Talk:Sex tourism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

cleanup my cite

someone please format citation 16, as i am inexperienced at the wikipedia coding. maybe you can put it with its proper template. the info is there (and from a good source), just need someone to do the italics etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.178.83 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Feminist bias?

The article contained such phrases before I edited them out as "romance travel" and "holiday boyfriends" under the female sex tourism section. While I acknowledge that male sex tourists greatly outnumber female sex tourists, is this any excuse for a feminist bias to be present in the article? How are female sex tourists any different than male sex tourists? How is a male prostitute in Jamaica a "holiday boyfriend" but a go-go bar dancer in Bangkok is simply a prostitute? What exactly makes it romance travel as opposed to sex tourism? I'd like these questions answered. Also, why is there not a section of this article listing reasons for sex tourism including such reasons as "romance" like there is in the female sex tourism article? Pasi Nurminen

Beats me. I'm guessing much of the difference is marketing lingo, but I don't have any verification for that hypothesis.

I wouldn't call the bias "feminist" tho. There have been a couple editors on this article who wanted to push a rather rose-colored POV on the sex tourism business; advancing similar descriptions of "female sex tourism" was part of their agenda.

I can't think of a more fair or accurate word than prostitute (your choice[1]), but I would add language like (euphemistically called "holiday boyfriends"). Again, verfication permitting.

Gigolo is the term to use. Netrat (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not working on the Female sex tourism article, but I acknowlege it's a mess. — edgarde 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess use of the term "feminist" was a tad strong, but personal conversations lend to my belief that only those with a female bias do tend to refer to it as "romance travel" rather than sex tourism.Pasi Nurminen

Questionable statistics involving emotive subjects

"Child sex tourism is a criminal multi-billion-dollar industry believed to involve as many as 2 million children around the world.[10]" Underground industries subject to this kind of pressure are extremely difficult to research. You will find that many of the figures quoted for this emotional subject can be traced back to unsubstantiated "estimates" by NGOs who pull numbers out of a hat for funding applications and policy lobbying purposes. These numbers then get cited as fact in a 'Chinese whispers' manner by the media and other sources (like Wikipedia). This happens with most "shock-horror" subjects where there is substantial aid funding at stake. There is little or no robust research with solid numbers. Just where is this multibillion dollar industry and how was this figure ascertained? This is not to make excuses for the industry or diminish its horrors. However some of the usual rhetoric contradicts itself. One important example: ECPAT and other influential NGOs have clearly stated that the economic driver for child prostitution in developing countries is, overwhelmingly, local clients and that foreign sex tourists constitute a tiny fraction of the clientele (google). Yet activism nearly always concentrates on sex tourism as if this were the source because that results in shock-horror funding.

"Child Sex Tourism" versus "Sex Tourism" and no article yet for it???

I was a little surprised on returning to this article to find that there is no separate article for "Child sex tourism" although the article on the "Prostitution of children" refers to it but the link simply brings you back here to "Sex Tourism"!!! (On reflection this was probably what subconciously fired me up to make comments here before on the location issue and article tone before.)

This is bad. I think that there is a vast difference between the two subjects: one arguably morally (typically religiously) questionable and the other regarded by the vast majority of human beings and cultures with few exceptions as a heinous crime in contravention of the UN Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) whose predecesor convention dates back half a century ago! (Similar conventions and national laws on industrial exploitation of children date back to the industrial revolution.)

I think splitting article like this would go along way to avoiding objections to the articles pejorative and moralistic sound which makes sense given it oscilates between holiday sex fun and child sexual exploitation!!!??? (I just cannot believe this!?)

I am quite astounded and perplexed by all of this?. Anyone else agree or disagree? (And I dont see how anyone can take the latter position so if you do so please be up front enough to lay bare your cultural and religious prejudicies before doing so!) And I volutneer my efforst to take all the child sex reference out of the article to a link into the "Child sex tourism" article proper! Mattjs 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE THAT DOING SO MAY HELP HALF THE SIZE OF THIS DISCUSSION PAGE WHICH IS MORE THAN 10 TIMES THE LENGTH OF THE ARTICLE! Mattjs 21:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tried doing that WAY BACK when this article was first created, specifically to avoid the stink of pedophillia on sex tourism in general, but people didn't agree then and merged the articles...Oscar Arias 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who would even think of meging the two? Regardless of my personal opinion of prostitution, my logical argument is that 1. Child Sex Tourism is a despicable crime upon minors and existing laws in the U.S. and internationally should be enforced 100% to protect children. 2. Adult Sex Tourism (prostitution between two "consenting" adults, where no "forced prostitution" and/or human trafficking is taking place) is no different than a U.S. citizen from California (where prostitution is illegal), simply goes to a "legal" nevada brothel to engage in legal prostitution that is being legally facilitated, organized and widely promoted. Worldedixor (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of Talk Page

Loud talk page disputes are not sufficient reason to fork the article. As for the length of this page, I'll probably make an archive once the current arbitration is closed. (Follow progress here if you like.) / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinction from "child sex tourism"

The issue of "child sex tourism" has been discussed previously on this page (also in early 2006, and in the current arbitration). There's not much reason to divide the two, other than the (understandable) position of sex tourism advocates not wanting the practice associated with child prostitution, which unfortunately is a major attraction for some sex tourists, while other sex tourists (there's a link to a study somewhere, unless it's been deleted) are happy to sample whatever's on the menu, regardless of age.

Forking the article along those lines would be like creating different pages for "abusive" and "non-abusive" sex tourism. It's an artificial distinction made mostly to avoid NPOV. POV forks are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-links under Tourism involving sex with minors

Unless I'm missing something, the link that "simply brings you back here to "Sex Tourism"!!!" may have been a temporary by-product of the recent edit war. The child prostitution links currently under Tourism involving sex with minors all link to Prostitution of children. / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary: go to Prostitution of children and click the Child sex tourism link on the second last line of the first section and it will bring you back here to the top of the Sex tourism article proper. While I accept some of your comments I do not agree at all that separating criminal activities from cultural ones is necessarily a POV issue. I will be up front and suggest a consequence that if this link persists I will come back and personally change it so that it points to a new and empty "Child sex tourism" related article instead. I would only be pacified otherwise if it perhaps dropped you instead into the "Child sex tourism" parts of this article that I take exception to... My argument as always is that "Sex Tourism" and words like "prostitute" are extremely POV and culturally laden labels. Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I see what you're saying. That would need to be fixed on Prostitution of children. I thought you were reporting a self-link within Sex tourism. To link directly to the article subsection, pipe it like so:

[[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]]

/ edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will let myself cool off a bit before considering: [[Sex tourism#Tourism involving sex with minors|child sex tourism]] or again a separate article [[Sex tourism and paedophilia]]. But if I dont get around to it in a couple of weeks you are welcome to execute the first option. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it for the time being. Two weeks is too long for the link to lay broken. If you get a decent article together, you can redirect at that time. / edgarde 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• For some more examples which I have no doubt cittations can be found for: I suspect that sex tourism within Thailand is almost a traditional Thai male activity there (some huge percentage of Thai men (like 80%-90%)lose their virginity with a "prostitute" as evidenced from studies of the military so that "prostitution" has acompletely different cultural flavour there; and, travel by young rural woman in Iran to cities like the capital Tehran who then marry older men - with full Moslem i.e. Sharia legality - for a short-time only before divorcing again, doing so purely for finacial gain upon entering the "big city" having negotiated before the "marriage" so-called a suitable remuneration. Interesting angles on the Sex Tourism pejorative don't you think? (I shall find citations and put this stuff in the article proper to keep it fair and balanced particularly if the previous poster was correct in suggesting the related article on "female sez tourism" had a somewhat "holiday sun fun" POV! (uhum uhuh uhuh urgh choking...)) ;-) Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely interesting stuff.

• What you're describing in Thailand would fall more under Prostitution than here. I don't edit that article much, but I think that article mostly describes prostitution from a Western sex industry model — the phenomenon you're describing might add an excellent non-Western perspective. If you can get some citations, let me know if you need help introducing it to that article.
• I've never heard of the short-term Sharia-legal marriage for quick financial gain before. Is there a name for that practice? It doesn't fit the recognized definition of "Sex tourism", nor does it fit "prostitution" very well. I wonder if sociology has a name for things of this nature. In my country, we refer to it as Gold digging, which interestingly Wikipedia only covers within the articles Age disparity in sexual relationships and Gabor sisters.

• "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse with prostitutes or to engage in other sexual activity." NOTE CAREFULLY: If that is the definition in the article then moslem girls in Iran travelling to Tehran and earning money therefore from a deliberately short-term marriage for money with an older man so they can set themselves up, by getting fed, accomodated and paid, while they look for a "preferred" i.e. non-sex job fits into this article and it will go in to the article _IF_ I continue to percieve a feminist bias here... THANKYOU. Mattjs 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because those moslem girls are not travelling to have sex with prostitutes. One can trivially find examples of prostitutes travelling for work, but this activity is not sex tourism.

