In Thailand, the only significant control over lay sexuality as prescribed by Thai Buddhism lies in the Third Precept which advocates against sexual misconduct. It should be stated from the outset that this paper does not make a moral judgement on whether premarital sex is right or wrong. Instead the discussion is framed within the larger context of HIV/AIDS among teenagers, where consensual sex between peers is pushing up the rate of infection among adolescents.

1. Premarital Sex and the Third Precept
Contact xingledout<at>gmail.com
Introduction
While the sexuality of ordained Buddhist monks is strictly controlled in Thai
Buddhism and celibacy is a requirement for ordination into the sangha, the only
significant control over lay sexuality as prescribed by the religion lies in the Third
Precept which advocates against sexual misconduct. In Thailand, this precept is
commonly understood as a prohibition against (heterosexual) adultery and is
implicitly silent on the issue of premarital sex. It should be stated from the outset that
this paper does not make a moral judgement on whether premarital sex is right or
wrong; the author believes in the individual’s freedom of choice. Instead the
discussion is framed within the larger context of HIV/AIDS among teenagers, where
consensual sex between peers is pushing up the rate of infection among adolescents.
In 2002, HIV/AIDS was the second leading cause of death among Thais aged 15 to 24
and studies have shown that the infection rate among sexually active teens have risen
by 17 per cent in the last five years (Bangkok Post, 1/12/04).
Typical HIV-awareness campaigns targeted at youth take a three-pronged
approach – the practical, the educational and the moral. The practical component
encompasses distributing free condoms and placing condom-vending machines in
schools and clubs while the educational part includes sex education and teaching
youngsters about the risk of unprotected sex. The moral element preaches that
abstinence before marriage is the best protection against HIV and religious
practitioners tend to draw on sacred texts to support their stand.
This paper aims to look at the Third Precept’s relevance (or irrelevance) to this
moral discourse since the Thai reading of the precept seems to remain silent on
premarital sex between unmarried singles. The differing interpretations of the precept
will be explored, along with the attitudes of young people towards premarital sex.
Since this paper is concerned with the relevance of the Third Precept in HIV
prevention campaigns, the discussion will focus only on heterosexual relationships
among young people in the laity.
1

2. Third Precept
It is incumbent upon the Buddhist laity to observe the Five Precepts: refraining
from taking life, from taking what is not given, from engaging in improper sexual acts,
from telling lies, and from imbibing or ingesting substances that cause heedlessness.
On Buddhist Sabbath – literally “precept day” – during Lent some Buddhists also
commit themselves to taking the “eight precepts”, the five above and three additional
ones which include refraining from eating after noon, sleeping on a high bed and from
attending entertainments and adorning the body. In addition, the precept regarding
sexual relations is reconstrued to mean abstaining from any sexual relations
whatsoever during the Sabbath day (Keyes 1983:857).
While some similarities have been drawn between the Five Precepts and the
Ten Commandments in the Christian Bible, one of the fundamental differences lies in
the consequences of breaking a precept or commandment. The commandments, if
broken, entail punishment by God. On the other hand, the precepts are ethical and
moral principles which are governed by examining whether a certain action, whether
connected to body or speech, is likely to be harmful to one’s self or to others and
thereby avoiding any actions which are likely to be harmful. Hence, if one were to
break a precept, one should be aware of the breach and how it should be avoided in
the future. The resultant of the action, or karma, depends on the intention more than
the action itself thus it entails less feelings of guilt than its Judeo-Christian
counterpart (Dhammika 2005:17).
The Third Precept of good conduct, kāmesu micchācārā veramani, is
traditionally interpreted as though kāmesu were in the singular form and is therefore
taken to advise Buddhists to abstain merely from unlawful sexual intercourse
(Saddhatissa 1970:102). By kāma is meant “lustful attachment to male or female”
and by micchācārā “wrong conduct”. The immoral act of unchastity (kāma-
micchācārā-akusala-kamma) is the volition or sense-desire of a male for a female or a
female for a male. The Buddha said: “A wise man should avoid unchastity as if it
were a pit of burning cinders. One who is not able to live in a state of celibacy should,
at least, not break the purity of another man’s wife.” (ibid) In this statement, Buddha
seems to discourage only the act of adultery and not premarital sex between
2

3. unmarried singles. It is this perspective that shapes the common translation of the
Third Precept as “to refrain from sexual misconduct” where “sexual misconduct”
refers to adultery.
The Sigālovāda Sutta, which prescribes the duties for the householder
explicitly along similar lines of the Five Precepts, records the Buddha’s teaching that
adultery is one of the four vices that has to be eradicated so that, assuming other
conditions were met, the layperson is born in a “happy heavenly realm” upon the
dissolution of the body after death (Digha Nikaya, No. 31, cited in Sadhatissa
1970:121). Interestingly, Tachibana (1926) seems to understand “sexual misconduct”
as more than adultery and translates the Third Precept as “abstinence from
fornication”. Fornication is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990) as
“consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other”. In
this case, the term “fornication” embraces a wider meaning than adultery to include
premarital sex.
Other than the traditional understanding of the Third Precept, Saddhatissa
(1970) also offers another interpretation of the precept by considering kāma in the
locative plural form, kāmesu. He argues that in the plural form, the precept signifies
“abstinence from all indulgences in the five sensuous objects, namely visible object,
sound or audible object, olfactory object, sap or gustative object, and body impression
or tactile object” (1970:106). Kāmesu micchācārā is therefore “wrong or evil conduct
with regard to the five sensual organs”. In many places in Pali literature, the fifth
factor of kāma, that is, body impression, has been interpreted as “unlawful sexual
intercourse” and seems the most blameworthy of the five kāmas. He contends that in
representing kāmesu micchācārā as relating only to sexual intercourse, the
grammatical form of kāma has been ignored, and that to achieve complete observance
of the precept, one must therefore desist from the five forms of self-indulgence, both
directly and indirectly (ibid).
Consequences and definitions of sexual misconduct
Although it has been mentioned earlier that failure to observe a precept does
not bring down the wrath of God in the same way as breaking a commandment does,
scholars have explored the various consequences of sexual misconduct. Quoting from
3

4. the Dhammasangani Atthakatha, Saddhatissa (1970) lists the evil consequences
resulting from unlawful sexual intercourse:
“suffering in an unhappy state for a long period; when reborn as a
man by virtue of merits acquired in a previous existence the birth
would occur in a lower form of mankind. Such a person would
have many enemies, would be disliked by the people, would be
destitute, unable to procure comfortable lodgings, food and clothes,
and would be full of anger and rage.” (1970:105)
Bunmi (1986), in providing a detailed exposition on the kammic explanation
of homosexuality, suggests that sexual misconduct in a past life can lead a person to
engage in homosexual activity in his current life. The sexual misdeeds include
committing adultery, being a prostitute, sexually interfering with one's children or
being sexually irresponsible, such as a man not caring for a woman who becomes
pregnant by him (ibid:39-41). He also explains that sexual misconduct with a
member of the opposite sex has kammic consequences since, “it is like stealing,
because the person responsible for that person has not given their permission”1
(ibid:308).
So far, “sexual misconduct” has been defined by various scholars in clear-cut
categories such as adultery, fornication, rape, promiscuity and incest. Other Thai
Buddhist interpretations have taken a less black-and-white approach. Hence
Dhammika posits that “if we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel
someone to have sex with us, then that can be said to be sexual misconduct”
(2005:20). He also suggests that sex before marriage is not a type of sexual
misconduct if there is love and mutual agreement between the two people concerned.
His reason: Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhism as it is in other religions, and it
is governed by civil law. Generally, in countries where the law allows, Buddhists
accept de-facto relationships. Promiscuity would be frowned upon as sexual
misconduct but an ongoing loving relationship between two people, either within or
outside of marriage, would be considered moral conduct. However he also adds a
caveat:
1
His use of a proprietary simile, comparing adultery or premarital sex without paternal consent to theft,
appears to reflect a view of women as men’s property.
4

