Talk:Sex tourism/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Female Sex Tourism Destinations

Angeles City in the province of Pampanga, Philippines is famous for prostitution during the 80s and 90s mainly because of a foreign military base there. The contract of this military base didn't get an extension from the Philippine government (end of contract: 1992) and after the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the base was evacuated and so as the prostitution industry was greatly affected.

I am not sure if the article written here about Angeles as a "primary destination for female sex tourism still applies" for it happened more than 2 decades ago unless somebody could cite that. Angeles may not be the present primary destination right now, they may have transferred somewhere else. Fddfred 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

AC has been re-discovered by German as well as American ex-military sex tourists. Sex tourism there is going strong...Oscar Arias 03:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation in Angeles is worse then ever, here are some links that will give you an update on the situation... http://qc.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/2736.php http://www.preda.org/archives/2004/r04062801.html http://www.preda.org/archives/hl/wvb.html

even worse is that human rights workers in angeles are getting murdered by thse gangs.Susanbryce 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, you need to state references when making outrageous claims like that. otherwise people will think you are spreading misinformation just like you did on the Angeles City page. RodentofDeath 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Angeles may be a destination for male sex tourists but definitely not for females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.217.18 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't! Buy! Thai!

Removed the following because it seems poorly sourced, outdated, in need of substantial re-writing, and contained broken wikilinks. Would fit better under Prostitution in Thailand, but a short mention in Sex tourism would be okay.

In the mid 1990's, a consumer boycott named "'Don't! Buy! Thai!!'" was organized to publicize and discourage child sex tourism in Thailand. The premise was that participants would not buy anything made in Thailand until the Thai government and international agencies significantly reduced the use of children as prostitutes in Thailand, as well as the ready access that foreign tourists had to these vulnerable and often reluctant sex objects.

Travel bureaus and airlines have been organized to facilitate visits to the fleshpots of Thailand. For example, Lauda Air runs scheduled and charter flights between Vienna and other European cities and Bangkok. One Lauda Air commercial shows a Western tourist talking on a cell phone: "...Got to go: The girls at the Bangkok Baby Club are waiting."
Attorney/novelist Andrew Vachss has written at least one novel and a number of articles on the matter (http://www.vachss.com/).

DBT ceased operations in 2000. The http://www.dbt.org/ domain has been acquired by another business. Other possibly helpful links:

/ edgarde 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed my one liner after this: "According to the Cambodia minister for Woman's Affairs, it is not tourists who are the prime culprits of pedophilia in her country, but the locals.[18]" but it would be nice to find a reference to support indicating that "non-tourist" child prostitution in general is relatively prevalent in these countries anyway as this sentence is a bit short which was why i added the thai love motel bit in the first place. Maybe I am lazy I should go google "child sex in asia" or something liek that and see what i can find to add just a little to this sentence... regards edgarde, Mattjs 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this change:

For example, it is a popular local superstition in Thailand that an older man sleeping with a young woman will thereby renew his virility, if not his aging vigour, and one consequence is the drive-in love-motel where few questions are asked.

I think the fact that it's a "local" superstition makes it irrelevant to the topic of Sex tourism (unless you consider it strong evidence that Thai Sex tourism does not involve child prostitution). Anyway, various beliefs about the health benefits of sex with young or virginal women exist in many cultures (too many to list here). Such a list might more relevant to the article Prostitution of children. / edgarde 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am not disagreeing. Just would be nice to add to the short "one liner" before thats all i was trying to do... Regards. Actually I need hlep with reverts and POV bias in another article - this time I am on firm ground but there is wierd stuff going on over there... you can see my edits and my comments in the talkback also... you could help as a third opinion or arbiter thanks edgarde and I glad we are on good terms now... keep up the good work... Thanks. This is my fixed IP when I occassionally (and sometimes deliberately) forget to log in. :-) oops: its at iTunes in the infamous (apple) biased intro yet again... Mattjs 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited iTunes as: 220.240.58.190 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Mattjs.

