Bangkok Reports

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1913524]Actually if you will read the three laws / acts pertaining to prostitution you will find that it is a grey area and not specifically illegal per se.[/QUOTE]You don't have to mince your words. Laoman doesn't know what he is talking about.

Simple prostiution is not illegal in Thailand and the area is not grey at all. It is very clear in that respect. Certain behaviours related to prostitution are illegal and that may confuse people, but for lawyers the issue about the legality of prostitution [i]per se[/i] is clear and not "grey" at all.

By coincidence the Thai legal situation is not much dissimilar to the Belgian situation, so I know what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1913787]You don't have to mince your words. Laoman doesn't know what he is talking about.

Simple prostiution is not illegal in Thailand and the area is not grey at all. It is very clear in that respect. Certain behaviours related to prostitution are illegal and that may confuse people, but for lawyers the issue about the legality of prostitution [i]per se[/i] is clear and not "grey" at all.

By coincidence the Thai legal situation is not much dissimilar to the Belgian situation, so I know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]If not illegal, can you explain why girls run like hell on BeachRoad when a police raid, or just a team of 4 police officers are strolling along Beach Road. All girls disappear to the other side of the road. Maybe they are all wrong, who knows.

[QUOTE=Titanio;1913831]If not illegal, can you explain why girls run like hell on BeachRoad when a police raid, or just a team of 4 police officers are strolling along Beach Road. All girls disappear to the other side of the road. Maybe they are all wrong, who knows.[/QUOTE]The girls don't know anything about the legality / illegality of prostitution, but they DO know Thai cops. They move across the road for the same reason that, when I drive in Thailand, I have in the sun visor above me, /1/ my drivers license, /2/ my passports, and /3/ two 500 THB notes and one 1,000 THB note. I don't plan on doing anything illegal but I sure know Thai cops. TTG.

[QUOTE=Titanio;1913831]If not illegal, can you explain why girls run like hell on BeachRoad when a police raid, or just a team of 4 police officers are strolling along Beach Road. All girls disappear to the other side of the road. Maybe they are all wrong, who knows.[/QUOTE]Because being a public nuisance and solicitation is illegal. SW are soliciting and considered a nuisance.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1913787]You don't have to mince your words. Laoman doesn't know what he is talking about.

Simple prostiution is not illegal in Thailand and the area is not grey at all. It is very clear in that respect. Certain behaviours related to prostitution are illegal and that may confuse people, but for lawyers the issue about the legality of prostitution [i]per se[/i] is clear and not "grey" at all.

By coincidence the Thai legal situation is not much dissimilar to the Belgian situation, so I know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]There was a very good article in the BKK Post on Sunday that mentioned the three acts that refer to prostitution. Here is a link. Have a look a the section entitled, "Legal Minefield. ".

[URL]http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/special-reports/1043129/the-sex-workers-embraced-by-the-wrong-arms-of-the-law[/URL]

[QUOTE=Titanio;1913831]If not illegal, can you explain why girls run like hell on BeachRoad when a police raid, or just a team of 4 police officers are strolling along Beach Road. All girls disappear to the other side of the road. Maybe they are all wrong, who knows.[/QUOTE]Because soliciting in public and approaching men to propose their services, is one of these "behaviours" that are not legal and can be fined.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1913941]There was a very good article in the BKK Post on Sunday that mentioned the three acts that refer to prostitution. Here is a link. Have a look a the section entitled, "Legal Minefield. ".

[URL]http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/special-reports/1043129/the-sex-workers-embraced-by-the-wrong-arms-of-the-law[/URL][/QUOTE]The usual hodge-podge of journalistic drivel.

They start by talking about u_n_d_e_r_a_g_e prostitutes from Laos. U_n_d_e_r_a_g_e sex is of course illegal and non-Thai girls are not allowed to work in Thaiiland without a work-permit and obviously there are no work-permits for prostitution.

Then they mention police officers "entrapping" girls to obtain proof. Proof of what? One assumes "proof of prostitution" but actually it is simple proof of working without a work permit for those non-Thai girls. That's why they are simply "exported" again to Laos and not held on prostitution charges.

And they finish with the usual ill-informed mix-up of the three "prostitution laws".

