Censors Ban Thai Gay-Themed Film

[tombkk]

I don;t know a single gay person who would say that he choose to be gay. I also don't know any straight person who could switch to be gay if he wanted to, but I know straight people who thought that the gay life is more fun and regretted that they were straight.

SweatyPie said that the choice of a gay person is whether to live a gay life or not. I know several gay people who chose to live a straight life and found a family. This makes them "productive", but not straight. So I stand by my evaluation that being gay is *not* a choice.

I go even further and say that that is the same thing SP said. Now, you can argue this sentence.

1. You know one now. I believe that some gay people have chosen to be gay, while others were born that way. I know quite a few other gay men who feel the same. And I know several men who have long led a straight life, but at some point in their lives lived a gay life.

2. Bisexual men seem to switch preferences as they want, sometimes at the spur of the moment, other times for lengthy periods of time.

3. Researchers say that many, if not most "straight" men have had gay experiences.

Your comment 3 is utter nonsense and totally insulting to straight men. Isn't this against visa rules. I am a straight man have gay firends but I have never nor will I ever feel the urge to jump into bed with them. Just personally from a straight mans point of view I could not think of any worse. Show us straight men the results of this research.

I don't know whether coment number 3 is against Thaivisa rules, but I would like to thank you for your comment. Even though you are exposed to gay people, you are not gay. The reasons is that you are straight. No amount of exposure to anything homosexual will make you (or your straight children) gay.

Thank you for your support in making my point: A heterosexual person is straight, regardless of the amount of exposure to homosexuality. Very much like a homosexual person is gay, regardless of the exposure to heterosexuality and the easier lifestyle (in many contries).

[Ijustwannateach]

Phetaroi, haven't you mentioned a wife before? You aren't gay, right? Because you seem to know a whole different crowd of gay people than the (many) ones that I know.

I have known literally 1000's of gay men from about a few dozen different countries and I have never heard any of them say they CHOSE their feelings of attraction towards other men. Countless times one hears stories of how they tried to AVOID, SUPPRESS, REDEFINE or IGNORE those feelings only for those attempts to fail. Hard to understand how that would make homosexual feelings a choice, given that nearly every part of almost every modern society encourages people to do the whole marriage, family, children thing (and even many of the gay people who TRY to do that wind up giving it up later).

So I personally have no evidence that there are 'plenty' of gay men who would say that their feelings towards other men are a 'choice.' Sure, you can choose to avoid acting on your feelings and pay the price for that. But the feelings themselves are not chosen, and I don't know any gay man who wouldn't react angrily against the suggestion that that was the case (including myself).

This is a common classic example of the worst religious bigotry of gay people disguised as nonjudgmental 'compassion'- that we are 'sinners' because obviously their 'god' wouldn't create natural feelings inclining people towards 'sin'. Wasn't too long ago they were saying that about the left-handed- so is being left handed also a 'choice' in your view? Nothing stopping people with left-handedness from 'choosing' to use their right hands, after all.

Homosexual inclinations, unlike religious bigotry, self-hatred, and ignorance, are not a matter of choice for the majority of those who have them any more than heterosexual feelings are for the majority of people who have *them*.

[Ijustwannateach]

I don;t know a single gay person who would say that he choose to be gay. I also don't know any straight person who could switch to be gay if he wanted to, but I know straight people who thought that the gay life is more fun and regretted that they were straight.

SweatyPie said that the choice of a gay person is whether to live a gay life or not. I know several gay people who chose to live a straight life and found a family. This makes them "productive", but not straight. So I stand by my evaluation that being gay is *not* a choice.

I go even further and say that that is the same thing SP said. Now, you can argue this sentence.

1. You know one now. I believe that some gay people have chosen to be gay, while others were born that way. I know quite a few other gay men who feel the same. And I know several men who have long led a straight life, but at some point in their lives lived a gay life.

2. Bisexual men seem to switch preferences as they want, sometimes at the spur of the moment, other times for lengthy periods of time.

3. Researchers say that many, if not most "straight" men have had gay experiences.

Your comment 3 is utter nonsense and totally insulting to straight men. Isn't this against visa rules. I am a straight man have gay firends but I have never nor will I ever feel the urge to jump into bed with them. Just personally from a straight mans point of view I could not think of any worse. Show us straight men the results of this research.

I don't know whether coment number 3 is against Thaivisa rules, but I would like to thank you for your comment. Even though you are exposed to gay people, you are not gay. The reasons is that you are straight. No amount of exposure to anything homosexual will make you (or your straight children) gay.

Thank you for your support in making my point: A heterosexual person is straight, regardless of the amount of exposure to homosexuality. Very much like a homosexual person is gay, regardless of the exposure to heterosexuality and the easier lifestyle (in many contries).

To claim the truth about research which has actually been performed is not against forum rules. Furthermore, if true, it is only insulting to the homophobic. Homophobia, incidentally, is a form of psychological projection. 'Nuff said.

[SweatiePie]

1. You know one now. I believe that some gay people have chosen to be gay, while others were born that way. I know quite a few other gay men who feel the same. And I know several men who have long led a straight life, but at some point in their lives lived a gay life.

How very curious. You appear to be saying that, all other things being equal (which they seldom are), not only do some gay men choose to be straight but some straight men also choose to be gay.

Your second point is one which no-one has disagreed with, and which has already been commented on. Many gay men suppress their gay inclinations due to outside pressure and have a "normal" family life; some do so all their life while others at some point decide to make their feelings public. Nothing new there.

As for your first point, you seem to be looking at gay and straight as being black or white, with people being either 100% gay or 100% straight - comparatively few people are, as has been discussed on other threads here at some length before, so any such choice is not about being "gay or straight" but about which lifestyle you choose to follow. For those who are 100% or predominantly straight (at one end of the Hirschfield or Kinsey scales) this is never a choice they have to make - they are heterosexual and lead a heterosexual lifestyle (wife and family, etc) although, as you rightly say, a proportion may "dabble" occasionally with sex with men to satisfy the "gay" part of their make up. For those who are 100% or predominantly gay (at the other end of the scales) their only choice is whether to succumb to outside pressure to conform or whether to be "out" and to follow a "gay" lifestyle (b/f, male partner(s), etc); as homosexuality is increasingly accepted so they have less and less need to make a conscious choice. Those who are more to the middle of the two (the middle being bisexual) have a similar but conscious choice: conform, conform outwardly but "dabble", or be seen to be gay.

You are confusing sexual desire, which you have no choice over as it is believed to be the results of a range of factors such as genes, uterine development and hormones (and arguably environment), and sexual preference or sexual orientation, which is the result depending on how much you suppress those natural desires, with sexual identity which is how you choose to think of yourself and to appear to others (even though this identity may not be reflected in your sexual activity).

Basically, you can choose your sexual identity, but acording to all major medical, psychological, pediatric and psychiatric opinion nobody can choose or change their natural sexual desires.

I should add that this fixation with sexual orientation is very much a Western concept - and phetaroi, if you are so sure that you made a conscious choice to be gay (rather than just to follow a gay lifestyle) why not check your natural preference by using penile photoplethysmography, or maybe an electromyographic anal probe? Don't enjoy yourself too much ......

[Ijustwannateach]

Momentarily getting back to the topic: If any of those who previously commented about the 'graphic' nature of the film have actually seen it, then I suppose you have better right to comment on it than the rest of us. But I suppose none of those commenting here has actually seen the film? Isn't this the whole problem with censorship of adults? There is, after all, a rating system now which theoretically is supposed to protect children (along with the parental guidance which is also supposed to be the frontline of protection of children). Should we welcome the attitude that we adults need to be treated like children in what we choose to view (keeping in mind that the material in question is dramatic ACTING and not specifically pornography, presumably).

There was a horrific move, for example, released a number of years ago in the states called 'KIDS', a kind of 'you are there' drama showing how the new reality of unparented young teenagers was creating a moral and medical wasteland. It was very hard to watch and I can't say I 'liked' the film, which did actually have a few (non-graphic) simulated sex scenes- but they were wrenching and heartbreaking, involving as they did the transmission of HIV and the breaking of trust and innocence. It was a very important film, facing adults with the question of how young teens were actually growing up- and news stories today make this film look prophetic.

Simply to react to the images as 'immoral' would be missing the whole point- who's immoral if kids have no strong source of parenting (whether gay or straight) and then act out of confusion? The kids or those responsible for them? And why isn't society (through those adults) addressing the needs of those kids? Better to bury our heads in the sand and try to hide uncomfortable reminders like such films as these?

