Jump to content

Talk:Brothel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mega-brothel

[edit]

It has been suggested before, then removed, that this jornal stub be merged into brothel. I think the idea has merit, as it seems to be mostly a matter of scale, not type or substance. Other opinions? -- nae'blis (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see why not, put a subheading of "Mega Brothels" in the Washington article and thats that as far as i can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtas (talk • contribs) 22:44, July 29, 2006

NPOV Issue?

[edit]

Can someone rephrase the following to better reflect Wikipedia's NPOV Standard:

"Brothels are usually open late to accommodate the large quantity of men who are looking for sexual favors and have been drinking for multiple hours essentially reducing their standards since their view is through beer goggles."

It seems to cast a derogatory look on the practice. Please keep in mind that although brothels may be considered immoral to some, the practice has been both popular and commonplace in both Western and Eastern society for centuries. absolutecaliber

-- It's also just plain not true in a significant number of places. For an example (personal observation), there is a tradition in the red light district of Groningen (N Netherlands) of (business-)men going there for a long lunch break on Fridays, for a couple of beers and a "bit of window shopping" - i.e. using one of the "window prostitutes". AKarley (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

etymology

[edit]

are you sure this is not another french word english rendering? french is "bordel" which ressembles "brothel". on top of this the expression "quel bordel!" is the same as "what a mess!". Cliché Online 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives Old English brēoþan as the source of this word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazibara (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also the German origin, here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=brothel&allowed_in_frame=0 . His sources: "The basic sources of this work are Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthausen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang." A full list of print sources used in this compilation can be found here."ABS (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

british military brothel?

[edit]

come on, what happened in australia, asia and africa? i'm pretty sure the british just acted like the other imperialist forces. by the way what about the US? is there a similar stuff, vietnam maybe? these boots are made for walkin'. Cliché Online 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in Military Brothel section

[edit]

The wording in the Military brothel section - particularly a few instances of the word order - sounds like it was written by someone for which English wasn't their first language. For example, "a brothel mobile service" and "in long term abroad operations". The content itself is fine, so I'm going to clean these and a few other minor issues in this section. Ergonaut2001 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, Wikipedia defines prostitution as "the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment". Referring to Japanese sex slaves, therefore, as prostitutes does a disservice both to the victims of the atrocity and common English usage. "Sex slave" and "prostitute" are not synonymous terms. The text should be changed to reflect this.154.5.40.122 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history

[edit]

I have started a major addition to the modern history of brothels. This is a work in progress and will take several months to complete and fully reference. Please allow me a little freedom and refrain from deletions until the revision is in a more advanced state. Aimulti (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child brothels

[edit]

The article should perhaps mention the existence of child brothels, which are commonly associated with the illicit practice of child prostitution in Southeast Asia. ADM (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sloppy article

[edit]

In serious need of rewriting and expansion. It is a serious subject, worthy of comprehensive discussion.75.58.116.25 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. One major problem is that it seems to be US-centric. Nevada (a US state) is mentioned several times, and even has its own section, even though this is a global subject with a history of several thousand years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.57.62 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the article has been expanded, and went from US-centric to Euro-centric. Not much of an improvement, but a step in the right direction I suppose.Boneyard90 (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Look at this sentence "where patrons may engage in prostitution with prostitutes.";Really? Who else would they engage in prostitution with? Sochwa (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I pop into this article I am put off by the volume of work. Is anyone interested in breaking it down into manageable small chunks as a team effort? Awolnetdiva (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear? Not really

[edit]

For example, most brothels were forbidden to be open for business on Sunday and religious holidays. The reason for this is not completely clear. Some scholars believe these restrictions were enforced to make the prostitutes go to church but others would argue that it was to keep parishioners in church and out of the brothels.
Hm. I think the reason is actually quite clear. Let us remember that the Middle Ages were Catholic. The brothels were closed on holy days because the holy days were holy and prostitution was fornication and, thus, sinful.
As a matter of fact (and probably the reason for the unclearness in contributors with English as mother language), fornication is of course always sinful. But the Church has a tradition of being, in the strict sense, tolerant (tolerare = to endure) of prostitution, as far as the public sphere is concerned. We can quote as strict a Church father as St. Augustine in favor of this. The state has the duty to enforce morality; but we cannot fight all things at one time, and sometimes we cannot fight things without receiving even greater damage. Now they reckoned that prostitution is among these things. So this is why they allowed (tolerated) prostitution at all. But that it is a sin was the reason they did not tolerate it on holy days. They thought: "If we tolerate it in principle, we might ensure that it is not done on holy days, nor with clerics, nor with married persons on either side, nor in a perpetual relationship" (in a society where marriage is the norm actually acted upon, a perpetual non-marital relationship is worse than casual sex, because the latter is a mere weakness, even though still sinful) "nor with public scandal and maybe we can even prevent the usual infanticides". Seems to make some sense, in fact.--93.135.35.41 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Ignorance

[edit]

"The practice of hosting prostitutes in these elaborate brothels spread to surrounding regions of Chinese cultural influence, notably in Japan after the sixth century AD where prostitutes and courtesans evolved to Japanese geisha. Again, the geisha of Japan emphasized good table manners, artistic skills, elegant styling and sophisticated, tactical conversational skills." < Geisha are not prostitutes, courtesans, or sex workers. Geisha are focused explicitly upon hosting, and entertainment. The only exception is the selling of virginity custom, which the geisha alone gets to pick if the buyer can collect on, or if she simply remains a virgin with him as the owner of her virginity. There were prostitutes sort of like geisha, but they are not geisha, and probably not as high of quality in things like art, since they are just fancy prostitutes, not geisha. For a geisha to be a prostitute would ruin her. And, prostitutes were most likely beneath geisha in social order. Geisha are not allowed to be slutty, have romantic relationships, or have children (the result of sex, which all prostitutes prior to inventions of birth control had to deal with (often deal with via infanticide)). (Though, modern geisha can have love lives, marry, and have kids. They are likely not supposed to give any hint of their personal lives to clientele, though, to keep the geisha experience in tune with tradition, even if it's clearly a lie in these cases. A modern "geisha" who is a prostitute is not a geisha, she's a fraud deceiving foreign men, or foreign men are calling her a geisha when she doesn't even encourage that thinking.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.203.182 (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

split proposal

[edit]

There are some articles describing the military brothels of some countries (German military brothels in World War II, German camp brothels in World War II, Bordel militaire de campagne, Western princess, comfort women, Recreation and Amusement Association), but there are no independent articles which describe the military brothels totally. So we should make an independent article splitting the military brothels section. NiceDay (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that are not any sources describing military brothels in general. Rather, the sources describe German brothels, or French brothels, or Japanese comfort women brothels, or concentration camp brothels, but there are no books or scholarly articles addressing the military brothel concept as a whole. That means if you try to put all of these separate topics together to form a container topic you would be violating the WP:SYNTH guideline. Binksternet (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(To Mr/Ms Binksternet) Thank you for your join. But you are misunderstanding WP:SYNTH. It is a rule about making new paragraph combining some paragraphs. SPLIT does not make new paragraphs. SPLIT only copy and paste the paragraphs. I think that Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition may relate what you think. Please read it. NiceDay (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(To Mr/Ms Binksternet) May I understand that you understood my last explanation ? NiceDay (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you have to solve is simple: you want to make a new article, so you need sources discussing the topic. Can you find sources discussing the topic of military brothels? Or are the sources only talking about certain kinds of brothels used by a certain army? If you cannot find at least two reliable sources discussing the general topic of brothels used by various armies then you don't have a topic. It doesn't matter whether you were going to take your paragraphs from other Wikipedia articles. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the article brothel shows such sources which you requested. What is the basis why you think the article military brothel needs such new sources ? NiceDay (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline addressing general notability for topics says that a proposed article needs to have "significant coverage in reliable sources" that address the topic "directly and in detail". If you cannot find good sources discussing military brothels directly and in detail then your article has little chance of surviving the WP:Articles for deletion process. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have understood. I retract my proposal. NiceDay (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brothel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brothel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Countries' should perhaps more accurately be 'territories'

[edit]

The map has a caption stating that 'Brothels are legal only in countries shown in green'. However, four of the areas shown in green (Nevada, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria) are actually subdivisions of sovereign nations. It may therefore be more accurate to use the term 'territories' instead of 'countries'.

Meaning of Fife (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I noticed the same point. Certainly for the examples cited the regions are distinct states or territories of a sovereign state, which would appear to have devolved this aspect of legislation to the states. There may be other examples than the ones listed. AKarley (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex workers not prostitutes

[edit]

Prostitutes is a derogatory term. We should be using the politically correct term, sex workers.

Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brothel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brothel. 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:

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) 20:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ranch (brothel)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was: No consensus John B123 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<Start of discussion>

The page Ranch (brothel) has very little content. As 'ranch' is a type of brothel it might be better as a section on this page? - John B123 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<End of discussion>

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brothel. 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:

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) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothel&oldid=1194889409"