Title IX, Section 286 of the Penal Code states:

[QUOTE]Any person, being over sixteen years of age, (sic) subsists on the earning of a prostitute, even if it is some part of her incomes (sic), shall be punished with imprisonment of seven to twenty years and fined of fourteen thousand to forty thousand Baht, or imprisonment for life.[/QUOTE]This is the usual definition and prohibition of pimping. If this was about prostitution itself, then the penalties in the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act which make certain "public" behaviours by prostitutes illegal and punishable by relatively small fines unnecessary. Why fine someone 1000 baht for soliciting in public when she can already be fined at least 14000 baht simply for being a prostitute?

The "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act" gives a definition of prostitution:

[QUOTE]Sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for money or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the person who commits the act are of the same sex or not.[/QUOTE]However, this law does not have any penalty for prostitution! That is where most comments are wrong. They read the definition and, wrongly, assume that there is a penalty attached to it. Read the law ([URL]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/46403/65063/E96THA01.htm[/URL]), there isn't! The penalties are attached to solicitation by a prostitute, to pimping, to exploiting a house of ill repute, . . .

Finally the "Entertainment Places Act" actually allows certain establishments to obtain a "licence" to provide special services, mainly understood to be of the "massage" type but stops just short of allowing actual sexual services. If the establishment is used for prostitution the owner is held liable and the prostitutes will be send to a "reform house" to learn a useful trade or occupation. This is [B]not[/B] a penalty but rather a measure of social support.

All clear now?

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1914000]
Title IX, Section 286 of the Penal Code states:

This is the usual definition and prohibition of pimping. If this was about prostitution itself, then the penalties in the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act which make certain "public" behaviours by prostitutes illegal and punishable by relatively small fines unnecessary. Why fine someone 1000 baht for soliciting in public when she can already be fined at least 14000 baht simply for being a prostitute?

The "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act" gives a definition of prostitution:

However, this law does not have any penalty for prostitution! That is where most comments are wrong. They read the definition and, wrongly, assume that there is a penalty attached to it. Read the law ([URL]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/46403/65063/E96THA01.htm[/URL]), there isn't! The penalties are attached to solicitation by a prostitute, to pimping, to exploiting a house of ill repute, . . .

Finally the "Entertainment Places Act" actually allows certain establishments to obtain a "licence" to provide special services, mainly understood to be of the "massage" type but stops just short of allowing actual sexual services. If the establishment is used for prostitution the owner is held liable and the prostitutes will be send to a "reform house" to learn a useful trade or occupation. This is [B]not[/B] a penalty but rather a measure of social support.

All clear now?[/QUOTE]That is about the finest explication of prostitution laws I have ever read, Wolvenvacht. Direct, well sourced, succinct, and no BS. That should put an end to this discussion once and for all. Thank you sir, and bravo.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1914000]The "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act" gives a definition of prostitution:

Sexual intercourse, or any other act, or the commission of any other act in order to gratify the sexual desire of another person in a promiscuous manner in return for money or any other benefit, irrespective of whether the person who accepts the act and the person who commits the act are of the same sex or not.[/QUOTE]I find the 'in return for money or any other benefit' clause both hilarious and frightening. *Any* other benefit? Really?! Uhh, that's like. . . 100% of all sexual interactions. Whenever sexual gratification is provided, there is *always* a quid pro quo. Sometimes it is monetary, sometimes it is dinner and a movie, sometimes it is an ego boost, sometimes it is status, sometimes it is marriage, etc. What a completely open-ended definition.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1914000]The usual hodge-podge of journalistic drivel.

They start by talking about u_n_d_e_r_a_g_e prostitutes from Laos. U_n_d_e_r_a_g_e sex is of course illegal and non-Thai girls are not allowed to work in Thaiiland without a work-permit and obviously there are no work-permits for prostitution.

Then they mention police officers "entrapping" girls to obtain proof. Proof of what? One assumes "proof of prostitution" but actually it is simple proof of working without a work permit for those non-Thai girls. That's why they are simply "exported" again to Laos and not held on prostitution charges.

And they finish with the usual ill-informed mix-up of the three "prostitution laws".

Title IX, Section 286 of the Penal Code states:

This is the usual definition and prohibition of pimping. If this was about prostitution itself, then the penalties in the Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act which make certain "public" behaviours by prostitutes illegal and punishable by relatively small fines unnecessary. Why fine someone 1000 baht for soliciting in public when she can already be fined at least 14000 baht simply for being a prostitute?

