More Countries Accepting Gay Lifestyle: Study

[isanbirder]

Please, let's not get carried away with excessive hyperbole.

The KKK is a racist/antisemitic extreme far right wing white supremest organization.

Gay Pride parades were originally rather left wing political events to lobby for support against gay oppression. Later, their focus was dealing with the Aids crisis. In more recent years, they have become commercialized celebratory parties with political issues being pushed to the side. However, they are racially inclusive and by no means support an agenda of gay supremacy.

To suggest that the KKK and Gay Pride have anything in common is simply ridiculous, not to mention, offensive.

JT, why do you always go on the defensive against (largely imagined) slights on gays or some gay organisation? You're not on enemy territory here!

[Jingthing]

JT, why do you always go on the defensive against (largely imagined) slights on gays or some gay organisation? You're not on enemy territory here!

It doesn't seem that way to me. Comparing Gay Pride to KKK -- that sounds like something a fascist would say. Just because we like dick doesn't mean we have ANYTHING else in common.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Just because we like dick doesn't mean we have ANYTHING else in common.

So I see.

[Jingthing]

Just because we like dick doesn't mean we have ANYTHING else in common.

So I see.

You do understand the KKK has murdered thousands of black people and favors an all white America? When's the last time you heard of a straight person being burned alive at a Gay Pride (which started as a legitimate LIBERATION movement to fight severe oppression of a small hated minority) dance party? So you're defending the comparison of Gay Pride and the KKK then?

Regarding Monsieur LeCharivari's comparison, to be charitable, perhaps he simply didn't know what he was saying and didn't know what the KKK actually stands for (as he himself has openly admitted he is ignorant of American history and culture to the point of saying there is hardly any to speak of). If so, he can speak up for himself. That said, if here on this "gay" forum we can't openly challenge an actual anti-gay comparison from any poster (whether gay, not gay, or posing as gay), then where can we?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

True. I met Peter Jackson at the time and thought his views about Thai society and gay people were outdated even then - I was in Bangkok and he had gotten all all his knowledge about Thai society and gays from that one column in a magazine that was favoured by up-country people. I concluded (after the personal discussion) that he wasn't a researcher about Thai society and gay acceptance at all. He was just someone who had read Uncle Go.

Did you ever read his 'Intrinsic Quality of Skin'? He spent all his time in Thailand shagging around, cottaging and generally being a sexpat then at the end complained that he hadn't made any friends.

Ditto, in spades! When I ran into him during some of my first visits here it was very clear that his "research" consisted of plagiarising Uncle GO (whose letters were always a bit "National Enquirer" anyway) and carrying out in depth research in Harry's Bar.

Harry's Bar - this shows how long you have been here. I always preferred Harry's over Charlie's Hideaway, dunno why. I still see Charlie sometimes, but the last time was over a year ago and he didn't seem to recognise me any more. Seems like times have moved on. <sigh> Getting old.

[tombkk]

Please, let's not get carried away with excessive hyperbole.

The KKK is a racist/antisemitic extreme far right wing white supremest organization.

Gay Pride parades were originally rather left wing political events to lobby for support against gay oppression. Later, their focus was dealing with the Aids crisis. In more recent years, they have become commercialized celebratory parties with political issues being pushed to the side. However, they are racially inclusive and by no means support an agenda of gay supremacy.

To suggest that the KKK and Gay Pride have anything in common is simply ridiculous, not to mention, offensive.

I agree with you.

[LeCharivari]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

IB,

I'm not upset- I know what a lot of the gay tourists are here for. I'd just rather aim for some discourse in at least one Thai gay-themed forum in English where the *MAIN* focus isn't on interactions with prostitutes, or on attempting to normalise such interactions. Since that's also the overall tone of this forum even for straight folks, I figure this is the right place.

I do find it strange that it seems you don't think that the topic of what actual gay Thais think about gay life to be interesting or pertinent.

I agree 100% that its nice to have "at least one Thai gay-themed forum in English where the *MAIN* focus isn't on interactions with prostitutes" - there are plenty of those already and it simply isn't necessary here. Consequently I also agree 100% with TV policy that although prostitution in Thailand in general can be discussed the specifics are unnecessary.

What I find strange, though, is that anyone who understands Thai tradition and culture should consider that such "interactions" are anything but "normal" in Thailand. While they may not be "normal" or even acceptable in the West all Western and Thai studies that I am aware of, without exception, make it very clear that such "interactions" in Thailand have always been not only "normal" but "part of the social fabric of Thailand" .

A study by the Rockellefer Foundation , conducted by Chulalongkorn University and the University of Michigan, considered that "This aspect of Thai society has a long tradition …..the patterns of sexual behavior are quite distinct from those found in other societies, especially in the West .... Results ... indicate that both Thai men and women recognize that visiting prostitutes is common in Thailand and generally view it as a normal activity for single men. … both men and women respondents considered it to be an ordinary practice … men and women alike view visiting prostitutes as a legitimate outlet for men without a regular partner … Sex with a prostitute is clearly a common experience for Thai males and perceived to be so by the general public. .... Given that many Thai men see variation in sexual partners as an important part of their sexual lives, some amount of patronage of prostitutes after marriage is considered normal by most men … it is seen as a form of entertainment and not as a serious breach of marital trust."

A similar but more in depth study by the Kinsey Institute concluded that "Among Thai people, there is a general attitude that prostitution has always been, and will always be, a part of the social fabric of Thailand" and that " The endorsement of prostiution dos not come from men only; a majority of Thai women, especially of the upper and middle classes, readily agree with this logic ... since the abolition of slavery in 1905, brothels have proliferated steadily and eventually became commonplace throughout he country."

You will find commercial gays at any "gay" gathering at any social level in Thailand, whether you recognise them or not - it is simply part of the normal "gay lifestyle" in Thailand and is not only part of the "tourist scene" but of the Thai scene.

[LeCharivari]

Just because we like dick doesn't mean we have ANYTHING else in common.

So I see.

You do understand the KKK has murdered thousands of black people and favors an all white America? When's the last time you heard of a straight person being burned alive at a Gay Pride (which started as a legitimate LIBERATION movement to fight severe oppression of a small hated minority) dance party? So you're defending the comparison of Gay Pride and the KKK then?

Regarding Monsieur LeCharivari's comparison, to be charitable, perhaps he simply didn't know what he was saying and didn't know what the KKK actually stands for (as he himself has openly admitted he is ignorant of American history and culture to the point of saying there is hardly any to speak of). If so, he can speak up for himself. That said, if here on this "gay" forum we can't openly challenge an actual anti-gay comparison from any poster (whether gay, not gay, or posing as gay), then where can we?

JT, you have not only managed to misunderstand what I said but to totally misrepresent it as well (as usual).

Firstly, I did not "compare" Gay Pride and the KKK. What I "compared" was my lack of desire to support either (or any) organisation just because of the way I was born - the KKK because I was born white and Gay Pride because I was born gay. I do not support either organisation and I could just as easily have suggested the Black Power movement (not to be confused with the Civil Rights movement) had I been born black; not too many movements are based solely around an accident of birth. Like IB, I do not see an accident of birth as something to be either proud or ashamed of.

My comment was not "anti-gay" but anti the idea that I should feel obliged to support anyhing solely because of the way I was born and still less that I should be put under any pressure to do so - if your own grasp of history is up to it, JT, I think you'll find that that is how most "fascist" movements gathered their original support base.

Secondly, my "ignorance". I did not say that I was "ignorant of American history and culture", neither did I say that there was "hardly any to speak of". What I said was that "I am not really up on American culture or history; while rightly important to Americans both are relatively limited in comparison to so many other countries." These terms are all relative - my "not up on", for example, would make me at least reasonably well-informed by American educational standards and in comparison to other countries American history and culture (with the exception of the Native Americans about whom most Americans know very little) is limited, dating back only just over 500 years - 5,000 years before that China had started producing silk and King Menes had unified Upper and Lower Egypt. This is not a criticism - the Australians, after all, still had nearly 300 years to go before the first non-indigenous settlers including my own forebears arrived there (willingly, in their case) - just an observation.

[Ijustwannateach]

Nice essay, LCV, but who is it you are addressing? I don't see anyone arguing on this thread or any other that prostitution doesn't have its cultural place here (or in any other country, for that matter).

Oh, I think I see- my comment about normalising interactions. That wasn't meant as a cultural statement but as a psychological one. I (personally) don't think that in the majority of cases it is necessary for one to solve the problems of one's social/sexual needs through prostitutes, and even if that forms part of a temporary solution it should not be the long term, normalised goal. I also know that in saying this I am not on the same page with a certain number of individuals, but oh, well.

I was going to say that this seemed to be going off topic, but as the opening topic is about gay 'lifestyles' and their acceptance, maybe not really... ?

[LeCharivari]

..... I also know that in saying this I am not on the same page with a certain number of individuals, but oh, well. ....

If you were to read the links in my previous posts whose authors are acknowledged to be Thailand's and the world's leading experts in their field, or even the excerpts I quoted, it would seem that you are "not on the same page" as "the general (Thai) public ... Thai people ... most (Thai) men ... (and) ... a majority of Thai women, especially of the upper and middle classes".

That doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong, just that rather more than "a certain of number of individuals" apparently think that you are.

I have never seen my "social/sexual needs" as a "problem" and as long as someone's "lifestyle" (gay or otherwise) doesn't affect others adversely and those "needs" are met by consenting adults and in private I don't see why they should be a "problem" for anyone else - I am glad to say that according to the study in the OP, more countries as well as more individuals are accepting that.

[Ijustwannateach]

^LCV, I think for some reason you are choosing to take my comments altogether too personally, and/or in unintended directions (such as the assumption of a cultural Thai comment rather than psychological comment above), rather than as I am making them, towards the community reading these messages in a general manner, who are mostly not Thai (and not referring to most of them, either). None of my last few messages about the direction I like to see discourse going here has anything to do with the subject of you, personally, or anything I know about you (which is little), or indeed anything about Thai culture itself. Those comments apply solely to a subgroup of the online foreign expat community, and its existence, or my opinion of it, have nothing to do with you personally (unless you are claiming membership to it implicitly) or Thai culture. If you read carefully, you will note that my initial comment which apparently caught your attention was addressed to another member, specifically in reply to his comment (which you have read?).

To recap, it's not actually about you (or the things it would benefit your non-argument for it to be about, if it were actually about those things, which it's not).

I wouldn't normally go into such a detailed, explicit explanation of the apparent misunderstanding, but I am baffled as to why my words continue to be misunderstood in this case. If you find that I am not similarly generous with my time in the future, you may understand by referring back to this exchange.

[Ijustwannateach]

Please, let's not get carried away with excessive hyperbole.

The KKK is a racist/antisemitic extreme far right wing white supremest organization.

Gay Pride parades were originally rather left wing political events to lobby for support against gay oppression. Later, their focus was dealing with the Aids crisis. In more recent years, they have become commercialized celebratory parties with political issues being pushed to the side. However, they are racially inclusive and by no means support an agenda of gay supremacy.

To suggest that the KKK and Gay Pride have anything in common is simply ridiculous, not to mention, offensive.

I agree with you.

I also agree, and though I understand the way the point was made, it is provocative and unnecessarily inflammatory. To disagree with a political opinion does not need the invocation of Hitler, the KKK, etc., etc. in such an extremist fashion; it simply terminates any meaningful communication. That kind of problem is an old internet chestnut (the first mention of Hitler kills the topic, etc.), and tends to get solved on this kind of forum by moderation (if hints don't work).

[Jingthing]

...

These terms are all relative - my "not up on", for example, would make me at least reasonably well-informed by American educational standards ...

...

My comment was not "anti-gay" but anti the idea that I should feel obliged to support anyhing solely because of the way I was born and still less that I should be put under any pressure to do so - if your own grasp of history is up to it, JT, I think you'll find that that is how most "fascist" movements gathered their original support base.

...

You really can't help yourself with the pithy digs, can you?

[LeCharivari]

^LCV, I think for some reason you are choosing to take my comments altogether too personally .... None of my last few messages about the direction I like to see discourse going here has anything to do with the subject of you, personally, or anything I know about you (which is little) ..... have nothing to do with you personally (unless you are claiming membership to it implicitly) .... If you read carefully, you will note that my initial comment which apparently caught your attention was addressed to another member, specifically in reply to his comment (which you have read?).

To recap, it's not actually about you (or the things it would benefit your non-argument for it to be about, if it were actually about those things, which it's not).

I wouldn't normally go into such a detailed, explicit explanation of the apparent misunderstanding, but I am baffled as to why my words continue to be misunderstood in this case. If you find that I am not similarly generous with my time in the future, you may understand by referring back to this exchange.

No, I wasn't taking them personally at all - since I have made it clear that I have been in a monogamous relationship with my Thai Civil Partner for ten years the idea that it is "about" me "personally" is one I find amusing but a little odd.

What it was "about" is the subject of this thread - Accepting Gay Lifestyles. My point was not "about you" or "about" me, or about any psychological or cultural statements, or about what I thought of such "interactions". It was in response to a post, regardless of to whom it was addressed, where you referred to "interactions with prostitutes" as being something some people liked to "normalise".

I understood that to mean that you considered that "interactions with prostitutes" were somehow not normal in Thailand and not part of the "normal" Gay Lifestyle in Thailand, which I disagreed with (and explained why). If that is not what you meant then I did indeed misunderstand your post.

Edited June 26, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

...

These terms are all relative - my "not up on", for example, would make me at least reasonably well-informed by American educational standards ...

...

My comment was not "anti-gay" but anti the idea that I should feel obliged to support anyhing solely because of the way I was born and still less that I should be put under any pressure to do so - if your own grasp of history is up to it, JT, I think you'll find that that is how most "fascist" movements gathered their original support base.

You really can't help yourself with the pithy digs, can you?

Maybe its the way I was born, JT!

Seriously, no offence was intended, nor was it intended to be provocative or inflammatory - I apologise to anyone who genuinely took offence at the comparison, but I simply found it difficult think of any organisation that expects or encourages you to join its ranks solely because of how you were born rather than because of something you became. I am open to any suggestions I could use if the occasion ever arose again .....

[tombkk]

Seriously, no offence was intended, nor was it intended to be provocative or inflammatory - I apologise to anyone who genuinely took offence at the comparison, but I simply found it difficult think of any organisation that expects or encourages you to join its ranks solely because of how you were born rather than because of something you became. I am open to any suggestions I could use if the occasion ever arose again .....

In the old days, "proud to be gay" was meant as the opposit of "ashamed to be gay", which was the norm at the time. We found out that there was no shame in being gay, it wasn't anything bad, and we didn't have to hide and bring pretend-girlfriends to office parties or official social events any more. Maybe instead of "proud to be gay", the slogan "poroud to have found out that being gay is nothing bad" should have been chosen. Soneone probably found that too long.

Nowadays, there is no reason any more (at least not in Europe or in Thailand, I cannot speak for other countries) to hide being gay, that's why you probably do not understand the feeling that led to the slogan "proud to be gay". But I hope I have explained why the slogan does indeed have to do with achievement, namely the achievement of coming out.

[Ijustwannateach]

Thanks, Tom, a good point. Although even here I have seen social concern expressed by those who at least didn't want their families and some groups of friends to know about their private lives. I think the 'butch'-er the guy, the more likely it is that he is closeted with some of his associates here; the softer types are more or less identified while still in school and have plenty of time to get used to being seen that way.

Back home things have changed so much. In my extended family group there have come out 2 gay men, 1 gay woman, and a transsexual male-to-female so far, and only the worst troglodytes from the oldest generation have any problem with any of us. Even the younger ones who are still churchy people get along with us.

I don't talk about my private life much at work, but I'm pretty sure most people can figure it out and there's no bad atmosphere about it at all, among Thais, anyway.

[Ijustwannateach]

Getting back to the topic of gay lifestyles, here's a bit of a question. An older man once told me that it was more-or-less the norm among long-term established couples (we're talking 10years+ of being together) that there were often understandings regarding a certain amount of playing around outside the relationship, because in many of these couples the original erotic fire had ebbed but the strength of the relationship was such that the couple didn't want to break up only for that kind of reason. I have heard some murmurs of this from some of my longer-married straight friends, as well.

I don't know if you want to talk about your *own* relationships, as it might understandably be sensitive, but would like to hear from those here who *know of* such relationships if they indeed seem to be a common pattern or not- is this a common element in the 'lifestyle' of many more established gay, or indeed straight, couples?

[isanbirder]

Getting back to the topic of gay lifestyles, here's a bit of a question. An older man once told me that it was more-or-less the norm among long-term established couples (we're talking 10years+ of being together) that there were often understandings regarding a certain amount of playing around outside the relationship, because in many of these couples the original erotic fire had ebbed but the strength of the relationship was such that the couple didn't want to break up only for that kind of reason. I have heard some murmurs of this from some of my longer-married straight friends, as well.

I don't know if you want to talk about your *own* relationships, as it might understandably be sensitive, but would like to hear from those here who *know of* such relationships if they indeed seem to be a common pattern or not- is this a common element in the 'lifestyle' of many more established gay, or indeed straight, couples?

I think this is true, particularly between couples of which one member is much older than the other. With my first major relationship, with a Chinese 13 years younger than I was (he died of cancer 15 years ago yesterday, so is much in my mind), we had such an agreement so long as we were honest with each other about it. This was partly because we had just arrived in Thailand... and knew that he had only a few years to live. My current lover is over 30 years younger than I am, and there is a tacit understanding that he plays around on the side. I have heard friends give the same sort of story. Straights... I just don't know, but I suspect so.

[LeCharivari]

Getting back to the topic of gay lifestyles, here's a bit of a question. An older man once told me that it was more-or-less the norm among long-term established couples (we're talking 10years+ of being together) that there were often understandings regarding a certain amount of playing around outside the relationship, because in many of these couples the original erotic fire had ebbed but the strength of the relationship was such that the couple didn't want to break up only for that kind of reason. I have heard some murmurs of this from some of my longer-married straight friends, as well.

I don't know if you want to talk about your *own* relationships, as it might understandably be sensitive, but would like to hear from those here who *know of* such relationships if they indeed seem to be a common pattern or not- is this a common element in the 'lifestyle' of many more established gay, or indeed straight, couples?

Of the "long-term established" gay couples I know I would say that its about 60 - 40: 60% play around, of whom half admit it and half don't, and 40% are monogamous, which I would guess (and I emphasise guess) is much the same as in straight relationships here. Monogamy does not seem to be a Thai trait, to put it mildly, and that seems to have rubbed off on many of those living here, so it could well be more among those who follow the "gay lifestyle" (which I don't), or even the Thai lifestyle.

Taking just the gay "Thai/farang" couples I know in that category, and I know quite a few who have been together for between 10 and 15 years here, the happiest ones seem to be the few who are genuinely monogamous, as there is no visible or at least directly identifiable threat to the relationship.

Of those who play around who admit it, amongst those I know the farang is invariably the one who first suggested the "understanding" and very often it is understood and accepted by the Thai but is very much a source of private sadness as they feel that they are physically past their sell-by date and no longer physically attractive - something that seldom applies to us farangs, as we already know that we are past our sell-by date!

As for my *own* relationship we have been together for 10 years, plus a few months when we were "getting to know each other" when we both had a limited number of other partners. We are both monogamous, and (at least for my part) although I still find others physically attractive I have no interest in any "playing around" as the "erotic fire" burns even hotter now than when we first met. Without going into too much detail, a long term partner makes things so much simpler as long as you are both genuinely physically compatible (something which is not always easy to find) as you not only know what you and your partner like but you know that you are going to get it.

Why would I want to try something different in McDonalds or Burger King when I am already getting the best Chateaubriand available?

[LeCharivari]

..... Nowadays, there is no reason any more (at least not in Europe or in Thailand, I cannot speak for other countries) to hide being gay, that's why you probably do not understand the feeling that led to the slogan "proud to be gay". But I hope I have explained why the slogan does indeed have to do with achievement, namely the achievement of coming out.

I suppose I don't have any sense of "achievement" about it as I have never directly "come out" - I have never had to hide being gay, but at the same time I have never made a point of it. I was away from the West for most of the time when others were going through this, so I missed it as I was in the military mainly in the Middle and Far East and sexual preference and sexual partners was simply not considered a suitable topic for discussion (in fact it was against Mess custom to discuss sexual preference or women by name). Having said that, I never took a "pretend-girlfriend" to any of the ladies nights, summer or christmas balls, or other functions where it was expected so that must have raised some eyebrows where being gay was not only grounds for automatic dismissal but for court-martial! The subject simply never came up, except for a couple of very oblique but very supportive private asides from a couple of perceptive Commanding Officers, so maybe I was fortunate that I was never put on the spot and forced to make a choice of hiding or coming out.

Now it isn't a problem at all in the military, but in some ways I think I preferred the way it was where things were understood but never stated....

[Jingthing]

The last I heard, gay kids in the USA STILL commit suicide at a much higher rate than straight kids. Clearly, the larger society as well as their family and schoolmates are not showing the love and acceptance they need, even to feel its worth living any longer. We can still use gay pride all over the world, regardless of the quaint totally anecdotal military service for an unnamed nation experience relayed here. Hit tv shows like Glee with its pro gay message are fantastic, but there are still gay kids being bullied and demeaned all over the world, including Thailand.

Older gay couples sleeping around? Yes, usually, unless they are have lost their sex drive, which of course is common enough as we age.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Getting back to the topic of gay lifestyles, here's a bit of a question. An older man once told me that it was more-or-less the norm among long-term established couples (we're talking 10years+ of being together) that there were often understandings regarding a certain amount of playing around outside the relationship, because in many of these couples the original erotic fire had ebbed but the strength of the relationship was such that the couple didn't want to break up only for that kind of reason. I have heard some murmurs of this from some of my longer-married straight friends, as well.

I don't know if you want to talk about your *own* relationships, as it might understandably be sensitive, but would like to hear from those here who *know of* such relationships if they indeed seem to be a common pattern or not- is this a common element in the 'lifestyle' of many more established gay, or indeed straight, couples?

I think this is true, particularly between couples of which one member is much older than the other. With my first major relationship, with a Chinese 13 years younger than I was (he died of cancer 15 years ago yesterday, so is much in my mind), we had such an agreement so long as we were honest with each other about it. This was partly because we had just arrived in Thailand... and knew that he had only a few years to live. My current lover is over 30 years younger than I am, and there is a tacit understanding that he plays around on the side. I have heard friends give the same sort of story. Straights... I just don't know, but I suspect so.

Sorry to hear about your Chinese first major relationship.

[LeCharivari]

The last I heard, gay kids in the USA STILL commit suicide at a much higher rate than straight kids. Clearly, the larger society as well as their family and schoolmates are not showing the love and acceptance they need, even to feel its worth living any longer. We can still use gay pride all over the world, regardless of the quaint totally anecdotal military service for an unnamed nation experience relayed here. Hit tv shows like Glee with its pro gay message are fantastic, but there are still gay kids being bullied and demeaned all over the world, including Thailand.

Older gay couples sleeping around? Yes, usually, unless they are have lost their sex drive, which of course is common enough as we age.

You seem to have missed my point that "maybe I was fortunate", JT.

No real surprise there .... and I don't really see the relevance of going into detail of what I was doing 20 to 30 years ago in a thread on gay lifestyles (which it wasn't!) or which "nation" was paying me (mainly the UK, if it's that important to you).

[LeCharivari]

Older gay couples sleeping around? Yes, usually, unless they are have lost their sex drive, which of course is common enough as we age.

I can't help thinking that "usually" implies that its unusual for gay couples not to sleep around, which I can't agree with as around 40% of those I know don't - even those where it is the relationship that is comparatively "older" rather than the individuals. I also think that the idea that it is "usual" may be exaggerated by those who play around themselves in order to justify or "normalise" their own position.

Your point on sex-drive is a very valid one, though, if you are talking about couples where one person is considerably older than the other and in hindsight my comment that "amongst those I know the farang is invariably the one who first suggested the "understanding" " could be misunderstood. In most cases I know of the farangs suggest the "understanding" for selfish reasons, primarily because they want to play around, but there are also those where the elder farang does so for totally altruistic reasons and has the honesty to accept that someone who is considerably younger not has only a greater sex-drive but more physical stamina and makes allowances for that - something I have considerable respect for.

In those cases I know of where one or both partners play around and the personal relationship continues as strongly as ever this largely depends on that "playing around" being either very casual or, more often, commercial and short term where it was, literally, "just sex". All those gay relationships I know of where a "mia noi" figure was involved have ended in tears.

[Ijustwannateach]

Isanbirder,

Sounds like you had a very close and special connection with your guy & that you both were lucky.

LCV & JT,

Thanks for the observations. I've learned to be more accepting (in my shorter-term relationships with Thais) of a certain ambiguity regarding monogamy; while nearly every Thai I have dated strongly endorses it, it also seems to be a value honored much in the breech, or the breeches, so to speak. At least for the not-so-long-term, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' seems to be a good management strategy. Interesting to hear from LCV that of the group playing around, half are open about it but half are not.

[isanbirder]

Thanks, Tom and IJWT, yes, we were lucky.

One thing I think is often overlooked is that some people have a much weaker sex drive than others. I know one couple who have now been together over 30 years, and never had sex with each other (or, I think, with anyone else) after the first five years. That's fine if both parties are like that, but what if only one is?

Edited June 29, 2011 by isanbirder

[LeCharivari]

Interesting to hear from LCV that of the group playing around, half are open about it but half are not.

I should emphasise, IJWT, that that's only of those "I know" and may well not be representative. Even of those who are open about playing around as individuals, for example, none of them, at least as far as I know, are into "groups" or threesomes which I am sure happen in some "open" relationships..

Of those who are open about it, some are more open than others. One couple I know uses their spare bedroom either for the Thai partner to retire to while the farang indulges or for the Thai partner when he indulges. Another, resident in the UK with a Civil Partnership, only do so when on holiday in Thailand and then it is only the farang partner who indulges (frequently) while his Lao partner goes to the karaoke; even though the farang partner (in that couple) said that it was OK for them both to play around when in Thailand, he placed restrictions on what he considered "acceptable" for his partner. To some this may seem unfair (it does to me) but all I can say is that it works for them and they are very happy together.

Of those who are not open about it, the aspect that most amuses me is that while it is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to each other most are quite happy to "tell" their friends: the farangs tell me, while the Thais tell my Thai partner (and we tell each other - but no-one else).

Edited June 29, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

One thing I think is often overlooked is that some people have a much weaker sex drive than others. I know one couple who have now been together over 30 years, and never had sex with each other (or, I think, with anyone else) after the first five years. That's fine if both parties are like that, but what if only one is?

I think its all a question of making sacrifices, of one sort or another, for something or someone or something you love.

When I was working, for example, I genuinely "loved" my job, so not indulging sexually either where or when I was working was something that I just accepted.

One thing I have learned (sometimes to my cost) is that within any relationship both sides have to make sacrifices however compatible they may be if the relationship is to work - if only one makes those sacrifices then sooner or later the relationship fails. That may mean that one partner has to put up with less sex than he would ideally like, or that the other may have to make an extra effort even when he doesn't particularly feel like it - in our case (I hope this isn't too much detail) after looking at myself in the mirror every morning I thought that I would be the one putting up with less, but as it turns out I am the one having to make the effort.

In other cases the "sacrifice" may be seeing your partner and the love of your life going off to see someone else to get something you would like to provide but can't - that may be sex, or it may be something else (karaoke, Lao food, etc).

Having said all that, I am wondering if it is about making sacrifices after all or just about understanding and accepting FDR's advice: "If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else".

[tombkk]

One thing I think is often overlooked is that some people have a much weaker sex drive than others. I know one couple who have now been together over 30 years, and never had sex with each other (or, I think, with anyone else) after the first five years. That's fine if both parties are like that, but what if only one is?

I think its all a question of making sacrifices, of one sort or another, for something or someone or something you love.

When I was working, for example, I genuinely "loved" my job, so not indulging sexually either where or when I was working was something that I just accepted.

One thing I have learned (sometimes to my cost) is that within any relationship both sides have to make sacrifices however compatible they may be if the relationship is to work - if only one makes those sacrifices then sooner or later the relationship fails. That may mean that one partner has to put up with less sex than he would ideally like, or that the other may have to make an extra effort even when he doesn't particularly feel like it - in our case (I hope this isn't too much detail) after looking at myself in the mirror every morning I thought that I would be the one putting up with less, but as it turns out I am the one having to make the effort.

In other cases the "sacrifice" may be seeing your partner and the love of your life going off to see someone else to get something you would like to provide but can't - that may be sex, or it may be something else (karaoke, Lao food, etc).

Having said all that, I am wondering if it is about making sacrifices after all or just about understanding and accepting FDR's advice: "If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else".

Turns out that FDR was a wise man.

Over here, we don't sacrifice. We respect each other. A man is a man, and a sexual encounter with somebody else can be an accident or the result of too much beer (especailly on business trips). However, we don't do it "in the face" like the couple where one partner sleeps in the other bedroom when the other one "indulges". It's "never with somebody else in our own bedroom" over here. Every couple has their own rules, I guess.

This does not affect the relationship at all, as it is unrelated. Love is in the heart, after all, and not in the d*.

Funny enough, even though physical encounters with other people are allowed to an extent (we both declared that we are not monogamous before the relationship even started, but there are rules), there is less and less desire to "do something" with somebody else. We cuddle a lot, and we spend a lot of quality time together. I think we are getting old. That is not a bad thing. I think growing old together is a privilege, and I keep having the Beatles song "When I'm 64" in my head. I still have almost 20 years to go, but I already fancy the relationship described in the song.