1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Nah. A poorer 24 year old is much better. More fun too.

You must enjoy the mismatch of the power dynamic. 

7 hours ago, Lightyear said:

Wasn't she supposed to be be musical - an excellent flautist? There must be concerts and cultural events that you can enjoy together. 

 

The 'woodwind' section of OnlyFans may have been banned in Thailand... 

 

I wonder how many old accounts she has... 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The 'woodwind' section of OnlyFans may have been banned in Thailand... 

 

I wonder how many old accounts she has... 

I wonder how any old women you have. Cameroni seems to be doing alright.

I reckon cheer him on.

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

5 hours ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Fly to Hokkaido, Japan, she never saw snow.

Ok have to change wardrobe.

 

What a great idea!

We can go skiing!!!

 

An Amazing break...   

 

No need to go all the way to Hokkaido... Tokyo is closer...    

Can combine with a Citi Toyko trop, the Skytree, Shibya crossing, Shunjuku, Yoyoyoi part Harajuki & Takash!tastreet (maybe she'll stop talking so much <removed>)...

 

Bullet train to Nagano and your an hour away from ski reports...

 

Perfect brake to take a holiday - and Japan has an open visa for Thai's ( if she's not on record for having done the rounds there before too !!! - but unlikely no - its 5's and above for that).

 

 

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

I wonder how any old women you have. Cameroni seems to be doing alright.

I reckon cheer him on.

 

Cameroni has outbid a 62-year-old Austrian to have a woman come and stay with him, and sleep with him. I celebrate that on two fronts: two adults are free to make a choice and come to an arrangement. One needs money and will <removed> almost anything for it; the other wants to <removed>. Quid pro quo.

 

But when he then paints this arrangement as real, normal, or comparable to the relationships our families, friends and patients have, it does more than expose his whoring and mongering for what it is. It highlights a deeper, underlying misogynistic contempt he holds for women in any genuine relationship.

 

So yes,....cheer him on, sure. But also call him out on the gargantuan degree of utter delusion involved, and the staggering intellectual dishonesty required to maintain it

10 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The 'woodwind' section of OnlyFans may have been banned in Thailand... 

 

I wonder how many old accounts she has... 

I wonder how any old women you have. Cameroni seems to be doing alright.

I reckon cheer him on.

 

How much are you paying yours ?

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Cameroni has outbid a 62-year-old Austrian to have a woman come and stay with him, and sleep with him. I celebrate that on two fronts: two adults are free to make a choice and come to an arrangement. One needs money and will £vck almost anything for it; the other wants to Fvck. Quid pro quo.

 

But when he then paints this arrangement as real, normal, or comparable to the relationships our families, friends and patients have, it does more than expose his whoring and mongering for what it is. It highlights a deeper, underlying misogynistic contempt he holds for women in any genuine relationship.

 

So yes,....cheer him on, sure. But also call him out on the gargantuan degree of utter delusion involved, and the staggering intellectual dishonesty required to maintain it

 

Well, the worst part, he might think just giving her shelter, food and trips and some few clothes will pay for his needs, 

 

aiaiaiaiaiai huh 🤔 

 

or should I say her needs?

Vulgarity was removed from some posts. We express ourselves with decorum here please @richard_smith237. Expletives disguised with characters that resemble letters are still expletives, so please don't use them either. Thank you. 

6 hours ago, JimCM said:

On 10/27/2025 at 3:28 PM, SAFETY FIRST said:

Maybe I know her 🤔

 

If she's as good as you say, she can earn hundreds of thousands of baht every month from her many sponsors 

 

It's easy, just offer her the same money, she will stick with you 💲💲💲💲

 

PROBLEM SOLVED 😎

What makes you say she's a prostitute?

Where did I say she's a prostitute? 

 

You non native English speakers should use Google translate. 

 

I LOVE IT 😂

 

You guys must be really getting under Richard's skin, you guys cracked him, he's fractured now. 

 

Thanks guys 🙏

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

An Amazing break...   

