12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You've put so much out there about the 'girls'

 

I've only put out a small percentage of the real information. Even with all that is out, you do not know the full facts. You have made one false diagnosis in this post of yours I will explain below, which again stems from you simply not knowing the facts. 

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

When you met the woman who became your partner for twenty-three years, she was - I’m quite certain - already financially independent.

 

This for instance, is another completely false assumption. I met my Russian ex wife when she was 19 and had come to the UK to be an au-pair. She was thrown out from her family due to seeing a boyfriend, me, and had no income whatsoever. I took her in. It was a similar situation to now with Phuket girl, I had this large 4 bed house and needed someone to live there with me. She received an allowance from me to help her buy whatever needs she had. In short order she started to get a job in the UK, yes, but initially she was not financially independent.

 

So again you are making factual assumptions that are simply untrue.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

who simply can’t accept that some / many of us date women here exactly as we would in the West - without stipends, allowances, or covert sponsorships.

 

No, I have already said above that whilst allowances are also paid for wives and girlfriends in the West, that is sometimes not the case, however, even when these are not paid the husband or boyfriend still pays. He pays for food, the mortgage, dinners, holidays, presents, etc etc...so again, let's not pretend you, or your friends, are in some kind of pecuniary virginal relationship. You aren't . Like everyone else, you pay. Just not in the form of allowances. But you still pay.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re pretending that meeting a financially independent woman - someone who can stand on her own and chooses a partner out of desire, not survival - is the same as meeting someone living on the breadline. It isn’t remotely comparabl

 

It is very comparable. A Thai girl who has no income, just savings from say the 10000 baht allowances her ex paid her, when she moves on to a new guy, she willl still choose someone whom she desires, who is better looking than her ex, who is attractive, who has traits she likes. Your assumption that women choose only based on money is simply false. Even with girls who have no income. Usually. Of course there are whores or material girls, who only choose based on money, but to suggest all girls are like this is just false.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

When a woman is extremely poor, her choices are understandably shaped by security first.

 

All women based their choice on fundamentals that have to be in place, before they pursue a relationship. These fundamentals vary and are not the same for each woman. Some women put financial stability at first place, yes, but those need not be very poor women. Some women with independent means do that. Some poor women don't do that, but put the attractive paradigm first. The world is too complex for the kind of rules you are trying to make, they are not rules, merely impressionist dots that sometimes make a real picture, and sometimes do not.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The issue isn’t that such arrangements exist. It’s pretending they’re identical to relationships formed between two people who don’t need each other for money or basic survival. That’s the delusion - its one you can't seem to see beyond.

 

In essence there are no identical relationships, all are different. However, in reality no woman NEEDS a man for money or basic survival. If they don't choose you, they can choose someone else. Particularly beautiful women have a choice. They can choose from many options. So they don't really NEED you, for money or basic survival. They can get money from many sources. The real delusion is yours, to think that when such women do obtain resources from men, this is somehow different in essence, than when a financially independent woman obtains resources from a man via means other than fixed allowance, ie holidays, mortgage or rent payment, food, dinners, presents. It's not really different in essence at all.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No one in the UK pays their partner £500 a month as a standard fee for companionship and then pretends it’s “normal”. It isn’t. It’s only been normalised in Thailand because many Western men sponsor women who are financially vulnerable...

 

Firstly, in the UKk many men pay their partner hundreds of pounds to assist with household expenses, pay their mortgage, pay their rent, pay for holidays, pay for dinners that cost many hundreds of pounds. It's ludicrous to pretend this is not the case, and men are not paying for companionship in the UK, just because their payments do not take the form of a formal allowance. Of course they are paying. It's normal in the UK and it's normal in Thailand. Women getting resources from men is normalised all over the world. It has been normalised for tens of thousands of years.. You're just quibbling about format, which is a moot point really.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In this setup, the money isn’t incidental; it’s the foundation. That alone puts it in a completely different category.

 

No. In Thailand where men pay an allowance, that is only the "foundation" if the girl is an out and out whore. For most normal relationships in Thailand an allowance is not the "foundation", it is one of the incentives, that may come at second, third, or forth place. The girl may like the man for other reasons than a 10000 allowance. But of course she will take the allowance. That doesn' t mean it's a "foundation". Other aspects may be the foundation.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

but the real question is this: was the financial aspect the kicker? Was it a deciding factor in her choice to enter into that relationship? And more pointedly, does the financial incentive carry far more weight than emotional or physical attraction?

 

Agreed. Where money payments are the deciding factor and carry more weight than any other factors, then you simply have a whore/client relationship. However, for the vast majority of relationships in Thailand that is not the case. In fact most girls enter into relationships first and then seek to ensure the financial incentives are sufficient, which in fact is EXACTLY the same as women do in the UK.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Emotional connection, shared values, mutual attraction and compatibility form the core.

 

Money does not suffice to get a beautiful girl, who is not a whore, in Thailand.. Or in the UK. These women have many otpions. They will seek an attractive man, emotional connection, shared values in most cases before they seek financial incentives.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In contrast, when a young woman engages with an older man who pays her from the outset, the financial component isn’t incidental - it’s structural. It frames the dynamic before emotions even have a chance to take root. To treat it as though it carries the same emotional weight as a relationship formed without that economic imbalance is, again, a distortion of reality.

 

 

Young women can get emotionally attached to an older man who paid her, even when he stops paying her, I will illustrate this with a specific example here later. The financial component carries perhaps more "emotional" weight with a woman who is financially insecure, but by no means is it guaranteed that she would place the financial component at first, or even second or third place. That depends entirely on the woman. To try and seek these iron-clad rules for the real world, as you seek to make, is the distortion of reality.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

But that doesn’t erase the fact that the primary lever in such a relationship is financial, not emotional. And that alone places it in an entirely different category from relationships where attraction and affection come first and money, if it matters at all, comes much later.

 

No, financial incentives are NEVER a primary lever, unless the woman is a whore. If she is a normal good looking Thai girl, she will consider the financial incentive aspect, but it almost always take second, third or fourth place, after other considerations the girl deems more important. Very few Thai girls put financial incentives at first place, unless they are outright whores or material girls. So in fact it is exactly the same as in the UK, other considerations than money are more important for women. In Thailand as well as in the UK.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Her decision to be with you wasn’t shaped or swayed by any financial security you might have offered.

 

Well, I was 29 at that point and frequented a large group of friends, all language students from all over Europe, of whom I was the richest. I alone had a fancy car, a big house, could throw big parties, and usually bankrolled our daily outings. When she was swayed by me, it is hard to say if it was my looks, my status in the group, or my financial acumen. I had it all then, but  it was probably looks at first, yes.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The emotional dynamic there is worlds apart from that of a woman half a man’s age who, by sheer circumstance, will almost inevitably depend on him financially. In those arrangements, a financial stipend isn’t a by-product of the relationship - it’s part of the foundation from the very beginning. It’s woven into the unspoken contract.

 

I understand what you're saying, but you see reality contradicts your theory. When I ceased working as a lawyer, the relationship dynamic with this Russian ex wife also changed fundamentally for the worse. So money and status played an important role with her, even though she ahd proven loyalty and care over many years. And the loss of status and a six figure income, also was a factor in that relationship coming to an end. So fundamentally there is little difference between that relationship and most in Thailand.

 

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

If you genuinely can’t see that the difference isn’t subtle, isn’t nuanced, but absolutely glaring, then you’re deluding yourself by trying to frame these two situations as versions of the same emotional process. They’re not. One sits firmly on the transactional end of the spectrum, where companionship is intertwined with economic support. The other is built on something far less conditional, far less contingent, and far more emotionally autonomous.

 

To pretend the two are equivalent is to ignore power dynamics, agency, and the very different motivations at play. And that’s not insight - it’s convenient blindness.

 

No, the emotional process is the same, excepting obviously situations where the woman is a whore or material girl, women will seek attraction, emotional compatibility etc first and THEN see about the financial framework. There is no difference in essence. Yes, of course some women can put more weight on financial incentives in a normal relationship, but that depends on her views and values, not on her economic situation. There are very poor girls who never ask for money and/or do not see money as even remotely a primary consideration.. The motivations you speak of are particular to the woman and the relationship. Again, you cannot make the generalisations you are making without losing grip on reality.

Yesterday night we made up. Kissed and made love again, at her instigation.

 

As we lay in bed I asked her "Did you write to any other guys in the last 3 days?".

 

Phuket girl being the world's most honest girl told me the truth. "Yes, one guy".

 

It was her Austrian ex. Turns out her 62 year old Austrian ex had dumped her for someone else. a few weeks ago. So of course this boosted her interest in him. 

 

She said they were still friends, the break-up was amicable. The Austrian was someone who always took her out to all the beaches in Phuket, to watch volleyball.

 

She loves the beach. She loves Phuket. And still has some feelings for this ex, though she swears she would never want to have a relationship with him again. The Austrian ex paid her 10000 baht every month. But now the payments stopped, and she's still emotionally attached to him.

 

I told her to block this Austrian ex. She did. Reluctantly.

 

I told her if she did not block him, she could fly back to Phuket today and write to him every day.

 

If she wanted to be with me, there could be no contact with an ex.

 

This situation has now further brought down the Oxytocin haze.

 

She is a beach girl. She loves Phuket. She is not emotionally fully available. Writes to an ex secretly behind my back. 

31 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

She is not emotionally fully available. Writes to an ex secretly behind my back. 

 

Well, you two are not official yet & she is probably keeping her options open until - or if, you are.

58 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I've only put out a small percentage of the real information. Even with all that is out, you do not know the full facts. You have made one false diagnosis in this post of yours I will explain below, which again stems from you simply not knowing the facts. 

 

<< Clipped the rest of the commets - its getting too long to post here >>

 

I see our understanding of relationships are fundamentally different - perhaps based on past experiences and definitely based on current exposure.

 

You are of the belief that paying a girl to be your girlfriend is the same as a husband paying the majority of the mortgage (or even all of it) on a house he and his Wife share and have lived in for years. 

 

There is a significant difference between the relationships I describe and the relationships you have been in - You seem blinded to this and instead opt to polish the reality that a transactional relationship built on economic support is the same as a relationship thats far less conditional, far less contingent, and far more emotionally autonomous.

 

Yes, there’s a sliding scale. But you collapse that scale entirely. In no relationship in the West - and not in any relationship I’ve had here, nor any my close friends have had - has a man been required to pay a woman a monthly wage simply to be his girlfriend. Dress it up as “support” if you like, but it remains exactly what it is: paying someone to be with you. And in that dynamic, she wouldn’t be there without the financial provision. That is, by definition, transactional and is a world apart from 'Husband - Wife' set up you are comparing to.

 

Your attitude and approach explain exactly why you limit yourself to financially dependent women - you know you cannot attract someone half your age without money. And honestly, there’s nothing wrong with that if both of you understand the dynamic and are genuinely happy with it.

 

What becomes comical is when you naïvely try to portray the relationship as emotionally comparable to a “normal” partnership - whether in the West or here - where economic disparity isn’t the defining factor. Pretending the two sit on the same emotional footing is where the delusion begins.

55 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Money does not suffice to get a beautiful girl, who is not a whore, in Thailand.. Or in the UK. These women have many otpions. They will seek an attractive man, emotional connection, shared values in most cases before they seek financial incentives.

 

You are exactly right - in 'normal' relationships - financial security is not he emotional drive.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

 

Well, you two are not official yet & she is probably keeping her options open until - or if, you are.

 

Yes, she told me, she loves me at 50%. So she's keeping her options open.

 

She even told me she's on Thaifriendly and Tinder still.

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

its getting too long to post here

 

I agree, we can go a long time to discuss this matter, but it would become tedious. We fundamentally disagree on this matter.

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You are of the belief that paying a girl to be your girlfriend

 

No, you did not understand what i said. In normal relationships you cannot pay a girl to be your giirlfriend. If that happens, she's a whore or a material girl. A girlfriend cannot be "paid for".

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There is a significant difference between the relationships I describe and the relationships you have been in

 

No, there is not. It is in essence very alike.

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You are clearly blinded to this and instead opt to polish the reality that a transactional relationship built on economic support is the same as a relationship thats far less conditional,

 

All relationships with women are conditional You are blind to the fact that the typical UK relationship is just as transactional as those in Thailand, only the type of transaction is different. But men in the UK pay too.

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It explains why you are limiting yourself to financially dependent individuals.

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm seeking out the most attractive and youngest women. Obviously they will not be financial powerhouses at their age, it is incidental, not a condition.

49 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Yesterday night we made up. Kissed and made love again, at her instigation.

 

As we lay in bed I asked her "Did you write to any other guys in the last 3 days?".

 

Phuket girl being the world's most honest girl told me the truth. "Yes, one guy".

 

It was her Austrian ex. Turns out her 62 year old Austrian ex had dumped her for someone else. a few weeks ago. So of course this boosted her interest in him. 

 

She said they were still friends, the break-up was amicable. The Austrian was someone who always took her out to all the beaches in Phuket, to watch volleyball.

 

She loves the beach. She loves Phuket. And still has some feelings for this ex, though she swears she would never want to have a relationship with him again. The Austrian ex paid her 10000 baht every month. But now the payments stopped, and she's still emotionally attached to him.

 

I told her to block this Austrian ex. She did. Reluctantly.

 

I told her if she did not block him, she could fly back to Phuket today and write to him every day.

 

If she wanted to be with me, there could be no contact with an ex.

 

This situation has now further brought down the Oxytocin haze.

 

She is a beach girl. She loves Phuket. She is not emotionally fully available. Writes to an ex secretly behind my back. 

 

With each layer you peel back, the realities become clearer.

 

She’s essentially “pay for play” - no judgement in that itself - but you’re trying to polish her behaviour and white-wash the financial driver behind her decisions, as if it were primarily emotional. You’re attempting to drag the dynamic closer to a Western-style relationship, when it simply isn’t.

 

The stark reality is this: if the Austrian ex were still sending her 10,000 baht a month, she wouldn’t be with you. And if she’s still contacting him, it’s because she’s keeping her options open. You’re not yet a guaranteed source of income.

 

Very soon, you’ll be expected to provide a monthly stipend to “secure” the relationship.

 

A few weeks from now, if you haven’t agreed to a regular payment, she won’t be your girlfriend - she’ll move on to the next source of support.

 

That is the brutal reality.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, she told me, she loves me at 50%. So she's keeping her options open.

 

She even told me she's on Thaifriendly and Tinder still.

Like you, she believes in a "pipeline". If its OK for you, why not for her? 

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You are clearly blinded to this and instead opt to polish the reality that a transactional relationship built on economic support is the same as a relationship thats far less conditional,

 

All relationships with women are conditional You are blind to the fact that the typical UK relationship is just as transactional as those in Thailand, only the type of transaction is different. But men in the UK pay too.

 

Not under the conditions you’re describing. A typical UK relationship doesn’t begin with a transactional financial trigger, and the differences between that and what you’re defending are stark.

 

You’ve openly admitted that you wouldn’t attract younger women without offering financial security - and that this financial security is the primary reason they choose to be with you. That alone shows the dynamic is fundamentally transactional.

 

Your line of reasoning is basically the old “you pay for it in the end anyway” the tired refrain used by misogynists to whitewash their own whoring. Again, no judgement on the choices themselves - but let’s not pretend the two scenarios are comparable.

 

Reducing 'normal' relationships to the same level of financial dependency as arrangements where an income is explicitly paid, only highlights the difference in attitudes...

... this perhaps sheds light on why men who think this way often fail at' normal' relationships.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She’s essentially “pay for play”

 

Not with me. I haven't paid her anything yet, apart from the flight and travel.

 

Just because her Austrian ex paid her 10000 baht a month does not mean she's a freelancer, as we both know, girlfriends in Thailand typically get these allowances.

 

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

and white-wash the financial driver behind her decisions, as if it were primarily emotional.

 

It does appear to be primarily emotional for her, even with the Austrian ex. Remember he stopped paying her. And she's still writing to him, and said she still had feelings for him. Despite him not paying for a long while now.

 

So actually this relationship directly contradicts your theories above.