The "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act" gives a definition of prostitution:

However, this law does not have any penalty for prostitution! That is where most comments are wrong. They read the definition and, wrongly, assume that there is a penalty attached to it. Read the law ([URL]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/46403/65063/E96THA01.htm[/URL]), there isn't! The penalties are attached to solicitation by a prostitute, to pimping, to exploiting a house of ill repute, . . .

Finally the "Entertainment Places Act" actually allows certain establishments to obtain a "licence" to provide special services, mainly understood to be of the "massage" type but stops just short of allowing actual sexual services. If the establishment is used for prostitution the owner is held liable and the prostitutes will be send to a "reform house" to learn a useful trade or occupation. This is [B]not[/B] a penalty but rather a measure of social support.

All clear now?[/QUOTE]The laws are all very "Thai," meaning they are nebulous and open to interpretation. If you anger the wrong person, you will be done up. Keep your head down and don't bother anyone; you will be fine.

The massage shop that was raided on Silom did not have a massage license as I understand it. The authorities have stated that they will check other massage shops in September to make sure they have the appropriate license.

[QUOTE=Grrrr;1912874]Last night was Saturday night and instead of doing the usual rounds I went out on a date with a "good girl" as some here like to call them. Most of they guys that go for this type of girl probably do it either because they're looking for a girlfriend of some kind or are after sex without handing over $$ to a bargirl thereby justifying to themselves that they don't always pay for sex in Thailand. Due to the fact I do not live in Thailand and have in the past failed at long distance relationships I fell into the second catagory.

About 9 months ago I met Miss see on Tinder and messages shot back and forth until there was a meeting arranged, which due to circumstances did not end up happening at that time. Fast forward to last month and we eventually caught up over coffee. That went ok but probably a little stiff, like you were going out on your first date ever as a teenager.

Yesterday we got back in contact and arranged another date and it went well. We went for dinner to a restaurant she suggested, we drank a bottle of wine, several contails and had a good time talking before we called for the check. After that we went to a pub nearby and it was only on the walk over there that I realised that I was quite tipsy.

Inhibitions reduced things started to get hotter between us inside the pub where we played pool and drank a couple of beers. Despite us getting a little up close and personal I did not get the feel that she wanted to join me in my hotel. After maybe 2 hours I realised that although things were kind of moving in the right direction, Miss see had clearly had a lot to drink, me too, but I totally despise guys who take advantage of drunk girls on the premise that they were drunk too. I knew what I was doing and I said it was probably time we went home. Obviously if Miss see had suggested she come to my hotel I would have accepted, but I wasn't going to ask under circumstances.

Anyway I know I've rambled on here and some of you may have thought the moral of the story here is not to take advantage of drunk girls, it's not. The moral of the story is that if you are really looking for sex tonight then don't bother with a good girl, just take a hooker, it will save you time and money. With dinner, wine, coctails, beer etc I spent nearly 5 K last night and I slept alone.[/QUOTE]1. You chose to keep spending money. I'm assuming you paid for her tab as well. That's on you.

2. You bought alcohol and food willingly, so it's not like you wasted 5 k baht. Unless of course, you only enjoy sex like someone addicted to prositution and had no enjoyment from that night well. Then that would also be on you as well.

3. You chose not to make any attempt to take her home because she was drunk? Why would you get her drunk if you intended to take her home and that was a conflict for you?

You sound like a weak man who was played, and now is angry, and is telling everyone to not date women because he got used. Deal with yourself instead of giving advice to others.

[QUOTE=Kumbu;1913544]So you went to sleep with some heavy balls and a light wallet. It has happened to the best of us, and it has happened to me too. I did much the same thing back in 2007, and then again in 2009, and then once more in 2010. Each time it was slightly different, and I did end up bedding the lady once (2009). But predictably, it turned into a complicated soap opera, and I'm glad all that stuff is behind me now. But I have to say that despite ending up, like you, with the heavy balls at the end of the evening (in 2007 and 2010), there was a definite thrill to the whole thing. It's somewhere between P4 P and the real pursuit of a girl, and I think that's because we assume Thai women are somehow easier than western women. In any case, my point: even though it seems like a waste of money and waste of time, I think you probably did get something out of it.

