Gaybutton

I was with a close friend one evening and he actually did that. He asked the boy to show his ID card. The boy disappeared momentarily to get it. As soon as the boy proudly handed it over, Geezer asked him his birth date. The boy had no idea. End of off . . . I also didn't know that Thais can't get ID cards until they are 15. That's definitely interesting.

It wasn't quite as often as that, but just for the record I did point that out in an earlier post on this thread:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? I hate to break the news, but my post was in response to Laurence's post, not yours. I used what you had written as an example of needless fear and it is needless fear. Your diatribe has absolutely nothing to do with the reality here, no matter how many paragraphs you write. Write a book for all I care. I'm sorry if it upsets you, but I stand firm by what I've said . . . conjuring up scenarios that don't exist, have never existed, and without evidence of any kind that they ever will exist is my idea of bullshit and remains my idea of bullshit. As I said, until any of these scenarios actually happen, then you are trying to convince people, and apparently yourself, to fear probabilities and possibilities that don't exist. You call me naive. Ok, since you have labeled me as such, then I hope you don't mind me countering by labeling you as paranoid. There is no justification for your position other than what you are making up with no evidence whatsoever that any of the things you say could happen, will happen. I, on the other hand, have the evidence of no such things ever having happened and so far nothing has occurred to suggest they ever will happen. If that makes me naive, then I'm naive. The way I see it, trying to convince people not to go to the bars at which under-age boys are employed because the police may, after all these years, start arresting farang for being in there is no different from advising people to avoid Phuket because a tsunami occurred there. Actually that advice would make more sense. At least that advice would be based on something that has actually happened. That's a little different from the fears about going to certain bars, considering that nothing has ever happened. You wrote ". . . a sudden change of future policy towards the customers or patrons of bars engaging in employment of underage boys............ " What sudden change is that? What has changed? Have you heard about any farang being arrested while patronizing a bar? I haven't. Have you seen so much as one news article that says the authorities intend to start cracking down on farang patronizing bars at which under-age boys are employed? If you have, please share it with us. I missed it. Can you cite so much as one law, regulation, city ordinance, or anything at all that says it's illegal for a farang to be in a bar at which under-age boys are employed? Has there been even a suggestion by the police or authorities not to patronize those bars? I missed that too. If you truly believe that the picture you paint is going to happen, then the solution for you is very simple: Don't go to the bars. That's all you have to do. Then you won't have anything to worry about, will you?

The following appears in THE NATION: _____ About 35,000 Protesters Expected to Rally Today Coalition politicians and security advisers braced themselves yesterday for the red shirts' mass rally starting today in the capital that is viewed as setting the stage for an "all-out battle" to force the government out of office. Sources from the administration and security agencies estimate that 25,000 to 35,000 protesters would gather at Government House. If this final push fails to bring about any significant political change, the government would stay in power for a long time, the sources said. Some 5,000 to 6,000 supporters from the provinces would be brought by MPs belonging to the opposition Pheu Thai Party and 15,000 would come from Bangkok alone, according to estimates. Others would join the rally as detractors of the government, the ruling Democrat Party and the People's Alliance for Democracy, or simply as observers, the sources said. Authorities will not allow demonstrators to enter the Government House compound or any state agency, the sources said. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban ordered security at Government House to be beefed up. Military officers were seen congregating inside the compound as plans were laid to prevent the mob from gaining access. Leaders of the red shirts said the protesters would gather at Sanam Luang in the morning and proceed to Government House sometime before noon. Nattawut Saikua, a Pheu Thai politician and one of the protest leaders, said the red shirts would surround Government House and set up a stage for a long siege there. However, government sources said the protesters were expected to disperse by Sunday to make way for the opening of the annual Red-Cross Fair nearby, with HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn presiding. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he would be absent from his office in Government House as he would be busy all day attending meetings at Parliament. He reminded the protesters to abide by the law. Any attempt to blockade or occupy Government House would not be tolerated, he said. Deputy Premier Suthep said the special Bt1-billion budget for Internal Security Operations Command projects would be used to dilute anti-government protests. Suthep, who is in charge of security affairs, said that since the country was facing a serious political divide, the funds would be spent to boost loyalty to the monarch among the people and pre-empt lese majeste cases that could destabilise the country. Isoc would also use the project funds to tackle economic problems in line with His Majesty the King's principle of sufficiency economy, which was the best way to cope with the country's recession, he added.

Something is really wrong when many are struggling just to make ends meet and then they see their tax dollars, dollars that were supposed to rescue the industry, go directly into the pockets of executives who were enormously wealthy in the first place. Liddy may have made his case, but I work for my money. My money is for me. It sure as hell isn't for those people. If it wasn't for the lying, cheating, price gouging, cover-ups, wasteful and unnecessary spending, and lord-knows-what else, our taxes would probably be able to be cut at least in half. To paraphrase John Houseman, let them make their money the old fashioned way; by earning it.

I don't understand what you mean by 'player man.' What are you talking about?

My cousin bought a bridge in Brooklyn once. Unfortunately it was a bridge made by a dentist.

The following statement appears on the Gay Romeo web site ( http://www.gayromeo.com ): _____ There are various reasons why Guys4Men was our dream partner. Their objectives, concepts and ideas were very similar to ours. Moreover most of their users are from countries where we have not been strongly represented – e.g. Philippines, USA, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa & Australia. At the moment there will be no changes to GayRomeo itself – except that it will be easier to get in touch with gay guys all around the world. After all, the bonds which unite us are stronger than the differences that divide us - like our different time zones for instance. Now we’ll be able to use our servers more evenly throughout the day and night. And in the long term our combined forces mean we’ll be able to develop our community much faster and better than before Best wishes, Mother and her GayRomeo Team

Not too late at all. Your information is very helpful. Thank you for the post.

Thank you for that very helpful post. I haven't been to Cambodia yet. Sooner or later I'll go. I've saved a copy of your post. Do you happen to have links to those hotels, etc?

Would kids be able to purchase it during other hours? I've heard several versions of the reasons, none of which make much sense to me. The best part is you can't buy alcohol in grocery stores during those hours, but 7-Elevens sell it readily during those hours.

My stance on under-age sex has nothing to do with my argument. Yes, I am vehemently opposed to pedophiles, pedarasts, or whatever else one wishes to call it. I also consistently warn people of the consequences if caught engaging in under-age sex. But I am also opposed to misrepresentation of facts and attempts to frighten people about things that do not exist. Some people are trying to portray scenarios they are just conjuring up as if they do exist. Facts are facts, no matter what my personal stance happens to be. So, I'll repeat the facts: 1. No farang has ever been arrested for being a customer in a bar that employs under-age boys. 2. No farang has ever been arrested based on CCTV tapes in a bar. 3. No farang has ever been arrested as a result of taking a boy off from a bar. To the best of my knowledge, the only farang arrests for engaging in under-age sex have occurred when a farang picks up a boy off the streets or starts luring neighborhood boys. If I'm wrong about any of that, I'll be glad to eat my words as soon as someone can demonstrate that such arrests actually have occurred after all. People keep coming up with scenarios that simply never have happened and, so far, there is no indication those scenarios ever will happen. To me, it makes much more sense to talk about things that do happen rather than portraying things that could happen or don't happen as if they happen. Am I saying it's perfectly ok to throw caution to the wind? Not at all. I think people are nuts if they don't make damned sure about a boy's age before taking him off from a bar, picking him up at the beach, picking him up at a shopping center, picking him up from the streets, or picking him up from anywhere else. I also think people are nuts if they meet boys through personals sites such as Gay Romeo if they take the boy for sex without first making sure about his age. I don't believe in frightening people with a bunch of bullshit that never occurs. Alaan's post above is, to my mind, a perfect example of what can happen when people consistently post about things that never occur to the point that people begin to believe it. He expressed concern that he might be present in a bar when a police raid occurs and could end up arrested simply for being in there. Meanwhile, the fact is that no such arrest has ever occurred and there is no indication that such an arrest is ever likely to occur. As far as I know, the worst that has ever happened to a farang when caught up in a raid was a passport check, and that happened only once, and it wasn't even in Sunee Plaza.

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ Booze Ban Delay Riles Activists Sanan Accused of Conflict of Interest Published: 25/03/2009 Anti-alcohol activists are demanding the removal of Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart as chairman of the National Committee for Alcohol Consumption Control, citing a conflict of interest. Maj-Gen Sanan on Monday decided to seek a Council of State ruling on the legality of a ban on alcohol sales during next month's Songkran festival. The move was seen by activists as a delaying tactic to prevent the ban from taking effect before the festival from April 13 to 15. The Alcohol Watch Network and its allies yesterday released a statement saying they wanted Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to take Maj-Gen Sanan's place on the committee. "Since the issue is so important and affects a lot of people, the prime minister needs to look into it himself," said Khamron Chudecha, coordinator of the network. "Moreover, under the United Nations' alcohol control guidelines, a person with a conflict of interest should not be allowed to take part in the policy-making process." Maj-Gen Sanan owns a vineyard in Phichit province that produces wine for sale under the Shala One brand. The cabinet yesterday decided to let the Council of State consider if the proposed ban, to be issued under the 2008 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, was in conflict with the 253rd announcement of the 1972 coup leaders, which states that any regulation on alcohol sales must comply with this announcement. Mr Abhisit said the cabinet was concerned the two laws could be in contradiction. The cabinet would again consider the ban proposed by the Public Health Ministry at its next weekly meeting on Tuesday, he said. Deputy Interior Minister Thaworn Senneam said the government was likely to ban liquor sales only on April 13, the first day of the Songkran holiday. He said cabinet members had different views on calls to impose a complete ban on alcohol sales during Songkran in a bid to reduce road accidents caused by drink driving. Imposing a one-day ban was seen as a reasonable alternative as road accident casualties were always high during long holidays, he said. However, it was feared the ban could seriously hurt the country's tourism industry. If that was not acceptable, the Interior Ministry could help minimise road accidents by asking disaster prevention volunteers and community leaders to set up road checkpoints to warn motorists against driving while under the influence of alcohol. The government must do whatever possible to bring down the number of annual Songkran fatalities from 300 to 400 killed to about 200, Mr Thaworn said. Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nopamornbodee yesterday denied the ban on alcohol sales was being delayed to favour liquor companies. Mr Manit said his ministry was pushing for the ban because a study showed that 80% of road accidents during long holidays were caused by drink driving. The ministry believed banning alcohol sales during such periods would help reduce road accidents.

