Short Time: Dream or Dilemma?

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

What "words" do you have to describe it ,any new ones? 

Leave it with me

[RSD1]

7 hours ago, Hummin said:

We do not have the same backgrounds, values, or desires. I thrive in relationships being two, so that's me after being traveling for work and sports, I enjoy being two, and solve everyday  small mysterious be it pleasure or challenges

 

Yes, that’s you, but one size doesn’t fit all. If you read the OP, he’s comparing going short-time versus having someone he can call on to fulfill that need more regularly. In both cases, he’s not really looking for a relationship though. A deeper relationship is not what some people need. Not everyone values the caring, companionship, understanding, or familiarity that comes with having a long term female partner. For some, a temporary human touch is enough, and in this case, it’s purely about the human touch and no more. The only question is how best to go about getting only that. 

[RSD1]

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Why would you want to go down on someone you are paying to please you?

Because many men are greatly turned on by having a big wet growler shoved in their mouth. 

[NanLaew]

14 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Absolutely beautiful!

Lol ,love it 

May I screenshot this and keep this everytime I get lonely read it 

Thankyou my friend I love you 

You can also print it out and carry a copy for the same purpose when you're perched on your barstool.

[Ben Zioner]

On 11/17/2024 at 5:18 AM, JK-Trilly said:

I’ve been considering something that I think a lot of people in Thailand’s unique environment often ask themselves: Is it better to stick with short-time encounters or to invest in a more traditional girlfriend setup?

 

Short-time has its obvious perks. It’s simple, transactional, and straightforward. No drama, no misunderstandings, no emotional roller coasters, and no navigating a woman's biological monthly ups and downs. Just a direct exchange that lets you enjoy the experience and the moment and then move on. Plus, the variety is a big bonus—you’re not tied to one person, and there’s always the excitement of someone new. From a practical perspective, it’s also much lighter on the wallet when paying per serving when compared to the ongoing running costs of maintaining a girlfriend or a regular partner. Meals out, trips, gifts, all that stuff. 

 

That said, short-time can also occasionally feel too transactional. Sure, it’s convenient, but there’s also something appealing about having a deeper connection with someone—something that feels less commercial, even if it’s not a full-blown relationship. A girlfriend you see regularly might offer some added benefits, like greater passion, intimacy, or simply a sense of familiarity that you don’t always get in short-time encounters.

 

But then again, with a girlfriend comes the flip side: the costs, the time commitment, sacrificing some of your freedom, having to please another person, and the potential for drama or misunderstandings. Even the day-to-day effort of keeping a relationship going can feel like a grind. If your goal is to keep things simple and focused, as well as problem free, it seems a girlfriend might not be the best choice.

 

For those of you who’ve experienced trying both sides, what do you think? Do you say stick with short-time arrangements for their simplicity and low stress? Or do you think there’s some merit in having a girlfriend, even if you’re not looking for a full-fledged relationship?

Since you haven't used the word "Love" I dare say you don't qualify for anything better than "Short Time".

[wwest5829]

On 11/17/2024 at 5:18 AM, JK-Trilly said:

I’ve been considering something that I think a lot of people in Thailand’s unique environment often ask themselves: Is it better to stick with short-time encounters or to invest in a more traditional girlfriend setup?

 

Short-time has its obvious perks. It’s simple, transactional, and straightforward. No drama, no misunderstandings, no emotional roller coasters, and no navigating a woman's biological monthly ups and downs. Just a direct exchange that lets you enjoy the experience and the moment and then move on. Plus, the variety is a big bonus—you’re not tied to one person, and there’s always the excitement of someone new. From a practical perspective, it’s also much lighter on the wallet when paying per serving when compared to the ongoing running costs of maintaining a girlfriend or a regular partner. Meals out, trips, gifts, all that stuff. 

 

That said, short-time can also occasionally feel too transactional. Sure, it’s convenient, but there’s also something appealing about having a deeper connection with someone—something that feels less commercial, even if it’s not a full-blown relationship. A girlfriend you see regularly might offer some added benefits, like greater passion, intimacy, or simply a sense of familiarity that you don’t always get in short-time encounters.

 

But then again, with a girlfriend comes the flip side: the costs, the time commitment, sacrificing some of your freedom, having to please another person, and the potential for drama or misunderstandings. Even the day-to-day effort of keeping a relationship going can feel like a grind. If your goal is to keep things simple and focused, as well as problem free, it seems a girlfriend might not be the best choice.

 

For those of you who’ve experienced trying both sides, what do you think? Do you say stick with short-time arrangements for their simplicity and low stress? Or do you think there’s some merit in having a girlfriend, even if you’re not looking for a full-fledged relationship?

Depends on the individual, I suppose. I made monthlong trips to Thailand in 2009 and 2010. Fat boy in a candy store and I certainly tasted the variety. Retired here in 2011 and continued to play, testing the scenarios. Variety, then seeing one bar girl two or three times a week on “retainer” (started to care too much and was not wanting a bar girl for long term). Arrangement with university student coming to town on the weekends. Nana.

 

In the end I guess I had been too used to sharing my life with one female (albeit serial monogamy).  Now happily settled with a Thai Wife who, after 8 years seems could not be more compatable. 

[Freddy42OZ]

22 hours ago, alien365 said:

The problem with short time is knowing how many men they've been with, maybe even within the same day. I'm really not comfortable with going down on a woman like that and a condom is a must.

 

 

I agree. I'm not dining at the Y if the girl has slept with someone else earlier in the day.

[rwill]

It all depends on what you want more.  Companionship or just sex.

 

Someone once said you don't pay for sex, you pay to be left alone afterwards.

[RSD1]

2 hours ago, rwill said:

Someone once said you don't pay for sex, you pay to be left alone afterwards.

The correct connotation is that your paying to say goodbye. 

[khunPer]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:18 PM, JK-Trilly said:

For those of you who’ve experienced trying both sides, what do you think?

Both sides have pros and cons,,,

[georgegeorgia]

7 hours ago, RSD1 said:

The correct connotation is that your paying to say goodbye. 

Goodbye my love goodbye 

I wonder how many "goodbye " songs there ,thanks for talking about this 

[Elkski]

Short time with one or more proven performers sounds great.   But what about all the duds, dead fish ones if your trying new ones.  That's a waste of time and money.   Add in condom vs bare and std paranoia level.