Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm pondering merging this with prostitute, they say practically the same thing at the moment. Armondikov 12:00, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea. Which one do you think should be the redirect and which the article? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Toss a coin I suppose but "prostitution" is the more overarching term. Armondikov 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I tossed a coin, got same result. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I say keep this title/heading/whatever, but merge by all means. Carptrash 15:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Done, I'm going back to clicking "random page" until something interesting turns up.

Evolutionary origin/Other species[edit]

Although I don't have any strong opinion for its inclusion or removal, it is observed that early human societies exhibited what is referred to as "meat-for-sex" behavior. Whether this behavior can be called "prostitution" is a matter of debate. However behavior what is interpreted as prostitution do exist among certain animals. May be that can be included under a section title "Prostitution among animals"? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting less and less convinced by this. When all the sources on the Wikipedia article - and the source quoted her - are news reports of scientific reports rather than the reports themselves it raises suspicions. I first heard this theory propounded by Allen and Barbara Pease but they're hardly the best of sources and it doesn't seem to have that much widespread scientific support. Can we come up with anything better than an article from the Independent? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a "feel good" study, in the sense that "this might have been the start of things', but nothing takes into account the changes in human culture from likely egalitarian food roles, to a more male focused culture as we became agrarian. Nothing looks at the role of being a second class citizen on the reality of prostitution. There are no cross cultural studies listed, etc. It's fun to speculate why some things are the way they are, but attaching "evoultion" to them, when our brains and complex cultural settings really make us fairly different from other animals so its very hard to make any assumptions of how this works. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"it is observed that early human societies exhibited what is referred to as "meat-for-sex" behavior" - by the way how has this been "observed". we don't have any early human societies to watch this in.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Try Essex. Sophiebecause liberals 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Sex with prostitutes is also considered rape. Klop789 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Since when, by whom, and in what way? If they give informed consent it isn't rape. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a school of thought that views prostitutes as victims of a "system of exploitation," and thus advocates the reform of anti-prostitution laws so that only "johns" and pimps can be arrested, not prostitutes themselves. It could be argued that such a policy implicitly denies the ability of prostitutes to give informed consent. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The Swedish Model, yes. But even if their consent isn't recognized by law, it still exists. And in this case it is neither rape in law nor in reality. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 23:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Some people take this view to its (il)logical conclusion: - (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Since all nations, over thousands of years, were forced to need money. No woman, child or man would be a prostitute if there was equal wealth worldwide. You don't know that?

“When Corporations Rule the world” explains how we were forced to need money: “One of the major challenges faced by colonial administrators was to force those who obtained their livelihoods from their own lands & common areas to give up their lands & labor to PLANTATION development; that is, to MAKE them dependent on a money economy so that their resources, labor, & consumption might yield profits to the colonizers…“Forced labor was piously justified as ‘developmentally beneficial to the enslaved’!.....“The black does not like work ….It is therefore necessary to use….slavery to improve his circumstances … (1901 NOTE 1901!!)!!) “In many colonized countries, the imposition of taxes payable only in cash was used to FORCE people into the cash economy…. In Vietnam, the French imposed taxes on salt, opium, & alcohol. The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, & households. In their West African colonies, the French punished tax evasion by holding wives & children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, & leaving people tied up without food for several day. Development was a hard sell in those days…” “Korten came to believe that the deepening crisis of deepening change, growing inequality, environmental devastation, and social disintegration he was observing in Asia was also being experienced in nearly every country in the world –including the United States – and other “developed” countries. Furthermore he came to the conclusion that the United States was actively promoting –both at home and abroad – the very policies that were deepening the global crisis. For the world to survive, the United States must change.”. Read online Third World Traveler to see how USA causes world poverty with capitalism/slavery. Klop789 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This does nothing to explain the middle class and affluent women who either go into porn or become prostitutes. Would you like to criminalize pornography? Burkean (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And I saw a guy say it's rape on TV the other day! But I don't know who he was. Klop789 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Lies and bullshit[edit]

"Most people in the business are there because they had nowhere else to turn."

Making unsourced bullshit claims like that is considered rational around here? Where does this information come from? And how would you even go about testing it? Ask every single prostitute on the planet if they have somewhere else to turn? Anything to serve the whore-shaming patriarchal agenda of anti-sex feminism, I guess.

You don't have a fucking "fair and balanced" article like this between moronic, anti-choice, slut-shaming loons and people whose opinions are based on reality and fundamental human rights. If you're going to go all "Both sides!" about women's rights to their own bodies, why not about creationism? Gay marriage?

