Talk:Sex tourism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed Changes

Hello, I am a student at Rice University and am planning to update and expand this article as part of a class project. I think this article is highly relevant and needs significant updates and expansion. I would like to first expand the general information section to include a discussion of motivations for sex tourism, as Pasi Nurminen suggested in her comment, focusing on differing policies surrounding prostitution and social norms in sending and receiving countries. I would also include more information on how sex tourism operates, and the kind of revenue it generates in destination countries. I also plan to add a "cultural attitudes" section to discuss social stigmas surrounding sexuality and prostitution, and how this motivates or influences sex tourism. I plan to expand the "oppositions" section to include a more thorough discussion of this issue's connection to human rights and capabilities. Finally, I would like to add a section for "economic and policy implications," outlining the effects of sex tourism on national economies and the resulting influence on policies. This section will also include academic research about different possible approaches to the issue of sex tourism.

I am planning to delete the sections "prostitution laws across the globe," "documentaries," and "academic studies." I will incorporate relevant information from these sections into other areas of the article. I hope this will make this article more thorough, informative, and well-organized. Please comment with any recommendations or possible other changes you think I should make. I would appreciate feedback on how best to proceed with this article. Thank you! LHall19 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

LHall19, I moved your section down, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

These additions contribute much to the overall article, particularly those on "Opposition to sex tourism" and "Cultural Attitudes" which provide various points of view and considerations from both sides of the debate. If more statistics or hard numbers could be provided in the "Economic and Policy Implications" section, this would make the studies cited, which offer theoretical support more tangible. Consider also adding subsections in "General" to break down the information and make it more readable. Great work!Katcai02 (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the maps

The map of North America indicates that prostitution is illegal in Iceland (red colour). The map of Europe indicates that sale of sexual services is legal, but the purchase is illegal, much like in Sweden or Norway (orange colour). Can someone verify which is accurate?

Also, Canada's legislation changed in 2014 and is now similar to that of Sweden, making the appropriate color orange. Could someone change this? -24.222.249.98 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the stated reasons for why people in developed countries should care about overseas sex tourism by their country's citizens?

I'm just curious, what are the reasons given by reliable sources for why people in developed countries should want to prosecute their country's citizens who engage in sex tourism overseas? What is the national interest in this? Has anyone ever written an article, or given a speech, explaining this?

For example, have developed countries signed on to international treaties against sex tourism because they need other countries' assistance in stopping sex tourism within their own borders? Thanks. Merdoza (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Extreme bias against child-adult sexual relations via use of weasel wording, derogatory language and American-only political viewpoints

Wikipedia's goal it create objective articles that are readable by individuals anywhere on Earth. Therefore, the view points listed in this article should reflect global views and not just western positions. Specifically, calling every adult-child sexual relation "child abuse" is to represent a view point that is controversial and non-standard in countries in south east asia, central america, Mexico and some countries in Africa. There is no point to editorialize and use heavily biased terms when we can describe this behavior in a politically neutral way. One example is saying "Brazil has the WORST child abuse rate" when we can say "Brazil has the highest rate of child prostitution". I understand adult-child relationships are a controversial subject and a very emotional one in many parts of the United States but this article must be kept politically neutral and reflect an objective world view. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, per what the literature states and per you adding unsourced material and going by your personal feelings on what is appropriate language for cases like this. And as for this, like I noted, "Sex with children is child abuse, depending on how 'child' is defined."

Pinging Herostratus and Legitimus for the opinions on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And what a "coincidental" edit I just reverted at the Child abuse article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please respond to my argument point for point instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on me personally. Specifically defend your reversion of the subjective and emotional "Brazil is considered to have the worst child sex trafficking record, after Thailand" instead of the much more objective "Brazil is considered to have the highest rate child sex trafficking record, after Thailand". Reverting statements to less NPOV is in serious violation of WP policy. All my edits on this page were made to make this page more objective. By reverting my edits you have made this page more emotional and subjective.

Also looking for feedback from other editors on this issue of compromised objectivity for the sex tourism article.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comments, including your "22:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)" comment, are not valid. That is my response. I already noted why I reverted you. And your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is inaccurate. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Just about all of your edits to any Wikipedia page concerning child sexual abuse are WP:Advocacy edits (we both know what type of advocacy), and you well know that I won't let them stand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sex tourism. 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/20100324040911/http://www.unicef.es/contenidos/582/Kenia_Tourism_exploitation.pdf to http://www.unicef.es/contenidos/582/Kenia_Tourism_exploitation.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.awigp.com/default.asp?numcat=sextour2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061225004505/http://goasia.about.com/cs/thailand/a/thailandsex.htm to http://goasia.about.com/cs/thailand/a/thailandsex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219164003/http://www.pattayapages.com/girls/academic.html to http://www.pattayapages.com/girls/academic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617133538/http://www.ecpat.net/ei/csec_cst.asp to http://www.ecpat.net/ei/csec_cst.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Motivation section

I think it's lacking a very clear and obvious motivation. I can only speak for myself but I travelled to where prostitution was legal to have sex because I was a virgin and unable to get a girlfriend (I'm on autism spectrum). I would think failing at relationships would be a common motivation so I'm surprised to see this not mentioned. Xanikk999 (talk)

Why was the positive aspects section removed?

I noticed it was removed a few months ago without any discussion taking place. Only the criticism section remains. Per WP:BOLD policy if nobody objects I will add it back in a few days. Xanikk999 (talk)

It's probably worth pinging @Barefoothannah: who added the section and @Roxy the dog: who deleted it. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

or, you could take a look yourself, and perhaps decide for yourself. I don't actually remember doing this, but it fixed the broken formatting and removed a significant chunk of OR. I'd probably do the same again. Hannah is unlikely to appear BTW. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I re-added the parts that were sourced from the postive aspects section. I don't see any OR but there was one section that had no citations so I left it out. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There were still issues. I'll take a closer look at this at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

More removed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex tourism. 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/20140904034255/http://dev.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/53 to http://dev.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603204047/http://www.libertadlatina.org/LA_Brazils_Child_Prostitution_Crisis.htm to http://www.libertadlatina.org/LA_Brazils_Child_Prostitution_Crisis.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Overview material

TantraYum, regarding this and this, whether it's used as the lead paragraph or not, it belongs in the Overview section...since the Overview section is meant to summarize aspects of the article that are to come. So it is completely unnecessary to have a "Legal issues" section there. MOS:Paragraph states that subheadings are usually not needed for a little bit of material. Plus, other aspects of the article deal with legal issues. But I'm not going to strongly oppose the new section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out.

Not sure how to proceed..... the whole article, other then the intro feels pretty messy and disorganized... and has bigger issues then where to put this one sentence.... this is just my attempt at a broad re-organization of the article.

As it was (and is now) the overview doesn't feel like an overview. It lists destinations and then this one sentence about legality. I think the first sentence in the demographics section would fit better in the overview and move the more detailed info in overview down to demographics. What do you think?TantraYum (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a paragraph rather than a sentence. But, yeah, the article needs work. It is sometimes worked on by WP:Student editors, which can cause problems. As for the Overview section, I'm not fond of overview sections since the lead should be the overview. If any material is better relocated to another section, we can do that and get rid of the Overview section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That was my thought exactly- yes lets get rid of overview. TantraYum (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Almost 1/3 of this article is not about sex tourism

As I look over this article, a solid chunk of it is about prostitution and child sex tourism. I propose moving the material about prostitution to the prostitution article and moving the information about chlld sex tourism to the child sex tourism article or the child sex tourism portion of this article. Thoughts? TantraYum (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)