Talk:Sex worker/Archive 1

Untitled
"people who support these protections". The meaning is not clear. S.

waitstaff in sexually-oriented businesses
So the (clothed) waitress at the strip club is a "sex worker"? Is the bartender? How about the janitor? I'd like to see some usage examples on this. It seems to me that, as the page points out, the term is typically used either in a political context (where it refers mainly to prostitutes) or in the public health field (ditto). --Max power 15:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes they are. As are the writers, graphics artists, editors, et. al. who are employed at an Erotic Publishing House; the accountant, the cameraman, the gaffer, etc. who are employed at an Adult Film Studio and so on and so forth.  These are all examples of people who are in point of fact workers in the Sex industry.


 * Just as no one would seriously consider stating that a Barrister is employed in the Legal Profession but a Solicitor is not on the grounds that the Solicitor does not advocate in a legal hearing, the same is true in this industry. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a horrible explanation, aside from the terrible wording (which suggests neither term should be considered working in the legal profession): There are countries that do not make that distinction and, for them, this explanation would make no sense. Besides, I just find it disappointing that anyone would suggest that either one is not a part of the legal profession, whether genuinely or not. It seems disrespectful.--70.49.129.205 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant here either. Perhaps the author is refering to Hooters, for example -- a low quality American bar and grill chain that seeks busty waitstaff. But that'd be a stretch, I think -- certainly not what I think of when I hear the term sex worker. When ever I've seen the term in print, it almost always means "prostitute," and rarely "sex therapist" -- which depending on the nature of the services involved, may be essentially the same thing. --66.67.213.96 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A prostitute is a Sex Worker but not all Sex workers are prostitutes. Just as, if my dog "Spot" is brown, not ALL brown dog are my dog Spot.  CyntWorkStuff (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Euphemism
In the article, "service provider" is mentioned as a euphemism for sex worker. Isn't the term "sex worker" a euphemism itself for other words like prostitute, stripper, and pornstar?


 * No, it is not. Sex worker is used as a non-offensive, non-discriminating alternative and a political statement... it is not used as a euphemism

Sex worker is a euphemism. Prostitution as a form of sexual violence and not work, see below, section NPOV dicussion.


 * What is offensive about the word prostitute? Words like nigger are offensive, because people specifically and intentionally use them (instead of a less offensive word) to be disrespectful. The word prostitute is the original and primarily used word to describe the occupation--unlike, say, nigger, it is not specifically selected instead of another word for the purpose of being disrespectful. People who use sex worker instead of prostitute are trying to escape the reality of what a prostitute is. Worker is simply tacked on for a false sense of legitimacy--farm workers, factory workers, sex workers, et cetera. -216.145.255.2 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Human rights activists and feminists usally use the term 'prostituted woman' instead of 'sex worker' or 'prostitute', because prostitution is not something women choose to get into, it's something that's done to them.


 * Respectfully, SOME people who identify themselves as "Human rights activists and feminists" who are opposed to Sex work due to their own religious, cultural or philosophical points of view choose to "use the term 'prostituted woman' instead of 'sex worker' or 'prostitute'" because from their POV "prostitution is not something women choose to get into, it's something that's done to them".


