40K A Month Isn't Enough Anymore

[Gweiloman]

I track my expences monthly so it was fairly easy to come up with my yearly exp for 2012 and then my monthly costs. This figure includes everything, insurance (auto/health) for wife and myself, home in Bkk and condo in Pattaya, doctor bills, several trips per year around Thailand, food etc. House, condo and cars all paid for. Total expenses for 2012, B854,000 or B71,000 per month. We're not big spenders but I would find it difficult to live here on B40,000 per month. Wife and I are both non-drinkers.

Do you suggest that we consider the cost of living in Pattaya as typical?

House condo and cars paid for and 854,000 expenses for the year???

Please pardon my candid observation, but It looks to me like an extreme

case of a farang with very poor money management skills.

If my house and condo and car were paid for, I could live like a Arab

sheik on 450,000 per year in Chiang Mai.

There are Arab sheiks and there are Arab sheiks. In my business, I have come across Arab sheiks who quibble about a Eur20 tip as well as those who would book out the whole floor in the Danieli Venice for a week.

C'mon guys, if you can afford it, it is nothing to blow Thb 10,000 for two on an evening out in Bangkok, just by going to a nice restaurant and having a nice dinner with some wine. I mentioned in another post that I spent Thb 8,000 on a simplish dinner for three in a Swiss restaurant in Sukhumvit. This is nothing overly fancy. A bavarian meat platter for two in the next door Bei Otto (open air, mind you) plus a bottle or two of wine plus a few other drinks will easily set you back Thb5-6,000. Don't even talk about having dinner in Neil's Steak House on Asok - your cheapest steak will cost Thb 1,000.

No doubt, Thb40,000 will allow you to live fairly comfortably but won't allow you to splurge if you so desire.

I had a friend who paid over 3,000 baht for a steak in The Hard Rock Cafe,Patong,Phuket!

There we go. I had a porterhouse in Morton's for the same!

[FunFon]

I think we've lost track of the OP, which was (wait, what was it again? Oh yeah)

- Will the TG stick around with a partner on so little?

I personally think that's been answered up the wazoo back and forth and sideways - most definitively here IIDSSM - hey! who's been deleting my Likes??!!

But nothing to do with steaks and cars and multiple houses.

Edited April 19, 2013 by FunFon

[bermondburi]

Why are expats always comparing a Thai salary with Farangs ?

If you want to live like a Thai middle class , and only eat Thai food most of the week , share a small room and pay 3000 in rent , yes you can afford it with 28k per month if you like for your whole family!

But you are not a Thai , you need to keep your western habits , so forget it.

3000 for a room , why not just rent a house ?

plenty of townhouses 3-5k a month in BKKburbs.

[bermondburi]

A discussion earlier today in this household might lend some reason to how they manage on so much less and this is only a simple example.

The g/f gave me a number 1 haircut with the electric clippers today and she was talking about her father getting a haircut. He pays 20 Baht. The boys pay 10 Baht at a barbers shop

.

Yes it is only one simple thing but still a very cheap example of what they pay compared to us.

where was that ? don't think I've ever paid less than 50.

[Gweiloman]

My point is that as long as they don't delude themselves, there is nothing wrong with making whatever arrangements float your boat.

You may think that there's "only one real true way" for people to partner with each other, but no matter how little credibility I may have with you or other here I'm here to say that the mainstream-accepted model of long-term romantic monogamy is not inherently more practical nor morally superior to the many alternatives.

As long as they don't delude themselves - I couldn't have said it better myself. Having had a few relationships in the past with women of different nationalities (both Asian and Western) and of observation of family and friend's own relationships, call me cynical but ultimately, the majority of relationships revolve around money in one sense or another. After the initial glow of love has dimmed to care, respect and trust, money starts to take on a much bigger role.

As men, we all pay, one way or another. Those (such as HS) who feels that they don't ever need to pay, will one day either find themselves all on their tod (if that's what they want) or realise that the brutal reality of life will just catch up with them. Never ever having had much money, I myself have enjoyed the companionship of various ladies throughout my earlier years. Arriving now at a stage where I'm financially more stable, it's pay back time, in one form or another. Having said that, I pay gladly as I don't delude myself in what I'm getting for return.

