"All types of stalls including clothes,
counterfeit goods and food stalls will
be banned from main city roads"
- Wanlop Suwandee, a chief advisor to
Bangkok's governor, told AFP.
Based on this statement, it's not nearly as bad as we'd expect, since most of Bangkok's street food are not on the main city roads, but rather on smaller streets. When I visited, vendors most often were situated in side streets coming off the main streets, or near transport hubs like the river ferry stations.
Completely ridiculous of course since street food is super delicious, affordable and remains one of Bangkok's biggest attractions. Hopefully this move doesn't spread to all of Bangkok, but who knows.
The food won't disappear as long as there is a demand for it. In all likelihood Singapore-like hawker stalls and hawker centres will crop up and replace them, with the same set of offerings.
It will be a pity because of temporary loss of jobs and the emotional attachment to street food, but I imagine over time it will all end in better sanitation and less disposable waste.
Half the food stalls I visited were off of Rama IV rd near Lunphini - sounds like they're likely to be shut down. There's not nearly enough room on the narrow side streets for people to set up and allow for the vehicle traffic. I'm planning to visit next year or late this year, I hope it's not too bad.
That would be seriously considered in a European city.
But a European city would never let Asian style markets occur, because it would involve letting poor people sell food on the street without regulation or tax.
There are people selling food from vehicles or similar in many European cities.
They need a licence.
I once reported the man selling ice cream from the street outside my office for leaving his engine running, the fumes were coming inside our office. The police arrested him, and siezed the vehicle, since it turned out he didn't have a license, and had previously been given a warning.
There was a locked plug socket on the base of a lamppost outside, and a very small sign saying it was for the use of the street food trader.
I asked the trader to use the socket, rather than his engine, since the diesel fumes were coming into our office, and the adjacent building was a primary school. He refused, so I reported him to the local council. They referred it to the police, since the van's number plate wasn't in their records.
Anecdotally, I get food poisoning more from eateries in the west proudly displaying their health and safety certs than I do from street stalls in east asia.
Morally, it's my own responsibility as a human being to decide whether to eat something or not.
And practically, it lowers the barrier of entry for people to actually make a living. Imagine your financial world came crashing down, you had almost no funds, couldn't get a job, and no social welfare. How long would you be able to start selling food off a cart with no license or business registration in a busy pedestrian area before the police shut you down?
Anecdotally, I have never had food poisoning in my life.
Morally, morals don't have much to do with this.
Practically, it's impossible for me to judge the sanitary conditions of a food stall. Or, if possible, it'd be wasteful for everyone to spend two hours checking everything instead of, as a society, organising a system where a trained professional does that for all of us.
Specifically, you would need to carry a thermometer to check both the refrigeration as well as hot storage. You'd want to take samples and send them to a lab for bacterial cultures. You need to check the employees' bathroom for soap and clean towels. Then, come back the next morning and check that they threw out leftovers that can't be kept overnight, and properly sealed and stored those that can. Make sure people, especially doctors, know your toll-free number to report incidents of food poisoning that may be linked to restaurants.
Let me reword the question. Are you actually getting food poisoning enough that you can say how often it happens in each place? Even as an anecdote, you need a bunch of data points to calculate a rate of food poisoning. (And if your answer is yes, why are you getting so much more food poisoning than others?)
An anecdote like "I only got food poisoning once and it was at X" works fine with one data point. But rates need several data points.
For what it's worth, a week of eating nothing but Bangkok street food left me feeling better than a week of eating in European or American restaurants. (X = ~32)
If you were eating the same kind of food in both places, it's a semi-decent proxy.
But most american/european restaurants are serving a completely different kind of food than bangkok street vendors. That's an enormous confounding factor, and how good you feel is quite likely from meal composition and unrelated to safety.
I'm actually teaching myself statistics right now, but it's early stages yet. Does "anecdote" have some formal meaning? I meant it in the sense of "here's my personal experience, that I have not quantified at all".
That sounds fine for a definition of anecdote. But I'm making an argument about the definition of "more often". Even when talking about personal experience, without real statistics, you need a certain amount of data before you can say anything about often-ness/rate.
If you're in a class, you will soon hear the overused phrase "The plural of anecdote is not data".
You can out-smartass them by replying "Actually, it is".
An anecdote is a single data point. It's usually dismissed for all sorts of reasons, many of them valid.
BUT: contrary to popular opinion, they can be interesting, or even significant, depending on your priors, the payoffs of different outcomes etc. It's become fashionable to repeat the lazy phrase above, similar to "correlation does not prove causation", or "a survey with n=<any number> is completely worthless".
Example: "I've never seen this tree before. I wonder if those fruits are edible" / "It's just an anecdote, but my father ate one of those, started throwing up 30min later, and died the same day".
> If you're in a class, you will soon hear the overused phrase "The plural of anecdote is not data".
> You can out-smartass them by replying "Actually, it is".
I don't think it is. The plural of anecdote is probably something more like "a lot of single points without any care taken to correct for variables."
To get real data there needs to be a lot than just more anecdotes. There needs to be careful measurement, followed by correction for a lot of other factors.
Here's one example:
"I've never seen this tree before. I wonder if those fruits are edible"
"It's just an anecdote, but my father ate one of those, started throwing up 30min later, and died the same day."
"What did he do before that?"
"Oh, he swam the dirty river, then started playing with that striped snake over there. He was a brave man, what with his heart problems and the cancer."
Someone drops dead right after eating a strange fruit. Maybe they had heart disease and coincidentally died right after eating said fruit, but it's far more likely that the fruit had something to do with it. This is a perfectly statistically valid assumption, given that the vast majority of plants are toxic.
Once you live in a bayesian universe, every anecdote is data. Every data point might be incorrect; that's a given. The "plural of anecdote" line is just a particularly rigid way of frequentist thinking.
(Short video with Richard Feynman)... tl;dv - it's very hard to know something and you have to be really careful that you've done the work and aren't just deluding yourself.
Or, to put it differently - every anecdote is really only a data point if you understand what exactly it's measuring and what has been excluded. If you haven't taken the care necessary, then it's very easy to draw false conclusions. People are really bad witnesses and really bad at seeing what is and isn't given in the information they think they have - particularly if the anecdote is time-shifted from the point it was taken.
I completely agree (and said in my post) that any single anecdote can come with all sorts of problems.
I just believe there are too many people repeating such criticism thinking it'll make them sound smart, when in reality, they wouldn't be able to function if they didn't trust single data points almost all of the time.
Most of these occasions don't appear to be "trials" to us, but they actually are. Examples:
- "I really enjoyed that restaurant and will go back there soon"
- "Don't take a taxi from the airport! The train is much cheaper and the taxi driver just ripped me off"
- "The Hitchhikers' Guide is a great book–I should read another one by Douglas Adams".
-...
All these are essentially statistical trials with n=1. What makes single experiences in these cases possibly relevant is (among other things) our believe in the low variability of what we're measuring: A restaurant's quality doesn't usually change dramatically from one day to the next etc...
Then, there are more complex examples, where learning from n=1 is slightly more dubious, but without alternatives: "Don't start a land war in Eurasia", or the other German saying: "It happened, therefore it can happen again". On a more personal level, we all have to learn an awful lot about human relationships from a very limited set of experiences.
Now imagine your financial world crashes down, so you make a loan at the bank with heavy interest and open a small noodle shop in an alley, which is the last chance to save your family from going homeless.
And then on Day 2 you find five food stalls blocking your store...
Edit: Also do you think people selling food in a busiest street are not being regulated? It's a prized spot, and these guys are professionals. Chances are that it's being regulated. Just not by the police.
And the "tax" they pay for the privilege of operating there isn't being used to, say, build a better road.
Most of them are in front of grocers and markets. They make food, sometimes pay for the access to the stream of people, and generally make it a better market - or they're friends with the owners of the market. That's my impression at least - I'll ask some local friends.
Never seen any food stalls outside a restaurant unless it's a very very busy street.
Granted I've never done a complete analysis of where all food carts are located but a few places that spring to mind.
Suk Soi 8 - In front of 7-11 but also across from a restaurant
Suk Soi 5 - In front of several restaurants
Suk Soi 7 - In front of several restaurants
Suk Soi 11 - In front of several restaurants
I could name tons of more obscure places that I remember eating at but the above are pretty well known to most tourists and expats.
They are not friends of the local business owners. They pay the police for the space. That's why every time they have one of these street vendor crackdowns mandated by the big boys at the top of the food chain the shops usually pop back up in a week or two once the heat is off. Police can't stand not getting paid their rightful bribes.