5. “It should never be forgotten that the biological function of sex is
reproduction and if an unmarried woman becomes pregnant it can
cause a great deal of problems. Many mature and thoughtful
people think that it is far better to leave sex until after marriage.”
(Dhammika 2005:21)
Reformists’ view of sexual behaviour
Many contemporary Thai Buddhist writers describe sex as extremely
distasteful, even for the laity. Isaramuni equates sexuality with tanha (craving or
desire) and raga (sexual lust), which are the antithesis of the Buddhist ideal of
dispassionate equanimity (1989:4). And while the Vinaya in general details an
explicitly clerical code of conduct, similar anti-sex attitudes are now expressed in
many Thai Buddhist writers’ discussions of lay sexual ethics.
In a discourse on married life, influential reformist thinker Buddhadasa
Bhikku calls reproduction “an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring”
(Buddhadasa 1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa) that
arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine generally describes as
the source of human suffering. He posits that in the past people were “employed” or
“engaged” (Thai: jang) by nature in the “work” (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the
species, but people now “cheat” nature by using contraception and having sex without
being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this “cheating” i.e.
engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is “paid back” because it causes
problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities (ibid:25).
Although he calls on laypeople to have sex only for reproduction, he asserts that the
highest ideal in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life
dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married life (ibid:35).
In fact, he states that marriage is a stage of life for those who have not yet realised
absolute truth, saying that once the inherent transience and unsatisfactoriness of the
world is understood there will be no more desire for sex (ibid:36-37).
The austere Santi Asoke advocates a similar stance, where members observe
the eight precepts while married couples in the community sleep separately and are to
refrain from sex. It also spells out its views on the Third Precept on its website:
“Third Precept encourages us to be aware of the suffering caused
by sexual misconduct, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or even
5

6. masturbatory. Determine not to have any sexual gratification
outside of marriage to one person, and no sex without true love.
People following eight precepts should abstain from all sexual
gratification. Ideally, strive to eliminate all sexual feelings.
Attachment to sexual stimulation is among the strongest of all
cravings/attachments, and so is a major obstacle to enlightenment.
The positive action is to generate feelings of friendship towards
others, but without letting the feelings develop into infatuation or
love.”
It is unclear semantically, however, whether “determine not to have any sexual
gratification outside of marriage to one person” refers only to adultery or includes
premarital sex. If it excludes premarital sex, then a loving sexual relationship outside
of marriage is not wrong since Santi Asoke only mandates against having sex
“without true love”, although the ideal is to eliminate all sexual feelings.
Likewise, serious followers of Wat Dhammakaya exhibit parallel standards.
Some of the youth who attend the temple believe that to be a “virtuous Buddhist”, one
should observe the eight precepts as well as refrain from romantic and sexual
activities as “romantic love brings suffering” (Kritsadarat 1999:9).
Significantly, contemporary Thai Buddhist views on laypersons' sexual
behaviour are often more proscriptive and extreme than attitudes reflect in the Pali
canon or in traditional or popular Thai accounts of Buddhist doctrine and ethics.
Buddhadasa’s views on sexuality are at variance with Thai Buddhism's traditional
distinction between lay and clerical ethical conduct. The ethical extremism of the
contemporary Buddhist reform movements in Thailand results from a clericalising
trend whereby ethical demands traditionally made only of monks are now
increasingly also being required of laypersons (Jackson 1998:61).
Thai sexual culture
Until the middle decades of the nineteenth century, highly stylised but
nonetheless relatively explicit representations of eroticism were common in both Thai
artwork and literature. Murals painted on temple walls in Buddhist monasteries often
included erotic scenes. Classical Thai literature also regularly included erotic
interludes, euphemistically called “miraculous scenes” (bot atsajan), that described
intimate acts of love making in flowery language (Harrison 2000:101). However with
6

7. the arrival of “civilization” from the West and its attendant prudish Victorian attitudes
towards sex, the Siamese elite soon became aware that Western visitors found the
explicitness of erotic representations in the high culture of the royal court and the state
religion to be acutely embarrassing. Royal edicts together with an unofficial policy of
bowdlerising Thailand's literary classics succeeded in almost completely expunging
representations of eroticism from elite culture (Mattani 1988:71-2).
Nevertheless, there remains a surprisingly pragmatic attitude to sexual activity
among Thai laypeople. There is no self-disciplinary or self-denying attitude to sex
among men in Thailand. The commercialisation of sex is also more prominent and
more accepted, implicitly if not explicitly, in Thailand than in the West (Jackson
1995:149). Allyn observes that while sex is not directly discussed among the Thais,
sexual matters are alluded to in a positive light and it is common to tease newlyweds
with questions like “Did you have fun last night?” or “How many times?”. What is
significant is that such bawdy banter is often done in front of children (1991:150).
Attitudes to sex in Thailand vary between classes, and opportunities for sexual
experiences also differ markedly for Thai men and women. The upper class, sections
of the Western-educated middle class, and Thais from a Chinese cultural background
often express prudish attitudes towards sex. In part this prudishness appears to have
been influenced by nineteenth and early twentieth century Western attitudes to sex, in
the case of the Thai upper classes, and by Chinese culture’s more conservative
attitudes towards sex, in the case of the Sino-Thais. Rural and urban working-class
Thais, who make up the overwhelming majority of the population, generally have
much more liberal attitudes towards sex, explicitly valuing the pleasure of sexual
activity. Among most ethnic Thais sexual desire is commonly regarded as a “mood”
(arom) in need of release (rabai), and when a Thai man has a sexual mood, it is
expected that he will act upon it to obtain sexual release. The idea of suppressing
sexual desires, except for Buddhist monks who have renounced all worldly
involvement, is not a part of traditional male sexual culture (Jackson 1995:150).
Double standards
Sexual double standards consist of two different standards – inter- and intra-
gender standards, which operate in a mutually supportive way. Under the inter-
7

