Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution in South Korea

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BeccaRV.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korean prostitutes in foreign countries

[edit]

Australia

http://www.news.com.au/national/koreas-sex-call-dob-in-our-prostitutes/story-e6frfkvr-1226263465040

http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~e81843/blog2/?p=1023

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2951892

http://www.koreabang.com/2012/stories/us-county-cracks-down-on-korean-brothels-netizen-reactions.html

http://thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/30/korean-pimps-caught-trafficking-australia.html

http://koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=98737

America

http://www.koreabang.com/2012/stories/korean-american-prostitution-rings-exposed-in-new-york.html

http://www.voicesofny.org/2011/09/korean-prostitution-in-the-us-out-of-control/

http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/06/21/8000-korean-prostitutes-in-us-since-2004-report/

http://www.havocscope.com/korean-prostitutes/

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008lydersen-trafficking

http://rokdrop.com/2010/06/30/korean-american-arrested-in-new-york-for-operating-prostitution-ring/

http://iamkoream.com/female-international-student-arrested-for-operating-la-prostitution-ring/

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19860923&id=4MIxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=teUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6817,5104138

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19930613&id=iFdPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VAMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6828,3020338


https://web.archive.org/web/20070106020238/http://news.media.daum.net/society/affair/200611/30/kukinews/v14894534.html

Rajmaan (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

other sources

[edit]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/11/2012111263348392255.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/south-korea-thriving-sex-industry-powerful-wealthy-super-state-1222647

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/16/graphic-disturbing-78-second-video-surfaces-of-a-korean-woman-being-harassed-at-a-night-club/

child prostitution in South Korea

[edit]

Japanese men visit South Korea for child prostitutes

http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/exsum_a4a_eap_south_korea.pdf

http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/global_monitoring_report-south_korea.pdf

http://www.refworld.org/docid/51c2f3af88.html

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/south_korea

http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/250872/375075_de.html

http://seoul.usembassy.gov/p_sr_061912rok.html

http://state.gov/md215495.htm

Korean tourists in Vietnam and the Philippines

[edit]

Korean tourists in Vietnam and the Philippines patronize child prostitutes. Korean tourists outnumber Japanese and Chinese tourists in patronizing southeast asian prostitutes.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/01/30/2013013001376.html

http://www.koreabridge.net/post/government-report-korea-ranked-1-sex-minors-southeast-asia-idlewordship

Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section

[edit]
NAC: The RFC was not clearly formatted and did not ask a question calling for !votes. However, the responses have been reviewed, and there is no consensus. This RFC is being closed as No Consensus, which means that the article can be left as is. The publication of a more clearly worded RFC would be appropriate, involving reliability of sources, as would discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which case a volunteer moderator could facilitate the discussion to achieve communication, or to identify the issues about reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section be removed from this article?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I've reverted this removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea' section. The edit summary of the removing edit said, "Child sex tourism: cited source (http://www.rjkoehler.com) in the source (http://www.ecpat.net/) is a blog". I don't believe this reasoning is in line with WP:RS. This is the supporting source which was cited, and the RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information.

