Talk:United States military and prostitution in South Korea

Poorly written and appears to contradict its own sources

Was this article translated into bad English by some machine? Some of the claims sounded odd, so I followed up one sentence, which went: "Other women were coerced into prostitutes by South Korean government and U.S. officials."[15] Following up on reference 15, it specifically contradicted coercion: "While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years..." It sounds like the governments might have facilitated prostitution, but not coerced it. Bad enough, as it is, but accuracy is important. Prostitution was certainly rampant; I was acquainted with at least two US soldiers who while in SK had live-in "rent-a-wives". But this article appears to be in serious need of attention from someone who knows something about the subject. Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Some errors were corrected. I inserted "Most U.S. soldiers are ignorant of the trafficking, but sometimes help Filipinas escape from clubs.[37]". The sentence seems american soldiers are just the customers in good faith.--Syngmung (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wianbu: first use is about Japanese "comfort women" who are not prostitutes

If the word "wianbu" is included in the article, and I think it should be, then it must be defined for the reader as first applying to Japanese comfort women who were primarily not prostitutes, but instead were coerced, raped and even killed. When the term wianbu continued to be used after 1945, it was without the sense of coercion or violence. So its first use was as a euphemism for forced sexual slavery, but after Japan's surrender it was a euphemism for willing prostitute or willing war-bride. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese cases have also some views, so in this article should not be written your POV, but only neutral. Cos this article is Western princess. I recommand you to write what you want in the article Comfort women. This page is no relation to Japanese cases. In addition, US cases have also forced or killed cases. You seem lacking of neutrality.--Syngmung (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see we are going to get along very well.

The word wianbu and the term "comfort women" is of course related to the Japanese forced sexual slavery, even if the word and the term were used later, to describe prostitutes in South Korea who served US military men. That connects this article very closely to the comfort women article. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@S. If this article has no relation to "comfort women" taken by Japanese, that's fine. That is what I thought. But then why did you restore reference to Japanese here: [1]? My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, this[2] was inserted by other user, Secondly, the term Wianbu's literal meaning was comfort women. And Wianbu was the official name for the prostitutes for Japanese, South Korean and UN millitaries. This should be written in the article. For long time, prostitutes for Japanese, Korean or US military was considered undifferent ones. The term Wianbu have been used for prostitutes for US till comfort women issue raised in 1990s.--Syngmung (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter who initially inserted material. If you revert to keep it here, this is your responsibility. One must clearly explain the difference between these "comfort women" and other, Japanese WWII "comfort women" (see Rape of Nanking). My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted and told you the contents should be written. Next, rape of Nanking is no relation to western princess. US was not the Japanese side. I dont care about your anti Japanese sentiment, it is ok for me. But this article is not Rape of Nanking, you should work off your sentiment in Rape of Nanking.--Syngmung (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand Binksternet's point of view. This article has an obligation to explain the official terms used. Shii (tock) 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The term 慰安婦 pronounced ianfu in Japanese and wianbu in Korean. Has always meant prostitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.152.14 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The principle of wianbu in the Japanese army and after has been the same. Wianbu in the Japanese army had always been considered to be prostitutes in Korea until the early 1990's. That is why the name was used for military prostitutes after WWII, same job - same name. I don't understand why people nowdays say that the wianbu during WWII were not prostitutes - this is not history but politics. The definition of a prostitute is a women who sells sex, during WWII the wianbu were paid for sex - alot of money. Some estimates put the nationality of WWII ianfu at 40% Japanese.

There are 2 very important primary sources that most people avoid. I don't know why these sources are avoided - they are first hand reports. One is an official report from the USA army while WWII continued and the other is from a book interviewing mainly Australian POW's. The first is Report No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution (http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html). Burma Basic salary 1.5Yen 30mins (monthly salary of a 2nd class private in the Imperial army, in WWII was 6Yen).

Quotes "A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute" "They lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places." "The girls complained that even with the schedule congestion was so great that they could not care for all guests, thus causing ill feeling among many of the soldiers." "This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen." - A HUGE AMMOUNT OF MONEY, OVER 20 YEARS SALARY OF A JAPANESE SOLDIER IN ONE MONTH "The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a customer"

The second is The Consolation Unit: Comfort Women at Rabaul (summarized here http://www.japanfocus.org/-Hank-Nelson/2426) New Guinea Basic salary 2Yen 30 mins Quote "Captain John Murphy, captured on a coastwatching mission in 1943, was the only Australian military prisoner alive in Rabaul at the end of the war. Having served as a government officer in the civil administration of New Guinea in the prewar, he was on familiar ground. He was imprisoned in Chinatown in Ah Teck’s tailor’s shop where he had been fitted for his newest pair of civilian trousers.[20] In another Chinatown building they would sometimes see, Murphy said, the women of the ‘8th Consolation Unit’: a barefoot ‘frumpy lot’ they were unlike the painted geishas the prisoners expected. They flashed their bodies, beckoned and mocked the prisoners. An American pilot imprisoned with Murphy, Joseph Nason, recalled that one day as the prisoners were returning from a work site, a guard, Okano, called the women: ‘One of the girls leaned over the balcony and squealed, “Fuckee, fuckee!” with appropriate gestures of her hand’ but the prisoners in their weakened state had no capacity to respond, let alone overcome what other moral and practical inhibitions might have restrained them. Seeing the lack of response, one of the women ‘coyly drew back her kimono and displayed her sex. The other girls playfully tried to cover her up again, but their efforts resulted in even more exposure’.[21] Nason asked a quiet (and embarrassed guard) where the girls were from and he said they were from China and Korea. When asked if they came willingly, he claimed he did not know. One night the prisoners heard a ‘wild disturbance’ and pistol shots coming from the direction of the ‘Comfort House’. Soon after, a brutally battered Japanese soldier was flung into their cell. That in itself was unusual: for a Japanese soldier to be so degraded that he was cast among prisoners of war meant that he had committed a gross violation of Japanese military law. The prisoners soon found that the soldier had died, but by leaving him propped up in a sitting position they were able to claim his rations for four meals. New Guineans were brought in to carry away the body. The prisoners were told that the dead soldier’s crime was trying to get into the Comfort House at a time when it was reserved for officers.[22]"

For reference, please refer to the following reliable sources:

A former comfort woman's saving:

• Soh, Chunghee Sarah (2008). The comfort women: sexual violence and postcolonial memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. pp. 183–184. ISBN 0226767779. The discovery of her savings account records at the Shimonoseki post office in 1992 revealed that it had a balance of 25,245 yen saved during her life as a comfort woman in Burma and Thailand from 1942 to 1945
• Ishikida, Miki Y. (2005). Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse. p. 63. ISBN 0595350631. One Korean former comfort woman, Mun Ok-chu, working in Burma, saved 26145 yen for two years and seven months, 843 yen a month, and sent 5000 yen back to her parents, though she was not able to withdraw money when military currency lost its value in 1945.
• Driscoll, Mark (2010). Absolute erotic, absolute grotesque: the living, dead, and undead in Japan's imperialism, 1895-1945. Duke University Press. p. 309. ISBN 082234761X. Even though these establishments were expensive to operate and prices were high— one short session with a forced sex worker normally cost between 1.5 and 2 yen ( when the monthly salary of a Japanese soldier was between 6 and 10 yen)—many profited handsomely.

Alternative names

There are many alternative names in the lead section. According to MOS:LEADALT, "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". I think it will improve the readability of the lead. The lead should be more focused on the summary of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

I am not confident about this proposal, so I don't initiate a requested move this time. The initial title of this article was Western princess, then it was moved to Korean prostitution for the U.S. military and further to the current name Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. I think the title should be Prostitutes for the U.S. military in South Korea because the focus is not "Prostitutes in South Korea" but apparently "Prostitutes for the U.S. military". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

POV issue

The article appears to be highly focused on a POV which serves to be negative towards those service in United States Forces Korea and its relation to illegal prostitution. As such I am tagging this article, and suggesting it be worked on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, RightCowLeftCoast again. Your argument have closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military moment ago.--Syngmung (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In the AfD one suggestion was rather than taking to AfD, was to summarize the content and merge neutrally stated will referenced content into the main article about Prostitution in South Korea. Just because this article survived AfD, doesn't mean that that shouldn't be done; and it doesn't mean that this article doesn't contain POV issues.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This article has an axe to grind, a cause to carry forward. It should be trimmed of its non-neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest making a balance between:

1. those who celebrate, approve of, tolerate, or condone US servicemen's use of prostitutes in Korea
2. those who regard all sexual relations, paid or not, as ordinary as eating food
3. those who oppose prostitution, Korean prostitution, or US servicemen's use of prostitutes (in Korea or anywhere)

It is definitely an issue which is emotionally charged. So lets separate the facts (what has been happening) from the attitudes (how do Koreans and other feel about it).

Here's some information contributing by a U.S. soldier which simply tries to "tell it like it is". [3] --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The link above might fall into WP:ELMAYBE but is not a reliable source and might fall under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Removing opinions would be a great start to neutralizing the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)