It is with that American film in mind that I wonder what this film-maker's messages are about and whether they might actually be important for some groups of people in Thailand.

[LaoPo]

Momentarily getting back to the topic: If any of those who previously commented about the 'graphic' nature of the film have actually seen it, then I suppose you have better right to comment on it than the rest of us. But I suppose none of those commenting here has actually seen the film? Isn't this the whole problem with censorship of adults? There is, after all, a rating system now which theoretically is supposed to protect children (along with the parental guidance which is also supposed to be the frontline of protection of children). Should we welcome the attitude that we adults need to be treated like children in what we choose to view (keeping in mind that the material in question is dramatic ACTING and not specifically pornography, presumably).

There was a horrific move, for example, released a number of years ago in the states called 'KIDS', a kind of 'you are there' drama showing how the new reality of unparented young teenagers was creating a moral and medical wasteland. It was very hard to watch and I can't say I 'liked' the film, which did actually have a few (non-graphic) simulated sex scenes- but they were wrenching and heartbreaking, involving as they did the transmission of HIV and the breaking of trust and innocence. It was a very important film, facing adults with the question of how young teens were actually growing up- and news stories today make this film look prophetic.

Simply to react to the images as 'immoral' would be missing the whole point- who's immoral if kids have no strong source of parenting (whether gay or straight) and then act out of confusion? The kids or those responsible for them? And why isn't society (through those adults) addressing the needs of those kids? Better to bury our heads in the sand and try to hide uncomfortable reminders like such films as these?

It is with that American film in mind that I wonder what this film-maker's messages are about and whether they might actually be important for some groups of people in Thailand.

Tanwarin Sukkhapisit's movie INSECTS IN THE BACKYARD is considered to be an important movie, competing for a prestigious award for Young Cinema called: the DRAGONS & TIGERS AWARD.

Other countries involved in this competetion are a.o. Singapore, China, Vietnam and others.

Apart from that, her movie was also showed at the VIFF**: the Vancouver International Film Festival from Sept 30 to Oct 15 - 2010

Also, Tanwarin Sukkhapisit asked the Thai Censors to allow her film to be shown to the Thai audience from 20+ onwards and was not meant for youngsters BELOW that age.

It seems Thailand has different Censorship ratings rather than Western standards.

Whether that's good or bad is up to the viewers I suppose.

Some call the movie (without seeing it) pornographic because "The film has explicit scenes involving masturbation and teenagers in school uniforms engaging in various sexual acts with clients".

If that is porno remains to be seen AFTER one has seen the movie. In most European countries it wouldn't be called porno...in some puritan western and eastern countries it probably would.

But, I'm sure that a fine filmmaker as Tanwarin Sukkhapisit knows where the thin line of art and porno lies....

As far as I saw on the trailer it's a beautiful filmed...slow kind of movie with exceptional images, far from porno:

TRAILER:

http://www.movieseer...in_the_Backyard

* FROM: http://www.straight....dyboy-filmmaker

** http://www.viff.org/...ventNumber=3464

LaoPo

Edited November 13, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Thailand bans gay movie

By Patrick Frater

Thu, 11 November 2010, 16:25 PM (HKT)

Policy News

Thailand's official censor has banned the commercial release of Insects in The Backyard, a gay-themed film directed by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit (ธัญญ์วาริน สุขพิสิษฐ์).

The film had its premiere recently at the Vancouver festival and has played twice at the now in progress Bangkok Word festival. But the censor board yesterday ruled: "the film's content goes against public order or morality."

About a transvestite father's (Sukkhapisit) upbringing of two teenagers, the film includes explicit scenes of masturbation and fetish sex between the teenagers and their paying clients.

Sukkhapisit told a local newspaper that she will appeal the ruling, but is not prepared to make cuts in order to get a release. Sukkhapisit applied for the 20- rating, which restricts a film to audiences aged 20 and older. "This film is not supposed to be viewed by those younger than that," she told The Nation newspaper.

Sukkhapisit, who has won several awards for short films, was working with Bioscope magazine on plans to release Insects as part of its Indie Spirit project. Bioscope has worked with other local filmmakers and specific theatres, in order to secure small, targeted releases.

From: Film Business Asia

http://www.filmbiz.a...-bans-gay-movie

LaoPo

[phetaroi]

1. So you are saying that you are gay because you chose to be gay, not because you felt that this was what you always wanted. I have to admit you are the first person I have ever met (in person or on the internet) to say so. We never stop learning.

However, I do know several gay men who only found out (admitted to themselves) at a later stage in life, usually above 30 or 40 years, that they were gay. I do think this has to do with the culture they grew up, and whether it permits homosexuality or whether it is suppressed from childhood or puberty on.

2. Yes bisexual men are a different bread, aren't they? I wish I was one. Just seeing the person, not their gender, and falling love. - I'm not being sarcastic, I just think that the chances of someone being truly bisexual are low.

3. I don't know about the research, but personal anecdotes seem to confirm that many straight men have had homosexual experiences in the past. Be it as it may, but it didn't make them gay! They will still be straight, but have had a new experience, and move on to marry a woman and found a family.

1. Let's put it to you this way, without going into detail. When I was entering puberty, I had thought about straight sex quite a bit, talked about it with the guys (like kids that age do), but hadn't once given any thought to gay sex as something that would interest me. Then one day an older boy led me into a sexual liaison and literally taught me the "how to" of gay sex.

But now let me ask you a question, why on earth would a gay person be upset if some other gay people believe they "learned" be gay, rather than were born that way?

[tombkk]

1. So you are saying that you are gay because you chose to be gay, not because you felt that this was what you always wanted. I have to admit you are the first person I have ever met (in person or on the internet) to say so. We never stop learning.

However, I do know several gay men who only found out (admitted to themselves) at a later stage in life, usually above 30 or 40 years, that they were gay. I do think this has to do with the culture they grew up, and whether it permits homosexuality or whether it is suppressed from childhood or puberty on.

2. Yes bisexual men are a different bread, aren't they? I wish I was one. Just seeing the person, not their gender, and falling love. - I'm not being sarcastic, I just think that the chances of someone being truly bisexual are low.

3. I don't know about the research, but personal anecdotes seem to confirm that many straight men have had homosexual experiences in the past. Be it as it may, but it didn't make them gay! They will still be straight, but have had a new experience, and move on to marry a woman and found a family.

1. Let's put it to you this way, without going into detail. When I was entering puberty, I had thought about straight sex quite a bit, talked about it with the guys (like kids that age do), but hadn't once given any thought to gay sex as something that would interest me. Then one day an older boy led me into a sexual liaison and literally taught me the "how to" of gay sex.

But now let me ask you a question, why on earth would a gay person be upset if some other gay people believe they "learned" be gay, rather than were born that way?

The answer to your question is that if it is a choice to be gay, and society rejects it, it means you have the choice to be straight and it's your own decision to be gay and you have no right to complain. Keep in mind the gay people in Iran, for example: Why would they have made the decision? All gay people I know (with the exception of you, now - as I said, we never stop learning) have not made a decision but found out sooner or later that they are gay. Maybe the person they fall in love with is a man, or they can be happy with a wife but not fulfilled and suddenly meet "Mr Right", and so on. Being gay is something inside that makes you to be be drawn to men rather than women.

The other reason is the "don't let any gay man near my son - he will make him gay" argument. I just don't buy that a straight boy can be made gay. I can imagine that many straight boys have same-experiences during puberty, usually with class-mates, but if they are straight, they will remain straight.

You may be the exception to the rule, one in millions, but I don't really know you and the circumstances you were in at the time, so I won't speculate. I wonder whether there is some research on this, though: Can somebody who is straight be "made" gay, or decide to be gay, if he has a positive same-sex experience during pouberty?

[phetaroi]

The answer to your question is that if it is a choice to be gay, and society rejects it, it means you have the choice to be straight and it's your own decision to be gay and you have no right to complain. Keep in mind the gay people in Iran, for example: Why would they have made the decision? All gay people I know (with the exception of you, now - as I said, we never stop learning) have not made a decision but found out sooner or later that they are gay. Maybe the person they fall in love with is a man, or they can be happy with a wife but not fulfilled and suddenly meet "Mr Right", and so on. Being gay is something inside that makes you to be be drawn to men rather than women.

The other reason is the "don't let any gay man near my son - he will make him gay" argument. I just don't buy that a straight boy can be made gay. I can imagine that many straight boys have same-experiences during puberty, usually with class-mates, but if they are straight, they will remain straight.

You may be the exception to the rule, one in millions, but I don't really know you and the circumstances you were in at the time, so I won't speculate. I wonder whether there is some research on this, though: Can somebody who is straight be "made" gay, or decide to be gay, if he has a positive same-sex experience during pouberty?

So what you're saying is, everyone who is gay has to be what is currently the politically correct interpretation of gay life. Those of us who believe differently are breaking a rule?

I just don't understand why you (and many others) have to put everyone in the same box.

We had a fellow teacher in my school who was married with three daughters. He lived a very happy straight life. He also lived a very happy gay life...on the side. His wife knew it and accepted it. Their marriage -- as they defined it -- not as society defined it -- worked.

Lest you think everyone agrees in the "gay gene" approach, you might want to check out allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

[atyclb]

Transvestite director? NO. Tiffany Show...Yes!

End up entering the sex trade? NO. Patpong/Nana/etc...Yes!

Teenagers in school uniforms engaging in various sexual acts with clients? NO. Underaged boys/girls Sunee Plaza, Pattaya...Yes!

Gay life? NO. Boyztown...Yes!

Perhaps movies should not be too realistic in Thailand.

Spot on. Don't you know that reality is to be found on TV at 8.30 every night where everyone drives Mercs, has numerous maids of dark skin, the baddies all wear black, have fake moustaches and talk to themselves and the goodies all wear white and have stress trying to find the love of their life.

Yes and then the Hi Sos spend the rest of the script arguing and teaching the masses that violence is normal!..........Sad! but it beats Acting for a living.

Thai soaps disgust me. But what really disturbs me is the Thai's love them! What is wrong here, can anyone explain? I just see and hear bitches shouting at each other and scenes of violence. My girlfriend watches them, I am so disgusted with them, I cut the plug off the TV! So I am also guilty of censorship!

It seems to me that these soaps actually reflect the culture, and it's not a pretty sight. Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

I have Thai friends that say those "soaps" are for retards. Every country has similar media. USA has "National Enquirer", and soaps also that are not too intelligent either.

[Ijustwannateach]

Phetaroi, in this case perhaps you will have to be dissatisfied at being a relatively small and neglected minority within a minority. I don't mind if you believe that your feelings are choice-related, and perhaps they even are. However, you are clearly a very tiny and unrepresentative part of a bigger political reality, and politics are built on black and white decisions. MOST gay people (and even straight people) can't see a way to 'choose' whom they are attracted to- or even within the type of guys they like, what KIND of guys they like. And as TomBKK points out, saying that sexual attraction is a choice takes it off the sympathy agenda for the particularly morally stunted type of individual which unfortunately forms the bulk of most sexually intolerant countries- which is why most of those morally stunted individuals like to frame sexuality in such terms, despite their own inability to make meaningful such choices in their own lives.

[Scott]

Without getting into a lot of specifics, there are conditions in which people become 'pan-sexual' and basically engage in sex with a broad spectrum of people. Pan-sexuality is generally the result of childhood events, but this is not always the case.

It's sad that a movie such as this one is likely not to be shown. Sad because it's a subject that needs to be addressed and thought about; sad because censorship is very bad, and sad that what creativity that does exist in the culture, is so definitively shot-down.

[LaoPo]

It's sad that a movie such as this one is likely not to be shown. Sad because it's a subject that needs to be addressed and thought about; sad because censorship is very bad, and sad that what creativity that does exist in the culture, is so definitively shot-down.

Couldn't agree more and wish this topic stays on topic about the movie and censorship and not end in a discussion about gay/non-gay.

WHY didn't anybody comment on the TRAILER of INSECTS IN THE BACKYARD ?

http://www.movieseer...in_the_Backyard

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

I haven't seen the film. I wish to see the film. However, I can say I would bet the house the film is NOT a porno. Film festivals (excepting porno film festivals if such exist) do not screen porn films. They do screen many art, indie, and edgy films often with controversial content and yes sometimes sexually explicit/shocking content. Thailand still, sadly, remains backwards in some ways, and this kind of anti-free art expression is one of them. It something to be lamented and not something to rationalize or celebrate. The next artist wanting to make a film approaching controversial subjects most likely won't even try. It really is a shame. BTW, even if the film wasn't banned, if this film is a small art film like it sounds like it is, it wouldn't have done much box office in Thailand anyway! So banning it is like kicking an injured dog, at least for the Thai market. I hope it can get released internationally. That would be some kind of justice if it became some kind of cult hit internationally.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Jingthing