There is an extra layer if depravity if they're going to look for children (it did cross my mind how this person could possibly know that all his conquests were adults) but that doesn't mean that travelling to have lots of sex with any kind of person is somehow a perfectly normal and sane thing to do on one's holiday.
Again with the sex. It is the exploitation, not the sex itself that is the real problem. Would you be more cool with it if the prostitutes were high-end? I somehow doubt it.
If you think that's moralising to think that being a rich person going overseas to take advantage of the poverty of others is fucked up, you are right. It is.
So one should holiday only where the exchange rate is equal? If that is your morality, then those countries fall into even greater economic decline because tourism feed many poor economies.
This thread is a bit surreal. I don't think anyone in it thinks exploitation is a good thing* and yet you are being argued with. Which kinda indicates that, perhaps, you are not communicating what you think you are.
*Might be wrong, anyone who thinks exploitation is fine, feel free to correct me.
I don't think a thread on sex tourism would arouse much criticism. But the OP doesn't talk about that.
Yes! That's right!
I wish I'd made it clear that men in my area were talking about going on holiday to Thailand for a couple of months for the sole purpose of getting as much sex as possible.
This thread: "White men flying to Thailand to molest pre-teens is bad."
Lilbuddha: "Well, actually..."
The OP did not say preteens. The OP actually implies that the people involved are of age.
You could try reading for comprehension, but that doesn't appear to by your style.
I don't think a thread on sex tourism would arouse much criticism. But the OP doesn't talk about that.
Actually, he does. But his phrasing sounds more like a prudishness about sex, followed by a dislike of transactional sex, followed by an apparent incomplete understanding of economics. Not to mention starting it of with body-shaming.
I am happy to. Whilst body shaming is a real issue, the biggest issue is here is exploitation. The OP hasn't made his case that this is exactly what he dislikes the most.
The idea that I can accurately describe a conversation where one overweight unattractive man talks to another overweight unattractive man and someone else tells me I'm body-shaming is quite ridiculous.
I thought it was important to mention because I think it says something about the place where I live and possibly the sexual isolation felt by a group who look very similar to me.
But again, that's just nuance to a person who wants to play Shame Policeman.
Because expecting people to not have sex on holidays is silly enough as it is. Your prudish standard of how that needs to unfold is boring. This is just me being bored with your fucking stupid thread.
Perhaps should differentiate exploitation and being prudish and your kids versus someone else's. Additionally countries where it is regulated and those where it's illegal and not.
The idea that I can accurately describe a conversation where one overweight unattractive man talks to another overweight unattractive man and someone else tells me I'm body-shaming is quite ridiculous.
One, it is not. I know fat people who look on other fat people with disgust. It is so common as to be a comedic trope. Two, you made no mention of it in the OP.
I thought it was important to mention because I think it says something about the place where I live and possibly the sexual isolation felt by a group who look very similar to me.
I don't think I'd have a visceral reaction to someone having a lot of sex on holiday if none of the other things were an issue. I don't really want to talk about it, but I know it happens.
It's the combination of someone stating that they can't get sex in their own country, saying that they don't have much money and assuming that it is perfectly acceptable to talk about going to a poor community to obtain sex in casual conversation.
I'm not sure if there is now a lot to discuss. Either one thinks I'm a prude and against kink or you think that it is a fucking sick world where this stuff happens.
...
I can't see what difference it makes who they are going to Thailand to have sex with. ...
"I'm getting a super-size bottle of Viagra and taking the little wifey to Phuket to fuck her brains out."
If you think that's moralising to think that being a rich person going overseas to take advantage of the poverty of others is fucked up, you are right. It is.
So you consider the fundanental economic basis of most of the world's tourism industry "fucked up." OK, enjoy your Butlins holidays.
Face it, Blahblah: your OP was poorly thought-out and poorly written. Why don't you just admit it and start over?
To be honest, if some bloke said the same to me I’d be creeped out - possibly because the violation of social norms involved in dropping it into a casual conversation would lead me to assume 4 with a side order of not being that fussed about consent.
Yeah ok. You carry on whining and talking drivel. Because I'm no longer listening.
