Confusion

[sattahip-old]

The Moderator (all power to him) has closed a thread in which the conversation had turned to the perennial issue of age of consent for fear it would get out of hand (sic!).
I was keen to make a point and will do so here, I hope, without stirring the powers that be's ire.
There is no excuse for not obeying the law in the jurisdiction you are in, however peculiar that law(s) may be, but it would be silly to mistake those laws for necessarily having any sound basis.
There was a lot of huffing about someone taking "advantage" of 16 year olds thus breaking Thai law. I would point out that 16 is the age of consent in Australia and consent means exactly that and includes to right to consent to sexual relations with any partner regardless of sex, sexual preference, or AGE.
Let's not confuse the law and commonsense.

There is no excuse for not obeying the law in the jurisdiction you are in, however peculiar that law(s) may be
The writer, clearly, either never grew up in a jurisdiction when all gay sex was illegal, or if he did remained a virgin until the law was changed. That is a dictum I have never, ever followed. And that is not an "age of consent" issue - all gay sex was illegal in Britain for the hundred years since the Labouchere amendment in the late 19th century until gay male sex was decrimialized in the Sixties of the last century. That is true of many, many jurisdictions. Do you seriously believe that we all thought "there is no excuse for not obeying the law in the jurisdiction you are in"? What nonsense! :(

[sattahip-old]

Dearest Homintern,
Perhaps the confusion is contagious as I said there are no excuses for not obeying laws. How that can be segued to a hypothesis that I have not broken laws is beyond me. Still you managed to bridge the logic gap and slip in a bit of bitterness. Good for you you old coot.

There is no excuse for not obeying the law in the jurisdiction you are in, however peculiar that law(s) may be, but it would be silly to mistake those laws for necessarily having any sound basis.


I think that statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding of history, especially the history of social change. Many is the time that change in the law has been brought about by disobedience to the exisiting laws, such as the end of apartheid in Suth Africa, the abolition of slavery in USA, votes for women in UK.

[Hmmm]

In the original thread:
Sorry, but I don't think I have misread it. Check section 9 again:


Whoever procures, seduces, or takes away another person to commit
the act of prostitution, even with consent of such person, irrespective of whether the various
acts which constitute the offence are committed inside or outside the Kingdom, shall be
punished with imprisonment of one to ten years and a fine of twenty thousand to two
hundred thousand baht.

Since it seems this thread is being revived along less contentious lines, and is focussing on the law, let me correct what I believe is an important misunderstanding that was left hanging in the closed thread.

The clause in the 1996 Prostitution act that gwm4asian quotes above is in fact the "anti-trafficking" provision. That is, it prohibits the commercial 'procurement' by a brothel owner, or similar, of a human being for the purposes of prostitution. Hence the reference to acts performed outside the Kingdom.

I stand by the oft-confirmed explanation of the act - that prostitution with those over 18 is not illegal for the customer. That is what the government site says:
http://www.tatnews.org/tat_news/detail.asp?id=1484

Having said that, one only needs to see the mega-brothels - the size of small shopping centres - clearly visible on a number of main roads in Bagkok, to realize that adult prostitution is not REALLY illegal for the providers either.

The foreigner in the news article in question stands accused of forcing sex on minors UNDER THE AGE OF 13. In other words, pre-pubescent children. I don't think anyone here would consider this anything other than sick...but I could always be surprised. Billy?

[dab69]

wow if true this would be really abhorrent if they were forced two

as I said there are no excuses for not obeying laws

Except when a law infringes on a personal decision which only affects that person. This may not be a legal defence, but it is an excuse.


Hmmmm: one only needs to see the mega-brothels in Bagkok, to realize that adult prostitution is not REALLY illegal either.

It is illegal. It's just not widely enforced. If they wanted to prosecute, at any time, for any reason, they reserve the right.

[Hmmm]

If you're going to quote me, don't change my words. That IS illegal.

One only needs to see the mega-brothels - the size of small shopping centres - clearly visible on a number of main roads in Bagkok, to realize that adult prostitution is not REALLY illegal for the providers either.

It is illegal. It's just not widely enforced. If they wanted to prosecute, at any time, for any reason, they reserve the right.

There you go. I hope this makes you feel more accurately represented.