http://www.newmandala.org/wp-content/uploads/cache/2016/07/C...
http://www.newmandala.org/wp-content/uploads/cache/2016/07/C...
Found it totally disgusting seeing all the old western men with young prostitutes during my visit to Bangkok a couple years ago. Can anyone explain why the Thai government turns a blind eye to this? It has really smeared Thailand's reputation for me and others I know who have visited.
Rather, it's that the Thai are more forgiving of their notion of a man's need to fuck everything he possibly can, coupled with an awareness of how much money sex tourism brings into the economy — even leaving aside the technically illegal direct exchanges of money for sex. Then there's the cultural attitude that money is money, however you get it; that, for many of the young country women that make up the overwhelming majority of the Thai sex trade, making a living on their backs is preferable to making a much lower living in a factory or on a farm; that many of these girls are actually supporting their families back in the country; the failures of the Thai educational system to turn out citizens, particularly women, who can get better jobs than those alternatives, and so on.
It's complicated. Ugly, and sometimes even evil, but complicated.
Also, be careful about those judgements. When I was in BKK, I dated a local woman. She owned a hair and nail salon, had a couple of employees, and everything. I can't count the number of times I saw other farang looking at us and, by the expressions on their faces, making the assumption that she was on the job.
It kinda sucks being on the receiving end of prejudice.
> Also, be careful about those judgements.
That's fair, but let's be reasonable here. Having traveled through S. East Asia extensively, the old/fat/ugly westerner with the young, lithe, Thai girl is a pretty common sight. Love is "blind" but let's not kid ourselves.
The glares suck I'm sure, but they're more than justified (objectively speaking).
If the "young, lithe, Thai girl" (what a very creepy way to put it) is okay with such a (financial or otherwise) arrangement, why should it even concern you?
> The glares suck I'm sure, but they're more than justified (objectively speaking).
Objectively, you wouldn't give a shit what other people do.
> f the "young, lithe, Thai girl" (what a very creepy way to put it) is okay with such a (financial or otherwise) arrangement, why should it even concern you?
No, what's creepy are the flocks of western men who travel each year to southeast asia for sex. Why not just spend it on local escorts? You ever think of that?
Way to resort to ad hominem and totally miss the broader point. Like as if a comment on HN is more creepy than traveling thousands of miles to bed economically disadvantaged women/men/girls/boys.
It concerns me because maybe I'm human and not a douche? I hope it concerns you to, but I guess as long as all parties are "okay" with it, anything goes.
Fuck the global sex tourism industry, especially in third world countries.
What's creepy is visiting the red light areas of Thailand (and other countries around the world), as you admit you do, then protesting how "disgusting" you find it, while acting like you want to save the "young, lithe girls" of Thailand from (other) men.
> Why not just spend it on local escorts? You ever think of that?
Perhaps they're sexually attracted to people from Thailand? Ever think of that? Why do you visit red light areas in Thailand, rather than ones in your local area, particularly when you claim to be so disgusted by what happens in them?
If you're so sure they're exploiting people in Thailand, why don't you care about them exploiting local escorts?
And why do you keep talking about Western men? Don't you care about Asian, Arab or Thai men exploiting Thai people?
> Way to resort to ad hominem and totally miss the broader point. Like as if a comment on HN is more creepy than traveling thousands of miles to bed economically disadvantaged women/men/girls/boys.
Like because you imagine 99% of men (other men, of course, not you) go to Thailand for that reason it makes you and your choice of words, young, lithe Thai girls, not creepy.
I am all for legal prostitution, and I have no problem with it as a profession when men and women enter into it out of their own free will. But that's not the case in SEA. The reality is that many of these girls have been getting raped since they were little children, and now they're abused filthy geriatrics who succeeded only in being born in a rich country.
I can't speak for all of SEA but I can tell you that the girls come looking for jobs in the sex industry in Thailand. People don't have to traffic them or anything like that.
It's a f'd up socioeconomic situation there. According to Thai tradition it is the job of the children to take care of the parents. Many Thais have children the same way people plan their retirement.
