www.CostaRicaTicas.com

TMan,
This just goes to show how 2 guys CAN disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Actually, if you read my post carefully you will note a high degree of ambivalence in my last paragraph.We're basically saying the same thing. But that doesn't mean we have to just sit back and let them take that mile or that they will succeed.

The same sort of argument is used by the various sides in the handgun and abortion debates to stonewall against ANY reasonable middle ground solution. According to the NRA, require registration or a 3-day waiting period for handguns and the next thing you know the government will be confiscating ALL firearms and only criminals will have any. Or in a different vein, not only ban abortion but don't even allow stemcell research or a brain-dead woman to die with dignity. Lets get real there is a long way to go between cracking down on these tour outfits which they haven't even succesfully done yet and even then represent a small fraction of the industry and making any real progress at putting the genie back in the bottle (or stabbing the water).

I don't think the whole "inch-mile" argument NECESSARILY applies here. This may be a hot button issue for the femi-nazis and the moral crusaders but I don't think it is a high priority for most politicians. Tour agencies make an easy target that few can really object to closing down (and they're partly responsible for that themselves by virtue of the way they conduct their businesses). Politician could pass a law targeting such business and be able to point to their actions as proof to the crusaders that they're doing something. Those crusaders may not be content with just that, but the politicians will have little reason to go much further. If they did they would run the risk of offending the pro-business constituencies (like yourself), the libertarian element of the Republican party or the ACLU element of the Democrats. Of course the political balance can always shift for the worse (especially if the religious nuts succeed in packing the courts with like-minded judges).I don't BLANKETLY condone government interferenceon business either, but there are clearly cases in our economic system where business are and should be regulated. As for the no-harm/no-foul or consentuality parts, those on the other side would argue with you how harmless or consentual all of these business arrangements really are.

Personally for me it is more of a consumer or labor issue (and yes it does bug me that they're trying to close down these outfits for the wrong reasons). The reason I call these outfits "bad rubbish" is because in most cases they're profiteering and taking advantage of the ignorance or desperation of others by taking such huge margins over the real cost of what they provide. For similar reasons, I wouldn't mindseeing many of the foreign-bride websites reigned in. Sure caveat emptor, but state ombudsmen and atty generals have sued and shut down business for far less. Also, while I can't say for sure exactly how much the "companion"-employees get paid, I'm guessing its a small fraction of what the agencies get from the clients. If anyone should be overpaid in situations like this it should be the girl who puts out her body and not some guy who just puts up a webpage.Prostitution may be legal in CR, but pimping isn't and probably for very good reason. Whether you can see it or not there is a world of difference between sharing info freely and letting the girls profit or suffer directly from their own reputations and taking an inordinately large cut of their pay for the fairly simple act of providing that information. We are talking about women here and not industrial commodities. We are talking about a profession where historically women have been severely taken advantage of by their "agent"-pimps. But even if we weren't, how can you compare say the perfectly fair 6% cut you take for guiding a client through the property buying business and the ridiculous 200% mark-up that many of these tour agencies charge for guiding guys through transactions they could relatively easily learn to handle themselves?Again, I expressed a similar thought with the follwoing lineAs you pointed out a similar argument could be made on the part of some of the girls. My point is that, while there might be a need for such organizing forces, it comes at such a huge price that for most people it is rarely worth it. Certainly in a place like CR the girls can operate independently in relative safety. In other places, the girls are even more likely to be exploited by the "organized" operations as they are by the johns themselves.

Whew! King Solomon gave the best advice: All the better reason to move to CR. And with an address there, your travel will be "for the purpose of" going home! Make your money here, and get out!

The bad attitudes toward men described by RingoG are not going to disappear in our lifetimes, and, "in a democracy", people get to express (and vote for) their opinions and attitudes. Do you want to spend the rest of your life fitting in to the opinions and attitudes of a bunch of aging, bitter gringas, and their resulting legislation?

My opinion on legislation lately has been that, the rich and powerful guys (including preachers and politicians) can always get it, brought through the back door of The Club and served up just the way they like it. The legal crusades launched every so often are just to keep us little guys from starting to enjoy too much of the good life. Keep those class differences intact. I mean, isn't the Rey & its environs kind of like having a harem??? They'd sure like to put a stop to that, you betcha -- if they knew about it. Maybe we oughta think about keeping a lid on the popularity of our hobbying location?

Prolijo...I think we are generally in agreement. My main contention is (ok, call me Libertarian even if I'm not a "joiner"), government was never designed nor tasked with regulating moral issues. The founders of our constitution made government role very simple and basic...definitely not intended to be the "Uncle Sam" who takes care of everyone and watches over everything...including your sex life. Free market forces are designed to handle alot of this. If govt spend more time enforcing basic contract law, and less time on these amoral issues...the free market would take care of high priced or gouging tour businesses. If individual operators or providers themselves were allowed to advertise and market more freely, these high priced operators would be put out of business. It shouldnt take laws and moral regulations to control them. They should be shut down for not living up to client or provider contracts...not on morality grounds. For me it just comes down to the root of the matter. Sure, I would love govt to come in and enforce ALL of MY wants and needs...but then, you and I would have major conflicts in some areas. I prefer a world where you can operate and believe what you want as long as it doesnt inflict on the rights of another, and that smaller sections of society and zones would have more say and control on their community affairs as long as they didnt trample on individual rights. Harmony and balance are difficult points to arrive, but at least we should strive.