Incidentally, the objected-to source is titled "THE MARMOT'S HOLE : Korea... in Blog Format" is a blog; see http://www.rjkoehler.com/about/. The reference to an entry on it within the source cited seems to be to a December 15, 2009 article at http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/12/15/korea-still-prostitution-paradise-japanese-internet/#more-15133 titled Korea Still ‘Prostitution Paradise': Japanese Internet (cited at note 16 in the source cited by the WP article). That article seems to have relied on info from this web page (rough translation here). That web page looks like it belongs to the Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation, one of four major national South Korean television and radio networks and the oldest among all commercial broadcasting networks in South Korea. All off that is just incidental, however. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionably obvious that a description in a reliable source citing an unreliable blog is unreliable. I posted WP:RSN#Is a description in a reliable source citing an unreliable blog reliable?.
Yes, the blog points to a Munhwa.com. I am not sure the site is reliable or not, but the article is clearly based on the internet blog or advertisement. Anyway, I am not going to discuss the reliability of the article itself. The point is that the article says nothing about the child sex. How can the article back the description In terms of child sex tourism, South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution.?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been discussed on RSN at WP:RSN#Is a description in a reliable source citing an unreliable blog reliable?. The discussion there just concerns whether the source cited qualifies as an RS for WP's purposes. The conclusion that citing a blog as an information source does not disqualify that cited source as an RS seems pretty unambiguous.
The point introduced above that the article (the article cited as a supporting source, not the WP article) says nothing about the child sex is a new one. Looking back at the currently cited source ([1]), I see that it is an Executive Summary of a larger report. The download link given there for the larger report is dead, but a copy of that report is archived here. That larger report says on page 11, "South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution." The source cited in that larger report as note 35 in support of that assertion is the same source cited by the Executive Summary as note 14.
I've updated the article to cite the full report rather than the Executive Summary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't respond to my concern; "the article says nothing about the child sex". You changed the source, but the same invalid citation still remains in the source. Unless you find a valid source supporting the claim, the section should be removed per WP:V.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in this edit you just once again removed the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section. I have reverted that removal. Please consider this a reminder that edit warring can lead to your being blocked from editing.
The discussion on RSN addresses the question of whether or not the citation is invalid -- if is not invalid. The full report cited by the updated citation says, "South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution." By my reading, that does speak to the topic of child sex.
I am not pushing a POV here, and I am not wedded to the wording in the section of the article which you have now removed twice, As far as I can see, the present content of that section, including the supporting citation, are in line with WP policies. I recognize that reliable sources may exist which publish viewpoints which are at variance with the source currently cited in the section. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," in line with that, the way to handle that situation is to desccribe the varying POVs and to cite sources supporting the descriptions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that here you have once again removed this section, saying "invalid citation in the source". This despite the pretty unambiguous result to the contrary in this RSN discussion which you initiated a few days ago about that preecise point.
This is clearly edit warring behavior. You are an experienced editor, having been around for more than five years and having made more than 5,000 edits. I simply do not understand why you are behaving in this manner. I find it difficult to accept that I have arrived at a point where I am considering blocking you, but I have arrived at that point. Edit warring like this is simply unacceptable.
I am going to once again revert your removal of this section. If you remove it again, I will block you. If you persist after expiration of the block, I will reblock you with escalating block durations. If you feel that the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources content guideline is faulty, the proper way to address that is through discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, not by edit warring to enforce some contrary guideline of your own.
If you feel that I am somehow wrongheadedly misperceiving this, please discuss that with me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that edit warring cannot be made by a single editor. You are a person involved in the edit warring.
You made this discussion circular. Please re-read above discussion thoroughly. I am talking about the citation (Munhwa Ilbo) in the source (ECPAT report). The citation says nothing about the child prostitution at all. It is crystal clear that the description South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution. supported by the invalid citation is invalid. An editor advised in RSN "...because you are right, we don't see the word "child" in either Munhwa Ilbo or rjkoehler, and it does seem to be a rather important point. I did a quick search for korean child sex tourism, and found a lot about Korean men visiting other countries for it, and nothing about Japanese men visiting Korea for it. It would be a shame if we would be perpetuating a clerical error in the ECPAT report." If the claim is prominent phenomenon, you can easily find other reliable sources supporting the claim without relying on the invalid source. Please feel free to re-add the claim if you find other reliable source other than the defective ECPAT report.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your repeated removals of that section as having been vandalism -- illegitimate blanking and my repeatedly having restored the removed content as reversion of vandalism. After your initial Bold removal of the section and my Revert of that removal, this should have gone to the Discussion phase of WP:BRD, without ping-pong reverts. The BRD method of reaching consensus is not mandatory, but it beats the heck out of ping-pong reverts.
You explained your initial reason for removal, saying that the supporting cite was invalid because the cited source used information from a blog. I explained my reason for reverting your removal, saying that the reason you gave for removal was invalid and explaining why. You disagreed, and took it to RSN, where it was explained that I was right and you were wrong. Despite that, you still contend that the section should be removed for that invalid reason. I don't see what there is to discuss further about the cite -- it is a valid cite of what is considered to be a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS content guideline. You apparently think that WP's content guideline should be different on this point than it is. Feel free to take that to WT:RS.
Regarding the word child, see here above.
I'm not an expert on the topic of this article. I'm not about to argue with ECPAT as you apparently feel qualified to do -- I don't think I ever heard of ECPAT prior to having gotten drawn into this through noticing your improper blanking of content (I think I saw the edit while in a WP:Huggle section and, seeing what looked like a dodgy explanation, put huggle aside to take a closer look at the edit). The content is supported by what WP regards as a reliable source -- that is good enough for me; I don't need to go looking for additional supporting sources. If there are sources of similar reliability out there which disagree with ECPAT on this, by all means add that information to the article and cite those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the whole point. May I ask a simple question? Please show me the location where the child prostitution is mentioned in the blog or Munhwa Ilbo. It says "(A man) had sex with a 22-year-old girl", however there is no word "child" in both articles.
Please see also WP:RSN#Can a description with a citation in a source be used in Wikipedia, if the description is not supported by the citation?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know. If you think that ECPAT may have gotten that wrong, take that up with ECPAT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It's not good enough for me. Funnily enough, if they hadn't cited their sources, it probably would have been, but they use an article to support their child prostitution point that talks about above-age prostitution. The best I could find was this:
"Japanese men continue to be a significant source of demand for child sex tourism in Southeast Asia."[2] That link also includes a section on Korea. No mention of Japanese men there, although a bit of synthesis would indicate it's likely (it says "more than 95 percent of commercial sexual exploitation of children in South Korea is arranged over the Internet." and that Munhwa article talks about Japanese men's use of the internet to secure prostitutes.
Anyway, we're still missing a cite that (reliably) says what the article does. I'd suggest pointing out that Korea is a popular sex tourism destination for Japanese men, using that USDoS report to support the statement that Japanese men are a significant source of demand for child sex in South East Asia, and leave it at that. Bromley86 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion archives for RS for clarification of the point I have been trying to make here. Here's a couple of snippets from Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#Chain of authority:
  • Reliable sources aren't required to cite their sources. It doesn't make sense to accept a source with zero citations at face value, and then say that if exactly the same source were printed with a list of its sources, we'd start picking it apart based on whether we happen to approve of its sources
  • If Y is a normally reliable publication, and makes a statement with its own voice, then the statement is normally reliable. The fact that there is a footnote, or equivalent, mentioning that the information came from X does not change this.
This is probably touched upon in other discussions there. If you want to discuss that, though, please discuss it at WT:RS, not here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to ask there, but before I do I thought I'd see if your position changes when you read the sentence following the the two in your 2nd quote, "But if Y gives the information from X in a manner suggesting the information is doubtful or not fully vetted, then the information might not be reliable." That's the situation we have here, where Y(ECPAT) says "child" when X(Munhwa) does not (nor does it imply it). Bromley86 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. If WP cites Y, and Y is an RS for the topic, it matters what Y says. If Y says he got the information from X but Y does not give the information from X in a manner suggesting the information is doubtful or not fully vetted, then we accept that information as being just as reliable as other information which comes from Y. If a WP editor looks at the information from X and disagrees with with what Y said about it, that WP editor is not an RS and information from him about his disagreement with Y should not be considered. If some RS (call him Z) other than Y looks at the information from X and says that Y got it wrong or gives information (from X or from anywhere else, whether he (Z) identifies his sources or not) which conflicts with what Y said, that brings WP:DUE into play. Again, though, please discuss this at WT:RS, not here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the past content of the article, at the moment it says

