Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sex tourism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:59, 2 January 2007 editEdgarde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 editsm fake edit to create Archive3 -- will undo immediately← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:01, 16 October 2024 edit undoJohnnyBGoode04 (talk | contribs)4 edits →Several mistakes: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
(308 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
== External links cleanup ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Travel and Tourism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid|sex-workers=yes|sex-workers-importance=high}}
}}


== Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program assignment ==
] did some nice work on the External links cleanup. However, since a link was retained to a site in which he seems to have a ], I'm restoring the cleanup flag so another editor can evaluate the External Links section in an impartial fashion. — ] 07:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an ] at Rice University supported by the ] during the 2015 Spring term. Further details are available ].]


{{small|Above message substituted from {{tlc|WAP assignment}} on 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
Sex tourism should be a fun topic and I see many people on here arguing. Just have fun people. Cheers from Aussie. Peace, Nicole. {{unsigned|Rollinglucky}}
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-23">23 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-10">10 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
: I just reverted two (2) edits (by two new accounts) that deleted data without explanation, including ''all'' external links (some of which I think might be worth keeping). The above comment notwithstanding. &mdash; ] 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-02-15">15 February 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-05-06">6 May 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
It's good to see some new editors taking an interests in this page. Thank you Edgarde for resorting the links. At this point, Edgarde and I are in agreement, and we need other editors to review the links at the bottom of the page. First, please read ]. Then add comments to the discussion of your response to the links we have. Once the links are determaned suitable we need to delete this tag that is currently above the links: '''External links|November 2006'''
== Can we talk about that map of the USA? ==
<br>As for my input, the links are acceptable, and I have no problem with the tag being removed at this time, considering it's been there for over a week so far.<br>
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


The North America map has a grey area representing the State of Nevada, where prostitution laws vary by country. That being said, the grey shape on the red US outline looks ''nothing'' like Nevada. Can someone correct that please? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Message boards==


== Contributing ==
I think part of the debate around what should be and not be included in the links has to do with do we include stuff like World Sex Archives and the like.


Hi! I would like to contribute information to this page.
I do not have an answer to this, however I know that it is a definite part of "sex tourist" culture and hence added in a sentence about it, with a reliable source. ] 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
--] (]) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


== Gay Sex Tourism ==
:I don't see any inappropriate links as far as I can tell. I thought all of them were interesting to read and have something important to add about sex tourism. ] 00:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I think this page is missing a section on gay sex tourism so I am currently working on it. ] (]) 18:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your feedback, however it is a good practice to read (or at least click on) the links you are reviewing, and I recommend this as an aid to formulating an opinion. There has been a near the top of that list for weeks, and it seems to have gone unnoticed by several reviewers. &mdash; ] 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


== Expanding on Opposition ==
Who deleted all the links and replaces the link to Sly Traveler with the one to World Sex Archives? That is a prostitution website, which is already included on the Prostitution page. There were also other good links on there when we setup the tag to review the links. Besides, other editors expressed value of the links, and this edit does not follow the flow of the discussion. This does not respect the say of the majority of editors since the tag was introduced. I don't agree with this change. I'm reverting the edit. Also, I suggest that the tag be removed. This is unproductive and prevents other editors from bringing new content to the topic.<br>
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I feel the Opposition section could use some expansion. I added violence as a factor for sex workers as well as HIV statistics amongst sex workers. ] (]) 06:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
: World Sex Archives (my change, recommended by another editor) is a more mature prostitution website than Sly Traveler, with more information and more points of view represented; its inclusion on ] does not rule it out as a sex tourism site, which in fact it is. Please stop reflexively reverting my work. See article history for explanations of my edits. &mdash; ] 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


: {{reply|Lifeisgood20}} Hi, I didn't see any statistics about HIV, just an out of date assertions that " risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is high among persons who exchange sex for money or non-monetary items". This was true 20 or 30 years ago in many third world countries, but thanks to education, condom campaigns, access to healthcare etc, ] figures suggest HIV prevalence amongst sex workers is no longer significantly higher than the general population in most countries.
::Hi edgarde, on this page you have indicated that Daniel Knodel appears to have a vested interest in the Sly Traveler website. Given this hasn't been denied, I would suggest that Daniel shouldn't edit war to reinstate this link. ] 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


: Whilst there is violence against sex workers, I haven't seen any evidence that sex tourism increases this. Figures for the US, which is generally not a destination for sex tourism, are irrelevant here. --] (]) 17:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
::: Addhoc: thank you &mdash; however, Mr. Knodel has a history of dismissing my suggestions.


:: {{reply|John B123}} Hi, thank you for your feedback. I am curious, if my expansion on HIV was better supported with more up to date material, would you find that its place in opposition of sex tourism, should revert? As far as violence amongst sex workers, I find that its prevalence should remain in this catagory because, even though sex tourism isn't a "legal" market in the US as it may be in other countries, there is still a large underground sex tourism market, which should not go ignored. Therefore we also shouldn't ignore the violence that these sex workers (legal or not) endure. What are your thoughts? ] (]) 02:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
::: KyndFellow:
:::# Please do not edit war to reinstate links to the Sly Traveler website, in which you have consistently ''not denied'' having a vested interest.<br />
:::# While their opinions are welcome, none of the "majority of editors" to which you refer spotted the dead link, which implies their review of the External Links section has been rather superficial.<br />
:::# Misplaced Pages, while somewhat democratic, doesn't strictly work on the electoral campaign model, and this "majority of editors" are mostly new to Misplaced Pages, and mostly joined this discussion as a result of your ] . (Not a serious problem I guess, at least by how it turned out in this case.) Others I imagine may have joined from the reciprocal link on your website. (Thanks!) You're going to have trouble representing these editors as a credible consensus on Misplaced Pages.


::: {{reply|Lifeisgood20}} Hi, objections such as health risks, violence, stigmatism etc are more general objections against prostitution rather than specifically objections to sex tourism so would be more appropriately addressed in the ] article, unless of course there is evidence that sex tourists behave more violently or take more health risks.
::: The "majority of editors" have added in total one sentence to the article (with citation, good work!), and indirectly one section (also good news). World Sex Archives was suggested on this Discussion page by another one of those users, understandably cautious about making changes; since it's an improvement, I made that change. Those things are (in my opinion) the significant input by the new editors, and hopefully they will contribute more.
::: There is also the problem of over-generalisation. Iceland, surprisingly, has become a sex tourism destination for men from Northern Europe in recent years. Both HIV and violence against women are extremely low in the country. Compare that with Bahrain, a middle east destination for sex tourism, where generally women are second class citizens and prostitution carries harsh sentences, violence is likely to be high because there is little risk of the victim reporting it. In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV prevalence rates are high amongst the general population, so compared to Iceland sex tourism to say Kenya carries higher risks.
::: Additionally, grouping sex workers together can also be misleading. Using your figures for the US, the murder rate quoted will be far less for legal sex workers in Nevada, but far higher for street workers in inner cities who prostitute themselves to feed their drug habits.
::: I do think there should be included in the article, although not as opposition as it is historical, the spread of HIV in the 1980s and 1990s through sex tourism. Prior to understanding HIV, it's causes, prevention and care, particularly by the general public, sex tourism did play a part in the spread of HIV. Sex tourism to sub-Saharan Africa, especially Kenya, and gay sex tourism to Haiti are the usually quoted examples. --] (]) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


The subject needs more to compare with. One can go to a nightclub in Goa and experience violence and HIV. How is sex tourism per se any better or worse? Nobody has the numbers. The authors of papers sound as if they have never left academia, and are relying upon subjective tales from people who perhaps don't enjoy having casual sex with strangers.] (]) 12:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
::: By the way, do read the ] link. It's often considered a dodgy practice and might make you look bad.


