Patpong comings and goings

[vinapu]

11 hours ago, reader said:

Thanks for clarification. But what does the owner being a Jew have to do with anything?

9 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

A statement that starts with "The Jew who owned the museum... " is typical of anti-Semitic writing.

 

aren't we overreacting? 

Surely owner being a Jew has nothing to do with the subject but would our comment be the  same if poster sad " The Bhutanese who owed the museum" ? I guess not.

Many times nostalgic  types here  recall old German who owed Dreamboys in soi Twilight and it's always taken matter of factly although at time some purists claimed he was Swiss.

[PeterRS]

11 hours ago, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

Not exactly true. Saying that "it steadfastly declined to acknowledge the existence of Patpong’s all-male bars scene" suggest a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the gay presence in Patpong, which is far from the case

But did it actually mention and list the various gay bars/lounges which existed on the level above Screwboys and which were quite popular certainly in the 1980s and perhaps into the early 1990s?

In my earlier post i had forgotten that the fetish ladies bar was located very near the Silom end of Patpong 2 almost opposite the luggage seller. 

[vinapu]

2 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

 

In my earlier post i had forgotten that the fetish ladies bar was located very near the Silom end of Patpong 2 almost opposite the luggage seller. 

I believe it's still there

[PeterRS]

2 minutes ago, vinapu said:

aren't we overreacting?

With respect, I think it is not an overreaction. A Bhutanese is the national of a country. A German owning a restaurant is similarly the national of a country. Being Jewish is basically a religious identity. Would you say the Catholic who ran the Museum? Somehow I doubt it.

[vinapu]

4 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Being Jewish is basically a religious identity. 

Really ? so who are people whose parents were Jewish ( ok, technically just mother )  and don't follow any religion ?. It may be substantial chunk of Israeli population not to mention other countries where Jews live. 

[alvnv]

7 minutes ago, vinapu said:

Really ? so who are people whose parents were Jewish ( ok, technically just mother )  and don't follow any religion ?. It may be substantial chunk of Israeli population not to mention other countries where Jews live. 

Hebrew for a male and Shebrew for a female, or Theybrew if they prefer they/them… JK

Israel, if they are Israeli, or American, Polish, Armenian, Zanzibari, Brazilian, Australian, etc. based on their nationality, not their current or ancestral religion, I guess.

[PeterRS]

14 minutes ago, vinapu said:

Really ? so who are people whose parents were Jewish ( ok, technically just mother )  and don't follow any religion ?. It may be substantial chunk of Israeli population not to mention other countries where Jews live. 

I was brought up in the Protestant religion. Since my late teens, I have only been to Church for weddings and funerals. But when asked in forms about my religion (and a few still require that), I write Protestant. I imagine if someone has Jewish blood, it is impossible to state that he/she is anything other than Jewish - unless they have converted to another religion. You do not need to be a practising member of any faith to belong to that faith. 

[floridarob]

46 minutes ago, vinapu said:

aren't we overreacting? 

Surely owner being a Jew has nothing to do with the subject but would our comment be the  same if poster sad " The Bhutanese who owed the museum" ? I guess not.

Many times nostalgic  types here  recall old German who owed Dreamboys in soi Twilight and it's always taken matter of factly although at time some purists claimed he was Swiss.

I was going to say the same thing....or the falang, gringo, fat guy, etc..... it didn't go on like Gayinpattaya does sometimes obviously ranting on a particular race/religion.

[reader]

This was clearly an antiemetic statement by a member who earlier this week falsely accused another member of committing a sex crime in a trip report.

October 2023 Trip Report - Bangkok and Pattaya

Department of Agriculture said:

“Are you really so pathetically desperate that you need to paw away at a boy who is giving you a massage in a legitimate massage place? If that is what you wanted, you should have gone to the places that offer those services one hundred feet away. Why go and sexually assault a boy who has chosen to work at a legitimate massage parlour and trained to do so?  At a bare minimum, your behaviour would mark you out a sex pest in the West; more likely it would have led to a police report and you, rightly, being detained for sexual assault. It's a shame that people like you think that you have the licence to act like an animal when in Thailand simply because a boy may choose to avoid causing a scene in order not to jeapordise his job.”