bump

Anything is possible, especially if you're paranoid enough. But is it likely? Probable? For the sake of argument, let's suppose your scenario is exactly what happens and people get arrested in their home countries because they were caught on tape in a Thai bar that employs under-age boys. Do you have any evidence at all of this ever happening? Even one newspaper article supporting that theory? If you do, that's one thing. If you don't, then what's the problem? Can you explain to me how those same Australian police officers would know, by looking at those tapes, that the person seen in the bar is someone Australian? I have to admit that I didn't know a good method by which to determine someone's nationality is by looking at his image on a CCTV tape.

I can vouch for that. I know Jomtien well enough to know that he has absolutely no interest in under-age boys and under no circumstances would knowingly take such a boy off.

Not according to the IMDB movie database: "To avoid legal consequences, the crew delayed the filming of sexually explicit scenes until after actor David Kross' 18th birthday on July 4 2008."

Gentlemen, I'm putting the 'Whoa Nelly' on this right now. I think everyone here knows that there is no way I'm going to sit by and allow attacks to get started. In fairness lvdkeyes gets to respond to Bob's post if he so chooses. After that, please let's keep it civil so that I don't end up getting caught in the middle and wearing the black hat again if I lock the thread and/or start deleting posts. Fair enough?

Very simple. I'd discard him and I wouldn't give a damn about it.

Are they? I'm not so sure. I no of no arrests, hassles, questioning, or anything else as a result of those cameras. I think that's another example of creating a problem that simply does not exist. If anyone is ever arrested because of what is recorded on those cameras, that's when I'll agree with you. Again, the only time you have to worry is if you engage in sex with an under-age boy. As for the bars that hire under-age boys, I don't like it. I think it's wrong. I think a stop should be put to it. But the facts are the facts and one fact is there has never been an arrest of a farang in a bar who was simply there watching the go-go boys, having a boy sit with him, or even fondling the boy. Even the police seem to feel that it is not incumbent on a bar customer to check the age of the boy unless he takes the boy off. And, again, as far as I know there has never been an arrest of a farang when he took a boy off from a bar. Not ever.

The BANGKOK POST is running a poll: "Do you agree with Pope Benedict’s comment that the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids?" You can see the results at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/poll/1293/oo

The Departed

I'm glad nobody thought I was talking about 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'

Even if you don't care about a specific hotel, I can't imagine why anyone would avoid booking a hotel, at least for a night or two. For what reason would someone come to Thailand, a major long-haul trip, and then start looking around or a place to stay? What would someone write on his arrival documents when he gets to the part about his address in Thailand? 'Unknown?' 'I don't know?' 'Don't worry, I'll find something?' Book the room. You could always cancel the booking, but at least have somewhere definite to stay upon arrival.

That's not true. There is absolutely no reason to start making those kinds of assumptions or to create problems that don't exist. A person could easily be visiting Thai friends who happen to have children and could be doing nothing more sinister than taking one of their boys shopping for something. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for that. A farang married to a Thai wife, and their children have a complete Thai appearance, never seem to have any problems. A straight farang could have a Thai girlfriend or Thai wife who already has children of her own. You could have a Thai boyfriend and his brother or cousin or friend is visiting. To assume you could be arrested for merely having contact with an under-age Thai boy is ridiculous. You don't get in trouble for merely talking with an under-age boy or even being with an under-age boy. You get in trouble for engaging in sex with an under-age boy. I know of no farang who has ever been arrested for talking with or even being with an under-age boy unless there was sexual activity. You don't need to be making assumptions that any contact at all with under-age boys is going to lead to arrest. That's simply not true and it doesn't happen. The article says, "they had arrested Mr. Paul Dixon [45], a British national, for having sex with a Thai male under 15 years of age." It doesn't say he was arrested for talking with the boy. It says he was "arrested by a police team when he ventured into the area in the early hours of the morning and propositioned a young teenager for sex." It's much more likely that the police, whether Thai or Australian, had been after him for a while anyway. My guess is they were able to overhear him offering money to the boy for sex and/or he had actually handed money over to the boy. In any case, according to the article he had actually propositioned the boy. In any case, you're not going to get in trouble unless you engage in under-age sex. However, I do agree that you are definitely safe if you avoid being alone with an under-age boy.