Talk:Prostitution/Archive 3

Australia prostitution legality
"Street based sex work is illegal all over the world except for New South Wales, Australia, and New Zealand ...but america should pick up on this one very fast." Its actually Canberra, ACT (Australian Capital Territory) where it is legal, *NOT* NSW as stated above. However it is largely de-criminilised in most parts of NSW.

Prostitution

Prostitution
Where shall I start? This is a former Featured Article that has been downgraded due to obvious bad editing. Too much information is contained in the Lead paragraph which should be pushed down into the main article subspace. Some information may be split off into sub-articles as has happened already. Too much slang and unreferenced information is used, too much information being used as a list page, and serious cleanup is necessary as the article is of inappropriate tone for an encyclopedic entry.

This is a big job, should other Taskforce members be enlisted to help?

Added to User:Shell Kinney/Desk Ekantik talk 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my, we might just need a team for this. I didn't get much further than Prostitution occurs in many varied and different settings. before despair set in - that poor article has been terribly mangled by a lot of good-willed editors a bit unfamiliar with our styles.  I'll get started on the lead paragraph and see where things need to be merged and see if I can find a few others who want to take a stab at a section. Shell babelfish 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You do need a team of 'world' specialists to review the contemporary meaning of the term. A prostitute does not 'commit' the act of prostitution, unless the person is in a country where it is illegal to perform such actions. Not allowing a person to perform consented, regulated prostitution (take example of the Victoria, Australian legislation, Prostitution Act 1994) is against human rights.

World map
A world map on prostitution laws would be great! Especially as a tourist because then you could know where you should go. --212.247.27.196 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Palmalouca article removal
I'm curious as to why this was considered spam. The article seemed to me to be an investigative look into the daily lives of lower-class prostitutes in Rio. It seemed highly sympathetic and completely non-prurient. Nothing that I could see was advertised on the page. How is this link different from any other news article linked to wikipedia, and why doesn't it deserve the same regard? If no one can answer this question I will restore the link with a warning of adult content. -Kasreyn 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Karsreyn. I did that because I felt the palmalouca links were added using a spammer's reasoning. Normally, good external texts are used to make an 'extension' to the reading of an Article's subject, while spams use the Article to promote themselves. It's a matter of 'who augments who'.
 * I believe the pamlouca site presence on Wikipedia was more consistent with the spam technique. I noticed that after a simple investigative procedure:
 * I went to palmalouca's homepage at http://palmalouca.com/.
 * I noticed that the whole site is a small collection articles.
 * For each article, I took it's theme and looked on the Wikipedia's Article on this theme.
 * (Prostitution, Carmen Miranda, Nelson Piquet, Mangue Bit).
 * I noticed there was a palmalouca link on each one of them.
 * So, it seems that it's not that the palmalouca articles increment Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's audience increments palmalouca. Note that we can't say it was someone from palmalouca adding the links. But this just doesn't matters. One fact is that theses links we're added to Wikipedia in a narrow time frame from anonymous IP addresses (no more investigative work from here).
 * I agree that, if it is a concensus on the comunity that the palmalouca links are valuable to Wikipedia, them should stay. I, for one, don't think they're worthy. The "if no one answer ... I willl...."  attitude doesn't please me. As a last reminder, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Regards, --Abu Badali 13:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Your definition of spam seems wise, so I'll agree to leave the link out.  It does look like someone is trying to leech eyeballs for palmalouca.  As regards "if no one answers" thing, I sometimes put that in to inspire debate.  Frequently I've asked what I've considered an important question in an article's talk page and had no replies.  Naturally the thing to do is to then go on and make the changes I need to (be bold!).  To be civil though, I like to provide some prior warning that I intend to make changes unless someone can make a convincing case against.  Which you did!  Best wishes,  -Kasreyn 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all o.k. then. Actually, you're right about being bold. My Best wishes to you too. Regards, --Abu Badali 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another view - the inclusion of a link is best based on how much the linked material benefits the Wikipedia article. To put other priorities first can be a like cutting of your nose to spite your face. SmithBlue 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on "German whore"
While it's likely that the anon user who changed the image caption to say "whore" was attempting vandalism, the term is ironically appropriate. I have read that many sex workers in Germany feel it is more honest to call themselves whores rather than using a euphemism. This is only hearsay though, and I don't have a source for the claim. -Kasreyn 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The German term preferred by most professional long-term prostitutes is indeed best translated as "whore" ("Hure" in German, same etymological roots AFAIK) -- maybe because the term "prostitute" tends to be very negative when used as a verb (in German: "(sich) prostituieren"). The picture itself also depicts a German prostitute (or ex-prostitute), so the caption might work. I'd personally vote for something along the lines of "A German "whore"." to make it sound less like an attempted insult.
 * The term "sex worker" is totally unknown in Germany (or at least in common German -- the German word is "Sexarbeiter(in)", but I've never ever encountered that outside the dictionary), probably so because Germany tends to be less prudent about prostitution and thus less concerned with "political correctness" of related terms. -- Ashmodai 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, here goes. I will rephrase it and link the word "whore" to this section of the talk page by way of explanation.  -Kasreyn 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait. This is all wrong.   Just because whore and Hure have the same derivation, and prostitute and prostitutieren have the same derivation, that doesn't mean that Hure should be translated as whore.   We should use the closest thing we have to a neutral word in English, i.e. 'prostitute' or, if we're feeling PC, 'sex-worker'.   What words people use in German is irrelevant.   On a side-issue, I gather that rather a lot of the prostitutes in Germany are not German, so I'd suggest 'A prostitute in Germany'. Mark1 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if it bothers you, I guess it's not that important. Still, I've heard that "hure" is how German sex workers identify themselves.  -Kasreyn 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Whore" is the direct translation. However the question is which word is the best to use in the context of an English article, and that might indeed be the most adequate one in the English language. If sex worker is more than another bogus term resulting from US American political correctness, that may be the word of choice (I've only ever read the word in American articles and English is all but identical with American), otherwise I would feel more comfortable with the word "prostitute" because that is what seems to be the consent when it comes to internationally non-offensive words to describe the whole concept (one word or another eventually becoming an insult does not matter -- only a total fool (or George Orwell, possibly) would assume that inventing new labels would prevent further insult). -- Ashmodai 12:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Try telling that to wikipedians, who on average seem to think that "encyclopedic" means "bowing slavishly to every trend in political correctness". :-(  -Kasreyn 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Sex worker' is, I think, reasonably widely used in Britain, mainly by prostitutes' associations and possibly academics.  I'd have no problem with 'prostitute', though.  Orwell, by the way, would have believed quite the opposite. ;) Mark1 12:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

removed sentence with unverified claim
I removed the sentence, "Though there is a stereotype that such male prostitutes are rare, a comprehensive study by Nither Tinnakul of Chulalongkorn University at Bangkok found the number in Thailand alone to be at least 30,000, versus an estimated 100,000 female prostitutes.". The only evidence I can find for this is one brief transcript from a radio show, not enough evidence to make this claim. Also, the sentence is misleading even based on the article. --Xyzzyplugh 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sex tourist=paedophiles? NPOV?
"Some pedophiles use sex tourism to have access to sex with children that is unavailable in their home country. These sex tourists organize themselves around a number of web sites where they boast about their conquests, share photos of their victims, discuss tips on how to have sex with men, women and children in foreign countries at the best possible rates and how to avoid detection both at home and abroad."

