Bday Prang

58 minutes ago, Acharn said:

Errr... He says his wife is paying for the wedding. If she has her own money, what right does he have to interfere? Thai law does not require a man's approval for a woman to sign a contract any more.

        Errrr.... They are married he has every  right to comment on how his wife wants to squander money, I'm pretty sure my missis would have something to say if I returned from the casino 500,000 baht worse off, despite it being my money   What contract are you referring to?

that would be an interesting thread,   "what has your embassy ever done for you"  what forum should it be in?

4 hours ago, kennypowers said:

Still no one has stepped into help this poor woman. Instead, news outlets continue to exploit her for clicks. Shameful. It would take just one embassy official to step in, have her sectioned, assessed, medicated and a flight arranged to get her back for treatment in Portugal. 

so you'll be taking care of her then?   What ever you may think, embassies clearly do not concern themselves or choose to get involved in matters like this. They are not a member of the emergency services and not  charitable rescue organisation. In fact they are not really there for our benefit  or to look after us at all. We are effectively all on our own and extremely vulnerable.     sleep well

1 hour ago, jonclark said:

Oh i wouldnt say that, my saggy old man boobs are always on display around our farm. 

And in reality that is nothing to be ashamed of, Nature and life generally takes its course, bodies do not remain in their prime forever, Should those less than perfect really feel obliged to cover up,  

2 minutes ago, Letseng said:

She doesn't have a Portuguese name. Sounds more like Russisn, Ukrainian. 

is anybody really bothered where she comes from?

1 hour ago, jonclark said:

Thata the sad thing with people with mental health issues..they often dont think they need help which in itself is a symptom of their mental health issues. 

Do you need help?   neither do I , so perhaps we are both psycho's

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

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. 🤷‍♂️

There's another thing, having spent most of my life working on construction sites I am  familiar with groups of guys cheering and whistling at the sight of a large breasted woman  whether in real life or simply in a photograph  Their behaviour when alone is totally different, likewise its a very small minority who visit strip joints and go go bars alone, even though they could easily do so at virtually any time   Most men are not obsessed with over sized breasts but few would admit this when in a group

18 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

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.

 Plenty of bare legs and midriffs exposed at an athletics meeting, few would find that sexually arousing and even fewer would admit to it if they did.   Of course nudity is totally separate from sex, it is the attitudes of society, a result of religious interference that have caused the confusion,  As I mentioned in my last post , the heathen savages in the jungle are not in a permanent state of sexual arousal due to them being permanently naked, and the last I heard nudist colonies and beaches are not one permanent orgy

 The covering of our bodies was obviously originally for warmth or protection from the sun and the solitary nature of acts like defecation for example is probably due to sanitary issues and not least to avoid the unpleasant smell not withstanding the fact that its a rather vulnerable position to be in

You may be right, for whatever misguided reasons we may well have strived to become "higher" than animals, whether or not we have succeeded is a totally different matter 

6 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

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.

People only go crazy about breasts because they are generally hidden from view  it was the same regarding legs prior to the advent of mini skirts. It is all after all only the result of puritanical religious zealously.  For gods sake they used to cover table legs in the UK.in victorian times.

Bare breasts and nudity in general would not be a distraction if it were the norm, animals seem to manage ok  and even the young heathen savages walking around naked in the jungle  seem to avoid the perils of excessive masturbation so beloved of the bible bashers

The fact that we are even discussing this perfectly natural thing referred to as nudity is evidence of sexual repression. Religion does indeed have a lot to answer for. and is responsible for all these fixations

Breasts after all are primarily for feeding children, the "cleavage" its self does not even exist in a normal nude scenario, and has been falsely constructed to resemble the view we would have enjoyed when we walked on all fours. I assume you are aware of the purpose of lipstick, if we could overtly  see what it is supposed to represent it would be superfluous

10 minutes ago, charmonman said:

Yes, because all Ukrainian women (if she is indeed Ukrainian) walk around topless, refuse to pay their hotel bills, and threaten to stab taxi drivers. Is that what you think? Otherwise is there a point to your silly post? Perhaps you are one of the gullible taken in by Putin’s propaganda?

perhaps he doesn't take himself ever so seriously like some on here    lighten up man its a thread about titties

57 minutes ago, PJ71 said:

That's a bit naughty.....

 

But yeah, i agree - lol

Its not naughty at all really though is it?

