Is Sex Without Love Wrong?

[SeanMoran]

Stephen King's lawnmower man?

Anyone with a ute and a trailer with a couple of rotaries, a reel mower, and a whippersnipper. The same applies, that if you don't pay your lawnmower man, he won't cut your lawns. If nobody paid their lawnmower men, then the outcome might be the equivalent of back yard masturbation.

[StreetCowboy]

Stephen King's lawnmower man?

Anyone with a ute and a trailer with a couple of rotaries, a reel mower, and a whippersnipper. The same applies, that if you don't pay your lawnmower man, he won't cut your lawns. If nobody paid their lawnmower men, then the outcome might be the equivalent of back yard masturbation.

I enjoy a good mowing; At the risk of being pulled up for pornographic language, I used to have a petrol flymo; I'll always associate the smell of two-strokes (woops, that'll attract attention!) with freshly cut grass. Then raking the cuttings and tipping them into the compost pit - you've got me started now - I could fairly get carried away. But I really would struggle to get the same pleasure from mowing someone else's lawn - I'd probably want paid for it, especially if they wanted the edging done with shears. That's unnatural...

SC

[SeanMoran]

Stephen King's lawnmower man?

Anyone with a ute and a trailer with a couple of rotaries, a reel mower, and a whippersnipper. The same applies, that if you don't pay your lawnmower man, he won't cut your lawns. If nobody paid their lawnmower men, then the outcome might be the equivalent of back yard masturbation.

I enjoy a good mowing; At the risk of being pulled up for pornographic language, I used to have a petrol flymo; I'll always associate the smell of two-strokes (woops, that'll attract attention!) with freshly cut grass. Then raking the cuttings and tipping them into the compost pit - you've got me started now - I could fairly get carried away. But I really would struggle to get the same pleasure from mowing someone else's lawn - I'd probably want paid for it, especially if they wanted the edging done with shears. That's unnatural...

SC

Well thank you, sir. I now know someone I won't think of introducing my little sister to, but good on you for such a terrific imagination!

[caf]

Your analogy to road accidents is not relevant. We all use cars , we don't all use prostitutes. Illogical argument.

Ok, I try to find a better analogy.

Maybe the comparison with clothes is indeed better.

I am sure you buy clothes, but you have no way to tell if what you are buying has not been produced using child labor or slavery, yet you continue buying clothes.

I am sure you have posted many extensive references in your time. And I do not disagree with your quoting of the law in this case. But this is a forum and not a court of law and everyone would have appreciated what was meant by " prostitution was illegal" and would not have been nit-picking.

...

If you are on the legal side I assume you are not a barrister used to arguing a case and winning it.

Nice belittling technique, but the statement "prostitution is illegal" is still plain wrong.

Law is a serious matter and I don't think setting straight a common misconception is nitpicking.

Prostitution is generally allowed in Thailand, with exceptions precisely outlined in the Law.

Such statements convey a wrong picture of the legal situation and should be corrected anywhere they are made, including forums.

At the end of the day one can not justify women ( not just thais) being put in a position which they probably don't want to be in. Trafficking is a worse crime, but that does not mean the present situation should be upheld by some posters

Let's even extend that statement to include - gasp - men.

I agree that someone actively putting someone else in the position to prostitute himself is committing a crime.

I am totally with you on that, as well as for trafficking, pimping, etc. and these activities should be punished.

This is also what Thai Law says.

The existing Law is severe enough, the police and courts should enforce it.

However, most bargirls that offer their services to foreigners are not in that situation - they were born or became somehow poor and developed a need for money for whatever reason. Prostitution to farang customers is their solution. Wether they like the job or not, they want the money.

And I don't see any ethical reason (again, assuming that forced prostitution is not in the picture for these girls) why this should be outlawed.

Yes that is a fairer analogy. But I and others - you included - assume there is no child slavery involved in buying clothes which is why we do it. But if we are aware of it we may change our buying habits. If one is not aware of a trafficking or "parental influence" then one can go along with it with a clear conscience. If you are aware, it is a different choice for one I suggest.

"Prostitution is generally allowed in Thailand" ??? I'll let others comment

I also said "I do not disagree with your quoting of the law in this case." I just think you've lost perception. And it was you who said you had posted extensively on it. So when is this explotaion legal and when is it not. I'll let you answer but I know how the police decide but I'm not going down that road.