 

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

ou’re attempting to drag the dynamic closer to a Western-style relationship, when it simply isn’t.

 

There is no "Western style" and "Thai style" relationship, in essence they are all the same, the men pay money and the women provide sex in return. Though other factors also play roles of varying importance.

 

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The stark reality is this: if the Austrian ex were still sending her 10,000 baht a month, she wouldn’t be with you. And if she’s still contacting him, it’s because she’s keeping her options open. You’re not yet a guaranteed source of income.

 

It certainly is possible that if the Austrian ex had not ended with her she may still be with him. However, she would not be with him for the money. She'd be with him for the companionship, she liked that he drove her to all the beaches and they watched volleyball there. She has no friends there. Apart from him. So this relationship is about far more than money.

 

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Very soon, you’ll be expected to provide a monthly stipend to “secure” the relationship.

 

It may be demanded in due course, as we both knew from the outset, but again, in the UK men pay for the mortgage, holidays, dinners, presents, the modality of the transaction is not that important really.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A few weeks from now, if you haven’t agreed to a regular payment, she won’t be your girlfriend - she’ll move on to the next source of support.

 

Let's see.

18 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

Like you, she believes in a "pipeline". If its OK for you, why not for her? 

 

Because she is a woman. Her maintaining a pipeline is much too dangerous, as the men pursue much harder than women do, and entice far more than women do. Her ability to resist would be worse.

 

It's not the same for men and women. Her pipeline could be potentially huge, mine is relatively small, only 6 or 5 women.

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

35 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It explains why you are limiting yourself to financially dependent individuals.

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm seeking out the most attractive and youngest women. Obviously they will not be financial powerhouses at their age, it is incidental, not a condition.

 

You are - the women you are chasing do not even have a job.

 

Are you confident you can attract a woman who is young, attractive, has a good career ?

 

I get that the poverty of the female you are engaging with 'is incidental and not a condition' ...   but that doesn't whitewash the transactional nature of the relationship.

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A typical UK relationship doesn’t begin with a transactional financial trigger,

 

Neither does a typical Thailand relationship, excluding full on sex worker rels for obvious reasons.

 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’ve openly admitted that you wouldn’t attract younger women without offering financial security - and that this financial security is the primary reason they choose to be with you.

 

I've admitted no such thing, in fact I said the exact opposite, that financial security is almost NEVER the primary reason for any real relationship in Thailand, that is not a sex worker relationship.

 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

but let’s not pretend the two scenarios are comparable.

 

Let's not pretend you or your friends don't pay for your women, or most men in the UK don't. Men in the UK pay too.

 

 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You are - the women you are chasing do not even have a job.

 

Are you confident you can attract a woman who is young, attractive, has a good career ?

 

I get that the poverty of the female you are engaging with 'is incidental and not a condition' ...   but that doesn't whitewash the transactional nature of the relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

Some do, some don't.

 

I am absolutely confident I can attract a woman who is young, attractive and has her own career, I have done so in the recent past.

 

I am not saying, btw, my relationships are not transactional, I am being very realistic and saying, of course they are, it is you who is being delusional claiming men in the UK don't pay. Or the modality of the transaction there means it's not a transaction. That is truly delusional.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Yesterday night we made up. Kissed and made love again, at her instigation.

 

As we lay in bed I asked her "Did you write to any other guys in the last 3 days?".

 

Phuket girl being the world's most honest girl told me the truth. "Yes, one guy".

 

It was her Austrian ex. Turns out her 62 year old Austrian ex had dumped her for someone else. a few weeks ago. So of course this boosted her interest in him. 

 

She said they were still friends, the break-up was amicable. The Austrian was someone who always took her out to all the beaches in Phuket, to watch volleyball.

 

She loves the beach. She loves Phuket. And still has some feelings for this ex, though she swears she would never want to have a relationship with him again. The Austrian ex paid her 10000 baht every month. But now the payments stopped, and she's still emotionally attached to him.

 

I told her to block this Austrian ex. She did. Reluctantly.

 

I told her if she did not block him, she could fly back to Phuket today and write to him every day.

 

If she wanted to be with me, there could be no contact with an ex.

 

This situation has now further brought down the Oxytocin haze.

 

She is a beach girl. She loves Phuket. She is not emotionally fully available. Writes to an ex secretly behind my back. 

Talking about who loves who after a few days is both premature and immature, specially considering the fragilities between you both already. 

7 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

Talking about who loves who after a few days is both premature and immature, specially considering the fragilities between you both already. 

 

Yes, it could be a bit early. It just felt like that the first two days, but clearly the reality is more complex.

 

A bit of drama might not be a bad thing though. Women need that.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She’s essentially “pay for play”

 

Not with me. I haven't paid her anything yet, apart from the flight and travel.

 

Just because her Austrian ex paid her 10000 baht a month does not mean she's a freelancer, as we both know, girlfriends in Thailand typically get these allowances.

 

You haven't paid her anything 'yet' - you can't even convince yourself. 

 

She’s telling you what her ex paid her so you understand exactly what her expectations are.

 

And no - paying for a girlfriend in Thailand is not typical. This is where you’re trying to normalise the transactional nature of these arrangements.

 

Paying a monthly wage might be common for an older man dating a much younger woman with poor education and limited employment options - but it’s not “normal” in standard Thai-Thai relationships, nor in Westerner-Thai relationships where both partners are financially independent.

 

Trying to paint your situation as typical only highlights how transactional it actually is.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

and white-wash the financial driver behind her decisions, as if it were primarily emotional.

 

It does appear to be primarily emotional for her, even with the Austrian ex. Remember he stopped paying her. And she's still writing to him, and said she still had feelings for him. Despite him not paying for a long while now.

 

So actually this relationship directly contradicts your theories above.

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

ou’re attempting to drag the dynamic closer to a Western-style relationship, when it simply isn’t.

 

There is no "Western style" and "Thai style" relationship, in essence they are all the same, the men pay money and the women provide sex in return. Though other factors also play roles of varying importance.

 

That you've dumbed down and simplified a relationship to "man pays for sex" highlights why you can't attract a female of similar socio-economic means - when they have free-choice, you are not a choice.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The stark reality is this: if the Austrian ex were still sending her 10,000 baht a month, she wouldn’t be with you. And if she’s still contacting him, it’s because she’s keeping her options open. You’re not yet a guaranteed source of income.

 

It certainly is possible that if the Austrian ex had not ended with her she may still be with him. However, she would not be with him for the money. She'd be with him for the companionship, she liked that he drove her to all the beaches and they watched volleyball there. She has no friends there. Apart from him. So this relationship is about far more than money.

 

Oh - she most certainly 'would' still be with him for the money - If she were not receiving income - she'd move on...  & you will be able to tell this by how long she has been on dating Websites.

- Did she 'join' then only once her relationship with the Austrian ended ? or has she been on them for a while and keeping her options open ???

 

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Very soon, you’ll be expected to provide a monthly stipend to “secure” the relationship.

 

It may be demanded in due course, as we both knew from the outset, but again, in the UK men pay for the mortgage, holidays, dinners, presents, the modality of the transaction is not that important really.

 

Again, you’re trying to whitewash the transactional nature of your relationship by drawing parallels to mortgage payments, holidays, and dinners shared by married couples who came together through genuine emotional and physical attraction.

 

The fact that you overlap these two completely different situations is telling. You’re trying to normalise your arrangement by forcing it into the same category as relationships that were never based on financial dependence in the first place.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A few weeks from now, if you haven’t agreed to a regular payment, she won’t be your girlfriend - she’ll move on to the next source of support.

Let's see.

 

You won't see though - you will fold and give her a monthly income because you already understand this is the only way she will stay with you.

 

And if you’re happy paying her to be with you, fine - no judgement. What’s absurd is your insistence on painting a transactional setup as if it’s a standard relationship. Transactional may be normal for you, but it isn’t for people who don’t need to rely on purchasing power to attract a partner.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because she is a woman. Her maintaining a pipeline is much too dangerous, as the men pursue much harder than women do, and entice far more than women do. Her ability to resist would be worse.

 

It's not the same for men and women. Her pipeline could be potentially huge, mine is relatively small, only 6 or 5 women.

No difference at all. We are talking respect and just a hint of loyalty by both parties. At least while you both talk of love. In case you didnt realise it, real love expressed should be reserved for one. In fact the situation is worse than you think. Both being disrespectful with each other at the same time as engaging with others. As for you, you consider it a right and think nothing of it while openly sharing confidences on an open forum all of whom are effectively strangers. 

 

Shameless indeed! 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She’s telling you what her ex paid her so you understand exactly what her expectations are.

 

No, I specifically asked her the amount. She never said it out of herself. You're again assuming things, without knowing the facts.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And no - paying for a girlfriend in Thailand is not typical.

 

Yes, it's very typical for girlfriends to get allowances in Thailand. Just as it's typical in the UK for men to pay the mortgage, holidays, presents, dinners, food etc.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Paying a monthly wage might be common for an older man dating a much younger woman with poor education and limited employment options - but it’s not “normal” in standard Thai-Thai relationships, nor in Westerner-Thai relationships where both partners are financially independent.

 

That's simply wrong. I know of Thai-Thai relationships where the man pays an allowance. It is also common in the UK for men to pay a household allowance for their wives or girlfriends. It has nothing to do with age. The reality is that the exchange of access to resources for sex is the standard model among human beings for tens of thousands years, the world over.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Trying to paint your situation as typical only highlights how transactional it actually is.

 

It is typical, and I'm not saying it's not transactional. All relationships are transactional, including yours, your friend's and 99% of relationships in the UK where the man pays.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That you've dumbed down and simplified a relationship to "man pays for sex" highlights why you can't attract a female of similar socio-economic means - when they have free-choice, you are not a choice.

 

It is indeed an oversimplification, but in essence, the exchange of resources for access to sex is the standard model. Obviously within that model there are other varying factors. I do not attract women of a similar socio-economic standing, because I do not search them out. I search out young and attractive women, that is why I attract them. If I wanted to focus on women with a higher socio-econmomic standing, I could easily do so, but they would be far more unattractive in 98% of cases. So I'm not interestred in that.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Oh - she most certainly 'would' still be with him for the money - If she were not receiving income - she'd move on... 

 

I'm not sure, it seemed that she felt lonely in Phuket, as she's a stay at home person and has no friends there. However, this Austrian took her to all the beaches, they watched volleyball and she liked his company. Which is why she's still writing to him now, long after payments ceased.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

you will be able to tell this by how long she has been on dating Websites.

- Did she 'join' then only once her relationship with the Austrian ended ? or has she been on them for a while and keeping her options open ???

