Raid at Villa Rouge

[Guest alaan]

So Bob...what exactly...........

 

is so "far fetched" about lvdkeyes "even" making that statement? Care to give an indication?

[Gaybutton]

For crying out loud, who comes up with this nonsense? The bars don't drug their boys into dancing. That's one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard in quite some time. First, even if there was a reason to do that, which there isn't, the cost of the drugs would be prohibitive. Second, when the police do their raids, the last thing the bars want is for the police to find any of their boys testing positive for drugs. Third, if they were drugging their boys, then they would all test positive for drugs when the police raid. Fourth, if they were really doing that, then the boys would actually be dancing. When was the last time you saw the majority of the boys on stage doing much more than the "One Knee Shuffle"?

 

If anyone wants to believe that the bars are drugging the bar boys, go right ahead, but there is no evidence or proof of any kind that such a thing is going on. Granted, there's a lot of things going on at some of these bars that they wouldn't want made public, but drugging the boys just isn't one of them.

[Bob]

So Bob...what exactly...........

 

is so "far fetched" about lvdkeyes "even" making that statement? Care to give an indication?

 

I've got no bone to pick with lvdkeyes, only with the statement.

 

I simply don't cotton to people insinuating something outlandish with no (zero) evidence.

Come on, insinuating that some of the bar owners are assisting with or condoning drug use by their boys so it'll improve sexual performance, dancing, or whatever, so the bar owners can make more money off of them? Yea, sure, and there were 47 guys on the grassy knoll in Dallas, the attack on the twin towers was an inside job, and they never really landed on the moon....

[KhorTose]

They have landed on the moon?????? Darn, I miss all of the good stuff.

[Guest]

They have landed on the moon?????? Darn, I miss all of the good stuff.

 

Don't be silly KhorTose. The moon stuff was all Hollywood. Don't believe everything you see.

 

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Some one else ( I don't remember who) first posted about the possibility of bar owners supplying or condoning drugs for the boys. It was called far fetched. I am not so sure as the bar owners seem to not want to do anything about the boys testing positive for drugs and "raised holy hell" at the idea of testing the boys themselves. It seems to me that attitude is verging on assisting or condoning the drug use.

[Guest tdperhs]

The prevailing opinion that the return to business after a police raid has to do with payoffs may have some merit, but I wonder if the reason is not more pragmatic. Like Walking Street, Sunee Plaza still brings in Farang money, more, it would appear, than Boys Town, at least until the tourists return. And places like Villa Rouge more than most. Tha pan is large but the drippings are small. I can see why the community as a whole would not want to have a source of Farang money, however limited for the time being, closed down for any appreciable amount of time.

 

What interests me even more is the exclusiveness of police raids on bars. Often enough, people opine that police discriminate by seldom raiding girlie bars. But one never hears of raids in Patong or Patpong. Is it because there are no underage boys or boys who use drugs in those locations? Is it because payoffs don't get missed in those locations? Is it because this board is dominated by Pattaya users who don't care about what happens at those other locations?

 

It is a puzzlement.

[Guest]

But one never hears of raids in Patong or Patpong. Is it because there are no underage boys or boys who use drugs in those locations? Is it because payoffs don't get missed in those locations? Is it because this board is dominated by Pattaya users who don't care about what happens at those other locations?

 

It is a puzzlement.

 

As it is for many of us. I don't get it either. There are underage boys in Boyztown and in Patong or Patpong. There are boys that do drugs in all those locations. I don't know why these places are not raided.

 

Personally, I hate the use of Yaba. But, I don't think a bar should be punished because of its employees use of it when they are not working. That is an impossible burden to bear for any business.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

If the bars don't want their boys to test positive for drugs, the thing to do is self monitoring; test the boys periodically and randomly. Let them know that they will be suspended for a month if they test positive. For second offense they will be fired and other bar owners will be notified. If all the bar owners comply with the policy it will effectively clean up the drug use among employees. I fail to see why this is such a big deal. As long as excuses why it can't be done are made the problem will continue.

[Gaybutton]

If the bars don't want their boys to test positive for drugs, the thing to do is self monitoring; test the boys periodically and randomly.

I like the idea of suspending them, or even firing them and some sort of system to blackball them from working in any other bar, if they test positive for drugs, but I disagree that it should be the bars that do the testing, or at least have to finance the testing. I don't see why the bars should be held responsible for the behavior of their employees any more than a grocery store should be held responsible for the behavior of their employees during non-working hours.

 

I could see a daily pee test, or whatever kind of test, if the police or a government agency does the testing or foots the bill, but I can't see forcing bar owners to do so.

 

I also disagree with the idea that if the bars don't drug test their employees, then it means the bars condone drug use or are even drugging the boys themselves. It could just as easily mean that they don't consider it to be their responsibility, or it's an exercise in futility, or that they simply couldn't care less.