You say "they were born or became somehow poor and developed a need for money for whatever reason. Prostitution to farang customers is their solution. Whether they like the job or not, they want the money. " I'm not commenting on that. I think it's a very uncaring viewpoint. And you see no ethical reasons why women have to sell themselves ?? Really ? What a weird view.

I still agree with Boo's logic and view.

caf

[caf]

I won't quote manarak's long and well thought out post, but I agree almost entirely with what he said.

of course you would

What is that comment supposed to mean? All I said is there is no need to waste forum space by quoting manarak's post completely.

Your point of view has no more validity than anyone else's... including mine.

And, of course you would have a different point of view than a man. That is because you are a woman who has a whole different group of things to worry about. If I was a woman then I'd probably think the same as you.

I'll still state that I haven't done anything morally or legally wrong, and I've probably helped more Thai women than 98% of the forum members here. 15% of my annual income goes directly to helping Thai families better themselves and start small businesses. And, I am not including my Thai lady friends (who may or may not work in bars), in that percentage of my income.

You can love your dog, love your family, love your friends, and yes, even love someone who doesn't love you in return. It IS quite possible to share great times together with someone who enjoys sex, but are not compatible in any other way.

A well developed argument. I probably don't agree with all your views but you debate with courtesy and logic. I just wish it was more contagious on Thaivisa. You would not volunteer in a voluntary trainer role here would you. Well, no, I suppose not.

[SeanMoran]

I'm not commenting on that. I think it's a very uncaring viewpoint.

The quotations are getting better, but as for that above, there's nothing in the way of IPB forum decorum that can address it. Let's just say that I am not commenting on what I just commented on and disregard the whole point of all of it, because we are not here on this forum to comment on what we are not commenting on.

And you see no ethical reasons why women have to sell themselves ?? Really ? What a weird view.

If you want to find out the ethical reasons on what makes a woman want to sell herself for money, then I can give you two suggestions: 1. be a man. 2. ask a woman.

[Ulysses G.]

At the end of the day one can not justify women ( not just thais) being put in a position which they probably don't want to be in.

Don't need to justify why someone freely chooses the profession they seek. These ladies/men come and go as they please. In fact no one forces them into anything.....economic exploitation excuse is complete BS and tired old cliche by westerners who can't get it through their minds that someone would choose this profession.

More basic common sense from britmaveric.

[manarak]

"Prostitution is generally allowed in Thailand" ??? I'll let others comment

...

So when is this explotaion legal and when is it not.

Prostitution is legal when there is no exploitation of it and when it doesn't cause nuisance to the public. QFD.

You've got some reading to do to inform yourself about the legal situation.

Plus, PLEASE, I have one request:

Explain to me how there is "exploitation" when a bargirl decided by herself to do this job for the money, and there is no other person pushing on her?

You say "they were born or became somehow poor and developed a need for money for whatever reason. Prostitution to farang customers is their solution. Whether they like the job or not, they want the money. " I'm not commenting on that. I think it's a very uncaring viewpoint. And you see no ethical reasons why women have to sell themselves ?? Really ? What a weird view.

And... Well, wouldn't it be even more uncaring to go and forbid these girls from selling themselves if they decided that's the way they'll get the money they crave after?

Ignore the girls' individual sensibilities and forbid that trade for anyone?

Everyone working for another person is "selling himself" to some extent. Third persons judge situations by relating them to themselves, "would I do it", "how would I feel in this situation".

Again, remove your moralistic / western disgust from the equation and think again.

Many bargils are religious. They believe that what they do is a sin, but they also believe that if they use that money well, for example paying the university studies of a younger sister, the merit they do outweighs their sins in the eyes of Buddha.

Balancing out sins with good deeds like in a + - calculation is also something we don't know in western culture.

Have sex outside of marriage, not aimed at procreation and be damned & go to hel_l. That's the official position of the catholic Church, which helped to form our western morals for so many centuries: sex = sin outside of marriage and necessary evil with the married partner.

What would be your solution for fulfilling the bargirls' money needs?

Edited March 7, 2010 by manarak

[fullwhenempty]

The issue is not just a moral one. The male urge for sex is very strong but as has been said, some men are unable to find an outlet. I would rather the ugly, drooling, disgusting, normally rejected slobs cruising Nana (nothing personal) had a 'safe' option to satisfy their sexual urges than to see my or any other child the target of a perverted manifestation. Or to see more women raped or murdered. We see all too clearly the problems the Catholic priesthood encounter (just so the Church doesn't have to support the priests' wives and offspring). In general, if the two parties to the transaction are happy and they aren't causing anyone else any harm, then it's none of my business.

However, whether you feel it is acceptable from a monetary or moral view, there ARE consequences, mostly for the female. Many girls end up with psychological problems. I don't think it is possible to not be affected by having sex with hundreds, if not thousands of strangers. We are spiritual and emotional beings and both aspects are affected in either gross or subtle ways.

An observer of the scene has seen shy village girls transformed into tattooed, ganga, card playing hard core whores, pulling 10k a month from each of half a dozen unsuspecting 'boyfriend's' within a few weeks. These girls are trained in the various arts of how to maximize their revenue. Buyer beware. There has to be some moral constraint in society or you end up with 'titty bars' on every corner and condoms in your kid's lunchbox. Those who are so accepting of prostitution would think twice if the girls were built like Turkish wrestlers and the 'trade' was taking place next door. Like karaoke bars, they are fine in someone else's backyard.

There are always consequences, some not so obvious as others. Both to the individuals and to the wider community. Choosing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just as an aside, the busybody feminist ('feminazi') movement has been deliberately cultivated to turn woman against man and vice-versa. It goes against thousands of years of natural sexual and social development. The aim is not the emancipation of women (which is a good thing) but the emasculation of men. The aggressive political movements that constitute homosexual and feminine 'rights' are causing harm, not benefit, to society as a whole. Who's going to have the children when everyone is gay? I reject absolutely the idea that being gay is 'natural'. While a small minority may be so inclined the majority have been attracted to the lifestyle by propaganda in schools and in the media. I know since I watched my son shocked and fascinated by an overly camp footsoldier on TV. The number of gays and katoeys in LOS far outweighs those in other countries so what does that say about the choice being 'natural'. Are Thai genetics somehow different to Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese and so on? It is not 'natural' at all but a lifestyle choice. Encouraged by some communistic or fascist policy-maker to effect population control and destroy the family.

Light the touch paper.

[Ulysses G.]

Your post in interesting and I agree with some of it, but the part about boys being indoctrinated into being gay is just plain nonsense. Homosexuality is genetic and very few heterosexuals are going to be swayed by any sort of sexual propoganda. The call of nature is just too strong.

As far as consequences from prostitution, of course there are. There are consequences from using oil, eating food, driving cars and pretty much everything that we get up to, but if a sexworker wants to make a lot of money very quickly, they might be more than happy to do what they have to do.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[fullwhenempty]

Your post in interesting and I agree with some of it, but the part about boys being indoctrinated into being gay is just plain nonsense. Homosexuality is genetic and very few heterosexuals are going to be swayed by any sort of sexual propoganda. The call of nature is just too strong.

As far as consequences from prostitution, of course there are. There are consequences from using oil, eating food, driving cars and pretty much everything that we get up to, but if a sexworker wants to make a lot of money very quickly, they might be more than happy to do what they have to do.

If it is 'plain nonsense' then how can 'very few' be swayed? If some can be swayed then clearly it's not only 'genetic'. Nor do you address the LOS question. The % of Katoeys and gays in Thailand far exceeds other countries. How do you explain this? In what way are Thais genetically different to their neighbours? The fact is, children copy. That too is 'genetic'. If they see their big brother putting on lipstick they will want to do the same.

If an emotionally clingy mother buys a young child 'My Little Pony' instead of 'GI Joe', won't the child be influenced? If you can dodge the Army by being 'gay' wouldn't you wear a frock? If your choice is between working on a building site for 200 thb per day or entering the glamorous Miss Tiffany contest, how many would opt for the latter? Obviously some do. If the court system divests husbands' of a lifetime of effort, one too many times, would they not be justified in rejecting the opposite sex? Isn't gay propaganda attracting the sexually curious? The borderline 'gays' who wouldn't succumb if they hadn't been exposed to it? In what sense is genetics responsible here?

I think there is a potential in many if not all of us. Whether it is realized or not depends not on nature but nurture. Perhaps previous periods of suppression have understood this and so designed ways, usually harsh, to minimize any nurturing.

I'm just floating this as an idea... Isn't there some corollary with religion? Devotees can be 100% committed to their beliefs. Yet, isn't it true that religion is determined by geography, not free choice? If you were born in Iran you would be a Muslim. If you were born in LOS you would be Buddhist. If you were born into a society where homosexuality was the norm, wouldn't you become homesexual? It would be odd if you didn't.

I'm not making judgments here. The debate has been very civilized. I hope we can keep it that way.

[Ulysses G.]

If you can dodge the Army by being 'gay' wouldn't you wear a frock?

Yes, maybe, but still no "trains" allowed up the Hershey Highway!

[shazedelic]

Hmmm is the question actually "Is prostitution or paying for sex wrong?" or is it "is sex without love wrong?"

Those two questions are not the same. The question is bound up with what actually constitutes consent. If both (or more) participants are there not to survive but because they want to have fun, then hey! Have fun! However, if one of the participants is there to survive then it seems there is a form of economic coersion going on. imho.... of course

I have to say that being an adult gay man certainly does give me an advantage in Thailand and everywhere else where homosexuality is not condemned. Men like sex

Yes.. true.. in fact the only way to survive in Bangkok for a gay man is to be promiscuous. Statements for 'no-strings-attached', 'one-night-stands', 'fun now', etc. seem to populate the gay social networking websites. "Sex without love is not wrong" definitely gives a reason for adult gay guys like me to be emotionless, empty and act like animals wherever sex is concerned.

HIV rates among homosexuals in Hong Kong may reach Thai levels by 2020, a government doctor has warned. "In Bangkok, one in three gay men are HIV positive at present," Centre for Health Protection senior medical officer Raymond Ho Lei-ming said yesterday.

The Standard, Wednesday, September 17, 2008

[StreetCowboy]

Stephen King's lawnmower man?

Anyone with a ute and a trailer with a couple of rotaries, a reel mower, and a whippersnipper. The same applies, that if you don't pay your lawnmower man, he won't cut your lawns. If nobody paid their lawnmower men, then the outcome might be the equivalent of back yard masturbation.

I enjoy a good mowing; At the risk of being pulled up for pornographic language, I used to have a petrol flymo; I'll always associate the smell of two-strokes (woops, that'll attract attention!) with freshly cut grass. Then raking the cuttings and tipping them into the compost pit - you've got me started now - I could fairly get carried away. But I really would struggle to get the same pleasure from mowing someone else's lawn - I'd probably want paid for it, especially if they wanted the edging done with shears. That's unnatural...

SC

Well thank you, sir. I now know someone I won't think of introducing my little sister to, but good on you for such a terrific imagination!

It was you that introduced horticulture to the debate, I was surprised that your post was allowed to stand, to be honest.

I take it your little sister lives in a tenament, and suffers from not having any beds to hoe and seed. She might have a little window box, though?

Do you think that gardening without love is wrong? I used to know some gardeners who earned a fair living from hoeing and mowing, and took great pride in their work and enjoyed it too. But they'd still want paid to do it, and I bet they wouldn't actually enjoy doing someone else's lawn umless they were paid for it...

Same, same, I suppose, but a little bit different.

SC

[IanForbes]

The issue is not just a moral one. The male urge for sex is very strong but as has been said, some men are unable to find an outlet. I would rather the ugly, drooling, disgusting, normally rejected slobs cruising Nana (nothing personal) had a 'safe' option to satisfy their sexual urges than to see my or any other child the target of a perverted manifestation. Or to see more women raped or murdered. We see all too clearly the problems the Catholic priesthood encounter (just so the Church doesn't have to support the priests' wives and offspring). In general, if the two parties to the transaction are happy and they aren't causing anyone else any harm, then it's none of my business.

However, whether you feel it is acceptable from a monetary or moral view, there ARE consequences, mostly for the female. Many girls end up with psychological problems. I don't think it is possible to not be affected by having sex with hundreds, if not thousands of strangers. We are spiritual and emotional beings and both aspects are affected in either gross or subtle ways.

An observer of the scene has seen shy village girls transformed into tattooed, ganga, card playing hard core whores, pulling 10k a month from each of half a dozen unsuspecting 'boyfriend's' within a few weeks. These girls are trained in the various arts of how to maximize their revenue. Buyer beware. There has to be some moral constraint in society or you end up with 'titty bars' on every corner and condoms in your kid's lunchbox. Those who are so accepting of prostitution would think twice if the girls were built like Turkish wrestlers and the 'trade' was taking place next door. Like karaoke bars, they are fine in someone else's backyard.

There are always consequences, some not so obvious as others. Both to the individuals and to the wider community. Choosing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just as an aside, the busybody feminist ('feminazi') movement has been deliberately cultivated to turn woman against man and vice-versa. It goes against thousands of years of natural sexual and social development. The aim is not the emancipation of women (which is a good thing) but the emasculation of men. The aggressive political movements that constitute homosexual and feminine 'rights' are causing harm, not benefit, to society as a whole. Who's going to have the children when everyone is gay? I reject absolutely the idea that being gay is 'natural'. While a small minority may be so inclined the majority have been attracted to the lifestyle by propaganda in schools and in the media. I know since I watched my son shocked and fascinated by an overly camp footsoldier on TV. The number of gays and katoeys in LOS far outweighs those in other countries so what does that say about the choice being 'natural'. Are Thai genetics somehow different to Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese and so on? It is not 'natural' at all but a lifestyle choice. Encouraged by some communistic or fascist policy-maker to effect population control and destroy the family.

Light the touch paper.

A well thought out and well written reply. Thanks for that. I don't entirely agree with everything you wrote, but it DOES make one look at other parts of the puzzle.

[GreenSnapper]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex.

True. But then "female emotion" is very much dependent on the status (position, wealth) of the man.

For example: an ugly old man like Mick Jagger can have hundreds of young girls. Their "emotion" is easily affected by the wealth, fame and status Mick Jagger has.

Then the same hundred young girls would just yuck if an equally ugly Joe Plumber in Pattaya would approach them. The only difference is that Joe Plumber does not have the same status as Mick Jagger.

A Thai BG would still see Joe Plumber as much more attractive than Mr. Somchai from their Isaan village.

So it very much depends on your ability to touch a girl's emotion. Depending on your status, wealth, looks... it will be different girls. But the way it works, is universal.

[venturalaw]

Hmmm is the question actually "Is prostitution or paying for sex wrong?" or is it "is sex without love wrong?"

Those two questions are not the same. The question is bound up with what actually constitutes consent. If both (or more) participants are there not to survive but because they want to have fun, then hey! Have fun! However, if one of the participants is there to survive then it seems there is a form of economic coersion going on. imho.... of course

I have to say that being an adult gay man certainly does give me an advantage in Thailand and everywhere else where homosexuality is not condemned. Men like sex

Why is it necessarily 'coercion' if money is involved? Why can it not be what is the norm for the BG experience here in Thailand - agreed upon price for sex? Where is the coercion? Most who work in any profession do so for money, often for survival. Why is it coercion to pay for one's services?

[Ulysses G.]

Not to mention that there is PLENTY of play for pay going on in the Gay community just about everywhere. In fact, most men over a certain age pretty much can not get a sex partner without throwing in a little reward money.

[IanForbes]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex.

True. But then "female emotion" is very much dependent on the status (position, wealth) of the man.

For example: an ugly old man like Mick Jagger can have hundreds of young girls. Their "emotion" is easily affected by the wealth, fame and status Mick Jagger has.

Then the same hundred young girls would just yuck if an equally ugly Joe Plumber in Pattaya would approach them. The only difference is that Joe Plumber does not have the same status as Mick Jagger.

A Thai BG would still see Joe Plumber as much more attractive than Mr. Somchai from their Isaan village.

So it very much depends on your ability to touch a girl's emotion. Depending on your status, wealth, looks... it will be different girls. But the way it works, is universal.

I couldn't agree more. Back in my "dating days", when I was in my twenties, I had a lovely, supposedly "sweet" girl friend who shocked me one time by stating that Frank Sinatra could park his shoes under her bed any day. Frank Sinatra was notorious for treating women like objects, but the women just ate it up... because he was famous. It was an eye opener into the psyche of some women. Many times I met gals who stated flatly that if the guy wasn't a doctor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, or some wealthy businessman, then they weren't interested in a relationship. If THAT ain't putting money at the top of the list then nothing is. No love and strictly a business proposition... just like prostitution. Hey, and I could see where they were coming from. It was THEIR choice to make. I just backed out of the equation and looked elsewhere.

[SeanMoran]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex.

True. But then "female emotion" is very much dependent on the status (position, wealth) of the man.

For example: an ugly old man like Mick Jagger can have hundreds of young girls. Their "emotion" is easily affected by the wealth, fame and status Mick Jagger has.

Then the same hundred young girls would just yuck if an equally ugly Joe Plumber in Pattaya would approach them. The only difference is that Joe Plumber does not have the same status as Mick Jagger.

A Thai BG would still see Joe Plumber as much more attractive than Mr. Somchai from their Isaan village.

So it very much depends on your ability to touch a girl's emotion. Depending on your status, wealth, looks... it will be different girls. But the way it works, is universal.

I couldn't agree more. Back in my "dating days", when I was in my twenties, I had a lovely, supposedly "sweet" girl friend who shocked me one time by stating that Frank Sinatra could park his shoes under her bed any day. Frank Sinatra was notorious for treating women like objects, but the women just ate it up... because he was famous. It was an eye opener into the psyche of some women. Many times I met gals who stated flatly that if the guy wasn't a doctor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, or some wealthy businessman, then they weren't interested in a relationship. If THAT ain't putting money at the top of the list then nothing is. No love and strictly a business proposition... just like prostitution. Hey, and I could see where they were coming from. It was THEIR choice to make. I just backed out of the equation and looked elsewhere.

Of she offers to go out in the Summer heat and mow the lawns in my back yard, it's only good business sense that I'd pay her and maybe next month she'll come back and mow it again. If she wants to take me away on a plane somewhere and she's the pilot of that plane, then I'll chip in for the avgas. If she's a doctor who can bandage my wounds and cure me, then I'll hopefully have a few dollars to further the cause of hippocraty, and if she wants to soothe my aching heart for a night, then I'll gladly pay for the therapy. Money can't buy you love.

<ed: typos x 2>

Edited March 8, 2010 by SeanMoran

[Mosha]

Evolution invented sex. Religion invented marriage.

[sbk]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex.

True. But then "female emotion" is very much dependent on the status (position, wealth) of the man.

For example: an ugly old man like Mick Jagger can have hundreds of young girls. Their "emotion" is easily affected by the wealth, fame and status Mick Jagger has.

Then the same hundred young girls would just yuck if an equally ugly Joe Plumber in Pattaya would approach them. The only difference is that Joe Plumber does not have the same status as Mick Jagger.

A Thai BG would still see Joe Plumber as much more attractive than Mr. Somchai from their Isaan village.

So it very much depends on your ability to touch a girl's emotion. Depending on your status, wealth, looks... it will be different girls. But the way it works, is universal.

I couldn't agree more. Back in my "dating days", when I was in my twenties, I had a lovely, supposedly "sweet" girl friend who shocked me one time by stating that Frank Sinatra could park his shoes under her bed any day. Frank Sinatra was notorious for treating women like objects, but the women just ate it up... because he was famous. It was an eye opener into the psyche of some women. Many times I met gals who stated flatly that if the guy wasn't a doctor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, or some wealthy businessman, then they weren't interested in a relationship. If THAT ain't putting money at the top of the list then nothing is. No love and strictly a business proposition... just like prostitution. Hey, and I could see where they were coming from. It was THEIR choice to make. I just backed out of the equation and looked elsewhere.

Interesting. So, what about Thai women who marry men for their money? Or is it different because they are looking for "security"?

Fact is, I find an unsuccessful, unmotivated, and umambitious man dull, boring and often not the brightest bulb. If a man is intelligent, interesting and doing a job he loves it doesn't matter whether or not he's in a traditional "successful" profession. I dated a guy who was an electric lineman. Cute but dull as ditchwater. I also dated a guy who was a computer software programmer. He was funny, interesting and intelligent. If it had been the other way around, and the lineman was funny, interesting and intelligent I probably would have dated him more than once. Unfortunately, he was also married and failed to tell me that until later on in the date.

Anyway, it seems to me that too many guys here have had a few bad experiences and decided that becuase of their bad choices and repeated relationship failures its all the fault of the woman. If you keep having the same crap happen in relationship after relationship maybe you'd better start taking a look at yourself.

As for the original post, is sex without love bad? As long as its between two consenting adults why is it any of my business?

[Ulysses G.]

Anyway, it seems to me that too many guys here have had a few bad experiences and decided that becuase of their bad choices and repeated relationship failures its all the fault of the woman. If you keep having the same crap happen in relationship after relationship maybe you'd better start taking a look at yourself.

I agree. That is why I want to stay as far away from relationships as possible and just stick to getting a little professional "comfort" every now and again.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SeanMoran]

Anyway, it seems to me that too many guys here have had a few bad experiences and decided that becuase of their bad choices and repeated relationship failures its all the fault of the woman. If you keep having the same crap happen in relationship after relationship maybe you'd better start taking a look at yourself.

I agree. That is why I want to stay as far away from relationships as possible and just stick to getting a little professional "comfort" every now and again.

Surprising how a change of climate can overcome these problems.

[sbk]

Anyway, it seems to me that too many guys here have had a few bad experiences and decided that becuase of their bad choices and repeated relationship failures its all the fault of the woman. If you keep having the same crap happen in relationship after relationship maybe you'd better start taking a look at yourself.

I agree. That is why I want to stay as far away from relationships as possible and just stick to getting a little professional "comfort" every now and again.

And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that. As long as you are honest with yourself and you are happy and you aren't hurting anyone, why the heck should it matter to me or anyone else what choices you make? I certainly don't stand in judgment of you for that. You are honest. Thats a plus in my book.

[sbk]

sbk gets off the chair to pick UG off the floor

[Ulysses G.]

Very true, but with more choice comes more temptations. I rather be able to do exactly as I like without having to worry about hurting or disrespecting someone that I care for.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[venturalaw]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex.

True. But then "female emotion" is very much dependent on the status (position, wealth) of the man.

For example: an ugly old man like Mick Jagger can have hundreds of young girls. Their "emotion" is easily affected by the wealth, fame and status Mick Jagger has.

Then the same hundred young girls would just yuck if an equally ugly Joe Plumber in Pattaya would approach them. The only difference is that Joe Plumber does not have the same status as Mick Jagger.

A Thai BG would still see Joe Plumber as much more attractive than Mr. Somchai from their Isaan village.

So it very much depends on your ability to touch a girl's emotion. Depending on your status, wealth, looks... it will be different girls. But the way it works, is universal.

I couldn't agree more. Back in my "dating days", when I was in my twenties, I had a lovely, supposedly "sweet" girl friend who shocked me one time by stating that Frank Sinatra could park his shoes under her bed any day. Frank Sinatra was notorious for treating women like objects, but the women just ate it up... because he was famous. It was an eye opener into the psyche of some women. Many times I met gals who stated flatly that if the guy wasn't a doctor, an airline pilot, a lawyer, or some wealthy businessman, then they weren't interested in a relationship. If THAT ain't putting money at the top of the list then nothing is. No love and strictly a business proposition... just like prostitution. Hey, and I could see where they were coming from. It was THEIR choice to make. I just backed out of the equation and looked elsewhere.

Interesting. So, what about Thai women who marry men for their money? Or is it different because they are looking for "security"?

Fact is, I find an unsuccessful, unmotivated, and umambitious man dull, boring and often not the brightest bulb. If a man is intelligent, interesting and doing a job he loves it doesn't matter whether or not he's in a traditional "successful" profession. I dated a guy who was an electric lineman. Cute but dull as ditchwater. I also dated a guy who was a computer software programmer. He was funny, interesting and intelligent. If it had been the other way around, and the lineman was funny, interesting and intelligent I probably would have dated him more than once. Unfortunately, he was also married and failed to tell me that until later on in the date.

Anyway, it seems to me that too many guys here have had a few bad experiences and decided that becuase of their bad choices and repeated relationship failures its all the fault of the woman. If you keep having the same crap happen in relationship after relationship maybe you'd better start taking a look at yourself.

As for the original post, is sex without love bad? As long as its between two consenting adults why is it any of my business?

Some women claim the same - numerous failures being the fault of the male. Both scenarios can be true - male's fault, female's fault. Handling divorces in my previous professional life, I always enjoyed seeing repeat offenders entering my office. Some chose mates that were seemingly identical to the past failure(s), some did not.

[sbk]

True venturalaw, but given that over 90% of ThaiVisa members are male then I think I am safe to use the phrase "too many guys here"

[SeanMoran]

True venturalaw, but given that over 90% of ThaiVisa members are male then I think I am safe to use the phrase "too many guys here"

Get over the stereotyping. Not all the members of this forum are the same.