I'm not sure how "feminism" became an issue here.

it will go in to the article _IF_ I continue to percieve a feminist bias here

Why is this phrased as a threat? You might not be aware of it, but your writing style is aggressive — this might make it challenging for you in working with other editors on Wikipedia. / edgarde 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I REITERATE: "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse with prostitutes OR to engage in other sexual activity." If this is wrong then this definition needs to be improved. THE GIRLS ARE TRAVELLING TO HAVE SEX. Point blank. And this falls within the definition AS it currently stands. If this is wrong then the correct and unbiased response would I think be in ammending the erroneous definition. 220.240.58.190 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK: "Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse or to engage in other sexual activity with prositutes or with payment in kind..." Something like that then your arse is coverd and you can say no to me OK!? "Payment in kind" is an investment phrase apparently meaning prcisely "Payment made in the form of goods and services, rather than cash." (from another source). which you could use instead as you wish. So would you prefer something close to this and more precise!? Not suprisngly the Female article mentions non-cash payments this article does not and much sex tourism does include holiday girlfriends/boyfriends where part or all of the remuneration is non-cash as do conventional relationships... again it goes to removing a perceived feminist bias but is the only way to logically exclude the Iraniam Moslem girls... and it this lack of rational and clinical argument in both the article and in the talkback that for the life of me I still cannot understand... Mattjs 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I dont know if there is a name for it but I learnt about it from a teledocumentary that was quite a suprise and eye opener - to find that in a supposedly strict moslem society if not the strictest in the world (though still one of the most sexually repressive in a different way: i.e. is only with respect to women!) there is an ease of sexual relations akin to Thialand's! Not something many people know or hear about the moslem world every day!! 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think studies (sorry I don't have links handy and don't feel like searching now) demonstrate different tendencies between male and female sex tourists. Andy while I think these differences are notable, I don't think so-called "romance tourism" is something distinct from "sex tourism".
  As for the "holiday sun & fun" angle, I think advocates for both male and female sex tourism attempt to promote the activity as harmless (even beneficial) recreation for open-minded adults, and play down the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• You may be right there may well be a possibility or suggestion of increased peadophilic activity associated with male sex tourism (and it wouldnt surprise me at all) but one would again need to justify this with citations it rather than implicitly suggesting it by including the two subjects in the one article. Leading here too is your comment "the effects it has on tourist-receiving countries" again uncited and sugestive: in the case of Thailand I would argue that on the balance (male) sex tourism (aside from the introduction of HIV which was probably inevatble anyway particularly given Thai male predilictions) has been ultimately an overwelming positive one - though I confess to you I dont get any pleasure out of saying it - it brings huge wads of hard foriegn cash into the country and improves the lives of many including putting food into the mouths of many very poor north eastern Thai farm girls and their families (not to mention an amazing new industry of western retirees with their thai consorts that has arisen up there now!) and the Thai Goverment knows well its value to the economy too which is by no means insignificant. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are no "facts" and objective POVs: all so called "facts" and purportedly neutral POVs are comvenient but culturally laden "fictions" ... you should read David Hume on cause and effect sometime... Regards, Mattjs 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I take the word "fact" to mean an observable, verifiable phenomenon, and I based on that I think facts exist and can be agreed on by intelligent and thoughtful people given access to the evidence. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is an attempt to root articles in facts, or at least provide a foundation for disputes on facts. As for "culturally laden fictions", I agree such exists, but I also think there are ways to discuss different cultural interpretations of the same information without disputing facts, or even necessarily creating a conflict. That would also be a goal for Wikipedia articles. / edgarde 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Things are never so simple to the philosophically open minded: every supposed fact is embedded in a cultural milieu or context and so open to contestation - point blank - but it would be better if we pass over this one or we will never see the end of it. If I had offered to write a "Round Earth" article for the medieval Wikipedia serveral many hundreds of years ago it would have been rejected without consideration. :-D 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • THERE I am placated now!: the "Child sex tourism" link in Prostitution of children now goes to Child sex tourism and paedophilia where it might be appropriate to discuss the wide difference in POVs between a culturally variable concept of Sex toursim and internationally recognized and long held conceptions of criminal "paedophilic sex tourism with children" and perhaps a better article name even...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattjs (talk • contribs) 2007-01-07T17:35:01 (UTC)

