Prostitution : Is It Wrong To Pay For Sex ?

[GuestHouse]

Guesthouse seems like a rational person. I have read his posts for quite some time. What is there in his makeup that would make him propose such a bizarre idea that does not occur in the psychological texts of people who know about such things. I tried searching the internet for others who have compared emasculation to the purchase of Thai women’s services and I came up empty handed. This must be Guesthouses own theory. One could suppose he knows a number of emasculated men.

What does an emasculated man look or act like? Emasculation seems like a serious problem that would reach to other areas of a man’s life. Certainly they would be noticeable.

I am at a loss to explain it.

Let me help you out (and at last someone who wants to discuss the idea rather than relying on a defense of shouting feminism. The point I make has nothing to do with feminism - It works like this.

A man may be attractive to a woman for a whole range of reasons, his looks. his personality, his position of power, his masculinity, his ability to provide for the woman and her children - The list is as long as you want to make it, but essentially defines characteristics of men that women find attractive.

The view expressed time and time again here is that the only thing men can offer a women is money / women only want money from men / if you haven't got money you won't get the girl etc.

These are clear denials of the clear fact that women find men attractive for a whole lot more reasons than money - poor guys do get the girl.

Paying for sex is negating all the reasons for a woman to be with a man - The only thing the man offers is money - He doesn't have to have personality, looks, masculinity, nothing on the list of things women find attractive in men - All he needs is money.

Now we have men who defend their use of prostitutes with the argument that the only thing women want form a man is money - 'marriage is institutionalized prostitution' and the whole bag of statements we've had to that affect.

What has happened is, they have extrapolated their buying sex from prostitutes into a definition of all male female relationships.

I trust we can take the statements made regarding women's motivation being only money at face value, ie the belief of those people who have expressed that opinion.

They believe, and presumably accept, that the only thing THEY PERSONALLY have to offer a women is money - That, they tell us, is their experience.

They regard themselves as nothing but a source of finance in their relationship to women.

We additionally have statements such as 'women use sex as a weapon' - poor helpless men at the mercy of women. 'Women cheating, lying, being unfair in divorce cases' - Poor men who can't defend themselves. Women and their hate spreading feminism - Poor men who can't deal with women wanting to take part in defining their own role in society.

In short - Men without balls - Emasculated.

And it is in this context that I conclude Thailand really is attracting men who can't deal with women under any other circumstance than that the women is under a financial obligation to do their bidding.

[MB1]

Hmm, "women only want money from men." And when anyone shows that women want other things from men, or that some women care nothing about money, you decry their logic and call them ridiculous?

I have to laugh at that, problem is that some people just won't take onboard that not all women (Non Prostitutes) are interested in money, I'd say it's pretty fair to say though that prostitutes are in it for the money and the guy who's paying one for services received is in it for the ride or whatever floats his boat.

In the past when I've been with a prostitute I've known what it entails to me, I have sex to fulfill a sexual need or urge, she has sex for the money, I see it purely as a commercial buisness transaction with no emotional obligations and I need never see her again, and would never feel any guilt for having sex with a woman for money.

A one night stand in my hometown with a willing non prostitute may later create problems if I see her again, because I may have lied to her to enable me to get into her knickers. My bad or what.

It's interesting that certain people think which I disagree with, that the good looking macho wealthy men get all the girls (Non Prostitutes) so why do these type of rich and eligible people use prostitutes if they do get all the girl's.

Probably because it's a far easier way of getting sex from a woman with no emotional commitment and they don't have to see them again.

I wonder if someone who is in denial of being with a prostitute and prefers to call her a girlfreind comes from a God fearing strict religious background and would hate mummy or daddy to know that he's been with prostitutes.

I have a freind in Thailand now who's mum back home who go's to church regular and comes from a strict Irish Catholic family background threatened to cut him off from her will because she believed that he was going with prostitutes.

Just a thought..

Edited July 17, 2010 by MB1

[Ulysses G.]

But at least GH is offering some basic logic to back up his opinions, and he also acknowledges them as his OPINIONS, not as undisputed fact.

Along with a fair sprinkling of implied insults and judgments of anyone who does not buy his personal version of reality.   

