Talk:Lap dance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.

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)

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

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please read earlier comments in this discussion, particularly that of Beyond My Ken dated, 2 August. If you have or can find a better picture that would be great, till then we can only stick with what we have got. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Patron

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

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)

FYI, the above term isn't Wiki-linked anymore in the article. Guy1890 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

There still needs to be a source found for the following statements from the article: "Lap dancing arrived and spread to every major city across much of the UK. A court ruled in 1996 that full stripping at a Liverpool club, Angels Paradise, was acceptable, as long as the dancers were not touched at all by the client and that dancers remained 12 inches (30 cm) away from clients at all times."

I couldn't seem to find a source for this easily. Any ideas? Guy1890 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lap dancing rules in Canada and archiving this talk page?

Having been to numerous clubs in Quebec province in the past, I can say that many strip clubs outside of the Montreal island area are known for an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to contact during lap dances. However, in reading some of the articles cited below, it seems that the law in Canada may be gradually swinging back towards a more restrictive attitude in regulating lap dances. I am therefore unsure of how to proceed with trying to improve the Canadian section of the article as a result. See:

• Court ruling about touching in strip clubs leaves 'gray zone' "In 2007, a Laval court found a local strip club was a 'common bawdy-house' because it allowed its clients to pay for contact dances. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that ruling in January.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

NOTE: So-called bawdy houses have been illegal in Canada for quite some time now, but it's my understanding that prostitution is basically legal across much of Canada as long as the solicitation doesn't occur in a public place.

• Lap Dancing in Strip Clubs website "Tuesday 14 December 1999

http://www.montrealgazette.com Top court swings toward lap dance In a victory for strip clubs, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday refined the meaning of public indecency in a ruling that allows lap dancing and sexual touching in bars.

The court, in a quick ruling from the bench, overturned a 1998 Quebec Court of Appeal decision that found bar-owner Therese Blais-Pelletier operated a strip club akin to an illegal bawdy house by permitting an 'interactive' show of sexual touching between dancers and customers.

The unique adult entertainment - called the 'danse a dix,' or the $10 dance, in Quebec - takes place in a partitioned area in about 250 bars across the province and is comparable to what is better known as lap dancing in dozens of communities in the rest of the country.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

AND

"In her oral judgment, Arbour said only that the court was reinstating a 1994 decision in Quebec Superior Court that found allowing dancers and customers to touch each other is not illegal under the Criminal Code.

'The court is of the opinion that the sole fact of touching does not constitute an act of prostitution,' said the earlier judgment. 'The touching has to constitute a sexual exchange like masturbation, fellatio, penetration or sodomy.'

Crown lawyer Robert Rouleau failed to convince the Supreme Court judges yesterday that sexual touching offends a sense of public decency.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

AND "Lap Dance Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Doesn't prevent ban by cities

On Dec. 14,1999 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a bar in Montreal that permitted lap dancing did not violate community standards of tolerance, and that lap dancing was not an indecent act under the Criminal Code.

Following that ruling, some clubs reinstated lap dancing and all over Canada clubs reported big increases in customers when they allowed lap dancing.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

Source of quotes: The Ottawa Citizen January 31, 2000"

• Strip club laws a ball of confusion - Stayed charges leave exotic dance clubs in legal limbo from July 6, 2000 "A second provincial court decision staying bawdy-house charges against two more GTA strip clubs effectively legalizes on-site offers of cash-for-sex, a lawyer for three of the girlie bars says.

Morris Manning says Ontario Court Justice Bill Gorewich stayed eight bawdy house charges from 1998 against two York Region strip clubs, Fantasia and Goddess Night Club, in June because municipal adult entertainment licences legitimize such dealing.

Earlier this year, Manning had similar charges stayed against the Brass Rail -- a Yonge Street strip club -- on the same grounds.

'The law, traditionally, is that prostitution means the offering of lewdness or lewd behaviour for money,' says Manning. 'Yet the definition of an [exotic dancer] in the licensed provision says that person offers services appealing to erotic or sexual appetites and is licensed.'

The problem seems to be that appealing to erotic or sexual appetities, especially when table dancing enters the equation, usually involves dancers touching strip-club patrons.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

AND

"Clear rules or not, a Peel morality officer working the Almonzo beat says the raids will continue. 'It's our understanding right from downtown that we're to continue laying the charges,' says Inspector John Nielsen. 'If somebody rules it's OK to have fellatio just because you're in a strip club, basically, are you condoning a brothel?'