I would recommend you not create a dead link, per WP:DISRUPT. Consider the above instructions on how to link directly to the Tourism involving sex with minors section. / edgarde 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is where I have to pull you up as you are again making some comments that I feel show a bias: I am certain that deep in the Wikipedia policies if I searched I could find a requirement to communicate with etiqete UPON THE TERMS REQUESTED OF THE COMMUNICATOR: i.e. that you lay bare your politcal, cultural and religious biases upon commenting as I had asked and I reiterate my request fopr you to do so now!? I think this is reasonable as they were the terms under which I commenced the conversation on this topic as I made very clear. This is an extremely POV and culturaly laden subject as you are well aware and I think the only way that progress will be made I beleive is if the Political, Cultural and Religious positions of the particpants are made clear at the outset. If you disagree then I will go in search of a Wikipedia policy to support my own request! I confess I havent yet laid bare my own biases but I am more than happy to do so. But all this aside I appreciate and enjoy your comments: these Talk back pages do seem to be a great place to hunt and weed out political biases of one kind or another as well as honing ones own arguments but you are right that one must take care to be discursive and pedagogical rather than adversarial. 220.240.58.190 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Replying to this one on the talk page for 220.240.58.190. / edgarde 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pejorative and moralistic sound"

Although this page does not consistently portray sex tourism as a harmless activity, I don't see the article as having a moralistic tone. Are there specific passages you are concerned about? / edgarde 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are and I have been fixing them and leading into legal issues to be expounded upon as the subject of another article. Mattjs 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-arbitration update

Just made the following changes:

• Archived most of this Talk page. Linked at top — see file cabinet icon. Permanent link archive method is used to prevent vandalism.
• Restored more specific language addressing concerns about sex tourism, referencing U.N.[2] Previous editors favored vague language like "some advocacy groups" or "a number of individuals" ... "had expressed concerns" — this was contrary to the spirit of WP:WEASEL.
• Deleted booklist.[3] None of these books were used to write this article. A similar booklist can be obtained by searching "sex tourism" at Amazon (where I got all the ISBN #'s), so it's kind of pointless in this article.
• Began footnoting citations for different countries as sex tourism destinations. This will take a while. Some of the countries here are from the "legal prostitution travel guide" version of this article, so it is possible not every country is a major sex tourism destination. This section may be much-edited or reorganized.

My goal here is not to establish a canonical version of this article, but to undo some of the damage from the edit war. / edgarde 09:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The other option: merge Female Sex Tourism with Sex Tourism

Just checked it out over there as although they decided to keep the article they left open the possibility of a merger. This would be one way of placating me as the undesireable elements of peadophilia here would get watered down with "holiday fun in the sun" from Female Sex Tourism. User:Edgarde couldn't possibly have any objections to it as it either suits the arguments he has already used or will prove to be his "reductio ad absurdam". So which is it User:Edgarde??? Mattjs 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

First an answer to your question. Presuming Female sex tourism would be merged into Sex tourism, the discussion should start over there. I don't know enough about that article to decide if it can stand by itself. I have no objection to the merge. Check the merge procedure if you want to initiate that discussion.

I'm not sure who edits that article, so also mention the merge proposal on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.

However, if your objection is that "the undesireable elements of peadophilia here would get watered down" (as you put it), that by itself is not a good reason for the merge. (I'm not sure if that is your intent because some of what you are saying is ambiguous to my reading.) If that really is your goal, perhaps you should ask a neutral party for help in performing the merge. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"the undesireable elements of peadophilia"

Option to what?

I don't understand why you're linking everything back to pedophilia, as if other topics within sex tourism needed some kind of parity or set some kind of precedent with how pedophilia is treated. One topic is not equivalent to another, and everything worth considering is worth considering on its own merits. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "peadophilia"

One more thing. You've used the term "peadophilia" a few times now. This term often (especially in clinical and scientific usage) specificly means a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent persons. The term "child prostitution" (which is what I think we're talking about) is preferable because it includes young adolescents below legal age. I mention this not to nit-pick with you, but for clarity's sake. For what it's worth, another editor on this discussion page has been quite snitty over this distinction, and while I think you and I are talking about the same thing, going off on that tangent again (presumably in the event another editor joins) would waste us much time. / edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why so personal?

My questions:

• Why is this addressed personally to me in this So which is it User:Edgarde??? fashion?
• Why is "placating" you my responsibility?

