Successful Relationships With Thai Women

[KeyserSoze01]

I would have to disagree with the cause of the problem in the west.

Feminism is to blame for most of the breakup in traditional family life. Women want smaller families, women want to be independent, women don't want to look after aging parents.

Historically it was always women that held families together, sacrificing their wants to the needs of their family both young and old.

I have not seen many men doing the "me me me" thing (OK, so men have always been selfish) any more than they did in the past.

But there are plenty more women these days only thinking of themselves and what they want and believe they are entitled to get.

To a certain degree, but blame is too harsh a word IMO. Many women were forced out of the kitchen and into the workplace in the late 1960's and early 1970's in order to help provide income for the family. The western lifestyle does not come cheap and Momma had to help out where she could. The feminist movement is a by-product of this phenomenon. This has left generations of latch-key children to raise themselves as their was no parental figure at home to provide discipline and guidance. The children of these families are now grown and have families of their own, without having a clue as to proper parenting skills. Children are raising themselves, with their own values based upon peer pressure and the idiot box (television) and the internet. Scary thought, init.

[theblether]

I would have to disagree with the cause of the problem in the west.

Feminism is to blame for most of the breakup in traditional family life. Women want smaller families, women want to be independent, women don't want to look after aging parents.

Historically it was always women that held families together, sacrificing their wants to the needs of their family both young and old.

I have not seen many men doing the "me me me" thing (OK, so men have always been selfish) any more than they did in the past.

But there are plenty more women these days only thinking of themselves and what they want and believe they are entitled to get.

To a certain degree, but blame is too harsh a word IMO. Many women were forced out of the kitchen and into the workplace in the late 1960's and early 1970's in order to help provide income for the family. The western lifestyle does not come cheap and Momma had to help out where she could. The feminist movement is a by-product of this phenomenon. This has left generations of latch-key children to raise themselves as their was no parental figure at home to provide discipline and guidance. The children of these families are now grown and have families of their own, without having a clue as to proper parenting skills. Children are raising themselves, with their own values based upon peer pressure and the idiot box (television) and the internet. Scary thought, init.

At the end of the day what does it matter? Women didn't want to be treated like domestic slaves any more and they did something about it. Quite right.

It's coming to Thailand as well. No society is immune to progress, and women being chained to the sink will be a thing of the past here too. I was going to suggest that Ludditeman should move to Saudi Arabia as that country seems to embody many of the attitudes to women that he exhorts, then I remembered that the King Of Saudi recently announced that women were to get the right to vote.

Doomed!! Misogyny is Doomed!!

Personally speaking I think that is a cause for celebration...........

I want my two daughters to have the same opportunities in life that my son has. Misogyny is unacceptable, and it should be confronted. I understand the single parent rate in Thailand is approaching 60%, and I am also led to believe that Thai ladies are quite used to feeling the drunken fists of their partners. ( Maybe both of those contentions are wrong, if they are I apologize ) If these contentions are true however it shows that even in this land of supposedly Buddhist values there is something badly amiss.

I stated earlier that if you are a decent guy and you treat your Thai lady decently she won't want to lose you. Stand your ground, don't leave your brain at the airport, if you wouldn't do it for a girl in farang land then don't do it here, be a gentleman, treat your lady with respect and courtesy and your in with a chance, and most importantly of all................don't fall for this Thai relationship culture garbage, you are not Thai, you are farang. If you are a decent guy, a gentleman, you are the prize........not the pretty girl half your age.

[stoneyboy]

I am the pretty farang half her age,where do I stand.

[theblether]

I am the pretty farang half her age,where do I stand.

In a category all of your own, well done

[ludditeman]

Doomed!! Misogyny is Doomed!! \Personally speaking I think that is a cause for celebration...........

I want my two daughters to have the same opportunities in life that my son has. Misogyny is unacceptable, and it should be confronted. I understand the single parent rate in Thailand is approaching 60%, and I am also led to believe that Thai ladies are quite used to feeling the drunken fists of their partners. ( Maybe both of those contentions are wrong, if they are I apologize ) If these contentions are true however it shows that even in this land of supposedly Buddhist values there is something badly amiss.

Misogyny is a hatred of women, it's a pity that ignorance isn't doomed.

But as I previously said you have accepted the feminist propaganda completely (which often really preaches misandry)

In Thailand at least, I'm fairly sure that the women hit the men just as much as the men hit the women.

It is a different society (more primitive maybe) where violence in relationships is accepted (from either party).

[TingTawng]

In response to theblether:-

I completely disagree with your comments about the lack of family support. I have no doubt that there are many families that have fractured for various reasons, including divorce. However you are failing to note one simple factor at play here.

The richer the Asian countries such as Thailand and China become, the more like the West they will become like.

Yes, prosperity means we are less financially reliant on the family - you are correct. That much is obvious though, and nobody's arguing against that. Your point is facile. The point I am making is that the lure and appeal of this so-called independence in the west often traps people into dire poverty as we are seeing played out now, and furthermore without any family support for many. Westerners have become far too dependent on the state. Even worse though - the western economic model is completely unsustainable as we are seeing. Western governments are mired in out-of-control debt and desperately trying to resuscitate their economies with quantitative easing and other worthless stimulus efforts. In contrast, the Thai government has a surplus. The Thai government knows that families are the sustainable way for people to look after each other, not out-of-control spending on welfare. I am not interested in the golden era of ideological socialism in the west, I'm interested in where the west is headed - and the signs are not good. And by the way, the Thai government still offer essentially free health care to all (the "30 baht project" introduced since 2001).

In the west, it's like boiling frogs, turning up the heat 1 degree at time: people are becoming LESS independent and MORE dependent on the government. I don't know about you, but I do not call that independence. Also, there are far more homeless in the USA than in Thailand (per capita), because there's less family support. A lot of the problems in the west can be attributed to complete family breakdown.

Thailand will not follow western countries simply because there's no government welfare (I mean: no unemployment benefit, no housing benefit specifically, yes they have health care). Sheer necessity brings families together, but just because it is necessity does not make it a bad thing. Your negative assumption is that necessity is a horrible thing, and that every family member must hate the others' guts and are only together for financial reasons (a cynical take from your western mindset, it says more about you than what you describe). And yet, when it's a necessity to rely on a government for handouts, that's a GOOD thing to you? Rather hypocritical.

40 years ago or so in the West people didn't have anything like the disposable income they have now, and most couples had to live with parents or grandparents after marriage till they either saved for a deposit on their own home, or were allocated social housing. The boom of credit then meant that people could access housing faster, and it became the norm to marry and to move into your new house on day one.

And you accuse me of having a rose-tinted view of Thailand? Your view of the west is just a fantasy - did you sleep through housing market crash / bank bailouts in 2008 and the recessions since then? The out-of-control debts that are getting worse? Failing Eurozone? The whole western model is based on unsustainable debt - and we are only just seeing the negative affects of this - it's hardly a bold prediction for me to say it will get much worse in the US / Europe before it gets better (and it will only get better if they change their unsustainable economic model).

So, you subscribe to a way of life that is completely unsustainable, and has proven to be so. I subscribe to a way of life that has worked for generations (and continues to work) and is sustainable.

This is still exceptional in the West, the majority of people still have very close relationships with their parents and grandparents, and still make time for them in their lives.

Again, rose-tinted glasses. The fact is that people live where there is work. A lot of families live too far away to regularly visit other than at Christmas or the odd occasion. Divorce / family breakdown is the norm in the west too. Yes, it happens in Thailand too, but you still have the extended family here - that is unheard of in the west. You're making a case that is very weak - the strength of the family in the west (lol).

If you polled Thaivisa members of any age, and in particular the people approaching their sunset years, you will find that almost to a man ( or lady ) they will value their independence above everything, and the idea of being dependent on others if not horrifies them, then at least concerns them.

There is a brutal truth that undermines your rose tinted view of family life in Thailand. Family life has been maintained by poverty, and just like every other agrarian economy in the world, ( as Thailand used to be in every part of the country ), having children was regarded as your pension scheme. Now that you can get an actual financial pension scheme in place......the need for big families subsides and the population shrinks......just like the indigenous population of just about every Western economy in the world.

Not that I'd take such a poll seriously, but you assume independence has to mean living alone. Your dystopian view of huge building complexes being built in Thailand just so the elderly can live alone in their little cubicles is pretty depressing to be honest. I know many elderly in my moo-bahn who live with their children who do a lot - from looking after their children's young kids to working around the house, doing the shopping at the local markets, having a social life with the other elderly here. Living in a family doesn't mean you can't live a full life. Moreover, perhaps they feel some satisfaction out of being able to help others instead of being alone in an apartment watching lakorns all day long and being "independent" and all that.

In a sense, you are right that families exist through necessity, but it does not undermine my view that family life is important and is the most sustainable way for people to essentially survive and even prosper. Families offer emotional support as well as financial. There's also the "division of labour" that money cannot truly buy - the jobs people can do around the house. Your view that governments support individuals has been proven beyond all doubt to be utterly unsustainable in the west. What you call independence is simply dependence on the government.

There is no true independence anyway - everyone relies on something - the economy, their employer, the government, their family, their health, whatever. Some things are sustainable, some are not.

To sum up, let's see where US / Europe is in 5 years / 10 years time, and see where Thailand is. I know that I will be bringing up my kids in Thailand because they will have a more wholesome upbringing here than in the west, and frankly, better job prospects in the future with a better standard of living too.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[BRichards]

Nature and human made worlds. In the Wset and now in Asia women are able to be educated and be finacially self supported so educated woman can look for better more importan reasons to fill their inner core qualities. In the West you will not be seeing teenage women with old fat men and in many cases you will see middle age women with teenage boys. Educated and well experienced men who are able to get all kinds of women will realize that a woman you can spend saturdays with will be more helpful and enjoyable then a woman he can spend a friday night with. Nature = animal world and yes we do carry that trait we also have a frontal lobe that in time once mature we can use to make the best long tern choices. I agree with you on the importance of family and support which i mean emotional more then money wise. I guess Uk are different and maybe colder maybe thats why UK men have been rated as the worst lovers that lack emotional care. I didnt say it but it is from a survey that has been going on for over 7 years. If a woman has no education or cannot get a real job that will pay her as a human should be paid then her only way out is finding a meal ticket which will really care for her more then easy sex. if a man cant find quality women due to his lack of inner worth or his harsh demands and he has to find willing partners i hope they can one day learn and find a real partner. We all end up with a partner that has a lot of room to grow because we too have a lot to learn.

You have completely bought the feminist/PC line.

Well done. Enjoy your 'relationship' as the doormat.

I believe women are no more valuable then men. My thing is as valuable then her thing so I dont have to be the one buying everything to have her attention . I see it as she has to get my attention just as much as I try to grab hers. Personal note aBOUT THAT DOORMAT COMMENT i MARRIED UP AND WITH MY SKILLS AND PERSONALITY SHE PAID THE BILLS and I spent it and it works out great.

[BRichards]

why is it that thai wome are after foreighn men who dont speak nor know their culture? look at the web sites?

The same reason ALL women around the world look for a good provider. There's nothing wrong with that - it's nature. It's like saying "why do men look for good looking women?" - it's nature. We can pretend that we are all noble and marry someone only for their character and kindness, but we all have our conditions that need to be met. I don't see the point in fighting nature - let it out the door, it comes back in through the window.

While your own personal story in the USA sounds healthy and family-friendly, I don't think this is typical where I am from in the UK. There's a lot of people who live alone (with many elderly who live alone too), and there's become an over-reliance on the government, and a whithering of family ties because we are taught that the state - not the family - will look after us. Now I think the west is reaping the consequences - broke governments, people without family support. I think family support too is a part of nature - we naturally cluster into small groups and help each other. It's not natural to have a faceless bureaucracy like a government as your sole means of support.

Nature and human made worlds. In the Wset and now in Asia women are able to be educated and be finacially self supported so educated woman can look for better more importan reasons to fill their inner core qualities. In the West you will not be seeing teenage women with old fat men and in many cases you will see middle age women with teenage boys. Educated and well experienced men who are able to get all kinds of women will realize that a woman you can spend saturdays with will be more helpful and enjoyable then a woman he can spend a friday night with. Nature = animal world and yes we do carry that trait we also have a frontal lobe that in time once mature we can use to make the best long tern choices. I agree with you on the importance of family and support which i mean emotional more then money wise. I guess Uk are different and maybe colder maybe thats why UK men have been rated as the worst lovers that lack emotional care. I didnt say it but it is from a survey that has been going on for over 7 years. If a woman has no education or cannot get a real job that will pay her as a human should be paid then her only way out is finding a meal ticket which will really care for her more then easy sex. if a man cant find quality women due to his lack of inner worth or his harsh demands and he has to find willing partners i hope they can one day learn and find a real partner. We all end up with a partner that has a lot of room to grow because we too have a lot to learn.