8. gender sexual double standard, men are expected to actively pursue sex, whereas
women are expected to be sexually conservative. Sexual norms encourage men to
have multiple sex partners and experience in any relational context is positive for men,
as sex is believed to strengthen masculinity (Warunee 1995, Knodel et al. 1996,
Lyttleton 2000). Until quite recently, patronage of commercial sex among Thai men
seems to have been generally tolerated, if grudgingly, by Thai women. For unmarried
men, it has been viewed as an unremarkable and natural activity in a man's maturation
process. Occasional commercial sex patronage among married men, while more
problematic, has been generally tolerated by many married Thai women as well
(Macqueen et al. 1996, VanLandingham and Grandjean 1997, VanLandingham et al.
1998). This tolerance is rooted in a cultural system that is quite sympathetic toward
male sexual desire. While sexual preoccupation and unrestrained sexual behavior are
flawed from a Buddhist perspective, it is understood from a Thai Buddhist point of
view that sexual desire is a singularly difficult obstacle for men to overcome (Keyes
1986:25). Even if male philandering has, at least in a philosophical sense, been
viewed as a sin and as contrary to Buddhist principles, women generally have
understood, accepted and tolerated it as an inherent and fundamental male weakness.
On the other hand, sexuality for women in Thailand is socially constrained within
marital relationships, and virginity at marriage is to a large extent still socially
expected (Warunee 1995, Brown et al. 1996, Cook and Jackson 1999, Knodel et al.
1999).
Under the intra-gender sexual double standard, Thai women are categorised as
either good or bad (Harrison 1999:168). Thai cultural norms expect women to be
inexperienced and naive about sexual matters (Warunee 2000:307). In contrast,
women who have premarital sex, have more than one sexual partner or insist on using
a condom are often stigmatized as impure, promiscuous, and sexually skilled.
Alternatively, they are viewed as prostitutes. These very different behavioural
expectations lead Thai men and women to consider their sexualities as fundamentally
distinct and cause them to have a double standard towards sexual activity (Knodel et
al. 1996).
Moreover, males and females have different rationales for starting sexual
relationships. In a survey of adolescents, it was found that girls got involved in a
8

9. sexual relationship when they loved and trusted their boyfriends. Thus, in exchange
for expressing their love, girls give up their virginity. Conversely, most boys viewed
sexual relationships as based on desire and need (Chulanee 2004:194).
Changing attitudes towards premarital sex among young people
Survey data indicate that among youth, behaviour and general attitudes about
premarital sexual relations are becoming more liberal; favourable attitudes towards
free sex appear to be increasing and young people nowadays engage in sexual activity
before marriage earlier than in their parent’s generation (Pimonpan 2000, Michinobu
2001, Chulanee 2004). Scholars have identified various factors for this shift, such as
the increasing rate of migration of young people to Bangkok and other cities has
resulted in greater opportunities for them to pursue sexual relationships as opposed to
the close supervision afforded by a village setting (Ford and Sirinan 1993, Suchada
2000, Michinobu 2001). Another reason that is often mooted is the current
generation’s greater exposure to and imitation of Western influence and media which
propagate ideas of sexual liberalism and romantic love (Giddens 1991, Michinobu
2001). However, I would be hesitant to put all the blame on the West since Thai
literature and art has long been fraught with frequent references to sexual liaisons
(both commercial and non-commercial) outside of marriage. In addition Thai cartoon
books have a tradition of depicting the sex act in drawings.
There has also been a secular change in attitudes toward premarital sex and
loss of virginity before marriage, particularly among young women of this generation.
Both rural and urban women feel that women who had premarital sex do not
necessarily deserve to be stigmatized as the bad woman or labelled as promiscuous
(Pimonpan and Cornwell 1995:9). In fact, they have developed their own constructs
where a girl or a woman who has engaged in premarital sex can still be considered
good, as long as she displays certain characteristics. For example, as long as a girl is
faithful to her lover and loves him, and has no more than two of such sexual
relationships, she can still be considered a “good” girl (Chulanee 2004:196).
Premarital sex is also deemed within bounds when it is practised between a couple
who are going to marry or when parental approval has been granted (Michinobu
2001:268).
9

10. Behavioural and epidemiological research suggests a parallel change in men’s
sexual behaviour where more young men are opting out of premarital commercial sex
and seeking out non-commercial sexual partners such as serious girlfriends instead
(Werasit 1992, Taweesak et al. 1993, Varachai and Guest 1995). This change is
occurring in the context where more women are becoming willing to engage in
premarital sexual relations which means there may be increasing opportunities for
men to have non-commercial premarital sex. At the same time, with the massive
public education campaign about the dangers of unprotected sex with commercial sex
workers, young men increasingly look to their girlfriends as “safer” options
(VanLandingham and Trujillo 2002:8).
Premarital sex: Is the Third Precept relevant?
The practice of using religion to help fight HIV/Aids is not new. Historically
both Christianity and Buddhism tried to scare people with hell if they are “not good”
(Borthwick 1999: 212). The engagement of religion in the prevention of the disease
was again emphasised in an international AIDS conference in July 2004 where the
then Thai Minister of Public Health, Sudarat Kaeyuraphan, stated that in combating
Aids:
“Religion is comparable to the spiritual and mental pillar of
humankind as reflected in our culture and way of lives, largely at
the community level. With its significant role, the religious
institution has a great opportunity to invest in human life by
allocating its resources early enough to conduct effective large-
scale strategic intervention” (Inter-Faith Networking on AIDS
2004: 2).
The intervention mounted by many Buddhist monks in the HIV/AIDS crisis so
far involves preaching to the laity about the importance of adhering to the Five
Precepts. However it is evident that the Third Precept is hardly practised in reality
among the youth (Patchanee 2005:5). In a research where young men were asked
why they have reduced their participation in commercial sex, the reasons given were
mostly practical such as fear of getting HIV (VanLandingham and Trujillo 2002:9).
Moreover, the factors that have been identified as shaping young people’s sexual
attitudes are: family, peer pressure and the mass media (Chulanee 2004:199). It is
10

11. interesting in both cases that religious themes are notably absent although the majority
of Thais claim to be Buddhist.
The following explores why Buddhism, in particular the Third Precept, does
not seem to have been an effective tool in HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns.
Concept of sin
Doctrinal Buddhism, being atheistic in nature, leaves no room for the concept
of “sin” in the sense of an act of defiance against the authority of a personal God but
Buddhists speak of “sin” or bap when referring to transgressions against the universal
moral code. Although there is usually concurrence between Buddhism and other
monothesitic religions on the sinfulness of certain actions, there is, at times,
significant disagreement on the grading of sins. In a comparative study of religious
behaviour among Buddhists and Muslims in Southern Thailand, Burr (1974) finds that
Muslims are almost unanimous in regarding adultery, the omission of regular prayers,
ingratitude and disrespect to parents, and murder as the most serious sins. With the
exception of the insistence on prayers the Buddhists too include these actions in their
evaluation of sinful conduct, but they add to the list of sins the drinking of alcoholic
beverages, swindling, cheating, stealing, oppressing the weak, and killing animals. Of
all the Muslims questioned, the majority ranked adultery as the most important sin,
and placed the omission of prayers second in the rank order of offences. Buddhists,
on the other hand, put comparatively little emphasis on the seriousness of adultery and
put murder first in the rank order of sins (Burr 1974:37).
Both Islam and Christianity have very strict rules with regards to premarital
sex. The Qur’an orders Muslims to restrain their sex impulse except with their
spouses (23:5-6, 24:30-33) while the Bible says God will judge all those who are
unchaste and adulterous (Heb 13:4). Breaking of this commandment earns
punishment from God/Allah; this is in contrast with the failure to observe the Third
Precept, which generates kammic consequences and delays attainment of nibbana.
This is also compounded by the belief in Islam and Christianity where the adherent
has only one life to live, after which he faces eternal heaven or hell, as opposed to the
Buddhist who has many lifetimes to work out nibbana.
11

