Can Bangkok Curb Prostitution? And Should It?

[gemguy]

I really don't get why Thais seem to think that farangs are the reason for the existence of prostitution in Thailand. The majority of people who make use of this service, and who keep it alive, are the Thais themselves. I don't have statistics to back up what I am saying, but from what I read prior-- farang would not keep this occupation running if it were dependent on our money. Just passing the buck to us ... agaiiiin...

What makes you think Thais think this? In my experience most Thais have little idea about the farang scenes at Nana, Cowboy, etc.

Publically the Thai authorities have always had the Foreigner based red light areas available as the means to show the local and international media they are policing the problem as most of the Thais who do follow this particular aspect of Thai society like to believe that Thais "do it", so to speak in a politically correct manner...while flashy Go Go bars and public beer bars etc. and obvious red light areas, openly patronized by foreigners, are an embarrassment as compared to the more subtle Thai ways of participating in the many existing avenues of the sex for sale industry.

Cheers

[gemguy]

They will never close down places like Nana because nothing illegal takes place on the premises.

Girls are hostesses. A bar fine is paid by a punter because he is taking the girl away from the bar.

What they do together in the privacy of a hotel room is consensual and cannot be legislated against.

They can arrest street walkers and their customers if they have laws in place to do so.

Probably, millions of people all over Thailand would be unemployed or deprived of a means to make money if all red light areas were shut.

Will the government compensate them? Offer free education and an income while they are re-skilled?

No. It would not only take the will but also the generosity of spirit to completely deconstruct the class system, the ownership of wealth and the structure of Thai society.

The minister is merely making "face".

Interesting that in threads like this the married suckers who probably live in Ladprao with their millstones seize the opportunity to moralise and further demonise the sex pats or sex tourists without even considering "pensioners" or "old farang" as human beings worthy of being endowed with "rights" or even an exploration of the causals involved.

Chill out fellas, take your balls back out of your Thai wife's handbag. I know that your wife is almost certainly from a wealthy, Thai-Chinese background is is well educated and speaks perfect english. She's a million miles away from being an Isan bargirl (the first girl you met on arrival) That's why she picked you, right. You may be young, handsome, educated and desirable but spare a thought for those of us that are not up to your standard eh . . .

Yeah, and there's "no sex in the champagne room". But regardless of upstairs and backroom activity, this is all about appearances - not law. This is part of the maturation of many cities. There used to be dedicated red light districts with strip clubs etc. all over US 30 years ago. They have almost all been closed down to make the cities more family friendly.

The argument that more thai men pay for play than foreigners is a silly argument. If you could find a legitimate statistic like the % of tourists using hookers and the % of locals I am sure the tourist would be very close or higher. How many thai men to tourists in the country, 1000:1? So 2% of the trade being from tourists would be much higher % pay for play from visitors.

No one has the statistics that would persuade you otherwise ..but believe me the foreigner based prostitution is far, far less than what the Thai based prostitution is.

You could say that the prostitution that caters to the foreigners ( any non Thai citizen ) is a lucrative addition to the many avenues of sex for sale here in Thailand that are frequented only by Thai men and gladly accommodated by Thai women...many of them who swear they would never go with a foreigner and or simply never see a foreigner come for their services.

The volumes are far more so than you may think while you never see and never will see or comprehend the extent of prostitution here in Thailand found in its many forms and many avenues of access while 90 % of the foreigners will never know where and or how to get to those avenues because they end up in the foreigner based red light areas and venture no further...as there is no need to go off into the unknown areas where English is not spoken.

Cheers

[digibum]

On July 29, 2016 at 9:00 PM, VN4now said:

Yeah, and there's "no sex in the champagne room". But regardless of upstairs and backroom activity, this is all about appearances - not law. This is part of the maturation of many cities. There used to be dedicated red light districts with strip clubs etc. all over US 30 years ago. They have almost all been closed down to make the cities more family friendly.

The argument that more thai men pay for play than foreigners is a silly argument. If you could find a legitimate statistic like the % of tourists using hookers and the % of locals I am sure the tourist would be very close or higher. How many thai men to tourists in the country, 1000:1? So 2% of the trade being from tourists would be much higher % pay for play from visitors.