I don't disagree you are in need of a cure.

[473geo]

But at least GH is offering some basic logic to back up his opinions, and he also acknowledges them as his OPINIONS, not as undisputed fact.

Along with a fair sprinkling of implied insults and judgments of anyone who does not buy his personal version of reality.

I don't disagree you are in need of a cure.

Actually some of his personal judgements appear to be spot on............notice you did not respond to his splendid explanation above..... .

[Ulysses G.]

That insult was aimed at another poster who did not buy his theories and there are a number more. However, his "explanations" have been replied to numerous times and by numerous members, but he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. Pointing out that his feminist rhetoric is mostly puritanical nonsense is just an excuse to start the broken record one more time.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[bonobo]

That insult was aimed at another poster who did not buy his theories and there are more. However, his "explanations" have been replied to numerous times and by numerous members, but he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. Pointing out that his feminist rhetoric is mostly puritanical nonsense is just an excuse to start the broken record one more time.

At least his explanations make sense. Not that I agree with them 100%, but they do make sense unlike some others which have been posted ad infinitum here.

I actually thinks he makes sense when he writes that for those men who think they offer nothing more than money, it rather emasculates them. What, they have no other self worth? I just don't think that describes most men. I think Mark45y points out that there can be other reasons to patronize a prostitute.

[473geo]

I don't know why people here cannot appear to accept that visiting prostitutes repeatedly may well diminish the need to hone the social skills, confidence, required to go out and attract a women who does not require payment for sex. In my personal view GH is not far away with his perceptions, what appears to cloud the judgement of people here can only be the realisation that this may in a round about way apply to some of them!!!!

Edited July 17, 2010 by 473geo

[Ulysses G.]

That insult was aimed at another poster who did not buy his theories and there are more. However, his "explanations" have been replied to numerous times and by numerous members, but he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. Pointing out that his feminist rhetoric is mostly puritanical nonsense is just an excuse to start the broken record one more time.

At least his explanations make sense. Not that I agree with them 100%, but they do make sense unlike some others which have been posted ad infinitum here.

If you mean that there is some logic to them, I would agree. However, I think we all know that means little in terms of being correct.

Just check out the news coverage of what happened in Bangkok recently and think about how most of the world audience buy the logic that it was all because of poor people being kept down by the rich. If you live here, you probably realize that it was about a lot more that how it appears.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't know why people here cannot appear to accept that visiting prostitutes repeatedly may well diminish the need to hone the social skills, confidence, required to go out and attract a women who does not require payment for sex.  In my personal view GH is not far away with his perceptions, what appears to cloud the judgement of people here can only be the realisation that this may in a round about way apply to some of them!!!!

It MAY do a lot of things, but Guesthouse is implying that it applies to most of their customers and that is where he is completely wrong. 

[bonobo]

Along with a fair sprinkling of implied insults and judgments of anyone who does not buy his personal version of reality.

I don't disagree you are in need of a cure.

If I remember correctly, that was a tongue-in-cheek response to the post to which he was referring which first used the word "cure."

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with his overall assertions, but the point about emasculation when the man thinks he has nothing else to offer a woman makes logical sense. I can concede points of logic even if I don't agree with the flavor of the entire viewpoint.

[bonobo]

I don't know why people here cannot appear to accept that visiting prostitutes repeatedly may well diminish the need to hone the social skills, confidence, required to go out and attract a women who does not require payment for sex.  In my personal view GH is not far away with his perceptions, what appears to cloud the judgement of people here can only be the realisation that this may in a round about way apply to some of them!!!!

It MAY do a lot of things, but Guesthouse is implying that it applies to most of their customers and that is where he is completely wrong. 

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, and GH can certainly stick up for himself, but I interpreted his comments to be aimed at the men who constantly harp that a woman only wants one thing, money. If a man believes that, if he thinks all he can offer a woman is money, then I can buy his description of that as being emasculated.  But as I have also posted, I don't think most men fall into that category.  There are many reasons a man might patronize a prostitute which do not fall to the stated positions of sokal and thepanicandthevomit that all any woman wants is money.

[IanForbes]

MB1 and Guesthouse both have valid points, but I tend to follow MB1's point of view. The whole subject is a grey area. There are totally polarized points of view that are both valid depending on whose ox is being gored.

