macaroni21

Years ago, I had a friend who either owned or leased a small apartment in Bangkok because he made such frequent trips to Thailand it seemed justified. Invited to his home for coffee one afternoon, I noticed he had a disco ball hanging from the ceiling of the living room.. "You had a party last night?" I asked. "From which bar, may I ask?" He hummed and hawed by didn't deny it was a bar.

Was in and out of Suvarnabhumi twice in the past month. I can similarly report: Fully packed area in front of arrival immigration desks; a bit of chaos around the luggage belts as two flights had to share the same belt. 300-long queues at Thai Airways check-in on departure; fully packed room in front of security scanners in departure; fully packed room in front of exit Immigration desks in departure.

You may be confusing travel with another irresistible, pleasurable activity....

I was surpised too when I saw that statistic some years ago, but after a moment's reflection, it seemed perfectly logical. Half of Kazahstan's population is ethnic Russian, and ethnic or not, Russian is widely spoken in the country. Given the infux of Russian tourists to Thailand for the past decade, I would assume that Russian media (probably much consumed in Kazakhstan) has a lot of content about Phuket and Pattaya. Kazakhstan too has bitter winters. Oh, and did I mention its GDP per capita is about US$10,000, close to Russia's and China's?

In response to @PeterRS, 1. That defies logic. Of course disposable income is a factor. It will not be the only factor. Other factors like distance, cultural affinity, bragging value play a part. But if a country is poor and the vast majority of its people do not have enough disposable income to travel, then it cannot be much of a market for inbound toruists to Thailand. Consider this: we've all probably seen more Singaporeans in Thailand than Filipinos even though they're about the same distance away, and even though the population of the Philippines is 20x that of Singapore. Or this: If disposable income doesn't matter there should be more Egyptian tourists in Thailand than Brits (Egypt has a larger population). More importantly, I was referring to potential rather than the actual situation with respect to Chinese tourists in this and next year. I agree that China's economy is going through a rough patch, and these cycles tend to last 3 - 5 years if managed properly by the authorities (which is not a sure thing). I was reacting to this statement in the news report that @reader cited from the Thaiger: I am saying that's too superficial a hope. India's potential certainly can be tapped, but to think that its potential is anywhere as large as China's (in the short to medium term) is to ignore economic reality. The main issue is the disposable income of Indians. That was why I cited the per capita GDP. Of course in any country, there are the rich and the poor, but they are generally distributed as a curve around the per capita GDP. India's curve is centred around US$2,300, while China's is centred around $12,500. Here's a schematic showing what that means in terms of disposable income for luxuries such as foreign travel: Generally, only the fraction of a country's population with income above US$8,000 or $10,000 can afford to travel by air (I'm not referring to ferries or land transport). Because India's average is so low, its relevant fraction (the numbers on the right-hand side of the curve) is small relative to China's. More crucially, for independent travel (which usually comes with more spending in the host country) I think affordability comes into view only if the disposable income is about US$16,000. This implies that a $1,000 holiday in Thailand (perhaps $400 for flight alone) will eat up nearly a month's income for someone in the $16,000 bracket. So India's potential is smaller yet. If at all Thailand gets the volume they're hoping for from India, they will be at the cheap packaged tour end of the spectrum. In terms of value to Thailand's economy, this may be no different from the zero-packages people complain about. Consider also that Thailand's GDP per capita is about US$7,000, or three times higher than India's. That will tend to mean that Indians, even if they can afford to travel, are likely to find Thailand an expensive destination compared to their home countries. This is going to put a limit to how long they can afford to stay in Thailand or the kinds of places they are prepared to pay admission for. 2. This needs to be interpreted with great care. I agree there are now more wealthy Indian tourists than ever because India's economy has grown. Thailand has become more accessible through better connectivity, the privatisation of India's airlines, etc. But the fact that they shop like crazy is in fact an indicator that supports what I am saying. Why don't we see the Chinese shopping to the same extent, even when they can afford to? Why don't we see the rich Japanese or Germans do the same? Because they can get all that stuff in their home countries. I don't know if you have seen the urban centres of second-tier Chinese cities lately, such as Chongqing and Dalian. The famous brand names like Dior and Balenciaga all have huge stores there now, not just in Shanghai and Beijing. The rich Indians shop more visibly in Bangkok because they don't have easy access to "international" goods the way the Chinese, Europeans, Japanese and Koreans do -- which only speaks to the relative disposable income of the Chinese that has motivated the brands to set up there. In short, there are potential rich Indians, but their numbers will be much smaller than rich Chinese. At every level, midprice independent travellers or cheap packaged mass travellers, the potential Indian market is smaller than the Chinese. 3. Re high end tourism, I should have been clearer. Of course I agree that Thailand has this segment. My point is that this segment is very hard to develop and grow in terms of infrastructure. It needs quality manpower, linguistically agile and skilled. It needs environmental awareness (we were just mentioning pollution in Bangkok). Given Thailand's education system, there are severe constraints. The alternative, converting the existing service providers at the low end of the market to high end is a bit of a pipe-dream. What I was trying to say is that even if by some magic Thailand attracts rapidly growing numbers of high end tourists, Thailand will struggle to have enough infrastucture to cope. 4. Pattaya = mass market. Point taken. Agree. But what I am saying is that if they're looking at India as their next big market, then it is going to be mostly (by a long way) mass market, low end. My point is that this only shows several logical inconsistencies with current planning. 6. Insufficient holiday time for the Japanese, I take your point. I wonder if it's also true of Koreans. So then, Taiwanese and Australians should be favoured over Indians as marketing targets. Finally, the effort to open the Indian market (valuable though it may be) should not overshadow a needed affort to address the concerns of Chinese tourists, otherwise they may never return even when their economy improves. Safety is obviously an issue, though as we all know, it's overblown by sensationalistic media. Surely, countering such media protrayals is do-able? Better yet, do something about safety in Thailand itself. The locals will benefit.

