# Talk:Child prostitution

Beland, regarding this, no, these two big articles should not be merged. Child prostitution is a WP:Notable topic in its own right. That it is an aspect of commercial sexual exploitation of children does not mean that these two topics should be merged. WP:Spinoff articles exist for reason. And this is not a WP:No page matter for either article. After this at Talk:Female hysteria, I would have expected you to create a merge discussion. But, again, you did not. So I created it. I would have simply reverted you, but I decided against that since you restored the merge template at the Female hysteria article when I reverted you there. If there is too much child prostitution material in the Commercial sexual exploitation of children article, that should be merged here...as long as it's not redundant to anything that is already here. If you want other opinions on whether or not these two articles should be merged, I will contact WP:Med. I will also likely start a WP:RfC on it if you continue to debate the matter. If you reply to me on any of this, I ask that you don't ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

John B123 also wrote the following, opposing the merger: "My personal opinion is that although Child prostitution is a form of Commercial sexual exploitation of children, it is a big enough subject to warrant its own article. If you wish to deal with it all in one article, then not suggesting Child pornography is also merged seems inconsistent."
I was listening to an anti-exploitation advocate, and she strongly dislikes the term "child prostitution", it seems like because she wishes to emphasize because it is something that is done to children, not something they themselves do, like an adult sex worker might choose to do. She uses something like "commercial sexual exploitation" as a preferred alternative. Without taking a position on that issue, I agree with the points both of you made; given that child pornography is clearly a large article with lots of distinct content, and that's a subtype separate from child prostitution, the merge I proposed doesn't make sense. I also agree there's a lot of content in Commercial sexual exploitation of children that only has to do with prostitution, so I'll try to move that to the detail article so there's less overlap and it's easier for readers to find. -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Beland, be sure that you do not remove child prostitution content from the Commercial sexual exploitation of children article that should be there, or add any unnecessarily redundant content here. If the aspects are already well-covered here, just cut the extensive material from the Commercial sexual exploitation of children article per WP:Summary style; it doesn't need to be moved here. Also, keep in mind that this article is still currently listed as a WP:Good article; so we should try to keep it in decent shape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I can understand the logic behind the anti-exploitation advocate's thinking, but if we were to no longer to use the term "child prostitution", that causes problems. "Commercial sexual exploitation" could equally be applied to child pornography, so possibly Commercial sexual exploitation of children would end up confusing if the term is changed. Following the same logic, Forced prostitution would also need to be changed.
If we listen to certain varieties of feminism, all forms of prostitution are exploitation, making a change in term from "prostitution" to "exploitation" redundant. To prevent WP being unduly influenced by minority views, no matter how well meaning, we need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. As far as I'm aware, "child prostitution" is still the commonly used term. Child prostitution already contains content about the wish change the terminology. --John B123 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I merged a bunch of content from Commercial sexual exploitation of children to Child prostitution, mostly in the Prevalence section, and removed the merge tags. A little more trimming or moving or rearranging is probably warranted to reduce redundant content and follow summary style, as Flyer22 Reborn points out is called for here. But I'll leave that for folks who have more time to devote to these articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Beland, regarding redundant content and following summary style, I was clearly referring to it being something you should do if you are going to merge things. You should not leave that for others to do when you are the one doing the merging and likely leaving behind redundancy, for example. That stated, I see that you have followed summary style with regard to prevalence material at the  Commercial sexual exploitation of children article. And in terms of this article, I don't see any redundancy with the prevalence material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, we're all volunteers here, so no one can be forced to keep working on something if they don't feel like it. -- Beland (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Beland, in the same vein, one should not tag an article for merging and expect others to agree to the merge, especially if that person has not started a merge discussion on the talk page or a related talk page. Tagging an article for merging and then going about one's business without starting a discussion on it, but then showing back up to re-add the tag because it was removed is like trying to force others to merge. If you don't care about an article and/or want to leave editing the article up to the regulars of the article or "folks who have more time to devote to these articles," then I don't see why shouldn't leave whether or not a merge should happen up to those editors as well. And while editors can't be forced to edit what they don't want to edit, we do have rules and protocols. WP:CAREFUL, for example, states, "Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." An editor repeatedly leaving behind a mess can be sanctioned in some way. I'm not stating that you are repeatedly leaving behind a mess, but I am stating that you should not be merging articles if you are not looking to do the merge carefully and clean up any mess you have made afterward, especially with regard to WP:Good and WP:Featured articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that editors who make messes are not helping, and that it's certainly possible to do a merge halfway and make a mess. In this case, I was actually not doing a full article merge, but just sorting out content that was probably on the article with the wrong level of detail. I think I took care of about 80% of what needs to get done to follow summary style in an ideal fashion. What I understood the comments to mean was simultaneously that I shouldn't leave that 20% of work left for someone else to do, and that you think 100% of the work is complete. I can see why editors would complain about a halfway-done job if it makes things worse off, but I complaints about a halfway-done job that makes things better are counterproductive. If you weren't talking about the edits I actually made, but about theoretically wrong edits that someone doing a merge might have made, then I'm not sure what to respond to. -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the point of adding Prostitution in Sweden ("Swedish model" that criminalizes buying sex but not selling it) to the "See also" section. Laws regarding child prostitution are separate from, and pre-date the Swedish laws on adult prostitution. Sweden is only one of ten countries that have similar legislation. The term "Swedish model" tends to be somewhat obsolete, the "Nordic model" being more common now (as most of the Nordic countries now have this legislation), or "Neo-abolitionism " used by academics and NGOs. --John B123 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@John B123: Well, there are similar issues to discuss with regard to legal approaches to child prostitution as there are for adult prostitution. I don't see an article that describes the "Nordic model for prostitution"; prostitution itself links to Prostitution in Sweden for coverage of this topic, as so does Nordic model. Perhaps such an article would be useful, or a section of Prostitution could perhaps be expanded to describe it briefly and where it's being used. For children, there are still a range of laws and customs, from treating the children as victims, to treating them as juvenile offenders, to someplace like Saudi Arabia where I would expect in many families a child who was forcibly prostituted could end up being the victim of an honor killing. Ideally this would be explained in prose in the article, but lacking that, at least a link to articles covering that spectrum makes that content accessible to readers and plants the seed of growing that coverage here. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Beland: The logic behind the proposed merger was to separate child prostitution from adult prostitution, adding this to the See also seems to go in the opposite direction. Even accepting parallels between child prostitution legislation and adult prostitution laws, which seems to me to be tenuous, just linking to one minority model for adult prostitution may well be regarded as WP:POV. Agree an article on the Nordic model would be worthwhile. --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I added a link to honor killing as well. Certainly a well-rounded prose section that puts those approaches in context would be better. -- Beland (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You did indeed add a link to honor killing. What that has to do with a conversation about the legitimacy of the inclusion of a link to Prostitution in Sweden I've got no idea. Edit to add: I think the connection of both links to the article is too oblique to be justified just as a link  --John B123 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Sweden is likely having a problem with children coming into Sweden from other countries with lower age of consent. So the problem with the Scandinavian model would be that they can legally sell but the law needed to make clear if buying from them is still illegal on Swedish territory. There seems to have been a loophole because children could not accept payment and if someone else accepted the payment for them the law did not apply. This problem with Swedish legislation was remedied.
Different approaches of legislation are relevant and text should eventually be summarized into this article from these two see-also-links. --Spaced about (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