You are talking about sex crime, not sex tourism. This is a different subject, and should not be listed under 'sex tourism'. The contributor may disagree with the motives of sex tourists, but this is no place to air his/her feelings. Sex tourism is something which is usually legal or decriminalised in the host country and ignored in the tourist's. Sex with children is illegal in all countries, and does not belong in a sensible discussion about sex tourism, particularly not in a paragraph where 'paedophile' and 'sex tourist' are used interchangably as they are here.

The dangers to children in popular 'sex' destinations would be better addressed by giving these concerns their own heading and dealing with them properly and factually, instead of trying to infer, as this does, that child rape and sex tourism are practically the same thing.


 * I don't see such an inference; however your suggestions sound okay to me. - RoyBoy 800 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree as long as a note remains in this article that sex tourism is in many cases a way to circumvent age of consent laws. Then we can just have a link to the main article on sex crime / pedophilia.  It doesn't really deserve such a large chunk of this article.  -Kasreyn 05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


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

Misuse of terms
Pedophilia is not applicable to sex tourism. The first diagnostic criterion for the sexual disorder 302.2 Pedophilia states that the client must exhibit "Sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)", as classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. There are no countries that have an age of consent below age 13, and many of them do include ages between 21 to 13 that classify adolescents as children. Moreover the second citerion states that the client must be distressed by his or her behavior, which is not the case of sex tourists. The concept of age of consent is important in how it applies to international laws and the laws of individual countries regarding sex tourism, and it is not a clinical concern in terms of pedophilia. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pimp friendship?
"Female prostitutes, especially street prostitutes, are mythologically associated with a pimp, a man who lives off the proceeds of several prostitutes and may offer some protection in return. The relationship between pimp and prostitute is often friendship however, and may be someones partner or family."

Roberta Perkins is a founding member of the Australian Prostitutes' Collective. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part1b.html) I have not read her studies, but I believe they are by default skewed. Her sample base must necessarily be of women who agreed to be interviewed. This information is also based primarily from Australia, and not street prostitution in the US.

Pimps are not friends. It is not a "mythological association." I have edited this paragraph.

I'm gonna make a userbox that says "This user is a pimp". The Republican 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republican 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Here it is! *Comment - I didn't know it was possible to vandalize a talk page, but the above edits by The Republican proves me wrong I guess! :) Can someone tell me what this userbox has to do with the article?? --Oscar Arias 00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he wasn't exactly vandalizing. Rather, going off-topic. "Pimp" is used as a more positive word in slang than the original meaning would suggest and I guess he figured it'd be funny to have yet-another-user-box for that and that this would be the right place to advertise it. &mdash; Ashmodai (talk &middot; contribs) 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it annoying how the word "pimp" has become a positive term these days, the image I have of pimps, and correct me if I am wrong, are men who force or ensnare women to sell their bodies and dignities to strange men for his monetary gain, and the relationship between the two are usually one of rape and abuse. the worst moment in television history according to me is when MTV made a 15 minutes long commercial about trafficking and the dangers of those who sell their bodies and directly after showed an episode of "Pimp My Ride". how do you pimp a ride? beat some women, give them STDs and throw them in the trunk to be driven to next stop of semi-consentual sex?
 * This is Wikipedia, not an opinion forum. The talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article.  Kasreyn 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "pimp" as a slang term has positive cannotations, but an actual pimp is basically an employer of prostitutes. I have met a few women ("friends of friends") who used to be prostitutes, and I can assure you that pimps frequently abuse women. They are not nice people. I know that this isn't a forum, but if there any positive comments about pimps in this artcile or the pimp article, then it would be best to clarify that they mostly refer to a stereotype instead of actual pimps. --Mathew Williams 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (The unsigned comment above isn't me, by the way)

Nine external links about sex slavery/human trafficking ??
Isn't this excessive and giving the article "bias" ?? Oarias 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some that are ALREADY listed in the Trafficking in human beings article, my reasoning: Comments? Oarias 05:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Link already exists in Trafficking.
 * 2) Excessive trafficking articles is giving the links section a POV feel for anti-prostitution advocates.
 * 3) I left links that DIRECTLY mention prostitution as this is what the article is about.
 * 4) I feel my edits somewhat restore NPOV perspective of the article.
 * 5) There were just too many!  One of the complaints that was entered when this article lost "Featured" status was something about "too many links", and I agree, look at the Human trafficking article it's a link nightmare!

Removed George Carlin Quote
A quote from a old, foul-mouthed comedian? Mildly funny, but inappropriate for this article, I think. Making a joke about legalizing prositution does not merit a quote in an encyclopedia entry. Jboer 09:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, he provides a stereotypical quote of a feeling commonly held by those opposed to anti-prostitution laws. It may be a joke, but it also concisely probes what some see as a flaw in the reasoning behind outlawing prostitution.  Carlin's quote has become significant (imo) by the sheer amount of times it has been copied and passed on.  It makes me wonder whether which you find "inappropriate":  George Carlin as a source, or a strongly worded attack on the logic behind outlawing prostitution.  I don't agree that it's inappropriate.  Wikipedia is not censored for minors.  What makes George Carlin notable?  He's only one of the most famous comedians and public speakers alive.  I'd say that counts for something.  -Kasreyn 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Historical part
[I don't know much about editing Wikipedia sites, but it strikes me that--since our closest living relatives, bonobo apes, often engage in transactions whereby female provides sex for fruit gathered by males--prostitution may be something engaged in by our common ancestor 6 million years ago. In fact, it may be the "world's oldest profession." I didn't want to add anything like this in the actual page, because as noted I am a newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia entries. However, I wanted to make the suggestion here.]

For the german Wikipedia I actually write an article about ancient prostitution (de:Prostitution in der Antike). Since I've started at the University in 1996 this is one of my special fields. But now I'm reading the first time the historical part of the english Prostitution-article and must say: It's horrible. It's pure yellow press. There's nothing to find what's in a little way scientific. The part about the temple prostitution I'va already removed totaly. Modern science says, thers no evidence for this. Herodot and other greek authors are bad wintnesses. The histirical part of this article ist - so wide I can tell it - very bad and needs a revised version. Kenwilliams 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide references, not simply blank. The passage should look like: "according to the Ancient Greek authors..., but according to the modern authors (references!) it was ...". Do not consider this as a personal attack, but if we compare words of Herodotos to words of a Wiki-user, I will prefer Herodotos abakharev 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That a fault. Herodotus is for such things not trustworthy. I would write it new by myself, but my english is much to bad. Actually it's definetly not OK. It's pure Horror for every serious historian. Kenwilliams 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then go to my talk page and describe it as best you can. I don't speak German any further than guten tag, but I am a native speaker of English, and I find anything about ancient times fascinating. :) ...


 * ...or, maybe you could request a translation into English of that German article and link to it from this article here? Runa27 06:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first part of the history chapter, it was speculative cliches, no citations and even a dash of Anthropomorphism!! Ingaemm 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest some spelling corrections and linking with relevant articles on Wiki. First of all, Aphrodite Pandemos for "Aprodites Pandemo". I guess that was just a typo, but linking would be helpful. More importantly, "Ateneo" should be Athenaeus, and the item should be linked with the article on him. Other than this, i think you should delete the "(from the Indo-European root kā meaning "desire")", or you should reference it. For example, the Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology s.v. whore p. 540. gives its root as I-E *kār, and compares Latin carus and Old Irish cara. And, finally, the "Old English word hōra" should be changed. It is hōre (cf. Bosworth-Toller s.v. it is in public domain and can be found on this page:http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/texts/oe_bosworthtoller_about.html). I didn't want to tamper with your article, so I'm leaving it to you. I hope I helped. IlAkkad 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is photo necessary?
What does the photo on the article convey? Is there something special in the photo that qualifies her to be a prostitute? In my opinion, it is not needed at all. Thanks. 195.150.224.236 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ther is nothing wrong with the photo. It's a picture of a prostitute, she appears to be in her "work room" and dressed in appropriate prostitute wear.  Leave the photo alone. -Oscar Arias 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The photo is true, I know her very well (we are friends, not more!) - it simple shows the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Kenwilliams 09:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While it's true that just wearing sultry or revealing clothing doesn't make a woman a prostitute, the woman in question in the photo is actually a real prostitute who works in Germany. The photo serves to provide a general sense of what a prostitute might look like if you encountered one; in this case, extremely general, since there are so many different ways a prostitute can look.  Look at the fifth picture down from the top on Construction; is there anything about that man that qualifies him as a construction worker?  No, but he is wearing typical construction worker garb and is seen in a place where one might expect to find a construction worker working.  The same principle is at work on this page.  -Kasreyn 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, the woman seems somewhat happy, the surroundings serene. I am certain that happiness and serenity are not closely associated with the world of prostitution.


 * She is smiling for a customer, she isn't happy. EamonnPKeane 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but she doesn't particularly look "happy". Who knows, she may be... In Germany I've met a pro who drove a new Benz and made more money than me, it's quite a lucrative business there. Why does it seem that people always wish to paint the negative on this issue, geesh.  Just because your limited exposure to pros was driving by "toothless Wanda" the local crack whore in "Bumfudge, Georgia" does not mean that all prostitutes live that lifestyle.  Interesting that no-one seems to want to get rid of the picture of the grotesque streetwalker further down in the article, but it must be all right because it portrays prostitution in a negative light.   Whatever... (anonymous poster above) it's obvious to me that you are trying to insert POV into the article by selectivly removing photos. -Oscar Arias 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It seems quite plausible to me that, in nations where prostitution is not criminalized, prostitutes might be happy.  Much of their misery in the United States is directly attributable to their outlaw status, nothing more, nothing less.  -Kasreyn 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, we don't need to discuss this here. I think it's enough to now, that's not a fake. She can handle with this and has loaded up the pictuere by herself. She's fine with her life, can handle with all. It was a Job - not more, not less. Kenwilliams 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the photo? Since there's no explanation on the talk page, I'm putting it back.--Frenchman113 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The typical image of a prostitute in Western films and television is a woman, sometimes among a group, on a street corner at night. I understand that this is simplistic and boiled down. However, a lounging, seductively positioned woman showing skin is not only not defining as a prostitute (whether the real life woman is one or not), but it doesn't add any information, as an image should do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.49.207 (talk • contribs).
 * Well, I understand your point about information content. The point could be made that the woman in the image might merely be a model, or might not really be a prostitute and simply is being interpreted as such by us, and/or that even if she really were a prostitute, the image does not show anything worth showing.
 * First off, I'd point out that according to the image's upload information, it was taken in Germany of a German woman. As prostitution is quite legal in Germany, I'd say WP:AGF requires that we assume that the editor who uploaded the image was telling the truth:  the woman is a real-life whore.
 * As to what information content is contained, this is harder to answer. The ideal you describe rightly as overly simplistic is specifically of a streetwalker, a specific kind of prostitute - but we already have an image of a stereotypical streetwalker lower down in the article.  I can't think of any reason for prostitution to take the form of streetwalking except its criminality; I have no data for this, but I would suspect that in countries where prostitution is legal, streetwalking would be less common, as it would be easier for prostitutes and pimps to acquire shelter in which to regularly engage in their business.  Ie., they wouldn't be restricted by their outlaw status to the streets and cheap motels; they could actually set up a brothel, and if they had a brothel, why risk the prostitutes' safety by walking the street?  Would make no sense.  Conclusion:  I would expect that in countries where prostitution is legal, in-call or "escort" style prostitution would be more common than streetwalking, so it's worth having a picture of such a setting.
 * It might be even better to get an image of a prostitute actively engaging in her trade; if we wanted to be extremely anal-retentive in our requirements and take this logic to extremes, we would have to construct a slideshow or gallery depicting negotiation, exchange of money, and provision of service. But I'd say that would be somewhat over the top, not to mention that it would still be impossible to prove it wasn't a staged photoshoot of a woman who wasn't a real prostitute.  (Though one wonders occasionally at the bizarre legalisms that protect, say, Chasey Lain or Mary Carey from being classified as prostitutes; after all, they have sex as part of an activity for which they're being paid.)
 * In all, I'd say it's better to leave the image where it is and trust in the uploader that the woman actually is a whore. It would seem to be quite a headache to insist on more.  Kasreyn 07:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New photo?
I'm not sure the new photo with the man having sex with two prostitutes helps? It should at least be reduced in size as it obstructs the page. And no, I'm not proposing censorship--Frenchman113 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I'm completely against censorship in Wikipedia, but the photo is not educational or encyclopedic in the context in which it has been placed.  There are images of copulation in the article on sexual intercourse, which I have to constantly protect from censors.  This article doesn't need them.  We have photos of prostitutes; if people want to know what prostitutes do, they can go to the article on sexual intercourse where there are images.


 * The new photo is redundant, uneducational, unencyclopedic, and was likely inserted for prurient aims. It should be removed.  Does anyone object?  -Kasreyn 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, the article has far too many pictures, and this one seems least helpful. It should be removed (but not because it's offensive).--Frenchman113 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a user but i OBJECT, i think it was educational, in its way. It was very striking in that this was a Victorian image, i know it prostitution existed at this time obviously, but this advertisement is out in the open and quite explicit not just a covered up girl (as i would have expected). So it demonstrates, in a way i don't think words can, exactly what the conditions were like or partially like in some circles. It is clearly not redundant for this reason as it shows how the Victorian society functioned 'behind the scenes' (and has at least for me dispelled some myths i had held true). It is also evidence for what is written in the very least. You can't just take it away because they are naked or because they are having sex, it is still valid for the other points, even if this article isn't about pornography or sexual intercourse. I think these points are valid.

FURTHERMORE this has appeared on the main page... was this before or after this photo was added, if the when it was featured as a main article it included the picture i do not think that you should just remove it as you object, or think it is "unencyclopedic"; it clearly is considered encyclopaedic enough if it appeared at this time by people who are probably more qualified to make that decision that you or i.

I do not have strong feelings about this - but think this may have been removed for the wrong reasons. You have not really provided any reasonable explanation as to why the point i have made above does not make it educational to this article.

I will restore when i figure out how. Unless you can explain to me why I am wrong, and the administrators were wrong when they chose this to be a article of very high quality, and you are right addressing the points I’ve made. Thanks.


 * First off, please get a user account! It will make it easier to talk to you.  I should also warn you that some of the editors and admins are working on a proposal to get anonymous IP-address editing banned.  I'm against the idea, but it's looking like the vote is going to be in favor of banning anon editors.  So my advice is, get a user account!


 * Secondly, I still disagree. As I said above, I did not remove the photo for purposes of censorship.  I've reverted many users who attempted to censor this article, and reminded people that Wikipedia is for adults.  The reason why I removed the picture is because Wikipedia is an information resource, an educational tool, and the photo taught nothing.  It explained nothing, it imparted no useful information.


 * It specifically did not, as you claim, give a glimpse into Victorian life. It was a photo of what were very likely to have been professional actresses and a professional actor, posing for a tableaux.  This is even assuming that the photo was from the time period it claimed to be from, and not a modern re-creation!  Unless you can verify the provenance of the photo, we can't make any claims about what it represents.  More simply:  unless we can prove that the photo was really taken during "Victorian" times, we can't make the claim that it depicts a Victorian scene.


 * Even if the photo can be proved to be a genuine historical artifact, the problem persists that it doesn't really teach anything. Perhaps if there were an article on Prostitution in Victorian England, it would be appropriate there.  As it is, it is off-topic for an article whose focus is more broad.


 * Thirdly, we have no proof that the women depicted in the photograph really were prostitutes. It's quite possible they were paid actresses.  (Yes, there was a professional pornography industry back then, it was just much smaller than today's and more underground.)  In fact, the glamorous appearance of the ladies and the stylized poses of all the people in the shot definitely looks to me more like an example of Victorian-era pornography, which is not what this article is about.  Perhaps Pornography in Victorian England would be an appropriate place for the image.


 * Finally, I strongly suggest you engage in discussion on this talk page before restoring the image. If you do not attempt to build some consensus for your actions, you're more likely to be reverted by other users.  There is also a Three Revert Rule which forbids a single user from reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours.  Breaking this rule can result in a temporary block from using Wikipedia.  Please try to reach some consensus.


 * Please don't feel that I'm saying all this to attack or threaten you. I've seen many new users who were never warned of these things, who managed to get reprimanded or blocked due to ignoring consensus or violating 3RR.  I'm trying to help you make a better first impression.  So please, create a user account and help us make Wikipedia better.  I look forward to what you have to say in reply.  :)  -Kasreyn 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution being illegal?
For the most part, why is prostitution is more likely to be illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.41 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Legalizing prostitution?
When will prostitution will ever be decriminalized and legalize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.41 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
the word "prostitute" comes from the fords "TJ" for professional and "substitute", or a professional substitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014
101.218.86.175 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * not done, please specify exactly what you wish to change, IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014
Amongst the slang terms listed for a prostitute on this page is "hoe". The correct spelling is "ho", while a "hoe" is a gardening tool. This misspelling became common after Nicki Minaj released a single with an incorrectly spelled title.

Reference, Merriam-Webster:

HO noun plural hos or hoes Definition of HO slang: whore 1

Origin of HO alteration of whore First Known Use: 1965

Full Definition of HOE 1: any of various implements for tilling, mixing, or raking; especially :  an implement with a thin flat blade on a long handle used especially for cultivating, weeding, or loosening the earth around plants 2: backhoe

Skeletontea (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Images
Judging by Wikipedia's article, prostitution is an art or something like that.

80% of the pictures in the article are paintings, ceramics.

What are prostitutes according to Wikipedia then? Artists?

This article needs rigorous and serious editing. I mean, the quality of some articles is simply ridiculously absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.1.206 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you actually try to read the article or you just looked at the pictures?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations / sections in history
Hi! A few questions/suggestions: 1. The end note for the sentence on "Ancient Hebrew culture" does not seem to link to a source...! Also, I would have expected this sentence would belong under the "Ancient Near East" heading, rather than under its own heading -- but perhaps I'm missing something?

2. The "Ancient Greece" history seems like it could use more rigorous citation. In particular, I was curious about influential women being prostitutes; is the inverse meant here -- that some prostitutes were very influential? If the former (as written -- that influential women were prostitutes), it needs a citation -- the source cited was not very informative and did not list any sources itself. If the latter, perhaps it could be rewritten to: "Female prostitutes could work independently and sometimes became very influential, for example Phryne."

3. The "Asia" section isn't a great grouping, where the first paragraph is on Muslim traditions and the next is on Japan. Might the paragraph on Muslim traditions fit better under its own heading? e.g., "Middle East" or Iraq & Iran (since those are the two countries mentioned)?

-- Melody.waring (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Myredbook.com is notable
Deserves mention along with Craigslist as a prominent former Internet meeting place (and ratings site) for escorts and their clients. Read commentary at vice.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.34.6 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical error
I just found a grammatical error on this page. Under the category labeled History, there is an image depicting prostitution on a Greek wine cup. The error is found in the sentence "an act of prostitution in indicated by the coin purse above the figures." I believe that the word "in" should in fact be replaced with the word "is". I would have fixed the error myself, but this particular Wikipedia article is semi-protected.(ShadowLeviathan (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowLeviathan (talk • contribs) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ BMK (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable assertion made without evidence
In the section Etymology and terminology the fourth paragraph contains this sentence:

"Use of the word whore is widely considered pejorative, especially in its modern slang form of ho."

I have never heard anything indicating that "ho" is more pejorative than the non-slang word "whore". I suggest that either some persuasive reference be included or that this claim be removed.Daqu (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Drab"
The Inbox contains a number of synonyms for "prostitute", some of them well known (e.g. streetwalker, some of them unknown on my side of the Atlantic (e.g. b-girl), some of them archaic and not used in modern speech except jocularly or archly (e.g. scarlet woman.) All of those words are nevertheless useful to one consulting an encyclopedia article on prostitution.  The Article is not only (or even mainly) about Prostitution in the 21st Century, or even Prostitution on the North American Continent, but about prostitution at all times and in all places.  Agreed?

Therefore, the well known (to me, since the age of 15) expression Drab should be included. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary and is used by Shakespeare, Swift and Browning. Furthermore, as a synonym, it possesses a nuance that others lack: it indicates a dirty, untidy slut (hence a worse insult that any of the others). One reason for consulting an encyclopedia Article on prostitution is to understand the social nuances of language as applied to the topic in English literature, and not merely the mechanics of the profession as it exists in some parts of the world today.

