BangkokReady

I think the covid border closure was a pretty rude awakening. Some Thais (and many foreigners) have often claimed that Thailand doesn't actually need foreigners, that it could close the borders and be completely self-sufficient, and so on. The suspension of international tourism and the associated effect on the Thai economy has pretty much shattered this illusion, and I think that's a very bitter pill to swallow for some. That being said, I do think that Thai people are actually starting to get a little happier now. I've been going maskless a lot lately outdoors and while previously they often seemed scared even while I had my mask on, they seem a little more cheerful when I am maskless.

They never said the smiles were real...

I didn't necessarily mean that I was bored, so much as those are just my feelings about the culture back home. I wasn't bored, I just didn't see much that I liked. Thailand is a lot more interesting to me, people seem a lot more positive and the weather is nice. One thing I find interesting about Thailand, is the fact that even though Thai people can be fairly materialistic, they don't do it in a nasty way. In Thailand it feels like people are trying to say "look how cool I am", while back home it feels more like "look how much better I am than you". ????‍♂️

Optimistic: The immigration police have the training, experience and skills to best assist foreign people in Thailand. Pessimistic: The immigration police are best suited to find out if there is anything dodgy about the foreigner so they can blame everything on him and prevent negative publicity for Thai tourism.

Because it's boring, cold and grey, the people are miserable, and the women are fat, ugly and entitled. At a guess...

Probably felt that the tourist was looking down on him or making him lose face by existing. ???? Do they even need a reason at the moment? Probably a lot of resentment over reliance on tourism and negative press on foreigners right now.

Possibly a machete.

To avoid a paper trail...? ????

Case dismissed then.

Funnily enough, I've been asked a few times by Thais if I go to bars, or if I go to Pattaya or Khaosan Road. It's interesting that that's a question worth asking in Thailand to get a feel for someone. (And before someone chimes in with "that must be because you look like a degenerate whoremonger", that's not it. ????)

I think you're confusing rational with maybe instinctual or innate? Even if the fear is learnt through socialisation, it doesn't mean that it is irrational. An irrational fear is being scared of something that you have no reason to be scared of. I think what you're talking about it "nature vs. nurture". That is, something that is innate that we are born with and something that we "learn" from some aspect of our lived experiences. I would suggest that is probably a mixture of both. I'm sure it's quite natural for a woman or a girl to be scared of a man and to be scared of any being that is far bigger and stronger than they are. I think when we go through puberty, we begin to think differently about both our own sex and the opposite sex. I would imagine as girls become women, they notice how boys change into men and become stronger and more aggressive. It seems only natural for women to find this intimidating, just as a man might find another man who is far bigger, stronger and more aggressive than him intimidating. This is surely a natural "this thing is capable of doing me harm so I am scared of it" response. Women might also learn to fear men through negative experiences with them. It doesn't take many men to try and harass or touch a girl before she is fairly sure that men can be bad news and she would rather not be alone with one who she does no know or trust. I think this is demonstrated by people who find themselves in a different culture and end up in dangerous situations because the culture they come from is relatively safe and they haven't learnt the fear that is needed for the culture they are now living in. Obviously the idea of a female private space is not necessarily a natural thing (although we can't actually rule out the possibility that our cave-dwelling ancestors may have strictly controlled who was left alone with the tribe's women folk), so we might suppose that the idea of being scared by a man simply because he is in a woman's bathroom or changing room is something learnt. A woman might see a man in a shop and there is no one around and not feel scared, while if the same man appeared in her gym changing room, she might be terrified. Perhaps it's something worth looking into. How natural is separating males and females? Do other animals do it? I think some monkeys and apes have an alpha male and female who check the behaviour of other members of the group. Possibly even the alpha male and female are the only ones allowed to breed in some animals. I would imagine that men are still perceived as a danger to women and girls and they are careful to have people watching over them. I'm sure some things are still private. I don't think the tribe people are living quite like animals. The women probably go to the toilet somewhere private and in groups, for example. Rape wasn't brought about by the invention of the toilet or the changing room and with the lack of medical care and government support, they may even be more watchful over women than the puritans in the West (even if they do have their boobs permanently on display).