If you're lucky, your parents are good people who have modest wants and needs and are happy if you go to Bangkok or Chiang Mai or Phuket and get a job in a factory or in a restaurant and send home a few hundred baht a month.
That's if you're lucky.
Chances are, one or both of your parents are either alcoholics, problem gamblers, or morally bankrupt (often you hit the trifecta). They send their daughter down south to make some money. Oh, but then the problems start coming in. Daddy punched a cop and they're going to kill him unless he comes up with 3,000 baht. Mommy owes the local mafia guy 30,000 baht in gambling debt. Surely someone needs a new motorcycle back home.
That puts the pressure on the girls to find ways to make more money that can ever possibly be made working a legit job. So they start calling old friends from back in the village that they remember coming home for Songkran dressed like a whore and asking if she can help her get a job.
Initially, she goes into it thinking that maybe she'll meet a nice white guy who will solve all her money problems. But that dream gets dashed pretty quickly and soon she learns that it's all about the baht. She starts learning all the tricks. How to rotate five or six tourists making them all think that she's in love with them and she's got all of them sending her money to take care of her family.
Pretty soon she's clocking 5x - 10x what a university educated Thai makes. She has the newest iPhone, is spending money like it's going out of style to impress all of her friends, and when she goes home there will certainly be grand gestures involving her giving large amounts of money to her family.
Because money equals power in Thailand in a way most foreigners don't quite understand, many times this is the girl's way of gaining respect. Everyone in her village or on her soi will know she bought her mother a beautiful gold chain and everyone will pretend that she's not a whore.
Eventually, she'll age. The number of guys willing to send her money will decline. She'll start looking around for someone to bleed for as long as they'll keep giving her money. BTW, these girls know most young guys are broke. I don't care if you look like Brad Pitt, they want the old geezer who's playing the back nine of his life. That's the guy who they want to con into moving up to Issan and buying a huge house for the two of them. And since in Thailand, foreigners can't own land, it's really her house which she'll get when the geezer kicks the bucket. And if he doesn't die soon enough, she'll just have some family members boot him out of the house since he has zero legal rights to it even though he paid for it.
Oh, and the other reason they like old guys, old guys are less likely to trade up in a few years. Young guys have a reputation for being less than faithful and that threatens the money supply. So, many of them reason that they would rather get an old guy, take care of him sexually, and not have to worry about him deciding to wander in a few years when she's starting to age a bit.
I mean, would they love a rich Brad Pitt that was 100% faithful? Of course. Come on. But they're very pragmatic as well. Marriage and relationships are just as much about security as they are about love.
How do I know? I go up country every year for Songkran. I can spot the Bangkok whores a mile away in Big C. We have a hi-so whore who lives down the soi from my wife's family. She's hi-so because she works in Singapore, not like the regular prostitutes. Oh, every Songkran their family goes up and down the soi showing off everything their daughter has given to her parents. She's bought them cars. Gold. Motorcycles. And everyone on the soi oooohs and aaaaahs over how rich they must be.
Meanwhile, me and my wife keep our mouths shut. Well, she does. I laugh my ass off.
And when we drive around her hometown, my wife will point out the large extravagant houses and say "Baan Farang" (foreigner home). Not that a foreigner lives there (anymore) but it was built with foreigner money.
And yes, in my younger and wilder days before I met my wife, I spent some time talking to gals of this profession. I had many friends in the expat community so knew many of the bar, restaurant, and other business owners. I got to know the girls over many years. I saw how it was all one big circle. Girls would land a big fish and never be seen again. And another girl would be right behind her just starting her career.
The reality is that it's way too lucrative for most of them. It's like if a prostitute in the US could make $250,000 a year. How would you ever convince her to give it up and work for $25,000 a year once she's (and her entire family) got the taste for the money?
And lest anyone think I'm, disrespecting these gals, I'm not. I just find the whole thing rather comical. Literally, you can take a girl working the bars 20 years ago and walk into a bar on Soi Cowboy today and their life stories are almost identical. I've met multiple generations of the same family in the business.
