I am a man who prefers Thai women, the reason I often tell myself is because they are more 'feminine' than the Farangs I have encountered. However I've began to challenge this ideal, questioning what is my definition of femininity. Does it connote passivity, yielding power and a non aggressive role? I think to many men when they say Thai women are more feminine they mean the aforementioned and seek someone who will allow them to take charge, having had their power and appeal challenged by the 'masculine' farang female. However I don't think that is what I'm talking about and think a woman can take charge while remaining feminine. I think a woman can be feminine and powerful at the same time. However I would say Hilary Clinton is powerful but masculine. Jennifer Lopez on the other hand seems powerful and feminine. I hope my two examples there don't offend anyone and this is not at all an anti farang female thread. As I've posted in other threads, I tend to go for Thai woman because they seem more accepting of me. But I've met my share who are well educated, not docile and definitely have their own opinions yet seem more like women to me.

Interesting post, wasabi. Femininity is, more than anything else, how a woman feels about herself. It is easy to confuse femininity with sexuality, which I suspect may be happening with your opinion of Jennifer Lopez vs. Hillary Clinton. Still, we all know it when we see it. It's all the things that high estrogen levels do to a woman. It's the higher pitched voice, the soft skin, the layer of fat hiding the muscles, and of course the curves that make a girl a girl. Stress raises cortisone levels, which have a masculinizing effect. You might be very accurate in saying that western culture itself, and equal rights, have made western women less feminine by putting them under more stress in their lives.

Interesting idea cathyy, but I suspect that is not really the case with many men here. Just a suspicion, but alot of men here have defined femininity in very old-fashioned ways with a description straight out of a 1950's manual for the housewife. Which was based on the idea that women didn't work outside the home. A fallacy as any student of history could tell you.

Women have traditionally worked--either in the fields, on the farm, on the streets or in the factories. Not working has always been a luxury of the ruling class and only available until the rise of the middle class post war. If anyone was actually interested they could do some research into the percentage of women working in sweat shops both in the US and the UK compared to men. As well as the number of women who did piecemeal work out of their homes for money--usually working more hours than they would have had they been in the factory.

My father grew up poor on a farm in upstate New York during the Depression. Yes, his mother stayed home, but her work consisted of boiling the clothes to wash them, all work was done by hand with none of the modern conveniences of today. She canned and pickled all her own food as well as grew her own vegetable garden, tended the chickens and their coop (cleaning the coop was her job) etc etc etc. My dad once when through her day with me and if you call that not-working then you have no idea of how hard the work was.

There was an interesting program done by HGTV, I think, in the US. A different kind of reality show, several families were moved to Minnesota I believe, and lived as though it were the pioneer days. Same tools as then, same lack of help. No make up and lots of very hard work. Yet somehow alot of men think somehow that women have lost their femininity and were more feminine before. Believe me, these women did not feel very feminine after a day of cleaning coops, plucking chickens and boiling laundry. I think, rather, that they are hearkening back to the June Cleaver ideal of 1950. A fleeting and unrealistic world that before had only been available to a privileged few.

It seems two part. One is based on things like hip ratio, breasts, size of the eyes and physical traits. I guess one reason Asian women sometimes seem more feminine is they are often more petite than farangs. There is a tall Asian girl at my work and she doesn't seem feminine to me in the same ways shorter Asian girls do. Thus this one part has to do with the man wanting to feel bigger than the woman. I almost universally see women requesting men be a certain height or at least preferring it so just as men want petite women, women want bigger men on average.

I was reading on Wikipedia and aside from the physical traits governed by hormones it mentioned traits like nurturing, better vocabulary and empathy being associated with the female. I do think the June Cleaver aspect from the 50s comes into play here as I do see some Thai women who like to cook and clean, however they also typically hold down other jobs as well. I think many western men are looking for a wifey type of setup, where the woman will clean house. Personally this is not what I'm looking for, but I do like the often childlike silly aspect of man Thai women, admittedly these are often less educated girls, who I might argue don't seem to have the weight of the world on their shoulders.

It's common for Farang men to seek Thai women significantly younger than themselves so it seems they also are trying to escape a perceived jadedness from Farang females. I'm just examining perception and stereotypes. I was married to a Thai woman and she turned out to be quite aggressive and antagonistic. I laugh when I read about Farang men saying Farang women bust their balls more than Thai women. Well if the girl is on the pay role she is less likely to bust your balls. I still have a lot of thinking to do about this but I know there's more than meets the eye, many myths and wishful thinking at play.

Whats also interesting is how the "ideal" of feminine appearance has changed over the years. Rubenesque was the beauty ideal for centuries and many men would have looked at a small breasted skinny woman as unattractive and boyish looking.

My personal definition of femininity when it comes to other women really has nothing to do with how they dress, their body types or how much housewifely stuff they do (and yes, I clean our house and wash our laundry and cook our food) but rather are they compassionate, are they concerned with the feelings of others. But then, I also apply these standards to men as well.

I think alot of men also get confused by the girlish act that many women put on and mistake it for femininity --usually it is put on to please men. Believe me, they do not behave this way around other women. And this behavior crosses cultural boundaries, by the way. I've seen it with women from all over the world.

It's quite interesting to read opinions on male-female relations it Thailand, and I think Wasabi's hit on something that I have seen mentioned in one way or another by many male posters on these kinds of threads, "I tend to go for Thai woman because they seem more accepting of me." Which is quite direct and to the point. I do get the sense that foreign men (and possibly local men as well, I'm not sure) are put on a pedestal by Thai women much more so than by western girls. On one hand of course you can see the appeal of this, who doesn't like to feel special and important? Add to that that both western men and women can be quite hard on their mates as a matter of course, and many of us have been hurt quite badly by members of the opposite sex. But at the same time I wonder what the long term effects of the psychology of this situation is. I've read quite a number of posts by men who seem to have gotten a skewed sense of their own value, who after many years of dating in Thailand view themselves as almost as demi-gods and have become quite arrogant and look down on women mightily, particularly western women. The other aspect is, if one does settle down with a mate that is unconditionally accepting, is that really the best case scenario? I went out with a fellow for a number of years who managed to work me into a position where I supported him in quite a number of foolish attitudes and behaviours. Looking back I can see that by accepting this I did him no favours because it prevented him from overcoming a lot of personality traits that were holding him back and negatively affecting his quality of life. So do we really want a mate who will not challenge us on things that really ought to be challenged? Isn't that part of why relationships are beneficial, because we have a second mind at work on our problems?

As I was further contemplating what makes men attracted to Thai women who are allegedly bastions of femininity I came across this article which talks about repressed men acting misogynistic towards women and being lauded for it.

It's hard to reduce this situation to just fat old ugly bald men who can't pull in the west. I've seen some guys who could get laid in any country (based on looks) with the same attitude that western women are bad, Thai women are good. I do think though for whatever reason men with this feeling have been challenged in a way they don't like back home. Many are able to wear cozy blinders since they can't see through the opacity of cultural beliefs and the language of the Thai women they adore thus painting them in the image of women they idealize

http://www.jacksonkatz.com/eminem2.html