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

[corkman]

Sure, they want to be "rescued", but by rescued they want some farang guy to come along and give them a (very) early retirement package.

But if "rescued" means that some do-gooder extracts them from their job as a bar girl and and offers no alternative employment at a similar rate, then they certainly dont want to be rescued.

They do not "need" to work as bar girls, they want to. There is ample oportunity to work in factories or as maids or general opertatives in construction etc. I am looking out the window right now at a couple of girls working on some building works in my neighbours house, and other sweeping the road. They "choose" to go into this line of work because of greed, or because they need more money as a result of their (or their families) bad financial decisions. Millions of Thai's and their families get by on the low wages that are often flaunted as the reason why these "poor farm girls are forced into prostituion" ...... what about all the men that get similar crappy wages ..... the girls get into the game because they see it as an opotunity to make hay while the sun shines. Relatively, it affords them nice clothes and nice homes, toys like BB's and i-phones (most seem to have one or the other), and an exit from the back breaking work that the majority of Thai's do. There is no tragedy here, just greed and laziness.

Someone mentioned 7 deadly sins: Lust may be the first, which male customers are certainly guilty of, BUT the 2nd, 3rd and 4th are Gluttony, Greed, and Sloth ..... sound like any young professionals you know? The sex trade is a messy business - but for the most part it IS A CHOICE. There are of course exceptions to this, and regulation is needed - especially for underage etc.

[corkman]

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?

I've read that per capita, the USA has the highest rate of prostitution in the world; however a report by CNN claims Isreal has the most hookers.

Good reading here: http://www.stickmanbangkok.com/reader/reader291.html

Edited March 8, 2012 by corkman

[csolgosz]

Sounds about right

In all my years living in up-country Thailand, and speaking Thai fairly well I have NEVER heared of anyone being trafficked from Thailand to another country against their will. Ive never heared of people getting tricked into prostituion, going to Japan or other countries and disappearing etc.

Is it all a load of BS? Surely there must be cases but i suspect this is hugely exaggerated

Sorry mate, but you have been deceived and it has been covered up by the people in our countries who should have nailed it.

See this example from Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/10/06/3333668.htm

And the limp-wristed Minister's response: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/ministers-response-to-four-corners-sex-trafficking/3589630

ANd then, CNN: http://topics.cnn.co...man_trafficking

Edited March 8, 2012 by csolgosz

[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?"

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?

How many times more risky must anal sex be relative to vaginal intercourse for what i suggested to be true? Perhaps that is something you might

like to ponder and answer. Consider also why it is the case that research has concluded that anal sex is far more risky re HIV than vaginal sex,

the relative sizes of the two openings as it pertains to friction and injuries, & which area is more easily subject to tearing and such by its own nature, And the fact that condoms can and do break open, slip off, get holes & cuts, & allow spillage. See wikipedia under the title condoms and subtitle failure for more info & stats. I look forward to your reasoned response. BTW what follows is one opinion on the subject:

"This is using statistics. With condom manufactures claimed effectiveness ratings. Most I believe say 97% per use, or sometimes 85% effective over a year. Its easiest to use the 97% as who knows how often they think people have sex in a year. Combined with current medical estimates for Hiv transmission for receiving anal sex, compared to vaginal sex. Which is 10-50 times more likely. If we use these numbers, the two sex acts risks are very close. If we use the figure of 10 times higher transmission anal over vaginal..then anal sex with condom is roughly a third the chance of contracting hiv over vaginal. If we use the 50 times figure. Then anal sex with a condom, is about a 50% greater chance to contract hiv over bbfs."

"This is just me using figures provided by the condom manufactures, along with figures from current medical estimates. With some basic second year stats.

"But regardless, both acts are very similar in risk, within a magnitude for sure. No matter what methodology or ranges you use.

"Currently one is a common offering, the other is considered a deathwish."

Edited March 8, 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?

How many times more risky must anal sex be relative to vaginal intercourse for what i suggested to be true? Perhaps that is something you might

like to ponder and answer. Consider also why it is the case that research has concluded that anal sex is far more risky re HIV than vaginal sex,

the relative sizes of the two openings as it pertains to friction and injuries, & which area is more easily subject to tearing and such by its own nature, And the fact that condoms can and do break open, slip off, get holes & cuts, & allow spillage. See wikipedia under the title condoms and subtitle failure for more info & stats. I look forward to your reasoned response. BTW what follows is one opinion on the subject:

"This is using statistics. With condom manufactures claimed effectiveness ratings. Most I believe say 97% per use, or sometimes 85% effective over a year. Its easiest to use the 97% as who knows how often they think people have sex in a year. Combined with current medical estimates for Hiv transmission for receiving anal sex, compared to vaginal sex. Which is 10-50 times more likely. If we use these numbers, the two sex acts risks are very close. If we use the figure of 10 times higher transmission anal over vaginal..then anal sex with condom is roughly a third the chance of contracting hiv over vaginal. If we use the 50 times figure. Then anal sex with a condom, is about a 50% greater chance to contract hiv over bbfs."

"This is just me using figures provided by the condom manufactures, along with figures from current medical estimates. With some basic second year stats.

"But regardless, both acts are very similar in risk, within a magnitude for sure. No matter what methodology or ranges you use.

"Currently one is a common offering, the other is considered a deathwish."

You lost me. What are you saying is a deathwish? And what is the % of HIV transmission with a condom? What does this have to do with Thailand's sex workers who don't want to be rescued?

[Kilgore Trout]

No woman wants to work in the sex trade

I find this highly doubtful. I just watched a segment on fox news which interviewed women working in Nevada (legally I might add). They made it quite clear they were there by choice and that they felt safe and protected in their chosen profession.

[TAWP]

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"!

Just a note: I have talked to 'part-timers'/'freelancers' that would be very upset if anyone called them bargirl or streetwalkers. The see themselves more like something close to 'escort ladies' - a different class.

Doesn't mean many girls on the dating sites don't want you for your money still. Or would accept it if offered.

[oldthaihand99]

You lost me. What are you saying is a deathwish? And what is the % of HIV transmission with a condom? What does this have to do with Thailand's sex workers who don't want to be rescued?

BFS (bareback sex) is considered by many people to be a "deathwish". As i mentioned earlier, it is commonly practiced by Thailand sex workers.

I think much moreso than in the Western world. The risks involved in this profession re violence, HIV, & other STDs etc all relate to the issues of

prostitutes being rescused, if they should be, or want to be, or need to be, as is being discussed in many posts in this thread.

[DocN]

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"!

Just a note: I have talked to 'part-timers'/'freelancers' that would be very upset if anyone called them bargirl or streetwalkers. The see themselves more like something close to 'escort ladies' - a different class.

Doesn't mean many girls on the dating sites don't want you for your money still. Or would accept it if offered.

Maybe.

But that is not my point!

Correct me if I am wrong, but Thai society in general looks down upon bar girls/ gogo girls/ working girls, right?!

So you can hardly say "Thais don't mind", can you?!