Talk:Sex tourism

Cuban sex trade

The charge that Cuba is encouraging the sex trade is a political one that has no basis in fact, according to sociology professor Nelson Valdes:

http://www.counterpunch.org/valdes10182003.html

Further, by defining sex tourism to include only travel from wealthy to poorer countries, the raging legal sex trade of the US state of Nevada is covered up. --Jose Ramos 21:05, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Excuse me, nobody said in this article that Cuba (or any other country) was encouaging the sex trade; no country would be that stupid. In fact the Cuban government has done much (although with limited success) to try to curtail/discourage sex tourism within its borders.

However, the sex trade *IS* rampant there, I can personally attest to that! <g>

Don't even get me started on that wacko leftist rag that you are quoting as fact! This is not the proper forum to espouse your political agenda. Select a more widely accepted publication, and maybe everyone here won't think you're a crackpot.

Now, as for the "raging" sex trade in Nevada.... Cover up?? Please!

A couple of overpriced brothel "ranches" in the middle of the desert do not qualify as a "raging" sex trade. Only the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world could count Nevada as a sex tourist destination (and it would still be a poor one at that!) Chances are some of those girls in Nevada make more than most of us!

A sex worker in Thailand or Cuba earning $50 a day is doing well!!

Sorry, but when I see stupidity, I must rant...

-oarias

Yes, because CLEARLY no one goes to Las Vegas to take advantage of the direct-to-your-hotel-room "escorts" whose brightly colored advertisements are handed to you as you walk down the strip. Prostitution may not be technically legal in Vegas, but the ban against it is not enforced -- perhaps because sex tourism is a big part of what drives the LV economy. -- Lottelita 19:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prostitution exists everywhere, by your definition then ALL cities everywhere should be on this list. There isn't enough room, and honestly isn't in the spirit of giving anyone any real USEFUL information. I've been to Vegas, I've also been to Bangkok, Rio, Havana and several other places on the list; there really is NO comparison. I'm not here to argue however, you want Nevada on this list FINE; but I'm certainly not going to leave it at the TOP of this list where you (or someone) decided to place it.--Oarias 03:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my rationale on this a bit better... Suppose Kris Kringle (living in the North Pole) decides to go somewhere warmer for summer vacation. He may very well pick Alaska, which to HIM is a warmer location. (Alaska would be the "Las Vegas" in your argument.) Now Kris could go online and think "Wow, I saw a complete lack of snow in Anchorage last summer." and therefore decides to add Anchorage, Alaska to a list of "popular destinations to enjoy warm weather". While from his perspective, he is right; from a GLOBAL perspective he is dead wrong. Trust me, as a die-hard whore monger I would love nothing more than to have a REAL "sex tourist" destination here in the US. There are many factors that define a good "sex tourist" destination as seen from a GLOBAL perspective, of these factors "legality" is probably the LEAST important. Prostitution is "technically" illegal in MOST sex tourist destinations (Thailand, Cambodia, etc). Zero enforcement in these countries helps, but it goes beyond that. Price, attitude (of the women), exotic location make up the bulk of the rest of the reasons these places are popular with the mongers. Las Vegas and Amsterdam do not have these reasons. Las Vegas probably has the lowest "bang for your buck" factor of any POSSIBLE sex tourist destination. If I want to drink, gamble, watch Wayne Newton, or pay $300 for a 30 minute "session" in my hotel room with a mean-spirited plastic-injected 30 something barbie doll then absolutely I want to go to Vegas. If I want to spend $30-$50 for a full night of the best sex ever with a beautiful, natural woman who knows no clock and still wants to be with you after the sun rises then I go to Thailand. --Oarias 03:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Would Amsterdam be a good country to add to the list of popular destinations for sex tourism? -- Lottelita 19:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A better choice than Nevada, but only marginally so. If your not a sex monger you wouldn't understand this. See my previous message. --Oarias 03:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

National preferences. This is mostly written with regard to Western and I presume north American preferences, does anyone have anything useful to add about Japanese sex tourism. I'd like to add something about Japanese sex tourism and sex tour groups to China (basically your run of the mill coach trip but with sex laid on). However I don't know if it would be just pure jingoism on the part of the Chinese press, to believe that another motivation for Japanese sex tourism to China, is the desire to humiliate the Chinese(in a notorious case a tour coincided with the annivesary of the beginning of the Japanese invasion of China).Cetot 07:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"American men are also known to travel to developed countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom " Is there really any evidence of this? I don't believe the UK is considered a sex tourist destination, especially as brothels are illegal, and London is a famously expensive place. 213.122.164.123 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed that line as, as far as I know, that prostitution is illegal in these countries, while the line seems to imply otherwise. Zhatt 22:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Prostitution itself is legal in Canada and in the UK, however several surrounding activities are illegal. But I agree: there's defintely no significant sex tourism from the US to either of those countries. AxelBoldt 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Depends what you consider 'significant', I suppose? The Detroit-based adultmb.com (a discussion board for clients of "female escorts") is all but monopolised with info about Windsor, Ontario (as outcall prostitution is not unlawful there, unlike in the US). The "Dave from Phoenix" sites sexwork.com sexworktoronto.com also advocate travel from the US to Canada due to restrictive American laws. At what point is this "sex tourism"? Dunno. Détroit to Windsor is (geographically) almost the same city, Phoenix to Toronto is rather distant. Where does one draw the line in defining "tourism" if between adjacent countries? --66.102.74.41 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Singapore & Batam

Singapore has no such law, in spite of being adjacent to the sex tourism destination of Batam in Indonesia.

I deleted this line and it was added back in... does it seem kinda out of place or random to anyone else?

When deleting, please put a reason in the Edit Summary. Also, please sign your comments.

I wrote the line, and I agree it needs work. But being incomplete is better than not being there. Other Wikipedians can add other examples that they know of, and/or I will add more information as I'm able to.

The issue I believe deserves to be highlighted. Singapore I think is unusual in being adjacent to the child sex tourism destination. Thus a law in Singapore targeting child sex would be particularly significant. However I welcome alternative views.

Another reason I wasn't inclined to take your edit seriously is that you, or someone using your IP address, has made a habit of vandalizing Wikipedia articles (e.g. "Lee the bastard").

If you wish to contribute, please do so, but 1. do it in a constructive way, 2. fill in the edit summary, and 3. preferably create an account.

--Singkong2005 05:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, I will post comments in, and sign my comments on talk pages.

Please, include the info about Batam as a CHILD PROSTITUTION DESTINATION, that is not how the article reads now.

I've changed it to:

Singapore has been criticised for having no such law, in spite of being adjacent to the sex tourism destination of Batam in Indonesia, which has many underage sex workers, some of whom have been tricked or forced into prostitution, according to media reports.

It might be getting off the track a bit, although I believe the information is relevant.

I have no idea what you are reffering to about my IP address, here is my contrib list: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.107.52.142

Please let me know what you are refferencing.

In that case I'll accept that I made an error. (I had looked at the IP address of the user who removed the line, which was 202.156.6.54, and viewed some of the edits at random... but I can't find them now, so I may have clicked the wrong thing. In any case you're obviously being reasonable about this question.) --Singkong2005 03:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

btw, I have made an account and you'll see me around as Devalover peace 69.107.95.35 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. Can't find your user page though. When you sign, use four tildes (the wavy symbol) to sign, then it links to your user page. Or just use the button above the edit box, second from the right. --Singkong2005 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

-- CHANNELNEWSASIA REPORTS: SINGAPORE TO ENACT CHILD SEX TOURISM LAW Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 02 March 2006 1711 hrs

Government amending laws to deter child sex tourism By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : The government is coming down hard on Singaporeans who engage in sex with minors, even abroad.

It is amending its laws to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction over its nationals who sexually exploit minors overseas.

Speaking in Parliament on Thursday, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee says the government is also making it an offence to purchase sexual services from anyone who is under 18.

He says child sex tourists take advantage of the inability or the unwillingness of the host country to prosecute them.

Back in Singapore, prosecution is also constrained as most countries do not extend extra-territorial jurisdiction for sexual offences.

Professor Ho says: "Presently, Singaporeans who have sex with minors in other countries cannot be prosecuted in Singapore as our courts do not have jurisdiction over them.

"Members have urged the government to stop our nationals from preying on minors from other counties by denying them a safe haven through enacting legislation of extra-territorial effect. We have taken note of these views and have factored them in our review."

