Readers' Submissions

Ladyboy Denial – The Caveman Decides For Us


Well, I promised myself not to respond to any more of Caveman’s ranting as it seems a waste of time to respond to statements that are so obviously silly. Like when Richard Nixon looked in the camera and said, “I am not a crook”, or when BP’s Tony Hayward said, “I want my life back”, or when Fox’s Glenn Beck says, well, anything. In these instances it’s always better to respond with a Buddha-like smile and move on to more important things in your life. But this time he has decided to offend a group of people some of my friends are a part of (something he is quite good at and in fact, is fast approaching every group); so I decided to make this one exception.

Boiling down his long-winded missive (believe me, that was quite an odorous task) he seems to be trying to make a couple of points. First, men who have been with ladyboys are gay, or fags as he quaintly puts it. And he actually puts a number on it – one time – and you have turned the corner forever on heterosexuality. This makes me think of the Nazis who said “one drop” of Jewish blood and you were a Jew, or some African-American groups who used the same formula to define “blackness”. What if the definitions were reversed – one drop of Aryan blood meant Aryan classification? How about one crime – criminal forever, one lie – liar forever, or one bargirl – monger forever? Seems our Caveman shares certain traits with the hated PC police!

Some time ago, some gay friends of mine traveled to Pattaya for a vacation. When they returned, I asked if they had gone to the ladyboy fashion shows. They looked quizzically at me and said no. It was one of those moments when you realized you have just stepped in dog poop. Later, they told me that gay men liked other gay men, not gay men dressed up like women and certainly not men who have been surgically made to look like women. Even if they still retained their boinker, I queried? Yes, especially those men. They were ladyboys, not men, and gay men only like other gay men.

So, if gay men don’t like ladyboys then what do we call men who do? Certainly, homosexual activities take place between them but are the same arousals in place when boinking a ladyboy vs. a man? According to Stick’s interview, most guys go for the “full ride” but not all do. Do we distinguish between those who do and those who only “pitch”? I suspect if you talked to a lot of men who have been with ladyboys they would say yes, with some even suggesting it would be similar to having anal sex with a woman. So, should the Caveman broaden his definition of “fags” to include those men who have participated in homosexual activities with women?

The Caveman should be careful; he may find himself a victim of his own harsh definitions. Don’t the facts point to better definitions that recognize the complexities of human sexuality? I once knew a friend of a friend who occasionally went to his barn to look for gratification. Although his wife was as cute as a sow could be, she seemed happy enough and they raised three children to responsible adulthood. What is he called in Caveman’s world? There is probably a larger percent of people who have gone off the reservation at some point in their lives but have always returned to the teepee. If we included these “waywards” in Caveman’s definition, the world’s gay and lesbian population would shoot up from around 12% to 30% or even 50%. This would be good news for the many gay & lesbian organizations in the world, who would have added political clout for their agenda. Is this where Caveman’s reasoning takes us?

The second point he seems to be making is that under no circumstances should ladyboys be called “she”. Using his explicit and graphic definition, ladyboys do not measure up. Certainly, ladyboys are boys; even they will not try to convince you otherwise, yet they prefer to be called “she”. What’s the big deal? I prefer to be called “Dave” instead of “David” so when someone continues to call me “David” I start to suspect they are trying to bust my balls a little. Is that Caveman’s ultimate goal, to piss off someone who would just like to have some simple respect? I suggest he walk down Sukhumvit Road after midnight and test this theory out.

Believe it or not, the Caveman and I are members of the same club; I am a devout heterosexual and have never sucked a dick or boinked a man in the ass. Yet, one night, when I first starting visiting Bangkok gogos, I found myself in a crowded bar with a cute little honey bouncing on my lap. I was enjoying the ride immensely until I reached around the front and discovered more than I wanted. I paid my bill and walked out trying to hide the bulge in my pants. She was strikingly beautiful and I dare say that in her near-naked state, she could have aroused most any man. So, does Caveman really want me to admit to being sexually aroused by a “he” when it was “her” feminine qualities that were spiking my interest? Calling ladyboys “shes” makes my libido much less confused.

And why in Caveman’s world can’t we be called what we want? Many African-Caucasian people in America have light skin and prefer to be called “white”. Tiger Woods declares himself “black” in America and “Thai” in Asia. Why not? Is Caveman suggesting we have to accept someone else’s strict definitions for who we are? Isn’t that an affront to our personal freedom? On this point I suspect Caveman’s politics have crept into his logic. President Obama, who is of African-Caucasian descent, has declared himself African-American, which has pissed-off the right-wingers in my country. I guess that’s why they want to see his birth certificate so badly.

Now that I have finished this article, I am not sure why I took the time to do so. As with the Caveman, why does he take the time to tell us about his narrow black and white world with such verbosity? Bar girls are thieves, women are whores, etc., with no room for exceptions or questions or shades of gray. My own theory is he sees the world as a dangerous place, lurking with deviants trying corrupt the pious. Strict order is required less the deviants start to expand their influence. In reality, the world contains the many colors of human nature and experience, yet he only sees black and white. Dude, open your mind and enjoy life a little. Oh, and the ladyboy advertisement at the end of Caveman’s article – nice touch Stick!

Stickman's thoughts:

There are ladyboys and there are ladyboys. Those lurking at 3 AM on Beach Road with stubble bursting through their make up and who are known for their light fingers and willingness to confront passers by are more than a mere nuisance. Those who are perhaps more "integrated" into mainstream society can be rather amusing, I have to confess.