Idiots. (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The existence of women choosing to become sex workers on their own accord rather than having been dealt a shit hand in life does not negate that statement. It does not say all sex workers but rather most. But again, provide sources that prove the statement otherwise and it will be corrected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Awright, where is the source for "Most people in the business are there because they had nowhere else to turn."??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Why is it up to me to prove that your unsourced bullshit statement is not an unsourced bullshit statement, you dumb fuck? Can I just fill this wiki with statements like "most engineers are in the business because they had nowhere else to turn", "most construction workers are in the business because they had nowhere else to turn", "most hairdressers are in the business because they had nowhere else to turn" until one of you "rational" knuckle-draggers decide to provide a citation that "prove the statement otherwise"? Is that what's rational around here, shit-for-brain? (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Because that way we can replace an unsourced statement with a sourced one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Remove the unsourced statement which is not only a piece of unfounded bullshit but is also directly damaging the lives of sex workers by perpetuating the myth that they are not in charge of their own lives. By making a statement like that about "the business" you fail to acknowledge the vast difference between legal sex work and illegal sex work, between non-exploitative and exploitative sex work. Even if the statement was true, which I very much doubt and which it is up to you to fucking prove, it would be completely useless as a statement about what's "bad" in the sex industry. What's bad in the sex industry is what's bad in the rest of society, in every fucking industry. I'm willing to bet that there's a larger possibility that, say, most taxi drivers or construction workers "are in the business because they have nowhere else to turn". But of course a statement like that would never fly here. Why? Because the agenda of this site is set by patriarchal shitheads like you with an anti-sex work axe to grind. (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It is clear that the statement is talking about illegal sex work, but does not make the distinction with regards to exploitation. And I have no ill will towards sex workers. I'm not the person who wrote the sentence you are contending. I am simply asking for an alternative source that contradicts it to replace it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Lie. It says: "Prostitution can be a bad occupation to be in for several reasons:" Not "illegal prostitution", not "prostitution (where illegal)". Just "prostitution".
A few lines later, it also says "In countries or jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal reporting of abuse is difficult as police may arrest prostitutes more readily than the people who assault them." If it is clear that the statement is talking about illegal sex work, why the need to clarify "jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal"?
"I am simply asking for an alternative source that contradicts it to replace it."
Why is it up to me to prove that an unsourced statement is false? Can I just write that atheism leads to child rape and then have that statement remain there until someone can provide a study showing a distinct lack of correlation between atheism and child rape? Idiot.
Explain to me why these two statements should be on this page:
"Most people in the business are there because they had nowhere else to turn."
"Those not lucky enough to be extremely hot and/or ambitious tend to wind up being practically slaves where prostitution is illegal."
Proof. Evidence. You reverted my changes, you put those "facts" there. Prove them, you lying piece of shit. (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted them because it's clear that it makes sense in the context of the whole section. Your analogy with regards to taxi drivers and construction workers is provided already. Perhaps instead of saying "it's wrong delete it" correct it such that it sends the same message but isn't sex negative in your opinion. Because it's clear you're talking from a particular point of view that this page wasn't originally written from and it's not a point of view held by everyone. We get it. Not all sex workers are drawn to illegal prostituion because they have no other choice. But just because you can talk from a position where your experience hasn't been exploitative doesn't mean this page needs to do the same. Change the sentence into one that is accurate and takes into account exploitation, because that is clearly what the original author was going for and drop the attitude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
There. A small improvement and far from complete, but I actually have a job I need to get to. I don't get paid to explain to "rationalists" why unsourced lies should be challenged. (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
All this yelling and cursing to change the word "most" to "some" and adding sentences in the section about the negative side of the industry to add stuff about how it's actually good? What a waste of time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off, you whorephobic piece of shit. I provided facts, and you got rid of them because they don't fit your fucked-up view of sex work. If the facts don't support the "bad side", you prefer to erase the facts rather than acknowledge that the false "Both sides!"-logic of this shitty piece of propaganda is based on lies? "Rational" indeed. You have clearly showed what this wiki is actually about. (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your lies. You said that "some" are in the industry out of their own free will, I changed it back to "most". I have facts. I have studies. I have reality. What the fuck do you have, other than your patriarchal gut-feeling? (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
However I'm not going to allow you to remove it just because you personally disagree with it. There are certainly parallels to be made but the content should be replaced with a more accurate statement about issues in the sex industry rather than removing it because one random sex worker's rights activist doesn't like what's said. The page goes into the same analogy you did with regards to taxi drivers so why are you so intent on removing that sentence?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you really this stupid? Do I really have to explain why I removed a completely unsourced statement? Why is this so hard for you to understand? IT IS A FUCKING LIE, and it will remain so until you can fucking prove otherwise. (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Because I'm in a far more generous mood than whorephobic shitheads like you deserve, I'll provide you with some fucking "evidence" that you talk shit: (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Read what I said above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And summarize the points of that 70 page report that you want covered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think there is a universal experience of sex workers anyway. In varies a lot by geography, culture/ethnicity, socioeconomic situation, and other factors. My understanding of the situation here in Australia (this is based on stuff I've read/heard, not personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt): at the classier end of town (more expensive brothels/escorts) it is primarily women voluntarily choosing to pursue this line of work, attracted by the substantial financial rewards. (Whether or not that is a wise choice on their part I'm not going to pass judgement on). At the bottom end of the market, there is a big problem with sex slavery, especially of women trafficked from Asia - obviously these women don't want to be there, and are being raped several times a day. There are also a lot of drug addicts, most of whom probably wouldn't be in prostitution if they weren't addicted; they tend to be found more doing street work / independent operators, since many brothels won't employ them. And then there's male and transsexual prostitution, which is yet another set of scenarios (although obviously non-cisfemale prostitutes are in a minority). Now, that's the situation in Australia, considering that it is a wealthy country with legalised prostitution (but also a substantial illegal/unregulated sector, and also a mixed bag of more and less ethical operators in the legal sector). In other countries, with different social/economic/legal situations, you are going to find somewhat different sets of stories. Blacke (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny thing about the dark end of prostitution? Legalization doesn't solve most of it. The demand is for cheap sex; the men paying $40 for illegal sex every other day are not going to save up and go to a legal $400 prostitute once a month. CorruptUser (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I care so fucking much about your unsourced bullshit. Everyone asshole has an opinion about sex work, few people have any actual knowledge or experience. So fuck off. (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, are you trying to push for such a generalizing yet unsourced statement to remain? The burden of proof is on you to prove it's true if you want it to stay. Looking at it, it seems the BoN has evidence to the contrary. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
All the BoN did was change "most" to "some" and add a bunch of "well actually" to a section that is dedicated to the negative sides of the industry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Really, the BoN's only issue with the page was that it said "most sex workers are exploited and had no where else to turn" when it's not "most" but "some". She used every single insult in the book and for a semantic issue and a whole bunch of "well actually it's more like this" and adds two citations that say "not all sex workers"? I've modified it to include the "well actually"s but it still retains the original intent of the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Just saw this now, nice fix. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You replaced my sourced facts with lies. You deleted my references. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, but the "semantic issue" that is so beneath you to even fucking care about is part of the web of disinformation and propaganda that ruins the lives of sex workers, deprives them of their livelihood and fucking murders them. I don't fucking care about the "intent" of the page, I care about the truth. Something this wiki obviously doesn't. (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it really that hard for rationalists to understand the difference between "a minority" and "a majority"? Can I change the page on "atheism" to say "Most atheists are child rapists"? I mean, a minority of atheists are child rapists. And a minority is kind of like a majority, I learned today. You guys are a fucking joke. (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm attempting a sourced rewrite of the "bad side" section. Again. You guys can either be petty little shits and revert it because I don't suck your ego-cocks, or you can acknowledge that this page has been severely fucked up and lacking facts. Your choice. (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your complaint was quite literally that the word "most" was used for a sentence you personally disagreed with. The point of the section is to say the bad shit about the industry for sex workers. Not to fill up an entire sentence with "it's really good except for what I deem to be a minority opinion". It's all semantic bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't "personally" disagree with it. Facts disagree with it. Reality disagrees with it. Studies disagree with it. If reality doesn't conform to "the point of the section", you change the section. You don't change reality. How is that hard to understand. If the "point" of the article on homosexuality was to show that homosexuality leads to pedophilia and I changed that to reflect reality, would you revert that too? (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Then write the section in a way that frames it in a way that doesn't bury the negative impacts which only apparently according to the studies you're linking to affect such a minority of sex workers. Give the negative sides first then in a separate paragraph say that it's not the case for everyone because right now it's formatted and presented horribly. And stop being a fucking asshole about it. I am not fully read on this and being acerbic about it doesn't help me figure out what you're really after because when this all started you were angry that one sentence was too generalized for your tastes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You're not "fully read" (no shit!), yet you keep fucking deleting my references. Why is it so important to you to bury the fucking truth? And that "semantic" thing you keep talking about? It actually leads to sex workers being deprived of their livelihood, it leads to them being beat up and raped, it leads to them being fucking murdered. So forgive me for not respecting your fee-fees too much when I bruise your ego by calling out your lies. (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
And who the fuck are you to dictate how this article should be written? Should reality dictate the content of this article, or should your personal little gut feelings? (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
These things should be written well and you haven't done that yet. All you've done is advocate and berate, flood the page with content that it already covered in some fashion, and demand "most" be removed in favor of insisting that only a minority of sex workers are exploited when the page originally only intended (from what I could tell) that exploitation simply existed. Now get off your fucking high horse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE? Where is your fucking evidence that most sex workers are exploited? This is a lie that KILLS PEOPLE. So why do you INSIST ON IT? (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT ANYMORE YOU BLIND SWRA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No, because I fucking CHANGED it. After you tried to hide the truth over and fucking over. So what's your agenda here? What are you trying to achieve? What were you trying to achieve by insisting that most sex workers were exploited? Come on, we all know what goes on in that head of yours. (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No "we" don't you arrogant woman. I fucked up. I'm owning up to it now. The structure of the page is shit. But keep that chip on your shoulder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Also format your fucking citations so they don't stretch the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at the "fossil record". I add references to studies and facts, Ryūlóng removes them and inserts his own unsourced, whorephobic bullshit. I actually have a real job, so unlike him I can't obsessively sit here and edit all day. But I just thought people should know what editors you have around here.

