Sig

I wonder when that "idyllic" time was.... Must have been pre-1990! Because I remember talk of the polluted beaches regularly since then. Before that, I have no idea. But reading this article, I'd guess that they were "idyllic" until just recently, not in the distant past....

You ought to apply for a job with The Onion or The Babylon Bee.

There are proper therapeutic Traditional Thai masseuses out there. You just need to know what certification you are looking for and how to look. Not likely to find on Patpong, Soi Cowboy, etc... It might be possible, with some luck to find one in a tourist area, but better to check with a hospital or with the Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine, under the Ministry of Public Health.

I suppose the same could be said from this end. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. I believe it is far from obvious that we are now more enlightened than previous generations. You mentioned that in specific regards to science and in one way I can agree and in another, not so much. This is also much about social science, which I don't think we have necessarily come so far ahead on - although, again, this is specific to this topic. I don't intend that to be an overarching generalisation. And there was a lot more study done on homosexuality that it appears you know of in antiquity. Of course, there are fewer documents available to read, but it is very evident in the literature. It was not at all like it was some sort of thing that was not discussed and thought about extensively among intellectuals - doctors, philosophers, etc. Whether influenced by the religion of humanism, Islam, or Christianity, some influences wane and some gain in their influences over time. We are clearly in a time of humanism having gained ground worldwide, which coincides with the current view. Also, the typical trope that the media and academia like to create with it being only victimisation and ostracising led by the intolerance of religion is also not true. Depending on which century and country one may be referring to, there are many instances of humanist leaders who were opposed to homosexuality just as much as other religious leaders. Cicero (Roman, but before Christ's time), Kant, and closer to our time - Nietzsche, all expressed criticism of homosexuality. Plato called it "contrary to nature". Confucian thought also criticised it as being harmful to family and society. Of course, there are also humanists that didn't take that stand, as there were also religious figures who didn't take such a strident stand as they are generalised to have done. It isn't such a simple thing to create into a black and white, us against them dialogue, try as hard as academia and media does these days. But by and large, historically, through the ages and across the world's cultures, homosexuality has largely been criticised and is still to this day, more than it is looked upon as a normative and healthy (for the individual as well as the society) way to live one's life. This being the case, it definitionally is perverted. Just thought I'd throw that in there, since you brought it up. Whether something can be seen throughout the animal kingdom is not particularly relevant. Yes, as you mention, "it's there", it happens", "it just is." There are many things that are "there", that "happen" and just "are". That doesn't make them good, productive, healthy, or positive. As you also brought up the idea of it being "natural"... Even the claimed naturalness of homosexuality has been debated more than a millennium. Just because something exists or is practiced by a small minority, doesn't mean it is natural. That would make many things that we wouldn't want to think of as natural, just so. About the same percentage of the adult population of the U.S. commit misdemeanors (including all crime would make it higher, of course) every year as the percentage of the population that practice homosexuality. Should we call committing crime "natural"? I suppose we could, but then how do we determine which "natural" things are acceptable and to be encouraged and even celebrated and which are not. Depending on one's definition of "natural", it may or may not be natural at all. We have gotten far from where we started. I think this is far enough, for me. It is a complex topic that is far beyond the typical black and white, blanket-pro and blanket-con ideations. I don't expect anyone holding fast to their "side" or opinion in the matter is going to change from anything here. I just wish people would do a little more critical reading and thinking on complex topics before climbing up hills to die on. I don't mean that directly toward you. That's a general statement regarding so much of the strident comments often seen on the forum. To the contrary, you've held a decent dialogue. Thank you.

Why can't I delete mistaken posts? Or can I and I haven't figured it out??

.

That's hilarious! I didn't notice, at first, that he actually had his phone with him🤣

"...rightly "re-categorised" to more accurately reflect it's status." Yes, to its current cultural status. I agree. The "rightly" part is debatable on many levels and very subjective. I was not being disingenuous at all. I was being candid. My intention was not to draw exact parallels to each of the issues of the psyche that I mentioned, but to the general circumstance related to how was previously mentioned re people continuing in behavior even though it causes them to suffer. Certainly, you would find those comparisons not particularly agreeable with the outlook you are coming from. As you mentioned, "for many years" homosexuality was viewed as a problem of the psyche. As these sorts of things (thought on social or psychological issues) come and go through the centuries, I think "many years" might need emphasis on the "many" part. And for us to think that we are somehow more enlightened than some millennia of understanding/knowledge/thought, is quite arrogant. But that's typical of every generation, thinking they know more or better than the last one, or even than the last millennium for that matter. Just ask or observe your average teenager to see how much better they think they know than their parents lol, pretty much the same thing. Of course, every ensuing society thinks they have good reason for thinking they know better too. I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic at all. But many are, on both sides. I think there is a LOT of room to question and nothing about this new enlightened thinking is certain, by any stretch of science. And I believe any unbiased/uninterested scientist would happily agree with that. Science does not produce facts, but it does attempt discover facts and bring us closer to a better understanding. At this point, I don't see any reasonable rationale to be unequivocal in a position that has yet to have significant evidence to overturn millennia of understanding. I do see reason to continue studying and to gain a better understanding of the issue that could be of help, especially toward lessening the burden of suffering from people directly affected. But even as I say things like this, I am labelled a bigot by some. I find it mildly humorous, but sad that some can't see beyond their eyelashes, let alone their nose.

There are a number of regulated levels of Thai massage certifications, under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Health. The lowest level of certification doesn't require much. It's been 13+ years since I learned about all of that, in a Traditional Thai Medicine course at Thammasat Uni, so the requirements may have changed a bit since then. But, I know it is regulated and if a masseuse has a higher level certificate, they should be quite good and safe. That is, of course, assuming their certification is genuine.... I think it's worth asking about beyond just seeing the certificate and find out how their studies were and where they were, etc... if one is really looking for a good masseuse that one can visit more than one time. Or you can inquire at a hospital. Or you can really go deep and contact the Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine! It's under the Ministry of Public Health. Trusting your hips, spine, and neck to some of these practitioners is crazy, as can be seen from this article....

A simple traffic accident, it was not. Not that you wouldn't agree that there was much more to it than just a traffic accident. But that sure sounds incomplete given the circumstances of what he did and how he evaded and even put up a family employee to take the fall for him, etc, etc, etc.... I agree, not murder. But not a traffic accident with no liability either. I don't know details about Thai laws, but in my mind, he would have many charges against him, including Involuntary Manslaughter.

I can understand coming to the conclusion that you do with the reasoning given. Another question to consider in the light of that same reasoning would be why some people are kleptomaniacs, knowing that it will continue getting them imprisoned. Or, why do people gamble their livelihoods away and destroy their families, knowing that over and over it has led to destruction. Or, why do people continue to choose drinking to excess or doing drugs to excess, knowing the ends of such things. Or, why do people who think that the government is spying on them everywhere they go and is out to get them and is conspiring to kill them and/or steal their most valued possessions, continue to think in such ways even though nobody has ever tried to kill them or has ever broken into their home or stolen anything from them? Nor do they own anything of any sort of high value or have any particular knowledge or special reason for them to be targeted. Or, why do some people continue lashing out in anger at the slightest provocation even though it has landed them in the hospital or in jail a number of times and nobody else thinks they are justified? Or, why do some people lapse into a malaise or depression, even though from the view of every objective person around them cannot find any reason for such thinking and the person's life looks like it should be wonderful, even to the people (family and friends) who know them the best. Same can be said about people behaving with extreme anxiousness/anxiety and even often self-admittedly have no objective reason for it. As you said, "life would be so much easier if they weren't (this way)", so why would they choose it? There are many things that people do that bring them chronic misery that are outside the normative behavior of humanity. These have usually been considered a problem of the psyche. When a person is encouraged to embrace these things that they have a proclivity toward and it is treated as though it is normal, then the person suffering with these things has a higher likelihood to continue in them, although some do try to work their way out of them (thus we have things like Alcoholics Anonymous). Just like, I believe same-sex attraction can have a biologically driven basis, it does not need to be given ground and encouraged to grow into a habit/lifestyle. But when everything in such a person's environment encourages them to embrace the habit/lifestyle (gambling, drinking, homosexuality, delusional thinking, thievery, etc.), then it becomes extremely difficult to do anything but embrace it. Just ask any alcoholic who is given a drink, a gambler who is given some cash, a kleptomaniac who is given inside information on how they can get away with stealing, or give a depressed person reason to believe that the things they are depressed about are real, even though no objective person thinks they really are, or fuel a person with anger issues by supporting their ideas and agreeing that whatever it is that they're angry about it completely right, even though no objective person would think there would be any reason to be more than maybe a little irritated. These things are why suicides are often not publicized because it will push some who suffer with some sort of issue pushing them that direction to follow suit. It encourages them, so to speak, to follow through with their thoughts. This is why some assassins (or other variety of murderers) have been "created" because whatever issue they were struggling with didn't get dealt with properly and they somehow got pushed to the ends of killing. Homosexuality also was always considered to be a problem of the psyche until recent times when the social sciences began slowly changing it's theories and interpretation of the data. It's a fascinating study to review psychology textbooks since the 1800's to the present day. It took many decades for this change to come about, but very little by very little the data was interpreted with different theories and interpretations, until now, where we have arrived and people have been taught the way it is viewed now for at least a couple of decades. What's next? No idea.... but I can't help but wonder. Does it continue evolving on the path that it has been for over a hundred years, wherever that could possibly lead to? Or does it somehow reverse course? Or have we arrived at an enlightened truth!? I highly doubt that one.... I think I probably failed to answer some of your question, but that's my general thought. I agree it's difficult to figure on people in countries where the penalty is very harsh, and not only on the books, for practicing homosexuality. In those cases, their behavior is not encouraged. But I think we can also find people who still do other things in places like that - like stealing, when knowing that if they get caught, they'll get their hand chopped off. Or, if they don't control their sexual urges and commit adultery, have affairs, commit incest, etc., they'll get stoned. And of course there are more similar kinds of things with other issues/behaviors. But these behaviors are still practiced. I, of course, don't have the answer. Just ideas from some years of discussions, pondering, and reading.

