The Mwaning Of Life - Thailand

[canuckamuck]

Describing humanity is as simple as saying, whatever feels good they will do. The taste of many to prefer the younger female has much to do with the belief that pleasure is increased when many physical ideals are met. For example, 18 looks better than 40 because we have been told this over and over by the various peddlers of vanity merchandise. In a dark room one might discover that visual aspects have no advantage whatsoever. In different eras, different ideals were celebrated. Go to Samoa and you will see they don't agree with Elle magazine.

As far as procreation is concerned, I am quite sure that the majority of pleasure seekers who arrive here will do what they can to avoid it. However the current notion that evolution has some sort of intelligent agenda driving hapless creatures to do its bidding relies on procreation for every argument. Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

Sometimes things are simple. And none of this has anything to do with the meaning of life.

[teacup]

So, just a thought, perhaps coming to Thailand for sex is not simply a matter of the farang exploiting younger thai ladies for simple gratification?

Actually the thai ladies exploit farangs leveraging on their sexual needs to rip them off.

Excuse me?......Say this again?

May be the farangs are the one that have more leverages and use that to exploit many thai ladies, have U ever thought about that also?

The thai calls it : aow ngen faad hua!!!....

[GuestHouse]

Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

I doubt many even have a choice in the matter - The urge to procreate being less of a need for the old guy to ensure the survival of his genes and more a need for a younger women to ensure her own agenda is met.

Making a good catch and keeping a good catch require different strategies.

[canuckamuck]

Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

I doubt many even have a choice in the matter - The urge to procreate being less of a need for the old guy to ensure the survival of his genes and more a need for a younger women to ensure her own agenda is met.

Making a good catch and keeping a good catch require different strategies.

Well said

[larvidchr]

There is another very very strong human trait, the one where we always try to justify our actions and try to absolve ourselves from any wrongdoing, I have had thousands of criminals through my hands and only a few actually admitted to guilt and remorse, the rest was innocent, this is of cause a very heavy cross for me to bear, it almost brings me to my knees.

So accusing anybody in this lovely and very deep absolution thread, where the meaning of life turns into a question whether or not sex tourists in Thailand are exploiting the fact that they have money and the other part have none, would be very wrong because it is obviously the other way round, it is just a natural part of the drive in old men to live longer, the fact that they get taken to the cleaners by crafty prostitutes who always win is a travesty.

We now know that the meaning of life is humping as much as possible and the younger the pray the better

[Tyke]

Thirdly, if reproduction is the main reason why people get the urge for sex then what about gays and lesbians? Are they unnatural? Is this a christian fundamentalist idea the OP is proselytising in the guise of biological science?

Crikey, this above quote is too juicy to ignore.

So lets knife it apart:

If reproduction is the main reason why people get the urge for sex...?

I am certain that the main reason people get an urge for sex is reproduction. Do you seriously think otherwise? The urge/enjoyment is all there to make sure you did it. If sex was not enjoyable we are very unlikely to reproduce very often (unless we developed something like the Tarantula spider mating situation, where the small male after 'making love' is then eaten by the female [i forget all the details and might have selected the wrong spider , but my point still stands ] but still 'makes love' as he has a great urge to do so, but seemingly only needs to make love once... .

...then what about gays and lesbians?

Yes. They also have the urge because of reproduction. Obviously the process is not as effective as when it is straight men with straight women, but it is surprising how many get there in the end. That is, a lot of gays and lesbians end up with children... Of course, otheres don't, but they are also seemingly very useful [in an evolutionary sense, for their DNA, they may be, in practice, terrible at cooking cupcakes for their neices etc.] for raising the children as Aunts and Uncles [this is currently a red hot topic in science]

Are they unnatural?

Depends what you mean by 'unnatural'. The word has multiple meanings, which makes it vulnerable to equivocation. If you mean, "the reason they have sex does not correspond with the system of natural selection" then I think it is unnatural. If you mean,'unnatural' in the second sense as 'revolting", "disgusting" then I personally don't think so. And in regards to the OP, I think you are making a Straw Man argument against him.