I think I am going to stop contributing to Wikipedia as it all gets to damn frustrating with even biased editors - you are an exception - and I dont know anyone higher up the chain to back me up when trying to point out editorial POVs. It is all quite a joke really: groups of POVed people get their way with articles and that can include the employees of large companies who through shear numbers can have their way set the own tone and agenda (along with the cronies) with articles on their own products. I strongly suspect that some large computer companies might be monitoring Wikipedia and doing this. Regards again and better you than me. Mattjs 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I keep seeing POV bias at iTunes its adios to Wikipedia! (After all i've got a "life"!) 220.240.58.190 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Local superstitions encouraging child prostitution

I'm yanking this again because it's both off-topic and unsourced.

Similar claims can be made for other destinations including in Asia where local superstitions may serve to encourage child sexual exploitation.

The implications that

Asians are more likely to have sex with children
and when they do, it is not really pedophilia, but part of their culture

... are really just noise in this article. If you can find a source for these this statement, add to a more appropriate article, perhaps something child prostitution related.

I understand that some editors are really eager to share this information, but Sex tourism really isn't the place. / edgarde 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem edgarde. That is a reasonable argument I guess. I wont submit any more experimental attempts at an acceptable edit here unless maybe I can one day finally find a decent source... (but dont hold your breath)... BTW: I finally got the iTunes problem fixed and on this (one) occassion (at least) my argument was on solid ground and so I won it through to a concensual completion with another excellent editor's help! Yipee! So I am not so down on Wikipedia now. Warmest Regards, Mattjs 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear the iTunes situation is worked out.

Experiments in good faith usually don't hurt, as long as one doesn't mind be "edited mercilessly" (as it says here somewhere). / edgarde 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference quite by accident during my (online) travels and I am sure others exist: Louise Brown, Sex Slaves: The Trafficking of Women in Asia, Virago Press, 2001, ISBN 1860499031. Indeed, quoting from the book's back cover:

“

The Asian sex trade is often assumed to cater predominantly to foreigners. Sex Slaves turns that belief on its head to show that while western sex tourists have played a vital part in the growth of the industry, the primary customers of Asia's indentured sex workers and of its child prostitutes are overwhelmingly Asian men."(+Ref here)

”

Some of the cultural issues I alluded to are examined and explained. SO: What should we now put back in: the quote? or?:

"Arguments can be made that local cultural traditions in Asia (may) serve to encourage child sexual exploitation."(+Ref here)

I prefer the back cover quote myself as it speaks for itself and rounds out the Burma one liner with respect to Asia otherwise I think we should in the alternative take out the Burma line entirely as irrelevant to the article. (Just to forewarn you) the alternative of not putting anything (of the suggestions here) into the article at all is an option with which I would be most unhappy edgarde.

Leave a note on my talkback page and/or insert a similiar suitable edit of your own. Regards, Mattjs 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Child sex by sex tourists raises the hackles of many drive-by editors for this article, but whatever you can add that's relevant to Sex tourism (i.e. why would someone travel to another country to do this), would be worth including. Give it a go.

"Asian men" (from the quote) doesn't necessarily mean nationally native men. Japan (for example) is a major Sex tourism sending country, and word on the street is they like women very young. If the book you're looking at (and I can't see from here) says sex "tourism" (as opposed to trafficking or prostitution), that's good to include.

Sexual practices by locals are not by themselves relevant to Sex tourism; those should go in Prostitution of children, Pedophilia, Prostitution in Asia, Trafficking of children somewhere like that. Is there an article for "sex customs in Asia" or something?

