Talk:Prostitution

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



Opening quote[edit]

I have already mentioned why such comparisons are completethe fucking bullshit in the walmart section above. Besides that, such facile inane quote at the start of the article indicates the direction of the article which, if it is not already apparant, i am vehemently opposed to. I am removing it. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ok why has this facile quote been put back. I had the decency to explain my actions, have the decency to explain yours. I taking it out again unles you can explain why it isnt bullshit and why it it needs to open the article. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay If the quote now at the head of this article is the one you were referring to in 2016, I have to say it is preposterous. Just because prostitution can be classed as labor doesn't mean what people think about it is irrelevant. Every form of criminalized activity--drug dealing, burglary, pick-pocketing, etc.-- can be called a form of labor. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the difference is that historical laws prohibiting sex work were rooted in religious morality, as opposed to deterring behaviour that harms other people (like theft, although the Bible certainly didn't approve of that either). Pagan Rome had no such prohibition against prostitution, whereas medieval Christian Europe did (not to mention most of America). Modern prohibition may be rooted less in religion and more in trying to reduce harm (even though the evidence I've seen indicates that it does just the opposite), but I believe it still harks back to old ideas about sexual propriety. If sex workers want to be seen as workers, then that's up to them, nobody else. 86.158.179.203 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Read this fuckinv page before reverting. Give some reasons. Not '2 against 1, feel my authority'. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Now now, let's not have any of that, shall we? The world doesn't come crashing down if the edits are left in for the duration of the discussion. And why would they be left in? Why, because we're a mobocracy and we're two people who want them in for the duration of the discussion. So that first point is very simple, and is indeed separate from the discussion on the page or it's contents - this is a discussion on how the wiki operates. And things are allowed to take time. Again, we're two editors who want them in. So let's let those sit while talking, shall we? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

One problem is - the term prostitution is used to cover several different fields - from those who choose to be so involved (including the more specialist services) where the activity is on a par with other 'services provided' to the shabby exploitative/trafficked end. It is the latter end which should be legislated about.

Another is that 'other people's sexual behaviour' is always regarded as problematic. 86.191.125.149 (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

this page is still a disgrace[edit]

burn it AMassiveGay (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

back in 2016[edit]

i took a crack at some egregious bullshit this article promotes about prostitution at every turn was reverted with no effort to explain why and when finally could be bothered to respond via the talk page they did so in such a way as to suggest they had not even bothered to read my arguments for my edits.

At the time real life issues made me just think fuck this shit and i walked away from it, and i never bothered to attempt to edit mainspace again for quite sometime.

Well, im back now, the egregious twat who reverted everything with no engagement on the talk page looooong since permaban for egregious twattery in other areas and the article still large unchanged with the same dogshit arguments in the same dogshit the good and the bad format, and empowered by a sense of nothing better to do, i feel like taking another crack at it.

before i do will summarise the issues i have with the page for feed back while i figure out how to rewrite whatever is left from deleting the dogshit in something more suitable than the inane good vs bad where nothing about the subject is so simply categorised and everything comes with caveats and nuance and comment that shit list of bullet points is just an insulting.

1. i dont like the quote opening. i get workers in line professions should be treated with dignity and rights respected, but the suggestion the only difference between sex workers and coal miners is moral is simply dogshit that would be made obvious from an article on prostitution that was fit for purpose would plainly make clear. as it is, its a sound bite from twitter that sets a tone as to the article for the nature of prostitution being just another job, which is just dogsht.

2. intro is dogshit. there is no more than a 1 line description of prostitution in the introduction. it gives no indication on the forms it might take, differences in different parts of the world, varying legality and its effects, agency of those undertaking such work, or anything. its just 1 one before it jumps to vague concerns of stigma hurts sex workers and education and understanding can alleviate issues that are not explained adequately or at all to be of any use, with references to research and advocacy groups that misrepresent what those sources actually say by such vague and deficient explanation summaries of issues faced and solutions. intro ends with some trivia which just underlines how little we have to say in the introduction.

3. 'the good' section has points that might be considered good in the specific examples given, but are cannot be outside these or to the the majority of cases worldwide. theres dead link for the first point and flexible working hours and decent pay and overal job satisfaction 'for many' and concluded no more exploitation than most unskilled labour. bold claims, lacking context or backed by any stats, that requires a source to back up. its dead link so no source. next point states it can be lucrative and is dicriminalised in some area, legal with some restrictions or caveats in other areas, which is not saying anything that is good only a matter of fact. 'can be lucrative' is the only 'good' and that needs to be put in context and explained. it isnt and no sources. a point saying there is cultural variance in prostitution across asia is a neutral not a 'good'. a pointless dig at maoism and the british empire goes nowhere and adds little to the following claim of decriminalisation will make all the issues magically go away, isnt a good, but a 'should legal'. no sources to back a claim that requires a great deal of discussion of the effectiveness of such approaches and their implementation.the final 'good' point is saying its employment for marginalised people who have been denied access to other forms of work due to discrimination. its apparently good because even though they have been forced into it for survival, its better than nothing. the source to back up this dubious benefit of sex work details the process of discrimination and marginalisation that sex workers undergo and is misrepresented in it use here in support of a good thing about sex work.

4.the bad section starts out with bold claims - abrahamic religion is why we all think sex work is bad, which kinda attempts to hand wave the rest of section away as all the fault of us prudes. that shouldnt be the start of this section. the second paragraph would be a better one. follows a list of harms and problems which i largely would agree are harms and problems, it is a list in no particular order. it has sources, which i have not checked all (there were only 2 in the good section, one was a dead) but seem largely valid. just needs to more focus. the section closes with bitching about moralists who are for regulations in other professions to make things safer for those working in them but not for regulation of sex work because its dirty. might be true, but its such general jab at amorphous moralists with such a vague and general pointing in the general direction of 'should be decriminalised'. it handwaves away all the specific points previous. the closing point 'bad' point is to say its not hyperbole anyway and anti prostitution advocates (a facile label in and of itself) make bold and flames claims to grab our attention as with these two claims, not mentioned anywhere previously in article, supported by no less than 5 refs were debunked.

5.good vs bad format is just dogshit. it should be scrapped and replaced with something details the various forms it takes, in different regions. it should look at why people go into the profession, comment on poverty, on marginalisation, stigma, desperation, and sex trafficing. look at the dangers they are exposed, the risks of violence, of disease. look at how criminalisation, wholly or in parts, effects sex workers, compounding all the issues they are already facing. look at ways these problems and dangers can be lessened at different approaches to decriminalisation effect the situation. it should do this without claiming successes in the specific approach used by one part of world can work everywhere or overstate whatever success is being presented. some discussion on those people who use their services should be included, on their motivations, their views of sex workers, and their part in their exploitation. more focused and fuller explanations of issues with a lot less of this black and white thinking artificially created by this g vs b bullshit.

6. the views on prostitution bit is a bit broad in scope, its not really of much import what various ideologies think it. maybe feminist perspectives is of note, maybe views of the general public via polls, views of the authorities in different areas, religious views. should be focused on how these views shape perceptions and treatment of sex workers. much of this might be better folded in to the general discourse of the article.

6. marriage as legal prostitution section is just blatant dogshit that should be in an article on marriage not one on prostitution. im not waiting for feed back there, that can fuck right off right now.

agree? disagree? as it stands it overgeneralises anything that can be spun as 'not awful' as the rule not the exception, unchallenged while arguments suggesting any less than an empowering and safe career choice is handwaved away with vague and general non specific nonsense, which is spattered though out with a whole lot irrelevant trivia. its not a subject that i feel we can halfarse it the way we have and its an urns everytime it appears in recent changes after some minor edit and see still largely like it was when last attempted to remove the trivialising slant it has. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • anti prostitution advocates (a facile label in and of itself) make bold and flames claims to grab our attention as with these two claims, not mentioned anywhere previously in article, supported by no less than 5 refs were debunked.
I changed the line to "Organizations which oppose sex work" (which I believe is a fair description, since they do), but the point still stands. You can find numerous sites which repeat those assertions across the internet. When they stop using bogus claims, I'll stop debunking them. 217.43.24.8 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

the good side[edit]

i was musing on what to do with section ('good side' wholly inappropriate for the bullets contained within), but a bit of fact checking (only 2 sources for the whole section, one of which was dead the other does not support the assertions) of some the dubious claims made for prostitution internationally. the whole section is entirely without merit. the situations of the regions mentioned are entirely inaccurate and/or so simplistically described as to be worthless. added to this, it is pushing a fantasy of legalised prostitution as some kind of magic bullet that removes all possible problems it may have. it is fully legal in many locations in asia but it aint fucking pretty. every claim made is an unsourced vague assertion that ignores very complex issues, ignores history, ignores basic reality.

so my problem is easily solved. remove the whole section. i will try put something together surrounding the types prostutions and a more enlightening look at different regions and cultures, and the differing issues they present. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)