Thai ministry urged to remove ‘homophobic’ books

[DM07]

33 minutes ago, trianglechoke said:

It's normal to shake hands but not compulsory.... but it is still normal to shake hands. Having kids is not compulsory but it sure is normal (as in no human race unless it had always been not just normal but the driving instinct of our species. It is not compulsory for Thais to eat rice but .... you see what i mean 

Oh look...your BS- argument is just falling apart!

In Asia it is not "normal" to shake hands!

Hmmmm...where do we go from here?

You see what I mean!

 

Added: seems that "normal" varies from place to place, culture to culture, society, tradition, upbringing....

Edited October 10, 2018 by DM07

[TPI]

6 hours ago, Khun Paul said:

Come on, students do not read these books, in fact in truth STUDENTS do not read any books, they do not have to, they ALL PASS anyway and they know that !!!!!!

Do they even read? I mean apart from anime!

 

[poohy]

I misread "goal of penis removal" as goat of penis removal

 

I am still laughing ???? certainly brightened  my day

[xtrnuno41]

Just some ignorant stupid people writing a book, all in prospection of their point of view, probably hetero. There are so many people and all unique. SOme are hetero, lesbian, gay, bi or what ever. In ancient history, with the Roman, it was even common to have sex with boys, even minors. Now you cant. Dont get me wrong, as im not like that.

Many man and also women suffer from identity crisis and think they are in wrong body, but also as man or woman have other interests. Why is moral knight hetero so much better? There are many of them just doing awful things, like a Weinstein or a Cosby and there are even more worse. Thailand is very into status and if you are already brown you are marked.

It is bad if a young guy on school , when they are talking about what they want to be, replied with : i want to be dead. 

 

[lahgon29]

4 hours ago, Petchou said:

it's well known that homophobic people are deeply homosexual that deny their own state.   

Are you OK? 

[chang1]

1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

I’ve had this rather tedious semantic discussion with a native German-speaking friend on a least a half-dozen occasions. Homosexuality is not “the norm” because only something like 6 percent of the human population is homosexual. The expression “the norm” carries only mathematical connotations. However, the words “normal” and “abnormal” in plain English are more freighted, and they often imply value judgments -- to say that homosexuality is “abnormal” implies that there’s something wrong with it.

 

I agree with you. Abnormal is not a good word to use which is why in my last post I called myself abnormal and not, for instance, different.

The point I was trying to get across is that everyone is abnormal in some way. Normal people are a minority so are therefore abnormal. I was hoping someone would have picked up on me calling them abnormal even though they think they are normal. 

The words used make a big difference to how things are taken. Left handed people are abnormal, weird, strange, mutant, etc. but we would never normally use this kind of language to describe them especially to their face. Yet many feel that using this kind of language to describe LGBT people is OK. 

 

As for those that think being LGBT is a choice, put away the big book of fairy stories and get a proper education. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, trianglechoke said:

I think there is something wrong with putting my penis inside a pooh hole

Is this something you've had to complain about often?

 

[chang1]

11 minutes ago, lahgon29 said:

4 hours ago, Petchou said:

it's well known that homophobic people are deeply homosexual that deny their own state.   

Are you OK?

I have heard about that as well. Probably not all but very common.

By deeply I think Petchou means deep down.

Edited October 10, 2018 by chang1

[The Deerhunter]

Two conflicting comments:  (1)  Is it that these typical gender behaviours quoted belong in the text books of the 1930's to 1950's in most western countries.? And that Thailand in 2018 is still being dragged, kicking and screaming into the mid to late 20th century in gender roles??

(2) On the other hand, is it possible that while the books may have genuinely been officially replaced, copies my well exist in quantity in some schools for any number of reasons.  In Orwrell's 1984, the thought police went round to every possible place to retrieve old text books to prevent this, when any part of history was rewritten or translated into "newspeak."   Some posters might disagree with me but I am quite relieved that the official thought police here might not yet be that efficient. 555

 

I am cautiously in support of the LBGT cause but I step back every time I "sniff" something that smells like Aparthied or special treatment.  We are all equal, arn't we, right?  After all, whose business is it what is under anyone's skirt or in their mind unless it is of an immediate life or injury threatening danger to another person.  The same applies to men.  We are demanded by some militant LBGT folk to forgive an apparent woman if her equipment is still convex, not yet perfectly concave, but on a real man that same convex equipment makes him an absolutely certain "rapist in waiting."  