One group of high-spending tourists Thailand needs to encourage would of course be us. Infrastructure development could take this form: 1. Work visas liberally available to Laos, Cambodians, Burmese and Vietnamese who work in the tourism or entertainment sector. 2. Grants for such businesses to take on management and marketing consultants so as to upgrade their business models. 3. Business redevelopment grants for gogo bars and massage parlours, and similar establishments, to enable better premises, training for show performances, etc. 4. Build affordable hostels for the upcountry and foreigner boys who work in this sector. 5. Grants for these boys to take English or other language courses. ...yes I know I am dreaming.🤣

This article reveals the superficial quality of tourism planning and management in Thailand. Just let me pick on a few logical fallacies. Indian mass tourism cannot replace Chinese mass tourism. Although both countries have the same population size, China's per capital GDP is US$12,500, whereas India's is US$2,300. Travel is not one of life's necessities, and a population needs to have sufficient disposable income to become a tourist export market. It is not a linear equation either where the Chinese have five times as much capability of being a tourist simply because their per capita GDP is five times India's. They're probably 10-15 times more able to travel abroad; at US$2,300, the vast majority of Indians just cannot afford the luxury of any foreign travel. As the anecdote about Taiwanese tourists suggests, Thailand may be better off promoting itself to Japan, Korea and Australia as regional markets - countries with the income similar or higher than the Taiwanese. In any case, haven't there been concerns about mass tourism and its impact on the environment? Shouldn't priority be given to higher-spending tourists rather than more headcount? Or is the KPI of tourism officials purely that of headcount? Of course, the trouble is also that Thailand has not truly developed its tourist infrastructure to serve higher spending tourists. Hundreds of Thais do menial low-skill jobs, unable to speak English or other languages even when working in the tourism sector, so there is that other problem - these workers can only serve low-end tourists. This raises the question of whether, even if they promoted the country to the richer Asian countries, the infrastructure can cope. For a glimpse of the impact of mass Indian tourism, look at Pattaya. I saw loads of them just hanging around the streets. They cannot afford to patronise the restaurants or cafes or anywhere that requires payment. They walk up and down Beach Road and Walking Street, and don't go in to any establishment (with one exception) Even the numerous Indian restaurants meant to serve them remain empty. Instead, they can be found in 7-11's buying bread and asking why 7-11 doesn't sell butter. (I'm not kidding, I and many others were held up at the cashier line because of this.) The exception is foot massage. 200 baht for an hour of foot massage they can afford. But as I overheard one masseuse tell a farang visitor (maybe he's an expat who lives in Pattaya, because they seemed to know each other well), "They so many, we work no stop. One come, another come, but they no tip."

I had never even heard of it. But a quick check with Google Maps shows that it is quite accessible, being a skip and hop from Rama IX MRT station. Oh well, too late, now.

I noticed the haziness of the skyline while coming into Bangkok from Pattaya on Sunday, almost exactly like the photo in Bangkok Post. I've never seen this before during the cool season.

How are they going to tell who is a businessman and who is not? More of the bureaucratic surreality like we're seeing with the 4am closing time.

How is a bar to know whether a customer is driving or not? And @PeterRS question about leaving at 3:39 am? How are bars to know who a customer's friends and relatives are, and their phone numbers? And many more questions. Oh gosh, it boggles the mind.

