Zoroaster Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Seems like Prayut needs Robert Amsterdam's help. If it made thaksin look good it certainly cannot hurt Parayut. As for his comment. It is disgusting and not to be tolerated in the modern world. Especially by a leader of the nation. There certainly needs to be a line between defending someone and denouncing them. To me it is this. Oh, and defending terrorism by saying BUT at the end of sentences involving that subject is another example of when you know you have crossed the line. Could it be that enlightenment beckons? Juntas are bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyumiii Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I must agree with Prayut! Those mini skirts are way to sexy and distracting. It make it difficult to concentrate on the news he has told them is o.k. to report to us! I really think he now needs to take a look at those sexy, skin tight uniforms that all of the BIB wear! It's difficult to take law enforcement officers seriously when they all dress like sex objects! And some of those soldiers too...wow! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 yes I agree with the good General! hijab's all round!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxLee Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Uniform for students Uniform for foreigners visiting immigration Uniform for models @ exhibitions Uniform for tv presenters ... What'll be next??? Shutting down the communication and Internet in Thailand maybe??... They did that already early on .... lasted a few hours (international - facebook, instagram... all the places where people get the wrong ideas) then they said it was an ISP problem .... only one problem with that explanation.... it affected many independent connections at once across multiple ISPs (I was still able to VPN out though). One ISP said it was ordered, then quickly backtracked on it because they were told "they were not told". I'm obviously referring for Longer term shutdown, so to say. This guy is capable of anything. According to some rumours - Thai centric (i.e. Thai controlled) social network site replacements are currently being funded and being worked on. So yes, if they feel they can get away with it they will block and redirect people to sites that they can control, track and censor. The problem with the international sites is they are spreading non-Thai (i.e. Western) values that are not applicable to Thailand. Best just to do away with the wrong influences. If the dear PM and former general shits down Thailand's network, I can see the entire Generation Y kiddies in this nation going into a coma paranoia.... Edited March 31, 2015 by MaxLee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akampa Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 he can bluddy change Channels like anyone else can if he don't like it... or get someone else to change it for him I'm pretty sure martial law and the new constitution gives him the right to shut down the bluddy TV channel and arrest everyone if he doesn't like the programming on any given day. both of you use your spell checker "bloody hell" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) One may be excused to wonder why a previous Prime Minister who was really into equal right for women and dignity for women, didn't notice this issue. Probably to many other things to do What issue? Women wearing shortish skirts on tv?? Strap back, send for the morality police. I'd say the previous PM did well to let people get on with their lives and leave their choice of clothes to themselves. Actually the topic has "Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has strongly criticised an unnamed TV channel for highlighting women in mini skirts in game shows and home shopping programs as its selling points. Prayut said such programmes that also highlight dirty talks were not constructive. Prayut said such TV programmes proved that the media needed to be reformed" So, where did people have their choice of cloths in this ? People had the choice in what they were doing. If they don't like it don't participate or work, work somewhere else. I just saw a trailer for a movie (also entertainment) "Fast and Furious 7". They had women in there in skimpier attire -- bouncing around. Same issue with all entertainment you chose to work for - you know what you are getting into depending on your role..... It would be like someone saying they wanted to play one of the hot girls in bikini, but without a bikini, and without showing any "skin" - nice and conservative hot girl covered head to toe. They had a choice whether to take the role or not. It is no different than this entertainment. When I take a job part of the decisions I make are how I must dress (dressing well costs money) - I either take the job or not. In fact I had a co-worker quit a job in London after our company changed to having to dress more for customers (more conservative from free to wear as you want)... he decided.... no that was not for him and headed back to the US to work for another company. Of course a leader who is use to dictating what people can and cannot report, probably has a hard time understanding that he is not there to dictate how people live, how they dress, where they work.... sort of similar to Mao Zedong. BTW Mao Zedong believed in media reforms as well. Oh come on. Jesimps wrote "leave their choice of clothes to themselves." I reply that that didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic and replied "So, where did people have their choice of cloths in this ?" When you accept a job as 'pretty' you have to accept the sexy dresses as well or you have no job. That has nothing to do with your broadening of the topic to areas where you find it easier to blame the PM for what you write and think. BTW in many countries many people believe in media reform. http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/james-currans-speech-to-the-tuc-conference-on-media-regulation Edited March 31, 2015 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 According to some rumours - Thai centric (i.e. Thai controlled) social network site replacements are currently being funded and being worked on. So yes, if they feel they can get away with it they will block and redirect people to sites that they can control, track and censor. The problem with the international sites is they are spreading non-Thai (i.e. Western) values that are not applicable to Thailand. Best just to do away with the wrong influences. If the dear PM and former general shits down Thailand's network, I can see the entire Generation Y kiddies in this nation going into a coma paranoia.... Especially when the current government follows the examples of other, more democratic countries 2015-03-26 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/571309/copyright-crackdown-government-introduces-website-blocking-bill/ 2015-03-27 http://torrentfreak.com/block-pirate-bay-in-72-hours-spanish-court-tells-isps-150327/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 According to some rumours - Thai centric (i.e. Thai controlled) social network site replacements are currently being funded and being worked on. So yes, if they feel they can get away with it they will block and redirect people to sites that they can control, track and censor. The problem with the international sites is they are spreading non-Thai (i.e. Western) values that are not applicable to Thailand. Best just to do away with the wrong influences. If the dear PM and former general shits down Thailand's network, I can see the entire Generation Y kiddies in this nation going into a coma paranoia.... Especially when the current government follows the examples of other, more democratic countries 2015-03-26 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/571309/copyright-crackdown-government-introduces-website-blocking-bill/ 2015-03-27 http://torrentfreak.com/block-pirate-bay-in-72-hours-spanish-court-tells-isps-150327/ There is quite a difference between blocking stolen property and trying to censor ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 According to some rumours - Thai centric (i.e. Thai controlled) social network site replacements are currently being funded and being worked on. So yes, if they feel they can get away with it they will block and redirect people to sites that they can control, track and censor. The problem with the international sites is they are spreading non-Thai (i.e. Western) values that are not applicable to Thailand. Best just to do away with the wrong influences. If the dear PM and former general shits down Thailand's network, I can see the entire Generation Y kiddies in this nation going into a coma paranoia.... Especially when the current government follows the examples of other, more democratic countries 2015-03-26 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/571309/copyright-crackdown-government-introduces-website-blocking-bill/ 2015-03-27 http://torrentfreak.com/block-pirate-bay-in-72-hours-spanish-court-tells-isps-150327/ There is quite a difference between blocking stolen property and trying to censor ideas. Absolutely. Still some here have it it starts with 'taking mini skirts of' and evolving into getting forced into proper business attire. Who knows, maybe even pantsuits? Do you want me posts a few examples on censoring ideas or are you able to find them yourself? Censorship on 'rumours' seems especially 'in' these days. Take the rumour you mentioned, governments worldwide get annoyed with rumours which seem to aim at spreading discontent. So, sexy girls as selling points. Disgraced and degraded by being exploited for a meagre salary by males using the tight labour market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is interesting to note that freedom to dress sexy — has coincided in the past with the freeing of women from the leashes that society and men have placed on women in the past. The “roaring 20s” (starting actually a little earlier than that in earnest) was one of liberation and the pinnacle of the suffrage movement and the gaining of voting rights for women. This is not an accident, male lead society was far from welcoming of those changes since free women (politically or sexually) often is threatening to men. If you were unfortunate enough to marry one of these women back then, you would have to deal with taking flack for not being able to control your wife. It was embarrassing. Pre-roaring 20s was a time dominated by proper dress and the wearing of corsets (which often did physical damage). Compare that to the roaring 20s flappers style with the scandalous short skirts (short as in close to mini-skirt short in some ways more revealing). Society goes in cycles but at least one “rebel feminist” has actually credited the latest breaking of these bonds and freeing society in general from the bonds that would bind women — to Madonna. The relative acceptance of alternate lifestyles, started with her. Now compare this to where the general would like to take the dress back to.... conformity, where the women that is their property will not embarrass them in public and cause them to lose weight. If he really wants to move women forward, integrate them into the military -- elevate them to generals.... but of course he probably would not like a women telling him what to do in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post kkerry Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 Shorts are okay apparently 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildragon Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 We love Thai army... Go elites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) It is interesting to note that freedom to dress sexy — has coincided in the past with the freeing of women from the leashes that society and men have placed on women in the past. The “roaring 20s” (starting actually a little earlier than that in earnest) was one of liberation and the pinnacle of the suffrage movement and the gaining of voting rights for women. This is not an accident, male lead society was far from welcoming of those changes since free women (politically or sexually) often is threatening to men. If you were unfortunate enough to marry one of these women back then, you would have to deal with taking flack for not being able to control your wife. It was embarrassing. Pre-roaring 20s was a time dominated by proper dress and the wearing of corsets (which often did physical damage). Compare that to the roaring 20s flappers style with the scandalous short skirts (short as in close to mini-skirt short in some ways more revealing). Society goes in cycles but at least one “rebel feminist” has actually credited the latest breaking of these bonds and freeing society in general from the bonds that would bind women — to Madonna. The relative acceptance of alternate lifestyles, started with her. Now compare this to where the general would like to take the dress back to.... conformity, where the women that is their property will not embarrass them in public and cause them to lose weight. If he really wants to move women forward, integrate them into the military -- elevate them to generals.... but of course he probably would not like a women telling him what to do in public. I doubt that the 'freedom' to dress sexy would really help Thai women being freed from the leashes that Society and men place on them. Also the topic is on pretties being employed to dress sexy, just like Ms. Yingluck was misused by her big brother and forced to dress pretty and smile and follow orders and do so on prime time television for all to see. Edited March 31, 2015 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonbridgebrit Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Seems like Prayut needs Robert Amsterdam's help. If it made thaksin look good it certainly cannot hurt Parayut. As for his comment. It is disgusting and not to be tolerated in the modern world. Especially by a leader of the nation. There certainly needs to be a line between defending someone and denouncing them. To me it is this. Oh, and defending terrorism by saying BUT at the end of sentences involving that subject is another example of when you know you have crossed the line. djjamie, please be carefull about what you write. You wrote "As for his comment. It is disgusting and not to be tolerated in the modern world. Especially by a leader of the nation." People can claim that this is writing that is negative towards the junta, and indeed, this type of stuff will lead to newspapers and websites closed down. I'd rather ThaiVisa was not closed down due to comments put up by people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is interesting to note that freedom to dress sexy — has coincided in the past with the freeing of women from the leashes that society and men have placed on women in the past. The “roaring 20s” (starting actually a little earlier than that in earnest) was one of liberation and the pinnacle of the suffrage movement and the gaining of voting rights for women. This is not an accident, male lead society was far from welcoming of those changes since free women (politically or sexually) often is threatening to men. If you were unfortunate enough to marry one of these women back then, you would have to deal with taking flack for not being able to control your wife. It was embarrassing. Pre-roaring 20s was a time dominated by proper dress and the wearing of corsets (which often did physical damage). Compare that to the roaring 20s flappers style with the scandalous short skirts (short as in close to mini-skirt short in some ways more revealing). Society goes in cycles but at least one “rebel feminist” has actually credited the latest breaking of these bonds and freeing society in general from the bonds that would bind women — to Madonna. The relative acceptance of alternate lifestyles, started with her. Now compare this to where the general would like to take the dress back to.... conformity, where the women that is their property will not embarrass them in public and cause them to lose weight. If he really wants to move women forward, integrate them into the military -- elevate them to generals.... but of course he probably would not like a women telling him what to do in public. I doubt that the 'freedom' to dress sexy would really help Thai women being freed from the leashes that Society and men place on them. Also the topic is on pretties being employed to dress sexy, just like Ms. Yingluck was misused by her big brother and forced to dress pretty and smile and follow orders and do so on prime time television for all to see. If you go through the cycles, periods where dress becomes more conservative are periods where women's freedom and rights are curtailed. TV generally just reflects society. What the PM would like to do is to take Thailand back to the golden era kicking and screaming if necessary.... Back to a time where it was improper for a women to even look into the eyes of man as that would be a brazen act, back to when they should lower their eyes and look down.... when if you did not do so you were seen as improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is interesting to note that freedom to dress sexy — has coincided in the past with the freeing of women from the leashes that society and men have placed on women in the past. The “roaring 20s” (starting actually a little earlier than that in earnest) was one of liberation and the pinnacle of the suffrage movement and the gaining of voting rights for women. This is not an accident, male lead society was far from welcoming of those changes since free women (politically or sexually) often is threatening to men. If you were unfortunate enough to marry one of these women back then, you would have to deal with taking flack for not being able to control your wife. It was embarrassing. Pre-roaring 20s was a time dominated by proper dress and the wearing of corsets (which often did physical damage). Compare that to the roaring 20s flappers style with the scandalous short skirts (short as in close to mini-skirt short in some ways more revealing). Society goes in cycles but at least one “rebel feminist” has actually credited the latest breaking of these bonds and freeing society in general from the bonds that would bind women — to Madonna. The relative acceptance of alternate lifestyles, started with her. Now compare this to where the general would like to take the dress back to.... conformity, where the women that is their property will not embarrass them in public and cause them to lose weight. If he really wants to move women forward, integrate them into the military -- elevate them to generals.... but of course he probably would not like a women telling him what to do in public. I doubt that the 'freedom' to dress sexy would really help Thai women being freed from the leashes that Society and men place on them. Also the topic is on pretties being employed to dress sexy, just like Ms. Yingluck was misused by her big brother and forced to dress pretty and smile and follow orders and do so on prime time television for all to see. If you go through the cycles, periods where dress becomes more conservative are periods where women's freedom and rights are curtailed. TV generally just reflects society. What the PM would like to do is to take Thailand back to the golden era kicking and screaming if necessary.... Back to a time where it was improper for a women to even look into the eyes of man as that would be a brazen act, back to when they should lower their eyes and look down.... when if you did not do so you were seen as improper. and even in the Western World there are organisation and laws which ensure that during prime time (public) television one doesn't get distracted by (too) sexy girls or too much blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangon04 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Let's us not forget that if these girls are wearing mini skirts are they really safe? Just like a bikini a mini skirt may cause them to be assaulted. Sent from my c64 and doesn't that say much more about the moral inadequacy of Thai men and the values of "Thainess" than it says about the morals of Thai women?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now