1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

All relationships fail,

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

I feel sorry for you.........😳

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

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.

 

Thats exactly what I mean when I highlight your collapsed world-view and hardened ideology when you interpret all interactions through a reductive lens...  The vast spectrum of normal, functioning relationships simply doesn’t exist in your model - your damaged outlook is rationalised as realism.

 

... and its quite simple - all relationships do not fail - just because the ones that you have been involved in have.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

.... and its quite simple - all relationships do not fail - just because the ones that you have been involved in have.

And yet here you are with the rest of us.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

.... and its quite simple - all relationships do not fail - just because the ones that you have been involved in have.

And yet here you are with the rest of us.

 

'Here’ meaning what exactly - the same URL?....  You believe that sharing an internet forum constitutes shared life failures...  That isn’t a point; it’s a spectacular demonstration of intellectual poverty.... If mere proximity is the limit of your reasoning, it neatly explains why everything else you write collapses, just like your relationships... 

 

 

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Let's hope so.

 

Fingers crossed!

 

And like many others on this thread, I'm crossing my fingers that I'll never end up in a "pay-to-play" relationship with a guy.

14 minutes ago, Celsius said:

And like many others on this thread, I'm crossing my fingers that I'll never end up in a "pay-to-play" relationship with a guy.

Gotta say, I don't want to be in a relationship with another guy, paid or free!

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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

 

Actually, it's YOU trying to white wash your relationship. Pretending you don't pay, when we all know you do. Pretending your relationship, and those of your friends are "special", when you all just pay, like the rest of all mankind.

 

I've never made any attempt to white wash anything. I'm calling things as they are. You're not. It's not your fault, as you live in a delusion you can't see, obviously, but you clearly are.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

..that analogy only works if you ignore context entirely. In a marriage, resources are shared by design and exchanged for commitment, not access.

 

That's one of your many delusions and errors. You ARE paying with your resources for access. If you did not have the resources you do, she would not be with you Richard.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re arguing with a position I haven’t taken. I haven’t called all women whores,

 

That's the only way your argument makes sense. Since Phuket Girl is in a committed relationship with one guy, and is most certainly NOT a whore, and never was. Apart from in your fantasy.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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....

 

Another delusion. I am not paying her to be with me. That's just an incidental need I satisfy, like 99% of all men, who can do so. I'm not tricked into anything. I am eyes wide open and fully aware of what we have.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

the direct purchase of affection

 

Again, just in your mind, another error and delusion.

 

Clearly, you have a problem accepting the nature of your own relationship, and wish to white-wash it as special. It's actually very basic and common, and exactly like mine in the key aspect that I pay for my woman's needs, as do you. And 99% of men world wide.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

she stays with you only becase she believes you will get paid,

 

You have never met, talked to or seen this woman, you have precisely ZERO idea why she is here with me now.

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

that you have attracted her with your great wit, charm, personality and bedroom prowess...

 

 

 

I have attracted her with wit, words, and charm, personality and looks. She was writing to tons of other guys, and chose me. She could have had a doctor, an English guy or indeed the Austrian guy who is extremely rich and owns four properties in Phuket. I asked her why chose me, she said "I thought you were better".

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

It mistakes compliance for attachment and payment for feeling -

 

Nobody is making those mistakes except you perhaps. I know feeling, and I know payment, and I know they are not related in this case.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You relationship is anchored by cash and delusion

 

Not at all. The monetary help is just an incidental. It is actually your relationship that is anchored in delusion, much more than mine, as you actually believe your relationship is "special" and she loves you only for you, not your resources. Which frankly is about as deluded as it can get. Try telling her you lost all your money. See what happens.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Paying for sex is not misogynistic

 

I have no idea, I am not paying for sex. Well except in the wider sense that I pay for the woman, as you and your friends do, and 99% of men the world over.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

you mistake payment for attachment and access for intimacy.

 

No, I don't. You mistake payment for attachment. I'm doing no such thing. I am merely satisfying an incidental material need. Her attachment is real, and the intimacy is very real too.

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You then attempt to launder a contingent transaction into a ‘normal relationship’.

 

All relationships are contingent, never unconditional, and all relationships are transactional. The idea that this is not the case with your relationship, is a major delusion and error of yours, yet again.

 

 

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

- all relationships do not fail -

 

Of course they do. Even if both parties stay together, one will die earlier. 

 

All relationships fail.

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Of course they do. Even if both parties stay together, one will die earlier. 

 

All relationships fail.

 

'come on...     we all know your love is eternal...     well... just so long as the cash is... 

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

'come on...     we all know your love is eternal...     well... just so long as the cash is... 

 

No, but it was the best two and half days ever. 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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

 

Actually, it's YOU trying to white wash your relationship. Pretending you don't pay, when we all know you do. Pretending your relationship, and those of your friends are "special", when you all just pay, like the rest of all mankind.

 

I've never made any attempt to white wash anything. I'm calling things as they are. You're not. It's not your fault, as you live in a delusion you can't see, obviously, but you clearly are.

 

Quite right, Cameroni - of course I pay. In fact, I almost certainly pay far more than you do.

There’s the house, the car, international school fees, three or four intercontinental flights a year, the maid, groceries, restaurants, holidays, skiing, beaches - the full weight of an actual life shared with other human beings.

So yes, I work for my family - I paid...   

 

The difference - the one you seem constitutionally incapable of grasping - is that I am not paying for someone whose sole reason for being with me is payment. Before we were a married family, I wasn’t paying. When we started dating, the relationship didn’t begin with a tariff, an allowance, or a salary expectation - she didn't need it.

 

That distinction is obvious to anyone with even a basic grasp of adult relationships. The fact you can’t see it isn’t a disagreement - it’s evidence of how completely lost you are.

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

..that analogy only works if you ignore context entirely. In a marriage, resources are shared by design and exchanged for commitment, not access.

That's one of your many delusions and errors. You ARE paying with your resources for access. If you did not have the resources you do, she would not be with you Richard.

 

That’s wrong because she wasn't a two-bit-pay-for-play-ho when we met...    she didn't switch from a ropey aging guy paying her pittance for some horizontal fumbling to another ropey aging guy under the delusion he's a thrusting adonis getting capturing the heart so effectively she'll 'change'...   but she's honest and a good cleaner at least !!! 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re arguing with a position I haven’t taken. I haven’t called all women whores,

That's the only way your argument makes sense. Since Phuket Girl is in a committed relationship with one guy, and is most certainly NOT a whore, and never was. Apart from in your fantasy.

 

She's not committed... The Austrian was clearly just a stepping stone before she moved on to you - she was never committed to him....  He was just some feckless muppet ready to pay her while she looked for someone who she thought was ready to pay more.....  OR... did you mean she's committed to you...  in which case... wash, rinse, repeat... 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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....

Another delusion. I am not paying her to be with me. That's just an incidental need I satisfy, like 99% of all men, who can do so. I'm not tricked into anything. I am eyes wide open and fully aware of what we have.

 

How much have you given her so far?

 

In on of the many arguments you described - she wanted 20,000 baht, you offered 10,000. Then it became 100,000, followed by a threat to leave. She didn’t - because she had nowhere else to go.

She’ll move out the moment someone else offers what she’s actually after. That’s the only variable here.

So are you paying the 20,000 yet?

 

Its good, at least, that you now claim you’re not ‘tricked’. Because when you write about mutual heartfelt feelings and you're in the throws of convincing yourself you're special, it reads as comedy....  Knowing you’re actually cynical about the arrangement doesn’t make it dignified - but it does make you slightly less foolish.....

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

the direct purchase of affection

 

Again, just in your mind, another error and delusion.

 

Clearly, you have a problem accepting the nature of your own relationship, and wish to white-wash it as special. It's actually very basic and common, and exactly like mine in the key aspect that I pay for my woman's needs, as do you. And 99% of men world wide.

 

No - most relationships are not as basic as yours. Most long-term relationships do not operate on a ‘money for sex or there is no relationship’ model. That’s not normal outside of the pay for play world you live in.

 

And don’t kid yourself - you are not paying for ‘your woman’s needs’. First, she isn’t your woman. She’s available to whoever offers the most. You’re simply the highest bidder for now - largely because there are no other bidders at the moment, which is hardly surprising given the photos you chose to publish.