Strangely no mention of those elderly Thais who are directly or indirectly subsidised by "charitable" expats who have joined the family, I am sure that is not an inconsiderable number either

On 4/22/2024 at 9:14 AM, webfact said:

Of this income, 70.5% is derived from daily wages, salaries, business profits, and farm produce, while 14.5% is sourced from non-monetary avenues.

What are "non-monetary avenues"

On 4/22/2024 at 9:14 AM, webfact said:

The NSO also uncovered a significant proportion of elderly workers in informal jobs lacking access to social security benefits.

What social security benefits are available here to anybody regardless of their jobs,  It seems whoever wrote this rubbish has never actually been here and knows absolutely nothing about Thailand

On 4/22/2024 at 9:14 AM, webfact said:

a staggering 68.1% either never attended school or only completed elementary school.

its hardly staggering when one considers what things were like here 60+ years ago, who writes this rubbish. ?

On 4/22/2024 at 9:14 AM, webfact said:

The average monthly expenditure per household is 23,695 baht,

And at least half of that is consumed by repayments of "no deposit" finance for their brand new  3.0 litre turbo pick ups, then there are motorbikes and regular smartphone upgrades for them and their school age kids. The rest goes on the lottery

On 4/22/2024 at 10:25 AM, ikke1959 said:

THere should be a decent  social welfare system, instead of 3000THB a month. But therefor everybody should register in place they live instead of the blue book, Everyone should fill in a tax form, everybody should be paid monthly.  A better tax policy could solve a lot of problems including a good medical care for everybody.

who on earth do you think  gets 3000 baht a month state pension  here, ?  other than expats who have had theirs frozen of course

Why should everybody be paid monthly?  Some only work a few days here and a few days there, would you make them wait 4 weeks before receiving their money, what would that achieve? The majority here don't earn enough to pay any tax for gods sake. No point in them being burdened with trying to fill in a complicated tax return notwithstanding the fact that many are illiterate?

 What on earth has registering where they live other than in the "blue book" got to do with any of this?

 By "A better tax policy" i assume you mean more people paying more tax,  well in the UK we are taxed to the limit, and the health care system is pretty much a disaster,  for those that are forced to rely on  it

 Do you think the corrupt and clueless people in charge of such things here would manage tax payers money  any better?

23 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Still happening with the students today... workers for the elites.

Somewhat more worrying is the fact that the list probably includes Doctors, Teachers, Politicians, Police, and of course Immigration officials

6 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

She threatened a taxi driver with a knife, do you think that is acceptable?

You seem to be obsessed with the knife , most of us are more interested in the bare breasts, the side issues of the knife etc are of little interest to red blooded males

50 minutes ago, Baba Naba said:

"If you dont stop that you'll go blind!!!".

one could always indulge in  moderation and simply resolve to wear spectacles like many people traditionally choose to do

27 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Much ago about nothing. It is a set of boobs. Such misplaced prudishness. Such inane silliness. 

I agree about the prudishness, but an opportunity for a bit of puerile adolescent humour  is always welcome in these miserable times and should be embraced

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

And yet, twenty years ago, nobody bothered and the world still turned. 

I recently supervised the construction of 3 secondary  schools in the UK all the kids toilets were "unisex" with no urinals. The only gender specific area was the pupils  "mother and baby nappy changing area"  !!!

Personally I am in favour of segregation of public toilets and its a stroke of genius on the part of the authorities concerned, that they have effectively made the "diverse community" incorrectly believe that it was A) for their benefit , and B) their own idea.  

4 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

The facts aren't like that. Many governments, at least in EU, implements in official wordings the diversity of population. Even build 3 different toilets in school: men, women, diverse.

So obviously not a "small subset" issue.

This is how it should always have been in my opinion

Of course its not a minor issue , the rest of society needs protecting from sexual deviants, many of whom, for reasons known only to themselves, choose to indulge in their sexual activities in public toilets

The clever move on the part of the authorities, was to convince the ABCD..."communities" that it is for their benefit and protection, and, best of all, that it  was their idea all along.

Imagine the outcry from people like yourself  if  the members of the "diverse communities"  were capable of realising that it was not their idea at all , but  that the authorities  had decided that their presence in public toilets used by normal people was simply unacceptable.

3 hours ago, kevozman1 said:

. I probably know Thailand better than most of you reading this.

what sort of person comes out with a statement like that ?  And how do they arrive at that conclusion?