Enjoy your little misogynistic corner of the Internet. (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved it down the page because it all needs to be organized better. Jesus Christ, lady, we all get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off, you woman-hating piece of shit. You kept reverting my changes to instead insist that "most people in the business are there because they had nowhere else to turn". You have clearly shown that you don't give a flying fuck about truth, or the lives of sex workers. Your agenda here is clear. So fuck off. You can have this wiki for yourself, but I'll be sure to inform all sex-positive feminists and sex workers I work with of how this site actually works. (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't hate women. I just don't care for the tone you've had for the past three days. I fucked up and I'll own up to that but you need to step off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you've incorporated my information in the changes you've made now. Good. I apologize for my anger, but in my defense I think anyone would get a bit of a chip on their shoulder if they had to deal with the constant stream of lies and propaganda from both the right and the left on a daily basis. That's no excuse, but anyway. I'm sorry for presuming to know your intentions, it's clear you only had the best interest of this page in mind. (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression the statement worked better elsewhere on the page. It's also incredibly difficult to do this on a tablet and when my spellcheck has decided the word is written "prostituion". I'm sorry for the miscommunication. It was just incredibly difficult for me to understand how one generalization was worse than another after you had finished what you did yesterday. The section should probably be rewritten such that it isn't a list. And the citations need formatting so they're not just the raw URL. It's so they don't get permanently lost should a website go down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. As you can probably tell I'm not used to editing wikis.
In any case, the very major problem with the previous generalization is that it's an incredibly common excuse for why sex workers should be deprived of their livelihood: "Sure, a minority of sex workers will suffer, but it's for the greater good that we outlaw prostitution!" In reality, it's a solution aimed to help the very small minority of sex workers who are genuinely exploited, and it fails to do even that - rather it has the opposite effect. "Most sex workers have nowhere else to turn" is a very common belief that has been shown to be wrong over and over and over, in study after study after study. I don't know if that lie's presence here is a result of genuine ignorance or some kind of ideological agenda, but it gladdens me that you're open to evidence. (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't the original author of the content so neither if us can be sure as to their intent. I was merely dubious to how "some" was better than "most" even though one generalization is more factually accurate than the other. I doubt this website attracts genuine SWERFs and their ilk so the original wording can probably be chalked up to ignorance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong the SWERF? Oh my, it is getting more and more interesting.--12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You defended the unsourced claim, that almost nobody works as a hooker out of her own free will, not me.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I thought the distinction between "most" and "some" was stupid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wasn't aware "whorephobia" was used as an insult in feminist circles. But I think we should take a look at wikipedia:Feminist views on prostitution before we start changing some more stuff, especially the statistics about how many prostitutes have been mistreated in the past. Also we should take care not to conflate "sex work", which includes other arguably safer things like pornography, with "prostitution".