By Guesthouse's point of view a single man over the age of 60 should give up sex. Famous movie stars frequent prostitutes for one reason... there are no ties and no questions asked. It's strictly a business proposition between consenting adults. It doesn't demean one party or the other unless you follow the archaic, religious doctrine written by bigoted hypocrites for the purpose of keeping people in servitude.

Whether we CHOOSE to accept the fact or not, it DOES change a relationship once the sex act occurs. Men who don't WANT a relationship, with all the attending problems, will satisfy themselves with prostitutes. Or, they can CHOOSE to be miserable old sods and spend their remaining years masturbating to pornography.

[473geo]

I don't know why people here cannot appear to accept that visiting prostitutes repeatedly may well diminish the need to hone the social skills, confidence, required to go out and attract a women who does not require payment for sex. In my personal view GH is not far away with his perceptions, what appears to cloud the judgement of people here can only be the realisation that this may in a round about way apply to some of them!!!!

It MAY do a lot of things, but Guesthouse is implying that it applies to most of their customers and that is where he is completely wrong.

I doubt there are many men who find having regular extramarital sex with a prostitute changes nothing their relationship with their wife. Single men who purchase sex because they have not formed or are not looking for a fulfilling relationship.......single men using the excuse that all men pay women for sex one way or another.........perhaps you could let me know the other groups that utilise prostitutes? because the groups I have mentioned I feel would be the majority of customers and fit into the GH theory.

One more thing, in my opinion you can have great sex with prostitutes, but having great sex with someone you can love, who loves you, is far more enjoyable and rewarding because rather than being the root (pardon the pun) of the relationship, great sex with a long term lover enhances the relationship. But of course to maintain a meaningful rewarding relationship takes a little more than just having enough money............

[Ulysses G.]

I interpreted his comments to be aimed at the men who constantly harp that a woman only wants one thing, money. If a man believes that, if he thinks all he can offer a woman is money, then I can buy his description of that as being emasculated.  But as I have also posted, I don't think most men fall into that category.  

I interpret his remarks as applying to most or all frequent users of sex workers services, but, of course, he uses the more extreme examples in order to try to "prove" his point. 

If I am wrong, I wish that he would clarify that he is only talking about a small percentage of these men, rather than most of them. I do not dispute that there are some men who do fit what he saying - just not the great majority of them. 

 

Paying for sex is negating all the reasons for a woman to be with a man - The only thing the man  offers is money - He doesn't have to have personality, looks, masculinity, nothing on the list of things women find attractive in men - All he needs is money.

[MB1]

.........perhaps you could let me know the other groups that utilise prostitutes? because the groups I have mentioned I feel would be the majority of customers and fit into the GH theory.

Have any real in-depth studies been done that put men into different groups , all I could honestly say IMO is that men are either single or married or in a non marital relationship or divorced or widowed.

What are the age groups of men who use prostitutes for sex, I'd say from the age of 16 to 70+ or even older if they can still rise to the occasion.

What type of men use them, I'd say the majority of them are employed or in receipt of enough money to be able to pay for them.

Why do they use them, many various reasons, I'll answer for me reasons I've used them in the past, no strings, no emotion, just a wham bam thank you maam.

[nisakiman]

Guesthouse seems like a rational person. I have read his posts for quite some time. What is there in his makeup that would make him propose such a bizarre idea that does not occur in the psychological texts of people who know about such things. I tried searching the internet for others who have compared emasculation to the purchase of Thai women's services and I came up empty handed. This must be Guesthouses own theory. One could suppose he knows a number of emasculated men.

What does an emasculated man look or act like? Emasculation seems like a serious problem that would reach to other areas of a man's life. Certainly they would be noticeable.

I am at a loss to explain it.

Let me help you out (and at last someone who wants to discuss the idea rather than relying on a defense of shouting feminism. The point I make has nothing to do with feminism - It works like this.

A man may be attractive to a woman for a whole range of reasons, his looks. his personality, his position of power, his masculinity, his ability to provide for the woman and her children - The list is as long as you want to make it, but essentially defines characteristics of men that women find attractive.

The view expressed time and time again here is that the only thing men can offer a women is money / women only want money from men / if you haven't got money you won't get the girl etc.

These are clear denials of the clear fact that women find men attractive for a whole lot more reasons than money - poor guys do get the girl.

Paying for sex is negating all the reasons for a woman to be with a man - The only thing the man offers is money - He doesn't have to have personality, looks, masculinity, nothing on the list of things women find attractive in men - All he needs is money.

Now we have men who defend their use of prostitutes with the argument that the only thing women want form a man is money - 'marriage is institutionalized prostitution' and the whole bag of statements we've had to that affect.

What has happened is, they have extrapolated their buying sex from prostitutes into a definition of all male female relationships.

I trust we can take the statements made regarding women's motivation being only money at face value, ie the belief of those people who have expressed that opinion.

They believe, and presumably accept, that the only thing THEY PERSONALLY have to offer a women is money - That, they tell us, is their experience.

They regard themselves as nothing but a source of finance in their relationship to women.

We additionally have statements such as 'women use sex as a weapon' - poor helpless men at the mercy of women. 'Women cheating, lying, being unfair in divorce cases' - Poor men who can't defend themselves. Women and their hate spreading feminism - Poor men who can't deal with women wanting to take part in defining their own role in society.

In short - Men without balls - Emasculated.

And it is in this context that I conclude Thailand really is attracting men who can't deal with women under any other circumstance than that the women is under a financial obligation to do their bidding.

What you say is probably, in essence, correct. However, it rather assumes that every man's relationship with every prostitute is the same.

Which it isn't.

When single and in Thailand and Cambodia, I availed myself of the services of a number of girls.

More often than not, it would entail a relationship that lasted a few days or more. We both gained from the situation.

Me because I like attractive female company, both day and night, and the girl because I always treated her with respect, like a temporary girlfriend rather than a five minute <deleted>. I always got very attractive girls with a great sense of humour, which I like, and I got the impression that they actually enjoyed being with me. I certainly can't remember any of them demanding the going rate. It was usually at my insistence that they took any money. A win-win situation.

I have no feelings of guilt. We both knew what the deal was. The idea was to enjoy it to the max.

And I have no issues with feeling emasculated - I've had a number of girlfriends (I mean real girlfriends - both western and Thai), and I am now married to a lovely Thai woman who works in a professional capacity (no, not that kind of professional!) when in Bangkok.

So I have no problem with the concept of prostitution - it can be mutually beneficial.

I don't like it when I see guys treat working girls with contempt, as mere shells, objects in which to relieve their sexual tensions. I think perhaps those are the ones you refer to.

But a lot of guys don't fall into that category. A lot of guys just want some female company, perhaps while they're going through a difficult post-divorce period (like I was) or something similar.

Prostitution is, as they say, the oldest profession, and for good reason. Long may it continue to be so.

[473geo]

.........perhaps you could let me know the other groups that utilise prostitutes? because the groups I have mentioned I feel would be the majority of customers and fit into the GH theory.

Have any real in-depth studies been done that put men into different groups , all I could honestly say IMO is that men are either single or married or in a non marital relationship or divorced or widowed.

What are the age groups of men who use prostitutes for sex, I'd say from the age of 16 to 70+ or even older if they can still rise to the occasion.

What type of men use them, I'd say the majority of them are employed or in receipt of enough money to be able to pay for them.

Why do they use them, many various reasons, I'll answer for me reasons I've used them in the past, no strings, no emotion, just a wham bam thank you maam.

Thanks for the confirmation - you appear to fit into the majority as listed........

[MB1]

But as I have also posted, I don't think most men fall into that category. There are many reasons a man might patronize a prostitute which do not fall to the stated positions of sokal and thepanicandthevomit that all any woman wants is money.

I'm quite suprised that Sokal never came out with a statement of "FACT" that he's only ever masturbated at the thought of using a prostitute.

Edited July 17, 2010 by MB1

[sokal]

Ah, so now you are changing the rules of engagement after the first shots have been fired. OK, as far as initial attraction, women don't perk up when a handsome guy walks into the club? THey don't lust after life guards on the beach? (and lifeguards don't make much money)

I those poor couples you talk of probably have no sex because the girl has nothing to lose.

And how many women walked up to the life guard and said "lets have sex" ?

Edited July 18, 2010 by sokal

[sokal]

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.

No it doesn't. You're being ridiculous. If this is the standard of your debating skills, good luck to you. Employing "lottery logic" is disingenuous in the extreme.

Perhaps the question needs to be simplified: which sex is most likely to have sex for monetary gain?

A very simple question, with a very simple answer. Why you continue to bathe in semantics is baffling. Let the truth out and then address the reasons why.

Hmm, "women only want money from men." And when anyone shows that women want other things from men, or that some women care nothing about money, you decry their logic and call them ridiculous?

Women are more likely to have sex for financial gain because more men are willing to pay than women. Simple economics. If a woman wants a not strings attached roll in the hay some evening, then all she has to do is to go to any singles bar. Why should she pay?

If more men could charge for it, I am sure they would. So as you phased it, yes women are more likely to have sex for financial gain then men, in my opinion.

Women don't want no strings attached rolls in the hay, that is why men pay.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Guesthouse seems like a rational person. I have read his posts for quite some time. What is there in his makeup that would make him propose such a bizarre idea that does not occur in the psychological texts of people who know about such things. I tried searching the internet for others who have compared emasculation to the purchase of Thai women's services and I came up empty handed. This must be Guesthouses own theory. One could suppose he knows a number of emasculated men.

What does an emasculated man look or act like? Emasculation seems like a serious problem that would reach to other areas of a man's life. Certainly they would be noticeable.

I am at a loss to explain it.

The view expressed time and time again here is that the only thing men can offer a women is money / women only want money from men / if you haven't got money you won't get the girl etc.

These are clear denials of the clear fact that women find men attractive for a whole lot more reasons than money - poor guys do get the girl.

Paying for sex is negating all the reasons for a woman to be with a man - The only thing the man offers is money - He doesn't have to have personality, looks, masculinity, nothing on the list of things women find attractive in men - All he needs is money.

Now we have men who defend their use of prostitutes with the argument that the only thing women want form a man is money - 'marriage is institutionalized prostitution' and the whole bag of statements we've had to that affect.

What has happened is, they have extrapolated their buying sex from prostitutes into a definition of all male female relationships.

What's with the 'all'? I think most men who patronize a prostitute would not be very young anymore, and most likely already in a relationship that covers all that non-monetary goodness. They visit a prostitute basically for some no-strings-attached fun. Some others might take up other hobbies, or a combination of hobbies of course. It doesn't make them less masculine to spend some personal time on things they think are fun? (Not that I object if you do feel it makes them less masculine, but I'll allow anyone their definitions. Personally I'd say a male who's stuck at home with the Mrs until death do them part is a bit emasculated (I'd use the word domesticated perhaps) but to each his own.

[bonobo]

<br>

Ah, so now you are changing the rules of engagement after the first shots have been fired.  OK, as far as initial attraction, women don't perk up when a handsome guy walks into the club?  THey don't lust after life guards on the beach? (and lifeguards don't make much money)<br>

<br>I those poor couples you talk of probably have no sex because the girl has nothing to lose.<br><br>And how many women walked up  to the life guard and said  "lets have sex"  ?<br>

<br><br><p>You obviously have never been around lifeguards much!    In the US, and from what I have heard, in Australia, lifeguards tend to have a, shall we say, very busy social schedule?   It is one of the perks of the job.<br></p><p>And writing about lifeguards, how about those Thai beach boys?  When those visiting Western or Japanese women grab them for a night or two of fun, give them gifts and such, how does that fit into your world view of women as sexless money grabbers?</p><p>As far as your poor couple comment, frankly, I can't make heads nor tails just what you mean in your sentence.</p>

[sokal]

But I do notice this habit you have of slapping a label on other people's point of view so that you can discard it without giving a reasoned counter view.

Actually, I just agreed with another poster who "slapped a label" on your posts. By the way, despite the defensiveness and dishonest denials, you are doing a great job of proving us both right.

Is there any discredited, embarrassingly naive, 60's feminist claptrap you've not swallowed? You outta be on commission. I don't know why you don't just call for the castration of all men and have done with it.