You haven't been listening for some time. Every time lilBuddha (for whom I definitely am NOT a cheerleader, as most here know) lays down facts, you respond with vitriol but no counterarguments or countering facts. Blahsplaining.
And that's much more important than some brown woman's ability to consent to sex, right?
'The OP was a bit off'? Fucking hell. You're supposed to be the good guys. And people wonder why I'm a misanthrope.
The OP did not mention consent. The OP reads like a judgemental prude, not as someone concerned for the victims.
mousethief gets it. Doublethink and Soror Magna get it.
The OP reads like they're normal. I can just about remember what that was like (probably before I took this hosting gig), but geez, it's a good job my faith in humanity was already at zero.
I don't mind coming out as a prude. Leaving aside the whole areas of exploitation, transactional sex, and consent, I'm still grossed out by "I intend to spend my holiday fucking as many people as possible." It reminds me vaguely of "I intend to eat 1000 Big Macs over the course of the next week," but even grosser. I'd feel just as squicked out if they told me they intended to spend their Thai holiday locked up in their hotel room doing nothing but bash the bishop 24 hours a day. Like, bleurrghhhh. I didn't want that mental image. I'm pretty sure all my future ah, encounters with such a person would have a table between us. Because squick.
I don't mind coming out as a prude. Leaving aside the whole areas of exploitation, transactional sex, and consent, I'm still grossed out by "I intend to spend my holiday fucking as many people as possible." It reminds me vaguely of "I intend to eat 1000 Big Macs over the course of the next week," but even grosser. I'd feel just as squicked out if they told me they intended to spend their Thai holiday locked up in their hotel room doing nothing but bash the bishop 24 hours a day. Like, bleurrghhhh. I didn't want that mental image. I'm pretty sure all my future ah, encounters with such a person would have a table between us. Because squick.
Me too. Maybe I'm just not quite cool enough to be cool with all that. Furthermore, I think @Blahblahdoes have a point about the magnified power inequities that come into play when a blowjob costs less than a cup of coffee, in the purchaser's currency. Saying 'You can't object to this if you're also supporting exploitative practices by buying clothing made in Thailand', or 'But in fact they're earning good money, in local terms' is...words fail me...
I mean, has no-one stopped to consider the sort of situation that could ensue when you combine an individual who can afford to fly to Thailand (not only that, but has done the calculations and concluded that the cost of a flight to Thailand is money well spent in fucking terms), with a person who is prepared to give blowjobs for fifty pence? Well, I'll consider it for you. It seems to me that if you can get that for fifty pence, there's always going to be the temptation to say, 'Well, I wonder what can I get for six pounds? I wonder what I could get for ten pounds?' And don't all try and tell me that in fact most sex tourists just want vanilla experiences, or that most guys who make heavy use of prostitutes are really just poor misunderstood souls who want a sympathetic listening ear. Horseshit. Outside of Thailand, at least, counsellors and therapists are cheaper by the hour than hookers. People go to hookers because they want sex, and the kinds of people who go to hookers are, by definition, untroubled by the notion that that the other party isn't doing this because they're 'into it'. Do these phenomena become more troubling when the immediate context is suddenly one where the client is as rich as Jeffrey Epstein? That's a solid yes, from me.
I don't mind coming out as a prude. Leaving aside the whole areas of exploitation, transactional sex, and consent, I'm still grossed out by "I intend to spend my holiday fucking as many people as possible." It reminds me vaguely of "I intend to eat 1000 Big Macs over the course of the next week," but even grosser. I'd feel just as squicked out if they told me they intended to spend their Thai holiday locked up in their hotel room doing nothing but bash the bishop 24 hours a day. Like, bleurrghhhh. I didn't want that mental image. I'm pretty sure all my future ah, encounters with such a person would have a table between us. Because squick.
Me too. Maybe I'm just not quite cool enough to be cool with all that. Furthermore, I think @Blahblahdoes have a point about the magnified power inequities that come into play when a blowjob costs less than a cup of coffee, in the purchaser's currency. Saying 'You can't object to this if you're also supporting exploitative practices by buying clothing made in Thailand', or 'But in fact they're earning good money, in local terms' is...words fail me...
