14 replies to this topic

[Garcia]

"Supphakorn Noja, head of Pattaya's office of the Child Protection and Development Centre, said Internet cafes in Chon Buri and the Pattaya area had been used as hubs for sex service involving underage boys, occasionally with the owners helping encourage the young customers to provide the service.

In many cases, Supphakorn said, cafe owners encouraged the young customers to surf the Web and chat for long hours and offered to lend them money when they ran out of it. When the boys owed large sums in debts to them, the cafe owners would encourage the boys to give sex services to gay men, both Thais and foreigners.

Supphakorn said on Thursday that there were around 40 Thai boys who acknowledged giving sex services to gay men, either willingly on their own, or reluctantly because of the debts they owed to the cafe owners."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...e-30133451.html

[tdperhs]

In a recent trip to Udon Thani, a young Thai man offered to take me some place where many other young men were available. He assured me it was not a bar and that these boys were not sex workers, just students who needed some extra money and were willing. He took me to an Internet cafe at about 1:00 a.m. They were there, they were hot, and they were willing. I was not. Not willing to risk a prison term. I don't think 2 were over 17. I opted for the bars the next afternoon.

[Bernard]

In a recent trip to Udon Thani, a young Thai man offered to take me some place where many other young He took me to an Internet cafe at about 1:00 a.m. They were there, they were hot, and they were willing... I don't think 2 were over 17.

You find boys under 17 "hot"? Hmm...

[Khor tose]

You find boys under 17 "hot"? Hmm...

TDperhs you do not have to answer this idiot. Most of the members of this and other boards know a cheap shot when they see one. It is funny how brave, nasty and vicious some people can be when they do not have to take responsibility for what they say or imply. Bernard is just another low-life coward acting cute.

[tdperhs]

It is funny how brave, nasty and vicious some people can be when they do not have to take responsibility for what they say or imply. Bernard is just another low-life coward acting cute.

Thanx, Khor. Today is the first time I have added to my ignore list in over a year.

[mauRICE]

TDperhs you do not have to answer this idiot. Most of the members of this and other boards know a cheap shot when they see one. It is funny how brave, nasty and vicious some people can be when they do not have to take responsibility for what they say or imply. Bernard is just another low-life coward acting cute.

And of course, making scathing personal attacks on an anonymous internet poster whom people will forget about tomorrow makes you a hero.

[Khor tose]

And of course, making scathing personal attacks on an anonymous internet poster whom people will forget about tomorrow makes you a hero.

No, not a hero. There are a awful lot of people who believe that one cheap shot deserves another. I am not in that category at all. No the whole purpose of my reply to Bernard was to take the sting out of the nasty comment he made to a very good poster, and someone who I have found to be a pretty good man on the message boards. I did not wish him to get hurt by Bernard's remark. What I did is called compassion not heroics. I know you can understand compassion because I saw you demonstrate it so strongly when the red shirts where being killed. I think you need to understand that others, besides yourself, can feel this way.

[mauRICE]

I think you need to understand that others, besides yourself, can feel this way.

I do, hence I, and I'm sure reasonable others, do not call someone an "idiot", "vicious", "nasty", irresponsible and a "low-life coward" to demonstrate compassion.

Bernard's remark was an appropriate nudge to someone who consciously or not, said that he found boys who were under seventeen at a particular internet cafe "hot". The Urban Dictionary defines "hot" as an adjective to describe someone who is sexually attractive. In other words, tdperhs found those under-17s at the cyber cafe sexually attractive. I don't know about you but I find this inappropriate and, in my opinion, Bernard was not out of line to wiggle his finger.

The compassion I feel is towards those underaged youngsters who have to resort to selling their bodies to pay off their internet debts.

[Poppy]

Well said, Maurice. I think Khor tose's compassion is misplaced.

[tdperhs]

You find boys under 17 "hot"? Hmm...

Having made a statement of knowledge of the original post, I find myself now the centerpiece of the thread, and in much of it, “consciously or not,” under attack . I believe that fairness grants me a certain amount of privilege in response.
1. Essentially, this part of Bernard’s post is incorrect (See paragraph 4). I saw many boys in the room whom I conseidered to be “hot.” I do not actually know the age of any of them. I am assuming some were 17 and some under 18. Most, if not all were sexually attractive. Does this imply I am a pederast? I would deny such a characterization. How many times have some of you not heard an older adult, especially a heterosexual male adult, speak of a young man as a future “heart breaker.” So, I have absolutely no argument to the assumption that I can view a 17 year old and think he is sexually attractive. It happens. If any of you have ever dated an 18 or 19 year old and tell me you could not possibly find a 17 year old boy sexually attractive, I will call you a liar to your face and recommend you check ID's on a regular basis. Furthermore, who has not seen a model in a commercial or ad and not found one or more sexually attractive. Having worked in the industry, I can tell you that many of them, male or female, are under 16.

2. The part of Bernard’s response I found offensive was the “hmm...” This is a term used in literature as an aspecific accusation, much the same as used in the auto de fe and the Mc Carthy era, as in, “Oh, I saw you reading the Daily Worker, (Morning Star in the UK )hmm…, you have to be a communist.” Clearly it was filled with an implication that my statement, “they were hot,” betrayed some Freudian desire on my part to engage in an extralegal and/or perverse activity. Even the most obtuse mind should be able to see Bernard was responding out of context. I thought I had made it quite clear that “…they were willing. I was not.” And I went on to state only one reason that I was not; that being that I didn’t want to go to jail. Actually, there are other reasons but they were beyond the point of the thread and irrelevant to it so I omitted them.

