Talk:Feminist views on prostitution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sah528.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Coffeebae1111.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rileywynn31.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feminism

The statistics in "A consequence and correlate of violence against women" are quite outdated and furthermore should probably make distinctions about what definition of "prostitute" they are using. Are these statistics from anyone who has been compensated for the consumption of their sexuality? Only for people that were paid for a physical sexual interaction? Only people who worked as street prostitutes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katriona16 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I'm copying this section over from Talk:Prostitution because this article got its start as a section of that article, and this section of the talk page is specific to content that is now mainly in this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'Feminism' section of this page is extremely one-sided. Feminist discourse is quoted as though it's FACT and people like Andrea Dworkin are given additional credibility as an 'ex-prostitute', but the sex work history of (for example) Norma Jean Almodovar, isn't mentioned. The feminist sex worker rights movement is active all over the world, but it only warrants two sentences at the bottom of the section? I don't believe the feminist argument should be portrayed AT ALL in this so-called 'encyclopaedic' description of sex work, but as a sex worker activist AND a feminist, if this section exists at all it should at least be broken up into TWO sections - 'Anti-sex work Feminist Discourse' and 'Pro-sex work Feminist Discourse'. Pro-sex work feminists believe that the prohibition of sex work is a direct result of the 'patriarchy' placing conditions, shame and control over female sexuality. They don't want us charging for something that men (excuse the generalisation) expect us to give up for free. We also believe that anti-sex work feminists have done more damage to the health and safety of sex workers than the 'patriarchy' ever did. Ashkara sands (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Feminism" section is not biased, it only presents the opinion of some (I would dare to say most) feminists; this section details and explains these views so people can understand them, and then it offers an example of feminists who hold such views (Dworkin, Farley, Bindel, Jeffreys, MacKinnon and Lederer). These feminist views are not quoted as "fact" as you say, they are described only as opinions, and there is nothing implying that these opinions are the "correct" ones.

Also, the belief that prostitution is a form of exploitation of women and that true consent to prostitution is nearly impossible, is not a fringe idea supported only by "radical feminists" (as I believe you are trying to imply) - in countries such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland these beliefs are widely accepted and they have already been translated into law, as paying for sex is illegal there, these views on prostitution are fully accepted among all the major political parties from those countries; there are also other European countries which have disccused/are currently discussing adopting similar laws (Denmark might be the next country to ban the buying of sexual servicies [1]), and very many prominent European politicians hold such views on prostitution. When you say "I don't believe the feminist argument should be portrayed AT ALL in this so-called 'encyclopaedic' description of sex work", you ignore the importance and the impact that these feminist arguments have all over the world.

In fact, most academical research appears to support such views on prostitution: "(...) most authors suggest that consent to prostitution is deeply problematic if not impossible(...)[2] "(...) However, most authors have argued that consent to prostitution is impossible. For radical feminists this is because prostitution is always a coercive sexual practice. Others simply suggest that economic coercion makes the sexual consent of sex workers highly problematic if not impossible..." "(...) In the academic literature on prostitution there are very few authors who argue that valid consent to prostitution is possible. Most suggest that consent to prostitution is impossible or at least unlikely."