user:DocNerd3000 had changed "child prostitution" to "commercial sexual exploitation of children" with the edit summary: In 2016 the Associated Press announced that it will no longer use the term “child prostitute” after a petition started by Withelma “T” Ortiz Walker Pettigrew and Rights4Girls was signed by more than 151,000 people. The Associated Press now recommends that writers avoid using the word “prostitute” when referring to a child or teenager “because it implies that the child ‘is voluntarily trading sex for money.
I have reverted the edit for the following reasons:

Such a fundamental change should first be discussed and a consensus reached.
Recommendations by Associated Press aren't guidelines on WP (although they may well have an influence on concensus here
Commercial sexual exploitation of children also includes child pornography etc. so is therefore a less specific term and could potentially lead to abiguity or misunderstanding.
"Child prostitution" is still a term commonly used by reliable sources.
--John B123 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with DocNerd3000. Using the term prostitute in this context is absurd, because it implies consent (which is legally impossible and psychologically doubious, depending on age). Often they are raped without their knowledge after being given a drug that makes them unconscious. Forced prostitution of children comes close, but actually it's more like child sexual slavery. The wording certainly needs to be repaired throughout the article and the entire page should be moved to either Forced child prostitution or Child sexual slavery.  --Spaced about (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting fed up with people wanting to change the terminology or redefine existing terms. In other articles we have editors wanting to change "prostitute" to "sex worker" because "prostitute" implies lack of consent. Here we have other editors putting the reverse implication forward. In other articles we have yet more editors wanting to change "sex worker" to "prostitute" because "sex worker" is a propaganda term used by traffickers. Until there is agreement between those who want to change the terminology to something more politically correct then we need to stick with the existing, as used in reliable sources.
As this article has been rated as "good", then it has been reviewed by other experienced editors. If you look at the page history the article has contributions from a lot of editors. Neither the reviews or contributors seem to have a problem with the terminology. --John B123 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a matter of factual accuracy. Child prostitution is always forced because legal consent to a contract of that kind is impossible for children. Also the common term for forced prostitution is forced prostitution. GA is not the highest level of quality an article can achieve and to get it to the next level, A, it needs to be acceptable to experts in the field.
This is the definition from wikitionary:
       prostitution (usually uncountable, plural prostitutions)

       1. Engaging in sexual activity with another person for pay. 

       2. (by extension) Debasement for profit or impure motives.