 

No need to go all the way to Hokkaido... Tokyo is closer...    

Can combine with a Citi Toyko trop, the Skytree, Shibya crossing, Shunjuku, Yoyoyoi part Harajuki & Takash!tastreet (maybe she'll stop talking so much <removed>)...

 

Bullet train to Nagano and your an hour away from ski reports...

 

 

 

My God, what a production. Isn't there a snow machine wonderland in Bangkok?

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

it does more than expose his whoring and mongering for what it is. It highlights a deeper, underlying misogynistic contempt he holds for women in any genuine relationship.

 

You're really making me laugh with your nonsense, Richard. I'm "whoring and mongering" now? Only in your prostitute obsessed mind. Unless giving a woman you're in a relationship with some resources is "whoring", in which case of course you, Richard, are whoring more than me. Since your menopausal 40something has got vastly more of your resources than Phuket Girl ever got of mine.

 

However, calling all women "whores" is missing the mark. Yes, all woman seek resources, including yours, and your friends, however, a whore is not in a committed relationship with one single guy, she doesn't share the intimacies of daily life with that one single person. You seem to have serious difficulties in understanding what a whore is, despite your fascination with them (and ladyboys).

 

Of course my relationship is exactly the same as yours in regards to one key aspect, you pay for your woman, and I pay for mine. Like all men do everywhere. Best let go of this delusion that you're "special". Your relationship is not "special" and you're not special. You're paying like everyone else.

 

And btw, it's in no way "misogynistic" to say women seek resources from men. They do. It's just a fact. Yours does too, Richard. Best to let go of your delusions and see reality for what it ireally is.

Thankfully I was busy making pancakes with Phuket Girl this morning and am therefore full as a horse and incapabale of true animonsity.

 

What delights can I conjure up today to keep her entertained?

 

I must plan the day.

 

 

15 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

They run the gamut honestly. yeah they're not as much fun as 24 year girl without a job but that's because they take their lives seriously and had to move on. Same for the peasant class of rural folks. Playing games and messing around simply isn't an option past a certain age so they move on.

 

 

Yes, fair point, of course people are different and there's a spectrum, however, as you say these women do have to take life a lot more seriously, they have been hurt more, they are generally less inclined to please.

 

If you get a fun 24 year old, you'd never have the same experience even with the best of 45 year olds.

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

My God, what a production. Isn't there a snow machine wonderland in Bangkok?

 

Yes - but that’s the substitute experience. Which, to be fair, does seem to be your comfort zone.....

 

 

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, fair point, of course people are different and there's a spectrum, however, as you say these women do have to take life a lot more seriously, they have been hurt more, they are generally less inclined to please.

 

If you get a fun 24 year old, you'd never have the same experience even with the best of 45 year olds.

 

It is a bit sad whit that attitude, since you maybe never will experience mutual respect and love with an matured women, and the qualities she have and how she will comfort you as you comfort her. There is more to life than just having fun on the premises of a 24, or a 24 having fun on a elderly mans premises. 

 

Those who know, knows, and those who do not know will maybe never know, because they most likely will despise any wife getting older, and feel uncomfortable. 

 

Balance in a relationship is not easy for most no matter what, bu when you got it, you know. 

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

since you maybe never will experience mutual respect and love with an matured women

 

Let's hope so.

 

Fingers crossed!

On 10/27/2025 at 3:05 PM, Cameroni said:

It put me right off, I have to say. I mean what does she think, I will bankroll her trip to CM, pull out all the stops so she has "fun", and then just say Ok, when she wants to move on to sit on the Johnson of another guy?

 

I mean what are these girls thinking? Seriously?

You would be shocked how many foreign SUCKERS would go with women like that. Just take a look at the average couple always so obvious where they find them.

13 minutes ago, Mitkof Island said:

You would be shocked how many foreign SUCKERS would go with women like that. Just take a look at the average couple always so obvious where they find them.