'Throughout the course of Almonzo, to the time of the last raid, if anything was taking place, the patrons were charged as found-ins. It's no different if any major city does john sweeps.'

If dancers seem confused, it's because recent court rulings are going both ways. Late last year, Ken McKeigan, the manager of Remington's, a Toronto gay strip club, was found guilty of indecency and bawdy-house charges because he knew dancers were masturbating onstage.

[remainder of article removed due to copyright concerns]

In other news, I'm giving fair warning here that I plan on setting up an automated archive of the older portions of this talk page very soon. Speak now against such a thing if you wish to, and thanx in advance for your input... Guy1890 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy1890: I've removed large sections of the articles you quoted, because you went well past any reasonable interpretation of what is allowable under Fair Use and Wikipedia policy. Please note that our non-free content policy applies everywhere, even talk pages, not just in articles. In the future, please simply post a link to the article, a short quote and a synopsis in your own words to avoid copyright violations. Please do not restore the material I removed above -- believe me, if I brought this to our copyright specialists, they wouldn't be nearly as liberal as I was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

New Section for Contoversy

Lap dancing is a very politically charged topic, and can easily invite Edit Wars and even Vandalism. In an attempt to give everyone a chance to express their views, as portrayed by various research selections, I've created a new subsection at the lower part of the article called "Controversies and scientific studies." Hopefully we can keep our controversies and debates in that section and not invite them to disturb sub-topics which might be objective observations, and without any real controversy.James Carroll (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your understanding of Wikipedia is a bit skewed. Wikipedia articles are meant to be written from a neutral point of view, and to provide our readers with unbiased and accurate information. Wikipedia articles don't exist to "give everyone a chance to express their views"; we are not a discussion forum. Any unsourced opinions added to the article (in any section) will be removed immediately. Any sourced information deleted from the article without a proper consensus to do so (obtained through discussion on this page) will be immediately reverted. No one of any opinion about lap dancing is invited to "express their views", either in the article, or on this talk paqe, which exists only to host discussions about improving the article. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, it is a project to create an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, by the mere selection of controversial but referenced studies or statements, it becomes very easy for an agenda-driven troll to disturb the flow of thought in an article, and create virtual vandalism. Recognizing the appetite and right for everyone to submit a referenced statement, IMO it makes sense to apply a little ZONING to an article to account for different levels of controversy.James Carroll (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to recognize that someone who may be morally opposed to lap dancing might well see your edits as that of an "agenda-driven troll", which is why we try not to characterize each other's contributions in that fashion. Further, if by "virtual vandalism" you mean "edits that I disagree with", then you're very much mistaken. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and I suggest that you familiarize yourself with it by reading this policy page. If you go start going around calling other editors' contributions "vandalism" when it isn't, an admin is liable to start thinking that you might need to be blocked from editing for a short time until you understand the actual definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa there...I've edited & watched this article for a while now, and I haven't seen that much in terms of "Edit Wars" or "Vandalism" at all. I've yet to extensively review the edits that Mr. Carroll has made here, so I'll reserve judgement on that until later. Guy1890 (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, on some of the recent edits made to the lap dance page. The hatnote needs to stay at the top of the page IMHO. Lap dancing is, in fact, defined as a type of "sex work". I also don't know that we need to separate "studies" into different camps of pro or against lap dancing, and "Miscellaneous" not a very good title for a sub-section of an article either. How about just labelling that entire section something like "Studies on lap dancing" and just have separate paragraphs describing what those studies found (whether they were "negative", "positive" or mixed)? The results of one UK study have been, IMO, needlessly separated out now in this article. NPOV simply means to me to try to come at a particular subject without any bias, if at all possible. I dunno if I missed anything else that was significantly changed. I'm going to make a pass through the article now & fix what are mostly some grammatical errors. Guy1890 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to drop the word 'Controversies' from the new section's title, I am fine that ( Scientific studies is my first choice, IMO Studies on lap dancing has a redundant phrase(lap dancing) which is really implied by the article's title ). IMO, creating subsections very much helps the clarity of an article and helps the reader navigate to items of interest -- and I have the same regard for sub-subsections as well. If we agree with that, then the issue is what are the most inclusive categories that we could supply ( ex: American studies vrs European studies, Old vrs New, Pro vrs Con, etc ). Since at this point "Pro and Against" seem like the most inclusive classes we could describe, why not use them as a start? And in the future when we have more studies listed, it will likely be obvious what new classifications we should use for the subheadings. As for the study under Miscellaneous sub-subheading, it seems dubious and very flawed since it was only conducted on 19 subects, and it might be a form of self-promotion. IMO, it does not deserve the extra focus it previously had when it had its own underlined sub-heading in bold type. But we need to put it somewhere, and Miscellaneous seems like a good catch-all container until more studies are submitted and we consider adding new subheadings.James Carroll (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change the section to "Scientific studies" then. Again, I don't feel that subjects like lap dancing should be dealt with solely from a "pro vs. con" angle, so I'll also plan on re-working that section to remove those distinctions as well. The "Miscellaneous" heading is going to go away as well, since I agree that that info doesn't "deserve the extra focus it previously had when it had its own underlined sub-heading in bold type". Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Despite having a reference, deleting that statement/paragraph is appropriate due to its statistical flaw (too small a sample), which makes that study and statement unlikely to represent the entire population of lap dancers.James Carroll (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the "pro" and "anti" labels, as these are original research, since they call for interpretation or analysis from us, as opposed to from some reliable source. If a "scientific study" is actually scientific, then it is not "pro" or "anti" anything, it merely has results, which then have to be interpreted. We don't do interpretations, so all we can do is report the results of the studies and leave the evaluations of what they mean to others.