There are plenty of statistics.  Just look at the estimates of how many prostitutes there are in Thailand and look at Nana and Cowboy on a Friday night and do the math.  Rough estimates by NGO's put the number at around 10% of the total number of girls working in the industry.  

Perhaps a much more telling statistic is how many Thai men visit prostitutes.  It should give an idea of the scale.  Not sure if I can link to the site where I found this but you can google around and find some of this info on your own.  Basically, it's estimated that 450,000 Thai men visit prostitutes every day.  According to a survey, 73% of Thai military conscripts lost their virginity to a prostitute and 81% of all Thai men surveyed report having visited a prostitute in the last six months.  

 

[digibum]

On July 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM, jobin said:

Seems to me that the western ideas of sexual behavior and the moral cushions supporting those ideas are not at all universal. The folks who live in Asia are generally not infused with the incredible guilt and wrongness attached to every aspect of sex as the western children have learned. So in Thailand selling the body for sex is not so wrong but pointing to a monk with your foot will land you in jail.

Unfortunately, while there is some truth in what  you say, let's not pretend that selling your body for sex is normal in Thai society.  Just look around, do you see parents proudly telling their friends that their daughter is a prostitute?  Do you see any television or movies where working in a go-go is glamorized?  It may have lower religious stigma attached to it but it's still not exactly a job most people think, "One day I hope my daughter is the best pole dancer in Nana."  

This is one of those things that people try to convince themselves of in order to justify what they are doing.  As I've said, I'm not a prude so don't read this into me passing judgement on anything other than some people not wanting to be honest with themselves.  If you're honest with yourself and are still okay with it, fine.  But don't try to make up some scenario where being a whore is just like working in a bank or that your money is putting food in people's mouths like you should be getting some sort of award for philanthropy.   

 

[Thian]

Just move the prostitution to the area's the girls were born.

The customers can visit them upcountry and their mothers won't have to miss their daughters so much. They even can bring them homemade food at lunchtime.

All farang will go there as well so the whole village would profit from it, Pattaya would be empty soon so all the grouptours can stay there some nights.

 

[Berty100]

On 7/30/2016 at 4:13 AM, digibum said:

I call BS.

The prices these days are not so much cheaper than they are in Europe. And you don't have to fly half way across the world for that. And there are no barfines, lady drinks, and other fees that inflate the price.

It is greed.

My estimate is that for many services in the naughty sector, prices have increased 50% - 70% in the last 10 years. Sure, locals and experienced punters know where cheaper prices can be found (or negotiate lower prices) but asking prices are simply ridiculous these days compared to what they were. And remember, the world wide economic situation, prices should be coming down.

The worldwide economic situation certainly isn't helping and gawd knows that there are endless supplies of idiots who think they're going to find love in Nana Plaza but make no mistake that there are plenty of other places that are a far better value than Thailand.

Thailand will do the same thing to tourism as they've done in electronics and exports. They'll squeeze and squeeze until people get tired of paying and then, wait, what is that Vietnam?

Why do prices "HAVE" to be cheaper as in Europe. Is it in your book a requirement that if you fly more than a certain number of miles that prices of entertainment have to decrease?

When I go holidaying in other parts of Europe in touristic centra,  I usually are charged more for a beer than in my local.

[Agent Sumo]

On 7/30/2016 at 6:41 AM, NongKhaiKid said:

However it's the foreigners aspect that gets most publicity including from other foreigners with a holier than thou, I never visited / visit bars etc. attitude.

I think foreigners who don't visit hooker bars are more incensed with the boorish, shitty attitudes of those who say that the bars are the only reason they live in Thailand.

I tend to share their disdain for these foreigners because, for the most part, they're lowlifes.

[dageurreotype]

On 7/29/2016 at 3:54 PM, tominbkk said:

Foreigners probably contribute to less than 5% of the $$$ going into 'tutes in Thailand.

But 100% instrumental for it's rep as being the world's brothel.

[VN4now]

On 7/30/2016 at 8:38 AM, rodney earl said:

. If they were to close it you would see droves of people moving to other countries

nearby.!!!