That is not what I said. Indeed, if you read farther than that I actually talk about the mechanism in which the higher pay lures people in. It is not the cost of service but the general poverty of wage in the country. Again, that does not justify exploitation.
Not sure how many times I have to say that.
I don't mind coming out as a prude. Leaving aside the whole areas of exploitation, transactional sex, and consent, I'm still grossed out by "I intend to spend my holiday fucking as many people as possible." It reminds me vaguely of "I intend to eat 1000 Big Macs over the course of the next week," but even grosser. I'd feel just as squicked out if they told me they intended to spend their Thai holiday locked up in their hotel room doing nothing but bash the bishop 24 hours a day. Like, bleurrghhhh. I didn't want that mental image. I'm pretty sure all my future ah, encounters with such a person would have a table between us. Because squick.
Had to google “bash the bishop” to learn what it means. Most people in my diocese don’t like our bishop, so sending hatemail online seems like something some would do here.
As to OP, I don’t find it surprising. This is the same world where professors of poetry, priests, and school music teachers all get arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography. The world has many sad aspects to it, especially when lust is involved.
I think much of what grossed me out about the bloke in the OP was that he was talking about it - it seemed so far into the realm of too much information it was coming out the other side.
It is weird that he would be talking about it, but perhaps he has a psychological need to prove he can get sex somehow. Or perhaps he’s just one of those people who are too comfortable talking about their personal lives.
You know, I DO have a problem with transactional sex, and it is exactly the same problem I have with transactional kidney donors.
I am not comfortable with transactional sex. I used to think it was inherently exploitative until I had conversations with sex workers. Some of them do not feel exploited and they defend their customers. According to them, it is not a black and white thing.
I still have issues with it, but if the workers are OK and not in an exploitative situation, then it is their business.
What bothers me is that you can find kidney donors who will say the same thing. When the rewards are so great and the comparable earning alternatives so non-existent, it becomes virtually impossible to accept "I'm okay with this" at face value. Rather like those early teens who claim to be in a consenting relationship with a 30-year-old who has lots of money. Theoretically it's possible (people do mature at different rates, and people exist who are not influenced by money), but the odds are decidedly against it.
Perhaps I should have added that I have a close relationship with someone who as a young woman, ah, vehemently defended her "choice" of relationship with someone whom the rest of us believed was exploiting her. Many years later, she lamented to me that we had not somehow managed to rescue her from that person, whom she likened to a child molester. She acknowledged that we had no way of forcing the issue, given that she was of legal age; but it's a case I keep in mind when I hear someone loudly defending a person who on the face of it is actively exploiting him or her.
I agree with Doc Tor. The OP was freaking out about something that happened to him. I don't think it was a well-thought-out essay on sex tourism, but an expression of anger written while still emotional about the encounter. I'm sure the OP did not expect the reaction he got.
Sex tourism in Thailand is horribly exploitative. The idea of men from wealthy countries travelling to poorer countries so they can pay for sex with women who are often trafficked, often laden with debt to keep them under control, and often deliberately addicted to drugs for the same reason is appalling. It should appall everyone who has posted on this thread.
What sort of people jump all over a bloke expressing such obviously reasonable opinions about an obviously terrible practice? Are they the same sort of people who criticise a young white girl for appearing in the apparel of a different culture? Are they the same sort of people who called for the resignation of an American Governor for dressing in black face and almost doing the moonwalk at a press conference? Are they the same sort of people who clutch their proverbial pearls when someone says
cunt?
There are numerous other examples.
How can people who have voiced their objection to all this other conduct decide that a bloke going to Thailand as a sex tourist is OK? It beggars belief! And to say that it just wasn't clear from the OP is bullshit. It was obvious what Blah blah found objectionable to me. If it wasn't to you then you should have asked clarifying questions before sticking on the old Dr Martens.
Whoa, dude! Way to make a whole load of assumptions. As it happens, I hold different opinions about the various random cases you mentioned from those held by probably half of this thread's denizens. There is no cookie cutter, all-believe-the-same-things profile.
