Talk:Erotic massage

Old Merge Proposal?

• To suggest that tantric massage by merged with "Erotic" massage is a typical suggestion born out of Western thought about the practice of tantra. Good grief, people, isn't there anyone else here who studies Eastern Tantric Shivaist Teachings from Kashmir, Kaula tradition, Spanda and Pratyabhijna schools? This whole discussion is stunning! To say a someone created a tantric massage a couple decades ago is absolutely preposterous. The practice of tantra is 5000 years old. Daniel Odier writes of performing tantric massage with his masters back in the 50's (see the book, Tantric Quest).

Then you'd better learn how to cite sources, because nobody has any reason to believe you, anon. Quite frankly, you're full of it. —Hanuman Das 05:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I just did, you idiot! I cited Daniel Odier, a well respected expert on the subject of tantra. Read his book, "Tantra Quest". Good greif, go read some books and learn something!

By "cite the sources", I believe Hanuman Das meant add the information to the article along with <ref> tags, author, title, page number, ISBN as documented in WP:CITE. That's a citation. Mentioning it on the talk page is not adequate. Frater Xyzzy 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Keep it, its nice and shows it well -Seth slackware 02:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Erotic energy?

I think that in any encyclopedia such terms should be avoided as non-factual and mystic. -87.103.221.205 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article would need to say clearly who holds that view. -Allen (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Spa section

Deleted - as written, it has nothing to do with the subject of this article and the material would be better placed in articles on 'Prostitution in Thailand' and '.. the UK' although I have reservations about the quality of at least some of the sources cited. Lovingboth (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I re-added that information, since it was unfortunately, recently removed from another article (massage parlor) & needs to be better integrated into this article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The material certainly was moved from the Massage parlor article, and that is where it belongs since it is about massage parlors and prostitution. The Massage parlor article is currently lacking without this material, though this material does need better sourcing for some parts. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with your sentiment above, but it appears that there are a few editors that would like to "sanitize" (for lack of a better term) the massage parlor article. I don't feel strongly on where this info should reside on Wikipedia, as long as it not lost entirely. Guy1890 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I really think most of the info in the spa section belongs in an article about prostitution in thailand or prostitution in general. It just isn't really about erotic massage. I got blocked from wikipidia last time I tried to remove that info, but I strongly urge someone else to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.18.56 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you Lovingboth? Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Urging someone else to do something that got yourself banned in the first place really isn't a great suggestion. I would argue that what happens in many (but not all) spas across the world is, in fact, erotic massage. Guy1890 (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I was accused of vandalism and blocked for 24 hours, which I thought was ridiculous. I meant maybe an administrator (who is unlikely to be accused of vandalism for improving an article like I was) could review it and recognize that the content is off track and remove it. The first two paragraphs talk about the ethnicity of prostitutes at brothels in northern Thailand, which is really way off track. And no, I am not Lovingboth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.18.56 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick look shows 66.75.18.56 is somewhere in the US, quite possibly San Diego. I'm in the UK. And I almost always remember to log in when editing :) Lovingboth (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I am - I've just noticed this conversation. As I said, the spa section has nothing to do with this section and keeping it here just because it has been deleted from what is a better (although quite likely not the best possible) article for it is should not be done, per WP:something or other. Let me have a look for a better place for it, although as I say, I don't regard it as at all well-sourced. Lovingboth (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't see the point in trying to insert a section about prostitution in an article that is about a sexual activity. Apart from the word "massage" there's really no reason to have it in this article. It seems to me that Guy1890 is the only one in favor of keeping it, so I'm going to remove it again, per consensus. I understand your reason, but it is a very weak one for keeping it in this article. The text can be found in the edit history, if necessary, or moved to a user sandbox. Sjö (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I really think the 'prostitution in thailand' article would be the appropriate place for this text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.18.56 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at the 'Massage Parlor' article, they really do want to hide the verifiable fact that so many of them are brothels, don't they? Lovingboth (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yea, they sure do, and there lies a great part of the problem IMHO. I'm not married to the idea that the valid info in question here must remain in this article here forever...I just don't want it lost forever because it's been deleted from several, relevant articles. Guy1890 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)