== Russian law and its Enforcement ==
::: Overall I need to thank you for driving improvements to this page. The progress on ], painstaking though it may have been, has been in net very positive. &mdash; ] 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


{{diff2|1049339522|1049260772|07:55, October 11, 2021}} - ''«Undid revision 1049260772 by John B123 talk) we should clarify which countries don't enforce the formal prohibition strictly»'' <br>
::::Excuse me, I did read the links. I haven't seen them for 2 weeks like you have. Why didn't you say something if you found a dead link? Anyway, Mr. Knodel is right, World Sex Achieves is already on the prostitution page, and there is more about sex tourism destinations on Sly Traveler. Also, you are right that I read some of the links superficially, because most of them were about repetatitive information on advocacy groups.
{{diff2|1049260772|1049250505|20:22, October 10, 2021}} - ''«Undid revision 1049250505 by Alexander Davronov talk) Probably true of other countries too»'' <br>
::::] 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{diff2|1049250505|1047908876|19:05, October 10, 2021}} - ''«‎Prostitution across the globe»''
: {{re|John B123}} I propose to keep details because it's unclear whether the laws are alive or dead. Best.
<span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 07:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


: {{re|Alexander_Davronov}} Firstly your additions are unreferenced, secondly, I'm not sure this is the right article to bring out enforcement of prostitution unless it has a direct impact on sex tourism.
::::: Thanks for your input. In fact I did delete the dead link last night during a cleanup that was promptly reverted by ... well check the history if you're really into this. It's a long, repetitive story. I think I've basicly explained it all in prior comments. &mdash; ] 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
: Your additions have been reverted. Per ], you need to gain consensus here before re-adding them. --] (]) 08:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|John B123}} You are advised to ] such information first; please see ]<br>{{re|John B123}} Relative to ]]: I added it by mistake; I know about talk. <span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 09:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|John B123}} I've added sources to a similar statement, take a look: ]]; The section was badly arranged/named so I didn't notice that there is a duplicate; I propose to close this discussion <span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 09:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


== Unclear definition ==
KyndFellow: regarding that last :


The opening sentence is: "Sex tourism refers to the practice of traveling to foreign countries, often on a different continent, with the intention of engaging in sexual activity or relationships in exchange for money or lifestyle support."
When replacing ''BBC News: UN damns Czech-German child sex'' with the Sly Traveler link, using "Links fixed" as an Edit summary may appear disingenuous.
This definition seems to say that sex tourism is traveling to another country and have sex in order to receive money or lifestyle support. I don't think that's correct. Aren't the people who practice sex tourism those who travel to another country and PAY locals there for sex? ] (]) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


:I added an edit for this ] (]) 08:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I need to ask again: '''Can you please not edit war to reinstate the Sly Traveler link?''' By appearances it is a site in which you have a vested interest.


==Wiki Education assignment: Sex, Gender, and Culture==
Elsewhere the reinstatement of old POV text that has been discussed extensiveiy on this page &mdash; sentence by sentence in the case of the intro section you reverted &mdash; doesn't seem wise or justifiable. If I recall correctly, you have said several times in comments since those revisions that you "agree" with the revisions from which you just reverted.
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Northern_Kentucky_University/Sex,_Gender,_and_Culture_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-08 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)</span>
The summary deletion of links critical to sex tourism could be, you know, POV. Meanwhile, the "Expatriates talk" link you restored to External links has since last night been moved to the article body text as a citation &mdash; you might remember that from when you reverted it last night &mdash; and has been tagged {{tl|Verify credibility}}, so it has problems and maybe should be removed entirely.


== Grammar ==
All in all, an inexplicable and disruptive editing session. To what should I attribute this? Nostalgia? &mdash; ] 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


The following quote from this article does not form a sentence, and has no meaning: "The World Tourism Organization of the United Nations has acknowledged about this industry is organized both within and outside the structured laws and networks created by them." ] (]) 19:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
: Sorry, didn't mean to be disruptive, in that I was writing my discussion commment when you made your edit. You need to give me some time to post on the discussion page regarding our edits please. Edit waring has been going on since we started this dispute, with countless reverts and controdictions by various editors, not just me. I was hopeful that we had reached an agreement, and that you would remove the tag as other editors come along. We need to include the links I've mention in the next section and not confuse "child sex tourism", "child abuse", or "human trafficking" with '''sex tourism'''. <br>
:Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


== Male sex tourism ==


How come there is no definite information about male sex tourism?
== Distinction from "child sex tourism" ==
Although the article hints that male sex tourism is more common, there is no information found about it. While female sex tourism even got its own Misplaced Pages page.


Is this just because of sensationalism? I would really like to get some reliable information, especially regarding the numbers and other countries than South East Asia. Is there a way to flag a Misplaced Pages article so that hopefully experts on the field get it brought to their attention? The way it is know, people are none the wiser after reading this page. ] (]) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Def Trojan, I couldn't agree more. is included already on the prostitution page, and is more of a sex tourism website that covers the destinations related. I also read the link to "vested interest" and can't believe what you are accusing me of. You think someone is paying me to tell you about Sly Traveler? You also said that it is my own website. That is not true. I used Sly Traveler to provide external links to many international attractions of sex tourism destinations mentioned in our discussion, and feel it is an important referance as I have shown you. I thought you were being respectful when you said I have a vested interest. Yes, I do have an interest in sex tourism.


== The 250,000 number ==
This page is too one-sided. Not only that, it covers issues that are not even part of sex tourism, which do not respect the cultural customs of the host counties of sex tourism destinations. Sex tourism activity is done legally within these counties. We have deleted unbiased links about sex tourism and replaced them with links about child abuse and human trafficking, which are not part of the topic. We have other pages on Misplaced Pages where you should put these contributions, such as ], ], and ].


Given the suspicion behind other ] in this field and the general difficulty of estimating criminal behavior I've been trying to track down the original source of this statistic and the citation leads to nothing because of link rot:
'''The following links should not be removed from this page:'''
* by ], published in ], ] ].
*
*
*


The . (.) is dead and links to that isn't archived on the wayback machine.
A distraction needs to be made between '''child sex tourism''' and '''sex tourism'''. They are different topics. I've replaced the previous description which accounts for '''age of consent''' in explaining this, which was already here, and which I did not write myself. I've explained in the discussion the difference between legal age of consent and pedophilia. Nonetheless, I compromised with you in overlooking this distinction earlier, and it needs to be replaced as it has not been respected in editing this page since then.<br>
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


There are other sources which also list the 250,000 number and I which cites this paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281066431_SEX_TRAFFICKING_IN_THE_TOURISM_INDUSTR that claims the number is from World Vision Australia.


Looking at modern publications from World Vision Australia such as https://www.worldvision.com.au/docs/default-source/buy-ethical-fact-sheets/trafficking-and-sexual-exploitation-fact-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=2
:I totally support the creating of a seperate article as does the new sources that are showing up, academics interviewing sex tourists and the info about female sex tourists. I propose "Child sex tourism" and "Sex tourism" as the two page names.] 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
<br>


it states that "It is impossible to accurately assess how many people are victims of sex trafficking worldwide" and they don't provide any estimates.
:: Devalover, I think that would avoid a lot of confusion, and reduce much conflict on this page. What would you think of adding a link to the "'''child sex tourism'''" term in the following paragraph, and creating a new page for that. I'll help with the new page, and it would be great if Edgarde and AddHoc could contribute some of their edits in it as well.


Looking through World Vision's historical publications on the wayback machine however I found this which states that there were 250,000 sex tourists total and that that number includes child sex tourism. The wording of the paragraph is quite confusing and it seems believable that someone could have misinterpreted what the number meant when citing and that that misinterpretation eventually ended up on Misplaced Pages.
::: Often the term "sex tourism" is confused with the term "'''child sex tourism'''". A tourist who has sex with a ] possibly commits a crime against international law, in addition to the host country, and the country that the tourist is a citizen of. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the ]. <br>
:: Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


That World Vision document also claims that the actual source is from a childwise document retrieved in 2009 but the same url in 2010 contains no reference to the 250,000 number at all: https://web.archive.org/web/20100707032103/http://www.childwise.net/downloads/Child_Wise_Tourism_Information_S.pdf
:::: I would definatley support it. I propose we wait a few days to see what Edgarde or AdHoc have to say. ] 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: I still think it would be beneficial to avoid confusion between '''sex tourism''' and '''child sex tourism'''. One other alternative I can think of would be adding a subsection on our current sex tourism page for '''child sex tourism''', and then separating the links into different categories of sex tourism wherein editors can make their contributions without conflict.
::::: Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Given that the current citation is dead, reputable organizations no longer cite this number, and that at least one citation chain ended up in what I can only assume is a misinterpretation I think it would be best to remove the statement that "250,000 travelling internationally to engage in sex tourism with children and youth alone" entirely as unsubstantiated. ] (]) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
=== "Child sex tourism" edits ===
KyndFellow: Thanks for accommodating sections in chronological order. It's a lot of discussion and chaotic edits will lose some readers, especially those that don't read this page every night.


== Several mistakes ==
====restoring "Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies"====
Has online ''books'' on the subject of sex tourism as well as various closely related topics (such as trafficking and child prostitution). This is probably the best link we have in the article. Deleting this borders on vandalism. I hope this was an oversight, and not just a pro- sex tourism POV promotional edit.


The sentence "Sexual activities that involve minors are universally non-consensual and illegal" is completely wrong, the vast majority of countries have an age of consent below 18, it would be more correct to talk about the prostitution of minors since that is indeed universally illegal. ] (]) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
==== restoring links in alpha order ====

The links Mr. Knodel wishes to segregate as "Child sex tourism" do in fact contain information about ''Sex tourism''. I'm returning these to unbroken alphabetical order.

Mr. Knodel's attempts to fork "child sex tourism" from ] is consistent with his pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits. It constitutes ] at best, and may even be considered ]. Many references on the subject of sex tourism will give some special consideration to child sex tourism, as the opportunity to have sex with underaged partners is a major attraction to some sex tourists. It is understandable that advocates for the sex tourism industry will be very upset by this, but denying it is not appropriate here.

==== restoring less argumentative intro paragraph ====

Nobody is "confused" about the difference between "sex tourism" and "child sex tourism" &mdash; the distinction is self-evident. However, Mr. Knodel is apparently attempting to bifurcate the definitions so that "child sex tourism" will be considered ''not'' sex tourism, instead of a ''subset'' of sex tourism. This is ] and cannot stay.

That explains my current edits. I'm sure a revert will not be needed. &mdash; ] 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:<small>Note 2006-12-03 : all these changes were in fact reverted on , with a flimsy non-explanation designed to look like a plausible mistaken overdelete (Mr. Knodel frequently claims "inexperience" as a defense). When called on this, ] repeated the , with no further justification in Edit Summary or on Talk page. This is during a period where KyndFellow routinely demanded all changes be justified on the Talk page. &mdash; ] 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)</small>

===Links Mr. Knodel insists must be retained===

The following links fit the image of sex tourism Mr. Knodel wished to promote 85kb ago. They are not appropriate for the following reasons:

*

: This is a page with a brief review of a book (along with several other books on unrelated topics, none given a particularly academic treament), and does not add significant information to the article. The phrase "sex tourism" isn't even used in the review, as the book does not (as far as the review mentions) about commercial sex, but travel with sex (a concept Mr. Knodel had conflated with sex tourism, and hopefully isn't wishing to revive yet again).

: I removed a similar link to a movie on a similar topic for the same reason (insufficiently informative). Unfortunately my edit summary (for both) said something like "already under ]". This was a mistake and probably worse than having no edit summary at all. I guess I was distracted by what a mess ''that'' article is. Not a defense, I know. Very sorry for confusing this issue.

*

: Not sufficiently informative to remain as an External link, but was moved (by me) to the article body under ''Criminality and controversy'' as an inline reference. It was then tagged (not by me) {{tl|Verify credibility}}, and later removed (not by me, but it was a good remove) as an inadequate citation. It should not be reinstated it without meeting the {{tl|Verify credibility}} and ] requirements.

: Fortunately Mr. Knodel has given up on it. No biggie. &mdash; ] 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

=== Proposed new pages for "Child sex tourism" and "Research on sex tourism" ===
Such pages would certainly be deleted. This idea is fundamentally flawed because it creates a deliberate ]. Academic research on sex tourism is highly encyclopedic, and desireable in this article. We really need more. As we have an academic in our midst, I'm sure much can be added.

As for child sex tourism, as mentioned above, it's an important subject in the discussion of sex tourism &mdash; it's not the ''only'' subject, but the current intro section is well balanced in that respect, addressing it concisely and then moving on without argumentation. &mdash; ] 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
: I suggest we make a sub-topic for child sex tourism if a new page for it will not do.<br>
: Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

==Discussion about Sly Traveler==


: Mr. Knodel: On the basis of 90kB of previous discussion, all your new edits need to be reverted. But it's old news so I'll cut to the chase.

:# '''Is The Sly Traveler your website?'''
:# '''Do you have a business relationship to The Sly Traveler?'''
:# '''Do you have what according to ] would be considered a conflict of interest?'''

: I'm not saying specificly that someone is paying you, but I do believe you gain some benefit from it, a la ], and I think it is probably your site.

: Please answer these three (3) questions in an uncharacteristicly straightforward manner. The rest can wait. &mdash; ] 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:: I was involved in creating a substantial proton of Sly Traveler, but I have never been paid for doing so, nor am I promoting myself. The site is a helpful resource to sex tourists, which exists to provide information on travel safety and the cultural aspects involved. Like Misplaced Pages, it is not a commercial site, and uses ] to distribute information, rather than to profit commercially. If you look on the "links" section on the main page, you will see that it only promotes sites like Colombia University's guide to safe sex, U.S. Department of State's travel safety information, a currency exchange rate website, and Misplaced Pages itself -- none of which provide revenue to me or anyone involved.

:: As for my eligibility to edit this page, I have as much of a right as you do.<br>
:: Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: So are you saying, '''No''', '''No''', and '''No'''? '''Yes''', '''Yes''', and '''Yes'''? Or some other permutation?

::: I asked you three very straightforward questions, and you answered ''other'' questions rather than the ones I asked. &mdash; ] 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: <small>Note: the following comment (restored in bold) was by KyndFellow. I'm restoring it for context (it refers to a conversation minutes earlier in the first half of '']''), and because this is the <u>2</u>nd time (here's the ) KyndFellow has deleted a comment mentioning ''']'''. I'm sure there's an explanation for it happening "by accident" twice. &mdash; ] 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

::: '''Mr. Knodel: put the puppet down. Answer the questions. &mdash; ] 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)'''

::::'''No''' it is not my site. '''No''' I do not have a business (commercial or finically profitable) relationship regarding Sly Traveler. '''No''', I'm not promoting myself, and there is no mention of me on Sly Traveler.<br>
::::Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for your cooperation. If you are not being reimbursed in money, how are you being compensated? Do you expect your business to ever become profitable? &mdash; ] 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm not being reimbursed. I'm involved with Sly Traveler for the same reasons I edit Misplaced Pages. I have an interest in the topic and it was a work of creativity. There is a community of sex tourists on there that give reports from all over the world, as a matter of personal interests. It's not a business either, just like Misplaced Pages is not. We use ] to distribute information freely to all those who find it helpful. I don't expect it to become profitiable any more than Misplaced Pages. <br>
::::::Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== A visit from Knodel's advocate ==
Hello. I am acting as an advocate of Daniel E. Knodel (]).

Daniel wants to add a link to a website that does not have commercial interest. He is doing this because he thinks the page will be helpful to our readers. It is important to assume good faith until there is evidence of the contrary. I can thus not see how it can be justified to remove the link on the criteria that it constitutes a conflict of interest.

It appears that it is mainly one editor, ], who is opposing the addition of the link to Sly Traveler, in addition to also opposing some other things that Daniel wants to add to the article. At this stage, ] appears to be an appropriate way to progress. However, if the deadlock persists, Daniel has expressed that he wishes it to be taken to ], and indeed I can not see any other way. However, arbitration is to be avoided, since it will take several weeks (months?), and will detract those involved from contributing to the encyclopedia.

Regards, ]-] 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: I don't expect mediation to work because I don't believe KyndFellow is acting in good faith, or that he will abide by any agreement that doesn't benefit his website. I find it hard to believe you can read the above comments and come to any other conclusion.

: Also, I am not the only editor who objects to his spam link, as you can see from the Article history and (deleted) on ]. I just happen to be the only one foolish enough to respond to his disingenuous nonsense on this page.

: This has gone on long enough. We should go to arbitration. This page is already unstable from frequent sweeping reversions and reinstatements of old, highly discussed and disputed POV promotional edits at the expense of new, often annotated edits. &mdash; ] 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

==Arbitration specifications==
''This section is meant to provide specifications of what opposing parties '''do''' and '''do not''' want included in the dispute resolution.''<br>
''These specifications concern the content of the article before the request for arbitration was filed, as posted for review on '''November 25, 2006.'''''
<br>
===Mr. Knodel's requests===
:<small>]</small>
: ''I’m requesting that this page be used for the opening section and external links included in the article.''

====What I do want====

:*The following description of sex tourism included, as it is nonjudgmental and I agree with it as being accurate and true.
:::'''''Sex tourism''' is travelling for ] with ] or to engage in other sexual activity. The ], a specialized agency of the ] defines sex tourism as "trips organized from within the tourism sector, or from outside this sector but using its structures and networks, with the primary purpose of effecting a commercial sexual relationship by the tourist with residents at the destination". <ref name ="WTO">U.N. ] ''''''</ref>

:*The following distinction to be made between "'''sex tourism'''" and "'''child sex tourism'''", with this particular wording. It describes the basic difference between the two phenomenon without making assumptions and without including extraneous variables. It also takes no point of view, and explains how '''age of consent''' and '''child prostitution''' relate to '''child sex tourism''', which are all necessary terms that must be included in describing child sex tourism and the issues pertaining to it.
:::''Often the term "sex tourism" is confused with the term "child sex tourism". A tourist who has sex with a ] possibly commits a crime against international law, in addition to the host country, and the country that the tourist is a citizen of. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the ].''

:*The following links to be included in the article, at least including both sex tourism and child sex tourism links. This also includes the link to Sly Traveler of which I am involved with, out of personal interests. Or else I suggest putting the child sex tourism links on a separate Child Sex Tourism page. Furthermore, I would like to make the suggestion of introducing a seperate section for Child Sex Tourism, where editors can make new contributions on the topic without conflict.
:::'''Sex Tourism''':
::: by ], published in ], ] ].
:::
:::

:::'''Child Sex Tourism''':
::: BBC News
:::
::: &mdash; targets child sex tours

====What I do not want====

:*The following paragraph, which makes assumptions regarding laws, judgmental sex tourist interests, the availability of sexual promiscuous behavior in unspecified countries, and the outcomes of such behaviors. This includes time constraints and political issues that can change after the description is posted on the article as definitive. It is not descriptive in showing how the mentioned terms relate to each other. Instead, it confuses child sex tourism with sex tourism.
::: ''An attraction for some sex tourists is access to ] that is unavailable in their home country. Several countries have recently enacted laws with extraterritorial reach, punishing citizens who engage in sex with minors in other countries. These laws are rarely enforced since the crime usually goes undiscovered.''

:*The following paragraph, which basically says "all aspects of sex tourism are bad." There are no direct quotes mentioned to support this claim that the editor has made. The general ramifications to such ambiguous entities as "social", "economic", and "health" are not supported. Instead the editor tries to act as a representative for the political organization in attempts to dictate an authoritative opinion, which he is not qualified to do so. Moreover, the U.N.'s general stance is not definitive to the topic, but instead uses the article as a soapbox to promote political view points.
:::''The ] opposes sex tourism citing health, social and cultural consequences for both tourist home countries and destination countries, especially in situations exploiting gender, age, social and economic inequalities in sex tourism destinations.<ref name ="WTO"/><ref>U.N. Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women (OSAGI) ''''</ref><ref>U.N. Congress On The Prevention Of Crime And The Treatment Of Offenders Press Release ''</ref>''
::-- ] 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
<br>

===edgarde's request===
<small>Edit 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC). The "Arbitration Specifications" section is a red herring initiated (perhaps mistakenly) by Mr. Knodel. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been considered for the current arbitration, or in any way binding over the content of the ] article. I'm striking this to avoid ambiguity &mdash; for information on my positions in the arbitration, please see the following:</small>
<small>] | ] | ]</small>
<strike>
:<strike><small>]</small></strike>

<strike>
====What I don't want====
</strike>
:<strike>*'''Content review''': Paragraphs, phrases, sentences, links, and implications have been micro-reviewed on this Discussion page (starting ], a long read) to no avail. Furthermore, after such a review concluded, any addition to the article would likely reboot the edit war.<br /><br />That said, I'm willing to reply to any of the points listed in Mr. Knodel's arbitration spec if an Arbitrator thinks they merit discussion.<br /><br />
:*'''Mediation''': It's illogical to accept mediation when I know in advance that Mr. Knodel will not abide by any agreement that requires him to not enter his spam link. Having his site linked from the Article drives him to make further POV edits.</strike>

====What I want as soon as possible====
:<strike>Mr. Knodel revised ] to a somewhat slanted hybrid article, purportedly to "include all available information under review until the dispute is resolved by the arbitration committee". This was probably done with the intention of freezing the Article to benefit his website for the duration of the Arbitration process.</strike>

:<strike>Since this Arbitration is framed as a dispute between me and Mr. Knodel, a reversion to any edit by another editor other than ] or ] would be acceptable during this process. This will spare me the trouble of a dispute with Mr. Knodel over the content of the hybrid page.</strike>

:<strike>Preferably, it should be a page not linking to a commercial sex-related site, at least in the ''External links'' section. <small>&mdash;] 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC).</small></strike>

:<strike>For the committee's review needs, here:</strike>
:<strike>* a page with (prior to the arbitration request)</strike>
:<strike>* the previous page with , reverted <sup>()</sup> by Mr. Knodel.</strike>
:<strike>My goal here is not to preserve my own work, but to see this article is kept encyclopedic, NPOV, and all that good stuff.</strike>

====What I want from this arbitration====
:<strike>Limits on Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.. His edits are self-serving, unencyclopedic, and disruptive, and he seems willing to go to any length to push his POV.</strike>

:#<strike> Mr. Knodel should be required to not add his website to Misplaced Pages.</strike>
:#<strike> Mr. Knodel should be required to not edit pages on subjects of sexuality or sex industry. He has not demonstrated the ability to do so without attempting to draw traffic to his website, or the ability to refrain from injecting POV edits.</strike>
:#<strike> Mr. Knodel should be Discouraged (but not outright banned) from editing Discussion pages from sexuality or sex industry topics.</strike>
:#<strike> Because Mr. Knodel has used sockpuppets in the past (and could recruit meatpuppets from his website's forum), any entry of The Sly Traveler should be removed. If merited, equivalent but more notable websites can certainly be substituted. (An obvious exception should be in the case that either Mr. Knodel or The Sly Traveler themselves become the subject of a Misplaced Pages article.)</strike>

====Please be advised====
:<strike>I left the following out of my ], strictly to keep things concise.</strike>

:*<strike>Prior to , ] and ] always used the unlinked text signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.". Mr. Knodel (logged in as KyndFellow) has acknowleged that both these accounts are his. This may be confusing when you review the article history from more than a couple weeks ago.</strike>

:*<strike>Mr. Knodel deletes other editors' Discussion page comments cagily, including &mdash; check contemporary Discussion page histories to be certain. He has been repeatedly advised on this, and always claims inexperience as a defense.</strike>

::&mdash; ] 08:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC), '''Struck 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) , see ]'''

===Comments===
I suggest that the article include all available information under review until the dispute is resolved by the arbitration committee, and that this discussion be discontinued from the point forward until then.<br>
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm don't know that making a hybrid article serves a purpose &mdash; I don't expect the arbtitration committee will be doing a line-by-line review. Anyway, you left out a few things, some which were discussed on this page. I also think you've slanted some items, and favored your edits overall.

:I'd point out the ones that I noticed quickly, but it's probably not worth the effort at this point. Anyway, I won't be interested in making a compromise page. &mdash; ] 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::I want to briefly defend myself in response to Edgarde's most recent accusations. Although Addhoc is an advocate for Misplaced Pages, he is not involved in this case as an advocate, and has no authority here beyond that of other editors. Therefore, I have not broken any code of conduction concerning his input. He wants Sly Traveler removed, but I don't agree with him on that. In particular, as an editor, I have a right to contribute a link that I’m interested in, which pertains to the topic, and have not made any edits to the page content as a conflict of interests. As an advocate I think he has a responsibility not to take sides in disputes as a bystander.
::Edgarde persists on turning our disagreements into a personal attack against me. Throughout this discussion he has disrespectfully called me a "fool" and said my ideas are "nonsense". He accuses me of being paid off and impersonating other editors. He tries to exploit my inexperience with editing Wikipeadia and make it look like I'm performing malicious acts. These are examples of how Edgarde has been extremely disrespectful to me and the other editors who do not support his point of view throughout this discussion.
::I understand that Edgarde must be frustrated by having new editors change his previous contributions on this page. But, if any editor deserves to be suspended for misbehavior, it is him. Still, this is not what I’m asking for. I just want other editors and I treated with respect on this page, and be able to make new contributions without conflict. In particular, I requested arbitration in order to end the attacks and work together toward agreeable page content
::Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


:::For the avoidance of doubt I'm not an advocate for Misplaced Pages, I'm a member of ] in the same manner as your advocate, which doesn't give any extra authority. Also, strictly speaking we have editing privileges not rights. Concerning your supporters, I would comment they are ] and their views could, in this context, be discounted. ] 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: As an advocate of Mr. Knodel, I think I should mention -- as a defendand of his case -- that the page on ] is not regarded as a policy or even guideline on Misplaced Pages, and that it therefore by itself shouldn't be used to justify any actions.
:::: Not withstanding, single purpose accounts naturally have much less credibility than established accounts.
:::: ]-] 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)



==Re-did Intro==

I tried to re-structure the intro with eveyrone's interests in mind. Hope it helps. ] 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for the article to remain static while people slug things out. It is easy to refference versions via the edit history.

Arbitration can take weeks and months. If you 2 want to stay out of it during that time, please do. My edits, I believe, move in a direction that is pleasing to all parties... which is the purpose of arbitration! ] 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:Delover, I see your point. But don’t you think that the second paragraph is a little too vague:

::''The United Nations opposes sex tourism citing health, social and cultural consequences for both tourist home countries and destination countries, especially in situations exploiting gender, age, social and economic inequalities in sex tourism destinations.''

:I have no objection to including this if it is better explained, perhaps in a new section. Direct quotes on health, social, and cultural problems particular by the U.N, in this case, would be much stronger than a sweeping authoritative opinion. I hope you can understand, I still disagree with this as it is. If you want to try to work this out with me during arbitration, I'm willing to do so. But if we can’t come to an agreement, I'll ask to revert the page to full content until the dispute is resolved.
:] 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


::I would love to tighten that up with more direct quotes or refferences.... and one step at a time! :) ] 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover: I didn't even want to look at this article again, but I must say that's nice work on the intro section. Much appreciated.

If anyone goes into direct quotes and detail on that U.N. stuff, I think it should go below the TOC. Might need a new section, depending on what's being added.

I guess my remaining issue is the ''External links'' section, but it's a can of worms I don't want to open during the arbitration. &mdash; ] 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::Devalover, I think you were right originally to not get involved. Your most recent edits to the sex tourism page ignore just about all problems I cited in the '''Arbitration Specifications''' section. This really disappoints me. Please just accept full content until we can get some help.<br>
::] 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Uh oh. Looks like I shouldn't have commented. &mdash; ] 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::::What do you think of this version? It takes out the time constraints and outcome assumptions, but still includes the WHO.
::::] 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::No one cares about "including the WHO". The point of that paragraph is to list common concerns about the bad effects of sex tourism &mdash; the U.N. is used as a concise citation because you had issues with "some advocacy groups". Please restore the paragraph.
:::::You have deleted and weakened this paragraph frequently in the past, and it has been discussed repeatedly and at some length on this Talk page and ]. &mdash; ] 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I disagree with Kyndfellows's total removal of the cited material- however after sitting with it for awhile I realized that I see some wisdom in it. So, usually in Misplaced Pages, when their are controveries associated with a topic, in order to maintain NPOV, usually the controverises are not given more then a sentence or two in the intro and then they are dealt with below. I have tried to take into account what both of you are after- and come up with a solution that could work? As I sit with it, it really isn't NPOV to have so much poo-poo on sex tourism right in the first paragraph, however to not include all the poo-poo would be, well OR, there are probably very few reliable sources that have much POSITIVE to say about sex tourism! ] 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::"Delover, I see your point. But don’t you think that the second paragraph is a little too vague:

::''The United Nations opposes sex tourism citing health, social and cultural consequences for both tourist home countries and destination countries, especially in situations exploiting gender, age, social and economic inequalities in sex tourism destinations.''"

::::::Well, read source #1. The UN is pretty opposed to sex tourism! " Aware of the grave health as well as social and cultural consequences of this activity for both tourist receiving and sending countries, especially when it exploits gender, age, social and economic inequality at the destination visited; The General Assembly Rejects all such activity as exploitative and subversive to the fundamental objectives of tourism in promoting peace, human rights, mutual understanding, respect for all peoples and cultures, and sustainable development" I think that sentence in the article sums it up, the UN considers sex tourism as whole to be "exploitive and subversive to tourism!" ] 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover, this revision is acceptable to me. It lacks substance, but it is neutral, and you made a good point about keeping brief on controversial content. I just want to mention that your use of entities such as "health", "culture", and "social" are much too ambiguous and general to apply absolute distractions to. HIV is lower in a government-regulated program of prostitution than in countries that don't have one. Crimes such as rapes and child molestations are also lower in these countries. Culturally, people have the freedom to follow their way of life and they have respect for their native customs. Socially, people are traveling to other countries to see other people. But still, you can find examples that support the same statements from a different view point. In short, I like your solution. :-) <br>
] 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Prostitution does not equal sex tourism ==

An IP user added a number of destinations with another Wiki as documentation. I'm not certain all these changes are 100% wrong, but it's obviously overinclusive &mdash; London, for instance, is not a Sex tourism destination, unless practically every city in the world is. When questioned about this, these links
were offered as documentation. These pages may demonstrate the existence of prostitution in parts of England (which no one was disputing), but it's not relevant here.

Presence of prostitutes or red light districts is not the same thing as Sex tourism.

2nd revert. Please don't restore these edits.

P.S. That user also took the liberty of restoring the ''External links'' section in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel. Perhaps he'll be claiming inexperience as a defense. &mdash; ] 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:First off, I disagree with his RAP page definition of "red light district", as most such districts do not have "window prostitution", and the districts of Amsterdam and Mumbai are the only examples of this that come to mind. Second, prostitution is illegal in London, and England is not a sex tourism destination because this type of activity is not culturally expectable there.

:Edgarde raises an interesting question of whether all red light districts can be considered evidence of a presents of sex tourism in these locations. Red light districts have traditionally catered to sailors, and in recent times, these districts are still found in heavily traveled areas. It is not common for native people to participate in prostitution at red light districts, because there are usually more exclusive forms of prostitution to be found in those countries. I agree that prostitution is not always sex tourism, as there are occasions when local people who are not tourists participate in prostitution. But red light districts are usually for foreign travelers rather than local people.

:Also, I thought we were going to not have the Protection Project link? Did you want to include that now Edgarde? It's not a sex tourism link... If you must include it, please move it to the Child Sex Tourism links, because the essays that you showed us in Arbitration were clearly about Child Sex Tourism. I want to respect your edits, so I'm asking for you to make this change please.
:] 06:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::A couple sources &mdash; I'd dig up some links but I'm in a hurry today and I think we're mostly in agreement for once &mdash; distiguish "travel to engage in sex" and "sex while engaged in travel". In other words, if someone sets up a brothel in a city that has lots of foreign visitors, and this grows into a ], it's not ipso facto ''sex tourism'' even tho people from out of town are performing certain deeds there.

::The obviously fuzzy line is crossed when sex tourists (i.e. travelers with sex as a primary goal) start coming (generally without other business or intents) because the place is worth the trip for just those activities. Until then (and the reasoning risks becoming circular here) it's not a sex tourism destination.

::London? Maybe it has more desireable prostitution opportunities than the next town over. But even if a businessman chooses a meeting location based on where he can more easily hire a prostitute afterward, the decision does not by itself demonstrate sex tourism.

::Sailors are a similar example &mdash; few navies choose ports on the basis of hooker supply.

::''In other news...''
===John Hopkins Protection Project link proffer===
::I've mentioned Protection Project a few times already, most notably ] and in the ]. You seem to already be aware of my opinions on this by now, so I won't repeat myself here. We've ''never'' agreed to not link Protection Project, nor that it is specifically a "child sex tourism" link (which it is not), nor that a separate "Child sex tourism" ''External links'' section has any merit (it ]).

::My current minimum of activity in this article is not a sign of agreement with your edits or settlement with you &mdash; I'm basicly deferring to diminish the revert war. At this point I am just letting other editors change your edits because you revert mine reflexively. &mdash; ] 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, it is good to agree on some things regarding the content. I think it's more beneficial for the article when we can discuss the content in this way. That is true that you want the link to the Protection Project and that I think it is generally irrelevant, as we had discussed before. Also, I think it is unfortunate that you continue your hostile attitude at the end of your statement. Other editors are just as likely to change your contributions over time, and if you treat me with disrespect I'll be likely to support them. But if we can agree on content such as with the relationship between red light districts to sex tourism, we will be able to maintain the article with greater stability over time. Also it is good to see you demonstrate some knowledge on the subject in this previous statement, instead of posting for argumentation sake alone.

:::You didn't discuss the changes you made to the external links section, which do not follow either of our Arbitration Specifications. I wouldn't object to putting the Protection Project up, at least temporally, since you showed the essays related to sex tourism, although the site generally concerns criminal activity such as human trafficking, child molestation, and child pornography. Also, I wouldn't object to using your new format with the titled links followed by descriptions. Would you want restore the link sections of '''sex tourism''' and '''child sex tourism''' into a single group? The Projection Project poses an example of a site that deals with both of these categories and can just as well be placed in either. This causes a conflict with our current dichotomic system of classification. If you want to use just one section for all external links we can, at least until the conclusion of Arbitration. I've currently placed all external links into one group. What are your thoughts on this?<br>
:::] 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
===External links desegregation proffer===
::::My opinion on your "dichotomic system of classification" of ''External links'' has already been stated explicitly, notably ] and ], so it's surprising to hear this is unknown to you. Still, I appreciate your changing position on this, even temporarily. &mdash; ] 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
==="Arbitration Specifications" red herring===
::::Also, it sounds like you've still not noticed that no one considers your "Arbitration Specifications" binding over the content of this article, per statements in the current arbitration and on . I've not seen this procedure (which you introduced here) described as official policy ''anywhere'' on Misplaced Pages, so your insistence that we abide by it seems arbitrary and unreasonable. To avoid further confusion on this, I have struck out my portion of that statement on this page. &mdash; ] 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
=== Talk page discussion requirement===
::::While I support discussion of changes on this Talk page, one of the problems I have with your ''requirement'' that all changes be "discussed" on this talk page (which you say above is , and in other places simply demand) is that you don't read, don't remember, or perhaps simply at your convenience ignore much of it (as documented above in the ] and ] proffers). Which, since you've been editing and reverting so aggressively, means my writing on this Talk Page often is simply typing into a void. &mdash; ] 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Locations ==
Thailand.
While Phuket is a more popular and well known general tourist location in Thailand that includes sex tourism. Pattaya is clearly a location that is dedicated almost exclusively to sex tourism. I dont know Phuket that well but well enough it is bigger but probably has alot more non-sex tourists so if I were going to identify a place in Thailand if not the world I would mention Pattaya instead and I am tempted to edit. I hazard a good guess that on any day there is much more "sex for money" going on in Pattaya than Phuket. But for someone considering the phrase "sex tourism" as not necessarily pejorative I have to qualify this conclusion.

Note that "bar girls" in Thailand never refer to themselves as prostitutes and this probably goes for most of the general Thai population also. Although I beleive that there are words in Thai for prostitute they mostly (at least the girls) prefer to call themselves "rented wifes" albeit for "short time" rather then "long time". I therefore need to be qualify my Pattaya versus Phuket statistic in order to be accurate as excluding sex between husbands and rented wifes particularly of the "long-term" married western kind that typically eventually end up with a large exchange of capital in the "wifes" direction whether during the marriage or at its end or both. There is no such thing as a free lunch and "everybody pays for it".

] 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:Mattjs, this is just excellent. Everything you have said here is true as far as I know. Polygamy and concubines are acceptable customs in many Eastern countries. The term prostitution is not often present or translatable, as it actually means to defile or degrade. This does not have respect for the values and customs of these countries. Sexual relationships are more often based on trade such as arranged marriages or payment between families. For example, in India it is traditionally customary for a man to pay the woman’s father before asking for her hand in marriage. Compensation for a sexual relationship is not looked down upon.

:As far as the locations you mentioned in Thailand, you are probably more familiar with this than me, since it seems you live much closer to them. But the areas that are most popular in Bangkok are the district of Patpong and the areas along Sukhumvit Road. The locations you mentioned maybe connected to these, or translated in another language. I would appreciate if you could explain this a little further. I have no objections to you editing this page.<br>
:] 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about Bangkok which I entirely forgot, although I dont really know Sukhumvit, I do know Patpong and it is very small compared to Pattaya even if we allowed for a very very much larger Sukhimvit I feel. Guess I will have to find some prostitution oops "rented wife" ststistics to back up my claims eventually I am sure that they exist in the form of local council licences if not for "beer bars" then certainly for "gogo bars" which are highly regulated in Thailand and typically much more so than "brothels" in most countries in the west. However the local thai council records may not be able to distinguish between houses for "farang" (western sex tourists) and for the locals in their statistics so "sex tourism" may be a notorious difficult field to quantify I feel which may also add to the vagueness and impracticality of this term I feel. I note also that Thai (men) are also by far the largest consumers of their own produce again without citation but which goes to some of the cultural issues I have already mentioned. ] 07:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:<small>(Mattjs: I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of fixing your paragraph breaks where I could find them. Long, unformatted text dumps are hard to read!)</small>

:You seem to know what you're writing about, but Misplaced Pages could use some citations. Can you ]?

:Also, a lot of your insights here run off-topic, and this really isn't the place to rail against exploitation of factory laborers. (Yes, I understand you're comparing it to sex work, but it's off-topic argumentation that doesn't help the article, and might fit better under ], local nomenclature notwithstanding.)

:By the way, I'm not seeing the religious implications in the ''Sex tourism'' concept. If you're arguing about cultural attitudes toward sex work, again that belongs under ]. With sufficient ], you might contribute to an article on ''Sex work in asian countries'', or maybe something broader about sexual mores in those cultures. Be sure to check for ] (''"I hate value laden western labels..."'') in your work! &mdash; ] 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::Matts yeah you have lotsa information and to add it into the article it does need citations.] 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Mattjs, Bangkok is definitely a highly relevant sex tourism destination, even more so than Amsterdam. The forms of sex tourism you describe in Asia are much more prevalent than in Europe. You are welcome to contribute on the discussion or this Sex Tourism article.

:::Your references to Western and Eastern religious difference are also well grounded. I don't see a necessity to elaborate on this with citations or otherwise, since I believe you wanted report on the '''locations''' of sex tourism. <br>
:::] 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

===Need for citations===
{{epigraph| quote = ... it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. | cite = }}

] is one of the "pillars" of Misplaced Pages. (For the rest, read here: ]). If there is any doubt about this, please review ].

For tips on how to cite sources, read ]

Somewhere on Misplaced Pages, probably in a few arbitration decisions, there's a saying like ''"it is better to be verifiable than to be correct"''. Wish I could find it cos I'm not sure I have that verbatim, but that is the message.

No matter how well you know the subject, someone who objects to their country being listed ]. We absolutely need citations; we're lucky to have lasted this far, since this article doesn't document every country listed, and a few others are only weakly documented.

And we've had editors append countries without reason, or with obviously poor reasons.
Like I said, it certainly appears you know what you're writing about. But we need citations. &mdash; ] 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Mattjs, if you want to write about the locations, just please tell us a little more about them, so we can be in agreement of our edits on the main article. It’s not necessary to find citations for this type of information, although it would help if you can find it. There are plenty examples of this in Misplaced Pages. Praise be to Jimbo Wales.
::I'm going to add a non-fiction book section for related publications on sex tourims, since it seems to be important to some editors to have these type of external sources.<br>
::] 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Excellent, Edgarde. I noticed you put the books into prefect APA format. It looks much better. Thank you for taking the time do that.<br>
:::] 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Ummmm I request that Mattjs NOT write about locations and tell us a little more about them HERE. Please do that on a blog or your user discussion page. This page is for discussing the article, and unpublished first hand accounts don't have anything to do with this article.

::::Anyway- if you start up with your storoes, I'll have to start up with mine... and we'll have a WSA here at wikipedia!

::::It is VERY neccesary for citations, any uncited fact can be removed from wikipedia by anyone. And given that this article has been/was/is in the process of arbitration, citations are needed here more then ever.] 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

===Publications on sex tourism locations===

For anyone interested in learning more about sex tourism destinations mentioned in nonfiction publications, here are some books on the subject. These books can be found through popular sellers such as Amazon.com. Although these books are very informative and entertaining reads, they are not conclusive, because sex tourism is an ever-changing topic, which is the reason why participate-observation is also important. Nonetheless, these publications do support the observations mentioned above, and they will be helpful to anyone interested in visiting sex tourism locations.<br>

Please add more publications on sex tourism locations if you feel they are important:

*'''Hello My Big Big Honey''', by Dave Walker & Richard S. Ehrlich is a collection of love letters and interviews documenting the interactions between Bangkok bar girls and the foreigners who rent them, with a preface essay written by Dr. Yos Santasombat, professor of sociology and anthropology at Bangkok's Thammasat University.
*'''Hedonist: World Vacation Guide For Sex Tourism''', by Brett Tate is an entertaining travel guide with information on the world's most popular sex tourism destinations.
*'''Sex Tourism''' by Chris Ryan & C.Michael Hall is a discussion on the issues which emerge from interactions between sexworker and their clients.
*'''Sex and Tourism: Journeys of Romance, Love, and Lust''' by Thomas G., Ph.D. et al. is an extensive review examining the different expressions of sexuality that arise out of tourism.<br>
] 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


BEAUTIFUL! This kind of information could totally turn this into a very amazing article! Please cite stuff from this books. And I have 2 "Patpong Sisters" and "My Name is Lon, you like Me?" which I will get around to including. ] 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::Sounds good, Devalover. I haven't read those books, but if they're about Patpong, I image they must be revelant to sex tourism.<br>
::] 07:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

===Citing Locations in the article===
How should we cite the destinations in the article? There are a few important destinations we have left out. We might also want to include Argentina, Chile, Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, The Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Ukraine, and Australia (where various forms of prostitution are legal and traveled to for). These are some other big ones that are included in the books on our list.

I will be away for a while after Christmas, due a medical emergency, but hopefully some of you can follow up on this, through the sources I have left you.<br>
] 06:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism accusation ==

Mr. Knodel seems to have learned a new word. Here is his recent Edit summary:
<blockquote>Deleting new link that includes porngraphic advertisments. Restoring Sly Travel. Edgarde commits vandalism twice, ignore abritration, and attempt to continue edit war</blockquote>

Here are my recent edits:

m (→Female Sex Tourism Destinations - snip excessive quote)

m (→Destinations - fixed reference (first name not showing in Notes, may be a problem with "authorlink" parameter))

(rv undo accidental deletion)

(rm repetitive " - Cairo (Egypt)" + more citations)

(→Female Sex Tourism Destinations - add Caribbean Voice citation for Jamaica)

(fleshed out in-line reference from WTO+ citations Brazil, Cuba + comment on Cuba & "major" destinations)

(fleshed out in-line reference from WTO)

m (spaced citation templates for easier editing)

(→Notes - 2 columns, smaller text. This is gonna get long.)

(→Destinations - Protection Project link for Dominican Republic)

(→Destinations - fleshed out in-line references from Wired & New West Indian)

So Mr. Knodel: I think the first "vandalism" accusation you made was over removing the link to your website, The Sly Traveler, which several editors around here agree is spam. But what is the 2nd instance of "vandalism"? Can you identify this for me?

Here are your edits during the same period:

(Deleting new link that includes porngraphic advertisments. Restoring Sly Travel. Edgarde commits vandalism twice, ignore abritration, and attempt to continue edit war)

So, you've been protecting your website, and coming out against sites which contain pornography. Certainly an unexpected development. You also added a list of books with locations for prostitution, which I formatted per MoS.

Me I've been providing citations, which is time-consuming work &mdash; especially since you often delete well-referenced text in this article &mdash; but is required by Misplaced Pages.

And accuse me of attempting "to continue edit war". Can you explain that a little?

Also, I think I have contributed ] to the arbitration (that I would remind you, you initiated). How can you say I have ignored it? &mdash; ] 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:Edgarde, I don't want talk to you again about policy violations. And I will not address you again unless it is purely about the content of this article. If I keep replying to this kind of thing, it is just a waste of time for everyone, and your subsequent rebuttal would be just as useless, and so on.<br>
:] 06:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

::This isn't an issue of policy. It was a personal attack. Vandalism is not an accusation one should make casually. If you believe I am vandalising this page, there are forums for your complaint. Unsubstantiated accusations in Edit summaries are not the place for this. C.f. ] &mdash; ] 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== ''External links'' sections deleted ==

Good riddance I say. Nothing but trouble. Let's not restore them during the current arbitration. &mdash; ] 02:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion removing EL improves the article. Perhaps that will give incentive for someone to add the material that is perceived as valuable in those links to the article itself. If it is not worth the trouble, then the link probably served no purpose anyway. ] 03:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:Any opinion on the ]? To the best of my knowledge, they were not used in the preparation of the article. However, some of the editors seem to want them reviewed or used for citations or something. Harder to verify, and I don't know how notable these tomes are.