P.S. I'm okay with de-headlining the Philippe Servaty situation, but "Recent" shouldn't be in the title per WP:DATED. How about just Scandals, or Arrests?. You decide, I have to run. / edgarde 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Your happiness is your responsbility, not mine. Don't be laying guilt trips on me, man! ;) / edgarde 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I will fix that but then I would also like to take out the Cambodia (not Burma sorry) line if you don't want my suggestions in as by your own arguments above it too is not relevant to the article. Comments(/actions hehe)? Regards, Mattjs 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cambodian minister for Woman's Affairs, is replying to accusations that sex tourism is an industry so I think it's relevant. It is however awkward having it hanging there like that, without a preceding reference to the country. I could take or leave it. Is there an article like Prostitution in Cambodia? / edgarde 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lets just leave this for now while I/we think some about it... It is an enlightening bit of information that should go in Wikipedia somewhere I will check for Prositution in Cambodia, Child prostitution etc though unfortunately there is no Prostitution in Asia article that I am aware of. Hmmm... It is a doubly useful bit of information - by analogy i guess - in that it is suggestive of the locations for child sex tourists: i.e. those local or native cultures that historically (hence legally also) lack the same degree of prohibitions towards child sex and sexual exploitation in general and that is why i feel it is a tantalizing tidbit that is equally relevant here and fits appropriately as the final suggestive comment in the child sex tourism section of the article (thanks to the lead in by the Cambodia reference) but I have a feelign that you are always going to disagree but do note that my intention is not to provide excuses for child sex tourism but rather - and very relevantly i believe - elaborate upon the cutural context of the problem. By way of comparison the "Servaty" reference for example adds very little to the article and certainly nothing in terms of sociological research and understanding of the field unlike my sugeestion above... 220.240.58.190 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution in Asia certainly exists. Generally, if an article link isn't red, there's an article there.

It is just a list of links to other articles there... seee my comment following on a suitable place to put it. Regards, Mattjs 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor concern: consider loggin in. I can't always guess the user behind the IP from context. / edgarde 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW: If after some time and reflection you still disagree with my argument above there is a "Causes and context" section in the Prostitution of children artcle where it could go in (probably at the very bottom of the section as there is an uncited comment along the same lines at that point that actually needs a reference just like this one. Mattjs 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lifeisgood20. Peer reviewers: Jlanden.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

More Countries and Cities

i'll have to come back later with citations to add the following locations but i am surprised some of these are missing from the list. i am in angeles, where we have lots of sex tourists, and often hear people discussing the following locations:

China (including but not limited to hong kong). very popular destination for koreans, taiwanese and japanese.

Cambodia, particularly Phnom Penh

Philippines. only a very small percentage go to angeles. most tourists, including sex tourists, go to manila or cebu as there is direct flights.

Vietnam. RodentofDeath 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

76.126.29.166 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Within the US, the map shows the entire country as having prostitution illegal. In Nevada, it is legall and regulated.

Intro

Heya all.

I have sat with the intro for awhile and the last paragraph doesn't work for me:

I am going to nix the "in order of increasing potential criminality)" it's an interesting idea but is it neccesary in the intro and I don't know... it just feels off to me for some reason; and and the lower age of consent. I'd like to see a source for that, saying "sex tourists go for countries with a lower aoc."

I also nixxed the "where legal prohibitions are weak or unenforced." Again it is an unnecsarry point for the intro- and is it really the motive to travel? I'd argue that the motive, for child sex tourists, is access to sex with children, plain and simple.

Attractions for sex tourists can include reduced costs for services in the destination country, and (in order of increasing potential criminality):

   * prostitution, either legal or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
   * lower age of consent, or legal indifference to this consideration,
   * access to child prostitution where legal prohibitions are weak or unenforced.

