Gay paradise?

[PeterUK]

The term 'gay paradise' is used a lot in relation to Thailand, mainly by sex tourists made giddy with excitement by the plentiful supply of gorgeous young men for cheap sex and by the lack of anything much in the way of overt hostility from the general population. Foreigners who spend a lot of time in Thailand, perhaps having moved there permanently, soon begin to realise that the situation is more complicated for Thai gays. They can face prejudice in the family, at school, and at work. Not only can they not marry their gay lovers but they cannot have a civil partnership either. An interesting article about all this in today's Bangkok Post:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investi ... -tolerance (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/368584/the-two-faces-of-thai-tolerance)

[Rene]

Not only can they not marry their gay lovers but they cannot have a civil partnership either.

You have to be totally mad to think that any concept of "paradise" has to do with getting married or enslaved in a "civil partnership". 90% of the people I know who are married, both gay and straight, consider marriage to be a veritable hell. I don't need the state or church to put its stamp of approval on my sexual interests. Being single, free and unencumbered is a state of bliss.

[corky]

I agree 100% with Rene. Well said.

And I would add that 90% of the people I know who are married or in civil partnerships or living together in a gay relationship have been seen by me cheating on their partners. In Babylon, Sansuk or similar places тАж тАШOh please donтАЩt tell my partner that you saw me hereтАЩ. In the bars or discos of Silom тАж тАШOh heтАЩs just a friend but please donтАЩt say anythingтАЩ.

The other great lie of the gay world is тАШWe have an open relationshipтАЩ тАж meaning that you continue fucking around as before but the farang pays the bills and the boy continues to behave as if you donтАЩt. Jealousy and spite always ensues.

Oh тАж and donтАЩt forget the last resort in the rose colored spectacle wearerтАЩs armory тАж тАШMy boyfriend is differentтАЩ

Why canтАЩt people be honest with themselves?

[PeterUK]

I wouldn't want to be in a marriage or civil partnership either. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these things appeal to many gays and are one of the benchmarks by which we judge the degree of gay tolerance of a society.

I think that people being honest with themselves would be a hard pill to swallow and they do not want to face the reality.

[springco]

Nevertheless, the fact remains that these things appeal to many gays and are one of the benchmarks by which we judge the degree of gay tolerance of a society.

PeterUK, the most gay tolerant societies and cultures the world has ever seen had no such institution as "gay marriage". You should learn to speak for yourself instead of making yourself a spokesman and self-appointed expert in these matters.

[timmberty]

the last few posts on here made me think of this >>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

no idea why.

[James Barnes]

I agree with peteruk.

The issues extend far beyond whether or not individuals wish for marriage or civil partnerships.

I wrote this in my Pattaya One column in Nov 2010:

The Worst of Both Worlds


The plethora of gay venues in Pattaya, the thousands of wide-eyed young Thai gay men who flock here from all over the country to find fortune and love, the cityтАЩs popularity with gay tourists and gay expats are all signs of how Thai society tolerates gay people. Pattaya seems to be close to Utopia for gay Thais and foreigners alike. It is disturbing to learn that physical assaults on gay men are not uncommon in Pattaya and verbal abuse of gay people in public places here is rife. This homophobia is mostly unreported, especially by tourists who do not want their holidays further spoiled by involvement with officialdom and expats who may have a jaded view of the local justice. The perpetrators of this frightening aggression are never Thai.

Thai society is less accepting of homosexuality than Europeans are. There are no same sex civil partnerships here. Nor is there any of the equality that legal status confers. Thai gay men still feel that they have to marry and produce children. They often dare not come out of the closet at work- a suicidal career move. Thai families are not generally accepting of gay children. Many bars frequented by gay Thai men will not advertise themselves as being gay establishments because gay professionals would never patronise them, fearful of becoming тАШknownтАЩ. But gays are tolerated here. Thais may be full of prejudices that have largely disappeared in Europe with its politically correct ethics but they do not accept homosexuality. Nor do they punch someone in the mouth because that someone enjoys a love of his own gender.

In contrast, Europe is beginning to see gay couples who have engaged in civil partnerships in the same light as heterosexual married couples. Gay businesses run openly and with pride under the full protection of the law. Equal opportunities legislation also prevents discrimination in the workplace. More and more parents are willing to accept that their children are gay and it is many a long year since a gay elected public official had any novelty value. This is, of course, a generalised view- many eastern European countries retain a bigoted, puritanical and offensive position towards gay people and donтАЩt even attempt to equate Russia with egalitarian thought.

In Thailand, there is tolerance and little acceptance. In Europe there is acceptance but less tolerance. Here we are, approaching the year 2011 and the struggle for gay rights has to continue. Gay people should never accept this worst of both worlds. We are entitled to live in one world, where acceptance and tolerance go hand in hand. A world that provides equality under the law. Where gay men can walk in the streets, hand in hand, without fearing a punch in the mouth.

[Brad the Impala]

PeterUK is being treated most unfairly on this thread. No part of his post was an encouragement or advocation of gay civil partnerships or marriage, but he was directing us to an article that described the situation on gay rights in Thailand.

It's not compulsory anywhere, so those who wish to abstain are completely free to do so, and i hope that they are not suggesting that those who wish to have their relationship recognized by the state should not be entitled to do so.

For myself my civil partnership has been registered and I am happy to know that if, or more likely, when I die first, my partner will not only receive what I leave behind tax free, and without dispute from family or state, but he will also be entitled to state support, in the same way that heterosexual partners have done for decades. Neither of these would apply if we didn't have a civil partnership.

[SimpleSoul]

Corky, you are surely not trying to suggest that ONLY the Thai 'boy' lies? I am certain that this 'gay lying' you describe is non racial. Farang 'men', as you imply' as well as Thai 'boys' can and do lie. I would add to your point that this lying (vis a vis fidelity) is extremely common in the gay world and that a monogamous gay couple is a rarity. Having said that, I would also state that everybody knows this anyway. So, what does it matter?

Such lack of fidelity applies to str8 couples, perhaps to a lesser extent generally, because on the whole women maybe play away form home less often. However, it is well known that in Western and a lot of other societies tremendous numbers of married people have 'affairs' - can be anything from ONS to years of secret trysts and also using prostitutes. Noting how many prostitutes there are in every area of human habitation then it is quite safe to assert that 'fidelity' is rather rare in this world.

Therefore, in my ever simple view of things, this is a red herring aspect of the debate.

In many ways Thailand is a gay paradise; but nowhere is perfect. Living in London is close to a gay paradise, life is very free and easy there. I might even suggest one of the best places to be gay in the world. Yet, even there and even now in 2013, there can be the occasional gay 'hate' crime. It's all a matter of degree. Another aspect not yet mentioned I think is the way in which gays present themselves in a society. If people tend to be non provocative then I suppose others will happily tolerate them. Not advertising gay bars to attract Thai professionals is a good example. it would seem to work and everyone seems to be comfortable; it works alongside the more out there establishments. Not quite an ideal paradise situation but I would say perhaps good enough.

I never understood the need to push the word gay 'marriage' down the throats of the Brits when civil union already existed. Why upset str8s needlessly? I am not aware of anyone (gay) I know who has vented on the need to be allowed to marry.. this is such a narrow measure of civil society - though of course I accept to some it might be more important.

I wouldn't want to be in a marriage or civil partnership either. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these things appeal to many gays and are one of the benchmarks by which we judge the degree of gay tolerance of a society.Done move to Australia or New Zealand then under the law all relationships more than two years long are automatically given the same rights as a legally recognised one so shack up with a Thai boy for two years in those countries and automatically he is entitled to some of your assets if you separate. He also done need any certificate to claim survivor benefits when you die etc.

See this link as an example in Austala http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/B ... kdown.aspx (http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/BrochuresandPublications/Pages/propertydivisionwhendefactorelationshipsbreakdown. aspx)

[arsenal]

Having reached my 40s I have come to the conclusion that being born gay (in a forward thinking western country) is actually an advantage where the opportunities to persue exactly the life you choose are far greater than the poor old straights.
However quite why any gay person would choose to ape the straight lifestyle is totally beyond me. So boring.

[Smiles]

Nevertheless, the fact remains that these things appeal to many gays and are one of the benchmarks by which we judge the degree of gay tolerance of a society.
PeterUK, the most gay tolerant societies and cultures the world has ever seen had no such institution as "gay marriage". You should learn to speak for yourself instead of making yourself a spokesman and self-appointed expert in these matters.
Interesting (and bad-tempered) comment taking into consideration that Peter ended his OP with this:


An interesting article about all this in today's Bangkok Post:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investi ... -tolerance
If that is not an open invitation for folks to provide their own opinion on this issue ~ as opposed to being a self-appointed anything ~ I don't know what is.

[corky]

Corky, you are surely not trying to suggest that ONLY the Thai 'boy' lies? I am certain that this 'gay lying' you describe is non racial. Farang 'men', as you imply' as well as Thai 'boys' can and do lie. . .

I neither wrote nor implied any such thing. Read my post again and you will see that any implied racism is only in your mind.

[SimpleSoul]

Corky,

Sorry if I have misinterpreted what you wrote but the following rather implies that farangs are always the innocent party: "The other great lie of the gay world is тАШWe have an open relationshipтАЩ тАж meaning that you continue fucking around as before but the farang pays the bills and the boy continues to behave as if you donтАЩt. Jealousy and spite always ensues." I bolded the main part.

BUT, if I have read it wrong, then SORRY.

[colmx]

The other great lie of the gay world is тАШWe have an open relationshipтАЩ тАж
I've been in one for nearly 11 years now and its all going fine as far as i am concerned... (you will have to ask him separately if he concurs!)



Jealousy and spite always ensues.
Surely the answer to that is that Jealous and spiteful people should not be in an open relationship in teh first place... but for those that are not jealous or spiteful... an open relationship can and does actually work?

[joe552]

I'm not in a relationship and haven't been for years. And I don't understand the concept of an open relationship. But that doesn't mean I can't understand that for some people that is how they want to live. Whether I want to be in a traditional monogamous relationship or an open relationship, is surely up to me and my partner. Wasn't the OP merely showing that for many Thais, that right doesn't exist? Colmx, for instance, is happy in his open relationship. There are a number of posters here who are in happy monogamous relationships. Obviously, both can work. It's a question to me of fairness. Ireland for instance has recently introduced civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but some campaigners want to go further. That's their right, as far as I'm concerned, even if the law doesn't affect me personally.

Equality is about the freedom to choose - either a traditional legal marriage or an open relationship or something else - the OP was simply pointing out that in Thailand, that option doesn't exist yet.

[Nirish guy]

"either a traditional legal marriage or an open relationship "

or both perhaps as the couple sees fit - but I think that's what you're actually saying too Joe.

[timmberty]

what does an open relationship actually mean ? like joe i dont see much point in it. for me it means you can shag around all you want, there seems to be no real relationship other than maybe a fuck buddy who you are also best friends with.
one question someone whos in an open relationship might be able to answer, a question i have often pondered
how many open relationships is it possible to be in at one time ? does the open relationship have to be monogamous (if thats how you spell it) for it to be a relationship, by that i mean can you only have one special partner, husband, .. or can you have several husbands and for them all to be special ?

[joe552]

actually no, NIrish - to me a traditional marriage is monogamous, so doesn't allow for playing away, as it were. An open relationship is different. Of course, these are my definitions - others can make their own - and that, really, was my point. That we should all be allowed to decide, but the law shouldn't discriminate - which is what the OP was showing is happening in Thailand now.

[Nirish guy]

(To me anyway) there's a very clear difference between sex or fucking and love - you can love someone with all your heart and still fuck someone else, either with that person or without but my understanding is that an open relationship is where both parties are "open" and honest about that with each other and understand that for whatever reason, whether than be a physical distance separating them or perhaps a difference in sex drive between them, or one party not liking what the other one does or "whatever", they ARE in love and open and honest and respectful of each other to deal with that reality and agree whatever ground rules work for them, whether that be "hey we can both fuck all round us as long as we end up together at the end of the night" or "you can fuck but not in our house" or we can fuck other people ( because we both know each other enjoys it) but only if the other person is ( or isn't present) etc etc.

The point is they are being open and honest and are both mature enough to deal with their / the other persons needs realistically and don't try to hold each other up to some false ( straight world) set of rules, which were basically put in place to protect the family unit, but as I'm sure we've all experienced with str8 friends a lot of them appear unable to hold to their "I'll never fuck anyone else every again"vows and end up cheating on and lying to their partner. So to my assume both parties are genuinely happy with the different dynamic in an open relationship and it's working for both parties then who is anyone else to judge them and as I said at the start that open relationship should by no means by used as a barometer of true and deep love those people perhaps for each other and ( I'm guessing) that because they ARE being perhaps more honest than some couples their relationship may actually end up stronger as a result?.

[Nirish guy]

actually no, NIrish - to me a traditional marriage is monogamous, so doesn't allow for playing away, as it were........... Of course, these are my definitions - others can make their own.

I know what you mean Joe and I see and accept that you are saying that's just your view not "how it should be" but I think there's a differing line between what people might "like" marriage to be and what it actually is - which of course is a legal recognition of ones relationship with another person, the moral judgement part about what a marriage should be is more perhaps driven by the religious aspect of what churches tell us it should be and there's nothing to say that people have to follow that of course.

If a gay couple ( or a str8 one for that matter) decide to get married but chose either straight away or after a period of years for the reasons I've already mentioned to have an open relationship that doesn't of course mean in your eyes or anyone else's I'm sure make then any less "married" to you than they were when they were being monogamous either morally or legally so to try and make that definition of a couple who chose to get married by the State and then live the way the chose to me would be wrong - they are married just the same, monogamous or playing around or not, it just that they are being honest about what they're doing, upfront and with the full knowledge of each other and again to me that doesn't mean they can't love their partner to death while they are doing that as again to me sex and love can be two very different and separate things at times.

[joe552]

I hope I wasn't interpreted as frowning on open relationships, 'cos I don't. Just stating it couldn't work for me. I also stated I haven't been in a traditional relationship for years either. My point wasn't that one type of relationship (gay or str8) is better than another, but that the law should give equal rights to those who want to enter a legal marriage (and that could, of course, be an open marriage). It should be up to the couple involved to set the limits, it's up to the law to see that all are treated equally. I don't think there's much of an argument here against legal equality for gay couples - the argument seems to be about the value or otherwise of getting married.

[Nirish guy]

"I hope I wasn't interpreted as frowning on open relationships"

No, not for a second, in fact I think we are both in general agreement in both our posts, equality is the important thing, what people do after that is up to them.

However as you say you don't think an open relationship is for you Joe then I'm afraid you may steel yourself for bad news as it appears that you and I may not be getting married anytime soon then :-) - and seriously if I DID get married here and monogamy turned out to be the way things were going I ( honestly) think I'd just have to avoid all and any trips to Thailand from then on as I fear I'd find myself weak willed when surrounded with all those lovely guys and would end up one of those guys who goes for a massage (fuck !) just to get off as he's so horny as apparently that's not cheating as it was JUST a massage - so who's kidding who in that situation then eh - ha but perhaps that's a topic for a whole other thread in itself ! lol

[joe552]

you see, NIrish, why I would never marry a tart? :occasion9:

[Nirish guy]

But at least I'd be a HONEST TART and not tell you OHHH how much I loved you and then go round fucking everything in sight that moved behind your back making you look stupid to our friends as you'd no idea !

[joe552]

a tart with a heart - who could resist? :love4: