Is Sex Without Love Wrong?

[britmaveric]

^again this is your own perception not necessarily reality!

Edited March 6, 2010 by britmaveric

[manarak]

...When it comes to paying for sex, then you have to think about the reasons the person is seIIing their body. If they had any real choice or say, wouId they have sex with the person who is paying them..weII quite probabIy not. Circumstances cause them to have no real choice...

That would be in a western welfare state where people even get money for doing nothing.

I know enough university-educated prostitutes in Thailand who worked in hotel management before, bank clerk, etc.

They are either double timing as a prostitute or became full time prostitutes, because "it is so easy to get much money that way".

Their words not mine.

I think there are dozens of reasons to become a prostitute, with hundreds of shades between every distinct reason.

Some of the reasons shouldn't raise an eyebrow (like the girls who become prostitutes by choice or because they are too lazy for hard work).

Some other reasons don't feel right, especially when coercion by third parties is in play.

Coercion by LIFE, i.e. family situation, no money, whatever, is just that, LIFE.

The question here is if the rest of the population should subsidise those girls who need money just so that they can avoid working as prostitutes?

My answer is no, but YMMV.

So just because some are coerced by life, does that gives us the justification to support the trade?

Yes i agree some girls are lazy, its easy money. But as you go on to mention, not every girl willingly chooses prostitution. And i cannot imagine taking the risk, no matter how small, of sleeping with a prostitute that was coerced into the job (for whatever reason).

*Edited cos i'm a grammar freak.

"supporting the trade", you mean like publish blogs, articles, make TV ads, lobby and wearing T-shirts inscribed with "thumbs up to prostitution"?

Hmm. I don't do that.

Doing nothing, staying neutral or even being an occasional customer is not supporting the trade.

For most men, sex is a natural need, like eating.

I don't support the food industry by buying ready-made food vs. growing it in my garden.

I just need to eat and it is easier to buy it than to grow it myself, especially in such variety as the market offers (see the parallels between the meat markets?)

If you don't consume these services because you don't want to take the slightiest risk of hiring someone who isn't enthousiastic about doing this job, it is your personal choice, not a choice you should force on others.

To some extent, you are refusing to accept the realities of life.

There is demand (lust) and money on one side, and there is attractiveness & need for money on the other, for whatever reason.

It is inevitable that at some point a short-term deal will be struck.

Preaching to everyone not to hire prostitutes because of the risk of hiring a forced prostitute (which are quite rare in the red-light areas for farangs), impedes on the prostitute's rights to do as they please.

It is a little like asking companies not to hire anyone because some people feel very unhappy spending 12 hours per day being busy to make the shareholders rich - but they too have a family to feed...

Ponder for a while the thought that every minute that passes, dozens of people in western countries commit suicide because they think their life sucks - many suicides being work-related.

I am not convinced that the sex worker's dislike for prostitution is so different from another work that people dislike (provided the prostitution job has not been forced upon them more than a toilet-cleaning job would be forced upon a jobless man).

I'm all for combating forced prostitution, human trafficking, child prostitution, etc. because those things are "out of balance".

Edited March 6, 2010 by manarak

[473geo]

Years ago I came to the conclusion that one of the main reasons for country girls to move to the cities is the life they leave behind.......

Hanging out at the beach with a few friends is perhaps preferable......so they do whatever it takes to stay.

The jobs/work they drift into is what they have to do to survive.......some have a choice, but in my opinion few have many options.......

Sex without love......right or wrong......it happens..........in long term and short term relationships.

[Shoegazer]

Doing nothing, staying neutral or even being an occasional customer is not supporting the trade.

For most men, sex is a natural need, like eating.

I don't support the food industry by buying ready-made food vs. growing it in my garden.

I just need to eat and it is easier to buy it than to grow it myself, especially in such variety as the market offers (see the parallels between the meat markets)

Yes doing nothing, staying neutral is not supporting the trade. But i cannot fathom how being an occasional customer is not a blatant display of support. You say sex is a natural need, that is arguable. You will not die if you do not have sex. But lets just agree with you on this. Somehow i dont find your analogy fitting - the implications of a possible coercion (out of life's sad circumstances) far outweighs the convenience of purchasing a simple, ready-to-eat meal. There are no moral implications in your analogy (the morality of farming and killing animals for food is quite far off from prostitution so i disregard it for the sake of this argument), therefore no moral obligation to grow your own food.

If you don't consume these services because you don't want to take the slightiest risk of hiring someone who isn't enthousiastic about doing this job, it is your personal choice, not a choice you should force on others.

I completely agree. Its all a personal choice. I am not, and have not been forcing my personal view onto others. Whatever i have said is for the sake of moral debate and argument, which i believe is what the OP's intention was in posting this topic. Its analogous to life - we hold our own views and listen to others; no one can force you to think according to their way. Yet if you are not open to listening to alternative views, even if you dont agree, you run the risk of being narrow-minded and the possibility of learning effectively ceases. Not directed at you manarak, but just making it clear that i do hear your side of the argument though i am not convinced

To some extent, you are refusing to accept the realities of life.

There is demand (lust) and money on one side, and there is attractiveness & need for money on the other, for whatever reason.

It is inevitable that at some point a short-term deal will be struck.

I do accept the reality, i simply exercise my decision and choose not to partake in this aspect of life.

Preaching to everyone not to hire prostitutes because of the risk of hiring a forced prostitute (which are quite rare in the red-light areas for farangs), impedes on the prostitute's rights to do as they please.

I think this is a really great point. I guess its an issue of the industry in general - how it lacks in ensuring ethical standards. Look, i wish all prostitutes were willing individuals who made the conscious decision to do so without any coercion. Unfortunately that isnt so, and my personal decision is to not engage in a trade that carries potential moral implications.

Btw i find this quite amusing, the whole argument given that i'm a girl. Maybe its because i am a girl, and i imagine myself in their position and i feel that the damages of the negative aspects of the trade (forced prostitution, human trafficking, child prostitution, etc.) is worth forgoing it completely.

[britmaveric]

^and the male prostitutes or beach boys? Yes - western ladies do partake, not just a gay dominated industry.

[Mossfinn]

My electrician just loves to fix the wiring at my house. hel_l, he'd do it for free, but well some people will do anything for money. So, even tho I pay him to fix the wiring, its no different than me getting my husband to fix the wiring.

Should I be seeing sparks in this analogy?

[manarak]

You say sex is a natural need, that is arguable. You will not die if you do not have sex.

Well, since you are a girl, maybe you don't quite understand this side of the argument.

Most men feel the urge to impregnate as much women as possible with their semen.

It is natural, it is an instict that is present and strong in most "normal" men (take "normal" here in a statistical sense, i.e. the 66% that are within -sigma and +sigma around the average).

But there is a difference between the aim of the instinct and its manifestation: men get satisfied from the act of sex, not from procreation. Still, the physical criteria applying to procreation are still valid for sexual pleasure: desirable girls are "normally" attractive and young (under 30), so that the baby will be beautiful and healthy.

"normal" women, on the other hand, have totally different needs (instincts): they "normally" look for a strong (rich), beautiful, clever man who will stay around after the sex to look after her and the children (=stability). Most women will want love.

some men can get all the women they want, because they at least superficially correspond to the women's ideals.

yet look what happens in western discos:

even below-average looking girls get courted while many, even above-average looking guys don't score.

then add in the injustice that is inherent to life: many men don't live up to the dreams of the women. short, bald, fat, small penis, you name it.

but they still want to get laid, if possible with young & attractive partners, and have to find other ways to achieve that than finding women who will feel compelled to have sex with them for free !

it has always been that way.

prostitution is not called the oldest trade for nothing.

now you say men will not die if they don't have sex.

but is it a life worth living, eternal repressed urges, frustrations?

men don't feel like men if they get always rejected by women and can't satisfy their natural urges.

...

in moralistic western countries there is a huge psycho-pressure on those "loser" types who can't get laid.

every one of them feels like a failure.

stalking, murders, rapes, suicides... what is the price for lilly-white pure morality?

western women have the pussy, therefore they got the power!!

There are no moral implications in your analogy (the morality of farming and killing animals for food is quite far off from prostitution so i disregard it for the sake of this argument), therefore no moral obligation to grow your own food.

Yes, I don't include morals in the argument, because I reject morals.

Morals are too tainted with religious beliefs. Morals are not universal - look at differences between christian/muslim and buddhist morals. Morals are community-accepted prejudices that change over time. 100 years ago, it was morally unacceptable for a white american woman to marry a black man.

I refuse to adhere to ideas of what is "right" or "wrong" which change over time.

You rightly say that there is no moral obligation to grow you own food, I say that I don't see a moral obligation to get sex for free.

Show it to me, without bringing forced prositution into play.

I often wonder why having physical contact with unknown men is often perceived so negatively by women who then feel compelled to "help" their sisters out of those situations.

I think it has something to do with disgust, both physical and mental.

The physical disgust is probably weighing heavily already, like having to eat one of those fried fat larvae, which pop open between the teeth and then let some "juice" out on the lips...

And then comes the mental disgust - which is very western - to refuse the idea of selling one's soul by accepting to do disgusting things not only for money but also thereby to SUBMIT to the will of a man.

now... that's western.

look at how promo girls accept to dress in bangkok - the sight would burn holes in european feminists' corneas.

take the WESTERN disgust out of the equation and see what remains.

Somehow i dont find your analogy fitting - the implications of a possible coercion (out of life's sad circumstances) far outweighs the convenience of purchasing a simple, ready-to-eat meal.

That's not how the analogy was meant.

It was meant to be seen from the perspective of the client, i.e. buying food or buying sex - both for satisfying a need, although I agree that a lack of sex will not physically lead to death, but the urge is as strong as hunger.

If you want to consider it from the providers perspective, you have the sexworker on one side, and a lot of farm workers on the other, who don't earn a zilch and who would rather be doing something else than cleaning the cattle's shit out of the stables 2 or 3 times a day, and who are very unhappy with what they do.

But i cannot fathom how being an occasional customer is not a blatant display of support.

I buy meat because I like the taste of it, not because I particularly like the idea of animals getting killed.

Yet the well-being of the animals is not important enough for me to stop buying meat.

So, I don't support killing animals, but I like to eat meat.

QUOTE: I wish all prostitutes were willing individuals who made the conscious decision to do so without any coercion. Unfortunately that isnt so, and my personal decision is to not engage in a trade that carries potential moral implications.

then, I am afraid , you can do nothing in this life.

there is no guarantee that any object you buy was not produced using child labor.

there is no guarantee that the stuff you buy has not been stolen.

there is no guarantee that the things you buy have not been produced by slaves.

Then there is the question of the financial consequences of the trade.

In Thailand, most bargirls use the money to take of their family, pay medicine for their parents, send family members to university, help to build a house in the village...

I'm not pretending the bargirl's customers are intently helping the development of Isaan - the act of buying sex remains a selfish one - but let's face it: many families would have serious problems without the BG's income.

This is not an argument for the trade, it is just a fact.

QUOTE: Btw i find this quite amusing, the whole argument given that i'm a girl. Maybe its because i am a girl, and i imagine myself in their position and i feel that the damages of the negative aspects of the trade (forced prostitution, human trafficking, child prostitution, etc.) is worth forgoing it completely.

yes, that is likely, and you feel obviously less alarmed by child labor and slavery.

and I have a feeling many western women feel a stronger disgust towards the trade than the bargirls themselves.

and being a girl, your choice not to partake in that trade is - forgive me - a bit laughable, you don't feel the same urges as a man.

and as a girl, even if you have average looks, you would have no problem in finding an admirer and "allowing him to seduce you". For a man this is mission impossible.

EDIT: limiting the number of quote blocks is ridiculous.

I can see why this was done, but please improve the programming and only limit the number of nested quotes.

Edited March 6, 2010 by manarak

[Ulysses G.]

You say sex is a natural need, that is arguable. You will not die if you do not have sex.

Well, since you are a girl, maybe you don't quite understand this side of the argument.

Most men feel the urge to impregnate as much women as possible with their semen.

It is natural, it is an instict that is present and strong in most "normal" men

That's a fact Jack. Men are just not happy if they are not sticking their thingie in places that are soft and warm and pleasurable.

[Boo]

did the poster say she was western? Funny how you automatically assume it & then start (oh yes, again!!!) a ramble about western women blah blah blah).

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised. I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others. But then that is one of the problems, not everyone in the trade has a choice & to say that ALL thai women are happy to sell themselves when found in the trade is a very dangerous & inaccurate statement & is part of the problem too.

But anyway, the discussion I recall wasn't the moral attitude between western & thai but rather the ops opinion that by buying women to sleep with him was justified cause he saw so many couples who weren't having sex?

[IanForbes]

did the poster say she was western? Funny how you automatically assume it & then start (oh yes, again!!!) a ramble about western women blah blah blah).

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised. I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others. But then that is one of the problems, not everyone in the trade has a choice & to say that ALL thai women are happy to sell themselves when found in the trade is a very dangerous & inaccurate statement & is part of the problem too.

But anyway, the discussion I recall wasn't the moral attitude between western & thai but rather the ops opinion that by buying women to sleep with him was justified cause he saw so many couples who weren't having sex?

Not quite, Boo. My question was NOT personally related. It was a general question in regards to everyone. I don't disagree with what you said in your other points, though. In the bars I frequent the women DO have a choice and they certainly enjoy their lives while staying within their own group of friends. It is when they stray outside the bar scene that they run into problems with the self righteous people who like to put themselves above everyone else.

Of course, there is also the VERY nasty sub-scene of prostitution where women are basically sold into sexual slavery in the outlying district brothels. That seems to be the one element that westerners seem to relate to and say is typical of Thailand. It's mostly blown far out of proportion to what actually happens in Thailand, but seems to have given Thailand a bad rap. The government and Thai police are entirely at fault with that. The behind the scenes of payoffs are well documented.

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

Fortunately, this thread seems to have stayed fairly level headed with few personal attacks. And, in so doing has kept the moderators from an undue about of work.

[Boo]

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

of course you would

[carmine]

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

of course you would

Perhaps it touches some peoples sensitivites but i too agree with him

[Ulysses G.]

It is a splendid post from a Western man's point of view.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[caf]

did the poster say she was western? Funny how you automatically assume it & then start (oh yes, again!!!) a ramble about western women blah blah blah).

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised. I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others. But then that is one of the problems, not everyone in the trade has a choice & to say that ALL thai women are happy to sell themselves when found in the trade is a very dangerous & inaccurate statement & is part of the problem too.

But anyway, the discussion I recall wasn't the moral attitude between western & thai but rather the ops opinion that by buying women to sleep with him was justified cause he saw so many couples who weren't having sex?

Not quite, Boo. My question was NOT personally related. It was a general question in regards to everyone. I don't disagree with what you said in your other points, though. In the bars I frequent the women DO have a choice and they certainly enjoy their lives while staying within their own group of friends. It is when they stray outside the bar scene that they run into problems with the self righteous people who like to put themselves above everyone else.

Of course, there is also the VERY nasty sub-scene of prostitution where women are basically sold into sexual slavery in the outlying district brothels. That seems to be the one element that westerners seem to relate to and say is typical of Thailand. It's mostly blown far out of proportion to what actually happens in Thailand, but seems to have given Thailand a bad rap. The government and Thai police are entirely at fault with that. The behind the scenes of payoffs are well documented.

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

Fortunately, this thread seems to have stayed fairly level headed with few personal attacks. And, in so doing has kept the moderators from an undue about of work.

I agree with Boo completly. Your life style, Ian and that of others posting, is your business. It's a thin line to say that the girls in the bars that you frequent enjoy their life style. You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position ( and of which you take advantage) I am sure in many perhaps most cases they enjoy sex, but would prefer it if did not have to be a commercial transaction.

Boo is absolutely right and I think your post was, unusually for you, a tad condescending. Perhaps written in haste ??

caf

[venturalaw]

did the poster say she was western? Funny how you automatically assume it & then start (oh yes, again!!!) a ramble about western women blah blah blah).

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised. I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others. But then that is one of the problems, not everyone in the trade has a choice & to say that ALL thai women are happy to sell themselves when found in the trade is a very dangerous & inaccurate statement & is part of the problem too.

But anyway, the discussion I recall wasn't the moral attitude between western & thai but rather the ops opinion that by buying women to sleep with him was justified cause he saw so many couples who weren't having sex?

Not quite, Boo. My question was NOT personally related. It was a general question in regards to everyone. I don't disagree with what you said in your other points, though. In the bars I frequent the women DO have a choice and they certainly enjoy their lives while staying within their own group of friends. It is when they stray outside the bar scene that they run into problems with the self righteous people who like to put themselves above everyone else.

Of course, there is also the VERY nasty sub-scene of prostitution where women are basically sold into sexual slavery in the outlying district brothels. That seems to be the one element that westerners seem to relate to and say is typical of Thailand. It's mostly blown far out of proportion to what actually happens in Thailand, but seems to have given Thailand a bad rap. The government and Thai police are entirely at fault with that. The behind the scenes of payoffs are well documented.

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

Fortunately, this thread seems to have stayed fairly level headed with few personal attacks. And, in so doing has kept the moderators from an undue about of work.

I agree with Boo completly. Your life style, Ian and that of others posting, is your business. It's a thin line to say that the girls in the bars that you frequent enjoy their life style. You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position ( and of which you take advantage) I am sure in many perhaps most cases they enjoy sex, but would prefer it if did not have to be a commercial transaction.

Boo is absolutely right and I think your post was, unusually for you, a tad condescending. Perhaps written in haste ??

caf

I sincerely believe from what I have read posted by Ian, and according to a mutual acquaintance (not a bar girl) that we share, that Ian would never "take advantage" of anyone. Furthermore, the bar girls that 'choose' to work as such are offering a service for which they are paid. If a woman is the victim of trafficking, that is an entirely different matter. The traffiked women are being taken advantage of by anyone who avails themselves of services offered by said establishments. Let's be clear about this significant distinction.

