18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

everyone (most people) have remained very 'on topic' i

No. You and many others on here have gone on and on and on and on about p4play, prostitutes etc. This thread was never about that topic. And it's not interesting topic.

18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

If money, allowances, gifts, negotiations, and replacement candidates are part of the story, then the financial component is inherently relevant. Removing the word doesn’t remove the economics or the facts.

The allowance part is purely incidental. It's not central to this story in any way. Every relationship is transactional, I'm not going into this argument again. It's tedious.

18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

It’s your attempt to normalise it and compare it to conventional relationships.

I realise you think you're very special and your relationship is not transactional, it is of course, but again, I'm not interested to go into this debate, it's just tedious.

18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

those of us in normal long term relationships not based on financial basis

You have already outlined the massive financial basis your relationship rests on. You choose to ignore it to try and convince yourself your relationship is special. In fact it has a financial basis, like any other.

2 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

That's someone who is selling herself for gifts and money. What do you call that?

Normal.

All women are like this now. She's just more direct about it, more honest.

2 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Is that being in love with you for you?

Please, do you believe in Father Christmas too? You think women love us for "us"? Sancta Simplicissitas.

3 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

She's a 'ho' and you are her 'john'

No, a whore asks money for a one off sex act. She doesn't do that. She's certainly not a "whore". I realise you're just stupid, but maybe try to look up the meaning of prostitution.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Normal.

All women are like this now. She's just more direct about it, more honest.

Please, do you believe in Father Christmas too? You think women love us for "us"? Sancta Simplicissitas.

No, a whore asks money for a one off sex act. She doesn't do that. She's certainly not a "whore". I realise you're just stupid, but maybe try to look up the meaning of prostitution.

Normal for you, obviously.

Yes, my woman loves me for me.

No, whores can also have longer term deals, where the man/woman affords them an apartment and gives them an allowance.

I've met a few. One, who lived in an apartment funded by her foreign boyfriend, suggested that we have sexual relations, for 1 baht. I have no idea why she stipulated the 1 baht fee.

I'm not so stupid as to give 20k monthly to a 'ho', especially one who just cheated on you. How pathetic is that? You've been cuckolded.

How 'stupid' was it to be sending 8k monthly to Bangkok Girl who wasn't even your girlfriend and refused to meet to have sex with you? Your problem is that you've gone all in to be with a 'ho'. It's shameful and embarrassing. We know.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

Normal for you, obviously.

No, actually resources for sexual access has been the norm in every culture for thousands of years. It remains so to this day.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

Yes, my woman loves me for me.

No. She doesn't. Like I said, you're stupid.

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No. You and many others on here have gone on and on and on and on about p4play, prostitutes etc. This thread was never about that topic. And it's not interesting topic.

The allowance part is purely incidental. It's not central to this story in any way. Every relationship is transactional, I'm not going into this argument again. It's tedious.

I realise you think you're very special and your relationship is not transactional, it is of course, but again, I'm not interested to go into this debate, it's just tedious.

You have already outlined the massive financial basis your relationship rests on. You choose to ignore it to try and convince yourself your relationship is special. In fact it has a financial basis, like any other.

All relationships are inherently transactional but what many here are referring to is the money part. Everyone expects to be treated well, getting love, trust, care and a closeness but some only care about the money part, many women here included, and gold diggers worldwide.

When a partner puts their other half first is where things go well, especially if they do the same. Can't be halfway. All women love to be given an allowance of sorts, which most normal ones use for the relationship and it's needs or wants. The greedy buy gold and things only for themselves, and look to the other to provide things instead of counting on them for emotional support.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, actually resources for sexual access has been the norm in every culture for thousands of years. It remains so to this day.

No. She doesn't. Like I said, you're stupid.

Perhaps, for 'hos' in every culture. 'ho' mongers know only that way. For the rest of us, we find women who actually bond with us for other reasons.

So perhaps you can explain the reason for her being with me, since I don't give her any money at all.

You are just another 'john'.

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

All relationships are inherently transactional but what many here are referring to is the money part. Everyone expects to be treated well, getting love, trust, care and a closeness but some only care about the money part, many women here included, and gold diggers worldwide.

When a partner puts their other half first is where things go well, especially if they do the same. Can't be halfway. All women love to be given an allowance of sorts, which most normal ones use for the relationship and it's needs or wants. The greedy buy gold and things only for themselves, and look to the other to provide things instead of counting on them for emotional support.

If my woman doesn't put me (and our son) first, I stop paying her ............

So far 16+ years, while the ones that loved you for yourself only lasted 7 years (edited from 5 years for accuracy).

10 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Perhaps, for 'hos' in every culture. 'ho' mongers know only that way. For the rest of us, we find women who actually bond with us for other reasons.

How long has the woman you have (excluding your mom) been with you?

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

All relationships are inherently transactional but what many here are referring to is the money part. Everyone expects to be treated well, getting love, trust, care and a closeness but some only care about the money part, many women here included, and gold diggers worldwide.

When a partner puts their other half first is where things go well, especially if they do the same. Can't be halfway. All women love to be given an allowance of sorts, which most normal ones use for the relationship and it's needs or wants. The greedy buy gold and things only for themselves, and look to the other to provide things instead of counting on them for emotional support.

Please stop this nonsense. Allowance of sorts? What are you talking? If you are living together, then of course one makes sure there is money in the pot for whatever.

If married with children and the woman is at home, then of course money has to be provided. But for someone who does nothing, but provide sex...that's something else. That's providing money for sex and companionship. No money, no relationship.

If your relationship is dependent on your providing money, it's on shaky ground.

Just now, BritManToo said:

If my woman doesn't put me (and our son) first, I stop paying her ............

So far 16+ years, while the ones that loved you for yourself only lasted 5 years.

Actually 7 , 7 , 6 and 7 were the ones I had children with. You can't put disturbed women in the same place as normal ones who are motherly and do what a wife's supposed to do. Those that give up their children and aren't doing the mother job aren't worth staying with as the children need stability, even if that comes only from one parent. Of course also many women will stay with someone who's paid from the start, and continues, as they think they might not get a better deal, especially as they age. A women is supposed to put their husband first, children second, family third and friends last. Money surely keeps many around. I'd rather have love, trust and an independent woman

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How long has the woman you have (excluding your mom) been with you?

Eleven years.

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If my woman doesn't put me (and our son) first, I stop paying her ............

So far 16+ years, while the ones that loved you for yourself only lasted 5 years.

He pays too. No money, no honey.

Just now, IsmeUno said:

Please stop this nonsense. Allowance of sorts? What are you talking? If you are living together, then of course one makes sure there is money in the pot for whatever.

If married with children and the woman is at home, then of course money has to be provided. But for someone who does nothing, but provide sex...that's something else. That's providing money for sex and companionship. No money, no relationship.

If your relationship is dependent on your providing money, it's on shaky ground.

It may be nonsense to you, but most women love spending money, especially seeing they like to buy things for you and the children. That is money in the pot, and they can use it as they want, as long as it's not all for them, which is greed. If your woman stays home raising the children, then the money only comes from the husband. Nothing to do with shaky ground but providing. When you have children and a family, you'll know this more. And no, I've only paid for sex 2 times, when I was a teenager, and never since. Providing as a husband isn't quite the same. If you don't give your woman money and she isn't working, you're a cheapskate. Also, giving a girlfriend some spending cash isn't for sex but a gift.

12 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Actually 7 , 7 , 6 and 7 were the ones I had children with. You can't put disturbed women in the same place as normal ones who are motherly and do what a wife's supposed to do. Those that give up their children and aren't doing the mother job aren't worth staying with as the children need stability, even if that comes only from one parent. Of course also many women will stay with someone who's paid from the start, and continues, as they think they might not get a better deal, especially as they age. A women is supposed to put their husband first, children second, family third and friends last. Money surely keeps many around. I'd rather have love, trust and an independent woman

Mine is equally disturbed, abandoned her daughter until age 11.

Then I turned up, moved the kid in and added one of our own.

I think what's happening is you're lacking management skills.

Don't let them meet anyone that could offer a better deal.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

It may be nonsense to you, but most women love spending money, especially seeing they like to buy things for you and the children. That is money in the pot, and they can use it as they want, as long as it's not all for them, which is greed. If your woman stays home raising the children, then the money only comes from the husband. Nothing to do with shaky ground but providing. When you have children and a family, you'll know this more.

You are using a sweeping brush to generalise about all women, then revert to describing married with children. Completely separate category.

Married with children or just with children, then you are duty bound to provide. Merely girlfriend and you are equal, distributing costs according to agreement. There is no obligation for a man to provide any money, at all.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Mine is equally disturbed, abandoned her daughter until age 11.

Then I turned up, moved the kid in and added one of our own.

I think what's happening is you're lacking management skills.

Don't let them meet anyone that could offer a better deal.