The Home Affairs Ministry says despite the constraints and difficulties in dealing with child sex cases overseas, Singapore recognises that having sex with minors anywhere is deplorable.

So the government has decided to take firm action and amend the laws to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction over Singapore nationals who sexually exploit minors overseas.

The changes will be introduced once the on-going review of the Penal Code is completed.

The Home Affairs Ministry is also tightening measures to protect young persons from providing sexual services.

Professor Ho says: "Being more easily influenced, their consent can be impaired. As such, they are more vulnerable to being trafficked, controlled and exploited by pimps and traffickers who prey on them and live off their earnings."

He says although there is no evidence to suggest that there are significant numbers of 16- and 17-year olds engaging in prostitution, the government feels there should be a higher age protection for commercial sexual activities.

So, it has decided to make it an offence for anyone to purchase sexual services from a person who is under 18. - CNA/de

sex worker "work ethics?"

Does this sentence make sense to anyone as a motive for sex tourism: preferring the "work ethics" of foreign prostitutes to those of one's own country

Devalover 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Work ethic is a polite way of saying "they love you long time". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

) ahhhhh. thanks Devalover 15:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

child prostitution

Personally, I would like to see this section gone, or merged with child prostitution... the article is about legal sex tourism... any thoughts?Devalover 15:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is about sex tourism, legal or not.--Patrick 23:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Devalover's point was there are TOO MANY references in the article as a whole about child prostitution. It gives the article a "bias". In this small article there is at least SIX references to "child prostitution" or pedophilia. "Child prostitution" should be a different article in and of itself with ONE link to and from this one. Unfortunately there are pedophiles in every sector of society. There isn't a single mention in fornication or Human sexual behavior or even in Priest (which I find amusing). Hmmm... but there are SIX references in this article along with 50% of the links. Actually, now that I have poked around a bit I've found Prostitution of children, probably most of that stuff can go there. I'll check out both this article and that one and see what can be put there. Oarias 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some of this stuff to it's own section "Crime and controversy", also cleaned up the section about sex tourism in the prostitution article (it was WAY biased). Anyhow.... boy this article is hard to keep NPOV! ;) Oarias 11:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Vandals in this page (Justin Hay?)

Ummm, yep!

Feel free to edit out any vandalisms you find. Also, you can sign your comments by typing 4 "~"'s Devalover 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslim countries?!?

Quote from the article:

Occasionally, sex tourists go to conservative countries for the challenge of tricking women there into having sex with them. A notable case is Philippe Servaty who traveled to Muslim countries where he persuaded women to do degrading things by promising to marry and bring them to Belgium. He then posted photos online to boast of his conquests, but when his explicit materials were circulated back to Morocco many of the women were arrested, had their lives ruined, committed suicide or simply disappeared. [1]"

This is the ONLY case of this sort of thing I've heard of. Does this need to be in "Destinations" ?? Oarias 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, moved and reformatted to "Crime and controversy" section. Oarias 11:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice with the crime and controversy sections Oarias, For this and the child prostitution sections.Rhythmic01 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal issues in the United States

Federal law prohibits American citizens to engage in international travel with the purpose of having sex with a person under the age of 17, even if the age of consent in the target country is below 18. Prosecutions under this law are very rare.

I changed this to

"Federal law prohibits American citizens to engage in international travel with the purpose of having sex with a person under the age of 18, even if the age of consent in the target country is below 18. Prosecutions under this law are very rare."

I believe the 17 number is incorrect. Please see the Protect Act of 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

POV?

"In 2005 it was reported that Philippe Servaty, a newspaper columnist for Le Soir, traveled to Muslim countries where he persuaded women to do degrading things by promising to marry and bring them to Belgium. He then posted photos online to boast of his conquests, but when his explicit materials were circulated back to Morocco many of the women were arrested, had their lives ruined, committed suicide or simply disappeared."

Isn't that bolded word a hint of POV?

Prostitution?

"Women sometimes give clothes, meals, cash and gifts to their holiday boyfriends, but not all (especially in Southern Europe) expect compensation." I dont see how a man (or a woman for that matter) who is having sex with a tourist and does not expect compensation is considered a prostitute???

Definition of sex tourism

I just wrote a definition for "sex tourism" in the opening section of this article which expanded upon the one we had in order to provide a more general discription. The previous definition seemed to only be concerned with prostitution and sexual abuse of child, which is not conclusive of the phenomenon. Although sex tourism is most often associated with prostitution, this is not present in every case.

Let me mention that I have a master's degree in clinical psychology from California State University, and that I have studied cultural anthropology at the University of Southern California as a minor of my undergraduate degree. I have also traveled extensively to many of the better known sex tourism destinations to observe and participate in these customs and rituals.

I believe this is a good definition for sex tourism. If you have anything to add to this definition please say it here.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The term sex tourism is coined with the specific meaning of "tourism for the purpose of having sex" — participation in the sex trade in other words — and the subject is usually linked to prostitution. Besides being a specific subject interesting in itself, this is important in the study of trade and economics on a regional and international scale, and is also in many cases a human rights issue.

The term generally does not include all tourism concerned with the subject of sex (including in your examples observation and museum visits), as your "generic" definition leans. By introducing this vague definition, you draw attention away from the abovementioned concerns, and generally muddy the waters. I hope this is inadvertent.

As an academic, you probably have a grip on peer-reviewed sociological journals. If possible, please provide a link that demonstrates this term is widely accepted to mean all tourism concerned with the subject of sex. Otherwise, please revert your edits — they are off-topic, and water down the article without providing useful information. — edgarde 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that, as there are also no citations that back it being defined as narrowly as you suggest, I'm not certain as to why it would be limited in such a way. Of course, references for either view would be welcome. My understanding was also the broader definition of tourism related to sex, not specifically for "intercourse". My guess is that people would not want the narrower definition as that would scare away tourists. Atom 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again I'm not an academic, so I won't have access to the kind of quality information Mr. Knodel has, but here are a couple easy ones.

• The World Tourism Organization's Statement on the Prevention of Organized 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"
• Google UN.org, *.EDU. Heck. Just Google "sex tourism". Try it excluding "child".

I see no mention of retirees visiting sex museums, and you'd have to dig pretty hard to find swingers' vacation resorts (which I imagine don't want to be associated with the term "sex tourism"). Pretty consistently the term is used to mean the practice of travelling to countries with few or poorly enforced sex laws and a large population of economicly distressed people for the purpose of engaging in sexual activities.

Please revert your definition.

Also, please stop inserting the commercial spam link to Sly Traveler Sex Guide. Wikipedia is not here to optimize your search engine ratings. — edgarde 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Thank you both for responding. In response to the first reply, can you tell us where the term sex tourism is coined as tourism for the purpose of having sex, and why we should accept this instead? Your argument that tourism exclusively for participating in sex is necessary for studying the economic influence may not be acceptable. Observational sex tourism does provide economic income for sex tourism destinations as well. For example Casa Rosso in Amsterdam or the Park Hotel in Costa Rica generate substantial revenue through tourism provided by live sex shows. Also there are museums in Nevada that older tourists travel to without participating in sexual intercourse. The hot springs of Bebbu in Japan are another example of this. There are websites on all these places that you can use as a reference, including some articles in Wikipedia itself. I'm unfamiliar with sociological journals or a particular social scientist to refer you to on “sex tourism”, because it is a new topic.

There is also the fact that sex tourism need not involve prostitution. There are swingers clubs and orgy events in Amsterdam and Buenos Ares that are very good examples of how people travel internationally to have sex without prostitution.

As far as human rights, you might want to pursue that under other topics such as child sex tourism, illegal prostitution, or sexual abuse. Human rights are also at sake when people are forced to follow beliefs that their own culture does not support. I mentioned this by including cultural relativism as an important issue within the subject of sex tourism. The definition that I provided leaves plenty of room for the exploitative dangers of sex tourism as well.

If you want to add some kind of emphases on how prostitution is even more important in our definition than we already have, I suppose you can do so. But we already stated that "a sex tourist is usually defined as an adult who travels in order to have legal consensual sexual relations with another adult often for the exchange of money or presents."

Also, please identify yourself in your replies.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are misquoting me here.

"Your argument that tourism exclusively for participating in sex is necessary for studying the economic influence[...]"

That is not what I said. I could restate it, or you could re-read it.