I know of a bar girl who was sent to Bangkok by her mother to be a bar girl. She tried it for a while, did not care for it, and returned home. Is it your position caf that if someone paid this woman for sex, while she was employed as a bar girl, that they would be 'taking advantage' of her?

[caf]

did the poster say she was western? Funny how you automatically assume it & then start (oh yes, again!!!) a ramble about western women blah blah blah).

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised. I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others. But then that is one of the problems, not everyone in the trade has a choice & to say that ALL thai women are happy to sell themselves when found in the trade is a very dangerous & inaccurate statement & is part of the problem too.

But anyway, the discussion I recall wasn't the moral attitude between western & thai but rather the ops opinion that by buying women to sleep with him was justified cause he saw so many couples who weren't having sex?

Not quite, Boo. My question was NOT personally related. It was a general question in regards to everyone. I don't disagree with what you said in your other points, though. In the bars I frequent the women DO have a choice and they certainly enjoy their lives while staying within their own group of friends. It is when they stray outside the bar scene that they run into problems with the self righteous people who like to put themselves above everyone else.

Of course, there is also the VERY nasty sub-scene of prostitution where women are basically sold into sexual slavery in the outlying district brothels. That seems to be the one element that westerners seem to relate to and say is typical of Thailand. It's mostly blown far out of proportion to what actually happens in Thailand, but seems to have given Thailand a bad rap. The government and Thai police are entirely at fault with that. The behind the scenes of payoffs are well documented.

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

Fortunately, this thread seems to have stayed fairly level headed with few personal attacks. And, in so doing has kept the moderators from an undue about of work.

I agree with Boo completly. Your life style, Ian and that of others posting, is your business. It's a thin line to say that the girls in the bars that you frequent enjoy their life style. You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position ( and of which you take advantage) I am sure in many perhaps most cases they enjoy sex, but would prefer it if did not have to be a commercial transaction.

Boo is absolutely right and I think your post was, unusually for you, a tad condescending. Perhaps written in haste ??

caf

I sincerely believe from what I have read posted by Ian, and according to a mutual acquaintance (not a bar girl) that we share, that Ian would never "take advantage" of anyone. Furthermore, the bar girls that 'choose' to work as such are offering a service for which they are paid. If a woman is the victim of trafficking, that is an entirely different matter. The traffiked women are being taken advantage of by anyone who avails themselves of services offered by said establishments. Let's be clear about this significant distinction.

I know of a bar girl who was sent to Bangkok by her mother to be a bar girl. She tried it for a while, did not care for it, and returned home. Is it your position caf that if someone paid this woman for sex, while she was employed as a bar girl, that they would be 'taking advantage' of her?

I don't find your response that easy to follow.

You share a mutual acquaintance with Ian ? I am sure that as a lawyer you will have drawn up a contract so that there is no misunderstanding in how that sharing will work.

I think there is only a thin line between trafficking and a girl being put in a position often by her family (or by a belief that it is her duty to support her family) to earn money by prostitution.

I was not trying to take up a moral position. If I implied that then I apologise. As I said " Your life style is your business". I also said I thought Ian's wording was unusual and may have been written in haste. Very unlike his usual good standard of posts, in my view.

I agree with Boo, perhaps she can comment. If no one paid for prostitution it would cease to exist of course and there would be no attempts at trafficking, direct or indirect. As a lawyer, you also know it is illegal. But I am not moralising.

(You also changed my original post in your reply. If you want to argue a point please do so fairly in accordance with TV rules.)

caf

[notime]

Not really wrong. What percentage of people have actually found true love, real love. They might have found a perfect pal or even been infatuated with a partner but real love, l wonder. So, l would think sex without love is not wrong.

If by "true love, real love" you mean some fairytale relationship without differences and with every-day stunning sex you are right, nobody found it as yet I think. But true, real love is a common occurrence in everyday life. It's only pity that love is such a mystified, confused and misunderstood concept, perhaps more than any other. It's an enigma-word and I suspect that the reason for it is that this is useful for a lot of people and situations. I'll try to explain how I see it in short.

Love is love and sex is sex. This is obvious to many. We all also know what sex is, I presume, but what is love? We mostly say "love" when we mean "like", "want" or "lust". I love this flowers and I love this big screen TV for instance = LIKE. I love you and I love to spend a night with you = I WANT. I am in love with her/him or I felt love the first time I saw him/her = LUST. So, none of the above concepts is love, all agree?