Japanese sex tourists in South Korea

As of 2012, South Korean child prostitutes are patronized by Japanese male sex tourists since South Korea was still a significant place for Japanese clients engaging in child sex tourism.[1]

  1. ^ "South Korea" (PDF). Global Monitoring : status of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children, 2nd edition. ECPAT. p. 11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-03. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

The reference is to a report by ECPAT which says: "South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution." That sentence is referenced in turn to a blog, "Koehler Robert, Korea Still ‘Prostitution Paradise’: Japanese Internet, 15 December 2009, Accessed on 9 February 2012 from: http://www.rjkoehler. com/2009/12/15/korea-still-prostitutionparadise-japanese-internet/".

I agree with Wtmitchell; given that we regard ECPAT as a reliable source (and that the claim made is not extraordinary nor obviously controversial), we here can simply use the reference to ECPAT without further comment. The whole point about RS is that they are in a position to evaluate primary/unReliable sources, and if we were to get rid of RS that rely on non-RS, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia, and in fact not much knowledge of the world at all. The current version is entirely acceptable. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument, as I understand it, has morphed from one of whether ECPAT is normally a reliable source to one of whether they've made an error in this case. Where we know that a normally reliable source is not reliable (for example, where it says the sky is green but cites a source that clearly says the sky is blue), then it is not to be used. This is what GRuban said over on the RSN, no? 13:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that I believe the statement currently in the WP article is correct (if poorly written); I just have not been able to find a reliable source that actually says it. Bromley86 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an RS says that the sky is green, it doesn't matter whether he cites a source or not. If he does cite a source, opinions from WP editors about whether he interpreted his source correctly or about whether or not he might have relied on information from other sources but neglected to cite them or about what color the WP editors themselves think the sky color described as green by the RS actually was or about whether he is generally reliable but might be unreliable about this particular point because perhaps he is color blind or because perhaps he meant to type blue but typed green by mistake simply do not matter. Again, this is better discussed at WT:RS than here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The ECPAT's conclusion "In terms of child sex tourism, South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution" is not just based on the source in note 16. They provided the citation but it does not imply that they would just base on that source alone to reach their conclusion. STSC (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ECPAT retracted the assertion

