Talk:Prostitution in India

Yes it should be since it is like an open secret.

--219.64.90.171 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would be very cautious about adding in CATW as a reference, this is not a credible source but a very ideological group with little respect for accuracy. --Mgoodyear (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I clarified about legal issues with PITA including term of imprisonment. Revisions welcome. Coachesstand (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

noted this "adding over 2,85,000 people have benefited to date." seeing as this is not a real number this needs to be corrected or i will remove, or research this fact and correct it--Kr4ft (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is dead wrong to start this article by saying that "Prostitution is legal in India." Your argument that solicitation is illegal, and not prostitution is absolutely illogical. Any prostitution (sex in exchange for payment) is always preceded by solicitation of some form - whether a man offers a woman to money for sex or a woman asks a man to pay for sex. The only situation when it would be legal is when neither talk about money and the payment is made voluntarily. Later, this article does say that the legal situation is unclear, and that contradicts this opening sentence. Please read PITA; it's a rather long document, but do read and you will find that sex for money anywhere is illegal. If you just google using the words 'sex racket prostitution and add any city name in India", you will find lots of news articles about owners of the premises (not just hotels, but private residences too), customers, and prostitutes, all arrested. The first sentence contradicts a later sentence that says that the legal status of prostitution is unclear. PROSTITUION IS ILLEGAL IN INDIA. Please help the world by checking this so that those traveling to India don't get arrested and imprisoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.222.252 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think this demands some clarification. How can someone be arrested for a legal activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.113.33 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nobody has ever been arrested for prostitution. Those you are referring were arrested under the All India Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act; where the crime is Solicitation, which is different from prostitution per se. The article clearly mentions that solicitation is unlawful. Snowcream (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

a location in india called Kamathipura has s prostitution ring which was first established 150 years ago by The british during colonial rule,it was noted in british history as the "comfort zones" for British soldiers.

Throughout the 1800s, the British military established and maintained the indian brothels for its troops to use across India,the brothels established by the british was stocked with children and women,The girls, many in their early teens from poor, rural Indian families, were recruited and paid directly by the british military, which also set their prices.

By 1864, the influx of eight neighbourhoods in Mumbai which were home to more than 500 prostitutes. Almost 60 years later, there were only two, with Kamathipura being the largest.

What started as european rape fest has todayturned into indias biggest nightmare which te populatio are left to try adclearup while being left in poverty.^[1]82.38.160.153 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)vedReply

a location in india called Kamathipura has s prostitution ring which was first established 150 years ago by The british during colonial rule,it was noted in british history as the "comfort zones" for British soldiers.

Throughout the 1800s, the British military established and maintained the indian brothels for its troops to use across India,the brothels established by the british was stocked with children and women,The girls, many in their early teens from poor, rural Indian families, were recruited and paid directly by the british military, which also set their prices.

By 1864, the influx of eight neighbourhoods in Mumbai which were home to more than 500 prostitutes. Almost 60 years later, there were only two, with Kamathipura being the largest.

What started as european rape fest has today turned into indias biggest nightmare which te populatio are left to try adclearup while being left in poverty.^[1]82.38.160.153 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)vedReply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prostitution in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502184617/http://wcd.nic.in:80/act/itpa1956.htm to http://wcd.nic.in/act/itpa1956.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006062502/http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in:80/immoraltraffact.htm to http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081105211013/http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in:80/immoraltraffact.htm to http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prostitution in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110228012844/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-11/world/india.prostitution.children_1_human-trafficking-india-prostitutes?_s=PM:WORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-11/world/india.prostitution.children_1_human-trafficking-india-prostitutes?_s=PM:WORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130228004447/http://archive.newsmax.com:80/archives/articles/2001/4/23/184354.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/184354.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prostitution in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130526084930/http://indianlawsguide.blogspot.in:80/2013/02/prostitution-in-india-legal-provisions_1127.html to http://indianlawsguide.blogspot.in/2013/02/prostitution-in-india-legal-provisions_1127.html

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prostitution in India. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indianlawsguide.blogspot.in/2013/02/prostitution-in-india-legal-provisions_1127.html

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Prostitution in India. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150518092744/http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?programId=1073755753&contentId=13404555&tabId=13 to http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?programId=1073755753&contentId=13404555&tabId=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110228012844/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-11/world/india.prostitution.children_1_human-trafficking-india-prostitutes?_s=PM:WORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-11/world/india.prostitution.children_1_human-trafficking-india-prostitutes?_s=PM:WORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006062502/http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm to http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006062502/http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm to http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/immoraltraffact.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130526084930/http://indianlawsguide.blogspot.in:80/2013/02/prostitution-in-india-legal-provisions_1127.html to http://indianlawsguide.blogspot.in/2013/02/prostitution-in-india-legal-provisions_1127.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130228004447/http://archive.newsmax.com:80/archives/articles/2001/4/23/184354.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/184354.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415124641/http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/banglad.htm to http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/banglad.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following was deleted by User:Muhandes with the comment 'Seems rather trivial and WP:UNDUE, please discuss on talk page'

Lalitha Nayak, a social worker, working for the welfare of prostitutes at GB Road since early nineties said in a recent interview that although she tries to heal the wounds of the sex workers, she doesn't promote it or want the brothels to be legalized.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.acadman.in/gb-road-brothels-not-legalized-lalitha-nayak/|title=VIDEO: GB Road Brothels Should Not be Legalized- Lalitha Nayak|last=acadman|date=2018-02-23|work=Acadman|access-date=2018-03-29|language=en-US}}</ref>

The deleted content is perfectly acceptable for inclusion to me. It is a viewpoint of somebody involved in the article's main subject (Prostitution in India) and I don't see it as WP:UNDUE or trivial.

As a general principle, deleting content that is not a clear breach of policies or guidelines and then asking for a discussion about it is wrong IMO. It would seem far more logical to discuss first and then delete (or not) as a result of the discussion. John B123 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@John B123: The content was added to the "Sex worker health" section, but the quote does not add anything to the discussion of sex worker health. It is a personal opinion of a social worker about legalization of brothels, or at least that's how I read it. In another section it might be appropriate but in this one it seemed like a random inclusion of a trivial comment. I might have misused WP:UNDUE.

As for your opinion about deleting recently added content which does not seem relevant, I respect it, but disagree. In my opinion unrelated commentary degrades the quality of the article so I revert it. The author can always discuss it. If I make a mistake I am always ready to admit it, and it is just as easy to re-revert. Feel free to do so if you think the material is relevant in the place and form it was added. --Muhandes (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) - John B123 - Firstly, thank you for trying to discuss this, rather than edit-warring.
The quotation is clearly just one person's point of view - what she, personally, thinks/believes. I am sure there are many people with their own PoV, but this doesn't mean they all merit inclusion. A google search for Lalitha Nayak is complicated by there being a Dr Lalitha Nayak at University Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, and B. T. Lalitha Naik a politician for the AAP. I assume this is not the same Lalitha Nayak as your quotation, as this does not mention her being a politician.
Notwithstanding who actually said it, the prime question is what does the opinion it add to the article? - IMHO not very much - it is an opinion about prostitution that is held in many/most places world-wide, not just in India.
As for User:Muhandes referring you to the talk page, that is the correct procedure, under the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - you were WP:BOLD, which is fine, you were then reverted, and it as that point that the discussion takes place; not before the revert, but before any re-addition. - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Arjayay: - I'm not sure this is an (edit conflict), for it to be so, User:Muhandes would have had to deleted an edit made by myself? This is not the case here.

John B123 If you click on (edit conflict) it will take you to the page that explains what that means - it is nothing to do with deleting edits.
I wrote my reply to your initial post, but when I tried to save it, User:Muhandes had edited the page in the meantime, so it would not save straight away. As my post included some duplicate material to that in Muhandes post, I added the template, the purpose of which is explained at Template:Edit conflict/doc "This template may help to indicate that one is replying to an older state of a discussion and may not take more recent replies into account." - Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Arjayay: - Apologies, I was assuming (edit conflict) was related to edit-warring. Thanks for the clarification. John B123 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not actually fussed if the edit is included or not. Muhandes has explained his actions and I fully support any actions to improve WP. However, the point I was trying to make was that if it's not a clear cut case, as would seem to be the case here by the invitation to discuss, it would be better to discuss first. IMO the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (amongst other things) discourages newer editors from contributing and gives the impression that contributing to WP is so full of do's and don't's that it's not worth bothering with. (That's not meant as a personal attack on either of you, but a general comment based on my personal experiences) John B123 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Muhandes: I just looked at the difference between versions when your edit came up on my watchlist. I didn't look at the section it was in. Although I don't think the content justified deletion from the article as a whole, you comment that inclusion in that particular section was inappropriate is entirely correct. John B123 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@John B123: We are probably not going to agree on the principal involved, but open-minded discussion is always good. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

How can I join in sex worker team Meshap (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

How will I join Meshap (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force for more details. --John B123 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why editors mentioning prostitution is legal in india ? 43.247.159.3 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because prostitution itself is legal - as clearly referenced to "The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956" - although as also explained many other activities such as soliciting, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, prostitution in a hotel, child prostitution, pimping and pandering are illegal. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply