Protecting Young Thai Girls

[BKKBodhisattva]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

Nonsense.

As MJMTB already mentioned, girls working legally (i.e. non-trafficked) make their own choices - if they don't, this is forced prostitution and there are already harsh laws against this as well.

You just try to clutch any straws to try to successfully make a point - which you can't.

We are now also far from your original points about age.

He mentioned one bar near where he lives. Since when does that mean that all bars adopt that bar's approach?

There are bars in lower Sukhumvit and around Patpong where the girl categorically cannot refuse a paying customer

To be perfectly honest, your attempts to defend the reprehensible behaviour of the old men have become increasingly feeble and shrill. You can keep defending their right to exploit young girls for the titillation of coming so close to breaking the law if you like but I choose to hold my opinion, one shared by the majority of decent people around the world.

[micmichd]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

A real gentleman would show some some empathy for the girl's stress, give her the money, and leave the rest up to her - even without instant sex.

[Patsycat]

There is no European dowry, or none that i know about. Unless my ex paid my dad under the table!!! But then my dad paid for the wedding....

Men don't buy brides here, nor do they have to. They woo them and get their goolies kicked in if they are rude or out of place.

My parents put us in two single beds for 3 years, when we were married the beds were pushed together!!! Even though we lived together and actually slept in a big bed.

My ex was ten years older than me, which was accepted. I don't think it would have been accepted if i brought a man home who was my Dad's age. 35 years older than me.

[Asheron]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you use this[1] on your shoes because tying shoe laces is too hard?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_and_loop_fastener

[lostoday]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

It has been my experience after many years in Thailand that it is the Farang who says no. A bar girl saying no would be like a jockey running without a horse in the Kentucky Derby. Or a car salesman with no cars. Or a fisherman in desert.

Us old guys aren't invited into those kind of bars where the women are held against their will. We're too soft and would rescue them all. You know that English Knight in Shining armor thing.

Perhaps you should to post on a Cambodian speaking website.

If you want to find trafficked people in Thailand try a fishing boat.

[micmichd]

There is no European dowry, or none that i know about. Unless my ex paid my dad under the table!!! But then my dad paid for the wedding....

Men don't buy brides here, nor do they have to. They woo them and get their goolies kicked in if they are rude or out of place.

My parents put us in two single beds for 3 years, when we were married the beds were pushed together!!! Even though we lived together and actually slept in a big bed.

My ex was ten years older than me, which was accepted. I don't think it would have been accepted if i brought a man home who was my Dad's age. 35 years older than me.

My first girlfriend I brought home to my parents' place in Germany after I returned from Asia was a stateless Roma ("gipsy"). That wasn't really accepted either, but I didn't care. And my mother finally made friends with her.

My current girlfriend is about 29 year younger than me, and she's Thai. That was not accepted by anyone in Germany, by absolutely no one. I was even locked up for my decision, but I survived and escaped. Those Germans never understood what my decision was and why I made it, they just never asked but knew everything better.

I would reallly not recommend anyone to care what folks at home accept or not. If you chose to live in another culture, then you voted for their norms.

Edited August 19, 2015 by micmichd

[brewsterbudgen]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

Nonsense.

As MJMTB already mentioned, girls working legally (i.e. non-trafficked) make their own choices - if they don't, this is forced prostitution and there are already harsh laws against this as well.

You just try to clutch any straws to try to successfully make a point - which you can't.

We are now also far from your original points about age.

He mentioned one bar near where he lives. Since when does that mean that all bars adopt that bar's approach?

There are bars in lower Sukhumvit and around Patpong where the girl categorically cannot refuse a paying customer

To be perfectly honest, your attempts to defend the reprehensible behaviour of the old men have become increasingly feeble and shrill. You can keep defending their right to exploit young girls for the titillation of coming so close to breaking the law if you like but I choose to hold my opinion, one shared by the majority of decent people around the world.

Care to identify these Patpong bars? You're obviously an expert. Or just spouting provocative nonsense.

[Furryman]

"Exploitation of young girls for the satisfaction of elderly male fantasies encourages human trafficking"

the opposite is true. if the laws allow it, there is no trafficking.

Excuse me??!!!

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

There are thousands of women of a legal age working in brothels in this country who were trafficked.

And tens of thousands, indeed the vast majority, of sex workers here are in the business completely of their own volition.

Trafficking and abuse of sex workers is far more rampant in places where it is illegal and those in the business have no recourse to the law. This is part of why Amnesty International has just recently come out in favor of decriminalization of sex work.

[micmichd]

...You're not fooling anyone disguising the "right to exploit others" as "freedom".

Sorry but, in this thread, the moral high ground is already covered.

Yes; covered in sanctimonious fascist megalomaniac puritans.

?

Me, I'm a bloody anarchist - but I have one ultimate value. It's called "life"

Feel free to die if you disagreee.

[BKKBodhisattva]

"Exploitation of young girls for the satisfaction of elderly male fantasies encourages human trafficking"

the opposite is true. if the laws allow it, there is no trafficking.

Excuse me??!!!

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

There are thousands of women of a legal age working in brothels in this country who were trafficked.

And tens of thousands, indeed the vast majority, of sex workers here are in the business completely of their own volition.

That was never in question, was it?

[StreetCowboy]

...You're not fooling anyone disguising the "right to exploit others" as "freedom".

Sorry but, in this thread, the moral high ground is already covered.

Yes; covered in sanctimonious fascist megalomaniac puritans.

?

Me, I'm a bloody anarchist - but I have one ultimate value. It's called "life"

Feel free to die if you disagreee.

that seems as unpleasant as it is irrelevant

[metisdead]

Some trolling nonsense posts have been removed.

[StreetCowboy]

...You're not fooling anyone disguising the "right to exploit others" as "freedom".

Sorry but, in this thread, the moral high ground is already covered.

Yes; covered in sanctimonious fascist megalomaniac puritans.

<deleted>

I'm as tall as the next man, depending on where I'm stood in the queue. Feel free to assume anything you want - you seem free enough with your disregard for research or facts.

It would behoove the liberals on this forum to remember that the dirty old men are just the first victims of the sanctimoninazis, and once they've criminalised the people we also despise, some of us may find ourselves next to find ourselves on the wrong end of the puritan's boot.

Tolerance doesn't mean putting up with <deleted> it means putting up with people you don't like

SC

[SoiBiker]

...You're not fooling anyone disguising the "right to exploit others" as "freedom".

Sorry but, in this thread, the moral high ground is already covered.

Yes; covered in sanctimonious fascist megalomaniac puritans.

?

Me, I'm a bloody anarchist - but I have one ultimate value. It's called "life"

Feel free to die if you disagreee.

You don't really know what anarchy means, do you?

[BKKBodhisattva]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

Nonsense.

As MJMTB already mentioned, girls working legally (i.e. non-trafficked) make their own choices - if they don't, this is forced prostitution and there are already harsh laws against this as well.

You just try to clutch any straws to try to successfully make a point - which you can't.

We are now also far from your original points about age.

He mentioned one bar near where he lives. Since when does that mean that all bars adopt that bar's approach?

There are bars in lower Sukhumvit and around Patpong where the girl categorically cannot refuse a paying customer

To be perfectly honest, your attempts to defend the reprehensible behaviour of the old men have become increasingly feeble and shrill. You can keep defending their right to exploit young girls for the titillation of coming so close to breaking the law if you like but I choose to hold my opinion, one shared by the majority of decent people around the world.

Care to identify these Patpong bars? You're obviously an expert. Or just spouting provocative nonsense.

I have it on good authority that girls working at the BJ bars in lower Sukhumvit must "take care" of the customer if he selects them irrespective of his appearance or his hygiene. If they refuse, they're dismissed.

Pardon me, but didn't you have a child with a Thai woman you pay to be with you? If so, doesn't that make you much more of an expert than I?

[manarak]

I have it on good authority that girls working at the BJ bars in lower Sukhumvit must "take care" of the customer if he selects them irrespective of his appearance or his hygiene. If they refuse, they're dismissed.

Pardon me, but didn't you have a child with a Thai woman you pay to be with you? If so, doesn't that make you much more of an expert than I?

errm... the threat of dismissal from such job is not something I view as overwhelming. So, fine, they are dismissed, then they can find a job somewhere else. This isn't forced prostitution.