Please do not restore the headings, as they will be removed again, and I;ll be forced to go to the Original Research Noticeboard with this. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you posting under two different usernames (Beyond My Ken and Grumpy Realist)? Is that even allowed? How many usernames do you have, anyway?James Carroll (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on, James Carroll, I have only one username. I merely changed my signature for a while. If you click on the links, they still go to my user and talk pages. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we Delete Photo of Naked Guy with Mustache ??

IMO, the image of the weird naked guy with a mustache is just plain repulsive. The photo is not representative of most strip clubs, because of the public nudity of a man within a club. Further, I don't think that it adds to the article in any way, but threatens to distract the reader from what is really going on within the text, and possibly cause the reader to prematurely exit the article.James Carroll (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

James Carroll has been clear in comments on my talk page that he is "pro-lap dancing", and his concern about this image is solely about it creating a "negative influence" that does not "help the cause." This, of course, is not the kind of criteria by which we judge any material on Wikipedia, including images. His stated concern here that the image will "distract the reader" and cause them to "exit the article" appears to have been concocted for the purposes of this discussion, so as to disguise his own biases. In any event, if a reader decides not to read an article because they object to the mustache on a man in an image, that's they're concern, and not ours.

The difficulty of getting a bona fide image of lap dancing has been discussed before, since photographer is generally not allowed in such situations. That we have images at all is rather extraordinary, and there aren't so many of them available that we can afford to be picky and remove them because one editor finds the subject of an image to be "weird". (Not all men are fashion models, and probably most men don't look good naked; I don't have any evidence to back it up, but it would seem reasonable to me that the men who frequent establihsments where one can get a lap dance might well be among that group of men.) If James Carroll wants to propose an image to substitute for the one in question, that can be considered, but I don't see his arguements -- either the ones he made on my tlak page or the somewhat different one he made here -- to be compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that you need bring up my user-name when debating a philosophical point? An ad hominem attack only reveals a weakness in the speaker's position, and is not likely to be part of Wikipedia's talk policy.James Carroll (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The "philosophical point" didn't land on this page by itself like a mote of dust, you brought it up, and your motivation for doing so, given your previous statement of bias, is something that can legitimately be discussed. There was no "ad hominem" attack, merely a statement of your position, which you spontaneously revealed to me out of the blue. If you don't want your actions to be judged by your opinions, than you shouldn't announce yourself to other editors with a statement of those opinions. I certainly did not ask you where you stand on lap dancing, and you have absolutely no idea how I feel about it. (You're almost certainly making assumptions about my views, and you're almost certainly wrong about them.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"The photo is not representative of most strip clubs, because of the public nudity of a man within a club." I don't think that the guy in that picture is actually nude, since he appears to be wearing some light blue colored shorts. Depending on which strip club you might frequent, there is, in fact, plenty of nudity on display, especially during lap dances. I can't say that I've seen much in the way of customer nudity though. I honestly don't have a strong feeling at all about removing the image in question here, but it shouldn't be removed simply because one person happens to find it "repulsive" or "distracting". As it clearly says at the top of this talk page: "Wikipedia is not censored." Guy1890 (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The photo is not representative of the way that the vast majority of lap dances are performed in clubs, and the photo might be staged -- possibly for an ulterior motive to disturb the reader. Lap dances are almost always done in public areas (a public lap dance room or in seats near stages) and the overwhelming amount of clubs do NOT allow patrons to display the kind of nudity that we see in the photo. The photo is also redundant since we already have a more realistic photo of a lap dance at the top of the article. We need to get more contributors to weigh in on this issue.James Carroll (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the current article photos are "representative of the way that the vast majority of lap dances are performed in clubs", and both of those photos have been, in fact, "staged". One photo is a photshopped version of a photo taken at the annual Adult Entertainment Expo, and the other photo is from a stage performance at another adult expo ("Eros"?) in Europe. The picture is question here just has a guy with his shirt off...other than that, it's a very reasonable example of body positions during a lap dance. If you can find a better set of photos, then have at it. Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the photo again, you'll notice that the man not only has his shirt off, but his trousers are off as well and appears as if naked. Both photos can not be equal -- one is more representative than the other. How many times have you gone inside of strip clubs to qualify your judgement that the bottom photo is just as representative of a lap dance as the top photo?James Carroll (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, he's not naked...he apparently just has his shirt off and is apparently wearing light blue colored shorts.

"How many times have you gone inside of strip clubs to qualify your judgement that the bottom photo is just as representative of a lap dance as the top photo?" That sounds like an original research-type question to me. In any event, I've gotten my fair share of lap dances at a variety of different types of clubs, and the pose that the two people are in the photo in question here is pretty standard for a lap dance. I don't think that we need to beat these issues to death here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we break this down the to the properties that two photos possess, it may be apparent why I see one as vastly more representative than the other, and the other as destructive to the article due to its misrepresentation. For this, let's call the first photo at the top PhotoA and the other PhotoB.

1) Wardrobe Property -- Of all the clubs I have gone to, they would never tolerate the way the guy is dressed in PhotoB -- in fact they would not even tolerate a guy taking his shirt off in the public areas where lap dancing is done. I did not say that "he is naked", I said that "he appears naked", and that is true. Perception is everything in photography and journalism. If you look beneath the dancer's crotch in photo B, you can not see any fabric at all despite the fact that much of his inner thigh is showing. Most convention al shorts would show some fabric there, and he is really more likely to be wearing underwear briefs by the tiny patch of blue that we see to the lower right. Now if we look at the wardrobe of the patron in PhotoA he appears like most of the guys that I see in strip clubs -- casual clothing while observing typical strip club dress codes.

2) Touching Property -- Another reason why PhotoA is superior in representation to PhotoB is that the patron in PhotoA is clearly displays that he is not touching the dancer. But PhotoB shows the patron touching the dancer, which would be a serious violation for a majority of strip clubs in the US. Since many clubs do not allow touching, the decision to not have the patron touch the dancer in PhotoA, makes PhotoA more representative of both touching-permitted and non-touching clubs.

3) Social-Interaction Property -- A big part of the popularity of lap dances, which the outside public does not realize, is that conversation goes on, sometimes humorous, and that there is much social interaction -- so much so that we frequently read in Strip Club Forums how guys become very fond of particular dancers, and sometime even feel like they are in love. PhotoA shows the pair facing each other and both are smiling, it seems that there is indeed positive social interaction and conversation going on. However in PhotoB, they are not even facing each other and they are not smiling.

4) Pose Property -- You mention that the poses of both photos are both realistic, and that is somewhat true, although the touching off PhotoB's pose is not entirely representative.

So if we had to keep score, we would say that photo A gets a 100% with the sum of its representative-property values, while photoB would only get at most a 25% score, since it only passes muster for one out of four of the properties which define the 'representative-ness' of a photo for the behavior that they are supposed to aid in describing.

When I looked back in the history of this talk page, I found out that it had previously generated the same opposition (and same reasons) and that only KensBeyond stubborn insistence prevailed despite multiple opposing editors(see above). Although at that time Ken said that if they had a better picture, then they could get rid of this poor photo.