I know the political and philosophical issues here are large and debatable, preferrably in a more appropriate forum...but as it pertains to our travel rights and sexual lives...I think we HAVE to be in touch with the basic tenants of freedom in this regard and watch our government like a hawk.

Here you go Circus,


20 March 2005 Editorial - A Misguided Anti-Vice Pledge -Click for Source


(Los Angeles Times) -- Social conservatives in Congress, backed by the Catholic Church and the Christian right, are on a new foray to dictate sexual mores to the rest of the world, at the expense of public health. This time it's an oath being foisted on U.S. groups working to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They will soon be asked to comply with a 2-year-old law dictating that they have "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking" before they will be considered for federal grants to provide health services overseas.
The pledge is reminiscent of other Bush administration efforts including the re-imposition of the so-called global gag rule, which bans international family planning groups that receive U.S. funds from performing or even discussing abortion. It is as unproductive as pushing the United Nations to withdraw support for needle-exchange programs. Such policies do little to stem HIV, and contribute to the deaths of women forced to seek illegal and unsafe abortions.
AIDS experts agree almost uniformly that the anti-prostitution pledge could have the opposite of its intended effect, making it tougher for aid groups to reach the women who most need their help -- and who play a major role in the spread of the disease.
The pledge has its origins in a law passed by Congress in 2003 but not used as a litmus test for funding until now. At stake is the entire $3.2 billion the Bush administration has asked Congress to set aside for global efforts to curb AIDS and HIV next year.
It's absurd to suppose that any of the groups working to combat HIV in the Third World -- like Save the Ch*ldren, Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam -- are in favor of prostitution. But a big part of fighting HIV/AIDS necessarily involves working with prostitutes and building trust so that they're willing to seek treatment and counseling.
The pledge will not prevent groups from giving condoms or antiretroviral drugs to prostitutes. But it might stand in the way in other cases, with highly damaging effects.
For instance, aid workers in Bangladesh sometimes pass out shoes to brothel workers who are forced by local custom to go barefoot. That might not seem like a way to stem AIDS, but it helps gain their trust and gives them a measure of self-respect -- without which they are unlikely to change their behavior. Would these handouts, or counseling sessions for sex workers on personal hygiene, be considered a violation of the anti-prostitution pledge? Its vague wording leaves that unclear. What is apparent is that it could easily be used to deny funding to groups that legislators don't like.
Last year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) helped delay efforts to apply the 2003 law to U.S. groups working overseas. This year he has stood on the sidelines. Frist -- who regularly travels to Africa to do pro bono work as a physician -- knows the situation on the ground far better than most of his colleagues. He should stand up to his fellow conservatives and speak out against the pledge. U.S. groups working overseas should also refuse to sign it. These groups fully understand why prostitution is a public health disaster in the developing world. They are working hard to give women better options, not through coercion or moralizing, but through venereal disease counseling, domestic violence prevention, literacy programs, job training and other social support. They shouldn't be forced to prove their sincerity by signing a pledge that could be used cavalierly against them.
If conservatives want to go after prostitution in the Third World, they can fund religious groups to proselytize against it. Interfering in the fight against HIV is a misguided policy that could cost lives.

Source: The Religious Consultation

How about the US mandated age of consent being raised to 18 in CR?

_________________
It is cheaper to pay now and get it over with.
It is also easier to get them to leave.

I think it is a good law, also, but in 2003 CR yielded to US pressure, from a campaign similar to the one that started this thread.
The campaign was to prevent sexual abuse of Ch*ldren, but it does validate that the US can force CR to change it's laws.

EDIT: I just did a quick search, and found out it was 2002 that the US forced the change.

01-2001:
Source: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/world.htm
COSTA RICA
LAWS: 1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 15 for all.

Added 03-2002:
Violators are prosecuted disregarding their nationality, unless their country of origin wishes to extradite for local prosecution (for example the US).
=========================
COSTA RICA
I. Legal Age
Legal age is 18. Any person older than 18 is considered of age and has all rights permitted by law.

_________________
It is cheaper to pay now and get it over with.
It is also easier to get them to leave.

Hey Circus,
I misunderstood your original question my answer was about trying to influence the laws, sorry.

Circus,

Let me take a stab at this and someone can stop me if I'm just talking out of my ass. The way I understand it, the latest tool that the USA uses to spread it's ideology to other countries is the IMF/World Bank. The USA has something like a 60% controlling interest (read: complete veto power) in the IMF/World Bank and your buddy and mine, Paul Wolfowitz is currently the Chairman. If any country applies for loans through a foreign creditor that operates in an IMF/WB member nation, they must get approval first from the IMF/WB (again read: USA). The IMF/WB issues conditions to the country requesting the aid or loans, usually requiring them to sell off their state-run markets to private multi-national firms. They also require the country to enforce laws condusive to democracy and fair trade in the global marketplace. This includes environmental laws and those prohibiting exploitation of labor. This is where I believe the USA has the power to institute changes to laws in other countries. If the USA believes another country's legalization of prostitution constitutes exploitation, they can deny credit or aid to that country on those grounds.