 * However there are other people who also identify themselves as "Human rights activists and feminists" choose to use the term Sex work. Additionally, it is important to remember that not all Sex workers are female. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sex-work is like any other work within capitalism. Under capitalism, work is a means to an end and labour is a commodity, a means in the production of a good, in the case of sex worke, the good is sexual gratification for the customer. In capitalism, ulike earlier economic systems, the worker is formally free, that is they are are free to quit or refuse a particular job, but nevertheless must sell their labour power to someone. Alienation is normal under capitalism, sex work is not particularly different from other kinds of jobs. To make such a difference clearly represents a conservative moralistic point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.127.117 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking?! Have you ever read anything about prostitutes' motivation for work? I guess that women forced to prostitution are a minority among those who somehow "enjoy" this occupation, because of the easiness of earning money and some psychosexual matters.
 * Have you actually read into the subject? Can you cite anything for that statement? It may be true for strippers but street walkers and many other people are under these umbrella terms, each with their own motivations and statistics. Not to mention, even if there is an ease in making money, that does not necessarily mean they "enjoy" the occupation. For some they are forced into it, for some it is just a job and there are some who enjoy it. However, it is the ones who do enjoy it who are more likely to join associations and advocate for that profession. In actuality, these groups may be presenting a minority view - though it is hard to gather statistics on such things in countries where the work is illegal.--70.49.129.205 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a euphemism for a euphemism. Or maybe people say "powder room" instead of "toilet" as "a non-offensive, non-discriminating [...] political statement." In any case, "service provider" is a ridiculous term, stripped (no pun intended) of all meaning. Wulfilia 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's like how people play with their job titles to reflect both their beliefs about the profession and their perspective on the work they do. There are some for whom certain terms fit more than others and, although some people may interchange them more frequently, the differences should be reflected. "Sex Worker" encompasses a lot of very different professions and services.--70.49.129.205 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "sex worker" is an euphemism, it's a vague term, but it's quite explicit... 惑乱 分からん 11:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not explicit. The term hides the violence and the abuse that prostituted women are subjected to, and that they usually become prostituted as a result of violence and abuse.


 * "The violence and the abuse that prostituted women are subjected to," is a loaded expression. Verbal insistence that violence and abuse are inextricably linked to prostitution does not make it an inevitability, any more than sweat-shop conditions are inevitable in factory work. For an academic or political observer to decide in advance that an entire sector of society are inherent victims strikes me as totalitarian-- it assumes that, rather than self-empowerment, through unions, through a change in consciousness, through better working conditions, that people need to be rescued by outside activists. This mentality of rescue underlies the justification for the United States of America to invade Iraq. I am not claiming that millions are not exploited-- on the contrary, I am claiming that an appeal to an external authority, and the violence implicit in that appeal, will alter the nature of such exploitation, and even change the group of exploiters, but will not liberate those exploited. There are liberated sex workers, some of whom have their own unions, their own health-care plans, and are protected from the violence and abuse that the above commenter mistakenly believes is inherent in the trade. Talk to these women and men, and ask them how they feel about the work they do. Listen to their replies. Don't assume that they deserve your pity, concern, or protection until you understand what they have managed to achieve, and what their concerns (not your concerns) are.--Moly 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard though because those who are "victims" won't advocate for themselves and do, to an extent, need rescuing. As well, people who are marginalized are more likely to suffer violence or at least less likely to obtain assistance. Lastly, the amount of "liberated sex workers" will vary by location and section of the sex industry. Depending, it may be safer to make those assumptions, provided that your mind is open enough to hear the people when individuals tell you that is not the way for them.--70.49.129.205 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the term sex worker to titles such as "exotic dancer." What is so exotic about taking your clothes off anyways? Sex is work. It should not be relegated to the deep recesses of society like the term prostitution has been. It also makes it easier for workers to unite and organize under a simple term, instead of making a hierarchy of those who sell sex. Technically, marriage is sex work and we should recognize the many forms of sex work and discuss their impacts on all of our lives. 71.227.150.113 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)rockkandee

Sex worker (and "erotic laborer" which I like even better) are not simple euphemisms or even synonyms for "prostitute"; "sex worker" is a more inclusive category: strippers, pro-dominants, nude photo models, and phone sex operators are decidedly not prostitutes, but they are sex workers. Ajasen (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether someone likes the word "prostitute" or not, it is legitimate terminology and has been since the ancient world. "Sex work", however, is a loaded term recently coined by fringe groups who are concerned with Marxist ideology and "sex-positive" activism. One is the generally accepted term in mainstream society for "person who offers sexual services in exchange for money". The other is insider lingo deemed the preferred "non- offensive" "inclusive" replacement by a fringe political/social movement. The POV on this article is obviously slanted in favor of the latter, however it is important to note that "sex work" is NOT accepted in mainstream discourse as standard terminology no matter how much feminists and sex-positive activists wish it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.231.114 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The term sex worker is coined not merely to replace prostitute but to provide a broader term, an umbrella, so as to be able to discuss inclusively all those involved in all forms of sex work. Without it, we get bogged down in laborious and pointless arguments about who is and who isn't a prostitute (a dominatrix doesn't necessarily have to be touched by the man she whips or otherwise tortures for his pleasure, never mind have what most people would conventionally call sex with him so by many people's definition she's not a prostitute--she can even be a virgin(!); if you're not going to call her a sex worker, what will you call her?). I catalogue books for a living, and every academic book on sex work I've come across refers to 'sex work' and 'sex workers' and is used regularly in the media, so don't come around here trying to tell us the term is somehow on the fringes. We're not buying what you're trying to sell. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sex work is the accepted term in the discipline of sociology.AnaSoc (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else find it disturbing that this article exists in parallel with another, differently-pitched article on Prostitution? Nuttyskin (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dicussion
quote: ''In the Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand and some Australian States, sex workers already enjoy recognition by the state. Isn't saying "already enjoy" a bais or POV? Shouldn't the article just say that sex workers are recognized by the state?''

- No.. that's perfectly valid NPOV English for 'are already privy to'.


 * No it's not, it's usually implying that it's a positive thing Johannes H.-Larsen 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV for this page could be improved by a clear explanation of why some groups prefer the term "sex worker" to "prostitute." The fact that the term is disputed should not be relegated to the Discussion page. If the debate is named in the article itself, then I think the NPOV will be preserved without hiding the contention. There already is some discussion of the human rights movement associated with the word Sex Worker, but perhaps this could be brought out as a debate so that readers don't leave with the "one-sided" impression.

--Mankad 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Agree, a discussion of the term 'sex worker' should be included. It should be included that human rights activists and feminsts reject the term 'sex work', because they regard prostitution as a form of sexual violence and not work. As mentioned above, the majority of prostituted women have been sexually abused as children and many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological problems as a result of their prostitution, which is invariably accompanied by abuse and violence, no matter if prostitution is legal or not.


 * The above comment makes blanket factual statements that mask the debate that is going on in these circles. The term "sex worker" was coined by prostitutes, strippers, and professional dominat(ors|rices) to generalize their labor. Please provide statistics to support your argument, especially if you are going to make such a bald generalization. People have the right to fulfill themselves in the world through their labor. If they choose, as some do, to engage in sex work, of their own free will (which is possible to do, despite blanket statements like those above), then to imply that such people are victims is insulting and dehumanizing. I have a friend who is a prostitute, who considers herself a religious prostitute, and feels that her work has religious significance, both to her, and to her clients. While I may not necessarily agree with her, I respect her attitude towards her labor, and respect her right to fulfill herself through her labor. Temple prostitutes have existed in agriculture-based religions from the Neolithic Revolution onwards, and the religious dimension of sex work should be explored, with dignity and with respect to the worker and to their clients. --Moly 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While relationships exist that have partners with disparate libido levels, there will be sex workers to attend to the needs of the more libidinous partner. It insults everyone involved to suggest that society cannot handle this biological reality without creating victims. The term sex worker was coined to describe the work of female and male professionals who seek to address the issue without creating victims.

The comment "Illegal sex tourism with under-age boys and girls has become a notorious problem in Costa Rica and Thailand." Maybe 10 to 20 years ago under-age sex was a problem in Thailand but anyone who's recently been and lived will say this is completely BS. I will bet almost any amount of money there is more Illegal underage sex going on in Los Angeles CA per capita or per square mile than in Thailand. In many areas of the US there are loads of Child molesters running around, Just check the local list of sex offenders online in your city and you'll be surpise that you'll have 20 within 3 miles of you house. As anyone seen the NBC show, "To catch a Predator". The under-age child exploitation is all over. The source of the child exploitation is from western men. These men by and large live and breath in the USA and Europe. 99 percent of these men never leave the USA. The only really sick child predators are professionals like Doctors and Dentists who can affort and have the time to travel to South East Asia. The Sex Industry in Thailand is open in the sense that it's regulated business. Girls are salaried employees. Hotels check for IDs. The Thai goverment has age rules for employment that the bar owners have to keep. If they hire an underage girl they can go to jail. A Thai jail is 50x worse than the country club jails in the USA.

Is the NPOV tag still justified for this article?
I don't believe the NPOV tag on this article is justified any longer; I think it should be removed. Since its original posting and tagging five years ago, this article has been commented upon and revised a number of times. It currently has a neutral point of view – regardless of one's personal sentiments about the use and application of the term. Technically speaking, this article is a subset of the Wikipedia article on prostitution. The term "sex worker" is used several times in that article (see "Socio-economic and legal status", "Politics/legal issues", and "Feminism"), so it would be completely relevant to insert the tag {main|Sex worker}} somewhere in either the "Terminology" or "Definition" section of that article. Doing so would establish a link to this article as being the main article for the term "sex worker". Unfortunately, Wikipedia's prostitution article defines the act as "... sexual intercourse in exchange for money.", a very narrow definition which is inconsistent with most U.S. state and municipal statutes regarding the act. As I see it, the definition used here for "sex worker" is much more appropriate as the definition for prostitution. K. Kellogg-Smith 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The NPOV tag is justified for including this uncited statement right at the beginning of the article:


 * "The term was coined by American prostitute-activist Carol Leigh in the 1970s as a political term."


 * This statement needs to be properly cited and contextualized and probably not placed so early in the article. The opinions of other radical feminist critics of the term "sex work" should be included as well. This could be corrected as part of overall article cleanup – the article is an absolute mess right now. The vast majority of the content of this article really belongs in the article Prostitution, not here. Iamcuriousblue 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the NPOV tag should REMAIN because even the first 2 sentences are designed to vilify even the janitors or cashiers as prostitutes, even though they do not perform any sexual acts for hire. It is also a mistake to call a stripper a sex worker because they perform no sexual acts. The controversies on the Talk Page were never full addressed and that is why this is still NPOV. Parts of this article are still driven by agenda.James Carroll (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