Does anyone really think that all of those store owners right on lower Sukhumvit (between Soi 5 and Asoke) want people selling dildos in front of their shops? Viagra pills, bootleg DVDs, etc?
Literally, I have photos of cops sitting there having lunch with these street merchants (Soi 15'ish area) with dildos and fake viagra sitting on the same table they're eating off of. Guess who that street vendor is friends with? Who's the store owner going to complain to? Nobody if they value their health.
Alas those photos will never see the light of day for much the same reason.
Most tax a government extorts from you isn't being used to build a better road either.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't generalise all asian food stall markets. Thailand is quite a poor and corrupt country AFAIK. I have no idea how someone gets a space for their cart in Bangkok. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know more about how it works there than I do.
Full disclosure: I have no idea how it works in Bangkok. I'm extrapolating from what I learned in Seoul.
However, I'd be surprised if getting a profitable spot for one's cart doesn't involve a lot of "connections" and occasional show of force. After all, there are many more people who are willing to use these spots. If government isn't protecting the "owners" via property rights, someone else is doing the job. (It could be the merchants themselves. Whether that's desirable is left for the readers to decide.)
Fwiw, I found that Thai culture seems to have a very palpable avoidance of aggression and violence. (Buddhist thing?)
I'm not naive enough to assume this trumps economic struggle, but I will say I was surprised that a lot of things you see elsewhere in tourist areas aren't prevalent in Thailand. E.g. bag snatching, mugging, etc.
Though not as far as Japan's "Excuse me sir, you left your wallet at the restaurant 30 minutes ago. Apologies that it took me this long to catch up with you on the subway and return it."
The avoidance of aggression and violence has to do with "saving face". People who act aggresive in public "lose face" and thereby the respect of the public. The concept is more or less explained here: https://www.pattayaunlimited.com/thailand-land-of-face/
When visiting Thailand, even if some Thai person mistreats you (e.g. perhaps a tuktuk driver overcharges you), always try to act friendly (don't act angry in public). Try to resolve problems while keeping a smile. If you can't resolve problems this way, just go with the flow. This is a good way to avoid problems.
I don't think that anybody is saying that inspections are detrimental to food safety; I think that we're saying that a lack of regulations is not markedly detrimental to food safety.
None at all. Quite frankly, even if the data showed the opposite on that point I wouldn't change my opinion. The last two points are much more important.
Yes but...BK is really big; it doesn't feel like a European city so much as it feels like NYC or even LA. I just can't see vehicle being blocked off, also it rains heavily a lot, which might cause other problems.
Bangkok's the same size as London, both in area and population.
London doesn't have many pedestrian streets, but there are plenty of barriers to traffic which still allow pedestrians to pass, and campaigns to make more streets pedestrian-only.
I would guess London has much better public transport, so people no need to use cars/motorbikes like in Bangkok, so the roads are not that necessary in London and can be assigned to pedestrians, while Skytrain in BKK is joke and only real alternative are river and canal express
tuktuk is expensive joke, pretty much on par with airconditioned taxi without inhaling exhaust smog and safe, both of them are in the end stucked in traffic jam, no matter that tuktuk is smaller
you must get of the roads not to be stucked in traffic unles you use (moto)bike, it's shame they canceled Bangkok green bike, used to bike using them long time ago, but was disapointed years ago when I found project was cancelled
Same in SF and LA where you can split lanes in traffic and use the carpool lanes. If you want to risk it the motorcycle is the fastest way around, even across the bridges.
There are a ton of pedestrian only areas in NYC - Fulton Street, the Greenway, 33rd in the summer, etc. Most of them people don't realize used to be streets, like Diversity Plaza in JH. The full list is here (PDF warning): http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/list-of-plazas.pdf
I went looking on fancy new google earth. Found some around the area.
Completely unrelated, but is it my imagination or do the concrete poles that all the telco cabling ride on flex under the weight??
https://goo.gl/0wv8Hh (sorry chrome only in fancy new google earth.. now I feel like a jerk)
I'd guess that all the small stalls along the street will be banned, but there is a larger market into the street/alley. Note the pricing - many full meals in the more "permanent" stalls are 35-40 baht, which comes to $1-$1.15.
I even have a book standing behind me "Bangkok street food".
In Bangkok I loved "that eat small things all day" attitude. Some Satay here, a fruit shake there, some pork with rice, here you go, and then some Pad Thai... Ooh, nice.
I guess it's mostly a tourist or short term resident thing, because as someone who has lived in Thailand for 15 years I find the street food vendors largely a menace. They block the sidewalks, forcing you to walk in the street to get around them, which leads to worse traffic problems on the small and poorly planned streets. They are filthy, washing plates in tubs on the sidewalk with the runoff going over the sidewalk and into the street. And the quality of the food is generally pretty poor - there are some gems but if you don't know which ones you are more likely to get some really low quality stuff. Enjoy your "pad grapao moo" with lots of chuncks of gristle and bone chips in it.
Agreed 100%. I know of a few winners. Places I'll go out of my way to visit. But most of them serve garbage to dumb tourists thinking they're having an authentic Thai experience and locals too poor to care about the quality.
I can't help at laugh at the people who freak out over a hair in their food back home but gladly sit there and eat off plates that have been washed in a tub of dirty water. Or the locals who think they're being clean and taking a tissue and wiping their utensils before eating. Believe me, the stuff you should be afraid of does not wipe off with a piece of toilet paper (aka Thai napkin).
And I have the same answer every time they have one of these crackdowns and someone bemoans the plight of the poor Thai person just trying to make a living. Thais have a knack for killing things. A few food stalls would go mostly unnoticed. Instead, they slowly consume the entire sidewalk. And then they spill out onto the street. They become hazardous to both pedestrian and vehicles. And because there's so much competition, they go to increasingly annoying lengths to get customers.
I've seen people get clipped by motorbikes walking off of the sidewalk into the street because the vendors have completely blocked the sidewalk. Screw the street vendors. How about a little sympathy for the people almost getting killed so someone can sell some fish balls?
I agree here. Most food stands are very dirty and attract a lot of cockroaches and rats. I personally would never eat there and have met my fair share of tourists who ended up with a bad case of food poisoning.
There are some cleaner exceptions though that I'm sad to see go, especially in areas known for their street food, but if it makes Bangkok less dirty and easier to walk around, I'm all for it.
Currently living in Bangkok and it's already quite noticeable the changes since mid-2015 when I was last here. Sukhumvit Road, one of the main streets, has a fraction of the street vendors today compared to 2015. The further away you get from the popular/touristy parts of town, the less affected it is. However, between these recent changes and the ever increasing number of lots being turned into construction sites for new condos, Bangkok is rapidly changing and its famous street food scene is suffering.
If it were limited to major streets like Sukhumvit, that would be one thing. It can be impossible to squeeze down some of those blocks — especially if you're carrying your bags, having just landed, and trying to get to your room.
I don't think it is, though, and that makes me sad. BKK street cart food is some of the most amazing stuff I've ever eaten.
Misleading title. Should be "Bangkok plans to ban all street food ON MAJOR CITY STREETS by year′s end." Big, big difference. As it stands, it's linkbait.
The question is where else are merchants going to go? Many of them been selling there for years (decade isn't unusual)
The stupid military gov doesn't care any civilian's issue generally. They don't really have a solid plan on how those merchants going to do next. Let them figure out alone.
They are unlikely able to just go home. I mean their hometown as you know THE dream city is here, it is just not evenly distributed to anywhere else in the country.
It is not a trivial problem for long-term (not too long for the technical debts you have to pay though) We pay tax and hope those genius politicians (Wanlop Suwandee, he holds a Ph.D.) can help citizen but nope.
In Singapore and Hong Kong, street hawkers were corralled into hawker centres, which kept the amazing food culture alive and solved the hygiene and sanitation problems as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_centre
However, it's hard to see Thailand's shambolic junta pulling off such a move, and there's no space for them anyway. (In Singapore and HK, most hawker centres were built as part of massive public housing projects.)
I live in Singapore and even within the past years there has been a clear shift in cuisine as hawker centres become homogenized. Long ago the street vendors were shifted into groups under permanent roofs. But over time the areas under those roofs became standardized like shipping containers and now most of the kitchens are exactly the same size. This limits diversity because there can no longer be an auntie selling tiny packets of whatever for $1 from a cart. Centralization also gave rise to food type quotas, so if there are three chicken rice shops in one area you may not be allowed to open another.
Hawker centres do enable an amazing food culture, but at a price. Bangkok has them too, just not exclusively.