Conclusion: If this silliness was still standard Issue text book policy, then I would be incensed (pun intended) but if the policy is truly changed but a few "old" books still exist in far flung corners of the kingdom, then sorry, sh88 happens.  Give them points for trying.  In the next text book budget, maybe those the last few old books will be replaced too.  The kids probably laugh at them anyway.

[Enoon]

8 hours ago, connda said:

Political Correctness: coming to a nation near you soon!

 

"the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order." 

 

Political correctness - Wikipedia

 

[scorecard]

23 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Two conflicting comments:  (1)  Is it that these typical gender behaviours quoted belong in the text books of the 1930's to 1950's in most western countries.? And that Thailand in 2018 is still being dragged, kicking and screaming into the mid to late 20th century in gender roles??

(2) On the other hand, is it possible that while the books may have genuinely been officially replaced, copies my well exist in quantity in some schools for any number of reasons.  In Orwrell's 1984, the thought police went round to every possible place to retrieve old text books to prevent this, when any part of history was rewritten or translated into "newspeak."   Some posters might disagree with me but I am quite relieved that the official thought police here might not yet be that efficient. 555

 

I am cautiously in support of the LBGT cause but I step back every time I "sniff" something that smells like Aparthied or special treatment.  We are all equal, arn't we, right?  After all, whose business is it what is under anyone's skirt or in their mind unless it is of an immediate life or injury threatening danger to another person.  The same applies to men.  We are demanded by some militant LBGT folk to forgive an apparent woman if her equipment is still convex, not yet perfectly concave, but on a real man that same convex equipment makes him an absolutely certain "rapist in waiting."  

Conclusion: If this silliness was still standard Issue text book policy, then I would be incensed (pun intended) but if the policy is truly changed but a few "old" books still exist in far flung corners of the kingdom, then sorry, sh88 happens.  Give them points for trying.  In the next text book budget, maybe those the last few old books will be replaced too.  The kids probably laugh at them anyway.

 

Agree, "We are all equal, arn't we, right?  After all, whose business is it what is under anyone's skirt or in their mind unless it is of an immediate life or injury threatening danger to another person. "

 

Further, there's plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise' indicating that pure hetero / pure homo is not all that real. Lots of folks have their own kinks, some minor, some major.

 

My buddy who worked for decades in a western country in children and family service sometimes shares a few of the massive numbers of situations / incidents he came across, of sexual twists, kinks, S&M, incest that are not widely talked about 'in polite society'.

 

- Example:  many incidents of 'hetero' sex where both partners love the idea of 'role play', the man is dressed in female lingerie and the woman dressed as a cowboy and the woman by mutual agreement is the dominant partner, and any one of a million other twists but all still under the major heading of hetero. 

 

- Example:  many incidents where these was hetero intercourse but either the wife or the husband or both insistent on being penetrated anally at the same time, with any object. All still under the major heading of hetero.

 

  

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, d2b2 said:

If the health books in classrooms discouraged young Thai girls from marrying old farang men, then the comments in this thread would be entirely different. 

Are you a fairly young farang man,married to a Thai.And now you have discovered that she previously had a number of sexual encounters with much older farang men. Or are you one of those young farang men who are married to a rather plump farang wife, and wish you were not.

[manarak]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

How is advising parents to “take their LGBT kids to psychiatrists” 'technically correct?' How is suggesting that 'Men, on the other hand, should wear pants, and play adventurous sports such as boxing and football' technically correct?

Your thinly veiled homophobia does not excuse 1950's styled stereotyping. If you cannot help the world move forward in a constructive manner then may I at least suggest you stop trying to drag it backwards. 

that's not what I meant.

my post was mostly about the word "abnormal".

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Is this something you've had to complain about often?

 

And is it any different to having anal sex with a woman which apparently today is quite popular.

