BangkokReady

This is probably the rub. Most men are likely sitting there inwardly drooling over the exposed legs and midriffs, but they all lie and say that they don't think like that at all and anyone who does is a pervert. I view as something as basic as acknowledging that we have certain reactions to certain things, so we hide some of them because we like to inhabit (or think we inhabit) a higher intellectual plane where we think more about people's character than their bodies. Something like that anyway. Don't quote me on it. 😬 Could we block out all the animal stuff but retain nudity and pooping in public and still be the same as a species? I think it might be tricky. I assume people didn't care as much in the past, but people also went to public executions for entertainment. 🤷‍♂️

because they're definitely faking it when they're with other people, or they just act differently when alone?

Nobody imagined covid was going to happen. They probably don't think a second one will happen. Countries that might allow one probably don't want to sign any accord saying that they have to do xyz. It would probably be better to think about how to prevent something similar. Some sort of register for medical experiments, similar to nuclear treaties.

I think it might have broken loose, cloned itself a number of times, and found a home within the AN community... 🤔

I disagree. People still notice bare legs, even though they are fairly common. Also, midriffs are generally hidden, but they don't make as much of a stir as breasts when exposed, even though they can be very attractive. I disagree. Nudity isn't solely related to sex. There is nudity outside of sex organs and secondary sex characteristics. Humans make an effort to be higher than animals, that's why we choose to cover our bodies and do many acts (even non-sexual ones) in private.

Rule number 1: Money = love in Thailand Rule number 4: Thai people still seem out of touch when it comes to how much PDA is seen in public Rule number 5: A lot of degeneracy still in Thailand

isn't it all about vote-buying? They want people to believe that there's a financial crisis so that they push through the digital wallet scheme and force interest rates down so that people don't pay as much on loans. Something like that. It's straight out of the playbook.

Good for him. A massively outdated practice. And they're not even at war. It would be ok (discipline, social skills, etc.) if it weren't for what they actually end up being forced to do during their service.

People love to project their own inadequacies onto others.

They don't know what they're saying. It's just a phrase they've heard that they think means "more free money, please.

Men see women's breasts and buttocks under clothes all day every day, but they still pay close attention to them whenever they see them, even going as far as to seek them out. 🤷‍♂️

Until older women see men start paying attention to younger women with nicer breasts... 💣

So you never find yourself noticing a nice arse or pair of legs when walking down the street? Because it's such a common sight? The rate at which men stop and even turn to oggle parts of women, which they see every day, suggests this isnt true.

It's tricky to argue, since there is the fact that nudity is "natural" and people don't think that it does any harm. I assume that there are natural things that people don't want to see, things like going to the toilet or doing anything sexual, so it's sort of on a spectrum of things that people think should be private, and that can be a little subjective. One person might say why not go fully nude if you want, another might say that the bottom half nude is too much, yet another might say that the top half is too much also. Personally, I think that boobs are very much sexual things. (And you can argue that people sexualise them, but I think most guys can attest that there is very much a sexual urge experienced when seeing nice boobs.) I don't think a topless man is quite the same as a topless women, but you could make the argument that they are somewhat of an erogenous zone for either gender. I think they would cause a distraction. There would be an issue with minors, once they started to develop. I think men (especially young men) would probably go a bit crazy. Women would be judged even more on their appearance than they are already. People make this "they're not sexual" angle, but I don't find that convincing. To me, say have a sexual element, therefore they should remain covered. It's simply a case of decency and sensibleness. Even without the sexul nature, they are "nudity". Which can make people feel uncomfortable and be inappropriate in many situations. We're not "animals". We strive to be civilised and have moved on from many animalistic characteristics. Not caring about certain things being displayed in public is one of those things.

How would you feel about men walking around bottomless?

You think it would be good for a society for all women to walk around topless?

People don't like to see others walking around with their t*ts out. How can you not know that?

Because they previously found she was harmed or because they didn't find any harm yet?

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree that there was an excuse here, so much as I disagree with the dog-piling simply for someone disagreeing or questioning what happened (since people should always be free to do that). I remember a story that went something like a waitress asked a guy to choke her, like maybe she was flirting with him and was into that, and another guy saw it and beat the guy to death, or something like that. Both foreigners, though. Men can go crazy when they think they're "defending a woman's honour".

Unfortunately, you've rattled the cages of some "so what you're saying is..." types and the witch hunt has begun! there's not much more you can say. You've been found guilty of playing devil's advocate and suggesting that the video might not show the whole story. You either have to say "there's never any reason for any man to ever hurt any woman, and any man who doesn't fully agree is a woman beater himself" or you're a target for character assassination. 🤷‍♂️ One person arguing with you even said that there was never any reason for violence, but then said that they would hurt a woman to protect their child. Figure that one out...

I think if it was a Thai, or even a foreigner who was a little more grounded, it would have been fine. Thai people don't view relationships the same way as Westerners do. I imagine that if it was a Thai man, he probably would have been a little more switched on to the fact that it was a lot more of a financial relationship than a romantic one (he pays, she cooks, cleans and provides sex). Perhaps the foreign man expected the 16 year old girl to behave like someone deeply in love, and when she did not, he couldn't take it. It seems as though there must be some element where the reality did not match the expectations, since he arranged it, moved there, then changed his mind. Perhaps he thought that the whole family would be serving him, but it was the other way round. Or perhaps the girl offered only sex and nothing else. Who knows?

This happened now. Not 50 years ago. That's why people have a problem with it. People don't go around with their t*ts out anymore.

So you meet someone that seems interested, but they don't speak English and you don't speak Thai, so you aren't allowed to try and have any sort of relationship because you say so? Ridiculous. Do what you want.

Aren't you describing the foreigner as kind of a predator? Why should he "know better"? It doesn't sound like he's gotten himself into any trouble. Is it trafficking if they're married? Views? Not great, but it is Thailand. The locals do it regularly (or so I'm led to believe) and I don't think it's even frowned upon. As long as the guy has money. Suggestions? Don't do it yourself, stick with the over 18s. If someone else does it, keep your nose out.

You would think that a Thai person would be more knowledgeable about Thai culture than this.