Well since you agree with the other poster then you are as guilty of misunderstanding the difference between attributing a call for the castration of all men to feminism and my own point that paying a prostitute for sex is an act of self emasculation.

The difference is profound.

My point has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the actions of men who pay prostitutes for sex. I don't need to call on feminism to support my point of view nor have I.

It''s very very simple - Paying for sex is admitting you have nothing to offer a woman but your money - Add that to the pile of other 'women issues' being blurted out in this thread (and I do admire the honesty) and a very definite mind set emerges.

Guys who see they have no personal value to women and who really cannot deal with a woman under any other circumstance than that where she's financially obligated to do their bidding.

I've never subscribed to the view that Thailand attracts men who cannot get a women back home, but I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Thailand attracts men who have deep rooted problems in dealing with women.

The evidence is thick on the ground in this thread - Guys who really can't deal with women.

Ah yes, I could become a victim of a western womans ways any time I want, I just dont want to. I hear horror stories all the time from my friends, mostly the ones with the hottest women. I am not the shortest fattest baldest guy around yet I have come to realize just what women really want. There is nothing wrong with it, its just natural.

In Thailand I can find just as hot of a woman with a way better attitude. There is no comparison.

Edited July 18, 2010 by sokal

[bonobo]

Women don't want no strings attached rolls in the hay, that is why men pay.

This is really getting funny.  Each time your write a blanket statement like this, one so obviously wrong as observed by most posters here, no matter what side of the prostitution fence they sit on (or straddle), you just keep shouting to the world that you have basically no experience with women, that for some reason women don't want your company without the monetary aspect.

Most men tend to hide any inadequacies, especially sexual ones.  You seem to want to shout out to the world yours.  Like I wrote, it is pretty funny, and I am sure others have laughed the same as I have.  You are 26, which is sort of young, but not really that young.  I earnestly hope that soon meet some more rounded women.  It will do you good.

Don't take any of this as personal criticism.  Your past is your past.  And if the women in your past were all sexless, well, pity might be the right description, but not criticism towards you.  I just get a chuckle when reading most of your world truths,  It is like listening to two 14-year-old-boys discussing sex and the facts surrounding it.

So once again, there is no attempt to flame you here.  I obviously disagree with what you write, as do most posters who have expressed an opinion, but there is no enmity in that disagreement. 

[bonobo]

Ah yes, I could become a victim of a western womans ways any time I want, I just dont want to. I hear horror stories all the time from my friends, mostly the ones with the hottest women. I am not the shortest fattest baldest guy around yet I have come to realize just what women really want. There is nothing wrong with it, its just natural.

In Thailand I can find just as hot of a woman with a way better attitude. There is no comparison.

Ah, so it becomes more clear.  You are basing your views on women from what other disgruntled men told you about Western women.  You don't have any experience on your own.

What about all the men who are happy with women, Western or not?

[mark45y]

I have a friend who is an investor. He is married to a very nice Thai lady and has been for some time. He buys the properties in her name and sells them for a profit. He also has a number of other businesses. They are a partnership of equals. But deep down inside he is emasculated. His balls tighten up when he realizes she actually owns everything. She is dependent on his expertise and as long as she realizes this they are OK. Sometimes he invents excuses to see other men who are not married and use prostitutes as emasculated to make himself feel better.

I have another friend who works offshore and owns (rents) three business in Thailand all in his name. He does not have a wife and uses prostitutes exclusively for feminine companionship. He is a wealthy man because of his offshore earnings and mainly uses his Thai business as a hobby. Sometimes he invents excuses to see men with wives as emasculated to make himself feel better.

Both men are in their late 40’s and both see men other than themselves as emasculated.

Both men are sincere but have a difficult time seeing the reality of others lives because of their unique positions in life.

Who is right? Both actually. If the investor with the Thai wife used prostitutes he would become emasculated or if the off shore worker got married he would be emasculated.

But they are only right for themselves. When they apply their unique positions to other people the logic breaks down.

