Talk:Lap dance

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Origin of lap dancing

The article states that lap dancing originated (at least in its current form) in 1980 San Francisco. I know from personal experience that it was being practiced in Florida in 1978. Larry660 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) A club in Houston, The Boobie Rock, featured "couch dancing" in 1977. This attribute was advertised on a portable marquee facing busy Westheimer Road; so more than the patrons became aware of the term.[reply]

Disagreements

The article states that the dancers are naked during the lap dance and that depends on the club. A lot of clubs are topless and more than a few a "bikini" bars where the dancers are fully clothed (albeit with lingerie or a bikini). I edited the article accordingly.

The article also states that it is not "uncommon" for customers to achieve orgasm and in my experience just the opposite is true. The intent of a lap dance is not to arouse a customer to sexual orgasm as that would imply prostitution and would be illegal in most jurisdictions. IMO that particular sentence should be deleted. nathanhubbard 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the article said "not unheard of" for a customer to achieve orgasm but I'll leave that as a suggestion rather than making the change. Larry Siegel (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel[reply]

Used condoms are frequently found in the bathrooms? Questionable and irrelevant. I say remove that, too. Tebucky

I'd disagree with the orgasm thing, because it does happen (although perhaps not known to the dancer). At any rate, I'm not sure why that particular bit of information is needed?

Lap Dancing in the UK

Just to say that the so-called lap dancing clubs in the UK are strictly non contact. We have a saying here: 'no sex we're British'. Colin4C 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Issues

I see discussion of "legal issues" and "labour issues". What, in the name of all that is good and Holy, about MORAL ISSUES????Mgr.James Horan Decd. 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patron

Why is the customer referred to as patron, even wikilinked? // habj 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to a patron being male, "her body against his" implies there are no male strippers / erotic dancers and that clients are always male. I disagree: in many countries there are male lap / contact dancers, albeit a lesser number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.28.16 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VIP

nobody ever mentioned the VIP areas in strip clubs. they are quite nice. i've been back to them several times. nothing out of the way goes on except heavy grinding, caressing, and kissing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshallfan (talk • contribs) 21:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I removed the term "sex dance" from the lead. First, it is a NPOV violation because not all lap dances involve sexual activity, especially since as indicated in the article in some jurisdictions lap dancing involves only minimal contact, if any. Second, "sex dance" is simply a redirect to "erotic dancing" which is the more appropriate term. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardness

"erotic dancing/erotic dance/sexual encounter" and "dancer/sex worker" (and other similar "slash terms") makes reading awkward. Is there any way one term could be used for all of these activities, and other for these people, at least for the purposes of making the article more readable? 66.234.222.23 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, remove the "sexual encounter" and "sex worker" part. Closest thing we are to sex workers are professional cockteases. The only times it may be considered a "sexual encounter" is 1. if done in a private, intimate setting for a lover as foreplay, or 2. what we call "extras" are being preformed, which is illegal, and looked down upon by many dancers. If that is happening, the lap dance is usually skipped and just used as a cover for what really happened.

Hell, any dancer who just rubs one out for the customer with her cunt is usually insecure about her sexuality and ability, and is afraid the customer won't pay up or demand a refund if they just do an air dance with minimal grinding. Or she's just dumb and thinks that'll increase her $$. I work at a full-contact club and end up selling multiple dances by air dancing with just a bit of teasing grinding. Watching what the other girls do for the $18 commission makes me wanna throw up.

This article is just so inaccurate I don't know where to start in de-fuckifying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.129.243 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2009

Full contact

Can anyone verify whether the stuff about full contact dancing has any accuracy? I've never experienced this, but maybe I'm just too cheap! Anyway, I put it at the end of the paragraph now instead of at the lead. Lg king (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I may be wrong, but surely none of the photos are necessary, esp not the topless one. Doesn't Wikipedia have some rules about this?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the upload comments on the photo, there is some explanation for why that particular photo was uploaded. Other than that, the photos are subject relevant and Google will bring far worst on a simple keyword search for "lap dance". It is always appreciated when someone opts to post a comment under a real username rather than random-IP vandalism. This is simply not a friendly article for impressionable youth and the easily offended, but no one should be surprised given the subject matter. Since I am not really interested in any type of decency debate, I would politely ask that it not come to that. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't querying the decency. Just the necessecity, as the article explained it well enough for a photo not to be necessary--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have some rules about this - see Wikipedia is not censored and if the images offend you, don't look at them. This is a performing art, hence images are not only beneficial, but indeed necessary. a_man_alone (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we at least select a picture which doesn't show a topless dancer? gbouras1 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2011 (BST)