"The absolutely ideal photo is not always available, so we make do with hat we have. Beyond My Ken (talk) , 2 August 2012"

Below is a LINK to that EARLIER DISCUSSION:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lap_dance&oldid=533203379

Well Ken, its time to live up to your words an support the removal of this redundant and unrepresentative photo. Better yet, maybe we should have it blocked from the page.James Carroll (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Please don't restore archived discussions, a link to the thread is sufficient.
2. Please do not change the names of threads without a very good reason to do so, as it fouls up links to the thread.
3. Please do not interpret my words to mean something they obviously do not, since I don't agree with your assessment of the photo. I meant exactly what I said, that, in the absence of a better images, and with no overwhelming reason to remove the photo, it should stay in the article. Incidentally, have you contacted the uploaded to find out about the image, or is making things up yourself the only source of "information" you will accept? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) As an aside, whenever a new user shows up with "Truth" in their username somewhere, it's a pretty safe bet that they're going to turn out to be a POV-pusher who is much more interested in their particular "truth" then they are in editing from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. By insisting that we "get it right" about this photo, you're kind of entering into the same area, taking the position that what it "right" is what agrees with your opinion. That's not the way things work around here. For better or worse, with specific polocy-based exceptions, decisions are made not on the basis of what it "right" or "wrong" (or "truth"), but on what a consensus of editors agrees on. That's because Wikipedia recognizes that in many situations, there is not real "right" or "wrong", and waiting for one to appear will keep the discussion (or, because this is Wikipedia, the argument) going on forever.

Now the consensus in the previous discussion was not to remove the image, so if you want to remove it, you have to do so by putting together a consensus to do so. So far, there are only three of us participating in this discussion. Others may get involved later, but to this moment, it appears to be that two editors are saying to leave the image in (which is not the same as saying that it's an ideal photo), and you are disagreeing. That being the case, you need to convince someone to change their mind, and you're unlikely to do that by denigrating our views or acting in a high-handed manner. I suggest that you change your tactics, or, better yet, just let the matter drop. (We would say "stop beating the dead horse, put the stick down and walk away") BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is issue not going to go away, I've already contacted an admin about this, and he will want to see the previous discussion as well. Add a link to the previous discussion or I will place it back.James Carroll (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, James Carroll, the issue will indeed go away, as soon as you drop it, unless someone else shows up to add their voice to the discussion.

Incidentally, admins have no special status in content disputes, their remit it to deal with behavioral concerns and to "mop up" other non-content-related problems, so asking an admin here isn't going to make a particular difference, since if the admin (as an editor) agrees with you, there's still no consensus, and if the admin (as an editor) agrees with Guy and I, the consensus will remain as it is.

For the benefit of the admin that James Carroll notified, the previous discussion, from 3 1/2 years ago, can be found here. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Block, I see you are the admin that James Carroll pinged about this discussion. Just for the heck of it, the only behavioral problem I see in this discussion (and the one above) is a bit of I didn't hear that from James Carroll, and, frankly, a touch of a POV problem as well, since - at least judging from his contribution list - this, and related subjects, appears to be his only area of interest. Still, there's nothing going on here that, at least in my opinion, requires the intervention of an admin (as admin), but you can make your own evaluation of that. Best, BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just become aware of this thread on Candleabracadabra's talk page, which also shows a more serious ownership problem on James Carroll's part. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The guy in "Photo B" isn't naked, period.

"But PhotoB shows the patron touching the dancer, which would be a serious violation for a majority of strip clubs in the US." Let's see a source for that opinion please. Not that our personal experiences are especially relevant in this case, but I've experienced a fair amount of two-way touching during lap dances in the past. As is always the case in any strip club experience, "your mileage may vary" and laws & rules vary from club to club or from locality to locality.

In general Mr. Carroll, it appears that a lot of your concerns with this article is that it needs to paint lap dancing in the most positive light possible, which is pretty clearly POV pushing IMHO. That's frowned upon here on Wikipedia. What matters here is that the subject of the article is treated as accurately as possible, whether that treatment yields an observer to feel positively or negatively about an article's topic. Guy1890 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Backing away

It occurs to me that my continued presence here is a bit like waving a red flag in front of a bull, so I'm going to unwatch this page and back away from the ... well, I was going to write "discussion", but there hasn't really been any substantive discussion for a while. My removal of myself from the premises should not be taken to imply that I don't think everything I've written above is true, since I continue to believe it is. I simply thought that there might be a chance that real consensus-building could happen if I wasn't around. I may check in at times, but hopefully I'll be able to resist posting.

Good luck, all. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)