Jump to content

Talk:Massage parlor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Citation needed?

Why is a citation needed for the statement "not all massage parlors are involved in prostitution"? Does anyone actually believe that all massage therapists are prostitutes in disguise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.5.119 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Older comments

I can tell most of this written by someone whose native language is not English. Rintrah 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

These Thai masseuses sound like prositutes — 'HIV tests', and 'mandatory condom use' indicate prostitution. How are 'massages' distinct from sex with prositutes? Rintrah 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This page should be merged with the page massage parlour. theothermeat 23:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 'Parlor' is the American spelling, and the other article is better written, so it should host the content of this one. The other one confirms my suspicious that Massage Parlour is a type of brothel. Rintrah 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged this article with "massage parlour". It will be easier for anyone to edit if everything's on one page. Since I'm Americon I chose "parlor" as the main page. Tocharianne 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the articles Tocharianne! theothermeat 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the rules to be on the external links ? Someone said its not a directory and removed the link, and other one added a link pointed to toronto massage parlors directory. 16:20, 25 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.46.133 (talk)

Someone added some references for Toronto but those were for holistice center/massage parlors so I changed the text. They also added links for "Other cities in Canada" but those websites didn't actually have any such information so I removed them. Maybe we should remove everything that doesn't have a story published by a legitimate news source?

I removed the external links that pointed to lists of massage parlors--Wikipedia is not a directory. Tocharianne 16:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Split?

This article seems rather confused, in that it tries to cover both massage parlours which really are massage parlours, and "massage parlours" in the sexual euphemism sense. (I'm British, and "massage" ads in newspaper classified sections almost always refer to the second sort.) Might it not be better to split the sexual stuff out? I see we already have an Erotic massage article, but again I'm not sure that's quite right for the "massage parlour" stuff, since those things commonly offer sexual services that have no massage component at all. Loganberry (Talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

UK

Good Quality Sources on UK Prostitution law

http://www.sw5.info/law.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736436.stm

Newspaper

The later part of the UK section is very confused coverage of an agreement by some news papers not to accept adverts for prostitutes, despite the fact they are legal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.233.120 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thailand :)

Hilarious that just this section is so highly elaborated. But in fact, Murray Head mentions them too in his "One Night In Bangkok" classic song. -andy 92.229.73.75 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

offtopic

The article is about massages yet all three paragraphs in the lede speak about prostituion. I say the lede needs a majoe overhaul/rework.Pass a Method talk 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, and there was apparently some talk back in 2008 (above) about splitting/merging this article with the Erotic massage, which is a page that I haven't reviewed extensively yet. However, it's been my experience in the USA & Canada that massage parlors are mostly fronts for prostitution. If one wants to know what happens at a real establishment that gives massages, then one can go to the Wiki-link for Massage, which is in the first sentence of the current article here.
In other news, I'm giving fair warning here that I plan on setting up an automated archive of this talk page soon.
Any other comments are welcome. Guy1890 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pass a Method here, though I would go slightly further and say that not only the Lead section, but the body as well needs work. Most of the material in this article probably belongs under Erotic massage, and the rest should either redirect to, expand on, or duplicate the material at Massage#Venues. Re: "it's been my experience in the USA & Canada that massage parlors are mostly fronts for prostitution", my experience has been the exact opposite: all the massage parlors I've ever visited have been, well, massage parlors, for lack of a better word. I'm not sure what else to call it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The legal situation - brothels are illegal in the UK and all but parts of Nevada in the USA - means that if you go to a brothel calling itself a 'massage parlour' and don't ask or otherwise make it clear that you are looking for sexual services, a non-sexual massage is what you will get (and the provider will be miffed that they're missing out on the money they make from doing the sexual stuff). Lovingboth (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, in the USA & Canada (especially in RI, which recently changed its laws again on indoor prostitution), getting sexual services at a massage parlor is not that uncommon. Does it happen at every massage parlor establishment? Of course not. Guy1890 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at online dictionary definitions, and Google results for "massage parlor", it's pretty clear that the terms has sexual connotations. Massage providers who do not offer sexual services aren't going to associate themselves with the term. A pharmacist could be described as a "drug dealer", but no pharmacist is going to use that term due to it's illicit connotations. Sexual massage parlors (and their role in human trafficking) are a notable topic. I don't think the place of business for non-sexual massage providers is notable enough to be covered outside of the massage article. If an article on the legitimate businesses is needed, massage clinic is available as a title (and spa already covers another setting where non-sexual massages are provided). Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I located a reliable source, clarified use of the term "massage parlour", rewrote the lede, and added a redirect to legitimate massage. Please help strengthen this article with reliable sources. TheProfessor (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done. Looks good to me. I have my hands full with other WP projects, but just as a start for sources, a quick search in amazon produces three book titles: "God's Callgirl: One Woman's Incredible Journey from the Convent to the Massage Parlour" and "Confessions of a Massage Parlour Princess" and "McCoy's British Massage Parlour Guide" (the cover states it includes private flats and erotic parties). The search didn't pull up any massage-related books. A search in "health books" turned up this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0844231088/ref=sr_1_3?p=S00E&keywords=massage+parlours&ie=UTF8&qid=1403061730 - that's a link to the search-in-book that references "seedy massage parlours" in contrast to legit. Truth is, I'm not sure exactly where to plug it in to the article - it's such a brief mention that it doesn't back up any of the details in the article except for the lede. If someone wants to figure out how to use it, please do. --Karinpower (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy Ending