Yeah, imagine a foreign SUCKER actually doing that!! Bankrolling a trip to CM, pulling out all the stops for her to have "fun" (as long as it doesn't involve going out to where she might have to meet respectable Thais), having everyone look at it and find it creepy, then just waiting for her to jump on another johnson when the "fun" (money) runs out. Just imagine how much we'd laugh at such a SUCKER.

Luckily Cameroni isn't that guy, he's too streetwise to be suckered in like that. We know because he said it himself, many times, at the beginning of this thread.

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You're really making me laugh with your nonsense, Richard. I'm "whoring and mongering" now? Only in your prostitute obsessed mind. Unless giving a woman you're in a relationship with some resources is "whoring", in which case of course you, Richard, are whoring more than me. Since your menopausal 40something has got vastly more of your resources than Phuket Girl ever got of mine.

 

Trying to white wash your pay for play set up again !!...

...that analogy only works if you ignore context entirely. In a marriage, resources are shared by design and exchanged for commitment, not access. Confusing that with a paid arrangement is precisely the category error being criticised...

 

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

However, calling all women "whores" is missing the mark. Yes, all woman seek resources, including yours, and your friends, however, a whore is not in a committed relationship with one single guy, she doesn't share the intimacies of daily life with that one single person. You seem to have serious difficulties in understanding what a whore is, despite your fascination with them (and ladyboys).

 

Of course my relationship is exactly the same as yours in regards to one key aspect, you pay for your woman, and I pay for mine. Like all men do everywhere. Best let go of this delusion that you're "special". Your relationship is not "special" and you're not special. You're paying like everyone else.

 

You’re arguing with a position I haven’t taken. I haven’t called all women whores, nor suggested that seeking resources is immoral.

But I will highlight the women you are paying to be with you are, and the morality of their 'acquisition' of 'your resources' is questionable as you are being tricked like a blind fool into believing its love....

 

You always want to highlight that adults have always exchanged different forms of value - time, effort, money, care. That observation is banal and uncontroversial.

What is comical is the belief that the direct purchase of affection produces a genuine, caring, loving relationship. That isn’t romance; it’s a category error. It mistakes compliance for attachment and payment for feeling - an error more typical of adolescent fantasy than adult emotional competence.

 

The distinction is not whether resources are involved, but what anchors the relationship.

 

You relationship is anchored by cash and delusion - she stays with you only becase she believes you will get paid, you stay with her because you are deluded into a childlike dream-state that you have attracted her with your great wit, charm, personality and bedroom prowess...

 

 

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

And btw, it's in no way "misogynistic" to say women seek resources from men. They do. It's just a fact. Yours does too, Richard. Best to let go of your delusions and see reality for what it ireally is.

 

Seeking resources is universal. Paying for sex is not misogynistic if both parties consent. None of that is in dispute.

 

Your failure is what follows: you mistake payment for attachment and access for intimacy. You then attempt to launder a contingent transaction into a ‘normal relationship’. That isn’t realism - it’s a category error.

 

Reducing women to a resource model doesn’t describe reality; it deletes agency, reciprocity and interior life and replaces them with a price mechanism. Calling that ‘how relationships work’ isn’t cynical or honest - it’s simply ignorant.

 

 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What is comical is the belief that the direct purchase of affection produces a genuine, caring, loving relationship. That isn’t romance; it’s a category error. It mistakes compliance for attachment and payment for feeling - an error more typical of adolescent fantasy than adult emotional competence.

Would disagree,

At least those of us that avoid your 'free sex' delusion know we are paying, what we are paying for, and can limit our potential loses, both emotional and financial. Not to mention our women still have sex with us, whereas your women (that love you for yourself) generally start avoiding sex with you after a year or two.

52 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You're really making me laugh with your nonsense, Richard. I'm "whoring and mongering" now?

 

When a woman sleeps with you because she expects money, then yes - that is the defining motive.

If she would not sleep with you were she certain no money was forthcoming, then the nature of the arrangement is unambiguous.