But if there is some *objective* reason for including some words in this Infobox but excluding others, and that reason confirms with a stated Wikipedia policy, that is another matter entirely, and in that case I'd like to hear it.Ttocserp 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The list is not meant to be, and should not be, an exhaustive list of every possible synonym for "prostitute". It was recently culled of some of the more obscure and archaic terms, a few of which have been re-added.  The addition of "drab", however, seems inappropriate.  The argument that it is included in the OED -- a dictionary which attempts to be exhaustive and totally inclusive  -- and that it is used in a Shakespeare play written in the 17th century, does not in any way convince me that it isn't obscure in contemporary English, nor does the editor's personal experience of having been aware of the word since the age of 15. Although I would have not brought it up spontaneously if asked for words meaning "prostitute", I am not unfamiliar with the word as well, which is also irrelevant.  Unless we are going to resign ourselves to trolling through the OED and putting in every single possible synonym, a line has to be drawn somewhere.  I would draw it a little higher than it is right now, eliminating some of the words on the list now, but I certainly don't think including "drab" on the list enhances the article in any way.  Because of that, I am opposed to the addition. BMK (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can see that one doesn't want to have a list of all the possible synonyms in the world, but only those that may be useful.  The question is, who gets to decide what's useful -- and by what criterion?  You wrote: "The list is not meant to be be ..."  By *whom* was it not meant to be?  The proprietor of this Article?  I am sure you did not meant to say that.  The word is certainly not obscure in literary English: Shakespeare, Swift and Browning, you and I know it.  But you are surely right to say the word is obscure in contemporary English (assuming you mean *colloquial* or everyday English).  That is precisely a good reason to include it in an encyclopedia article.  Why are those words in the Infobox in the first place, if they're only telling people what they know already?  People consulting such an Article are entitled to be informed about something they did not know before.  And why, for example, is baud (misspelling of bawd) included, when it does not even mean a prostitute, but a female pander?  A populist attitude is good and fine, witness Donald Trump, but it can be taken too far.Ttocserp 01:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to restate my request for the stated Wikipedia policy. I'm kind of new to this.Ttocserp 01:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who decides? A WP:CONSENSUS of editors discussing it. No editor WP:OWNS any article, although some feel intense WP:STEWARDSHIP to articles they've created or contributed heavily to. BMK (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drab in our present sense is a word defined in a well known popular dictionary used by North American college kids: see here . Unlike the OED, this dictionary is not "exhaustive" or "totally inclusive".  Ttocserp 01:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly better evidence of lack of obscurity than the OED. I checked two dictionaries I had available to me immediately, and both the Webster's New World Dictionary College Edition and the Doubleday Dictionary include it, which is also good support for your point. BMK (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, meaning no offense whatsoever, are you Scottish or of Scottish heritage? I only ask because the word appears to come from there, which would explain your familiarity with it. (There's no compulsion to answer if you think the question is invasive of your privacy.) BMK (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge drab is not a Scottish dialect word, and I have never heard it used when present in that country. In my opinion it is a word used in the literature of all English-speaking countries.
 * Both dictionaries I mentioned above mark it as coming from Celtic, which I somehow misremembered as "Scottish", hence my question. BMK (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, according to this, the OED is "noncommital" in respect to the Celtic origin of "drab". BMK (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you think we ought to include drab, and eliminate 'baud'?Ttocserp 02:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. "Baud" is related to "bawdy" (as in "bawdy house") which is a relatively well known word. BMK (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't mean a prostitute, which is kind of a basic weakness.Ttocserp 02:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Except in North America.Ttocserp 02:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a problem, as is the fact that it should be spelled "bawd". Removing it. BMK (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I took out "baud" and added "drab". I still think it's too obscure, but someone else can remove it if they agree. BMK (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it's kind of marginal and subjective. But I think your decision was on balance right.  Drab also figures in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which in England is a test for a word being non-obscure.Ttocserp 08:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This kind of micro-management of other people's edits is entirely inappropriate here. Unless there is a false statement, things of this tiny magnitude should be avoided, so as to not waste a lot of people's time on a triviality.Daqu (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mostly underage
On NBC news: According to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, athletic events such as the Super Bowl causes a spike in human trafficking. In 2010 an estimated 10,000 prostitutes, mostly under age, were brought into Miami for the 2010 Super Bowl. Pepper9798 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Add to "See also?"
Could you please add a link to "See also" the U.S. federal law called White-Slave Traffic Act also known as the Mann Act?" Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ BMK (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, but could you also put White-Slave Traffic Act right after that in parentheses? Pepper9798 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought most people knew what the Mann Act is, but sure. ✅ BMK (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think many people know what it is, or that it exists, but look at it: white slavery! Thanks again! Pepper9798 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just read too many old mysteries, and watched too many old movies. BMK (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Causes
What do you think about adding a section for "Causes of prostitution"? And add Emma Goldman's speech where she blames capitalism for it? See https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910/traffic-women.htm Pepper9798 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a concern that there are lots of perported causes of prostitution put forward by different parties, generally without much evidence. Examples are patriarchy, moral degeneration of society, male lust, Eve's contribution to the fall of Man and so on. I fear a "Causes of prostitution" section would either become a list of unrelated hypotheses or a forum for argument. To treat the task properly we would need to find academic-level commentary regarding the prevalence of different social and economic issues at different times. "Socio-economic context" would probably be a less contentious title than "Causes of prostitution", and the section could incorporate some content from the existing "Socio-economic issues" section. Goldman's reference would fit into such a project, but should probably not be introduced without counterbalancing material. Otherwise WP:NPOV accusations would likely ensue. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on 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/20100109005310/http://www.fcap.btik.com:80/documents/1939652488.ikml to http://www.fcap.btik.com/documents/1939652488.ikml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061010061925/http://www.world-tourism.org/protect_children/statements/wto_a.htm to http://www.world-tourism.org/protect_children/statements/wto_a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060526010007/http://www.iies.su.se/seminars/papers/Edlund.pdf to http://www.iies.su.se/seminars/papers/Edlund.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 21:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Prostitution (Asia)
This section mainly discusses the history of prostitution in Japan but could also include some history of prostitution in China. (W62043 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC))

Menstrual cycle
Could contain more information on how rate of prostitution may vary depending on the stage of women's menstrual cycle. Swifty1995 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any references? The only material that I've come across on a subject like this is a piece in the Wikipedia article on Lap dancing. This is the reference on that article's page.


 * Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

May be interesting to include research involving contraception and prostitution. For example, some research suggests that strippers who are on the contraceptive pill earn a similar amount of money throughout the whole month, in comparison to those not on the pill, who have not had their hormonal cycle 'flattened,' and whose income appears to fluctuate. Belieber1995 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you know of any sources concerning prostitutes? The research concerning lap dancers and strippers is interesting but unfortunately it tells us nothing in itself about prostitutes. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

evolutionary basis of prostitution
May I suggest creating a section on the page regarding prostitution and why we have seen it throughout history? (including the bible) I don't have any references yet but it would be an interesting area to explore!