I wouldn't bother with it here, but this is the 2nd time you've turned this into some kind of personal attack. It's not necessary, and I think I have explained my reasoning at some length. -edgarde 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I get your drift and I think I have adequately explained mine. It seems you have no objections as in fact a complete merger is in tune with your own arguments about the whole field being one subject. I just see child prostitution as a separate field entriely though I don't see female "fun in the sun" as essentially any different although the articles seemingly are: "Sex Tourism" effectively "Male Sex Tourism" since that is clearly the articles target versus the "Female Sex Tourism" article and there of course are few Female Child Sex Predators. I only used the term "paedophilia" to emphasize the distinction I was making and don't want to spilt hairs either. Though one hair is: I dont know if there is any difference at law between prebuscent or non-prepuscent child sex as usually it all seems to I think fall under the general ambit of "carnel knowledge with a minor under the age of consent" and in most modern countries this is always way above the age of puberty. For me both are vastly different activities compared to travelling to have sex with someone, whether with payment in money or in kind or not, in a foriegn country where sex between consenting adults even with the exchange of money is perfectly legal activity in my country and in theirs. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are conflicting cultural issues here too as I live in a country - Australia - where prostitution has for as long as I can remember (all my life or adult life probably) in all our states has been perfectly legal. Whereas Wikipedia may well be hosted in the US and most importantly where prostitution is still a serious crime in many if not most of your states, and you yourself may well be American. The leap then from underage sex or child prostitution to consenting sex for money with an adult may not be such a big one for someone who lives in a country where adult prostitution is itself a serious crime whereas for me that is an enormous leap indeed. We in Australia have "Child Sex Tourism" laws, and were probably one of the first countries to introduce them, such that Australians are not permitted to engage in sex with a minor in or outside of Australia under the age of 16 years. The same may not be true for an American overseas. What is true is that Bush has further criminalized prostitution with new "Sex tourism" laws in the US though I dont know the exact details but they have effected those companies doing internet bride business and organising sex related to travel. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My asking about politics, culture, religion may not have been so far out of line as you thought: cultural issues do predominate here. I hope this clears up for you as it does for me as I may have a better handle on where perhaps you or other people like you may be coming from and ditto for my own perspective. I didnt mean for it to get personal but I think I just explained more adequately again why I persoanlly draw huge distinctions between the two types of sex tourism one of which I wouldn't even dignify with the label of "tourism" at all but would rather have used an admittedly more pejorative label by subsuming Child Sex Tourism information under another article like Child Prostitution, Paedophilia, Child Predation whatever... Its been interesting and I hope you can see my point of view also and I think we have more than adequately argued over all of this. finis. I will ses about an article/contrubution/merger. Mattjs 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya Mattjs. Although wikipedia is vastly complex, in some ways, it is really easy. All you need to do is find reliable sources that say what you wish to include in the article, cite them, and viola.

You writing your thoughts and feelings on this page don't help. For example, the sources we have in the article do use the term, "Child Sex Tourism." Regardless of whether you like it or not, it is a term that is used.

So, if you want to "clear the name of sex tourism" you need to find reputable sources who have done so. And then include them. Devalover 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Child Sex Tourism Laws

In fact as an afterthought splitting the article which is currently messy would present the opportunity the expound on Child Sex Tourism Laws as I mentioned above and would be a very positive thing. I actually responded in the Prostitution in Thailand article in detail to a question in the talk back regarding age of consent and researched the UK and AU extra-terrorial laws in the space of an hour. None of this information is contained in Wikipedia and someone looking into Child Sex Tourism and arriving here will be very interested. It interested me enough to clarify the details as I am a dual UK/EEC and AU citzen so both sets of "Child Sex Tourism" or age of consent laws are simultaneously applicable! So Child Sex Tourism Laws would be a good start I have the AU and UK info and mentioned here are only Singapore and Canada but with nil details whatsoever. Mattjs 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ambitious. My suggestion would be to start the general "child" sex tourism one, then break off the legal section when it becomes sufficiently long to merit its own article. A long list of country-by-country sex tourism laws would definitely be better in a separate article, but right now there's nothing and no point in creating stub articles.

My understanding is (was?) that you're developing a new article (or articles), not simply "splitting" this one, which risks creating a POV fork. This article doesn't need to be a whitewash of sex tourism, child or otherwise. Presumably the new article(s) would supplement the existing one. / edgarde 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism may be better as another poster suggested. I prefer it as a more well defined topic that this current sloppy article and about as long as the current article though likely to get longer and I certainly expect it to receive more links to it from other articles like Age of consent, law etc etc. i will get around to it - I have downloaded the two off-line Wikipedia Editors I have found: the standalone one and the Eclipse plugin. It might well lead to an evetual split down the track but that is not my major nor entire motivation! ;-) 220.240.58.190 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Offline editor? Whoever you are, please keep in mind other people are editing this article. / edgarde 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I am curious Edgarde about why the intro in this version was not sufficient for you? [4]

For me, an intro is about defining terms and setting the stage. I have shortened it some and will await your feedback. Devalover 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think intro needs to be that short, but since that's where your going, how about what I have now?[5]

I think the child prostitution law enforcement difficulties were worth having in the opening, especially since the issue seems to come up in most general discussions of sex tourism, and that paragraph was pretty concise. However, since there's so much initiative to bury it I've moved all mention of child prostitution to Tourism involving sex with minors; not my preference but if other editors can't agree it fits in the intro, I'm tired of arguing it.

