Tweet
Yes I did mean under 18 - I've corrected it - Thanks.
Yes I agree - but are we reading the law as it is written or a poor translation from Thai into English? No I don't know the answer to that one. 
My experience of translating Thai into English and visa-a-versa is that it's not easy and even an apparently simple phrase can end up with more than one interpretation.
I appreciate your argument about the public places - British courts have been arguing what a public place is for centuries.
My argument is that the Thai police will use thier own interpretation and I suspect it will vary depending on how much tea money they need or which minister has just been appointed.
The section defining prostitution actually states (Sect.4);- in a promiscuous manner - as if doing it in a non-promiscuous manner even in a public place would be legal.
I suspect that the translation from Thai into English may alter the meaning as we see it.
Certainly Thai manners would consider the offering of sex outside certain conventions as promiscuous.
Kissing in a public place is considered a promiscuous sexual act and until recently even in Bangkok would have earned you a fine.
If you go up country it is still very rare to see people holding hands in public.
On the other hand it maybe the phrase has survived from the 1960 act which was apparently based on United Nations Convention of 1950 which had the definition;- 'promiscuously rendering sexual services for remuneration'.
The Entertainment Places Act of 1966 (which has not been repealed) allows solicitation in certain licenced premises.
No I can't justify or work that one out as it conflicted with the 1960 act and conflicts with the 1996 act!
It was enacted when the US Military was using Thailand for R&R.
It's a good subject for a public debating session.
Yes that is the do-gooders in the UN and the moral majority in the USA trying to save us all.
But like I said in the thread about Age of Consent it is something to bear in mind.
Prosecutions have already taken place in the US and UK and I think also Australia.
As many of us know the operation of the law in Thailand appears to an outsider have more to do with vested interests than justice.
I have been stopped for speeding at 85km/h on a 100km/h road - this was in Khon Kaen.
I had actually be baulked by a truck and it was still going faster than me as we approached the policemen - it was not stopped.
Herself's comment;- There is a festival in two days, they must be short of money. Still it only cost 200 Baht. TIT
RR.
I really prefer to refer to the law and only to the law, which, at the end of the day, is the only reference in court, and even a judge cannot just laugh off a law - they can bend it, they can abuse it, they can sometimes circumvent it, but they can't ignore it.
My experience of translating Thai into English and visa-a-versa is that it's not easy and even an apparently simple phrase can end up with more than one interpretation.
I appreciate your argument about the public places - British courts have been arguing what a public place is for centuries.
My argument is that the Thai police will use thier own interpretation and I suspect it will vary depending on how much tea money they need or which minister has just been appointed.
The section defining prostitution actually states (Sect.4);- in a promiscuous manner - as if doing it in a non-promiscuous manner even in a public place would be legal.
I suspect that the translation from Thai into English may alter the meaning as we see it.
Certainly Thai manners would consider the offering of sex outside certain conventions as promiscuous.
Kissing in a public place is considered a promiscuous sexual act and until recently even in Bangkok would have earned you a fine.
If you go up country it is still very rare to see people holding hands in public.
On the other hand it maybe the phrase has survived from the 1960 act which was apparently based on United Nations Convention of 1950 which had the definition;- 'promiscuously rendering sexual services for remuneration'.
The Entertainment Places Act of 1966 (which has not been repealed) allows solicitation in certain licenced premises.
No I can't justify or work that one out as it conflicted with the 1960 act and conflicts with the 1996 act!
It was enacted when the US Military was using Thailand for R&R.
It's a good subject for a public debating session.
Then about the laws of your country allowing it:
Firstly, there will be no law ever stating what is allowed. you can interpret the absence of ban as an "ok"
Secondly, these provisions about "sexual offenses committed abroad" are a recent fascistisation of US and some EU national laws.
Firstly, there will be no law ever stating what is allowed. you can interpret the absence of ban as an "ok"
Secondly, these provisions about "sexual offenses committed abroad" are a recent fascistisation of US and some EU national laws.
But like I said in the thread about Age of Consent it is something to bear in mind.
Prosecutions have already taken place in the US and UK and I think also Australia.
As many of us know the operation of the law in Thailand appears to an outsider have more to do with vested interests than justice.
I have been stopped for speeding at 85km/h on a 100km/h road - this was in Khon Kaen.
I had actually be baulked by a truck and it was still going faster than me as we approached the policemen - it was not stopped.
Herself's comment;- There is a festival in two days, they must be short of money. Still it only cost 200 Baht. TIT
RR.
correct.
Comment