macaroni21

Well said, Hedda.

I may be wrong about Boys Bangkok, but I know for sure that it was 500 baht at Dream Boy on my last visit (February this year). This was what was quoted to me at the door and I absolutely refused to go in. It was memorable because of precisely this incident. I just assumed that Boys Bangkok would charge similarly since it has the same owner as Dream Boy and one can migrate from one bar to the other. Not having entered or enquired, I don't know about Dream Boy's off fee but I won't be surprised if it is all 500 baht. . Having said that, the drink charge at Dream has varied considerably from one visit to the next (that's why I have learnt to ask), and they have special nights or different prices for weekends. So I could have been there at the "wrong" night.

On Soi Pratuchai (a.k.a. Soi Twilight) 300 baht for a drink would be the cheap end. At Boys Bangkok and Dream Boys it is 500 baht. I no longer go as often as I used to, and the price inflation is the reason for that. I now go only for two reasons: Because I want to say hello to a boy I've gotten to know before but couldn't reach on the phone (because they keep changing their numbers), or because I'm horny as hell and need to off someone for the night. If it's the former, then I make sure the one I'm looking for is in the bar before I even sit down. Naturally, I call him over and buy him a drink, and tip him for his time. I chase away any mamasan who comes within a half kilometre of me. Obviously I have no need for her services. If it's the latter, then I don't call any boy over until I'm fairly sure, though eye contact, etc, that he's the one I'd wish to off for the night. In that case, I do buy the boy a drink, but do not tip him for the time since I am offing him. Once again, the mamasan has no role to play (no role means no tip) except in rare situations where I need someone to translate for me. This means I could vote for either the first option or the second option in the poll. I voted for the first.

I am truly amazed that you were able to interpret Heygay's post.

The ethnic Chinese population in Thailand is now into its third or fourth generation. Virtually everyone that I have met and asked do not speak any Chinese at all. The few that could say a couple of phrases said it in variant - I think they call it Tay-Cho - that is incomprehensible to Mandarin speakers (kind of like Minhua one finds in Taiwan) . I think the Chinese who migrated to Thailand came from a specific part of China carrying with them a local language, not Putonghua (Mandarin) that is now the lingua franca of China. I believe the Chinese minority in Thailand have never had a history of speaking Mandarin. That said, all forms of Chinese, like Thai, are tonal, and it shouldn't be too difficult for Thais (not just Sino-Thais) to pick up Chinese, provided there is interest. z909, do you have a historical comparison for the euro and US$ too?

Oh, I didn't know this. This is interesting. I would however add that tipping is not part of Singaporean culture either, but you can find hordes of Singaporeans in gogo bars and massage parlours. They do fine. I think it's got to do with someone in charge explaining clearly to the buyer. This is where my suggestion on Gay Ting Tong comes in: I said that if venue owners/managers can't speak Japanese/Chinese/Korean, they should at least provide an FAQ sheet in various Asian languages. Gently ask customers to read them so no misunderstanding will arise.

From my occasional visits to China, I get the sense that while the callboy industry exists, it tends to be pricey and risky relative to other services. There are also a lot of closetted gay men who might not want to expose themselves to risk by buying sex in China, but would be all too eager to do so once outside their own country. Certainly there are no gogo bars in all of China, which is why they love the shows in the Soi Twilight bars when most of us have grown tired of them. In any case, among the first things people want to do when they reach middle class is to travel. Gay Thailand can exploit these factors to its benefit. The problem is Thai (and farang) businessmen in Thailand are virtually clueless as to how to engage and sell to the Chinese market. If you think their command of English is laughable, their command of Chinese is non-existent! As for farang owners, as mentioned before, in all likelihood most are not interested in a future where the market is not farang-oriented. If the farang is not the centre of the gay Thailand universe, then what's the use of it? Who cares then whether gay Thailand survives or dies? How many farang owners can see themselves serving Asians? The reversal of the unspoken race hierarchy would be intolerable. So I may be barking up the wrong tree and everything I say about reorienting businesses to Asian markets may be irrelevant. Perhaps we should be clear: The discussion on this and similar online boards is not whether gay Thailand will survive, but where a farang-centred gay Thailand will survive.

Thanks for reminding me about one of the less salubrious aspects of sitting on Jomtien beach. There have been days when the conversation I am forced to overhear was so stupid, uninformed and stereotypical, or so self-absorbed, I had to suppress an urge to jump in and speak my mind... or jump into the sea and drown myself. Exactly how I feel too. Hey, don't forget me. I was perhaps the first one to say I like the current music level in most gogo bars, though the way I described it was: "it is not loud".

I'm with you there. Get to the point and don't bother about anything else. Even loud music has its uses.

I too voted "other" and reluctantly. That's because the poll doesn't have an option which it should: "It is not loud". How can the poll presume the music is loud and then ask people for their opinion of it?

Comments to your comments, in relation to gogo bars: Younger customers may be what bars need to attract. Anyway, in the Amor and Wi's thread, I spoke about this subject. I agree. There are shows and there are shows. The problem is getting the balance right for the target audience one wishes to attract. The Chiang Mai way of doing it may be the most successful formula, as far as offing goes. There the boys individually or in pairs get about 4-5 minutes on stage alone to do something - and it gives a chance for the customer to really see what he's going to get if he offs the performer. On the other hand, the acting or dancing skills are pathetic, so if one wishes to draw crowds more interested in watching minimally-dressed dancing or fuck acts, but not so interested in offing, the Dream Boy Bangkok (or previous Future Boys) formula may work better. It depends on the market too. In Chiang Mai, local Thais and residents make, I think, the majority of the customers, so their chief intention may be to check out the boys and decide on an off. In Soi Twilight of Bangkok, (relatively) younger Asian tourists are the majority - and it may well be that they like high-energy shows similar to what they get in dance clubs. But they may be less interested in offing. Pattaya has been handicapped by tighter controls over nudity, and perhaps for this reason (I'm just guessing) there has been too much lipsync gatoey cabaret, which neither sells boys nor satisfies anyone's urge to watch big cocks and fuck acts. The one show that seems to have proven itself over time in Pattaya is Wild West Boys', and if you look carefully, it actually has a key difference from other bars' shows, although it too has no nudity. What it has is high-energy dancing WITHOUT Broadway. And this may work better for non-Anglo-saxon audiences, who surely must outnumber the Anglo-saxon ones. I don't think however that Wild West's show helps sells boys any better than other bars; it just helps sell a few more drinks. There was something about the old Twilight bar (and perhaps the present Tawan bar) that may be worth copying. The boys circulated among the customers, came up to say hello (sometimes stark naked) and a few words, but went away quite quickly if customers showed no real interest. Generally, at Twilight, they didn't sit down unless invited. Also, the waiters did not pester a customer to buy a drink for the boy until the boy had been invited to sit down. So long as the boy remained standing while in a short conversation, there was no pressure to buy him a drink. The present formula widely adopted is too rigid. No customer can talk to a boy until he calls the boy over and buys him a drink. The result is that the boy cannot get to flirt, and it is probably counter-productive to offing, since the customer would be reluctant to even try to engage with any of the boys until he is almost sure. Here's another example of short-term selling destroying long-term brand value. Ditto with mamasans like you said. Introduce, say a few words and then go away. They should not sit down unless invited.

Well, sometimes we visit bars with friends. And perhaps I need to clarify, I wasn't referring to Krazy Dragon when I mentioned the story of the manager saying he wanted the music to get all the way out to the street. It was a bar in Pattayaland Soi 1.

Because he's the boss. That's what bosses should do, be present every night. Kudos to him that he does that. It's amazing how many bar owners don't show up at their own clubs and expect it to continue minting money without personal attention (let alone listening to customers). About music being too loud. I didn't comment on this in my earlier post, because it is rare that I find music too loud. Yet I see this complaint quite often on this board. I suspect, as Mark7711 said, customers have varying tastes. (The one time that I did find a bar's music too loud and spoke to the manager about it, he - who was sitting just outside the front door - told me the reason: He wanted the music to reach the street, so that it would attract people into the bar. ) In other countries, I have seen bars cope with the varying tastes problem by having a section that is enclosed by plate glass, except for a kind of doorway, but no door. The glass cuts off about half the decibels. My guess was that they were originally smoking sections, so people could smoke and still see the exotic dancer on stage, but when smokers were evicted out of indoors altogether, they kept the section as a low-volume section, removing only the original glass door (which probbably got in the way of the waiter). From inside, you could see the exotic dancer, but still could have a conversation.

I agree with most of what's been said here. The bar scene is better placed to serve the tourist industry. Internet dating is time-consuming, language-dependent, and just as prone to lying and deceit as mamasans and bar boys. For a local resident with time on his hands and with the experience to sieve out lies, the internet may work. For a tourist, especially one from China, Korea, etc (the future of tourism), lack of English or Thai, lack of experience and lack of time, will work in favour of bars. I cannot see tourists planning ahead and making internet dates weeks before they travel. The nature of a holiday for most involves flexibility and impulse. And most have other agenda besides sex, so they'd hardly want to fill up a diary like a working day at home. The sad thing about Thailand's gay bar scene is how, despite this advantage, they are throwing it all away through poor quality and ever-increasing prices.

A refreshingly forthright op-ed posing very good questions. I fear though that the present government is not capable of doing anything more than cosmetic in its own reconciliation plan. And then, as the article says, it will bubble up again.

Probably panic in woolly-headed administrators' minds, Thai-style.

Isn't Dragoncastle hopelessly out of date? I see, for example that it still lists Zeazon Massage in the Ekamai area, a place that closed more than 5 years ago. It's easy for webmasters to add new places to their listings whenever a new owner writes to him to request one, but the hard part - and that which distinguishes a good listing site from a bad one - is to know when to take a listing down.

But when we say "fun" with a wink, don't we mean sex too?

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.

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

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". . 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. . 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.

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.