My argument is that "Sex tourism" is defined accurately and succinctly in the first paragraph of this page, and furthermore that this page is padded with sugar-coated pro- sex industry POV.

Please revert your definition. — edgarde 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Edgarde, as I said, "sex tourism" has acquired a derogatory connotation that is unjustified. Let's take Amsterdam as an example. Most of the people who go there to see the sexual attractions do not participate in sex with prostitutes. I don't know what kind of travel experiences you have had, but this true for almost all sex tourism destinations. I will not deny that the main purpose of sex tourism is most often to have sex with prostitutes. But that is not all there is to it. The definition you have is too limited and does not accord with the complexity of the actual phenomenon. By the way, I consider the link that I added, :* http://slyguide.com Sly Traveler to be a good site on the subject of sex tourism, which does not promote the negative meaning you defend. If you have a certain prospective that you feel is important, go ahead and write about it, or add your own link. There are a lot interesting sexual customs out there that most people don’t know about. And the majority of them aren’t as bad as you make them out to be. What would you like to see changed? I think you are asking too much to change everything completely just for you. I, at least, think it is necessary to say something about how not all sex tourists are child molesters and can have an appreciation for the diversity of human sexually found throughout different cultures, which may or may not involve prostitution. Furthermore, I still strongly believe that sex tourism can include observation as well as participation.

What is most important to you in defining "sex tourism"? Can you give us an example of what you feel must be included. Edgarde, I can tell you are a respectable person, and I would like to come to some sort of mutual understanding so we can stop arguing, and give other people a chance to contribute.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 09:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated what I think is "important" and "must be included". My main issue is with your definition, which is disingenuous nonsense:

Sex tourism is a general term that entails traveling to foreign countries either to observe or participate in sexual customs other than one's own.

... in other words, sex tourism is simply any tourism that involves sex. This is like defining "stoplight" as "a lamp that people stop in front of perhaps as an agreed meeting location", or "waterboarding" as "use of aquadynamicly shaped pieces of lumber or similar material for surfing". Both definitions are make literal sense, but that's not what those terms mean. The suggestion that "sex tourism" has "acquired a bad name" is industry Spin (public relations), as was the removal of Trafficking in human beings. (By the way, thank you for restoring that.)

Atomaton asked "Let's have references for either view". I gave a definition with a reference, plus a Google trail that suggests that definition is in wide use in academic and general writing at least on the web. Your rebuttal is that sex tourism "has acquired a derogatory connotation that is unjustified". As you are an educated person with experience in the subject, it's hard to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt here, especially considering your insistence on linking a commercial site, and gratuitously hotlinking it from this page.

Please revert your definition. Also, please remove your spam links from the article, including this Discussion page. — edgarde 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Edgarde, I'm sorry that we could not come to an agreement. My delimitation is not circler as you have suggested. I think you need to read it closer. The basic idea is that people may travel to have sex, but they may also travel to observe sexual customs. Also participation or observation of sexual customs and ritual may or may not involve prostitution. This is much more specific than your definition that "sex tourism" is "tourism for the purpose of having sex." Is this not much more circler than what I have suggest? Your definition ignores the fact that most sex tourists travel to observe sexual customs and rituals as well as participate in them.

I have presented strong agreements with empirical examples where you have only offered judgments and allegations in most cases. Also I don't appreciate your insults, such as my ideas are "nonsense", "watered down", and "spam". This kind of subjective speak is not productive. Throughout this discussion with you, I have demonstrated knowledge on the subject of sex tourism. Thank you for telling us about your Google searches, but anyone could do that. It would be more helpful if you laid out some points that you want to be included on the sex tourism page based on your Google searches at least. I have traveled the world, and my observations are grounded on my education of cultural anthropology and clinical psychology. I think what I have said is relevant to defining sex tourism.

The link to Sly Traveler should stay. There are other links on this page that are less relevant, such as those on "child sex tourism", which already have links in the page content, and which there is another page on Wikipedia where it would be better placed. Also there are comparable links to Sly Traveler in the "prostitution" Wikipedia page that offer information from similar prospectives, which might be considered commercial. I don't think it will help to have a page where all links basically share the same position on the subject. Sly Traveler offers a relevant prospective that has not been previously introduced. It also offers resources for sex tourists with sex tourism destination information that is not included on the Wikipedia sex tourism page.

I'm going to change the last paragraph to try to accommodate you. It's hard to do this though, because you haven't really stated what you feel is most important. You mentioned human rights. I think you are trying to say that sex tourism can be exploitative for sex workers in some cases. I wish you would just tell us what you think needs to be said so we can make progress toward a mutually agreeable definition.

If anyone has any other thoughts on this discussion and the definition of sex tourism please contribute.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a controversy about how Sex tourism is defined. 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Sex tourism has a specific meaning of "tourism for the purpose of having sex"[2], particularly for participation in the 'sex trade'. I object to a redefinition here as tourism "to observe or participate in sexual customs other than one's own" because

1. that is not the commonly used meaning[3][4][5][6], and,
2. using that redefinition obscures many of the economic, cultural, legal and political implications that the term carries.

Items I object to are removed in this edit, but I would also encourage those commenting to start by reading the Definition of sex tourism discussion on this page. — edgarde 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sex tourism The term Sex Tourism has acquired a derogatory connotation that does not accord with the complexity of the phenomenon that I have experienced throughout my observations of various sex tourism destinations. A sex tourist may travel to observe as well as participate in sexual customs and rituals of foreign cultures, which may or may not involve prostitution. It is unnecessary to "combat" sex tourism, because it is often done legally and is acceptable under the terms of the culture of the host country. The definition [7] I propose is meant to reconcile the following:

1. Sex tourism need not be associated with ethnocentric constructs such as "the sex trade" or any other term that does not have respect for cultural relativism.
2. There is no gold standard or authority on sex tourism and it should only be definited under reasons provided by the editors.
   

— Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Atom 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC) I view this as an NPOV issue. There is no central authority for correct definitin of the term. That means that any editor can give their perceptions/opinions of one or more known usages. Those perceptions/opinions need to be backed by some reliable reference. For instance, if the term is used in United Nations documents, or a news or magazine article discussing the term. To remain NPOV, we should offer fair balance and allow the definitions that are offered and cited. An important factor here is that this article is not a vehicle for special interests, or a campaign on an issue (for instance an anti-abortion organization or activist trying to control an article to make their case.) This is referenced in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. There is ample room here to say "Sex tourism is a term often used to mean "X" by the United Nations and other NGO's in trying to combat "Y". Also, the term is seen to be more broadly defined to mean "Z" by the tourism industry and other organizations."
2. RandomP 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) First of all, I must admit that this is the first time I was even made aware that there's controversy about what the term "sex tourism" means. As far as I'm concerned, "tourism for purposes of having sex" is much closer to the meaning in common usage (I would add a caveat pointing out that travelling for the purpose of having sex with a person you already know, and incidentally doing touristy things while there, would hardly qualify as "sex tourism" — the connotation very clearly is that you don't know the people, don't take the time to build a romantic relationship or anything, and quite likely end up paying for the sex).

Second, and I believe this is the more important point, articles should be about concepts, not about English phrases. Intermingling the common definition of sex tourism, which is widely regarded as abusive, with another definition of the same term that means something generally considered harmless, would make for an extremely bad article: Abusive sex tourism is a significant problem, it regularly makes the news, it creates complicated legal situations when prosecuted, it's connected to the HIV pandemic, it's something we need an article about. "Harmless" sex tourism is something that would strike me a stub material, and very probably a fringe phenomenon.

In summary, the redefinition strikes me as misguided, and if I had to guess at the intention, I would think it is a deliberate attempt to widen the definition of a term to include hypothetical harmless activity, possibly in order to put a positive spin on the whole issue. It appears to me analogous to redefining "gun crime" to include the theft of guns, even though that's clearly and overwhelmingly not the sense in which the term is used.