Besides, Hell never goes according to schedule. If anything, you ought to be yelling because we're too Purgatorial.
Just out of curiosity, are you possibly posting drunk?
I think this Outrage Purity Test should be applied more widely. For instance, it's obvious that if someone on the driving thread complains about tailgating, but doesn't accompany it with a long essay on safe stopping distances and momentum, then they don't care about safe driving at all but are just being snobbish about BMW drivers. And as for those people who moan about Boris Johnson without explaining the evolution of the British Constitution since 1066 - well, words fail me.
Whoa, dude! Way to make a whole load of assumptions. As it happens, I hold different opinions about the various random cases you mentioned from those held by probably half of this thread's denizens. There is no cookie cutter, all-believe-the-same-things profile.
Besides, Hell never goes according to schedule. If anything, you ought to be yelling because we're too Purgatorial.
Just out of curiosity, are you possibly posting drunk?
You know, I DO have a problem with transactional sex, and it is exactly the same problem I have with transactional kidney donors.
I am not comfortable with transactional sex. I used to think it was inherently exploitative until I had conversations with sex workers. Some of them do not feel exploited and they defend their customers. According to them, it is not a black and white thing.
I still have issues with it, but if the workers are OK and not in an exploitative situation, then it is their business.
In some sense, I do see what you're saying - I mean, if a person straight-up tells you they don't feel exploited, then it's...paternalistic at best, to tell them that, well, they are, anyway. But the thing is, the issue of prostitution is so much wider than any one situation, any one client/sex worker pair, and thus I'd argue that it isn't wholly satisfactory to just say, well, so long as no-one is being exploited here, then that's their business.
It doesn't surprise me to hear that there are some prostitutes who enjoy with their work. It also wouldn't surprise me to hear that there are clients who would, ideally, prefer to contract with a prostitute who enjoys her work. It would surprise me to discover that there are more than a literal handful of men in the world who fall in the part of the venn diagram where making use of prostitutes is viewed as perfectly fine, so long as adequate enquiries have been made beforehand to ensure that the individual to be procured is fully on board with her career choice (and further that the information gathered is reliable). Do you see where I'm going with this? If you have a vast swell of be-dicked humanity who are prepared to take 'available sex' over 'no sex', I'd argue that effect, the utility, of the odd 'ethical' encounter in amongst it is utterly null. If a prostitute can enjoy having sex with a client who doesn't give a shit whether she's enjoying it or not, then, sure, all power to her - but the interaction is nevertheless still likely to reinforce, to contribute to, rather than challenge, a worldview in which women are reduced to an assemblage of orifices into which things may be inserted.
This discussion reminds me of a job I once took in desperation in the filing department of a large insurance firm. The job consisted exclusively of (A) fetching file folders for review by agents upstairs and (B) returning the files to their assigned drawers. IOW, the. most. stultifying. way. imaginable. to spend an 8-hour working day for appallingly low pay.
I had 5 co-workers, all childless and single (I was married and had a child still in diapers), all about a decade younger than me, and all, to listen to their conversation, heavy drinkers. All day long every single day, all their talk was where they'd been out drinking and clubbing the night before, what they'd had to drink, and how much, and how drunk they got, and how much they'd thrown up and where and/or on what and/or whom, what fights they'd got into, what accidents and/or near misses they'd had while driving, whether they'd had run-ins with police, what time they'd got home, whether they'd blacked out and where, and how many times and for how long, etc. etc. etc.
Everything about these conversations repelled me: the alcohol abuse, the scary risks being taken, the fact that this was all they could think of to do with their lives, the fact that their hangovers created constant screw-ups on the job. And I explained my distress to myself by ruminating over the drinking they did and the disasters this created.
Sadly, I must confess that what really mattered to me was this: I just hated hearing this monotonous litany of drinking escapades. I couldn't avoid it, I couldn't stop it, I couldn't change it (I did try but was ignored). I couldn't then have articulated my distress in this way, and suspect that Blahblah may be in a similar position -- s/he was hearing a discomfiting discussion that isn't easy either to avoid or to respond to. And that may account for the off-kiltered-ness of the OP. It's not really about the sex, or the ugliness of the men, or transactial sex or the issues raised: it's really about being dragged unexpectedly into a distressing conversation with no clear exit strategy.