Robotsbackspaceraomeow (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is similar to the proposal in the "Causes" section above. There's certainly potential in the idea. The difficulty is that it's a contentious are with many people proposing explanations without any real academic credibility. If you can find any good sources from biology, sociology or economics then we could create the sort of "context" section I described. We would, of course, need balance and hence we would have to find opposing points of view as well. Why not post the links you can find here on the talk page, and we can discuss how to create a section out of them? Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be good to include something about the varying rates of prostitution as a consequence of contraceptive advancements? For example, prostitution prevalence may be significantly lower in places with high STI rates. You may also find the prostitutes have decreased in number as a consequence of hormonal pills causing infertility if used for an extended time. These factors could have affected the evolution of prostitution - how might it have been different without, or with further, advancements in regards to contraception. BigPapa1995 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/1/2006_1_15.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sin
An editor has added this article to Category:Sin [sic], but I don't understand under what NPOV authority prostitution is said to be a sin. Further, my understanding is that categories have to be supported by information in the article, and there is no mention of "sin" in the article. Per WP:BRD I have reverted the edit, and invited the editor to discuss his contention here. BMK (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It was actually Category:Sins. If a religion considers something a sin, then it falls into that category. It's the religion's POV. My POV and your POV are irrelevant. If you have an issue with the category, nominate it for deletion. Unless it is deleted, this article should be in there.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of the category is an entirely different question from what should be in it. You say "if a religion considers something a sin, then it falls into that category". Enlighten me: what religions other then the Judeo-Christian ones traffic in the concept of "sin"?  Are there Buddhist sins, Islamic sins, Hindu sins, Shinto sins? Are are we really only talking about Jews and Christians?  And if so, do all demominations and sects have the same definition of what is and isn't a sin?  Who decides?  What is the authority?  Specifically, what is your authority, other than your own feeling, for naming prostitution as a sin? It seems to me that anything that's put into the category needs to be verifiable (as stated below) by reliable sources. What are yours, since there are none in the article? BMK (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of your questions could very easily be answered by a quick Google search or even just reading the article Sin. You seem to be confusing me for someone who cares about the topic. I don't. Would it help to say that I'm atheist?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem confused. You seem to believe that I have to show why the article shouldn't be in the category.  In fact, you have to show why it should be there.  Telling me to do my own research ain't going to cut it.  I've asked you twice based on what authority you added the article to the cat, and you've twice dodged the question.  There won't be a third time.  Unless I see some evidence from you that you've got some basis for the addition, I'm going to assume you did it on your own say-so, regardless of whether you're an atheist or not. (Really, I'm an atheist and I don't remember seeing you at any of the meetings.)  But even if you have an authority to base it on, you've still got the problem that there's no support in the article for the category, and that is required.  So unless you're planning on writing a sourced section about "Prostitution considered as a sin", I don't think this is going to fly. BMK (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious, bro? I'm not going to provide sources for obvious facts. Can you please provide a source that the word "really" is a real word before you use it again? (See how ridiculous that is.) It's pretty damn obvious that prostitution is considered a sin in more than one religion, and you know it. Whether or not that justifies the inclusion of the category is another matter, but the scope of the category is very clear and completely objective. I'm not going to explain to you the concept of sin. If you don't understand it, look it up.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, "BRD is never a reason for reverting".  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring.  During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.  Please do not revert again until you have a consensus for your edit here.
 * (2) Please see WP:Categorization: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. " As I mentioned above, there is no discussion of prostitution as a sin in the article, therefore no support for the inclusion of the article in Category:Sins. BMK (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. BMK (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed above. BMK (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that I made a mistake. But you were in the wrong first. You did not provide an edit summary for you revert, then when I challenged you, you began an edit war. I should have left it after we began this discussion, but I did not. You then made another revert, contravening the very policy you used to justify your action.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong there as well. My revert acted to return the article to the status quo ante, yours acted to reinsert your challenged edit. There's only one wrong there, yours. BMK (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nah. It very clearly says not to revert again. That's edit warring. Even if you're trying to return to the status quo. No matter how right you think you are. You started an edit war. You are also in the wrong.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal. This clearly shouldn't be categorized there based on WP:CATDEF. "Being a sin" is not a defining characteristic of prostitution. That category might also be worth looking at, but even if it exists, this doesn't belong there. ~ RobTalk 18:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can throw out any guidelines you want. This comes down to the basic logic of categorisation. If something fits into a category, it belongs in that category. Just because an article doesn't currently mention a specific fact, doesn't mean it shouldn't mention that fact. Assuming all categories were complete, by something not being in a category, it implies that it doesn't fit into that category. In the eyes of many religions, prostitution is a sin. In plenty of other articles, it will mention that. Just because that fact might not fit into this specific article, doesn't mean the category is out of place. Nowhere in the article is the word casual used, yet it's in Category:Casual sex.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. The guideline says that cats must be verifiable. You can't get rid of that by waving your hands around.  Write a strongly supported section discussion prostitution as a sin, and you're in.  Otherwise, as you say you don't care about this subject, let it go, because you're swimming upstream. BMK (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the article shouldn't be in Category:Casual sex, sex with a prostitute is a deliberate act, and rarely casual. BMK (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See our article on casual sex, which states (sourced) that "Casual sex are certain types of sexual activity outside of romantic relationships that imply an absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners." A prostitute and their client almost never have a "romantic relationship", and prostitution is cited as an example in the lead of Casual sex. Would you mind self-reverting unless you have another reason this shouldn't be categorized there? ~ RobTalk 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I'll self-revert. BMK (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So that makes sense? That's exactly the same logic I used! If the article on sin mentioned prostitution, would that justify the category? Because that would be exactly the same as the casual sex situation.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CATDEF is part of the guideline that tells us "if something fits into a category". In this case, it doesn't. ~ RobTalk 19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal: I'm not too crazy about the category more generally. An article entitled "religious views on prostitution" might belong in a "sin" or "sins" category as it would contain content relevant to a religious labeling of prostitution as sin. But it's definitely not a defining characteristic. It's the same reason why we probably wouldn't add this to a category of sex crimes, even if "prostitution" is also the name of a criminal offense in a variety of jurisdictions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal on a few levels.
 * Currently the article treats sinfulness as less than an afterthought.
 * It seems inherently POVish, and WP isn't here to take moral stances on such things. I don't think it's neccessary or even appropriate to point out "some people think this is baaad", unless a clear neutral encyclopedic explanation is given. Also some religions throughout history actively employed temple prostitution as part of their rites.
 * The cat itself seems unclear in an encyclopedic sense, and I would support its deletion.
 * A massive swath of human behavior could be considered forbidden by someone, somewhere, sometime on religious grounds.
 * The cat currently incorporates some things that clearly don't belong, like Rudeness, which doesn't seem to address sin at all, and probably shouldn't. While it doesn't address others like Gluttony or Sloth which seem to automatically qualify.
 * Even if the cat did make sense, prostitution isn't really the sin (in the Christian sense); the sin is having sex outside of marriage. I could pay my wife to have sex with me all day long and it would be perfectly fine by that standard (he thought yesterday as he loaded $1,000 worth of hard wood flooring he didn't particularly want) . It's a little bit like labeling Strangulation with this category when the real "sin" is murder, and strangulation may be a subset of ways to murder someone. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal unconditionally. No voluntary interaction between two individuals can be considered immoral. Let's get a deletion discussion on this category as well. -- Netoholic @ 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Prostitution is considered to be a sin by many ethical codes, individuals and legal systems. One may disagree, but one can not deny facts. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations, please. And, again, where in the article is this discussed? BMK (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, the Philadelphia Eagles are part of the group Category:NFL teams who are named after birds, but that's a red link because that's not a defining characteristic of the Eagles. How is "being a sin" a defining characteristic of prostitution? ~ RobTalk 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the defining characteristics of prostitution is that it is considered immoral by most people and this extends to religions including rules of morality. Whores are often reviled in religious stories.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove. sin=moral condemnation= POV IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. If that moral condemnation is reliably sourced, it must be in this encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is kindof the argument many others have made here, that there is no substantive discussion in the article about the sinfulness of prostitution. It's mentioned once in passing. I think the issue would be fairly open and shut if there were a well sourced section akin to "Prostitution and religion", but there isn't. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  The category in question has been nominated for deletion. BMK (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016
There is typo at the end of the first paragraph, " prostitution ban be legal or illegal." It should be can

