Talk:Massage parlor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Massage parlor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Start‑class Low‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]