[3] 123username (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to go to deep in the "one-sided" argument, even if I can't help myself of thinking that referring to Andrea Dworkin, as an "ex-prostitute" in this article can only be due to lack of information or partiality: she had had actually separated from her husband, had really serious money problems, and was even often homeless in her last months in Amsterdam and did incur in some prostitution activities for a little while (see the article Andrea Dworkin); not only this facts don't make her the really best person to talk about the legitimacy of the sex work (she was, I guess one could say, in a very specific personal situation when she prostituted herself - it would be like asking some poor fisher who had to be it despite of being affected by a Chronic Bronchitis to talk about the fishing profession and it's dangers for the breathing system), also the word "ex-prostitute" it's a litle bit pushed forward, specially here in an article about prostitution: if you would be a engineer and, while unemployed, would have done a few jobs selling some mattresses or some hovers, once you would have got an engineering job once again you wouldn't refer to yourself as an ex-salesman, would you???...instead, I would like to ask if an article of an encyclopaedia should reproduce arguments from a group or ideology even when they are clearly the outcome of the most common prejudices, and this without pointing out at least that one should use of prudence when facing this arguments. Like the follow: "Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation.[45] Prostitutes have sex with hundreds of strangers during a short period of time, an experience which will most likely traumatize them and have negative long term effects on their life". I guess there is no need to explain why I claim this to be the fruit of prejudice. Why should most prostitutes be in a difficult period of their lives? Should it be because the radical feminists case study was Andrea Dworkin??? Or just because most (and not even all) prostitutes one sees on the street look quite lousy and are often drug-addicted? What about the thousands who use agencies, cell phones, e-mails and other types of enrolling with costumers? Don't they often chose to be prostitutes because they like it and make more money in much less time? As for the hundreds of men during a short period of time... why not thousands or dozens, and how long is this short period? And for last, why should this "multiplicity" of men be likely to traumatize them? Many have said this to be the most exciting thing about their job. --Libmind (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the section was 'biased'. I said it was one-sided. It really only presents the anti-sex work feminist view, with two pro-sex work sentences tacked onto the bottom. That makes pro-sex work feminism look like some kind of fringe belief and therefore, does kind of imply that anti-sex work opinions carry more weight. I think the best way to portray these opposing views is with two separate feminism sections, each presenting as a stand-alone viewpoint, rather than pitting them against each other in one section.

I stand corrected about the feminism section - it does make sense to explain the feminist discourse that contributed to the creation of particular legislative models. However, this article only presents one side of the story. Sex worker activists around the world have also influenced law reform, achieving decriminalisation in places like Australia, New Zealand and, just the other day, Taiwan. The fight for decriminalisation comes from an equally feminist belief that women should be able to have control over their own bodies, support themselves financially and not be punished for engaging in consenting adult sexual behaviour. The sex worker rights movement also condemns anti-sex work activists for routinely discrediting and/or talking over sex workers in the public and political arenas. Ensuring women have 'a choice and a voice' is a basic tenet of feminism. Ashkara sands (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the whole "Feminism" section be moved to wikipedia's Feminism and Sex-positive feminism pages, with a brief summary & links here. Foxhead (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here a translation of the feminism section on german wikipedia: "Feminism has changed its view from strictly opposing prostitution to supporting those women who choose prostitution based on free will." thats all, and for me this sums it up pretty much (maybe missing is the feminist struggle to get woman out of prostitution who are forced into) but i guess the situation in german speaking countries is much more relaxed and can not be compared to the large community of english speakers from all over the world. Anyway, i am quite disturbed by this feminism section, because sex workers are almost portrayed as beeing abused nerve wrecks exclusivly, and this in the name of feminism, thats not advanced enough, and it beshames those women who enjoy their profession...(i know that the nordic countries are getting very restrictive towards prostitution, but in the netherlands prostitution even is a regular part of healthcare, as physically handicapped persons can get their visit to a sex worker paid by their health insurence...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.155.116 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Feminism has changed its view from strictly opposing prostitution to supporting those women who choose prostitution based on free will." Actually feminism continues to strictly oppose prostitution, in fact feminism is more opposed to prostitution today than it was in the past. That's why paying for sex was made illegal in Norway and in Iceland in 2009; feminists from those countries celebrated the decision: “This is a historic moment in Iceland, and in the international world of feminists"-said the feminists from Iceland.[4]

And that is why several European countries are currently discussing adopting similar laws against buying sexual services. You may not agree with these views, you may find them "disturbing" as you said, but these are the views held by most feminists, and they are gaining more and more acceptance around the world, and being translated into law in several countries.

([[[User:123username|123username][User talk:123username|talk]]) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be great support of this law in sweden not only by feminists and the government but also by large part of the population. Sexworkers and their organisations mainly critisize the law, fort he worsened working conditions, and even more because they are let out oft he political process of creating the law. Many sex workers are struggling for recognition and legalization of their work and their patience is growing thin. They were kind of expecting, also from feminists, that they would help them to improve their working conditions, now it looks like prostitution is fought on their expense. The unability oft the government to prevent trafficking schould not result in such onedimensional laws. Please somebody balance this extremly onesided view on feminism and prostitution, i have nothing to say against the apparently strong view now represented, but it seems that the views of those sex workers who want to work in a save environment and the reflection of this in feminist thought is underrepresented here… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libmind (talk • contribs)

Where is the reliable source that points, unequivocally, that restrictive points of view are the most common between feminists? Also, remember that "feminists" IS NOT a synonym to "feminist scholars". Feminism is a political movement, formed by tenths of millions of people OUTSIDE the academic bubble. Pointing that there are few people on the academy which defend the idea of prostitution as a consensual activity to proof that "most feminists" think the opposite way is as senseless as saying that most people defend the Austrian School of economics because most economists do such. I honestly can't get if you, 123username, couldn't notice this obvious fallacy or if you're simply blatantly dishonest.187.97.65.1 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder to format your talk page comments for ease of readability. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is still a completely unbalanced article, I count 22 paragraphs espousing the radical feminist view and 5 espousing the pro-sex feminist view. This is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.17.161 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Church Fathers

In order to verfiy whether sex-negativity is the traditional Western view of sex, a good idea would be to find appropriate quotes from the Church Fathers on the issue of sex, and compare them to contemporary views expressed by radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin. I would argue that there is a case to be made that the two are similar, and that in a some ways, the Church has always been radically feminist in her opposition to the illicit sexual exploitation of women. This could in fact be helpful for eventual attempts to reconcile the Church with the modern feminist movement. ADM (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and factual accuracy

First, let me thank the authors of this article for creating it to begin with, since clearly an article on this subject was needed in Wikipedia.

However, as for the article that's been created, my God, where to begin! This is one of the most severely unbalanced articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Prostitution and pornography are one of the most contentious issues in feminism, which means that a carefully-written, balanced article giving the different feminist points of view on prostitution. Instead, we get a very long section on feminist opposition to prostitution presented as the feminist argument against prostitution, then one short paragraph presented as "alternative views on empowerment". To top it off, the author of the article makes their editorializing very apparent by liberally using scare quotes when describing sex-positive views on prostitution.

Clearly, this article is in great need of cleanup. First, it needs to be made clear that this is dispute between two feminist views on prostitution, not "the feminist view against" versus "alternative views". Second, the section on pro-sex worker views is in need of replacement with a longer section accurately summarizing the views of sex-positive feminists and sex-worker rights activists (not the same thing, BTW, though overlapping and generally allied). The strawman/soundbite view of sex-positive feminism referring to sex work as "empowering" is particularly egregious, BTW, and is a very poor summary to the nuanced view of sex work in pro-sex worker feminism. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the entire article, I just transfered some relevant content in order to create a useful entry, while attempting to write a summary of what was already there.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that radical feminism is a dominant current among the feminist movement, because it tends to serve as a type of social orthodoxy, as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which has a reputation for heterodoxy. When you examine the different feminist organizations, their leading activists often come from the radical feminist crowd because that group had arguably been the most vocal in its opposition to what it deems to be violence against women.

ADM (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do think its inaccurate, and if you're going to declare sex-positive and sex-worker feminism a minority view, then you damn well better have some sources conclusively proving that radical feminism is the majority view. (This is one of the many contentious statements you've failed to back up with proper references, by the way.) I'm familiar enough with the literature on feminism and pornography to know that such a statement and such a slanting of the article is unsupportable. BTW, rather than have this conversation in three different talk pages, I think the conversation should take place here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a majority of women are sex-positive feminists, and perhaps most sex-workers are too, but I am skeptical that their views count for very much in ideological and intellectual terms. Feminism, as an ideology, has always been the product of a minority of female ideologists and activists who have come to exercise a surprising amount of influence on both women and men.

In politics, it is fair to say that minority views have always been more important than majority views, because politics is about dissent and pluralism, and not necessarily popular opinion. In the Catholic Church, to make a comparison that is equally valid for patriarchy, most Catholics are supportive of contraception, but the majority of Cardinals and Archbishops are strongly against it. They represent the leadership of the Church, in the same way that radical feminism tends to represent the leadership of the feminist movement (or feminist Church).

I am not so sure about American feminism, but I have read good deal of political literature in European and Canadian feminism, where radical feminism remains relatively strong. Sex-positive feminism seems to be somewhat concentrated in American intellectual circles because the United States as a society appears to be more concerned about the sexual aspects of feminism, instead of the legal and philosophical aspects of it.

Also, when you examine the writings of sex-positive feminists like Camille Paglia or Betty Dodson, they spend much of their time criticizing radical feminists such as Nikki Craft, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys and Catharine MacKinnon, which indicates that the latter group is rather influent in the area of feminist politics. That says it all in terms of political debates, which is what this topic is really about.

ADM (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, where to begin. First, I have to ask you – I see you've been doing a lot of editing on Wikipedia recently. Have you read up on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines? Specifically, the policies on NPOV, no original research, and verifiability? Because you definitely seem to be making a lot of contributions based on your hunches and gut opinions rather than by recourse to verifiable, published sources, and that's a problem.

Second, as to where radical feminism is in a majority and where it isn't – I'd say in the UK and Northern Europe, especially Scandinavia, and Canada, radical feminism is the majority tendency and very powerful. In countries like France nd Spain, radical feminism is decidedly less significant. In the United States, radical feminism is a a minority tendency, sex-positive feminism is common, however the majority of feminists fall somewhere in the middle. But this is all based on my subjective knowledge about the subject as much as yours is. Any statement in a Wikipedia article as to who is "the majority" had better be based on some solid references to solid published sources or it doesn't belong in the article. I'm familiar enough with the subject to say with some confidence that no such study of feminist opinion has ever been carried out, hence, these statements and the way you've slanted this article is simply not supportable.

Third, I think your knowledge of the feminist sexuality debates is highly dated. Indeed, sex-positive feminists were largely reacting against radical feminism, because that was a powerful tendency in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, the 1980s were the period of the Feminist Sex Wars, and radical/cultural feminism lost a considerable degree of support as feminism passed from the Second-wave to the Third-wave. In fact, anti-porn/anti-prostitution feminist activity largely ceased for much of the 1990s and early 2000s and only has begun to revive over the last 5 years.

Finally, you don't seem to have much understanding of the sex workers' rights position at all. While this is generally aligned and overlaps with with sex-positive feminism, it is not the same thing. It is based more on a labor-rights position than a sexual liberationist one. Margo St. James, Laura Agustin, Melissa Gira, and Audacia Ray are some of the key figures in this movement, and so far, I see no evidence that you're familiar with their work at all.

In any event, the way you've put together this article is a huge problem, has serious WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY issues, and basically needs rewriting. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about this subject and have some good references at hand, so its my intention to significantly expand the section on pro-sex worker feminism, and generally reorganize and rewrite this article based on verifiable, published sources. (I've also called in other editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force who are familiar with the issues at hand.) Finally, unverifiable statements about which tendency of feminism is the majority, which is the "real" feminist view, and which is "right" have absolutely no place in a Wikipedia article and I'm going to remove such statements where I see them.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that I don't mean to single out your edits entirely, except for the largely unbalanced form of the article overall, which seems to pretty much reflect the way you first wrote the article. However, the edits by User:123username are also responsible for some of the POV wording that has found its way into the article as well. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I only wrote the initial introduction and sub-sections by summarizing material that had already by written by other users. Both the intro and sub-sections have since been changed by either you or User:123username, so I am not really responsible for the current article's content. ADM (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking at Prostitution and Talk:Prostitution, I see that you indeed did not write this article but simply moved an already biased article section to article status and expanded the article by adding headers. The article history for this page made it look like you'd created the core content of this page de novo. I've imported the appropriate section of the talk page from Talk:Prostitution so that the background of the controversy around this article is given here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

I've done an initial cleanup of the article, rewriting areas where points of view were stated as fact, and rewriting the pro-sex worker section entirely. The article is now at least more or less factually accurate and not as editorializing. Until the section on pro-sex worker perspectives is greatly expanded, however, this article remains severely unbalanced and does not conform to WP:NPOV, so I've tagged it with an "unbalanced tag", which should remain until this problem is taken care of. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will note again that article is hugely unbalanced based on the fact that pro-sex worker feminism is almost not covered in this article, while there is a lengthy section on abolitionist feminism. It may very well be personal political perspective of User:123Username that the latter is the only valid feminist perspective, however, I remind this editor that articles in Wikipedia must conform to WP:NPOV, not this editor's political leanings. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi people, I have added a bit to the article, tried to include a greater analysis of the pro-sex work feminist position, and also to include arguments that are critical of both positions. I have also tried to use authors that are NPOV on the topic themselves, whilst identifying as feminists. Perhaps we should try to include a bit more about feminist analysis of current prostitution laws?