Not a bar at all. A tiny shop selling lingerie and the like, probably suitable only for gogo girls. Don't see it surviving too long. The girl gogo business in Patpong is in decline.

I see a scattershot response that does not engage with the issue at hand - which is that of overcharging by businesses through unethical practices ( not a supply and demand issue) though fortunately, it did not occur in this instance. At no time was the question of what revengeboo was willing to pay the issue, and no one was calling him out on that - which is how you're changing the discussion. The uncertainty, which has since been resolved, was whether he was asked to pay more than he had agreed to pay. That you're conflating the two scenarios is what I mean by a scattershot response. Scattershot responses that go off tangent generally indicate that the debate has been lost. It's also disappointing to see a hint of contempt for those in the sex business. Why can't it be a "noble enterprise"? As much as we hold ourselves to high standards of ethics and integrity in our dealings with others, why do we expect less of those running sex businesses or sex workers themselves? When we say we shouldn't be concerned if they cheat because we are rich, it really amounts to the view that they cannot be as worthy as us, cannot be held to the same standards of honesty and integrity as us, simply because they are poorer. What has honesty to do with wealth? One may think one is being generous to overlook the loss when the other party engages in deception, but in fact such an attitude is a mark of disrespect and contempt ("they cannot be expected to be my equal in terms of honour and integrity"). On the contrary, it is precisely my holding those in the sex business to the same high standard which demonstrates my respect for them as equal humans.

I did hear story from a Singapore acquaintance who was a policeman, so it's an inside story. A transgender sex worker was not paid for her services. When she protested, the John assaulted her, no serious injuries though. She ran to a police station, and a few constables were assigned to help her find the assailant. Amazingly they found him having a beer in some cheap shop, and he was brought back to the police station. The police were in no position to press charges over non payment but she could press charges over the assault. Basically, the policemen told the John to pay up + compensation for her medical treatment, and she might then consider not pressing charges. The John complied. So, in effect, the police helped her to collect payment. And this was in Singapore. Come to think of it, I guess it isn't so strange a tale from a city famous for law and order.

Beautifully written. A novelist perhaps? And yes, many of us would have experienced the same roller coaster feelings. Welcome to the club!

I remember Barbiery well, it being among the first gogo bars where I had great times and indelible memories. And yes, at least half the clientele were Thais. Where have they gone? To the internet, I guess. Free porn, paid porn (Onlyfans, etc), online hookups paid or otherwise.

Although you later said this comment was aimed at another member of the board, nonetheless, you had quoted me, and a plain reading of your comment would lead people to think that you were referring to me. I think it is important to make a distinction between (1) holding a contract party to his word, (2) not caring that the other party is cheating you despite an earlier contract, and (3) bargaining ruthlessly to extract every last discount. I agree that (3) is not a pretty sight, and I would not condone it either, but that was not what I referring to in my question to @revengeboo This is what revengboo wrote and which caught my eye: It so happened that I am up to date with what Arena's menu card says: Massage 60 minutes 590 baht (standard room included) Massage 90 minutes 790 baht (standard room included) VIP room 60 minutes 300 baht VIP room 90 minutes 400 baht Minimum tip 60 minutes 1,000 baht Minimum tip 90 minutes 1,200 baht It is easy to calculate what the shop should have charged him for his session of 60 minutes: 890 baht. Yet revengeboo wrote "1900", and he indicated that the tip to the masseur was a separate payment at the door. Thus my question to him as to whether this was a typo. Revengeboo has since confirmed that it was probably a misrecollection. That is reassuring. If he had been sure that 1900 was what he paid (plus 100 in change snatched away by the "elf"), it would be concerning to many members of this board, as it would indicate an unethical practice where the menu price is one thing but, perhaps taking advantage of a customer's euphoria or jet lag, a different amount is demanded at checkout. Many members of this board would certainly want to know if a business engages in unethical practices so that we can be extra vigilant. To argue that just because someone comes from the West, he shouldn't care about what is being charged (even when being cheated) is to fail to make an intelligent distinction between (1) and (2). First of all, not everyone in the West, or coming from the West is wealthy. Secondly, to say, we shouldn't care if we're being cheated because we are richer than Thais is in fact a form of boastfulness ("It doesn't bother me even if you cheat me, because I am so, so much richer than you!"), and that's not a pretty sight either. It's also the kind of thing that feeds into the stereotype of the Ugly American (or whatever nationality). It does everybody else of the same nationality a disservice.

Cock parade inside your own hotel room? Should be the easiest thing to arrange. Just hire ("off") all the gogo boys from any bar who perform the bar's cock parade item in their show. If they're OK with striding around the stage in their full glory, along with each other, why not in your room? You can even leave the curtains open... And join in.

I agree that that was possibly a big factor. And not just for the young Western crowd, but for the young Asian crowd too. Even in Bangkok, the younger crowd, besides being centred on Silom Sois 2 and 4, gravitated to massage parlours instead of gogo bars as many of us have observed. Technically the "masseurs" are sex workers too, but there is a greater degree of deniability. It takes age for a person to be able to say: to hell with it, I buy sex. Younger people are more reluctant to go whole hog that way because at their age, they and their peers can get free sex. It's embarrassing to admit to buying sex. Your peers may think you're ugly or some kind of predator. While the massage places (which also had the benefit of local Thai patronage) stayed alive and well, meanwhile, the Bangkok and Pattaya Boyztown gogo bars masked their steady bleed of gay clients because they enjoyed a boom time from the massive expansion of tourism in Thailand between 2008 and 2018. The straight couples discovered the raunchy shows they were putting up. This actually made the gogo bars even more unappealing to the younger gay crowd. You might accidentally meet a co-worker there! This wave of first-time Asian mass tourism is ending. The gogo bars are never going to see the same traffic as before, because those straight Asian tourists will not care to see a seedy big cock show a second time. "Been there, done that". This explains why the gogo bar scene may be in gradual decline too (most visibly in Pattaya). The stupid thing is that, through the boom time, the bars got addicted to the straight gawking crowd, and thus lost their focus on the sex-buying gay market. Will there be a sex-buying gay market in future? Of course there will. The present generation of Soi 2 and Soi 4 goers will age. But the gogo bars need to wean themselves off the straight gawking customers and reinvent themselves to cater to the emerging generation of gay customers. How bad are these bars at business? Very bad. To start with, they're not even copying the massage places and selling their boys on the Line app! If they have websites, they're still featuring gatoeys!

Is there a typo? You're referring to Arena Massage. If the minimum tip was 1000 baht, this implies a 60-minute session. If so, the shop's charge should be 590 baht + 300 or 400 baht for the VIP room. How did they end up charging you 1900 baht?

Oh dear, your trip report has made me, as an old-timer, feel somewhat guilty. Why? I'll come to that later. But thank you for an honest and insightful report. All of us make mistakes or have bad days, even old-timers who have even more reason to slap ourselves when we foul up. We should have known better! we say to ourselves. What you've unknowingly pointed out - and it is of value - is that whereas most of us write about our experiences in Thailand with regular forum members in mind as the readership, we may be forgetting that there are newcomers such as yourself, who are drawing information from our posts in planning for their first trip. Thus the guilt. I can totally understand that lurking will be the preferred method pre-visit since a newcomer has little to add to the discussions. But lurking means invisibility, and so the regulars in this forum don't realise the effect our posts may have on newbies making their plans. So, for the benefit of potential newbies, allow me to make a few observations that may help: 1. If you're going to travel all the way to Thailand, and money isn't a serious impediment, plan for a longer visit rather than overpay for services because you're short of time. Hotel, food and local transport costs are relatively cheap in Thailand. Giving yourself the luxury of extra time takes away the pressure of getting things right at first try. It allows a longer learning curve, and therefore a better chance of getting a number of good sessions even if you hit a few duds along the way. 2. Be self-aware and extremely careful when you are the "visual" type. (see the thread https://www.gayguides.com/forums/topic/40355-the-different-erotic-things-we-look-for/#comment-368148 for explanation), i.e. you're the type that chooses your partners based almost exclusively on looks. Looks do not correlate with service quality. If anything, boys who are aware that they are above-average in looks may be below average in service quality; it is the not-so-nice-looking guys who know they have to work harder for their keep. See also point #6 below. 3. The rise of Line-based advertising, where the massage places send out pictures of their boys by the bundles may have increased the vulnerability of buyers who are visual, because then you're relying (exclusively) on looks (photos). When I use Line with the massage places, I tend to do it in a slightly different way. I first tell them what time I want my appointment and what I prefer of the boy service-wise. Then I ask them for a shortlist of boys who fit my criteria. Most places with decent customer service will send back about 4 - 6 pictures to choose from. Those places which do not reply with a shortlist I quickly ignore - it indicates they have no idea what their boys can or cannot do or they are not interested in ensuring a fit between customer and client. 4. As you noticed very quickly, paying triple or quadruple the going rate does not get you triple or quadruple the satisfaction. In fact, it only makes you a target for the unscrupulous. My advice to newbies is: Steel yourself to resist overcharging. Walk away. Of course this is easier if you have time on your side which is why my point #1 above is important. 5. Old-timers like me write about places pretty distant from the city centre. Newbies should stick to the Silom-Surawong area, at least for the first 4 - 5 days. There are plenty of attractions within that area alone to keep you busy. And plenty of hotel options, so you don't have to travel by taxi or Grab and get stuck in traffic. Save the more distant places for your second visit. See map of gay ghetto: https://shamelessmacktwo.travel.blog/2023/12/07/map-of-silom-surawong-area-december-2023/. Tip for those wanting muscly masseurs: Go (walk) to Arena Massage. You don't have to go all the way to Sabaidee or Jey Spa. 6. Especially if you're a very visual person, the gogo bars may serve you better than the massage parlours. Firstly, you see the boys in the flesh (though in some bars they are more covered up with sweatpants and T-shirts nowadays compared to 10 years ago) and you can take your time in making a choice. Secondly, for the price of a boydrink (and perhaps a thank-you-but-not-tonight tip of 100 baht) you get a chance to engage in a bit of conversation with a shortlisted boy. You can assess his language skills and personality, and very often too, get a sense of whether he really wants to go with you. Boys are not as desperate for customers as we may imagine (I know of boys who say they will not go with a certain type of customer.) Do not be put off by oldtimers like us moaning about ever-increasing costs at the gogo bars 😂 The bars still give reasonable value. However, never admit to the mamasans that it's your first time in Thailand; once they get their claws into you, they won't let go!

Good point. While I doubt if the regulars of Sunnee, being in the main of a certain generation, might adopt technology quite so easily, it is possible that the newer generation of twink-lovers did. So, as Sunnee's reputation went down the toilet, they stayed on the apps rather than travel all the way to Sunnee. This may have contributed to the non-renewal of the Sunnee scene. Good question. If I may speculate: 1. The association with paedophilia caused reputational damage to Sunnee unlike other places. 2. The "product offer" of Sunnee was unusually narrow (fem twinks) and held little attraction to the newer generation of western tourists and Asian clients. 3. As Asian traffic rose, Bangkok had an advantage. Asian tourists tend to make shorter trips, so staying in Bangkok made more sense compared to going all the way to Pattaya (which is also why Pattaya's Boyztown has also seen considerable decline).

I've been told that even during Sunee's heyday. Even checked out all of those bars except Holiday 2 which I don't recall at all. With due respect, what's "masculine" to Sunnee lovers fall way short of "masculine" to non-Sunnee lovers. With that gulf in expectations, there was no persuading non-Sunnee lovers to become Sunnee-lovers. Consider for a moment the "masculine" boys of the still-surviving Nice Boys. Can we seriously imagine the clients who go to Dream Boy Bangkok or Jupiter to appreciate Nice Boys' ragamuffins?

Try this other theory of change for size: I can't remember what its proper name is but I shall call it the tipping point effect. Applying it to Sunnee (and one might apply it to Jomtien host bars though they're at a different point in the trajectory for now), it goes like this: the market did not suddenly vanish. It declined gradually as Sunnee lovers aged or died. Plus, as @floridarob suggested, the fear of being caught up in the moral panic over paedophilia caused some to stay away. In the early stages of the decline, the businesses stay open, albeit with more and more red ink. However, because the neon signs remain lit, the impression one gets is that the market is healthy. It takes close observation of foot traffic to spot signs of strain if one has no access to the financial figures. Eventually a few business can hold on no longer. They close. That's the tipping point. Once their neon signs are switched off, the ambiance of the place changes. Customers notice and some of them decide to give the district a miss. With reduced traffic, more businesses close and the vicious cycle accelerates. On the visible surface it may look like a sudden collapse, but under the surface it has not been healthy for a long time. This is an overarching theory of change. Even the fall of the Soviet Union followed this path. Its decline started some 20-25 year earlier as Brezhnev and his circle consolidated power, but only became noticeable in the 1980s with Poland's Solidarnosc.

I don't mean to sound unkind, so please don't read judgement into my choice of words. Sunnee, I have long observed, was a kind of fetish place. Almost uniformly, the bars both indoor and outdoor had fem twinks, some bordering on anorexic. The clientele, almost uniformly, were white men. They were the first wave of rice queens whose erotic desire was shaped by mid 20th century Western stereotypes of Asianness as caring, submissive... i.e. feminised. (We still see that in Hollywood where Asian male characters are often emasculated while the Asian female is prized for her exotic beauty). This unique form of erotic desire naturally doesn't carry over to either the subsequent generation of westerners nor to gay male Asians. So when the first generation of Sunnee lovers died off, no one replaced them. Quite unlike the Bangkok gogo bar scene where gay Asians are the majority clients today.