Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[sirchai]

I know a friend who runs a male go go bar. 50% of the boys have girl friends-or are married.

It's business he said, Oriental ladies go into the boys go go as do the males to choose a boy.

Many posters say that it would make them sick if they went with the same sex, so these boys adapt?

But I thought if it was not your cup of tea you couldn't indulge?

Are therefore Asian men more flexible than Westerners?. Are Western males more afraid of the unknown/and or were they programmed by their families etc that it was wrong/dirty/not natural, hence the attitude problems many have towards gay/ladyboys. Or does Asians in general have no stigma/problems with sex.

Ridiculous! Nothing to do with Asian! Gay for pay exists ALL over the world, and likely always has. There is an interesting fact about this. Psychological studies have shown that a decent percentage of total hetero male prostitutes "turn" to be actually gay over time due to the positive reinforcement of the pleasure ORGASMS being associated with MSM sex. If fundies want to convert young gays, that might be the only real hope. Pay the young men MONEY to have sex everyday with WOMEN, and if theory about the MSM sex workers sometimes turning is true, the same should apply to the GAY young men. This is one tactic the fundies haven't tried as it offends their morality, but it would be a very interesting scientific experiment indeed. I don't think this phenom would work with males over a certain age, as male sexuality is set much earlier in life and is much LESS FLUID than female sexuality. Please keep in mind, MALE TO MALE SEX is in no way the same thing as gay orientation!

BTW, in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex, so it's respond to market demand or refuse good money. However, there are some parts of the world which have developed big gigolo markets such as Haiti and some African countries, and indeed Thailand as well largely for Japanese ladies.

Jing, Im sorry, but youre way off topic now. Wasnt the headline about some monks, who want to change some ladyboys into Muay Thai boxing individuals?

Your sexual experiences might differentiate to mine and so on. Please keep in mind that FEMALE TO MALE SEX is in no way the same thing as gay orientation! :jap:

Edited July 17, 2011 by metisdead
Font reset again, use default forum font when posting.

[rubin]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

How can something be against nature, if laws and rules are manmade?

Looks like ladyboys are all around the world, not just in Thailand, the culture here is obviously more acceptable regarding sexual preferences.

I'm neither gay, nor into –lol- ladyboys. Religions always define what a person should be, or what they should do.

I'm just wondering why people look down on men who're gays, but watching lesbian movies. Can two girls 'produce' a child?

I guess not, but they can 'use' somebody, or his semen.

The definition what's against nature comes from human values like the Roman Catholic Church has...... Glad, I'm out. :jap:

If you don't have any human values, you are not human but an animal. No religion involved.

[SteeleJoe]

I don't see why you brought interracial marriage back into it. With those words substituted in it doesn't sound right to me, but with gay marriage put back in it makes perfect sense.

Why?! It's precisely the same reasoning applied. What is unsound about it? Why does social stigma become a reason for same-sex couples to not have children but not for inter-racial couples, given the potential for the very same problem?

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from super hero families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a super hero family?

Furthermore, by a super hero couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)

No, because it's absurd and infantile.

Let me explain it for you: there's no such thing as super-hero couples. There are such things as both inter-racial and same-sex couples and they have in common -- as you readily admitted --a social stigma (that in once case you see as being prohibitive but in the other, not).

But I'll humor you a bit more: if there were super-hero couples, then maybe they'd also have the same potential problem and we could use them as an analogy. But I suspect the kid of super hero parents wouldn't get bullied much and might get more overtly positive reactions to his parentage than negative.

[ginjag]

I know a friend who runs a male go go bar. 50% of the boys have girl friends-or are married.

It's business he said, Oriental ladies go into the boys go go as do the males to choose a boy.

Many posters say that it would make them sick if they went with the same sex, so these boys adapt?

But I thought if it was not your cup of tea you couldn't indulge?

Are therefore Asian men more flexible than Westerners?. Are Western males more afraid of the unknown/and or were they programmed by their families etc that it was wrong/dirty/not natural, hence the attitude problems many have towards gay/ladyboys. Or does Asians in general have no stigma/problems with sex.

Ridiculous! Nothing to do with Asian! Gay for pay exists ALL over the world, and likely always has. There is an interesting fact about this. Psychological studies have shown that a decent percentage of total hetero male prostitutes "turn" to be actually gay over time due to the positive reinforcement of the pleasure ORGASMS being associated with MSM sex. If fundies want to convert young gays, that might be the only real hope. Pay the young men MONEY to have sex everyday with WOMEN, and if theory about the MSM sex workers sometimes turning is true, the same should apply to the GAY young men. This is one tactic the fundies haven't tried as it offends their morality, but it would be a very interesting scientific experiment indeed. I don't think this phenom would work with males over a certain age, as male sexuality is set much earlier in life and is much LESS FLUID than female sexuality. Please keep in mind, MALE TO MALE SEX is in no way the same thing as gay orientation!

BTW, in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex, so it's respond to market demand or refuse good money. However, there are some parts of the world which have developed big gigolo markets such as Haiti and some African countries, and indeed Thailand as well largely for Japanese ladies.

Another point, to those who were offended by my assertion that HOT MAN TO MAN SEX is a great thing, well yes I was kind of pulling your chain to make a point. It's about gay equality and how far we still need to come with this issue. Ask yourself would you who were offended be similarly offended if someone wrote HOT MAN TO WOMEN SEX is great? No? Of course not, because the mass media blasts you everyday with 1000 messages selling hot hetero sex. It's not enough you are 98 of the world, you can't have tolerance for a minority viewpoint?

Why ridiculous ??? I said QUESTION are they more flexible than Westerners, To my experience YES -example boys can be got more easily in villages here than say U.K. these are male straight boys, that is observation. I have a Thai kara bar. local ladyboys and farm boys will go out with a guy in exchange for a few drinks. What I wrote is factual and real-and basic.

[animatic]

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control, but when it comes to our kids we have the opportunity to make decisions on purpose that we know will make a kid's life more challenging or easier, depends on the issue. There's productively challenging children like giving them chores in return for an allowance, for example. Conversely the average responsible parent is able to comprehend the fact that just giving kids things they ask for, especially if they start crying, is temporarily easier but not productive for the well being of the child.

Well I guess that's off topic, but it seems to me that we are able to have quite a profound impact on children.

If I was in that situation where I had a child doing so badly in school and it was solely because I was living with a same sex mate, I would consider something wrong with the school if they can't stop the hazing. If they don't, then I'd consider switching schools. Chances are, I would if possible find a local conducive to the lifestyle.

My daughter goes to a school with the older brother of a student who is quite obviously gay or ladyboy at night, comes to pick him up regularly, no one bats an eye and least of all the kids. My daughter is taught to be nice to anyone regardless of their being different, just to be intolerant of mean, aggressive and exploitive people.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control, but when it comes to our kids we have the opportunity to make decisions on purpose that we know will make a kid's life more challenging or easier, depends on the issue. There's productively challenging children like giving them chores in return for an allowance, for example. Conversely the average responsible parent is able to comprehend the fact that just giving kids things they ask for, especially if they start crying, is temporarily easier but not productive for the well being of the child.

Well I guess that's off topic, but it seems to me that we are able to have quite a profound impact on children.

If I was in that situation where I had a child doing so badly in school and it was solely because I was living with a same sex mate, I would consider something wrong with the school if they can't stop the hazing. If they don'ty consider switching schools. Chances are I would if possible find a local conducive to the lifestyle.

My daughter goes to a school with the older brother of a student who is quite obviously gay or ladyboy at night, comes to pick him up regularly, no one bats an eye and least of all the kids. My daughter is taught to be nice to anyone regardless of their being different, just to be intolerant of mean, aggressive and exploitive people.

That sounds like it's here in Thailand. I guess I never said in any earlier posts that I was envisioning most of my arguments taking place in the U.S. where the gay marriage issue is a fairly hot debate. Here in Thailand, to my knowledge, there is no gay marriage debate b/c there's no gay or ladyboy marriage if I'm not mistaken. However, despite that the society is completely accepting of it, with the exception of this one temple in the article that's located somewhere probably in a forest or something.

Since we're back on that topic how many ladyboys have been to this temple anyway 6,7, or 8 out of how many thousands of ladyboys in this country alone? Wow, you can really feel a tidal shift in the ladyboy community imminently approaching!

[animatic]

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

You realize that we're unlikely to ever reach a point of agreement on this right. It's obvious that we just believe different things. People are quick to change their minds but slow to change their beliefs.

But, since you asked...

The full quote is:

"Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share."

Animatic has consistently tried to substantiate arguments by citing something different like this and basically arguing: well it wasn't true there so it must not be true here. That's why the first two sentences belong in this discussion. When viewed in the proper context I think one can quickly deduce that I meant you can replace interracial marriage in that quote with anything in the history of forever that has ever had a social stigma attached to it, and it doesn't make it similar to gay marriage just because they share the word stigma in their respective legacies. That's all that meant.

Now with the fat cut away all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from same sex marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are gay can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. That's essentially what the whole "It gets better" campaign was about. Well, how far removed is a kid growing up in a gay family? I guess it could be pretty far if he/she is able to make sure nobody meets the parents. That might not happen though.

Furthermore, by granting gay marriages the right to have children a government automatically removes the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

Actually I am using a parellel historical argument with a similar set of biasing rules as a reference to the fact attitudes do change, given time and adequate understanding of core issues.

I am looking at the issues sociologically and not theologically or with an ingrown set of biases.

Pointing out over time things changed and people once thought EQUALLY strongly against certain issues as this one.

And many or most no longer do.

Guess we should stop having children with out thai wives, because later someone might bully them.

Guess we better not let a lesbian couple rais on of their already born children together because someone might bully them.

This all comes from the monks trying to brow beat children into being something they apparently are not.

Trying to stuff the ladyboy back in box of the societal role of ' masculine boy' he apparently is not capable of staying in.

I only argue because I see false arguments being put forward to why OTHER PEOPLE

should not be allowed to be left to be themselves, because they make some unconfortable.

[sirchai]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

How can something be against nature, if laws and rules are manmade?

Looks like ladyboys are all around the world, not just in Thailand, the culture here is obviously more acceptable regarding sexual preferences.

I'm neither gay, nor into –lol- ladyboys. Religions always define what a person should be, or what they should do.

I'm just wondering why people look down on men who're gays, but watching lesbian movies. Can two girls 'produce' a child?

I guess not, but they can 'use' somebody, or his semen.

The definition what's against nature comes from human values like the Roman Catholic Church has...... Glad, I'm out. :jap:

Sorry Rubin, I accidentally deleted your post. I do have human values and I know what’s right and wrong.

Religion was and is always a way to make things more complicated as they already are.

Edited July 17, 2011 by metisdead
Font reset again, please use default forum font when posting,

[rubin]

It's up to you, Sirchai. I don't give a flying ...

[softgeorge]

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

You realize that we're unlikely to ever reach a point of agreement on this right. It's obvious that we just believe different things. People are quick to change their minds but slow to change their beliefs.

But, since you asked...

The full quote is:

"Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share."

Animatic has consistently tried to substantiate arguments by citing something different like this and basically arguing: well it wasn't true there so it must not be true here. That's why the first two sentences belong in this discussion. When viewed in the proper context I think one can quickly deduce that I meant you can replace interracial marriage in that quote with anything in the history of forever that has ever had a social stigma attached to it, and it doesn't make it similar to gay marriage just because they share the word stigma in their respective legacies. That's all that meant.

Now with the fat cut away all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from same sex marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are gay can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. That's essentially what the whole "It gets better" campaign was about. Well, how far removed is a kid growing up in a gay family? I guess it could be pretty far if he/she is able to make sure nobody meets the parents. That might not happen though.

Furthermore, by granting gay marriages the right to have children a government automatically removes the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

I agree

[SteeleJoe]

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

You realize that we're unlikely to ever reach a point of agreement on this right. It's obvious that we just believe different things. People are quick to change their minds but slow to change their beliefs.

But, since you asked...

The full quote is:

"Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share."

Animatic has consistently tried to substantiate arguments by citing something different like this and basically arguing: well it wasn't true there so it must not be true here. That's why the first two sentences belong in this discussion. When viewed in the proper context I think one can quickly deduce that I meant you can replace interracial marriage in that quote with anything in the history of forever that has ever had a social stigma attached to it, and it doesn't make it similar to gay marriage just because they share the word stigma in their respective legacies. That's all that meant.

Now with the fat cut away all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from same sex marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are gay can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. That's essentially what the whole "It gets better" campaign was about. Well, how far removed is a kid growing up in a gay family? I guess it could be pretty far if he/she is able to make sure nobody meets the parents. That might not happen though.

Furthermore, by granting gay marriages the right to have children a government automatically removes the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

I agree

Gee, what a surprise -- given that he was agreeing with something you already said.

[Shotime]

Do you think two men having sex with the same woman at the same time is gay?

This made me laugh after reading the posts above. I read the first page then the last. The last page seems to have no relevance to the topic.

Why are monks giving guidance on living as a man in this day and age?

I'm glad someone got a laugh.

I once asked a ho in Bangkok if she thought it was gay, and, she answered unhesitatingly, YES!

What's relevance got to do with anything. All you hear today is Gay/Lesbian, and one other thing that escapes me. Talk about not relevant (irrelevant is not a word).

[DumFarang]

Do you think two men having sex with the same woman at the same time is gay?

This made me laugh after reading the posts above. I read the first page then the last. The last page seems to have no relevance to the topic.

Why are monks giving guidance on living as a man in this day and age?

I'm glad someone got a laugh.

I once asked a ho in Bangkok if she thought it was gay, and, she answered unhesitatingly, YES!

What's relevance got to do with anything. All you hear today is Gay/Lesbian, and one other thing that escapes me. Talk about not relevant (irrelevant is not a word).

That pic's hilarious. I never knew it existed.

[Jingthing]

Did anyone post this yet? If not, check it out.

http://video.id.msn.com/watch/video/monks-teach-maleness-to-thai-ladyboys/yre019p3

These are very nice Thai ladyboys who know who they are and won't be listening to any fuddy duddy old monks! Back off, monks!

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Women cannot be monks in Thailand - in Si Lanka yes, but not in Thailand.

It shows that sexism and homophobia are not the sole preserves of Christians

Yeah, when will those Christians ever stop forcing females to cover up and be 2nd class citizens and stone gays to death?!?

Are these Monks getting money from somewhere to "rewire" these ladyboy wannabes? What's their motivation for offering this service?

[RedNIvar]

Don't see the problem. In my opinion acceptance is the solution for both gays and the third sex. If all the religious schools open their mind into acceptance, they would solve the problem. If what science says about the existence of the gay gene is true, all we got to do is accept it. The gay gene is constantly being passed on due to both men and women living in fear of social rejection and remain in the closet.

Everyone deserves to live their own life. If everyone who is gay come out at an early age and do not fool themselves and society by trying to live a hetrosexual life, they would not propagate their gay gene to the next generation. In a couple of generations we would be able to answer the tabula rasa, nature vs nurture question.

IMHO, if there is a gay gene, social acceptance will in the end make a course correction. Unless man to man and woman to woman sex will start producing offspring.

[Jingthing]

We had another thread about this on the gay forum talking about some recent research that there is not ONE gay gene, but a more complicated genetic pattern influencing homosexuality. In my view, this would be good news if true it would be harder for the majority world to engineer a prenatal holocaust against gays. It would easier to "edit" out ONE gay gene than to take the risk of changing many genes, which may prevent the gay baby but would also probably change the personality of the person in a set of traits parents would find desirable. The reality is there are very few parents (excepting Lady Gaga perhaps) who actually WANT a gay baby. Of course some parents would just abort babies that would be gay, but it's doubtful that would be popular in most of the world. Of course such things happen against girl babies in China, India, and doubtless many other countries.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

Regardless of sexual identity, which shouldn't matter, the more important consideration IMO is that one of a monks chief goals is the practice of anatta or "non-self" That doesn't exactly jibe with any ladyboy i've ever seen. They tend to be the very definition of self absorption.

Edited July 17, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

Regardless of gender, which shouldn't matter, the more important consideration IMO is that one of a monks chief goals is the practice of anatta or "non-self" That doesn't exactly jibe with any ladyboy i've ever seen. They tend to be the very definition of self absorption.

Fair enough. Monkhood ain't for everyone. Monkhood shouldn't be forced either.

[Nisa]

Psychological studies have shown that a decent percentage of total hetero male prostitutes "turn" to be actually gay over time due to the positive reinforcement of the pleasure ORGASMS being associated with MSM sex.

Please provide a link to just one of these studies. Some of your statements are just plain ridiculous. Men turning gay because of orgasms!?!?!?!?!? I (like most men) have had more orgasms with my hand than anything or anybody else but it certainly hasn't had any effect what-so-ever on my being attracted to women and wanting a relationship with a women. I doubt there are too many men who have turned to looking into the mirror for love and aerosol because of the orgasms they have had with their hand. However, there is no doubt that prostitutes in general are going to have increased mental health issues especially if you are having sex with not only people you don't want to have sex with but also having sex with a gender you don't want to have sex with. If a study exists that shows straight male prostitutes who service men turning gay then I'm sure it has nothing to do with orgasms and that you will also find the same (or more) percentage of the prostitutes having mental disorders resulting in drug use, crime and suicide just to name a few.

[Jingthing]

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook (where's it made clear being GAY is NOT abnormal).

[moe666]

Another fantastic thread that has brought out many peoples prejuidices and narrow minds. Everybody is different even people who think they are alike.

The monk thinks that he is doing the right thing. So who are we to say it is right or wrong. Because we think we are right just as the monk thinks he is right. Get over it boys let people be who they are, if you can.

[Nisa]

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook

Fair enough ... please let me know which text book you are referring too (name, author, revision) and what section states that a "decent percentage" of " hetro men" have turned gay because of "orgasms associated with MSN sex".

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[nurofiend]

Another fantastic thread that has brought out many peoples prejuidices and narrow minds. Everybody is different even people who think they are alike.

The monk thinks that he is doing the right thing. So who are we to say it is right or wrong. Because we think we are right just as the monk thinks he is right. Get over it boys let people be who they are, if you can.

isn't it a bit of a paradox to say let people be who they are,

if letting people be who they are results in people not letting people be who they are?

:jap:

[DumFarang]

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook (where's it made clear being GAY is NOT abnormal).

Jingthing, I haven't read what you've read on this specific point, but textbooks say a lot things that hold water as well as a colander. I'd reference something else if I were you. Just Google what Gazan textbooks say if you don't already know. It's not even accurate to say textbooks are written by the winners. They're just written by people who believe in what they're writing. I'm not even saying I disagree with you here, but quoting textbooks is going into war without your bulletproof vest.

[Nisa]

Another fantastic thread that has brought out many peoples prejuidices and narrow minds. Everybody is different even people who think they are alike.

The monk thinks that he is doing the right thing. So who are we to say it is right or wrong. Because we think we are right just as the monk thinks he is right. Get over it boys let people be who they are, if you can.

As I stated before, this is an OP about nothing really. This is one temple out in the boonies that is practicing a very different brand of teaching than most all other temples in Thailand AND these ladyboys have voluntarily chose to go to THIS temple. It would be a much different story if these monks were going out into the community and forcing their will onto ladyboys who have not volunteered to undergo such scrutiny. I don't agree with what a lot of groups (including this one) practice behind their closed doors but guess what, I don't try to integrate myself into those groups and if I did, I can only blame myself if I feel disrespected.

Edit: And if the parents are sending the boys to this Temple, then the story should be about that, not this temple because if this temple didn't exist then the parents would simply take another questionable approach to trying to convert their effeminate sons.

People have a right to be ladyboys as much as others have a right to be sickened by it but it comes down to respecting each other's beliefs and not being shocked or upset if you are a monk, who believes being a ladyboy is immoral, when you go to a ladyboy bar.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

BTW, in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex

Yes there are male prostitutes servicing men but it is obvious to all that there are significantly more women prostitutes servicing men and much more men looking for female prostitutes in most all cultures. There could be some one off cultures/countries where this is not the case but I cannot think of one let alone 'most" as you claim.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? I applaud your standing up for the gay community but it is just bizarre that you continue this nonsense withi statements that massive amounts of hetros liking gay sex, that many hetro men turn gay after experiencing a Man on Man orgasm or that gay sex is more prevalent than hetro sex. You really lose all credibility when you make such obviously incorrect statements and certainly are not helping anyone to be tolerant or understanding to any minority group.

Taking some uncommon examples and pretending they apply more broadly is exactly what I believe the vast majority of the gay community dislikes when done to them as a group.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Wow, not sure how I missed this the first read through of the OP ...

Monks have had limited success in their project -- three of the six ladyboys to have graduated from the school are said to have embraced their masculinity, but the remaining three went on to have sex changes.

IF (and that is a big IF) true, then this is a 50% success rate in terms of conversion. Obviously still not a pleasant thing to go through if your leanings towards being effeminate are unchangeable but for the other half, I believe their life is going to be filled with less stress and more opportunity because of this change .... regardless if this is right or fair. My guess would be the 1/2 that converted were probably going through some phase out of rebellion or other environmental factor and may or may not have changed their ways on their own. The other three may have been more determined and/or actually born with some some difference that truly makes them relate more to female traits than most males.

But truth be told, not sure I believe the stats and even if true it is only representative of 6 people. So, the most telling thing about this stat is this temple obviously has not been doing this that long or there have been few ladyboy leaning boys who have ever attended ... but I guess they could have had many more who didn't graduate and I have to wonder how one graduates if they didn't change if the goal of the temple is to change.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Jingthing]

Yes there are male prostitutes servicing men but it is obvious to all that there are significantly more women prostitutes servicing men and much more men looking for female prostitutes in most all cultures. There could be some one off cultures/countries where this is not the case but I cannot think of one let alone 'most" as you claim.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? I applaud your standing up for the gay community but it is just bizarre that you continue this nonsense withi statements that massive amounts of hetros liking gay sex, that many hetro men turn gay after experiencing a Man on Man orgasm or that gay sex is more prevalent than hetro sex. You really lose all credibility when you make such obviously incorrect statements and certainly are not helping anyone to be tolerant or understanding to any minority group.

You twist more than a stick of licorice, dude!

1. Yes, many hetero men have enjoyed gay sex. (A straight man getting a BJ from a man and enjoying it qualifies, who can seriously suggest that doesn't go on a lot?) As heteros are 98 percent of the world, of course if a certain percentage of them have enjoyed gay sex in their lives, the number would indeed by MASSIVE. Lots of people in the world. Nobody knows the exact percentage, nor have I EVER said it was a MAJORITY of males.

2. You clearly didn't bother to get my point about YOUNG male prostitutes. SOME, not all, not the majority can change their sexual orientation from straight to gay through POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. I don't expect everyone to understand psych theories, but quite simply if you do something several times a day, and you experience ORGASMS from that activity, ORGASMS being our greatest pleasure, and the activity is GAY SEX, some YOUNG (yes they must be young) men do OVER TIME change their orientation. This because over time the pleasure of orgasm becomes forever linked to MSM sex. It can't only be the money, because money wouldn't make straight guys LIKE gay sex. (Who doesn't love money?) They must be young men because male sexuality is set young and is not very fluid (compared to females). Also of course most male prostitutes are young anyway.

3. Show me where I ever said, gay sex is more common than straight sex? I can't believe I ever said such a thing, I accuse you of BLATANT LYING. To make this clear to more clear minded people, I don't believe there is more gay sex going on than straight sex.

4. From you -- obvious to all that there are significantly more women prostitutes servicing men and much more men looking for female prostitutes in most all cultures.

I agree 100 percent. I never said differently! Either you misunderstood or blatantly distorted what I did say. I was talking about how certain countries have a developed sex trade marketed internationally offering male sex workers for female clients. I never said male sex work (for men or women) is more volume than female sex workers in ANY country! I doubt this would even be the case in San Francisco, a city with 1/3 gay residents.

To repeat again, MSM sex acts are not the same thing as gay sexual ORIENTATION. Some doing MSM (enjoying it or not) are gay, some aren't.

I kindly request that you desist from blatantly distorting my posts.

BTW, as far as credibility goes, look in the mirror. You try to pass yourself as an advocate of gay rights, but post after post from you, either apparent or usually veiled homophobia. Do you think we are stupid and can't see your tricky twists? I seriously hope you don't actually BELIEVE you are a friend of gay people.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[Tokay]

So much for Buddhism and tolerance.

Seems Thailand's ignorance infects everything eventually.