-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlomker
Monogomy is good for preventing the spread of colds and STDs.
I think sexual monogamy is a cultural ideal, rather a baked in genetic adaptive trait. Cultures adopted it for societal stability and, as mlomker says, for disease control. Homosexual repression was adopted by many cultures for much the same reason (disease control). Today, with advances in medicine and condoms, we're freer to listen to our natural sexual instincts without adopting the social mores of our distant ancestors.
I don't care which people choose, but for the good of your health and society, I'd say choose at least one; condoms or monogomy. I choose condoms.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
Some boss telling me when to be where, how long to work, what to do...
Yep, some older managers/employers are stupid that way. They're more worried about the rules and process than outcomes. I let my staff work from home or off-site when they need/want to as long as they're accessible when clients/colleagues need them. It's about being outcome-driven...
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
I let my staff work from home or off-site when they need/want to as long as they're accessible when clients/colleagues need them.
Beachbore, I think you should just show up at your cubicle and don't worry about the other employees, unless you want to lose your internet and therefore can't post to all the message boards you belong to.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Great topic Matt, I see that it has already stimulated a great deal of comment.To answer your specific question, I was always faithful whilst in relationships before I came out to live in Thailand. Of course when not in a relationship I had a whale of a time whilst looking for my next partner.
Since moving to Thailand IтАЩve only had one serious relationship and I was monogamous but sadly, my Thai boyfriend was not. When I discovered what he had done we split up for about 2 weeks, but he asked me to take him back, which I did because I missed him deeply. However, things were not the same as before, I felt the trust was gone and requests for money seemed to be never ending, so we just drifted apart. We still talk from time to time and I do genuinely miss him and his family.
It has been nearly 2 years since we split up and despite seeing a huge number of guys from Internet dating sites and visiting bars in Bangkok, Pattaya, Phucket & Chiang Mai I still have not found another boyfriend.
I would add that I have been following your stories about you and Kim with great interest. I found that I could easily identify with some of the events you have shared with us. I had not discovered SGT at that time and now I see that quite a few posters here have managed long term relations with ex-bar boys. I sometimes wonder if I had known another farang in a broadly similar situation to me then maybe I could have shared my feelings and sought his advice. Perhaps then I might have been able to save my relationship. My ex-boyfriend is also from a village in Issan province.
So, to sum up, my preference is therefore to have a monogamous relationship. I find my current situation unsatisfying. Perhaps one day my ex-boyfriend and I will get back together, who knows?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Interesting post, Jellybean.
Do you live in Pattaya, Bangkok or other? How old are you and what age BF are you after?
cdnmatt is 28/29 years old so probably factoring in different dynamics to most posters here.
If you're seeking a genuine, monogamous relationship, I reckon looking outside the working boy/moneyboy scene is the place to start. You're better off with the more middle class or at least successful working class boy than someone who is reliant on your financial support for a decent quality of life (this reliance blurs feelings/intentions).
If you don't realistically think it'll be practical for you (consider age/looks/personality/charm) to find a boyfriend of the age/looks you must have then consider finding a moneyboy/working boy who is seeking a relationship and genuine, but re-consider insistence for him to be monogamous as this may simply not be realistic. If you were 21 and barely out in the adult world, would you find it easy to be monogamous with a 40+ year old long-term partner?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
re-consider insistence for him to be monogamous as this may simply not be realistic. If you were 21 and barely out in the adult world, would you find it easy to be monogamous with a 40+ year old long-term partner?
This is good advice. I wonder how much this single unrealistic demand is the root problem of many Falang-Thai relationships. Even the quadragenarians should be careful about this one. It's reasonable to ask that he not be sleeping with other Farang, or for money, but asking a 21y.o. money boy for general sexual monogamy is asking to be lied to.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
I think you're right, but only in referene to farang/moneyboy relationships. I don't think monogamy works in most of these, unless the boy genuinely loves the farang and money is only a minor secondary reason for being with him (rare for moneyboys).
