BangkokReady

I think we might have got our wires crossed at some point. I believe you were asking how someone could make it to retirement and only have the state pension, not early retirement or moving to Thailand specifically.

I don't think it has anything to do with being aware in most cases. You'll understand if you drop your bias and reread my comment.

Did anyone say it was?

If they want all that plus sex, then it doesn't really apply to them. ????‍♂️

The self-styled "King of Isaan" sounds like a Tory through and through. "If people are poor it is because they are lazy and don't want to work!"

It would vary from person to person, in my opinion. It could be: parents, school, capitalism, chance, geography. Anyone born into impoverished conditions, with Sh*tty parents, living in a sh*tty area, going to a sh*tty school, and with few job prospects, or some combination thereof, is unlikely to achieve greatness. I'm sure some people would say that it is the individual's fault, that they had many chances to save money, and, while this may be true for a few, I think that circumstances beyond their control is going to be the biggest factor. I don't believe that there are many who were fully aware and in a position to do something about it, yet simply <deleted> the money away thinking "someone else will look after me when I'm old". Probably some like that, but more that simply never had a chance.

He seems to have left out one keyword: should.

You see "revenge killing" and you think maybe he was a mobster and killed someone. Then you realise it's Thailand and it's possible that he just embarrassed the son by shouting at him. Hopefully more information is forthcoming.

You can get Kimchi fired rice?

Don't you frown with your eyebrows?

And do these women marry men who earn significantly less than they do?

By never having a job with a pension and not earning enough to invest in a private pension.

Do they enter into relationships with guys with no money? Do they want a house husband?

The implication is that if you source your sex from a non-professional you have to commit other things such as time and emotional investment. I imagine it means something like you can meet a professional, have sex with her, then leave, whereas if you source sex elsewhere you might have to spend the whole day with the woman, take her on a date, take her shopping, listen to her whine, and so on. You cannot wake up, have sex with her, then say that you want to spend the day doing something alone.

I try to respect other people's religious beliefs, but you have to wonder how this guy is hearing the spirits talk to him.

It's so sad that this is the go-to Thai response to an argument for so many. They should feel embarrassed to have to resort to getting a gang together to fight one person. No shame in these people.

I wanted to check, so here you go: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/?sh=2088b728b7fd

It's quite funny, really, that so many people are hoodwinked by the idea of "equality". Nowhere near enough people question the modern woman/traditional man dichotomy. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that we know women want a man with a certain level of income in order to marry them. That so many men are happy with playing the traditional male provider role, whilst also helping with housework is just beyond me. If the man and woman have a comparable income, then I can see the logic, but how often does that actually happen? The age thing is another point. It used to be the case that a man of means could marry as young a woman as he could find. Now men are strictly controlled by society, even if they have money. Everyone might be happy with an age-gap union, but "the women" aren't so it's public shaming for the man. And all these changes for men come as women are expecting to have less and less responsibility and accountability.

Exactly. In the West a man needs to prove his worthiness through not just an income, but a house and a car as well. Unfortunately, shaming men has become fairly mainstream in the US/UK. The attraction is quite simple. Western men who marry Eastern women simply get more (or anything) for their money. In many Western relationships, what the man provides is taken for granted and there is little expectation put upon the woman. There is a pretence of equality, but it only goes in one direction. It's quite logical that, since they need to achieve a certain level of wealth in order to marry back home, Western men are looking abroad. Of course, Western women don't like losing their monopoly, so they attempt to shame men to prevent them from seeking out a better deal. The big lie is that Western women aren't marrying for money while Eastern women are only staying with someone because they are being paid to do so.

I've never been to Oz, but I've seen some of them on TV and the women there seem more manly than most men in the UK. Asian women seem to have it a lot more sorted (some of them anyway). Stay attractive, behave in a feminine way, support your man, but be clear what you expect from the relationship in return. Western women are mostly looking to "buy champagne with Kool-Aid money", as our American friends would say.

Many Western men find that they need to be able to provide a certain level of income to be able to marry and start a family, and often financial troubles lead to divorce. The idea that you don't need to pay someone to be with you in the West is a bit of a red herring. I'm sure you've heard something like "I'm looking for a guy with goals, someone who takes their career seriously". It's still all about money, it's just disguised with "clever" language. If you think about there being a requirement to earn in the West and a relationship breakdown if you fail to do so, paying a woman to be with you in Thailand suddenly doesn't seem that bizarre. It's a bit of a smokescreen that you don't have to pay for love and sex in our home countries, it just isn't directly spoken about the way it is in Thailand.

I would imagine something like 10 or 20 times the rate in Thailand.

As I said, I'm no expert, but I think the overall message is clear. Women who get paid to do this thing are far more attractive in Thailand than in the UK.

The UK is a pretty messed up place for men. Especially when they get older. No matter how much people try to pretend, men bring money and women bring their bodies. It always has been this way and always will be. The proportions may vary, but a poor man and a fat ugly woman are always going to find it hard to pair up. If a couple of the same age marry and spend their lives together, by the time they are 50 the man is still working hard and the "body" that the woman provided is a distant memory. I believe that what used to make this OK was the need for the woman to stay chaste and the need to marry before people could have sex. The woman saved herself for marriage, and the man followed through with it until death, even when the woman was no longer attractive. There was balance. Once feminism came along and changed all that, it was pretty obvious that men with money and grown up kids were very likely to start looking elsewhere. The social contract was broken and some men still have options.

That strippers in the UK are overweight and unattractive, especially compared with those found in Thailand. A subjective opinion, but I think I would agree. Haven't (knowingly) seen any in the flesh in either country, but from the media it certainly seems to be true, IMHO. I believe it's a common view that the UK has some of the ugliest women in the world. Most have very masculine faces and are on the large side. Even average/below average girls in Thailand - slim, jet black hair and brown skin - would be like models in the UK. You can totally understand why men make the switch, especially once you factor in the attitude. Due to the cancer that is Western feminism, many women in the UK have the bizarre expectation that they can behave like "modern women" but still demand a "traditional man".