www.CostaRicaTicas.com

Read page 3 of todays www.amcostarica.com The object seems to aimed at traficking but as in most changes it could be overreaching. One paragraph seems a bit concerning

"The bill also would punish with two to five years the operators of an establishment or place that is a destination accessible for commercial sexual exploitation or prostitution of persons of whatever gender or age.
Since adult prostitution is legal in Costa Rica is that section would seem to be unconstitutional on its face."

If anything like this were actually passed then it is obvious that it would put all MPs,strip clubs,Hotels and bars that cater to prostitutes and their clients in serious jeapordy.

After reading the article, and IMHO it appears to be aimed more at "pimping" and trafficking.

Like any proposed legislation in any democratic country it will probably be re-written. And as the article stated "Prostitution is legal in CR" which would make this proposed bill unconstitutional so a repeal of that law would have to be voted on; by the general population.

Unfortunately the writing may be on the wall for the future.

As I have said in the past: The gulch is the icing on the cake and not the primary reason why I go there.

_________________
Patriot: Ice Road Trucking through the Bearing Sea to recovery

My understanding was that prostitution was legal in CR only because there was no current law against it. To the best of my knowledge there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to prostitute oneself. So I'm not sure where you guys and the authors of that article are getting that the bill would be "unconstitutional on its face".

I think the much bigger impediments to passage of this bill as it is currently written are the cultural ties to prostitution (most or many tico men use prostitutes themselves) and the economic dependence on it as well. Whatever they pass will have to be written in such a way that it targets ONLY foreign use of prostitutes, because the real aim of the legislation is to deal with CR's international image as a sex tourism destination and not LOCAL prostitution, AND so that it doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water and destroy an important revenue stream (at least for certain interests which I'm sure will do whatever they can to influence or water down the legislation from behind the scenes).

The problem with most such bills in CR is the vague language and unclearly defined terms. What exactly is "sexual exploitation" and what constitutes "trafficking"? As the article also noted: "Previous efforts to address human trafficking have suffered from definitions that were too broad. Most foreign prostitutes who come to Costa Rica do so voluntarily, so the element of force does not exist. In addition, many come as individuals, although they may end up living with other prostitutes".

So when they say elsewhere in the legislation "The bill also would punish with two to five years the operators of an establishment or place that is a destination or benefits from the trafficking of persons or related activities. The summary does not provide more details.", what exactly is "trafficking" and are places like the HDR/BM really benefitting from it. As far as I know (and most probably the CR can prove), all the chicas in there are there by their own choice. So even if they came in from other countries, can the CR authorities really say there was any trafficking going on?

I think the more interesting paragraph is the previous one in the article which states: "the bill stipulates a prison term of from four to eight years for persons who promote, run programs, campaigns or advertisements, making use of whatever medium, to project the country as a tourist destination accessible for commercial sexual exploitation or prostitution of persons of whatever gender or age." What they're talking about here are websites, perhaps like this one. Of course, if that is their target it raises the question of how they can enforce it when the website is based in another country. The article concludes with the observation: "The legislation summary also does not seem to address the fact that most Internet servers are outside the country."

Actually, it seems they may actually be talking more about websites like Bendricks which promote CR sex tourism travel packages or the infamous high-profile excursions like the annual Michigan Boy's trip to the Pacific Coast, where they put together a whole charter jet filled with mongers and bring them down ostensibly for fishing but really turns into one huge fuckfest that has drawn lots of media attention. If THAT is what this legislation is aimed at, then I say have at it. The promoters of sex-tourism travel packages are nearly always overpriced rip-offs aimed at newbies with more money than sense to throw around and we don't need any more of those sorts of mongers coming to CR. And the incredibly indiscreet activities of outfits like the Michigan Boy's Club is a large part of what has brought the heat down on all of us.

Very true; once you get to know some ticos on a personal level, you wouldn't believe some of the shit that is rather commonplace here, but just never talked about, for fear of shame.

I was simply amazed when I found out that a tico always seems to know of another tico that was a victim of rape and/or incest, yet they never report it, and usually don't even admit it happened outside of close circles.

I so hate the "blame the victim" mentality they have goin on down here.

"Oh, you were raped? You should've known better than to have walked through that park with your boyfriend in the middle of broad daylight."

Here is an article, a very looooooong article related to this if you have the time.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?i ... &pageNum=1

Interesting excerpt about the Holiday Inn from the GQ article linked above.


That was in 2005, but now they care a little. $70 worth.

The article was so long, I fell asleep reading it. Orange, it is $70 plus $10 tax, so actually $80. Can't forget the chica tax! Well, I guess the BM got miles of free advertising on that article. I would like to meet the non-aggressive chicas they were referencing.

Dean

_________________
my first wingman sent me this, how true

" most of the girls down here, lie as a self defense mechanism and to not have to face the truth, thinking most men couldn't accept them knowing the whole truth. Simpler, they may just want men to think they are as perfect as they want to appear to them, trying to hide what they consider to be the ugly truth about themselves. And I may be reading more into it than is there, but I do believe they consider the basis of the lies to be justified."

That GQ article? Sensationalist tripe, which had the effect as the author knew it would) of increasing the sex traffic to CR. Wonder if John paid him strong dollars to continuously mention the name of his establishments? Sure looks like it. Pure trashy humbug, a farrago of half-truths, twisted facts and skillful evasions designed to stake a moral position without the guts to come out and actually take a position. This is what journalism has come to? At least the "Del Rey debs" are honest whores--this joker prostitutes his whole profession. Beneath contempt. And that retired policeman that was quoted? I'll bet a round at the SL bar at Happy Hour it was not our Brother Pops

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Yes,no doubt.I stopped watching the news years ago because their intent clearly became to outrage rather than to inform.

