Why do you assume they should care? They clearly have a different value system than yours. If you don't like it, don't go.
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.