Buyer Beware

[Guest Mark]

Rio to Fight Sex Tourism as Carnival Nears

 

By Andrei Khalip

 

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - Bare-breasted, hip-thrusting Carnival beauties may stoke lust in some tourists but Rio de Janeiro authorities hope to temper their ardor with reminders that not all sex in the city is legal.

 

Concerned about Rio's image as a major sex tourism destination and the crime that surrounds prostitution, city prosecutors are launching a campaign against sexual exploitation and the use of minors in the sex trade.

 

The drive, which involves a police crack-down on pimps and brothels as well as a public awareness campaign, coincides with Rio's world-famous Carnival jamboree that kicks off on Feb 20.

 

One of its focal points is tourism.

"Sex tourism is no good for the city," Ana Lucia Melo, prosecutor in a special unit combating the sex trade and child prostitution, told Reuters.

 

Young people wearing T-shirts saying "Sexual exploitation is a crime" will distribute pamphlets to tourists across the city explaining that having sex with a person under 14 could land them in jail for up to 10 years.

 

"We will make contact with all the tourists coming to Rio, in the airports, in the seaport, in hotels and even during Carnival processions in the street," she said.

 

The city is already swarming with tourists and loud rehearsals for colorful samba parades have begun.

 

It is not illegal in Brazil to offer sexual services or to use them but exploiting other people or running a brothel (e.g. Estacao, Pointe 202) is an offense with jail terms of one to five years.

 

Melo said police will regularly raid areas in the city center, along Copacabana beach and in the Barra de Tijuca neighborhood that are notorious for prostitution. Seven under-age prostitutes, including three transvestites, were detained in one such raid earlier this week on Copacabana.

 

"This operation does not end with Carnival. It will go on with the aim of reducing prostitution and punishing those who cash in on the miserable situations that make many women sell their bodies," she said.

 

A special U.N. envoy said in November the problem of child prostitution and sexual exploitation in Brazil was worse than in most other countries because of poverty, crime and tourism.

 

Non-governmental organizations estimate the number of child prostitutes in Brazil at between 100,000 and 500,000, out of a total population of 175 million.

[+ Lucky]

Hey, Mark. there's a job for you at the White House. A little editorializing, huh? Did the Reuter's article actually say that the Point and Estacao are brothels? The article is about exploitation and pedophilia, Mark. We're against those things too. As well as guys who re-write the truth to fit their agenda.

[VaHawk]

Why is this poster guilty of editorializing? Do you have the original article cited that you can post so we can all see for ourselves that it was edited. If not, then this is a prime example of shooting the messenger.

 

As far as "we're all against sexual exploitation and pedophilia", I really think that you can only speak for yourself with 100% certainty. I haven't seen any regular posters here who have exhibited any signs of pedophilia, but who knows what lurks in the hearts and minds of the many lurkers on this site, or indeed what lurks unrevealed in the known posters.

 

There is certainly documented evidence that Brazil is among those third world countries, along with Costa Rica and Thailand that are infamous for both pedophilia (14 is the legal age - nope no pedophilia there) and sexual exploitation. How many people go to those places primarily and foremost to engage in sexual activites at CHEAP rates with very young boys and girls. One only has to read this very forum to see evidence of this!

[JamesK840]

Good advice, except this isn't a board of pedophiles...

 

He would seem to have clearly inserted the name of gay saunas frequented by members of this board into an article about straight pimping and pedophilia.

 

As has been explained here a bunch of times, the saunas provide nothing but a place to gather, possibly purchase refreshments, and a spot you can rent to have fun in. The working guys pay for services just like the customers, and sexual services are bought directly from the working guy--the sauna does not take a cut. So it would seem the ones he mentioned are actually explicitly legal according to the rest of the article. A rather stupid and pointless article, BTW, as it implies there's nothing wrong with tourists having sex with Brazilians age 14-18...

[VaHawk]

RE: Good advice, except this isn't a board of pedophile...

 

Well, as I said, let's see the original news item, before we make accusations. And the article was not just about pedophilia, but also about sexual exploitation and the fact that Brazil is indeed a sexual tourist destination that owes a lot of it's tourist dollars to the sexual tourists.

 

Sexual exploitation, not including pedophilia can not be denied as the driving force behind many, many, many tourists going to Brazil. "More bang for the buck"?? How can you deny that? Just look at the threads on this very forum! Or just look at the recent thread on hiring multiple escorts for an orgy session, where at least one poster advocated that for less money than using the US escorts required, that the author of the thread could go to Rio and hire even a larger quantity of cheap young Brazilians. Isn't that exploitation? If you don't think so, then please post the definition of the word exploitation that you find in your favorite dictionary!

[imrthr]

>Why is this poster guilty of editorializing? Do you have the

>original article cited that you can post so we can all see for

>ourselves that it was edited. If not, then this is a prime

>example of shooting the messenger.

 

 

The original article came off of Reuters about four hours ago: Here it is - please note that the thrust of the article is about prostitution involving minors and/women - The article does not discuss the saunas nor the adult males who work in the saunas! -

 

12 Feb 2004 01:10

 

Rio to fight sex tourism as Carnival nears

By Andrei Khalip

 

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - Bare-breasted, hip-thrusting Carnival beauties may stoke lust in some tourists but Rio de Janeiro authorities hope to temper their ardor with reminders that not all sex in the city is legal.

 

Concerned about Rio's image as a major sex tourism destination and the crime that surrounds prostitution, city prosecutors are launching a campaign against sexual exploitation and the use of minors in the sex trade.

 

The drive, which involves a police crack-down on pimps and brothels as well as a public awareness campaign, coincides with Rio's world-famous Carnival jamboree that kicks off on Feb 20.

 

One of its focal points is tourism.

 

"Sex tourism is no good for the city," Ana Lucia Melo, prosecutor in a special unit combating the sex trade and child prostitution, told Reuters.

 

Young people wearing T-shirts saying "Sexual exploitation is a crime" will distribute pamphlets to tourists across the city explaining that having sex with a person under 14 could land them in jail for up to 10 years.

 

"We will make contact with all the tourists coming to Rio, in the airports, in the seaport, in hotels and even during Carnival processions in the street," she said.

 

The city is already swarming with tourists and loud rehearsals for colorful samba parades have begun.

 

It is not illegal in Brazil to offer sexual services or to use them but exploiting other people or running a brothel is an offense with jail terms of one to five years.

 

Melo said police will regularly raid areas in the city center, along Copacabana beach and in the Barra de Tijuca neighborhood that are notorious for prostitution. Seven under-age prostitutes, including three transvestites, were detained in one such raid earlier this week on Copacabana.

 

"This operation does not end with Carnival. It will go on with the aim of reducing prostitution and punishing those who cash in on the miserable situations that make many women sell their bodies," she said.

 

A special U.N. envoy said in November the problem of child prostitution and sexual exploitation in Brazil was worse than in most other countries because of poverty, crime and tourism.

 

Non-governmental organizations estimate the number of child prostitutes in Brazil at between 100,000 and 500,000, out of a total population of 175 million.

[jackhammer91406]

If it's for sale, is it exploitation?.

 

It's no secret I recently went to RIO. It's also no secret that I had sex while I was there. Am I guilty of exploiting? I guess it would be up to the individual to determine, but I don't think so. Did money change hands, yeah sure, sometimes, although Alex refused money more often than he took any. Was I coercing anyone. Not that I could tell, I am too uptight to do anything like that. If a service is for sale, does that constitute exploitation?

 

The original post seemed directed at the str8 realm of sex for sale. James is correct in that the saunas are not brothels. The guys available are their own bosses.

 

I am not into children (under 21 as I define them), so I never noticed their presence, if they were there.

 

I suppose I could get offended when people make statements about tourists going to RIO to exploit the locals, but since I never felt I was getting more than I gave, I guess I don;t feel I was exploiting, therefore I have not taken offense.

 

Wow! my one thousand and something post. Gee, I must be somebody!.

 

 

}(

[trilingual]

RE: Some clarifications

 

A few points need to be made here:

 

1) To my knowledge, the age of consent in Brazil is 18, not 14. There have been numerous news stories in Brazil about adults (including some prominent foreigners, like diplomats) being arrested and/or deported for sex with people under 18. For the thousandth time: DO NOT HAVE SEX IN BRAZIL WITH SOMEONE UNDER 18. The saunas are a safe haven in that regard, because the sauna management checks the ages of the guys who work there. If in doubt about anyone else, ask to see their ID. Brazilians have to carry national identity documents with pictures and their birthdates on them.

 

2) The current clean-up drive does seem to be directed primarily towards eliminating sexual abuse of minors (those under 18) and sexual exploitation. Unlike the guys who work in the saunas, who are free-lance operatives, the women who work in the bars and straight saunas are often controlled by pimps who take their earnings, mistreat them, etc. In general, Brazilians aren't very scandalized by prostitution, which isn't illegal per se, but these days they're very aware of sexual abuse of minors and it's frequently in the news.

 

3) Technically, the saunas ARE illegal, as Ernani pointed out a while back in another thread on this topic. There are provisions of the Brazilian criminal code that make it illegal to profit as a third party from prostitution (like pimping) as well as to provide a place where such activities take place. Of course, if the latter provision were fully enforced, every five-star hotel in Rio would have to close, because they all know that guests bring prostitutes to their rooms.

 

4) Adult prostitution is NOT illegal in Brazil, nor are same-gender sexual relations, so directly paying another adult for sexual services is perfectly legal in Brazil as long as there's no third party involved, nor any coercion.

 

5) The authorities here seem to have mixed views on these issues. The local tourist authorities have realized how much money gay tourism brings into the country and they're starting to try to promote such tourism. They KNOW that a significant portion of that tourism is because of the existence of the saunas and other parts of the gay commercial sex scene. They're not about to kill the goose that's laying a golden egg for them. Besides, I think there's a certain twisted kind of macho logic to their attitude: the adult gay scene is something between MEN, who've always had a lot of freedom to do what they want here. Hell, some of the tourism officials probably frequent the saunas! The gay scene is also relatively discreet (an important feature here). The saunas are extremely low-key and non-obvious, and most gay bars also don't stand out. The limited gay street scene doesn't occur in residential areas. As a result, the local good burghers don't get all worked up about it. The straight commercial sex scene is much more obvious, takes place in residential areas, causes police problems, has loud drinking, partying and fighting late at night where people are trying to sleep, etc. Needless to say, that tends to attract the attention of the authorities along with the ire of the local residents who don't like being accosted going into their own apartment buildings.

 

6) Does anyone know what the heck is VaHawk going on about? Are we to understand that he has never used the services of an escort outside his home town? Because if he has, he's a sexual tourist, too, and he can stop throwing stones. Furthermore, if he lives in Virginia, as his handle implies, he's a criminal there if he uses escort services in his home state. In fact, he's a criminal in 49 of the 50 U.S. states if he procures the services of a prostitute. Given his provincial U.S.-centric mindset, I realize it's hard for him to get the picture, but adult prostitution ISN'T illegal in many (probably most) countries, and one reason people come to Brazil is for precisely that reason: you can engage in adult commercial sex here without breaking the law. Of course, there are lots of other good reasons for visiting Brazil (and you can combine them during the same trip).

[trilingual]

RE: Good advice, except this isn't a board of pedophile...

 

>"More bang for the buck"??

 

Yes, indeed, a dollar goes a lot farther in Brazil than in the U.S. But how does the fact that commercial sexual services here cost less than in the U.S. or Europe mean that clients are exploiting the local sex workers as long as they're paying the asking price (pretty much established by the local market in a classically pure example of the capitalist law of supply and demand at work)? And as long as they're not otherwise coercing the sex worker?

 

For Americans and Europeans, almost EVERYTHING in Brazil costs less than back home. Good hotels and restaurants, taxis, and clothing are all cheaper here. By your reasoning, it's exploitation if any foreigner takes advantage of that fact and stays at a Brazilian hotel, dines at a Brazilian restaurant, takes a cab or buys clothes or shoes here because they're cheaper. In fact, by that reasoning anybody in Europe or the U.S. who goes to a discount store there is engaging in exploitation because the same merchandise is on sale for a much higher price at Bloomingdale's or Marshall Field's or Harrod's. So anybody who shops at Wal-Mart or Costco, or any other bargain-hunter, must be an exploiter by your definition! Lucky for us that you're not the one who writes the definitions for Webster's or the OED!

[+ Lucky]

RE: Some clarifications

 

"Does anyone know what the heck is VaHawk going on about? Are we to understand that he has never used the services of an escort outside his home town? Because if he has, he's a sexual tourist, too, and he can stop throwing stones."

 

VaHawk waxed ecstatically recently about an Asian escort he had hired on a trip to NYC, so I guess the shoe fits.

[JamesK840]

I'm so sick of puritanism I could vomit...

 

I do not grant the argument that sexual tourism is bad for Brazil. The dipshit that wrote the original article makes that assertion, as fact, as if he speaks for the country or even the majority. Then he links pedophilia and exploitation, as if they are a required part of prostitution. Then to cap it all off, the person who posted the article in here feels the need to arbitrarily add gay saunas and commentary that has nothing to do with the article.

 

Ask the businesses within a 5 mile radius of the Atlantico if sexual tourism is evil, ask the hundreds of guys making a good wage.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Your last point may explain why it costs so much more in the states, and most often, you are getting less!

 

[imrthr]

RE: I'm so sick of puritanism I could vomit...

 

>Then to cap it all off, the person who posted the article in here feels the need to arbitrarily add gay saunas and commentary that has

>nothing to do with the article.

>

>

My, oh my, you are angry about something today!

 

I posted the article here so that readers could see that the original poster had indeed edited the Reuters article by inserting the names of two saunas in Rio.

 

An earlier poster had raised the question of whether the original article had been edited by the M4M poster. You misunderstood the intent of my posting as I did not "arbirarily add gay saunas" and a "commentary" to my posting reply.

 

Other than your misinterpretation of my posting, I agree with you on what you said in your posting.

 

Cheers

[VaHawk]

RE: Some clarifications

 

I'm not throwing stones, whether Lucky thinks so or not. Just because one hires an escort when visiting another city or country whether on business or vacation, does not make someone a someone a sexual tourist. But, imo, anyone who visits a country for the SOLE purpose of engaging in sexual encounters, is a sexual tourist. IMO, there are many people who go to Rio, Bangkok or whatever who have no interest in that place except sex and never try to experience the culture or sites as they spend the entire time in saunas, sex clubs or whatever.

[CT Dick]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>But, imo, anyone who visits a

>country for the SOLE purpose of engaging in sexual >encounters,is a sexual tourist.

> IMO, there are many people who go to

>Rio, Bangkok or whatever who have no interest in that place

>except sex and never try to experience the culture or sites as

>they spend the entire time in saunas, sex clubs or whatever.

 

Whew! I leave the saunas to eat and I always sleep in my hotel room. I've even been to a museum. In Va's (non-humble) opinion, I'm not a sexual tourist.

 

I was beginning to worry!

 

Dick

[AllDaySucker]

RE: Some clarifications

 

.

[AllDaySucker]

RE: Some clarifications

 

>> "Does anyone know what the heck is VaHawk going on about?

>>Are we to understand that he has never used the services of an

>>escort outside his home town? Because if he has, he's a sexual

>>tourist, too, and he can stop throwing stones."

>

>VaWack waxed ecstatically recently about an Asian escort he

>had hired on a trip to NYC, so I guess the shoe fits.

 

VaHawk seems to make a habit of excoriating others for doing what he himself does.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Alldaysucker, I went to your response to see what you had written. Apparently the moderator deemed it an inappropriate retort, thus deleted it. That's unfortunate because (although I have not written anything) I had taken an interest in what has been written here.

 

For the record-- I am not a SEX TOURIST! Over the years I've been blessed and fortunate enough to have visited six of the seven continents, and for more than six months, I have lived in two of them From 1974 onward, I've culturally enjoyed and experienced the towns and cities of many, many countries and have F**ked my brains out, too--in every opportunity I've gotten!

 

Remember we all live only ONCE! Enjoy yourself immensely as long as you can!:-) :9 :-)

[VaHawk]

RE: Some clarifications

 

EXCUSE ME! Who the heck are you to cast aspersions on me as a sexual tourist? I have never and will never plan my travels/vacations around sex! With a name like AllDaySucker I'm willing to bet that you can't say the same.

 

Why can't people just ADMIT, that there are people who visit a city/country with nothing more in mind than sexual encounters? Obviously you must be guilty of this, or you wouldn't feel so compelled to attack me just because I have hired escorts while in other cities/countries. What's the matter dude, did I hit too close to home for your personal comfort?

 

As Shakespeare wrote "me thinks he doth protest too much"!

 

Regardless of the name-calling and slurs you and others want to hurl at me, I'm not going to change my opinion that there are people out there who are TRULY sexual tourists, as there is way too much documentation out there that supports my opinion.

 

BTW: I see that the gentler, kinder Hooville didn't last long, did it? Once again, it has devolved into name calling ala VaWack. After all, when you can't attack the issue, by all means resort to attacking the poster. No problem with me in that regards, as I can sling the name calling as good as the rest of ya'll.

 

x(

[Trixie]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Hear hear, Axiom!

(Am I mistaken, or did we not share cocktails once on Continent #4?)

 

Trix

[trilingual]

RE: Some clarifications

 

According to the tag, it looks like AllDaySucker had second thoughts and edited the posting himself. He may have deleted his entire posting.

 

As for VaHawk: Sure there are people who are sexual tourists (i.e., their ONLY purpose for going somewhere is to have sex) and there are a few such individuals who post regularly on this board. However, you've been awfully free with trying to label everyone here but yourself as a sexual tourist, like it's somehow a bad thing and you're somehow better than everyone else. You're not. You're a criminal in your home state and in every other state where you've hired a male escort. You're also a criminal in any other country where you've hired an escort if their criminal code outlaws prostitution. (So, of course, are all the rest of us who've done the same things, but most of us recognize that we live in glass houses and don't hurl stones at each other. Unfortunately, you seem oblivious of the material your house is made of.)

 

As for "sexual tourism," I condemn it if it involves exploitation and/or pedophilia. However, if the activities a tourist wishes to engage in are perfectly legal in the country he's visiting, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a modern equivalent of Americans travelling to Canada or Mexico during Prohibition to have a legal drink! And even "sexual tourists" sleep in hotels, eat in restaurants, drink in bars and usually shop, if only for gifts for their "companions," thereby supporting the local economy. The sex workers they hire (who often cannot find any other lucrative employment in their own countries) also spend their earnings in the local economy. So while there may be prudish people who don't like it, the truth is that "sexual tourism" (particularly if properly regulated) can be good for a local economy.

 

In any case, this is a site about escorts and escorting, activities which aren't legal in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions, yet which most of us have engaged in. So please, everyone, keep the moralizing to yourselves, and lets talk about escorts!

[Guest rampo]

RE: Some clarifications

 

It does seem a bit bizarre to get all huffy about sex tourism on a message board which deals primarily with sex for pay. Presumably, most who participate on this board at least agree that paying for sex is not an evil thing.

 

People take holidays for all sorts of reasons. Many gay man factor in a sexual component. For some, it's all about sex, but for many - and, I suspect, for most - it's a combination of different things that attract them, including the opportunities for commercial or non-commercial sex. Believe it or not, I don't think most gay men who go to Bangkok or Rio or Montreal go with the idea of fucking their brains out 24/7. They may go expecting to have more sex than usual, but they also go for beaches, scenery, museums, shopping, adventure, or just plain relaxation and a bit of fun. And, in my experience, the sex one experiences from moneyboys in Rio or Thailand is not worth being the sole reason for repeatedly going back to these places. If you don't like the people and the place as well, it gets rather old fairly quickly.

 

The odd thing is that the "sex tourists" probably spend more time with the local population than the regular tourists. They go out to dinner with the sauna or moneyboys, visit the tourist sites, and often make an effort to at least learn some of the language and local customs. While "normal" tourists are sticking to the hotel restaurants (or the nearest McDonalds) and gettin twitchy if they go more than a couple of blocks from their hotel without a guide or tour bus, these sex tourists are more likely to be wandering around eating at local restaurants and riding local transportation.

 

Many of those who get into sex work in places like Rio or Bangkok may not be crazy about the work they do, but they do it not because it is the only way that they have of earning money but because it is a relatively EASY way of earning more money than they would make working as busboys or clerks at the the local version of WalMart. It is not for everyone, just as not everyone is cut out to be an escort. Many leave the business because they realize that they don't have what it takes to have sex with someone to whom they may not be attracted or they just don't get enough customers.

[imrthr]

RE: Some clarifications

 

Rampo- your narrative is so accurate, honest and analytical. Thanks for the observations.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: I'm so sick of puritanism I could vomit...

 

>>Then to cap it all off, the person who posted the article in

>here feels the need to arbitrarily add gay saunas and

>commentary that has

>>nothing to do with the article.

>>

>>

>My, oh my, you are angry about something today!

>

>I posted the article here so that readers could see that the

>original poster had indeed edited the Reuters article by

>inserting the names of two saunas in Rio.

>

>An earlier poster had raised the question of whether the

>original article had been edited by the M4M poster. You

>misunderstood the intent of my posting as I did not

>"arbirarily add gay saunas" and a "commentary" to my posting

>reply.

>

>Other than your misinterpretation of my posting, I agree with

>you on what you said in your posting.

>

>Cheers

 

imrthr, I think you misinterpreted the post by James. I don't think it was directed at you and your posting of the article. I think he was referring to the OP, who, as people suspected and you proved, dishonestly added his own content to the article. The "original article" that James referred to was not the original POST, it was the news article. And the "person who posted the article in here" was the OP, not you.

[JamesK840]

Of course...

 

I was indeed referring to the original poster and *his* editorial additions.