32 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

no, your argument is not valid because there is much more potential for ABUSE of exchange of money in relationships.

a woman can stay married to a man she doesnt love for 20 years just for money. thats much more sad than paying a girl for an hour. 

 

 

But does this system, this structure, where we pay women for sex, does it not reinforce this whole edifice where women extract money from men?

 

It's 2024, why should men be exploited for money, just because they crave company, sex or female warmth? Surely this is worst for us, men?

 

 

11 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

ST or LT? It is so defining. 

 

ST used to mean two hours.  Today it means one hour. 

LT insinuates a sleepover. 

 

I created my two-letter acronym. 

 

MT or Medium Time

 

No sleepover and 3 to 4 hours. 

For me QT Quick time, 30 minutes is enough. I would have used FT but that's free time which a ladyboy offered me once

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

But does this system, this structure, where we pay women for sex, does it not reinforce this whole edifice where women extract money from men?

 

It's 2024, why should men be exploited for money, just because they crave company, sex or female warmth? Surely this is worst for us, men?

 

 

Most women don't care if they have sex or not, there lies the problem

15 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

ST or LT? It is so defining. 

 

ST used to mean two hours.  Today it means one hour. 

LT insinuates a sleepover. 

 

I created my two-letter acronym. 

 

MT or Medium Time

 

No sleepover and 3 to 4 hours. 

Obviously a man of stamina.

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Most women don't care if they have sex or not, there lies the problem

Why should they? If a woman really wants sex, she will have no problem getting laid.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

But so many women go with men who are not attractive, physical beauty figures quite low on a woman's list, men's other qualities count more, it's not the same for us, as for women, is it? A woman can find a man attractive who has status, who is funny etc...

 

80 per cent seems about right.

Women are attracted by looks, power, intelligence and money.

 

One only has to look at Aristotle Onassis, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk to realize the wallet wins by a country mile.

12 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Most women don't care if they have sex or not, there lies the problem

 

Many don't and that's fine. It's when they use sex to extact money from men that it becomes very reprehensible. There is a whole system built on exploiting men financially, from divorce courts to dating sites to bar girls. It should not be that way. Where both enjoy sex, and both want sex, why not, but if money is involved, even where the man can afford it and is happy with the transaction, this is a problem, because it enables this whole system whereby men get exploited by women for money. I am not just talking about sex, but serial daters, cam girls, porn, divorce. Why do we have to pay to all eternity because we have a sex drive? Something should be done about this.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Women are attracted by looks, power, intelligence and money.

 

One only has to look at Aristotle Onassis, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk to realize the wallet wins by a country mile.

 

Quite so, and I never thought Russel Brand was a pleasure for the eye, and yet women went insane about him.

1 hour ago, Korat Kiwi said:

In the end if your married or not,  you will still end up paying for sex. 

 

If there is a divorce involved then it will  cost you a lot more than any ST or LT worker.  If fact if you could do the math, it would probably still work out cheaper on average per 'bonk'. 

 

I have an old friend who found Thailand well before me.  He vowed never to marry, said it was far more economical to pay as you go. 

 

You want a new model? Easy to do and you won't lose your house over it.  His outlook suited him and had some merit. 

 

I've been married twice, never again. 

There is one positive in long term relationships one doesn't get with ST, unless one is a risk taker. Bareback sex.

 

I have only had sex without a condom with four women in my entire life.

 

I've had some pretty good sex with various women here, although I have always wondered how much better it would have been without a raincoat.

 

There are some pretty scary STD's out there, and they all seem to be getting more resistant to medications.

50 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Quite so, and I never thought Russel Brand was a pleasure for the eye, and yet women went insane about him.

Looks like Charles Manson.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Many don't and that's fine. It's when they use sex to extact money from men that it becomes very reprehensible. There is a whole system built on exploiting men financially, from divorce courts to dating sites to bar girls. It should not be that way. Where both enjoy sex, and both want sex, why not, but if money is involved, even where the man can afford it and is happy with the transaction, this is a problem, because it enables this whole system whereby men get exploited by women for money. I am not just talking about sex, but serial daters, cam girls, porn, divorce. Why do we have to pay to all eternity because we have a sex drive? Something should be done about this.

I assume you're either broke, or a tight wad? 😁

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I assume you're either broke, or a tight wad? 😁

 

Neither. Quite the opposite. I have been too generous. 

 

When I was in my 40s I bought wholesale into the women should be taken care of financially trap.

 

As a result I lost 200,000 USD on a single woman.

 

Now, call me crazy, but anytime a woman now expects money from me, or when I see some other guys throwing money at women,  I get a very bad feeling.

 

And I know if I asked all of you here, have you lost money on a woman, or several women, most of you would deny it, because you want to appear uniquely immune to the current system.  But I know you have too, and you are not immune.

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Neither. Quite the opposite. I have been too generous. 

 

When I was in my 40s I bought wholesale into the women should be taken care of financially trap.

 

As a result I lost 200,000 USD on a single woman.