>"This limits diversity because there can no longer be an auntie selling tiny packets of whatever for $1 from a cart. Centralization also gave rise to food type quotas, so if there are three chicken rice shops in one area you may not be allowed to open another."
Wow. That's really sad. It it exactly fits my impression of Singapore (at least from its stereotype as seen from Taiwan). The hawker food is great and especially the Indian/Chinese/Western fusion foods were a treat, but it would be a better city if it also had a nightmarket where that auntie could sell from her cart.
There's definitely a happy spot between unmonitored, unsafe street foods and 100% central control stamping out not only the unsanitary but also the variety.
I found Hawker centers in HK way dirtier than eating in the street in Bangkok :P and waaaaaay worse food...
In Singapore was OK but like the rest of the city everything feels too clean and boring!
Bangkok has already Hawker centers but its a totally different experience (complementary).
I really love the smells, the lighting, busy things happening all the time around me, and feeling so casual while eating in the street... :)
I live in one area where they recently banned street vendor (Sukhumvit side of Onnut Rd). No, they didn't go away, instead they're now in a sub-Soi rather than on the main street. Some choose to rent a space at nearby market. Also street vendor on the setback space of the building is still allowed (as long as the building owner is OK with it).
Personally as someone who actually lives here, I'm very happy with the ban, at least from what I see in the Onnut area. Walking from home to train station is no longer 10 minutes torture of trying to evade stalls and people trying to buy from stalls, no more weird water splash, no more trash loitering and no need to walk on the road because the sidewalk is occupied. And those who do want to enjoy street food can still go into smaller Soi or nearby bazaar and look for them.
Vietnam is doing a scaled down version of this in Saigon.
They've been clearing the sidewalks in District 1 for a few months. Not only booting street vendors but sometimes even ripping out construction that was built on top of the sidewalks.
We call it Vinapore, Vietnam's sad attempt at becoming Singapore II.
That's a real shame - I basically only ate street food in Vietnam, the one time we ventured into fancy-ish looking restaurant we were pretty underwhelmed
You can imagine that street food doesn't earn both the vendor and the state a lot of money. Every country wants to climb the socio-economic ladder. And part of that is moving to higher end service industry with larger profit margins.
Removing semi-illegal street food trucks that operate without abiding by food safety laws, pay taxes (?) or invest in the local community by buying a building, hiring a staff etc...
Without this, decent restaurants don't stand a chance. And in the long run, that is bad for the people living in bangkok.
I imagine the GDP of Singapore (USD 53,000) looks pretty good compared to Vietnam's USD 2,163. Being less exotic to tourists might be something they are able to live with.
My first passenger-friend is from Thailand. When I first mentioned her in a blog post, I didn't realize she was going to call me back. She says her home country is sort of fucked-up. The Thai king who recently passed away was an engineer who helped bring his country into the modern world... I wonder if his son will be as competent a leader.
The son, and new king, Vajiralongkorn is one of those classic fuck-ups only wealth, royalty, and inbreeding could produce. I don't have high hopes here. He's already abused his powers and has made a mockery of his station:
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.
I know that this is out of place for HN, and I also would not normally make fun of a person's appearance, but since Vajiralongkorn is an asshole... well, these are pictures of the new Thai king:
Thailand as a whole is just bizzare to me. They have a ton of national pride and insulting the king is a huge offense there, yet on the other hand, they have no problem with their seedy sex tourism industry. Thailand is arguably the sex tourist capital of the world.
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.
It's not that the Thai people have no problem with the sex trade. Many do. The Thai I've spoken about it with — some of whom have themselves worked in, or have family in the sex trade — have consistently less sanguine attitudes than you seem to think.
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.
I get the sex-positive arguments for legal prostitution, but I think it's worth comparing Thailand's red-light scene with other countries like Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic, Australia, even the US in places where prostitution is legalized. Compared to these countries, Thailand's sex tourism scene seems far more seedy and exploitive. The the racial and economic aspects of it are especially alarming.
> 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).
> 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.
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.
How do you define "okay with it"? I think you're purely looking at the it from an economic exchange / personal "consent" perspective, and removed from any sort of greater societal or economic context.
> 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.
> No, what's creepy are the flocks of western men who travel each year to southeast asia for sex.
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.