In Blahbah’s position, I would have been pretty shocked too.
Firstly, there is the exploitation. You can also add on something which no one has mentioned yet, which is what looks to me like some truly appalling racism. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the man in question is white. And that his comfort in treating his fellow human beings like cheap exotic commodities comes at least in part from the fact that they are not white. There are all kinds of assumptions about young Asian women in there that I am very squeamish about.
In Blahbah’s position, I would have been pretty shocked too.
Firstly, there is the exploitation. You can also add on something which no one has mentioned yet, which is what looks to me like some truly appalling racism. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the man in question is white. And that his comfort in treating his fellow human beings like cheap exotic commodities comes at least in part from the fact that they are not white. There are all kinds of assumptions about young Asian women in there that I am very squeamish about.
This is one of the aspects which shocked me about the conversation, as well as the normalising of the concept that some people (poor brown women) are disposable - things to be used for sex, then discarded, with no further thought required. And then there is the power imbalance. I really can’t see any difference in attitude between this man, as reported, and someone like Epstein.
The fact that this involved sex, and that it is considered ok for it to be considered transactional should not give people like this a free pass. Racism, exploitation and treating people as things is not acceptable, regardless of how or why it is done.
Firstly, a stranger at a bus stop (or similar) telling you about holiday sexcapades is weird.
Prostitution, especially when there is a huge economic imbalance between the sex worker and the client leaves the sex worker in an incredibly vulnerable position.
I think everyone agrees on these two issues, but following this thread is like following a dinner table conversation a few months ago with a group of international NGO types. Everyone at that table, without exception, equated sex work with human trafficking. It's true, that (mostly) women are forced into sex slavery; it happens, it's a fact. Anyone who tried to gloss over this kind of activity would clearly be deluded, but this is not the only way that prostitution works.
None of the NGO types at that table (I'll make a wild punt here and say the same is true for many people participating in this discussion) had ever been involved in sex for cash as either a client or as a service provider. None of them had any close friends or family members working in the sex trade, so for them prostitution is this big, black hole of bad things.
My experience of the sex trade is a bit wider than most people's. Though I have never knowingly been involved with any aspect of human trafficking, I have had close friends (very close) in the industry. Some of these people enjoyed the sex with their clients, and others only did it to buy drugs or pay rent. I was once asked to perform a sex act for cash, so I did. I'm not a junkie, I'm not enslaved and I didn't feel exploited. Someone I know who gives professional massage also likes to initiate sex at the end of the massage (price includes a happy ending, apparently). I'm more interested in my bad back than the happy ending, so I always decline. That person is technically a prostitute, but someone who runs their own business, and lives an otherwise normal life is no different from the rest of us, even if they will perform a sex act for cash.
When I was younger, two friends (sex workers I knew at different times in my twenties) used to hit on me quite hard, but sex with friends is a bit too weird for me. It did make me wonder though, how could they be interested in sex with me after having sex with clients all night? Maybe they just like sex!
So this is my point; I'm not trying to deny the horrors of forced prostitution, I'm not judging people for being squeamish about casual sex, I'm not justifying cheap sex holidays for westerners, I'm just trying to say that sex workers and the people who hire them are not uniformly bad, they are not all exploited or exploiters, they are just people who are trying to earn a living or meet some needs.
You could say the same about waiters. There are a lot of cases of workers in Indian restaurants (for example) who have no legal protections because they are in the country illegally, or working under the table because they are on tourist visas, and despite promises made by their employers, they are virtual slaves working for very little and being kept virtual prisoners by the restaurant owners.
Not everyone wants to be a waiter, but just because traffickers work with restaurant and domestic workers as well as sex workers doesn't mean that all waiters, or all domestic workers (or all prostitutes) are enslaved and hate their jobs.
Racism, exploitation and treating people as things is not acceptable, regardless of how or why it is done.
The problem I've had with articulating any response to this thread is that ISTM that a standard set of moralistic responses to this issue in the world at large tend to ignore this elephant in the room (and the fact that racism, exploitation and treating people as things are institutionalised on a fairly large scale and in many ways are foundational to a lot of existing trade/economics and so on).