How are strippers "sex workers"?
I am involved in a discussion of the term "sex workers" in another Wikipedia entry and I am honestly trying to understand this term. My confusion is this...I can understand how prostitutes might be called sex workers as their "work" is to have sex. And I can understand how porn performers could be sex workers since they too are paid to have sex. But I am confused about why strippers would be considered to be "sex workers". Theoretically, strippers are dancing suggestively and wrapping themselves around dance poles and such, but they are not all paid to have sex, right? Or is their work defined as sex work because it is arousing to men? In that case, would Demi Moore's performance in "Striptease" be "sex work"? This is an honest and sincere question...what defines sex work, is it the activities of the person doing sexually suggestive activity? Or is it the response of the audience member who is being sexually stimulated? Can someone point me to a scholarly discussion of this topic, or at least give me clue? Thank you. --Axiomatica 07:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * as I see it ;"A sex worker is a person who earns money by providing sexual services" (as stated in first sentance of this item). Stripping is done to sexually titilate/excite the audience, it is a sexual service, ergo they are sex workers. IdreamofJeanie 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Your understanding of the term "sex work" seems similar to that of friends and family I have asked. But we all get bogged down on the question of whether this means, for example, that you could call the Victoria's Secret models "sex workers" since their job is also to titilate? We couldn't agree on that one. So is "sex work" more of a casual term than a formal, scientific term?--Axiomatica 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Victoria Secret Models' job like every other modeling job is to show clothing, whether modeling itself is sex work... Playboy Models' job however is to tiltilate. Sex workers are part of the sex industry. Anyone who works in the sex industry is a sex worker including strippers, porn stars, nude models for pornographic magazine such as Playboy or FHM.--Dwarf Kirlston 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Axiomatica's question is a good one and perhaps the article could address it by stating there's a gray area. Or perhaps more precicely that that "having a primary intent to create sexual arousal" is what seperates sex-work from potentially erotic acts like nude modelling for fine-art-photography. Burlesque performances, for example might blur the line between sex-work and performance art. Why are phone-sex operators included, but writers of erotica not? What about phone-sex operators that only do recordings? Aren't they just reading a script they've written?
 * All workers who labor within the sex industry are considered by sociologists to be sex workers, including pole dancers, strip club managers, porn stars, peep show actors, and erotic models. AnaSoc (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As for the original question, I'd say that in the US these days, we probably dont' have "strippers" who do nothing but take their clothes of on stage. Strippers, in reality, give lap-dances with varying levels of contact between worker and client. It's very obviously a form of eroticized labor. Ajasen (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Titillation' is a bad word to use because it is relative to the observer's senses, and is not very objective. Kids might get titillated by the photos of bra adds or a brochure on breast examinations, but we would hardly call those models sex workers. When we see an actress like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct there is titillation in some scenes, but no one would refer to Sharon Stone a sex worker. It really seems inaccurate to call any nude model a sex worker, whether they are in Playboy, a breast cancer brochure, or even standing naked on a stage in a strip club. Would we call Josephine Baker a sex worker? Would we call Gypsy Rose Lee a sex worker? I think the majority would say NO. However by going back to the definition of sex worker, we see that we really need to clarify is, what is a sexual service, to clarify what defines a sex worker. A 'service' is defined as "Employment in duties or work for another." That makes it sound like an action of sex (intercourse, fellatio, etc) must be preformed on a specific recipient (another) to accurately call someone a sex worker. And for that reason I would say that we can not call a phone-sex actor a sex worker, because no sex act is performed. And similarly we can not accurately call a lap dancer or a taxi dance a sex worker because they also do not perform a sex act. IMO, it's very rude and abusive to place a label on someone unless we are really sure that the label fits. There must be a sex act performed on another to call someone a sex worker.James Carroll (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Image
Hi. What is the evidence that the image is actually of a "sex worker"? Ok, so the uploader of the image claims that it is, but what if it's not? What if it's your daughter? I'd like to remove it. Best regards, 195.137.96.79 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How could you possibly prove it? Have another picture of her having sex, and a third picture of her being paid?  Any picture someone uploads could be argued against with the same logic, and there would then be no picture to assist the article.  Frankly I think it's a fairly representative picture, and unless someone can prove that it is copyrighted, or came from another source that clearly identifies it in some other context, or the subject of the picture complains, you have to assume good faith and leave it be. -Atamasama 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Sex industry + Sex worker
Please also see discussion over here in Sex industry


 * Actually I have been doing a bit of untangling and reformatting over at Sex worker and I think I can see what a major part of the problem is. Three (3) of the sections Sex Tourism, Performance Evaluations and Military actually belong in the industry article not the actual article about  employment.


 * Just FYI I went to other employment and labour related articles (such as Construction worker) and am going to lean heavily on them as a model of proper format and sub-topics for inclusion. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think it is a big mistake to merge these topics. They are both very large in scope and will get bigger in time with more research. It makes more sense to have shorter, more focused, articles that are hyper-linked than to have one big blob of an article.James Carroll (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(Partial) Merger proposal: Sex worker + Sex Worker Rights

 * So I already commented with my thoughts on merging the sex industry and sex worker pages on the sex industry talk page (not a great idea), but I wanted to comment here that I've moved several sections of the sex worker page over to the newly created sex worker rights page where I think it more appropriately fits. A lot of work needs to be done on the page, but at least it's a start? Please check it out and let me know what you think.NoMonaLisa (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SEE ALSO section - too many links? Suggestion
These are the links currently in the See Also section. I am concerned that they may not all be appropriate and wonder what the criteria is for inclusion of links in the subsection and why these were chosen? Was the addition of each discussed? Rather than simply remove them all to this talk page, and then start a discussion, I'd like to invite others to join me in reviewing the appropriateness of each link currently in the subsection before deciding whether or not to keep it w/in the article...