"it's generally understood that "massage parlors" may offer sexual massages. This article is not the place for content about the place of business for massage providers who do not provide sexual massages".

A massage parlor can be both sexual and non-sexual, legal and illegal. The article already covers the sexual aspects so i dont see why nonsexual aspects should be deleted. Even when it is sexual, it is usually in teh form of a happy ending rather than full on sex. Hence as a compromise i will add that aspect to the lead. Pass a Method talk 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"it is usually in teh form of a happy ending rather than full on sex." Got a source for that kind of statement? Look, I was very surprised to see someone recently try & remove what has been some pretty obvious attempts to "sanitize" (for lack of better term) this article by removing large portions of the sexual side of things when it comes to massage parlors, which are pretty obviously sexual services-only establishments as opposed to an actual day spa, but this article here (as is) is almost worthless in describing what actually goes on in these kind of establishments. It's a pretty sad display of POV-pushing IMHO. Edit-warring over it isn't a solution. Guy1890 (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting ALL of the sexual content and replacing it with a sentence about happy endings is not a compromise. Again, technically a massage parlor could be sexual or non-sexual, just as a pharmacist is technically a "drug dealer". In actual usage, no pharmacist is going to call themselves a drug dealer , and a business offering non-sexual, legal massages is not going to call themselves a "massage parlour" due to strong sexual conotations for that term. Pass a Method added this reference to the article: ([1]). The only place the term "massage parlour" appears in that book is in the context of the segment of the sex industry regulated by New Zealand's Massage Parlours Act 1978.

I'm not convinced that people often consider the term "massage parlour" to apply businesses offering non-sexual massages. If there is indeed frequent confusion as to whether or not massage parlours offer sexual services, then massage parlour should serve as a disambiguation page, pointing to an article on the sexual establishments and a separate article on non-sexual establishments. Trying to treat both businesses in the same article is inappropriate, as is converting this article from one entirely about the sexual establishments into one covering the non-sexual establishments.

I'm reverting back to the version discussing sexual establishments. Making this article into a dab instead might be appropriate. I'm going to bring it up at Talk:Massage to see if anybody there actually thinks massage parlours are non-sexual. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This time i only made additions. And i'm not sure why you're opposed to covering both topics on the same article. As an analogy, there are thriller movies where almost half the scenes deal with nudity/sex. That doesn't mean we should recatogorize the thriller movie as a porno-only should we? Plus we already have the article erotic massage Pass a Method talk 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Reconsidering the existence or format of this article makes sense to me (such as a redirect to Erotic Massage), but putting a WP:DAB doesn't fit. There is no place for non-sexual massage in this article. At least in the US - I should clarify that because perhaps in the UK the term is used differently? --Karinpower (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'happy ending' exactly means here. A euphemism I don't know. I think we need to be clear about things here. As for what a massage parlour is. It provides a range of sexual services/acts. Could go into a list, won't at the moment. In short a maggage parlour provides 'full on' sex. In many cases what you get at the begging could barely be called a massage. This is from an English/GB/UK perspective. Dannman (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A "happy ending" is an orgasm which is given as part of an erotic massage. Guy1890 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Typically performed "manually." This may be a U.S. slang. --Karinpower (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I get it (errrm, I mean understand it!). That would be Manual Relief in England.Dannman (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

POV Bias Edits?

There seems to be a lot of edits to this article trying to forward some sort of agenda. Wikipedia is NOT the place for it. If you make the claim that over ONE MILLION GIRLS have been traffic'd from China and Burma to Thailand, don't expect that a single link from an article that DOESN'T even support your claim is acceptable! Oscar Arias (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Massage parlor. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Only sexual massage parlors?

This article seems to do a disservice to the massage industry by focusing exclusively on massage parlors as a front for prostitution. I get that massage as an industry/profession is covered in another article, and that a sizeable number of massage parlors do serve as fronts for prostitution, but if this is going to remain the focus of the article, I would recommend renaming the article to make this clear, something along the lines of "erotic massage parlor" or "massage parlors and prostitution" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4100:6DE7:CD28:3215:2047:BAD5 (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Being clear is good. I don't thing the title needs to be changed though. Personally, I see the phrase massage parlor excluding actual massage industry/professionals.
Dannman (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
We've been over this before. Nobody who does actual massage is going to associate themselves with the word "parlor"; the unsavory connotations are too strong, and there a plenty of alternative terms without those connontations; "massage studio", "massage clinic" or spa. A pharmacist is technically "drug dealer", but they'd never call themselves that. Plantdrew (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massage parlor. 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) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massage parlor. 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) 04:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Massage Therapy in America

The first paragraph in the United States section talks about massage therapy. I missed this bit being added. I don't remember it being there. It starts with:

The massage therapy industry in the US is continuously increasing, with a projected 19% increase between 2008 and 2019. U.S. consumers spend between $4 and $6 billion on visits to massage therapists, as of 2009.

What is the relivance to massage parlours? I think it should be removed.

As for the second part, about licencing:

As of 2016, 46 states and the District of Columbia required some type of licensing for massage therapists.[17] Most states in the United States have licensing requirements that must be met before a practitioner can use the title "massage therapist", and some states and municipalities require a license to practice any form of massage.

I can guess why this might be relevant. However, it would be better if we had something that said why, instead of guessing. Should be at least rewritten to state relevance. Dannman (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dannman. I agree with you. In fact, I think the entire first paragraph of the United States section should be removed as it is clearly all about therapeutic massage rather than massage parlours. It's possible that the paragraph was intended to imply that massage therapist licensing exists to reduce prostitution, but neither source supports that assertion. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed that. Not sure how I missed that being added, but I have this article on my watchlist because it has a history of having material about therapeutic massage added. Plantdrew (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Polly TunnelYes, I though it possible the massage therapist licensing might be used against massage parlours.
Thanks Plantdrew. Yes, I've seen people trying to make this about legit massage and removing material about massage parlours. Personally I think it could be a bit stronger on saying they're brothells.
Dannman (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Description: Business offering the services of trained masseuses/masseurs

I consider this misleading. Some parlours may pretend to do massages. I believe there's no pretence of parlours having trained masseuses/masseurs. I doubt there's any more trained masseurs working in the massage parlour industry than there is brick layers, pharymasists, or nurses.

Dannman (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

An external link was added to a piece about massage chairs. I believe massage chairs are not relivant at all. And the link takes you to a "Top 10 Best of..." list, which I'm always doubtful of. In case someone else wants to recondiser, here is the link.

https://massagefuture.com/best-massage-chairs/

Dannman (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massage_parlor/Archive_1&oldid=1141547060"