Arabs in Sunee and Loud Music

[Guest]

Totally agree with you! If you walk around the soi, you will find many Arab establishments. I spoke with one group one day and they said they would love for Sunee to become all Arab restaurants and bars.

 

Gay & Arab do not fit well together. Some of their countries even execute gays. I find it very unfortunate that when we consider the size of Pattya City, they're setting up in Sunee. If this gets out of hand, perhaps the gay bars should decamp to Day Night or Jomtien Complex.

[Guest fountainhall]

Gay & Arab do not fit well together. Some of their countries even execute gays.

Yet there must be millions of Arabs who are basically gay, whether or not they can make this known in their home countries. Is there much evidence that these guys come to Thailand to express their sexuality and patronise the bars in Sunee or Boyztown? I rarely see any in the Bangkok bars.

[macaroni21]

Yet there must be millions of Arabs who are basically gay, whether or not they can make this known in their home countries. Is there much evidence that these guys come to Thailand to express their sexuality and patronise the bars in Sunee or Boyztown? I rarely see any in the Bangkok bars.

 

I too rarely see them. One possible reason is this: With so many hetero arabs holidaying in Thailand, the gay ones (who would typically be deeply closetted, given the social climate in their countries) may not be comfortable holidaying here too. The fear of bumping into someone you know from back home can be inhibiting. Gay arabs may prefer to holiday in parts of the world where few other arabs go. But this is just speculation.

[pong]

as for this-and just a side-remark. Watch what happens in soi Arab=Sukhumvit 2, near nana here in BKK. Arabs on the main str8 side also do not (in general) go to gogos etc. They love to hire streetwalkers. Think it is cheaper or so, or do not want all that hassle before with talks and buying drinks. I guess that is also how they hire any needed male serviceboy.

BTW-in the past (years ago, when I talked more with barboys about their life) most of the Thai sex-workers nearly hate Arabs clients. Are afraid of them, but thats partly probably also the Thai parrotting without any thinking way.

[Guest shockdevil]

I personally do not think it is fair to classify any group of people with regards to behavior or other stereotypes.

 

When I visited Morocco a few years back for a lengthy assignment, I was concerned that I would not find any guys there that were gay. To the contrary, I was approached by many guys whom you would have never guessed fooled around with other guys. I hate to use the term gay when describing them because many of them had girlfriends and wives yet were great in bed in a same-sex situation. Whilst there, I never really came across any guys that were openly gay or overtly feminine. I also got a kick out of two butch guys walking hand-in-hand through the streets. I often wondered how many of those hand-holding sexy guys fooled around with each other and used tradition as a cloak for light PDA.

 

For the sake of diversity and variety, I don

[Guest patpat]

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but many of the businesses (possibly even the majority) are not Arab but Iranian (or Persian). As you know, Iranians are not Arabs. Ethnically, linguistically and culturally they are quite different from Arabs, although there is a tendency to lump them in with the Arabs. Iranians tend to be very pro-Western, sophisticated and tolerant people (I mean the people and obviously not the evil government of the Islamic Republic).

 

A few weeks ago, I was having a drink outside the Famous Bar, a ladyboy bar within the sunee area, and noticed that there is an Iranian restaurant right next to it. I was struck by the live-and-let-live, tolerant and even friendly relationship that seemed to exist between the owners and customers of the restaurant and the ladyboys sitting outside.

 

I have also taken a femboy friend on several trips to smoke a hookah (no pun intended) in the so-called Arab quarter (and yes, it is damned noisy) but have met nothing but acceptance and friendliness. When I do something similar in Farang areas (e.g. Soi 7 and , I almost always get at least one snide comment or display of unpleasantness from some drunken intolerant ignorant slob.

 

Personally, I despise Islam (sorry if that's a non PC thing to say), but my experiences in Pattaya have confirmed that it is the belief system I despise and not the people who originate from lands where it dominates.

[Guest fountainhall]

Personally, I despise Islam (sorry if that's a non PC thing to say), but my experiences in Pattaya have confirmed that it is the belief system I despise and not the people who originate from lands where it dominates.

I don't have much experience in Pattaya with those of the Muslim faith, and I accept that our experiences tend to shape our views on the various organised religions. I happen not to agree with patpat's view. In its early days, Islam was certainly a conquering religion with all the violence and bloodshed that goes with that. And today there are some extremists who interpret its meanings for their own violent ends.

 

But you can say the same about all religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism, up to a point). Christianity certainly has experienced more than its fair share of unsavoury and bloody conflicts over the millennia. Look more closely at Islam, though, and it was for hundreds of years an extremely tolerant religion (far more so than Christianity) in which the beauty of the arts, developments in architecture, science, medicine, education and other areas were way ahead of Christianity (as in Spain, for example). That began to change once the Christians amassed to drive the Muslims out, starting with Palestine and the Crusades and later with the reconquest of Spain and the Counter Reformation.

 

For a billion and more people, a belief in Islam is far from just respecting a religion - it is a way of living life. Unfortunately, we tend to be influenced by the tiny fraction who use it for their own ends, as do some Christians, Jews and others. It's unfair, I suggest, to tar all with the same brush.

[Guest patpat]

I don't have much experience in Pattaya with those of the Muslim faith, and I accept that our experiences tend to shape our views on the various organised religions. I happen not to agree with patpat's view. In its early days, Islam was certainly a conquering religion with all the violence and bloodshed that goes with that. And today there are some extremists who interpret its meanings for their own violent ends.

 

But you can say the same about all religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism, up to a point). Christianity certainly has experienced more than its fair share of unsavoury and bloody conflicts over the millennia. Look more closely at Islam, though, and it was for hundreds of years an extremely tolerant religion (far more so than Christianity) in which the beauty of the arts, developments in architecture, science, medicine, education and other areas were way ahead of Christianity (as in Spain, for example). That began to change once the Christians amassed to drive the Muslims out, starting with Palestine and the Crusades and later with the reconquest of Spain and the Counter Reformation.

 

For a billion and more people, a belief in Islam is far from just respecting a religion - it is a way of living life. Unfortunately, we tend to be influenced by the tiny fraction who use it for their own ends, as do some Christians, Jews and others. It's unfair, I suggest, to tar all with the same brush.

 

Thank you for your lengthy reply. As I said in my reply, I make a distinction between Muslims and Islam and do not tar all with the same brush.

 

I'm sorry to say that I strongly disagree with much of your analysis regarding the history of Islam. It is an oft-repeated, politically-correct, but historically incorrect mantra to say that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity. It is curious that you mention the crusades when history shows that the first crusade was a defensive action in response to Islam's repeated attempts to enter and conquer Europe (which of course they finally did in Spain and the Balkans). Again, it has become fashionable amongst western liberal historians to portray the crusaders as the perpetual bad guys and the Muslims as enlightened peace-loving souls. But Islam displaced by the sword, the Christians of North Africa, the Zoroastrians of Persia, and spread Islam by bloody violence into Asia Minor and India. A lot of the so-called Islamic learning was also nothing more than a rediscovery of ancient-Greek learning.

 

I also strongly contend your "tiny fraction" assertion when it comes to using political Islam for their own ends. It is not a tiny fraction of the Islamic world that aligns itself with violent jihad, anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism. It may well be a minority, but it is a significant minority. And that is a worry.

 

As for other religions having a bloody past; that is true. But the key expression here is "the past". No one on any significant scale is waging wars nowadays to spread Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. This cannot be said of Islam. Even here in Thailand on an almost daily basis people are senselessly killed in the south by people whose main motivation is political Islam. Islam is a political and social system, and is much more than a mere ritualistic religion. I therefore assert my right to say that I do not like Islam. Once again, I make the distinction between Islam and Muslims. I think my previous post shows this in which I praise people who are at least nominally Muslim and in Pattaya for their tolerance.

[Guest]

I also dislike Islam. Too many of their followers promote intolerance, repression and conflict. On the latter point, their followers seem to be involved in conflicts in many parts of the world. They need to learn to live alongside everyone else, including people who don't share the same beliefs.

 

I don't approve of Christianity either.

 

Both religions don't approve of my behaviour, which harms no one else. So why should I approve of some of their ludicrous policies which are responsible for suffering in many parts of the world?

[Guest patpat]

I also dislike Islam. Too many of their followers promote intolerance, repression and conflict. On the latter point, their followers seem to be involved in conflicts in many parts of the world. They need to learn to live alongside everyone else, including people who don't share the same beliefs.

 

I don't approve of Christianity either.

 

Both religions don't approve of my behaviour, which harms no one else. So why should I approve of some of their ludicrous policies which are responsible for suffering in many parts of the world?

 

I agree with what you say, but at least nowadays mainstream Christianity doesn't advocate the death sentence for homosexuality. On the other hand, the Islamic world, with the exceptions of Albania, Bosnia and Turkey, mete out extreme sentences to people caught engaging in gay sex.

 

Iran hangs gay people from cranes, Saudi Arabia executes them (by what method I'm not sure) and the Taliban in Afghanistan used to execute gay people by burying them alive under the rubble from demolished stone walls. Malaysia imprisons people for life who are caught engaging in anal intercourse. I could go on.

[Guest fountainhall]

It is an oft-repeated, politically-correct, but historically incorrect mantra to say that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity. It is curious that you mention the crusades when history shows that the first crusade was a defensive action in response to Islam's repeated attempts to enter and conquer Europe (which of course they finally did in Spain and the Balkans).

I really must take issue with this - and your whole suggestion that Christianity is more tolerant than Islam. I do accept that this is how it has come to appear, particularly in the last half century or so. But if you go back and look in detail at the Crusades and other historical episodes, your comments don't bear much scrutiny, I respectfully suggest. And the vast majority of historians seem to agree.

 

Islam gave the Arab peoples a voice, a unity, a purpose. Ever since the Roman Empire had stretched its tentacles eastward, it had displaced goodness knows how many Arab tribes and communities. When Constantine moved the Empire’s capital from Rome to Byzantium and surprisingly converted to Christianity in the 4th century, the Eastern half of the Empire gradually adopted the new religion. By the end of the 11th century, that Empire was huge – but it was bloated and overstretched, as tends to happen over time with all Empires. But it was the threat to Jerusalem that precipitated the First Crusade, not the Islamic drive in to Europe. That indeed had already been accomplished through northern Africa some centuries earlier.

 

Jerusalem is as important to Islam as it is to Christianity. When the Byzantine troops could no longer defend it and it finally fell to Caliph Umar, what is interesting, in my view – and what you do not point out, is that there was no wholesale slaughter. As Karen Armstrong points out in her book A History of Jerusalem - One City, Three Faiths –

 

Umar also expressed the monotheistic ideal of compassion more than any previous conqueror of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of King David. He presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam.

Now compare that with what happened with the motley group of Christian knights, nobles and peasants from the west that reached Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade in 1099. The former were there only partly for deeply-held religious convictions. Most were there for land. The peasants were there almost entirely because of the get-out-of-jail card provided by the Pope Urban II. Join the Crusade, your sins are automatically forgiven and your place in Paradise is assured! (At least he didn't promise them an inexhaustible supply of virgins when they got there, as far as I know!)

 

Virtually every historian agrees that the Christians slaughtered most citizens in the city. A contemporary account states –

 

They killed everyone, whether male or female. Ten thousand Muslims who had sought sanctuary on the roof of the Aqsa (mosque) were brutally massacred, and Jews were rounded up in their synagogues and put to the sword . . . There were scarcely any survivors. The streets literally ran with blood.”

Even the Coptic Christians who had remained were tortured and threatened with death unless they delivered up the location of the "True Cross". It was an orgy of slaughter that lasted several days. Christian tolerance?

 

Fast forward 100 or so years to the 4th Crusade, when instead of going to Jerusalem's rescue as announced - via Egypt and attacking from the South - the wily octogenarian Archbishop Dandolo of Venice had the ships turn north-east as soon as they passed Greece. For he wanted the vast riches and wealth of Constantinople for himself and his city. The resultant siege and sack of Constantinople not only pitted Christian against Christian, it split the Empire and left the city so weak that it slowly crumbled. Christian tolerance? The Muslims still had to wait another 250 years before they managed to take it over. But at that time, this was their goal - not Europe. They did later have a couple of goes at capturing Vienna, but both were repulsed.

 

Meanwhile, in Spain, once again the Muslim rulers had lived side by side with the Christians and the Jews for several centuries in a degree of harmony rarely seen elsewhere. Yes, they based their developments in medicine etc. on what they had learned from the Greeks, but you fail to mention that they advanced that knowledge dramatically.

 

Not long after they had finally been forced out, history records the spectacle of Catholics like Cortez and Pizarro massacring millions in Central and South America, wiping out whole tribes and empires, all in the name of the Catholic Church. Then, what about the Protestant settlers to the north who wiped out vast numbers of the heathen native Indian populations? More Christian tolerance?

 

I happen to think that neither belief has a monopoly on violence. Similarly neither has a monopoly on tolerance. But you say you despise the religion rather than its adherents. Surely that is somewhat at odds with what the Qur’an actually says. To quote Karen Armstrong again –

 

In the Qur’an, God gives very clear and concrete commands . . . the first religious duty is to create a society where the poor and vulnerable are treated with respect. Like the Hebrew prophets, Mohammed stressed the prime duty of practical compassion: care for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the oppressed.”

I only have a modest knowledge of the Qur’an. In my limited view, I have much more respect for the ideals of that religion and the 1.3 billion + who worship it than I do for that small minority of its adherents who twist and turn some of its sayings to their own violent ends. But then, there are also, as we all know, small bands of extremist Christians who latch on to what seem the far more violent exhortations expressed in The Bible!

[Guest voldemar]

IMHO at the moment the topic of this thread is mute. Sunee is more or less dead (including Arab bars).

[Guest thrillbill8]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting comments. Before I came to Thailand, I had lived in the "Arab World" for over 15 years... 3 years in Libya, 8 years in Saudi Arabia, and 4 years in the UAE. Also, I had visited many countries in the area such as Iran (which is Persian not Arab); Kuwait; Yeman; Egypt and other places. Here is my observation. The ME religious culture influences the men to look at gay sex as vodoo; thus they are very sheltered and "stupid" when it comes to behaving "normal" in a gay place. This also relates to the "straight" ME men who look at females as sex objects and being inferior to men. Some countries are worse than others. In Northern African, the behavior of the men is not as bad as those in the rich Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In general terms I must state that the Kuwaitis and the Saudis are the worse when it comes to behaving "properly". They are raised so sheltered that they cannot handle the "freedom" when they get to a open, civilized country... they think of the local women as only as sex objects (which they have no contact with women in their country since single men and women cannot be together socially). In Saudi, when you go to eat at a Mac Donalds, Pizza Hut or any restaurant, the rooms are split in two areas with a wall in the middle. One room for single men only; the other for families (women are not to go out and get food by themselves); men and women cannot work together in an office- even schools are seperate so the boys and girls are not together; imported magazines will have bare shoulders and cleavage of women blacked out with black markers because it is evil to see a woman's bare skin; on valentine Day a worker at a flower shop will get arrested if he sells roses since Valentines Day promotes "sex". if you are gay in a ME country, you could be put in prison; yet it is ok for older men to "play" with young boys. Many Arabs can't handle their alcohol (which is forbidden in their countries) and they come across arogant since they treat all nationalities in their country like dog do-do.

So when one sees them act rude or strangely, it is because of their environment. They really have no business in coming to a place like Thailand since it is "harum" (forbidden) in their religion.

[Rogie]

I have also taken a femboy friend on several trips to smoke a hookah (no pun intended) in the so-called Arab quarter (and yes, it is damned noisy) but have met nothing but acceptance and friendliness. When I do something similar in Farang areas (e.g. Soi 7 and , I almost always get at least one snide comment or display of unpleasantness from some drunken intolerant ignorant slob.

 

Here is my observation. The ME religious culture influences the men to look at gay sex as vodoo; thus they are very sheltered and "stupid" when it comes to behaving "normal" in a gay place.

 

I've much enjoyed reading Fountainhall and Patpat's debating the merits or otherwise of Islam. Good stuff.

 

Back to Arabs and the way they are perceived by the gay community in Pattaya:

 

Arabs are a minority in Pattaya just as gays are. There are many different sorts of 'Arab', as well as those often lumped into the Arab camp such as Persians (Iranians). As Thrillbill says, the 'Arab World' is extensive and it is misleading to draw conclusions regarding likely behaviours based on limited experience in a place such as Pattaya. First-time Arab visitors are variably (depending on their home country) disorientated and confused in a place such as Pattaya. Non-Arab gays in Pattaya are also very variable: Thais and falungs. The Thais comprise young men who look like boys, those who look like men (and indeed are) and those who look like ladies (but are not). That some Arabs and Persians have been reported to rub shoulders quite amicably with ladyboys and femboys is encouraging. Suspicion seems quite understandable. The Arabs stick with their kind and seem to enjoy loud music; gays may feel that an unwelcome intrusion in what they regard as their territory. A falung and a local Thai man, when seen together, are often made to feel unwelcome in non-gay areas frequented by straight falungs, but meet little or no hostility in an Arab-quarter. It would be presumptuous to say, but could it be that Arabs are basically more gay-friendly than their western counterparts? That their initial shyness comes across as aloofness, but once they work out what Pattaya is all about they are open and friendly. Of course, by the law of averages, some Arabs are gay. That must be very awkward for them.

[Guest fountainhall]

Iran hangs gay people from cranes, Saudi Arabia executes them (by what method I'm not sure) and the Taliban in Afghanistan used to execute gay people by burying them alive under the rubble from demolished stone walls. Malaysia imprisons people for life who are caught engaging in anal intercourse.

Here I agree completely with your outrage. But let’s separate current practice in these countries from what the texts of the religion actually say. Look up wikipedia and we are told there is only one passage in the Qur’an which can be interpreted as a strict legal position towards homosexual behaviour. It refers specifically to the people of Luth (essentially Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible) -

 

. . . as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Islam

 

This is surely pretty vague, far more so than the various specific commandments in the Bible, one of the earliest of which is from Leviticus 20:13 –

 

And if a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death.

The passage above, with its reference to “repent and amend”, certainly does not indicate an automatic death penalty. A quick search on google will show any number of Islamic writers (scholars?) who argue with the position and claim emphatically that Islam does condemn homosexuality. Yet, it certainly seems that Shari’a law is based more on what we are told were the comments of Muhammed and those who knew him rather than specific texts in the religious book. Indeed, the same wikipedia entry says there are major disagreements between two traditional schools of Shari’a thinking.

 

The Hanafi school holds that it does not merit any physical punishment, on the basis of a hadith that "Muslim blood can only be spilled for adultery, apostasy and homicide"; against this the Hanbali school, identifying sodomy with adultery, holds that it must incur the death penalty

Being realistic, though, whatever the Qur’an and the Bible actually say is not going to change the current thinking of fundamentalist imams and preachers.

 

Thrillbill8’s comments are very perceptive when it comes to the topic of this thread. We are all conditioned by the way we are brought up and our daily surroundings. When I first started travelling at the age of 18, I was shocked by the seeming arrogance and sheer ignorance of the typical “Englishman abroad”. I was as embarrassed by their disregard of local customs as by their sense of colonial superiority, even in countries with no association with Britain. Over time, and as more and more British people have travelled extensively, those traits have largely disappeared. Is that, I wonder, solely due to the experience of travel, or partly to the major changes that have taken place within British society? If the latter, then I guess unfortunately there is not much hope that Arabs will soon change their own behaviour when travelling overseas.

[TotallyOz]

I have been totally fascinated with this tread and the posts in it. I have been learning a great deal. Thank you guys for giving me information that I had not been aware of or thinking about!

[Guest anonone]

Interesting comments on this thread and a fine example of differing views and opinions being shared in a civil tone. Lovin' this.

 

I am amazed at the dexterity of those proclaiming to be religious. They can seem to find a way to incorporate hate into any religion.

 

From USA Today:

Its picketing of military funerals reflects a core, anti-gay philosophy that, among other things, links the killing of troops to God's revenge against the military, especially for its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

 

USA Today

 

These particular Baptists (Christians) have found a unique way to blame us gays for military deaths in combat. Quite a feat of mental gymnastics to make that leap....

 

I lean heavily to the "live and let live" philosophy. I judge a person on their actions. There are "Christians" that I would avoid like the plague and "Muslims" that I would be happy to consort with.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have been totally fascinated with this tread and the posts in it. I have been learning a great deal.

Thanks Michael and Rogie – and thanks also to Patpat without whose participation, there would have been little discussion.

 

I have to admit that prior to the year 2000, I knew precious little about the Crusades. I still believed the nonsense we were all taught at school – that this was a noble cause when the righteous Christians rescued the centre of Christianity from the evil, murdering Saracens.

 

Before then, I had only once visited what had been Moorish Spain. There I was hugely impressed by the magnificence of many Moorish buildings - and especially their art. The Alcazar in Seville, the Mezquita in Cordoba, the amazing Alhambra in Grenada all give credence to the extraordinary beauty of Islamic-inspired art and architecture. I also found myself questioning long held beliefs about the violence of Islam, its early conquests and the facts about its colonial rule.

 

In 2000, I made the first of my two visits to Istanbul, one of the most extraordinary cities in the world. That set me on a long period of reading about the Eastern Roman Empire, the rise of Constantinople, the beginnings of Islam, the development of the great cities of Damascus, Baghdad and others during the Islamic Golden Age – a time when most of Europe was literally in the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the eventual fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks.

 

It is an absolutely fascinating period in history. It's also in my view crucial in any debate about religion because it resulted in much of what is wrong with religion in the 21st century. The Great Schism brought about the final split between the eastern orthodox Byzantine Christians and the western Catholic Church, an action which Pope John Paul II started to heal on his visits to Romania, Ukraine and Greece – the first Pope to visit Greece in almost 13 centuries. The slaughter perpetrated by the Christians during the Crusades remains a wrong to be righted in the eyes of many more radical Muslims.

 

Look up one site about the Crusades through Arab eyes and you will see the following quote –

 

“The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this violence and blood bath with the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him)."

http://crusades.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=65

 

Sadly, that fact in the first sentence is hard to deny.

[Guest patpat]

Thanks for the comments and the opinions posted above. As someone said, it's nice to see differences of opinion discussed in a civilized and respectful way. Everyone can learn something new or maybe revise or modify their opinions as a result.

 

But speaking of Arabs, I have a memory of extremely unlikely friendship that I witnessed in Pattaya a few years ago between a guy from Israel and a guy from Saudi Arabia. I would often see them sitting at a table in the street near to my condo chatting, and because I knew the Israeli guy and his wife, I would sometimes stop by also for a chat. I remember thinking that perhaps this could only happen in Thailand.

[Guest fountainhall]

Flying back to Suvarnabhumi on Saturday afternoon, I saw three aircraft parked side by side - Egyptair, Iran Air and El Al!

[Guest ryanasia]

I don't see what the fuss is about. The Arabs or Persians have every right to make their own community as you or I do. It will be the financial incentives that they bring that decide it, not cultural differences.

 

Sunnee plaza has been consistently criticized for under age boys and whatever. Find a new place it is pretty simple. The music is too loud? Try soi 6 in the straight area. Pattaya is changing and maybe white people are no longer the target group so deal with it.

[Guest fountainhall]

(1) The Arabs or Persians have every right to make their own community as you or I do. It will be the financial incentives that they bring that decide it, not cultural differences.

 

(2) Sunnee plaza has been consistently criticized for under age boys and whatever. Find a new place it is pretty simple. (3) The music is too loud?

I am in Pattaya only a couple of times a year, and so can only comment in general on the three points from your post I have highlighted.

 

(1) I agree that anyone can make their own community if there are enough of them visiting on a regular basis to make that profitable for the business owners.

 

(3) As I understand Michael's original point, though, it was less about the creation of an Arab community than certain Arab targeted businesses opening up in an area like Sunee and disturbing the area with over-loud music. Personally, I loathe over-loud music. I believe there is noise legislation in Thailand. As usual, though, it is not always enforced. In Sunee there are a number of open air bars where people meet to sit, drink and chat. In such an area, it is, in my view, quite wrong for one or more bars to up the level of their music so that it affects business at others. If some owners want over-loud music, then it is they who should move and establish their own community elsewhere.

 

(2) Judging only on what I have been reading on other Boards, the feedback I get is that the issue of the employment of those underage is virtually in the past as far as Sunee goes. I leave others to comment with more up to date information.

[Guest snapshot]

Here is my observation. The ME religious culture influences the men to look at gay sex as vodoo; thus they are very sheltered and "stupid" when it comes to behaving "normal" in a gay place. This also relates to the "straight" ME men who look at females as sex objects and being inferior to men. Some countries are worse than others. In Northern African, the behavior of the men is not as bad as those in the rich Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In general terms I must state that the Kuwaitis and the Saudis are the worse when it comes to behaving "properly". They are raised so sheltered that they cannot handle the "freedom" when they get to a open, civilized country... they think of the local women as only as sex objects (which they have no contact with women in their country since single men and women cannot be together socially).

Nail on the head!

 

The same dynamic is also present when Muslims immigrate to other countries to live. Some adapt and assimilate into the local culture quite well. I have a great deal of respect for immigrants who retain the positive aspects of their home country culture while making an effort to learn and take on the positive values, beliefs and behaviour native to their new country.

 

Problems arise when they retain the negative aspects of their own culture and fail to adopt or accept the culture in their new country. Some do as you describe above and this can cause some problems. And on the extreme end, some will even vocally criticise the behaviour of local women and demand changes to local law to accommodate Sharia law! Then, of course, this brings out the rednecks!

 

I've had little contact with Arabs in Thailand so can't comment on their behaviour there.