But I also really doubt the veracity of your allegation that they have to take any customer in the first place.

Edited August 19, 2015 by manarak

[StreetCowboy]

I have it on good authority that girls working at the BJ bars in lower Sukhumvit must "take care" of the customer if he selects them irrespective of his appearance or his hygiene. If they refuse, they're dismissed.

Pardon me, but didn't you have a child with a Thai woman you pay to be with you? If so, doesn't that make you much more of an expert than I?

errm... the threat of dismissal from such job is not something I view as overwhelming. So, fine, they are dismissed, then they can find a job somewhere else. This isn't forced prostitution.

But I also really doubt the veracity of your allegation that they have to take any customer in the first place.

The fact that dismissal is a threat suggests that they are not coerced into being there in the first place. There's plenty other bars they can work in, if they choose to do so. Or plenty of bars to freelance in, if they prefer. Coercion is more of an issue for the girls working overseas, who may have been told they were going to be waitresses, or masseuses, and then find themselves with their passports held by their employer or an agent. Or the girls working overseas who are exploited by an agent who provides dodgy documentation that then turns out to be worthless...

SC

[BKKBodhisattva]

I have it on good authority that girls working at the BJ bars in lower Sukhumvit must "take care" of the customer if he selects them irrespective of his appearance or his hygiene. If they refuse, they're dismissed.

Pardon me, but didn't you have a child with a Thai woman you pay to be with you? If so, doesn't that make you much more of an expert than I?

errm... the threat of dismissal from such job is not something I view as overwhelming. So, fine, they are dismissed, then they can find a job somewhere else. This isn't forced prostitution.

But I also really doubt the veracity of your allegation that they have to take any customer in the first place.

I don't care if you believe it or not but it's a fact.

You say the threat of dismissal is hardly a big deal but that merely demonstrates that you're rather naïve and tend to apply your own narrow-minded view to situations you can't possibly begin to imagine yourself in..

Women working in "niche" bars do so for very exacting reasons; they need the kind of money that can put family members through college, pay for medical care for siblings and pay off big debts. The factory or the 7-11 won't suffice and a massage shop doesn't alwsys culminate in a customer wanting a "happy ending". Niche bar customers go there for specific reasons so the provision of a sexual service is guaranteed. Tips are common.

Losing a job in a bar where they can potentially clear 50K a month plus is a big deal for them because many aren't pretty enough to freelance. Even if they were, they may not feel confident or safe "winging it" in bars and clubs.

[SoiBiker]

Those that say 'oh they can just get a job in a factory/7-11/as a waitress' have clearly never seen up close the kind of lifestyle living on such a low wage entails.

[Furryman]

"Exploitation of young girls for the satisfaction of elderly male fantasies encourages human trafficking"

the opposite is true. if the laws allow it, there is no trafficking.

Excuse me??!!!

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

There are thousands of women of a legal age working in brothels in this country who were trafficked.

And tens of thousands, indeed the vast majority, of sex workers here are in the business completely of their own volition.

That was never in question, was it?

I see you chose to ignore and edit out my second point. Decriminalization makes sex workers more safe. If you are concerned about 'protecting young Thai girls', you should be supporting less criminalization, not more.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Furryman

[BKKBodhisattva]

And tens of thousands, indeed the vast majority, of sex workers here are in the business completely of their own volition.

That was never in question, was it?

I see you chose to ignore and edit out my second point. Decriminalization makes sex workers more safe. If you are concerned about 'protecting young Thai girls', you should be supporting less criminalization, not more.

I ignored your second 'point' because it was drivel. Does the fact that it's a crime to sleep with underage girls put more underage girls in danger?

[Furryman]

And tens of thousands, indeed the vast majority, of sex workers here are in the business completely of their own volition.

That was never in question, was it?

I see you chose to ignore and edit out my second point. Decriminalization makes sex workers more safe. If you are concerned about 'protecting young Thai girls', you should be supporting less criminalization, not more.

I ignored your second 'point' because it was drivel. Does the fact that it's a crime to sleep with underage girls put more underage girls in danger?

So now you are shifting the argument to underage girls? We are talking about adults who have the right to make their own decisions. Adults who also should have the freedom to seek help from law enforcement when they are a victim of a crime.