At the same time I don't know any sex-workers AFAIK, but do know people who have similar life experiences and circles as @Crunt and again ISTM this tends not to characterise the well meaning people who are most vocal on this issue.
I didn't read Blah blah as condemning sex or prostitution. I read him as being disgusted by this other bloke telling him how much he enjoyed sex tourism in Thailand.
That said, I went off half-cocked in my earlier post. People really did ask questions and didn't actually put on their Doc Martens much at all.
I have now shared a stubby of spiced ginger beer and rum with my wife, and she also made us both a raspberry rose gin fizz. Perhaps I do better after a few drinks...
Comments
So one should holiday only where the exchange rate is equal? If that is your morality, then those countries fall into even greater economic decline because tourism feed many poor economies.
This thread is a bit surreal. I don't think anyone in it thinks exploitation is a good thing* and yet you are being argued with. Which kinda indicates that, perhaps, you are not communicating what you think you are.
*Might be wrong, anyone who thinks exploitation is fine, feel free to correct me.
Lilbuddha: "Well, actually..."
Yes! That's right!
I wish I'd made it clear that men in my area were talking about going on holiday to Thailand for a couple of months for the sole purpose of getting as much sex as possible.
Oh wait.
You could try reading for comprehension, but that doesn't appear to by your style.
Good idea.
Let's focus on the real issues.
I thought it was important to mention because I think it says something about the place where I live and possibly the sexual isolation felt by a group who look very similar to me.
But again, that's just nuance to a person who wants to play Shame Policeman.
Perhaps should differentiate exploitation and being prudish and your kids versus someone else's. Additionally countries where it is regulated and those where it's illegal and not.
Please identify which from this list resemble your concerns, then we can agree with you - or not.
It's the combination of someone stating that they can't get sex in their own country, saying that they don't have much money and assuming that it is perfectly acceptable to talk about going to a poor community to obtain sex in casual conversation.
I'm not sure if there is now a lot to discuss. Either one thinks I'm a prude and against kink or you think that it is a fucking sick world where this stuff happens.
"I'm getting a super-size bottle of Viagra and taking the little wifey to Phuket to fuck her brains out."
So you consider the fundanental economic basis of most of the world's tourism industry "fucked up." OK, enjoy your Butlins holidays.
Face it, Blahblah: your OP was poorly thought-out and poorly written. Why don't you just admit it and start over?
'The OP was a bit off'? Fucking hell. You're supposed to be the good guys. And people wonder why I'm a misanthrope.
You haven't been listening for some time. Every time lilBuddha (for whom I definitely am NOT a cheerleader, as most here know) lays down facts, you respond with vitriol but no counterarguments or countering facts. Blahsplaining.
mousethief gets it. Doublethink and Soror Magna get it.
I mean, has no-one stopped to consider the sort of situation that could ensue when you combine an individual who can afford to fly to Thailand (not only that, but has done the calculations and concluded that the cost of a flight to Thailand is money well spent in fucking terms), with a person who is prepared to give blowjobs for fifty pence? Well, I'll consider it for you. It seems to me that if you can get that for fifty pence, there's always going to be the temptation to say, 'Well, I wonder what can I get for six pounds? I wonder what I could get for ten pounds?' And don't all try and tell me that in fact most sex tourists just want vanilla experiences, or that most guys who make heavy use of prostitutes are really just poor misunderstood souls who want a sympathetic listening ear. Horseshit. Outside of Thailand, at least, counsellors and therapists are cheaper by the hour than hookers. People go to hookers because they want sex, and the kinds of people who go to hookers are, by definition, untroubled by the notion that that the other party isn't doing this because they're 'into it'. Do these phenomena become more troubling when the immediate context is suddenly one where the client is as rich as Jeffrey Epstein? That's a solid yes, from me.
Not sure how many times I have to say that.
Had to google “bash the bishop” to learn what it means. Most people in my diocese don’t like our bishop, so sending hatemail online seems like something some would do here.
