We are on the same page regarding this. It's good that we share the same starting position in our analysis.


Where is that suggestion ("PR message about cleaning up the sin city image of Pattaya and that does suggest the sex trade is being targetted") coming from? From the authorities' mouths? From the evidence of their actions? It seems to me that it is mainly coming from some farangs who take an unduly broad reading of the facts.

I can concede that the authorities themselves have not taken the trouble to articulate clearly what their objectives are and how narrow those aims are (most probably because it is not politically possible to exclude adult prostitution so explicitly without incurring the ire of foreign NGOs driven by holier-than-thou agenda). In my view, the authorities' silence then allows space to some board posters' alarms that give the impression that adult sex is being targetted. As a result, there can be collateral damage in that potential visitors to Pattaya are then needlessly discouraged, thereby inflicting economic damage to adult sex venues.

All I am saying is: Let's not add to the collateral damage by mindlessly echoing the unfounded fear that adult sex is being targetted.

I'm not suggesting that anyone here is motivated by that element. The key phrase I used was "guilt by association". Echoing fears about a general clampdown on adult sex when there is no general clampdown (but only a clampdown on the underaged trade) risks further confusing the two. So please let's be very careful not to join the wrong protest march -- that was my point.

Quote |