Regardless, got to say, I'm loving your reports. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Kumbu,

I think you understand what I'm saying in these reports. Like you, I wish to entertain more than inform. A lot of what I write is somewhat tongue in cheek and I know you get that but it appears some here don't. Oh well, you can't please everybody.

In no way was I pissed off that I went home alone, in fact I probably needed it. What was written was an after the fact observation of what went on the night before. As this is a mongers forum it should be a given that that is one of the shared interests of all who participate here. My comparison between the cost of my date and the mongering we talk about on this forum was just to illustrate a point and to entertain in the process.

[QUOTE=ParkVille;1914095]1. You chose to keep spending money. I'm assuming you paid for her tab as well. That's on you.

2. You bought alcohol and food willingly, so it's not like you wasted 5 k baht. Unless of course, you only enjoy sex like someone addicted to prositution and had no enjoyment from that night well. Then that would also be on you as well.

3. You chose not to make any attempt to take her home because she was drunk? Why would you get her drunk if you intended to take her home and that was a conflict for you?

You sound like a weak man who was played, and now is angry, and is telling everyone to not date women because he got used. Deal with yourself instead of giving advice to others.[/QUOTE]ParkVille,

1. Yes I did. I have no problem with that.

2. I also understand that. It was a good night. It would be better that you don't make uninformed assumptions about me. You do not know me.

3. We did not intend to get drunk, that's what foolish teenagers set out to do. It just happened, and even then it wasn't staggering around or slurring our speech drunk. It was more like the fact that I am a gentleman who would never take advantage of a woman that wasn't completely with it. Maybe you would have done something different?

4. I am very definitely not a weak man, nor a stupid one such as yourself. Clearly you did not understand that I was making a light hearted comparison between mongering and dating a "good girl", if you did not understand this then that is your problem. Something you clearly lack the intelectual capacity for is understanding that as a monger forum ISG is precisely the place where I should be informing / entertaining / advising on this subject. If you can suggest a more appropriate forum I'd love to hear it.

And one final thing, FYI, in no way do I think I was played by the lady in question. We are still in regular contact and I'll see her again on the weekend.

Have a nice day 😀.

[QUOTE=ParkVille;1914095]1. You chose to keep spending money. I'm assuming you paid for her tab as well. That's on you.

2. You bought alcohol and food willingly, so it's not like you wasted 5 k baht. Unless of course, you only enjoy sex like someone addicted to prositution and had no enjoyment from that night well. Then that would also be on you as well.

3. You chose not to make any attempt to take her home because she was drunk? Why would you get her drunk if you intended to take her home and that was a conflict for you?

You sound like a weak man who was played, and now is angry, and is telling everyone to not date women because he got used. Deal with yourself instead of giving advice to others.[/QUOTE]I'm siding with Grrr on this one. When you take a girl out, you just go with the flow. If it feels right you go for it. In this case, it just did not feel right. I can totally relate. Who wants to deal with a drunk Thai girl just to get sex. On the other hand, we all want to have fun on these dates. If all you want is a quick hook up, go to a massage shop, those to scenarios cannot be compared. Clearly Grrr wanted to enjoy a night out with a lovely Thai girl. Simple and end of story. You my friend are way to intense and frankly I want to say that most Thai girls should stay away from you because they might be in danger. Just my two cents worth.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1914027]The laws are all very "Thai," meaning they are nebulous and open to interpretation.[/QUOTE]"Nebulous" being a property of Thai laws? I wish it were true, but unfortunately that is the case with many laws in most countries. Or how do you think us lawyers will keep making a living?

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1914027]If you anger the wrong person, you will be done up. Keep your head down and don't bother anyone; you will be fine.[/QUOTE]The best advice I've heard in a long time!

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1913936]Because being a public nuisance and solicitation is illegal. SW are soliciting and considered a nuisance.[/QUOTE]Okay, might be even a valid reason in the eyes of local police. TIT of course as I never feel it as a nuisance when walking on the seaside of beach road together with my GF. Even on a rare occasion that I walk there alone I do not feel hassled at all. On the contrary of walking on the pavement on the other side of the road with the continuous hassle of all BG's who try to lure you in into those awful waterholes. Not to speak about Soi 6. Very weird. But again. TIT.