Decriminalization makes sex workers safer, and also frees up law enforcement resources to combat other more serious crimes, like the abuse of underage girls.

Calling it drivel does not make it less true.

[elgenon]

I have never come across a girl who said she was trafficked. Many times I have come across girls who have a university education but they don't want to make 10,000 a year. A friend of mine has a Masters and is paid 10,000 by the government.

Often the case is that the girl, at a young age, has a baby with a Thai guy who then leaves her for a new girl. The girl has no education. How will she support herself, her babies, her brothers' education, and her parents who are worn out from farming? Good god I call LK Metro a baby factory because most, if not all, the girls have babies.

There may well be trafficked girls in the brothels for Thai guys who are charged a small amount.

If you remember the story of the children caught making soccer balls for Nike years ago. Big uproar in the States. The sanctimonious people didn't understand the family needed that money to survive. I was curious what would happen with the kids. Some become prostitutes.

And don't forget, don't judge people of another culture by your cultural values. I personally marvel at the high level of acceptance of ladyboys in the conservative Thai culture. Wouldn't happen in America just yet.

[elgenon]

Why do you get to tell people what they can do? If they aren't breaking a law (even a dumb one), and they are happy, why do you feel you know better than they do? Why do you feel you should get to say what they can do? Oh! Because you know what is "Right". Handed to you on a tablet?

What if I take um-bridge at something you do. Would you acquiesce? Or would you tell me to bugger off?

If you are offended don't look (or read). Easy smeasy!

I don't get to tell people what they can or can't do but if they're harming others, it's my duty to speak up.

I'm voicing my opinion which is that I believe these old men are causing grievous mental/emotional harm to these young and immature girls by subjecting them to the horrors of intercourse with a man old enough to be their grandfather.

What do you mean "if they are happy"? What about the girl's happiness? Do you believe that a young Thai girl is happy to have to open her legs for a man old enough to be her grandfather?

At least at 23, 24, 25-up, she can better deal with her disgust at the man's physical appearance and her own self-loathing but an 18 or 19 year old is less likely to be able to do so because she's typically less mature.

Much earlier on in the thread, I asked if the more vociferous, elderly love-Gods here would be happy for their 17 or 18 year old daughters to spread their legs for a 60 year old man in return for a few notes.

Very few of them could muster a response.

I think that tells us all we need to know

You put the age as low as you can to "win". You probably object to older girls too if there is a big age difference.

I was taking to a 25 year old and she got a phone call from her 18 year old niece. She matter-of-factly explained to me her niece had a 62 year old BF. No problem for her. I guess you would say the Thai is wrong and you are right.

[elgenon]

There is no European dowry, or none that i know about. Unless my ex paid my dad under the table!!! But then my dad paid for the wedding....

Men don't buy brides here, nor do they have to. They woo them and get their goolies kicked in if they are rude or out of place.

My parents put us in two single beds for 3 years, when we were married the beds were pushed together!!! Even though we lived together and actually slept in a big bed.

My ex was ten years older than me, which was accepted. I don't think it would have been accepted if i brought a man home who was my Dad's age. 35 years older than me.

Why do you judge another culture by your culture? Your culture is "Right"? Then go back to it. You are not in Kansas anymore or Germany. If there are no European dowries now there were in the past. In fact princesses got married (sold?) off to improve the financial position of the family. At what, maybe 13,14, 15 or 16 years old and to older men? Thailand is a poor country that and most people do not have the advantages that you have/had. Think of it as Europe many years ago. Don't judge what goes on by rich European standards of 2015.

[brewsterbudgen]

More nonsense.

What consent? If a girl works in a sex establishment, she often doesn't have the right to say no.

The choice is taken away by a mamasan who says that the customer can take her and that's it

The men you're defending specifically patronize these establishments because they know the girl can't refuse as long as he doesn't abuse her

Nonsense.

As MJMTB already mentioned, girls working legally (i.e. non-trafficked) make their own choices - if they don't, this is forced prostitution and there are already harsh laws against this as well.

You just try to clutch any straws to try to successfully make a point - which you can't.

We are now also far from your original points about age.

