Victimless Industry Or Industry Of Perpetrators
"Gecko and Chok Di's views are not only opposite but also demonstrate well the endless debate on prostitution.
It is unfortunate that Gecko was clearly just using shock value to get reader's attention. Instead of making punters think and stop being customers, all Gecko did was make all anti-prostitution advocates lose credit. I hope everyone knows better than to attribute one naive or idiotic person's views to all those that believe prostitution is wrong. That being said, I don't personally think hookers and Johns are doing the right thing, though I have definitely been part of the game myself. I don't judge the people but I am not going to pretend what I did was right. I knew exactly what I was doing and that I was going against my sense of ethics, and I still did it.
In my view, prostitution is not a victimless industry, but with the exception of forced prostitution, it is clearly not an industry of innocents. I would say that everyone involved in prostitution is a perpetrator. The customers use the women for sex and even emotional satisfaction (any punter in LOS knows that the "girlfriend experience" is just as much an attraction as the sex), while the hooker manipulates the customer for personal gain beyond the basic transaction (any punter in LOS should know about the extra money the bargirl "girlfriends" can get with stories of motorcycle accidents, businesses to supposedly escape prostitution, sick family members that don't really exist, or dead buffalos). Punters often think they are getting cheap sex with hot women, and bargirls often think they have cajoled more money than they should get with their girlfriend act or sick buffalo stories.
In my opinion, there are few "pure victims" in the world of "free-will prostitution", and everyone is really a perpetrator, abuser, or "bad guy". So you either play the game or you get out. There's no real reason to be a "justifier" of one's actions. Just do it, like Nike says, or otherwise, follow your conscience, if you know it to be wrong, and avoid the whole scene.
That being said. The one basic reason Chok Di points out for hookers is quite true. It's all about money. I've done a lot for that greenback, and I am sure it is the one constant and primary reason why a bargirl sells "it" out. It's that simple.
Everything I've said is about "free-will prostitution". This is the form of prostitution most punters see. It is what goes on in Nana Plaza, Soi Cowboy, and Patpong. Except for naive or idiotic persons, most people don't buy into the questionable theory that punters are using "economic coercion" to make Thai girls into hookers. Hell, isn't my boss "economically coercing me" with all the money to work long hours for him then? No. I am being offered the money and I CHOSE to do what is required for it. I CHOSE to eat steak and not hotdogs. I CHOSE to live in a nice house and not a cheap apartment. I CHOSE to drive an SUV and not a Corolla. I CHOSE to do my job because I want the nice car, food, and house.
Other than the economic coercion argument, bargirls (who are prostitutes by their free choice) are hookers for the money, either because they "think" they are poor, they actually are poor (most bargirls are actually poor I believe from my own
observations) and want to be rich, or they are just plain greedy. Of coarse, there are the lazy ones too, who just don't want to work and who consider screwing for sex "easy". Many say it's not, but some may think it is.
Anyways, it is quite true that at the end of each day, there are always those willing to sell their orifices and even some of their pride/integrity/conscience (if they think what they are wrong) for money. Everyone makes up their own mind, with culture, ethics, morals, and environment playing some role, and free will playing the final role (assuming we are not, once again, talking about forced prostitution).
Still, not everyone is for sale, at least not at the conscience level, like Mr. Churchill stated. How many of us have asked if we would "work" as male gigolos for money? I have and the answer is yes for women (hot, ugly, or fat, but no oral on the fat or ugly ones please!) but never for other men (the thought just scares me, like eating my own crap). Of coarse, this is at the "conscience" level, because nobody really knows what they might do if they were poor enough or needed the money badly enough. All I know is that whatever amount of money I was offered, I could never do homo for hire sex. That is just me of coarse, because many straight bargirls do engage in lesbian sex for money, and certainly many men are homos for hire at gay Patpong. We each "sin" (sorry Chok Di) in our own way. I prefer to drink, smoke, and until a few years ago, whore around. Bargirls chose to be the whore in their "sinning".
Lastly, there is forced prostitution, and I don't know if it is more or less rampant than free will prostitution. I have "read" that forced prostitution is quite common in India, Pakistan, and in some (or most? I have no idea) of the Thai/Chinese brothels of Thailand. Maybe it is and maybe it is not, but Gecko was clearly wrong to claim it exists in any form but very negligibly (anything is possible, maybe there is a hot hooker chained to a secret short-time room in some gogo bar somewhere). Gecko has either never been around a gogo bar or he/she is just making things up, or maybe he/she is just crazy? Again, who knows!
Final thought. How many "hookers" do we all really know? Look around. Did your friends' wives marry your buddy for money, at least partially? How about your girlfriend or wife or ex-wife? Would they have dated or married you if you didn't have that money? The whores are everywhere. And the "wholesale" whores (who marry for money) are the worse, as it takes more for someone to sell out full-time than for 2-8 hours short-time or long-time. Their customers often don't even know they are with a "marriage prostitute" either, and who wants that? I'm sure there are those who want it, but I (perhaps naively) believe even punters who married (ex) bargirls don't really want that.