Is this a christian fundamentalist idea the OP is proselytising in the guise of biological science?

Eh, well I am atheist. The existence of God is wholly preposterous to me, so you won't catch me spreading the word of the Lord. But you have unearthed an interesting point: scientific explanations tend to reinforce conservative views because they look at how things are and not how things should be... As humans, we often can overcome this problem and get to how things should be.

So let's rejoice. And if you could open your Atheist Prayerbook to p.666, "Welcome to the Dark Side".

Some interesting points here - at least going by the textbook. I don't think this is a thread to discuss this topic so I have started one in the gay forum - please join it for further discussion if you want.

[LongThaimer]

In the animal kingdom it is always the younger females that are preferred by the males because eons of evolution have proved that they are more likely to produce offspring for the next generation.

more so in the human kingdom.....lol

[Gaccha]

As far as procreation is concerned, I am quite sure that the majority of pleasure seekers who arrive here will do what they can to avoid it. However the current notion that evolution has some sort of intelligent agenda driving hapless creatures to do its bidding relies on procreation for every argument. Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

Sometimes things are simple. And none of this has anything to do with the meaning of life.

You dismiss an area which philosphers and neuroscientists are getting quite excited about. If you are a determinist, and I am, then you believe all the future is set, and that means in a real sense you have no control. But it does not follow that you should not be punished or should not try to make the right decision. This is an odd paradox, well explained in Daniel Dennet's "Freedom Evolves". The upshot of his argument is you can only control the past (!?) and not the future...

You are also looking at this at two levels. Evolution undoubtedly gets men procreating with bar girls. The men are also keen to avoid having the woman conceive if there is a cost to it. The mistake that anti-evolutionary psychology makes is to confuse the very real conscious-decision making ability of humans (we are more than simple animals) with the parallel pressure of our genes. You can enjoy life, have meaningful moments of happiness, find true depths of relationships, be a good father, try to be a moral person. At the same time, in the parallel world of genes, you are acting as an efficient and effective transport machine for your genes. They even implanted your moral goodness as it has 'survival advantage'.

Just enjoy yourself. You only live once, unless you are 007.

[This biological reductionism is proving to be a good tool to fight identity creation by various power groups. The phrase "sexpat" must surely have been coined by those with interests in discouraging certain tendencies (e.g. leaving the UK, leaving UK women. taking young women). Find the origin of the word, finds its first usage, subject it to a 'double reading' (a la Foucalt) and then you will know your enemy.]

The other point made about sex as a money redistribution is self-evidently true. There are now more female millionaires in the UK than male. This is not becasue of a rash of entrepeneurial skills among women in the UK but because of the fantastic gains from divorce. I have no axe to grind-- I have never married, but as (among other things) a lawyer I look at the rational logic of the structure. It is a zero-sum game. In return for promising half their savings to someone they will strongly dislike, they get nothing in return (judge-made laws have introduced rape into husband-wife abuse (this makes no logical sense), favour the wife for custody of the child, allow no-fault divorces, and 'presume' a 50-50 split of assets). This is such a bad deal that if it did not have the long-time socially accepted term "marriage" attached to it, would be laughed at by the wealthier party (normally the man). The modern day marriage has nothing to do with a marriage of even just 30 years ago, and no connection at all with 'marriage' of 300 years ago in the UK. But note the power of the term. See how people will do something totally against their interests for the benefit of an identity. Same same but different with the word 'sexpat'.

I rest my case. (By the way, the best place to get married in Europe is Cyprus if your a bloke)

[Acomes2Siam]

So, just a thought, perhaps coming to Thailand for sex is not simply a matter of the farang exploiting younger thai ladies for simple gratification?

Actually the thai ladies exploit farangs leveraging on their sexual needs to rip them off.

I agree, more times than not, the lady will come out on top.

Usually each group is too one-eyed to see the point of the other.

Among themselves *some* Thais discuss how Farangs are a means to wealth. The moral one may occasionally ask "is it ok to use the farangs? Are we even using them in a sense?" 

Among themselves *some* Farangs discuss how Thais are a means to sex (and perhaps companionship). The moral one among them may accasionally ask "is it ok to use the Thai girls? Are we even using them in a sense?" 

[Acomes2Siam]

As far as procreation is concerned, I am quite sure that the majority of pleasure seekers who arrive here will do what they can to avoid it. However the current notion that evolution has some sort of intelligent agenda driving hapless creatures to do its bidding relies on procreation for every argument. Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

Sometimes things are simple. And none of this has anything to do with the meaning of life.

You dismiss an area which philosphers and neuroscientists are getting quite excited about. If you are a determinist, and I am, then you believe all the future is set, and that means in a real sense you have no control. But it does not follow that you should not be punished or should not try to make the right decision. This is an odd paradox, well explained in Daniel Dennet's "Freedom Evolves". The upshot of his argument is you can only control the past (!?) and not the future...

You are also looking at this at two levels. Evolution undoubtedly gets men procreating with bar girls. The men are also keen to avoid having the woman conceive if there is a cost to it. The mistake that anti-evolutionary psychology makes is to confuse the very real conscious-decision making ability of humans (we are more than simple animals) with the parallel pressure of our genes. You can enjoy life, have meaningful moments of happiness, find true depths of relationships, be a good father, try to be a moral person. At the same time, in the parallel world of genes, you are acting as an efficient and effective transport machine for your genes. They even implanted your moral goodness as it has 'survival advantage'.

Just enjoy yourself. You only live once, unless you are 007.

[This biological reductionism is proving to be a good tool to fight identity creation by various power groups. The phrase "sexpat" must surely have been coined by those with interests in discouraging certain tendencies (e.g. leaving the UK, leaving UK women. taking young women). Find the origin of the word, finds its first usage, subject it to a 'double reading' (a la Foucalt) and then you will know your enemy.]

The other point made about sex as a money redistribution is self-evidently true. There are now more female millionaires in the UK than male. This is not becasue of a rash of entrepeneurial skills among women in the UK but because of the fantastic gains from divorce. I have no axe to grind-- I have never married, but as (among other things) a lawyer I look at the rational logic of the structure. It is a zero-sum game. In return for promising half their savings to someone they will strongly dislike, they get nothing in return (judge-made laws have introduced rape into husband-wife abuse (this makes no logical sense), favour the wife for custody of the child, allow no-fault divorces, and 'presume' a 50-50 split of assets). This is such a bad deal that if it did not have the long-time socially accepted term "marriage" attached to it, would be laughed at by the wealthier party (normally the man). The modern day marriage has nothing to do with a marriage of even just 30 years ago, and no connection at all with 'marriage' of 300 years ago in the UK. But note the power of the term. See how people will do something totally against their interests for the benefit of an identity. Same same but different with the word 'sexpat'.

I rest my case. (By the way, the best place to get married in Europe is Cyprus if your a bloke)

Why Cypres? You can't just say that without any argumentation.. :-)

[Acomes2Siam]

As far as procreation is concerned, I am quite sure that the majority of pleasure seekers who arrive here will do what they can to avoid it. However the current notion that evolution has some sort of intelligent agenda driving hapless creatures to do its bidding relies on procreation for every argument. Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

Sometimes things are simple. And none of this has anything to do with the meaning of life.

You dismiss an area which philosphers and neuroscientists are getting quite excited about. If you are a determinist, and I am, then you believe all the future is set, and that means in a real sense you have no control. But it does not follow that you should not be punished or should not try to make the right decision. This is an odd paradox, well explained in Daniel Dennet's "Freedom Evolves". The upshot of his argument is you can only control the past (!?) and not the future...

You are also looking at this at two levels. Evolution undoubtedly gets men procreating with bar girls. The men are also keen to avoid having the woman conceive if there is a cost to it. The mistake that anti-evolutionary psychology makes is to confuse the very real conscious-decision making ability of humans (we are more than simple animals) with the parallel pressure of our genes. You can enjoy life, have meaningful moments of happiness, find true depths of relationships, be a good father, try to be a moral person. At the same time, in the parallel world of genes, you are acting as an efficient and effective transport machine for your genes. They even implanted your moral goodness as it has 'survival advantage'.

Just enjoy yourself. You only live once, unless you are 007.

[This biological reductionism is proving to be a good tool to fight identity creation by various power groups. The phrase "sexpat" must surely have been coined by those with interests in discouraging certain tendencies (e.g. leaving the UK, leaving UK women. taking young women). Find the origin of the word, finds its first usage, subject it to a 'double reading' (a la Foucalt) and then you will know your enemy.]

The other point made about sex as a money redistribution is self-evidently true. There are now more female millionaires in the UK than male. This is not becasue of a rash of entrepeneurial skills among women in the UK but because of the fantastic gains from divorce. I have no axe to grind-- I have never married, but as (among other things) a lawyer I look at the rational logic of the structure. It is a zero-sum game. In return for promising half their savings to someone they will strongly dislike, they get nothing in return (judge-made laws have introduced rape into husband-wife abuse (this makes no logical sense), favour the wife for custody of the child, allow no-fault divorces, and 'presume' a 50-50 split of assets). This is such a bad deal that if it did not have the long-time socially accepted term "marriage" attached to it, would be laughed at by the wealthier party (normally the man). The modern day marriage has nothing to do with a marriage of even just 30 years ago, and no connection at all with 'marriage' of 300 years ago in the UK. But note the power of the term. See how people will do something totally against their interests for the benefit of an identity. Same same but different with the word 'sexpat'.

I rest my case. (By the way, the best place to get married in Europe is Cyprus if your a bloke)

Btw. I am going to copy your comment on marriage. Thought provoking. Write an article about it... seriously.

[Gaccha]

I rest my case. (By the way, the best place to get married in Europe is Cyprus if your a bloke)

Why Cypres? You can't just say that without any argumentation.. :-)

Apologies. I can't remember the exact details, but at my old legal offices a nice map of Europe was passed around with each of the fundamentals of divorce on it.*

In any event, it roughly went like this:

-all assets prior to marraige are not taken into account (so your house is safe)

-all income by each party is kept with each party except for 10% paid by the wealthier party

-reasonable costs paid for children upkeep

-future income/assets not considered

Just be careful if you are the high-earner that your nice other-half does not ask to relocate to the UK for 6 months, as what would you know, this may entitle them to have the divorce go through the UK justice system.

*[as a side point here, it is of course irrelevant that you are married until you are divorced, since prior to divorce marriage changes nothing, except if you are affected by an 'identity': you behave differently because you should etc.. I have asked many a married man why they married and I have yet to hear any answer which was valid. The only answer I would accept is if they said they felt socially forced into it. Anyone who says it creates stability, makes you think more carefully, is good for the children, et etc have no substantive grounds for their arguments, unless they are so vulnerable to ideational issues that it changes their behaviour. How weak-kneed, how pathetic. I behave as best as I can whether or not there is an underlying threat to take half my wealth]

Edited October 6, 2008 by Gaccha

[benjamat]

Many go as far as to believe evolution will cause them to act against their wishes. i.e. they're actually in Thailand to procreate even though it is the last thing they would ever want to do.

I doubt many even have a choice in the matter - The urge to procreate being less of a need for the old guy to ensure the survival of his genes and more a need for a younger women to ensure her own agenda is met.

Making a good catch and keeping a good catch require different strategies.

I think it is implicit in saying that something is genetically controlled that it is outside of the normal thought process. So if you have to crap it is not because you have had a think about it. Remind you of something ?