As to OP, I don’t find it surprising. This is the same world where professors of poetry, priests, and school music teachers all get arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography. The world has many sad aspects to it, especially when lust is involved.
I still have issues with it, but if the workers are OK and not in an exploitative situation, then it is their business.
Sex tourism in Thailand is horribly exploitative. The idea of men from wealthy countries travelling to poorer countries so they can pay for sex with women who are often trafficked, often laden with debt to keep them under control, and often deliberately addicted to drugs for the same reason is appalling. It should appall everyone who has posted on this thread.
What sort of people jump all over a bloke expressing such obviously reasonable opinions about an obviously terrible practice? Are they the same sort of people who criticise a young white girl for appearing in the apparel of a different culture? Are they the same sort of people who called for the resignation of an American Governor for dressing in black face and almost doing the moonwalk at a press conference? Are they the same sort of people who clutch their proverbial pearls when someone says
How can people who have voiced their objection to all this other conduct decide that a bloke going to Thailand as a sex tourist is OK? It beggars belief! And to say that it just wasn't clear from the OP is bullshit. It was obvious what Blah blah found objectionable to me. If it wasn't to you then you should have asked clarifying questions before sticking on the old Dr Martens.
Besides, Hell never goes according to schedule. If anything, you ought to be yelling because we're too Purgatorial.
Just out of curiosity, are you possibly posting drunk?
I didn't have your comments in mind LC.
In some sense, I do see what you're saying - I mean, if a person straight-up tells you they don't feel exploited, then it's...paternalistic at best, to tell them that, well, they are, anyway. But the thing is, the issue of prostitution is so much wider than any one situation, any one client/sex worker pair, and thus I'd argue that it isn't wholly satisfactory to just say, well, so long as no-one is being exploited here, then that's their business.
It doesn't surprise me to hear that there are some prostitutes who enjoy with their work. It also wouldn't surprise me to hear that there are clients who would, ideally, prefer to contract with a prostitute who enjoys her work. It would surprise me to discover that there are more than a literal handful of men in the world who fall in the part of the venn diagram where making use of prostitutes is viewed as perfectly fine, so long as adequate enquiries have been made beforehand to ensure that the individual to be procured is fully on board with her career choice (and further that the information gathered is reliable). Do you see where I'm going with this? If you have a vast swell of be-dicked humanity who are prepared to take 'available sex' over 'no sex', I'd argue that effect, the utility, of the odd 'ethical' encounter in amongst it is utterly null. If a prostitute can enjoy having sex with a client who doesn't give a shit whether she's enjoying it or not, then, sure, all power to her - but the interaction is nevertheless still likely to reinforce, to contribute to, rather than challenge, a worldview in which women are reduced to an assemblage of orifices into which things may be inserted.
I had 5 co-workers, all childless and single (I was married and had a child still in diapers), all about a decade younger than me, and all, to listen to their conversation, heavy drinkers. All day long every single day, all their talk was where they'd been out drinking and clubbing the night before, what they'd had to drink, and how much, and how drunk they got, and how much they'd thrown up and where and/or on what and/or whom, what fights they'd got into, what accidents and/or near misses they'd had while driving, whether they'd had run-ins with police, what time they'd got home, whether they'd blacked out and where, and how many times and for how long, etc. etc. etc.
Everything about these conversations repelled me: the alcohol abuse, the scary risks being taken, the fact that this was all they could think of to do with their lives, the fact that their hangovers created constant screw-ups on the job. And I explained my distress to myself by ruminating over the drinking they did and the disasters this created.
Sadly, I must confess that what really mattered to me was this: I just hated hearing this monotonous litany of drinking escapades. I couldn't avoid it, I couldn't stop it, I couldn't change it (I did try but was ignored). I couldn't then have articulated my distress in this way, and suspect that Blahblah may be in a similar position -- s/he was hearing a discomfiting discussion that isn't easy either to avoid or to respond to. And that may account for the off-kiltered-ness of the OP. It's not really about the sex, or the ugliness of the men, or transactial sex or the issues raised: it's really about being dragged unexpectedly into a distressing conversation with no clear exit strategy.
