Talk:Procuring (prostitution)

Pandering
I believe it would be helpful if any clarification could be made of the distinction between procuring and pandering, especially since a search for the latter redirects to this page. All I can tell from the article is that pandering is a form of procuring. If they are in fact equivalent as terms, this is somewhat incorrect. If they are not, at least some further explanation would be highly useful. Laanders (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The section "Business of pandering" gives a stereotypical portrayal common in the United States, and needs further peer-reviewed social science references to support. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Procuring is the purchase of sex, usually by a john. Pandering is the arrangement of the purchase by a pimp on behalf of the sex worker. The language of this article id off. --evrik (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles Pimp and Procuring (prostitution) must be merged
The article Pimp must be merged into this article (Procuring (prostitution)). The two article are about the same subject, and the content in them is relatively the same. "Pimp" is actually a slang term form procuring/pandering.5.12.221.234 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

✅

Refs for wikilinked list
I've lifted a RefImprove template from the section listing pimps and procurers. Since each of the names is wikilinked, it seems pointless to find and duplicate refs from those articles. The section has no text other than the list of names, which might possibly be improved by the addition of biodates. Bjenks (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Many app developers are pimps
If i look up the definition of pimping and pandering, it applies to the app developers. Making money by arranging sex. The definition fits and it is what it is, I'm just curious why it's not illegal when it should be? These so called "hook up" apps that charge money are pandering， how do they get around the law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.105.146 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Loverboy
There is no evidence of this term being used in English with this sense. It appears to be a pseudoanglicism, perhaps used in Dutch or other languages with this connotation. This section has been removed from the article, and can be found below.

&#61;&#61; Loverboy &#61;&#61;

Loverboy is slang for young men who lure underage girls into prostitution. This is a significant problem in many countries, including the Netherlands, and estimates place the number of victims at 1,500 per year.

Although loverboys use kidnapping, gang rape, and other coercive and intimidating methods on victims, Dutch politician Jamila Yahyaoui reports only five cases resulted in convictions in one year in the Netherlands.

Often, a more frequent tactic is to use social media and direct communication/seduction after which they are forced to engage in sexual intercourse with other people (customers), for example by threatening to expose nude photos taken of the girls, or by using drugs as an incentive (after first ensuring they were addicted to them).

Because of their young age, the girls' fear and emotional dependence, and vagueness about what exactly happened, often loverboys and their associates may only be charged with having sex with a minor and thus receive short sentences. The socialist party ROOD wants police to remove obstacles to girls reporting abuse and not to lose contact, while some municipalities are educating front-line workers to identify victims better.

In addition, the reference which claims to define it, is a dead link. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - I disagree, the term was used by the media in the UK during the Rochdale child sex abuse ring investigations and trials, and was also used in reference to Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. In the US there is a campaign My Dangerous Loverboy, they have also produced a film of the same name {trailer). Stockport Council (UK) has provided funding for the film be shown in schools as part of an anti child sexual exploitation campaign. The dead link is archived at the Internet Archive. I note two of the references in the removed section were to UK media.