You can't assume what's happening in anyone's lives but your own. I got custody of my first three from my first wife because she was a nutcase that didn't want the job and was abusive. I got custody of my 4th child because i asked my girlfriend for her as she also wasn't capable, and I had them all until they left the house at 19. This one also doesn't want the job as she also gave her first 2 away. Being a Thai, it's all about the money to her. I've been the primary caretaker in all my relationships with children. That's management skills as I also took care of the house bills.

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, a whore asks money for a one off sex act. She doesn't do that. She's certainly not a "whore".

The definition of "whore" is vague

I just saw an ad on a dating app.

Mid 20s, hot, dresses like a ho. (latex ..)

Ad claims "I am not a bargirl. Can someone take care of me?"

Could be she is looking for a legit relationship, but I wouldn't touch that ad with a 10 foot pole.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

You are using a sweeping brush to generalise about all women, then revert to describing married with children. Completely different category.

Married with children or just with children, then you are duty bound to provide. Merely girlfriend and you are equal, distributing costs according to agreement. There is no obligation for a man to provide any money, at all.

Read what I said. I am talking about both wives and girlfriends. It's providing for a wife, and giving money as a gift to a girlfriend, to do what she pleases. Thai women love having cash on hand, especially if they don't work, or if they do and don't make much money. There are a lot of cheapskates that never give their women money. I and it seems many here don't fall in that category.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

You can't assume what's happening in anyone's lives but your own. I got custody of my first three from my first wife because she was a nutcase that didn't want the job and was abusive. I got custody of my 4th child because i asked my girlfriend for her as she also wasn't capable, and I had them all until they left the house at 19. This one also doesn't want the job as she also gave her first 2 away. Being a Thai, it's all about the money to her.

Hmmm....so many women not wanting the job when with you, to the point of giving up the children to get away from you? That's three times. Does it not occur to you that it might be something that you are doing?

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

Read what I said. I am talking about both wives and girlfriends. It's providing for a wife, and giving money as a gift to a girlfriend, to do what she pleases. Thai women love having cash on hand, especially if they don't work, or if they do and don't make much money. There are a lot of cheapskates that never give their women money. I and it seems many here don't fall in that category.

I read it. Giving money to a girlfriend as a gift, NO. Not other than birthdays or Christmas gifts.

Cheapskates who manage to maintain relationships without having to pay someone to stay with them. That's completely different from maintaining a household.

Maybe ask yourself why you are choosing Thai women with no money.

9 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Hmmm....so many women not wanting the job when with you, to the point of giving up the children to get away from you? That's three times. Does it not occur to you that it might be something that you are doing?

Obviously whatever is happening, it's his fault.

One might be considered 'an act of god', or a learning event.

But 3-4x seems to be behaving the same way, but expecting a different outcome.

Classic narcissist, always someone else fault!

Just now, IsmeUno said:

Hmmm....so many women not wanting the job when with you, to the point of giving up the children to get away from you? That's three times. Does it not occur to you that it might be something that you are doing?

Assuming again, as usual. I divorced them, as I've mentioned before, but your usual turning around of the facts has you thinking otherwise. Of course it's something I'm doing. I'm very good to women I've had children with that weren't able to do their part. I made bad choices in women, especially those I had children with. There are quite a few really messed up women in this world if you haven't noticed. Remember I'm only talking about 4 women here. They didn't give up our children. I took them away. Giving away her previous 2 here wasn't to get away from the men but the children, as they took off on her also.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Assuming again, as usual. I divorced them, as I've mentioned before, but your usual turning around of the facts has you thinking otherwise. Of course it's something I'm doing. I'm very good to women I've had children with that weren't able to do their part. I made bad choices in women, especially those I had children with. There are quite a few really messed up women in this world if you haven't noticed. Remember I'm only talking about 4 women here. They didn't give up our children. I took them away. Giving away her previous 2 here wasn't to get away from the men but the children, as they took off on her also.

There's no 'turning around of facts'. I quoted exactly what you wrote. The difference is perspective. The same thing happening three times to the same person... What/who is the common denominator? You.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

I read it. Giving money to a girlfriend as a gift, NO. Not other than birthdays or Christmas gifts.

Cheapskates who manage to maintain relationships without having to pay someone to stay with them. That's completely different from maintaining a household.

Maybe ask yourself why you are choosing Thai women with no money.

