Buddhism and the gay visitor

[Londoner]

Following an interesting discussion on the "wai", I wonder if posters have any  thoughts about, or even knowledge of the Buddhist beliefs held by the Thais they meet casually or with whom they are in LTRs? Do such beliefs impinge on our relationships in any ways?  And are  there aspects about which we non-Buddhists should be aware and tread carefully?

[reader]

I believe treading carefully on anyone's religious beliefs is good practice. Looking back now on 23 years of visits, I'm left persuaded that human biology and the need to survive are the dominant factors that influence behavior and relationships.

[bkkmfj2648]

1 hour ago, Londoner said:

Do such beliefs impinge on our relationships in any ways? 

I feel strongly that Buddhism can greatly impact a non-Buddhist's relationship with said Buddhist person.

For me, after 2 intense relationships with 2 different Thai guys - their attitude towards "risk mitigation" is the area in which I have the greatest difficulty.

They tend to live for the day and moment and planning and safety measures are not given great importance.  I personally experienced this in the areas of:

• money and finance - no planning just live day by day,
• safety - riding motorbikes without helmets and when drunk.

When I would stress about the above 2 issues - they would almost always reply to me, "Buddha will provide...." or "Buddha will protect me...."

But when Buddha did not provide or protect them - guess what - sugar daddy (me) was expected to do what Buddha did not......

This way of life is very frustrating to me.

Anyone else have ways on how to deal with these Buddhist traits ?

 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, bkkmfj2648 said:

I feel strongly that Buddhism can greatly impact a non-Buddhist's relationship with said Buddhist person.

For me, after 2 intense relationships with 2 different Thai guys - their attitude towards "risk mitigation" is the area in which I have the greatest difficulty.

They tend to live for the day and moment and planning and safety measures are not given great importance.  I personally experienced this in the areas of:

• money and finance - no planning just live day by day,
• safety - riding motorbikes without helmets and when drunk.

When I would stress about the above 2 issues - they would almost always reply to me, "Buddha will provide...." or "Buddha will protect me...."

But when Buddha did not provide or protect them - guess what - sugar daddy (me) was expected to do what Buddha did not......

This way of life is very frustrating to me.

Anyone else have ways on how to deal with these Buddhist traits ?

 

Not just a Buddhist trait!

[spoon]

47 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

Not just a Buddhist trait!

Agreed 

[macaroni21]

To the OP: Thai attitudes to same sex relationships are social constructs; only loosely related to religion. You would find, for example, very different atttudes in other countries that are as Buddhist as Thailand. 

You probably come from a country where the dominant religion is that of an Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and societies founded on Abrahamic religions tend ot think (not entirely true) that the teachings of religion are or should be the source of social/moral attitudes. In particular the Abrahamic religions are more sex-obsessed than non-Abrahamic religions – they have a lot to say about sex.

It may surprise you that about half the world's population do not subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, and as a general rule, those other religions have little to say about sex or sexually-related relationships. Yet, these societies do have attitudes (and widely varying ones too) about same-sex relationships. And they may well have one attitude to male-male relationships and a very different attitude to a female-female relationship. It is a Western construct to see male-male and female-female relationships as somehow two eggs in the same basket. So whatever attitudes these non-Abrahamic societies have towards gay male relationships (I shall set aside what they think of female-female relationships) don't so much spring from their religion, but are hand-me downs from social conditioning. 

Another feature that is worth mentioning here is that Thai culture – as with all other traditional Southeast Asian cultures – see gender more than sexual orientation. If your lover is gatoey and you're a cis-gendered male, it is one thing. If both of you are cis-gendered males, then it is seen as a completely different kind of thing. Generally, southeast asian cultures tolerate and to a degree accept transgender identity and they are more familiar, from their socio-historical legacies, with relationships where one partner is transgendered. Doesn't have to be fully transgendered. Effeminacy is similarly tolerated. 

There are far less socio-historical underpinnings to attitudes towards cisgendered male-male relationships. Historically southeast Asian societies tended not to see these relationships so they haven't built a corpus of social attitudes towards them. What attitudes they hold today are of more modern genesis, which is to say those attitudes have a large dollop of Western influence if one is speaking of urban Thai communities exposed to contemporary Western culture. If one is speaking of rural or small town communities, or even of communities rooted in the shantytowns around Bangkok, then I suspect one may find quite different attitudes, due simply to less exposure to contemporary Western culture. 

Note: I speak of contemporary western culture. Large swathes of urban elite Sri Lankan society (also a predominantly Buddhist country) have also had their attitudes to cisgendered male-male relationships shaped by exposure to western culture, but in their case, they were largely shaped by western culture of decades ago, resulting in a significant degree of homophobia. Ditto with Korea which is about 50% Buddhist. Arguably Korea is more homophobic than Sri Lanka.

Even among the Thai elite that have exposure to contemporary western culture, it is just one strand out of many that meld to form their beliefs. Bear in mind that perhaps half of the Thai elite in Bangkok are ethnically Chinese, and many of their social attitudes are deeply rooted in Chinese social expectations. And here, the strong belief in the traditional family and the responsibility of bearing sons for future generations in order to carry on the family name will likely override whatever crazy western ideas they come across about accepting homosexuality. I speak with some experience on this matter since I have over the years had many local Thai friends who are professionals and business leaders. There have been plenty of opportunity for them to educate me on the very complicated attitudes they encounter.

I have no experience with Thai rural or small-town communities in this regard, so I really cannot say how cisgendered male-male relationships will be seen by them.

There are some on this board who have boyfriends from Isaan or other small towns, and might have received a warm welcome from the boyfriends' families. However, I would caution that we shouldn't read too much into their particular experiences, since those farang-thai ex-moneyboy relationships are hugely coloured by economics. 

One characteristic of Thai society (again, nothing at all to do with Buddhism)  that may obscure their honest opinions is the tendency to avoid confrontation – fights along Pattaya Beach Road and Soi 6 notwithstanding – and their acute awareness of the need to save face for all around. So even if one encounters a performance of gracious welcome and acceptance, one should always remember it could be just that: a performance. 

But perhaps that is good enough. If everybody around is placidly polite, does it really matter what they really think?

By the same token, you will need to become "Thai" to receive this consideration. That means, you will need to learn to behave their way and not do anything that undermines "face". So you will almost surely have to restrain yourself from overt displays of same-sex affection; if you don't, you won't be seen as giving them due respect, and consequently, they won't feel obliged to return respect to you; which means their polite smile and silence will vanish in a flash, and you may be featured in the next viral video of a farang beaten up by irate Thais. 

 

[reader]

6 hours ago, bkkmfj2648 said:

They tend to live for the day and moment and planning and safety measures are not given great importance.  I personally experienced this in the areas of:

• money and finance - no planning just live day by day,
• safety - riding motorbikes without helmets and when drunk

We don't have responsibility for fixing these problems. If we opt to do so, we do so out out of charity--not as a reciprocal response to solidify a relationship.

5 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Not just a Buddhist trait!

Not at all. Buddhists do not have a monopoly on irresponsible behavior.

[Travelingguy]

Being present in the moment (a Buddhist concept) is not the same as “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.” 

One can strive to be present in the moment while still making plans and preparations for the future. The two activities are not mutually exclusive  

[xpaulo]

8 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

is the tendency to avoid confrontation

This I think is part of the tolerance Canadians showed in accepting gay marriage early on in conjunction with a deep respect for personal privacy. I use the word tolerance because while homosexuality is tolerated, it's not particularly respected, at least in my opinion. There's a big backlash on right now from the "stop shoving your gay stuff down my throat" people. I don't think they even notice the humour in that remark. And for the most part I think people don't want to hear or think about gay sex. Except the real haters, they're obsessed with gay sex. On Christian attitudes to homosexuality, my impression is that the early Puritan settlers and later similar Christian sects have had a huge effect on American society. Joe Biden was only the second Catholic to be president (JFK the first), the others all being Protestants. Then there's the contradiction of Americans being as the Chinese say, "fat, lazy and addicted" or words similar to that.

[Raposa]

15 hours ago, bkkmfj2648 said:

I feel strongly that Buddhism can greatly impact a non-Buddhist's relationship with said Buddhist person.

For me, after 2 intense relationships with 2 different Thai guys - their attitude towards "risk mitigation" is the area in which I have the greatest difficulty.

They tend to live for the day and moment and planning and safety measures are not given great importance.  I personally experienced this in the areas of:

• money and finance - no planning just live day by day,
• safety - riding motorbikes without helmets and when drunk.

When I would stress about the above 2 issues - they would almost always reply to me, "Buddha will provide...." or "Buddha will protect me...."

But when Buddha did not provide or protect them - guess what - sugar daddy (me) was expected to do what Buddha did not......

This way of life is very frustrating to me.

Anyone else have ways on how to deal with these Buddhist traits ?

 

Macaroni has written very well on this, but allow me to expand a little.

These differences in mindsets that you describe aren’t merely personal traits but are deeply rooted in historical, economic, and religious contexts.
The Western Paradigm is about structure and control ultimately rooted in a monotheistic cultural DNA where God has set down laws of motion which the world operates according to. Thus you have the origin of why Western societies generally operate with a belief in an ordered, predictable world where planning and risk management lead to security.

This perspective has been shaped by economic stability with generations of relative economic predictability has created a faith in planning. The mentioned monotheistic influence that emphasises personal responsibility, stewardship of resources, and moral obligations. Institutional trust, that is functioning systems of insurance, pensions, and social safety nets, and finally a long-term orientation: the cultural value of ‘delayed gratification’ and investment in the future which is conditioned by the long era of economic prosperity in the West.

The Western mindset often approaches life as a series of challenges to be managed through careful organisation and foresight.

In contrast, many Southeast Asian cultures have developed an approach shaped by economic volatility, that is histories of sudden economic shifts, natural disasters and political upheaval. Further influence is provided by Theravada Buddhist philosophy and the teachings of impermanence (anicca), non-attachment, adaptability, and present-moment awareness provide both a spiritual and practical framework for navigating unpredictable environments. Buddhism acknowledges suffering and uncertainty as fundamental aspects of existence rather than anomalies to be eliminated through planning. The focus shifts from controlling future outcomes to cultivating inner peace amidst external chaos. Communal safety nets with its reliance on family and community rather than institutions.

While Western systems rely on contractual obligations and institutional stability, Southeast Asian cultures often depend on reciprocal relationships and collective responsibility, where today’s generosity ensures tomorrow’s support. Volatility and poverty that has been conducive to a present orientation that focuses on immediate needs and opportunities in uncertain environments. The focus on immediate needs and opportunities in uncertain environments isn’t short-sightedness but a rational adaptation to contexts where the future is genuinely unpredictable. Living in the moment becomes less about hedonism and more about nimble response to changing circumstances.

What may appear as fatalism (“Buddha will provide”) is often a pragmatic response to environments where rigid planning historically proved futile when faced with frequent disruptions. It represents a psychological adaptation that prevents anxiety over factors beyond individual control, while maintaining openness to emerging opportunities and challenges.

It’s crucial to understand that Buddhism is not an all-encompassing religion in the way that many Western traditions aim to be. In Asia, religious practices often specialise in specific aspects of life rather than providing comprehensive frameworks for all decisions. For instance, in Japan, Shinto traditions typically govern weddings and celebrations, while Buddhist practices are observed for funerals and ancestral veneration.
Across Southeast Asia, aspects of Brahmanism, animism, and localised spiritual practices coexist with Buddhist principles, each addressing different domains of human experience. This religious pluralism creates a complex tapestry of influences rather than a single theological lens through which all decisions are filtered.

Even within specific religious traditions, interpretations vary widely. For example, in Korean history, dynasties promoting Confucian values often enacted conservative social policies, while periods of Buddhist influence sometimes allowed for greater social flexibility in areas such as sexual expression and gender roles.

In cross cultural relationships it is important to recognise these differences as cultural adaptations rather than personal flaws or moral failings and trying to communicate expectations clearly, particularly regarding financial responsibilities and safety considerations. The approaches have complementary strengths; planning provides security, while adaptability offers resilience in the face of unexpected changes. The latter might not be such a bad thing considering that the next 10 to 20 years will likely be far more unpredictable and volatile than the previous decades, especially in the West.

[Londoner]

Thank you for your posts. I hope others found them as informative as I did. I should like to add  three  issues to the discussion.

Firstly,  the belief in the transmigration of the  soul. I mentioned some time ago how my partner interpreted our first meeting, claiming that we'd met in a previous life, and how that  affected our relationship..  

Secondly, a distinctive view of duty of the young towards elders and parents , as expressed by the Thai word "gentanyu". This perhaps influences  intergenerational relationships, of which there seem to be many compared to within Western cultures.

Thirdly- and this has a relevance to gay relationships and sexual identity as mentioned by previous posters- is the contrast between Eastern and Western religions. The three Abrahamic faiths  tend to celebrate the soldier, the crusader, the physically strong. Even Christianity which, once it became an institution, quickly abandoned the   pacifism of the New Testament  and replaced  it with the need to be "a soldier for Christ", "a soldier of the Cross", "a crusader". There is no such requirement in Hinduism or Buddhism, no desire to evangelise, to conquer  non-believers (taking their land wherever possible!); in short to be  "manly".  Instead,  the "feminine" virtues of love and tenderness, even beauty, are encouraged.

Of course, we can ask how much of this is cultural rather than specifically Buddhist.  I write not as an expert but as an observer.

[khaolakguy]

8 hours ago, xpaulo said:

There's a big backlash on right now from the "stop shoving your gay stuff down my throat" people. I don't think they even notice the humour in that remark.

This made me laugh!

A most interesting thread and thank you to all for their interesting contributions.

[PeterRS]

18 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

It may surprise you that about half the world's population do not subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, and as a general rule, those other religions have little to say about sex or sexually-related relationships. Yet, these societies do have attitudes (and widely varying ones too) about same-sex relationships. And they may well have one attitude to male-male relationships and a very different attitude to a female-female relationship. It is a Western construct to see male-male and female-female relationships as somehow two eggs in the same basket.

Without wishing to take anything away from @macaroni21's masterful analysis, I will query one issue about same-sex relationships. Victorian England with its strict surface religious morality was very different once one dug below that surface. There, it was basically true that anything was permissible sexually whether legal or not. For almost 3 centuries England had had a law outlawing sodomy for which the punishment was death. Early in the 19th century death was replaced by a long term of imprisonment. Then in 1885 the increasingly popular views of what we might term a moral and religious majority pushed through further legislation. This was primarily to contain what it regarded as male lust, in particular protecting adolescent girls rather than prohibiting same-sex behaviour. Indecent assaults on girls over 13 were not against the law at that time. Yet when the bill was introduced in parliament its scope had widened from making assaults on girls up to 16 against the law, thanks to an amendment this morphed into one making all "indecent assaults" punishable as gross misdemeanours. Yet the wording of this amendment was unclear. As a result, what became law was changed and suddenly had included consensual male-to-male same-sex acts. Had the terms of the act been rigorously applied to those who found male-to-male sex under the surface of society's morality, it is assumed that many tens of thousands, including many of the great and the good, would have found themselves in prison! Sex between women never featured in this law.

This law was then widened to include all Britain's colonial possessions. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program of Human Rights Watch states that approx. 34 countries around the world have retained the former British colonial anti-sodomy laws.

18 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

Ditto with Korea which is about 50% Buddhist. Arguably Korea is more homophobic than Sri Lanka.

With respect, according to the 2024 Korea Research's regular survey 'Public Opinion in Public Opinion', 51% identify with no religion whatever, 31% with Christianity, and just 17% with Buddhism. Yet Confucian influence remains very strong and I am sure is one reason why South Korea as a whole is more homophobic than one would expect. Certainly, the three main Dynasties - the Silla, Goryeo and Joseon - showed much tolerance for male-to-male relations. This is very similar to China where for those at the top, having a male lover was not uncommon for millennia. And it was a Japanese bonze returning from a visit to China around 800 AD who brought the idea of monks taking young novices under their wings and eventually into their beds. This fashion caught on and many samurai warriors adopted the practice. The Shinto religion has no specific code of morals between humans and so appears to regard homosexual sex as merely a natural physical act to be enjoyed.

Where South Korea, Japan and some other countries have turned against ancient practices is, I believe, largely a result of American influence in the post WWII period. Since South Korea (as it became) had only had a Japanese colonial government for most of the first half of the century, the Americans who took over greatly influenced certain elements in the country. For example, American doctors all but mandated that Korean baby boys be circumcised, a practice that has now fallen out of favour.