A quick Google search shows that feminist Catharine A. MacKinnon is one of the vocal opponents of women's sex work:

  1. MacKinnon, Catharine A. Women's Lives, Men's Laws. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2005.
  2. This sample of 475 sex workers indicated most wanted to leave. However, its a 1998 study and likely outdated.
  3. This site claims over 80% of sex workers also wanted to leave their occupation.

On the other hand, Julia O'Connell Davidson asserted in Prostitution, Power and Freedom. that anti-prostitution feminist arguments are based on a patriarchal idea of prostitutes as women without choice, and that while prostitution is not a problem, the institutions and laws that permit discrimination against and mistreatment of sex workers are. However, I have yet to find any statistics that would disprove the assertions in the two anti-prostitution studies above. This Danish study claims 65% of sex workers chose their profession because it caters to their sexual interests.

I think the general sentiment here is that if in fact prostitution is not a choice, it should be one. Withoutaname (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a split between prostitution in the US and prostitution in Europe and Australia. US studies seem to show that it's more exploitative and those in the industry wish to leave, while things seem to be better for their European and Australian counterparts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's more exploitative you fucking idiot because it's fucking illegal! Women can't go to police if mistreated because they will have to be punished for their choices as well. And because of the stupid attitude to vice, it isn't as though cops are interested in protecting women, just like these laws don't. It's a different story in Europe. Except for Sweeden, where they have more problems with it than in the rest of Europe! They also like the war on drugs in Sweeden. Do you think that's going well? These laws you like against prostitution you love are very popular in very backward, impoverished and religiously devout 3rd world, where women have no voice and prostitution, ironically enough, is fucking rampant and it's VERY EXPLOITATIVE. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CRIMINALIZE IT. PEOPLE ARE FOCED AGAINST THEIR WILL, WOMEN AREN'T MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES AND IT'S IN THE SHADOWS! HAPPENS A LOT LESS WHEN IT'S LEGAL! FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK! Burkean (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

Citation 7 (from this page: refers to a dead link for its information on the percentage of prostitutes who want to leave their profession. I'm going to give the author of that passage some time to dig up the actual study, but otherwise I'm removing the citation. It would also be great if the editors here actually read the studies they supposedly "cite" before they mash them in, but maybe reading's not a part of rationalism. I dunno.

I suggest that you instead refer to the other quality fact source from the link, the Christian Science Monitor's "Prostitution's Pernicious Reach Grows in US", from 1996. Because that sounds, you know, all scientific and objective and shit.

Although considering that the "Hughes" from that link is certain to be Donna Hughes, I very much doubt the presence of the actual study will significantly improve the factual content of this page. Or maybe we should insert that "George W. Bush is the president who has done the most for women", too?