Regardless of how much money they make it never feeds the beast. They waste it on stuff full of immediate gratification and the wheel keeps going round and round.
A few make it out. They make some money. They buy a house. They find a nice guy who takes care of them and pays for private school for the children. But those are the exceptions.
So they should choose a different shitty option just to keep guilt-wracked foreigners like you happy instead?
> How many prostitutes in these countries have you talked to about this?
How many do I need to have talked to?
After you've creeped around the red light district acting 'concerned' and handing over what is to you pocket change for their time, all to assuage your guilt at being the same race as people who do things you don't like, what do you do in real, actual, practical terms to improve their lives and save them from a life of vice?
Because using them to score points on an internet forum isn't impressing me.
> The reality is that many of these girls have been getting raped since they were little children
The reality is many girls (funny how you and the other guy only seem 'concerned' about girls) are raped in every country. Many women in porn were raped when they were children. What mind-blowing, revelatory point do you think you're making here?
> and now they're abused filthy geriatrics
Why are you and the other guy so weirdly fixated with old guys? Is it okay if someone more your age is abusing them? Or is that conveniently not abuse? The implication of what you're posting is fucking sick.
> who succeeded only in being born in a rich country.
So like you? I bet that's different though, when you're using your relative wealth to get benefits over poorer Cambodian locals. I bet you have no end of ways to rationalise that one to yourself.
You're mad and projecting. I must have touched a nerve, since you keep on resorting to ad hominem attacks to advocate for sex tourism.
You don't need to explicitly visit the red light district in Thailand, since it's literally everywhere. Stay at any nice hotel and the moment you walk out random pimps and sex show operators will hit you up. Sit in the lobby and watch as all the old, fat, western tourists walk in with young Thai ladies.
In Thailand, the sex scene is literally at every corner. You must have never been, because it's literally _everywhere_.
> Perhaps they're sexually attracted to people from Thailand? Ever think of that? Why do you visit red light areas in Thailand, rather than ones in your local area, particularly when you claim to be so disgusted by what happens in them?
Again, you're projecting.
> If you're so sure they're exploiting people in Thailand, why don't you care about them exploiting local escorts? And why do you keep talking about Western men? Don't you care about Asian, Arab or Thai men exploiting Thai people?
You really don't see the differences - and the social/racial/economic implications - of western, sex tourism? You're also projecting again - I never made any comments to condone local sexual exploitation - you're just scrambling to find any flimsy rhetorical ledge to hold onto.
> Like because you imagine 99% of men (other men, of course, not you) go to Thailand for that reason it makes you and your choice of words, young, lithe Thai girls, not creepy.
I've never visited Thailand, or any country, for sexual tourism / red-light scene. You're making assumptions and projecting because I dare to compare the scene in SE Asia to the West. There are plenty of documentaries, news articles, and general media/anecdotes online to make the comparison. You don't like that I call out western sex tourists for what they are (perhaps because you are one) and so you're resorting to silly attacks to deflect.
That you're more creeped out by my description of the average western sexpat / thai escort pairing, which objectively, sure is a little bit creepy but 100% accurate, rather than the actual sexualploitation is pretty telling.
Then why do you do it?
> since it's literally everywhere [...] literally at every corner [...] it's literally _everywhere_
Maybe you should have a lie down.
> old, fat, western tourists walk in with young Thai ladies
Why does it matter to you what two strangers are doing? Jealous of the old fat guys? Angry that the "young Thai ladies" aren't with you instead?
> Again, you're projecting.
No, I was asking you why you visit red light areas when you pretend to be disgusted by them. A question you continue to avoid answering for some reason.
> You really don't see the differences - and the social/racial/economic implications - of western, sex tourism?
No. And if you could explain why being raped or abused by Arabs or Asians is somehow better than by "Westerners", you'd be telling me, instead of asking me.
> You don't like that I call out western sex tourists for what they are (perhaps because you are one) and so you're resorting to silly attacks to deflect.
What, like "perhaps because you are one"?
