Thailand's Sex Workers Don't Want To Be 'Rescued'

[Baerboxer]

Blaming poverty is rubbish. These girls are lazy and greedy. In many counytries much poorer than Thailand there are very few prostitutes.

Can you confirm these countires and the source of your statistics? Prostitution exists in countries that are richer and poorer than Thailand.

[Beetlejuice]

I hope this post isn't against some rules.

I live, as mentioned before, in a mostly-Thai area - a close-center suburb of BKK - where there are a lot of young girls working in different establishment (aimed primarily at asian clientele).

One neighbor-girl, that hasn't yet started to work in any of the places, freelances at times. Not in the sense you might think, not going to any streets or hanging out at Spazzo, but by meeting tourists sometimes when out with friends and if she like anyone she accepts them calling her and perhaps accompany them during a part of their vacation.

She just spent a few evenings with a Korean gentleman, here for business and golf. She pocketed 15k per day.

She saves most of the money and are building up a store with a friend now.

Now tell me, what are the chances she will think that she needs rescuing?

Legalize it.

I know what you are saying is fact.

There is 1 woman near where I live that speaks excellent English. She recently moved to Bangkok and advertises herself on dating sites and in some classifieds, offering her services as a tour guide and temperory girlfriend for business men visiting Thailand. This seems to be catching on and quite a few are doing this now.

My wife is still in contact with her and this woman claims she recently made 80000 baht within 5 days from some German business guy. I truly believe it as most of her fees are probably paid out of the customers company expenses.

OK, must admit this woman is in her mid 20s, a looker, well turned out, speaks 3 languages and not someone that has the appearance of a bargirl. By appearences no one would suspect that she is a prostitute, all though being that of high class and is suitably apt for any company executive.

I also know of cases where female company reps will offer themselves to customers for a big company contract where there is a lot of commission to be had, this includes, insurance agents, drug companies and the list goes on.

But nevertheless, this confirms the fact that not all prostitutes are of bargirl standard and another case for a group that would not want to be rescued. Also this shows that prostitution is more widespread than many realise and the sex industry covers many areas other than just street walkers and seedy bars..

Edited March 6, 2012 by Beetlejuice

[heybruce]

Legalize it!

What? And eliminate the shakedowns and good times the police have with prostitutes! Have you no feelings for the BIB?

[jalansanitwong]

SOME sex workers don't want to be rescued. I'm sure there are tens of thousands out there that are being exploited / extorted / forced and would love to be rescued.

Why are you sure? All that I see or read about is the opposite.

The opposite? Do you mean there are a couple of million that are being exploited / extorted / forced etc?

I would agree that most girls (and guys) in the sex trade don't want to be rescued, but there are some out there that do want and need to be rescued.

They want to be 'rescued' by a kind and generous old farang husband with only a few years to live. "Your money is my money."(unoffical Thai national anthem)

[OldSalty]

SOME sex workers don't want to be rescued. I'm sure there are tens of thousands out there that are being exploited / extorted / forced and would love to be rescued.

Perhaps there is a small % who would like to be 'rescued' - yet perhaps there are a greater % of indentured maids, clearing 20 baht a day, forced to work 24/7 for rich Chinese -Thai families who would also like to be 'rescued.' Sex workers, with few exceptions, can walk away if they choose. The #1 reason for sex worker harassment is Christian aid groups motivated by their western puritanical superiority complexes. I had a Christian group wanting to rent my large house. They were planning to do 'improvements' to it - which would have turned it in to a fortress to keep 'rescued sex workers' from having visitors and/or breaking out. I said 'no' to the house rental proposal.

I am totally on your side and I wish to support your decission. Who are these bible bashers and NGO's representative that protect anybody. They are there for there own interest and many of the money they get from sponsors and charity givers is spent on administration, salaries, extreme high transport costs and bribes to officials. So clean up your own backyard before you go into somebody elses backyard.

[onthemoon]

"Human Trafficking is a crime against humanity. It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." (From: UNODC). This is clearly not the case with most sex workers.

In Germany, prostitution is legal. Human trafficking is not. This article mixed up both.

Again in Germany, you need a work permit to work. If your nationality requires a work permit to work in Germany and you get caught working in prostitution, you will be arrested for working without a work permit. The same would apply for Burmese workers in Thailand.

And yes, the sex workers have a choice. Many factories in Thailand complain that it is difficult to find workers.

Yes, but until the socio-economic structure changes, or evolves here, what is going to change? Many of the university educated Thais that I know complain that working girls are lazy, because they do not want to work a 70 hour per week job in a factory, for 7,000 baht per month. Who can survive on that? Many of these women have one or two children, and poor families. What does 7,000 baht per month do for them, when they have to pay for rent, food, etc, and then try to send something home? One can see why so many choose to use their bodies to make some money. The difference in earnings is so dramatic, and then there is the hope of meeting a "rich" fareng. Very, very few here are doing it because they are being forced to do it, unless you take into account their poverty, then that station in life becomes the slavedriver. Little more.

They have the choice. Many people live on THB 7,000 per income earner, often several income earners under one roof. Yes, the income they can bring in from the trade is much more, but it is still their choice.

And the universities are full of young women, the number of students are increasing, and I would bet that the vast majority will not go into the trade. It's their choice.

Have you any idea about what goes on at the universities? I could probably get you at least half a dozen phone numbers in the next 20 minutes.

These are not the phone numbers of girls but the phone numbers of the 20 something "mamasans" that control their little harems. This is where girls voluntarily give their contact details to a controller who will supply what is required. This is part time prostitution at its best so they can afford the latest phone, get money for their next night out, name the reason and it will be in there somewhere.

The punter phones up, the girl is escorted to the meeting, job done. Don't think that prostitution is restricted to bars or go-go's and that it doesn't happen with the educated because you would be badly mistaken.

I myself have never and will never use these services; this is the norm where I am living.

BTW, these young "mamasans" can become powerful people with the contact information they receive.

The keyword here is "voluntarily". Thanks for making my point. This has nothing to do with human trafficking, and these girls don't probably want to be rescued either.

[chrisinth]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

[TAWP]

I am fairly sure that selling something isn't the same as trafficking it. The words are not synonymous.

[Reasonableman]

It's more like rental or short-term lease than actual sale.

I am fairly sure that selling something isn't the same as trafficking it. The words are not synonymous.

[onthemoon]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Edited March 7, 2012 by onthemoon

[chrisinth]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

onthemoon, you are correct, my definition of the word trafficking does not meet the subject (Well spotted TAWP). In my defence, as stated in my post that is the definition from the dictionary for trafficking, not human trafficking. My bad for sure.

[cardholder]

I hope this post isn't against some rules.

I live, as mentioned before, in a mostly-Thai area - a close-center suburb of BKK - where there are a lot of young girls working in different establishment (aimed primarily at asian clientele).

One neighbor-girl, that hasn't yet started to work in any of the places, freelances at times. Not in the sense you might think, not going to any streets or hanging out at Spazzo, but by meeting tourists sometimes when out with friends and if she like anyone she accepts them calling her and perhaps accompany them during a part of their vacation.

She just spent a few evenings with a Korean gentleman, here for business and golf. She pocketed 15k per day.

She saves most of the money and are building up a store with a friend now.

Now tell me, what are the chances she will think that she needs rescuing?

Legalize it.

The bloody Korean needs rescuing, 1,500 Baht would have been sufficient - he is ruining it for the rest of us !

When the 'minimum wage' is 300 Baht a day 15,000 becomes obscene.

[hyperdimension]

Mentally I have no idea how any woman can go with someone who maybe ugly and repulsive, no matter how much money in involved. I would love to get the female perspectives on this, because I sure don’t understand it.

Maybe you need to study biology. Males need to get an erection for sex, whereas females don't. If there is insufficient natural vaginial lubrication (due to low degree of arousal), a tube of lubricant can fix that. For a mutually-agreed amount of compensation, females can rent out their bodies regardless of whether they feel any physical attraction to a male. Each person gets what they want. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited March 7, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Thai at Heart]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry. Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world. In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[happysanook]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry. Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world. In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

it's easy to understand. it's called mai pen rai...and tom sabai...

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[JemJem]

Who wants to work for 100 baht a day in the rice paddys and chilli fields when you can give an old German pensioner oral sex for 20 minutes for 500 baht.

No offence to Germans but I'll take the rice paddy!

I would take the German pensioner With my bj skills, I doubt it would take 20 minutes anyway; possibly 10

Jem

[JemJem]

"Human Trafficking is a crime against humanity. It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." (From: UNODC). This is clearly not the case with most sex workers.

In Germany, prostitution is legal. Human trafficking is not. This article mixed up both.

Again in Germany, you need a work permit to work. If your nationality requires a work permit to work in Germany and you get caught working in prostitution, you will be arrested for working without a work permit. The same would apply for Burmese workers in Thailand.

And yes, the sex workers have a choice. Many factories in Thailand complain that it is difficult to find workers.

I am in Patong and i see Eastern Europeans/Russian ladies punting for Russian go-go clubs etc now the question is have they got a work permit as dancers etc the look very happy with nice sun tans i wonder how they can work here.

Just curious : Are non-Russian customers allowed in those Russian go-go clubs ? I am not really interested in going to them but I want to know for general knowledge. For example, in most (maybe all ??) of the Japanese bars in Bangkok, non-Japanese customers are not usually allowed in.

Jem

[kerryk]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry.  Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world.  In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

Right. Thais don't mind. You are apparently the only one with a problem with it.

[oldthaihand99]

. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand

Is prostitution really illegal in Thailand?

"The Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act, B. E. 2539 (1996) (the 'Prostitution Law') , is the central legal framework prohibiting prostitution. The law defines prostitution as any act done to gratify the sexual desire of another in exchange for money or any other benefit, but only if it is done 'in a promiscuous manner'. The Prostitution Law does not define what exactly a 'promiscuous manner' constitutes, and the act of prostitution by itself is not outlawed anymore, while solicitation is. The crime of solicitation is vaguely defined."

- from Wikipedia under Prostitution in Thailand

So the article states prostitution by itself is not outlawed anymore. BTW I was wondering if anyone has ever been busted for prostitution in Thailand, aside from the underage traps and the LE raids on SWs.

Edited March 7, 2012 by OTHchalkwow

[oldthaihand99]

I guess this is a thing of the past in Pattaya..

I don't know, but I've heard that a "Blow-job is a lady drink...."

[maiphedmaiaroi]

I guess this is a thing of the past in Pattaya..

How much was the drink?

[Thai at Heart]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry. Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world. In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

Right. Thais don't mind. You are apparently the only one with a problem with it.

But they do mind, that is the whole nub of the problem. They get their nickers in an almighty twist when people state the very obvious point that there is a sex industry here.

[onthemoon]

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

onthemoon, you are correct, my definition of the word trafficking does not meet the subject (Well spotted TAWP). In my defence, as stated in my post that is the definition from the dictionary for trafficking, not human trafficking. My bad for sure.

No worries.

[onthemoon]

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry. Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world. In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

"Brothel of the world" is a big word, and I don't even know whether it is true. Interesting that the countries in which prostitution is legal don't seem to be on your radar.

Anyway, your post sounds a bit like you think prostitution is bad. Is my feeling correct?

[onthemoon]

Who wants to work for 100 baht a day in the rice paddys and chilli fields when you can give an old German pensioner oral sex for 20 minutes for 500 baht.

No offence to Germans but I'll take the rice paddy!

I would take the German pensioner With my bj skills, I doubt it would take 20 minutes anyway; possibly 10

Jem

[sparebox2]

Who wants to work for 100 baht a day in the rice paddys and chilli fields when you can give an old German pensioner oral sex for 20 minutes for 500 baht.

No offence to Germans but I'll take the rice paddy!

I would take the German pensioner With my bj skills, I doubt it would take 20 minutes anyway; possibly 10

Jem

Jam, please obtain a work permit first before you enter into any b-job employment.

Else you may end up in a police station doing the police round.

[MAJIC]

How many sex workers in Thailand pay taxes on their income, which in many cases is much higher than their highly educated "straight job" counterparts...Answer: ZILCH, nada, none, zero.

If you feel that strongly about the tax issue just deduct it at source and post it to the Government otherwise mind your own business.

Also you can't pay taxes on a job that doesn't officially exist!

[oldthaihand99]

It's the oldest trade on earth... it will never be "closed."

As far as HIV, I'll agree that there ought to be testing, licensed prostitution with mandatory testing would go a long way but I doubt that we'll ever see it.

A condom properly used is (unless you put it on wrong, or "pop it", or let it fall off, which does happen) almost absolute protection against HIV.

It's little protection against HPV (Human Papiloma virus i.e. venereal warts) which I believe already has spiked the number of cases of female cervical cancer in Thailand since many Thai men use the sex workers and then return home to infect their wives/girlfriends. There are HPV vaccines (Guardasil and another) but they must be administered before infection occurs (ages 12 or so). I also believe there will be a huge spike in oropharyngeal cancers due to the transmission of the virulent strains of HPV via oral sex, since the warts are quite happy to occupy the throat. This phenomena will also likely pop up in Western countries as young people turn to oral sex believing it to be safer than genital sex.

Making it mandatory for you and your partners to test yourself regularly is what's within your control. Whether those you do it with are ladies

of the night, 'gay', GF/SO, bar pickups, or whatever. Being with a recently HIV negative tested hooker is going to make you much safer

statisticly than doing it with one that is an unknown factor in that regard. Being circumcised may also cut the odds of being HIV infected by

around 60% more, which is comparable to an 85% figure for condoms. IOW a circumcised guy rawdogging it, as is so common in LOS, may

have a similar degree of protection to one who is an uncircumcised wrapper.

""According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)...consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected..."

"A 1999 meta-analysis of studies of condom use showed that the consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%.[45] " - see Wikipedia, HIV & Circumcision.

"The best evidence to date indicates that typical condom use reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 80% over the long-term..." - see Wikipedia, AIDS prevention

"...they found that the circumcised men had a 60% reduced risk of acquiring HIV compared to the uncircumcised men."

- see www cihr - irsc gc ca / e / 40296 html

- see also www cdc gov / hiv / resources / factsheets / circumcision htm

Re oral vs vaginal sex, the latter is much safer re HIV than the former. Moreover IMO even when oral sex is uncovered it is generally

safer re HIV than vaginal intercourse even with a condom is used. After all, condoms often fail, resulting in STDs & pregnancy. That is,

they fail to protect due to manufacturing defects, damage in transport, or user misuse.

When comparing vaginal to anal sex, wikipedia lists the latter as many times more dangerous re HIV. This is so much the case that

i suggest anal sex with a condom may not be much, if at all, safer re HIV than bareback vaginal boom boom.

"Hand out all the condoms you want, make sure they are used, and there will still be an epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. I'm old enough to recall when the pill came out. I was just a child, but I remember the stir. Reliable birth control, for the 1st time!! Condoms have been around for centuries, in one form or another. They have never been reliable...a user might have an 85% protection rate against HIV, or pregnancy. In the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it's dark, and he is rushing...are you getting the picture?"

Edited March 7, 2012 by OTHchalkwow

[kerryk]

It's the oldest trade on earth... it will never be "closed."

As far as HIV, I'll agree that there ought to be testing, licensed prostitution with mandatory testing would go a long way but I doubt that we'll ever see it.

A condom properly used is (unless you put it on wrong, or "pop it", or let it fall off, which does happen) almost absolute protection against HIV.

It's little protection against HPV (Human Papiloma virus i.e. venereal warts) which I believe already has spiked the number of cases of female cervical cancer in Thailand since many Thai men use the sex workers and then return home to infect their wives/girlfriends.  There are HPV vaccines (Guardasil and another) but they must be administered before infection occurs (ages 12 or so).  I also believe there will be a huge spike in oropharyngeal cancers due to the transmission of the virulent strains of HPV via oral sex, since the warts are quite happy to occupy the throat.  This phenomena will also likely pop up in Western countries as young people turn to oral sex believing it to be safer than genital sex.

Making it mandatory for you and your partners to test yourself regularly is what's within your control. Whether those you do it with are ladies

of the night, 'gay', GF/SO, bar pickups, or whatever. Being with a recently HIV negative tested hooker is going to make you much safer

statisticly than doing it with one that is an unknown factor in that regard. Being circumcised may also cut the odds of being HIV infected by

around 60% more, which is comparable to an 85% figure for condoms. IOW a circumcised guy rawdogging it, as is so common in LOS, may

have a similar degree of protection to one who is an uncircumcised wrapper.

""According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)...consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected..."

"A 1999 meta-analysis of studies of condom use showed that the consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%.[45] " - see Wikipedia, HIV & Circumcision.

"The best evidence to date indicates that typical condom use reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 80% over the long-term..." - see Wikipedia, AIDS prevention

"...they found that the circumcised men had a 60% reduced risk of acquiring HIV compared to the uncircumcised men."

- see www cihr - irsc gc ca / e / 40296 html

- see also www cdc gov / hiv / resources / factsheets / circumcision htm

Re oral vs vaginal sex, the latter is much safer re HIV than the former. Moreover IMO even when oral sex is uncovered it is generally

safer re HIV than vaginal intercourse even with a condom is used. After all, condoms often fail, resulting in STDs & pregnancy. That is,

they fail to protect due to manufacturing defects, damage in transport, or user misuse.

When comparing vaginal to anal sex, wikipedia lists the latter as many times more dangerous re HIV. This is so much the case that

i suggest anal sex with a condom may not be much, if at all, safer re HIV than bareback vaginal boom boom.

"Hand out all the condoms you want, make sure they are used, and there will still be an epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. I'm old enough to recall when the pill came out. I was just a child, but I remember the stir. Reliable birth control, for the 1st time!! Condoms have been around for centuries, in one form or another. They have never been reliable...a user might have an 85% protection rate against HIV, or pregnancy. In the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it's dark, and he is rushing...are you getting the picture?"

You said and I quote."i suggest anal sex with a condom may not be much, if at all, safer re HIV than bareback vaginal boom boom." Do you really expect people to believe that? I would think your post should be removed. Are you an adult?

[DocN]

@onthemoon

Sorry, I disagree by the very wording of the article the thread is based on which reads:

Sex 'trade', not 'traffic'

It is confusing that the word traffic isn't spelt correctly in this context.

The definition of trafficking is either to deal illegally or Trade or deal a commodity. As prostitution is illegal in Thailand then these girls, by definition are involved with human trafficking.

The "voluntarily" I deliberately included in my post for this very point. As you said earlier they have the choice; in this case they have made their choice and obviously don't want rescued from it.

The definition of trafficking I use is the one in post #16,. Note that the UN definition does not mention whether it is legal or illegal in the country. Some rogue countries could make it legal to rape girls over 15 (wasn't there an island state in the South Pacific?), but that does not mean it's OK.

The UN definition of human trafficking includes this phrase: "It involves an act of recruiting, transporting, transfering, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them." This does not seem to be the case with the university students you mentioned.

You seem to have another definition of human trafficking that merely involves that the action the girls perform is illegal. So is robbing a bank - is a bank robber therefore a victim of human trafficking?

Well, as we have discussed for a while here, many believe that the vast majority of the girls voluntarily got themselves into the industry, so weren't by definition, "trafficked" into the industry. Of course there is trafficking of women in this business, but by definition, the woman is correct in saying that many or most have entered the sex "trade" voluntarily, as opposed to being trafficked into it.

That however doesn't get us anywhere closer to understanding, why such a supposedly pious and conservative society, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the country having a reputation for being the brothel in the world. In fact, one could say that this entire article seems to be celebrating the fact that Thailand doesn't have too much of a trafficking problem, so not to worry that we have millions of hookers.

Right. Thais don't mind. You are apparently the only one with a problem with it.

They don't?

Just for a little field research: go to a dating site, f.e. thaifriendly.com.

Almost 80% (just a guess) of the girls on there state things "I am not a bar girl..I am a good woman!".

Doesn't sound like "dont mind" to me- sound more like "they are a lower lifeform"!