At this point, I will confess a very strong bias I have.... intros should be as short and simple as possible and only cover major points which will be elaborated later in the article.Devalover 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I was okay with the bullet list (and maybe I introduced it, can't remember), but the parenthetical never worked for me. It seemed like the tourist planned his or her activities by first choosing a desired level of criminality, and then choosing activities accordingly. / edgarde 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvia

Many in Latvia believes, that there is sex tourism (destination). There even exist anti sex tourism campaign. Here is site: sex-terrorism Throught in Latvia there realy isn't sex tourism 91.135.18.243 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nongovernmental organization «Re!Action» in collaboration with advertising agency «Alfa Centrs» has launched a social campaign «STOP sex-terrorism!», which challenges the opinion that Rīga is a place for cheap debauchery with easily available sex services not only in dedicated places but also from the local girls at nightclubs, bars and other venues.

edit war over scandals

there seems to be someone trying to insert an unsupported claim into scandals and it is getting deleted (as it should be). this made me look again that the scandal section and i dont really see what the Philippe Servaty scandal has to do with the definition of sex tourism given here. clearly this man was not engaging in sex with prostitutes. i think either the definition at the top of the page needs to be updated or the scandal section deleted as irrelevant. RodentofDeath 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I've deleted it. Sex tourism is essentially travelling to patronise prostitutes overseas; cheating women in any country by falsely promising them marriage should not come under this heading. Rodparkes 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Depictions in fiction and popular culture"

I disagree with the last editor's removal of this section. There is a reason why many Wikipedia entries have such sections: the way a subject is treated in novels, films etc. can often offer us levels of insight into it that a documentary cannot. I would like to see this section restored, but rather than simply revert the change, I'd like to see what others think first. Rodparkes 04:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the Talk page. This is the deletion in question. In addition to snipping the entire Depictions in fiction and popular culture section, I also removed an advertisement that has been appended to the Academic study section. (This article attracts spammers.)

This article has problems which I won't go into just now. I don't think an In popular culture section benefits this article. The movies and TV shows listed were not informative or insightful on the subject, and whether the South Park "Super-Adventure Club" episode is notably even about "sex tourism" is hardly worth nitpicking over.

In popular culture sections are often a problem because they tend to be trivia lists comprising every time some editor saw the subject in a movie, TV show or video game. In my opinion, a good IPC section makes a point.

Here's a favorite example: Broccoli in popular culture.
Here's a terrible example: same article, 4 months earlier

The list I deleted didn't demonstrate anything, and wasn't informative or useful. No one searches for this article so they can find a good cartoon or movie about "sex tourism". If the reader is serious, we have a couple documentaries listed, but if they're just looking for erotica or sexual humor or a story about hookers, whatever, there exist more likely paths to such information than this article about the exploitation of geoeconomic inequalities.

The most recent addition was The Boatman (Bangkero, Ang at IMDb), a "bomba" (as more or less high-class sexploitation movies with a moral messages are called in the Philippines). And no matter how great or realistic or insightful it may be, it's still the director's vision of a story that needs to recoup in the entertainment market. Fiction has no firm allegiance to reality — it's not a reliable source, so to speak.

Come to think of it, none of the items listed had sources describing these programs as being about sex tourism. Their inclusion here is original research; we'd have to take the contributing editor's word that they were relevant. If I wanted a wikilegal reason to gong that section, there would be a good one. However, I'm trying to give practical reasons.

There exists many a movie about prostitution and the sex industry. Maybe someone should make a list article on those. It's just not pertinent here. / edg ☺ ★ 06:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points, though I would just like to say that I find the Ang Bangkero review on IMDB very misleading. The review seems to suggest that it is primarily a piece of titillatory erotica, whereas if you actually see them, both this film and the somewhat similar but gay-oriented Macho Dancer, though they take the form of melodrama which is characteristic in Philippine cinema, are concerned to make serious points using sexual exploitation (including sex tourism) as a metaphor for the general exploitation and powerlessness of the poor under the then Marcos regime. Certainly neither presents sex tourism in an attractive light - the prostitutes are essentially depicted as victims of an unjust economic system. Rodparkes 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue comes up in a lot of articles. I'm not doing this simply to exclude Ang Bangkero; if anything, it's quite an improvement over the South Park reference.