You clearly don't live in SEA. These girls are frequently abused by the shithead white supremacists that come here in droves. They wouldn't choose this arrangement if they had any other decent options on the table. Exactly how much time have you spent in SEA? Do you speak a native language of one of these countries? How many prostitutes in these countries have you talked to about this? I live in Cambodia, and you are either deeply unaware of what's going on or you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
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.
Yes this is the point I'm trying to make. Anyone who has ever traveled in SE Asia - even to just the most touristy of sites - cannot avoid the rampant sex tourism. It's literally everywhere and frankly none of the sexpats have any shame about it. As I've argued already, it's absolutely _disgusting_.
Okay, I'll bite. I've lived in Thailand and I speak okay Thai.
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.
> They wouldn't choose this arrangement if they had any other decent options on the table.
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.
> 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.
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.
> You don't need to explicitly visit the red light district in Thailand
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.
You keep on projecting. I never once stated that I visited any red-light districts, I just made the comparison and you automatically assumed.
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?
> I never once stated that I visited any red-light districts
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)."
> 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).
You're really obsessed with projecting your own sexpatism onto me, to the point where you are parsing what I'm saying to the most literal sense in order to paint the picture you have in your head.
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"?
> Instead of arguing the topic, you keep on shifting the argument to ad hominem attacks.
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.
Ah, gotcha. Only young, slim, pretty blokes should be allowed to pay for sex. Old, fat, or ugly blokes having sex is disgusting and they should be shamed into stopping it.
> Compared to these countries, Thailand's sex tourism scene seems far more seedy and exploitive.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
It's curious to me because Thais tend to be very nationalistic and proud of their country/culture/heritage.
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).
>there is definitely some degree of exploitation at play, just given the exchange rate alone.
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.
You're ignoring the context. I don't have any hard numbers, but many of these girls started working as prostitutes when they were children, out of force or total desperation. They get raped by the cops here, they get abused by their "boyfriends", they're frequently addicted to drugs and don't have any other options. Please come to Cambodia or Thailand and talk to some of these girls. It is usually not a pleasant existence. By all means legalize prostitution, but let's not pretend that, in SEA's current state, this is female empowerment or something.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. In Thailand the girls you see in the go-go bars in Nana and Cowboy or down in Pattaya have not been forced into anything. You know nothing about what you're talking about.
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.
When prostitution is illegal, they are not able to receive the protection of society and the police. They are not able (or are 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.
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.
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?
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'.
Making it illegal harms female autonomy. They become victims of their pimps. Pimping is much harder to prove than prostitution. When it is illegal, it is usually the women who are hurt by it.
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.
We could also call regulation and safety laws gendered because statistically men work more often in unsafe and dangerous environments.
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.
> We could also call regulation and safety laws gendered because statistically men work more often in unsafe and dangerous environments.
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.
As long as it is mutual consent, I don't see a problem about it. Also without that mai pen rai atmosphere TH would turn into another Laos/Vietnam and those countries are just sad.
Without the mai pen rai attitude you might have more people understanding why the police will be enforcing seat belt laws rather than demanding to be allowed to ride in the tray of a pickup truck.
These are friends who I met because they ordered a taxi and they got me as their driver. One of them knocked on my window when he needed a ride home from work. The other 3 called me back after their first ride because they liked my style. I haven't posted anything about most of them... I intend to write a book, but the last chapter is still a work in progress.
Please don't think the previous king is clean. We've been fucked up for almost a century once the monarchy power rises again after Siamese Revolution of 1932. He.. is the one behind a couple big civilian kills. One of the saddest ones is Thammasat massacre on 1976 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOCoecsm27o)
The beauty about street food in Bangkok is the people. I visited Bangkok recently [1], and absolutely loved the place. Most of the street vendors were warm, welcoming and showed genuine interest in the food that we liked rather than being touristy rip offs. Definitely would recommend visiting Khao San, Chao Phraya and the usual suspect places of Bangkok.
One more thing: If you're there, try the coconut ice cream, available in plenty around Chao Phraya. Such a delight.
If this helps to reduce the incidence of food poisoning, I'm all for it. A friend working in my office was there last winter, and their 1,5yo son returned with a chronic clostridia infection. Multiple rounds of antibiotics were needed for him to stop losing weight, and the damage done to his microbiome will likely be permanent. His parents had the usual food poisoning symptoms and were done with it within a few days.