-- I never once used the word "harmless". HIV in a legally regulated program of prostitution is in many cases lower than in an illegal context. Also crime, including rapes and child molestations are lower in countries that have legal prostitution than those that don't (See the prostitution page). Most sex tourism destinations have legal prostitution, and the sexual customs are usually acceptable under the terms of the host country. I never definited sex tourism as having sex with some you already know under a romantic relationship. There are forms of sexual participation in rituals with people who don't know each other, which are not abusive and are consensual, such as orgies, swingers clubs, and FFK's. There are live sex shows, tours of red light districts, and sex museums that are based on observational customs that don't include participation as well. Whether this is a "positive spin" or not is beside the point. These are empirical components of sex tourism that were not accounted for the previous definition. Also, the introduction of 1) observational customs and 2) customs of participation that do not include prostitution, does not contradict the previous definition of 3) customs that include participating in prostitution, which is still present in our description of sex tourism.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point a lot. Can you please re-read the comment to which you're replying? — edgarde 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was misquoted in RandomP's comment. If you have a point that you think I've missed you need to specify it. Your definition does not account for other forms of sex tourism besides illegal prostitution. There are many empirical examples that sex tourism has other forms than that (i.e. observational, participation without prostitution, and legal prostitution). There is no authority on sex tourism, and the term may even be considered a colloquialism. We are going to need to agree upon a definition that includes multiple prospectives (See NPOV). So it may behoove you to start stating some points that you want to see included in the definition, instead of insisting on reverting the whole thing. Atom's comment was much more relevant than RandomP's, in that it at least showed some understanding of the issues involved in the dispute, instead of misquoting, and that it suggested applicable solutions for dispute resolution.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, excuse me? How did I misquote you?

The one appearance of the word "harmless" in quotes has those merely to point out that it was created as an ad-hoc antonym to "abusive", and I think that should have been clear to most readers.

If it is indeed the case that "sex tourism" is an ambiguous term, then I agree we need to apply NPOV — and change the title of this article, as well as the term used in it. However, you appear to have made more of a content decision than a terminology decision, and much of the article now appears devoted to defending "sex tourism", by the expanded definition.

Also remember to assume good faith — not only is it policy, it also makes dispute resolution much more efficient.

RandomP 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "Sex tourism is tourism for the purpose of having sex" has multiple sources. As far as I can tell, "to observe or participate in sexual customs other than one's own" has none, making it at present a violation of the WP:V core content policy. Furthermore, the statements by that definition's proponent strongly suggest to me that it is a WP:NOR violation as well. Accordingly, I believe that 1) "to observe or participate in sexual customs other than one's own" has no place in the article, and [[8]] should be retained, and 2) it is "to observe or participate in sexual customs other than one's own", not "for the purpose of having sex" that violates the WP:NPOV policy, since including a point-of-view that is unverifable or original research by definition grants it undue weight (namely, granting it any weight). The Literate Engineer 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-- What are the sources you are referring to for "Sex tourism is tourism for the purpose of having sex"? If it must be stated verbatim, show us where it is directly referred to. Participation in prostitution is already including the current definition.

Here are some websites on observational sex tourism:

1. Casa Rosso
2. The Bananenbar
3. Moulin Rouge of Amsterdam

Here are some websites on sex tourism that include participation without prostitution:

1. Club Paradise
2. The Candy Club

These are just the some of the sex tourism sites in Amsterdam that do not include participation in prostitution but are still sex tourism attractions. There are places like these at other sex tourism destinations as well, but most of them do not have websites, because they are not as open about their sexual customs as Amsterdam is. You can find more outside references online or you can travel to the destinations yourself. My definition is not original research alone. I don't know if you can count participant-observation as "research". Use these above mentioned Amsterdam examples as references if necessary. There is no gold standard or authority on the subject of sex tourism, and it is important that we take a neutral point of view that accounts for its various forms.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice of revision

In order to adopt a neutral point of view including some of the concerns that Edgarde touched on during our discussion, I've made a revision from the original definition that Edgarde had fault with [9] to a new definition [10].

I've replaced the following statement:
"Sex tourism is just like any other form of tourism that focuses on a certain aspect of a foreign culture. Sex tourists are people who travel for recreation in their enjoyment of experiencing the rich diversity of sexual customs, rituals, and manifestation throughout the world."

With this statement:
"Some advocacy groups who oppose sex tourism exist to prevent the adverse conditions of illegal prostitution practiced in some countries, which can result in exploitation of sex workers and sexual abuse. Many sex tourism destinations are often countries with poor economies. Some proponents feel that human rights have been violated when prostitution provides extra income under the hardships of poverty."

By doing so, I've tried to make the definition more objective and avoid soapbox reporting. I think this definition fairly accounts for various forms of sex tourism found at the better known sex tourism destinations while informing the reader about philosophies concerning the phonomenon. The new definition introduces 1) observational customs and 2) customs of participation that do not include prostitution, while not contradicting Edgarde's previous definition of 3) customs that include participating in prostitution (i.e. Sex tourism is tourism, partially or fully for the purpose of having sex. Sex tourism is legal in any country in the world where prostitution is also legal. A sex tourist is usually defined as an adult who travels in order to have legal consensual sexual relations with another adult often for the exchange of money or presents), which is still present in our description of sex tourism.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate. You are not adopting a NPOV. You are not addressing the problems that are clearly (and repeatedly) defined above. The Literate Engineer proposes a satisfactory solution. Please revert your definition entirely. And please remove your all your (gratuitously hotlinked) spam URLs.

Also, discussion about this topic belongs on the Discussion page for this topic — this page. Please do not use my Talk page for this purpose. This discussion involves people other than you and me.

Note to whomever cares: while Mr. Knodel uses an unlinked text signature, he logs in from two accounts:

* KyndFellow (talk • contribs)

* 68.5.116.235 (talk • contribs).

This info is intended as a convenience, and not as an accusation of sockpuppetry. — edgarde (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-- Edgarde, you need to give me a break. I'm new at Wikipedia. Your IP is displayed instead of your signature if you forget to log-in before you post a message. I have done nothing wrong. I have tried very hard to please you. I can't do anything more, Im sorry. The Wikipedia is Not is a Soapbox [11] article and the neutral point of view article will explain the merit of my contributions, including my expansion of the dinifition to Sex tourism and my link to Sly Traveler.

• In response your acquisition that Sly Travel is a spam website, please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  

"External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic."

• In response to your request to revert Sex tourism completely, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We can help you. If you want a "break", you can get off the hook easily by following simple instructions. Click this link^obsolete, then click "Save Page" (without making any changes). We'll take care of the rest. — edgarde 08:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. The current defintion [12] is acceptable to me. However, the link to Sly Traveler was missing. As an editor, I'm entitled to introduce links that are important external sources of information on the topic. Sly Traveler provides a prospective on sex tourism that was not previously accounted for. The child sex tourism links seem less relevant, since our difinition seperates it from the phenomon we describe, and there is a seperate Wikipedia page for Child Sex Tourism. Still I have respected the views of other editors and not objected to including these links. Our current definition includes sex shows, sex museums, and red light districts. Sly Traveler provides information on these sex tourism attractions all over the world, which are discribed in greater depth than our Sex Tourism article.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The current state of our Sex Tourism article [13] is a acceptable to me. I wish to withdraw from the dispute. Engarde, would you please remove our request for comment link? Shall we delete our discussion at this point? Thank you, Addhoc for helping. Your definition is what I wanted to see included, and I think it is even more objective. I appreciate you for respecting my contributions. You have made my first editing experience on Wikipedia a pleasant one.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I still have issues (see below). When this nonsense is over, the correct procedure would be to archive the discussion. Deleting comment is not a good practice. — edgarde 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Much-needed cleanup

This new writeup is much nicer. I'm not really in love the the compromise definition, particularly...

Sex tourism can be used to describe sexual entertainment activities, for example sex tourists may travel to observe live sex shows, sex museums, or tours of red light districts.

...which is an ugly compromise, but overall we're most of the way to the old definition, so I can live with it. Further motion away from the redefinition will be someone else's issue to take up.

EDIT 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC): Sorry. Couldn't live with it. I did my best to stomach that sentence, but it was a no-man's land of lies and spin. This can go to your advocate. If you can find verification for exactly who uses the term with that meaning, please substitute the first part with something like "Sex tourism promoters sometimes use the term to ...", but it can't let it stand.

Specifying specific acts in the first sentence is distracting, potentially confusing, and too much like advertising:

Sex tourism is traveling for sexual intercourse with prostitutes or to engage in sexual practices such as orgies, FKK's, or swingers clubs.

... this should end more like "... or go engage in sexual practices not easily available in one's home locale." The particular practices listed are too specific and not essential to this description. They're also more in the "travel guide" spirit the article had before Addhoc's revisions. I made this change.

I would take issue with any motion to:

• re-introduce the tourists guide style (term taken from another editor -- I used the term "Sex industry POV" and I stand by it)
• remove references to Child Sex Tourism (which are not as of this revision excessive) because while it is not the only form of sex tourism (and this distinction is made in the article), it is a distinct attraction (moreso, I would wager, than "orgies") (not that I personally have anything against orgies; I just don't see a need to travel very far to participate in one; God Bless America).
• moving or changing the "can be used to describe" example above (which I'll call the third sentence) to obscure, preceed, or override the prior definition (which I'll call the the first two sentences); or, where the first two sentences are modified in the direction of the third. The third sentence is the "redefinition', and it is one of the two core points of my initial objection. I'm leaving it at your insistence. (This is the compromise I am willing to accept. Yes it is ugly, and the rest of Wikipedia is still able to take issue with it.)^obsolete

• EDIT 01:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC):I've changed as little as I could in the first section.

• restoring the Sly Traveler link, which is not appropriate. (This was the other core point of my initial objection.) It is not an important external source of information, any more that a travel agent's page on sex tourism might be. Its content is not unique or valuable (locale info one can get from the CIA World Factbook notwithstanding), and it exists primarily to advertise or sell services. This should be apparent to most as a Spam link. If you want to take this point to arbitration, that's fine.

This isn't finished. But style-wise the article is much cleaned up. User:Addhoc did some very good work. Admirable work. — edgarde 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, Although the destination coverage is organized in much the same way, Sly Traveler does indeed contain information on the subject of sex tourism that is not present in the CIA World Fact Book. The site does not sell travel services, and it should not be compared as such. Its content is unique and you will not find external sources that provide its qauntity (qaultiy is subjective) of information related to sex tourism destinations, and the sites found among them, elsewhere. In response to your acquisition that Sly Travel is a spam website, please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox

"External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic."

Sly Traveler is a site that I've included to provide a prospective that our Sex Tourism page did not have, and it is essential to taking a neutral point of view while respecting me as an editor. Comparible links to Sly Traveler that currently exist on Wikipedia are the WorldSexArchieves and MyRedBook.comin the Prostitution page.

Addhoc's definition is well written and has respect for the views of all editors. Please try to understand that a defintion written from a neutral point of view will need to involve some compromise, and cannot be worded exactly as one editor wants. His definition is more objective than your revision, and does not include the superfulous content you introduced (i.e. "not easily available in one's home country or region"). People living in a sex tourism destitation might engage in activities nearby that are easily accessible, such as with the FKK's of Frankfurt.

Engarde seems to be begging the question in order to escalate the dispute for his own amusement. His comments to continue the dispute are subjective (i.e. I would wager, than "orgies" ... not that I personally have anything against orgies; I just don't see a need to travel very far to participate in one), and presume that he has some kind of authority over the say of other editors (i.e. This isn't finished. But style-wise the article is much cleaned up).

Engarde, please don't remove my link to Sly Traveler again or add to the defintion. Changes at this point will further postpone dispute resolution and make it harder for us to form a consensus. Addhoc has acted as a good mediator for us, and you should as least respect his edits, if you can't respect mine. If Addhoc approves of a point you want to see introduced, please let him make the edit.

I wish to resolve the dispute with AdHoc's intervention. [14] I'm going to revert the article to this point now.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 02:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard from User:Addhoc, so he is not mediating. He did a nice rewrite. It's not the last word. My objections stand. I attached references to the version you reverted, and the version to which you reverted is basicly a concise version of original research, so that version is against Wikipedia policy. Please don't remove citations from this article. And please don't add further POV edits.

Your contributions to this article will inevitably be edited. Reverting back to the more POV version is not the best reaction. It's a work in progress. — edgarde 05:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What about your comment that Addhoc's definition would be acceptable if we made changes based on your sex life, stating orgies are accessible for most people in their hometown? That sounds like orginal research, Edgarde... Now your backtracking once you can't have your way. I've provided links for sex tourism attractions in Amsterdam that include observational sex tourism and participation without prostitution as an example of external sources. While we are on the subjuct of the link I introduced, there are many more sex tourism sites found in the major sex tourism destinitations all over the world, which are covered on Sly Traveler

Addhoc's definition is well written and respects the views of all editors. While it contains some degree of compromise from orginal posts, the basic ideas of various points of view are contained in Addhoc's difinition. It is the most objective definition on the subject of Sex Tourism that has been presented so far.

I'm going to revert to Addhoc's definition. [15] Please respect the views of other editors.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no moratorium, and in all this time never has been. I went from 2006-10-30T20:48:52 to 2006-11-03T18:02:05 without reverting your spam link or your POV edits advocating for sex tourism. This was done entirely out of respect for your concerns. During this interval about 30kB of verbiage has been added to this Talk page where you have WikiLawyered, declared resolutions and moratoria, purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, misrepresented other editors comments, and ignored the following feedback from myself and 2 other editors:

• Your edits are highly POV
• Your edits are original research
• Your redefinition (my term, which at least one other editor adopted) is entirely novel

And you've been completely impervious to this information.

There's a Russian proverb, old:

When twelve men say you are drunk, perhaps you should sit down.

I've not looked into the possible-spam links you report being on Prostitution. The presence of spam (if it is so) on Prostitution does not justify a spam link here (or anywhere).

If Addhoc cares to comment, I'll be happy to read it. But Addhoc has not commented in this discussion or directly to me, so Addhoc is not at this time "mediating". I won't sit and wait while you revert to a page that retains your Spam link and POV edits.

I encourage you to persue arbitration on this. However, I gave you 3½ days to make your case (and continue editing), and your bottom line is really clear by now. Your POV edits and spam cannot stay. I'm really sorry this troubles you so much.

I'll probably have a go at editing this article. Without making a full-time job of this, my intention would be to, over time, add references and remove POV (if any remains). With one obvious exception, I'm not expecting a lot of editors to have problems with my edits, but I'll certainly respect other editors.

And if I don't do it, somebody else will. This dispute is not between you and me.

Haven't gotten below the TOC yet, but I've pretty much done the first 3 paragraphs. It's not a final draft and I may refine them later — obviously, there are no final drafts on Wikipedia. — edgarde 09:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, you are right, there are no final drafts. What do you think of Addhoc's new definition? Inclusion of the link to Sly Traveler and Addhac's definition would end my involvement in the dispute.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 11:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Regarding the definition, could I suggest that we should base our arguments on citations. Addhoc 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs much more work. Get a citation on that 2nd paragraph or it cannot stay. The spam link needs to come out. I'll comment on the rest when time permits. — edgarde 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree the article requires further editing. Regarding the second paragraph, should we give another 24 hours and then remove? Addhoc 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't in that much of a hurry. Can we give Mr. Knodel (or whomever) the rest of the weekend to page through some scholarly journals? Someone degreed in clinical psychology and cultural anthropology shouldn't have much trouble citing sources. And if we leave the article {{fact}}-tagged an extra day or two, another editor might look into it.

I wanted to tighten up the 3rd paragraph because it repeats information from further down — distinguish child/non-child, wikilink child, and move on without a load of apologia. If I deleted any non-redundant info in my previous edit (this would have been inadvertent), it might be better restored under Criminality and Controversy, where it can be detailed. Without referring to the style manual just now, I feel like the above-TOC text should be very concise.

Also, same paragraph, the "some advocacy groups" language seems pretty weasely. I intended the U.N. references to replace that for the time being, and maybe append other groups as discovered. I reckon no one's going to think the U.N. is acting alone.

Gotta run. More later. Thank again for your help. Much appreciation your way. — edgarde 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You both have a lot of good points. And who I'm to argue with the U.N. But this seems one-sided to me. Look at the prostitution page please. Look at how it shows both sides, and you may understand my view point. The Sex Tourism page is an overlapping subject with the Prostitution page and needs to show some congruence. I want to contribute the best links for our article. But, you can't seriously expect me to find scholarly journals regarding the non-abusive customs of sex tourism. Most journals on clinical psychology pertain to sexual disorders when it comes to sex. You didn't provide any sources from such journals. We might as well rename the article "What the U.N. has to say about sex tourism". These are very good sources which must be included, but they don't show both sides.

What would you think if I provided links of websites to sex tourism attractions that show the existence of observational sex tourism and participation in sex tourism that doesn't involve the use of prostitution. You guys need to understand that most sex tourism establishments don't have websites because people tend to keep quiet under the negative stigma, which was my original point. But that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Sly Traveler describes the activates mentioned in the second paragraph. This is a clean website. I could show you some more explicit websites, but I don't think that would be good taste. We are talking about controversial practices of sex though, it is not always described without bias in journals and political sources. There are plenty of subjects on Wikipedia that are not base on journals or political sources, such as graffiti, sky diving, and sausage.

I have compromised almost completely from my original definition. I think cultural relativity is important, and that customs of other cultures need to be respected on their own terms. There are forms of sex tourism that don't deserve the negative stigma when viewed on there own terms. The minuscule portion that remains to show this is, "Sex tourism can be used to describe sexual entertainment activities, for example sex tourists may travel to observe live sex shows, sex museums, or tours of red light districts." That at least says that some forms of sex tourism aren't abusive. I will settle with that. Perhaps some other editor will come along and add further to the non-abusive side of sex tourism, but I've done just about all I can under the options that remain.

Also, Edgarde please stop calling the link to Sly Traveler spam. It doesn’t show much respect. I have told you repeatedly why it isn't. I find that term insulting. Also, I don't know if you meant to do so, but your use of one-side subjective sections in the discussion page, such as "Much needed clean-up" and "Spam linkage" might be seen as a device to tip the discussion toward an unfair direction, and it is not very considerate. With that being said, I'm glad we can start working together, and I appreciate the new sources you have added to the article.

I'm going to start compiling a list of links on "sexual entertainment activities" found at the major sex tourism destinations, which support the second paragraph. If I find anything else on the non-abusive side of sex tourism, I will include it. I’m going to restore the link to Sly Traveler since it pertains to my point of view. I have respected your edits, please respect mine. Give me some time to dig up what I can, and then hopefully we can discuss forming a consesus based on the current definition and the new sources.

List of links as supporting evidence for the non-abusive activities of sex tourism:

1. The most popular live sex show in Amsterdam: Casa Rosso
2. Originally a French cabaret with historical significance; now a live sex show in Amsterdam: Moulin Rouge
3. A well known bar in Amsterdam where girls preform sexy tricks: Bananenbar
4. Argueably the world's most famous swingres club, hosting orgy events, Located in Amsterdam: Paradise
5. Holland's first swingers club; historically important: Candyclub
6. Terma style sex club in Prague K5 Relax
7. Frankfurt FKK: The Palace
8. Frankfurt FKK: Oase
9. Frankfurt FKK: World
10. Sex club in Santigo: Platinum Club
11. Home to the Blue Marlin; sex tourist bar in San Jose, Costa Rica: Del Rey
12. Sex tourist nightclub in Dubai, UEA: Cyclone
13. Sex tourist nightclub in Jakarta, Indonesia: Stadium Club
14. Sex tourist nightclub in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Help Disco
15. De Wallen tour discription: Amsterdam.info
16. Sex museum in New York, USA: Museum of Sex
17. Sex museum in Amsterdam Sex Museum
18. Sex museum in Paris Museum of Eroticism
19. Sex museum in England Museum Erotica
20. Sex museum in Japan House of Hidden Treasures
21. A summary of most of these attractions and those without websites Sly Traveler

Note: Despite my request to wait, Edgarde just reverted the page again. He countiues to remove Sly Traveler and call it spam.

This is all for now. How should we apply it to the article?

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 02:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam linkage

Your link to Sly Sex Traveler's Guide is not appropriate for reasons listed here. Its content is not unique or valuable, and it exists primarily to advertise or sell services. Examples follow (including suggestions for Sly Sex Traveler's Guide; let's keep reading).

Links to Microsoft.com are appropriate for articles about Microsoft. Links to technical pages on Microsoft.com are appropriate for articles on the issues addressed when they involve operations on Microsoft products, even for articles on issues not occuring inside a Microsoft software layer.

Links to Newegg.com would not be appropriate in an article about Microsoft, even if it can be demonstrated they have a wealth of information on Microsoft products, including specific descriptions of Microsoft products, user feedback on Microsoft products, how-to guides in doing various things in Microsoft products, and pictures of Microsoft product both in and removed from their packaging, plus lots of great hardware on which to run Microsoft apps, plus ... well more examples could be given.

Links to Sly Sex Traveler's Guide are appropriate on the Wikipage for Sly Sex Traveler's Guide. If said site makes its owner a millionaire, then a link to that site could be appropriate for a biography on that person.

For an article like Sex tourism, Sly Sex Traveler's Guide is as NewEgg to a Microsoft article.

If someone considers Sly Sex Traveler's Guide an important and unique resource, they can make such an article. I would stop short of recommending it myself because I don't think Sly Sex Traveler's Guide is that noteworthy or valuable. — edgarde 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe you have any familarity with the site you are attacking when you can't even remember its name. Sly Traveler is a site that I've included to provide a prospective that our Sex Tourism page did not have, and it is essential to taking a neutral point of view while respecting me as an editor. Comparible links to Sly Traveler that currently exist on Wikipedia are the WorldSexArchieves and MyRedBook.comin the Prostitution page.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

cleanup progress & where to put those sex-related tourist activities

I show no respect to the practice of inserting spam links. You are correct about this.

If Prostitution is prone to spam and POV assertions — and as I write this it, that article is categorized for both Needing factual verification and unsourced statements — I'm sure someone will take care of it in time. That article is by no means exemplary. You're petitioning to bring this page down to that level — that's a weak hand to play. I can suggest a better approach. (Read on!)

You have repeatedly asserted a novel definition of Sex tourism, and when challenged on this, you provide examples of the types of services you want to be considered "sex tourism" (instead of verifying your claim). Your ability to list such things does not make a case for your definition.

Furthermore, the definition is not the problem — this article is about an existing concept of sex tourism, not a list of definitions for it. I hope that's not too metaphysical. What I'm trying to say is: if you have a new concept for which Wikipedia lacks an article but needs one, you might want to create an article for it. I'm imagining a title like Sexual entertainment resort activities, but a better name is probably needed.

If you do this, be very careful not to create a POV fork — sex tourism goes here, the things you list that aren't sex tourism go there, and a distinction should be made on the page you create. More importantly, this should not be a split between "abusive" and "non-abusive" businesses. That article would be as obliged to explain health, social and cultural consequence of such businesses as this article. The purpose of creating the new article would be for you to get your subject out of this definition tarpit.

Also, items listed on that pages will need to be notable (so edit that list carefully), and that page will of course be subject to edits by many other editors. And of course that page will still need to be within Wikipedia's verification and NPOV standards. But it seems you've at least seen these topics.

I'm not sure this is a great idea, but it beats trying to cram a square peg in a round hole. (I'd make a joke there, but doing so seems to inflame some editors.)

Anyway, I've been thru this article and found surprisingly few POV assertions. Could still use more references, and I think I have one or two more {{fact}} tags I want to plant, but I'll wait another day to give User:KyndFellow (or whomever) time to verify the current and most worrisome ones first.

My changes so far are copyedits (mis-matched case, edit residue, and the like), and adding a "See also" link from Tourism involving sex with minors. I'm hoping no one objects to these. I could sure go without another shouting match.

Still needs work:

• Lead section.
• As User:KyndFellow point out, the only organization represented is the United Nations. More are needed.
• Terms used for sex tourists is half a loaf; might be better to delete and move sexpat (pending verification, but I've heard the term used) into another section.
• I'm not sure what the right amount of citations would be, but the article could use more.

Overall I think the article is close to satisfactory. — edgarde 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, your proposal is still one-sided. Quoting political organizations and advocacy groups alone will result in bias coverage. You have not acknowledged any points of view beside your own. Further, I don't think it is fair for you to continuously presume some sort of authority over other editors. I've just made a serious adapt to work with you, instead of against you, and look how you behave.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My goal would be to find reasonably unbiased references. One of the reasons I've so far only cited the U.N. is I've had to quickly throw out "advocacy" oriented organizations. One would expect advertisers promoting sex tourism, for example, to be prone to bias in their statements. — edgarde 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Addhoc's citation needed-note. Will my external links suffice to support the second paragraph? Also I completely disagree with paragragh three. We said before that there is a distiction between child sex tourism, and there is another page on Wikipedia for it.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored that tag. Please see my previous paragraph on your novel definition of Sex tourism. No one is disputing the existence of sex museums or redlight district tours. — edgarde 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the second paragraph. You made a good point, and I don't think it is absolutely necessary. Can we please make a sub-section for organizations and advocacy groups? I don't have any objections to adding citations there as long as we include pertinent references in the quotes themselves, instead of referring to an institution's stance on the topic. A sub-section will allow for greater detail of what you want to address. The opening we have now basically distinguishes the topic without taking any point of view. [16] The new second paragraph was reverted to a previous writing, which is not as judgmental toward sex tourist, but describes the reasons behind the problem aspects. For example the links to child prostitution and age of consent is more relevant than what a pedophile is. If you are willing to work with me on adding a new sub-section I will try my best in earnest to contribute some good citations form advocacy groups and political organizations opposing sex tourism. Can you suggest a name for the section? How about "The Dangers of Sex Tourism"?

