Gaybutton

I still am in disagreement with you. I don't think we're in the bars to pass judgment over what we see going on between other "farang" and a bar boy and then interfere on the premise that we are coming to the rescue. Maybe the boy doesn't want to be rescued. Maybe the "farang" is going to offer a much larger tip than the 300 to 400 baht cheapskates too often give when they "off" a boy. We have no way of knowing and it really isn't our business in the first place. The boy isn't tied down to the seat. He can get up and go back to the stage or to another "farang" whenever he decides to. I've seen that occur several times and I've never seen a mama-san try to make him return to an abusive customer. I think that sort of behavior on the part of a customer is inexcusable, but the bar boys are all well aware that sometimes there will be a "groper." It's something they know they have to deal with on occasion. Good or bad, it comes with the territory and they know it. I think the people who see themselves as coming to the rescue ought to ask themselves a question. When you "off" the boy as a means of rescuing him, are you going to say, "Look. I'm sorry about what was going on with that other 'farang.' Here's 1000 baht. Go out and have a good time with it or go home, or whatever you want to do," or are you going to take him back to your room for sex? To me, if you are going to do the former, then that is a true rescue. If you are going to take him to your room for sex, then somehow I fail to see the altruism.

What's wrong with a quick phone call?

It demonstrates a problem that is often overlooked. No matter where you eat or how often you eat there, always check your bill. Sometimes an unintentional mistake is made and sometimes it is deliberate, but either way you should make sure you're not being overcharged or paying for an item you either did not order or an item you did order, but never received. It happens often enough. Then there are the rip-offs. I'm surprised, GT, since you said the owner is there every morning that you did not call the matter to his attention. I've been the victim of the "new price" scam too. The menu or a sign says one price, and then you are charged another price. If you notice it you are told "this is new price." I have no problem with a new price, but I do have a problem if the menu is not changed to reflect the new price. It has always been my experience that if the menu lists a price, that's what you pay, but it doesn't work that way in Thailand. The problem is not limited to restaurants. One time I wanted to buy an inexpensive item at a major hardware center in Pattaya. There was a sale price clearly labeled on the item. 1500 baht. When I got to the cash register, the price came up as 2200 baht, nearly half again as much as the price tag said. I showed the price tag to the cashier. He gave me the "new price" bs. I told him to call the manager over. A young woman came and I don't think she was the store manager. I explained what was going on to her. She said the 1500 baht price was a promotional price, but the sale ended the day before and her staff had not yet changed the prices. I told her that is the store's problem. The price tag says 1500 baht and that's what I expect to pay. Of course, she refused. The item went right back to the shelf. I wasn't about to buy it under those circumstances. Being a "farang" there's really not much you can do about it other than what GT did. That is to pay the bill, but find another restaurant. In my case, I could either pay the price or refuse to purchase the item. Either way, that's the last time I shopped in that store.

I believe the 7:00 seating at the Amor is fully booked, but I think there are spaces left for the 9:30 seating. There are always a couple no-shows, though, and Richard is always prepared for a few walk-ins. Bob's BBQ is also offering a Thanksgiving buffet. I recall the price is somewhere around 600 baht, but you'll have to check to get the correct figure. There are a lot of good choices, but there are also a lot of Americans in town. If you have not already booked your choice, you need to do it right away. Let's not forget Christmas and New Year's Eve. If you are going to be in Thailand, this is a good time to start booking. Depending on where you stay, there may be a mandatory dinner for both of those holidays, meaning the hotels make you pay for it whether you attend the dinner or not. You should check into that before making a booking elsewhere, although the most popular gay accommodations do not do the mandatory dinners at any location in Thailand, as far as I know.

Thank you for that. Everyone has their opinions, although it is probably quite rare for this sort of situation to even arise. The one you talk about and the one Rainwalker described are the only two I have ever heard about. No matter how people feel about the issue, I think most would agree that there are better ways to handle a situation like that than was done in your case. Of course, it may have been the first time the waiter and mama-san ever had any such thing happen, so they may have been caught completely off guard and had no idea how they should handle a thing like that.

I've never stopped, but I've seen at least two in Pattaya. But they're not drive-ins. They're outdoor movie screens. They seem to be sponsored by night markets. As far as I can see, they're free of charge.

Ha! I'm afraid your mind will have to continue to boggle. There are some things I prefer to keep personal. That's one of them.

Me too. I think we've had a lot of fun debating with each other on this thread. What I like most is that it did not degenerate into a lot of name calling and personal attacks. That is definitely refereshing. In actuality, when you get right down to it, how many times is such a scenario going to happen in the first place? I know one thing. I probably won't have to personally worry about it. So far, the only person who ever seems to like my type is me, so there probably won't be a lot of other people who want the boy that interests me anyway. The rest of you can go right ahead and fight over a boy to your heart's content.

I agree with luvthai's post. I don't buy the argument that someone may be 'rescuing' a boy from a groping "farang." What is he being "offed" for? A dinner companion? Sorry, but the only reason I can see that one customer would try to "off" a boy who is sitting with another customer is to satisfy himself. Somehow, I can't picture a "farang" as a knight in shining armor coming to the rescue by taking a boy "off," and then taking that same boy to his hotel room for sex. That's a rescue? I don't see it that way. Suppose there are two or three boys sitting with groping "farang." Are you going to 'rescue' all of them? Somehow, I doubt that a person "offing" a boy under those circumstances is thinking about rescuing him. I also don't see why someone should have to be on a ten-minute timetable to decide whether he wants to "off" a boy or not. Sometimes you know immediately and sometimes you don't. I think part of the issue is who has the priority, the person already with a boy or the person who walked in, saw the boy with someone else, and wants to take him "off." One of them is going to be the loser. Should it be the person who got there first or the person who came in later? I think if someone just has to have the boy who is already with someone else, then luvthai has got the best way to do it. Personally, I hope that anybody who "offs" a boy who is already sitting with someone else ends up having "offed" a total dud. Then tell me all about how happy you are that you came to the rescue.

You're very good at twisting around what people mean. I meant, "This is what we have been talking about." If you didn't understand that, then I have my doubts about your command of English. I fully support the best intentions for the boys, but I don't see you writing about the best intentions for the boy. You are writing your response as if that boy is the only boy in the bar. There are quite a few other boys in the same bar who also want to be taken "off." If you're trying to take a boy "off" who is already with another customer, you're going to have to go a long way to explain to me how you have the best intentions of the boy at heart and not your own self interest. I hope, since you are so well intentioned, you're not one of these people who takes a boy "off" and then gives him a lousy tip, as many people post and try to justify. I can't speak for others, but if a boy is already with a customer, then I'll either "off" another boy, wait until the customer with the boy either takes him "off" or leaves, or return another night. What I won't do is try to take the boy he is already with, especially when there are other boys in the bar to choose from who also want to be taken "off." If that is a "spurious protocol," then I'll abide by the spurious protocol. If you're going to enter a bar and try to take the very boy who is already with another customer, that's your affair.

From his lordship: El toro poo poo. We're not talking about what the boy would choose to do. We're talking about the behavior of the "farang." We're also not talking about monopolizing a boy for an evening. The incident at hand is the fact that ChrisUK was with a boy when a "farang" walked in and forced a situation, not to mention sticking ChrisUK with the "off" fee. Are you seriously saying that you would walk into a bar, see a boy sitting with a customer, and then try to "off" that boy while he is still with that customer?

Not to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but pure selfishness. What, exactly, would you do if you try to take a boy "off" who is already sitting with another customer, and that customer says no, I was here first and he's with me? Would you argue about it? Would you try to force him? Would you try to get the mama-san to intervene on your behalf? Would you make a scene? How far are you prepared to go to get the boy over the objections of the customer who is already with him? What would be your response if you had called a boy over to sit with you, bought him a drink, are trying to get to know him a little and then make your decision as to whether you want to "off" him or not, and somebody just walks in and snatches him from you? Somehow I doubt you would say no problem and be smiling about it. I think you'd be mad as hell. I don't see how first come, first served means someone is buying and not browsing. What's wrong with browsing? I browse before I buy. Don't you? Your showroom analogy makes no sense to me at all. That showroom has a lot more cars than just the one. Besides, if you want to use a showroom analogy, the first "farang" isn't browsing. He'd be browsing if he was sitting there watching the boys on the stage and had not yet called a boy over. Once he does call a boy over and buys him a drink, he just made a down payment. He has the right to continue with the sale or cancel it within a period of time. Just because someone else wants the same car, that doesn't mean he has to make an instant decision. I'll give you another analogy. You're in a grocery store. There's a box of cookies on the shelf, a brand you like, but it's the only box in the store. You take the box and are holding it in your hand, but you haven't yet decided whether you're going to buy. Someone else comes up to you and asks if you're going to buy it. You tell him you're thinking about it, but haven't decided yet. With that he grabs it out of your hand and says in that case it's his and he's buying it, and off he goes to the cash register. You ask, "Why wait?" Because the other customer was there first and has already spent money on the boy. It's called common courtesy. As I said, I don't think a boy is fair game when he is already with another customer.

I agree with Hedda on this issue. Rainwalker, you said it yourself. "I think the operative analogy might be first come, first served." Isn't the customer who called the boy over the one who is first come? Yes, the bar wants to make money. Yes, the boy wants to make money. I appreciate that, but part of the bar business is for boys to be called over to sit with customers. I don't see anything in any of these arguments that convinces me that if I've called a boy over to sit with me, then it's perfectly ok for another customer to enter, say he wants to "off" the boy I've called over, and now I have to either "off" him or cede him to the customer. If the second "farang" wants to take the boy "off," then why can't he wait to see what the first "farang" is going to do instead of forcing him to decide right then and there if he is going to take the boy "off"? I would be very angry if I had just bought a drink for the boy and suddenly I'm told that I need to decide right then and there whether I'm going to take him "off" or let someone else take him. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can feel a correct or polite thing to do is to walk into a bar, see a boy already sitting with another "farang," and think it is perfectly ok to try to take that boy for himself without giving a damn that he is already sitting with someone else. If it were me, I would say to the Mama-San, "If that "farang" does not off the boy, then I would like to after he leaves." That way, if the first "farang" does not "off" the boy, you'll still be able to without imposing on him. I do agree with pete1969 that if a customer has called several boys over, then there should be no problem about asking for one of them, but even then that is something I would never do. But when it is one-on-one, that's a different story. I'm sorry, but I don't see it as helping the boy make money. I see it as unjustified selfishness.

That is correct. There are no rules per se, but I don't think it is right to try to take a boy who is already sitting with another customer. I also don't think the bar is right to permit it, even if the boy just sat down and no drinks had even been ordered yet. If I was a customer in a bar that did that to me, that's the last time I'd be in that bar. I too am happy that it worked out for you, but the same boy would have very likely have been there the next night. From what you wrote, I don't think you would have done that if the mama-san had not gone over to that "farang." How would you have felt if the situation was reversed? I just don't think a boy is fair game if he is already sitting with someone else.

If they were serious about trying him for such crimes, then why don't they have him arrested wherever he is and extradited?

The behavior of the "farang" was totally inappropriate. If you go into a bar and had a boy in mind to "off," if you see him with another customer you certainly don't try to take him from that customer. You either wait and see if that customer is going to "off" the boy, you wait until the customer leaves, or you find someone else. If I was in a bar and had called a boy over, then if someone else tried to take that boy away, especially if I had already bought a drink for him, then my response would have been to make it clear he can stick it where the sun don't shine. I also blame the waiter and mama-san for allowing that situation to arise in the first place. That behavior was also inappropriate. The waiter never should have come to you to tell you that another customer wants the boy. What he should have done was tell the customer sorry, but the boy is already busy with someone. Also, many people may be unaware that you can "reserve" a boy. Many bars will honor that. If you let the bar know which boy you want to take "off" and what time you'll be there, bars that accept a "reservation" will make sure the boy is available at the reserved time and allow a thirty-minute leeway. If the customer hasn't shown up by then, then he loses the reservation. If the rude customer had made such a "reservation," then there wouldn't have been a dispute. If you had called the boy over the mama-san would have (hopefully) informed you that the boy had been reserved and will have to leave when the customer who reserved him arrives. One part of your story confuses me. I don't understand why you would have been presented with an "off" bill if you were not taking the boy "off." What was that all about? I hope you didn't pay that part of the bill.

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ Thaksin 'Must be Tried for Deaths' Govt Urged to Ratify Convention on Court PRADIT RUANGDIT The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Lawyers Council of Thailand are pressing the government to ratify the convention on the International Criminal Court so deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra could be tried for crimes against humanity over his controversial anti-drugs campaign. The council and former lawmakers accused the Thaksin administration of having blood on its hands for waging its so-called war on drugs which killed more than 2,000 people, most of them drug traders and traffickers. The government must bring Mr Thaksin to justice or the Sept 19 military coup which swept it to power would amount to nothing but a public deception, they said. Somchai Hom-laor, chairman of the council's human rights committee, said evidence came to light supporting the belief that state officials were responsible for the deaths of 2,500 people in the anti-drugs campaign. The death toll was recorded from two phases of the campaign, the first from February to April 2003 and the second in 2005. Officials were obeying a Thaksin policy which included a well-organised plan to issue a ''licence to kill'' with approval from Mr Thaksin, the then interior minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, and the then interior permanent secretary Sermsak Pongpanich. ''They all signalled policy approval for the killing,'' Mr Somchai said at a discussion yesterday organised by the Press Association of Thailand. The government and the coup engineers, the Council for National Security (CNS), had no choice but get to the bottom of the drug-related killings and punish officials who perpetrated them, both for disciplinary and criminal violations, he said. The policy-makers, including Mr Thaksin, could end up facing charges of crimes against humanity. ''Saddam Hussein [the former president of Iraq] was charged with committing crimes against humanity for the killing of 170 people. In that case, the 2,500 deaths we witnessed here must constitute crimes against humanity,'' he said. The Attorney-General's Office should handle the issue should it become a case, as that agency answers to obligations governed by an international court agreement. But first, the government must ratify the convention on the International Criminal Court. Thai courts of justice must then formally acknowledge the legal interpretation of the definition of crimes against humanity for the admissibility and adjudication of such an offence to be established in Thailand. Without acknowledgment by the court, there was no chance of prosecuting Mr Thaksin. Mr Somchai said the Thaksin administration did not bother to ratify the convention. If the present government went ahead with the ratification, it would effectively restrict Mr Thaksin's mobility. The former prime minister, in self-imposed political exile overseas since the coup, has travelled from China to Indonesia on a diplomatic passport he has used since he was in power. ''Signing the convention would prevent Mr Thaksin from popping up here and there, especially in European countries which are signatories to the convention,'' he said. Mr Thaksin could be brought to trial if he landed in the wrong country. Mr Somchai said restoring the rule of law required reforming the police force and subjecting police criminal investigations to scrutiny by the court. Wasant Panich of the NHRC said the drugs war policy was clearly a mistake, for which Mr Thaksin must be held to account. He cited the discovery of an official letter sent to people in Samut Sakhon's Ban Phaeo district at the height of the campaign, warning them to report to a local drugs war centre or their ''safety could not be guaranteed''. Mr Wasant added that a letter allegedly signed by an interior permanent secretary at the time was distributed to provincial governors outlining three ways to cut the number of drugs traders and producers. The suspects could be ''arrested, face extra-judicial killings, or lose their lives for any reason''. He said the blacklist of drug suspects took only 15 days to compile. The perceived haste raised concerns that some may have been wrongly targeted. The NHRC received 40 complaints related to the drugs war deaths. Not a single culprit in those cases was ever caught. Former senator Kraisak Choonhavan said the campaign was the most blatant form of human rights violation. He was surprised the government and the CNS did not feel compelled to highlight the issue as one of the reasons for toppling the previous administration. ''We can't possibly create a new society if the coup-backed government doesn't lift a finger to deal with the drugs war killings of the Thaksin era,'' he said

The strong baht probably isn't exactly helping sales either. When I bought my place, the exchange rate was 45 baht to the US dollar. Now it's 36 point something. Also, housing prices were far less expensive when I bought. I suppose if one is a potential buyer, the plus side is that there are a hell of a lot of choices. However, if you want to buy in a prime location, then act fast. Those units are the first ones to sell and they go quickly.

Can you provide contact and location information for those who are not familiar with it?

I did not know they offer rooms, but I can definitely vouch for the restaurant. They offer a daily special for 225 baht and it's always excellent. It includes a choice of appetizers, three entree choices, and dessert. I eat there quite often. It's one of my favorites. The dinners are fantastic and I don't know how they do it for the price. The service is always friendly and efficient. They will give you a card. If you have them stamp the card at the time you pay your bill, you'll get your dinner free after ten stamps.

There is a web site for the Panorama Hotel at http://www.burma-travels.com/rangoon-hotel/panorama.htm

Also, there is maintenance to think about. I have three room units. Only a couple days ago I had an air conditioniong company over here to clean and maintain them. They took each one completely apart and worked on them until they seemed like new, inside and out. It took three hours for them to complete their work. Total cost, 1650 baht. Back where I come from, it would cost at least US $30 more than that just to have an air conditioning service come and look at the unit, whether they do any work on it or not.

Thailand's "Happy Toilet" Soon in the Pipeline BANGKOK, Nov 18 (TNA) Not content to sit back and enjoy its flush of success as host of the 2nd World Toilet Expo & Forum 2006 which ended here Saturday, making great strides in promoting higher hygienic standards for clean and safe public loos, Thailand's Ministry of Public Health plans to introduce a "happy toilet" which is not only user-friendly and cares for the environment but also a place of pleasure to relieve one's bowels. Already known as the Land of Smiles, Thailand's Ministry of Public Health wants to put commodious smiles on the faces of those who are ridding themselves of feces. Dr. Narongsakdi Aungkhasuvapala, director-general of Thailand's Department of Health, floated the idea as the 2nd World Toilet Expo & Forum 2006 concluded here on Saturday. The three-day event was held to promote the development of public toilets based on three guiding principles -- health, accessibility and safety. He said the forum's discussions highlighted the importance of proper structural designs of toilet, cleansing management and user habits as major factors that will help reduce the risk of spreading diseases and accidents as well as increasing patron comfort of the use they variably equipped 'comfort rooms', 'water closets', 'restrooms', 'johns,' 'heads' and 'hong nams' throughout 'The Land of Smiles'. To achieve more public satisfaction in using public loos, Dr. Narongsakdi said, Thailand will introduce a new set of standards that goes further beyond the current HAS formal

I haven't been there, but a close friend was there recently. He stayed at The Traders hotel and loved it. The web site is http://www.shangri-la.com/yangon/traders/en/index.aspx . The hotel is also directly across the street from the Lion World bar, which he also loved. He says the best way to meet gay boys is by picking them up in cruise areas. He also said that you are likely to be stopped by touts who will make arrangements for you. He says that worked for him just fine and he had no problems at all, including bringing a "guest" to his room. He suggests bringing American dollars. Whatever amount of money you'll need, take it with you. He says he saw no ATMs at all and exchange houses were few and far between. He said they prefer to take American dollars. He also said the boys ask for only US $4 to $5 for their services.

Maybe it's not so clean. Either way, dumping it into the gulf is not my idea of the best use for it. I've thought about having the water that comes out of my tap tested, but I haven't done it. I'm afraid of what will be found in it.