It won't, rule 1 for travelling in that part of the world is to walk past the nice looking but empty restaurants and head straight to the street stall where the locals are eating. The food in the street stall hasn't had time to go off because it was probably brought fresh that day, the food in the back of the restaurant might have been sitting there for far too long waiting for a customer to order it.
My wife and I spent 9 weeks in SE Asia. The only time I got sick was trying Indian food in an empty restaraunt in Chiang Mai. Since then the rules have been "no empty restaurants" and "try to eat where the locals are eating".
+1. Spent a year and a half in Thailand working in local offices well off the tourist path and devouring everything in sight. Only got sick once... at an overpriced but nicely decorated tourist trap in Ko Samui.
> If this helps to reduce the incidence of food poisoning, I'm all for it.
I can think of no reason it would? Why?
Street vendors obviously use food from the markets quickly and should learn from their mistakes on a smaller percent of people.
Forcing people to eat at home means they'll have food bought from the same markets sitting around for longer, less equipment and without any experience on unusual occurrences.
And I'm not sure why educated adults should be denied the amazing experience of street food in any case.
Plus I'd be guessing the child got that from a restaurant, assuming they are tourists this is where most get sick from in my experience (generally I find the less adventurous are the ones who tend to get sick)
Just arrived from a one year trip in SE Asia with my girlfriend and we never got sick :/
Its normal that a 1.5yo gets sick there... like in any other place of the world if you still dont have your immune system working...
If you get a kid living in a sterile place where the immune system cannot learn about "the bad things" and you take it to a more alive place is normal that the kid gets sick!
Well the whole family had classical food poisoning, so in that case it's got nothing to do with the son's immune system. Yes perhaps his microbiome was not stable.
Fresh washed fruit and vegetables from groceries? Sit down restaurants in malls? Any sit down restaurant. The hotel diner? Even McDonalds.
Small children have different diets than adults and are known to be sensitive. It's like your complaining about how non-smooth the sidewalks there are for strollers, how the R-rated movie they went to psychologically scarred their child, how their child had a really bad time with the typical spice level of thai food. It was negligent of them to feed their kid street food, but it isn't a reason to ban it.
spent almost half year in Thailand, had food poisoning once when I ate something which didn't look froms tall which looked odd already at that time, every other time I had at worst average experience, but mostly just enjoying tasty food
it should be mentioned that I use a lot of spicy and provided chillies, which may make difference with burning bacteria
Charm in this case is a large part of the draw for tourism to Bangkok. Regardless of that issue though, how are they going to feed everyone? When I was there the few restaurants that were in buildings had space for only a handful of people at a time and were all specialized in food that took much longer than the street vendors. Its not like bangkok has a lot of space in its buildings to suddenly allow for an influx of restaurants.
There's actually quite a lot of food courts all over the place. However, it is quite easy to miss those as they are not so much in your face as the food stalls.
I'd say for the better. The prices are still pretty low and the food quality/diversity is high, with the upside that all the stalls have to pass inspection, etc.
My first overseas solo trip was to Thailand, and I had so much awesome street food, guess they are trying to change the perception of Bangkok. I wonder what will happen to khaosan? If they killed the street they would be losing a lot tourism money since it's pretty much regarded as the most popular backpacker street in asia/the world.
Khao san doesn't have that much street food though, a couple of stalls here and there towards the end of the night. I haven't heard anyone going there for food.
well, then just hop on bus and in short time you are in Kanchanaburi, where you can enjoy great food in night market next to train station each evening
though I would be sad missing my favorite night stall in street parallel north with KSR at the eastern corner next to 7-eleven in the evening (you can pick few toppings together with rice for very low price and very tasty, also northeast from 7-eleven always great banana pancakes), but there is also great restaurant in western part of same street, can be recognized by warning that you have to pay for outside drinks, that's proper restaurant with great curry
Bangkok is (used to be??) perhaps my favourite city in the world.
Is Kuala Lumpur more hygienic? You bet. Is there more 'order'? For sure.
Guess what! Kuala Lumpur is not in my top 10. Maybe not even top 20.
If I want order and hygiene, I go to Singapore, which is tied for the top spot on my favourite city list.
Bangkok is so charming because... it's Bangkok. Change that drastically (for example by imposing 'order and hygiene') and you get something like a watered down Kuala Lumpur.