 

I really don't know. I didn't ask. It seems as if she's using the dating sites for entertainment, to talk to them for the pleasure of the conversation. She said at one point that she would not go with guys who want to go and meet fast. She would talk for a long time, to weed out the f-boys. That's all I know about her dating site modus operandi.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Again, you’re trying to whitewash the transactional nature of your relationship

 

Not at all. I am clearly saying all relationships are transactional. So are those in the UK of course. Mine, yours, everyone's relationship is transactional, with very, very few exceptions.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

by drawing parallels to mortgage payments, holidays, and dinners shared by married couples who came together through genuine emotional and physical attraction.

 

See, that's just nonsense, if you can't see how paying a mortgage, holidays, presents, dinners, food etc, is the man paying for companisonship, then I can' treally help you. It is. There are very clear parallels between realtionships in the UK and Thailand. In Thailand too physical attraction and genuine emotional connection play a role, believe it or not.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The fact that you overlap these two completely different situations is telling. You’re trying to normalise your arrangement by forcing it into the same category as relationships that were never based on financial dependence in the first place.

 

Not at all. The fact that you wilfully refuse to see the parallels merely shows that you desperately want to cling to the illusion that your relationsihp is somehow "different". It is not. You are paying, deep down you know it is so. Which is why you are so desperately denying this reality that you are really, in essence, no different to the 62 Austrian guy, paying 10000 baht for companionship. Only the modality of the transaction is different. But you're still paying. All men in the UK pay. Men in every coutnry pay.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You won't see though - you will fold and give her a monthly income because you already understand this is the only way she will stay with you.

 

It depends what she demands of course.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What’s absurd is your insistence on painting a transactional setup as if it’s a standard relationship

 

No again, what's absurd is that you cannot see that men paying for mortgages, holidays, presents, food, dinner etc in the UK is also a transactional relationship. Of course it is. You are trying to deny this obvious reality because you dont' want to admit to yourself that you're no different to the Austrian ex paying 10000 baht for a relationship. You want to believe your relationship is somehow better. But in essence it is the same, transactional with a veneer of emotionality.

 

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Transactional may be normal for you, but it isn’t for people who don’t need to rely on purchasing power to attract a partner.

 

 

Again, I don't need to rely on purchasing power to attract a partner. I can do so without money. But in the end we all pay. In the UK or Thailand. Transactional is normal for everyone, including you. You just don't want to admit, like so many other guys on AN. It's a tough pill to swallow. I get it. But it's the reality.

 

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A typical UK relationship doesn’t begin with a transactional financial trigger,

 

Neither does a typical Thailand relationship, excluding full on sex worker rels for obvious reasons.

 

A girl who meets a a guy and sleeps with him immediately - who as recently as two weeks ago was in a paid relationship with another guy...  

 

Its pretty clear there is a financial trigger...  or an expectation of one.

 

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’ve openly admitted that you wouldn’t attract younger women without offering financial security - and that this financial security is the primary reason they choose to be with you.

 

I've admitted no such thing, in fact I said the exact opposite, that financial security is almost NEVER the primary reason for any real relationship in Thailand, that is not a sex worker relationship.

 

So you genuinely believe that when the moment comes and you refuse any financial payout, “Phuket Girl” will stay - with no shift, no withdrawal, no moving on? That she’ll remain because she loves you ?

 

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

but let’s not pretend the two scenarios are comparable.

 

Let's not pretend you or your friends don't pay for your women, or most men in the UK don't. Men in the UK pay too.

 

Ultimately, yes - men in the UK often end up covering more of the costs. My father earned more than my mother and naturally contributed more. My mother also stopped working when she had children. But their relationship wasn’t born from financial disparity.

 

Neither was mine, nor those of my friends. The women I dated over the years - and of course my wife - never received a monthly wage from me. The idea of paying a woman a “salary” during the dating phase would have been outrageous.

 

And this is the key difference you keep trying to dilute and normalise. In a typical relationship - before marriage - there is no monetary exchange, no stipend, no expectation of a regular payment simply to maintain the relationship.

 

That is entirely different from a husband later paying for a holiday or contributing more toward the mortgage or household costs. One is a natural part of shared life between two emotionally connected adults; the other is a transactional arrangement that exists from the outset.

 

Trying to pretend the two are equivalent doesn’t make them the same - it just highlights the gulf between them.

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, ChrisKC said:

36 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because she is a woman. Her maintaining a pipeline is much too dangerous, as the men pursue much harder than women do, and entice far more than women do. Her ability to resist would be worse.

 

It's not the same for men and women. Her pipeline could be potentially huge, mine is relatively small, only 6 or 5 women.

No difference at all. We are talking respect and just a hint of loyalty by both parties. At least while you both talk of love. In case you didnt realise it, real love expressed should be reserved for one. In fact the situation is worse than you think. Both being disrespectful with each other at the same time as engaging with others. As for you, you consider it a right and think nothing of it while openly sharing confidences on an open forum all of whom are effectively strangers. 

 

Shameless indeed! 

 

[her ability to resist would be worse]....

 

Of course it would be -  another old guy offers her more money and she then loves him 50% instead....

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Transactional is normal for everyone, including you. You just don't want to admit, like so many other guys on AN. It's a tough pill to swallow. I get it. But it's the reality.

 

You really are delusional. I never paid my wife 1 baht to be with me nor did I pay in any of my previous relationships. Even in Canada my wife works. Everyone you meet on the other hand is just begging you for money.

 

The first assumption is usually correct. If you need to pay a woman to keep her, you are either extremely insecure or there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

 

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A girl who meets a a guy and sleeps with him immediately

 

I have to admit, I did find that unusual. Normally it does not happen that fast.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

who as recently as two weeks ago was in a paid relationship with another guy...  

 

She was in a relationship. The man paid her an allowance. However, all relationships are paid relationships. That one was no different than yours. Only the modality is different.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its pretty clear there is a financial trigger...  or an expectation of one.

 

There was no financial trigger. She was attracted to me physically based on photos and video calls. She came and she thinks I'm attractive. Does she expect an allowance, I would think so since she got one in the past. Almost all women expect financial benefits, this changes nothing.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So you genuinely believe that when the moment comes and you refuse any financial payout, “Phuket Girl” will stay - with no shift, no withdrawal, no moving on? That she’ll remain because she loves you ?

 

I do think she would. But let's be realistic, no man would be so stupid not to pay his woman, if she's worth it. If her demands are reasonable I could offer an allowance too. No problem at all. I would only refuse if the demand is exorbitant.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ultimately, yes - men in the UK often end up covering more of the costs. My father earned more than my mother and naturally contributed more.

 

Thank you for being honest.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

But their relationship wasn’t born from financial disparity.

 

Almost no real relationships, in Thailand or UK are "born from financial disparaity". The financial is an aspect, but rarely the primary one.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

never received a monthly wage from me. The idea of paying a woman a “salary” during the dating phase would have been outrageous.

 

Again, you are trying to deceive yourself and others that the modality matters. It doesn't. Just because you don't pay allowance, does not mean you don't pay. If you pay the mortgage, shopping, holidays, gifts, food, dinners, you're still paying. Just in a different way.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And this is the key difference you keep trying to dilute and normalise. In a typical relationship - before marriage - there is no monetary exchange, no stipend, no expectation of a regular payment simply to maintain the relationship.

 

The modality of the payment is not a "key" difference, it's a minor difference. You're still paying. That's the key.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That is entirely different from a husband later paying for a holiday or contributing more toward the mortgage or household costs. One is a natural part of shared life between two emotionally connected adults; the other is a transactional arrangement that exists from the outset.

 

That's delusional. It's no dfferent at all. The man is paying. That's the key fact. Calling one natural and the other artificial is just polishing, it's not reality. All relationships are transactional, but not from the outset.

 

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Trying to pretend the two are equivalent doesn’t make them the same - it just highlights the gulf between them.

 

This gulf exists only in your head. In reality the essence is the same. The man pays. Modality of payment is of little importance.

4 minutes ago, Celsius said:

I never paid my wife 1 baht to be with me nor did I pay in any of my previous relationships.

 

You pay for your wife. Like everyone else. You're just not being honest, like so many on here. All men pay. 

 

If you seriously think I: would believe you did not pay your wife, by paying a mortgage, holiday, gifts, dinners, food, then frankly you are clutching at straws. I dont' believe that for a second.

I guess since there is no more mention of Chiang Mai girl, that bubble has been burst and he is back down to the pits. Don't fancy trawling through pages of waffle in order to find out what happened there. 

A précis?

2 minutes ago, FrankieGoesToHolly said:

I guess since there is no more mention of Chiang Mai girl, that bubble has been burst and he is back down to the pits. Don't fancy trawling through pages of waffle in order to find out what happened there. 

A précis?

The op is a complete  loser who has to have total control over the ladies or he is not interested. Tries it on with bribes and payments, but they are always way way too smart for him and he ends up alone as per usual.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You pay for your wife. Like everyone else. You're just not being honest, like so many on here. All men pay. 

 

If you seriously think I: would believe you did not pay your wife, by paying a mortgage, holiday, gifts, dinners, food, then frankly you are clutching at straws. I dont' believe that for a second.

 

No I don't. We share things like most normal couples. I am not special.

 

Thai men also don't pay. A lot of my wife's friends bailed out their husbands when the business failed or whatever.

 

It's pretty sad you will never experience the woman's generosity when they are really into you.

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She’s telling you what her ex paid her so you understand exactly what her expectations are.

 

No, I specifically asked her the amount. She never said it out of herself. You're again assuming things, without knowing the facts.

 

You wrote - she received a 10,000 baht monthly salary from her Austrian ex... 

 

Are you denying that now ? she didn't receive a monthly salary from her Ex ?

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And no - paying for a girlfriend in Thailand is not typical.

 

Yes, it's very typical for girlfriends to get allowances in Thailand. Just as it's typical in the UK for men to pay the mortgage, holidays, presents, dinners, food etc.

 

No - its not typical of a normal relationship - it might be common for those in your situation dating uneducated poor women looking for security - but its not normal in a normal relationship and its a far cry from normal relationships in the west - your false equivalence is ridiculous.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Paying a monthly wage might be common for an older man dating a much younger woman with poor education and limited employment options - but it’s not “normal” in standard Thai-Thai relationships, nor in Westerner-Thai relationships where both partners are financially independent.

 

That's simply wrong. I know of Thai-Thai relationships where the man pays an allowance. It is also common in the UK for men to pay a household allowance for their wives or girlfriends. It has nothing to do with age. The reality is that the exchange of access to resources for sex is the standard model among human beings for tens of thousands years, the world over.

 

Yes - but that is entirely different from a relationship that starts with an expectation of financial reward- a paid salary simply to be a girlfriend.

 

You continue to try and whitewash the fact that she is with you because she anticipates financial gain, and then draw an equivalence to married couples sharing expenses. The difference is stark. In one case, money is incidental to the emotional bond; in the other, it is the foundation of the relationship.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Trying to paint your situation as typical only highlights how transactional it actually is.