That is the only way I can think of that the USA could truly crack down on prostitution in Costa Rica. I may be way off on this one, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Done

I believe the age of consent and the age for someone to work as a prostitute in Costa Rica may be different.

I do not know if the age of consent is 15 or 18 or somewhere in between so can not comment on that. I do know that since I have been coming to Costa Rica (1992) girls have always been required , by most hotels, to produce a cedula. The reason the hotels gave was twofold. 1. Ensure the girl was of legal age( you are not issued a cedula until you are 18). 2. Have a record of her identity in case of a problem.

Based on that I do not believe the US government pressured the CR government to raise the age for a person to work as a prostitute. What did happen in early 2000 was the TV shows on Ch*ld prostitution. This caused the heat on the CR government.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

This thread has sure covered a lot of territory.

_________________
It is cheaper to pay now and get it over with.
It is also easier to get them to leave.

Circus,
I think Sandinista really nailed the answer to your question. The problem is that you're not going to find a smoking gun. If any country bends to US pressure and amends its laws to appease the US they're not about to announce that pressure as the reason why they did it to their own people. It would make them look like a bunch of weak US lackeys. If there is any solid evidence of how the US uses such strong arm tactics, better examples can be found when such pressure fails. Brazil recently publicly rejected US pressure when they refused to crack down on prostitution in their country. If you still don't believe me, I could look up the documentation details for you. Another example, to bring back up that sore subject of the war with Iraq, was when Turkey turned down tremendous pressure and bribes to provide staging rights for our invasion because of almost universal opposition amongst its electorate. The fact that it even considered supporting us under those conditions is what shows how much pressure was brought to bear.

Yet another example of how such things work is within our own political system. How many of you think we have a true democracy rather than a system heavily influenced by monied special interests, the wealthy, lobbyists and such. There is rarely a smoking gun or if there is those same special interests know how to cover their tracks. Look at all the hullaballoo over Cheney's secret meeting with oil company execs when they were putting together the bush administration's energy policy. They managed to squelch all that under the banner of executive privelege. And lest you think this is just the ramblings of some crazed Liberal, what about all the stink the Republicans made about Chinese donations to Clinton's re-election campaign. That involved FOREIGN lobbyists. If they could possibly influence our government, is it that absurd to believe we could influence the governments of small developing countries like CR with well-known histories of widespread government corruption?
-----------------------------------------------------

T&V & Ding Dong,
My understanding is that the age of sexual consent in CR has been and still is 15, however in terms of prostitution the age of consent is 18 (meaning locals can have sex with girls between 15-18 as long as they don't pay them). I couldn't swear that none of that has changed in recent years as a result of US pressure. However I read T&V's quote a little differently. Incidentally, the full text comes from http://www.ageofconsent.com/costarica.htm. I'm not sure how he came about that other link to a GAY website . Anyway, what they're saying is that at 18 a person has COMPLETE rights, meaning no restrictions as to prostitution. Here are the parts you missed:
I'm not sure what they mean by honest woman except perhaps its "okay" to have sex with her if she lies to you about her age.and finally the quote that most concerns usIncidentally, for those of you like me who don't know WTF proxenetism is, I looked it up:
The action of a go-between or broker in negotiating immoral bargains between the sexes; procuring. In a word - prostitution.

Now comes the real catch. None of this really matters for any of us. T&V edited out one very important point:When that web author wrote the stuff about nationality and extradition, I think he was just referring to the fact that being a foreign citizen won't get you out unless your home country wishes to request extradition so that they can prosecute you instead. The reason he cites the US specifically is because the US may very well wish to prosecute you. In fact, under US law it doesn't even matter if it is legal in CR if it is against the law in the US (a concept referred to as extraterratoriality). So even if you have sex with an otherwise locally legal girl between the ages of 15 and 18 and it is completely non-commercial, you may be legal in CR but can be prosecuted for it when you return to the US.
------------------------

Finally, TMan, I completely agree with you about the problem of attempting to legislate morality and I said as much in my prior post when I said I thought they were trying to shut down those tour companies for the "wrong reasons". I also agree with you that a world of perfect consumer (and employee) information where the free-market can regulate rather than the government is much more preferable. The only problem I have is that I don't think such a world will ever truly exist. The age of the internet certainly helps in many ways, but in other ways it hurts. Too much misinformation can be as detrimental as a lack of good information. The truth often gets lost in the clutter.

The other problem with your philosophy is that sometimes people KNOW but they just don't CARE. There are operators that could care less if they are hooking up pedophiles with young Ch*ldren and the pedophiles obviously don't care either. If there are also criminal laws to deal with such cases, such businesses and their clients will just find ways around it or go to places where the enforcement of such laws are lax. Are you saying that we should just rely on the free market in cases like that and do nothing about it? Obviously, as long as there are evil or uncaring people out there, we will need some form of government regulation.