That is the goal. To drive sexpats out of the country and discourage sex tourists from coming.  Why would that be a bad thing? What does the average punter contribute to Thailand? 

[digibum]

11 hours ago, VN4now said:

That is the goal. To drive sexpats out of the country and discourage sex tourists from coming.  Why would that be a bad thing? What does the average punter contribute to Thailand? 

 

Probably more than you think and far less than some people insist.  

 

Obviously, punters are dumping a lot more cash into Thailand than can be notated in official statistics.  

 

Girls don't report the income

Bars, ahem, underreport income

Ongoing "sponsorship" arrangements never appear in income taxes

 

And while the amount spent by a punter may be significant for an individual, overall it's a drop in the bucket of the national GDP of Thailand.  

 

Even if Thailand shut down Nana, Cowboy, and Patpong, as well as cleaning up Patong and Pattaya, the overall net effect is not very clear cut.  Yes, bars, and girls, and the families of girls, certain authorities collecting protection money, etc would suffer but not really enough to put a huge dent in the Thai economy.  High rise hotels, condos, and business buildings would soon replace the Bangkok landmarks and in a few years they would be a distant memory.  

 

However, it would cut down on some tourism and many expats might head off to greener pastures but you're never going to drive the prostitution industry out of Thailand so instead of Nana, Cowboy, and Patpong, maybe those seeking such pleasures have to head a little farther down Sukhumvit to Soi 22 or 33.  

 

Maybe other small, subtle entertainment areas pop up.  I mean, everyone is aware that there are other gogo bar and entertainment areas in Bangkok intended for Thais, right?  Never heard of them?  It's because they don't make a spectacle of themselves.  

 

I think those that are hardcore will find suitable replacement venues that are more discreet.  And, I'm willing to guess that as far as Thailand is concerned, the problem has vanished.  Government ministers will declare that Thailand is free of any prostitution and everyone will wink and nod at each other.  

 

Because that's the major issue for Thais.  Most people, Thai, farang, or whatever don't necessarily enjoy having a huge, grotesque display of debauchery (and I use that phrase affectionately) dead in the middle of their hometown.  Would you?  I wouldn't.  

 

It's all about face.  

 

 

[digibum]

13 hours ago, Berty100 said:

Why do prices "HAVE" to be cheaper as in Europe. Is it in your book a requirement that if you fly more than a certain number of miles that prices of entertainment have to decrease?

When I go holidaying in other parts of Europe in touristic centra,  I usually are charged more for a beer than in my local.

 

Because I think that's the initial draw for a lot of people and for many who decide to stay.  When you factor in the cost of airfare and such and the amount of time your butt has to sit in a airline seat, unless it can be done cheaply, many people are going to find other destinations.  

 

Keep in mind too that Thailand is sort of hitting a few different crossroads at once.  Roll back the clock 10 years and the Thai baht was in the toilet so it made it very cheap for people to travel to Thailand and even relocate to Thailand.  

 

Prices were cheap too.  Not just because of the weak baht but because overall costs were lower.  Food was cheaper, apartments were cheaper, hotels were cheaper, ahem, entertainment was cheaper.  

 

But as prices have crept up and the baht has strengthened, your pound, Euro, and dollars buy less.  And prices have started to increase as well.  

 

So, my point is that Thailand has become less and less of a value play.  If you're thinking of moving to Thailand or have already moved to Thailand and you're on a pension or some other sort of fixed income (BTW, I am not in that situation so don't read this as me moaning about my own finances), Thailand sucks!  Between the weakness of the baht and the rising prices, a lot of people are getting squeezed.  Even many tourists are caught in the rise as prices seem to be outpacing rises in their own income.  

 

Given that, if I lived in Europe, would I fly half way across the world if my main driver was sex?  Not so sure.  Even if I commit to flying half way across the world, maybe Vietnam or Cambodia might be better values.  Even the Philippines.  

 

Bottom line is that Thailand does not have a lock on the sex market.  It exists everywhere.  People have other choices and if Thailand's prices become uncompetitive, people will go elsewhere.  That's simple Economics 101.  Obviously some are in love with the country, have friends in Thailand, enjoy other aspects of Thailand outside of bars, etc, but anybody who is making a purely value based decision can probably find better value elsewhere.  