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem with deleting the 2nd paragraph.

This is the paragraph with which you replaced paragraphs 2 & 3 of the current version.

Often the term "sex tourism" is mistakenly interchanged with the term "child sex tourism". 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. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the age of consent.

1st sentence: unverified statement, and besides the point. In the article opening we want to distinguish "child" sex tourism from adult while pointing out the relationship between the two in a concise way, not begin argumentation.

2d sentence: 2nd sentence is vague for reasons discussed under Talk:Sex_tourism#Minor_comments. User:AddHoc's version is concise and to the point.

3d sentence: again, most users don't know when and where international law is enforced. Anyway age of consent isn't strictly a factor with some tourists[17], and enforcement will vary from country to country. This sentence implies the problem is more or less taken care of.

In fact, this entire paragraph dismisses child sex tourism as mostly not important in discussion of the subject of Sex tourism. Weasly language, POV bias. User:AddHoc's version was much better.

Revisions on this paragraph (by User:AddHoc, finished here) were discussed under Talk:Sex_tourism#Minor_comments. If you have issues with that paragraph — well, frankly I don't see a case for it, but you might want to comment in that section before you try reverting again.

The 3d paragraph was added to represent an organization stating sex tourism has bad effects. In a discussion of sex tourism it is important to note this. This needs to be done concisely of course, and without using a dismissive weasel-expression like "some advocacy groups". That is why the UN quote is in the first section. 3 citations and you deleted it wholesale. One could imagine this was because it conflicts with your POV.

I've restored both.

Not to personlize this, but I still haven't heard from your advocate and/or mediator. Considering the problems you are having and your claimed inexperience, you probably shouldn't go it alone. — edgarde 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

repositioning this section

Moved Definition of sex tourism to its correct chronological position. Sorry I waited so long on this, but I missed some of User:Addhoc's comments because they were (correctly) added to the end of this page. I hope this does not confuse.

Definition of sex tourism was created by a new user at the top of this Discussion page. New sections should normally be created at the bottom of a Discussion page. New subsections belong at the bottom of the parent section. This makes threads easier to follow, and new items easier to find. — edgarde 08:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this section is not a dig any an editor (named or unnamed). I've noted this move as part of the page history, and as a tip for anyone who perhaps didn't know where to append comments. — edgarde 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of terms

Your use of the word "pedophile" in the second paragraph needs to be removed [18]. You've used it incorrectly, and you are not qualified to apply clinical terms. The first diagnostic criterion for the sexual disorder 302.2 Pedophilia states that the client must exhibit "Sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 year or younger)", as classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. There are no countries that have an age of consent below age 13, and many of them do include ages between 21 to 13 that classify adolescents as children. The concept of age of consent is important in how it applies to international laws and the laws of individual countries regarding sex tourism. This is the difference between child sex tourism and sex tourism that results from complications with these laws. Also your use the term of sex with children is irrelevant, as it includes incest and many other problems not related to child prostitution.

I'm going to revert the second paragraph. You can keep the others.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this wasn't a medical/psychiatric page I was okay with the "colloquial" version, but you're right in that it can create confusion. Perhaps as an authority you can swap in the correct term instead of reverting the entire paragraph the argumentative version (which has other problems; see Minor comments). Age of consent information is better dealt with further down the page. — edgarde 01:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revision is much better now. [19] However, child prostitution would be a better term than child abuse, which the sex with children page leads to. First off, the link to child prostitution already has a back-link to sex tourism, indicating a relation to each other. The sex with children link is another misused term, as it is much too general. Among many other forms, child abuse can involve incest at home, which is not related to tourism. Also child abuse does not require the abuser to directly commit harm, as it often refers to neglect. For example if a step-father sexually abuses a step-daughter and the mother knows about this, but doesn't report it, she has committed child abuse via neglect. A therapist is required to report it as well, or else he or she is also committing child abuse. Do you see the difference between child abuse and child prostitution? But, again this is often a legal matter, instead of a clinical one, because no country legally allows sex with prostitutes under the age of 13. If you can mention the difference between age of consent (age 21 to 13) and child prostitution (under age 13) that would be more accurate. There are international laws regarding to pornography that classify a child as anyone under 18. There are also international laws for citizens of some countries (i.e. U.S.A) that say no traveler can "intend" to have sex with anyone under 17. This is why I thought the previous writing was better than the one you have now.

I'm gong to switch sex with children to child prostitution.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on that link to Child abuse. I've flipped it to sex with children wikilinked to Child prostitution on the grounds that paying for it is probably more an expediency than the goal in most cases. Thanks for your attention to detail. — edgarde 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I flipped it back to just child prostitution, which is probably more accurate. Shoulda given it more thought. It was better the way you had it. Thanks again. — edgarde 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks good to me. [20]

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 10:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor comments

There are some minor stylistic concerns...

• use of "one's" if this is a quote then obviously use quotation marks, otherwise rephrase into more natural English. UN documents are often near word-for-word translations for quasi-legal reasons.

• use of "is a draw" and "may draw", suggest you rephrase, this isn't international usage.

• 'adult sex tourism is legal' comment, would suggest this isn't universal and consequently request a citation.

Addhoc 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. I think the lines to which you are referring have been removed.

What would be a good substitute for draw? I think in that sentence I was already using the word "attraction", so I didn't want to say "attract".

I also didn't like having adult sex tourism there, which may have the effect coining a new phrase ad hoc. As for the legality part, the possibly commits a crime against international law is vague two ways:

1. possibly — how would one know?
2. international law — not every reader will know how and when international law is enforced, so it raises more questions than it answers. I think this is also better removed from the lead section and covered under Criminality and Controversy. (I must admit I haven't given much thought to that section.)

— edgarde 06:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - I've changed the wording. Addhoc 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Every one of these edits is an improvement. Paragraph 3 is now concise and to the point. — edgarde 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

External links cleanup

User:KyndFellow 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 vested interest, I'm restoring the cleanup flag so another editor can evaluate the External Links section in an impartial fashion. — edgarde 07:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex tourism should be a fun topic and I see many people on here arguing. Just have fun people. Cheers from Aussie. Peace, Nicole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinglucky (talk • contribs)

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. — edgarde 17:08, 11 November 2006 (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 Wikipedia:External links. 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
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.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Message boards

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.

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. Devalover 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Def Trojan 00:42, 20 November 2006 (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 dead link near the top of that list for weeks, and it seems to have gone unnoticed by several reviewers. — edgarde 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 08:45, 20 November 2006 (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 Prostitution 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. — edgarde 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Addhoc 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc: thank you — however, Mr. Knodel has a history of dismissing my suggestions.

KyndFellow:

1. Please do not edit war to reinstate links to the Sly Traveler website, in which you have consistently not denied having a vested interest.
   
2. 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.
   
3. Wikipedia, while somewhat democratic, doesn't strictly work on the electoral campaign model, and this "majority of editors" are mostly new to Wikipedia, and mostly joined this discussion as a result of your canvassing [21][22][23][24]. (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 Wikipedia.

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.

By the way, do read the canvassing link. It's often considered a dodgy practice and might make you look bad.

Overall I need to thank you for driving improvements to this page. The progress on Sex tourism, painstaking though it may have been, has been in net very positive. — edgarde 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Def Trojan 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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. — edgarde 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

KyndFellow: regarding that last block of edits:

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.

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.

Elsewhere the reinstatement of old POV text that has been discussed extensiveiy on this page — sentence by sentence in the case of the intro section you reverted — 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.

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 — you might remember that from when you reverted it last night — and has been tagged {{Verify credibility}}, so it has problems and maybe should be removed entirely.