There were absolutely no grounds for the above attack. It is viscous in nature.

If Department of Agriculture wanted identify the nationality in the case of the museum owner, he would have said Israeli. He is clearly making a statement about religious affiliation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post.

 

[vinapu]

22 hours ago, reader said:

 

If Department of Agriculture wanted identify the nationality in the case of the museum owner, he would have said Israeli. He is clearly making a statement about religious affiliation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post.

 

What if  owner was not Israeli but still Jew ? Can't one be Maltese even if he lives all his life in Sydney Australia ?

23 hours ago, PeterRS said:

. You do not need to be a practising member of any faith to belong to that faith. 

You mean I can claim I'm Zoroastrian even if all my contact with that religion was visit in temple and Towers of Silence in Yazd?

[reader]

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

What if  owner was not Israeli but still Jew ? Can't one be Maltese even if he lives all his life in Sydney Australia ?

My point was what is the significance of referring to his religious identity has nothing to do with in context of the poster’s remarks about the museum any more than if he was a Buddhist or a Christian. The writer went out of his way to emphasize “Jew.” When done in that context it’s often an antiseptic connotation.

As I described in previous post, Department of Agriculture (DOA) falsely assured a member of committing a sex crime because he noted in a trip review that the masseur had grazed his genitals. It was an absurd attempt to vilify the individual in a most heinous manner, especially considering there was no basis for the claim. 

This is what they trip reporter said (Orson) posted:

“I went to prime bringing along all  the stuffs I bought for the day. I availed of  their 90 minute oil massage. I was ushered into a different building as the main one was already full. The massage was ok and relaxing. I would've preferred more heavy pressure, but I was too tired to tell the masseur. I know this is a no hanky panky place, but he seemed ok with my hands grazing his crotch "accidentally" while he massage my forearms. After the massage, he offered me to shower in a separate room and later gave me hot tea and towel. I tipped him 300 baht which he accepted happily.”

But DOA wrote:

“Are you really so pathetically desperate that you need to paw away at a boy who is giving you a massage in a legitimate massage place? If that is what you wanted, you should have gone to the places that offer those services one hundred feet away. Why go and sexually assault a boy who has chosen to work at a legitimate massage parlour and trained to do so?  At a bare minimum, your behaviour would mark you out a sex pest in the West; more likely it would have led to a police report and you, rightly, being detained for sexual assault. It's a shame that people like you think that you have the licence to act like an animal when in Thailand simply because a boy may choose to avoid causing a scene in order not to jeapordise his job.”.

This constituted an outright attack on the poster without any credible evidence that he did any of the acts that DOA alleges. So I wasn’t shocked to read that DOA inserted “Jew’ into his remarks in another post just days later.

Can you imagine how any member would feel if falsely accused of committing a sex crime.

[Department_Of_Agriculture]

I wasn't going to bother replying to those rather strange, flaming posts above as they detract from what this thread supposed to be about and we have certainly gone off tangent when you start dragging that post by "Orson" into this otherwise excellent thread that you started.  But I am going to respond because you are misstating what the groper actually said and did.  Here he is, in his own words.

10 hours ago, reader said:

“I went to prime bringing along all  the stuffs I bought for the day. I availed of  their 90 minute oil massage. I was ushered into a different building as the main one was already full. The massage was ok and relaxing. I would've preferred more heavy pressure, but I was too tired to tell the masseur. I know this is a no hanky panky place, but he seemed ok with my hands grazing his crotch "accidentally" while he massage my forearms. After the massage, he offered me to shower in a separate room and later gave me hot tea and towel. I tipped him 300 baht which he accepted happily.”

Did you actually read what the groper said? And if you did, did you understand what he said? He did not say "the masseur had grazed his genitals", which you seem to think is the case. He said that he put his hands on the boy's genitals.

10 hours ago, reader said:

As I described in previous post, Department of Agriculture (DOA) falsely assured a member of committing a sex crime because he noted in a trip review that the masseur had grazed his genitals. It was an absurd attempt to vilify the individual in a most heinous manner, especially considering there was no basis for the claim.