This is an issue that involves the lives of actual people. At least have the respect to read what you link to. (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

CSM is generally a pretty reliable news source, but Pew Research is one of the best to get actual statistical data from. If you want to improve the article, try editing it yourself, but I'm pretty comfortable with the sites I linked to even if it's not 100% objective. Withoutaname (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? Pew? Where is your source that "They express a desire to leave, but they cannot due to abuse in the industry, according to research done in America."? What research? Show me the study, or I'm removing the claim. (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not our fault that a citation on a different website used as a citation is a dead link. It was valid when it was written at the time. Stop pushing this Eurocentric view of prostitution on RW. It's getting ridiculous, BoN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's your fault that you don't fucking read the "studies" you refer to. How the fuck do you know if it is "valid" or not if you can't even find it? Jesus fucking Christ, how hard can it be?
Canada is part of Europe? Australia too? And New Zealand? I was unaware. In any case, even if your definition of "Europe" is "not the US", I'm not pushing a "eurocentric" view. I'm demanding that you refer to actual studies and present actual evidence before you push your cartoonishly whorephobic SWERF bullshit. It's pretty rich that you have suddenly declared yourself enough of an expert to call actual research "eurocentric", considering how obvious it is how little you actually know about this subject. At first I thought you were malicious, then that you were dumb, but when your "dumb" behavior consistently favors the anti-prostitution side... (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This wiki is a fucking joke. How the fuck can someone like Ryulong be allowed to get away with this kind of behavior? Is anyone else seeing this? Someone tell me if this is what one should expect from this community, or if Ryulong is a special case. Because right now, it seems like you guys have about as much respect for facts as Conservapedia. If this is an official SWERF wiki I guess I can't do much about that, but I was under the impression that it was called "RationalWiki" and not "RadFemWiki". (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
BoN, this isn't RadFemWiki. That's why we haven't changed anything. Feminism has a sex-positive side to it too, and that's why we cover it so we can see both sides of the arguments pro- and anti-prostitution. I don't consider it "whorephobic" or "SWERF" of RationalWiki to be able to cover both sides of the Feminist Sex Wars. Withoutaname (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So all it takes for something to be considered fact here is that someone who calls herself a feminist once said it? Actually, that would imply that there would be some references, which would be preferable to the current state of affairs.
Do you also "cover" both sides of the trans wars? Should I expect TERF lies if I continue looking around? (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to change the article, go do it yourself. Find cites if necessary and put them in the article. Instead of criticizing us for doing the best we can, why don't you do better than us? Withoutaname (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have done exactly that, (look at the actual studies that are actually on the page now) but Ryulong keeps reverting my changes or shoving in his unsourced SWERF bullshit. And are you really trying to tell me that you're "doing the best you can" when you can't even refer to a single actual study to support your misogynistic propaganda? You're clearly not illiterate, so answer my question: Where is your source that "They express a desire to leave, but they cannot due to abuse in the industry, according to research done in America."? What research? Show me the study. (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me also ask: if you see us "pushing" a certain agenda, intentionally or in our case unintentionally, why don't you "push back"? That's what the wiki is for. Withoutaname (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to push back, but I want to know if it's worth the effort. I don't try to change Conservapedia to tell the truth about homosexuality because I have an actual job and I have a limited amount of time to waste on combating reactionary lies. If this is a SWERF site where blatant lies are promoted while facts are deleted by whorephobic editors, I can think of better things to do with my time. (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
We linked to the website that cited the study. You just have a bug up your ass that the study isn't available anymore. The stuff you wanted that said that a supermajority of ladies of the night enjoy what they do is on the page but there's also conflicting studies that show that it's not all sunshine and roses for everyone in the industry. It's just a shitload of sex positive feminism coming from you for the past week. Everything you provided concerns sex workers in the UK, continental Europe, and Australia. Obviously there are people who want out but they can't get out and a bunch of happy hookers doing their thing with a smile on their face and a bounce in their step. You can't just decide to discount the negative side of the industry when the section of the article is trying to describe the negative aspects of prostitution. You're testing our patience here and you can call us SWERFs or whorephobes or sex negative backwards neanderthals but that doesn't prove your fucking point it just shows you can't fucking make your point without being stereotypically militant. Correct the fucking article but don't fucking whitewash it because you're a pro-sex feminist and you feel like discounting studies that don't match with your preconceived notions of this topic when I WALKED IN WITH NO PRECONCEPTIONS OTHER THAN WHAT THIS PAGE STATED LONG BEFORE I EVER EDITED IT. Now quit being stuck up about a website that was used as a source that for whatever reason has a dead link on it that is NOT OUR FAULT and stop being so god damn fucking picky about a reference that you don't agree with because NO ONE has deleted anything that you provided. It's all there. All but one of the sources you posted onto the page is still up (I removed one of them because it was just a tag on someone's blog/search engine thing that didn't prove anything you wanted to say). There's just a ref that YOU DON'T LIKE and if you're going to act this way then maybe you can go tell all your pro-sex pro-prostitution friends that this website doesn't meet your ridiculously high standards on this one page that is trying to cover this topic that there's clearly no fucking clear stance on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Show me the fucking evidence. You're talking about a study which you've admitted to not even having fucking read and which might or might not even fucking exist. What's the name of the study? When was it published? Where? (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I read the fucking page that Withoutaname linked to the other day and I added content based on what I read. And I skimmed through what he just added. Just because you found some nonworking link deep within that webpage that was written up over a year ago that clearly advocates like yourself have gravitated to and said "THIS IS ALL WRONG AND INACCURATE YOU WHOREPHOBIC PRICK" have already done. There are sources that agree with your point of view and others that seem to focus on the people who want to leave. The section in the article is supposed to be about that point of view so it doesn't make any fucking sense for there to be a sentence declaring the previous sentence irrelevant. The bullet point is supposed to focus on an aspect you clearly have strong beliefs against and I don't know why you won't acknowledge that was the point of that one part of the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Answer my questions. What's the name of the study? When was it published? Where? (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You're obviously new to this, so let me explain how this works. You read a study. You comprehend what is says. Then you write down the facts from the study. You don't start with the "facts" that you want to prove, and then go around looking for studies to prove it. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? And why can't you even do the second step of your fucked-up process properly? You just have a bunch of "facts" that you want to prove, and the assertion that a study has existed somewhere but you've never read it but it totally exists because reasons. Are you a fucking child or are you simply that stupid? (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't fucking know. It's not mentioned on at all. But and seem to cite plenty and say similar things just by skimming through them and they're full of internal citations. We had a statement that you disagreed with. You wrote it. We found other statements that support what was originally written here. I didn't write this fucking page in the first place. I only came here because I had the Feminism page watchlisted to stop fucking idiot MRAs from shitting it up and you posted something there and I drifted over here to see what issues you had with this page. You clearly believe one thing. Other feminists have other opinions. I don't have a personal opinion other than the fact that you are driving me nuts with your incessant harping over the fact that some feminists focus on the sex workers who want to get out when you over in Sweden where there's some legal protection for the workers and you have to deal with that. There was a statement here. You contested it. You changed it. Conflicting sources were found that support some of the original meaning. Those have been added as well. I don't know why you are so insistent that only your group's interpretation gets top billing. Now if you have any fucking questions about the Duke page or the white paper that Withoutaname added as citations, you can ask him all about it because I don't know shit and I'm just a fast enough typist to spit all this garbage out at you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do you lie? Why do you claim to know things about "research done in America" when you don't even know if the "research" exists or not? There were no "conflicting sources". You made up a claim, hastily linked to some webpage with no relevant information and then got all defensive when someone dared question your super-totally existing "research". This is not a matter of "opinions". There are differences of opinions on creationism, and homosexuality, and whether or not the Earth is fucking flat or round. I'm asking for facts. You're providing opinions while lying about the process that led you to those "facts".
Why was it so important for you to lie about "most prostitutes are only in the business because they have no other options"? Why is it so important for you to lie about this "research done in America" that you haven't even read, which you can't provide the fucking name of? I have a hard fucking time believing someone with no dogs in this race would be so adamant about pushing lies like this. Either you're some kind of SWERF or you're simply another man with a big enough ego to want to shut up anyone who disagrees with him. Wouldn't be the first, sonny. (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The page in question EXCLUSIVELY LISTS AMERICAN CITIES AS EXAMPLES. Occam's razor suggests THE STUDIES THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THAT PAGE WERE DONE IN THE USA. And it's not my fucking fault that your stance on prostitution doesn't match up with other people's stances on prostitution. Clearly there are people who enjoy it and people who don't. And whatever fucking experience you have with the Swedish system isn't representative of what happens in other parts of the world where sex workers don't have the same kind of legal protections. There isn't a clear cut question when it comes to sociology shit like this because NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME GOD DAMN EXPERIENCES.
We can tell off all of the religious fundamentalists that the universe was formed 13.8 billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and the first lifeforms weren't created by God in 7 days 6 thousand years ago but rather 3.7 billion years ago and it's taken billions of years for life to evolve from single celled organisms to the complex multicellular life that covers the Earth of which humans have only been around for a fraction of that time scale. We can say that weather stations have been reporting a drastic increase in global temperatures since the industrial revolution because we have temporal records that we can use to determine what the average temperature was up to thousands of years in the past. I fucking spent the past 10 years of my life studying that. And this isn't a Kim Davis fundie bullshit situation either like you're alluding by saying there's conflicting stances on homosexuality too because there's plenty on this website saying that it's bullshit to force your religious restrictions on others.
But this ridiculous dispute you've instigated over one sentence on this page that you and your sex worker advocacy didn't agree with is the issue. This is what breaks the camel's back. Some bullshit almost gaslighting to insist that the page should give undue focus on the research you provided that says that a majority of sex workers are in the industry voluntarily and love what they do rather than simply allow a sentence in a section on the negative aspects or views of the industry to remain negative and insis that the people you're arguing with are either SWERFs or whatever other bullshit you want to say. I'm not educated on this topic as indepth as you are. I'm just seeing the half dozen sources you provided that say prostitutes love what they do that seem to originate out of Europe and Australia and the handful that Withoutaname has added that suggest otherwise and seem to focus on only American cities.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, stop the presses. You read something on the Internet? Wow! That changes everything! Screw my silly ideas about "studies" and "peer review", here we have a dude who read something on the Internet!
Don't make this about experiences. Of course you're trying to turn this into something subjective, into some silly woman having some silly feelings that aren't representative of blah blah blah. No. I see through that. What's the name of the study? When and where was it published? (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, how dare someone ask that you don't write harmful lies that hurt actual people? How dare someone ask that when you say "according to research", there's actual research behind that statement? How dare someone ask that you treat people's lives and livelihoods and their fucking survival with the modicum of respect required to read the fucking page you're using as "evidence"? Wow, you've spent ten years studying something entirely unrelated! Please, allow me to fall down and worship you!
Over and over, you've been caught with your pants down. You've been lying and lying and lying, and you've been caught lying and lying and lying. You're lying right now. You've talking about "sources" that say that it's horrible being a whore in America, but you can't even NAME. THE FUCKING. STUDY.
The fact that I am the only one who sees fit to even raise an eyebrow about your behavior says something about this community. (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done. My life is too valuable to waste on teaching some mouth-breathing joke of a man how research works. I shouldn't have expected more; it's not like whores and sluts and other women who won't conform aren't used to being spat upon by people with intelligence and moral fiber far beneath them. I have work to do, you can go and ... whatever it is you do when you don't lie on the Internet. Bye, rationalists. (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, BoN, don't go, RW doesn't only consist of Dragondragon!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop being a raging douche, Arisboch.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Dragon, baby, I'm calm, while you jump to cursing and ranting in a heartbeat.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Then stop being an obvious concern troll.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That sentence works fine without the concern in it too. (talk) 21:54, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
That was some serious rage he\she had going. SolPyre (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel rather sad this person has left us. I think BoN had some useful insights to offer but came across rather confrontational and that rubbed some editors here the wrong way. Anyway, I've reworded both sentences to try to come to a compromise in the language, given that I've dug a little deeper for the authoritative sources on the subject, and stereotyping prostitutes as the underclass too much might lead into SWERF accusation territory again. Withoutaname (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
"It's argued that some prostitutes" kinda sounds downplay-y to me, though. Not sure what phrasing I'd replace it with, though. (talk) 21:28, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
It simply appears to be a divide between prostitutes that have protection under the law and those who don't. The BoN's point of view is clearly from somewhere where they have the legal protections and it would be understandable that sex workers that have legal protections might actually go into the profession voluntarily and enjoy what they do, while Withoutaname provided studies that say the opposite and seem to come from places where there are no legal protections for the worker. So legally protected prostitutes like what they do and prostitutes that have no legal protection wish there was another way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty on the "Scandinavian model"[edit] This seems relevant for the article. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sex trafficking in the uk[edit]

