Here we go again. Won't they EVER learn?

[Jun]

If a boy's age is questionable, check his ID card. His birthday will be on it. And make sure the ID card is actually his. Some of these boys are not above borrowing a friend or relative's ID card.

Unfortunately, the photo on Thai ID cards is so small & poor, it's often difficult to be sure if it belongs to the lad in front of you.

One of the advantages of offing a Lao or Cambodian guy used to be their use of a passport as ID, which came with a large clear photo.
Now some of them seem to have the "Non Thai ID Card", which means we're back to the small photos. That's unfortunate.

[Gaybutton]

Unfortunately, the photo on Thai ID cards is so small & poor, it's often difficult to be sure if it belongs to the lad in front of you.

Tell whoever takes his ID card at the hotel to check closely. They are probably much better at spotting problems than we are.

The other option is don't take the boy if you're not sure.

I wouldn't worry about it very much. First, it has become extremely rare for a bar to hire an under-age boy at all anymore. Second, the total number of times I've ever heard of a farang having a problem because the bar boy was actually under-age is once. About 10 years ago the boy and a fake cop blackmailed the farang. He fell for it and parted with a substantial amount of money.

Do the best you can. There really is no reason to become paranoid about it..

[thaiworthy]

I have to ask myself: Is this reaction because of a deep-seeded feeling of guilt that you carry for harboring your own desires, or, simply an expression of personal jealousy because someone else experienced what you yourself desired?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that breaking the law has its potential consequences - and that the minimum age for sex in Thailand is set at 18. But what does require a brain surgeon is understanding why you, of all people, would want to chastise a guy who got caught doing something that you yourself have either done or wanted to do at some point during your horny escapades in Thailand. Most of the people in the West would chastise you (me included) just for the mere fact that we are having sex with boys who are old enough to be our sons or grandsons. Legal, absolutely. But we would be burned at the stake nonetheless, similar how you think the guy who was caught with the 17 year old boy should be burned at the stake, which is thought provoking to say the very least.

Please do not tar me with the same brush.

Why would Dodger do that? He was responding to Thaifarang.

I must admit that I got the same reaction as Dodger did, but maybe for various reasons. First off, I don't understand what other posters are upset about. This tarring of the brush does not apply to anyone but the poster Dodger was addressing. If he disagrees with another poster, that's his call. Dodger is simply in disagreement with Thaifarang about his feelings in spite of the law. That is the way I read it. I just don't see this as an offensive remark. He called it the way he read it. I can find much more offense elsewhere in this thread.

What struck me as odd about Thaifarang's post were all the references to "unfairness." (I think thou doth protest too much?)

. . . as you quite subtly suggest with the numerous references to "unfairness," some people may indeed be thinking to themselves "he got away with it, why shouldn't I?" Fairness is hardly a basis for an error in judgement . . .

You have to draw the line somewhere, but 16 is the age most humans are sexually mature

What is your source for this information?

Because if feeling sexually attracted to a 17 year old makes you a pedophile then 95% of humanity is a pedophile.

What is your source for this information?

If Dodger is tarring anyone with any brush, then the brush just became broader by these admissions of jealousy:

. . . I only feel joy when I see a Farang in their prison . . .

I want him in jail because of jealousy yes. Because for me sex with a 17 year old should be legal.

In my opinion, Dodger was spot on. It is the desire for retribution and lack of compassion that makes these quotes a bit hypocritical. These kinds of remarks have to stop. The eyes of the world are upon us. We are on very thin ice where this subject is concerned, and public remarks like these are an area of concern. Gay people cannot afford to luxuriate in emotional debates that conclude about our own desires for incarceration. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? There is much at stake here. We have made tremendous gains in the last 8 years. With the current administration, all of that is now at risk. And people are worried about Mike Pence in power? Re-read the subject of the thread: "Here we go again. Won't they EVER learn?" Dodger answered that question. Good for him. The statements by Thaifarang are as simple and as clear as it ever gets. If you ever have to ask the question in the title of this thread then you needn't go very far to get the answer than right here.

[fountainhall]

n my opinion, Dodger was spot on.

Is it not odd, then, that no less than three experienced posters interpreted his post the wrong way? If you are responding to an individual it does not take more than a few seconds to highlight one or more of that poster's comments so they are included in a post before typing a reply. Exactly as you have done in your excellent post to which I am replying. There were several times in Dodger's longish argument which implied a connection to others rather than just one individual.

The statements by Thaifarang are as simple and as clear as it ever gets

I'm sorry but over the span to the thread to me they were rambling and confusing!

[thaiworthy]

Is it not odd, then, that no less than three experienced posters interpreted his post the wrong way? If you are responding to an individual it does not take more than a few seconds to highlight one or more of that poster's comments so they are included in a post before typing a reply. Exactly as you have done in your excellent post to which I am replying. There were several times in Dodger's longish argument which implied a connection to others rather than just one individual.

Technically, you are correct, there should have been a direct quote. Despite the absence of quotes, I can find nothing in Dodger's statement to identify anyone but Thaifarang, unless the post was edited before I saw it. The post directly above Dodger's was from Thaifarang. The bold-faced words below adequately identified him, at least enough for me. I am not finding fault with anyone. There are no wrong interpretations, just 3 of the same opinions and mine obviously aligned with Dodger's.

Most of the gay punters I know enjoy having sex with boys who are young enough to be your grandsons, but when the subject of a 17 year old boy comes up they (meaning you) stand in a line ready to toss grenades at a guy who got caught as if you are somehow of a much higher moral standard. I have to ask myself: Is this reaction because of a deep-seeded feeling of guilt that you carry for harboring your own desires, or, simply an expression of personal jealousy because someone else experienced what you yourself desired?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that breaking the law has its potential consequences - and that the minimum age for sex in Thailand is set at 18. But what does require a brain surgeon is understanding why you, of all people, would want to chastise a guy who got caught doing something that you yourself have either done or wanted to do at some point during your horny escapades in Thailand. Most of the people in the West would chastise you (me included) just for the mere fact that we are having sex with boys who are old enough to be our sons or grandsons. Legal, absolutely. But we would be burned at the stake nonetheless, similar how you think the guy who was caught with the 17 year old boy should be burned at the stake, which is thought provoking to say the very least.

I'm sorry but over the span to the thread to me they were rambling and confusing!

Correct. FWIW, it seems to me that the motive is clear, but over the span of the thread they were indeed rambling and confusing.

[Gaybutton]

I can find nothing in Dodger's statement to identify anyone but Thaifarang

Ok, then Dodger ought to return to this topic and clarify who and what he did mean.

[Alex]

I think there's nothing wrong with being attracted to a 17 y.o. boy. But attraction is one thing, acting on it quite another one. I accept that a 17 y.o. isn't deemed to be able to give consent to having sexual relations with me, because he isn't considered mature enough.

I think as far as maturity is concerned, there really are three levels, and that is reflected in both Thailand's laws and those of most other countries I'm aware of:

Firstly, prepubescent children. By definition, they don't have any interest in having sex of their own yet, so engaging in sexual activities with them is exploitation pure and simple. No excuses, that should always be a crime.

Secondly, adolescents. I think they still need some level of protection, and Thailand's legal framework provides that by making it a crime to engage in sexual activities with those aged 15 to 17 under certain circumstances. I don't see anything wrong with that, and for me that means they are completely off limits.

Thirdly, adults. Unless there is undue pressure that voids any consent given, consensual sex between adults shouldn't be anyone else's concern. That's why I disagree with Dodger that the age difference has any relevance by itself.

[Dodger]

My comments on this thread were not directed at any one person, rather intended to cover the topic at hand on a much broader scale than some have perceived.

The source of my motivation to comment stemmed from my low tolerance for "hypocrisy".

Every time this topic surfaces the defenders of justice charge to the front lines with sabers drawn as a mark of their valor and integrity to honor...only to find themselves staring in a mirror where the enemy was expected to be standing. So blind, they can't even see their own reflections.

[fountainhall]

In other words, the objections of at least three posters to your earlier comments stand. You were not specifically targeting one poster - as was later suggested. For the reasons I outlined, I take particular exception to these comments. You are indeed tarring an entire group of people with the same brush - and I am certain that is totally and absolutely untrue!

[Alex]

Dodger, rightly or wrongly I cannot agree with your argument. Defending the right of a minor not to be molested while at the same time having sexual relations with adults much younger than yourself doesn't make you a hypocrite; it's two profoundly different things. In my opinion, it's a question of valid consent, which cannot be given by a minor but can be given by an adult.