Prostitution : Is It Wrong To Pay For Sex ?

[MB1]

If they accepted bits of confetti instead of grey and purple notes I'd be more than happy to pay that instead. But they only take money. Who cares what they want it for. All I know is I want to ride-ride-slip-and-slide and then go about my day (or evening) with no strings attached. Did I mention the endless variety? Who wants meat and potatoes 5 times a week? It doesn't mean I don't like meat and potatoes nor the effort required to obtain/have conversations with/enjoy the mental stimulation of/etc. meat and potatoes.

A Thai woman once said to me, "You can't eat the same food all the time"..

What she was getting at, was why not have a change of woman once in a while.

[thepanicandthevomit]

So it's clear - There's a bunch of guys here who firmly hold (and are keen to express) the view that the only thing they have to offer a women is the money in their wallet.

Now I take on board the envy of rich kids in the neighbourhood, and getting shafted in the divorce courts - but surely these things have not completely 'castrated' men to the point they believe they cannot offer a woman anything but money.

I mean that is the message here isn't it? Guys who can't deal with a woman unless she's under a financial contract to deal with the guy.

And this is precisely the harm that using prostitutes causes the men who do so. It creates, or at the very least promotes this emasculated mindset.

I think this puts the derogatory comments we often read here on TV about Western women into context.

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

Edited July 16, 2010 by thepanicandthevomit

[GreenSnapper]

I think you need to face facts, not all women will choose the man who has more money,

Correct. Not all women.

But recent surveys have shown that more than 90% of women in the West marry upwards (status, wealth of the man). In Thailand, things certainly do not differ very much from these numbers.

That is, btw, one of the reasons why career women in the West are mostly single: there are not many available potential partners upwards.

Back to Thailand, there are huge numbers of women who look for a farang BF/husband. How do they do it? Easy, they shag around the internet sites, they hang around Gullivers and places like that.... they have short time BFs or long time BFs.

They play the number game: some day the knight on a white horse will appear. Just have to continue shagging...

And contrary to some believes here, women enjoy that game as much as men do.

Some posters here instantly shout "prostitutes". You guys have some issues, and it is embarrassing that you don't even notice it. Maybe a reason for your lack of success with women?

[thepanicandthevomit]

You are the abnormal person in this argument. If you don't have sex for money in Thailand you are a freak. It is OK to be a freak I don't dislike you for it. But don't cast aspersions on other people like being emasculated for being normal.

Yes, well said. GH's views are abnormal. The internet has given extremist dogma like this roots. The more drivel like this we face, the unhappier we become. It is fascism and intolerable.

[thepanicandthevomit]

Not the only thing but when a woman has a choice between 2 guys that are equally masculine or attractive but one of them has more money, she is going to pick the guy with more money.

face facts

I think you need to face facts, not all women will choose the man who has more money, maybe you come from a different planet than I do, what about personality and various other things...IMO your totally wrong but please keep believing what you do, your only 26 so you have plenty of time to learn what a woman really wants from a man.

You seem to spit out plenty of facts but IMO there just your opinion which IMO are totally wrong.

I'm 40. Does that make me old enough to back up his statement? Quite why people waste their time denying women GENERALLY like rich men is beyond me - it's totally obvious. It's also beyond me why SOME men are so keen to undermine their own sex. It really is baffling.

Edited July 16, 2010 by thepanicandthevomit

[MB1]

Not the only thing but when a woman has a choice between 2 guys that are equally masculine or attractive but one of them has more money, she is going to pick the guy with more money.

face facts

I think you need to face facts, not all women will choose the man who has more money, maybe you come from a different planet than I do, what about personality and various other things...IMO your totally wrong but please keep believing what you do, your only 26 so you have plenty of time to learn what a woman really wants from a man.

You seem to spit out plenty of facts but IMO there just your opinion which IMO are totally wrong.

I'm 40. Does that make me old enough to back up his statement? Quite why people waste their time denying women GENERALLY like rich men is beyond me - it's totally obvious. It's also beyond me why SOME men are so keen to undermine their own sex. It really is baffling.

If you want to back up a "statement" he makes then fine, I'll either agree in a post or disagree, or I'll choose to say nothing, quite simple really, where I do have a problem is when people come on a public forum and continually make statements as "FACT" and give no evidence at all to back up statements made, now if they said something like "IMO", then it's an opinion and not being stated as fact, there is a big difference. Do you see that.?.

To state a woman will always choose the man with more money is IMO a crock of horse sh*t.

As to why some men are keen to undermine their own sex, if I think their wrong "IMO", then I'll say my piece and give my opinion or if I have facts that dispute what they have stated I'll post them, the same go's for a woman.

I don't use this forum, or any other for that matter to gain brownie points for agreeing with my fellow males, if a thread/topic interests me then I'll participate in it.

[Beetlejuice]

Not the only thing but when a woman has a choice between 2 guys that are equally masculine or attractive but one of them has more money, she is going to pick the guy with more money.

face facts

I think you need to face facts, not all women will choose the man who has more money, maybe you come from a different planet than I do, what about personality and various other things...IMO your totally wrong but please keep believing what you do, your only 26 so you have plenty of time to learn what a woman really wants from a man.

You seem to spit out plenty of facts but IMO there just your opinion which IMO are totally wrong.

I'm 40. Does that make me old enough to back up his statement? Quite why people waste their time denying women GENERALLY like rich men is beyond me - it's totally obvious. It's also beyond me why SOME men are so keen to undermine their own sex. It really is baffling.

If you want to back up a "statement" he makes then fine, I'll either agree in a post or disagree, or I'll choose to say nothing, quite simple really, where I do have a problem is when people come on a public forum and continually make statements as "FACT" and give no evidence at all to back up statements made, now if they said something like "IMO", then it's an opinion and not being stated as fact, there is a big difference. Do you see that.?.

To state a woman will always choose the man with more money is IMO a crock of horse sh*t.

As to why some men are keen to undermine their own sex, if I think their wrong "IMO", then I'll say my piece and give my opinion or if I have facts that dispute what they have stated I'll post them, the same go's for a woman.

I don't use this forum, or any other for that matter to gain brownie points for agreeing with my fellow males, if a thread/topic interests me then I'll participate in it.

It is not a case of proving the point with evidence and facts, but by reading the posts written from experience of mens relationships with these women. I came to realise years ago the realities involved in relationships with women.

This is nothing like a Hollywood romance movie, where the good guy gets the gal, settles down and they all live happily ever after. Men dream about being stranded on a dessert island with the girl of their dreams, women dream about living a luxurious lifestyle with all the trimmings.

Sex hardly plays any substantial part in a woman's life, only as a means for a gain. Men see sex as a bonding with a woman, whether it is for a short time or long term. Women see material benefits and what's in it for them as a way of bonding. If a man is young and handsome but has little wealth, the fat gutted, middle aged cigar smoking, wine drinking company director with the mercedes will win out in the majority of cases.

As a rule, men are passionate, romantic, loyal and likely to care and love his girl, regardless of what the feminists say. I have seen lots of men discarded onto the scrap heap of ruin by their girlfriends or wives when they are no longer considered as a viable commitment.

It is not wrong or immoral to pay for sex, because that is the biological makeup of a woman. A period of love and passion with a dream girl in an imaginary relationship for a price. That's exactly what it is, a fact no one can dispute. It has been this way since the beginning of time, this is why prostitution is the oldest profession.

Why not try an experiment? Advertise yourself on a Thai or any dating site as a reasonable looking young man, unemployed or in a low paid job, living in a rented room, no car and rides an old motorcycle.

At the same time make another profile of a late 40s, to late 50s middle aged balding fat guy that owns a porsche car, lives in a 30 million baht home, swimming pool has all mod cons and is a company director.

See which profile receives the most interest and responses from girls? I know which one my money is on.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Beetlejuice

[sarahsbloke]

I gave her no money. I paid some of her bills, less bills then my brother pays for his girlfriend in the west who does not work.

Did you pay the bill, or did you just pay the hand.

Thai ladies ask for money, for rent, to pay off debt, to pay the vet to cure sick buffalo, many men don't actually bother to pay a bill, they just put money in the ladies hand.

Wake up, most of the time the bill just doesn't exist.

Sorry Sokai, you are just a guy paying a prostitute, we older guys see it, you are too young to understand what is happening.

Next week another guy will be paying her 'rent'

In fact 4 or more guys will pay her 'rent' every month ...........

Edited July 16, 2010 by sarahsbloke

[MB1]

It is not a case of proving the point with evidence and facts, but by reading the posts written from experience of mens relationships with these women

What might have been the experience of one man/woman, another man/woman may have a different experience and opinion, same as we may have a different opinion and experience, we don't all have the same experience or opinion.

It's quite simple really, but certain people think they can state as "FACT" and give percentages as "FACT" but when challenged can't back it up.

Is there any part of that, that you don't understand.?....

The "FACT" remains that if your going to make statements of "FACT" then be prepared to back up your statements and provide evidence of what you state, how simple is that.?.

HTH..

Edited July 17, 2010 by MB1

[GuestHouse]

So it's clear - There's a bunch of guys here who firmly hold (and are keen to express) the view that the only thing they have to offer a women is the money in their wallet.

Now I take on board the envy of rich kids in the neighbourhood, and getting shafted in the divorce courts - but surely these things have not completely 'castrated' men to the point they believe they cannot offer a woman anything but money.

I mean that is the message here isn't it? Guys who can't deal with a woman unless she's under a financial contract to deal with the guy.

And this is precisely the harm that using prostitutes causes the men who do so. It creates, or at the very least promotes this emasculated mindset.

I think this puts the derogatory comments we often read here on TV about Western women into context.

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

There you go, I make a point and you respond by confirming it....... And then go off on a rant.

I do not legitimize the view, far from it. I simply point out that many of the men here, yourself included, express the view that they only value they have for a woman is the money in their wallet - I certainly do not condemn marriage for love nor do I state that marriage for money is a virtue - Marriage for love and marriage that lasts, even grows stronger. through financial problems, health problems and all the trials and tribulations life can throw at us is the solid proof that male/female relationships are far more than just a monetary transaction.

I understand you have a point to make, but please rant about in relevance to the topic - or at least read a thread before you repost it and respond.

[GuestHouse]

You are going to LOVE Andrea Dworkin.:.....

UG please, if you disagree with my point of view then please either ignore it or, if you wish, respond to it - That is respond to my point of view.

Do try to refrain from the searching the internet for other people's outrageous views and then telling me, and the board, that I'll love what they have to say.

I have my own views which I'm quite happy to express and defend. I don't need every other board member finding other people's views and trying to stick them on me.

1:10 for effort (you get the 1 for correct use of the cut and past function).

Edited July 17, 2010 by Crossy
flame removed.

[Ulysses G.]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin, I thought you might enjoy a liitle of her philosophy to keep you motivated as so many posters do not agree with you.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[GuestHouse]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin, I thought you might enjoy a liitle of her philosophy to keep you motivated as so many posters do not agree with you.

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self, I have no interest in her or what she has to say - I'm aware of Association Fallacy - hence my reference to .......oops better not repeat that.

Edited July 17, 2010 by GuestHouse

[WinnieTheKhwai]

You are the abnormal person in this argument. If you don't have sex for money in Thailand you are a freak. It is OK to be a freak I don't dislike you for it. But don't cast aspersions on other people like being emasculated for being normal.

Yes, well said. GH's views are abnormal. The internet has given extremist dogma like this roots. The more drivel like this we face, the unhappier we become. It is fascism and intolerable.

I think both your views are abnormal, in that you spend so much time debating a fairly common transaction, and with outrageous claims on both sides as well. A gem was that obtaining sexual services is emasculating.. I do pay for services that feel somewhat emasculating, but these tend to be the contracting out of typical male responsibilities such as fixing stuff around the house. Either way I don't see 13 pages of debate on if it's wrong to get someone to fix a drain.

Not the only thing but when a woman has a choice between 2 guys that are equally masculine or attractive but one of them has more money, she is going to pick the guy with more money.

Well so am I. If I had a choice between 2 girls that are equally feminine and attractive but one of them is off a farm and the other is wealthy, then guess who I'll pick. I'm not sure that selection of a marriage (or long term) partner has much to do with obtaining a service for an hour or so, never mind if that's sex, a massage or a haircut, or fixing a drain.

[sokal]

<br>

<br>I gave her no money. I paid some of her bills, less bills then my brother pays for his girlfriend in the west who does not work.<br>

<br><br>Did you pay the bill, or did you just pay the hand.<br>Thai ladies ask for money, for rent, to pay off debt, to pay the vet to cure sick buffalo, many men don't actually bother to pay a bill, they just put money in the ladies hand.<br>Wake up, most of the time the bill just doesn't exist.<br>Sorry Sokai, you are just a guy paying a prostitute, we older guys see it, you are too young to understand what is happening.<br>Next week another guy will be paying her 'rent'<br>In fact 4 or more guys will pay her 'rent' every month ...........<br>

<br><br>But recent surveys have shown that more than 90% of women in the West

marry upwards (status, wealth of the man). In Thailand, things

certainly do not differ very much from these numbers.<br>

<br>

That is, btw, one of the reasons why career women in the West are

mostly single: there are not many available potential partners upwards.

Back to Thailand, there are huge numbers of women who look for a farang

BF/husband. How do they do it? Easy, they shag around the internet

sites, they hang around Gullivers and places like that.... they have

short time BFs or long time BFs.

They play the number game: some day the knight on a white horse will appear. Just have to continue shagging...

And contrary to some believes here, women enjoy that game as much as men do.

Some posters here instantly shout "prostitutes". You guys have some

issues, and it is embarrassing that you don't even notice it. Maybe a

reason for your lack of success with women?

For the record,that was Greensnappers post. I was not sure if you read it.

I was at her place and yes, at the end of the month it did seem plausible that she had rent to pay. Did I hire a private investigator to find out  ? no.

Edited July 17, 2010 by sokal

[sokal]

So it's clear - There's a bunch of guys here who firmly hold (and are keen to express) the view that the only thing they have to offer a women is the money in their wallet.

Now I take on board the envy of rich kids in the neighbourhood, and getting shafted in the divorce courts - but surely these things have not completely 'castrated' men to the point they believe they cannot offer a woman anything but money.

I mean that is the message here isn't it? Guys who can't deal with a woman unless she's under a financial contract to deal with the guy.

And this is precisely the harm that using prostitutes causes the men who do so. It creates, or at the very least promotes this emasculated mindset.

I think this puts the derogatory comments we often read here on TV about Western women into context.

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

There you go, I make a point and you respond by confirming it....... And then go off on a rant.

I do not legitimize the view, far from it. I simply point out that many of the men here, yourself included, express the view that they only value they have for a woman is the money in their wallet - I certainly do not condemn marriage for love nor do I state that marriage for money is a virtue - Marriage for love and marriage that lasts, even grows stronger. through financial problems, health problems and all the trials and tribulations life can throw at us is the solid proof that male/female relationships are far more than just a monetary transaction.

I understand you have a point to make, but please rant about in relevance to the topic - or at least read a thread before you repost it and respond.

I think wealthier guys have a different preception on this then the guys that are average or below average wealth wise.

[sokal]

Well so am I. If I had a choice between 2 girls that are equally feminine and attractive but one of them is off a farm and the other is wealthy, then guess who I'll pick. I'm not sure that selection of a marriage (or long term) partner has much to do with obtaining a service for an hour or so, never mind if that's sex, a massage or a haircut, or fixing a drain.

And you said that being a man.

Women care less and need sex less then men do, so now you know why a woman would pick the guy with the most money even if that guy was not as masculine or not as attractive as the other guy.

[bonobo]

Give WHAT away? Sex is never given away by women. There is always an attachment of some kind. That is the main reason why I prefer the working gals. I don't WANT an attachment later with all the tears and complaints. I've been through that far too many times

. And, I'll still say there is no one size fits all when it comes to sex. There are women who enjoy it and many who couldn't care one way or another. And others who frankly don't enjoy sex at all... despite acting like they do.

I have hesitated to post as this thread is not really Thai-related and has been on the verge of being closed (but the interest has remained high).  However, Ian, I really have to disagree with you.  There are plenty, and I mean plenty of women who want no commitments nor entanglements but merely an enjoyable roll in the hay.

No one size fits all is correct.  And while some women certainly do use sex as the carrot for some other need of their own, and some women enjoy sex as part of bonding and a relationship, many women are just like many men.  They like sex because it feels good and makes them happy.

That is just not true.  There is not plenty of women who want just sex.

Of course it's not true. It's just yet more propaganda.

Ah yet one more who has never experienced normal sexual MUTUAL satisfaction.

I always thought that most men are hesitant to describe their sexual shortcomings.  But some men insist on coming here on TV and letting the entire posting world know that their experiences with women have totally revolved around money.  Pity, that.

[bonobo]

And then there are wartime rapes, rape by the victors usually of the women of the vanquished. This has happened across many cultures throughout human history. So much so that it may be called normal human behavior. So we do as a species have a very dark side.

This was part of the conquest process with a very practical use.

To assimilate a conquered people you kill the men and children then impregnate the women. It means the next generation will become your people and not a conquered people. Lions do the same thing when they take over a pride.

Too true.

In the year 2010 assimilation is still being used as a weapon by the Chinese Government today against the indigenous population in Tibet.

A tibetan Widow is not allowed to remarry a tibetan man, only a chinese man.

Also huge incentives are provided by the Chinese Government to Chinese immigrants that will slowly outnumber the local population. these one-sided benefits make the average Tibetan male poor and less attractive to Tibetan females as a marriage proposition, therefore encouraging mixed marriages.

All part of the conquering of Tibet that started with the Chinese communist invasion in the 1950's.    

In another 50 years when it China's turn again to host the Olympic games, there wont be any protests coming from Tibet.

Sad.

As an aside, look to see where China is in 50 years with regards to prostitution.  With 120 men being raised to every 100 women, look at how that pressure will change the country.

[bonobo]

The fact that many women are attracted to the trappings of wealth makes no difference to the argument that marriage is prostitution, that a man is "paying for sex" by getting married.  This would only be true where both the man and the woman are together only for sex and the exchange of money.

I disagree. The man is not going to get the sex without some wealth in both cases.

So no poor man is ever going to have sex?  How the heck do we get poor families, then?  How many families have working wives and unemployed husbands?  Yet many of the women stick with the men for reasons obviously different than money.

I have personally witnessed this in both the West and in Thailand. The woman works in menial jobs while the man does nothing to earn a living.  But he must bring something to the table.  

[bonobo]

Sorry to have the break it to you buddy, but yes, she was/is a prostitute, NO thai lady would sleep with a guy on the first night, and NO  thai lady would ask for money, some will disagree with me but after 22 years in thailand i have a fair idea of how thailand and the ladies operate,

Thats just your opinion mate. As far as I am concerned, prostitutes are the ones that get paid for half hour flings and such, or massage girls.  

Not the girls that get a boyfriend for an extended period of time and receive the benefits that a boyfriend typically bares.

Calling a cow a racehorse does not make it one. It is still a cow.  You can even saddle it up and take it for a ride, but it is still a cow.

But if it makes you happy to call that cow Secretariat, then no harm, no foul.

IMHO.

Any girl that has had many partners would be considered a cow in that case.

Just because some girl is not considered a prostitute does not make her a virgin. She could be some party slut that gives it away for free but still, in your mind, be considered a " Secretariat"

Is that the new virgin for you people ? A girl that has never been a "prostitute" ?

"You people?"  

Which people is that?  Anyone who takes issue with some of your sillier assertions of "fact."  There are posters here who are against prostitution and have eloquently stated their OPINIONS.  And others who are fine with it and have just as eloquently stated their OPINIONS.  So is "you people" posters who can use reason?

And where in your world view does the girl who "gives it away for free" fall.  I thought you wrote that women do everything for money.  WHy would a girl be a "party slut" unless she either liked sex or liked the attention?

The cow and horse analogy was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but the point was you can call something whatever you want, but that doesn't change what it is.  You can try to assign the cow or the horse to anything you want, if that floats your boat.  But that is you assigning your interpretations to it, not anyone else doing so.

A prostitute is someone who performs sexual acts for money.  I think that is a fairly universal definition.  Not a "party slut," not a woman with a host of partners.  Money is the defining point.

[bonobo]

  Good Thai girls don't have sex before marriage.  If you had sex before you were married you don't have a good Thai girl. 

...

In Thailand sex goes with marriage.

I am not taking issue with your overall point-of-view, but "good" Thai women, "good" women of just about every nationality do have sex before marriage.  Unless upwards of 80-90% of women worldwide are not to be classified as "bad," then having sex before marriage is not only the norm, but it does not render a woman as not falling into the "good" camp.

And thanks to the pill, the age of marriage worldwide has steadily increased.  With 27-year-old brides being the norm now instead of 14-year-olds, the idea of marrying a virgin bride is becoming more and more a thing of the past.

[bonobo]

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

Your logic does not hold water.  Your "real world" is just that, yours.  Not anyone else's.  If you have only met women who want men for money, then no one here can naysay you.  Pity you maybe, but not naysay.  If that is your experience, then that is your experience.

But just as others cannot naysy you, you can't naysay them for their experiences.  You not being there to see it does not invalidate it.

You say a man "CANNOT" get a western woman without money.  But even one "well I once know a woman who ...zzzzzzz" invalidates your argument.  That means at least one man can. Maybe not the majority, maybe the majority.  Who knows?  But that proves your assertion incorrect.

[bonobo]

I think  wealthier guys have a different preception on this then the guys that are average or below average wealth wise.

 But that does not make them wrong and you right.

[sokal]

The fact that many women are attracted to the trappings of wealth makes no difference to the argument that marriage is prostitution, that a man is "paying for sex" by getting married. This would only be true where both the man and the woman are together only for sex and the exchange of money.

I disagree. The man is not going to get the sex without some wealth in both cases.

So no poor man is ever going to have sex? How the heck do we get poor families, then? How many families have working wives and unemployed husbands? Yet many of the women stick with the men for reasons obviously different than money.

I have personally witnessed this in both the West and in Thailand. The woman works in menial jobs while the man does nothing to earn a living. But he must bring something to the table.

We are talking about the initial reasons why a man seeks a woman and why a woman seeks a man.

[Ulysses G.]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin,..

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self...

Are you sure? Her photo would make a dandy new avatar to remind us of the anti male chauvinist views you have expressed on this thread.

Sisterhood is Powerful!!!"

[sokal]

I think wealthier guys have a different preception on this then the guys that are average or below average wealth wise.

But that does not make them wrong and you right.

I did not grow up in a wealthy neighborhood because I was poor. I was implying that the wealthier guys would agree with me.

[ozzieovaseas]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin,..

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self...

Are you sure? Her photo would make a dandy new avatar to remind us of the anti male chauvinist views you have expressed on this thread.

Sisterhood is Powerful!!!"

:blink:Who is Andrea Dwarkin?

Would that be the same as Andrea Dworkin?

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks for pointing out an "a" that should have been an "o". It will make it easier for all of her Thai Visa fans to Goggle more of her most intellectually stimulating quotes.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[mark45y]

  Good Thai girls don't have sex before marriage.  If you had sex before you were married you don't have a good Thai girl. 

...

In Thailand sex goes with marriage.

I am not taking issue with your overall point-of-view, but "good" Thai women, "good" women of just about every nationality do have sex before marriage.  Unless upwards of 80-90% of women worldwide are not to be classified as "bad," then having sex before marriage is not only the norm, but it does not render a woman as not falling into the "good" camp.

And thanks to the pill, the age of marriage worldwide has steadily increased.  With 27-year-old brides being the norm now instead of 14-year-olds, the idea of marrying a virgin bride is becoming more and more a thing of the past.

I was only speaking about Thailand. As a rule of thumb a lot of cultural traits in Thailand are about 50 years behind the western world if not more so. Partly this has to do with the agrarian nature of the country and the large percent of the population still on the farm. Even so, among Thai people a womans virtue is still highly prized. I imagine virginity is far more common in Thailand than England.

If my Thai wife has an affair I believe I can still sue the offending male. Parental rights over children do not expire until the child’s 20th birthday and in fact much later among some female children.

In polite Thai society a chaperone is still very common.

I don’t think you can say Thai women and women from the west in the same discussion about good girls and have much real similarity.

Of course this is changing especially in Bangkok. Actually my statement about good girls was made tongue in cheek after all the talk of emasculated men which I thought was silly.

Who is the morally superior person, an unmarried woman who gives it away once a week or a woman who charges for it once a week?

Who is the morally superior wife, a wife who cheats on her husband once a week or the wife, who to supplement the family budget sells it once a week?