Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[Nisa]

No I'm pointing out that physical actions in isolation don't describe someone's sexuality. If I went out and shagged a few women it no more makes me straight than if you went out and shagged a few men would make you gay. I didn't say that a straight man would turn gay after 8 pints - I said that he may have sex with another man which is not the same thing as being gay.

Agree, actions alone do not always define somebody, especially when those actions are based on other influences such as money, intoxicants, experimentation and so on. But if you (men) prefer / "LIKE" (as I originally stated) to have sex soley with men then you are gay. If you like to have sex with both men and women then you are Bi. If you like to have sex soley with women then you are straight. These are the accepted definitions and until they change then I am sticking with them and will continue to believe that a man who prefers sex from a man while the wife is away is NOT straight.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

As for men that like to have sex with other men (gay sex) but identify themselves as straight or not gay .. they have much more important matters to contend with than simply being gay or bi. Clearly they have some physiological problems. From a labeling or identity standpoint (NOT legal, moral, consensual, improper... ) your comment would be no different than saying that those having sex with kids don't identify as pedophiles. Excuse the negative example but the point is that we need to call a spade a spade regardless of what an individual labels the behavior as.

Why does someone always have to mention paedophilia in these threads? It's not appropriate and is completely irrelevant to the argument.

I apologize for the use of the work pedophile, if it offended you, but it was clearly in no way comparing gays to pedophiles and was simply comparing how society catagorizes sexual preferences. But I do notice you don't protest to my using the same type of comparison to a genius when clearly that was the same type of example .. not about being gay but simply how things are defined. Also not seeing any protest from you about a post right above that speaks of Monks putting boys out as prostitutes. However, I could understand the outrage if somebody started giving examples of gay men who molest boys but it is a double standard not to condemn both.

I'm sorry but I'm not talking about child prostitution or the forced suborning of children for sexual activities. If you're trying to imply that I do then we have nothing more to talk about. It seem to me that every time an attempt is to made to have a rational and reasonable conversation about homosexuality someone always tries to drag kiddy fiddling into it. Up to you. I'm not willing to be dragged down to your level.

You are not having a rational conversation if you become irrational with the use of a word when the context was very clear (and now being explained 3 times) in how it was being used. I apologized once if it made you upset but your possible assumptions based on my comments are very irrational. I suggest you reread what I wrote more clearly. It is regretful that if others have made such statements in terms of gays being the same as child molesters but also a shame if you believe that any person who mentions child molestation may be making a slight towards gays .... even if the comment is clearly is not even coming close to doing so. I was simply was using an example of a sexual "label" outside of Gay and Hetro and assumed most people know that a pedophile is none of these things regardless of how much the pedophile claims otherwise. So, was a bit surprised (but understanding) of your comments to want to believe anything else was being said.

[Shotime]

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

[Nisa]

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

No but it does give the women a pass to go and have sex with another women and not be considered a lesbian since she is doubling up on the hetro sex..

[Chris Lawrence]

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?

[pinkcloud]

"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

The Buddhism that I adhere to is from the story of Monkey (Japanese adaptation of a Chinese story that was made into a cult TV series). Looking at the role reversals alone is a step towards enlightenment. Tripitaka, a monk on a quest for enlightenment is played by a woman and Buddha is in her female form as Quan Yin (the Goddess of compassion). "What is identity? It is the difference between us. Difference is experienced in the mind, yet the Buddha said this mind creates the world, that this world only exists in the mind and nowhere else."

It seems that one of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism is being addressed by these particular Monks - desire. Again to quote Monkey, "You may run from tigers, but where can you hide from your own fear? Desire is unquenchable - you can only free yourself from it." "Desire is a trap. Lustful desire makes pig of people, and slaves of pigs."

BUT there is so much more to take into consideration when teaching Buddhism and some things that seem to be forgotten -

"We are all much more than we know. We are all Buddha. But we live by illusions and only see through our senses. So we cannot know how much we are. No one can know himself; therefore people will live behind many masks, and call themselves by many names. When all that matters is the effect we have on others"

"A seed only grows if you plant it in the spring - right time, right action. You cannot force a seed to grow. Mere force will not last against nature, because nature is always stronger. Love is natural, give and take. Pigsy glimpsed that sometimes we love because of the other person's need for it. It is not the same as love which is mutual. No one should hog all the giving nor all the taking. The good is the golden middle way."

[Nisa]

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door.

WOW!!!

[nurofiend]

so you disagree with someone saying if you went out and had sex with a few women over the next couple of months you'd then be straight (which i too disagree with)

but then you go on to say that a straight man turning gay after 8 pints is not as big as a joke as you think ... ie quite plausible

is that not the same thing?

or if you drank 8 pints would you turn straight?

No I'm pointing out that physical actions in isolation don't describe someone's sexuality. If I went out and shagged a few women it no more makes me straight than if you went out and shagged a few men would make you gay. I didn't say that a straight man would turn gay after 8 pints - I said that he may have sex with another man which is not the same thing as being gay.

oh fair enough, point taken

[softgeorge]

I totally believe it. Actual gay men are a TINY minority. About TWO percent. Do the math.

I agree, that gay men make up a small percentage of all men. I just don't agree with you trying to make it seem like it is more prevalent by saying gay sex is massively performed by the straight community. There are just too many valid points to make to defend gay rights than to make stuff up.

I agree also. I think it is a misperception on behalf of the gay community who think that straight men are longing to to be gay. I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up. Gays are gay and straights are straight. You can't convert a gay man and you can't convert a straight man to be gay.

[nurofiend]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

[ricku]

Yes this feels very narrow-minded, but look at it from the bright side. At least the thai ladyboys dont get thrown in jail or executed by public stoning, like in some other countries.

I think you all know what kind of countries and what kind of religion I am talking about.

Edited July 17, 2011 by ricku

[Nisa]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[animatic]

I do not like fresh tomates, but I do eat, tripe, grasshoppers and frogs legs.

These four preferences take me well out of the normal,

but do they make me abnormal?

I have eaten fresh tomatoes many times, but that hasn't made me

join the world of those that regularly like eating tomatoes.

You see the point?

You can do a few abnormal things and still be pretty darned normal,

and do occasionally do some things most people do,

and not like them much, nor have them as any kind of preference.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[sirchai]

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

Yes they can they ware white and stay in separate accommodation from the men but still in the same temples. And please don't anyone argue as I was at one the other day which my wife was staying at for a week and no she didn't have to shave her head as women have the choice.

Those are nuns. Monks -- male or female -- where saffron. And nuns are not fully accepted -- the Sangha did not not yet recognize Mae Jie in the beginning of this decade and still does not as far as I know -- and within the temples and among the populace they typically face a great deal of prejudice and inequality.

Where does saffron come from?

This topic is indeed a kind of difficult for most of its readers. Jing, please do not take it personally, but I think that lots of men in other countries would love to have the freedom to walk around in women’s clothes.

The problem is that the society isn’t okay with it, people would beat the shit out of them and some men could be attracted by them and a happily married woman would lose her husband to a third gender.

To be perfectly honest about the Buddhism in this country: Most of them don’t even know that their ‘religion’ came from India, (now Nepal) to Sri Lanka and then to this place which is called LOS now.

Do they even know the name Siddharta Gautama? No. They make this Buddhism to their own one.

They don’t know the name of the guy they call Buddha. My wife always amazes me calling little boys wearing saffron “Buddha,” considering that a ‘real monk’ should be able to speak in Sanskrit.......

The truth is that most of them become monks, because they don’t have a job. Many people send their kids to a temple because of poverty. It also means enough food for the family.

It’s ridiculous when I see some “sitting on a Pick Up holly monks sampling money” lit up their cigarette and drinking some holly Lao Khao, after having enough cash on the way home.

They still have their sexuality and only a few can –a kind of- control their emotions. Monks from my area were arrested for copying porn and selling them, many are gay, and the story that monks don’t allow ladyboys to wear their typical outfit makes perfect sense to me.

Many monks would be attracted to girly looking men with a Penis, if they would wear their usual gear.

And then, there would be Kathoey temples and those who have the ordinary gays inside. Not Pentium. :jap:

Edited July 17, 2011 by sirchai
Font reset, please use default forum font when posting.

[Nisa]

I do not like fresh tomates, but I do eat, tripe, grasshoppers and frogs legs.

These four preferences take me well out of the normal,

but do they make me abnormal?

I have eaten fresh tomatoes many times, but that hasn't made me

join the world of those that regularly like eating tomatoes.

You see the point?

You can do a few abnormal things and still be pretty darned normal,

and do occasionally do some things most people do,

and not like them much, nor have them as any kind of preference.

To be clear or make myself more clearer ... I certainly was not suggesting homosexuals were not normal but that homosexuality by definition was not normal. And to put this this in proper context .... I was responding to somebody who was telling us homosexuality ("hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!") was not only normal but practiced by "massive" amounts of straight people. Looking back, I should have probably never fell into the trap.

And yes, your diet is abnormal .

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[kirk0233]

It's a public secret in Thailand that a huge amount of monks are just plane gay, and that becoming (temporaly) a monk is i nfact a way of reassuring or even showing their' feminine' character.Same problem with catholic priests: can we imagine catholic priests ' teaching' other priests to discover their' masculinity'???!!....The core of the problem is t hat any religion is based on sexual repression, and sexual repression can only reinforce' alternative' forms of sexuality.The ones who try to solve the problem are the problem...

The problem is with Thai Buddhism as they dont allow woman to be a monk as enjoined by Lord Buddha.

However a woman monk cannot use makeup.

In fact, from what i have read Buddha did not say a woman could not be a monk. instead he had at least three women monks he very much admired as followers. Thai Buddism deviates from true Buddhism in this respect and of course many others. The corruption of the original source of a religion some say allows a religion to grow, but in this cause it only allows (in my opinion) Thai Buddhism to repress women; which is not growing at all. I agree with ROMANOBA that religion does repress normal sexual expression which can in turn may be sublimated into higher forms of creative expression or find a form of deviate expression. An experiment by the Esalen institute in california found that by giving psychotherapy to 300 nuns that all either left the church as heterosexuals when they were allowed free self-express or became lesbians. I believe 12 of the lesbians created there own church. The original church had to close. So transsexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality,etc. are forms of free self-expression. But, oddly only hetersexuality is accepted by the church. I believe this is due to a sociobiological belief (at an unconscious level) that homosexual behavior violates human survival by limiting procreation and since church is always the consevative element in society (government and culture are the other two elements) it tries to foster stability through encouraging ties to the family which makes a more orderly society. Homosexuality does not foster family stability, generally.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

In other words monastic ordination for women is a huge threat to the sex trade in Thailand.

I didn't see that one coming!

[nurofiend]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

i just thought that the comment could basically be summed up as : if you're a certain type of person, you're better off dead..because he said he would rather commit suicide

and yes if a gay person said they would rather be dead than have sex with a women, i would most definitely find that offensive

believe me, i'm not overly pc or anything...i think he has every right to say what he thinks but i could imagine it being offensive

to your next points "He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else"

how can saying suicide is a better option not be judgmental or condemning?!

"Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me"

ok then let me rephrase it for you and see if you would see this comment as offensive..." i would rather commit suicide than be black"?

[softgeorge]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

If I offened you or anyone else then I am sorry as it was not my intention. Maybe I am not a normal straight guy as I do not find other men attractive nor have I ever had the desire to get intimate with them. I guess from from a gay persons perspective this is a very abnormal way for a straight man to act. I have a couple of gay friends and we enjoy a beer and football together but that is it. If my sexual preferences being woman offend you then once again I am sorry and it is not my intention :jap:

[nurofiend]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

If I offened you or anyone else then I am sorry as it was not my intention. Maybe I am not a normal straight guy as I do not find other men attractive nor have I ever had the desire to get intimate with them. I guess from from a gay persons perspective this is a very abnormal way for a straight man to act. I have a couple of gay friends and we enjoy a beer and football together but that is it. If my sexual preferences being woman offend you then once again I am sorry and it is not my intention :jap:

nah man, that's not what i found offensive....i don't find other men attractive either or have a desire to be intimate with them, if you think i was offended because you like women then you've clearly failed to understand at all what my post was about.

it's the fact that you said you'd rather commit suicide, that's all

[Nisa]

I could never even think of it and would rather comit suicide the thought makes me want to throw up.

dude, i found that offensive and i'm not even gay

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

i just thought that the comment could basically be summed up as : if you're a certain type of person, you're better off dead..because he said he would rather commit suicide

and yes if a gay person said they would rather be dead than have sex with a women, i would most definitely find that offensive

believe me, i'm not overly pc or anything...i think he has every right to say what he thinks but i could imagine it being offensive

to your next points "He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else"

how can saying suicide is a better option not be judgmental or condemning?!

"Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me"

ok then let me rephrase it for you and see if you would see this comment as offensive..." i would rather commit suicide than be black"?

I find it incredibly interesting that you are taking his comment of suicide as serious. It is simply an expression. As for the being black analogy, he wasn't referring to any group of persons but was simply referring to a type of sexual activity he found sickening for himself. And if I was to play along with your unrealistic analogy of being black then I would simply believe the speaker might be speaking about what a black person has to endure in life as opposed to believing the comment was based on a hatred of black people .. unless their was clear reason to believe the person was a racist. Just because a person feels ill at the thought of having same sex relations doesn't have anything to do with their beliefs in others being able to do what they want.

I also believe you are being less than open in response to a gay person who made the same exact statement if they were responding to somebody who claimed massive amounts of gay men want to have sex with women. In fact, I believe many gay men have committed suicide rather than try to live a straight life and am sure that many straight men would do the same if they felt they were being forced into marrying and/or having sex with a man. But again, I think it is pretty safe to assume the poster was not literally talking about committing suicide and simply was trying to leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men.

[Flickado]

A waste of time.

These children are clearly wire differently in the brain than their genitals are externally observed.

You can't retrain a brain to be what it is not. Only add more information to what it has. If you load

in basic contradictions it only breeds mental disharmony, and doesn't correct what some see as a

social disharmony between the individual and society.

Conservative Christians have tried this in the west and caused more deviation than was started with.

This includes family men living a lie inside themselves and finally opting for abandoning their families,

or even as drastic as suicide etc.

A waste of time or worse.

Bravo...I cannot believe that katoy "choose" to be feminine...Who would "choose" to disappoint their conservative families...Who would "choose" to be ostracized by much of Thai society...As long as katoy refrain from criminal behavior, they should be tolerated.

[nurofiend]

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

i just thought that the comment could basically be summed up as : if you're a certain type of person, you're better off dead..because he said he would rather commit suicide

and yes if a gay person said they would rather be dead than have sex with a women, i would most definitely find that offensive

believe me, i'm not overly pc or anything...i think he has every right to say what he thinks but i could imagine it being offensive

to your next points "He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else"

how can saying suicide is a better option not be judgmental or condemning?!

"Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me"

ok then let me rephrase it for you and see if you would see this comment as offensive..." i would rather commit suicide than be black"?

I find it incredibly interesting that you are taking his comment of suicide as serious. It is simply an expression. As for the being black analogy, he wasn't referring to any group of persons but was simply referring to a type of sexual activity he found sickening for himself. And if I was to play along with your unrealistic analogy of being black then I would simply believe the speaker might be speaking about what a black person has to endure in life as opposed to believing the comment was based on a hatred of black people .. unless their was clear reason to believe the person was a racist. Just because a person feels ill at the thought of having same sex relations doesn't have anything to do with their beliefs in others being able to do what they want.

I also believe you are being less than open in response to a gay person who made the same exact statement if they were responding to somebody who claimed massive amounts of gay men want to have sex with women. In fact, I believe many gay men have committed suicide rather than try to live a straight life and am sure that many straight men would do the same if they felt they were being forced into marrying and/or having sex with a man. But again, I think it is pretty safe to assume the poster was not literally talking about committing suicide and simply was trying to leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men.

well it's not an expression used lightly IMO, it's an expression used when you're in strong disagreement with something.

i interpreted the statement as if he was gay he would rather be dead.... i don't think that was a far fetched conclusion to come to, from his statement

however i will admit to you that i would probably see it as less offensive if a gay person said the same thing about women, that i will give you...it's probably because they are a minority that i seen it as a more offensive comment

and to you're last comment, i don't think he should feel he has to " leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men" lol, why should we doubt him?

[animatic]

I do not like fresh tomates, but I do eat, tripe, grasshoppers and frogs legs.

These four preferences take me well out of the normal,

but do they make me abnormal?

I have eaten fresh tomatoes many times, but that hasn't made me

join the world of those that regularly like eating tomatoes.

You see the point?

You can do a few abnormal things and still be pretty darned normal,

and do occasionally do some things most people do,

and not like them much, nor have them as any kind of preference.

To be clear or make myself more clearer ... I certainly was not suggesting homosexuals were not normal but that homosexuality by definition was not normal. And to put this this in proper context .... I was responding to somebody who was telling us homosexuality ("hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!") was not only normal but practiced by "massive" amounts of straight people. Looking back, I should have probably never fell into the trap.

And yes, your diet is abnormal .

Ok, I should not have used 'preferences' for these four foods. I do eat them occasionally. I can't say that my regular diet consists of tripe, grasshoppers and frogs legs, but I have eaten all three in the last month or so, which is why they came to mind.

Had tripe for dinner last night, so I could show my daughter an italian tripe recipe, simply because there it was in Tesco. The purchase was rung up at the register by a katoey. I did the sauce from scratch, she liked it.

Had a Australian filet mignon for a special dinner 3 nights ago.

Went to a temple fair and had a bag of grasshoppers while wandering around.

Went to Makro and saw frozen frogs legs and bought a bag.

Life's short, why eat just; burgar, pizza, sub, surf and turf in a cycle.

Ate steak, som tam, and salmon coconut curry soup, bean sprouts, french bread, giant squid in red sauce, middle eastern lamb cuma too. What we think of as a 'normal diet in Thailand' is very bizarre for the folks at home. And eating exclusively an east coast US, or Mediterranean diet here as an expat is also not usual.

But when in Rome.

Point being that what is usual in one culture or locale is bizarre in another.

And who are we to judge harshly.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[pinkcloud]

Well a good place to start the practice of tolerance is within forums like these. This article really does seem to contradict notions of 'tolerance' through Buddhism. At least many people here are trying to speak honestly and are quick to back peddle when statements have come across as offensive. We are all eager to judge and use our egos so often to express ourselves - I certainly haven't mastered that one. Sometimes it's best to just laugh ( @ self included). I do agree with the idea that many Thais don't know much about Buddhism and certainly not Siddharta. I've lived in Sth east Asia for 6 years and it seems I know more than many of my friends and that's only through being a fan of cult classics such as Monkey and Siddharta (Herman Hesse). But I also feel that under the surface, there is a deep understanding of it, that is not articulated or debated. It is felt from birth. Most of us from the West do not have that inherently. I think we tend to philosophise more about ideology/religion in the West more than the average Thai or Chinese etc... This could be in part from their belief that 'kit maak mai dee', which is one of the main reasons why so many Westerners love Thailand and can ultimately be repelled by it...

[Nisa]

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

i just thought that the comment could basically be summed up as : if you're a certain type of person, you're better off dead..because he said he would rather commit suicide

and yes if a gay person said they would rather be dead than have sex with a women, i would most definitely find that offensive

believe me, i'm not overly pc or anything...i think he has every right to say what he thinks but i could imagine it being offensive

to your next points "He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else"

how can saying suicide is a better option not be judgmental or condemning?!

"Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me"

ok then let me rephrase it for you and see if you would see this comment as offensive..." i would rather commit suicide than be black"?

I find it incredibly interesting that you are taking his comment of suicide as serious. It is simply an expression. As for the being black analogy, he wasn't referring to any group of persons but was simply referring to a type of sexual activity he found sickening for himself. And if I was to play along with your unrealistic analogy of being black then I would simply believe the speaker might be speaking about what a black person has to endure in life as opposed to believing the comment was based on a hatred of black people .. unless their was clear reason to believe the person was a racist. Just because a person feels ill at the thought of having same sex relations doesn't have anything to do with their beliefs in others being able to do what they want.

I also believe you are being less than open in response to a gay person who made the same exact statement if they were responding to somebody who claimed massive amounts of gay men want to have sex with women. In fact, I believe many gay men have committed suicide rather than try to live a straight life and am sure that many straight men would do the same if they felt they were being forced into marrying and/or having sex with a man. But again, I think it is pretty safe to assume the poster was not literally talking about committing suicide and simply was trying to leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men.

well it's not an expression used lightly IMO, it's an expression used when you're in strong disagreement with something.

i interpreted the statement as if he was gay he would rather be dead.... i don't think that was a far fetched conclusion to come to, from his statement

however i will admit to you that i would probably see it as less offensive if a gay person said the same thing about women, that i will give you...it's probably because they are a minority that i seen it as a more offensive comment

and to you're last comment, i don't think he should feel he has to " leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men" lol, why should we doubt him?

I'l also agree that it no doubt was at minimum words that could offend and had they been said out of the blue I would suspect they were designed to be trollish and/or be offensive. The only reason I at all was defending was because I do believe he was responding to the . on going conversation I had with a poster who was saying hot man and man sex was normal and that having sex with other men was massively popular among straight men. So, in this context I could see why he wanted to leave no doubt that as a straight man he was not into gay sex.

I've accused others of being overly sensitive but think I might also becoming overly sensitive at the moment too. Regardless of if I believe in a cause or not, I have never liked a Malcom X type approach to bring about change and I just felt like I was dealing with this mentality in the conversation and regretfully carried it over to your comments. I was simply trying to say that we need to be fair in how we look at things and cannot condemn people for making gay slurs if we think it is okay to make slurs against Jews, straights or any other group and this includes trying to tell straights that most of them have and/or want gay sex. This would be highly offensive if a straight said similar to gays. But again, you didn't say these things and I should not have jump on you and instead gave you the benefit of the doubt as I would like to see all of us do when somebody says something maybe we don't quite understand.

[jacobus]

Interesting article. If a person with same sex attractions sincerely wishes to comfortably be able to live a straight life and is willing to pay his dues, so to speak, it can be done.

What do you mean by 'pay his dues'?

He means 'live a lie until he can't do it any longer'. That's when he tells the wife and kids that he's gay and screws multiple lives up rather than just being honest with himself in the first place.

No, what I mean is that he would get effective counseling and go through the challenge that effective counseling always presents. As Dr. Nicolosi points out -- it's hard work.

[nurofiend]

I'l also agree that it no doubt was at minimum words that could offend and had they been said out of the blue I would suspect they were designed to be trollish and/or be offensive. The only reason I at all was defending was because I do believe he was responding to the . on going conversation I had with a poster who was saying hot man and man sex was normal and that having sex with other men was massively popular among straight men. So, in this context I could see why he wanted to leave no doubt that as a straight man he was not into gay sex.

I've accused others of being overly sensitive but think I might also becoming overly sensitive at the moment too. Regardless of if I believe in a cause or not, I have never liked a Malcom X type approach to bring about change and I just felt like I was dealing with this mentality in the conversation and regretfully carried it over to your comments. I was simply trying to say that we need to be fair in how we look at things and cannot condemn people for making gay slurs if we think it is okay to make slurs against Jews, straights or any other group and this includes trying to tell straights that most of them have and/or want gay sex. This would be highly offensive if a straight said similar to gays. But again, you didn't say these things and I should not have jump on you and instead gave you the benefit of the doubt as I would like to see all of us do when somebody says something maybe we don't quite understand.

"with a poster who was saying hot man and man sex was normal and that having sex with other men was massively popular among straight men"

well fair enough, i'd take issue with that as well!

when i said i found it offensive i didn't mean i fell off my chair with shock, i just meant i could see how it would be offensive but as i also said he had every right to say it if that's what he thought

i wasn't out to condemn him, my original comment was made light-heartedly

i'm not taking issue with a straight guy finding gay sex off-putting to him at all, that's natural... it's not something i like to think about either!

it just sounded like....well i've already mentioned how i thought it came accross

[Nisa]

As for the actual topic ... I am a little disturbed to see some people condemning Buddhism or at least Thai Buddhism. As the article clearly states, this is one Temple out in the boonies with some uncharacteristic hardcore practices. I agree it is sad to see women's abilities be limited in most all of the temples but it is not easy to bring about change in a religion and/or belief system that has been around so long. Changes come slow. And this one perceived (my perception) negative doesn't take away all the good this body does do.

I also find comments such as most people become monks for improper reason, offensive too. Anyone is welcome to go and live at the Temple who have no money and young men are free to go to whatever Temple they want. I have no problem with any religion including Islam that has hardcore believers or sects as long as they are not going out and hurting others or forcing outsiders to believe what they do. If you don't want to be part of that sect, then don't but I can see no reason to complain if you knowingly go to a Temple where they practice beliefs that are different than your own. In fact, if you don't like the religion then don't be part of it but unless they are harming you or society, mind your own business. As for some Monks doing bad things, please name one group of people in society where you don't have bad apples. Just because their are ladyboys who are thieves, liars and pickpockets shouldn't mean we should condemn all ladyboys.

If somebody chooses to go to a specific Temple where they know they are going to be harassed for their beliefs then they are the ones with the problem, not the Temple. On the other hand if people from the Temple go outside their walls to harass people then this is a completely different story.

IMO, this OP is a story about nothing. If I went to study with Malcom X's congregation back in the day should I be surprised if I am called a white devil? Whose to say what is right or wrong when it comes to beliefs. Maybe those people are right who believe God does hates gays and commies and that only straight, conservative capitalist will go to heaven None of us can say for sure but I am of the mind that we need to follow what we believe is right inside our heart of hearts and not rely on some out dated texts to tell us what is right ... hopefully I am right and I don't end up burning for eternity or being reborn as a cockroach but who knows for sure?

[softgeorge]

I'm am not disagreeing at all that the comment should have been made better but am curious to know if you would find it just as offensive if a gay man said the same about his feelings of having sex with a women, while defending the fact that most gay men don't want to have sex with a women?

Also, not even sure why it is offensive except that the topic is sex and vomiting. He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else. His response was to somebody claiming there are "massive' amounts of straight people out there having gay sex. Again, would it be offensive to women and vaginas everywhere if he said the thought of going down on a women made him want to vomit? What about a women who says the thought of going down on a man makes them want to vomit?

Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me. Kind of like in the US when you have some black people getting huge laughs using the n-word while a white is going to lose their job for doing the same and doing hard time in prison if he uses the word during a physical fight (now it is a hate crime). Somehow, I just don't see this as being equality or what people like Martin Luther King fought for. But again, maybe it is the way to equality and understanding .. who knows but I typically only see it bring out more prejudice and closed minds.

i just thought that the comment could basically be summed up as : if you're a certain type of person, you're better off dead..because he said he would rather commit suicide

and yes if a gay person said they would rather be dead than have sex with a women, i would most definitely find that offensive

believe me, i'm not overly pc or anything...i think he has every right to say what he thinks but i could imagine it being offensive

to your next points "He is speaking of his own feelings and sexual preferences and not judging or condemning anyone else"

how can saying suicide is a better option not be judgmental or condemning?!

"Maybe it is correct to be overly sensitive and have double standards when trying to bring equality to a minority group but it just doesn't sit well with me"

ok then let me rephrase it for you and see if you would see this comment as offensive..." i would rather commit suicide than be black"?

I find it incredibly interesting that you are taking his comment of suicide as serious. It is simply an expression. As for the being black analogy, he wasn't referring to any group of persons but was simply referring to a type of sexual activity he found sickening for himself. And if I was to play along with your unrealistic analogy of being black then I would simply believe the speaker might be speaking about what a black person has to endure in life as opposed to believing the comment was based on a hatred of black people .. unless their was clear reason to believe the person was a racist. Just because a person feels ill at the thought of having same sex relations doesn't have anything to do with their beliefs in others being able to do what they want.

I also believe you are being less than open in response to a gay person who made the same exact statement if they were responding to somebody who claimed massive amounts of gay men want to have sex with women. In fact, I believe many gay men have committed suicide rather than try to live a straight life and am sure that many straight men would do the same if they felt they were being forced into marrying and/or having sex with a man. But again, I think it is pretty safe to assume the poster was not literally talking about committing suicide and simply was trying to leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men.

well it's not an expression used lightly IMO, it's an expression used when you're in strong disagreement with something.

i interpreted the statement as if he was gay he would rather be dead.... i don't think that was a far fetched conclusion to come to, from his statement

however i will admit to you that i would probably see it as less offensive if a gay person said the same thing about women, that i will give you...it's probably because they are a minority that i seen it as a more offensive comment

and to you're last comment, i don't think he should feel he has to " leave no doubt in people's minds that he is not into men" lol, why should we doubt him?

Ok I expressed it wrong, but it was an expression. Expressions are used and interpreted differently in different cultures, and people understand them diiferently. For example if I called you a Bastard you may interpret that as a sign of agrression and a dire insult. If I called an Aussie a bastard it would be interpreted as a sign of endearment and mateship. Once again I appoligise if I have offended anyone and hope we can now be friends and return to the topic at hand.