 

It is typical, and I'm not saying it's not transactional. All relationships are transactional, including yours, your friend's and 99% of relationships in the UK where the man pays.

 

There's a significant difference - between that and a paid for girlfriend - you know that, but somehow still consider them the same.

 

The nature of relationships I describe is not 'salary based' - thats the key difference.

The nature of the relationships you try and whitewash are 'salary based'  and the relationship would not exist without a salary.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That you've dumbed down and simplified a relationship to "man pays for sex" highlights why you can't attract a female of similar socio-economic means - when they have free-choice, you are not a choice.

 

It is indeed an oversimplification, but in essence, the exchange of resources for access to sex is the standard model. Obviously within that model there are other varying factors. I do not attract women of a similar socio-economic standing, because I do not search them out. I search out young and attractive women, that is why I attract them. If I wanted to focus on women with a higher socio-econmomic standing, I could easily do so, but they would be far more unattractive in 98% of cases. So I'm not interestred in that.

 

You do not 'search out attractive young women of similar socio-economic standing' because you know you cannot attract them - it would be a waste of your time.

You search out 'young women' because you know financial disparity does attracts them - better use of your time.

 

No judgement of that - but don't pretend the relationships is the same in the West or a normal relationship here - its very different.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Oh - she most certainly 'would' still be with him for the money - If she were not receiving income - she'd move on... 

 

I'm not sure, it seemed that she felt lonely in Phuket, as she's a stay at home person and has no friends there. However, this Austrian took her to all the beaches, they watched volleyball and she liked his company. Which is why she's still writing to him now, long after payments ceased.

 

Keeping the pipeline open.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

you will be able to tell this by how long she has been on dating Websites.

- Did she 'join' then only once her relationship with the Austrian ended ? or has she been on them for a while and keeping her options open ???

 

I really don't know. I didn't ask. It seems as if she's using the dating sites for entertainment, to talk to them for the pleasure of the conversation. She said at one point that she would not go with guys who want to go and meet fast. She would talk for a long time, to weed out the f-boys. That's all I know about her dating site modus operandi.

 

You know what she wanted you to know.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Again, you’re trying to whitewash the transactional nature of your relationship

 

Not at all. I am clearly saying all relationships are transactional. So are those in the UK of course. Mine, yours, everyone's relationship is transactional, with very, very few exceptions.

 

However, you paint the transactional nature of a husband-wife mortgage payment with the same brush as a guy paying a young girl a salary....   The two situations are not similar in the slightest.

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

by drawing parallels to mortgage payments, holidays, and dinners shared by married couples who came together through genuine emotional and physical attraction.

 

See, that's just nonsense, if you can't see how paying a mortgage, holidays, presents, dinners, food etc, is the man paying for companisonship, then I can' treally help you. It is. There are very clear parallels between realtionships in the UK and Thailand. In Thailand too physical attraction and genuine emotional connection play a role, believe it or not.

 

Rubbish - paying a woman here to be a monthly girlfriend is nothing alike a married couple in the UK where an may pays more towards the mortgage, holidays, presents, dinners, food etc..  

 

Those relationships in the UK (and similar ones here) did not 'start' with an expectation of a monetary exchange - IF the girls you meet did not think they wouldn't get a monthly salary from you - would they ever enter a relationship in the first place  ????

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The fact that you overlap these two completely different situations is telling. You’re trying to normalise your arrangement by forcing it into the same category as relationships that were never based on financial dependence in the first place.

 

Not at all. The fact that you wilfully refuse to see the parallels merely shows that you desperately want to cling to the illusion that your relationsihp is somehow "different". It is not. You are paying, deep down you know it is so. Which is why you are so desperately denying this reality that you are really, in essence, no different to the 62 Austrian guy, paying 10000 baht for companionship. Only the modality of the transaction is different. But you're still paying. All men in the UK pay. Men in every coutnry pay.

 

 

Again - you paint married couple in the same light as a guy paying a girl to be his girlfriend and fail to see the stark differences.

 

In simple terms: your girls would not be dating you if they thought they would not receive money from you.

 

 

You refuse to see this difference.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You won't see though - you will fold and give her a monthly income because you already understand this is the only way she will stay with you.

 

It depends what she demands of course.

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What’s absurd is your insistence on painting a transactional setup as if it’s a standard relationship

 

No again, what's absurd is that you cannot see that men paying for mortgages, holidays, presents, food, dinner etc in the UK is also a transactional relationship. Of course it is. You are trying to deny this obvious reality because you dont' want to admit to yourself that you're no different to the Austrian ex paying 10000 baht for a relationship. You want to believe your relationship is somehow better. But in essence it is the same, transactional with a veneer of emotionality.

 

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Transactional may be normal for you, but it isn’t for people who don’t need to rely on purchasing power to attract a partner.

 

 

Again, I don't need to rely on purchasing power to attract a partner. I can do so without money. But in the end we all pay. In the UK or Thailand. Transactional is normal for everyone, including you. You just don't want to admit, like so many other guys on AN. It's a tough pill to swallow. I get it. But it's the reality.

 

 

You 'only' reply on purchasing power to attract a partner - and its clear why.

 

 

21 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Glad to say, happy hug and kiss time is back now.

 

It's truly heartwarming that you make time for your daughter. The moments you share together will become precious memories she will cherish for a lifetime. Your presence in her life is invaluable, and it deeply strengthens your bond as father and daughter.