We’ve seen this before. The CM girl had other bidders, and you were discarded without hesitation. Same behaviour, different outcome - driven entirely by differing levels of desperation, not affection.

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

she stays with you only becase she believes you will get paid,

You have never met, talked to or seen this woman, you have precisely ZERO idea why she is here with me now.

 

You've posted 100's of pages of your hilarious bumf - you've given everyone the idea of why a woman would be with you...   They think they will get money and they don't realise you are a controlling misogynist. 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

that you have attracted her with your great wit, charm, personality and bedroom prowess...

 

I have attracted her with wit, words, and charm, personality and looks. She was writing to tons of other guys, and chose me. She could have had a doctor, an English guy or indeed the Austrian guy who is extremely rich and owns four properties in Phuket.

 

Well done - you outshone a bunch of other guys so desperate they too were scraping the barrel....  hmmm... 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I asked her why chose me, she said "I thought you were better".

 

Translation - She was looking for Mr Right... and you were Mr Right Now - ready to pony up the wonga so she didn't have to continue sleeping with a 62 year old for money... 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

It mistakes compliance for attachment and payment for feeling -

 

Nobody is making those mistakes except you perhaps. I know feeling, and I know payment, and I know they are not related in this case.

 

Indeed...  she's feeling the money... You're feeling loved - so romantic !!! 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You relationship is anchored by cash and delusion

 

Not at all. The monetary help is just an incidental. It is actually your relationship that is anchored in delusion, much more than mine, as you actually believe your relationship is "special" and she loves you only for you, not your resources. Which frankly is about as deluded as it can get. Try telling her you lost all your money. See what happens.

 

 

Its happened...  She stepped up.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Paying for sex is not misogynistic

 

I have no idea, I am not paying for sex. Well except in the wider sense that I pay for the woman, as you and your friends do, and 99% of men the world over.

 

It is with a woman who's repulsed by you and is only with you because you are paying them - oh, but that was just an argument - she's not repulsed really - the assurance of money soon changed the repulsion to tollerance.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

you mistake payment for attachment and access for intimacy.

 

No, I don't. You mistake payment for attachment. I'm doing no such thing. I am merely satisfying an incidental material need. Her attachment is real, and the intimacy is very real too.

 

Yes, her attachment is real - in the same way a hand clings to a wallet. And to be clear, you are not the prize, however flattering that illusion may be to you...

 

Ask yourself one simple question: if she won 50 million baht tomorrow, would she stay with you - or remove you from her life at speed? You already know the answer.

 

That is the difference you refuse to grasp. If my wife, or the wives of my friends, won that kind of money, they would go nowhere. Those relationships are built on foundations that do not depend on financial leverage.

 

Yours does. And because it does, it evaporates the moment the leverage disappears. That isn’t cynicism - it’s structural reality.

 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You then attempt to launder a contingent transaction into a ‘normal relationship’.

 

All relationships are contingent, never unconditional, and all relationships are transactional. The idea that this is not the case with your relationship, is a major delusion and error of yours, yet again.

 

Going back to the lottery example: You won’t understand this because you never have. Your entire experience is built on engaging with women who lack meaningful choice and are therefore compelled to accept money, not on interacting with women who have freedom and alternatives.

 

Of course, women with genuine choice are never your target. They rarely are for men like you. Misogynists don’t cope well with shifted power dynamics; they avoid situations where equality, mutual attraction, or rejection are possible. Paying removes the risk.... That isn’t preference. It’s retreat.... its pathetic weakness... its lack of game...  its paying for play...   Fine if thats your preference - but comically desperate and sad if you think there is the affection you so desperately yearn for - its just an act and believing it makes you quite the feckless loser.

30 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

'come on...     we all know your love is eternal...     well... just so long as the cash is... 

 

No, but it was the best two and half days ever. 

 

haha - brilliant...    You think you are Mickey Rourke on fast track !!! 

@Cameroni how about this couple? 

 

 

3 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

@Cameroni how about this couple? 

 

 

 

 

All I have to say, there is hope for everyone still in Thailand. In 10 years Im not sure this will be so common anymore. 

Just now, Hummin said:

 

 

All I have to say, there is hope for everyone still in Thailand. In 10 years Im not sure this will be so common anymore. 

 

this guy seems to have found him self a Filipina. They're cranking out so many kids in wretched poverty I think this can go on for quite a bit longer.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course they do. Even if both parties stay together, one will die earlier. 

 

All relationships fail.

 

You are a comedian 🤣👏

Just now, NorthernRyland said:

 

this guy seems to have found him self a Filipina. They're cranking out so many kids in wretched poverty I think this can go on for quite a bit longer.

 

Well, I wish him luck. They usually have extended families and have high maintenance cost. She might do well on tik tok tho, ?

2 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

this guy seems to have found him self a Filipina. They're cranking out so many kids in wretched poverty I think this can go on for quite a bit longer.

He actually looks like one I have seen before, any idea where he is from ?

17 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

@Cameroni how about this couple? 

 

 

That’s pathetic. 

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Quite right, Cameroni - of course I pay. In fact, I almost certainly pay far more than you do.

There’s the house, the car, international school fees, three or four intercontinental flights a year, the maid, groceries, restaurants, holidays, skiing, beaches - the full weight of an actual life shared with other human beings.

 

Well admitting this to yourself is a first step to exit the delusion, well done, Richard, I commend your honesty on this.

 

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The difference - the one you seem constitutionally incapable of grasping - is that I am not paying for someone whose sole reason for being with me is payment.

 

There is no difference, your assumption is that Phuket Girl is only with me for payment, which is of course quite false. Her Austrian ex owns four properties on Phuket, three condos and a house. All indications are that he is wealthier than I am.

 

31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Before we were a married family, I wasn’t paying.

 

Come, come now, you paid for dinners, gifts etc...your memory failing you already?

 

36 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That distinction is obvious to anyone with even a basic grasp of adult relationships.

 

My grasp of adult relationships is vastly superior to yours. I had what you have only a few years ago. But I exited and sued for divorce, because I did not want it anymore.

 

37 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That’s wrong because she wasn't a two-bit-pay-for-play-ho when we met.

 

Perhaps, neither was Phuket Girl. Your continous insulting of this girl as a "two bit pay for play ho" or a "prostitute" really says more about you than her. 

 

In any event, the level of deception used to obtain resources is neither here nor there, we both know Phuket Girl is more honest in this regard, it would be

unseemly to castigate her for it.

 

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She's not committed... The Austrian was clearly just a stepping stone before she moved on to you - she was never committed to him....  He was just some feckless muppet ready to pay her while she looked for someone who she thought was ready to pay more.....  OR... did you mean she's committed to you...  in which case... wash, rinse, repeat... 

 

Like I said, the Austrian is very wealthy, living with me is really a step down in material terms. And the reason they parted ways, again, was because he found someone else. There was no financial motive. Contrary to what you imply.

 

It's of course too early to say if Phuket Girl is truly committed to me, but the initial signs are very good.

 

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

How much have you given her so far?

 

In on of the many arguments you described - she wanted 20,000 baht, you offered 10,000. Then it became 100,000, followed by a threat to leave. She didn’t - because she had nowhere else to go.

She’ll move out the moment someone else offers what she’s actually after. That’s the only variable here.

So are you paying the 20,000 yet?

 

I paid the flight and travel costs, around 5500 or 6500 baht, I forget. However, when we had that big bust up and she almost left she paid the 5500 back to me. I then paid gave her 7000, though she was asking for 10000, so factoring in that she returned 5500, I gave her a grand total of 1500 baht. Plus dinners, breakfasts and lunches, which is so little, I don't even count it.

 

To be honest we're having a bit of a problem right now, as she insists on seeing my phone. She's jealous. I'd do anything for her, but I can't do that. It'd break her heart to see my phone. So  she's sulking now, though she just asked me to dry her hair with the haridryer, so maybe it's improving. But whether we make it 5th February, let's see.

 

47 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - most relationships are not as basic as yours. Most long-term relationships do not operate on a ‘money for sex or there is no relationship’ model.

 

Yes, they are actually, whilst the "money for sex" paradigm is of course not on open display it's running as surely in the background, as Windows on my laptop. You've already disclosed all that you're paying, trying not paying it, see how soon your relationship would collapse. Scary, I know.

