Morality And The Law
By Grub
A short, hard poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
CHILD SUPPORT IS JUST AS IT SAYS….SUPPORT FOR A CHILD!
Regardless that the Mother has had sex with 500 men for money and/or that the Father has paid to have sex with 500 women. If paternity is proven, THE COURTS IN MOST OF YOUR NATIVE LANDS WILL REQUIRE YOU TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT. Greater minds
than yours have debated these issues and have written and passed laws to protect the interests of THE CHILD!
Scenario….Between trips to Thailand, Philippines, Costa Rica, Cambodia and Brazil you partake of the occasional escort, massage parlour, street hooker or crack whore in your homeland. You do not worry about unprotected sex because SHE IS
THE PRO HERE….. YOU ARE JUST A PAYING CUSTOMER. The logic you indignantly shout here is that YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY RISKS TO YOUR DETRIMENT WITH YOUR ACTIONS. For the sake of the inevitable debate over the minutia the woman is an escort,
called to your home who has had only seven ' Johns ' in the last ten weeks. Tests are made, paternity is proven yada…yada…yada.
YOUR DAY IN COURT.
You explain to the judge that the woman is a filthy whore, that you had sex with her ONE time, that you assumed that because she was a filthy whore SHE had the responsibility to protect you from any risks. About now you can throw in that
she gave you herpes, that surely YOU HAVE SOME INPUT ON WHETHER OR NOT SHE SHOULD BRING YOUR CHILD INTO THE WORLD. That you are already married, THAT IF IT BECAME PUBLIC YOU SLEPT WITH PROSTITUTES MORAL JUDGEMENTS WITHIN YOUR HOMETOWN COMMUNITY
could effect your family, career or social standing. That you already pay child support to your first wife. That there is the KITCHEN SINK AND EVERY OTHER APPLIANCE TO CONSIDER.
Now it is the filthy whores turn to speak before the court. She tells the Judge that yes…she is a filthy whore, that you gave HER herpes. That you told her, that for the same amount that you paid her, you could have six prostitutes in Thailand.
That although it had been her first time with you, her agency had you on file as a repeat customer. She says that she is tired of her lifestyle…that she is returning to school to build a better life for the child and herself.
Now in YOUR scenario, the judge angrily scowls at the woman, tells her she has deceived an honest man and attempted to ruin his life. That she must take the child and crawl back to the cesspit that she emerged from. That she is nothing but
a filthy whore! Whoop! Stickman, Dana and Caveman belly bump, chest thump and high five….then go out to pat pong to celibate!
Alternative scenario.
The judge ignores the majority of the moral arguments from both sides.
He consults the laws of the land regarding issues of child support. He notes that they are written to protect the CHILD! In this case the child's mother is a PROSTITUTE that wants the child and a JOHN who does not. The judge decides
(IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS !) that the child is BLAMELESS, that the child has unfortunately been conceived in a MESSY, LOVELESS, MORALLY DEGENERATE coupling, NOT OF ITS MAKING. The compassion and concern will be extended by the court, TO THE CHILD!
FINANCIAL SUPPORT WILL BE AWARDED TO THE MOTHER (aka filthy whore) based on the fathers disposable income and assets. (Kiss those international whoring trips good-bye for a few years?).
Grasp the concept! Child support is not about …..you….your dreams…..your plans…..your moral outrage……your concept of what is fair or right or just…….it is about ……your child's welfare.
The fact that a court has
to decide for you speaks….volumes….about your morally unbalanced egos.
Have you ever heard of a first world judgment that has required a woman to abort a child because the father does not want it?
Do you think that pleading your case will be cheap/easy and without consequence, regardless of the outcome?
To prove this scenario wrong, bring your thai hooker/ victim john case to a first world court and stand up for what you believe to be justice. (Don't have it settled in the Thai courts, remember that darn Thai logic, Western logic is
best, yay).
Your reliance here is that you are somewhat anonymous in a 3rd world setting, with 3rd world laws and 3rd world alternatives such as your probable ability to afford legal assistance to fight such a suit, the loss of face / financial ability
for the Thai national to bring such a suit. The trump card of running home if things look like they're not going your way and even the 'mai ben rai' thing.
Back in your home land you cruise the prostitute areas at night, discretely, always with a valid excuse for being there in the event the police pull you over for cruising (my personal favorite, I've only lived in this town for six years,
I'm lost ). Park your car a block away from the massage parlour in case it should be seen. Call the escort service from the Hotel phone instead of your cell phone. You modify your sexual activity extensively BECAUSE YOU FEAR MORAL AND LEGAL
CONSEQUENCE. The fact that your name could be published in the home town ' Daily ' takes the ' DOH ! ' out of your LIBIDO.
In Thailand you indulge yourself. Sex is great, sex is fun BUT NOT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE. Sometimes you fall into a lop-sided love affair, sometimes you are infected with an STD (let's not ignore the role of the sex tourist in spreading
these around the globe!) and sometimes you create a CHILD. JUST 3 DAMN THINGS TO REMEMBER AND GUARD AGAINST, but your pages are full of whining ass hats who plead 'I'M A VICTIM '.
YOU DESERVE TO BE JUDGED BY YOUR PEERS …..and the Thais….learned gentlemen.. are NOT your peers.
On a lighter note, I have been to Thailand several times, loved my experiences and will return next year for the Thailand / Laos / Cambodia circle. Some of your tips and information Stick are very useful, but many of your moral debates can
only survive between like-minded expats living on foreign soil. Consult your embassy on these legal issues.
I will ask that replies are not forwarded directly to me but are debated within your forum.
Stickman's thoughts:
Morality and the law….I think the previous submissions were just about morality. I am sure the article writers undestand the law, but covering that was not the purpose of their respective articles.
I liked your quote about being judged by your peers, interesting thought that.
