Talk:Prostitution in Thailand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] This article is very offensive

I find that this article is very offensive to people of Thailand. Wikipedia should not be a place like tabloid to promote this kind of story. There is prostitution everywhere in the world. Why should prostitution in Thailand be the only one that is singled out? dhanakorn 02 May 2005

Prostitution can be described per country. Living in Thailand for over 6 years, I know it is a serious problem here. So I feel it like prostitution in ANY country in the world deserves seperate attention. I as a foreigner am approached at least a couple of times a week. I speak Thai, and every taxidriver and tuktuk drivers first question is .... want a lady, want to go massage. I am usually avoiding Sukhumvit and Silom areas. But I live in Huay Kwang, near Ratchada. Which is as you know one of the centers of Thai prostitution for the Thai male. Having visited some places there I know the clientele is mostly Hi-so Thais. So you cannot deny really it is a fact of life in Thailand. and not just Thailand. In most Asian countries from Japan (students) to India it is the same! Waerth 08:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Prostitution is a major (but not primary) issue in Thailand, especially in term of tourism industry. prostitution business concept itself is even controversial in its legality and in term of ethics. I believe it is valid to point of this aspect, but please do so in NOV and refrian from shifting the encyclopedia article into guide-to-sex-tourism-in-thailand. --underexpose 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to help balance in the intro to the article but unfortunately it has been edited out as POV. If anything it was neutral and the editor didnt even have the balls to challenge this or even post a one line comment... so I guess it is culturally offense to a THAI again and I APPOLOGISE TO ALL THAI PEOPLE WHO MAY BE OFFENDED - go to history and look at the article before Jan 27 and it will be better! Regards Mattjs 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Compare with 14 JAN 2006 as that was a good article! MY APPOLOGIES AGAIN! Mattjs 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't take offense

Thailand is not being singled out; it was the subject of a long and detailed explanation on the main "Prostitution" page and I felt that it was worth preserving (with some modifications, as it's a topic I'm familiar with) but moving to it's own page.

Such topics as the prostitution trade in the US (where it's illegal, with the minor exception of Nevada), Amsterdam and other European RLDs, etc are also, at least to my mind, worthy of being split out to their own articles with at least a basic explanation of how the trade tends to operate there. Just my opinion, of course.

See also Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands, Prostitution_in_New_Zealand, Prostitution_in_Nevada, for example.

[edit] Removed unsourced POV statement

Removed the following unsourced POV statement from the article: "Thailand is considered one of the major destinations of sex tourists because of the increasing number of children brought into the sex industry." Sorry, this statement is POV at worst and an off the cuff uneducated guess at best. If anything the Thai government has done much to DECREASE the number of children trafficed by the sex industry. Also it does not follow that an increase in child prostitutes is the reason that Thailand is a sex tourist destination. Only a VERY VERY small percentage of sex tourists are pedophiles. Change the words "sex tourists" in the removed line to "English teachers" and you can quickly see how POV the statement is. Anyhow... -Oscar Arias 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blame game?

Please read this statement, at the start of the article: "Prostitution has existed in Thailand for a long time, and was not introduced by westerners despite popular myths. As early as the 16th and 17th centuries, prostitution was described in reports by sailors visiting Thailand (then called Siam). Thailand has gained notoriety in the west as a sex tourism destination since the Vietnam war, although most prostitutes in Thailand serve Thai males."

I've come across this attitude, where Western (presumably) writers try to absolve themselves of any responsibility for social problems across the globe. This is not just not NPOV, but an attempt to "blame" Thai society for a serious problem it faces.