 

49 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

First, she isn’t your woman. She’s available to whoever offers the most.

 

Only in your fantasy world. As I made clear, she had a lot of guys writing to her offering her money. Including a guy with a boat. She could pick and choose. And now nobody can have her anyway, cause I have her now.

 

50 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

which is hardly surprising given the photos you chose to publish.

 

You can spout your nonsense all you like, and so can Celsius, I have shown those photos to  trustworthy people, and they have all expressed their admiration at her great beauty. She's no doubt vastly more attractive than your other half, whom you're keeping hidden for good reason, let's be honest.

 

51 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

We’ve seen this before. The CM girl had other bidders, and you were discarded without hesitation. Same behaviour, different outcome - driven entirely by differing levels of desperation, not affection.

 

I have to admit, in the interest of rigorous honesty, that there are some similarties between CM girl and Phuket girl. However, they are very different girls, and the situations are very different. CM girl had a boyfriend for 2 years, when she dated me, no doubt extremely wealthy and I was to be the love interest on the side, until I made clear I would not pay for her shopping at Big C, or her boyfriend of 2 years pulled out the Royal Flush in Pattaya. I don't even know why I was discarded, and you certainly don't. Maybe I should ask CM girl? She was merciless in her bidding process however, Phuket Girl is very different in this regard.

 

54 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 They think they will get money and they don't realise you are a controlling misogynist. 

 

They always think they will get money, but that's not the reason why I get the women I get, Richard. As someone who's mollycuddled in the cocoon of domestic bliss, you really have no idea what it takes to get these 24 year olds. You couldn't do it with all the money in the world, I'm talking real girls, not outright sex workers.

 

56 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well done - you outshone a bunch of other guys so desperate they too were scraping the barrel....  hmmm... 

 

You would give up your menopausal non-entity if you could scrape this barrel for a mere 90 minutes, I assure you.

 

56 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She was looking for Mr Right... and you were Mr Right Now - ready to pony up the wonga so she didn't have to continue sleeping with a 62 year old for money... 

 

She was looking for Mr Right, but as I've said, I've paid her 1500 baht.

 

57 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Indeed...  she's feeling the money... You're feeling loved - so romantic !!! 

 

She's in love allright. Why else would she be so extremely jealous of other girls writing to me? She told me so today.

 

58 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It is with a woman who's repulsed by you and is only with you because you are paying them -

 

Lol, why would she be repulsed by me, I'm gorgeous?

 

59 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

if she won 50 million baht tomorrow, would she stay with you - or remove you from her life at speed? You already know the answer.

 

Absolutely, I do, she and I would build a house in Si Sa Ket and live the dream.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

That is the difference you refuse to grasp. If my wife, or the wives of my friends, won that kind of money, they would go nowhere. Those relationships are built on foundations that do not depend on financial leverage.

 

Yours does. And because it does, it evaporates the moment the leverage disappears. That isn’t cynicism - it’s structural reality.

 

 

That's pure cynicism, Phuket Girl and I would stay together and be very happy if she won the lottery. Our bond is strong alrready.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your entire experience is built on engaging with women who lack meaningful choice and are therefore compelled to accept money, not on interacting with women who have freedom and alternatives.

 

Total nonsense, you are clueless about the depth and width of my experience. As I made clear, I lived with a woman who had choices and was with me for love, first for 12 years and then another for 23 years. The difference was, Richard, that I HAD CHOICE, and I didn't want that domestic cocoon anymore. I had what you have, and I threw it away, because I didn't want it anymore. I know it's hard to grasp for you, but I can assure you my relationship experience is vastly greater than yours. I've been in long term relationships since the age of 17.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course, women with genuine choice are never your target.

 

They are always my target. All the women I have in my roster have tremendous choice. Unlike your hidden lady, I suspect.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

They rarely are for men like you.

 

I'm like catnip to women, they fall for me so easily it's almost unreal.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Misogynists don’t cope well with shifted power dynamics

 

Tssss, I'm not a misogynist in the slightest, I'm a realist. Very different pair of shoes.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

they avoid situations where equality, mutual attraction, or rejection are possible.