Older farang who take moneyboy partners need to have the empathy to put themselves in the boy's shoes as discussed here:
gay-thailand-f9/sex-and-relationships-with-prostitutes-t20569.html
When it comes to relationships outside the "working" scene, monogamy isn't so unrealistic or unreasonable in general.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
A well reasoned post Beachlover and I cannot really disagree with anything you said. I certainly hope that I am being realistic in my expectations of finding a long term companion in Thailand.
Good Lord, you have set me quite a challenging task, which I am not sure that I am up to, but here goes. I split my time between living in Bangkok and London.
Yes, I am older than cdnmatt and I recognise that the dynamics of his situation would not have been exactly the same as mine, although, as I said earlier, I did see some broad similarities. But, despite being older, I claim no advantage or greater or superior knowledge as I had no previous experience in having a relationship with an ex-bar boy or of having a relationship where money was an issue.
So I would have readily taken advice from whatever source I could find as I found myself in previously unchartered territory. I wish I had been aware of SGT at the time, advice from those in successful long term relationships with ex-bar boys would have been of considerable assistance. My friends in London were of no real help, warning me of the dangers and folly of trying to establish a relationship with an ex-bar boy (not their description of him!).
Before I met my boyfriend I had not even considered using Internet dating sites. I spent about 4 years looking for the elusive тАЬMr RightтАЭ in bars, but more often than not I found myself disappointed and continued with my search. But when I met my then boyfriend I seemed to know that he was the one I wanted to have a relationship with, he ticked all the right boxes as they say.
Actually I did not insist that he was monogamous; in fact I donтАЩt think we even discussed the subject, he never seemed interested in anyone else, he said he did not like тАЬbutterfliesтАЭ, he was a family boy, not interested in clubs, drugs or big city life and he seemed at his happiest when we were with his family. If I did insist on anything it was that he drove safely тАУ but hey, that led to more arguments than any other issue and is the subject of a completely different story!
And, I have to say, I was also at my happiest living the quiet rural life in his small village in Issan, which surprised me given that 5 years previously I was enjoying the delights and pleasures of the London club scene and would never have pictured myself happy to live on a farm in northern Thailand. But, unlike cdnmatt, I only spent a few weeks at a time with the family before we returned to Bangkok or I returned to the UK. The family accommodation and toilet facilities in the beginning were absolutely dire. Our plan however was to spend greater time living in the village as time went by. I honestly felt like I had been adopted by his family and the feeling gave me a great deal of contentment, which I have not experienced since.
As regards my boyfriend being faithful, I suppose I was probably operating on the тАЬdonтАЩt ask, donтАЩt tellтАЭ principle. I believed what I did not know would not hurt me, but I had no reason to think he wasnтАЩt being faithful. However, I think most people would draw the line at finding their boyfriend in flagrante delicto with another guy under their own roof. But, as I said in my previous post, we did get back together again 2 weeks later, but then I started to think that the future we had talked about was no longer attainable and that, perhaps, I was being unrealistic. So I decided to cut my losses and move on. It was a painful decision, which was not based on the subject of monogamy but about my ability to continue to support the whole family. I cannot say, hand on heart, that I took the right decision. And given that 2 years have passed since we broke up and I havenтАЩt found a new partner, then it probably means that I still have strong feelings for my ex. I also miss his family and I have been asked on more than one occasion to go and visit them.
After we split up I discovered Internet dating and I met some really lovely guys, but I found that I never had the same feelings for them as I had for my first boyfriend. Many were in the category that you recommend I look at. So whilst quite a fair proportion wanted to be my boyfriend, it was me who wasnтАЩt 100% sure, and I found that I could not make a commitment to them. I am happy to say that in many cases we have remained friends and I continue to keep in touch with them.
Maybe I should content myself with mini-relationships with guys from dating websites and the company of money boys of whom I know quite a few in Bangkok тАУ some would even like to be my boyfriend, but again I am reluctant to commit to another money boy.
I am sure many members here would be very happy with this mixture. But, again, as I said earlier, whilst I find this is pleasurable in the short term, afterwards it leaves me with a dull, empty unsatisfied feeling. But, please donтАЩt get me wrong, I do however consider myself to be extremely lucky to be able to live here in Thailand and to be able to enjoy the company of so many gorgeous Thai guys.