You could make the case that every time a person masturbates they are becoming emasculated or independent of the social skills to have a meaningful sex life with another person. But no one does because masturbation is a natural function. To some, I’m sure masturbation and using a prostitute is the same thing. You could make the case that every time a man or woman fantasizes about another person they are loosing touch with reality but no one does. Using prostitutes for some is a simple fantasy fulfillment and nothing more.

Why all the emotion in this argument? Does anyone care if an old punter who no one knows becomes emasculated or a 70 year old man has less social skills to attract a partner? That’s laughable and of course untrue.

The emasculation argument or social skills argument is purely a personal validation argument or statement. It has far more to do with the poster than the people the poster is talking about. It is a validation of their own lifestyle as opposed to a statement about other people and should be seen as such.

[mark45y]

Ah yes, I could become a victim of a western womans ways any time I want, I just dont want to. I hear horror stories all the time from my friends, mostly the ones with the hottest women. I am not the shortest fattest baldest guy around yet I have come to realize just what women really want. There is nothing wrong with it, its just natural.

In Thailand I can find just as hot of a woman with a way better attitude. There is no comparison.

Ah, so it becomes more clear.  You are basing your views on women from what other disgruntled men told you about Western women.  You don't have any experience on your own.

What about all the men who are happy with women, Western or not?

How many men that are married are happy? Serious question. What do you think? 50%, 25%, 10%. My family referred to my parents as the “Bickersons.”

I’ll be generous, lets say 50%.

So 50% of marriages end in divorce. Of the remaining 50%, 50% are happy. That means 25% of men in the west who are married are happy. One out of four.

I could agree with although I think it is high. If one out of four men find happiness getting married it would seem if one wants to be happy the odds are against marriage.

[473geo]

I have a friend who is an investor. He is married to a very nice Thai lady and has been for some time. He buys the properties in her name and sells them for a profit. He also has a number of other businesses. They are a partnership of equals. But deep down inside he is emasculated. His balls tighten up when he realizes she actually owns everything. She is dependent on his expertise and as long as she realizes this they are OK. Sometimes he invents excuses to see other men who are not married and use prostitutes as emasculated to make himself feel better.

I have another friend who works offshore and owns (rents) three business in Thailand all in his name. He does not have a wife and uses prostitutes exclusively for feminine companionship. He is a wealthy man because of his offshore earnings and mainly uses his Thai business as a hobby. Sometimes he invents excuses to see men with wives as emasculated to make himself feel better.

Both men are in their late 40's and both see men other than themselves as emasculated.

Both men are sincere but have a difficult time seeing the reality of others lives because of their unique positions in life.

Who is right? Both actually. If the investor with the Thai wife used prostitutes he would become emasculated or if the off shore worker got married he would be emasculated.

But they are only right for themselves. When they apply their unique positions to other people the logic breaks down.

You could make the case that every time a person masturbates they are becoming emasculated or independent of the social skills to have a meaningful sex life with another person. But no one does because masturbation is a natural function. To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute is the same thing. You could make the case that every time a man or woman fantasizes about another person they are loosing touch with reality but no one does. Using prostitutes for some is a simple fantasy fulfillment and nothing more.

Why all the emotion in this argument? Does anyone care if an old punter who no one knows becomes emasculated or a 70 year old man has less social skills to attract a partner? That's laughable and of course untrue.

The emasculation argument or social skills argument is purely a personal validation argument or statement. It has far more to do with the poster than the people the poster is talking about. It is a validation of their own lifestyle as opposed to a statement about other people and should be seen as such.

"To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute are the same thing" ............so why continually use the prostitute and risk disease?

Another thing........short term relationships require use of 'protection'.............carry on boys, perhaps you have forgotten what good sex really is?

[mark45y]

I have a friend who is an investor. He is married to a very nice Thai lady and has been for some time. He buys the properties in her name and sells them for a profit. He also has a number of other businesses. They are a partnership of equals. But deep down inside he is emasculated. His balls tighten up when he realizes she actually owns everything. She is dependent on his expertise and as long as she realizes this they are OK. Sometimes he invents excuses to see other men who are not married and use prostitutes as emasculated to make himself feel better.

I have another friend who works offshore and owns (rents) three business in Thailand all in his name. He does not have a wife and uses prostitutes exclusively for feminine companionship. He is a wealthy man because of his offshore earnings and mainly uses his Thai business as a hobby. Sometimes he invents excuses to see men with wives as emasculated to make himself feel better.

Both men are in their late 40's and both see men other than themselves as emasculated.

Both men are sincere but have a difficult time seeing the reality of others lives because of their unique positions in life.

Who is right? Both actually. If the investor with the Thai wife used prostitutes he would become emasculated or if the off shore worker got married he would be emasculated.

But they are only right for themselves. When they apply their unique positions to other people the logic breaks down.

You could make the case that every time a person masturbates they are becoming emasculated or independent of the social skills to have a meaningful sex life with another person. But no one does because masturbation is a natural function. To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute is the same thing. You could make the case that every time a man or woman fantasizes about another person they are loosing touch with reality but no one does. Using prostitutes for some is a simple fantasy fulfillment and nothing more.

Why all the emotion in this argument? Does anyone care if an old punter who no one knows becomes emasculated or a 70 year old man has less social skills to attract a partner? That's laughable and of course untrue.

The emasculation argument or social skills argument is purely a personal validation argument or statement. It has far more to do with the poster than the people the poster is talking about. It is a validation of their own lifestyle as opposed to a statement about other people and should be seen as such.

"To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute are the same thing" ............so why continually use the prostitute and risk disease?

Another thing........short term relationships require use of 'protection'.............carry on boys, perhaps you have forgotten what good sex really is?

I took her to the clinic when we met and then in 90 days and then in 180 days. She is fine. I have her checked once every 6 months. I get away with this because I pay her.

If on the other hand you are working offshore and the little lady is staying at home alone. Do you check?

Carry on boys.

[473geo]

I have a friend who is an investor. He is married to a very nice Thai lady and has been for some time. He buys the properties in her name and sells them for a profit. He also has a number of other businesses. They are a partnership of equals. But deep down inside he is emasculated. His balls tighten up when he realizes she actually owns everything. She is dependent on his expertise and as long as she realizes this they are OK. Sometimes he invents excuses to see other men who are not married and use prostitutes as emasculated to make himself feel better.

I have another friend who works offshore and owns (rents) three business in Thailand all in his name. He does not have a wife and uses prostitutes exclusively for feminine companionship. He is a wealthy man because of his offshore earnings and mainly uses his Thai business as a hobby. Sometimes he invents excuses to see men with wives as emasculated to make himself feel better.

Both men are in their late 40's and both see men other than themselves as emasculated.

Both men are sincere but have a difficult time seeing the reality of others lives because of their unique positions in life.

Who is right? Both actually. If the investor with the Thai wife used prostitutes he would become emasculated or if the off shore worker got married he would be emasculated.

But they are only right for themselves. When they apply their unique positions to other people the logic breaks down.

You could make the case that every time a person masturbates they are becoming emasculated or independent of the social skills to have a meaningful sex life with another person. But no one does because masturbation is a natural function. To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute is the same thing. You could make the case that every time a man or woman fantasizes about another person they are loosing touch with reality but no one does. Using prostitutes for some is a simple fantasy fulfillment and nothing more.

Why all the emotion in this argument? Does anyone care if an old punter who no one knows becomes emasculated or a 70 year old man has less social skills to attract a partner? That's laughable and of course untrue.

The emasculation argument or social skills argument is purely a personal validation argument or statement. It has far more to do with the poster than the people the poster is talking about. It is a validation of their own lifestyle as opposed to a statement about other people and should be seen as such.

"To some, I'm sure masturbation and using a prostitute are the same thing" ............so why continually use the prostitute and risk disease?

Another thing........short term relationships require use of 'protection'.............carry on boys, perhaps you have forgotten what good sex really is?

I took her to the clinic when we met and then in 90 days and then in 180 days. She is fine. I have her checked once every 6 months. I get away with this because I pay her.

If on the other hand you are working offshore and the little lady is staying at home alone. Do you check?

Carry on boys.

If you are frequently checking - you must feel there is a risk.........or do you do this because you can......because you pay?......or is there no trust?......or are you ok with the fact she services other men also?

I have no need to check.....thanks for asking....

Edited July 18, 2010 by 473geo