[Berty100]

1 minute ago, digibum said:

 

Because I think that's the initial draw for a lot of people and for many who decide to stay.  When you factor in the cost of airfare and such and the amount of time your butt has to sit in a airline seat, unless it can be done cheaply, many people are going to find other destinations.  

 

Keep in mind too that Thailand is sort of hitting a few different crossroads at once.  Roll back the clock 10 years and the Thai baht was in the toilet so it made it very cheap for people to travel to Thailand and even relocate to Thailand.  

 

Prices were cheap too.  Not just because of the weak baht but because overall costs were lower.  Food was cheaper, apartments were cheaper, hotels were cheaper, ahem, entertainment was cheaper.  

 

But as prices have crept up and the baht has strengthened, your pound, Euro, and dollars buy less.  And prices have started to increase as well.  

 

So, my point is that Thailand has become less and less of a value play.  If you're thinking of moving to Thailand or have already moved to Thailand and you're on a pension or some other sort of fixed income (BTW, I am not in that situation so don't read this as me moaning about my own finances), Thailand sucks!  Between the weakness of the baht and the rising prices, a lot of people are getting squeezed.  Even many tourists are caught in the rise as prices seem to be outpacing rises in their own income.  

 

Given that, if I lived in Europe, would I fly half way across the world if my main driver was sex?  Not so sure.  Even if I commit to flying half way across the world, maybe Vietnam or Cambodia might be better values.  Even the Philippines.  

 

Bottom line is that Thailand does not have a lock on the sex market.  It exists everywhere.  People have other choices and if Thailand's prices become uncompetitive, people will go elsewhere.  That's simple Economics 101.  Obviously some are in love with the country, have friends in Thailand, enjoy other aspects of Thailand outside of bars, etc, but anybody who is making a purely value based decision can probably find better value elsewhere.  

 

 

Well that's where you got it wrong, they are looking for tourists, not people who want to stay.

[Lannig]

I think that most of what he wrote applies to tourists too.
Thailand is a heavily damaged country with significant inconveniences. Tourist are ready to put up with polluted coastlines, sub-standard accommodation and transportation as long as it's cheap and (for some) you can get some extra fun (read: party and get laid) and not being hassled by annoying regulations, constant risk of being cheated and ripped off etc.

My feeling is that the rising costs, not so favourable exchange rate plus getting rid of  the fun aspects will certainly be a blow.

"Quality tourists" are, by definition, less numerous than average ones, so they might not bring as much income, just like applying light taxes to low salaries bring in much more money that heavily taxing the richest.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Lannig

[digibum]

3 minutes ago, Berty100 said:

 

 

Well that's where you got it wrong, they are looking for tourists, not people who want to stay.

 

Actually, I think that's where you have it wrong.  I don't live in Thailand anymore (job situation) and whereas before I moved to Thailand I used to come to Thailand 2 or 3 times a year on holiday.  Now, I visit once a year at most and sometimes not even that often.  

 

I use my holiday time to go to other places.  And when I end up going to other places I spend a lot more money than I every did in Thailand.  A lot more.  

 

I think for many people, a place as a certain intrinsic value.  When I go to Paris, I expect to pay through the nose.  But I also expect the beauty of the city, the great food, the museums, etc.  When I go to the Bahamas, I pay more but I also expect world class scuba diving, beautiful well-kept beaches, and superior service.  

 

Thailand has slowly evolved into an expensive dump.  Many aspects were never spectacular.  The beaches were so-so at best.  The diving, meh, I've seen better.  The food, okay.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.  As far as I'm concerned, Thailand never had the best of anything.  

 

But when you put all the mediocre parts together and mixed it with a dash of inexpensiveness, friendliness, and easy access to fun nightlife, well, now you had something.  

 

Yet, today it is more expensive, far, far less friendly, and nightlife has become increasingly transactional and prone to scams so you're back to mediocre tourist attractions.  

 

So, yes, I think it has to be cheaper otherwise I will and do prefer to spend my money elsewhere.  