Either way, the article still needs quite a bit of work. Hope this helped anyway! AJMW (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I've been very busy with the Feminist views on pornography article, and haven't had time to work on this one. Your edits actually gets the article much closer to balanced, though this section still needs some fleshing out.

A couple of points, though. The use of the term "NPOV" describes a type of writing, not the views of a particular author. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an "NPOV author", since everybody has some point of view on a topic, even if it isn't one that readily falls on a particular side in an ideological battle. As Wikipedia editors, we can draw on sources from various points of view, but NPOV comes in to place in how we as Wikipedia editors present and balance such information. And as for Laurie Shrage, be careful about pinning her down to one point of view. What I mean is that her views have actually changed over time, from sympathetic to MacKinnon in the late 80s, to more or less pro-sex worker/sex positive from the late 90s onward. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote part of the "Other views" section for NPOV reasons – keep in mind that language that's might express favor toward a moderate position in a debate is still against NPOV. Also, characterizing such views as "Increasingly...the recent development" is not accurate – the sources cited are from 1994 and 2001, which is hardly "recent". And in any event, there have always been feminists who have written on the prostitution from the 1980s to today who don't fall into either camp. Also keep in mind that not all pro-sex worker feminists are coming from a "sex radical" or "sex positive" standpoint – while that is one important part of the pro-decriminalization/anti-abolition movement, that's not the extent of it, and its a caricature of pro-sex worker position to say its simply a bunch of sex radicals going on about "empowerment". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Morality of the anti-prostitution view

The first point to make is that, of course, no woman should have to work as prostitute. But then again no-one should go hungry in this world either and many, many millions do go hungry. This is Earth not Heaven. So some women, many women, do work as prostitutes. How much choice these women have varies enormously. I am reminded of a joke by Mark Twain:- Man to woman "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?" Woman "Oh yes", Man "How about for ten dollars? Woman "What kind of of woman do you I think I am?" Man "We've already established that, now we are just haggling about the price" This sums up the problem. Within the basic class of prostitution ie. woman provides sex for man for money there are huge differences of price and therefore the nature of the job. At the bottom end of the market there are the crack-addicted street prostitutes who will give blow-jobs for £20/$30 or so, whose existence seems so utterly miserable they are slaves in all but name. Then at the higher end there are women in flats in central London/New York/Chicago etc who can easily earn £1000/$1500 (tax-free) for one day's work and will only work one day a week if they chose and may well plan to retire by the time they are thirty five. Although both these sets of workers are prostitutes they have nothing in common at all. Until we can distinguish between these very different groups the whole argument is meaningless and this distinction should be mentioned in the article as it is crucial. If all prostitutes were the very badly paid crack-addicted street prostitutes then the anti-prostitution camp would be right but not all prostitutes are thus and so they are wrong in my opinion. I will try and work this into the article soon if no-one objects  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with what you say, this is not a forum for discussing personal views on prostitution. --386-DX (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging material from Abolition of Prostitution

I've added several chunks of material from Abolition of Prostitution, which just underwent an AfD process, and will be merged out and deleted. I regret that this material will further unbalance the article, but hope that it can be edited, salvaged, or merged elsewhere. Quite a lot of the material is social science research on women who perform sex work, so maybe there is a better home for it.

Please note that POV and WP:ESSAY issues in this material, which I am trying to limit as I move the material, remain, and that the POV is not mine, but that of the editors who constructed Abolition of Prostitution.

Finally, this article seems to focus on political views, rather than political activism. Any suggestions on where feminist activism on prostitution (from either side) should go? Thanks!--Carwil (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Male Prostitution?