Is this allowed? Wasn't there an advert banned for making light of tourism in Thailand? Why would you name something that has been going on for decades after a recent series? Making light of tourism and anything negative about Thais related to tourism may be banned, but I'm guessing that the satire of the tourists is perfectly good and supported. Any satire of locals must be very light-hearted in a kind way or else what you mention would become a problem. They didn't name the effect, they said that "it's now nicknamed" (by who knows who...) this. So, it was already a known phenomenon, as you mentioned, but now somebody ("they") have put a name to the preexisting, but unnamed phenomenon.

Perhaps a lot of AN members also don't read the articles nor watch the videos attached to them, but comment nonetheless? The very first sentence let you know that it is not a Thai soap.... It is the "third series of the smash hit HBO drama". How many Thai soaps have ever been a "smash hit" on HBO? I've never seen a Thai soap in which nearly all the actors are white people. The video with the article had ZERO resemblance to a Thai soap. Do you think they wrote all that up in the article and that the Thai government is willing to give such massive rebates to a film production of a Thai soap? It doesn't even require critical reading skills to address your pondering whether it's a Thai soap or not, just simply reading the article and viewing a couple of minutes of the accompanying video would do the trick, giving you no need to wonder or comment about it.

Assuming his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt... upon such a conclusion, any such perpetrator should be walked directly out from the courtroom to the gallows to be hung in front of the court building. No fanfare, just rid them from society. And some of their assets (not all, unless the perp was single with no dependents) should be seized to pay the court costs and some damages to be paid to the victim. The victim should also be afforded some level of public assistance for appropriate counseling.

Interesting study. It falls infinitely short of anything definitive, by the authors' own admissions. That. of course, is pretty much the norm in scientific research. This is a single study with some interesting findings, but it hardly means anything of the sort that homosexuality is solely caused by epi-genetics or methylation. It would be an interesting study to compare these sorts of studies (of which there is apparently only one, at the moment) with the hundreds of studies along the lines of what I passed on to you the other day. Even if there is some sort of "influence" (as they mention in their report) from epi-genetics on "same-sex attraction" (as they mentioned), it begs at the very least one glaring question. What external social factors come into play that lead one to follow any sort of biologically influenced same-sex attraction to active homosexuality? Since it was clear in their study that even people with these markers were not all homosexual or even just experienced same-sex attraction, what other causes are there? Or do these markers indeed mean much of anything at all? Correlation is not causation. At least they were honest in the title of their article. A rare sight these days! A keyword in the title is "may". In other words, there is nothing concrete or definitive to be found here, just some interesting ideas that may or may not have any weight to bear on the issue. But of course, for those who are reaching for something to support their ideas, when they have nothing else to grasp onto as they are sinking, they'll grab onto studies like this as though they are the Holy Grail, or the missing link that proves it's out there.