The 2nd sentence in the version you link is so short it's weasely — people not worth identifing say there are problems not worth specifying. I've restored that and instead snipped the first repetitive U.N. mention, which was introduced by User:Addhoc to appease User:KyndFellow at some point. Assuming no one here is advocating for KyndFellow's novel definition (also discussed in the archives for this Talk page), and the in-line reference is considered sufficient, I'd say the first U.N. mention is more dispensible than the 2nd. / edgarde 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I appreciate your willingness to work with me, and I actually don't like your version! :) I don't like removing ALL refference to Child Sex Tourism in the intro, and for me the intro you created it TOO brief with too many citations- 5 citations for 2 sentences! I am going to revert back to my last version.

The reason why I don't see the law enforement piece as "big" at least for an intro is that it is a sub-topic of a sub-topic of a sub-topic Topic: Sex Tourism. Sub-topic: Child Sex Tourism Sub-top of sub-topic: Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism. Sub topic of sub topic of sub-topic!: Challenges with Law Enforcement of Child Sex Tourism.

So, I have reverted back to my version and included the LE sentence down lower. Hope you like it. Thanks for heads up on weasel words, I had never heard it invoked in this context- I'll sit with it. Devalover 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you like this version?[6] Restored (and then deleted) a citation (those are good to keep), turned a line break into a paragraph break. / edgarde 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it. Devalover 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

International Law

"A tourist who has sex with a child prostitute possibly commits a crime against international law, in addition to the host country, and the country that the tourist is a citizen of. Several countries have recently enacted laws with extraterritorial reach, punishing citizens who engage in sex with minors in other countries."

What International Law?

There are national laws with extra-territorial applicability (on which subject - at least compared to anyone else here - I am an expert). Whilst there is an international court of criminal justice its ambit usually includes such matters as war crimes and not sex under the age of consent nor prostitution. And though there are international agreements and conventions like the CRC, GATT, WIPO agreements etc. these are covenants which are binding only upon "nation states" and _not_ "individuals".

Rephrase something like as follows: "A tourist who has sex with a child prostitute offends against the spirit of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and, in addition to breaking the law in that host country, might well also be doing so in the country the tourist is a national of. A growing number of countries are enacting laws with extra-territorial reach in order to meet their obligations under the covenants above, and consequently punishing citizens who engage in sex with minors whilst overseaes." -ok edgarde? Mattjs 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifics on internation law

I've had issues with the sentence you quote before. However, the solution we came up with last November is something Devalover now has problems with.

I think the best arrangement would be to keep the sentence you quote (which is concise and readable), along with These laws are rarely enforced since the crime usually goes undiscovered, then elaborate with details you're adding — that would definitely be an improvement. All this would go under Tourism involving sex with minors. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I had issues not with the sentence, but with placing it in the intro paragraph. Devalover 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN: As I explained there is no "crime against international law" this is incorrect and a fallacy - legally incorrect - and a non sequitor, there is no intertional crime under international laws or conventions ... need I go on???... 220.240.58.190 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"perfectly legal"

Conversely, prostitution is a perfectly legal activity in a growing list of other nations worldwide: see prostitution.

This sentence is redundant and argumentative. It should come out. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree here: it is fair and balanced - the US only is cited which bans prostitution touristic or otherwise and the interational trend is for the decriminalization if not complete legalisation of prostitution including touristic. 220.240.58.190 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I found the sentence informative.... at least take out the "perfectly" and conversely part of the sentence and I think it fits. Devalover 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"pedophilia" again

Your use of "pedophiliac" is misleading here and needs to be removed. It is normal for adult men (not a "minority") to find women below legal age (whatever that may be) sexually attractive — this does not make them pedophiliacs. As for whether or not any practice is by a "minority", that would need a citation. Otherwise, "some" is the least POV term here. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought my new final sentence was getting close to right. How about something along these lines: "In this case an attraction for a minority of sex tourists with pedophilic predilections that they seek to satisfy may well be access to child prostitution." Something along these lines would avoid your criticism. "or who seek to satisy their pedophilic fantasies" etc. etc. 220.240.58.190 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New intro verbosity

I think that legal ladder in the 2nd paragraph is a little difficult for the intro, and should be moved to Criminality and controversy, per Devalover's comments here. As currently written, a simple, clear statement has been turned into something the eye wants to skip over.

