I think that I came across Neung in Pattaya.  He is one of many who die young.  You do not say how he came to die at such a young age. But  it is worth saying that it could very well have been AIDS related.
Over a year ago a boy known to some of us died just as quickly.  He worked in a bar in Sunnee Plaza.  His illness in itself could have been life-threatening, but he got it and died of it because of AIDS.  I shared this information on the board for the fact to be refuted by those who claimed to know better.  They did not.
Boys do not usually die of AIDS in Pattaya; they return to die unobserved in their villages.
But why do they die?  They die, by and large, because they have unprotected sex.  That really means that we kill them, because the illness is well enough understood now.  Where does the responsibility lie?  With the boys?  I do not think so
It would be good as we mourn Neung if we also resolved to prevent it happening any more.  Wouldn't it be great if your post saved even one boy in the future?

cuteboy wrote:

That really means that we kill them

This is really rather sweeping.

I suspect that the majority of the readers and posters here do not partake in unprotected sex and some will do their bit to make those they meet aware.

I agree with you.
You, me and the great majority do just that.
But the responsibility still lies with us, collectively, because from our number are those who do not follow your wise approach.

cuteboy wrote:

I know exactly how you feel.  I think that I came across Neung in Pattaya.  He is one of many who die young.  You do not say how he came to die at such a young age. But  it is worth saying that it could very well have been AIDS related.

I was careful to state in my second posting that Neung was not HIV+ and his death therefore had nothing to do with AIDS. He died in hospital after a short illness just six days after being admitted.

cuteboy wrote:

I agree with you.
You, me and the great majority do just that.
But the responsibility still lies with us, collectively, because from our number are those who do not follow your wise approach.

No.  I don't accept any doctrine of "group guilt." I'm from the Paleolithic Era, and I still hold people responsible for their actions.

Besides, the whole idea of "collective guilt" is incoherent, not to mention totalitarian.  "A woman shot the President, therefore (?) all women are guilty."

cuteboy wrote:

Boys do not usually die of AIDS in Pattaya; they return to die unobserved in their villages. But why do they die?  They die, by and large, because they have unprotected sex.

Very true, so far.

cuteboy wrote:

That really means that we kill them, because the illness is well enough understood now.  Where does the responsibility lie?  With the boys?  I do not think so

Only true if "they" just have sex with "us" and no-one else (each other, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc). Unlikely.

Kun Jon wrote:

cuteboy wrote:

I know exactly how you feel.  I think that I came across Neung in Pattaya.  He is one of many who die young.  You do not say how he came to die at such a young age. But  it is worth saying that it could very well have been AIDS related.

I was careful to state in my second posting that Neung was not HIV+ and his death therefore had nothing to do with AIDS. He died in hospital after a short illness just six days after being admitted.

Kun Jon has stated quite categorically TWICE now that HIV was NOT a factor in this case!

To continue to allude to HIV in this case is therefore completely irrelevant and is frankly disrespectful to the memory of this young man.

scottish-guy wrote:

Kun Jon has stated quite categorically TWICE now that HIV was NOT a factor in this case!

To continue to allude to HIV in this case is therefore completely irrelevant and is frankly disrespectful to the memory of this young man.

My original posting was copied, NOT BE ME, from the first thread and added to this thread, I've no idea why or who choose to do that. I only made that original post to clarify the situation about Neung as someone else suggested that HIV might have been involved. Your suggestion that I'm being disrespectful is about as offensive as I can imagine and I can only hope that you don't realise how insensitive you are being.

I had no intention of posting to this thread but, as I explained the post with my name was copied here, but your offensive attack has unfortunately made it necessary. As I have found on previous occasions the benifits of this Forum are always, eventually, outweighed but the sheer thoughtlessness of some who choose to post their poisonous pieces of self serving rubbish.

I'm left as before feeling that it's simply not worth the effort.

Kun Jon wrote:

My original posting was copied, NOT BE ME, from the first thread and added to this thread, I've no idea why or who choose to do that. I only made that original post to clarify the situation about Neung as someone else suggested that HIV might have been involved. Your suggestion that I'm being disrespectful is about as offensive as I can imagine and I can only hope that you don't realise how insensitive you are being.

I am afraid that this sort of thing is what happenes when mods, sometimes without explanation, split threads in two. I suspect it was done in this case to remove the "offensive" bits about HIV from the main Neung thread.

I do not take the disrespectful remark to be aimed at you, Kun Jon, but rather at cuteboy who made the first suggestion about Neung's death being aids related.
I hope you are able to read it in that light too Kun Jon, and please keep posting - there are some of us here who find your posts valuable and informative and rewarding.