Wikipedia has no article for this film that I'm aware of. Do you feel up to writing one? For starters, you'd need enough references (beyond IMDB and filmfest calendars) to establish notability — check Wikipedia:Notability (films) so you'll know what to include to prevent a speed deletion. If this film is believed to have influenced Filipino politics or something, that would be quite notable, however even a few awards would probably be sufficient. A link in that article back to Sex tourism (provided the film is really pertinent to that subject) would link from this article via "What links here", which is entirely appropriate. / edg ☺ ★ 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Sri Lanka to the list of western white female sex tourist destinations

It would appear Sri Lanka is missing on the list of major sex tourist destinations. There are multiple reliable sources that would indicate its the case, [1],[2],[3]. Sinhala freedom —Preceding comment was added at 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Female sex tourism destinations - Spain

I've lived on the coast of southern Spain for 4 years and have seen no evidence of this tourism trade (although there is a thriving trade in prostitutes for men), so a reference would be essential to keep this in, I'd say. EdX20 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex tourism in the Caribbean page

Hi, How do I improve the page I created on sex-tourism in the Carribean; I need to make it verifiable. Do I simply do this by saying that a specific author says? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex72 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences in locations between those visited by [heterosexual] male and female sex tourists

All of this information needs references to reliable sources, and any explanation of the differences would need to avoid original research, but I may as well ask people here what they think the reasons for these discrepancies are. I'm really interested.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

An overview section

I had created an overview section, which I thought was well balanced, and which I thought would provide the start of a summary of the issues involved with sex tourism, such as that sex tourism exists because of laws and enforcement (or the lack thereof) by the destination country. I was taken by surprise when the whole effort was unceremoniously reverted. I feel this article needs more than a statement that some countries are favoured by sex tourists - unless the background and circumstances of why that is are considered. The article is much too limited in its scope. Before I waste more time, I would appreciate some feedback.Ewawer (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Overview section introduced in these changes, appears entirely speculative, and is unsourced except for one off-topic general item about Tourism. If reliable sources can be found stating these things have a specific effect on sex tourism, that might be worth including, but current news about the general economics of Tourism is beyond the scope of this article.

This statement:

Some destination countries have become [...] dependent on the revenue which tourists bring into their countries ...

might be of interest, but it is unsourced, and it is not made clear that this applies in particular to this article's topic. It is also possible that the rest of that section might have been getting at something that I couldn't extract from the vague and prolix writing style; if that was going somewhere, please let us know.

Can we agree at least that the changes introduced above to the definition of sex tourism just made it more vague? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about the overview section more, when I have more time. As for the definition, I think the proposed definition is better because it must be restricted to those tourists who travel for the sole or predominant purpose of sexual activity. For example, a couple on a honeymoon obviously do not qualify, nor do people out for a good time and finish up having a sexual relationship, nor presumably would it cover two tourists have casual sexual relations, etc.Ewawer (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition you left here would include both of the situations (honeymoons, casual affairs) you wish to exclude. Sex tourism could be more specifically characterized as tourism for enjoying another country's sex industry, but the definition you proposed removed all mention of that. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a further comment - the reference to the sex tourists coming from wealthier countries is a bit redundant because most tourists in fact come from wealthier countries. So, what political point is being made?Ewawer (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tourist-receiving countries are characterized as "economically underdeveloped" later in the article, and economic imbalances are emphasized in the U.N. materials quoted in this article, though the article itself does not emphasize this at all. Since some countries mentioned in this article (Netherlands being an obvious outlier) don't fit the "underdeveloped" description, the lede characterizes the tourist-sending countries instead.