 

Now, call me crazy, but anytime a woman now expects money from me, or when I see some other guys throwing money at women,  I get a very bad feeling.

 

And I know if I asked all of you here, have you lost money on a woman, or several women, most of you would deny it, because you want to appear uniquely immune to the current system.  But I know you have too, and you are not immune.

Finally you raise some valid points. 

 

Maybe in the past it was the way we were raised. Men were supposed to be the bread winners. 

 

Nowadays with the rise of the feminist movement they want their  cake as well.  Perhaps we are currently the middle ground as all this inequality gets sorted. 

 

If you look in the divorce courts, it's usually the male that takes the biggest financial hit.  I think in the States they call it alimony. 

 

What crazy SOB thought up that idea? I can understand child support however it always seems to go one way.  

 

I'd far sooner take the approach of user pays.  If I want a piece of pie, I'll pay for it then and there (If its available).  Maybe it should apply to women as well? 

 

However if 2 consenting adults wish to partake without financial compensation, then good for them.  There shouldn't be a come back some time down the road, because they feel they missed out on something. 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Korat Kiwi said:

Finally you raise some valid points. 

 

Maybe in the past it was the way we were raised. Men were supposed to be the bread winners. 

 

Nowadays with the rise of the feminist movement they want their  cake as well.  Perhaps we are currently the middle ground as all this inequality gets sorted. 

 

If you look in the divorce courts, it's usually the male that takes the biggest financial hit.  I think in the States they call it alimony. 

 

What crazy SOB thought up that idea? I can understand child support however it always seems to go one way.  

 

I'd far sooner take the approach of user pays.  If I want a piece of pie, I'll pay for it then and there (If its available).  Maybe it should apply to women as well? 

 

However if 2 consenting adults wish to partake without financial compensation, then good for them.  There shouldn't be a come back some time down the road, because they feel they missed out on something. 

 

 

 

I can remember a guy in the company I worked for who had 80% of his wages garnisheed for child support and alimony. He was living in his car, used the works showers and toilets.

 

It's got to the stage with Australian family laws that any relationship longer than 1 year ( marriage ) or 2 years ( de facto ) is fraught with financial peril for the men.

 

Thai law is much more sensible, IMO. What one brings to the marriage remains their property, only assets accumulated during the marriage are split 50:50. Defacto relationships are not recognized.

 

If Thai law had been applied to my relationship breakdowns in Australia, I would still be a millionaire.

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

There is one positive in long term relationships one doesn't get with ST, unless one is a risk taker. Bareback sex.

 

I have only had sex without a condom with four women in my entire life.

 

I've had some pretty good sex with various women here, although I have always wondered how much better it would have been without a raincoat.

 

There are some pretty scary STD's out there, and they all seem to be getting more resistant to medications.

I've managed more than that on holiday for a week.

I was always more concerned with keeping my immortal soul, than catching a disease.

All ST of course, never caught anything.

I assumed this was due to the risk being exaggerated by western anti-sex propaganda.

 

What scary STDs are you frightened of?

More people die in RTAs than from STDs, so logically you should be more scared of crossing the road.

 

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've managed more than that on holiday for a week.

I was always more concerned with keeping my immortal soul, than catching a disease.

All ST of course, never caught anything.

I assumed this was due to the risk being exaggerated by western anti-sex propaganda.

 

What scary STDs are you frightened of?

More people die in RTAs than from STDs, so logically you should be more scared of crossing the road.

 

IIRC you made a statement in a post long ago that you had an STD which was easily fixed with an antibiotic. Therefore, I'll take your comment you never caught anything with a grain of salt.

As far as being frightened of STD's, all of them. Once one gets genital herpes, the virus is in their body for life.

Gonorrhea is easily diagnosed in men. With women, it is furtive, leading to pelvic inflammatory disease, organ scarring, and infertility. It also can affect offspring.

Your attitude to women as receptacles has been on display for years. Would you even care if you infected someone? How would you feel if you infected your wife?

While it is true the risk of infections such as HIV in Thailand have decreased significantly, due to aggressive public awareness programs, and the availability of therapies, the fact remains strains of bacterial STD's are becoming increasingly antibiotic-resistant.

i'm assuming your immortal soul comment is sarcasm.

So you are a stud. You don't know whether the woman you are shagging has had no customers before you that day, or a dozen. Which IMO makes you a dumb stud, albeit lucky.

 

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC you made a statement in a post long ago that you had an STD which was easily fixed with an antibiotic. Therefore, I'll take your comment you never caught anything with a grain of salt.

UTI, not entirely sure how they are transmitted but as granny (73) and my daughter (15) had it at the same time, fairly sure that sex wasn't what caused it. NancyL also had it (if you remember her) at the same time, suspect half of Chang Mai caught it. 

 

Back on topic .......... 

ST is what it is, never worried about how many before or how many after.

Don't care how many people drank from the same coffee cup before me either when I'm in the coffee shop. Not to mention bars, imagine how many diseased old fat guys drank from the glass before you.

 

If I want something, I just pay for it, makes life easy and convenient.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

UTI, not entirely sure how they are transmitted but as granny (73) and my daughter (15) had it at the same time, fairly sure that sex wasn't what caused it. NancyL also had it (if you remember her) at the same time, suspect half of Chang Mai caught it. 

I had a UTI from a long-term partner in Australia. A particularly virulent one. The nurse who saw my urine sample said she had never seen anything like it.

 

It's the only STD I have ever had. I walked out on the relationship shortly afterwards.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I had a UTI from a long-term partner in Australia. A particularly virulent one. The nurse who saw my urine sample said she had never seen anything like it.

 

It's the only STD I have ever had. I walked out on the relationship shortly afterwards.

So you dumped a woman because you thought she gave you a STD, when it was, in fact, a UTI that you could have caught anywhere and you question my treatment of women?

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

So you dumped a woman because you thought she gave you a STD, when it was, in fact, a UTI that you could have caught anywhere and you question my treatment of women?

Correct!  A UTI is not necessarily caused by sexual activity (ie bonking). 

 

Check your friend Google for a list of possible causes. 

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

So you dumped a woman because you thought she gave you a STD, when it was, in fact, a UTI that you could have caught anywhere and you question my treatment of women?

She confessed to me in the aftermath she had an ongoing history of chronic UTI's. I had not been putting myself about anywhere else.

 

Your attitude to women is a matter of record. You consider them to be all liars, and whether they get any pleasure out of sex with you is irrelevant.

 

I find sex to be far more enjoyable if I can bring my partner along for the ride. To me, that's good manners.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your attitude to women is a matter of record. You consider them to be all liars, and whether they get any pleasure out of sex with you is irrelevant.

I consider everyone to be liars ....... Trust No One!

As for my employees, the money I pay them should be compensation enough.

 

But on my plus side ........

I've never stooped so low as to abandon a LTR partner because she was a bit ill.

That seems a bit cold and calculating for me.

18 minutes ago, Korat Kiwi said:

Correct!  A UTI is not necessarily caused by sexual activity (ie bonking). 

 

Check your friend Google for a list of possible causes. 

You may be right. However, in my case  I had evidence bonking was the cause.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I consider everyone to be liars ....... Trust No One!

As for my employees, the money I pay them should be compensation enough.

Each to his own. IMO that's a pretty sad outlook on life.

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I consider everyone to be liars ....... Trust No One!

As for my employees, the money I pay them should be compensation enough.

 

But on my plus side ........

I've never stooped so low as to abandon a LTR partner because she was a bit ill.

That seems a bit cold and calculating for me.

It was not the only factor in the breakup, more like the final straw.

 

You regard women as employees. Their sexual satisfaction is irrelevant to you.

 

To me, there is nothing more exhilarating and fulfilling than the feeling I get when a woman is going into orgasm, irrespective of what position we happen to be in.

 

Your focus is on quantity, mine is on quality.

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

We all have our lines in the sand.

 

Mine is not having anything to do with the younger ones, as I regard them as airheads. An older experienced woman who enjoys sex is a much better proposition.

For many, intellectual stimulation is the last thing that they're looking for in a short time girl. 

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

For many, intellectual stimulation is the last thing that they're looking for in a short time girl. 

Sorry, I meant airheads in terms of sexual experience.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

You regard women as employees. Their sexual satisfaction is irrelevant to you.

 

To me, there is nothing more exhilarating and fulfilling than the feeling I get when a woman is going into orgasm, irrespective of what position we happen to be in.

 

Your focus is on quantity, mine is on quality.

I reguard my employees as employees, if they aren't happy with me as their employer, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

As to their pleasure, not relevant while they are working, best they wait until they're off duty.

Quality, I would never hire less than an '8' (unless horribly drunk).

 

Come to think of it, I never had any orgasms while I was at work either, I suspect it would have been a sacking offence, your workplace must have been very different to mine.

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I reguard my employees as employees, if they aren't happy with me as their employer, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

As to their pleasure, not relevant while they are working, best they wait until they're off duty.

Quality, I would never hire less than an '8' (unless horribly drunk).

 

Come to think of it, I never had any orgasms while I was at work either, I suspect it would have been a sacking offence, your workplace must have been very different to mine.

 

I did have sex with a woman in another department, after a Christmas party. Alcohol removes inhibitions. An average experience for both of us, and a one-off. She initiated it.

She was equipped with condoms, so obviously up for it.

 

You regard sex workers as employees. I regarded them as variety. After I met my GF, I did not need it anymore.

 

IME some of the plainer ones were actually much better in bed than the stunners. Frequently, the lookers were simply starfish. I'd have done better with a blow-up doll.

 

I might have asked you once before why you don't buy one. Think of the money you would save.

21 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Most women don't care if they have sex or not, there lies the problem

 

Most women don't want to have sex with you. The other part, you just made up.