Thread:Euji/@comment-22439-20160212201204/@comment-3406131-20160215212251

Mrkermit wrote: Euji wrote: Well I guess it was kind of impolite of me to just change it all willy-nilly in the first place Not at all, editing what you see as wrong is only way to improve things. I think that most important guidelines for being a good editor for any wiki are well presented at Wikipedia; [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold BE BOLD] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ASSUME GOOD FAITH]. Woops, missed that part, but Kermit said it better than I would have.

Undoniel wrote: Well, I know there is some stigma with the word "prostitute", but we should leave it where it belongs: in the minds of those who wants to create that stigma. It's not like we're using an explicitly offensive term, but a common term that we use without judgment. While I agree how you arranged the categories and using the word prostitute, we can't leave out hidden meanings of words by saying we don't have them. In public speech or writing we can't define those connotations, we have to take them as given and act accordingly. Sex worker and prostitute aren't fully interchangeable words; child prostitute, child sex worker or prostituted child all seem to have a different meaning. It's good that we're working on fiction and can mostly leave those debates to real world. That's kind of what bothered me in the first place with sex workers: Given it is a notion used by those who perform it willingly (from what I know), it doesn't represent the whole issue. Prostitute has this advantage and disadvantage to merge all meanings, including those of unwilled prostitution. But how can we handle that issue ?