does anyone else find this wrong?

ok so there’s lots of things I love about Bangkok — cheap eats, pretty girls in tight school uniforms, the feeling of being in a land of law but still feeling absolutely, utterly law less, watching monks making their morning track for alms, bootleg media, graveyard underground night life fun, a city based on making ‘bling’ yet still has this lazy, lethargic aura emitting from it’s super metropolis rear. It fits my quarter-life, whisky glass slamming, rock star wanna-be struggling, Green Peace tree hugging college student deadbeat stuck in a business wall street/technology driven job crisis personality – oh so perfectly.

but as i’m sitting here typing this at a internet cafe in MBK, there’s someone scanning rather explicit, and gay pictures of themselves and hordes of other guys in a number of rather raunchy poses, is enough for me to cringe and want to puke out all the cheap ass liquor i had last night.

i’ll go burn my contaminated retinas. –;;;

23 Comments so far

  1. Ben Harris (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 7:59 pm

    Was it the fact that you found these gay pictures raunchy that you felt so much disgust in yourself, thus causing you to feel ill? Would it have been better if they were straight pictures?

    Perhaps you should try doing what I do when presented with the hordes of straight pictures on the internet and real life (which are impossible to avoid) – ignore them.

    Oh, and straight pictures don’t make me want to throw up, they just don’t do anything for me.

    As for Bangkok being a great, multi-faceted city, I can’t agree more.

  2. him (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 8:09 pm

    does anyone else find this wrong?

    Which bit? The lack of capital letters? The bad punctuation? The poor sentence structure? The typos?

    Or just the blatent homophobia?

    Yeah. I guess it’s all quite… wrong. You should look at the Metblog posting guidelines for the first bunch of comments, and yourself for the final comment.

  3. Bonifide (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 8:36 pm

    him – where’s the posting guidelines? if it says i’m not allowed to express my opinion on issues, then i won’t do so from this point foward. i’m probably dumb then cause i don’t use capital letters, have bad grammar, and lack any coherent thought. and yes, i’m slightly homophobic.

    Ben – ok, ok so i used the wrong adjective and I have to admit sometimes I took a glace at the pictures he was scanning. it was like staring at the sun – i know it’s bad for me but i still do it anyway, damn curiousity. and no straight pictures wouldn’t be any better, because it was still done in a public setting. I could care less if they choose to be gay or not. I have no hatred towards homosexuality, I’m just bothered because the guy was constantly asking for my number despite declining numerous times.

    but yup, bangkok is great.

  4. Dave (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 8:38 pm

    I have to ask about this. I have been reading a few Metblogs for a long time and Bangkok appears to be the only unmoderated forum amongst them, especially with regards to some quite blatently anti-gay statements in comments and now in posts.

    Does this Metblog have a Captain? Why is this sort of shit being allowed?

  5. him (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 8:49 pm

    If i remember correctly (it was a while ago), the guidlines are either sent to you on joining or are somewhere on the wiki. They cover obvious things like ensuring you run a spell check and attempting to write decent, publish-standard posts. Obvious stuff, really.

    Of course they are not guidelines for the content and opinions – and if you read my comment, I did not imply such a thing.

    But let’s face facts. After a potentially interesting start about the variety of Bangkok, you ended up in a homophobic tirade about how the photos made you want to puke and burn your retinas. Do you think anyone is ever going to remember this post as anything other than strongly homophobic?

    And, much like ben I assume, I refuse to believe you would ever have written a post such as:

    “[snip]…i’m sitting here typing this at a internet cafe in MBK, there’s someone scanning rather explicit, pictures of herself and hordes of other guys and girls in a number of rather raunchy poses, is enough for me to cringe and want to puke out all the cheap ass liquor i had last night.

    i’ll go burn my contaminated retinas. –;;;

    There is a world of difference between expressing an opinion of any worth and producing a post that implies you hate homosexuals that the mere sight of a photo makes you want to puke.


  6. Jay (unregistered) on April 23rd, 2005 @ 11:59 pm

    I didn’t take it too mean he was homophobic. I took it to mean he was just astonished at the person’s audacity of doing this in a public place. After reading the post again and again, I can see it is a possible interpretation, but only mentions “gay” once and I don’t see him mentioning it in a negative way, it is simply descriptive. There is no lead-in mention of gay/homesexuals in fact it is just the opposite. He could have worded it better, but this is different from a blatant anti-gay post.

    I was at a Sydney cybercafe a few months ago and cringed when the person next to me started watching a hardcare (hetrosexual) movie right next to me. I would find it even worse if they were uploading pictures of themselves regardless of whether hetrosexual/homesexual.

    “[snip]…i’m sitting here typing this at a internet cafe in MBK, there’s someone scanning rather explicit, pictures of herself and hordes of other guys and girls in a number of rather raunchy poses, is enough for me to cringe and want to puke out all the cheap ass liquor i had last night.”

    Come on, this is not a fair analogy. If he would be equally offended by looking at a hetrosexual guy scanning raunchy pictures of himself and his girlfriend this doesn’t make him homophobic. This, could mean he doesn’t want to look at other guys. Surely, you recgonise there is a clear difference between the two.

    You accuse him of ‘hat[ing] homosexuals’ based on what you implied from his post yet he directly states in his explanation that ‘I have no hatred towards homosexuality’. This says more about you than him.

  7. Ben Harris (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 3:22 am

    1. Yes, there is a captain and that’s me.

    2. There have been a couple of instances in the past on the Bangkok Metroblog where I’ve thought a post or comments were dancing on the fine line of homophobia (it’s mainly been comments), but up until now there hasn’t been anything sufficient enough to act on. Rest assured, however, that this issue is taken very seriously (especially by me). If you object to the content of a post you are welcome to comment to make your opinion known or email either myself or the author.

    3. It may be that the context of this post has been blown out of proportion for me personally, because Bonafide’s previous post had a line:

  8. him (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 9:32 am

    Jay: What an amazing interpretation of comments. While I agree – and clearly stated – that Bonafide’s post did not begin as “anti-gay”, by the time he gets to puking, it is clearly because he is viewing what amounts to gay porn. Given his history of commenting on “queers” and his statement in this very thread that he is “slightly homophobic”. My view is that he could have stopped at that point, still presenting the information, and not turning it into a rant about how unclean he felt about viewing said material.

    And no, as I stated, I do not believe that – given his history of commenting – he would have done the same about “straight” pictures, from a straight guy, because that guy wouldn’t have “bothering him for his phone number”.

    Bonafide is free to post whatever he wants, and seems to be adult enough to understand that sometimes people disagree with him. For me, personally, I think it is a shame that feels the need to publically vent his problems with homosexuality and I do not believe this is the correct forum for that. It is a shame that people still need to produce negativity towards a minority. In this case, gays. You know, if his post had been race-based, there’d be so much less liberal softly-softly interpretation. And what does that say about you?

    Of course, this is all just my view and this isn’t a war, it’s a reaction to a post made by someone in addition to other things he has said in the past and in this thread – and that’s the point, Jay, it’s a total – please try reading ALL the facts and evidence before jumping to defend.

  9. him (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 12:31 pm

    You know what? I just re-read all of this and realised what a waste of time it all is. Metblog goes Stickman or Mangosauce or Bangkoktonight or any one of the million identikit Bangkok websites out there? Who gives a fuck.

    Ben: I have to say that I don’t see any part of Bonafide’s explanation that can possibly have changed your mind from being offended to accepting his post was ok. But if it works for you, then more power to you.

    Jay: I wasn’t being offensive, I just don’t know what’s worse – people defending this post, or the post it itself, or people doing 180 degree turns.

    Anyway, I’m sure there’s better ways to spend a sunday.

  10. Jay (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 12:52 pm

    “by the time he gets to puking, it is clearly because he is viewing what amounts to gay porn.”

    I’m sorry you should read his post again, he talks about cringing first. I cringed when I saw someone looking at a hardcore hetrosexual movie next to me in a cybercafe, I cringed not because I am offended by porn but because of the person’s audacity to watch in a public place and when anyone around him could see (and listen if you were close enough as while he was hearing headphones he had the sound turned up).

    Now, you don’t have to agree with my interpretation, but his statements are not as clear cut as you make them out to be. What his statement “blatant homophobia” which is clear cut or was it “a post that implies you hate homosexuals” which is certainly not clear cut? You have said both at different times in these comments. Now which one was it?

    I don’t mind you disagreeing with Bonafide but here you are saying he posts something which implies he hates homosexuals and at an earlier point that he was posting something which was blatantly homophibic. I thought this was out-of-line particulary after his explanation.

    “You know, if his post had been race-based, there’d be so much less liberal softly-softly interpretation. And what does that say about you?”

    What are you trying to imply with this?

  11. him (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

    That’s ok Jay, you don’t have to apologise to me (either alone or on behalf of the Bonafide Mates Fanclub), but thanks anyway – apology accepted.

  12. Ben Harris (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 1:30 pm

    Let’s get a few things straight:
    1. The post seemed blatantly homophobic.
    2. Bonafide has said he is slightly homophobic.
    3. Bangkok is a great city to live in.
    4. I never want to comment in point form again.

  13. Jay (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

    Him: WTF!? Should I be surprised this is the only kind of response you can muster? I have never meet Bonafide and have no idea who he is.

    You wanted me to read all Bonafide’s previous posts. I read most of them before my first comment, but I don’t necessarily find all of his posts interesting so haven’t clicked to ‘continue reading’ on every single one of his posts. However, from what I had read of Bonafide’s posts at the time of my comment, I saw a constant pattern of poorly worded sentences. No doubt this was in the back of mind when I first read the post.

    I am willing to concede if I had read his previous post where he mentions ‘queers’ I might have had a different *first impression* on reading this post the first time I read it, but even upon reading all of his other posts I still don’t see that this post or any other post of his was blatantly homophobic. I already said late last night in the first line of my first comment that I can see why someone could imply that his post was homophobic. However, that was not my first impression though.

    “You know, if his post had been race-based, there’d be so much less liberal softly-softly interpretation. And what does that say about you?”

    You still haven’t explained by what you meant by this. I prefer not to imply something into your statements.

    Now, before you start accusing me of being homophobic. I am a supporter of same-sex marriage rights (civil unions are a weak copout) and have gay and lesbian friends. I believe people’s sex orientation is not my mine or any politican’s business. If someone starts calling gays evil or some bigoted shit like that, I have no problems in attacking him/her for that.

  14. Ben Harris (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 5:05 pm

    Unless you guys plan to discuss the contents of the original post, please continue this via email.

  15. Bonifide (unregistered) on April 24th, 2005 @ 6:25 pm

    First, I’d like to apologize if I offended anyone in with this post.

    It was one of those in the moment posts. I didn’t clearly present my ideas at first. I read the email I sent, it made no mention of what topics I’m allowed to post, it just said check your spelling, which I didn’t do. Whoops.

    First, I was more offended by the fact that the act was happening at such a public setting. I would be equally as offended if someone was scanning female on female, watching Paris Hilton sex tapes, or watching couples make out in public.

    Yes I am homophobic, but I don’t hate homosexuality. I support same-sex marriage/civil union and gay rights, if they truely love the person then they should be granted the same rights as a heterosexual couple. I just personally dislike the blatant-ness(?), and out landish ways homosexuality is dealt and promoted with in Thailand. When I see 12 year old boys walking around with breast implants acting more “diva” like than any girl/woman/female I know. It bothers me.

    I don’t take offense when you guys try insult or belittle me. I take it as your right nor do I get angry, actually I prefer that people think that I am a racist, stupid, uneducated. I like having pressure on me. Yes, some of the things I post can be on the very hot topics, but I personally like it that way. I enjoy hearing people’s thoughts and opinion no matter what it is, because it’s how I as an individual grow, by learning from others.

    Most of the bloggers here seem to be in their late 20s, early 30s. Perhaps, you guys have firmer stance on where you stand on issues. I don’t. I’m in my early 20s, at an age where I’m old enough to know better, but still young enough to not give a flying fuck about things. So, sometimes I push the envelope on things. Maybe some of you guys are perfect but I personally am far from it.

    I’m glad you guys have posted your opinion and made your judgements about me. It’s fine by me. I personally rather see mature discussion on metblogs rather than dead silence.

    Lastly, if this post was against the guidelines then I will delete the post ASAP.

    Have a good Sunday. :)

  16. bkkmei (unregistered) on April 25th, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

    “pretty girls in tight school uniforms,”

    I actually think the above sentence is also a little bit worrying? I think you mean the university girls…right…?

  17. him (unregistered) on April 25th, 2005 @ 8:36 pm

    Hahha, I guess we all missed that one! I must admit, the schoolgirls fascinate me (meant in a good wa.. oh, sod it, no-one will ever believe I meant it in a good way!) – how can each one be such a slave to a pre-defined dresscode? It goes so far beyond just being a uniform. Doesn’t anyone here yearn for self-expression and being different?

    But also, although I can obviously see that the older the girl, the tighter and shorter the clothes, to my eyes I cannot quite figure out at which age they get so tight and short (the clothes, not the girls… erm, oh lord, I am so digging a hole here). To me, they all look like 15 year olds, when they could be 22 for all I know. Or 14.

    Who knows. But I think I’ve manage over the time to deduce three categories – the youngest wear long skirts and baggy shirts. The next up are maybe in longer but tight skirts and tight shirts. Finally, it’s as tight and short as possible.

    But I still have no idea what age groups these pertain to.

    Theres a post on Bonifides blog here which shows a girl, dressed as “youngest”. I’d guess she was… erm… 13?

  18. Bonifide (unregistered) on April 26th, 2005 @ 9:52 am

    mei: Actually I meant school girls, since the legal age of consent is 16! just kidding. :P that would just be really, really wrong.

    him: elementary/middle/high school wear those navy colored long skirts, longer black skirts but tight shirt are college freshmens, then after all that, they finally have the freedom to wear (or not wear) skirts that barely cover their butt cheeks.

  19. him (unregistered) on April 26th, 2005 @ 2:35 pm

    So… to sum up… everyone you want to be legal… is?


  20. Bonifide (unregistered) on April 26th, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

    Hehe. Nah, 18 and above for me. Besides, I prefer my hand, I can just roll back to sleep afterwards w/o cuddling. :)

  21. Baba (unregistered) on April 26th, 2005 @ 3:29 pm

    Ok.. TOO much information


  22. him (unregistered) on April 26th, 2005 @ 4:08 pm

    Butt cheeks?

    This is Thailand: Thai women don’t have butt cheeks :)

  23. Ben Harris (unregistered) on April 27th, 2005 @ 8:33 am

    That is something I can neither confirm nor deny, however I asssume they do.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.