« BOLD ALLIGATOR???? | Main | Oh for Pete's Sake »

October 31, 2014

Friday Inflammatory Debate Topic

So, is this "emasculation", or a reasonable standard?

The commander of U.S. troops in South Korea is dropping the hammer on that country’s notorious “juicy bars,” which use women as sex workers who cater to U.S. troops.

Many of the women are illegally smuggled into South Korea from other countries, including the Philippines. They are treated as the property of “juicy bar” proprietors, who steal their passports and claim the women owe them money for bringing them into the country.

The women are forced to sell themselves as companions to U.S. troops, who can buy overpriced juice drinks from them. A 2002 Military Times investigation profiled a “juicy girl,” who said she did not make enough money by selling drinks to pay off her debt to her bar owner, so she had to resort to charging U.S. service members for sex.

How is this the same/different from the Secret Service brouhaha? (sorry, Don!)

Posted by Cassandra at October 31, 2014 12:19 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5368

Comments

It's reasonable to prohibit prostitution, or the purchase of prostitution services. It's probably reasonable to have 'good order and discipline' standards that limit the harmful effects of having lots of young servicemen with cash on the local community, including by taking steps to stop prostitution from flourishing in said community.

An alternative: contract through MWR to run some "juicy bars" at which the Marines can buy the girls drinks, the girls will be fairly compensated for their time, and no prostitution will be necessary or encouraged. Then the desire for attractive young female companionship can be solved without the baleful effect. Perhaps the MWR could choose a name for its new service that reminds the boys of home: "Hooters," maybe.

Posted by: Grim at October 31, 2014 12:40 PM

This particular application aside, I think the whole question of whether the standard ought to be "when in Rome..." (IOW, "if it's legal in the host country....") for US personnel serving abroad (pun fully intende... oh, nevermind) or whether we expect servicemen/women to abide by US laws or just the UCMJ is an interesting one.

There's a lot of Nanny-statism wrt to smoking these days, and also the sale of girlie mags in PX's that bothers me.

And though I realize you're being facetious, I'm not entirely sure being able to buy girls drinks on base is going to make the desire to buy sex off base go away. I'm pretty sure they're not the same thing :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 31, 2014 02:06 PM

This reminds my of a story...
Thanks!

Posted by: spd rdr at October 31, 2014 02:18 PM

Well, my sense is that one of the biggest problems facing leaders of young Marines is the young Marines' desire for sex. Even here at home, and even for soldiers too -- what you hear platoon sergeants gripe about is how Private Jackson went off and married the girl he just met at the strip club, who is somehow now three months pregnant though they met two months ago.

Since we've effectively said that they must view female Marines as sexless robots without sex attributes if they want to avoid SHARP issues (or the EOO in the Army), and since they are high speed young men who are self-selected for the qualities associated with high testosterone, they're going to go somewhere looking for sex. Marriage is the ideal, but even marriage causes major issues for these young Marines and soldiers.

So the best you can do is provide a place for them to meet attractive young non-servicewomen, with whom they can make private arrangements for sex. Prostitution is a positive evil, and it's right and reasonable to make efforts to prevent our servicemembers from engaging in it. It would be great if we could co-locate the barracks with a girls' college dormitory, where young women of good family and character could look for husbands to enrich the old money bloodlines!

Failing that, Hooters is better than the strip club, and both of them are a world better than encouraging an environment that forces young women to be prostitutes.

Posted by: Grim at October 31, 2014 02:26 PM

Well, my sense is that one of the biggest problems facing leaders of young Marines is the young Marines' desire for sex....Since we've effectively said that they must view female Marines as sexless robots without sex attributes if they want to avoid SHARP issues (or the EOO in the Army), and since they are high speed young men who are self-selected for the qualities associated with high testosterone, they're going to go somewhere looking for sex. Marriage is the ideal, but even marriage causes major issues for these young Marines and soldiers.

Hmmm... So they're not mature enough to handle marriage yet, but they want to have sex. And some of you wonder why I argue that the traditional values aren't always realistic in today's world :p

I know it sounds like I'm snarking, but I'm really not. I agree that it's a problem (and not just for the families of the local crop of young women!). What you're saying, though, is that it's basically unreasonable to expect men not to have sex until they're married because 'they want it".

Which is kind of the double standard I've complained about in the past wrt traditional morality: we tell young women that sex before marriage is immoral, harmful, and wrong and then wink at young men doing what we tell our daughters is immoral. Or even worse, encourage and approve of that supposedly-immoral behavior.

That's an attitude I will never, ever understand even if I live to be a gazillion years old. Either it's immoral or it's not.

Anyway, that's not on you - I agree with you 100%.


Posted by: Cassandra at October 31, 2014 03:56 PM

At the risk of being accused of not taking this inflammatory debate entirely seriously, this article struck me as too funny to pass up.

Mildly NSFW language warning.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 31, 2014 04:47 PM

YOU'RE NOT TAKING THIS INFLAMMATORY DEBATE ENTIRELY SERIOUSLY!

With risk comes reward... and STD's.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 31, 2014 05:11 PM

Hey, if you can't have a little fun while you're being inflammatory, what fun is it? :)

Posted by: Cassandra at October 31, 2014 05:17 PM

What you're saying, though, is that it's basically unreasonable to expect men not to have sex until they're married because 'they want it".

Well, not exactly: what I said was that young men of high testosterone are going to find a way to have sex. That might be marriage! But it may be marrying the first girl they meet at the strip club, which is a huge problem (for them and their families) if she is not of good character. It will likely cause problems for their unit, too, which is why platoon sergeants gripe about it.

It's not immoral to marry her, of course; and they've then met the standard of keeping sex confined to marriage.

Posted by: Grim at October 31, 2014 05:58 PM

Just jumping in here, if I may. I read Grim's suggestion as providing something commensurate with a singles bar for servicemembers overseas. I met my wife at a bar off-base in Georgia, providing servicemembers (male and female) with eligible singles that we at least know are not likely foreign agents is not necessarily a bad idea. I'm not saying it needs to be a dating service, but now that those words have been said, why not? Why would it be such an awful thing to match eligible soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines with eligible locals who have had a background check (my ideas will be colored by the fact that we were basically told not to date anyone we meet at "random" in the bars at Monterrey, CA as they were highly likely to be foreign agents)?

Posted by: MikeD at November 4, 2014 08:41 PM