Bludream (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done st170e talk 12:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Middle East
"It came to an end when the emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD destroyed the goddess temples and replaced them with Christianity.[23]"

I believe this is false. The reference given is Eusebius, but Eusebius's history is almost 2000 years old! History does make progress, and discovers things that were taken as facts are not so. More recent work should be used to back this up (and not other work that simply cites Eusebius!), or it should be deleted. GeneCallahan (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It would probably be more helpful if you had a contemporary source that supports your intuition that this is incorrect information and should be changed. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not the first to question Eusebius's biases and accuracy. Per the article on the Church History (Eusebius):
 * "The accuracy of Eusebius' account has often been called into question." In the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.” "Drake 2002, p. 365-66; 'Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts'
 * "The methods of Eusebius were criticised by Edward Gibbon in the 18th century.
 * In the 19th century Jacob Burckhardt viewed Eusebius as 'a liar', the “first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”
 * Ramsay MacMullen in the 20th century regarded Eusebius' work as representative of early Christian historical accounts in which “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence.” As a consequence this kind of methodology in MacMullen's view has distorted modern attempts, (e.g. Harnack, Nock, and Brady), to describe how the Church grew in the early centuries.
 * Arnaldo Momigliano wrote that in Eusebius' mind "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda "
 * Drake in the 21st century treats Eusebius as working within the framework of a "totalizing discourse" that viewed the world from a single point of view that excluded anything he thought inappropriate."

Basically we have sources calling him a flatterer, an outright liar, a dishonest historian, a forger of history, a propagandist, and a censor of historical truth. The problem is that Eusebius is still one of our relatively few primary sources for the 4th century, and we can not ignore his reports in favor of speculation. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Make it more biased, please!
Obviously I'm being ironic. Only a few conservatives and marxist or radical feminists see prostitution as "violence against women". Why the hell do you insert this point of view on the head of the text, but ignores the liberal view of prostitution as an empowering free choice? 152.249.63.189 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, there are enough conservatives, Marxists, and radical feminists who support legalization that I suspect either you're just using those groups as boogiemen, or you don't really know what you're talking about. That makes it hard to know how serious to take this, but the position that prostitution is connected to both violence and general exploitation is relatively common across many ideologies. Even among supporters of legalization, the correlation is widely acknowledged. If you would like to make a specific proposal, it should be supported by reliable sources. Keep in mind that there are already multiple articles about this issue, such as Feminist views on prostitution, Sex workers' rights, and others. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what I'm talking about. Maybe there are some conservatives and radical feminists which support legalization, but they're, obviously, minorities. Radical feminists tend to support the "Swedish Model" where for a woman to prostitute herself is legal, but for a man to buy for sex is illegal. I honestly can't understand how a radical feminist would defend legalization (the "Swedish Model" is regarded as "abolitionist"), because it would be extremely contradictory as they see prostitution as one of the pillars of the patriarchy.


 * And, well, first, even though many people may see some cases of prostitution as violence and or explotation, it doesn't mean that they view prostitution as a whole as inherently violent and/or exploitative. The article doesn't clarify that. And, besides, "violence against women" is a much narrower concept than "violence". It's not only violence that affects women, but violence that is somehow motivated by gender relations. And the number of people that see prostitution as a form of "violence against women" is even smaller than the one of those who only see prostitution as inherently violent. Anyway, my central point here is that such positioning is on the head of the article, while others, equally present and important, aren't featured on such a notorious place. By the end of the day, the article ends up being kinda biased and tendentious.


 * (I'm Brazilian, so sorry for any eventual grammar/ orthography mistakes) 152.249.63.189 (talk)


 * Lumping all who hold this relatively common view into a few ideologies would be a violation of WP:NPOV. We should be especially cautious of this, because those ideologies are frequently demonized by those who hold opposing views for reasons that have nothing to do with prostitution. Grouping them all together doesn't improve the article. They are "obviously minorities"?, Well, maybe, but so what? There are plenty of non-Marxist feminists, non-conservatives, and non-radical feminists who also hold the view that prostitution is closely linked to exploitation and violence. How many view it as inherently violent/exploitative? That's subjective, so qualifying that would be editorializing, but if you would like to propose a better wording, go for it.
 * As for being against women specifically, this should only be presented in the article according to it's prominence in reliable sources. The article already explains that most prostitutes are women who sell to men, and as Violence against prostitutes makes clear, female prostitutes are more likely to experience violence than male prostitutes. Of course, violence against anyone is a serious problem, and a minority should not be excluded from the discussion just because of vague statistics, so if you would like to make an actual proposal for how to change the lead, please do. Again, it should be supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, do you think it'd be okay not to remove or modify this part of the text, but instead to add another paragraph, also in the head of the article, addressing the existence of a more liberal point of view regarding prostitution (I don't know if "liberal" is the right word, as they mean kinda different things in both Brazil and the US)? I'm not getting annoyed by the fact that the "prostitution is a form of violence against women" perspective is being addressed in the text. I actually find it great since well, it's free speech. I just dislike the absence of a contradictory perspective featured on such a visible place (as the article's head). I think it's the absence of said contradictory element that makes the article look like it is biased and was written by some person within the ideological groups I cited before.


