Talk:Sex worker/Archive 2

Revisions for coursework

Hi! I am an undergraduate at Rice University and as part of a project this semester, I plan to revise and edit this page. Some of the edits I was hoping to make include adding sections on Risk reduction, the legal and social dimensions of sex work, and adding information about the unionization of sex work and the work that NGOs do with sex workers. I was also planning to rename the first section, History of the Concept, to Terminology and possibly add an additional section about the history of sex work that links to other articles. An outline of my proposed revisions can be found [here]. I would also be interested in streamlining the "External links" and "See also" sections. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing feedback regarding the legality of sex work and how to best incorporate more information into the page, but any comments are welcomed. If anyone on this page has feedback or additional changes they'd like to see made, please feel free to reply here. Thanks, Ktpost68 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, just remember that the article still needs to adhere to Wikipedia standards and policy, not just the Academic ones for your course. If there's a conflict, you have to go with WP policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I think this article is very well done. I especially think that the section on unionization and risk reduction are of superb quality. They are great examples of good formatting, easy readability, and good neutrality. Adding the sections on methods of risk reduction also help provide a fuller understanding for those trying to get a better understanding of sex workers. I think to continue to improve this article there are a couple areas that could be improved. First, I think some of the content could be expanded especially regarding demographics, which is an important part to understand sex workers- adding statistics to general trends could prove useful. Additionally, adding blue links to your contribution would be helpful to readers trying to learn more about topics related to sex work.

Generally, good job with this article! It should provide most readers more than enough information about sex work in a clear, concise manner. Hihappy21 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I was very happy to see such a well-done article about sex workers. There are a few ways that it could be made better, but by and large, I think it provides a great introduction to the issue. Some improvements include:

- Adding more information to the risk reduction section. I really enjoyed what was said there, but I think it would be nice to have some examples/ pros and cons/ etc.

- If you can find it, a human sex trafficking map. Not critical, but I think it would provide a nice illustration of what you're talking about.

Otherwise, excellent work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjenga (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why 2 articles Sex work and Sex workers?

I think there should be better 1 article and 1 forward. Both articles should be merged. -- Korkwand (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand and appreciate your viewpoint, I would say that distinguishing between factors that are unique to the phenomenon as a whole (sex work) versus the issues that affect those that are directly involved and those that are tangential (sex workers, politicians, law enforcement, etc.) is an acceptable division per WP:CONTENTFORK. That said, is there a significant amount of overlap between the two? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think it is a big mistake to merge these topics. They are both very large in scope and will bet bigger in time. It makes more sense to have shorter, more focused, articles that are hyperlinked that to have one big blob of an article.James Carroll (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image here is patently inappropriate. It's an identified image without any clear consent from the woman in the photograph, and identifying her as a sex worker in such a high-profile place could cause her real-life damage. The painting of Olympia by Manet is a great alternative - the woman is clearly a sex worker according to art historians and it doesn't identify any living person as a sex worker. It's also a beautiful, classic painting, much better than a mediocre photograph. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

100% agreed. There is nothing to indicate that the woman in the photograph consented for the photograph to be used in such a way, and there is nothing at all to suggest that she is a sex worker. The painting quite clearly depicts a sex worker, and does not infringe upon personality rights. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally, the picture of the woman is inappropriate, if it must be retained, we should be using File:Mujer pública.jpg, a version that does not use an identifiable woman at the top of an article. This is such a basic WP:BLP matter that I'm surprised to see people reverted Keilana's edit. The current unblurred image is just not fit for (any) purpose. Courcelles 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see c:COM:Deletion_requests/File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg, people have discussed her privacy (and occupation) over there multiple times before. I don't think there is anything wrong with having this image in the article. The eye-blurred version doesn't make the depicted person less identifiable as there is (has to be) a link to the non-blurred source version.    FDMS  4    12:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think commons policy is relevant over here. And the fact that she's identifiable in a blurred version is the problem here - we shouldn't be identifying anyone in any way as a sex worker via this article without explicit, confirmed consent from the subject. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the photo of the woman standing in the window of the Red Light District in Amsterdam? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First Sentence in this Article is Incorrect According to Webster's Dictionary

The first sentence reads: "A sex worker is a person who works in the sex industry." But that is grossly inaccurate. Let's look at three different dictionaries' definitions of sex worker.

A) Webster's dictionary defines 'sex worker' as "a person whose work involves sexually explicit behavior".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex%20worker

B) The Free Dictionary defines 'sex worker' under its definition of 'sex work' as: "The performance of sex acts for hire; prostitution."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sex+worker

C) The Oxford English Dictionary deviates somewhat from Webster's and the Free Dictionary in its definition of 'sex worker' as

n. a person who works in the sex industry, especially a prostitute (usually used with the intention of reducing negative connotations and of aligning the sex industry with conventional service industries)

Though they use a very vague term such as 'sex industry', they bring better focus with the phrase "especially a prostitute" to support the notion that a sex worker is basically a prostitute. There is nothing vague about the definition of prostitute, which is "a person who has sex with someone in exchange for money" according to Webster's dictionary.

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/176989

After looking more closely at the 3 definitions it is apparent that the general consensus of dictionaries is that a sex worker is a euphemism for 'prostitute' and is someone who "performs sexual acts for hire".

Is a janitor in a stripclub or a massage parlor a sex worker? ...definitely not. A janitor or cashier who works in a strip club is not a sex worker because they do NOT "provide sexual services" -- that is "no sexual acts" are performed in the execution of their job.

After looking more closely at the three definitions from reputable dictionaries it seems that the second sentence in this article, ( The term is used in reference to all those in all areas of the sex industry including those who provide direct sexual services as well as the staff of such industries. ) is profoundly false since the "staff" of the industry does not supply sexual acts can not be remotely considered a 'prostitute' which is the main focus of even the Oxford English Dictionary's vague definition.

This issue was partially discussed in above sections ( waitstaff in sexually-oriented businesses, Euphemism, How are strippers "sex workers"? ) and the majority of opinions would condemn this first sentence of the article. But yet, after years and years, this page continues with inaccurate information. Wikipedia needs to clean up this page and understand why it is so easily manipulated.

In conclusion, that first sentence needs to be replaced by a direct quote from Webster’s Dictionary to read:

"A sex worker is a person whose work involves sexually explicit behavior."James Carroll (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the only definition that adequately fits is the first one. Your analysis makes sense as well. I have no objection to a change. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is about prostitutes so the word prostitute should be used instead of the silly term 'sex worker'.72.78.105.70 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, the article is about sex workers, not just prostitutes. Sex worker is the sociologically correct term.AnaSoc (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

New Information

Hi everyone. I added some information about exotic dancers because I thought the page could use another example of sex work besides the kind that involves physical intercourse with clients.

Thanks!

Paula378 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Paula378

Terminology

A discussion on the the replacement of "prostitute" with "full service sex worker" is being discussed at Talk:Sex work#Prostitute is a slur. Please discuss the issue there. Meters (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex worker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140331221527/http://blog.metrotrends.org/2014/03/misconceptions-ucse/ to http://blog.metrotrends.org/2014/03/misconceptions-ucse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428143743/http://www.igh.org/Cochrane/Operario_etal.pdf to http://www.igh.org/Cochrane/Operario_etal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex worker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Documents/Migration%20studies/Determining%20the%20meaning%20of%20violence%20in%20sexual%20trafficking%20versus%20sex%20work%20Saunders%20J%20Interpers%20Viol%202005%2020(3)%20343-360.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826001937/http://www.differentavenues.org/ to http://www.differentavenues.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)