Gaydar

[scorecard]

Very silly statement, about the same as saying if your under 5ft 5inches tall you are therefore an alcoholic.

[endure]

My "clue of choice" too, endure, but doesn't that usually only apply where there is some mutual attraction (and maybe the thought of some fuzzy interaction involving the projection of bodily fluids) rather than as a more general means of identification?

I think that 'duration' and 'second glance' may be separate clues with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction.

[endure]

Very silly statement, about the same as saying if your under 5ft 5inches tall you are therefore an alcoholic.

Which is the 'very silly statement'?

[tombkk]

Very silly statement, about the same as saying if your under 5ft 5inches tall you are therefore an alcoholic.

What "silly statement" are you referring to? You are not quoting anything.

[tombkk]

As Andrew Stone of Pineapple Dance Studios put it (although I can't recall his exact words) " When I walk down the street in America they all think I'm gay, in England they don't know if I'm famous or odd, in Holland they think I'm a pop star and in Denmark they don't notice me at all".

I like that.

Its a clue - but that's all.

Next clue? "...his feet were twined about each other in a way that just didn't seem, um, masculine.." Is there a "gay" way of crossing your legs?

Let me ask you: Is there a "straight" way of crossing your legs?

[LeCharivari]

My "clue of choice" too, endure, but doesn't that usually only apply where there is some mutual attraction (and maybe the thought of some fuzzy interaction involving the projection of bodily fluids) rather than as a more general means of identification?

I think that 'duration' and 'second glance' may be separate clues with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction.

Understood, endure - but in that case are you saying that any original eye-contact was just "on-spec", to see what the reaction was?

That makes it sound as if gaydar (at least to some) is little more than a general making of eye-contact with anyone "of interest" (gay or straight), the duration of eye-contact then identifies them as probably/possibly gay (or not), and any second glance identifies them as probably/possibly interested (or not).

It all sounds very rational, but it doesn't sound very intuitive or instinctive - not that I am expecting it to, any more!

The first (and only) time I recall being "gaydared", which took me totally by surprise, was 20 years ago in Ocean Terminal near the Star Ferry in Hong Kong when I was stepping on to the "up" escalator. A young Chinese man's eyes met mine very briefly as he stepped off the "down" escalator and I didn't give it a second thought until he stepped on to the same step as me and quietly asked "Hullo. Are you gay?"

I never got round to asking him what gave him that idea, unfortunately, or I may have been better equipped to talk about gaydar.

[endure]

The only time I've ever been seriously gaydared it led to a very fuzzy interaction indeed. We couldn't keep our eyes (or anything else for that matter) off each other. Mind you I did have to wait till he'd finished delivering his children to the day nursery

[endure]

My "clue of choice" too, endure, but doesn't that usually only apply where there is some mutual attraction (and maybe the thought of some fuzzy interaction involving the projection of bodily fluids) rather than as a more general means of identification?

I think that 'duration' and 'second glance' may be separate clues with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction.

Understood, endure - but in that case are you saying that any original eye-contact was just "on-spec", to see what the reaction was?

You make eye contact with lots of people every day. I'm not saying that the original eye contact is either on-spec or deliberate, just a part of the daily round. I think that the duration that two gay men make eye contact is slightly longer than if one of them were straight. If they feel attraction then second glance comes into effect. I reckon that the need to reset your gaydar is to do with the fact that different countries/societies have different default acceptable glance durations so that a normal glance in country A would earn you a 'what you looking at?' in country B.

[LeCharivari]

In his book BodyWatching Desmond Morris identifies 9 different types of " leg-crosses": the ankle-ankle cross, the calf-calf cross, the knee-knee cross, the thigh-thigh cross, the calf-knee cross, the ankle-knee cross, the ankle-thigh cross, the leg-twine and the touching-foot cross.

The leg-twine (one leg is twisted around the other and held there by the entwined foot) is identified as "a largely female posture" - sounds remarkably like IJWT's ".his feet were twined about each other in a way that just didn't seem, um, masculine."

The only other gender specific posture is the touching-foot cross - the crossed over foot comes to rest alongside the calf of the other leg. This is an exclusively female posture, the action involved being uncomfortable for a male because of his pelvic design.

What I found interesting about it wasn't so much the leg-twine, but the differences between how Europeans and Americans interpreted the postures - needing, presumably, another "re-setting" of any gaydar.

In Europe amongst men (any men) the knee-knee cross is the most common and is seen as "informal" and "masculine", with too much "unintended thigh exposure" for women in polite company, while in America it is seen as "slightly effeminate" and is quite normal for women (just look at Fox News).

In America, on the other hand, the ankle-thigh cross is "particularly favoured by macho males who wish to emphasise their gender ...furthermore, within America, the frequency of this type of leg-crossing increases dramatically as one approaches what might loosely be called 'cowboy country' in the west" while in Europe it is seen as "particularly favoured" by gay males and prostitutes who want to "emphasise their gender".

Its all so confusing .... and there are 36 types of gait, including the mince ....

[LeCharivari]

....I think that the duration that two gay men make eye contact is slightly longer than if one of them were straight....

Thinking about it, since I normally don't, that's probably why I usually try to avoid any eye contact at all with the vast majority of Pattaya's obviously gay farangs (I say obviously gay either if they are obvious on their own merits or if they are obvious because they are accompanied by a Thai boyfriend). The thought of a "second glance" is enough to ruin my day ....

[endure]

In America, on the other hand, the ankle-thigh cross is "particularly favoured by macho males who wish to emphasise their gender ...furthermore, within America, the frequency of this type of leg-crossing increases dramatically as one approaches what might loosely be called 'cowboy country' in the west" while in Europe it is seen as "particularly favoured" by gay males and prostitutes who want to "emphasise their gender".

So it's true what they say about cowboys?

[tombkk]

In his book BodyWatching Desmond Morris identifies 9 different types of " leg-crosses": the ankle-ankle cross, the calf-calf cross, the knee-knee cross, the thigh-thigh cross, the calf-knee cross, the ankle-knee cross, the ankle-thigh cross, the leg-twine and the touching-foot cross.

The leg-twine (one leg is twisted around the other and held there by the entwined foot) is identified as "a largely female posture" - sounds remarkably like IJWT's ".his feet were twined about each other in a way that just didn't seem, um, masculine."

The only other gender specific posture is the touching-foot cross - the crossed over foot comes to rest alongside the calf of the other leg. This is an exclusively female posture, the action involved being uncomfortable for a male because of his pelvic design.

What I found interesting about it wasn't so much the leg-twine, but the differences between how Europeans and Americans interpreted the postures - needing, presumably, another "re-setting" of any gaydar.

In Europe amongst men (any men) the knee-knee cross is the most common and is seen as "informal" and "masculine", with too much "unintended thigh exposure" for women in polite company, while in America it is seen as "slightly effeminate" and is quite normal for women (just look at Fox News).

In America, on the other hand, the ankle-thigh cross is "particularly favoured by macho males who wish to emphasise their gender ...furthermore, within America, the frequency of this type of leg-crossing increases dramatically as one approaches what might loosely be called 'cowboy country' in the west" while in Europe it is seen as "particularly favoured" by gay males and prostitutes who want to "emphasise their gender".

Its all so confusing .... and there are 36 types of gait, including the mince ....

That is very interesting.... I made all these leg-crosses while reading it, and some do indeed feel female while the ankle-thigh cross feels very masculine. On the other hand, I do find it attractive on cute guys.

What you can see over here, is straight guys using the touching-foot cross and it is not considered female at all. When I said in an earlier post "do straight men corss their legs at all?" I was referring to this cross, which I misinterpreted as gay before I had adjusted my gaydar.

[tombkk]

My "clue of choice" too, endure, but doesn't that usually only apply where there is some mutual attraction (and maybe the thought of some fuzzy interaction involving the projection of bodily fluids) rather than as a more general means of identification?

I think that 'duration' and 'second glance' may be separate clues with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction.

Understood, endure - but in that case are you saying that any original eye-contact was just "on-spec", to see what the reaction was?

You make eye contact with lots of people every day. I'm not saying that the original eye contact is either on-spec or deliberate, just a part of the daily round. I think that the duration that two gay men make eye contact is slightly longer than if one of them were straight. If they feel attraction then second glance comes into effect. I reckon that the need to reset your gaydar is to do with the fact that different countries/societies have different default acceptable glance durations so that a normal glance in country A would earn you a 'what you looking at?' in country B.

It may be the duration o fthe eye contact, it may also be that it is longer because both already feel that there is "something". This, IMHO, has to do with the facial expereission, a slight smile developing when the eye contact is established.

Eye contact is not the only thing that makes us recognize each other. There is also something in the way most gays walk, in posture and gesture. This is not an exact science, but often I get a feeling that this guy I just met must be gay. There is nothing I can put my finger on and it often happens in business environments. Later I meet the guy in a gay bar...

[LeCharivari]

I was walking towards the Queens discotheque in Paris, when the bouncer (a 2-meter bodyguard-type, but I think he was straight) looked down on me and said in a threatening voice: "We are a gay club". Me (feeling a bit intimidated): "I know, that's why I'm here". He just said "Oh" and let me pass...

Two questions for you, Tom (and please bear in mind I have never been in a "gay club"!):

What do you think it was about the other people in the club that made the bouncer think they were gay (and you weren't)?

What made you think the bouncer wasn't gay?

[LeCharivari]

....

What you can see over here, is straight guys using the touching-foot cross and it is not considered female at all. When I said in an earlier post "do straight men corss their legs at all?" I was referring to this cross, which I misinterpreted as gay before I had adjusted my gaydar.

I think the reason for the difference is twofold.

Firstly, Westerners' joints, because they sit differently from a young age to Asians, are less flexible than Asian's so there are simply more options for them - the Lotus position is beyond me completely and the "Thai kneel" in a temple is agony after a very short time.

Secondly, dress code governing how you sit and/or cross your legs. In the West the men "wore the trousers" (literally) for years so leg crossing was easy in all its variants for all except othose wearing the kilt, while women wearing skirts either had to be more demure or were physically restrained by long skirts. In Thailand, however, when it was still Siam, traditional Thai dress imposed no such differences in either modesty or practicality, so there is no "tradition" of leg-crossing styles.

[tombkk]

I was walking towards the Queens discotheque in Paris, when the bouncer (a 2-meter bodyguard-type, but I think he was straight) looked down on me and said in a threatening voice: "We are a gay club". Me (feeling a bit intimidated): "I know, that's why I'm here". He just said "Oh" and let me pass...

Two questions for you, Tom (and please bear in mind I have never been in a "gay club"!):

What do you think it was about the other people in the club that made the bouncer think they were gay (and you weren't)?

What made you think the bouncer wasn't gay?

Q1: I have no idea how the bouncer made his assumptions. However, I am often mistaken for being straight.

Q2: My gaydar didn't recognize him as gay. It's a feeling.

I am surprised you have never been to a gay club. Is there a reason for that?

[tombkk]

....

What you can see over here, is straight guys using the touching-foot cross and it is not considered female at all. When I said in an earlier post "do straight men corss their legs at all?" I was referring to this cross, which I misinterpreted as gay before I had adjusted my gaydar.

I think the reason for the difference is twofold.

Firstly, Westerners' joints, because they sit differently from a young age to Asians, are less flexible than Asian's so there are simply more options for them - the Lotus position is beyond me completely and the "Thai kneel" in a temple is agony after a very short time.

Secondly, dress code governing how you sit and/or cross your legs. In the West the men "wore the trousers" (literally) for years so leg crossing was easy in all its variants for all except othose wearing the kilt, while women wearing skirts either had to be more demure or were physically restrained by long skirts. In Thailand, however, when it was still Siam, traditional Thai dress imposed no such differences in either modesty or practicality, so there is no "tradition" of leg-crossing styles.

I think that simplification - bringing it down to clothing - is a rationalisation. I think it goes much deeper, in that there is no stigma in Thailand, it is not a problem if something thinks you are gay even if you are not, whereas in the West they are afraid of being though of as gay.

[tombkk]

What around town trying the "lenghty eye contact" on purpose with randpom guys. Several responded by looking back, mostly in a friendly way, while a few had something in their look or their smile which made me think there were gay.

As I said before, it is not the length of the look, it is something in the face or the eyes. Give it a try.

[endure]

I was walking towards the Queens discotheque in Paris, when the bouncer (a 2-meter bodyguard-type, but I think he was straight) looked down on me and said in a threatening voice: "We are a gay club". Me (feeling a bit intimidated): "I know, that's why I'm here". He just said "Oh" and let me pass...

Two questions for you, Tom (and please bear in mind I have never been in a "gay club"!):

Really? Never? Never been into a gay pub or bar?

[LeCharivari]

Q1: I have no idea how the bouncer made his assumptions. However, I am often mistaken for being straight.

Q2: My gaydar didn't recognize him as gay. It's a feeling.

Maybe you were both just making the same mistake for the same reasons - and basing your "feeling" on experience rather than instinct and intuition in what may be just another example of gaydar being a contrived urban myth.

[LeCharivari]

I think that simplification - bringing it down to clothing - is a rationalisation. I think it goes much deeper, in that there is no stigma in Thailand, it is not a problem if something thinks you are gay even if you are not, whereas in the West they are afraid of being though of as gay.

Sorry, Tom, I have to admit to a tendency to rationalise things and to keep them simple when possible.

In this case we'll have to agree to differ. The difference between "masculine" and "feminine" postures in the West were the direct result of male and female clothes over centuries and of physical flexibility in every case. In Siam there were no such traditional differences, postures were non-sexual, so there was no "gay" posture - at least until "we" arrived!

[tombkk]

Q1: I have no idea how the bouncer made his assumptions. However, I am often mistaken for being straight.

Q2: My gaydar didn't recognize him as gay. It's a feeling.

Maybe you were both just making the same mistake for the same reasons - and basing your "feeling" on experience rather than instinct and intuition in what may be just another example of gaydar being a contrived urban myth.

The gaydar is based on all three of the terms you have underlined. But since you have never been to a gay bar, you are forgiven for not knowing this.

[tombkk]

I think that simplification - bringing it down to clothing - is a rationalisation. I think it goes much deeper, in that there is no stigma in Thailand, it is not a problem if something thinks you are gay even if you are not, whereas in the West they are afraid of being though of as gay.

Sorry, Tom, I have to admit to a tendency to rationalise things and to keep them simple when possible.

In this case we'll have to agree to differ. The difference between "masculine" and "feminine" postures in the West were the direct result of male and female clothes over centuries and of physical flexibility in every case. In Siam there were no such traditional differences, postures were non-sexual, so there was no "gay" posture - at least until "we" arrived!

Sorry, I think I would want to see some references or citations rather than taking your word for it.

[LeCharivari]

I am surprised you have never been to a gay club. Is there a reason for that?

Really? Never? Never been into a gay pub or bar?

I've been into any number of "gay bars" in Thailand over the years, but I wouldn't call any of them "gay clubs" as that conjures up images of an exclusively gay clientele and staff, or nightclubs and Tom's 2 meter doorman at the Queen's disco, and "cruising". To put it into perspective, I've never been to a nightclub either, except in the Wanchai with my Hong Kong Chinese staff occasionally when I was there, or to a disco except for the Palladium in Pattaya some 20 years ago with Thai friends. Its a bit like karaoke - just because it may be gay doesn't make it any less unpleasant an experience.

[LeCharivari]

I think that simplification - bringing it down to clothing - is a rationalisation. I think it goes much deeper, in that there is no stigma in Thailand, it is not a problem if something thinks you are gay even if you are not, whereas in the West they are afraid of being though of as gay.

Sorry, Tom, I have to admit to a tendency to rationalise things and to keep them simple when possible.

In this case we'll have to agree to differ. The difference between "masculine" and "feminine" postures in the West were the direct result of male and female clothes over centuries and of physical flexibility in every case. In Siam there were no such traditional differences, postures were non-sexual, so there was no "gay" posture - at least until "we" arrived!

Sorry, I think I would want to see some references or citations rather than taking your word for it.

Not sure what sort of "references or citations" you could want.

OK, dress:

The differences between male and female clothes in the West going back a couple of thousand years is pretty well known and well documented: except for kilts, men wore trousers (or "legged" garments) and women wore skirts (or "wraparound" garments) until the early to mid 20th century.

In ancient Egypt pharaohs and warriors wore the shendyt, in ancient Rome and Greece the toga (and the foustanella, still worn by the Greek Presidential guard, the Evzones), and in Polynesia and Oceania men and women still wear the lava-lava, and in Asia the lungi or sarong.

In Siam men wore the pa kao ma , and women the pa toong, and trousers were virtually unknown until Phibun became prime minister when he effectively banned traditional dress and introduced western dress (along with forks and spoons) with the 10th of 12 Cultural Mandates :

1. "Thai people should not appear at public gatherings, in public places, or in city limits without being appropriately dressed. Inappropriate dress includes wearing only underpants, wearing no shirt, or wearing a wraparound cloth."
2. "Appropriate dress for Thai people consists of:
   1. "Uniforms, as position and opportunity permits;
   2. "Polite international-style attire;
   3. "Polite traditional attire."

Physical Flexibility:

I would have thought the differences between Asian and Western physical flexibility, particularly at the hips, would have been fairly obvious to most westerners attempting (or watching other westerners attempting) to squat or kneel as Thais do, but there have been some studies on this if you need a reference.

Desmond Morris is considered one of the world's leading anthropologsts and ethologists and in his books Bodywatching and Peoplewatching he concluded (as have many others) that the constraints of dress, modesty and physical flexibility accounted for male and female postures, such as leg-crossing. In Peoplewatching, published most recently, he also concluded that these constraints were absent in the East. His findings and his references were pretty conclusive and well referenced.

Maybe you could produce "some references or citations" to support your view?

[LeCharivari]

Q1: I have no idea how the bouncer made his assumptions. However, I am often mistaken for being straight.

Q2: My gaydar didn't recognize him as gay. It's a feeling.

Maybe you were both just making the same mistake for the same reasons - and basing your "feeling" on experience rather than instinct and intuition in what may be just another example of gaydar being a contrived urban myth.

The gaydar is based on all three of the terms you have underlined. But since you have never been to a gay bar, you are forgiven for not knowing this.

I never said I have never been to "gay bar"; I said I have never been to a "gay club". Hardly the same thing.

Your definition of gaydar, however many gay bars/clubs() you may have been in, is incorrect.

The whole raison d'etre of gaydar is that it is somehow intuitive and a purely gay ability, NOT based on experience, which is why so many dictionaries refer to it as a "supposed" or "putative" or "reportedly" intuitive ability. Evidently I am not the only one to consider that recognising gays is apparently NOT an intuitive ability at all but is an acquired skill that anyone, gay or straight, male or female, can learn based on supposedly scientifically identifiable traits (questionable though some of those traits may be).

[Ijustwannateach]

I am surprised you have never been to a gay club. Is there a reason for that?

Really? Never? Never been into a gay pub or bar?

I've been into any number of "gay bars" in Thailand over the years, but I wouldn't call any of them "gay clubs" as that conjures up images of an exclusively gay clientele and staff, or nightclubs and Tom's 2 meter doorman at the Queen's disco, and "cruising". To put it into perspective, I've never been to a nightclub either, except in the Wanchai with my Hong Kong Chinese staff occasionally when I was there, or to a disco except for the Palladium in Pattaya some 20 years ago with Thai friends. Its a bit like karaoke - just because it may be gay doesn't make it any less unpleasant an experience.

I've never been in any establishment in Thailand which was exclusively gay in clientele OR in staff (i.e., non gays are allowed admission and there are at least one or two straights working in the place). So your explanation of your experience of Thai gay establishments seems as clear as mud. There are gay bars (in my mind distinguished by sit-down tables, quieter music and often the options of food and/or karaoke, and a clientele mostly of self-identified gay individuals), and gay clubs (in my mind distinguished by higher tables, loud music, and a dance atmosphere, with a clientele mostly of self-identified gay individuals) of various sizes out there. The words I am using to refer them are the words that both Thais seem to use and foreigners who are speaking about these sorts of places (fyi, in case you wish to be clearer in future), though there is a certain flexibility allowed among most normal speakers of English which does not usually lead to the kind of apparent confusion that your post has engendered among its readers. Do either of these kinds of places seem like the types of places you have been and are referring to as 'gay bars'?

[tombkk]

Q1: I have no idea how the bouncer made his assumptions. However, I am often mistaken for being straight.

Q2: My gaydar didn't recognize him as gay. It's a feeling.

Maybe you were both just making the same mistake for the same reasons - and basing your "feeling" on experience rather than instinct and intuition in what may be just another example of gaydar being a contrived urban myth.

The gaydar is based on all three of the terms you have underlined. But since you have never been to a gay bar, you are forgiven for not knowing this.

I never said I have never been to "gay bar"; I said I have never been to a "gay club". Hardly the same thing.

Your definition of gaydar, however many gay bars/clubs() you may have been in, is incorrect.

The whole raison d'etre of gaydar is that it is somehow intuitive and a purely gay ability, NOT based on experience, which is why so many dictionaries refer to it as a "supposed" or "putative" or "reportedly" intuitive ability. Evidently I am not the only one to consider that recognising gays is apparently NOT an intuitive ability at all but is an acquired skill that anyone, gay or straight, male or female, can learn based on supposedly scientifically identifiable traits (questionable though some of those traits may be).

I have no problems with the links you have added. We can become philosophical and discuss whether experience changes your intuition (I think it does), but that's beside the point.

I am intrigued as to your differentiation between a bar and a club. I am looking forward to reading your reply to IJWT. Please do throw in your definition of a pub, while you're at it. This could become very interesting.

Let me ask you one question: Where do you live? (I'm not asking for your full address; the province will suffice.)

[LeCharivari]

I am surprised you have never been to a gay club. Is there a reason for that?

Really? Never? Never been into a gay pub or bar?

I've been into any number of "gay bars" in Thailand over the years, but I wouldn't call any of them "gay clubs" as that conjures up images of an exclusively gay clientele and staff, or nightclubs and Tom's 2 meter doorman at the Queen's disco, and "cruising". To put it into perspective, I've never been to a nightclub either, except in the Wanchai with my Hong Kong Chinese staff occasionally when I was there, or to a disco except for the Palladium in Pattaya some 20 years ago with Thai friends. Its a bit like karaoke - just because it may be gay doesn't make it any less unpleasant an experience.

I've never been in any establishment in Thailand which was exclusively gay in clientele OR in staff (i.e., non gays are allowed admission and there are at least one or two straights working in the place). So your explanation of your experience of Thai gay establishments seems as clear as mud. There are gay bars (in my mind distinguished by sit-down tables, quieter music and often the options of food and/or karaoke, and a clientele mostly of self-identified gay individuals), and gay clubs (in my mind distinguished by higher tables, loud music, and a dance atmosphere, with a clientele mostly of self-identified gay individuals) of various sizes out there. The words I am using to refer them are the words that both Thais seem to use and foreigners who are speaking about these sorts of places (fyi, in case you wish to be clearer in future), though there is a certain flexibility allowed among most normal speakers of English which does not usually lead to the kind of apparent confusion that your post has engendered among its readers. Do either of these kinds of places seem like the types of places you have been and are referring to as 'gay bars'?

We must move in very different circles, IJWT.

In my obvious ignorance I imagined that a "gay club" would probably have at least a passing resemblance to a straight nightclub, (apart from the staff and customers). Consequently I considered "gay clubs" in Thailand to be places like DJ Station, The Bed SupperClub, Dave Man Club and Nab Men Club. Many seem to have "club" somewhere in the title for some reason..

I also imagined that "gay bars" would be broadly similar to straight bars, covering the broad spectrum of beer-bars, karaoke bars, go-go bars and pubs (again, with the exception of the staff and customers). I haven't been in a Bangkok bar for nearly 20 years, and I am probably out of date in Pattaya, but Oscar's, Panorama, JJ Karaoke, Boyz-Boyz-Boyz, Toy Boys and Le Cafe Royale are what most people I know would call "gay bars".

I had no idea there were people who considered the table height to be the primary difference between a bar and a club. Most informative.

[Ijustwannateach]

^Different circles, indeed, though I must disagree on one point: your last post was WAY more informative than mine. It is now clear that your experience of the gay scene is primarily related to tourist-seeking places, places of prostitution, and generally 'unreal' places where most gay Thais wouldn't be caught dead.

Actual Thai gay clubs (or straight ones, for that matter) don't typically have the English word 'club' in them (or indeed, a Thai approximation of it). They have tables at about midriff height because most of the clientele will be dancing- your lack of understanding of this shows you have no experience on the actual Thai gay scene. While some of these clubs have dance acts, they are related to what one might even see in American gay clubs- actual dancers, not 'dancers' who are thinly disguised prostitutes.

Actual Thai gay bars are generally not all that different from other Thai 'sit down, drink, and sing karaoke' type establishments. There are depressingly few of them now which are designated specifically for gays, even in Bangkok- seem to appeal to an older generation who go out rather less than the young 'uns. I would suppose that having food would be what makes them a 'pub', though I don't know what your designation would be.