Again, my thoughts are with both you and Neung, RIP

cuteboy wrote:

I think that I came across Neung in Pattaya.  He is one of many who die young.  You do not say how he came to die at such a young age. But  it is worth saying that it could very well have been AIDS related.
Over a year ago a boy known to some of us died just as quickly.  He worked in a bar in Sunnee Plaza.  His illness in itself could have been life-threatening, but he got it and died of it because of AIDS.  I shared this information on the board for the fact to be refuted by those who claimed to know better.  They did not.
Boys do not usually die of AIDS in Pattaya; they return to die unobserved in their villages.
But why do they die?  They die, by and large, because they have unprotected sex.  That really means that we kill them, because the illness is well enough understood now.  Where does the responsibility lie?  With the boys?  I do not think so
It would be good as we mourn Neung if we also resolved to prevent it happening any more.  Wouldn't it be great if your post saved even one boy in the future?

Anyone could just drop dead and die from anything at any age, even at the young age of 35 - it doesn't have to be AIDs related.   As a matter of fact if it were AIDs related - most death by HIV are long drawn out affairs with visible symptoms.   A friend of mine went to South America, came back with a mild stomach virus and died one month later - the doctors were never sure what he got.   My 15 year old nephew drop dead of Heart desease one week after being declared a healthy young man by his family doctor.  

Khun John has already said more than once that this young man did not die because AIDs - So why are you so hung up on the idea?

Yes, of course, young men of 35 take ill and die all the time in the developed countries.  Who are you kidding?
Of course it  can happen, statistically, but it is very rare.
It is not believed that Neung died of an AIDS related disease and that may be true; some of the farangs closest  to the other young man I referred to believed the same, but their view was not supported by his death certificate.   The huge majority in Thailand who become ill and die at this age do so of only one thing.   Factor in those who have been working boys in Pattaya?  Well.
But, if you like, believe what you like.  Boys who have worked in the boy bars of Pattaya do not die of AIDS and they do not feel forced for economic reasons to have unprotected sex with westerners.  So we have no responsibility.  As you like.  
'Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'   Paul Simon.

555 wrote:

cuteboy wrote:

That really means that we kill them

This is really rather sweeping.

I suspect that the majority of the readers and posters here do not partake in unprotected sex and some will do their bit to make those they meet aware.

Practicing safe sex by using a condom, however, might not be as safe as one believes. The small print on the back of a box of Durex Avanti condoms states: "The risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including AIDS (HIV infection), are not known for this condom." Durex is to discontinue this particular line of polyurethane condoms in favor of a new version, but it might be wise to check the small print on whatever brand one uses.

gwm4asian wrote:

" ... I am afraid that this sort of thing is what happenes when mods, sometimes without explanation, split threads in two. I suspect it was done in this case to remove the "offensive" bits about HIV from the main Neung thread ... "

Is this actualy what happened, or did Cuteboy take his own post and start up another entirely different thread?  I'd like to know.  
I'd have though by now that the Mods on this Board would have the decency to let the Members here know when they split a thread like this.

But in the event that Cuteboy started up his own thread, then it is obvious the man has an agenda wherein the sadness of one Thai man's death (for whatever "unknown" reason) takes the back seat of the bus in the moral crusade of another ... even given that Cuteboy is ignorant of the true details of this particular case.
 
For myself, the ignorance and insensitivity of Cuteboy trumps his message by a country mile ... and he can quote hoary old Paul Simon sound bites out the ying yang as far as I'm concerned.  It makes no difference to his leaden and phony take on the matter.

Cheers ...



Last edited by Smiles on Wed 18 Jun, 2008 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

cuteboy wrote:

Yes, of course, young men of 35 take ill and die all the time in the developed countries.  Who are you kidding?
Of course it  can happen, statistically, but it is very rare.
It is not believed that Neung died of an AIDS related disease and that may be true; some of the farangs closest  to the other young man I referred to believed the same, but their view was not supported by his death certificate.   The huge majority in Thailand who become ill and die at this age do so of only one thing.   Factor in those who have been working boys in Pattaya?  Well.
But, if you like, believe what you like.  Boys who have worked in the boy bars of Pattaya do not die of AIDS and they do not feel forced for economic reasons to have unprotected sex with westerners.  So we have no responsibility.  As you like.  
'Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'   Paul Simon.

I'm afraid you're missing my point completely.   I am NOT agreeing or disagreeing with your crusade - I'm just saying leave the poor boy alone.   You CAN still get your point across without crucifying someone already dead whose cause of death unknown to us all including YOU!

Whether poor  Neung died as a result of being HIV+, or it being a contributing factor, is entirely irrelevant.

Sadly he died at a far too early age - that is all that needs to be said on the fact. I did once meet him via a former b/s and found him to be charming, polite and unassuming.

The implied inference, which I read here from some, that his death was somehow less noble or 'we' as a community are somehow culpable in the death because HIV could have been involved is a sad reflection on still prevailing attitudes today even within the gay community to this dreadful disease.

I just hope that all the speculation about this death does not reach his family.

RIP Neung