'The good' section links to guardian artcle claiming there is no sex trafficking in the uk. [1], [2], [3] all say otherwise. I am removing the claim. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Walmart and sex workers[edit]

There is no real difference between minimum wage walmart employees and sex workers? Really? Has the author of this section ever experienced sex? Does the author of this section even know what sex is? Are they aware of the psychological effects? The way this is worded you'd have to wonder why rape is big deal. I am removing this shite. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think their point was to counter the claim that women had no agency when they decided to become prostitutes by comparing it to other low paid jobs that are undervalued and demeaning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 20:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
its a facile argument comparing apples and oranges AMassiveGay (talk)
i have heard stories. I assume the tales of the employees being fucked are metaphorical AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(EC) I agree. I think that a better comparison would've been with maids since they are usually women who are exploited by men with money. Usually, immigrants, at least in the US, are forced into sex work or turned into maids but this comparison is still a stretch.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
no you are missing the point. Sex work is not in any way similar to regular low paid work exploited or not. Its not about the money or even working conditions. Its that one involves flipping burger and the other involves being physically penetrated by a stranger. Theres a world of difference between the levels of emotional and physical harm here. Its not 'maybe we could unionise' the argument reads like some prick school kid declaring how right on liberal they are with no understanding of the realities sex and emotional relations and the dynamics in play. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
i sorry if i seem abrasive, but i live in a murky world and i have known sex workers and the people who use them. Any article that talks about consent and empowerment while glossing over the abject misery and despair of emotionally damaged sex workers and ignores how fucking vile the people who use them are, is a fucking d8sgrace AMassiveGay (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No I understand. I live near several low-wealth areas, though, I may not know any sex workers myself I have heard stories. Sexual harassment and exploitation of women are common in low paying jobs which are why I understand where the author is coming from. But like I said before, though, that example is a stretch.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 22:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Depends on the type of sex work. I mean, the quality/price. Are you dealing with the high end or the low? Because at the high end the prosyitutes can turn away clients. But what never gets said is that the demand at the low end isn't for sex but for CHEAP sex; the guys paying $20 for a daily blowjob aren't going to save up for twice a month. Legal non-exploitive regulated clean and protected sex work simply can't provide cheap. StickySock (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
if they making big money its even less like walmart then 'high class' sex workers are hardly the norm. The vast majority do not fall in tnat category. And there is massive potential for emotional harm no matter how rich their clientle. You only have see porn stars from back in the day when they earned good money. Every one of them emtionally fucked, regardless of how well paid or how safe and clean. Sex work is fundemently different to regular work. It is physically invasive and matter how much someone says they enjoy the work it takes it toll. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
shit, i can attest to the fact you dont have even have to be sex worker to feel the pbysical and emotional toll that certain sexual behaviours can inflict AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Incels report being sexually frustated.[edit]

Aww poor dears. Learn some people skills or have a wank. How is it a good thing that these people can hire a prostitute? Hows it going to help a group of embittered virgins who already view women as sluts and whores when they can pay someone and confirm their suspicions? What paradise of healthy well adjusted men and empowered women can you possibly see? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It calms them down a bit even if it's not healthy. Going without sex does psychological things to a man and their world view. Also not mentioned is how prostitution reduces rape. After WWII, Japan turned into an orgy (a quarter of American servicemen were hospitalized with STDs as a result). Japan had basically acquired large numbers of women as a human sacrifice of sorts to be dime store whores. Literally; they were paid about a dime each act. Anyway, after a few months Japan got rid of prostitution, and the reported rape rate OCTUPLED after. StickySock (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
was it any different to comfort women? I understand those unfortunates where dreadfully exploited. As do the the women in the situation described. The sligbtly less shit option is still not a good option. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
the whole good and bad set up of this article is shit. I think i might completely reorganise it and include more hard reality and less school boy fantasy AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
on wp article on the subject, many women became prostitutes in the hope tbeir daughters would not be raped. Maybe prostitution isnt the answer but doing something about rapists is? Just a suggestion. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but would or wouldn't be raped?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 22:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
wouldnt of course. I am pathologically unable to proof read. I am editting my comment. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"Going without sex does psychological things to a man and their world view." No, this is an idiotic myth. It is the worldview itself (the expectation of sex as a necessity, an entitlement & a status symbol) which is toxic. This is a worldview people create & perpetuate themselves; it doesn't arise spontaneously from not getting any. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the longest you've gone without? Not denying that "incels" have a toxic worldview that causes problems regardless of whether or not they have sex, is probably not primarily caused by the lack of sex (and is probably part of the reason they don't have sex), but I don't think you're speaking from personal experience here. Just that the lack of sex does make things worse. CorruptUser (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
i would argue prostitution would merely compound these peoples problems, at very least create new equally awful problems. This is not a 'good' argument for prostitution AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
prostitution fundementally corrupts the emotional dynamics of consensual sex. It fundementally effects the emotional well being of the participants. If it were purely physical, masturbation would suffice, prostitution wouldnt exist and kleenex would bigger than apple. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Paid work fundamentally corrupts the emotional dynamics of volunteer work. Wait, that's probably a false analogy there somewhere, right? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
i m having difficult deciding if you are joking or whetherni should reply with the contempt the you evidently deserve. Maybe clarify with a proper cogent argument rather than poorly executed snark? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the statement paying for sex inherently does horrible things to do the person receiving the money about as sensible as the statement that paying for work does horrible things to the person receiving the money. Yes most person who work in prostitution, pornography or related fields would probably prefer another job, but does that say something fundamental about paying for sex or does it rather say something about the currently existing society? After all a non-negligible portion of those working minimum wage "dead end" jobs would prefer something else. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
i am notvrepeating myself. Ive made myself clear. Its not about shit jobs. Its about the nature of sex and how it is effected by prostitution. Please read the above section on walmart. 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
[citation needed] StickySock (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
[4] [5] [6] theres plenty more but that will do for now. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Blogs aren't quality citations. The closest you have to a good study is the third one, and that answers a completely different question. CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
which question are you refering to? I was replying to one wbout emotional harm and it seems to me to support that. I am not sure how to link to the studies that openec in a download. There are lots of them. Feel free to google. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Emotional harm to the men who use the "services". Psychological harm to the women? That's fairly plausible, not questioning you there. CorruptUser (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
i think the harm to men is more person observation. How they view peopl and friendships as something that can be bought or that have some kind of power over the people they use. Its a bit vague i know. One of blogs has interesting stats i will try to dig out the studies. Its all very difficult with my shitty tablet though. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Illegality greatly increases risk of stds[edit]

I'm sure it does. But lets not pretend sex work isn't inherently risky. I rewording tbat AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about us without us[edit]

Nice vid. I can get behind that. Doesnt support half the preceding paragraph. 'while ignoring the opinions of sex workers who are content with their job' haha much like the good section over emphasises the sex workers content with their job. I cutting the bullshit, though this does not really belong in a facile good and bad section. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

Marriage as legal prostitution[edit]

No. What point is being made should be an article on marriage, not actual prostitution. The rest of this section is riffing on the same inane comoarison discussed the walmart section above. I removing the whole lot. I will revisit this article when my internet connection is more stable. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

as above. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Both points are legitimate points made by some actual feminists, which we should probably cite in their own words to beef up the article. Any bodily work is "selling your body" and prostitution is only different insofar as society makes it different. And marriage - at least the "man works woman doesn't" model some right wingers love - has indeed not entirely without justification been compared to prostitution. If we had an article on this analogy, all the better, but just Orwelling that argument out of existence is not the way forward if you ask me. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
and it has no business in an article on prostution. Stick in a marriage article if you wre so keen on school boy posturing. Im sure we have one. As for the the idiotic quote, see whwt was discussed wbove when i cut a similar nonsense comparison to walmart workers. Sex work is fundementally different from more legal menial work. Sex fundementally affects its paricipants physically and emtionally regardless of cultural norms. Getting penetrated by a stranger even more so. And one final thing - removing bullshit from a wiki is orwellian? Fuck off. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
even if we were to work this nonsense argument into the article (bullshit arguments made by imbeciles and virgins?), the inane structure, name!y 'the good' and 'the bad' structure, makes it difficult to p!ace and adequately state how fucking ridiculous it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A number of feminists think trans women are actually mysogynist men trying to infiltrate their ranks. Batshit crazy stays in its appropriate place; claims that "marriage is prostitution" is such crazy. I agree with Gay. StickySock (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all prostitutes are female, not all users of prostitution are male[edit]

I just wanted to point that out. Carry on, I think I'll be elsewhere. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


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)


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. (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

this page is still a disgrace[edit]

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