Stickman's guide to Bangkok Readers' Submissions
Son Of A Bitch
By Caveman
The purpose of this submission is to discuss the morality of paying/not paying for the upbringing of a child of a Thai bargirl that you impregnated. This must be prefaced by the caveat that it is always a case-by-case situation, and that it can therefore be problematic in concluding that it is either moral or immoral to refuse to pay for a child if a bargirl brings it to term. Although I heartily believe what I say here, it is just one man’s opinion.
Let’s take it from the lady’s vantage point going into it. OK, if I were a Thai lady considering working bar for the first time (already demonstrating questionable judgment), don’t you think it would be prudent to take precautions against pregnancy? In my mind, this would be one of the first considerations I’d have in my brain housing group if I were going to take a man between my legs for cash. Among countless other considerations the young, adorable, irresistible, fledgling bargirl should be dwelling upon, for the purposes of this particular discussion, since the lady is going to willingly allow the beef injection from untold numbers of strange males, she’d want to consider the following:
- precautions against pregnancy
- precautions against STDsIn both cases, this is facilitated by INSISTING that the punter use a condom. It must be stated that the punter is certainly STUPID for failing to use a condom in the first place and thereby invite the possibility that a manipulative bargirl might have an agenda which includes extorting the male for child support cash. However, stupidity does not necessarily equate to immorality. And since we’re talking individual responsibility here, there will always be varying opinions on the subject, with people pointing the finger every which way. Where does the buck stop on individual responsibility in THIS case? To me, this is a common sense issue. Since it is the WOMAN who is in danger of getting pregnant and voluntarily taking the man inside herself, prudence dictates that she be the one responsible for taking the necessary protective measures. To add fuel to the fire, she is the “professional” here, so she should take the precautions that a prudent professional should reasonably take. It’s not my fault or anybody else’s that humans and other animals were “made” that way. It just so happens that women are on the receiving end of sex. Mother Nature has designed things with the woman bearing the child. This is an inescapable fact. For this, and using the “reasonable man theory”, it is reasonable to assume that the woman has the primary responsibility to protect herself and has the POWER to decide whether a child will be the ultimate outcome of the transaction. Add to this the fact that the man is actually paying her for the service of using her birth canal as a receptacle for his pleasure (let us not forget that the lady has made the ADULT decision to allow this!), and it further behooves the young lady to take the necessary precautions. If she FAILS to take precautions that a reasonable person would take, how can you make the man responsible for the child? In all this, we’re assuming that neither party wanted the pregnancy to result.
Add to this the fact that the woman has plenty of opportunity to abort the child, and the scales of morality are tipped ever more toward the male. No one has a gun to the bargirl’s head making her bring the child to term. Abortions may not be pleasant, but are available in Thailand for pretty cheap. But now let’s scrape away the bullshit: if the lady knows for a fact that she does not have the means to support the child, then what on Earth are REALLY her motivations for allowing herself to become pregnant, and then actually bring the child to term? We know that many bargirls view “getting pregnant” as the near equivalent to hitting the lotto, because they can count on the sucker farang to shell out plenty of child support cash for a full 18 years, very little of which will go to the child. To me, this is where the immorality really lies. I’m quite certain that in a large number of cases, a bargirl’s motivations for bringing a child (conceived by sex with a customer) to term are purely monetary and extortion related. In cases where the bargirl seeks monetary gain as the primary reason for bringing the child to term, I can see no immorality on the part of the punter for a lack of willingness to pay for the consequent upbringing of the child. It all ties back to individual responsibility, the bargirl being responsible for her own decisions to:
- allow him to go bareback and enter her
- fail to use a contraceptive
- bring the child to term....i.e., not get an abortionThe argument that the child is also the male’s biologically, and therefore he has a moral responsibility, does not hold water. Yes, I understand that sex and having children go hand in hand. That’s the way it used to be, anyway. However, in today’s society, let’s face hard facts. Sex is now had EXCLUSIVELY for pleasure at least 99.999999% of the time, and not just in cases where the sex is paid for. Long gone are the days where sex was used for the sole purpose of conceiving a child, if they ever existed in the first place. Consider this: Outside of an established relationship, how many punters have sex with bargirls for the purpose of having a child with them? The answer is obviously “Zero”. It is assumed by both parties that the sex is purely for the gratification aspect. For the lady to allow herself to become pregnant as a result of the transaction, and then bring the child to term, is highly suspect and out of order in this circumstance. You might counter again with, “What about the responsibility of the punter? Should he not feel some sort of responsibility for the child since it is his biologically?” Personally, if it were ever to happen to me (this is nearly impossible because I NEVER go bareback) I would say “Yes”. Personally, I could never live with the fact that a child exists that is biologically mine that I’m not taking care of. I guess I’d try to find a way to either get sole custody, or fund the child’s upbringing without allowing it to benefit the whore who tried to extort me. However, I DO NOT hold others to my personal morality level in this case. It may be a gray area, but if you have no prior dealings with the bargirl, it is “assumed” (this is a big word here) that the lady has taken the necessary precautions so that a baby will not result from the sex. I mean, come one, she’s a bargirl (prostitute). Anything else would constitute entrapment of her customer. To claim otherwise seems ridiculous.
You can try to shame Dana all day long with laying the blame on him for not using a condom. You might think he’s the dumbest MF’er in the world (and so is SHE for letting him), but is he not paying the bargirl for the sex? Is he not, in fact, paying her for the privilege of NOT using the condom, even if this is not explicitly discussed? If a bargirl doesn’t want a man to enter her bareback, and unless he’s raping her, she’s got plenty of opportunity to make her preferences known. To allow him to screw her bareback is the equivalent of shouldering the responsibility for the outcome.
The situation with Thai bargirls does have some interesting peculiar ramifications. The fact that so many punters establish boyfriend / girlfriend relationships with bargirls lends an interesting twist to it all. With this in mind, if there were any agreements or discussions on the subject between the bargirl and the punter prior to the sex commencing, especially if they have established a relationship in the past, this might change things. For instance, if it was agreed upon prior to sex that the lady would NEVER get an abortion if she became pregnant, and the punter agreed to take care of a baby if it came to that, well, things might be different. However, there’s still the caveat that if the punter backs out on his promise, she can still abort! Prudence dictates that she should do this if the punter is unwilling to pay child support. Granted that the punter is a misleading, heartless fucking prick in this case, but she still has the chance to correct the situation and protect herself financially.
Of course the bargirl has every right to request the funds for an abortion from the punter if she can demonstrate that it was he who impregnated her. However, due to the fact that her mating organs are the target for multiple transactions, sometimes even in a single day, to prove this is often problematic, so it’s up to the punter on what he wants to do. Every way you slice it, the responsibility falls back to the lady, who is the professional. It might sound harsh, but yes, indeed, the possibility that the bargirl might get pregnant is an “occupational hazard” that the lady has freely chosen to assume.
It is agreed that the child is also the man’s, biologically speaking. But for the purposes of morality, this means little. Legality, especially in the US, may be another issue entirely. But here, we’re speaking of morality.
The final argument for the punter having a moral responsibility for the upbringing of the bargirl’s child, and possibly the strongest, is the argument where you say, “OK, even if the bargirl has been dishonest, manipulative, and has practiced extortion (and even if she admits it all!), you still have a child out of this which is biologically BOTH of theirs. How can the punter morally just ignore the fact that there is a child that is his biologically and not feel responsible? How can he let the child live a life in poverty? Isn’t this immoral and mean spirited to ignore the child, who is innocent?” This is an argument that’s thrown at me all day long by US politicians who try to tug at my heartstrings for all society’s ills and everything wrong in the world, all in the name of “THE CHILDREN”. Bill Clinton was (and still is) King of that bullshit. We need to consider THE CHILDREN when we’re watching violence on TV, THE CHILDREN when listening to curse words on the radio, THE CHILDREN when manufacturing cars, THE CHILDREN when walking the streets, and most importantly, THE CHILDREN when it’s time to pay our fucking taxes! Of course, THE CHILDREN need so much, so how can you be so mean spirited as to not WANT to pay more, so that the funds may be used for some cockamamie pork-barrel program to advance the interests of EVERYBODY ELSE’S children that I don’t have and am not responsible for and don’t give a rat’s ass about?! You’re supposed to feel guilt because, of course, THE CHILDREN are certainly not at fault here, they’re never at fault: they are the victims. At every turn and for every reason imaginable, we must consider how this, that, and the other thing will affect THE CHILDREN. Well, those who use this argument can rot, fester, and go to fucking Hell! I refuse to assume responsibility for something or someone for which I know I am not responsible due to the manipulative arguments of some malevolent prick who has some sort of warped agenda and / or defective gray matter. There are millions, and heck, maybe even billions of children around the globe who are in poverty because of the irresponsibility of the parents who copulated like rabbits and thereby allowed their unfortunate progeny to be brought into the world without the means to support them. Why am I supposed to feel guilty for this? I have a life to live. Hell, what can I even do about it? I am perfectly within my moral rights if I feel no responsibility for the fact that Bargirl Sally brings an illegitimate child to term for some manipulative machination she has conceived any more than I am responsible for some unfortunate child of a poor family in Nigeria (or outer Mongolia) who unfortunately happens to be starving along with his other 6 brothers and sisters. Of course it’s a terrible situation. Life’s a bitch, isn’t it? (Actually, it’s quite good!)
I can hear the protests now. “She’s a poor, uneducated farm girl who doesn’t know any better and he’s a rich, educated, worldly farang who knows all these worldly things. He’s taking unfair advantage of her.” Let’s be frank here. Bargirls are certainly not as dumb and ignorant as they would have us believe. All one need do is peruse a few Stickman submissions to read about the atrocities that some of these bargirls commit. Punters may bring it upon themselves by the sheer and utter stupidity and gullibility that so many of them demonstrate, but that doesn’t mean that these wenches aren’t some of the most horrible monsters among humans! Take a look at the recent submission “Trying to Recover a Life the Wrong Way”, and this gives you a good example of what some bargirls are capable of. Hell, I don’t think I could devise a form of torture cruel enough to properly punish the bargirl in that story for what she did to that 57 year old German pig farmer. They have certainly demonstrated their capabilities for driving (stupid) farangs from pillar to post in regards to chiseling them out of their money. Just how stupid are bargirls?
Stickman's thoughts:
Guys who jump into the sack with these girls without protection are asking trouble. However, I am with you on this. Trapping people - and that is what we are talking about when it is a bargirl / customer thing - is evil.
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and in this case I think you have clearly shown that the woman in such circumstances has all of the power to take that responsibility herself.
Thailand Hotels Bangkok Hotels Phuket Hotels Pattaya Hotels Hua Hin Hotels farangs.com The author can be contacted at: cromagnon9669@yahoo.com
All feedback is welcome - please forward email to stickmanbangkok@gmail.com.
