Paid sex vs. Unpaid sex.
There's so much noise over the underage prostitution issue. For the ignorant, I envy you. It's about a then-17 year old girl prostituting herself for $450-$800 dollars per session. If you think about it, it's really good money, but that's not the point here.
The point here is, she's not allowed to sell her body, or engage in "paid sex", until she's 18. This brings to mind a rather interesting dilemma--the age of consent in Singapore is 16, but the age of prostitution is 18. How does this work out?
I believe that the law is trying to protect girls from prostitution, either coerced or very willing, because at the age of 16 you're still "not mature enough" to contemplate the consequences of being a prostitute, namely bad reputation and the improbability of marriage, but old enough for the state to not give a shit about what you do privately. They know it's your life to screw around with. I guess they care when you try to commercialize your life because of tax reasons.
But really, why bother with this 2 years of a female's life? Because if I'm 16 and already having sex, I might as well get something out of it. Sex isn't all about love, and the people know that. The cultural shift dictates that sex = love, love = sex is too..traditional, and that it is a traditional thinking that isn't very deeply-rooted in the youths of today, WHICH IS THE TARGET of this law. To have some sort of recompense for my services isn't that unreasonable.
If sex is for people in love, what happens when they fall out, when they break up? The girl gets nothing out of the past sexual experiences, and the boy gets nothing out of it too but since the normal societal view is "wah the girl damn wasted", why not let her get some money out of the loss of reputation?
I guess this is the basis of compensated dating, and I think that the concept isn't that bad or unhealthy. Just because there's a demand for it doesn't mean that there MUST be a supply for it. If the supply isn't willing, then you don't have a supply at all. But if there's supply, it hints at a certain...degradation of the society in question and if there is such a crack then there should be ways to exploit this niche market, by the commercially savvy girls, and if they're that commercially savvy they probably should know what they're getting themselves into and have no regrets about it.
It's like renting a girlfriend for a day, get the full services, feel loved, and then move on. Laws are created to protect, they're not created to babysit.
If I'm 17 and I'm being offered 600+ SGD per session, why the hell not? Being a "high-class call girl" means that your clientele is "high class", or at least of a class high enough to pay you for your services and not feel the pinch. If so, they probably aren't going to be too rough or primate in their mating. In short, easy money, because they're civilized and perhaps not so strong physically. You don't run that high a risk of getting physically abused.
And who needs a husband if you have the money? If I can earn 30k per month this way, I definitely won't need a husband. That is not to say that I need a husband just because I earn less than 30k a month, because I'm not gay. $30k a month would mean 360k per year (I'm guessing there's no 6-month bonus here), and let's be honest, even the most highly-educated people might not get this amount. She'd be a millionaire in a year, and because she's a girl she probably won't be expected to pay the hotel room bills.
Why is the law trying to impede her road to fortune then? If this case is about the tenacity of our legislation and how long the peni-I mean, arm of our justice is, then the main purpose would be to deter girls from becoming underage prostitutes, and deter guys from seeking underage prostitutes.
But the sensationalizing of this whole fiasco is defeating this purpose! By blowing this up, girls are more heartened to know that if they were to live a life of vice, they'd be handsomely paid. Low education doesn't mean low morals, this I must emphasize, but people with low morals would be tempted to make this career switch. The media is busy disgracing all the clients, but the girl in question is unscathed. It might be due to the gag order of course, but why the gag order? Why the need to protect her identity?
Which leads girls to think: Hey, I can screw around and not get disgraced. And I get highly paid!
This case won't deter males from seeking the services of prostitutes, because prostitution is not illegal in Singapore. This would only make the guys resort to checking the identity card of the girl whose services he's procuring.
And so what if she's already 18? Would those 2 years make a huge difference in a potential prostitute's mentality? I'm guessing it won't.
Let's say that I bought some cheese to make cheese pie with. But when I get home, I find out that the cheese hasn't been fermented properly. In short, it's not "ripe" for sale. I can try to sue the retailer for selling me this unripe product.
But in this case it's Fraud. I'm guessing the guys here didn't know they were being sold an unripe product because they probably aren't the best connoisseurs of cheese pies and so they can't tell from a ripe one and an unripe one.
If so, they are being scammed to pay for less. Shouldn't the girl be the charged one instead? She sold an unripe product HMM.
Which brings to mind a question: If you procure the services of an underage prostitute, and find out that she's underage BUT you haven't paid yet, and you run away from her, would it be
1) A case of paid sex
or
2) Robbery
or
3) Rape
-- 4/24/2012 05:47:00 PM