Ever hear of attraction, which isn't a choice? And we're only talking about two here. Both were working when I met them, although not making much. We never hear anything from you about your woman besides just now, that she's been with you 11 years, and not a Thai. there's quite a difference in western and Thai women. Why are you living here if you're with a western woman? Just curious, seeing you think you know all about other's lives here but all you say is 100% assumptions about us.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Ever hear of attraction, which isn't a choice? And we're only talking about two here. Both were working when I met them, although not making much. We never hear anything from you about your woman besides just now, that she's been with you 11 years, and not a Thai. there's quite a difference in western and Thai women. Why are you living here if you're with a western woman? Just curious, seeing you think you know all about other's lives here but all you say is 100% assumptions about us.

Yes, I've heard of attraction. What does that have to do with anything? is that your excuse for being stupid in repeatedly having children with women you claim were not capable?

Who is this us? I'm talking to you.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

There's no 'turning around of facts'. I quoted exactly what you wrote. The difference is perspective. The same thing happening three times to the same person... What/who is the common denominator? You.

I see your comprehension skills haven't improved since yesterday. When you read what a person says, only an imbecile automatically turns what he says around to make yourself feel better. That's not an insult but a fact. Try using the facts I've given and not commenting in your usual insulting way for a change. Your perspective is a very disturbed one, seeing it's always the same way. False and an avoidance of the facts given.

Maybe you've only had one or two relationships in your life but most of us have had many more, and most end because the two aren't a good fit. Most of the time it doesn't mean either is bad but just don't have the same future plans so they leave before it gets more involved, which is the correct way to end a relationship that doesn't seem permanent. Millions like me have chosen bad, many more times they they'd like.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

I see your comprehension skills haven't improved since yesterday. When you read what a person says, only an imbecile automatically turns what he says around to make yourself feel better. That's not an insult but a fact. Try using the facts I've given and not commenting in your usual insulting way for a change. Your perspective is a very disturbed one, seeing it's always the same way. False and an avoidance of the facts given.

Maybe you've only had one or two relationships in your life but most of us have had many more, and most end because the two aren't a good fit. Most of the time it doesn't mean either is bad but just don't have the same future plans so they leave before it gets more involved, which is the correct way to end a relationship that doesn't seem permanent. Millions like me have chosen bad, many more times they they'd like.

Look at how you are become more irate and insulting, when you cannot manipulate people into agreeing with you.

You cannot accept any other perspective than your own, which I guess was a major factor in your failed relationships.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

Yes, I've heard of attraction. What does that have to do with anything? is that your excuse for being stupid in repeatedly having children with women you claim were not capable?

Attraction is what brings most people together. Some women are attracted to a dream of better things, so they put on a face, like the ex did here, until they have you. I think I mentioned this yesterday, how a covert narcissist works, but obviously you didn't take my advice to read up on them, so you still haven't a clue.

Most others are attracted by looks, and this is how many millions of relationships don't end up well. Many people can act very well for months but eventually the real you comes out. Just as you have coming back as yourself, even though you've used a dozen different usernames trying to hide your behavior.

Calling someone obviously a lot more intelligent than you've proven to be her doesn't fare well for you. Do you have any children? if not, you aren't qualified to comment on them. Count yourself lucky that a woman stayed with your type 11 years, although she's a suspect because of this herself.

2 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Look at how you are become more irate and insulting, when you cannot manipulate people into agreeing with you.

You cannot accept any other perspective than your own, which I guess was a major factor in your failed relationships.

No, lets look at you, which is exactly why I've done this every time. You start out asking a question, then go onto the assuming and thinking I was the one at fault, being the "common denominator". You weren't there, and are quite the moron thinking you can judge my life.

Your words, seeing you may have already forgotten, "Hmmm....so many women not wanting the job when with you, to the point of giving up the children to get away from you? That's three times. Does it not occur to you that it might be something that you are doing?"

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Attraction is what brings most people together. Some women are attracted to a dream of better things, so they put on a face, like the ex did here, until they have you. I think I mentioned this yesterday, how a covert narcissist works, but obviously you didn't take my advice to read up on them, so you still haven't a clue.

Most others are attracted by looks, and this is how many millions of relationships don't end up well. Many people can act very well for months but eventually the real you comes out. Just as you have coming back as yourself, even though you've used a dozen different usernames trying to hide your behavior.

Calling someone obviously a lot more intelligent than you've proven to be her doesn't fare well for you. Do you have any children? if not, you aren't qualified to comment on them. Count yourself lucky that a woman stayed with your type 11 years, although she's a suspect because of this herself.

So you failed to find a decent woman due to your own ego. You allowed yourself to be flattered and manipulated by those unsuitable women. Boohoo...it's all their fault, not ever yours.

How come it didn't happen to me? Do you think that I don't meet attractive women? The difference is how I behave towards them, isn't it?