Being exploited and exploiting are two different things. They leave themselves open for exploitation, that is their choice. Guys like you and Tant are for exploiting people. I have no problem with their choice, but I have a problem with yours. Exploitation in this context is very simple: a developing country's people live in conditions that do not have parity with ours. That is why their money is valued so much lower than ours. That is why an ass fuck is 20 times cheaper there than it is here. That is why they would more likely risk their health than a prostitute here, on average. Yes, you do give them a better life because you spend your big Canadian dollars over there, and yes, they would benefit from it. They would benefit from being exploited. That doesn't take away the fact that you are exploiting them nevertheless. And when Tant talks about "respect", its a total joke because you can't even begin to respect anyone you knowingly are exploiting - even if you are saving them from poverty. Taking his and your principle to its ultimate ends, you would of course have no problem in the organ trade as well. Why not be a organ trade dealer? Hell, there's money to be made, they'd be fabulously rich (by Thai standards of course) selling a kidney and you'd profit handsomely from it. President Somoza became fabulously wealthy and retired in Florida because he sold blood from his citizens of Nicaragua. The citizens got a better standard of living, American hospitals got cheap blood, and he profited well from it. The citizens weren't forced to give blood, so it was their choice. So according to you, that wouldn't be exploitation because its the same principle you work under. What's the difference between what you advocate and what an organ dealer does?
As regards the example of the organ trade, I have questions as to the status of its legality and morality. OTOH my involvement in the adult sex trade in Thailand is legal in practice, if not in law also, and I find nothing inherently immoral about it.
IMO in both cases the variables in the circumstances of the situation would determine if its exploitation or not.
But putting those matters aside, and assuming the organ trade were both legal and moral, does profiting from it necessarily mean there is “exploitation” occurring? What if a fair price is given for the kidney? What if it was you or a loved one whose life depended on receiving an organ?
In Bangkok if a 25 year old attractive female freelancer and I agree to $30 for a one hour session, this is a fair price according to the local Westerner market there. To her it may seem more than fair, even almost like a dream come true. We are both happy with it & benefit.
It isn’t my fault that I was born in a relatively rich country or that few Thai men could afford the price I pay her. I also have to pay a relative fortune to that $30 just to get to her country.
Moreover if those such as I were not there & she offered her body to Thai men, she’ld likely receive substantially less, especially since she is probably of those whose looks & darker skin colour are not favored by her own people. Failing that she may end up unemployed or in a much lower paying job.
I see no reason why I couldn’t “respect” such a Thai freelancer or independent just as a Canadian SP. Even according to your definition, since in my view I am not “knowingly…exploiting” her. Nor do i see it as exploitation any more than a Canadian going for reduced shopping prices in the USA.
Just because I pay her $30 and the Canadian SP 2-10 times that amount does not mean she is worth less. The difference in price is compensated by the greater purchasing value a dollar has in Thailand. So, in essence, I am paying them both roughly the same.
As to Thai prostitutes being more likely to risk their health, is this just a guess, theory or based on some research, studies, evidence or experiences? Even so, if that is the case, this does not necessarily mean that Westerners coerce them into it. The Thai SPs could do so because they themselves enjoy such behaviour and/or it is what they commonly practice in their own culture & with their BFs. Or, another theory would be to blame it on their culture training them to be submissive to and please the man. See the James Bond video below where (in the first 30 seconds) the Japanese man tells the younger Sean Connery that in his country men always come first and women second. Of course, BTW, Japan is not even a third world or developing nation.
"James Bond 007 You Only Live Twice Sexy Japanese Girls Sean Connery"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEvsviIYSQ
jesuschrist said:
It rubs me the wrong way too, but for a different exploitive reason. I liken it to when colonialists treated themselves to the natives of Africa or Asia or North America because their currency/wealth/assets made them all-powerful. The women already face economic asymmetry in their own nations, why face further humiliation from a foreigner? Exploitation is repulsive.
The following page, titled “Rationalizing Sexual Tourism: How Some Countries Benefit from Selling Sex”, mentions the same thing as you do about colonialism:
“Articles such as Graburn’s (1993) Tourism and Prostitution suggests the forced rape of a third world country by that of a first world country. Reinhardt’s (1989) German article compares sexual tourism to a new brand of colonialism. Overall’s (1992) article What’s Wrong with Prostitution? Evaluating Sex Work claims sex work is “defined by an intersection of capitalism and patriarchy.” (724)”
The author, apparently a female, goes on to state:
“By bringing wealth to a suffering country, I am suggesting that support for sexual tourism is best understood through the lens rational choice theory. The rational choice theory (often used in the language of economics) states that human beings are rational beings, and will choose their rationalized behavior by using a cost benefit analysis. Choices will therefore be made in the person’s best interest, that which will benefit the person the most. Rational theorists also explain that as a nation, the state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good by enforcing fit laws. I argue here that it is rational for governments and government officials to support sexual tourism. In order to survive economically, nations and officials allow prostitution and sexual tourism to continue without prosecution.
“…Most of the prostitutes interviewed in Fortaleza Brazil did not use prostitution as their sole means of income. The majority worked as hairdressers, waitresses, in retail, or were University students. They said they “dated” foreigners because the men were wealthy and generous and they had a chance of marrying the foreigner and leaving Brazil.”
http://www.studentpulse.com/article...m-how-some-countries-benefit-from-selling-sex
As to their “economic assymetry”, why would those ladies who choose to be SP’s in Thailand “face further humiliation from a foreigner”? Are you suggesting the global profession of sex work is inherintly humiliating? Would it be less humiliating to slave in the rice fields & remain extremely poor?
One author claims re prostitution in Siam:
“It does not carry the same social stigma as it does in the west. Thailand was never colonized, and never had that repressed Puritan/Christian ethic forced into it's culture. The Thai's, in many ways see a man using his strong back or brain, to earn a living, to keep his family, as not much different than a woman using her looks.”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=592860
"Sex work is the job where I can earn more than any other job open to me. I don't have to have start-up capital or educational qualifications, and it's much more interesting too." Lek, research leader, sex worker, Empower Chiang Mai" [p.10]”
http://www.chezstella.org/stella/Hit-and-Run-RATSW.pdf
