I have made several changes to the Voluntary vs involuntary prostitution section from Forced prostitution. Basically, what I've done is tried to offer a clear and detailed view on the debate about whether prostitution should or should not be considered "voluntary". I've started by explaining the three classical "worldviews", abolitionism, regulation and prohibitionism (there's also a new classification of prohibitionism, abolitionism, neo-abolitionism, regulation and decriminalization, but I've used the "classical" classification). Then I went on with explaining the abolitionist point of view (that prostitution is always coerced and exploitative) and explained that such views have led to the laws from Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Then, below, I presented the pro-legalization/pro-sex workers' rights perspective (that prostitution is a free choice which should be respected) and explained that such views have led to full legalization in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. I think that right now the article is much more balaced, and both "sides" are similar in size. So, if there are any problems, we can discuss them, before removing the tag."


 * Yeah, that looks much better and its also neutral. I have a couple of comments. Firstly the first sentence of the introductory paragraph looks a bit out of place now - maybe it should just be removed? Secondly I'd like to change: "Indeed, prostitution is considered a legitimate activity, which must be recognized and regulated, in order to protect the workers' rights and to prevent abuse. The prostitutes are treated as sex workers who enjoy benefits similar to other professions." to "The prostitutes are treated as sex workers who enjoy benefits similar to other professions and according to the Economist this also helps reduce abuse." as it isn't currently a great couple of sentences. Finally (I know I'm being fussy :p, what you've done is great) maybe mentioning something on prohibitionism, didn't Maoist China follow that strategy? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I'm changing my mind, adding stuff on prohibitionism can be done anytime - I don't personally know anything about that though :o. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I've made the minor changes and removed the POV notice from the section. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Sex Trade Category
Some category cleanup was done - removing human sexuality seems fair enough as its a supercategory of both of the other two. Removing sex trade seems more controversial as its another category on the same level as prostitution which this article also fits in. Therefore I've reverted that change for now, if you want to re-remove it can you justify that here please? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Asarelah posted the following on my talk page.
 * "I removed the "sex trade" category from the Forced Prostitution article because the Forced Prostitution article is already in the category of "prostitution", which in turn is a subcategory of "sex trade". Therefore, the sex trade category is redundant, as the prostitution category already covers it."


 * That isn't actually true. The article prostitution is in the sex trade category, the category prostitution isn't. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Asarelah (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries :). I've made the changes to the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Child prostitution
Child prostitution refers to the age of majority, does it refer to the age of majority or the age of consent for sex (which are different in the UK for example)? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The age of consent and the age of majority are two different things. Child prostitution, as defined by the protocol, refers to the age of majority of a country, not the age of consent for sex of that country. The age of majority is 18 in most countries, (although in some countries it is lower). The age of consent varies by country, average is 16, in some it is 18, but in others it is lower, 14, 15. However the protocol refers to the age of majority, so unless a country has an age of majority lower than 18 (few countries have that), than child prostitution refers to those under 18. So if a country has an age of consent of 14, but an age of majority of 18, than child prostitution refers to children under 18, not under 14. Skydeepblue (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse reduction from Legalisation
I really feel that the comment that legalisation helps reduce abuse should stay, as while it is probably an opinion (as the Economist doesn't back it up with data) it is from a reliable source, and it does make it clear that it is the opinion of the source in the article. If some evidence or opinion from a reliable source that shows legalisation doesn't help reduce abuse that can be added to the paragraph on abolitionism or maybe the content could be moved to a separate paragraph at that stage. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should not stay, and yes, there are plenty of sources that state the contrary, that legalization makes abuse and trafficking much worse, such as these, for example, Anyway, this has been discussed above as well, this article should not attempt to "prove" which legal system works better, first of all, because this is not what this article is about. The section "Criminalisation of voluntary prostitution" was removed for this very reason.  There are hundreds and hundreds of articles, studies, etc, about the alleged effects of various prostitution legal systems, and there is no need to start to analyze them in this article.

