macaroni21
-
Posts
863 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by macaroni21
-
-
I've always thought that, originally, the reason why they put on masks was so that they could preserve their chances of getting an off after the show, the thinking being that if a boy was seen to have cum, no customer would want to off him. By keeping the boys' faces unrecogniseable, this should take care of that problem.
However, the bar probably didn't reckon with the fact that with tattoos being in fashion, one can easily recognise any boy by looking at ink disfigurement.
Yet, on any given night, some wear masks, some don't. Why?
My guess is that some of the boys have probably worked out that if their chances of getting an off are so low, they might as well cum openly and collect the prize... or if their chances of getting an off are still good, they might as well show their faces, but not ejaculate... so customers will know that they have NOT YET cum.
But the above is only my theory. I've never asked anyone about this.
-
I'd say that 70 - 80 percent of the time that I've had any dealings at all with gogo bar mamasans, I was left unhappy, so I mostly avoid contact with them. The problem of course is that some cling on, won't go away and keep pestering.
I'm sure most punters have similar views and experiences.
What I've lately been intrigued about is how the gogo boys themselves view their mamasans. I've tried asking this question but on the whole the boys either don't seem to have any problem with them or they have been lying to me. They don't see their mamasans as the grasping, congenital liars as I do.
Have any others ever enquired likewise - what the boys think of the mamasans they work for?
-
On this thread, we've touched on about corruption, why it needs to be eliminated if Thailand is to progress, and how it can be done. I was a little amused to see on the thread "Army Time" (post #7 by cdnmatt) a comment that if you loved your Thai boyfriend enough, you could "donate" 30,000 baht to have him excluded from the conscription lottery. Evidently, corruption has its uses, even to farangs
-
Red shirt movement ( at least Thaksin wing) figths against traditional aristocracy (amataya) which is defined by their economic interests: land ownership. The ultimate goal of Red shirts is redistribute the land in favor of poor peasants.
Where did this definition come from? Where has this ultimate goal of land redistribution been enunciated? I am not disputing that it may well be one of their goals, but you seem to be imputing a lot more clarity to the movement than warranted. So far, I see the movement as one that is much more mixed in its motivation and goals, which remain mostly unarticulated, except for slogans like "democracy".
.
Your definition of elite blurs the boundary between traditional Thai aristocracy and the middle class. That was the goal of PAD: to create impression that the interests of Thai middle class and aristocracy are the same. From economical standpoint it makes no sense:
both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal: rapid economic growth and rising living standards . That at some point will lead to constraint of corruption.
Yes and no. Indeed it is possible to make a distinction between the middle class and the aristocracy (and I accept that I was guilty of blurring that distinction - more below), but it is not obvious that "both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal." The wealth and comfort of the middle class (esp the upper middle class and nouveau riche) depends greatly on exploitation and silencing of the poor and this alone puts them in the same bracket as the aristocracy. The wealth of the Bangkok middle class depends on cheap food and labour from the provinces and a concentration of the state budget on projects in the capital city.
With due respect, when you speak about "same ultimate goal" I think you are reading more theory into the present situation than called for.
I fully agree with you that land reform is a critical ingredient of broad-based economic progress and social equity; I agree too that examples from other Asian countries bear this out well, and that Thailand could do well to attend to this problem. My point is that you are placing it centrestage in this struggle when I haven't seen the actors themselves doing so. Perhaps this is because I can't read Thai whereas you have seen it in their speeches, if so, please share more details.
.
What many people do not understand is that removal of Thaksin from leadership of Red Shirt movement may bring new, more radical leaders (there are plenty of Marxists in the wings) and total change of the ball game.
Fully agree. A huge blindspot on the part of the anti-Red Shirt camp.
Other comments: While a distinction can be made between the aristocracy and the middle class (and its various segments), during the present struggle there are really two broad camps: Pro and Anti Red Shirt. Generally speaking, the middle and upper-middle class have been standing with the aristocracy on more or less the same side (at least for now). I have used the term "elite" to refer to this side though I accept that it can confuse since "elite" can mean the narrower sense of aristocracy only.
Yet - for other readers - before anyone thinks that the struggle is neatly a two-sided one, let me say it is not. Within the Anti-Red Shirts, there are many subgroups, each with their own interests, e.g. the palace and aristocracy, the military brass, the Bangkok middle class, the non-Bangkok middle class. (I thought it was interesting, for example, to see the Pink Shirts appear. Why didn't they wear Yellow Shirts? Was it because the Yellow was identified with the palace and aristocracy and the Pink were more identified with the Bangkok middle class?)
The shifting positions of these subgroups will make for many twists and turns in this story yet.
And as Voldemar said, the Red Shirts themselves have subgroups with different interests. Again, they will make for more twists and turns as the saga plays out.
-
I, for one, would take ChristianPFC's story as it is and not poke holes in it. It was his first time offing a boy, and like most of us on our first time, he would not know much about customary expectations of buying a drink and tipping in the bar. I can also imagine that as a first time, he needed to settle his own nerves and feel his way forward, thus the long walk after offing the boy.
I suspect ChristianPFC is/was partly infatuated with the boy, thus returning to the bar with the bottle of whiskey, and the hope of seeing him on the next visit. How many of us can honestly claim we've never been in the same position?
The primary question that ChristianPFC wanted advice on was over the significance of the 3 a.m. phone call. On that, I believe the answer is clear. It appears to be unanimous opinion among others more experienced in the ways of barboys that it was a set up. As to why the boy set it up, we can speculate forever, and we'll never know. But it does not matter. The fact that the boy set it up indicates that the boy did not want to spend further time with ChristianPFC, and that should answer the key question. The boy is very unlikely to be looking forward to meeting ChristianPFC again.
It is up to ChristianPFC whether to call on the bar on his next visit, but my advice would be (1) not, (2) if you do, have the lowest of expectations.
-
I am a bit confused about this term "Elite". Does this mean the ruling party? If so, wasn't Thaksin the "elite" when he was the PM?
It's too simple to equate the Democratic Party as the elite. The party comprises members of the elite and serves the interests of this class, but the elite is wider than that, enriched through cozy business deals and generally centred on the palace. If there is any defining factor at all, I'd hazard the guess that it is in the mind: those Thais who think themselves several notches more superior than the vast majority of Thais, either by dint of education, wealth or royal connections.
To an extent, Thaksin was a member of the elite prior to becoming PM since he obviously had the connections to do well in business and get exceedingly rich. But he hailed from Chiang Mai, not Bangkok, and therefore would have been at the periphery of the ruling class. Also, he served in the police, not army, and this probably made him second-class or a johnny-come-lately in the eyes of the core elite.
When he became PM, Thaksin chose to throw his lot in with the farmers and lower classes, calculating that this would be the larger votebank. This was seen as an act of betrayal by the rest of the elite, if ever they saw him as one of them.
So who/what is the elite? A good, concise discussion can be found in the Bangkok Post mailbag in a letter by Kuldeep Nagi from Assumption University.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/35935/social-divide-is-no-accident
Quote:
POST BAG Social divide is no accident
Voranai's commentary last week ("The middle class really should know better") has raised some important issues. The real question is whether the Thai middle class is uniquely different.
In some ways, it is. It largely consists of urban people who were educated in local universities where they did not learn how to ask hard questions. They are part of a top-down system that only produces devoted followers, not much else. In the land of Buddha they are asked to wear a Western-style gown and receive a degree in a grand style. Another strange twist is that the professors and all other government officials in Thailand call themselves civil servants, not public servants.
The Thai intelligentsia takes great pride in being a class in itself. The reason is simple. Like everything else, they were also nurtured by the top-down system, where success came with how low they could bow to authority and respect the traditional forces. It is strange that the privileged urban class sometimes thinks that poor people in Thailand are reaping the fruits of their karma _ that it has nothing to do with social injustice, corruption and exploitation perpetuated by the university degree holders or the rich.
The fact is that the poor and uneducated in any country are the result of an inadequate political system rooted in its history. In Thailand, for a very long time the system has been held hostage by the degree holders and the urban elite, who have created a kind of political culture where corruption, conformity and loyalty turn into a glow of false pride and patriotism.
A divided society is not the result of some unfortunate historical accident. In the history of mankind, social changes have always been initiated by the down-trodden, the oppressed and the disenfranchised. Drastic social change sometimes requires drastic action.
-
I realise Abhisit is working with coalition partners, army factions etc. whom he probably loathes and who probably loathe him. But how can any Prime Minister stay in power in the face of such utter incompetence - or, at the very least, not immediately fire the commanders responsible?
In the present political arrangement, the military stands independent of the government. The PM has no real power to control military appointments, let alone fire anybody. The military does not see itself as answerable to the PM either. For example, when the truth about the fake bomb scanners broke (after the Science ministry tested them), Anupong, the military chief himself called a press conference to dismiss lab findings and insist that the bomb scanners will continue to be used. Elsewhere, the military chief would have been fired for insubordination, but not in Thailand.
In the present situation, the military may be trying to hedge its bets and not carrying out orders with conviction, or the Abhisit govt has been issuing conflicting requests (note: I don't say "orders" but "requests"), e.g. clear out the protestors but stop short of using force, leaving the armed forces in some confusion as to what they are supposed to do.
You'd notice that the police are not much involved. I suspect that's because their loyalty is in doubt.
Chances are that the military will eventually succeed in clearing out the protestors, but the biggest casualty of such success may well be Abhisit himself. He probably knows that every dead body on the streets is another nail in his political coffin.
The Thai problem is political and it needs a political solution, in other words a reform of the system. Clearing out protestors however successful brings the solution no nearer.
-
No Problems AT ANY TIME to get your site or log in...here in UK.
No problems logging in and posting from China.
-
I'm not sure what you mean, because in post #1, you said you're looking for a picture "from outside, i.e. from the beach" and in post #7 you said "a picture from the house".
I only have a photo of the former. It is at
Tui's place is the left half of the photo. The right half is Room-Club.
You really should tell us WHY it is so important to see this picture.....
-
The above conclusion that Riverhouse and Classichouse Massage are closed appears to be wrong. As reported by a poster on SGT, they seem merely to have moved their websites to
www.riverhousemassage.net and www.classichousemassage.net respectively.
It was very silly of them to say "Closed" in bold on the old URLs. They should have said "Website moved to...."
-
Technical question for the owner and moderator: Problem is when I spot an embarrassing spelling, grammar or factual error in a post I put made previously. I have since logged out. Now I want to correct the error and log in again. Yet I am unable to get an "edit" icon/option on the old post for me to make the change. I only get an "edit" option provided I am still in the same login session.
On all other boards, when the board sees that I was the writer of the previous post, even if there was a logout in between, it permits me to edit old posts.
How would this be done here?
-
In the absence of Riverhouse, you may want to try Marn Mai Chaai Khaa. It has a very basic website... but it has pictures of its mostly twinky boys: http://marnmaimassage.com/
Yes, I remember their boys to be very, very twinky. The massage was hopeless, but they know what they're there for.
-
Indeed, Riverhouse's website (www.riverhousemassage.com) makes it quite clear: It says "Closed". So, they're no longer in business.
I also checked Classic House which is/was under the same ownership. It's website (www.classichousemassage.com) too says "Closed".
As for why they are closed, I suppose only the owner knows for sure.
-
I'm not denying that money is flowing in from Thaksin to the Red Shirts. What I was saying is that wherever that money was coming from, it wasn't from the 76 billion baht that had been frozen. Thaksin very likely has money stashed abroad, for example, didn't he sell his stake in Manchester City Football Club?
But once again, let me repeat: Don't dismiss the passion of the Red Shirts. It would be a mistake to think they're only doing this because they are paid to do it, and that once money stops, they'll all go home and the crisis will be over. Far from it.
-
The question of "Is it over" needs to distinguish carefully between Thaksin and Red Shirts.
For Thaksin, I think it sill be extremely difficult for him to overcome this. In fact worse may follow. New cases may be launched to claw away some or all of the 30 billion baht this verdict returned to him. He'll be so mired in one case after another, it's difficult to see him playing a significant role in the long run.
For the Red Shirts, this is far from over. After all, they've gotten this far without any of this money, which had been frozen all this while. We're witnessing only the beginning. As Khor Tose said, the real contest will only start when a particular death occurs.
One reason I can offer why the Red Shirts feel they don't need to erupt right now is simply because they know time is on their side. They probably know this:
1. They still have wide support in the provinces;
2. Abhisit has to call an election sooner or later, and none of the present coalition parties stand a chance of winning.
In other words, it is in the interest of the Red Shirts to bide their time. Whereas it is more likely that the hotheads of the Yellow Shirts, or military, will want to use force to "settle" the matter once and for all... which of course is impossible.
What the Ancien Regime wants is untenable. Network monarchical rule cannot survive certain personalities. Governing to benefit a few over the interests of many is inherently unstable. That is why I indicated earlier that in the long run, the Ancien Regime can only lose. Whether the end result is some kind of compromise with the Red Shirts, or an outright sweep by the Red Shirts (e.g. what happened in Nepal) is one of only two questions left. The other is how much blood has to be spilled before we get there.
-
Like MauRICE, I have a somewhat skeptical view of Thaksin's "achievements", and in my opinion they were driven more by short-term political advantage to himself and his party than long-term benefit to the country. Particularly in education, an area where results take a generation to show,it is hard to assess, given only six years in office, what good he actually did.
Yet this veering of the thread shows exactly what is holding up our ability to understand Thailand. We're still debating the past and the man, when frankly, I don't see Thaksin returning to office. I don't see him as any more than an influential side figure now, in a long struggle by bigger forces for power and ascendancy. It's the forces that matter.
-
I don't think it is helpful to understanding a complex situation by adopting a position that dismisses the views of a huge number of people, in bkkguy's case, the views of the Red Shirt supporters. To suggest that they are no more than fools duped by Thaksin is to adopt a condescending attitude to their native intelligence.
Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled. Secondly, I'd say if we set the bar high and judge the Thais to be easily fooled by politicians, then it is no more so than Americans or Australians by theirs.
To understand the dynamics of a political situation requires us to divorce our own personal judgements from our observations. We don't have to like any leader, we don't have to think highly of him, but we have to be able to see when others do. Our opinions (least of all, moral judgements) are not useful starting points for understanding. Looking objectively at the chess pieces on the ground and their relative strengths is what is needed.
-
It's more a case of the US Dollar, Euro and Sterling being troubled rather than baht being strong. Generally, Asian currencies are steady, with their economies pulling out of recession early. The baht's value against other floating Asian currencies like the Yen, the Singapore Dollar, has remained quite constant. (I'm omitting a discussion of the Yuan because it's not freely floating).
The US Dollar is suffering because prospects of a quick recovery in the American economy look to be receding further and further away. And now a tax revolt is gaining momentum. The US-China trade dispute also seem to be heightening, causing worries about how the Chinese will respond. They are already trimming their holdings of US federal debt.
The Euro is making headlines, as we know, not only because Greece is on the precipice of bankruptcy, but because Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy aren't too healthy either.
Meanwhile, the UK's economy is in the doghouse and the budget deficit is just about out of control.
There are local reasons too. Thailand has posted some good figures for the 4th quarter. Its GDP grew 3.6 percent over the 3rd quarter and 5.8 percent compared to 4th quarter 2008. Exports and manufacturing came up strongly. With the chance of interest rates going up and stocks likely to perform well in the coming year, investible funds are flowing into Thailand (and other Asian countries in a similar situation) thus keeping the baht value strong.
-
I get the impression that you are Thai, fluent in English, and a Thaksin supporter. Am I right?
I'm not Thai and I don't think very highly of Thaksin. But I have a political science background, have been a political watcher of various countries for a long time (I dare say I can read trends) and I have sympathy for the downtrodden. In the US, I'd be cussed a pinky leftist liberal.
I used the word "us" as a rhetorical device in order to plant the reader into the shoes of the "little people".
-
Bkkguy - I sense that you are applying a moral judgement to decide whether Thaksin is "good" or "bad". Many westerners, particularly Americans, expect morality from politicians. Or from sportsmen like Tiger Woods. It's a peculiarly Western hang-up.
But Thais see it differently: All politicians are corrupt. When they get to office, they feather their own beds. All buy votes at election time. It's been like that for decades, since before Thaksin even appeared. Thaksin may be no different.
A Westerner would use these indictments to see Thaksin as "bad".
But from the Thai villager's, or the urban working stiff's (e.g. taxi drivers in Bangkok) point of view, there is a huge difference. Other party politicians are corrupt, buy votes, and after winning the election ignore us the little people. Thaksin may be corrupt, may have bought votes, but after the election continued to pay attention to us little people. Who do you think the little people will support in their hearts?
-
From brief glimpses of the audience in the TV clips, it seems the bars were well patronised. Looks like a pretty good high season this year for Boyztown? Or were other non-special evenings vastly different?
-
Also, don't tell me about your "International, Award winning chef." Tell me who he is and just what awards he has won instead of insulting my intelligence.
Hehe. Maybe he's Khun Manee, the illegal immigrant from across the Lao border - that makes him international. He once won the "Most likely to succeed" basketball player award in high school.
(Just joking).
-
No idea.
Neither do I, but most likely it would be someone from the Puea Thai Party, not Thaksin himself. However, I do not see the Red Shirts succeeding so quickly.
Because Thaksin isn't so much viewed as an individual anymore. Nowadays, he's viewed more as an idea, and an aspiration. A judgement against Thaksin will be viewed as a judgement against all red-shirt supporters, which is the majority of Thais.Spot on. I can't agree more.
Calling Thaksin a dictator is to fall for the Ancien Regime's propaganda. Like cdnmatt, I don't see that he was one. Fact: Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party was the first ever in modern Thai history to win an absolute majority at an election, therefore he was the first ever PM to govern without a need for a coalition government. This gave Thaksin a freedom of manouver that no other politician has ever had in Thailand; he did not have to painstakingly bargain and make trade-offs with other political leaders and shadowy figures among the old elite. Naturally, the old elite hated this state of affairs, they were not used to being sidelined and un-consulted. In their eyes, Thaksin was behaving like a "dictator", when really, he was just behaving like any normal PM with a big majority in Parliament, setting out to implement his agenda to take better care of his voter base (the poor majority), again like any normal politician, and to whittle away at the power base of his opponents. He probably had a big ego and was brash about his power and this probably annoyed the old elite even more.
If one insists on seeing him as a dictator one will never understand why he had and still has such wide support.
In any case, the issue has moved beyond Thaksin. It is a social revolution. The idea of social justice and political equity is now at the core of the struggle, not about just one man.
-
It'll be wrong to think of this as merely a fight over Thaksin's assets. This latest crisis is just one phase in a 10-20 year struggle between two visions of Thailand. It's actually a revolution in progress, but a slowly developing one rather than an acute and horribly violent one, the way most of us think of "revolutions".
The two sides in this revolution are the Red Shirts and what I would call L'ancien regime. The latter are a mix of the urban middle- and upper-class, the business elite, the palace and the army. For the last half-century, they have had their way with Thailand, shaping laws, government spending and policies to benefit themselves (e.g. broadcasting licenses are given to the military, no civilian oversight of the military, enforcement of lese majeste laws).
Although Thailand is nominally a democracy, the l'ancien regime has paid so little attention to schools and education (and health and other social welfare services) that the majority of Thais, particularly in the rural provinces, are poorly educated, and hitherto, have not had either the intellectual awareness or economic independence to challenge the ancien regime. Instead, the rural masses have remained under the sway of village chiefs per traditional custom and have voted in elections according to the village chiefs' recommendations or for whichever Bangkok party gives out the most cash to buy votes. That's how the ancien regime has maintained its hold on power despite the veneer of democracy. In the past, it didn't matter which party won elections. All parties were part of the ancien regime serving the same interests.
What has happened in the last 10 years has been the erosion of this social model. Whether you like Thaksin or not, whether he was corrupt or not, he was the first politician to rise to the top as both an insider and outsider. He was an insider in the sense that he was a successful businessman in his own right, and the ancien regime originally thought of him as one of their own. He was an outsider in that his climb to success was not due to much help from the charmed circle of palace/military.
After he became Prime Minister, Thaksin revolutionised Thai politics by showering the rural provinces with social welfare policies, and winning their solid support in subsequent elections. For the first time, the rural masses saw what their numerical strength could mean in terms of getting the distant government in Bangkok to pay attention to their needs. Thaksin also began to dismantle the levers by which shadowy figures of the old elite controlled power. This naturally threatened the old elite.
At the same time, other social changes were gaining momentum. The rural masses were breaking out of their subservient way of thinking, getting more politicised, and through media, seeing how the "other half" lives. The Asian financial crisis of 1997, which bankrupted many Thai businessmen, also broke the aura of invincibility that the ancien regime had acquired. The poorer Thais would never again be in awe of the rich.
So, when the military, with the support of the palace, mounted the coup d'etat of 2006 to depose Thaksin, thinking they could restore the ancien regime without too much opposition like previous coups d'etat, they were badly surprised. The people had changed. They would not accept a return to the old order.
At first the resistance (Red Shirts) was centred around Thaksin, and aimed to restore Thaksin to power, but it would be erroneous to see it as a Thaksin-led force anymore or to hold the same aims. It is now much bigger than Thaksin. It is a social revolution, not well organised, short of resources, but with wide support. It no longer aims to restore Thaksin to power. It wants a decapitation of the Thai elite and a complete reappraisal of the purposes of the Thai state - for the welfare of the people rather than for the benefit of the rich and well-connected.
Most members of farang online forums take the side of the old elite (You can see it from others' comments) and pour scorn on Thaksin and the Red Shirts. Mine is a minority opinion on these boards. While I don't have the right to take sides in this Thai revolution, I recognise the power that the Red Shirts have and the legitimacy of their grievances. I also predict that in the long run, they will win.
My hope is that their victory need not be through violence. It would be best, and quite foreseeable, for more and more sections of the old elite, e.g. Abhisit's Democratic Party, to make compromises and accommodate the demands of the Red Shirts, and gradually abandon their hitherto knee-jerk subordination to the palace and military.
Remember when a few months ago we were assured Pattaya has plenty of water? Well . . .
in Gay Thailand
Posted
Last sentence of the PattayaOne report: "The Association is looking for a long term solution which is not yet forthcoming."
They should invite a few Singapore companies to invest. In the last few years, Singapore has commercialised water reclamation on a large scale, taking water from drains and even sewage, filtering through nano-scale filters, plus other hi-tech processes. The output of these "water factories" is water quality that meet WHO standards, surpassing the quality of even conventionally treated water from rivers, etc. The ultrafiltration techniques even remove virus and bacteria.
That said, the municipality still needs to do its part. Singapore's drains are being redesigned to capture water for the factories, instead of letting it flow into the sea. Whether any municipality in Thailand has that kind of political will is another question.