[wellred]

12 hours ago, VN4now said:

That is the goal. To drive sexpats out of the country and discourage sex tourists from coming.  Why would that be a bad thing? What does the average punter contribute to Thailand? 

 

A lot more than the average tourist that's for sure. A 'night out' will set you back 10-15k or more. I don't think the average tourist will spend that much.

 

This would have a knock on effect on the rest of tourism 100%. And anyway the scene for locals is far bigger and has been going on longer so this is a non story. You'll see a pig fly first.

[Berty100]

33 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

Actually, I think that's where you have it wrong.  I don't live in Thailand anymore (job situation) and whereas before I moved to Thailand I used to come to Thailand 2 or 3 times a year on holiday.  Now, I visit once a year at most and sometimes not even that often.  

 

I use my holiday time to go to other places.  And when I end up going to other places I spend a lot more money than I every did in Thailand.  A lot more.  

 

I think for many people, a place as a certain intrinsic value.  When I go to Paris, I expect to pay through the nose.  But I also expect the beauty of the city, the great food, the museums, etc.  When I go to the Bahamas, I pay more but I also expect world class scuba diving, beautiful well-kept beaches, and superior service.  

 

Thailand has slowly evolved into an expensive dump.  Many aspects were never spectacular.  The beaches were so-so at best.  The diving, meh, I've seen better.  The food, okay.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.  As far as I'm concerned, Thailand never had the best of anything.  

 

But when you put all the mediocre parts together and mixed it with a dash of inexpensiveness, friendliness, and easy access to fun nightlife, well, now you had something.  

 

Yet, today it is more expensive, far, far less friendly, and nightlife has become increasingly transactional and prone to scams so you're back to mediocre tourist attractions.  

 

So, yes, I think it has to be cheaper otherwise I will and do prefer to spend my money elsewhere.  

 

But it is still cheaper, because as you say yourself, anywhere else you go you spend more. A lot more.

[digibum]

31 minutes ago, Berty100 said:

 

But it is still cheaper, because as you say yourself, anywhere else you go you spend more. A lot more.

 

No, that is not what I said.  I said I often end up going to places that are a lot more expensive and I get more value from them.  

 

If I want cheaper, I can (and do) go to Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, or a whole list of other places inside and outside of Asia.  

 

I was trying to make the point that I don't travel to Thailand because I have no other choices economically.  I'm more than willing to spend money when I feel that there is value.  Or to put it differently, I think $10 USD for a cocktail sitting at a bar overlooking Central Park in NYC is fair value.  It is not egregiously expensive given the location, quality of service, and atmosphere.  I do however think that the price of a drink in Bangkok going from 90 to 100 to 120 to 140 baht in the span of a few years is absurd.  Especially when all other factors (service, location, etc) have either gotten worse or stayed the same.  So on that scale, Thailand is outrageously expensive.  

 

 

[digibum]

1 hour ago, wellred said:

 

A lot more than the average tourist that's for sure. A 'night out' will set you back 10-15k or more. I don't think the average tourist will spend that much.

 

This would have a knock on effect on the rest of tourism 100%. And anyway the scene for locals is far bigger and has been going on longer so this is a non story. You'll see a pig fly first.

 

I think you're describing more of the fringe cases.  Can you spend 10 - 15K in a night?  Yes!  I've done it (actually much more than that on a few occasions).  But it's not something I ever did every single night.  Most tourists have a few blowout nights but not that many people party that hard their entire holiday.  Yes, they might get wasted every night but you really have to try to spend 10K in a night.  

 

Even the the guy looking for company every night isn't dropping big cash every night.  Why else would all of the bars just outside of Nana be full and the gogos are often quite empty?  There's plenty of ways to keep the costs under wraps and that's what most punters end up doing.  

 

And, yes, we all know a guy (or several) who dropped a ton of cash on holiday or a friend who goes absolutely gonzo the moment his plane touches down but the reason those people stand out is because they are not the norm.  

[digibum]

15 hours ago, dageurreotype said:

But 100% instrumental for it's rep as being the world's brothel.

 

Bingo!  