 * Irrespective of the use or not of the word in English speaking countries, or the commonality of the phenomenon in those countries, this is an international article, so its undisputed occurrence in the Netherlands and Belgium justifies its inclusion. --John B123 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * John, thanks for your comments. Tl;dr: phenomenon: yes; neologism: no.
 * I don't dispute the phenomenon, or the applicability of the article to all countries; it's the name I dispute. Yes, there have been English reports that use this name in reporting this, but in my view, this usage is at the very earliest stages of neologism coinage, and a foreign coinage to boot, and it's not at all clear whether this is a vogue word, or will survive. In addition, individual websites and youtube are not reliable sources as I'm sure you're aware.  I'm not opposed to having something about this phenomenon in the article expressed with due weight and with a proper descriptive section title.  I just object to the section title and references to the phenomenon itslef being a recent neologism, which may or many not survive. (It would be fine to say something in the running text of the section like, "this was referred to as loverboy in Dutch reporting, and picked up by some U.K. or U.S. sources[1][2]" or some such.)  But using the term as if it is an accepted word in English for this phenonenon, lends the term weight in Wikipedia's voice that it in no way deserves. That may change over time, but we are not there yet. The section itself labels it as slang, and in the business, I have no doubt there are endless slang terms some of which might be of interest to report in this article; perhaps in a Slang section; however, we should not adopt these slang terms as if they are the standard terminology that would be appropriate in newspapers, trade journals, or encyclopedias for discussing the phenomenon in a neutral way.  Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - I think part of the problem is that the Dutch borrowed "lover boy" from English. If they had used the native "minnaar jongen" then we would have accepted it as a foreign term without the conflict that "lover boy" gives because a different general meaning (as we do with Enjo kōsai for example). If you google say "loverboy phenomenon" or "loverboy human trafficking" the results show the term is in use by Government, local governments, NGOs etc. At what point it changes from being an occasional/slang term to a mainstream term, or even by common usage by academic sources etc so that it is the "correct" term so we should be using it, I have no idea, so I've no opposition to your view that the term hasn't progressed past the first stage.


 * Previously the term grooming was often used in this sort of situation, (although it has a broader meaning too; paedophiles etc). Perhaps this would make a suitable heading for the section and then loverboy explained in the section as you have suggested. Your suggestion for a Slang section seems a good idea. --John B123 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we're substantially in agreement. Rather than google the term in dispute, though, which will of course turn up that term, I'm trying to google neutral expressions to see what turns up, including "men who lure underage girls into prostitution" and similar. The loverboys term does turn up once in the top ten (in quotes, which I believe are a nod to its neologism status), but most articles in the top 30 talk about human trafficking, luring, pimping, pandering, forcing, exploiting, brutalizing, compelling, enslaving, and so on; and refer to the men, as: pimps, traffickers, criminals, recruiters, guys on the street, accomplices, kidnappers, Romeos, Romeo pimps, abusers, etc. I've only seen the loverboy term rarely in searches that don't include the term itself, and from the multiplicity of other terms used, it seems there's no settled term for the "recruiter" role, in contrast to the way procurer and pimp are, for example, settled and commonly understood standard and slang terms for that role. Given that, a neutral, descriptive term should be preferred for the section title: e.g., Recruitment of underage girls or whatever we want the section to be about. Articles in the top 30 covered the countries of China, Canada (ON BC), U.S. (IL NY TX FL ND), Ctrl Asia (the -stans),  U.K., and the Netherlands.  The one article that mentioned the Netherlands, did use the term, quoted as "so-called 'loverboys' ".
 * I'll try and come up with another formulation for this section and add it beow, but given what I've seen so far, a more international approach should be taken, and the NL-based component should be dialed back considerably as having very undue weight currently. The section could perhaps say that some English sources have picked up on Dutch news reports about "so-called 'loverboys' " and quoted this usage, or some such, if that is deemed sufficiently important to include in this section, but that seems debatable. Otherwise, it would fit well into a new, Slang section. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Just noticed the large pull quote at the top of the Dutch article. It says: "We want to get rid of the term 'loverboy'. They are human traffickers." quoting Esmee Huijps, a specialist in the field. Mathglot (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the terms you found, I've seem the term Romeo used before, mainly in article referring to African and Asian situtations. Recruitment of underage girls seems a good heading for the section. I think a just mentioning that the term loverboy is used in the Netherlands and Belgium would be enough. This can be changed later if its use becomes more common in English. --John B123 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording sounds like a job ad
The wording of the article is not great. Phrases like “a pimp may X” and “a pimp can Y” ought to be worded to avoid any hint of authorising X or Y, not just for legal reasons (probably not the real problem here, since further qualification is given following each mention) but to avoid having to provide cumbersome qualifications and because this is an encyclopaedia. In some cases past tense is more suitable and its adoption would avoid any potential inference of authorising or encouraging or dare I say it, recruiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44b8:4146:600:2119:fb6f:9fe9:d2f0 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)