This can probably be better handled, or simply omitted from the lede since the article does not cover economics in detail (other than describing it as entirely beneficial in the Adult sex tourism section). However, simply saying that wealthy countries send more tourism in general is burying the lead, since the effect of poor countries becoming sex tourism destinations is a major concern. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

There ought to be additional information about the sexual orientation of sex tourists. The reason for this is that there is a fairly widespread urban legend that sex tourists are disproportionately of a homosexual orientaton. [4] ADM (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I have uploaded an image. This image was taken with the express purpose of being added to this article, with the full permission of the two gentlemen involved. Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that there are three people in that article, I'm afraid that there are personality issues involved. I have removed this image pending consensus that it does not represent a BLP concern. I will be raising the matter at WP:ANI for further evaluation. Until consensus is reached, it must not be restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Added photo

I added a photo for the lede. I think photos add a great deal to an article. The photo I added is from the Wikipedia cmmons web site, anmd was taken by Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department. It is described by the photographer as "Prostitutes talk to potential customers on the street in Pattaya, Thailand."

The appearance of the photo suggests that the prostitutes are from Thailand, and the potential customers are foreigners.

We do not know absolutely for certain that this is specifically "sex tourism". Like many other photos on Wikipedia, this photo represents the topic well. It is shows people who have gone to Thailand obviously for the purpose of finding a prostitute. This is imagery that serves the topic of the article very well, in my opinion. Atom (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regards, Atom. My only concern was that it implied that the guys were sex tourists, which we do not know, and probably were not. But I agree with you as to the importance of including photos, and see the link of the US State Department. Nothing personal--I respect your judgment and contribution. รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Further rounds of attempts to remove this photo. It's not clear what the objection is. It's certainly possible that the men aren't sex tourists or even that the women aren't prostitutes, despite the caption. The whole thing could have been a staged photo, maybe not even taken in Thailand at all! Obviously this sort of reasoning would lead to the removal of most pictures on Wikipedia if applied. It's a good picture, well sourced, and adds to the article. TJ Black (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good picture? Well sourced? Adds to the article? This is an encyclopedia, not a supermarket tabloid. WP photos must illustrate the subject of the article. That photo did not. รัก-ไทย (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. see Wikipedia:images. รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is clearly expalined above. Just insisting "no" is not a valid argument, and in this case suggests a significant POV slant on your part. TJ Black (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP guidelines. Images MUST be relevant. This image is clearly NOT. รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP guidelines. This image is directly relevant to the topic of the article. Continuing to push for it's removal will likely lead to administrative action. TJ Black (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am also of the opinion that it is potentially libelous to depict people with an implicit assertion that they are sex tourists. Even if they have been approached by prostitutes, that does not make then sex tourists (I have been approached by prostitutes myself in Thailand, and have most certainly never been a sex tourist). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this photo, and placing it on this page in no way violates any WP policy, any more than it would to say this photo depicts a baker. The opinions expressed above are complete POV. TJ Black (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really a classic example of #8 on my list of recurring issues in the editing of sex work-related articles. And while my attempts to engage in discussion over a long period of time were ignored, and a constructive edit is repeatedly reverted by a tendentious editor, I'm the one being accused of edit warring and failure to assume good faith. If you're not willing to engage in a reasonable discussion and respect Wikipedia guidelines, especially NPOV than I may have to take other steps. I really don't want to do that, but the first step is for the other editors to start engaging in reasonable discussion. TJ Black (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the objection primarily to the caption? We can fix that. TJ Black (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have it on good authority that these men are prostitute's clients, including a photo like that in this article is probably defamatory, whatever caption we give it. PatGallacher (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's being used illegally as it isn't attributed to the photographer, see the website.It's also a BLP violation as we don't have the permission of the subjects pictured in the photo. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Image BLP.3F Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try to engage in discussion instead of just repeating the same claims. "Unless we have it on good authority that these men are prostitute's clients, including a photo like that in this article is probably defamatory"? No, absolutely not, unless we decide sex work is inherently shameful, in violation of NPOV. At any rate the faces are blurred and unrecognizable.

The photo is not the same as the one you linked to the discussion for. It is used with the photographer's permission and is attributed on the file page. Please take a look. Should the attribution be on the article page as well? I've never seen that on any photo on any article but if that's the correct format than please fix it.

There is no compelling reason to remove this photo. If you have one I'd be glad to hear it and have a reasonable discussion. So far none of the claims made have had any merit. If we are going to start removing photos based on the idea that we can't really know what's depicted, then we must ultimately remove nearly all photos. As in the baker example given above, we have no way of knowing that the man pictured is really a baker. He's just dressed like one, in a kitchen, engaged in activity that appears to be baking. For all we know, he might consider being called a baker defamatory. Should that picture then be removed? If we were to accept the argument given here, then yes. TJ Black (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to is relevant to my point that we do not have permission of the subjects in the photo. As for attribution, you should have read the source website, but that could be fixed. What can't be fixed is the lack of permission from the subjects. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we have the permission of the man in the baker photo? TJ Black (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As for attribution, from the website: "The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) assigned a U.S. photographer, Kay Chernush, to take these photos in India, Thailand, Italy, and Hong Kong in 2005. They are available for use with the credit: "Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department." TJ Black (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we can use our common sense to accept that it is a fair bit less controversial to be shown to the world as a baker than portrayed in a sex worker article. As the inclusion of this photo is already contentious and disputed, I also support keeping it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can accept that a photo of Seaman Mark Andaya on a US Department of Defense site is there with his knowledge and is not at all comparable to the photo in question. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who are critical of inclusion of this photo. The sex workers in the photo are shown from behind and have a certain amount of anonymity, but the two would-be customers are clearly identifiable if they were to be recognized by someone in their social circle. The context of the article strongly implies they are "sex tourists". I don't think one needs to be anti-sex industry at all to see the fact that being either a sex worker or sex tourist is something that is socially stigmatized, and depending on their country of origin, might actually be illegal. Hence, splashing their faces all over the internet raises serious privacy issues. Clearly, the US State Dept doesn't feel any qualms about doing this, but we have our own editorial standards.

If this is an image that has already been widely circulated, particularly in the press, then maybe, depending on how the men were already characterized in the press articles. However, barring that, I'm against using those images here, especially if its for no greater purpose than "the article should have an image". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had another look at the photo in question, the men's faces are NOT blurred, they are easily recognisable in a fairly high quality photo. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different photo, the men's faces are completely unrecognizable smudges at any level of zoom. A quick look will confirm that.

Since I'm trying not to reinforce the systemic bias on wikipedia, and strongly support the policy on NPOV, I can't agree with biased statements like "it is a fair bit less controversial to be shown to the world as a baker than portrayed in a sex worker article" or "we can accept that a photo of Seaman Mark Andaya on a US Department of Defense site is there with his knowledge and is not at all comparable to the photo in question". But at any rate the discussion on the photo itself is occurring here, making further discussion here moot. TJ Black (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Many broken links

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting—a major source for this article—has moved its website from pulitzercenter.typepad.com to pulitzercenter.org and also renamed many of its links. One or two I could do by hand but this is a little too much for me to fix. To get all(?) the current links, go to the Pulitzer Center website and search for "sexual exploitation", or click http://pulitzercenter.org/search/apachesolr_search/sexual%20exploitation directly. There are a couple of pages of results. Thanks. --96.233.87.183 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. HairyWombat 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Nevada be marked as legal prostitution? Too specific to identify a state?

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In Nevada, a woman who attempts self-employment as an "independent escort" and accepts sex for money is still hunted as a criminal, same as the other 49 states. All that has been done is to exclude a number of specific houses of prostitution in rural counties (the list quite deliberately excludes Las Vegas) from what is otherwise a sweeping criminal prohibition. It's the sort of law only a mafioso could love, and then only if he owned one of the establishments licensed to keep operating while everything else is shut down... certainly no substitute for legalisation by a long shot. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Catching and punishing innocent people

'General "buyers" are prone to repeatedly engage in the “sex market” because they aren't being caught nor are they being punished.' And potato eaters are prone to repeatedly engage in the “potato market” because they aren't being caught nor are they being punished. Is there a reason they should get caught and/or punished? This whole article stinks like political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.78.70 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)