Talk:Ping pong show

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ping pong show 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

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Stub‑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 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-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.

This article reeks

The entire article is, of course, ignoring reality, and the power the Internet has given to women to share the activities they enjoy. Women happily promote putting random objects into their vaginas for free and for fun. The objects include, but are not limited to, permanent markers, razors, portable music players, mobile phones, vomit, and ping pong balls. Many of these girls were given names due to their activities: Zune-chan and Pingpong-chan, for example.

Though I'm sure the majority of women in countries outside of the USA, Canada and most of the Western European countries have better things to do with their time, it's not as horrible as it sounds for women doing this for a living. If a girl is injured on stage, that's one less girl that the club has to offer, they would make sure their talent doesn't get injured. As is so with any situation, there may be a rare occurrence where everything gets too crazy and someone gets badly hurt, but that's as rare as ever.

The problem with providing references to the pictures and videos that girls make for sites like CHANSLUTS, 4chan or even the Russian versions, willingly and with no expectation of payment, is that it's just straight pornographic material. There is verification that the activities are being done purely for fun, and it's even dated, for the most part. An example of the article's title, and many more, can be found on penetrate you (NSFW). || 69.165.247.114 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable References?

I'm not really clear on what would be "reputable" references for this. There are a number of eyewitness accounts in blogs and articles from small e-zines. I doubt reputable sources write much about this. Thoughts?

[www.mangosauce.com/sex/patpong_ping_pong_pussy_banana_show.php Mango Sauce Article]
Personal Blog
French Wikipedia Article
Personal Blog
Personal Blog whose other sections have been published in several reputable sources
World Sex Guide users forum

Mwingard 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

" They offer freak shows where women’s bodies are reduced to grotesque objects exploited for tourists’ entertainment." -- NPOV much? 202.173.217.35 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of these girls were born in the poor Isaan region where there is little work outside the 2 rice growing seasons. It is a chance for these women to fulfill their dreams by raising money to start small businesses when they return to Isaan. They work in these bars willingly despite what feminists may say. You can easily say a cleaner hates her work and is exploited in the same way. The alternative work available to these girls is 6 day week food processing work, or working in shops at minimum wage, which in Thailand IS VERY MINIMUM. Unless feminists , with their cultural arrogance, have an ALTERNATIVE, they should shut up and let these girls live their lives and continue having sanuk (fun).

Please stop feminists from biassed reports, maybe one of the girls working should write the article, they will not agree at all with what had been written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmoman (talk • contribs) 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the language of the article considerably and removed most of the shrillness of it. Its also very limited in its scope, there isn't a lot of exploration of Ping-Ping shows outside of Asia. Asarelah (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the story given in the source of sticking razor blades and frogs and stuff inside the performers vagina is remotely accurate this is pretty sick. It makes spanking a prostitute look like missionary position sex in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've argued the opposite case on the Forced Prostitution article because I've seen a number of reliable sources (including the Economist) which don't think Forced Prostitution is particularly widespread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i support whoa!

if you've lived around that part of the world, you would realize that this is a different culture and things dont work the same way as in the western world. they dont need to kidnap people to perform those shows... there are plenty of people who are ready to do it for the amount of money involved. i think that this article displays a negative point of view toward the subject and should be re-written in a more objective manner also the previse details over the cost come from the experience of one person. things are not systematized in thailand... every place is different. you cannot claime this to be the standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.120.140 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed feminist section

I have removed the feminist opinion piece. We don't need to stamp a feminist's opinions on every article.

Feminism is inherently subjective. Your agenda DOES NOT belong on Wikipedia. Please stop using Wikipedia as an easy-access PR outlet. Seriously, what some irrelevant feminist pundit had to say about the matter doesn't belong here any more than my neighbor's uncle's opinions/world-view.

The burden of proof is on the submitter to demonstrate that this opinion piece actually adds some objective value to the article. Simply reverting the edit is not good enough and I will just re-revert. This Wikipedia-as-a-political-soap-box nonsense has gone on for long enough.