You're not convincing anyone with your pretend disgust at sex tourism when you're absolutely obsessed by it, seeing it "literally everywhere" and seeking it out by visiting red light areas.
> That you're more creeped out by my description of the average western sexpat / thai escort pairing, which objectively, sure is a little bit creepy but 100% accurate, rather than the actual sexualploitation is pretty telling.
The fact that you don't see what's creepy, if not outright sick, about describing people you consider to be victims of sexual exploitation as "young, lithe girls" is what's telling.
Like I stated in my previous post - which it seems you did not read or comprehend - is that the sex industry is very visible everywhere in Thailand, even in "family-oriented tourist areas".
I stayed at a western-brand, seven star hotel in Bangkok and even there it was visible, and very gaudily so.
> The fact that you don't see what's creepy, if not outright sick, about describing people you consider to be victims of sexual exploitation as "young, lithe girls" is what's telling.
Hah, you're more obsessed with my words and my criticism of the sex tourism and judgement of sexpats - local and foreign - rather than the seedy sex industry itself.
Pretty obvious to me what type of person you are. You just love your "surfing" and "sightseeing" trips to SE Asia don't you?
Your words: "If you've ever spent any time in these areas, it's a pretty disgusting sight. 10x different from the scene in other red-light districts (which as a whole, tend to be more "professional" and less sleazy/exploitative)."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145365
> Hah, you're more obsessed with my words and my criticism of the sex tourism
Criticism? You admitted (before trying to deny) you've "spent time in" the red-light areas of Thailand, and are so morbidly fascinated by them you've even gone to the trouble of 'comparing' them to those in other countries.
You see "rampant sex tourism" "literally everywhere" you go, not just in Thailand but across SE Asia - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150917 - something I don't see anyone claiming on Trip Advisor; perhaps because they're not looking for it.
You demonstrate zero respect or genuine concern for Thai women by referring to them in creepy sexualised terms like "young, lithe girls".
> local and foreign
Not only have you not posted one word condemning sexual exploitation by Thai men or other Asians, who make up the vast bulk of tourists to Thailand - instead repeatedly and exclusively talking about "Westerners" - you have actually argued that sexual exploitation by non-Westerners is somehow "different" (a belief you have been unable to explain or expand upon).
Instead of arguing the topic, you keep on shifting the argument to ad hominem attacks. Why? It seems to me like you are projecting hard-core.
Since it's so important to you, just to clear the air, I've never employed the services of a prostitute and while I've wandered into red-light districts, I've never explicitly sought them out.
My comparison of sex scenes in different countries is based on a mix of what I've personally witnessed, anecdotes from others that I trust, and of course, the internet.
In Thailand specifically, the sex industry is everywhere. Not, prostitutes propositioning you everywhere, but definitely tell tale signs. Just google "the sex industry is everywhere in Thailand" to see pages of links to first-hand accounts attesting to this VERY FACT. Even your point about TripAdvisor is #fakenews, plenty of TripAdvisor users complaining about it. You're not doing yourself any favors in credibility department by being so willfully ignorant. See the posters on this thread that attest to this fact.
This is similar across greater SE Asia - at least where I've personally visited in Cambodia and Vietnam - but it's especially prevalent in Thailand.
> You demonstrate zero respect or genuine concern for Thai women by referring to them in creepy sexualised terms like "young, lithe girls".
I regret my choice of words. I was trying to paint an exaggerated picture for effect. You keep bringing this up, I suspect because its an easy argument to make and because it distracts from the broader point, that the sex industry is pretty disgusting, especially in third world developing countries.
> Not only have you not posted one word condemning sexual exploitation by Thai men or other Asians, who make up the vast bulk of tourists to Thailand - instead repeatedly and exclusively talking about "Westerners" - you have actually argued that sexual exploitation by non-Westerners is somehow "different" (a belief you have been unable to explain or expand upon).
Did I condone sexual exploitation by locals? All sexual exploitation is wrong. Period. Your whole argumentative shtick is projection, attacking straw man, and attacking snippets taken out of context.