Well I don't think you should dismiss our natural tendencies as you do. Nature is not all bad, in fact it's a great teacher, and often it's something we should not fight against, but work with. I don't think someone who is gay should fight his / her nature for example, even if there is pressure in the town where he/she lives to conform to the "human-made world" (the nurture side of the argument). Nature is not all bad, nurture is not all good. In fact, quite often, nurture is simply social engineering - trying to force people into roles they don't want to be part of. I think there's quite a bit of that in the west.

We are all born with natural tendencies and preferences, and I believe the natural differences between men and women are manifested in the different decisions men and women make. In the west, women still marry "up" (i.e. tend to marry men who earn more than they do). You might point out an anecdotal exception or two to this rule, but it's a rule nonetheless. In that sense, Thai women and western women are no different - and in fact, I think generally speaking people ARE the same around the world, it's the CULTURE that is different (an important distinction to make).

Not sure what "study" you read that says UK men are the "worst lovers" (whatever that means) - I don't really understand what that has AT ALL to do with governments chipping away at family life through their policies to make people more reliant on the state (my previous point).

Exactly CULTURE has made humans a bit different and how they see and treat love and humans. Some cultures stay put and try not to adapt while others try to solve certain issues.

[BRichards]

Family life has been maintained by poverty, and just like every other agrarian economy in the world, ( as Thailand used to be in every part of the country ), having children was regarded as your pension scheme. Now that you can get an actual financial pension scheme in place......the need for big families subsides and the population shrinks......just like the indigenous population of just about every Western economy in the world.

I think you'll find there is more to the traditional concept of extended families than your interesting but ultimately somewhat shallow view of things.

Ever heard of religion? Catholicism hold families together. As does Islam. As does Buddhism.

Capitalism and feminism have paved the way to independence, but thus far they have done little to erode the system of familial Catholic, Islamic and Buddhist values which have been in place for centuries.

The Anglo-Saxon world (ie, Protestants) is of course different.

Religion belongs in the past. You don't need to be religious to be good or successful in a relationship or have a family or anything! I don't have a problem with people who chose to worship a God and hate a Devil, whatever they want to call them and from what part of the world or in what language. These concepts are created by the human race and used to control people. Religion has nothing to do with loving and supporting your family! I'd go further, but there's no point!

True that religion is not needed in a relationship. Honesty, courage, ethics and morals are what is needed. To take responsibility and be self motivated and self controlled. To give without expecting a return will help.

[GreenSnapper]

In Thailand at least, I'm fairly sure that the women hit the men just as much as the men hit the women.

It is a different society (more primitive maybe) where violence in relationships is accepted (from either party).

Watch a Thai soap opera with all the screaming abusive women, constantly beating up men. Then remember the many cases of male organs being cut and fed to the dogs.

Female domestic violence is at least as common as violence of males. And that is not only the case in Thailand, but all over the world.

Feminists and their followers have successfully implemented the idea that males are violent and females are not. It is one of the big lies of modern misandry.

[TingTawng]

Exactly CULTURE has made humans a bit different and how they see and treat love and humans. Some cultures stay put and try not to adapt while others try to solve certain issues.

Do you think the west is adapting and solving issues to make a better society? That seems to be your implication. I guess the adaptations and issue-solving should make the individuals in a society more loving and respectful of one another. I have to say - I just don't see that actually happening in the west. The west doesn't really have a culture anymore outside of a consumerist culture. Is that progress?

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[BRichards]

In Thailand at least, I'm fairly sure that the women hit the men just as much as the men hit the women.

It is a different society (more primitive maybe) where violence in relationships is accepted (from either party).

Watch a Thai soap opera with all the screaming abusive women, constantly beating up men. Then remember the many cases of male organs being cut and fed to the dogs.

Female domestic violence is at least as common as violence of males. And that is not only the case in Thailand, but all over the world.

Feminists and their followers have successfully implemented the idea that males are violent and females are not. It is one of the big lies of modern misandry.

Boy’s fuc_k things up. Girl’s are fuc_ked up. That’s the difference. Boys just do damage to your house that you can measure in dollars, like a hurricane. Girls, like, leave scars in your psyche that you find later… That’s the difference between boys and girls. And it becomes the difference between men and women, really. A man will, like, steal your car or burn your house down or beat the shit out of you, but a woman will ruin your fuc_kin’ life. Do you see the difference? Like, a man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he’ll leave you as a human being intact. He won’t fuc_k with who you are. Women are nonviolent, but they will shit inside of your heart.

[TingTawng]

Women are nonviolent

Women are nonviolent?

Why is it that the most sexist people are the ones who least realise it?

[F1fanatic]

In Thailand at least, I'm fairly sure that the women hit the men just as much as the men hit the women.

It is a different society (more primitive maybe) where violence in relationships is accepted (from either party).

Watch a Thai soap opera with all the screaming abusive women, constantly beating up men. Then remember the many cases of male organs being cut and fed to the dogs.

Female domestic violence is at least as common as violence of males. And that is not only the case in Thailand, but all over the world.

Feminists and their followers have successfully implemented the idea that males are violent and females are not. It is one of the big lies of modern misandry.

Boy's fuc_k things up. Girl's are fuc_ked up. That's the difference. Boys just do damage to your house that you can measure in dollars, like a hurricane. Girls, like, leave scars in your psyche that you find later… That's the difference between boys and girls. And it becomes the difference between men and women, really. A man will, like, steal your car or burn your house down or beat the shit out of you, but a woman will ruin your fuc_kin' life. Do you see the difference? Like, a man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he'll leave you as a human being intact. He won't fuc_k with who you are. Women are nonviolent, but they will shit inside of your heart.

Exactly. Some men get violent (they are physically stronger) and some women use their tongues - as they do not have the physical attributes to be violent.

Both are using their only advantage.

Then again, most men are not violent and most women do not try to inflict permanent mental scars on their partners....

[F1fanatic]

Women are nonviolent

Women are nonviolent?

Why is it that the most sexist people are the ones who least realise it?

I dread to think about the women you have been involved with!

Most women are not violent as they are physically weaker.

[F1fanatic]

why is it that thai wome are after foreighn men who dont speak nor know their culture? look at the web sites?

The same reason ALL women around the world look for a good provider. There's nothing wrong with that - it's nature. It's like saying "why do men look for good looking women?" - it's nature. We can pretend that we are all noble and marry someone only for their character and kindness, but we all have our conditions that need to be met. I don't see the point in fighting nature - let it out the door, it comes back in through the window.

While your own personal story in the USA sounds healthy and family-friendly, I don't think this is typical where I am from in the UK. There's a lot of people who live alone (with many elderly who live alone too), and there's become an over-reliance on the government, and a whithering of family ties because we are taught that the state - not the family - will look after us. Now I think the west is reaping the consequences - broke governments, people without family support. I think family support too is a part of nature - we naturally cluster into small groups and help each other. It's not natural to have a faceless bureaucracy like a government as your sole means of support.

Nature and human made worlds. In the Wset and now in Asia women are able to be educated and be finacially self supported so educated woman can look for better more importan reasons to fill their inner core qualities. In the West you will not be seeing teenage women with old fat men and in many cases you will see middle age women with teenage boys. Educated and well experienced men who are able to get all kinds of women will realize that a woman you can spend saturdays with will be more helpful and enjoyable then a woman he can spend a friday night with. Nature = animal world and yes we do carry that trait we also have a frontal lobe that in time once mature we can use to make the best long tern choices. I agree with you on the importance of family and support which i mean emotional more then money wise. I guess Uk are different and maybe colder maybe thats why UK men have been rated as the worst lovers that lack emotional care. I didnt say it but it is from a survey that has been going on for over 7 years. If a woman has no education or cannot get a real job that will pay her as a human should be paid then her only way out is finding a meal ticket which will really care for her more then easy sex. if a man cant find quality women due to his lack of inner worth or his harsh demands and he has to find willing partners i hope they can one day learn and find a real partner. We all end up with a partner that has a lot of room to grow because we too have a lot to learn.

Well I don't think you should dismiss our natural tendencies as you do. Nature is not all bad, in fact it's a great teacher, and often it's something we should not fight against, but work with. I don't think someone who is gay should fight his / her nature for example, even if there is pressure in the town where he/she lives to conform to the "human-made world" (the nurture side of the argument). Nature is not all bad, nurture is not all good. In fact, quite often, nurture is simply social engineering - trying to force people into roles they don't want to be part of. I think there's quite a bit of that in the west.

We are all born with natural tendencies and preferences, and I believe the natural differences between men and women are manifested in the different decisions men and women make. In the west, women still marry "up" (i.e. tend to marry men who earn more than they do). You might point out an anecdotal exception or two to this rule, but it's a rule nonetheless. In that sense, Thai women and western women are no different - and in fact, I think generally speaking people ARE the same around the world, it's the CULTURE that is different (an important distinction to make).

Not sure what "study" you read that says UK men are the "worst lovers" (whatever that means) - I don't really understand what that has AT ALL to do with governments chipping away at family life through their policies to make people more reliant on the state (my previous point).

You're right in that most men earn more than their wives in the West. Then again, statistics prove that men earn more than women in the West....

The vast majority of marriages though, are between male and female from similar backgrounds and jobs.

V few are between educated men and women with virtually no education.

[TingTawng]

Women are nonviolent

Women are nonviolent?

Why is it that the most sexist people are the ones who least realise it?

I dread to think about the women you have been involved with!

Most women are not violent as they are physically weaker.

Why do you dread to think about the women I've been involved with? I got my information from reading!

You too can learn (I hope it doesn't upset your sensibilities). Read here:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

To quote:-

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

It's been a pleasure educating you.

[TingTawng]

The vast majority of marriages though, are between male and female from similar backgrounds and jobs.

V few are between educated men and women with virtually no education.

What is your point? It does not negate that women marry up, and since they are more likely to be the stay-at-home-parent, they will earn a lot less than their husband in the long run. Divorce is far more likely if the husband loses his job too :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8588749/Unemployment-increases-risk-of-divorce-for-men.html - which strongly suggests the tacit agreement in most western marriages is that the man will be the breadwinner.

My point is that women aren't much different around the world and to suggest Thai women are more "money hungry" than western women (which a lot of people suggest in this thread) is pretty racist IMHO.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[F1fanatic]

The vast majority of marriages though, are between male and female from similar backgrounds and jobs.

V few are between educated men and women with virtually no education.

What is your point? It does not negate that women marry up, and since they are more likely to be the stay-at-home-parent, they will earn a lot less than their husband in the long run. Divorce is far more likely if the husband loses his job too :- http://www.telegraph...ce-for-men.html - which strongly suggests the tacit agreement in most western marriages is that the man will be the breadwinner.

My point is that women aren't much different around the world and to suggest Thai women are more "money hungry" than western women (which a lot of people suggest in this thread) is pretty racist IMHO.

My point is that in the West marriages are between men and women from similar backgrounds. And, nowadays (in my experience) most women are not 'stay at home' parents - they have to work as male salaries are no longer enough to support the family, unless they are v lucky and wealthy.

AND, it has nothing to do with "the long run" - women are normally in lower paying jobs even before they have children.

But I'm sure you're right, even though its unusual to find a marriage here between couples of a similar age. I agree though, that most of the men involved are relatively un-educated - albeit far more educated than their wives.

Edit - its not racist at all. Its just an observation.

Edited November 29, 2011 by F1fanatic

[TingTawng]

The vast majority of marriages though, are between male and female from similar backgrounds and jobs.

V few are between educated men and women with virtually no education.

What is your point? It does not negate that women marry up, and since they are more likely to be the stay-at-home-parent, they will earn a lot less than their husband in the long run. Divorce is far more likely if the husband loses his job too :- http://www.telegraph...ce-for-men.html - which strongly suggests the tacit agreement in most western marriages is that the man will be the breadwinner.

My point is that women aren't much different around the world and to suggest Thai women are more "money hungry" than western women (which a lot of people suggest in this thread) is pretty racist IMHO.

My point is that in the West marriages are between men and women from similar backgrounds. And, nowadays (in my experience) most women are not 'stay at home' parents - they have to work as male salaries are no longer enough to support the family, unless they are v lucky and wealthy.