The closest word to love is CARE. Love is care plus a little bit more. What more? Well, I hope that most of us had a chance to experience it. Do you remember for instance your mom/dad/grandma putting aside some of their favorite food, like maybe chocolates for YOU? Because they knew that you liked it too and were happy to see you eat it. So, they took away from themselves to give it to you. That was LOVE. Very simple, very true, very real: the ability to take away from ourselves to give to someone else due to the feeling of joy to see that person happy .

It happens between siblings as well of course. You can love your cat, dog, horse even flowers when you take your time to give them food and water because when they do well your heart smiles. Sure, it also happens between friends.. and sexual lovers. And here we come to the principal question.

Is sex without love wrong? Of course it is NOT, not wrong but it can be quite un-gratifying. If there is some love between people having sex the better it's generally going to be since they are more likely to please one another. On the opposite, if you don't love the person you are having sex with even a bit, sex can be a nightmare, so bad that it's almost better to stop and walk out... keke.

[SeanMoran]

Not really wrong. What percentage of people have actually found true love, real love. They might have found a perfect pal or even been infatuated with a partner but real love, l wonder. So, l would think sex without love is not wrong.

If by "true love, real love" you mean some fairytale relationship without differences and with every-day stunning sex you are right, nobody found it as yet I think. But true, real love is a common occurrence in everyday life. It's only pity that love is such a mystified, confused and misunderstood concept, perhaps more than any other. It's an enigma-word and I suspect that the reason for it is that this is useful for a lot of people and situations. I'll try to explain how I see it in short.

Love is love and sex is sex. This is obvious to many. We all also know what sex is, I presume, but what is love? We mostly say "love" when we mean "like", "want" or "lust". I love this flowers and I love this big screen TV for instance = LIKE. I love you and I love to spend a night with you = I WANT. I am in love with her/him or I felt love the first time I saw him/her = LUST. So, none of the above concepts is love, all agree?

The closest word to love is CARE. Love is care plus a little bit more. What more? Well, I hope that most of us had a chance to experience it. Do you remember for instance your mom/dad/grandma putting aside some of their favorite food, like maybe chocolates for YOU? Because they knew that you liked it too and were happy to see you eat it. So, they took away from themselves to give it to you. That was LOVE. Very simple, very true, very real: the ability to take away from ourselves to give to someone else due to the feeling of joy to see that person happy .

It happens between siblings as well of course. You can love your cat, dog, horse even flowers when you take your time to give them food and water because when they do well your heart smiles. Sure, it also happens between friends.. and sexual lovers. And here we come to the principal question.

Is sex without love wrong? Of course it is NOT, not wrong but it can be quite un-gratifying. If there is some love between people having sex the better it's generally going to be since they are more likely to please one another. On the opposite, if you don't love the person you are having sex with even a bit, sex can be a nightmare, so bad that it's almost better to stop and walk out... keke.

I reckon that Eric Fromm would appreciate such good sense as this even more than I do. Well put.

[venturalaw]

Caf, sharing a mutual acquaintance was meant as Ian and I have a friend that knows us both. I did not intend to cause you confusion.

You clearly are unaware of what is involved in trafficking. I do. There is a promise of something other than prostitution, and once the victim arrives at the destination, they are enslaved (working for virtually no money) and trapped (passport and.or identification taken and kept by the perpetrators until the 'debt' is paid). Therefore no way to get out. This happens to men and women, and is not necessarily tied to the sex industry. Where is the 'thin line'?

The only change that I made to your post was by highlighting the text to which I was referring (to avoid causing further confusion). If I violated the rules by so doing, I apologize to ThaiVisa.

Edited March 7, 2010 by venturalaw

[manarak]

It's a thin line to say that the girls in the bars that you frequent enjoy their life style.

Let's not distort what has been written.

I compared the bargirls' job to a toilet-cleaning job, but a well paid one. Sure, they would rather be doing something alse FOR THE SAME PAY.

did the poster say she was western?

you don't have to be western to hold western views.

for my former job I have visited Singapore quite often, and I found many people there embrace the western way. Especially the educated & working younger people under 35.

There is a thai woman posting in the ladies section at the moment who has made similar comments & I & many "western" women know thai women who hold the same view. They dislike prostitution for the reasons raised.

agree - reality is statistical, you will find plenty of Thai women disliking prostitution, that's not a surprise.

I, as a "western" woman don't mind it as long as the woman is in it for her choice. I believe that women & men have the right to do as they please as long as free will is involved & that they are not hurting others.

That is not the same position as Shoegazer, who would rather suppress all prostitution because of the (minority) of sexworkers who have maybe been forced into the trade.

QUOTE: You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position ( and of which you take advantage)

Taking advantage: no - except satisfying an urge.

The people taking advantage of the girls are those on the receiving end of the money.

And as far as the circumstances are concerned, it is not very productive to always assume the worst in every situation. Logic says the majority of girls are there because of "the situation", i.e. good money, work perceived as "necessary evil", "bearable" or even "easy" by the girl - I am convinced most can just stop if their conscience could no longer take it.

QUOTE: If a woman is the victim of trafficking, that is an entirely different matter. The traffiked women are being taken advantage of by anyone who avails themselves of services offered by said establishments. Let's be clear about this significant distinction.

Agree 1000%.

Forced prostitution must be eradicated - in fact, forced anything.

QUOTE: If no one paid for prostitution it would cease to exist of course and there would be no attempts at trafficking,

if no one used a car/bike/bus/whatever, there wouldn't be any road casualties.

let's be realistic.

QUOTE: As a lawyer, you also know it is illegal. But I am not moralising.

As per Thai Law, it is not illegal to pay for sex.

The act of prostitution is only illegal if done on the premises of any business OR if done in "open and shameless manner that causes nuisance to the public" (art. 5 of the 1996 Act on suppression of prostitution).

I have posted extensive references to Thai Law in several of my previous posts in threads about the age of consent and the legality of prostitution.

Please check those threads before saying I am wrong.

[Ulysses G.]

Of course, there is also the VERY nasty sub-scene of prostitution where women are basically sold into sexual slavery in the outlying district brothels. That seems to be the one element that westerners seem to relate to and say is typical of Thailand. It's mostly blown far out of proportion to what actually happens in Thailand, but seems to have given Thailand a bad rap. The government and Thai police are entirely at fault with that. The behind the scenes of payoffs are well documented.

This is very accurate, but let us not forget that virtually no Westerners patronize these sad establishments. They are pretty much Thai only and always have been. I am very much in favor of making sure that these evil places are wiped out entirely.

[caf]

QUOTE: You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position ( and of which you take advantage)

Taking advantage: no - except satisfying an urge.

The people taking advantage of the girls are those on the receiving end of the money.

And as far as the circumstances are concerned, it is not very productive to always assume the worst in every situation. Logic says the majority of girls are there because of "the situation", i.e. good money, work perceived as "necessary evil", "bearable" or even "easy" by the girl - I am convinced most can just stop if their conscience could no longer take it.

QUOTE: If a woman is the victim of trafficking, that is an entirely different matter. The traffiked women are being taken advantage of by anyone who avails themselves of services offered by said establishments. Let's be clear about this significant distinction.

Agree 1000%.

Forced prostitution must be eradicated - in fact, forced anything.

QUOTE: If no one paid for prostitution it would cease to exist of course and there would be no attempts at trafficking,

if no one used a car/bike/bus/whatever, there wouldn't be any road casualties.

let's be realistic.

QUOTE: As a lawyer, you also know it is illegal. But I am not moralising.

As per Thai Law, it is not illegal to pay for sex.

The act of prostitution is only illegal if done on the premises of any business OR if done in "open and shameless manner that causes nuisance to the public" (art. 5 of the 1996 Act on suppression of prostitution).

I have posted extensive references to Thai Law in several of my previous posts in threads about the age of consent and the legality of prostitution.

Please check those threads before saying I am wrong.

Firstly, I said " You don't know the circumstances which have put them in that position". So your trying to put words in my mouth by implying I said I was making other assumptions is totally false. " it is not very productive to always assume the worst in every situation"

Your analogy to road accidents is not relevant. We all use cars , we don't all use prostitutes. Illogical argument.

I am sure you have posted many extensive references in your time. And I do not disagree with your quoting of the law in this case. But this is a forum and not a court of law and everyone would have appreciated what was meant by " prostitution was illegal" and would not have been nit-picking.

At the end of the day one can not justify women ( not just thais) being put in a position which they probably don't want to be in. Trafficking is a worse crime, but that does not mean the present situation should be upheld by some posters

If you are on the legal side I assume you are not a barrister used to arguing a case and winning it.

caf

[SeanMoran]

Your analogy to road accidents is not relevant. We all use cars , we don't all use prostitutes. Illogical argument.

The analogy I was thinking of pertained to psychologists, but the meaning is roughly the same.

Also Caf, please practice your quotation technique because that last post was rather confusing.

[britmaveric]

At the end of the day one can not justify women ( not just thais) being put in a position which they probably don't want to be in.

Don't need to justify why someone freely chooses the profession they seek. These ladies/men come and go as they please. In fact no one forces them into anything.....economic exploitation excuse is complete BS and tired old cliche by westerners who can't get it through their minds that someone would choose this profession.

Edited March 7, 2010 by britmaveric

[manarak]

Your analogy to road accidents is not relevant. We all use cars , we don't all use prostitutes. Illogical argument.

Ok, I try to find a better analogy.

Maybe the comparison with clothes is indeed better.

I am sure you buy clothes, but you have no way to tell if what you are buying has not been produced using child labor or slavery, yet you continue buying clothes.

I am sure you have posted many extensive references in your time. And I do not disagree with your quoting of the law in this case. But this is a forum and not a court of law and everyone would have appreciated what was meant by " prostitution was illegal" and would not have been nit-picking.

...

If you are on the legal side I assume you are not a barrister used to arguing a case and winning it.

Nice belittling technique, but the statement "prostitution is illegal" is still plain wrong.

Law is a serious matter and I don't think setting straight a common misconception is nitpicking.

Prostitution is generally allowed in Thailand, with exceptions precisely outlined in the Law.

Such statements convey a wrong picture of the legal situation and should be corrected anywhere they are made, including forums.

At the end of the day one can not justify women ( not just thais) being put in a position which they probably don't want to be in. Trafficking is a worse crime, but that does not mean the present situation should be upheld by some posters

Let's even extend that statement to include - gasp - men.

I agree that someone actively putting someone else in the position to prostitute himself is committing a crime.

I am totally with you on that, as well as for trafficking, pimping, etc. and these activities should be punished.

This is also what Thai Law says.

The existing Law is severe enough, the police and courts should enforce it.

However, most bargirls that offer their services to foreigners are not in that situation - they were born or became somehow poor and developed a need for money for whatever reason. Prostitution to farang customers is their solution. Wether they like the job or not, they want the money.

And I don't see any ethical reason (again, assuming that forced prostitution is not in the picture for these girls) why this should be outlawed.

[Ulysses G.]

I am sure you have posted many extensive references in your time. And I do not disagree with your quoting of the law in this case. But this is a forum and not a court of law and everyone would have appreciated what was meant by " prostitution was illegal" and would not have been nit-picking.

Nice belittling technique, but the statement "prostitution is illegal" is still plain wrong.

Law is a serious matter and I don't think setting straight a common misconception is nitpicking.

Prostitution is generally allowed in Thailand, with exceptions precisely outlined in the Law.

Such statements convey a wrong picture of the legal situation and should be corrected anywhere they are made, including forums.

Another excellent point manarak and by the way, you are not the one who is "nit picking".

[IanForbes]

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

of course you would

What is that comment supposed to mean? All I said is there is no need to waste forum space by quoting manarak's post completely.

Your point of view has no more validity than anyone else's... including mine.

And, of course you would have a different point of view than a man. That is because you are a woman who has a whole different group of things to worry about. If I was a woman then I'd probably think the same as you.

I'll still state that I haven't done anything morally or legally wrong, and I've probably helped more Thai women than 98% of the forum members here. 15% of my annual income goes directly to helping Thai families better themselves and start small businesses. And, I am not including my Thai lady friends (who may or may not work in bars), in that percentage of my income.

You can love your dog, love your family, love your friends, and yes, even love someone who doesn't love you in return. It IS quite possible to share great times together with someone who enjoys sex, but are not compatible in any other way.

[manarak]

Ok, I try to find a better analogy.

Maybe the comparison with clothes is indeed better.

I am sure you buy clothes, but you have no way to tell if what you are buying has not been produced using child labor or slavery, yet you continue buying clothes.

I just realized the above analogy again doesn't work - apologies.

So we are looking for a service, activity or object which some, but not everyone uses/buys, exclusively for their selfish pleasure and the providers of which *could* potentially be doing it against their will, yet the service is not deemed worthy of a ban.

hmmm....

Edited March 7, 2010 by manarak

[SeanMoran]

Ok, I try to find a better analogy.

Maybe the comparison with clothes is indeed better.

I am sure you buy clothes, but you have no way to tell if what you are buying has not been produced using child labor or slavery, yet you continue buying clothes.

I just realized the above analogy again doesn't work - apologies.

So we are looking for a service, activity or object which some, but not everyone uses/buys, exclusively for their selfish pleasure and the providers of which *could* potentially be doing it against their will, yet the service is not deemed worthy of a ban.

hmmm....

How about the lawnmower man?

[manarak]

Stephen King's lawnmower man?