[HardenedSoul]

Doesn't Davids lady have a prawn farm that she works on ? If she leaves the farm to go to Australia (?) the family need someone to replace her.

Maybe David isn't prepared to work illegally in Thailand so they are going to Australia so he can work and get a decent education for their kids when they have some without having to pay for an international school.

Maybe Missfarm girl can't work straight away in Australia due to visa restrictions or difficulty in finding a job. When she can maybe she will be the one helping her family out.

What would you do HS if you met someone here you fell in love with and weren't prepared to work illegally so moved back to your own country to work, leaving her parents without an income as you had taken their worker/manager ?

I don't know if his bird owns or works on a farm.

I don't know if he lives here or in Thailand.

I don't know if he's had kids with her

As I said, I could only go on the limited information he provided on this thread. I wasn't interested in stalking through his old posts. If he wanted to elaborate, he could've done so.

As to your question, if i couldn't work here legally (I can), I'd suggest they replace her but that's me. The truth is, I would do my level best to avoid a situation like that.

If I was unable to avoid it, I'd stay in Thailand and she could continue working. I'd avoid knocking her up too.

[arthurwait]

Doesn't Davids lady have a prawn farm that she works on ? If she leaves the farm to go to Australia (?) the family need someone to replace her.

Maybe David isn't prepared to work illegally in Thailand so they are going to Australia so he can work and get a decent education for their kids when they have some without having to pay for an international school.

Maybe Missfarm girl can't work straight away in Australia due to visa restrictions or difficulty in finding a job. When she can maybe she will be the one helping her family out.

What would you do HS if you met someone here you fell in love with and weren't prepared to work illegally so moved back to your own country to work, leaving her parents without an income as you had taken their worker/manager ?

I don't know if his bird owns or works on a farm.

I don't know if he lives here or in Thailand.

I don't know if he's had kids with her

As I said, I could only go on the limited information he provided on this thread. I wasn't interested in stalking through his old posts. If he wanted to elaborate, he could've done so.

As to your question, if i couldn't work here legally (I can), I'd suggest they replace her but that's me. The truth is, I would do my level best to avoid a situation like that.

If I was unable to avoid it, I'd stay in Thailand and she could continue working. I'd avoid knocking her up too.

A very hardened soul.

[yoslim]

Doesn't Davids lady have a prawn farm that she works on ? If she leaves the farm to go to Australia (?) the family need someone to replace her.

Maybe David isn't prepared to work illegally in Thailand so they are going to Australia so he can work and get a decent education for their kids when they have some without having to pay for an international school.

Maybe Missfarm girl can't work straight away in Australia due to visa restrictions or difficulty in finding a job. When she can maybe she will be the one helping her family out.

What would you do HS if you met someone here you fell in love with and weren't prepared to work illegally so moved back to your own country to work, leaving her parents without an income as you had taken their worker/manager ?

Wouldn't it make more sense to find a replacement worker for the GF's job and give the profits to the parents ? Of course it's easier to have the falang pay the bill

[arthurwait]

Doesn't Davids lady have a prawn farm that she works on ? If she leaves the farm to go to Australia (?) the family need someone to replace her.

Maybe David isn't prepared to work illegally in Thailand so they are going to Australia so he can work and get a decent education for their kids when they have some without having to pay for an international school.

Maybe Missfarm girl can't work straight away in Australia due to visa restrictions or difficulty in finding a job. When she can maybe she will be the one helping her family out.

What would you do HS if you met someone here you fell in love with and weren't prepared to work illegally so moved back to your own country to work, leaving her parents without an income as you had taken their worker/manager ?

Wouldn't it make more sense to find a replacement worker for the GF's job and give the profits to the parents ? Of course it's easier to have the falang pay the bill

How many replacement Thai workers would you need to do the work of someone that cared about the business.....

Maybe that's what the money is for or maybe they are too old to run the compnay and will close it down if she doesn't want it.

[HardenedSoul]

As long as they don't delude themselves - I couldn't have said it better myself. Having had a few relationships in the past with women of different nationalities (both Asian and Western) and of observation of family and friend's own relationships, call me cynical but ultimately, the majority of relationships revolve around money in one sense or another. After the initial glow of love has dimmed to care, respect and trust, money starts to take on a much bigger role.

As men, we all pay, one way or another. Those (such as HS) who feels that they don't ever need to pay, will one day either find themselves all on their tod (if that's what they want) or realise that the brutal reality of life will just catch up with them. Never ever having had much money, I myself have enjoyed the companionship of various ladies throughout my earlier years. Arriving now at a stage where I'm financially more stable, it's pay back time, in one form or another. Having said that, I pay gladly as I don't delude myself in what I'm getting for return.

"We all pay one way or another"

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

[HardenedSoul]

I don't know if his bird owns or works on a farm.

I don't know if he lives here or in Thailand.

I don't know if he's had kids with her

As I said, I could only go on the limited information he provided on this thread. I wasn't interested in stalking through his old posts. If he wanted to elaborate, he could've done so.

As to your question, if i couldn't work here legally (I can), I'd suggest they replace her but that's me. The truth is, I would do my level best to avoid a situation like that.

If I was unable to avoid it, I'd stay in Thailand and she could continue working. I'd avoid knocking her up too.

A very hardened soul.

Put it this way, Art;

Would a Thai man consider replacing the labour or profit lost by his girlfriend's absence from a family business?

Would a Thai man say, "Yeah, yeah babe. Bin the job and I'll pay your folks a monthly wedge so they can buy tat?

Like fugg he would

[FunFon]

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

-

No, it just matches a set of values, preferences and needs that are different from your own.

Millions and millions of Thai men support women that don't work outside of the home and/or the play pad, completely valid choice if you can afford it.

Edited April 19, 2013 by FunFon

[Gweiloman]

As long as they don't delude themselves - I couldn't have said it better myself. Having had a few relationships in the past with women of different nationalities (both Asian and Western) and of observation of family and friend's own relationships, call me cynical but ultimately, the majority of relationships revolve around money in one sense or another. After the initial glow of love has dimmed to care, respect and trust, money starts to take on a much bigger role.

As men, we all pay, one way or another. Those (such as HS) who feels that they don't ever need to pay, will one day either find themselves all on their tod (if that's what they want) or realise that the brutal reality of life will just catch up with them. Never ever having had much money, I myself have enjoyed the companionship of various ladies throughout my earlier years. Arriving now at a stage where I'm financially more stable, it's pay back time, in one form or another. Having said that, I pay gladly as I don't delude myself in what I'm getting for return.

"We all pay one way or another"

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

[FunFon]

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever.

-

Not a sensible goal in any case.

[HardenedSoul]

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

[FunFon]

I'm not the one claiming anyone's preferences are wrong, as I keep saying whatever works for you.

Just that your model doesn't work for me, or for many here, and that you should stop thinking/acting as if/saying that your model is "better" as if it's some universal moral truth.

And I didn't mean equal in numerical terms, just the traditional feminist POV about equal rights, sharing as partners etc.

Edited April 19, 2013 by FunFon

[cardholder]

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

Sorry, but I am voting for the pleasing aesthetics and regular sex

[Thereisnoif]

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

Sorry, but I am voting for the pleasing aesthetics and regular sex

Me too, but not for hookers.

Always brings me back to De Niro's famous line about Sharon Stone in Casino: " Once a hooker, always a hooker ".

So sad and yet so true .

[BookMan]

I didn't hear him mention a salary HS, just helping give to his GFs family what she gave before. He told us he would help her until she could find some work or be a mum.

Most people in a relationship in Western cultures and Thai culture would call that a partnership

He may not have used the term, "salary" but that's more or less what it equates to. His GF didn't have to find work; she actually left her management job to be with him provided he came up with the readies to replace what she was sending to her family. In other words, she gets paid and doesn't have to work.

You suggest that people in Western relationships would call that a partnership; That's <deleted>; People in the West would call it a business transaction

I mean, how many of us - if we were back home - after meeting a normal, gainfully employed, comparatively self sufficient woman meeting her obligations from her own efforts would be fine about it if she turned around and said, "Tell you what, I'll leave my job, move in with you and be your girlfriend and you can pay for my family's upkeep. In return, my folks will babysit on the odd occasions when we go to visit them?"

>My former post should suggested HS but came out as HD, my apologies HD.

HS, you don´t believe in a long life relationship, that´s fine and I know things are different on this side of the world so the money issue is subjective. Though I wonder, do you abide by these rules you have regarding relationship back in the west as well?

Abso-fuggin-lutely!!

I wouldn't hook up with a freebooter in London so I won't do it here.

I accept that a lot of Western men here tend to lower the bar because they may have little in the way of choice if they want a young, attractive wife/girlfriend they'd have no chance of securing back home and that's fair enough but, as far as I'm concerned, I prefer to look at Thailand as another country, not another reality in which common sense values and life choices go out the window upon arrival.

(I'll let David48 answer on the greater specifics of his relationship than posted here)

Speaking in broad terms regarding your points...

You could break down an entire relationship in terms of its financial benefits and contributions. By allocating every aspect of relationship transactions a cost/price you can say it is a business transaction. A matter of semantics really.

You cannot fairly compare meeting someone in your home country with meeting someone in a different country. If you meet someone in a different country and want to be together then someone is going to have to make some sacrifices and more than likely someone is going to be the main support post financially.

A lot of Western Men in Thailand are not lowering their bar at all. That is implying that back in their home countries they dated educated, financially independent, non drinking/drug taking women. A lot of them are staying on the same level they were back in their home countries; if anything a lot of Thai women are lowering their bar.

[HardenedSoul]

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

Sorry, but I am voting for the pleasing aesthetics and regular sex

Yeah but think how much sweeter it'd be if she had a few coins of her own to rub together.

I'm not the one claiming anyone's preferences are wrong, as I keep saying whatever works for you.

Just that your model doesn't work for me, or for many here, and that you should stop thinking/acting as if/saying that your model is "better" as if it's some universal moral truth.

And I didn't mean equal in numerical terms, just the traditional feminist POV about equal rights, sharing as partners etc.

Oh puh-lease stop talking xxxx, Funfon.

Every guy on here would dearly love to be wanted for his personality, charm, looks, wit . . . . whatever.

The "model" you extol the virtues of has, in one way or another, been forced on you and those like you and that's not a problem but, <deleted>, don't delude yourself by suggesting it's a perfectly valid and desirable alternative to more mainstream foundations upon which to build relationships.

Edited April 19, 2013 by metisdead

[isawasnake]

Economic hardship is what the ladyboy market was made for.

[phuketjock]

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

I am truly sorry for you Hardened soul and IMO if you don't change your rigid attitude you are destined to end up

a very sad, old, and lonely Hardened Soul.

[FunFon]

Always brings me back to De Niro's famous line about Sharon Stone in Casino: " Once a hooker, always a hooker ".

So sad and yet so true.

-

And so irrelevant.

Every guy on here would dearly love to be wanted for his personality, charm, looks, wit . . . . whatever.

The "model" you extol the virtues of has, in one way or another, been forced on you and those like you and that's not a problem but, <deleted>, don't delude yourself by suggesting it's a perfectly valid and desirable alternative to more mainstream foundations upon which to build relationships.

-

Sorry but you're wrong, and I actually think you're the one who's deluding himself.

I'm not deluding myself, and even if I were young and hansum I would not want to every try to enter into a mainstream-traditional "romantic" 'til death do us part monogamous relationship no matter how lovely/stunning/sexy/sincere whatever the potential bride to be. Or wealthy for that matter.

It's just not for me, even if I did delude myself that we would live happily forever after.

The problem I keep seeing is that you keep defining "relationship" in a circular fashion, and pretend that anything that doesn't fit your model isn't a "real" relationship.

Research the details of Dali and Gala's marriage. Many would say she took advantage of him, she was a predator etc.

But maybe he got exactly what he was after, I don't know, and what's more, I don't think anyone outside the relationship has any basis for passing judgement, least of all on a moral basis.

If an old lady wants to fill her home with boy-toy servants, that's how she gets her kicks? Young girl likes putting on a catwoman costume and whipping her sugar daddy, gets paid a weeks wages for a couple of fun hours, why not? Young guy needs money for whatever reason, goes out and picks up investment bankers on their way home from the brokerage, more power to him.

It's a big world out there, variety is the spice of life, live and let live, whatever floats your boat, no one's being deceived or coerced then that's all good.

True love can emerge in any and all of the above situations, and is also just as absent from the straightest-arrow mainstream white wedding a few years later, one's got nothing to do with the other.

[Beetlejuice]

I track my expences monthly so it was fairly easy to come up with my yearly exp for 2012 and then my monthly costs. This figure includes everything, insurance (auto/health) for wife and myself, home in Bkk and condo in Pattaya, doctor bills, several trips per year around Thailand, food etc. House, condo and cars all paid for. Total expenses for 2012, B854,000 or B71,000 per month. We're not big spenders but I would find it difficult to live here on B40,000 per month. Wife and I are both non-drinkers.

You claim you and your wife are not big spenders, but you are certainly living an extravagant lifestyle.

2 homes, several trips or holidays per year around Thailand, cars, as in plural not singular, full insurance coverage, medical and auto for yourself and wife, medical expenses and I bet you have all the mod cons in your homes.

And the whole deal is only costing you on average, 71000 baht a month, 2300 baht a day, about $2000 a month, at today’s exchange rates. You’re getting a bargain and living the life of the idle rich.

Either the last time you changed US Dollars to Thai Baht was in the 90s or can you give me the address and phone number for your local foreign exchange,where you're getting 71,000 Thai Baht for 2,000 US Dollars?

You are right, I stand corrected. It`s about $2500.

[arthurwait]

Ah the time-honoured refrain of the hapless love clown.

Well get this; women pay too.

The woman I've been seeing here in Thailand regularly puts her hand in her pocket and so do I.

I would never suggest she wind down her business; I would never suggest she move in with me and bin her exisitng living arrangements; I would never ask her to move to London. I wouldn't do any of these things because I refuse to fish at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women. I like self-sufficient women who know what they're doing and where they're going.

There's a clear and undeniable difference between a relationship in which two people share expenses and responsibilities from their own resources and one in which a man makes the decision at the outset that his woman is going to be financially dependent on him. That is idiocy of the highest level

Then I wish you all the best of luck if you think that this state of affairs will last forever. It does not matter how rich or financially independent a woman is (nor her nationality for that matter) but if only ever want a so called "financially equal" relationship, the odds are against you.

No one mentioned financially "equal".

What's wrong with a preference fo women who are able and willing to pay their own way and bring more to the table than pleasing aesthetics and regular sex to the table?

Sorry, but I am voting for the pleasing aesthetics and regular sex

Not married then ?

[HardenedSoul]

I am truly sorry for you Hardened soul and IMO if you don't change your rigid attitude you are destined to end up

a very sad, old, and lonely Hardened Soul.

You're entitled to your opinion. My "attitude" has worked well for me these past 46 years. I have the respect and affection of a financially-stable, self-sufficient woman who just happens to be rather attractive. I had many similar relationships back in London before I came to LOS.

-

Sorry but you're wrong, and I actually think you're the one who's deluding himself.

I'm not deluding myself, and even if I were young and hansum I would not want to every try to enter into a mainstream-traditional "romantic" 'til death do us part monogamous relationship no matter how lovely/stunning/sexy/sincere whatever the potential bride to be. Or wealthy for that matter.

It's just not for me, even if I did delude myself that we would live happily forever after.

The problem I keep seeing is that you keep defining "relationship" in a circular fashion, and pretend that anything that doesn't fit your model isn't a "real" relationship.

Research the details of Dali and Gala's marriage. Many would say she took advantage of him, she was a predator etc.

But maybe he got exactly what he was after, I don't know, and what's more, I don't think anyone outside the relationship has any basis for passing judgement, least of all on a moral basis.

If an old lady wants to fill her home with boy-toy servants, that's how she gets her kicks? Young girl likes putting on a catwoman costume and whipping her sugar daddy, gets paid a weeks wages for a couple of fun hours, why not? Young guy needs money for whatever reason, goes out and picks up investment bankers on their way home from the brokerage, more power to him.

It's a big world out there, variety is the spice of life, live and let live, whatever floats your boat, no one's being deceived or coerced then that's all good.

True love can emerge in any and all of the above situations, and is also just as absent from the straightest-arrow mainstream white wedding a few years later, one's got nothing to do with the other.

I accept that my definition of a "relationship" may differ from others'.

Any guy who pays a woman a stipend in the belief that doing so will foster a situation whereby he is as loved and respected as a man choosing more mainstream foundations upon which to build a relationship with a woman is an idiot.

You claim to be cognizant of the difference between the two - and you may very well be - but the majority of Western men in Thailand choosing your "model" simply aren't.

It's fine if you wanna pay a woman to be your companion as long as you never lose sight of the fact that it's only ever going to be a financial transaction but harboring beliefs that, should the flow of money stop, the arrangement will undergo a transformation enabling it to continue on a "genuine love and respect" basis is pure delusion.

Edited April 19, 2013 by HardenedSoul

[arthurwait]

I don't know if his bird owns or works on a farm.

I don't know if he lives here or in Thailand.

I don't know if he's had kids with her

As I said, I could only go on the limited information he provided on this thread. I wasn't interested in stalking through his old posts. If he wanted to elaborate, he could've done so.

As to your question, if i couldn't work here legally (I can), I'd suggest they replace her but that's me. The truth is, I would do my level best to avoid a situation like that.

If I was unable to avoid it, I'd stay in Thailand and she could continue working. I'd avoid knocking her up too.

A very hardened soul.

Put it this way, Art;

Would a Thai man consider replacing the labour or profit lost by his girlfriend's absence from a family business?

Would a Thai man say, "Yeah, yeah babe. Bin the job and I'll pay your folks a monthly wedge so they can buy tat?

Like fugg he would

I feel this post is a bridge over troubled water.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Put it this way, Art;

Would a Thai man consider replacing the labour or profit lost by his girlfriend's absence from a family business?

Would a Thai man say, "Yeah, yeah babe. Bin the job and I'll pay your folks a monthly wedge so they can buy tat?

Like fugg he would

The Thai guys I know often suffer from the same rewards and problems that foreigners have in Thailand.

Some are ruthless and take advantage of women while some are soft and are manipulated by women.

Some like to marry and consort with 'unsuitable partners'

So in answer to HS question 'Would a Thai man ............

Some would, some wouldn't.

[FunFon]

I accept that my definition of a "relationship" may differ from others'.

Any guy who pays a woman a stipend in the belief that doing so will foster a situation whereby he is as loved and respected as a man choosing more mainstream foundations upon which to build a relationship with a woman is an idiot.

You claim to be cognizant of the difference between the two - and you may very well be - but the majority of Western men in Thailand choosing your "model" simply aren't.

It's fine if you wanna pay a woman to be your companion as long as you never lose sight of the fact that it's only ever going to be a financial transaction but harboring beliefs that, should the flow of money stop, the arrangement will undergo a transformation enabling it to continue on a "genuine love and respect" basis is pure delusion.

-

Many relationships that start out as explicit P2P arrangements become much more than simply that over the years.

Many relationships where one partner thinks they are truly loved turn out not to be so at all - anymore or perhaps never were - after years have passed.

Both types may or may not end if/when things go bad financially.

I claim the odds of that happening are due to many factors, and what kind of relationship it was in the beginning is just one of those factors, and IMO not even that important of one - certainly not the all-important determining one you think it is.

And the difference between them is not one of "better" or "worse" either from the POV of the happiness of those involved, nor any question of morality in the true sense.

IMO.

Edited April 19, 2013 by FunFon

[Zatoichi]

Why do you think the threshhold,for retirement visa is Bht 62,000 per month.

Not Bht 40,000.

Bht 80,000.is comfortable.

To each is own, I would say 150-200 is comfy Covers house, car or 2, savings, school for kids and discretionary spending. This is for Bangkok mind you, I have no idea about out in Whatdaphukaburi.