3. If we are, validly or not, submitted to personal and salacious attacks for expressing our opinions and having those attacks justified by the very people we have respected over the years of our memberships, how can we expect our posters to honestly express their feelings and beliefs. And, without those honest expressions, what’s the point of having a forum?

4. Even the accusation is in error. Bernard writes, “You find boys under 17 "hot"? Hmm...” I wrote, “I don't think 2 were over 17.” There was no inference about boys under 17. That was simply his way of yelling fire and some of you fell for it. HOWEVER, in fairness to mauRICE, I will admit that it is possible to confuse a 16 year old with a 19 or 20 year old. It wasn’t as if I studied them. I just looked around. But you must accept also the possibility that between one and all of them, some, most, or all were over 18. In that narrow area between the two ages it can be difficult to determine who is what age. How many westerners can actually determine the age of a young Thai. Don’t the hotels card these boys as much for our protection as their own?

5. Bernard has been a member, almost as long as I have, since 2007. Yet he has only posted 19 times. Once before, I was attacked in a similar way with the same style. Of the 139 I have written, I would be surprised if even once I have ever attacked another member except to respond to an attack on me as now. In this case, I believe what Bernard has done is reprehensible. Besides attacking me, he has kidnapped the thread away from a topic that needs to be discussed, explored, and spread around. Furthermore, his manner of doing it, mis-citing and using innuendo as opposed to fact, leads me to agree with khor tose that he is slime (my word, not khor tose’s). And I would not be afraid to bet, any more than I was afraid to be on Spain last night, that the discovery of his true identity will lead others to a similar conclusion.

In the past few months, personal attacks have all but disappeared and this forum, making it my primary on-line forum where I can support or oppose ideas, secure in the knowledge that these can enjoy intellectual discussions, not shallow mud slinging canyons for the intellectually inept. I hope that does not go away again.

[Bernard]

My goodness. I think I have stirred a hornet's nest. In all sincerity, my brief comment was not intended to be offensive or malicious but to express my genuine concern and surprise given your track record as a sensible poster. The "hmm" was out puzzlement.

4. Even the accusation is in error. Bernard writes, “You find boys under 17 "hot"? Hmm...” I wrote, “I don't think 2 were over 17.” There was no inference about boys under 17. That was simply his way of yelling fire and some of you fell for it. HOWEVER, in fairness to mauRICE, I will admit that it is possible to confuse a 16 year old with a 19 or 20 year old. It wasn’t as if I studied them. I just looked around. But you must accept also the possibility that between one and all of them, some, most, or all were over 18. In that narrow area between the two ages it can be difficult to determine who is what age. How many westerners can actually determine the age of a young Thai. Don’t the hotels card these boys as much for our protection as their own?

Fair enough. But I think you're backpaddling a little and trying to muddle the issue. A plain, natural reading of "I don't think two were over 17" in the context of your story suggests that you thought most of the boys were 17 or under and you fthought they were "hot". Otherwise, why did you emphasize your fear of "risking a prison term" if you thought they were of legal age and everything was above board?

Secondly, why didn't you come up with your detailed argument in defence of the original post? Instead, you threw in a personal example to corroborate the news story but now you're backtracking and making excuses because you're under the spotlight.

You have made a lot of fuss about being maligned. As I said, no malice was intended. Unfortunately, you and Khor Tose have chosen to respond by making personal attacks against me and belittling the number of posts that I've made. There's nothing I CAN do about that unlike the parents of those kids at internet cafes who are doing nothing when their children are being taken advantage of.

[Khor tose]

Bernard's remark was an appropriate nudge to someone who consciously or not, said that he found boys who were under seventeen at a particular internet cafe "hot". The Urban Dictionary defines "hot" as an adjective to describe someone who is sexually attractive. In other words, tdperhs found those under-17s at the cyber cafe sexually attractive.

Really, that is all hot means. what about all the other dictionaries definitions?
* Slang Sexually excited or exciting.
* In a state of agitated excitement; flustered:
* Sexually avid; lascivious.
* Ready and willing; eager.

I think Bernard and you, both read the same nasty thoughts into what TD said. Unlike you two I do not see what he said was in anyway an implication that he was lusting after these boys. Thus the remark Bernard made still stands to me as unkind and meant to be hurtful, especially when the hmmm is added to the end. Come on now, what other possible meaning could Bernard have had to add that hmmm? Furthermore, since when are adults of any sexual persuasion considered evil or bad for observing the beauty of youth. Give me a break, a child molester is someone who has sex with a minor, not someone who admires the beauty of youth, or we would all be sexual deviants. Are you advocating thought control now?

[TheYenta]

I think that both sides of this argument should step back and take a break before this thread starts to read uncomfortably like the bitter stuff you can't escape on Sawatdee forum.

I don't think it comes as any surprise to anyone who knows a little about Thailand that the country is filled with young men who are "hot and willing," regardless of their legal age, to have sex for fun or money, or both. There is nothing in Tdperhs comments that is either shocking or suggests anything that's not common knowledge. The fact that internet shops in rural areas are meeting places for young men who have sex with men is also not surprising. If we were young and Thai in that situation, we'd be there too.

It was Bernard's reaction that "you find boys under 17? "hot," hmmm" that clearly tried to go further and imply something quite different in the poster, not the boys. Since Bernard says now that his comment was not intended to be malicious or offensive, I suggest we uncock pistols, close purses and move on.

[Poppy]

Unlike you two I do not see what he said was in anyway an implication that he was lusting after these boys.

Methinks you doth protest too much. Hmmmm....

[tdperhs]

Since Bernard says now that his comment was not intended to be malicious or offensive, I suggest we uncock pistols, close purses and move on.

What he said!