[edit]

ECPAT deleted the assertion that Japanese men exploit children in South Korea per my request. The letter from ECPAT is as follows:

Dear ****,

I want to thank you again for your patience. I have heard back from our member in South Korea and did some outside research of my own. While there is evidence to show that Japanese tourists are travelling abroad to the South/East Asia region for child sex tourism purposes, our member and my research was not able to locate information specific to South Korea.

Therefore, we have deleted the assertion from our 2nd Edition South Korea Country Monitoring Report. You will find the newest version updated on the ECPAT International website. http://ecpat.net/sites/default/files/A4A_V2_EAP_S-Korea_FINAL.pdf

Once again thank you for your patience and for your interest in the work we are doing.

Best wishes, Rebecca

Rebecca Rittenhouse Research and Monitoring Officer

ECPAT International 328/1 Phaya Thai Road Bangkok 10400,Thailand Tel: + 66 (0) 2 215 3388 ext 106 Fax: + 66 (0) 2 215 8272

http://www.ecpat.net

Please verify two versions of reports.

Page 11, "Sexual exploitation of children in tourism"

Old version:

South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution. Furthermore, South Korean nationals also contribute to the exploitation of children abroad. https://web.archive.org/web/20120603055656/http://www.ecpat.net/EI/Pdf/A4A_II/A4A_V2_EAP_SKOREA.pdf

New version:

Men from South Korea are a source of demand for sexual exploitation of children in tourism in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. http://ecpat.net/sites/default/files/A4A_V2_EAP_S-Korea_FINAL.pdf

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prostitution in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Prostitution in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

[edit]

The claim "According to the Korean Institute of Criminology, 20% of adult males aged between 20–64 purchase sex at an average of 693,000 won ($580) per month" is not credibly supported. An opinion article on Korea Times is linked, yet the Korean Institute of Criminology has not published an article or statement supporting this (in either English or Korean), nor does this Korea Times Opinion article cite any resources. Korea Times is not a consistently reliable source. This should be properly supported by another source or removed. 210.98.49.253 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

[edit]

This article needs a cleanup of unreliable sources (and dead links). For instance, Shanghaiist is absolutely not a reliable source. Neither is someone's personal blog.

Also, how is something like "Some Korean women wear kimonos while working as prostitutes" important enough to be included in the article? If a news website reported that Korean prostitutes dressed up as Santa Claus should that too be included in the article? Seems like a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING to me. Calpro9 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article has a lot of low quality content. Sadly, when anyone will find time to rewrite it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prostitution in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Proposal

[edit]

Hi! For a class project, I would like to add more accurate information about the history, methods (how they find/take/persuade girls and women), prevalence, and societal effects of prostitution in South Korea. I've listed some references I will use on my user page and included a couple of them here:

Kim, Joon K., and May Fu. “International Women in South Korea's Sex Industry: A New Commodity Frontier.” Asian Survey, vol. 48, no. 3, 2008, pp. 492–513. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2008.48.3.492.

Lie, John. “The Transformation of Sexual Work in 20th-Century Korea.” Gender and Society, vol. 9, no. 3, 1995, pp. 310–327. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/190058.

Ljk3 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of explanation about the prostitution systems

[edit]

This article lacks an explanation of the "Japanese colonial era" prostitution system. However, this page is currently "protected". Please tell me how to add this item. I think it is also necessary to explain the prostitution system in South Korea after WWII. Eyagi (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyagi: please respond to me. This article is currently under extended confirmed protection, due to edit warring going back for over a decade. In order to edit the article, you would need to have at least 500 edits on your account, as part of the extended confirmed policy.
There's no way you will be able to reach the 500 edit benchmark in a reasonable amount of time, so just post the content you want to add to the article here on the talk page, and I will add it to the article for you (provided you have reliable sources, of course). - Hunan201p (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Below is a description of the "Japanese colonial era". The sources are the regulations and statistics of the time. These materials are in Japanese, and I can't find any material translated into English. The post-WWII system has been newly established by South Korea, and I think a similar explanation is required separately.Eyagi (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese colonial era

[edit]

The Korean Empire was annexed to Japan in 1910. In 1916, a licensed prostitution system similar to that of Mainland Japan was introduced.[1] [2] [3] The purpose of the licensed prostitution system was to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and maintain public order and morals. Those wishing to engage in prostitution had to report to the police chief for approval. Licensed prostitutes were required to undergo periodic STD examinations, were prohibited from working at home, and were restricted to working in Ryouriya (licensed restaurants) or Kashizasiki (licensed brothels). The location of the Ryouriya and Kashizasiki was designated by the Local Governers.

To obtain a license for prostitution, a person had to appear at the police station in charge of the place of work and submit an application form stating her legal domicile, address, name, date of birth, place of business, and co-signed by her employer, along with the following documents. 1. Parental consent form, 2. Approver’s seal registration certificate, 3. A copy of family register or civil registration, 4. A copy of the contract regarding the prostitute business and the advance, 5. A written statement of personal history and the reason for engaging in the prostitute business, 6. A medical certificate from a physician designated by the police chief. The application was approved on the condition that the application documents was in order, the applicant was 17 years or older, free from infectious diseases, and no unfairness in the contract.The contract with the employer was mult-year indenture contract with an advance payment as in Japan, and the advance payment was usually paid to her parent.

Licensed prostitutes were classified as Geiko (including Kisaeng, women who perform traditional dances and musics at banquets), Syakufu (women who entertain guests by serving drinks at banquets), and Syougi (women who provide sex services in Kashizasiki). Geiko and Syakufu were allowed to engage in sex services at Ryouriya where they worked if they applied for and received approval as a prostitute as well, and called as double licensee. However, the lodging of guests in Ryouriya was forbidden. Outside the Japanese empire, the name "Syougi" was not used in consideration of the international movement to abolish prostitution, and Syougi was also referred to as Syakufu.[4]

The number of these Ryouriya and Kashizasiki, the number of licensed prostitutes, the number of licensed prostitute recruiters, the number of venereal disease examinations and the infection rate, etc. were listed in the annual report of the Government-General of Korea.[5] At the end of 1942,[6] the number of Ryouriya was 515 run by Mainland Japanese, 1,007 for Koreans, 94 for foreigners, total 1,616, the number of Kashizasiki was 219 run by Mainland Japanese, 250 for Koreans, total 469, and the number of people for Geiko, Syakufu and Syougi was 1,797, 240, 1,774 for Mainland Japanese, 4,490, 1,376, 2,076 for Koreans, 0 for foreigners and the number of licensed prostitute recruiters was 194 for Mainland Japanese, 3,537 for Koreans, 0 for foreigners. The number of crimes involving kidnapping and abduction was 513, the number of arrests was 514, and the number of persons arrested was 1 for Mainland Japanese, 746 for Koreans, and 0 for foreigners, total 747.Eyagi (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 「料理屋飲食店取締規則」(Regulations for control of Ryouriya and Insyokuten business), https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1464470, 290/555
  2. ^ 「芸妓酌婦芸妓置屋営業取締規則」( Regulations for Control of Geiko, Syakufu and Geiko Okiya Business), https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1464470, 292/555
  3. ^ 「貸座敷娼妓取締規則」(Regulations for Control of Kashizasiki and Syougi), https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1464470, 294/555
  4. ^ 関東局施政三十年史(Thirty-year history of the administration of the Kanto Bureau), https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1878321, p.799
  5. ^ 国立公文書館アーカイブ（National Archives of Japan Digital Archive), https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/file/1252950.html
  6. ^ 「朝鮮総督府統計年報（昭和１７年）」(Statistical Yearbook of the Korean Governor-General(1942)), https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454691, p.247, 280-262

Chinese-proti et al.

[edit]

There seems to be some leftover suspicious edits from back in the days of massive sock wars on this article, which unfortunately weren't checked up on, probably due to link rot. As an example see Chinese-proti's contribution which, as I'm about to show with a non-rotten inline, isn't exactly accurate (but does show the persistent anti-Korean male bias from the socks). - Hunan201p (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution_in_South_Korea&oldid=1209887064"