It doesn't say anything about implied lack of consent. Also, the pay would typically flow to another person, not the child itself. I guess the term forced prostitution wouldn't exist if it weren't different from regular prostitution. I don't think we should mix up crime of the worst sort with legal activities of taxpayers. --Spaced about (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I've no wish to defend child prostitution and, if I had my way, would castrate the offenders with a pair of house bricks. However the whole concept of minors being able to consent is full of double-standards and ambiguity. We say children cannot enter contracts, yet enter contracts with them all the time, "If you tidy your bedroom you can have pizza" and so on. Social workers seek to get the consent of children most of the time, yet on other occasions go against the lack of consent "for their own good". In the West, the age of consent for sex is generally 16, but the age of consent for sex for money is 18 or 21. Minors can join the armed services at 16 and possibly see their friends mutilated in hostilities but are not mature enough to watch a horror film. In Africa, the age of majority may be as low as 12, yet we ignore their culture and laws, judging them by our own cultural standards. The more you look into "consent from minors", the more it seems it's only applicable when convenient.
The wikitionary definition doesn't say anything about implied lack of consent, but equally doesn't say anything about it being consensual either.
I don't disagree with "I don't think we should mix up crime of the worst sort with legal activities of taxpayers", but there are supporters of the Nordic model that are trying to group the two together on the grounds that all prostitution is violence against women and children, and alter WP's various prostitution article to suit. Prostitution (adult or child) provokes strong views and passion from several different, often opposing, viewpoints. All I'm trying to do is keep the articles neutral and prevent an all-out edit war between different factions. --John B123 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: We've already been over this: Talk:Child prostitution/Archive 1#Clarification on terminology. I stand by what I stated then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The sections about child prostitution in various countries ought to be removed due to being mostly redundant (there is already a table with statistics) and miscellaneous trivia, much of which lacks citation. As there are already separate articles about child prostitution by country, and adding incomplete portraits of country by country info only makes this article look disorderly, it is unnecessary to include this information here (none of which was part of the article when it became a GA). --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing under federal law as a "child prostitute". This should be merged with child trafficking. 24.236.197.234 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"federal law" What does German federal law have to do with the topic? Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This detail, which provides an inside look into the financial aspects of this practice are being reverted in an edit war. Prior to the edit (and without this edit) there is $ (dollar sign) in the article and nothing about money. Thus, it is a necessary edit. 
Please re-add: 
In 2020, the cost of sex with a minor (paid to traffickers) was reportedly $3,000 a night. Twillisjr (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr As the person who removed, I'll respond. The text you want added is not what the reference says (as I noted in my original removal, that it was WP:OR). The text says that amount is what her 'pimp' made her pay daily. That is not even remotely close to the same as 'the cost of sex with a minor was $3,000 a night'. Please see WP:SYNTH, since implying something that isn't what is in the reference is not allowed.
Awshort (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort In the source, an economic statement is being made between 3 parties. The John forfeits $3,000 to the traffickers to commit sexual acts for an entire night with the minor. The re-adding of the information made explicitly clear that the John’s money was not going to the minor (see parenthesis). The lack of a dollar sign $ in this article indicates a need for the data for the integrity of the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr Respectfully, no it's not.
The source : The 15-year-old victim was required to provide Williams $3,000 per night, DPS says. (Williams being the alleged pimp)
What you are attempting to add :
the cost of sex with a minor (paid to traffickers) was reportedly $3,000 a night
These are not the same thing. Nowhere in the original source does it say anything about how many 'Johns' she met with a night, or the cost of their meetings. Nor does it imply that is the cost of a single night. Unless you are reading a different part of the reference than that, I don't understand how you arrived at the suggested text you want to add?
Awshort (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Awshort Respectfully, it seems pretty clear you haven’t read the article thoroughly or in detail. Twillisjr (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Twillisjr: Please provide the quoted section from the article that supports your suggested text. I must be missing it, since the only section I could find with a dollar amount in it is the quote I listed above.
Awshort (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Awshort The 8th paragraph, second of which ends in, “DPS says.” In college, (for those who attend), we learn in English 101 that intellectuals can actually write a paper with this level of detail without MLA format including the paragraph. You may now insert the data into the article now that it can be located. Twillisjr (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Twillisjr Oh, the exact quote I originally posted which states she had to pay her pimp that daily and doesn't mention the other concerns I had. What you are suggesting go into the article is not supported by the text, and if you would look over WP:SYNTH you would see that anything that goes into an article must be supported by the reference. On Wikipedia, it must be included in the reference, period.
Awshort (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead section contains a vandalized sentence: "One more thing, whoever does child prostitution is a sick mental freak that deserves to be executed." This violates Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (WP:NPOV). Please remove it to restore the article’s integrity. Stevekinglift (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Stevekinglift (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead section ends with this added sentence: "One more thing, whoever does child prostitution is a sick mental freak that deserves to be executed." This is clear vandalism and violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy (WP:NPOV). Please remove it entirely, so the lead ends with the previous factual sentence about legality.
Specific change: Delete the sentence quoted above and nothing else.
Thanks! Stevekinglift (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 03:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)