I stayed in both for extended periods of time many many times and Bangkok was love at first sight, though it get tiring after some time, KL not that much, but as for your hygiene comment I think they are pretty much on par, it's just that BKK is significantly bigger city so it might look a bit dirtier but in reality KL for its size is also pretty dirty despite being richer
though I would take nowadays Georgetown over both of them and maybe dare even to say I would prefer Kanchanaburi over Bangkok, their night market next to train station is amazing, went there for every dinner always when visiting, somehow I got tired of these bigger Asian cities and can enjoy the small as well (this coming from someone who lived in 20mil Beijing for years, so KL is pretty much village like most of European capitals by population)
I agree. Bangkok is also one of my favorite places in the world. Because of the chaos, the heat, the street food and... Oh pretty much everything about it...
I haven't been to Bangkok in a few years, but when I was there I marveled at the number of people who seemed to eat at the street food vendors. It seemed that street vending was a vital part of how food was distributed in the city.
Most of it looked like stuff I didn't want to eat - although the people I was with enjoyed some toasted crickets from a street cart.
That said, anything that might improve traffic in Bangkok would be nice. Getting around there is a mess.
I've spent around six months living in and around Bangkok in 2008. when we were shooting a TV series there. Probably the only thing I miss the most about BKK is fruit stalls and fresh fruit and mango juice from it. Damn if it wasn't great. Weather was kind of crap though :)
I really regret not trying any of the street food when I visited Bangkok. However it was the jump off point for my honey moon, and I didn't want to risk getting sick before we headed south to the islands.
Hopefully there will still be some stalls the next time I visit.
I'm looking at travelling to Thailand this summer, we're looking at spending time in Phuket right now, but our plans are up in the air. Any recommendations on places to go or things to do?
I recently went and I think my favorite island was Koh Lanta. It is not super commercialized like Phuket and still absolutely beautiful. We rented a scooter and cruised around the whole island where we could pull up to any beach we wanted on our own time. Most of the southern beaches had maybe 1 or 2 people. There is also a really cool national park at the southern tip.
I would also recommend taking a day trip to Koh Phi Phi/Maya bay, however go very very early. It will get crowded quickly, but it is one of the most amazing places I've ever been too. I have never seen water that blue in my entire life. Highly recommend going snorkling there if you get a chance.
Another semi low-key spot we went to was Railay Beach/Ao Nang. It wasn't low-key as Koh Lanta but it was a lot of fun and not very commercialized.
We actually completely stayed away from Phuket other than flying into the airport. The above suggestions were all from some friends that lived there for a couple years and we had an absolute blast.
Avoid Phuket, Pattaya, Samui, eastern Ko Chang, Ko Lanta, etc.
what I can recommend is Ko Phangan if you want developed island but still not completely ruined by tourism, but if you really wanna enjoy small islands then check Ko Jum and Ko Chang on western coast, have fond memories of both of them, one of them has no cars, no power lines, actually maybe both, their quality of water ain't that amazing as some other islands but it's well compensated by relax
but personally my best experience from half year spent in Thailand on multiple visits was Mae Hong Son loop (preferable start in Pai), stunning landscapes to enjoy from seat of motorbike and also great relax around Pai, reserve at least week for that 700km loop, though it can be done in 4 stages but you don't want to rush especially in Pai
the oldest national park east from Bangkok is also quite nice, though it's better to go there during workdays when it's not flooded by all Bangkok, but you can find real jungle with leeches on your legs and get lost
my another favorite place is Kanchanaburi with great night market and nice daily motorbike trips to Hellfire pass with Death railway and other day Erawan waterfalls
actually the sea in Thailand ain't that special, if your eally are into amazing beaches then better go to Philippines or Indonesia
btw. summer is rainy season, better go there from november-april, in summer would be better to go to Perhentian Kecil on northeast coast of Malaysia, that's amazing place with pristine clear water, cheap diving, amazing life under water even with snorkelling including small sharks (not the dangerous ones) coming right to beach close to edge of water, plus on western coast you can head to food capital of world in Georgetown on Penang island plus enjoy Cameron Highlands with great trails for hiking in jungle or enjoying beautiful tea plantations plus touristy but pretty Melaka and diverse KL, both countries are great
The stalls around Nana are much more annoying than the street food. And loud motorbikes are about 10x times more annoying than any stalls. (Lived in town for few years)