I remember as a K*D watching the news at my grandparent's house,and it was dry and crusty,but factual...now it is sensationalism at it's worst.If it does not have a "hook",they won't run it.I also believe it feeds into the high stress life most of us lead.I found myself getting angry over the "news",then I started noticing the contradictions and outright lies and opinionated drivel,so I cut it out of my life.

When the news becomes like Ricki Lake,it's time to hide in a house in the middle of a swamp and cover our ears and eyes so we can have some peace..

Projilo wrote:

I agree with Pro in general but CRT DOES NOT PROMOTE sexual tourism in any country. CRT is an open discussion bulletin board where members that have visited CR or other countries can post accounts of their experiences and obtain advice on what to do, what not to do and where to go to make their next trip more enjoyable.
I believe this is where the distinction would be made. Granted it is a difference in wording but as I recall, when I joined, there was disclaimer stating that CRT does not promote sexual tourism.

Bendricks, Costa Rica *******, and others INDIRECTLY PROMOTE prostitution by acting as an agent for "escorted" vacations. If you read through their web sites they'll use key words like "sex vacations" so when people do a search for this type of vacation their site will be displayed first.

_________________
Patriot: Ice Road Trucking through the Bearing Sea to recovery

I think "promoting sex tourism" is very broad and is open to many interpretations.

Patriot,
Does CRT "promote" sex-tourism? Some would say no, or at least that is not its intent. Others would say yes. Who is right and who is wrong? Or does it even matter? The more important thing is the matter of PERCEPTION. And, whether we like it or not, the perception of the authorities and anti-sex-tourism forces in CR is that CRT does promote it. It may even be the poster Ch*ld due to its amazing success and strong following. For example, it is often cited in newspaper articles and TV news reports in CR whenever discussing the issue. Sometimes the only reference is a blurred out image of the CRT homepage, but the reference is clear enough for us to make it.

Now, OTOH, it doesn't actually put together any tours itself that bring down fellas for the purpose of engaging in sex with ticas and doesn't have any direct hand it what those fellas spend while they are there. For that matter, as you have already pointed out, for the most part any "promotion" that may be being done on CRT is in the posts of its individuals members and, as the saying goes, those do not necessarily reflect the position of management. However, as far as the CR authorities are concerned those may all just be semantical differences and THEY are the ones who will determine where the distinction would be made, not us. THEY will have the power to interpret and enforce any vaguely written rules they choose to pass, not us.

Where CRT has the power is in the fact that it is based in the US, where the CR authorities have no power. And all its business is done in the US. Anything done by its members, while they're in CR, is purely THEIR business. So, THAT is what might make this law entirely academic as it applies to CRT, ASSUMING it even passes as it is currently proposed.

------------

Re: that GQ article - This article was actually discussed 4 years ago on CRT when it first came out (see http://www.costaricaticas.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8330).

JB asks "Is this what journalism has come to?" He should recall the term "yellow journalism" which actually dates back to the turn of the LAST century and the Spanish American war when Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were battling it out over circulation using highly sensationalistic (even lurid) headlines and news articles. But I'm sure JB is already well familiar with that. However, I agree with him that the news media in general often SEEMS to have sunk to NEW lows in recent years due to the decline of the newspapers and major network news shows and the ascendence of the 24hour news cycle on the all-news cable networks. Fox News was even caught recently trying to agitate protesters at a demonstration that it was covering. How does that square with objectively reporting the news rather than trying to make it?

So what about this specific article? The target readership of GQ and Men's Style is certainly predominately men (well, also many metrosexuals of indeterminate gender ). So, whatever moral position the article may or may not have taken, the effect on many of their readers was undoubtedly to stir their curiousity about CR as a sex-tourism destination and perhaps go there to check it out themselves. Going back to the points I was raising at the beginning of this post, does it even matter whether that was the author's intent or not? I think the author's intent was neither to promote or to criticize, but rather simply to sell magazines with a highly sensationalistic (and sexy) article. What I found personally repugnant and perhaps hypocritical was the fact that the article did not QUITE take an stated moral position on the topic (and so clung to a figleaf of journalistic objectivity) while presenting the scene down there in its sleaziest light and taking the tone of looking down upon the very thing that it was USING to sell magazines. Did this GQ article do more to promote CR sex-tourism amongst its male readers or did it do more to increase moral outrage against it amongst a segment of the male population who probably consider themselves too cool and stylish to have to resort to paying for hookers in some 3rd world country? Are articles like these sufficiently anti-sex-tourism to avoid charges of promoting that very thing or does ANY article, whether pro or con, only draw attention to an aspect of CR tourism that they would rather just sweep under a rug? All that are subjects to debate.

Prolijo hit it on the head. Perception is the key, not actually is or isn't so to speak..

In re: "yellow journalism"--I would take sensationalist journalism even farther back than Brother Prolijo. US newspapers had by the 1890's been on the arc to respectability. Most started as partisan political journals of one Party or special interest group with no hint or interest in objectivity. Now it seems for the most part we're over the top of the arc and on the downslide.

This Topic was also addressed in another Thread:
www.costaricaticas.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30709

Here's the original story (for future reference)--it's on P.3 about 1/2 way down the scroll:
www.amcostarica.com/092409.htm

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

I read the story
At first it struck me as more bad news for us
The story did not have many facts and was wishy-washy IMHO
Most know that thing in Costa Rican government work very quickly
No need for panic
Add a dose of Auntie Luara?????
I never worry to much about a pending bill
This why I get contact info ( sorry Gypsy)
Think about it if all the DR girls did not have a job anymore
My take
Pura Vida