Of course we had a whole year of news of presidential blow jobs in the US. Wouldn't it be nice if such trivialities, along with lecherous Paraguayans and ear lickers, really were newsworthy?

The Paraguayan is a victimizer or guilty because he deliberately spread STD by having sex with many women unprotected when he knows he himself has STD. That is against Taiwan's criminal law and any moral standard.

Those girls who don't know how to protect themselves and thus get hurt are stupid, I don't deny that, but still, that doesn't justify the Paraguayan's intentional behavior. If a mentally challenged person is conned all his savings by a bad guy, of course we can say the victim is stupid, but the fact that that victim is stupid doesn't make the fraud any less bad. I don't think it's right to take advantage of people's stupidity.

I may sound like blaming guys more, but that's because in this thread (or this kind of discussion) the vast majority tend to speak for "innocent" foreign guys, and thus I feel I need to give a balanced voice from that.

Well, I hope they learn something from the experience. Next time, it could be a lot worse. With you, whom I'm assuming is a Taiwanese female, saying they're stupid, then obviously there's a great need for sex education in Taiwan. But one question: Had it been a local, not a foreigner infecting so many women with an STD, would we have still seen this crap splashed all over the news? I find the whole thing reeks of xenophobia, similar to those ads they used to show at movie theatres of cartoon caucasians with AIDS.
Perhaps those chicks will think twice before "touching sauce" with Latinos next time, eh? :?


You are blaming guys, and btw, yours is NOT the only female voice around here. The guys are just as 'innocent' as the gals, girlfriend.

It takes two to tango, or salsa, as it were.

This incident has nothing to do with xenophobia, and I don't think Taiwanese have already or will develop xenophobia because of the Paraguayan diplomat's behavior. I don't even smell a little bit hatred to Paraguay after this! Where did you get that idea? On the other hand, nevertheless, if you got that message from what I said, then you can probably get an idea how Taiwanese girls could feel when tons of messages were posted here and there about how innocent foreigners were oppressed by Taiwanese psycho xiaojie--like guys are totally and always innocent! Like I said, I just try to give a different opinion.

If any guy, foreigner or not, did the same thing like the Paraguayan did to any woman, foreigner or not, he did do something terribly wrong. Those girls were angry because when they wanted the guy to aggressively seek treatment of warts (Miss A. talked him into surgery last year but he refused to continued the treatment), he ridiculed them and threatened those girls by saying his ambassador would protest to Taiwan's President if they complained again.

The mass media splashed him all over the news not because he's a foreigner, but because 1.) he was a diplomat, B.) the girls had turned to legislators for help, 3.) the mass media handle news like cheap tabloid, as usual. If he were a nobody local or a nobody foreigner, the mass media might not spend so much time on him, and he would have been already sent to jail instead of getting away from this.

Like you said, I hope those girls involved and many others who watched the news have learned a big sex lesson.

If I get venereal warts should I contact my congressman?

B.B. I respect your enthusiasm for posting, and it is good to see that you have strong opinions. Make sure that they are grounded in fact, though, otherwise it will just weaken your argument. First of all, what do you mean "forced to have an abortion"? Do you mean tied down to a bed kicking and screaming? Or do you mean not being supportive of choosing to give birth to a child? If I can not force a woman to have a baby, how can I force her to not have a baby, short of tying her down and assaulting her womb. I think you are referring to a case where the journalist in question did not receive the moral support she wanted from her lover. Rude, selfish and uncaring, yes, but not illegal. Now if he refused to pay child support, that would be illegal, at least in Canada. But telling your girlfriend to get an abortion is not "forcing her". Not under normal circumstances, anyway.

On to the Paraguayan diplomat thing. The man is innocent. Why? Because he has not been proven guilty. In democratic soccieties, the burden of proof is on the state (the police, the courts, the prosecuting attorney, etc.), not the individual. In other words, Mr. Paraguay doesn't have to prove he's innocent, but whoever is accusing him has to prove he's guilty. How can this be done? Not through the use of his medical records, that's for sure. Medical records are confidential under the law. It is illegal for anyone to disclose medical records of an individual without that individual's consent, hospitals included.

Even if it were admissible, it still doesn't prove anything. Assuming that the medical records say he did have genital warts, who is to say the girl didn't infect the guy? We know she doesn't believe in safe sex, so assuming she wasn't a virgin when she met the man, it's entirely possible. It's her word against his. No way for us to know. Also, please remember that this girl was anonymous, and her face/physical identity obscured. If she is willing to destroy this man's reputation and career so publically, she should at least have the courage to go public with her own identity.
She also said that there were four other women in the same situation as her, one of whom had tried to commit suicide. "How pathetic it is to be a Taiwanese," the woman's suicide note stated. "Because as one, you can never have any injustice redressed." What does this have to do with being Taiwanese? Do Taiwanese men never pass something nasty to their sexual partners? Never? Did she think that he didn't marry her because she was not Latin? Again, no names, no independent confirmation, just nameless, faceless accusations.