In your case, every woman you’ve described in this thread has had one primary objective: to separate you from your money. That you interpret this as ‘feelings’ isn’t romantic or nuanced - it’s credulous to the point of absurdity

 

Just now, BritManToo said:

Would disagree,

At least those of us that avoid your 'free sex' delusion know we are paying, what we are paying for, and can limit our potential loses, both emotional and financial.

 

We know you pay for sex - that’s not the point being made. The difference is that you’re not delusional about it. You’re fully aware the women you sleep with wouldn’t be there without payment, and you don’t pretend otherwise. There’s no foolishness there.

 

Where you are ignorant is assuming all other relationships are the same as your own failures. That isn’t realism - it’s bitterness. Your marriage failed; that doesn’t make marriage itself a sham. It just means yours like a lot of other was unsuccessful and now you have moved on with a different attitude - one where you are aware 'paying for sex' is the only way you'll be happy.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In your case, every woman you’ve described in this thread has had one primary objective: to separate you from your money. That you interpret this as ‘feelings’ isn’t romantic or nuanced - it’s credulous to the point of absurdity

Same for your case, and every other man's case.

If you ain't got money, you'll be alone in your bed every night.

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Same for your case, and every other man's case.

If you ain't got money, you'll be alone in your bed every night.

Total rubbish, did your dad give mum housekeeping money, to bring you up, or are you going to call him a tool too.................?. 🤔

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In your case, every woman you’ve described in this thread has had one primary objective: to separate you from your money. That you interpret this as ‘feelings’ isn’t romantic or nuanced - it’s credulous to the point of absurdity

Same for your case, and every other man's case.

If you ain't got money, you'll be alone in your bed every night.

 

This is where your misogynistic delusion leaks out. Because your wife left you, you project that failure onto all women and all marriages, as if money is the only thing holding relationships together. That simply isn’t true. Relationships differ - yours failed. Others don’t.

 

Your posting history is saturated with bitterness about that failure, and you repeatedly universalise it to make it feel normal. It isn’t. Some relationships end; yours did. The consequence is that you now pay for sex, while others don’t need to.

 

There is one universal rule, though: in pay-for-play arrangements, when the money stops, the woman leaves. You understand that. Cameroni doesn’t, because he thinks he’s in love.

 

That outcome is not inevitable in normal relationships - but it is guaranteed in transactional ones. Missing that distinction is ignorance. Pretending it doesn’t exist is delusion.

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Same for your case, and every other man's case.

If you ain't got money, you'll be alone in your bed every night.

I think you should go and have chat with a shrink, you seem to have lost the plot.........🥴

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Same for your case, and every other man's case.

If you ain't got money, you'll be alone in your bed every night.

 

This is where you consistently fail in these discussions: you never acknowledge your own role in the events you cite.

 

Whether it’s the motorcycle incident or your marriage, the pattern is the same - total externalisation of blame.

 

Others are irrational, malicious, or defective; you are merely the passive victim. Any suggestion of provocation, contribution, or personal failure is minimised or denied.

 

After your wife left, that refusal hardened into ideology. You now interpret all female behaviour through the same reductive lens: women are disloyal, transactional, motivated by money, and incapable of genuine attachment. This isn’t insight - it’s damage rationalised as realism.

 

As a result, your worldview has collapsed into a false binary: women who are paid, and women who would leave anyway. The vast spectrum of normal, functioning relationships simply doesn’t exist in your model.

 

That is the inverse of Cameroni’s error. He falsely upgrades transactions into relationships. You downgrade all relationships into transactions. Different mistakes - same inability to engage with reality.

 

 

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Others are irrational, malicious, or defective; you are merely the passive victim. Any suggestion of provocation, contribution, or personal failure is minimised or denied.

Completely correct, i am entirely passive, and let stuff happen around me without the false narrative that I can change anything in this world. But as I have very little in the way of worldly desires, that life entirely suits me.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is where your misogynistic delusion leaks out. Because your wife left you, you project that failure onto all women and all marriages, as if money is the only thing holding relationships together. That simply isn’t true. Relationships differ - yours failed. Others don’t.

All relationships fail,

in the immortal words of WOPR, the only winning move is not to play.