 

This is not about stopping prostitution.  It's about the fact that it's so over the top that nobody can help but notice it.  It's about Thailand's reputation and the reputation of the Thai people (chiefly women).  

 

[wellred]

23 hours ago, digibum said:

 

I think you're describing more of the fringe cases.  Can you spend 10 - 15K in a night?  Yes!  I've done it (actually much more than that on a few occasions).  But it's not something I ever did every single night.  Most tourists have a few blowout nights but not that many people party that hard their entire holiday.  Yes, they might get wasted every night but you really have to try to spend 10K in a night.  

 

Even the the guy looking for company every night isn't dropping big cash every night.  Why else would all of the bars just outside of Nana be full and the gogos are often quite empty?  There's plenty of ways to keep the costs under wraps and that's what most punters end up doing.  

 

And, yes, we all know a guy (or several) who dropped a ton of cash on holiday or a friend who goes absolutely gonzo the moment his plane touches down but the reason those people stand out is because they are not the norm.  

 

I meant that as a regular budget for a night out. That's certainly what I drop most if not all nights. 

[digibum]

9 minutes ago, wellred said:

 

I meant that as a regular budget for a night out. That's certainly what I drop most if not all nights. 

 

Okay, so given that the average stay in Thailand (according to TAT numbers) is 16 days, are you suggesting that most punters spend 160,000 - 240,000 baht ($4500 - $6,800 USD) each?  

 

I don't disagree if you're talking about 3 or 4 nights out of 16 but there's no way that I can believe that 10K - 15K is an average spend per night for the entire length of a holiday in Thailand.  And that's excluding hotel.

 

If you do it, great.  More power to you.  Like I said, it would be the fringe case, not the norm.  

 

Just to put your numbers into perspective though, the average income in the United States is about $52,000 a year.  Figure a 20% tax bracket so they see $41,600 of that as take home pay.  The kind of numbers you're suggesting would be 11% - 16% of someone's total take home wages for the year.  Plus airfare and hotel would put a trip to Thailand in the realm of 20% or more of their total take home wages.    That would put it on par with what they pay for a home or apartment for the entire year.  The numbers just don't make sense.  

 

Yes, I know not everyone is American but it's an average wage in the US which means that people who make more are above average and thus not the norm.  And there are only a handful of countries with a significantly higher average annual wage than the US so the US annual wage makes a good measuring point.  

 

Like I said, it's not like nobody spends 10K - 15K a night.  I've done it and I know it's very doable - haha.  What I'm saying is that it's not the norm for most tourists in Thailand.  You seem to be painting this picture where every guy on Cowboy on a Friday night is going to be dumping 10K or 15K and they do that every night.  It's just not the case.  Sure, there are some people who spend that much or more every night but they're a small percentage of the overall amount.  And there are people who spend that much a few nights out of their total vacation and that makes up a significantly greater amount.    And there are a lot of people who spend nowhere near that amount on any nights that they're in Thailand and that is also a significant amount.  

 

I think you're working backwards from your opinion to trying to justify why punter tourism is so important to Thailand.  You're using these greatly inflated numbers to show how much value the punter tourism industry is worth.  But the numbers don't make sense across the total punter tourism population.  

[wellred]

1 hour ago, digibum said:

 

Okay, so given that the average stay in Thailand (according to TAT numbers) is 16 days, are you suggesting that most punters spend 160,000 - 240,000 baht ($4500 - $6,800 USD) each?  

 

I don't disagree if you're talking about 3 or 4 nights out of 16 but there's no way that I can believe that 10K - 15K is an average spend per night for the entire length of a holiday in Thailand.  And that's excluding hotel.

 

If you do it, great.  More power to you.  Like I said, it would be the fringe case, not the norm.  

 

Just to put your numbers into perspective though, the average income in the United States is about $52,000 a year.  Figure a 20% tax bracket so they see $41,600 of that as take home pay.  The kind of numbers you're suggesting would be 11% - 16% of someone's total take home wages for the year.  Plus airfare and hotel would put a trip to Thailand in the realm of 20% or more of their total take home wages.    That would put it on par with what they pay for a home or apartment for the entire year.  The numbers just don't make sense.  