And yes, sexual exploitation / tourism by westerners is _different_. Do you really fail to see the economic and racial (and colonial) aspects? They are not so subtle! Or are you being willfully ignorant because it makes you feel better about your trips to SE Asia to "bike the countryside"?
Actually I'm specifically addressing what you're posting, which is quite difficult when so much of what you post is completely vacuous, like the word "projecting" over and over again (no fewer than 8 times in just three posts so far).
> I've wandered into red-light districts
So after being reminded of your admission of frequenting red light areas you're not denying it any more. Great. Progress.
> My comparison of sex scenes in different countries is based on a mix of what I've personally witnessed, anecdotes from others that I trust, and of course, the internet.
And presumably you do all that just so you can feel more "disgusted"?
Hardly surprising you see "tell tale signs" everywhere when you're that obsessed by it.
> Just google "the sex industry is everywhere in Thailand" to see pages of links to first-hand accounts attesting to this VERY FACT
I don't want to taint your pristine browser history but what happens when you Google "the Moon landing was a hoax"? More FACTS?
> plenty of TripAdvisor users complaining about it
Plenty of TripAdvisor users confirm what you say in this post - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150917 - that rampant sex tourism is literally everywhere in SE Asia? Let's see some examples then.
> You keep bringing this up
I bring it up because it illustrates (unintentionally by you) the difference between your feigned "disgust" about the sex industry in Thailand, and your actual creepy, insulting attitude towards Thai women.
> All sexual exploitation is wrong.
Why do you (repeatedly) only single out and specify Westerners then?
> Do you really fail to see the economic and racial (and colonial) aspects?
You've already asked me this. Do you need my reply again? What you haven't done is manage to answer your own question.
If you think being sexually exploited by Asians or Thais or anyone else is somehow better for the victims than by Westerners, you're going to have explain that extremely sick point of view.
Compared to first world countries, commercial relationships (especially between first-world tourists and locals) in third-world countries often seem more seedy and exploitive. I think that's more about the inherent nature of relations across giant wealth and cultural gulfs than anything else.
So, while it's not a good thing, I don't think it's anything special that that's true about the sex trade.
One has to understand that some prostitutes in Thailand are able to earn 10x as much money compared to working on a farm or doing factory work. There is a huge amount of money moving from the big cities to the backlands of Thailand. The work can also be relatively easy.
Apart from this, Thailand seems to have a pretty open view regards some aspects of love and sex. From what I understand it's not uncommon for Thai men to have a 2nd unofficial wife (mia noi) or (secretly) a gik (casual girlfriend) in another city. A "mia noi" would generally be financially supported in some way. A "gik" might get some money as well occasionally.
I do know however that the local government of Pattaya wants to change the image of the city, make it less seedy and more family friendly. However, this could be at a huge financial cost. Many Thais benefit directly and indirectly from the sex trade.
I interviewed a bunch of prostitutes as part of my first, college paper on a controversial topic. Legalization was my position. The prostitutes pretty much all said what you just said. Everyone said their work was degrading, exploitative, and shouldn't be allowed. Some straight up got aggravated that others could control their bodies or decisions. Most countered by saying they felt more degraded or exploited in the other jobs where their minds or bodies were hurt all day long for about no money with no respect from anyone. Esp waitressing or retail where customers often treat workers cruelly since they know fighting back might cost a job. The prostitutes all said it was better to be in charge of their life with 30min-1hr of work that was either degrading or boring but with appreciative customers.
So, yeah, that's straight from prostitutes. They agree with you. The bad thing was their voices weren't being heard by politicians who received bribes from whole markets of companies that would exploit & degrade them all day. Politicians only cared about that on certain topics. Worst part was police not caring about them led to more pimps, bullying, and rape by others for at least the streetwalkers or ghetto areas. So, I found that making the inevitable, harmless thing illegal contributed to those things since they were natural side effects of no accountability for what's done to "lesser humans." I then couldn't vote for it being illegal just because it's effectively be voting for people to be harmed that way.
We are taking an already vulnerable and preyed upon population and essentially throwing them to the wolves.
