Arrest for Thai Supplying Children Under 15 in Sunee Again

[Dani69]

http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/ ... h-pattaya/ (http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/74581/thai-accused-providing-minors-foreigners-soi-sunee-plaza-south-pattaya/)

[Neal]

A 21 year old Thai Man was arrested by officers from the Police Region 2 Child and Women Protection Unit on Wednesday afternoon in East Pattaya, accused of providing underage boys to foreign patrons situated in Soi Sunee Plaza, South Pattaya.

The suspect would provide the boys, for a fee, and they would provide sexual services for the foreigners in return.

Khun Boonchoi aged 21 was arrested at his house in Soi Neun Plub Wan just after 1.30pm on the strength of an arrest warrant which confirmed he is accused of providing boys, under the age of 15 to foreign patrons for the purpose of sexual services, in exchange for money.

It is thought Khun Boonchoi has been providing the illegal service since early last year. He confessed and will appear in Court to answer to a judge in due course.

I think congratulations are in order to our esteemed members who keep re-posting this type of news story.

They will no doubt be glad to know that the constant re-hashing of these lurid stories (which anybody who is strangely interested in can easily read at source) has contributed to SGF now being ranked in the top 5 Google results under the search terms "underage boys pattaya" - and yes, I did actually search it to see if my suspicions were right.

The only possible comfort is that Gaybuttonthai ranked #2, Baht Stop #4, with SGF "trailing" at #5.

No doubt the actual ranking would vary hour by hour but the pattern and the message to the world is clear - if you want to read about underage boy sex in Pattaya, these fora are the places to look.

I rather think that all the gay forums could do without attracting this sort of attention, and without this sort of totally unnecessary content - IMHO. I appreciate Neal is trying to be liberal in his moderation policy but what exactly do these stories add to the forum?

[loke]

Why ? Because this is news!
This is an open forum , are you going to close your eyes to whats going on in Sunee ?

For us travellers to Sunnee , we woud like to know that the Police take action on this underage traffic .

Sunnee should be a safe place for everyone that are looking to have a good time with people over the legal age.

....For us travellers to Sunnee , we woud like to know that the Police take action on this underage traffic...

You didn't know that the Thai police (rightly) take action against people procuring underage boys for sex before you had read it on SGF?

You had to learn or have that reinforced here - on a gay forum?

And by means of regurgitated news from elsewhere?

Which planet do you live on?

[Doug]

What do these net surfers find when they come to this forum....that a vast majority of the responses from the gay community condemn this behaviour.

If that was all that the casual observer found, that would be fine and dandy - except that in the minds of many out there, the terms "gay" and "paedophile" are synonymous and no amount of expressed outrage on gay fora will change that ingrained attitude.
The fact that such stories appear regularly and some posters seem to positively relish posting the re-hashed details, only adds fuel to that particular fire.

But, apart from that, you are completely overlooking what else these surfers will find:

They will find a bunch of middle aged or elderly men discussing the "boy" prostitutes they hired the night/week/month before, how much they paid them, and how compliant in bed they were. Also tips and hints of where else to go in the world to find even cheaper and more compliant "boys". Now, whilst we know that the term boy is used very widely in Thailand (and on this forum) - the casual observer will probably make very different connotation.

If it was up to me (which it obviously isn't), these re-hashed and lurid stories would be banned.
If some forum members have either a morbid interest in them or get a perverted kick out of reading them, let them do it elsewhere.
This type of content adds nothing to this (or any other) gay forum, and anybody who thinks that this gay forum will gain kudos from condemning the actions alleged in these stories, is being extremely naive.

:occasion9:

[lukylok]

It is not always the case, but this time I wholeheatedly agree with SG.
That kind of topic should remain where it belongs and not on this forum.

[joe552]

I agree with SG on this one, for the reasons he articulates. Lots of other sources for this kind of "news"

[loke]

Well I disagree, being gay is normal and paedophilia is not so older members on this forum shouldnt worry too much .

Even if its bad news , its good to know that the police are cleaning up the area.

Not every member are expats in Pattaya.

[Beachlover]

The previous owner had a policy of not allowing this topic to be discussed on SGF and I guess that policy has been withdrawn.

I actually agree with SG that it should be kept off the forum for a few reasons.

Having said that, the reality is that Pattaya and especially Sunee Plaza has a reputation for this abhorrent underage shit and that reputation is well justified.

[latintopxxx]

Reason I would discourage this type of reporting is that it has absolutely nothing to do with gays or gay lifestyle, after all a much greater percentage of straight men abuse little girls (simply because ther are more straights than gays...unfortunately) but straigyts don't associate it as an issue related to them due to their sexuality.
By raising it's profile in agay chat board it almost serves as a warning that the cops are watching so perverted gays be more careful when abusing boys.......
This type of reporting simply has nothing to do with being gay and does not belng here.
Neal...wake up....you are allowing yoir own board to be damaged.