 

Yes, I know not everyone is American but it's an average wage in the US which means that people who make more are above average and thus not the norm.  And there are only a handful of countries with a significantly higher average annual wage than the US so the US annual wage makes a good measuring point.  

 

Like I said, it's not like nobody spends 10K - 15K a night.  I've done it and I know it's very doable - haha.  What I'm saying is that it's not the norm for most tourists in Thailand.  You seem to be painting this picture where every guy on Cowboy on a Friday night is going to be dumping 10K or 15K and they do that every night.  It's just not the case.  Sure, there are some people who spend that much or more every night but they're a small percentage of the overall amount.  And there are people who spend that much a few nights out of their total vacation and that makes up a significantly greater amount.    And there are a lot of people who spend nowhere near that amount on any nights that they're in Thailand and that is also a significant amount.  

 

I think you're working backwards from your opinion to trying to justify why punter tourism is so important to Thailand.  You're using these greatly inflated numbers to show how much value the punter tourism industry is worth.  But the numbers don't make sense across the total punter tourism population.  

 

I am basing my comments on interactions with other 'punters' I have met on my travels. 10K is the minimum spend every night. I usually frequent Patong which is more expensive than Bangkok. It all adds up but most of the money is dropped on drinks not for myself if you catch my drift. One Aussie guy I know spends even more. He's a daytime drinker and I recall in low season last year he was in 1 particular bar from around 2pm till close. Dropped maybe 25k bhat himself and that was just drinks.

 

Go to any of the other dedicated forums and see the polls on 'budget for a night out'. In Bangkok you won't see any of them step out with less than 7-10k. Maybe cheap charlies or ex pats go against the grain. In Pattaya things are a bit cheaper, but not much. In Phuket, forget about stepping out onto Bangla with less than 10k. Unless you plan to hang out in the regular bars and just hit the discos. 

 

The demographic I speak of is the '2 week millionaire' type. They go to Thailand once or twice a year and drop a load of money living it up every night for a few weeks. And they are pouring in all year round. High season, low season it doesn't matter. Theres no way I can warrant that sort of spending for a few weeks so I tend to do my trips differently now. e.g I spend a week or so in the north or bangkok and genuinly try to send as much time as I can visiting various wats, markets and restaurants. Then will maybe spend a week on an island in the south. Will finish off with a week in Phuket where I spend a lot, but I don't mind for a week max. My last high season trip I think I spent around £3.5k over the space of 3 weeks. I usually travel with an American guy and he drops around $5k. Based on what i have seen with others that's conservative. And I wasn't including airfare or hotel costs either.

 

Now tell me if they get rid the scene businesses in those areas won't feel the pinch. The chinese tour package groups don't spend anything and neither do backpackers. Like it or not this crowd contributes a lot into tourism so I don't see it going away any time soon.

Edited August 3, 2016 by wellred

[digibum]

3 hours ago, wellred said:

 

I am basing my comments on interactions with other 'punters' I have met on my travels. 10K is the minimum spend every night. I usually frequent Patong which is more expensive than Bangkok. It all adds up but most of the money is dropped on drinks not for myself if you catch my drift. One Aussie guy I know spends even more. He's a daytime drinker and I recall in low season last year he was in 1 particular bar from around 2pm till close. Dropped maybe 25k bhat himself and that was just drinks.

 

Go to any of the other dedicated forums and see the polls on 'budget for a night out'. In Bangkok you won't see any of them step out with less than 7-10k. Maybe cheap charlies or ex pats go against the grain. In Pattaya things are a bit cheaper, but not much. In Phuket, forget about stepping out onto Bangla with less than 10k. Unless you plan to hang out in the regular bars and just hit the discos. 

 

The demographic I speak of is the '2 week millionaire' type. They go to Thailand once or twice a year and drop a load of money living it up every night for a few weeks. And they are pouring in all year round. High season, low season it doesn't matter. Theres no way I can warrant that sort of spending for a few weeks so I tend to do my trips differently now. e.g I spend a week or so in the north or bangkok and genuinly try to send as much time as I can visiting various wats, markets and restaurants. Then will maybe spend a week on an island in the south. Will finish off with a week in Phuket where I spend a lot, but I don't mind for a week max. My last high season trip I think I spent around £3.5k over the space of 3 weeks. I usually travel with an American guy and he drops around $5k. Based on what i have seen with others that's conservative. And I wasn't including airfare or hotel costs either.

 

Now tell me if they get rid the scene businesses in those areas won't feel the pinch. The chinese tour package groups don't spend anything and neither do backpackers. Like it or not this crowd contributes a lot into tourism so I don't see it going away any time soon.

 

Believe me, I used to be of the sorts who would bring a big wad of cash with me, exchange it for baht at the best rate possible the second I hit Sukhumvit, and then stack it in 10K increments in my hotel room safe.  Never left the room without grabbing at least one stack.  So I know that it's not impossible to spend that kind of money.  I was a poster boy for the two week millionaire lifestyle.  

 

But I think we disagree on how many tourists fit that model.  Again, I don't disagree on how much it takes to have an insane evening but I do disagree on how often people have said evenings on each trip.  

 

And part of that is just like you said, eventually you get it out of your system and then you go a few weeks in lower-spending mode and have a few 10K or 20K blowouts.  For every guy like your American friend, there are 20 guys who sit in a bar just outside of Nana Plaza, suck up the happy hour drinks, have a drink or two in a few gogos and find a friend - total cost, probably around 5K - 7K.  And that's their blowout night.  The rest of the time they sit around drinking beers all night at the cheapest place that they can ogle women from and opt for, ahem, less expensive late night plans.  

 

Of course, it's going to hurt businesses if that scene goes away.  Never said it wouldn't.  What I did say is that:

 

1.  The impact isn't what most people think it is (i.e. you think everyone is spending 10K - 15K a night - which I disagree with)

2.  That you could close down the overt parts of the business like Cowboy, Nana, Patong, etc and people would migrate to more discreet venues.  

 

So basically, it's not like the business disappears completely but I think that it satisfies a lot of Thais if they didn't have to stare at big neon signs that might as well say, "Tourists just come here to see prostitutes!"  

 

It was one thing when lower Sukhumvit was basically just a farang ghetto but now Thais are increasingly being brought into contact with the neighborhood as more apartments, hotels, office buildings, and shopping malls creep into the neighborhood.  The calls for banning prostitution are only going to get worse.  Do you think hi-so moms that take their kids to Terminal 21 and have to pass by Soi Cowboy aren't going to give it the stink eye?  

 

Also, according to your logic, wouldn't they have stopped trying to scam tourists, hassling punters with on-the-spot searches near entertainment venues, random drug tests at nightclubs, Africans selling drugs, jet ski scams, taxi cab mafias in Phuket, bill padding, drugging tourists, etc, etc, etc, etc. if they were so concerned about driving away the 10K - 15K a night punters?  Thailand has never, ever, ever, ever shown any sort of strategic thinking as it pertains to tourism.  One of the hottest threads on TV right now (other than this one) is about whether or not Thailand has killed the farang tourism industry.  

 

Saying that you don't think they'll do anything about it because of the potential loss of business is like saying that fishermen will quit dynamite fishing because it'll kill off ecotourism.  They don't care because they don't see it as a series of connected events.  

 

What changes have you seen despite several high-profile tourist murders?  None.  Someone gets a propeller to the head, what change has happened?  None.  Violent crimes against tourists have been increasing over the last several years but nothing of any consequence has been done.  

 

They won't get it until there's one last punter left sitting in a beer bar and they look around and ask where all the farangs went.  

 

Now, if the argument was that specific Thai police would be collecting a lot less tea money, well, I would have to agree that under normal circumstances that might lead to some powerful forces pushing back.  But, these are not normal times and there's a guy running the show who hasn't been shy about stripping from police and government officials their god given right to get rich from illegal activities.  

 

Realistically, there's a 30% - 40% chance it happens.  It's not impossible.  It will not bring down the Thai economy because most of the punters and girls will shift locations to more discreet and socially acceptable venues.  The biggest thing standing in the way is not the drop in tourism but the politics involving the people who own land and businesses and the cops getting tea money.