:And really anyone can just enter "Sex tourism" on Amazon.com for a comparable list. That's where I found all the ISDN #'s. &mdash; ] 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

::This is at least more neutral. As the Taoist would say, "It does nothing, but there is nothing left undone.”
::If arbitration cannot achieve a neutral solution to the links, I support having no links at all.<br>
::] 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:01, 16 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex tourism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTravel and Tourism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality: Sex work Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as High-importance).

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program during the 2015 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlienLemonade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 February 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ialderton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we talk about that map of the USA?

The North America map has a grey area representing the State of Nevada, where prostitution laws vary by country. That being said, the grey shape on the red US outline looks nothing like Nevada. Can someone correct that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.203.188 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Contributing

Hi! I would like to contribute information to this page. --Lifeisgood20 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Gay Sex Tourism

Hi, I think this page is missing a section on gay sex tourism so I am currently working on it. Lifeisgood20 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Expanding on Opposition

Hi, I feel the Opposition section could use some expansion. I added violence as a factor for sex workers as well as HIV statistics amongst sex workers. Lifeisgood20 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lifeisgood20: Hi, I didn't see any statistics about HIV, just an out of date assertions that " risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is high among persons who exchange sex for money or non-monetary items". This was true 20 or 30 years ago in many third world countries, but thanks to education, condom campaigns, access to healthcare etc, UNAIDS figures suggest HIV prevalence amongst sex workers is no longer significantly higher than the general population in most countries.
Whilst there is violence against sex workers, I haven't seen any evidence that sex tourism increases this. Figures for the US, which is generally not a destination for sex tourism, are irrelevant here. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@John B123: Hi, thank you for your feedback. I am curious, if my expansion on HIV was better supported with more up to date material, would you find that its place in opposition of sex tourism, should revert? As far as violence amongst sex workers, I find that its prevalence should remain in this catagory because, even though sex tourism isn't a "legal" market in the US as it may be in other countries, there is still a large underground sex tourism market, which should not go ignored. Therefore we also shouldn't ignore the violence that these sex workers (legal or not) endure. What are your thoughts? Lifeisgood20 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lifeisgood20: Hi, objections such as health risks, violence, stigmatism etc are more general objections against prostitution rather than specifically objections to sex tourism so would be more appropriately addressed in the prostitution article, unless of course there is evidence that sex tourists behave more violently or take more health risks.
There is also the problem of over-generalisation. Iceland, surprisingly, has become a sex tourism destination for men from Northern Europe in recent years. Both HIV and violence against women are extremely low in the country. Compare that with Bahrain, a middle east destination for sex tourism, where generally women are second class citizens and prostitution carries harsh sentences, violence is likely to be high because there is little risk of the victim reporting it. In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV prevalence rates are high amongst the general population, so compared to Iceland sex tourism to say Kenya carries higher risks.
Additionally, grouping sex workers together can also be misleading. Using your figures for the US, the murder rate quoted will be far less for legal sex workers in Nevada, but far higher for street workers in inner cities who prostitute themselves to feed their drug habits.
I do think there should be included in the article, although not as opposition as it is historical, the spread of HIV in the 1980s and 1990s through sex tourism. Prior to understanding HIV, it's causes, prevention and care, particularly by the general public, sex tourism did play a part in the spread of HIV. Sex tourism to sub-Saharan Africa, especially Kenya, and gay sex tourism to Haiti are the usually quoted examples. --John B123 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The subject needs more to compare with. One can go to a nightclub in Goa and experience violence and HIV. How is sex tourism per se any better or worse? Nobody has the numbers. The authors of papers sound as if they have never left academia, and are relying upon subjective tales from people who perhaps don't enjoy having casual sex with strangers.78.16.51.157 (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian law and its Enforcement

07:55, October 11, 2021 - «Undid revision 1049260772 by John B123 talk) we should clarify which countries don't enforce the formal prohibition strictly»
20:22, October 10, 2021 - «Undid revision 1049250505 by Alexander Davronov talk) Probably true of other countries too»
19:05, October 10, 2021 - «‎Prostitution across the globe»

@John B123: I propose to keep details because it's unclear whether the laws are alive or dead. Best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Firstly your additions are unreferenced, secondly, I'm not sure this is the right article to bring out enforcement of prostitution unless it has a direct impact on sex tourism.
Your additions have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, you need to gain consensus here before re-adding them. --John B123 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: You are advised to WP:TAGGING such information first; please see Keep it, don't remove!
@John B123: Relative to : I added it by mistake; I know about talk. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: I've added sources to a similar statement, take a look: ; The section was badly arranged/named so I didn't notice that there is a duplicate; I propose to close this discussion AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Unclear definition

The opening sentence is: "Sex tourism refers to the practice of traveling to foreign countries, often on a different continent, with the intention of engaging in sexual activity or relationships in exchange for money or lifestyle support." This definition seems to say that sex tourism is traveling to another country and have sex in order to receive money or lifestyle support. I don't think that's correct. Aren't the people who practice sex tourism those who travel to another country and PAY locals there for sex? 2001:4643:1480:0:AD7B:6A5D:4100:A18F (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I added an edit for this Fox.Walczak (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sex, Gender, and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peacheslovely777 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Esteban1517.

— Assignment last updated by Discourseparty (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

The following quote from this article does not form a sentence, and has no meaning: "The World Tourism Organization of the United Nations has acknowledged about this industry is organized both within and outside the structured laws and networks created by them." 162.253.11.91 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Male sex tourism

How come there is no definite information about male sex tourism? Although the article hints that male sex tourism is more common, there is no information found about it. While female sex tourism even got its own Misplaced Pages page.

Is this just because of sensationalism? I would really like to get some reliable information, especially regarding the numbers and other countries than South East Asia. Is there a way to flag a Misplaced Pages article so that hopefully experts on the field get it brought to their attention? The way it is know, people are none the wiser after reading this page. 2A02:3100:3A98:4301:19E8:C2F9:3A5E:4B88 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The 250,000 number

Given the suspicion behind other widely cited and incorrect statistics in this field and the general difficulty of estimating criminal behavior I've been trying to track down the original source of this statistic and the citation leads to nothing because of link rot:

The current citation. (archive link.) is dead and links to another dead article that isn't archived on the wayback machine.

There are other sources which also list the 250,000 number and I found one which cites this paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281066431_SEX_TRAFFICKING_IN_THE_TOURISM_INDUSTR that claims the number is from World Vision Australia.

Looking at modern publications from World Vision Australia such as https://www.worldvision.com.au/docs/default-source/buy-ethical-fact-sheets/trafficking-and-sexual-exploitation-fact-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=2

it states that "It is impossible to accurately assess how many people are victims of sex trafficking worldwide" and they don't provide any estimates.

Looking through World Vision's historical publications on the wayback machine however I found this This article which states that there were 250,000 sex tourists total and that that number includes child sex tourism. The wording of the paragraph is quite confusing and it seems believable that someone could have misinterpreted what the number meant when citing and that that misinterpretation eventually ended up on Misplaced Pages.

That World Vision document also claims that the actual source is from a childwise document retrieved in 2009 but the same url in 2010 contains no reference to the 250,000 number at all: https://web.archive.org/web/20100707032103/http://www.childwise.net/downloads/Child_Wise_Tourism_Information_S.pdf

Given that the current citation is dead, reputable organizations no longer cite this number, and that at least one citation chain ended up in what I can only assume is a misinterpretation I think it would be best to remove the statement that "250,000 travelling internationally to engage in sex tourism with children and youth alone" entirely as unsubstantiated. Null Reject (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Several mistakes

The sentence "Sexual activities that involve minors are universally non-consensual and illegal" is completely wrong, the vast majority of countries have an age of consent below 18, it would be more correct to talk about the prostitution of minors since that is indeed universally illegal. JohnnyBGoode04 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: