Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution in Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCProstitution in Europe is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 5, 2008Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

Stylistic uniformity

[edit]

Both the following expressions recur.

In ... prostitution is legal
In ... prostitution is not illegal

It'd be better if the words 'legal' and 'illegal' were used and double negatives avoided.

Belgium has decriminalized prostitution

[edit]

The map also does not reflect the current reality that Belgium has decriminalized prostitution as of June 2022 Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Abolitionism"

[edit]

The picture caption says "Abolitionism - Prostitution legal and unregulated, excluding organized activities such as brothels and pimping"; are you certain that this is what "abolitionism" means? I think "abolitionism" is prostitution being illegal. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MiguelMadeira: Hi, I agree with your logic but academic classification is per the map key with prostitution being illegal classed as Prohibitionism. --John B123 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terms prostitute and prostitution instead of sex worker and sex work?

[edit]

Is there so much variation in English-language usage that prostitute and prostitution are still acceptable in some dialects? At least within the community of sex workers in the United States these terms have been exclusively pejorative for decades, and the only respectful terms are sex worker" and "sex work". Is there some way that the title of, and usage within, this article and other such articles meets English Wikipedia guidelines? Or can we change them all to use respectful language? Stephan Leeds (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago there was a lot of editwarring between editors changing prostitute to sex worker and others making changes the other way. Generally those who support or are tolerant of prostitution prefer the term sex work whereas those who oppose it oppose the use of sex work as, in their view, it legitimises an illegal/immoral/violence against women activity. There were also some editors changing prostitute to full service sex worker, claiming this was the current academic term.
In the US and Australia prostitute is pejorative. In the UK less so and within the industry escort is the term most commonly used.
Sex work is a much broader term than prostitution, including strippers, pornographic actors/actresses etc. Whilst within an article such as Prostitution in Europe the use of sex work is not ambiguous, using it in an article title could lead to readers legitimately expect say Sex work in Europe to include striping and pornography in the region.
There was previously a discussion over which term should be used (which I can't find now or would link to). The general consensus was neither sex work/sex worker or prostitution/prostitute was preferred and it was an individual's choice which to use when adding content, but that whatever term was used it should not be changed by subsequent editors. There were others others who thought terminology should follow that used in reliable sources, which would lead to prostitute being used in more historical articles, (sex work only came into use in the 1980s) and sex worker used in more modern/current articles.
With regard to article titles, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NDESC could be argued, but in my view as sex work is a broader term WP:PRECISE favours prostitution. --John B123 (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sex worker 'terrified' by plans for new prostitution law for UK including Scotland (2025 May)

[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2xw1xrq4lo

MSP Ash Regan is unwilling to tolerate this. She argues that it's fundamentally "a system of exploitation and violence" that affects the most vulnerable women in society.

The Alba MSP describes her bill as "a departure from the failed approach of decriminalising the sex trade without addressing the root cause and consequences of commodifying human beings: demand." The most effective way to do this, she argues, is to criminalise those who are paying for sex.

90.193.74.128 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]