How can any man possibly defend himself against that kind of slander? I couldn't, but if I were innocent, I might go to the hospital, get my privates checked out and disclose my medical bill of health to the public, all because of an anonymous report.
But even this is not good enough for you. So even though it's entirely possible this man is innocent, you condemn him, and discount any action he would take, even if it might point in the direction of his innocence.

Don't forget the political element involved here. This case was brought to the public's attention one and a half years after their relationship ended. Why? Because it coincided with a visit by the Paraguayan president to Taiwan, and was intended to embarrass him and Chen Shuibian. Don't forget, the only person who revealed her indentity in this case was a PFP legislator. We all know how much the PFP loves Chen Shuibian. They try to embarrass him using any tactics available to them, even when that information is blatantly untrue, as in the KTV ear-licking case.

Finally, the anonymous woman said she was unhappy with the way she was treated when she went to complain at the embassy. What on earth did she expect? Imagine for a moment that you are the British Ambassador to the United States in Washington DC, with a staff of over a hundred people. Imagine that an American girl approacches the Ambassador and says that one of the junior clerks gave her genital warts. What on earth would she expect the Ambassador to do? Fire him on this woman's say-so? Ask him to unzip his trousers so that he could ahve a good look himself? Ridiculous. He would have told her (and rightly so) that he is very sorry for her distress but there is nothing he can do for her. And if he were a responsible man, he might make a mental note to have a private word with the man. Why private? Because these accusations were completely unsubstantiated.

B.B., if I were you, I would be less concerned about unproven and unprovable allegations, and more concerned about basic human rights in Taiwan. Judging from the tone of your posts, I guess you get most of your information from the gossip tabloids. Try thinking a little more analytically and objectively.


By the way, this issue was discussed a while ago here.

I always suspected that, behind the scenes, the government quietly facilitated the sexual pecadilloes of foreign diplomatics (by inducing the cooperation of potential targets, etc.), while collecting dirt on it to file away just in case. Of course, that would have been only in the old days, before the squeaky-clean DPP puritans took over.

Excellent post Maoman. Furthermore, B.B.'s point that this is somehow important because the man is a diplomat not because he is a foreigner is illogical. All diplomats are foreigners.

Foreigners are considered fair game for slander and libel by the Taiwanese precisely because they have no legal rights whatsoever in Taiwan. It is a nice soft target for the media because an attack on a Taiwanese citizen would result in a libel case. The reason this sells newspapers and raises TV ratings is because it strikes a chord with the lowest common denominator of Taiwanese society who consider foreigners alternatively inferior, dangerous to women, and a necessary evil. This is a phenomenon which exists throughout the world and is of course not confined to Taiwan. It's called racism. Many countries enact and enforce laws to control this phenomenon. However, given that Taiwan cannot even establish a presumption of innocence, equality before the law, and a right to a fair trial, I suspect effective legislation on racial discrimination is a long way away.

while I agree that it's pointless to argue about something that can't be proven one way or another, I would take a slightly different outlook. instead of "innocent until proven guilty", I'm more of the mindset that someone's "not guilty until proven guilty." as an example, in the uk(a country with what many would consider a much fairer justice system than either taiwan or paraguay), fewer than 8% of reported rape cases end in conviction. what does that mean? that only 8% of reported rapes are actually rapes? are the other 92% of reported rapists innocent of rape?

in the us, there have been cases where it was obvious that the defendent committed the crime, but were found not guilty because of a technicality(like an officer forgot to read him his miranda rights). is the defendent then innocent?

there are a lot of shades of grey in there...

Same thing.


It means that either the police aren't doing their job in colecting the necessary evidence to convict, the lawyers are giving the plaintiffs poor legal advice in terms of what is a winnable case, and or the legal system is flawed. There is another factor, and that is that in many cases, rape is, from a legal standpoint, difficult to prove and sometimes impossible to differentiate from consensual sex, e.g. a college frat party where a girl drinks too much and the next morning wakes up in someone else's bed. Was the sex consensual? Not if the victim was unable to make a rational decision.


Yes. At least innocent in the eyes of the law, and therefore society. Don't take those technicalities too lightly. They're there for a good reason. Miranda keeps cops honest. Without them, we'd have many more cases of tricked, manipulated confessions, police brutality, and so on. Of course, we always read about the most bizarre cases in the newspapers, and those are the ones that make us roll our eyes and despair for the future of the justice system. The fact is, cops are human, not infallible, and therefore will make mistakes sooner or later. We need laws in place to protect the wrongfully accused. How do we tell the wrongfully accused from the truly guilty? Easy. We don't. That's what the justice system is in place for. If the law says someone is not guilty, then that person must be treated as not guilty. It's the only way we can protect the innocent among us.

Guilty in the eyes of God? Well, now you're talking about sin, and that's something that we hold deep in our hearts, hidden from public view. Certainly not something for us to judge.