I'm agreeing with you, just want to add that dimension which you touch upon but is the core of my belief.
I always thought the Swedish approach was pragmatic. Prostitution isn't illegal, but purchasing sexual services is. So the prostitutes have nothing to fear, only the johns.
Also, I believe in the whole prostitution legalisation discussion, the opinion of the prostitutes is almost never asked. There might be help groups (perhaps with a Christian, feminist or other motive) that are asked their opinions on legislation, but the prostitutes themselves seem to be ignored. Perhaps they are too often viewed as damaged goods. As people that can't make good choices by themselves.
On Twitter I follow a prostitute[0] that _seems_ to be an engineer during daytime and prostitutes herself in the evenings and weekends, more like a hobby. I also know another woman in The Netherlands that is a secretary during daytime, but in the weekends she often prostitutes herself, mainly to a group of regular customers (she doesn't advertise much, AFAIK). Also in The Netherlands there's an interesting blog [1] by a woman that prostitutes herself at home, but in the past worked at various locations. All of these woman seem to be perfectly fine with their choices.
---
I prefer the situation in Nevada where they did legalize it. There's generally specific places (brothels) where you go for the prostitutes. They might invite you at bars. The women have a nice location, everyone gets STD checks, and there's security on-hand in case of unruly customers. Owner and state obviously makes money. Customers that are pro-prostitution are happy. Those anti-prostitution at least know the stuff is at a distance from them. If not decriminalization, it's the compromise I push in the U.S. with something like Swedish model if other side is dominated by hard liners.
It's not entirely unheard of for the mia noi to live with the husband and wife. Not common but I've seen it in enough Thai soap operas where it can't be completely uncommon either. Again, as long as the mia noi knows her place, the first wife often is glad to have someone to hand off her house duties to.
My home is near the Ratchada-Huaykwang intersection where there are dozen of "อาบ อบ นวด" around there.
Usually, cops get money from those massage parlor(sex selling) owners. LOTS of money. Now, there are also military, they have to pay both of them. You can see how hard it is to get rid of this industry.
That seems to conflict with the whole Thailand is the sex-tourism capital of the world look. _Especially_ given that 99% of sex tourists to Thailand are westerners. Call it what you want, but there is definitely some degree of exploitation at play, just given the exchange rate alone.
If you've ever spent any time in these areas, it's a pretty disgusting sight. 10x different from the scene in other red-light districts (which as a whole, tend to be more "professional" and less sleazy/exploitative).
Arbitrage isn't exploitation. Why should someone pay more than the local rate just because they are a (relatively) more wealthy foreigner? That's racist.
None of them started when they were children. Yes, every so often you hear about some 16 or 17 year old girl getting caught with a fake ID or something but the people most shocked in these incidents are the customers who had no clue since they were supposed to be 18+ to be working in the bar in the first place.
The vast, vast, vast, majority of child prostitution that happens in SEA is Asian on Asian. Period. That's not even open for discussion if you've spent any amount of time living in the region.
I read one article by some expat in Cambodia who questioned the Cambodian police chief about underage sex. The police chief told him flat out that westerners were only like 10% - 15% of the arrests they make. Most are locals or other Asians.
So why do the NGOs make such a big deal about it? Because nobody will send them money if Cambodians are molesting children. Make it a white westerner from a rich country and donations flood in to stop the horror.
Let's put things into perspective. It's estimated that 2,000,000 Thai women are involved in the prostitution industry in Thailand. Yet, those same estimates say that only 200,000 work in foreigner market. Do the math.
I forget where I saw it but I remember reading several years ago about a survey they did in Thailand and something like 67% of Thai men said they'd had sex with a prostitute in the last six months. Some equally high number was attributed to the number of military conscripts who had lost their virginity to a prostitute.
There's a lot of prostitution going on in Thailand that has absolutely nothing to do with foreigners.
And where to they always make those busts of girls (usually Burmese) forced into sex slavery? Thai brothels.
You need to quit watching the documentaries made by activists or people plagued with white guilt and actually spend some time learning what you're talking about.