It overlooks the geo-political reality of the region, and the forces that gave sex-work in Thailand a big boost in recent decades. From the US herself Dr Cleo Odzer, who did her PhD on Patpong (and whose own life story is quite something, but that's another story, see 'Goa Freaks') makes this point well when she writes: "Though the Vietnam war may have boosted Patpong into the entertainmentindustry, Thailand's reputation as a sex paradise took off on its own at the war's end. Germany arranged cheap charter flights. Holland organized sextours. As Taiwan and Japan grew prosperous, their males flew in too. Many Americans from the war chose not to go home. The saying was that there were no MIAs in Vietnam; in reality they were all MIBs--Mischiefing In Bangkok." (See http://desires.com/1.1/Features/patpong.html )

Most sex-workers in most parts of the globe provide their services to local males. That is not the only issue here. Without the big money coming in from overseas (guestimates exist about how much of the GPD this contributes to in Thailand), the phenomenon of prostitution in Thailand would have probably not grown to such an extent.

In sum, this 'we are not to blame' attitude is surely no NPOV, and let the facts be stated. --fredericknoronha 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Obviously there would be less prostitution in Thailand if there were no sex tourists, but the vast majority of Thai prostitutes cater to Thais. What other facts do you want to state? HenryFlower 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimates

I removed this paragraph, as it is unsourced and the estimate given differs dramatically from the one we have sourced.

According to one such estimate, there are as many as 130,000 people, both men and women, employed in the sex trade.

AxelBoldt 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The article currently cites a newspaper report saying there are 2.8 million sex workers. Even though there is a citation it is not necessarily accurate. The book Guns, Girls, Gambling and Ganja published in 1998 analyses data from a number of sources and puts the figure at 200,000. I think this is a much more reliable estimate. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but perhaps somebody could enter the details from it and properly cite it. Davidreid 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent - 15 or 18?

Is it true that the age of consent for a non-sex worker is 15? If so, then how did rock star Dag of band Big Ass get into trouble for having sex with that 17 year old girl? Could somebody please clarify.

I will try and explain as far as I understand it: Yeah, the age of consent is 15 but the age at which you can work in a bar and/or exchange sex services for money, (in another Thai law or statute), is apparantly 18 and last I was there (2004) it had just gone up to 20. So I wouldn't make a habit of sleeping with anyone under 20 if I were you. Make sense? Note also that many western countries including Australia and the UK now have child sex tourism laws on the books which means for example that an Australian probably couldn't sleep with a 15 year old in Thailand even if he or she wanted to as the age of consent back here is 16 and you could potentially get arrested when you get home. (Although the constitionality of some of these extra-territroial laws is in question (ultra-vires and all that).

Its always a good idea to know the law before you experiment. (I can even quote you the statistics and estimate the risk of HIV transmission for regular coitus in Thailand ~1 in 200,000 or so.) So remember, always use a (new) condom, treat her or him with respect, know the law, and play nice. Mattjs 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Remeber the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

I just checked for Australia and what I say above is true: the age is 16 here. In the UK the law seems to be drafted somewhat differently: it appears to be a child sex offence seemingly if it is an offence in the country in which you commit it and in the UK in which case the age may therefore be considered to be the lessor of the two i.e. 15 in this case. Interestingly in Australia if you marry someone in another country who is under 16 and it is permitted in that country at that age to do so (as many do) you will not have committed an offence. (I guess that way if you are a Moslem you can marry and bring back your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th 13 year old bride home with you! :-)) Any tourist would therefore be wise to initially check the (child) sex tourism laws of their own country for a starting and potentially limiting point before even considering what it may be in Thailand or elsewhere...

Interestingly some countries have ridiculously low ages of consent like 12 or 13 or none at all and so must therefore obviously not be signatories to the CRC above. :-( Mattjs 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finding on Pimps and Prostitution

In Amsterdam one group's survey found that 50% of the women turn over all their earnings to their pimp, and that many of the girls were brought to the red light district by human traffickers (see the appropriate wikipedia article). I'm sure in Thailand women are exploited in the same manner. - unsigned

The article we are discussing says that as many as 800,000 minors under the age of 18 are employed as prostitutes. Links to a page encouraging such socially destructive behaviour should not be on Wikipedia. Maybe a discussion as to the implications of judging people by their own standard and culture would be in order. - unsigned

[edit] Human rights

Although Wikipedia does include articles which deal primarily with human trafficking, child prostitution, etc, I feel as thought this article reads a little like a travel magazine. I'd like to see more detail in relation to the standard of living the average Thai prostitute enjoys, as well as some figures regarding violence against sex workers in the country (or Bangkok, in particular). I've seen quite a bit in the media lately of allegations of corruption within the police and other public authorities, for example. Could anybody here shed some light on those issues? --Alexis 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes one thing that concerns me is the (at leaat until recently and perhaps still) high degree of prejudice against HIV sufferers in Thailand despite the Governments valiant efforts against transmission (and one of if not the worlds leader - at least until recently it seems). One of the consequences of this it seems is the tenedecy to obscure and cover up the reality of for example sex workers having acquired HIV with other secondary diseases like pneumonia etc. being listed as the cause of death to save the face and shame of the Thai family which has agreat deal of importance in Thai society. I can't help but wondering how many sex workers go home to die with HIV with particular reference to those who work in the "sex tourism" trade with "farang" or foriegners. I think any expert in the field would be welcome to post links to articles and statistics in this reagrd - lets balance the unfortunate but inevitable "Tour Guide" nature of the article with links to some detailed and serious analysis. Any postgrads, PhDs, or Acadmics care to contribute. Thanks. Mattjs 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intro edits

I hope no one minds my intro edits. I thought the bit about Westerners introducing prostitution that was edited out was ok myself, although it was pure rumour it was introduced as same and did give an inkling of one of the many complex and contradictory Thai perspectives and popular beliefs. Because of the complex and culturally/temporally variable sexual mores involved a mention of versismilar western mores (from the same time) not spoken about amounst polite western society (today or yesterday but nevertheless acted upon behind closed doors at that time) is surely in order to present a much maligned Thailand in a more objective, factual, and historical light. Mattjs 11:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Without this the intro would be but an ineffective one or two lines! And the Europe discussion would I think look out of place without the rumor lead in. And since we are talking about the "land of smiles" a tongue in cheek lead in is appropriate since we are discussing prositution embedded in that particular culture. It is probably the Thai if not the Asian way of doing things that will help put at ease if not eliminate the many Thais who visit here and find the article otherwise particularly offensive! Try to find elsewhere in Wikipedia where these European sexual mores (indeed hypocracies) are as amply expounded and precisely detailed as I have explained them and I am sure that you will not as there is no Prostitution in historical Europe article. Mattjs 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It does read very well even if I do say so myself! Please leave it in as it results in providing in one foul swoop all of the relevant links to polygamy, slavery, aristocracy, mistress, menage a trois, polite society, (and remember the many wifes of past Kings of Thailand), and finaly by virtue of this the financial factors which are so fundamental to what goes on with Western Sex Tourism type Prostitution in Thailand today. Oh how the Western rich - however moderately so - like their mistresses! Mattjs 12:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I've added the {{tone}} template because at times the article seems to be acting as a guidebook or directory, for example giving the addresses of places where cheap sexual services can be found. This needs to be dealt with. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I first felt the need for "censor" some sections, but after some thinking I realised that I would just get reverted. Wikipedia seems to function as a form of guide book in many ways which aren't that honorable, not just like in this article, but for example in giving the exact internet adresses to download different porn movies etc. --Konstantin 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the first intro line as usless and POV in line with your own edits... It adds nothing but implies that prostitution is longer lived in Thailand than other place which it is not neither is it cited. :-) Mattjs 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On one hand I agree with you but on another I don't: as the article is about "short-time rented-wifes" in Thailand readers may well want and desire the locations information and it is relevant to those readers that do. What Wikipedia policies can you cite to justify your scalpel? As you appear to be female I percieve that your actions are very POV!? You would be better off changing your handle or inviting a male or neutral perhaps "lady-boy" college to perform the edits for you? :-) Mattjs 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have improved and re-wikified the intro. Only question is the ordering of the rephrasing in the first sentence i.e. the position of "16th and 17th centuries" etc. Mattjs 09:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position in society and extent of prostitution

For an article on Prostitution in Thailand there is very little explanation of local culture and custom!? For example no mention of polygamic traditions etc. the King of Thailand's equivalent of a harem etc. etc., its a shame I had covered some of this in my earlier but now editied out intro... This alone could serve to improve to tone of the article. Problem with Thailand is Prositution and attitudes to sex are extremely contradictory: by turns permissive and conservative at the same time through diffrent classes and segments of society as a whole including gender and I wonder about chinese influences as I know there are some Buddhist ones also... information like this unfortunately very hard to document and cite Mattjs 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to read through some of the referenced material and improve on this section particularly reference/footnote 2 which is quite a detailed academic article online on Thai sexual mores and culture that looks quite interesting and will compliment my detailed studies of Thailand. ;-) Mattjs 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Photo

Objections:

  1. The individual in the photo is goddam ugly!
  2. The individual in the photo is (I estimate with better than 90-95% certainty as a qualified expert) a "lady-boy" - and whilst I have no objections whatsoever per se - I merely think it should be labeled accurately! (laughing)

If no one has satisfactory objections to my objections I will add "lady-boy" to the image label. But if you still do object:

  1. You need to have your head examined!
  2. You have not been to Thailand and so therefore are not qualified to object. Mattjs 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Shit I think I recognize the bar! It looks like Kings Corner, certainly the bar is very reminiscent of the style of gogo bars in the Patpong area. There are less than a handful amoungst them that still have lady-boys freely mixed with women on stage: Kings Corner and possibly one or two nearby. Mattjs 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(laughing) In fact I am sure wikipedia's own rules require contents to the clear and accurate so there can really be no objections! (laughing agian)! Mattjs 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"Some bars employ kathoey ("ladyboys") exclusively, catering to male customers. Many of these look amazingly like women, especially to the untrained eye." well not this one boys!! HAHAHA Mattjs 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mattjs' comments above are mostly unpleasant, offensive, and pointless, and go against many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If he continues to post this kind of stuff here (and worse in user's Talk pages), he is very likely to be blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually think it is not a "ladyboy"?? 220.240.58.190 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the comment on your edit "tidying, MoSing"? Lets wait see what the author/poster of the photo has to say. Mattjs 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean what I said above, to which the anon was responding. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by Mattjs what the nature of the photo is. Without entering this debate, I will say that yes, I took the photo when I was in Bangkok in 2002. I understand why there are assumptions that this is a ladyboy, as 'its' face looks quite manly. With that said, I talked to 'it' for period of time, and can testify that with the tiny bikini thong it was wearing, there was absolutely no substance underneath - hence no male equipment. Granted, that does not mean it was not once a man - however, I would argue that in proper usage a 'lady-boy' refers to a man, who is still fully equipped, who simply dresses himself as a women and markets himself to others as a women (sometimes explicitly declaring he has male equipment, sometimes not). That is, a 'lady-boy'still has a package - this person did not have a package. Therefore it is arguably wrong to label it as a lady-boy. GREGorof → talk 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK so it didn't have a package so perhaps the "ladyboy" adjective doesnt apply, so it was perhaps what we would call a transvestite or perhaps in more contemporary lingo a "transgender". Would you agree that the individual concerned is or was formerly a man with a package?? (Note that the package may still be there but neatly hidden internally or behind as such prostitutes are often want to do when offering oral services whilst continuing to parade themsleves as now female and without said former package.) I continue to argue that this was clearly: (A) "transvestite" (cross-dresser) or (B) "transgender" (cross-dressing having had the package removed and gender re-assigned) person and should not therefore be represented as otherwise in an Encyclopedia and in accordance with wikipedia. Mattjs 19:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The caption currently reads "A dancer at a go-go bar along Patpong, in Bangkok." I fail to understand how this caption, implicitly or explicitly, states it is not a lady boy - it is an ambigous statement: A dancer (of course) can be a man, a women, a transvestite, or a "lady-boy" - it could arguably even be a cartoon character, or a peacock. This picture is most certainly not being "represented as otherwise" as you assert. GREGorof → talk 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hell, i just want to see a decent looking photo (with or without any packages) if it was a good looking tranny I wouldnt be objecting! So if you want to post an ugly one that clearly isn't a native born female I am going to ask for that adjective. Mattjs 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Unworthy of reply. GREGorof → talk 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Your opinions as to the attractiveness or otherwise of the subject, etc., are of no interest to anyone here, and are irrelevant to the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Bottom line is this dispute is of no consequence to the article. GREGorof → talk 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At least the picture is adjacent to the section where "ladyboys" and such like are discussed and immediately above the male prostitution section. Since no one else cares I will leave it at that but if you get grabbed in the crotch by an apparantly female looking creature or find a surprise package upon returning with it to your hotel you might find photos like this one similarly disingenius if not devious. But it seems I might be up against people who probably don't distinguish hence on the balance the photo was probably chosen for this very reason anyway. You should look at the photos in Kathoey and of the Thai ladyboy band Venus Flytrap external link that I added there. Mattjs 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, at least I can say I tried! Signing off on this one! Regards, Mattjs 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating Thai Prostitutes

There is a very large element of men going to Thailand and irrationally falling in love with a prostitute they met there. There is no denying this phenomenon, yet there is only a single line about it. I feel this is not enough to reflect the scale of it and I have restored the link to that article, which I feel is a necessary and useful resource for readers. I will also embellish that paragraph later tonight by adding a few more lines when I can think how to word it.--172.159.131.132

I agree with this poster although somone reverted it immediatelty afterwards. It is a part of the "Prostitution in Thailand" phenomena and I think at least as a compromise it could go into the external links list OK? Mattjs 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on; men fall in love with prostitutes? In what sense is this a distinctive feature of prostitution in Thailand? Literature (and history) is fall of this throughout the world. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Mel, it is a huge phenomenon. Foreign remittances to Thailand are made up in a large part by foolish men sending money to Bar Girls. It is massive and you are in denial if you can't see that. I'm not arguing with you BTW and I say this with the greatest respect. Please let me add a few lines to that section and I really do feel that the article I want to link to is one of the few realistic assessments of the bar scene there.--172.159.131.132

Sending money to someone is not the same as being in love with them; it's original research to say or assume that is is. (And it doesn't strengthen your case to use cod-psychoanalytical diagnoses of another editor.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Well, the article is largely about men who form relationships with Thai prostitutes and the consequences, not about the financial transaction... and so, I maintain that it is a pertinent, well written and wholly suitable article worthy of at least a reference in a section that is very thin on content and I'm bewildered by your objection. Does anyone else have any comments about this?--172.159.131.132

This article is about Thai prostitutes, hence its title, not about men who form relationships with them. This article is already over-long — almost unhealthily so, it sometimes seems to me. It could anyway do with more ideas; I'll take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I do agree with your comment about "over-length" of the article. However with reference to the following: "Oh come one; men fall in love with prostitutes? In what sense is this a distinctive feature of prostitution in Thailand? Literature (and history) is fall of this throughout the world. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)" I would like to argue the following without citations (yet!).
  • (A) I believe that there is a greater preponderance of man meets prostitute and marries in the third world with third world prostitutes particularly given the nature of third world - poor survival - type prostitution which has a significantly different character to prostitution in the West. See next point.
  • (B) Significant cultural differences, prohibitons (i.e. lack thereof) and attitudes particularly in Thailand including long standing polygamic traditions in the _ONLY_ country in the world which was never "colonized" by a colonial power (and subsequently "christianicized" c.f. Philippines). (Not quite unique "Buddhist" influences here of and in themsleves but contrarywise in conjunction with the historical conditions, facts and factors above, then yes UNIQUE.) See next point.
  • (C) I hazard a guess, in fact I "believe", that this phenomena occurs more so in Thailand than even in other Third World places including the Philippines, and Domincan Republic (including for "non-colonized", "non-christianiciszed and "Buddhist" reasons above). (It might be worth looking at any prostitution articles for these and other countries to see if the same issue comes up there also: whether or not, and to what extent.) With a great deal of research - if such socciological statistics are available which may be unlikely - some of these points could then be substantiated:
    • (D) I feel confident that Thailand would show more of said phenonmena than the other countries mentioned above.
    • (E) I feel absolutely certain that Thailand would show more of said phenomena than in the West in general.
  • (F) I suggested a suitable compromise of including the anonomous contributors contribution as a link in the external links/references rather than in the body of the text. Would this satisfy all or most parties (since wikipedia is a majoritarian system admittedly with a constitution in the form of a set of editorial (POV/NPOV... etc) rules)?
Note my earnest intent here to be a resolver of controvery and conflicts rather than a protagonist Mel. Take your time to read through my arguments in detail, and address it point by point if you disagree until you feel entirely happy with it, feel free to continue on my talkback page and I am happy to continue the discussion by email also. I do agree clearly with the poster though for the argued (though admittedly arguable) reasons given (until substantiating research and references can be sourced). Regards, Mattjs 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First, the trouble is that, as you say, your comments are uncited, and consist solely of your suppositions and feelings. Secondly, even if it were the case theat the phenomenon were more common inThailand, that would be an argument for mentioning that in an article on men falling in love with prostitutes (and no, before you ask, I don't think that there should be a spearate article on that).

Uncited granted. "suppositions and feelings" - No: rather "working hypotheses" that merely need to be substantiated as thay based on sigificant experience and analysis of Thai culture, mores, and prostitution in Thailand with particular reference to the Western "Sex Tourism" side of the local polygamist, mistress, "mia noi", and sex worker phenomena. They lack only the statistical evidence to back them up my friend but I doubt if anyone is even doing any research into this topic. Any that may be taking place are probably Thai academmics and printed in Thai Journals I presume. I wish we had more Thai sociologists here. You might note my earlier post requesting more info about the local HIV side of the Prostitution equation in Thailand. Would you similarly argue that a discussion of the HIV ramifications and related local cultural issues for Thai sex workers would be out of place in the current article!? Mattjs 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"I believe", "I hazard a guess, in fact I 'believe'", "I feel confident", "I feel absolutely certain"... Suppositions and feelings. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we can agree to disagree then: quote any scientist - even Einstein as he enaged in his "thought experiments" - and he or she will use exactly the same expressions whilst working inductively though an hypothesis. You still haven't read Hume on Causation have you? Anyway I have other fish to fry.... been starting up The Weather Makers so if you want to excercise your editing skills Mel then please come over and help where you are more needed and will be eminently more useful... Regards, Mattjs 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I teach Hume, and the philosophy of science, and thought experiments have nothing to do with statements like "I feel confident"., which I don't recall Enistein ever making. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"God does not play dice with the world!" Mattjs 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And that's relevant because...? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant because you are taking it all so personally it is getting to the point that I may need to go up the ladder... as for the quote: "God (ed: "I believe", "I hazard a guess, in fact I 'believe'", "I feel confident", "I feel absolutely certain"...) does not play dice with the world!" Mattjs 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not taking it personally, nor am I showing any signs of doing so. Secondly, inserting your choice of words into a quotation doesn't make it support your point. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my offer to embellish this section, or the link to a relevant article? Does anyone else have any thoughts, other than these this pair, who only seem interested in trying to get the better of each other? --172.159.131.132

If you read the discussion, you'd see that it concerns the relevance of and need for what you're suggesting. I say that it shouldn't be added, and I've given my reasons. If you think that I'm wrong, please say why. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProstitution_in_Thailand_5ffa.html"