Why? Why do you find the topless image inappropriate to the lapdance page? And I'm also curious as to why you originally signed your post as coming from me, although you did change it. If it's a sig problem, you know you can use four tildes ~~~~ to automagically insert your sig. a_man_alone (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current photo doesn't cause me offence, personally - I just think it could cause offence to others and if a near-identical photo in which the dancer wasn't topless wouldn't be a worse photo in terms of demonstrating what a lap dance is, what's the problem with changing it? It would do the same job as the current one but be less likely to offend - good, no? Regarding the signing cock-up, this was my first post; I copied your signature to try to make sure I signed off in the correct manner but forgot to replace your details with mine. As you noticed, I corrected my mistake straight away. I hope I've done it okay this time! Gbouras1 (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (BST)

Wikipedia is not censored, hence the nudity is no reason to change the photo - regardless of whether other images are available. If the image offends other people, then they are quite welcome to take steps to to hide them. Although I understand your desire to prevent offence to others, that potential offence is their problem, not yours or mine. It only becomes our problem when they try to deny others to right to see such imagery. If they're truly offended by such images, then I would be interested in hearing their reasoning for accessing the Lap Dance page in the first place. a_man_alone (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny minority of Wikipedia users are aware of how to use Javascript to alter the content they see. To change the photo would not "deny others the right to see such imagery". It's freely available and (unlike the nuances of Javascript) the means of accessing it is well-known to practically every internet user (namely a Google search). If you were desperate for perfect pictorial information to be available to every user in your fight for availability of non-censored images why don't you ask for the photo on the "Pornography" article to be changed to a still of a hardcore pornographic film?

Regarding your point about being interested in hearing their reasons for accessing the page, can you really not conceive of someone wanting to find out about what a lap dance was without wanting to see nudity? I can. Gbouras1 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that viewers should not expect not to see explicit imagery on such a page. I'm not advocating that all potential explicit images are used in place of others, merely that where they are used, "causing offence" is a non viable reason for their removal. I haven't checked the pornography page, but if I did, I would not be shocked to find explicit imagery present, however just because there isn't doesn't mean I think that there should be explicit imagery there.

Whether the image is available on the net is irrelevant, and perhaps I should have been more specific, as when I refer to "...deny others to right to see such imagery..." I am referring specifically to Wikipedia - your apparent desire to remove it from this wikipedia page is based on the fact that it contains nudity. Wikipedia has a policy regarding this, and I think you can guess which one it is.

Also, for completeness sake, I've added the {{Censor}} template to the page. a_man_alone (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this photo representative of a typical lap dance? In most clubs, wouldn't the customer be fully clothed? -- 203.82.95.51 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a club, yes, but not necessarily if the woman had been hired for a private party. Given the difficulty of taking such a photo in a club, I assume the latter is the circumstance of the photo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense, but the article currently discuses the practice in clubs, with no mention at all of private venues. It is as if the lede image of our Jackhammer article showed a nude operator; it may happen, but it is not typical. Shouldn't the lede image of this article show the typical practice? -- 203.82.95.232 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The absolutely ideal photo is not always available, so we make do with hat we have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very suspicious of the person who uploaded this picture. Is he/she in the photograph? Did the other person give their permission for this photograph to be published on WP? This is a case of Wikibitionism, surely? 78.23.53.195 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the photo should be removed. Teenagers probably come to this site and exposing pornography to minors is illegal. I keep trying to remove it but it keeps coming back. The picture just isn't necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.109 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR - being objectionable is not reason in itself for removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are "Lap Dance" customers generally *nude* or perhaps only wearing boxer shorts? Because if not, the image is not accurate. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on laws and ordinances applicable in the particular location (city, regional, and country laws and ordinances). --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian as a reliable unbiased source

I strongly believe that the Guardian is a biased source and should not be used in this article Zonafan39 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here disagrees with you, but if you feel strongly about it, open a comment on the reliable source noticeboard. You won't get what you're looking for, but you can try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the source before I decide to pursue this further. Thank you. Zonafan39 (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You "strongly believe" that the Guardian -- one of the UK's premiere newspapers -- is a "biased source", but you have to "look at the source" before you go to RSN. So your "belief" is "strong" without actually having looked at it. I see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]