Skydeepblue (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I especially want to keep it is because that legalisation helps to reduce extreme abuse is a key reason why liberals want to legalise prostitution/drugs etc. That said as that is true it should be possible to find some hard data to back up the point. So if you still feel you want to remove it for now go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just done some more background reading and found another Economist article that isn't solely supporting this point, so I'm going to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Save the Children Quote
The key part of the quote is that Save the Children see human trafficking and prostitution as separate issues. Not that people get confused with their definitions. I don't see that as a particularly controversial point, someone who is beaten and raped to force them to sell their body is in a morally worse situation than someone who "chooses" to do so to earn more money as they have no better options.

The quote is below:

"The issue [human trafficking] however, gets mired in controversy and confusion when prostitution too is considered as a violation of the basic human rights of both adult women and minors, and equal to sexual exploitation per se. From this standpoint then, trafficking and prostitution become conflated with each other"

-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This quote is contradictory. Human trafficking and prostitution are two controversial and emotionally charged topics to begin with. In addition to this, the quote claims that human trafficking gets lost in controversy while prostitution is considered a violation of human rights. This is a biased opinion, not all people view prostitution in that way. And even though human trafficking is highly likely to result in prostitution, it is not always going to result in such a way. What about resulting in sexual assault as opposed to prostitution?Campb149 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany text
SkyDeepBlue and Linksnational can you stop your edit war and discuss this first please? It doesn't matter for now which version is in the article until it has been discussed. Can you guys both please justify your position below?

Thanks -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I've requested both of you on your talk pages to join the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational has made dramatic, controversial changes to several articles, changes which have been contested and reverted by sevaral other editors. See: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and Talk:Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II Until the conflict is resolved, the section should remain tagged. Skydeepblue (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it should be tagged. I wanted to know why each of you guys think your version is better. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts on June 16

 * I just reverted edits by User:99.179.47.126. They included specific references to sites that allegedly promote prostitution.  Such a claim is quite strong, and certainly needs reliable sources to back it up.  If that information was a good-faith inclusion and not vandalism, please discuss here to confirm that the information belongs in the article.  (Also, sorry for the double revert; I didn't notice the changes that needed to be removed were done in two steps).  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And you need to prove that the escorts concerned are being forced into the business. Those websites didn't appear to be like that at first glance. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased article
So there was no forced prostitution in WW2 Russia? Not in the occupied German territories towards the end of the war and post war? No forced prostitution in Vietnam? There's no trafficking of Eastern European women to Israel for rich Jews?

Uhh, right. Only Japs, Germans and Arabs could be guilty of such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.129 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be bold and add the content if you can source it reliably. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to look into this issue and see if I can find documentation of other countries. In the mean time it might be helpful to add a statement at the end of that section stating that of course these are not the only countries that engaged in forced prostitution. I agree that this section does create a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campb149 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversy regarding 'forced' versus 'voluntary' prostitution
If you are going to have a Wikipedia article on 'forced' prostitution, you must (at least) question whether a distinction should be drawn between 'forced' and 'voluntary' prostitution. There are many organizations and people who believe prostitution is inherently coercive and a form of violence against women. Without illustrating this controversy and questioning the existence of voluntary prostitution, no Wikipedia articles on prostitution or human trafficking can come even close to an impartial or neutral viewpoint. I would also like to point out that the omission of an abolitionist viewpoint of prostitution on the many Wikipedia articles about prostitution undermines the credibility and objectivity of Wikipedia as a comprehensive, web-based, collaborative project. Smmah (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea that forcing someone to do something and essentially treating them as a slave is as bad as them choosing to do so for financial reasons is quite dubious - you could easily make the same argument about people being "forced" to work in factories etc. etc.
 * Regardless of your views on prostitution think drawing an equivalence between forced and non-forced prostitution is really quite likely to be WP:FRINGE, and to warrant inclusion reliable sources (such as the New York Times or an academic source) have to be found explicitly stating they are equivalent. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Only women are prostitutes?
There is one aspect of this article that is completely one-sided and sexist... in that it gives the impression that only women are forced to be prostitutes. This is false. Here's one example: http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/15-02-2007/87441-army_prostitute-0/

And this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/10/childrensservices.childprotection

And this one: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/246409/Boys_in_Afghanistan_Sold_Into_Prostitution_Sexual_Slavery

There are in fact male prostitutes... and they are not all gay either. And it isn't all voluntary. And it's all under-reported because the honest truth is society doesn't care about boys/men the way it cares about girls/women.

As well, there are some women who hire male prostitutes too. I've observed this going on 1st hand. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were women who hired female prostitutes as well.

This article has the typically biased, sexist (against men) view you will get from a Misandrist Gender Feminist like Andrea Dworkin and her ilk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersterncan (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have sourced content by all means at it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And yes... I'm contemplating on adding to the article... but first wanted to discuss it and see if others agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersterncan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:BOLD there isn't enough activity here to warrant anything else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the opening, defining, sentence
The opening sentence of the article currently says:


 * Forced prostitution, also known as involuntary prostitution, is the act of performing sexual activity on a non-voluntary basis.

Several problems with this:

(1) It's clearly too broad -- e.g., a street rape meets this description but is not forced prostitution.

(2) What about continuing sexual enslavement by a single perpetrator? That too fits the opening sentence's criterion, but again is not forced prostitution. Forced prostitution has to refer to forced sex with a number of different people. (However, limiting it to "forced commercial sex" would be too restrictive because e.g. WWII comfort women's forced sex should be included even if no money changed hands.)

(3) Is forced prostitution really "the act of performing sexual activity" in some context? Or is it the act of forcing someone to perform sexual activity in some context (i.e., the act of prostituting someone else)? I'm not sure about this one.

I think someone active on this page should take a look at this, since the opening, defining sentence is the most important sentence in the article. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)



this is a link to a definition of prostitution as define by the state of New Jersey. By adding the element of force (threat, coercion, lies, ect.) would help to make a suitable definition for "forced prostitution"? Campb149 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated tag on Nazi Germany
Removed the tag of Nazi Germany. Quiet clear now. OccultZone (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I replaced the tag. It's old but it still has not been addressed. The problem is that the wording is very confusing—the English is terrible. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * May need CE.aka Copy editing. If you want to. OccultZone (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, On Asia, it is unclear for Japan, with about 7 year old unsourced content, that what is correct or incorrect. OccultZone (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Violence against men doesn't apply to this article, and repeatedly adding (or, perhaps, removing) the cat is tendentious
This article makes no mention of violence against men; the closest it comes is mentioning violence against children. As there is a specific cat for violence against children, I'll be adding it momentarily and re-removing the violence against men. Repeatedly adding a violence aganst men cat to an article that makes no mention of violence against men is tendentious bordering on disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for the category is "men and boys", and I've just provided you the link to the state department overview of forced trafficking which found in several countries boys are MORE likely than girls to be forced into prostitution. In any case, before May this was just in gender-based violence category, so I've restored that, which is broad enough to capture everything.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi, you should literally be embarassed that you restored your preferred version of the article because it represented "silent consensus" when the only two people to have commented on it took diametrically opposing stances. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * as a sign of my good faith Im not going to point out edits you should be terribly embarrassed for so let's call it even. The scope of the VAM cat is gender based violence against men OR boys. We have in that category for example an article about boy forced prostitution in Afghanistan - no adult males are involved but it still belongs in the category. Here a significant minority of people trafficked for sex are boys, and in some countries boys are the majority. Which part of 'men and boys' is confusing to you?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To respond to the point you raised on my talk page claiming that a change being intact on a page with 40 watchers for a month constituted some sort of immutable silent consensus: this isn't a very well watched paged and your change had not been in place for very long. When you make a change, someone disagrees with it, and no one else comments, you can't claim that there's some silent consensus supporting you.  Even if you could presume your change had consensus before anyone challenged it, WP:CCC would still apply, and as soon as someone challenged it, you would no longer have consensus.  It would be a different situation if there had been a dozen previous long discussions about the change that all agreed with you, but 'silent consensus' disappears the second someone steps up to say they don't agree with you. The notion that you can make an edit reasonably because 'silent consensus' supports it is in all honesty one of the more bizarre justifications for an edit I've seen on Wikipedia.


 * To respond to other points: I hadn't previously investigated cat trees involving violence against children before, and honestly I'm a bit bewildered that we don't have a violence against children cat. We have a cat for child abuse, but that hardly seems an appropriate cat for stuff like infanticide, child murder, or articles on child soldiers or witchcraft accusations levied against children leading to their death, etc. If there wasn't currently a kerfuffle about related cats, I'd go create one, since it hardly seems appropriate to categorize 'infanticide' merely as 'child abuse,' and it certainly doesn't seem appropriate to categorize 'infanticide' as 'violence against men' or 'violence against women.' As it is, once the kerfuffle is settled, I'll probably go create an appropriate cat. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Forced prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104113013/http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=109015&sectionid=351020605 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=109015&sectionid=351020605
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100213081628/http://atg.wa.gov/HumanTrafficking/SexTrafficking.aspx to http://www.atg.wa.gov/HumanTrafficking/SexTrafficking.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Forced prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305202011/http://www.chaste.org.uk/public_documents/CJI_Briefing_Doc_CARE_CHASTE_001.pdf to http://chaste.org.uk/public_documents/CJI_Briefing_Doc_CARE_CHASTE_001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Some content concerning Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been added to the Middle East section of this article by Campb149. However, the content and references supplied appear to refer to sexual slavery rather than prostitution, forced or otherwise. I suggest that this piece should be moved to the the Middle East section of the sexual slavery article. There is already some ISIL content there to which this could be added. Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✅ as no objections raised – Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Can someone with access to a reliable source please check the Convention number in the section:
 * "The Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (Convention No 104) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) provides that the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution is one of the worst forms of child labor. This convention, adopted in 1999, provides that countries that had ratified it must eliminate the practice urgently. It enjoys the fastest pace of ratifications in the ILO's history since 1919."

An editor only known by the IP address 115.124.2.178, associated with vandalism as well as constructive edits, changed that number from 182 to 104. Doug butler (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forced prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112211407/http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?OpenDocument to http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907020434/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=VII-11-a&chapter=7&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=VII-11-a&chapter=7&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501093606/http://www.tiraspoltimes.com:80/node/653 to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/653
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109083324/http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2373 to http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2373
 * Added tag to http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029
 * Added tag to http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C105
 * Added tag to http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C138
 * Added tag to http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Forced prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326111520/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38872 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38872
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ukraine/eeeu.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vn.vladnews.ru/Arch/2000/ISS228/text/upd28-1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asianmirror.co.uk/node/1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708215548/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2701324.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2701324.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306003144/http://www.awomansvoice.org/nl1-2004-2.html to http://www.awomansvoice.org/nl1-2004-2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904020445/http://hassin.sejp.net/Hata-Ianfu_text.pdf to http://hassin.sejp.net/Hata-Ianfu_text.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Forced prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008164248/http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/iran.htm to http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/iran.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20080820101422/http://www.smmirror.com/Volume1/issue6/hooker.html to http://www.smmirror.com/Volume1/issue6/hooker.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228094602/http://www.catwinternational.org/factbook/EUeast.php to http://www.catwinternational.org/factbook/EUeast.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929051015/http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2000/slavery.html to http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2000/slavery.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101164711/http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/iraq070824 to http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/iraq070824
 * Added tag to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/page.arcview.php?clid=3&id=126551&date=2006-01-23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Africa?
Global situation section: why is Africa not covered? Valetude (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you call it?
What do you call it when a guy’s sole purpose is to have sex with a girl and to video tape it without her knowledge? Then taking this a step further posting the videos on social media sites?

Is this a form of torture, abuse, or what?

In turn making the girl a prostitute, without her knowledge. 12.5.41.11 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The term you are looking for is revenge porn, '"distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent." Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)