(and he posted at 5pm Tuesday, Melbourne time...)
So "yes", then?
Cup Day was two weeks ago...
Firstly, there is the exploitation. You can also add on something which no one has mentioned yet, which is what looks to me like some truly appalling racism. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the man in question is white. And that his comfort in treating his fellow human beings like cheap exotic commodities comes at least in part from the fact that they are not white. There are all kinds of assumptions about young Asian women in there that I am very squeamish about.
An outside possibility of having sobered up by now, one presumes?
This is one of the aspects which shocked me about the conversation, as well as the normalising of the concept that some people (poor brown women) are disposable - things to be used for sex, then discarded, with no further thought required. And then there is the power imbalance. I really can’t see any difference in attitude between this man, as reported, and someone like Epstein.
The fact that this involved sex, and that it is considered ok for it to be considered transactional should not give people like this a free pass. Racism, exploitation and treating people as things is not acceptable, regardless of how or why it is done.
Prostitution, especially when there is a huge economic imbalance between the sex worker and the client leaves the sex worker in an incredibly vulnerable position.
I think everyone agrees on these two issues, but following this thread is like following a dinner table conversation a few months ago with a group of international NGO types. Everyone at that table, without exception, equated sex work with human trafficking. It's true, that (mostly) women are forced into sex slavery; it happens, it's a fact. Anyone who tried to gloss over this kind of activity would clearly be deluded, but this is not the only way that prostitution works.
None of the NGO types at that table (I'll make a wild punt here and say the same is true for many people participating in this discussion) had ever been involved in sex for cash as either a client or as a service provider. None of them had any close friends or family members working in the sex trade, so for them prostitution is this big, black hole of bad things.
My experience of the sex trade is a bit wider than most people's. Though I have never knowingly been involved with any aspect of human trafficking, I have had close friends (very close) in the industry. Some of these people enjoyed the sex with their clients, and others only did it to buy drugs or pay rent. I was once asked to perform a sex act for cash, so I did. I'm not a junkie, I'm not enslaved and I didn't feel exploited. Someone I know who gives professional massage also likes to initiate sex at the end of the massage (price includes a happy ending, apparently). I'm more interested in my bad back than the happy ending, so I always decline. That person is technically a prostitute, but someone who runs their own business, and lives an otherwise normal life is no different from the rest of us, even if they will perform a sex act for cash.
When I was younger, two friends (sex workers I knew at different times in my twenties) used to hit on me quite hard, but sex with friends is a bit too weird for me. It did make me wonder though, how could they be interested in sex with me after having sex with clients all night? Maybe they just like sex!
So this is my point; I'm not trying to deny the horrors of forced prostitution, I'm not judging people for being squeamish about casual sex, I'm not justifying cheap sex holidays for westerners, I'm just trying to say that sex workers and the people who hire them are not uniformly bad, they are not all exploited or exploiters, they are just people who are trying to earn a living or meet some needs.
You could say the same about waiters. There are a lot of cases of workers in Indian restaurants (for example) who have no legal protections because they are in the country illegally, or working under the table because they are on tourist visas, and despite promises made by their employers, they are virtual slaves working for very little and being kept virtual prisoners by the restaurant owners.
Not everyone wants to be a waiter, but just because traffickers work with restaurant and domestic workers as well as sex workers doesn't mean that all waiters, or all domestic workers (or all prostitutes) are enslaved and hate their jobs.
The problem I've had with articulating any response to this thread is that ISTM that a standard set of moralistic responses to this issue in the world at large tend to ignore this elephant in the room (and the fact that racism, exploitation and treating people as things are institutionalised on a fairly large scale and in many ways are foundational to a lot of existing trade/economics and so on).
At the same time I don't know any sex-workers AFAIK, but do know people who have similar life experiences and circles as @Crunt and again ISTM this tends not to characterise the well meaning people who are most vocal on this issue.
That said, I went off half-cocked in my earlier post. People really did ask questions and didn't actually put on their Doc Martens much at all.
I have now shared a stubby of spiced ginger beer and rum with my wife, and she also made us both a raspberry rose gin fizz. Perhaps I do better after a few drinks...