He mentioned one bar near where he lives. Since when does that mean that all bars adopt that bar's approach?

There are bars in lower Sukhumvit and around Patpong where the girl categorically cannot refuse a paying customer

To be perfectly honest, your attempts to defend the reprehensible behaviour of the old men have become increasingly feeble and shrill. You can keep defending their right to exploit young girls for the titillation of coming so close to breaking the law if you like but I choose to hold my opinion, one shared by the majority of decent people around the world.

Care to identify these Patpong bars? You're obviously an expert. Or just spouting provocative nonsense.

I have it on good authority that girls working at the BJ bars in lower Sukhumvit must "take care" of the customer if he selects them irrespective of his appearance or his hygiene. If they refuse, they're dismissed.

Pardon me, but didn't you have a child with a Thai woman you pay to be with you? If so, doesn't that make you much more of an expert than I?

Your good authority is wrong on all counts, as are you. Resorting to personal insults regarding people's family doesn't help your case, weak as it is.

[BKKBodhisattva]

I see you chose to ignore and edit out my second point. Decriminalization makes sex workers more safe. If you are concerned about 'protecting young Thai girls', you should be supporting less criminalization, not more.

I ignored your second 'point' because it was drivel. Does the fact that it's a crime to sleep with underage girls put more underage girls in danger?

So now you are shifting the argument to underage girls? We are talking about adults who have the right to make their own decisions. Adults who also should have the freedom to seek help from law enforcement when they are a victim of a crime.

Decriminalization makes sex workers safer, and also frees up law enforcement resources to combat other more serious crimes, like the abuse of underage girls.

Calling it drivel does not make it less true.

I'm not shifting the argument anywhere.

The underage point was meant as an example of how criminalizing something doesn't place those protected by that criminalization in greater danger.

By your ridiculous logic, decriminalizing driving under the influence would result in fewer DUIs

[BKKBodhisattva]

Your good authority is wrong on all counts, as are you. Resorting to personal insults regarding people's family doesn't help your case, weak as it is.

I didn't insult you. I asked a question.

[brewsterbudgen]

Your good authority is wrong on all counts, as are you. Resorting to personal insults regarding people's family doesn't help your case, weak as it is.

I didn't insult you. I asked a question.

Which I answered by saying you are wrong. I was insulted by the thinly veiled insult that I pay my girlfriend to be with me. But let's move on. Edited August 20, 2015 by brewsterbudgen

[StreetCowboy]

I see you chose to ignore and edit out my second point. Decriminalization makes sex workers more safe. If you are concerned about 'protecting young Thai girls', you should be supporting less criminalization, not more.

I ignored your second 'point' because it was drivel. Does the fact that it's a crime to sleep with underage girls put more underage girls in danger?

So now you are shifting the argument to underage girls? We are talking about adults who have the right to make their own decisions. Adults who also should have the freedom to seek help from law enforcement when they are a victim of a crime.

Decriminalization makes sex workers safer, and also frees up law enforcement resources to combat other more serious crimes, like the abuse of underage girls.

Calling it drivel does not make it less true.

I'm not shifting the argument anywhere.

The underage point was meant as an example of how criminalizing something doesn't place those protected by that criminalization in greater danger.

By your ridiculous logic, decriminalizing driving under the influence would result in fewer DUIs

Correct. Scotland has recently lowered the legal limit for drink-driving from 80 mg per 100 ml to 50 mg. This will result in a large increase in the number of convictions, but will probably have no impact on the number of highly dangerous drivers with > 200 mg / 100 ml in their blood, who were criminals already. All that will happen is that relatively sober individuals will be much more at risk of random prosecution, and people will tend to drink at home much more.

In the UK, the age of consent is 16. No doubt many would like to raise it to 18, but that would make criminals of a great number of our young lads and lasses, and would make it difficult to provide them with adequate health services and sensible guidance. I guess that is why the limit has remained where it is for so long.

The increasing red tape regarding house rental adds cost to the land lord, but in many cases has no direct impact on the safety of the tenant, and places no burden on the unregistered landlord; adding to the cost for the law-abiding citizen, but not for the villain.

Red-pen wielding bureaucrats are a menace to society, despite, or in many cases, because of their good intentions

SC