 

And is it really any different to putting your cock into a vagina in the middle of menstruation?

 

And would you 'eat a vagina' immediately after the woman has just been jogging for 2 hours?

 

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

Two conflicting comments:  (1)  Is it that these typical gender behaviours quoted belong in the text books of the 1930's to 1950's in most western countries.? And that Thailand in 2018 is still being dragged, kicking and screaming into the mid to late 20th century in gender roles??

(2) On the other hand, is it possible that while the books may have genuinely been officially replaced, copies my well exist in quantity in some schools for any number of reasons.  In Orwrell's 1984, the thought police went round to every possible place to retrieve old text books to prevent this, when any part of history was rewritten or translated into "newspeak."   Some posters might disagree with me but I am quite relieved that the official thought police here might not yet be that efficient. 555

 

I am cautiously in support of the LBGT cause but I step back every time I "sniff" something that smells like Aparthied or special treatment.  We are all equal, arn't we, right?  After all, whose business is it what is under anyone's skirt or in their mind unless it is of an immediate life or injury threatening danger to another person.  The same applies to men.  We are demanded by some militant LBGT folk to forgive an apparent woman if her equipment is still convex, not yet perfectly concave, but on a real man that same convex equipment makes him an absolutely certain "rapist in waiting."  

Conclusion: If this silliness was still standard Issue text book policy, then I would be incensed (pun intended) but if the policy is truly changed but a few "old" books still exist in far flung corners of the kingdom, then sorry, sh88 happens.  Give them points for trying.  In the next text book budget, maybe those the last few old books will be replaced too.  The kids probably laugh at them anyway.

 

A twist, when I was about 16 years old (a long long time ago) my father gave me a couple of books to read (both just about 5 or 6 pages), they provided very little real information about sex except to labor the point that masturbation is really naught and very dangerous and can cause major health problems.

 

Hopefully today boys are not taught that at all by books, talks, whatever.  

 

[toofarnorth]

8 hours ago, Belzybob said:

We all know that ladyboys, TVs and various other deviant minorities are absolutely normal; nothing abnormal about a bloke wanting to dress in a frock is there?

Not in my house , at least when the wife is out.

[Jingthing]

I fully support any efforts to remove homophobic textbooks in Thailand and all other nations. I don't understand why any human being that can consider herself to be rational and civilized would feel any differently.

School textbooks are clear messages societies are telling to their youth. There is no good reason to spread hate and ignorance in such texts.

But I don't support censorship of books and literature in general, as that's about freedom of speech.

I recall finding an old book when I was a child that was basically a racist tome about eugenics. It was American but it was the kind of sick "science" that Hitler was inspired by later to commit genocide. But I wouldn't even censor such books from existing. They are part of history but of course they should never be taught as facts to students.

[scorecard]

7 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

"There are still western countries that refuse to acknowledge rights of LGBT people"

There is always an interpretation of the right of everyone, for instance, I for sure respect gay people, I knew a few gay men for whom I had a great sympathy. During a period I recruited a lot of people for an important company and I would have recruited a gay without a problem. On the other hand, I disapproved the marriage between men or between women, I could easily explain why. We still have the right not to agree 100% with certain things as long it's without the least aggression without being called fascist or homophobic.

 

"....sympathy..." ?

 

 

[The Deerhunter]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Agree, "We are all equal, arn't we, right?  After all, whose business is it what is under anyone's skirt or in their mind unless it is of an immediate life or injury threatening danger to another person. "

 

Further, there's plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise' indicating that pure hetero / pure homo is not all that real. Lots of folks have their own kinks, some minor, some major.

 

My buddy who worked for decades in a western country in children and family service sometimes shares a few of the massive numbers of situations / incidents he came across, of sexual twists, kinks, S&M, incest that are not widely talked about 'in polite society'.

 

- Example:  many incidents of 'hetero' sex where both partners love the idea of 'role play', the man is dressed in female lingerie and the woman dressed as a cowboy and the woman by mutual agreement is the dominant partner, and any one of a million other twists but all still under the major heading of hetero. 

 

- Example:  many incidents where these was hetero intercourse but either the wife or the husband or both insistent on being penetrated anally at the same time, with any object. All still under the major heading of hetero.

 

  

Good analogy.  Possibly not original. Little boys blue.  Little girls pink.  Adults on that basis could be everything from Infrared to Ultraviolet.  Seriously, you just set me thinking that probably that is why LGBT people refer to themselves as part of the rainbow community. i.e.  They speak for all the shades between the two extremes.  

[scorecard]

6 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Good analogy.  Possibly not original. Little boys blue.  Little girls pink.  Adults on that basis could be everything from Infrared to Ultraviolet.  Seriously, you just set me thinking that probably that is why LGBT people refer to themselves as part of the rainbow community. i.e.  They speak for all the shades between the two extremes.  

Good analogy. Now, overall, I wonder where we stand with the 'normal' / 'not normal', or 'what's normal' / 'what's not normal' discussion?

 

 

[scorecard]

11 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Oh my. You will have the size queens upset next.......   ????

Good point, and it reminds me of a lecture years back when I was studying human behavior.

 

The lecturer introduced the possibility that some 'men' walk around nude in the locker room etc., for longer periods than other men for a reason, they're looking for reactions about their 'size'. 

 

 

[Tchooptip]

22 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

"....sympathy..." ?

 

 

I am not a native English speaker in French sympathie means "be friendly towards" 

so I used sympathy by mistake, due to this orthographic resemblance

"a company" in English is "une société" in French,  but translating a company by  " a society" would be wrong of course but suffice one second of absent-mindedness and it could happen ????

[Belzybob]

6 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

You are quite right -- from the point of view of a bloke who is a cross-dresser, wanting to dress in a frock is the most normal thing in the world!

Love to hear your favourite couturier, do you find much in the back soi markets in Pattaya?

[Belzybob]

1 hour ago, toofarnorth said:

Not in my house , at least when the wife is out.

You don't have mother at home?

[scorecard]

59 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

Love to hear your favourite couturier, do you find much in the back soi markets in Pattaya?

I have a friend in Melbourne, he's happily married with a couple of kids, he's a trained professional costume and make up designer to suit period films etc., and he actually does some of the make up work. He plays football.

 

He makes quite some extra income doing the make up for cross dressers, most of his clients are middle aged men: professional bankers, engineers, tradesmen, and laborers.

 

Years ago he asked one of his first cross dress clients what gay places he likes to go to and whether some gay clubs were better than others to meet other cross dressers.

 

The client answered 'I have no idea, I cant answer your question, I've never been to a gay club and I'm not interested to go to a gay club'. 

 

Bottom line, this client liked to get professionally made up, put on his female clothes, which he kept in a locked wardrobe in his mothers' house then walk around department stores, shopping malls, sit in cocktail bars in big hotels, etc. 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by scorecard

[The Deerhunter]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Good analogy. Now, overall, I wonder where we stand with the 'normal' / 'not normal', or 'what's normal' / 'what's not normal' discussion?

 

 

Of course I am normal.  Normal for me.  Don't know if you are normal for you or normal for me!!!!!!!! Confused?  Well I am normally confused so there, that proves I am normal.

[lahgon29]

5 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

"the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order." 

 

Political correctness - Wikipedia

 

I disagree. Most example of Orwellianism I see in books and movies seem left wing and green to me. The dystopianism of Big Brother and Animal Farm were clearly left wing. An example recently was the far left Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, who regretted that people could freely say what they wanted around the kitchen table without the state knowing.

Left wing despotism seems so much softer than the the blunt instrument right wing stuff. Boiling frog type of thing. 

[scorecard]

1 minute ago, The Deerhunter said:

Of course I am normal.  Normal for me.  Don't know if you are normal for you or normal for me!!!!!!!! Confused?  Well I am normally confused so there, that proves I am normal.

Sorry if my 'question' sounded personal, it wasn't meant to be, I was just trying to summarize. 

I really like your words '..normal for me..'

 

 

[Jingthing]

Every personal is abnormal in their own way. Embrace your abnormality. It's part of being human.

[manarak]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Every personal is abnormal in their own way. Embrace your abnormality. It's part of being human.

I fully agree with that statement.