In your edit summary here are you disputing this sentence?

An attraction for some sex tourists is access to child prostitution that is unavailable in their home countries.

I don't think WP:WEASEL applies here, but if you want I can start collecting references[7] [8]. This referencing shouldn't really be needed in the intro since the statement is elaborated upon under Criminality and controversy.

I think the sentence is worth having this in the introduction because — long pause ... I'm really tired of explaining this repeatedly — it's an issue that comes up frequently in discussions of sex tourism. The only reason I moved it to Criminality and controversy is I felt some editors would feel a need to obfuscate it; now that seems to be happening.

Devalover expressed an opinion about appropriate content in the intro section. Since your style seems to be addressing other editors indivudually, perhaps you might ask him as well. / edgarde 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I think it slants the nature of sex tourism the vast bulk of which overall does not take place with minors. Although in certain places it may do and do I agree it is a significant issue. The most important issues are legal ones and we have three sets of issues in mulitiple jurisdictions to consider: prostitution, age of consent, and under age sex... 220.240.58.190 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And it is not the sentence per se I dislike but its location and its isolation. I prefer it either expanded and balanced like I have attempted or else moved further into the article where it belongs...

I am sure that we can come to some compromises. There isn't too much in the article really that I dislike and I am not unreasonable and haven't actually deleted anything. Indeed I would like to actually expand the child sex tourism section and that in itself tilts the balance of the article but as long as it has its place as a clearly defined subsection of interest and research I have no problems with that... as it is it is rather sloppy with little one liners and comments here with no depth or substance and even less cohesion. 220.240.58.190 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A POSSIBLE compromise is the make it the third sentence rather than the second in the article. It would flow better and be less of a eyesore I might be less annoyed with it then myself. BUT what I have wriiten is important and relevant as ultimately the legal issues (and sociological ones) are at the core of the article so the 2 or 3 sentence summary of the issues should go somewhere else in the article then. Unless of course the article is intended by its editor(s) to be a feminist mouthpiece: if that is true just let me know and I can pack my bags and either go elsewhere (like to the Child Sex Tourism Laws - which will mention age of consent but not prostitution in and of itself - as I had no intention of whacking all that stuff in here but it will have to be referenced from here...) or else up the editorial chain... Mattjs 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about now?[9] I made the last sentence into a list (since it was ordered, but also to increase readability). I also snipped some of the explanation from "child prostitution" — I realise some editors are uncomfortable with the subject, but listing "fantasy" motivations is presumptuous and anyway tangential in the intro, and some uncited assertions had been introduced.

"Verbosity" is still a problem, but since you're still editing, I don't want to fuss with it much more. Is "or gigolos" indispensible? I think prostitutes is prostitutes, whether boy or girl. / edgarde 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at the verbosity problem.[10]. Could we replace "or gigolos" with "(male or female)"? If someone also feels a need to tersely mention that sex tourists come in both genders, that would be okay too. / edgarde 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Took another crack. I'm now thinking the term "gigolos" was introduced to imply the traveler might be female (tho I'm pretty sure men can hook up with gigolos as well). I removed this (cos prostitutes is prostitutes) and changed "traveling" to "travel (by men or women)". Since there's a Female sex tourism section, I didn't see a need for that, but apparently other editors do.

I must say I think the intro section is now much improved over how it was before Mattjs (and 220.240.58.190 (talk · contribs), if that's a separate editor) started editing, especially the first paragraph.

So does this work?[11] Or is someone positively enraged? / edgarde 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is all getting much much better. I made some ever so slight tweaks to yours. The problem with sexual mores is they vary so significantly not just from culture to culture but from individual to individual and are therefore so damn easily offensive!

Anywway that will do for now - we are getting somewhere. (I didn't add the "gigolo" by the way that was someone else.) Mattjs 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understood that "or gigolos" was added by Vladko (talk · contribs), but at least 3 editors on this talk page have suggested that sex tourism by women was underemphasised. I presumed the "gigolos" addition was an attempt to address that. If it didn't, then "(by men or women)" does. / edgarde 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"in order of increasing potential criminality" list

So far [12], so good. But I'm not sure the following two changes made sense:

1. prostitution, if illegal, or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
2. lower age of consent, or indifference to this consideration,

I think these should say:

1. prostitution, either legal or subject to indifferent law enforcement,
2. lower age of consent, or legal indifference to this consideration,

... my understanding of this part is that tourists are looking for either legal prostitution, or at least prostitution they won't be hassled over.

1. In the first item, "or subject to indifferent law enforcement" should imply "if illegal" (otherwise why would it matter?), the word "or" separating the two possibilities.
2. In the second item, again I presume it's more a law enforcement thing, "legal indifference" meaning either the absense of law or the absense of law enforcement.

Am I missing something? / edgarde 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah both absense of law and absense of enforecment I guess. Age of consent is so inconsistently and crappily handled around the world and the law is auch an ass anyway. Even Australia's progressive Child Sex Tourism laws have a legal loop hole of marriage if the marriage is legal in the destination country and some countries have a very low "age of marriage" which is necessarily not the same age as "age of consent" i.e. there can be consent I guess by virute of marriage below the "age of consent" for sex outside of marriage... you see what I mean - its a very big ASS INDEED! Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I had the tourists indifference to 2 in my mind when I wrote it but you it is probably better the way you are looking at it. Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is still to go through developemnt as I have just realised that the size of punishment is a significant factor also. Take Garry Glitter the big poof --- who will sleep with any thing male or female under the age of 12 if you can classify anyone under the age of puberty and procreation as of any particular sex --- he's been in the news again here recently I think its Cambodia again so it should fit nicely into the article somewhere around that point. But anyway what I wanted to say was that in Cambodia as in Thailand as I discovered just the other day searching for citations on the web the penalties for under age sex as significantly lower in these countries than in the west so that even if you get caught by the authorities there the penalties for these people are minor hence yet another attraction for these child sex tourists. SO YES punishments and enforcement both are significaant factors so I will get around to this and submitting submitting something about the infamous Garry Glitter no doubt a link to somewhere else in Wikipedia where his exploits should be well documented and he is a classic child sex tourist of the lowest order... Mattjs 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop the "in order of increasing potential criminality" and instead list factors or simply add (or preceed it perhaps) with another factors list: low cost of services, poor enforcement, low punishments etc. something like that we will work it all out in time i am sure! Regards, Mattjs 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Or: "access to child prostitution which may be similarly influenced by the degree of enforcement and level of punishment provided for in the destination country..." ... Mattjs 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up bias and sloppy citations

If no one else is as active I am going to carry on cleaning up bias and sloppy citations. Broad sweeping generalizations like the following: "While most sex tourists only engage in this activity with other adults, some actively look for child prostitutes, while others are not very selective either way, regarding age."

That now reads: "While most sex tourists only engage in this activity with other adults, some actively look for child prostitutes, while others are not very selective either way regarding age, according to a study of the Dominican Republic." as it should be as the study ONLY refers to that country, and as does, I believe, the UNICEF report also cited within it.

It has just dawned upon me the source: I suspect that one of our major contributors is probably American, Christian and Female (or Feminist), or a least I reckon I got two out of three (or four) right. Not of any signifigance in itself excepting that it would explain why the above poor citation wouldn't be considered biased by such a person or persons. And then we have happy go lucky "holiday fun in the sun" female editors in the "Female sex tourism" artcle obviously.

I have to find a citation and _ADD_ something about child sex under the Cambodia reference. It is well known that aging Thai men particularly including those of high office have a prediliction to picking up very young women in their limosines and taking them to "drive-in" "love-motels" (I know as I have been to one (with an "over-age")) it being a popular cultural notion or superstutition there that an old man sleeping with a young <~15 year old, especially virgin, will thereby renew his virility if not his aging vigour. That said, underage sex in Thailand in or outside of "sex tourism" is a very minor part of the overall sex trade there. I am well aware that the same cannot be said of Cambodia, and as I now know the Dominican Republic, where an entirely different scale of child sexual exploitation occurs. I am glad I haven't visited either of them.

About Thailand though I am an expert and as Pattaya is _THE_ sex tourism destination after all, and poorly cited generalizations like the above therefore just do not cut the mustard i'm afraid. Mattjs 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good find on the DR citation.Devalover 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries With Sex Laws With Minors Overseas

What countries have these laws? To my knowledge USA, Canada, and Australia have overseas laws. I think the UK does as well. Are there any other countries (in Europe or elsewhere)? Zachorious 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The countries you mention and listed in the Article.

I am absolutely certian of Australia and the UK as I have researched them both in detail - and from link in the Article - the US new law also. I have no doubt there are others...

Would you like to see such an article? I have proposed it and have the details on the big three above. If you would like to help let me know on my home page send me a message etc. as you might like to help research the other countries. I can rapidly do these three in detail and interest like yours might prompt me to do so... Mattjs 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)