AND, it has nothing to do with "the long run" - women are normally in lower paying jobs even before they have children.

But I'm sure you're right, even though its unusual to find a marriage here between couples of a similar age. I agree though, that most of the men involved are relatively un-educated - albeit far more educated than their wives.

Edit - its not racist at all. Its just an observation.

What does "similar background" even mean when you think about the west? Middle class and middle class marry? Working class and working class marry? It's the same in Thailand - no different. A very good looking working class woman could "break ranks" in either country and marry "up" in quite a big way, just like a pretty bar girl snags a farang. I think you're putting western women on too high a pedestal here, and Thai women on too low a one. What I'm describing is somewhere in the middle and I'm putting all women on this "middle pedestal" - and I'm not offering criticism here for their actions either - it's just the way nature has shaped our decision making. You are making an "observation" that Thai women are more hungry for money and more superficial than western women. I disagree, and don't understand how anyone can make such a generalisation...

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[F1fanatic]

"It's been a pleasure educating you"

Thank you, I appreciate it. Its obvious to the smallest mind that women are just as violent as men as they know they will 'win' in a fight.

I've obviously led a sheltered life, believing that any woman would have to be out of her mind to physically attack a man.

[Moonrakers]

Most people, men and women, are not violent because they know it is just wrong and have no wish to hurt another person, regardless of their size.

There's a lot of insecurities being shown on this thread.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Moonrakers

[ludditeman]

My point is that in the West marriages are between men and women from similar backgrounds. And, nowadays (in my experience) most women are not 'stay at home' parents - they have to work as male salaries are no longer enough to support the family, unless they are v lucky and wealthy.

AND, it has nothing to do with "the long run" - women are normally in lower paying jobs even before they have children.

But I'm sure you're right, even though its unusual to find a marriage here between couples of a similar age. I agree though, that most of the men involved are relatively un-educated - albeit far more educated than their wives.

Edit - its not racist at all. Its just an observation.

In the west I married a factory workers daughter

In Thailand I married a farmer

In the west my wife was at home looking after the kids (her choice)

In Thailand my wife is at home looking after the kids (her choice)

My qualifications Degree + postgraduate (my educational level puts me in the top 0.2% of the British population), I have always been wealthy.

In the west, my wife didn't beat me, but tried it a couple of times (she was weaker than me).

In Thailand 2 out of 3 of my gfs had a go at domestic violence (punching and knife attacks), but stopped when I threatened to leave (they were both stronger and more violent than me). I believe the Thai ladies had every chance of winning in a fight, the British lady wouldn't have stood a chance. I once saw the non-violent Thai gf pick up a French lady (twice her weight) and throw her across the road in a display of psychotic rage (the French lady made a comment about an old white guy with a young Thai gf and the Thai gf overheard)

F1

You clearly have no idea about relationships with Thai ladies or the insane violence that is so often near the surface.

What appears soft and submissive outside the home, really isn't the reality inside the home.

Edited November 29, 2011 by ludditeman

[TingTawng]

"It's been a pleasure educating you"

Thank you, I appreciate it. Its obvious to the smallest mind that women are just as violent as men as they know they will 'win' in a fight.

I've obviously led a sheltered life, believing that any woman would have to be out of her mind to physically attack a man.

You predicate your wild guess simply based on the notion that only someone can initiate violence "who would win the fight". Both men and women are capable of bullying another person. It doesn't mean the bullied person fights back (indeed, many men have been brought up to never ever hit a woman, no matter what the circumstances). A bully often relies on their victim not fighting back. If the facts I present to you (by way of Home Office and police records) enlightens you, then good - isn't it better to base your opinion on facts?

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[harryfrompattaya]

[

Your being overly harsh on the West, the West is struggling under some unexpected consequences of the rapid advance of capitalism. One consequence is the reduction in birth rate / longevity. Simply put many people now moving into their dotage had small families, or no family at all. People are walking this earth in numbers unprecedented in human history. It is believed that 10% of the humans ever born are alive today, and the numbers in their dotage is roughly equivalent to the entire world population in the year 1850.........so people born of big families are living into their 80's and beyond, and relying upon their single child or two children for support.

Unfortunately a lot of these " children " are themselves in their 60's and beyond, which in any normal social and demographic run would make them the people requiring support, and so the problems are being knocked down through the generations.

Simply put, there is a mass of people over the age of 80 alive today that should not be alive at all, a brand new generation of people requiring high support from a smaller population base born of them. This demographic is going to explode in a very messy way in China during the next thirty years, as the children of Chairman Mao's revolution hit their dotage, and have to rely upon their only child to support them.......assuming that the child has survived and prospered themselves. Chairman Mao encouraged large families, and families of 7/8/9/10 were common, then a one child policy was enforced.

This will most likely be the worst example of badly thought out social engineering in human history, however just about every country will eventually be caught in a similar trap, therefore this same problem awaits Thailand and the rest of Asia too, the richer it becomes, the more it will experience the problems that the West is currently experiencing.

Simply put, there is a mass of people over the age of 80 alive today that should not be alive at all, a brand new generation of people requiring high support from a smaller population base born of them. You are right the Government should pay for 20 to 30 year olds to live with them. The elder should have the right to pick the sex.

[harryfrompattaya]

My point is that in the West marriages are between men and women from similar backgrounds. And, nowadays (in my experience) most women are not 'stay at home' parents - they have to work as male salaries are no longer enough to support the family, unless they are v lucky and wealthy.

AND, it has nothing to do with "the long run" - women are normally in lower paying jobs even before they have children.

But I'm sure you're right, even though its unusual to find a marriage here between couples of a similar age. I agree though, that most of the men involved are relatively un-educated - albeit far more educated than their wives.

Edit - its not racist at all. Its just an observation.

In the west I married a factory workers daughter

In Thailand I married a farmer

In the west my wife was at home looking after the kids (her choice)

In Thailand my wife is at home looking after the kids (her choice)

My qualifications Degree + postgraduate (my educational level puts me in the top 0.2% of the British population), I have always been wealthy.

In the west, my wife didn't beat me, but tried it a couple of times (she was weaker than me).

In Thailand 2 out of 3 of my gfs had a go at domestic violence (punching and knife attacks), but stopped when I threatened to leave (they were both stronger and more violent than me). I believe the Thai ladies had every chance of winning in a fight, the British lady wouldn't have stood a chance. I once saw the non-violent Thai gf pick up a French lady (twice her weight) and throw her across the road in a display of psychotic rage (the French lady made a comment about an old white guy with a young Thai gf and the Thai gf overheard)

F1

You clearly have no idea about relationships with Thai ladies or the insane violence that is so often near the surface.

What appears soft and submissive outside the home, really isn't the reality inside the home.

For you having always been wealthy you known violent low lives. I as a wealthy man from Africa have never met a violent Thai I guess they known what will happen I will not play by white man rules. By the way my educational level put me in the bottom 5 per cent. But I am not a low teacher, but a very rich retired investor.

[benbear]

1) She is a farm girl, left school age 13, I have postgraduate

2) We share no interests, I'm into outdoor pursuits, she likes Thai soaps

3) We do have a similar outlook on life, we're both not really bothered about anything

4) 20 year age difference

How long have the two of you been together? And what keeps you together?

When you say she's not really bothered about anything, do you mean she's lazy or unambitious or just laid back?

He was being sarcastic, then again the points he makes many farrang make

[TingTawng]

For you having always been wealthy you known violent low lives.

Character / morals surely has little to do with how much money you have.

[ludditeman]

For you having always been wealthy you known violent low lives.

Character / morals surely has little to do with how much money you have.

I believe the only difference between myself and other foreigners (wealth aside), is my level of self-delusion.

I am realistic about the relationships I have with Thai ladies. Young, pretty, fun works for me.

[theblether]

To TingTawng

Your contention about the levels of domestic violence.........as you have referred to the progressive UK publication known as the Guardian, lets have a look at the domestic violence convictions in the UK.

Women convicted of domestic violence 4,000

Men convicted of domestic violence 55,000

So that follows that by UK conviction rates, and the only rates that matter as they are the only ones that have been tested in court, men are responsible for 93% of domestic violence. Sounds about right to me.

I'm not one for believing surveys, if your British you'll know that 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas, that has roughly the same validity as the majority of surveys that you read.