Draft talk:Child prostitution

This entry has numerous problems due to the fact the it contains no reference. It presents a number of propositions as fact without providing the appropriate documentation. Perhaps it should be made a draft until it can be cleaned up. --Etenne 02:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it true that most articles we have do not contain references?

Yes, I can provide some references (I spent all day yesterday doing research) but it is not very easy. The "noise" created by the NGOs and the antis makes it very very difficult to Google for unbiased information about young people engaging in sex for money.

I have read quite a bit about this on the Internet (things written by/about minors in Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, etc.) but I did not expect to be writing an article so I did not keep track of exactly where I had read what. Also, almost no serious research has been done--and that which has been done, has been "tainted" by the highly biased negative attitudes of the researchers. And then, of course, the news media repeats uncritically what those biased researchers report (just as they do regarding research done on BoyLovers) so most people have an entirely unrealistic idea about prostitution in general, and about prostitution engaged in by minors in particular.

I have personally known and (informally) interviewed a large number of minors involved in prostitution (which also includes the informal kinds of prostitution that I mentioned in the article--boys casually engaging in sex, and then just as casually making a request for money afterwards). I have almost never encountered a boy who would appear to be an example of the kind of young person given as the so-called "typical" example in the anecdotes given by those biased researchers.

I have seen how many of these boys live, and I have even met some of their families, who were completely aware of what the boys were involved in. Of course, "the plural of anecdote is not data", (it took only two minutes to find that reference) and that applies to me as well as the NGOs and others supposedly "researching" the question. But the chance of their anecdotal evidence being highly unrepresentative is, I believe, much higher than that for my anecdotal evidence. And the references which those researchers give are always to other researchers who have based their conclusions on equally unrepresentative anecdotal evidence (often from clinical patients while in treatment).

Anyway, I'll do what I can about references, but it won't be soon as it is very difficult to find them due to the problems mentioned above. User4 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Isn't it true that most articles we have do not contain references?" No, that isn't true. If you are going to write encyclopedic type (Encyclopedia articles are factual articles ) entries and categorize them in Category:Encyclopedia then you absolutely need to take the time to research it and reference it, or don't do it at all. However, if you simple wish to write essays and personal antidotes or personal option articles then they need to be categorized as such under Category:life and labeled as such (Life articles focus on the day to day life and community of boys and boylovers. In these categories, you will find information covering a wide array of things that touch on everyday life, including news, jokes, food, personal opinion, and personal stories from around the world. ). Personally, I would prefer that you added less pages but worked more on making the ones you do add as complete as possible. On other wikis that have numerous users who come along and finish and improve other peoples work that is less necessary however on BoyWiki if you don't finish your work, it could take years for someone to come along and adds to it. I would add that this is particularity true for the subject matter of this page as it tends to be a emotive issue, so if you are going to say it then you absolutely need to back it up. To a person as educated as yourself that should go without saying. I understand it is a difficult thing to accomplish and these things are not easy to find. But I know you can do better work then this and if you feel that I am being hard on you it is simply because I know you can write much better then this if you took your time and focused on one article at a time. --Etenne 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Child Prostitution is absolutely full of shit! (just as is their article on Pedophilie). Just as the books that I have now included in the Bibliography to the article "deconstruct" the concepts of "trafficking" with regards to woman and children, entire volumes could also be written to do the same for the concept of "child prostitution". Unfortunately, I do not have the time to write those books, and the qualified academics in the field of human sexuality are not willing to commit academic suicide by doing so, either. User4 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)