 

Equality is possible, hahahahaha, you're really so deluded as to almost be crazy in the head. At least you gave me a good laugh. Equality, lol. priceless.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

. Paying removes the risk.... That isn’t preference. It’s retreat.... its pathetic weakness... its lack of game...  its paying for play...   

 

Again, you're just talking cut price garbage now, like I said I much PREFER my relationships now. To be stifled in a straight jacket of family obligations like you are, would be a nightmare to be, let alone with a menopausal 49 year old. It would literally be hell for a man like me. And don't kid yourself that you could get 24 year old girls, like this, you cannot. Not with all the money in the world. Only whores maybe. And Phuket Girl isn't one. And it took a lot of game to get her. It's not "pay for play" at all, that's just another delusion and idee fixe you have.

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

its just an act and believing it makes you quite the feckless loser.

 

You know it's an interesting question, if her love is just an act or not. The thing is we can only find out in good time, as you have, so neither I nor you can really know at this point.

 

What's for sure, having her now, I'm the winner, and you are the loser.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

haha - brilliant...    You think you are Mickey Rourke on fast track !!! 

 

Great film, 9 and half weeks, how I loved it. The problem was Rourke's character was in his experimentation phase, and thus scared away the woman he loved. Thankfully, I've gone through that phase in much greater depth than Rourke did in that movie, and thus now I am not encumbered by sexual fetishes of any kind really.

 

I'm free to let Kim love me as much as she wants.

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Great film, 9 and half weeks, how I loved it. The problem was Rourke's character was in his experimentation phase, and thus scared away the woman he loved. Thankfully, I've gone through that phase in much greater depth than Rourke did in that movie, and thus now I am not encumbered by sexual fetishes of any kind really.

 

I'm free to let Kim love me as much as she wants.

 

If you say so 😄 

 

oh my, cant believe I missed out on more than 3k posts in this tread. Just wish I buy popcorn yesterday, so I could deprive in to this tread a little bit mere intensively. And today all shops is closed. 

25 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

@Cameroni how about this couple? 

 

 

 

Are they cutting soap? Must be true love.

16 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He actually looks like one I have seen before, any idea where he is from ?

no idea I just scrolled on TikTok following that previous video with the Thai girl.

 

This comes to mind. I saw this guy on YouTube. If you're really going to go full dirty old man this is a better example to follow. I think she's in her mid 30s and seems grounded at least.

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I'm like catnip to women, they fall for me so easily it's almost unreal.

 

Post a picture of you together. You're retired so there should be no consequences right? Maybe do a TikTok since this seems to be a popular genre.

1 minute ago, NorthernRyland said:

Post a picture of you together. You're retired so there should be no consequences right? Maybe do a TikTok since this seems to be a popular genre.

 

I'll think about it. There are some good ones.

 

 

10 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

no idea I just scrolled on TikTok following that previous video with the Thai girl.

 

This comes to mind. I saw this guy on YouTube. If you're really going to go full dirty old man this is a better example to follow. I think she's in her mid 30s and seems grounded at least.

 

 

 

The most important to understand, the illusion is only true to you as long it works. Nobody else see what you see, and everyone expects it to be a compromise one way or another, or both. 

 

So enjoy it as long it lasts

40 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

@Cameroni how about this couple? 

 

She's a bit prettier than Cameroni's man-thing... 

30 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

The difference - the one you seem constitutionally incapable of grasping - is that I am not paying for someone whose sole reason for being with me is payment.

 

There is no difference, your assumption is that Phuket Girl is only with me for payment, which is of course quite false. Her Austrian ex owns four properties on Phuket, three condos and a house.

 

\Thats not an assumption - she asked you for money and threatened to leave when you didn't agree to her amount... 

... She's still there because she has no plan B yet - thats all...

 

You'll have to lock her phone away - otherwise she'll be on Tinder and ThaiFriendly Dating sides faster than your premi-ej... 

 

30 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

All indications are that he is wealthier than I am.

 

He was giving her 10,000 baht - she thought she could get 20,000 from you... 

Just saw these for sale at Chiang Mai Airport.... 

 

He's already Monetising his ordeal...