Talk:Wench

Sex Worker vs. Prostitute

I do not feel that sex worker is a "euphemism" for prostitute, but rather that it is a more apt and inclusive term for somebody offering a wide variety of erotic services, which the Baths' workers do. The three people at the Baths, while they obviously will perform sexual acts, also provide companionship and massages, both non-sexual, but still erotic functions. The term is also gender neutral and can consistently be applied to all three workers. (Blu3vib3 23:53, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

Don't get me wrong, but I prefer to call things by what they are. I have developed over the years a deeply rooted intolerance for "replacement words", i.e., euphemisms. Maybe it's because I'm German and therefore much more direct.--Tribun 23:56, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how prostitute is more precise than sex worker? (Blu3vib3 00:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

I can honestly say, this is the first time I've ever even thought of there being a difference between the two words. I mean, if you sleep with someone for money you're a prostitute, whether you're male or female. It sounds to me like you're *REALLY* splitting hairs on this one, but on this issue I'm indifferent to changing it, since for me, well, they're pretty much identical words. Dungy 00:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they're hairs I think are important. :) (Blu3vib3 00:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

Is prostitute not gender-neutral? I honestly thought it was! --Warder Dragon 00:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

dictionary.com and wiktionary.org both say it's gender-neutral. I'm guessing it wasn't gender neutral, but has since become. Dungy 00:47, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

It is, but prior to the recent wave of edits, the group was split between "prostitute" and "gigilo" - showing that people often gender the term with a female-slant. (Blu3vib3 00:52, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not really up on all the ins and outs of the sex trade. Dungy 00:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I fear you must go forth and study it in great detail Dungy... For Ultima!

Seriously though I don't think "sex worker" is a euphemism. A euphemism would be more like "lady of the night" or "street walker". "Sex worker" would be more PC or a modern parlance. Although I would typically lean away from the use of PC terms it does capture the greater group of tasks the Bath workers performed. I'm still bothered by how modern it is though (according to Merriam Webster it was first used in 1984) And looking at the actually definition although the tone of it does strike me as being more generalized the actually definition doesn't seem to match that. Perhaps we could use "courtesan"? -- Fenyx4 01:14, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a medical student. I've seen first hand all the results of being a prostitute and visiting prostitutes... I'm going to have to pass on this one, bud. I could give details, but THAT would not be virtuous. Dungy 01:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I like using "PC" terms, if for no other reason than they force interesting discussions like this which increase people's ability to see the myriad of shades of gray that usually force the conflicts that cause "PC" language to arise. (Also probably because I'm of partial Japanese descent, and we like to be communalist and inoffensive, Trib :P)

That being said, I'm not one to belabor eternally the issue of how to label fictitious bathhouse workers. I'm alright with them being prostitutes, so long as Roberto is just as prostitute-y as the other two, and I can imply that their job is not soley defined by the fact they have sex - which it isn't. I'm okay with them being courtesans, as it honestly does much the same thing as sex worker while sounding more archaic-ish. My initial decision to open a thread was because I was a little taken aback by the idea that "sex worker" was somehow incorrect enough to warrant instantaneous reversion, and I felt it was an opportunity for discussion.

Given the discussions I've begun this evening, I feel I owe everyone some reassurance that I will only use my no-good-hippie-liberal-pinko-feminist-post-modern powers for good, and have no intention of getting autocratic if the consensus on a topic isn't always 100% inclusive of all women, blacks, litan@s, asians, Native Americans, gays, lesbians, Romani, dalits, intersexuals, pansexuals, omnisexuals, Dianic Wiccans, Zorastrastians, therianthropes and other minorities. (Blu3vib3 05:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

I, and I'm certain many others here, always welcome discussion on any issue. It's about the only way to avoid the egotistical edit wars that I've seen in the past, and it lets us come to a consensus on how best to proceed in the future. The worst way to go about things, in my opinion, is to simply shoot down someone's contribution without even consulting about it. I was not previously aware there was a policy against euphemisms in place. :P

In short, keep up the discussions; they're a good thing. --Terilem 06:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC)