Novices With Homosexual Traits Must Remain Reserved When Wearing Robes

[Jai Dee]

Novices with homosexual traits must remain reserved when wearing robes.

Director-general of the Department of Religious Affairs, Preecha Kantiya (ปรีชา กันธิยะ) said that novices who have homosexual behaviors and dressed inappropriately cannot be considered as breaking clerical disciplines, but they must be warned to maintain appropriate postures when wearing robes.

Mr. Preecha said that the people have complained that many novices in Chiang Mai have demonstrated homosexual traits and dressed inappropriately. He said that before becoming novices, the monks who perform the ceremony will check their qualities, adding that those with homosexual traits will not be allowed to join the monastery. However, if the novices develop those traits later, they cannot be considered as violating clerical disciplines. But they must dress and maintain their posture when leaving the temples.

Mr. Preecha said that Pratepwisuttikul (พระเทพวิสุทธิคุณ), head cleric in Chiang Mai, has been told to warn novices with inappropriate conducts to behave. He said that the people who find the behaviors of monks and novice inappropriate can contact the Head of Provincial Offices of Religious Affairs and related agencies, so that Buddhism can be protected.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 20 Febuary 2006

[cdnvic]

Aren't all monks supposed to remain celibate though? Regardless of their orientaion.

cv

[sriracha john]

Caught footage on television news showing these young monks with "obi" (Japanese kimono) bow knots tied into their tight-wrapped, hip-hugging robes, arched (not shaved) eyebrows, and very effeminate hand gesturing while they were shopping for mobile phones.

[Mighty Mouse]

Aw, I dunno.

<mod edit - inappropriate comment removed>

Edited February 21, 2006 by Jai Dee

[Ijustwannateach]

I somehow can't see Buddha turning away disciples with effeminate body language (that's how I'm reading this- how do you test for "effeminate traits???"), so shame on the socioreligious complex for imposing this prejudicial constraint. Surely if a monk didn't follow appropriate rules and attempt to live according to Buddhist principles, he could be refused for those reasons alone, and nothing doing about his supposed sexuality.

"Steven"

[phibunmike]

I somehow can't see Buddha turning away disciples with effeminate body language (that's how I'm reading this- how do you test for "effeminate traits???"), so shame on the socioreligious complex for imposing this prejudicial constraint. Surely if a monk didn't follow appropriate rules and attempt to live according to Buddhist principles, he could be refused for those reasons alone, and nothing doing about his supposed sexuality.

"Steven"

On the other hand, a macho swagger would be discouraged in monks, so also quite right to allow gay monks but not allow overtly sexually-oriented body language.

[Thaising]

Before I add my word, please do respect any religions that do not harm. Discriminations of any religion will create a world of fires, as what happened on the prophets Mohamed cartoon. So kindly be sensitive on this subject and be considerate.

I totally agreed with the religious affairs directive, this is to prevent people who misbehaviors to become a monk or novice which indirectly hurt the teaching of Buddhism and breaking the clerical orders of the mass.

[chownah]

There is precedent to dissallow behavior which is generally considered offensive to laypeople. An example of this is that certain types of animal flesh can not be eaten by monks because laypeople generally find it disgusting...dog, horse, and elephant as examples.......but still...I find it upsetting that people would be denied the monkhood based on their sexual orientation or their physical mannerisms.

[sriracha john]

I will try and find photos of the aforementioned monks today, but in the interim, I'd just like to add that from what I saw it was their flamboyant appearance and dress that was catching everyone's attention more so than any physical gesturing or mannerisms. Their outlandish styling was so far outside the norm that IMHO, they demeaned the monkhood and that is also likely what led to the decisions referenced in the OP.

[Johpa]

Geez, at one local Interent shop I use to frequent, the computers were always filled with dek wat in yellow robes looking at porn and pounding the pomegranate. I never bothered to look at which side of the fence they were oogling. But the main problem up in the villages is not effiminate monks but monks getting involved with the village lasses. I swear the Thai Sangha was established by British vicars. The entire Thai Sangha is as corrupted as the rest of the country.

[sriracha john]

I forgot to mention their pink? bags....

[astral]

Geez, at one local Interent shop I use to frequent, the computers were always filled with dek wat in yellow robes looking at porn and pounding the pomegranate. I never bothered to look at which side of the fence they were oogling. But the main problem up in the villages is not effiminate monks but monks getting involved with the village lasses. I swear the Thai Sangha was established by British vicars. The entire Thai Sangha is as corrupted as the rest of the country.

Firstly you are wrong in your definition.

Dek Wat do not wear saffron robes. They are lay people who live and help at the temple.

They wear normal clothing

The youngsters in saffron robes are novices, Nairn. They can only become monks, Pra, at age 20.

They are all subject to strict rules about behaviour and certainly should not be in an Internet cafe.

They are taught to walk and behave in a demure manner, or suffer at the hands of their Novice Master.

Contact with a female is totally forbidded, no matter what age, even a tiny baby.