Yeah, but they don't annoy him. Silly!

They might feel threatened, but it simply isn't the same as a "male presence". I disagree. I think a large part of it is fear created by someone who looks like a man in woman's private area or doing something they are only comfortable having a woman doing. Anecdotes I have heard are a trans woman nurse who clearly still resembles a man performing some sort of intimate medical procedure on a woman who has asked for a female nurse and a girl going for her first bra fitting and almost being serviced by a trans woman who clearly resembles a man. I do feel bad for genuine trans women. I don't want them to be harmed or even feel bad. But many of them still look like men and this will make women and girls feel extremely uncomfortable in certain situations. In others it can put them in danger. While I understand why trans women don't want to use male spaces, it isn't right to simply shift the issue onto biological women.

It began as a political thread.

I think it's possible that post-op we're talking about a safer situation, but either way, you still have the problem of if the person still looks like a man, it's going to make women, probably particularly younger women/girls, feel extremely uncomfortable. I'm not sure they really are. I think woman to man have a slightly easier time because they pass easier and they wouldn't really feel threatening in the same way that a man to woman might. What I mean is, can you imagine a man coming out of a public toilet looking scared and telling someone "I think there's a woman in there. I was really scared"? Not exactly fair, but then life isn't fair.

I hate contaminated oil in sea water. give me fresh uncontaminated oil in the sea and I'm as happy as a pig in... oil!

Many people who are labelled as "anti-trans" are simply saying don't trans under 18s and no penises in women's bathrooms or changing rooms. Both seem perfectly sensible and are for the protection of women and children.

It's not about wanting. It's about treating honest people decently and only punishing the guilty.

Evidence of them stealing money.

Perhaps your confusion comes from the misimpression that anyone is suggesting that western women who exchange gifts for sex are somehow better than Thai prostitutes. They aren't.

It doesn't matter. They don't have a monopoly on the phrase "my body my choice". Anyone saying "my body my choice" is suggesting that as people own their bodies they should be free to choose what to do with them. Again, you have no idea what "whataboutery" is. I recommend you ensure that you have a better understanding of any terms that you use before trying to use them. An analogy is not whataboutery.

It's not slippery slope, as I was suggesting that it would progress from one thing being allowed to another thing being allowed. It's not whataboutism, as I wasn't suggesting that something else being bad removed the badness of what is being discussed. You really need to learn your concepts a little better. Your simply labelling what I have said as something that it is not in order to avoid having put together a proper rebuttal, because you cannot. They aren't off topic either, as the topic is what parts of the body people can show in public. It's perfectly valid to suggest that what one person thinks is OK another might find indecent. Also women have breasts and men don't, so it isn't the same. It doesn't matter what the slogans were originally user for. You cannot control them in such a way to say that "my body my choice" only counts for abortion and women wanting to go topless. To suggest otherwise is absurd. A principle is a principle.

Possibly someone who as used prostitutes might want to deny that they caused someone harm. I'm sure there are women who want to do it, but there has to be some that are experiencing trauma from it.

But the problem with this kind of "moral absolutism", or perhaps it's "complete agency", is that you can't pick and choose. Because if it applies in one area it must apply in all. If you can answer "my body, my choice" with "well actually no, you don't always have a choice about what you can do with your body" then it becomes kind of meaningless. We have to share a society, so people cannot simply do whatever they want with their bodies. Otherwise some mental patient should be able to go to the beach, take a <deleted> and start masturbating in front of everyone. Then when people complain he can say "my body, my choice". It's all about the level of body parts and bodily functions that we are happy with being exposed to. We decide as a society and then people have to follow the laws, they cannot simply do whatever they want because it's their body.

I'm not suggesting it's sinister or evil, but I wouldn't recommend it, I wouldn't marry a prostitute and I wouldn't want my children to be prostitutes. I wouldn't say that it is without harm or isn't indicative of some other problems that a girl might have. I guess you mean innocent like not criminal or harmful, but I'm still not sure I would agree with that.