What a cop-out. Concern for human welfare is universal.
1) Many sex workers have little choice
2) It also legitimises sex as a labour asset, increasing gender inequality
We are taking an already vulnerable and preyed upon population and essentially throwing them to the wolves.
Lastly, how does legitimizing sex trade increase gender inequality except perhaps by empowering women (who are in considerably higher demand in this respect)?
I'm not seeing the problem in #2. Maybe you can help me.
Not true.
> except perhaps by empowering women
'empowering' how?
But some do, why would you take away their ability to make money? Do you think they'll thank you for taking away their livelihood?
> It also legitimises sex as a labour asset, increasing gender inequality
The vast majority of sex workers are female, meaning there is a much smaller market for males and so it is more difficult for them to make money. Is that what you meant by inequality? In any case, why shouldn't sex be a labor asset? This goes back to my original comment - what DO you have against female autonomy?
And why should anyone pay tax? Or obey the law?
> Is that what you meant by inequality?
In part, yes. And that hard-labor for men isn't at all similar.
> why shouldn't sex be a labor asset?
Why shouldn't having a vagina imply the burden of having to use it? Please stop talking about 'female autonomy', it's a BS framing of the issue.
1) In the case of someone who chooses to be a prostitute freely, (without desperation): that's fine, but then the issue is entirely different; namely that the populace determinate what should be permitted within its borders, and it's economy, e.g. I can make more money if I didn't pay tax, but that's doesn't mean it's an option; likewise, some women may freely pursue sex work, but not in a country that bars that economy.
2) specifically in the case of free, un-coerced choice; why should a female student be able to fund their studies through sex when most male students can't? Why would society encourage the explicit monetisation of sex?
3) My opinion is that having a vagina shouldn't imply the burden of having to use it, and I'm saying that's what it means to consider sex/genitalia a 'labour asset'.
I will add that there is nothing inherently gendered about sex work. Your assumption that it must be a male customer and female sex worker is problematic and, itself, biased.
> They become victims of their pimps
This is a tangent to the illegality of prostitution itself.
> here is nothing inherently gendered about sex work
In absolute terms, but what about statistically? Tell me why it is 'problematic' not to derail the issue.
When people (practically all men) was exploited to work in coal mines by debt slavery, the solution was not to abolish the mining industry. The deaths, the humiliation and the low value of (poor, young) males life were resolved in the US by identifying the most exploitable aspects of those practices and surgely removing it by regulation.
Give the sex industry the same treatment. Regulate away the worst part and tax it heavily so money can be rerouted into making it even safer in a self-sustaining way.
A valid point, and one worth addressing in its own right.
Why should the sex industry be given the same treatment? The lives of young, poor men are disregarded, and you want to emulate this for some reason? Seems like we should be condemning unsafe vocations instead.. But this is a bit of a tangent.
Please don't jump into this thread disregarding the context.
However, for the most of his first marriage, he lived with actress Yuvadhida Polpraserth. The two, who later wed, have five children. Vajiralongkorn filed for divorce, alleging that Polpraserth had an extra marital affair with a 60-year-old air marshal. He allegedly put up poster across the country, accusing her of the affair. In the wake of the scandal, Polpraserth fled the country with their daughter.
In response, Vajiralongkorn, abducted their daughter and brought her back to Thailand, later elevating her to a rank of Princess, while sending the rest of family into exile.
His third marriage - as per records - was to Srirasmi Suwadee in 2001. The marriage ended with the prince throwing her family into prison for two-and-a-half-years on charges of "royal defamation." Srirasmi courted infamy after a 2007 video of her went viral. In the video, she can be seen topless and celebrating the birthday of Vajiralongkorn's beloved poodle Foo Foo.
While the prince appears in a sports shirt and smoking a pipe, his wife is naked but for a fringed G-string, serving birthday cake to the couple’s miniature poodle, Fu-Fu, as white-gloved servants wait on the royal couple. The pampered Fu-Fu has been assigned the rank of “captain” by the crown prince and sometimes accompanies its royal master to formal state dinners.