 * PS.: My IP is different now since I'm on a mobile connection.187.97.78.234 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many benefits to creating an account, by the way: Why create an account?.
 * The content in the article isn't free speech. Wikipedia is a private website, and the article is a collaborative effort which doesn't necessarily represent the speech of any one individual. What you say on a talk page may represent your own speech to some degree, but what the article says can and must be limited by Wikipedia's goals, policies, etc. Editorial restraint isn't censorship, it's just editing. Free speech explains this in detail, if you're curious. Anyway...
 * Adding material just because it's contrary to an existing viewpoint strikes me as false balance. There are several reasons why this should not be done on Wikipedia: one is that it implies that both sides are equally common, which needs to be supported by a reliable source. Another problem is that by listing two sides it's excluding the possibility of a third (or fourth) point of view. A case could be made for expanding the liberal approach (that word mostly works here, but you're right, it has many conflicting meanings) but that should be done in accordance with reliable sources and WP:DUE, absolutely not just because it's contradictory. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to create an account as soon as I have time to. But well, saying that prostitution is a form of exploitation and violence isn't the same as saying that the Earth is round. You're talking about reliable sources, but where is the reliable source that points, unequivocally, that this point of view is more common than the one of prostitution as a free, empowering, choice? Thinking that this approach is prevalent is completely arbitrary. There are other articles, even here on Wikipedia, that point the coexistence of what I said that is a contradictory point of view, and show its validity and notoriety. And one more thing: I honestly can't think of a third or fourth point of view on this issue.187.97.65.1 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the article say that it's more common, but it doesn't have to. The lead already mentions the existence of multiple models of legalized prostitution before mentioning the criticisms. The article does mentions legalization advocates, but within that spectrum there is a wide range of views and attitudes. "Empowerment" is only one slice of a larger pie. The lead summarizes the body of the article, it is not the place to add new content. There are many sourced statements discussing problems and issues associated with prostitution, and the lead is an attempt to summarize that. It's imperfect, but that's expected. If you want to include a counter-argument, you should find reliable sources, or should propose a specific change based on existing sources.
 * The idea that all legalization advocates are unified in opposition to all abolitionists is a false paradigm. Those who argue for heavy regulation are not in the same 'side' as those who argue for total deregulation. Likewise, those who argue for criminalization are not on the same side as those who argue for the Swedish model. Further, all of these models can be proposed for radically different goals, which would mean very different definitions of success. Is the goal to end prostitution as a moral evil, or to end violence, or to end human trafficking, or to end economic exploitation, or some other reason? Setting it up as a pro/con issue is oversimplifying these vitally important nuances, and lumping viewpoints together for convenience is non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that blanket statements are bad as far as they cannot be attributed. I have attempted to change the wording in this article to be more in line with that, as well as WP policies and guidelines. I also agree that you should register an account as that is much easier, if you want to engage in prolonged discussion, for those of use taking part to keep track of who said what.

I have commented on Talk:Feminist views on prostitution and agree with the spirit of your point there. If you have any further objections there is certainly room to make them. Having said that, please review WP:CIVIL and carry on serious conversation without mocking, and you will probably be more effective. Timothy Joseph Wood 23:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

19th century section
This section, in my opinion, needs more information. The regulation of prostitution by police in France caused human rights violations to occur. This included undue seizure of prostitutes' property, invasive health screenings and the rounding up and incarceration of any woman on the street, regardless of whether or not they were prostitutes. Ehanawal (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit protected request
Please add World's second oldest profession to the ==See also== section. Thanks. 82.132.237.113 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ P p p er y 16:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add a hatnote to account for the redirect

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Murph 9000 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 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/20130430220310/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508080409/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/trafficpersons.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/trafficpersons.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714160224/http://tampep.eu/documents/TAMPEP%202009%20European%20Mapping%20Report.pdf to http://tampep.eu/documents/TAMPEP%202009%20European%20Mapping%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002222727/http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm to http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520061404/http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-stp to http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-stp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417014704/http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html to http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-15-voa30-68815957.html?rss=human%20rights%20and%20law
 * 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

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) 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

sociology of prostitution
The article lacks the extensive literature on the function of prostitution in society from an anthropological and sociological perspective.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're familiar with that literature, and you feel the article would benefit from additions sourced to it, then you should edit the article to improve it in that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oldest profession?
"/The/ oldest profession" redirects to this article, but I'm fairly sure that hunting and making good flinststone tools are older as professions go. ;) 192.121.232.253 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a common English-language expresssion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

China?
Doesn't China have a long history of prostitution? Shouldn't that be discussed here? Webbess1 (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * China is one of the oldest extant civilizations in the world and is populated by human beings, so I assume that it has "a long history of prostittion". Do some research on it, and if you find interesting and relevant material from reliable sources, add it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"form of violence against women and children"
I think the last paragraph of the lede is biased. There should at least be a counter argument, considering that there are (a) many countries where it is legal, (b) many places where it is illegal, the law is unenforced, suggesting tentativeness (c) such a description is opposed by organizations such as Amnesty. Also, the sentence should be changed to "violence against people" since many prostitutes are male. 92.6.188.202 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sex Worker
However, sex worker can also mean anyone who works within the sex industry or whose work is of a sexual nature and is not limited solely to prostitutes.

This is wrong information: in the English-speaking world, sex worker is synonymous with prostitute (though without the pejorative overtones), end of. Exotic dancers, etc., are not sex workers, unless their work actually entails sexual contact with clients. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources for this contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement is correct. I will provide some reliable sources.AnaSoc (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Lillith
It's amazing how bits of information can just VANISH from common knowledge. Rudyard Kipling et al referred to prostitution as the oldest profession due to the fact that Lilith prostituted herself while Adam was still in the garden of Eden, possibly before Eve was created. This used to be common knowledge for intellectuals. However, it's been turned in to a right royal mess, because a couple of twits decided to disassociate the various legends of Lilith in the various timelines. SO, there is no longer a general legend of Lilith with references to the various ancient pantheons. At least not one that I can find. At any rate, the knowledge is certainly still out there somewhere, but someone may need to reference some old musty tomes in an old Catholic or Archaeological library or some such place. I learned Greek and ancient Hebrew when I was studying these things, so it's POSSIBLE that my source documents aren't even in English. So for now, I suppose it's just here-say, but there it is. Crogonint (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

2 positive aspects of prostitution could be highlighted
I'd like to point out two positive aspects of legalized prostitution have been highlighted. First, it will reduce the general value attached to sex because you can get it without courting a woman and all this BS. Second, prices are considerably lower in countries where prostitution is legal, e.g. compare Germany and the US, see this article .Miacek (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reliable sources to support these points before they can be added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the second claim, it is right there in the source. As for the first claim, it is indeed my view for what I'm searching credible sources at this very moment.Miacek (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the article. Basically it says that legalization drives prices down, in Germany.... but nowhere in the article does it say that is a "benefit".... it does point out that lower prices support it happening more often, however it also points out that it creates "deplorable" conditions for the prostitutes, and that in Germany it has created more possibilities for sex trafficking to happen. If you are looking for an article that says "Legalization is a good thing" this don't look like it. TantraYum (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that´s not so easy. The prices depend on how many prostitutes there are (an not necessarily on the law). Germany is overrun by prostitutes from foreign countries, mostly eastern european. It´s a matter of geography and economy.
 * And the article is an example of bad journalism, because it gives the impression that a customer could get all sex he wants in a flat-rate-brothel for just 49 €. That´s wrong of course. In that kind o brothel, he got only 20 minutes for that price. And only a small number of prostitutes are forced in Germany and the police fights against that fiercly. Prostitutes in flate-rate-brothels are no more forced than other prostitutes. "Der Spiegel" sometimes likes to tell horror stories, and sex & crimes sells everywhere, also in Germany. 91.16.222.207 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)