12. However, the concept of immediate punishment in relation to premarital sex
can be found in folk Buddhism. In northern Thailand, scholars have suggested that
the ancestral spirit cults of “phi puu nyaa” served as instruments for controlling the
sexual behaviour of single men and women (Turton 1984, Cohen and Gehan 1984).
In this view, any sexual conduct by a non-kin male, from touching any part of a
maiden woman to sitting on the same mat, was regarded as a serious offence to the
spirits and subject to punishment (Cohen and Wijeyewardene 1984:258). If an
unmarried man and woman were found to have had sexual intercourse, the man had to
take the responsibility by marrying the woman and paying a fine or making a
sacrificial offering to the spirits. If the man refused to marry, he had to pay double
the amount required for marriage. Otherwise the family members of the woman were
said to fall ill (Turton 1984:279).
Shortcomings of the Third Precept in HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns
Although Saddhatissa (1970) has proposed an alternative understanding of the
Third Precept as “to refrain from wrong or evil conduct with regard to the five sensual
organs”, most Thais still hold on to the traditional interpretation of it as “to refrain
from sexual misconduct”. It should also be noted here that despite efforts by
reformist movements to introduce a stricter reading of the precept, and despite the
tens of thousands of followers of Wat Dhammakaya, the influence of their teachings
has not gone beyond the minority.
The quandary lies in the definition of “sexual misconduct”, which has been
taken largely to cover adultery, rape, promiscuity and incest. I posit that the
significant omission of premarital sex from the popular perception of “sexual
misconduct” implies that the Third Precept is unable to provide a strong moral
statement against premarital sex in HIV prevention campaigns among youth2.
Moreover, some Buddhist monks like Dhammika have indicated that sex before
marriage is not a type of sexual misconduct if there is love and mutual agreement
between the two people concerned. Even Santi Asoke touches on the theme of love
when it says on its website, “no sex without true love”. With the youth influenced by
2
It is interesting to note that the Liberal Christian interpretation of “sexual immorality” excludes
premarital sex.
12

13. the ideals of romantic love as propagated by Western media, such teachings put paid
to whatever little moral ammunition the Third Precept has to advocate abstinence as a
means of avoiding HIV/AIDS.
It has been mentioned that religious tropes are notably missing from the
factors that affect how Thai young people view sexuality. It can be presumed that
most of these adolescents, being Buddhists, know what the Five Precepts entail and
whose perception of right and wrong would have been shaped along these guiding
principles. Yet their failure to mention religion in the discussion of sexuality implies
that they do not see the relevance of the precepts to this area of their lives. The
discussion on Thai sexual culture seems to indicate that Buddhist ideals can and do
co-exist with the openness towards sexuality as evinced in Thai literature and art.
Hence it can be extrapolated that Buddhists perhaps take a more relaxed view to
sexual issues, compared to, say the Muslims, correlating Burr’s findings that Muslims
condemn adultery more than Buddhists.
Young people, in leaving religion out of the discourse, create their own moral
meanings of premarital sex. Young women, in particular, have developed social
constructs whereby they can engage in sex outside of marriage and still consider
themselves as “good” girls. It is my speculation that the absence in Buddhism of
certain concepts found in monotheistic religions – for example, the wrath of a
righteous God or a Judgement Day where everyone is called to account for his or her
deeds – puts less pressure on Thai Buddhists to avoid doing the “wrong” thing, as
opposed to the burden on Muslims and Christians to “not sin”. Since salvation can be
worked out over many lives and the consequences of “not doing the right thing” do
not loom like a Damocles’ sword, it renders the Third Precept toothless in controlling
the sexual behaviour of young people.
Conclusion
It was stated in the beginning that the only significant control that Buddhism
prescribes over lay sexuality lies in the Third Precept. Yet it has been shown that the
popular understanding of this precept has remained largely silent on the issue of
premarital sex and is hence ineffective as a tool to push for abstinence in HIV
prevention messages. In fact, some members of the sangha have cast their doubt over
13

14. the relevance of the Third Precept for such a purpose. During the 15th International
AIDS Conference, about 50 Buddhist monks working on HIV/AIDS released a
statement which raised the question whether monks should emphasise only the Five
Precepts. They proposed a new concept, beyond the preaching of the precepts, for
boosting morality, such as helping the youth to understand that they have to repay
their mothers by avoiding drugs or other high-risk behaviours like premarital sex
(Patchanee 2005:10).
Other monks have also looked beyond the Third Precept in discussing sex and
HIV/AIDS. Thattajiwo, Wat Dhammakaya’s assistant abbot, calls AIDS “the
executioner of people mad about sex” (1987:Preface). He suggests that the moral
“vaccine” against AIDS is ultimately sexual abstinence, achieved by Buddhist
practices which focus on realising the ugliness of the body and the distastefulness of
sex. He advocates the practice of kayagatasati, which involves seeing the body as
merely a compound of thirty two different components such as hair, nails, teeth, skin,
sinews, internal organs, blood, sweat, fat, spit and other fluids. The goal of this
practice is to aid the ending of attachment to the body and assist in the extinguishing
of carnal desire.
In conclusion, although Thai Buddhism has set down principles to govern
sexuality among the laity – the Third Precept – it has been neither relevant nor
effective in HIV prevention campaigns among young people because of its perceived
silence on the issue of premarital sex. As a result, religious practitioners have to turn
to other Buddhist teachings or practices in order to advocate against sex outside of
marriage.
14

15. REFERENCES
Allen, R. E. (Ed.) (1990). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th ed.). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Allyn, E. (1991). The men of Thailand revisited: Trees in the same forest. Bangkok:
Bua Luang.
An index to the Qur’an. (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2006, from
http://www.fesih.com/en/Indeks_Quran/quranindex.html
Borthwick, P. (1999). Developing culturally appropriate HIV/AIDS education
programs in Northern Thailand. In P. A. Jackson & N. M. Cook (Eds.).
Genders and sexualities in modern Thailand (pp. 206-225). Chiang Mai:
Silkworm Books.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu 1987 (B.E. 2530). Chiwit khu (Life as a Couple). Bangkok:
Sukhaphap Jai Printers.
Bunmi Methangkun 1986 (B.E. 2529). Khon pen kathoey dai yaang-rai (How can
people be kathoeys?). Bangkok: Abhidhamma Foundation.
Burr, A. (1974). Buddhism, Islam and spirit beliefs and practices and their social
correlates in two southern Thai coastal fishing villages. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, London, University of London.
Campaigns to focus on infection among young. (2004, December 1). Bangkok Post, p.
4.
Chulanee Thianthai (2004). Gender and class differences in young people’s sexuality
and HIV/AIDS risk-taking behaviours in Thailand. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, 6(3), 189-203.
15

16. Cohen, P. & Gehan Wijeyewardene (1984). Introduction. In Spirit cults and the
position of women in Northern Thailand. Theme issue. Mankind, 14(4), 249-
262.
Ford, N. & Sirinan Saiprasert (1993). Destinations unknown: The gender construction
and changing nature of the sexual lifestyles of Thai youth. Paper presented at
the 5th International Conference on Thai Studies. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London.
Furer-Haimendorf, C. (1974). The sense of sin in cross-cultural perspective. Man,
9(4), 539-556.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern
age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
H. Saddhatissa (1970). Buddhist ethics: Essence of Buddhism. London: George Allen
& Unwin.
Harrison, R. (1999). The Madonna and the whore: self/‘other’ tensions in the
characterization of the prostitute by Thai female authors. In P. A. Jackson & N.
M. Cook (Eds.). Genders and sexualities in modern Thailand (pp. 168-190).
Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Harrison, R. (2000). The Disruption of Female Desire and the Thai Literary Tradition
of Eroticism, Religion and Aesthetics. Tenggara, 41, 88-125.
Inter-Faith Networking on AIDS (2004). Access for all: The faith community
responding. Bangkok: Inter-Faith Networking on AIDS.
Isaramuni 1989 (B.E. 2532). Withii porng-kan rook eet (The method to protect
against AIDS): Vol. 34. Isaramuni Pointing the Way Series, Work to Revive
16

17. the Dhamma for the Return of Ethics and the Supramundane. Bangkok: Liang
Chiang Press.
Jackson, P. A. (1995). Thai Buddhist accounts of homosexuality and AIDS. The
Australian Journal of Anthropology (TAJA), 6(3), 140-153.
Jackson, P. A. (1998). Male homosexuality and transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist
tradition. In W. Leyland (Ed.), Queer Dharma: Voices of gay Buddhists (pp.
55-89). San Francisco: Gay Sunshine Press.
Jackson, P. A. (2003). Performative genders, perverse desires: A bio-history of
Thailand’s same-sex and transgender cultures. Intersections: Gender, History
& Culture in the Asian Context, (9). (Internet journal – URL
http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/).
Keyes, C. (1983). Economic action and Buddhist morality in a Thai village. The
Journal of Asian Studies, 42(4), 851-868.
Keyes, C. (1986). Ambiguous gender: Male initiation in a northern Thai Buddhist
society. In C. Bynum, S. Harrell and P. Richman (Eds.). Gender and religion:
On the complexity of symbols. Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press.
Knodel, J., VanLandingham, M., Chanpen Saengtienchai, & Anthony Pramualratana
(1996). Thai views of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Health Transition
Review, 6(2), 179-201.
Kritsadarat Wattanasuwan (1999). We are good Buddhists: The self and consumption
experience of the teenage Dhammakaya Buddhists in Thailand. Paper
presented at the 7th International Conference on Thai Studies. The
Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
17

18. Lyttleton, C. (2000). Endangered relations: Negotiating sex and AIDS in Thailand.
Singapore: Harwood Academic Publisher Imprint.
Macqueen, K. et al. (1996). Alcohol consumption, brothel attendance, and condom
use: Normative expectations among Thai military conscripts. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 10(3), 402-423.
Mattani Mojdara Rutnin (1988). Modern Thai literature: The process of
modernization and the transformation of values. Bangkok: Thammasat
University Press.
Michinobu, Ryoko. (2001). Changing sexuality and HIV risk among factory women in
Northern Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ochanomizu University,
Tokyo, Japan.
Patchanee Malikhao (2005). HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns from a Thai Buddhist
perspective. Media Development, (2), 1-11.
Pathom Asoke. (n.d.). Brief explanations of the Eight Precepts. Retrieved March 5,
2006, from http://www.asoke.info/asokeinfo_english/pathomasoke.html
Phadet Thattajiwo Bhikkhu 1987 (B.E. 2530). Waksiin porng-kan rook eet (A vaccine
to protect against AIDS). Pathum Thani: Thammakay Foundation.
Pimonpan Isarabhakdi & Cornwell, G. T. (1995). Premarital sexual attitudes and
behaviour among never-married rural Thai youth: Implications for STDs.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of
America. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pimonpan Isarabhakdi (2000). Sexual attitudes and experience or rural Thai youth.
Nakhornpathom: Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol
University.
18

19. S. Dhammika (2005). Good question, good answer (4th ed.). Singapore: Buddha
Dhamma Mandala Society.
S. Tachibana (1926). The ethics of Buddhism. London: Oxford University Press.
Suchada Thaweesit (2000). From village to factory “girl”: Shifting narratives on
gender and sexuality in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Taweesak Nopkesorn et al. (1993). HIV-1 infection in young men in northern
Thailand. AIDS, 7(9), 1233-1239.
The Amplified Bible (1987). Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Turton, A. (1984). People of the same spirit: Local matrikin groups and their cults. In
Spirit cults and the position of women in Northern Thailand. Theme issue.
Mankind, 14(4), 272-285.
VanLandingham, M. & Grandjean, N. (1997). Some cultural underpinnings of male
sexual behaviour in Thailand. In G. Herdt (Ed.) Sexual subcultures and
migration in the era of AIDS/STDs. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
VanLandingham, M., Knodel, J., Chanpen Saengtienchai, & Anthony Pramualratana
(1998). In the company of friends: Peer influence on Thai male extramarital
sex. Social Science and Medicine, 47(12), 1993-2011.
VanLandingham, M. & Trujillo, L. (2002). Recent changes in heterosexual attitudes,
norms and behaviours among unmarried Thai men: A qualitative analysis.
International Family Planning Perspectives, 28(1), 6-15.
Varachai Thongthai & Guest, P. (1995). Thai sexual attitudes and behaviour: Results
from a recent national survey. Paper presented at the Gender and Sexuality in
19

20. Modern Thailand conference. Canberra, Australia: Australian National
University.
Warunee Fongkeaw (1995). Early adolescent girls in transition in a peri-urban
Northern Thai community: Perceptions of gender fole and sexuality.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, USA.
Warunee Fongkeaw (2000). Gender socialization and female sexuality in Northern
Thailand. In L. Manderson & Pranee Liamputtong (Eds.). Coming of age in
South and Southeast Asia: Youth, courtship and sexuality. London: Curzon
Press.
Werasit Sittitrai et al. (1992). Thai sexual behaviuor and risk of HIV infection in
Thailand. Bangkok: Program on AIDS, Thai Red Cross Society.
20