Your statement above is completely off. It was he who fondled the boy, as he gleefully informed us - not that the boy had grazed him.

To state the obvious, a masseur's hand grazing your genitals while giving you a full body or oil massage is virtually a given. That does not give you a reciprocal right to molest the masseur in return. Boys who work at Prime know perfectly well they could be earning more by working in one of those hanky panky places just a hundred feet away. They choose not to because they want to deal with situations like this - they are not there to earn from being groped or to sell themselves. They are not there to he harrassed. They are professionals who have trained to this job and those who choose to go there should respect the boys' choice. As I said, at a bare minimum, that would mark "Orson" out as a sex pest in the West. I stand by that.

I would not have bothered responding to the above, except that you seem to have misunderstood or be misstating what the groper said. You are more than welcome to lambast me for calling him out for it, but do not misstate the facts and paint the groper as some sort of poor victim of an unfair attack. The only victim here was the boy.

 

On 11/9/2023 at 4:07 AM, reader said:

If Department of Agriculture wanted identify the nationality in the case of the museum owner, he would have said Israeli.

As far as "The Jew" goes, do any of you actually know him? He is not Israeli, which for some bizarre reason you seem to automatically assume. His background is far more complex than that and his self-declared identity is that of a "Jew".

I honestly can't be bothered about anyone flaming about my use  of "The Jew" or saying that "no explanation or justification can be accepted" insofar as no  explanation or justification is needed. I am only commenting on it only because I am already on here commenting on the misrepresentation of the words and deeds of the sex pest above.

On a separate note, why do you automatically assume that if he is a Jew he must be Israeli? On the flip side, the assumption that all Israeli nationals are Jews is also false. Jews make up 73% of the population. Michael is not an Israeli, but he is, very much, a Jew.

Insofar as this was actually a good thread before the flamers went off on a tangent, I have nothing further to say on either of these issues. The sooner it goes back to being about "Patpong Comings and Goings" the better.

 

[reader]

You place yourself in the role of judge and jury in determining whether a sex crime was committed. Very puritanical to say the least. I’m sure you consider yourself the soul of virtue.

You still don’t explain why you chose to call the owner “The Jew”. What bearing did it have on the matter? Or why you thought it necessary to publicize his arrest. 

I don’t know who the Michael is to whom you refer.

When members on a site called “Gay Guides” begin accusing other members of sex crimes or being sex tourists, we certainly journey down a slippery slope.

And I’m in no way surprised that you chose to double down on your reference to another member as a “sex pest”. 

[Department_Of_Agriculture]

55 minutes ago, reader said:

You place yourself in the role of judge and jury in determining whether a sex crime was committed. Very puritanical to say the least. I’m sure you consider yourself the soul of virtue.

I notice that you seem too embarrassed to admit the fact that you were completely wrong about what the groper actually said and did. That renders anything else you have to say on the matter pointless. A whole lot flaming over nothing really.

Anyhow, back to the more interesting topic of comings and goings in Patpong...

[reader]

You’re the only one completely “wrong” here. You unfairly maligned a fellow member and you made an antisemitic remark. You attempted to turn an innocent post into a felony. And you continued to do it in your most recent post by referring to the member as a “groper”.

You are without shame. Nothing can excuse your actions. You’ve only succeeded in calling yourself out for what you actually are.

 

[Marc in Calif]

6 hours ago, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

As far as "The Jew" goes, do any of you actually know him?

Can you explain your motivation for adding "The Jew" to describe the owner of the museum?

Was there another owner at the same time who was not Jewish?

In other words, why didn't you simply write "The owner..."? What did "The Jew" add to your comment?

[vinapu]

11 hours ago, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

The only victim here was the boy.

 

how do you know? did he complain to you? and actually victim of what?

[vinapu]

12 hours ago, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

 

To state the obvious, a masseur's hand grazing your genitals while giving you a full body or oil massage is virtually a given.

 

not that obvious. Skilled boy can give you  full body treatment  without touching any part of your body he doesn't need to.

If he does it's either accidental or may signalize  he maybe interested in a bit of expanding services.

[PeterRS]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:13 PM, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

The Jew who owned the museum had previously owned the Bua Luang group of bars in the 90s that was very gay friendly, even having host nights and advertising in gay magazines.

@Department_Of_Agriculture has attemped to answer other points and, although having been asked several times, he has deflected his answers away from this particular controversial statement. It is time he responded to it.

[Foolish]

On 11/10/2023 at 9:45 PM, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

As far as "The Jew" goes, do any of you actually know him? He is not Israeli, which for some bizarre reason you seem to automatically assume. His background is far more complex than that and his self-declared identity is that of a "Jew".

 

13 hours ago, PeterRS said:

On 11/8/2023 at 11:13 PM, Department_Of_Agriculture said:

The Jew who owned the museum had previously owned the Bua Luang group of bars in the 90s that was very gay friendly, even having host nights and advertising in gay magazines.

@Department_Of_Agriculture has attemped to answer other points and, although having been asked several times, he has deflected his answers away from this particular controversial statement. It is time he responded to it

Who knows the owner of the museum? If he does identify himself as a Jew and is proud of being one, then I don't think that DOA is being antisemitic. It's like stating a fact. 

Sometimes it could also be a cultural thing. What is offensive to westerners may not be to Asians. For example, it's not uncommon to identity someone based on their race/religion in a small community rather than by name among the older generation. It's not by malice but simply as a form of identification. For example, my dad usually call one of his friend as "keling-kia huan" which translate as Indian Muslim. And among that circle of friends, they know who my father is referring to.

Although this term is not often used nowadays cos some find it offensive but its still fairly common among the older folks.

[Marc in Calif]

1 hour ago, Foolish said:

Who knows the owner of the museum? If he does identify himself as a Jew and is proud of being one, then I don't think that DOA is being antisemitic. It's like stating a fact.

In this case, it's not the museum owner who is describing himself and his religious identity. If DOA had really wanted to indicate that the owner was publicly "proud of being" Jewish, he would have written something like this:

"The owner of the museum, who was publicly proud to identify as Jewish... " 

But DOA didn't write it that way. This is a forum where very few people know much about the museum owner. DOA simply started his sentence with "The Jew" -- which sounds gratuitous, possibly malicious, and definitely anti-Semitic. 

So until DoA answers the four questions that I posed above, I'll still have my original suspicions.

[thaiophilus]

So far as I can tell, the museum owner's alleged religion, ethnicity and nationality are irrelevant to a cooperative discussion of "Patpong comings and goings", but they are exactly the kind of thing often used as dog-whistle codewords by people not debating in good faith. 

[Marc in Calif]

4 hours ago, thaiophilus said:

So far as I can tell, the museum owner's alleged religion, ethnicity and nationality are irrelevant to a cooperative discussion of "Patpong comings and goings", but they are exactly the kind of thing often used as dog-whistle codewords by people not debating in good faith. 

You're correct. 

And another hint that this is a "dog-whistle" is simply the phrase itself: The Jew.

Some people might be surprised to learn that we Jewish people NEVER refer to someone simply as "The Jew" in this type of description.  Instead, we would write The Jewish owner  if we were discussing something significant about his religious identity. 

On the other hand, The Jew in this particular context has been used by anti-Semites for centuries -- often accompanied by a depiction of a man with a hooked-shape nose and black hat to further enhance the unsavory and mean-spirited reference. 

If you didn't know this distinction previously, now you know. 

 

 

[PeterRS]

In Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is rarely referred to by name. He is simply "the Jew", "dog Jew", "a kind of devil", "the very devil incarnate" and other epithets. The play is unquestionably a major work of dramatic art and rightly remains so after over 400 years, yet it contains vile anti-Semitic references.

Shakespeare was merely reflecting the prefudices of his times. But these did not cease any time after his death. They continued and grew worse in centuries to come leading to one of the worst crimes in history, the Holocaust. In my view it is one thing to say "a man who I believe was of the Jewish faith"; it is quite another to say "The Jew". The former is acceptable in modern day society. The latter is a reflection of darker times.

[Keithambrose]

Quite right!