Does feminism have any particular stance on male prostitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.203.134 (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• That would be an interesting question to research for inclusion in the article. It brings up a related point, which is that until that happens, perhaps it should state somewhere in the article that the article is mainly about feminist views on female prostitution - specifically female prostitutes whose clients are men, (and does "female" in this case means anyone who identifies as female?) However, there are larger areas of this article that still need a lot of work, so personally I am going to spend any time I have to edit/add to this article trying to work on those issues first, fleshing out the views that are under-represented, etc. I know there is (or was) some information in the Wikipedia article on male prostitution on feminist views on male prostitution. But you are welcome to add a section to the article (provided you properly source it & it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines of course) :-) MsBatfish (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am questioning a part of the article: "Third, all feminists recognize that commercial sex workers are subject to economic coercion and are often victims of violence, and that little is done to address these problems.”[3] Newman and White (2012). Women Power and Public Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 247. ISBN 0195432495.

Citation #3 does not appear to be correct. The title of ISBN 0195432495 is Women, Politics, and Public Policy: The Political Struggles of Canadian Women not Women Power and Public Policy

Is the use of the word all (all feminists recognize) based on the information in this text? I can argue that not all feminists agree with the stated point of view. I might agree with using the word most in place of the word all. I could not find a copy of the text to verify if it states that all (100%) of feminists recognize these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.162.221 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "all" is certainly inappropriate. Consider myself, who used to self-identify as a feminist, who could chose to do so again, and who disagrees with the above statement. I am currently the subject of economic coercion, as are most people who have day jobs. This is not a neutral WP:POV statement and should be excised. Further more, whatever it is replaced with should comply with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. TimothyJosephWood 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Feminist views on prostitution. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110306002439/http://www.prostitutionresearch.com:80/fempsy3.html to http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625230257/http://www.cpbn.org/program/intelligence-squared/episode/its-wrong-pay-sex to http://www.cpbn.org/program/intelligence-squared/episode/its-wrong-pay-sex
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111074300/http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/how_prostitution_works/000012.html to http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/how_prostitution_works/000012.html

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) 19:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Feminist views on prostitution. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914105702/http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/sullivan.rtf to http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/sullivan.rtf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410140946/http://www.ruhama.ie/easyedit/files/Ruhama-NextStep-6.pdf to http://www.ruhama.ie/easyedit/files/Ruhama-NextStep-6.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) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-org of Pro perspectives section

The section on pro-sex worker perspectives was a wall of text, so I'm doing a re-org. This mostly does not involve change of content, but addition of new H3 sub-headers, in parallel with the sub-headers already present in the #Arguments against prostitution section just above it.

This re-org adds new sub-section headers over existing content, with the names, #Economic empowerment, #Support groups, #Self empowerment, #Marriage analogy, and #Acceptance of women's sexuality. Feel free to improve the section titles.

The re-org also leaves a paragraph of introduction above the first new sub-header. The first three sentences of the intro are a restatement of the arguments against prostitution:

Traditional feminist views consider prostitution to be a flagrant example of male dominance over women. Feminists that oppose the practice do not consider prostitution to be a free choice, or a choice made completely of a woman’s own volition or autonomy. Rather, prostitution and sex work are considered to be the most pronounced examples of how society considers the female body to be a commodity ready for purchase.

Since the long #Arguments against prostitution section immediately above this one goes into great detail about the arguments against, it seems to me there's no need to duplicate those arguments here, so I removed those sentences. Re-org is ongoing. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Gender Neutral Wording?

I edited the section on "transgender, non-binary, and male sex workers" and was wondering if the page could be changed to be worded more gender neutrally? When writing about abolitionist feminists the feminists themselves usually discuss prostitution in terms of women sex workers, as well as the sections on violence against women being of course explicitly about women, but other sections such as the one on "economic empowerment" is still worded with women in mind. As not all people performing prostitution are women should the wording be changed? Thanks! Sah528 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Feminist views on prostitution → Feminist views on sex work – "Sex work" is broader, and the article already mentions that many of these overlap. AFreshStart (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is primarily about prostitution. There are also articles Feminist views on pornography and Feminist views of stripping and sex work (redirects to Feminist stripper). A broader Feminist views on sex work would need to include these articles and would be unwieldy. --John B123 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's also Feminist perspectives on sex markets. Colin M (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with John. If you think we should have a broad article that summarizes our articles on the existing subtopics Feminist views on prostitution, Feminist views on pornography, etc. you should feel free to write that article. But I don't think it would be helpful to expand the scope of this already rather long article in a way that would cause it to overlap with other existing articles. Colin M (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.