[Neal]

Some people keep talking about straight people abusing and raping young girls as well as boys and the reports on such. I reprinted and posted two articles because it was specifically about a gay mamasan being approached by a regular customer who obtained sexual services from a gay mamasan and who had recieved those services before from this mamasan and had been under surveillance for some time. This was also the case in Chaing Mei although not through a mamasan. I don't print about underage sex with girls as I don't care to reprint articles of girls being molested here and since the reports state "under the age of 15" we have no idea whether it is about a 14 year old or a prepubecent 8 year old, do we? eally in my honest opinion while they may use the word pedophile many will agree that a 14 year old is more under the age of consent that it is pedophilia.

[joe552]

since the reports state "under the age of 15" we have no idea whether it is about a 14 year old or a prepubecent 8 year old, do we? eally in my honest opinion while they may use the word pedophile many will agree that a 14 year old is more under the age of consent that it is pedophilia.

Neal, you seem to be suggesting that 14 is ok but 8 is not. This maybe was not your intention, but that's how it reads. To me, sex with a 14 year old is just as wrong as sex with an 8 year old. You might want to clarify your view.

And the above Neal is EXACTLY why conversations such as the one that has developed should be kept off this (or any board), while I know from many conversations with you what Joe points out is NOT what you mean can you imagine someone cut and pasting comments like that and reading them out somewhere as "facts about gay people" as taken from one of their Thailand Pedophile chat rooms where they swap details of all the best bars etc - again whilst I KNOW that's not what you mean that very type of very conversation is one I cringe at and certainly want nothing to do with and it's certainly nothing to do with ordinary gay life in Thailand (IMHO) - especially when by your own admission you chose not to post articles about girls etc, i mean AGHHHH that just sounds so bad, can't you see that ?

[Neal]

Oh no Joe I am not saying that it is ok at all. What I believe I said or wanted to say is that in my eyes as well as I thought I read by other posters that having sex with a 14 year old is still illegal the papers seems to still call it pedophilia whereas some might feel that it is having sex with someone under the age of consent as opposed to someone who is prepubecent or lets say 12, 13 and under which is a clear case of pedophilia and not a case of sex with a minor. Its 4:30 in the am and not feeling good and must leave now for dialysis so I pologize if my words did not seem a bit more clear. Just a thought. No, both are morally and legally not ok.

[joe552]

Neal, I was really just giving you a chance to be clear about your opinion as that last post could be mis-interpreted. Hope your dialysis goes as well as it can.

[a447]

Neal wrote:
as opposed to someone who is prepubecent or lets say 12, 13 and under which is a clear case of pedophilia and not a case of sex with a minor.

But that is normally not the case under law. Engaging in sexual activities with a 12 or 13 year old is not a "clear case of pedophilia."

It has to be proven that sex with a chilld is not a one-off event but forms part of a pattern of behaviour.

If no such pattern is established, then it would most likely be treated as "sex with a minor." It certainly would not be treated as a case of paedophilia.

So the newspapers get it wrong - unless, of course, they have done their research and discovered that the alleged paedophile had a history of sex with minors.

Or unless such a law does not exist in LOS.

So all reports of "paedophile" behaviour should be banned from SGT if it simply refers someone arrested for having had sex with a minor, as this in itself is not paedophilia.

[Neal]

Well rereading the two articles that appeared and were reprinted to this forum one called it child molester and the other called it sex with a minor so that in actuality nierther one said pedophile so they would conform now wouldn't they?

[a447]

Neal, you are missing a very simple point here. I was commenting on the part of your post I quoted above.

The point is that having sex with a child does not necesarily constitute paedophilia. You are encouraging and perpetuating a common misunderstanding by posting that on SGT.

[latintopxxx]

sounds like someone is trying to justify the unjustifiable.......and I thought I was a bit out there when it came to my sexual games.....

[a447]

My comment above is based solely on the legal perspective. I have no time for common misunderstandings/misconceptions about paedophilia - or any other offense for that matter.

And as for
sounds like someone is trying to justify the unjustifiable
that's a bit rich, coming from you of all people.

[Neal]

Latin I don't know what you are trying to infer but if it is me sweetie you have an incorrect view as my b/f is 27. All I m referring to is how to understand what I wish to or not put in print about arrests.

Let me throw this into the fire, and it partially links up with what a447 has said:

In the UK at least, I believe there is no such offence and no such crime as paedophilia on the statute book.

What such a person would be charged with or convicted of is various forms of lewd behaviour or sex with a minor.

Also, contrary to popular belief, Tthere is also no "Paedophile register" either (there can't be - it's not a specific crime) - only a "Sex Offenders" register (which includes people having a piss in the street and somebody seeing their cock) and a separate list of persons barred from working with children.

Therefore, as a447 suggests, it is very much open to your own interpretation as to whether a person is or is not a paedophile. A pattern of offending would indicate it might be likely.

Also, of course, most paedophiles have never been (nor ever will be) convicted of anything.

[Neal]

At this time I would like to lock these two threads down now that I have understood what I have asked and wanted to hear and if there is no objection will do so within a 24 hour period of time and let them die a disgraceful death.

[a447]

Ok Neal, but before you do let me say to SG that in Oz also there is no specific crime of paedophilia on the statute books.

[latintopxxx]

Neal....relax...was referring to a447 actually....I may have a slightly kinky side but at least my partners are all consenting adults.....children should be left alone to enjoy their childhoof.

[Doug]

Several years ago I gave a young boy a childhoof and he enjoyed it a lot.