Comment by wsc981 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wsc981 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I personally don't see a problem with prostitution. I regard it as a job, just like any other. As such I don't look down on prostitutes and neither on their clients. As long as everything is legal, people are doing it safe, all is fine as far as I am concerned.

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 personally don't see a problem with prostitution. I regard it as a job, just like any other. As such I don't look down on prostitutes and neither on their clients. As long as everything is legal, people are doing it safe, all is fine as far as I am concerned."

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.

When prostitution is illegal, they are not able to receive the protection of society and the police. They are not able or discouraged from taking advantage of social welfare programs.

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.

Oh yeah, what you said is consistent with what I learned from them.

> When prostitution is illegal, they are not able to receive the protection of society and the police

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.

I think the Swedish approach is not reasonable at all. Either make both purchase and selling of sexual services illegal or neither. The Swedish approach makes no sense to me. Basically the Swedish approach marks the johns as the 'bad guys'. While many consumers of prostitution are just your average Joe that might have an unhappy marriage and needs to blow off some steam once in a while. Or a john might be an ugly or disabled guy that has big trouble finding a girlfriend.

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.

---

[0]: https://twitter.com/kanstaandpijpen?lang=en

[1]: http://zondares.blogspot.com

The prostitutes you mentioned would be fine under the Swedish system since they're under no risk and their johns under very low risk. That's the benefit of it. The system in my country keeps prostitutes in fear for what police or johns might do to them. I'd definitely take the Swedish system as a compromise if they wouldn't legalize it straight-up.

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.

So they have a service that's illegal to buy, but not to sell? How is that pragmatic at all?

It hurts the buyers instead of the often-desperate women. Also, keeps the women from being vulnerable to attacks that happen when it's illegal on their side. It's not ideal but it's better than the current system in the U.S.. Also, depending on area, police might leave buyers alone subject to conditions like it staying out of the open (e.g. red-light districts).

The men might have mistresses, but the wives tend to not like it either.

Depends on the woman. Some don't mind as long as everyone knows their place. She's the wife. She's the one with the major assets coming to her. The mia noi is financially supported but she has no rights (or expectations) of inheriting any wealth from the man. The gik is simply someone who is available for sex in exchange for either cash or gifts.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com