 

I despise drug use too and I don't want to bring home a boy if I know he's a drug user, but does that mean it is now incumbent upon me to personally drug test any boy I take off? I don't think so. I think the same goes for the bars.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

It all boils down to who wants to take responsibility and how they want to do it. For me, if I were a bar owner that is how I would be sure I wasn't hiring druggies, but that's just me.

 

As far as taking home a boy who uses drugs, you can't really know for sure, but there are types, call it stereotyping if you want. Loads of tattoos and multiple piercings give a clue, and then there is the tricky way of finding out, asking. granted they can lie, but if you use your uppermost head you can determine what kind of boy you have met. For me, I rarely took bar boys home, I preferred to meet guys online who had responsible jobs and some maturity about them, so I felt confident that I was not taking home a boy who was into drugs.

[Bob]

Based on what I've heard over the years from barboys and those that know many of them, the yaba problem is downright huge. If any fair number of them are using the drug, then it's likely, due to peer pressure (and many of them live together), that the majority of them are using it. I'd note that I have no proof of this at all, just what I've been told by others (and I've also been told that yaba use at the college level - including in Khon Kaen and Chiangmai - is rather significant).

 

It's an expensive proposition for an employer to drug test and I'm not sure that most of the bar owners could even afford it (I don't know but I'm doubtful that most of the bars make much of anything in profits). Here in the states, drug testing is common for those doing potentially dangerous work - such as driving a truck - but it's extremely rare for employees in general (and especially staff in bars or restaurants). There's probably less drug testing in the workplace now than when it began to become popular a decade or so ago - and most drug testing is limited to those employment situations where state law or federal law mandates it.

 

Overall, I can't see putting the onus on the bar owners for this. But it's a fair argument that, unless the employers do it, nothing much will change. But that argument, fair or not, is a far cry from suggesting that bar owners encourage or condone the drug use [i.e., yes, they could test and stop most of the use by their particular employees (or, alternatively, be put in the situation of discharging a fair number of them) but not testing is not the equivalent of making the bar owners responsible for the drug use in the first place].

[Guest joseph44]

Have you ever lurked from the 'pot'? No!

Neither have I. So stating that it is ridiculus to say that the bar-management is drugging the boys is as ridiculus as stating that it is not happening.

[Bob]

So stating that it is ridiculus to say that the bar-management is drugging the boys is as ridiculus as stating that it is not happening.

 

Just a little bit of reverse logic there....and it doesn't pass the muster test. Let's get right down to it - are you saying that the bar owners/management are assisting staff in using drugs? If so, what scintilla of evidence do you have to support that?

 

We normally don't make charges of conduct like that (especially criminal conduct) without some basis for the statement. And answering the question with a question (such as "what proof do you have that they are not doing it?") is rather foreign logic in my view. For example, I have no proof that the bar owners are not requiring each employee to have sex with soi dogs. Yet, without some basis to say it, I'd be a fool for claiming it might be true.

[KhorTose]

For example, I have no proof that the bar owners are not requiring each employee to have sex with soi dogs. Yet, without some basis to say it, I'd be a fool for claiming it might be true.

 

Damn it Bob, you have your facts wrong. I do not work for a bar owner and that dog came on to me first.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of English law that is sadly, not universal in the world.

I have a book by Leonard Levy, "Origins of the fifth amendment"---that I still have not fully read---that lays out how important this concept has been to English and American law.

[Guest lester1]

There is so much delusional thinking about this topic. The majority of the readers here are willing participants in and supporters of, the sex trade. Sunee Plaza and Boys Town are areas where this trade occurs. These areas take in hundreds of thousands of baht each month.

 

The sex trade, all over the world, is always hand in glove with organized crime, drugs and corruption. At the bottom of this pyramid, the bottom of the food chain, will be the sex workers. Almost without exception they will be from broken and disturbed homes, be generally lacking in morals and will be ideal candidates for drug use and dependence, partly due to peer pressure, inability to say no, and the need to get themselves through their day, either to kill their appetite, or deal with the trauma of having messy sex with someone old enough to be their grandfather. Plus the Thai authorities don't care.

 

The police dabble in all this, not through any wholesome desire to rid areas of drugs (if they wanted this they would target dealers), but merely to get their cut.

 

Barowners generally wont worry about the habits of their staff as long as it doesn't interrupt the cash flow. A popular boy who multiple offs each night is not going to be thrown out of work because he fails a pee test. A poor guy who sits on stage being ignored by the customers night after night might be. There is always a ready flow of fresh flesh.

 

If you as a customer engage in the dubious moral activity of supporting the sex trade bars, paying pimps and prostitutes (don't forget that barowners in this context are basically pimps),and throwing money at vulnerable young men, I don't think that you can get too outraged and angered over what goes on behind the scenes.I get the feeling that some of you regard the sex trade as the same as the restaurant trade for example.

 

So continue to be kind and supportive to the young men you meet, have expectations about them with regard to manners, behavior, and give them hope. BUT don't delude yourselves over the dark side. I don't think you can have a sex trade without the dark side.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Isn't knowing something wrong is going on and having the power to stop it condoning the behavior?

[Guest]

There is so much delusional thinking about this topic. The majority of the readers here are willing participants in and supporters of, the sex trade. Sunee Plaza and Boys Town are areas where this trade occurs. These areas take in hundreds of thousands of baht each month.

 

Your post was excellent and rings very true. My only disagreement is with the baht per month. I think most likely in the millions. IMHO

 

Isn't knowing something wrong is going on and having the power to stop it condoning the behavior?

 

You must not be American. Election number 2 for GW.

 

 

On another note, in my first response I said the boy was out of jail the next day. I misunderstood my BF. He told me today the guy I was referring to stayed in jail. I had asked him when he told me what happened if my friend was OK and he said yes. I assumed this to mean that he was out of jail. That was not the case. It was not until today that I found this out. I thought all week he was out of jail and working again. Not true.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

 

 

 

You must not be American. Election number 2 for GW.

 

 

 

Of course, I am American. I did all I could to prevent GW getting into office either time.

[Gaybutton]

Have you ever lurked from the 'pot'? No!

If you're going to answer your own question, why ask it? The fact is that I have "lurked from the pot," and many times more than once. I didn't end up drugged, although I did start dancing naked on the stage. Now you know the real reason why a few bars permanently closed.

[Bob]

The majority of the readers here are willing participants in and supporters of, the sex trade.

 

I absolutely agree. So, by extension of your logic, we're also responsible for the boys using drugs? Hell! I figured it would eventually get around to me! The goddam priests were right, I'm responsible for everything and going to hell!

 

While I can deal with illegality and concepts like that, I'm not dabbling in the morality game. That's for the religious and right wing in my country and they can have it. While the puritans thought sex was dirty and, by extension, the sex trade a dirty and evil (immoral?) business, I'm not constrained by that thinking. Sex is fun and it's not my problem that others find it offensive, immoral, or evil. Their problem, not mine.

 

Drug use is another issue and, while sex workers do use drugs, the only connection is that those sex workers are within the same age group that rampantly is using drugs in Thai society.

 

I occasionally make purchases at the 18 trillion 7/11 joints in Thailand, which joints tend to hire workers within the age group that is most prone to use drugs. Without their earnings from those stores, they wouldn't have the money to buy drugs. So, I guess any of you that enters upon the frigid premises of the local 7/11 store ought to know that you might as well be leading the donkey over the Burmese border laden down with sacks of yaba pills.

 

Or, as Emily Latella so famously said, never mind!

[Guest]

If you as a customer engage in the dubious moral activity of supporting the sex trade bars, paying pimps and prostitutes (don't forget that barowners in this context are basically pimps),and throwing money at vulnerable young men, I don't think that you can get too outraged and angered over what goes on behind the scenes.I get the feeling that some of you regard the sex trade as the same as the restaurant trade for example.

 

There is nothing whatsoever morally dubious about the concept of sex for money, providing both parties are consenting adults. In principle, it is exactly the same as any other mainstream trade, including running a restaurant. If one hire a 20 year old who has made his own decision to work as a prostitute, then that's a business transaction between consenting adults.

If you disagree, please explain why paying for sex is morally inferior to paying a restaurant for food.

 

Of course prostitution is one of those industries which may attract some corruption, particularly amongst the indirect workers.

Other industries which may attract corruption include include politics, banking, law enforcement, building & construction, defence, oil, education plus a few others.

[Bob]

that dog came on to me first

 

Attempting to steal a line from Tommy Smothers and using my pidgeon Thai: Chai krap, dtae maa rak pom gwa!

[KhorTose]

Bob, even google won't translate your Thai, but I may be better off not knowing.

 

Lester1 and Lvdkeyes, I am completely with Bob and Z909 on this. Wrestern concepts that say sex is bad and should only be practiced under certain conditions or it is immoral are, not only foreign to the Asian way of thinking, but hold absolutely no water based on modern pychological thinking. Strongly suggest you read the latest edition of Human Sexuality by Master, Johnson and Kolodny. Exchanging money for sex goes all the way back to recorded history, and it only becomes a problem with the people who know "what is right for all of us" get into the act. To me Age of Consent means you are capable of making your own decisions in life, and many of these boys are far from stupid, naive or forced by circumstances into this trade in this country. However, if you go back to the subject of minors, I am with you 100%.

[Gaybutton]

To me Age of Consent means you are capable of making your own decisions in life, and many of these boys are far from stupid, naive or forced by circumstances into this trade in this country.

I agree. If it's anything I can't stand, it's Bible thumpers telling me all about what's right and wrong regarding sex. Meanwhile, many of them seem to think it's just fine as long as they get to do it without getting caught. When they do get caught, the hypocrisy stands out like a cherry on vanilla ice cream. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart come to mind.

 

I'll make my own decisions when it comes to the morality of prostitution sex, thank you very much. I do agree with the necessity for age of consent laws, but not because some holier than thou self-appointed spokesman for morality says so. I agree simply because I share the same opinion, but I made my own decision about that.