All in all, an inexplicable and disruptive editing session. To what should I attribute this? Nostalgia? — edgarde 23:52, 20 November 2006 (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.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Distinction from "child sex tourism"

Yes, thank you, Def Trojan, I couldn't agree more. World Sex Achieves is included already on the prostitution page, and Sly Traveler 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.

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 Wikipedia where you should put these contributions, such as Prostitution of children, Child Abuse, and Trafficking in human beings.

The following links should not be removed from this page:

• Arabian Sex Tourism by Daniel Pipes, published in FrontPageMag, October 7 2005.
• Destinations of Sex Tourism and Prostitution
• Book review of female sex tourism history Romance on the Road
• Expatriates talk about the damage to their image due to sex tourism

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.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Devalover 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Often the term "sex tourism" is confused with the term "child sex tourism". 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. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the age of consent.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would definatley support it. I propose we wait a few days to see what Edgarde or AdHoc have to say. Devalover 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)

"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.

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.

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 Sex tourism is consistent with his pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits. It constitutes original research at best, and may even be considered spin. 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" — 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 original research and cannot stay.

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

Note 2006-12-03 : all these changes were in fact reverted on 2006-11-24T16:15:44, 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, KyndFellow repeated the same reversion, 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. — edgarde 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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:

• Book review of female sex tourism history Romance on the Road

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 Female sex tourism". 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.

• Expatriates talk about the damage to their image due to sex tourism

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) {{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 {{Verify credibility}} and Wikipedia:Notability requirements.

Fortunately Mr. Knodel has given up on it. No biggie. — edgarde 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 POV fork. 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 — 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. — edgarde 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.

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.

1. Is The Sly Traveler your website?
2. Do you have a business relationship to The Sly Traveler?
3. Do you have what according to WP:COI 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 WP:COI, and I think it is probably your site.

Please answer these three (3) questions in an uncharacteristicly straightforward manner. The rest can wait. — edgarde 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 Wikipedia, it is not a commercial site, and uses Creative Commons 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 Wikipedia 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.

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. — edgarde 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following comment (restored in bold) was deleted by KyndFellow. I'm restoring it for context (it refers to a conversation minutes earlier in the first half of Distinction from Sex Tourism), and because this is the 2nd time (here's the 1st) KyndFellow has deleted a comment mentioning sockpuppets. I'm sure there's an explanation for it happening "by accident" twice. — edgarde 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Knodel: put the puppet down. Answer the questions. — edgarde 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.

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? — edgarde 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being reimbursed. I'm involved with Sly Traveler for the same reasons I edit Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia is not. We use creative commons to distribute information freely to all those who find it helpful. I don't expect it to become profitiable any more than Wikipedia.

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 (user:KyndFellow).

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, user:edgarde, 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, Wikipedia:mediation appears to be an appropriate way to progress. However, if the deadlock persists, Daniel has expressed that he wishes it to be taken to Wikipedia:Arbitration, 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, Fred-Chess 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) template notices on User_talk:KyndFellow. 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. — edgarde 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.
These specifications concern the content of the article before the request for arbitration was filed, as posted for review on November 25, 2006. [25]

Mr. Knodel's requests

RfA Statement by Mr. Knodel

I’m requesting that this page be used for the opening section and external links included in the article. [26]

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 sexual intercourse with prostitutes or to engage in other sexual activity. The World Tourism Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations 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".

• 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 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. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the age of consent.

• 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:

Arabian Sex Tourism by Daniel Pipes, published in FrontPageMag, October 7 2005.

Destinations of Sex Tourism and Prostitution

Prostitution around the World

Child Sex Tourism:

BBC News UN damns Czech-German child sex

Child Prostitution and Sex Tourism: Dominican Republic

ChildSafe Cambodia — 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 child prostitution 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 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.

-- Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

edgarde's request

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 Sex tourism article. I'm striking this to avoid ambiguity — for information on my positions in the arbitration, please see the following: Statement | Evidence | Workshop

RfA Statement by edgarde

What I don't want

*Content review: Paragraphs, phrases, sentences, links, and implications have been micro-reviewed [27][28][29][30] on this Discussion page (starting here, a long read) to no avail. Furthermore, after such a review concluded, any addition to the article would likely reboot the edit war.

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.

• 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.

What I want as soon as possible

Mr. Knodel revised Sex tourism 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.

Since this Arbitration is framed as a dispute between me and Mr. Knodel, a reversion to any edit by another editor other than User:edgarde or User:KyndFellow 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.

Preferably, it should be a page not linking to a commercial sex-related site, at least in the External links section. —edgarde 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

For the committee's review needs, here:

* a page with Mr. Knodel's current edits (prior to the arbitration request)

* the previous page with other editors' work, reverted ^(diff) by Mr. Knodel.

My goal here is not to preserve my own work, but to see this article is kept encyclopedic, NPOV, and all that good stuff.

What I want from this arbitration

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.

1. Mr. Knodel should be required to not add his website to Wikipedia.
2. 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.
3. Mr. Knodel should be Discouraged (but not outright banned) from editing Discussion pages from sexuality or sex industry topics.
4. 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 Wikipedia article.)

Please be advised

I left the following out of my Statement, strictly to keep things concise.

• Prior to 2006-11-29T20:59:48, User:KyndFellow and User:68.5.116.235 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.

• Mr. Knodel deletes[31][32][33] other editors' Discussion page comments cagily, including warning templates — check contemporary Discussion page histories to be certain. He has been repeatedly advised on this, and always claims inexperience as a defense.

— edgarde 08:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC), Struck 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) , see above

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.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't know that making a hybrid article serves a purpose — 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. — edgarde 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, I'm a member of AMA 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 single purpose accounts and their views could, in this context, be discounted. Addhoc 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 Single Purpose Accounts is not regarded as a policy or even guideline on Wikipedia, 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.

Fred-Chess 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. Devalover 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! Devalover 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.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 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! :) Devalover 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. — edgarde 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.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. Looks like I shouldn't have commented. — edgarde 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this version? [34] It takes out the time constraints and outcome assumptions, but still includes the WHO.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 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 — 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 in the current arbitration. — edgarde 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 Wikipedia, 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! Devalover 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!" Devalover 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover, this revision is acceptable to me. [35] 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. :-)
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution does not equal sex tourism

An IP user added a number of destinations with another Wiki Rap dictionary as documentation. I'm not certain all these changes are 100% wrong, but it's obviously overinclusive — London, for instance, is not a Sex tourism destination, unless practically every city in the world is. When questioned about this, these links [36] [37] were offered[38] 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. — edgarde 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.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple sources — I'd dig up some links but I'm in a hurry today and I think we're mostly in agreement for once — 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 Red light district, 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 — 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 on this page and in the current arbitration. You seem to already be aware [39] [40] 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 does not).

My current minimum of activity in this article is not a sign of agreement with your edits or settlement with you — 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. — edgarde 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?

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 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 on this Talk page and in the current arbitration, so it's surprising to hear this is unknown to you. Still, I appreciate your changing position on this, even temporarily. — edgarde 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 [41] [42] and on this Talk page. I've not seen this procedure (which you introduced here) described as official policy anywhere on Wikipedia, so your insistence [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] 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. — edgarde 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 "beneficial", 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 John Hopkins and links 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. — edgarde 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". [Note that I neither intend nor consider any of the former comments to be either sexist (note women still get paid less than men and suffer loss of income during pregnancy and child rearing) and moreover consider them culturally aware (particurlay Thailand wise). The fact is that almost all relationships of a sexual kind are commercial ones! One must be aware that labels, concepts, ideas such as "sex tourism" carry suggestions associated with Religion particularly Judeo-Christiam-Islamic (JDI) pejoratives thst underpin much of western if not most of the (Religious) worlds worldviews outside of some tribal, village, usually Buddhist and what I like to call "Giesha cultures": e.g. Japan, Thailand etc, versus "Virgin cultures" typically (JDI) that often revolve around even int he west to some extend the worhship and praise of female virginity before marriage. (Note that Thai Society is strangely contradictory in this regard -- aren't we all! but then Thai culture too has a long and more recent tradition of polygamy than the west.) Perhaps some historio-religious criticism of these sorts o pejorative and cultural factors should be entertained in the article proper also. I hate value laden western (and Religious) labels that dress themselves up psuedo-scientificly as culturally universal. Exploitation of the child aside their is vastly more "exploitation" going on outside of the sex busniess in the third world under global capitalism like Chinese factories where labourers - girls included - work excruciating long hours for a few Yuan or RMB.] Mattjs 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.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)