As to the future, well only yesterday I spoke on the тАШphone with a new guy from a dating site, he speaks excellent English, we seemed to have an instant rapport, he looks handsome, has a good sense of humour, has been to university and works for the Interior Ministry so maybe he is exactly the sort of guy you recommend I concentrate on. I shall be seeing him at the weekend - wish me luck!
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
[youtube:3drcdo0p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy-Pf6oJNRo[/youtube:3drcdo0p]
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Jellybean... That's an interesting journey you've had. Thanks for sharing it! Hope you'll post more.
All I can say is yes, if you're seeking something more meaningful than one-night stands and short flings, definitely look outside the moneyboy/commercial scene. The moment money takes the lead or comes in as a major factor, it blurs everything. It blurs their feelings, motives, predictability and your ability to read them.
Some people choose the moneyboy/commercial thing and if you do this I think you just have to accept it's unlikely to be entirely genuine (and you'll need to work harder to read their motives/feelings to determine if it is) and set your expectations of him accordingly.
Some guys here do this and have a pretty realistic and practical attitude to it. They're not looking for a full on life partner and deep love... it's more about friendship, companionship and sex... but maybe that's not you. Other guys do it with very little self-awareness/empathy, think it's a real relationship, set their expectations (and interact with him) accordingly and it ends in disaster.
I think you're in a bit of a bind in that you're still a bit attached to your previous BF. I guess you can either make a mental decision consider that a fulfilling experience and move on... or go back and give it another ago, but only if you feel he's entirely genuine and able to be open with you.
Keep in mind, I think most working boys are probably used to farangs who don't really keep their word and maybe don't treat them very equally. I'm friends with a boy who used to work in a gogo bar. He once told me he doesn't let himself get attached and fall in love with any farang (he has had some who he really liked) because he knows they'll go home and he may not see them again. He once had one who he really liked and hoped would return to be with him. When he e-mailed him, the farang never replied...
Anyway... good luck!
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
I work in social media and I can tell you it is the way of the future.
Ever thought of getting a
real job?
:dontknow: :dontknow:
I think it's pretty clear the value social media is providing right now in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain etc. When else in history have we had revolutions in so many countries at the one time? And one of my workmates has family in New Zealand and he's been able to see from Facebook that they have come through the latest earthquake there ok.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
" ... When else in history have we had revolutions in so many countries at the one time? ... "
1848.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
I think it's pretty clear the value social media is providing right now in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain etc. When else in history have we had revolutions in so many countries at the one time? And one of my workmates has family in New Zealand and he's been able to see from Facebook that they have come through the latest earthquake there ok.
We also have the recent example of the recent Bangkok protests/unrest where social media played a critical role in situational awareness and communication for people on the ground trying to stay safe and for broadcasting first-hand accounts of what was happening.
Blogger, Richard Barrow did an amazing job maintaining an up to date Google Map indicating locations for hotspots and hazards as it evolved. It wasn't always fully up to date but it was head and shoulders above anything else available... His Twitter account was probably the best single source of information for what was happening.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
" ... When else in history have we had revolutions in so many countries at the one time? ... "
1848.
Like this is the 21st century. Who cares about ancient history?
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by media
Like this is the 21st century. Who cares about ancient history?
1989/1990 - the collapse of communism in Europe. Is that recent enough for you?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
How's that research into Victorian spinsters in the novels of Dickens going, combat old boy? After all you've got plenty of time on your hands.
Seems like you aren't quite as knowledgable as you like to make out!.
You've been doing your homework combat! What a good boy! :lam:
By the way, knowledgeable is spelt with three Es (a bit like a hyper-happy bar boy) - and spelt is British English rather than American English (but of course you know that already)
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Once In Awhile
Quote:
Originally Posted by media
Like this is the 21st century. Who cares about ancient history?
1989/1990 - the collapse of communism in Europe. Is that recent enough for you?
Last millenium. Before Facebook. How old are you guys?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
More importantly - how stupid are you?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Once In Awhile
More importantly - how stupid are you?
Why are you dissing me?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellybean
As regards my boyfriend being faithful, I suppose I was probably operating on the тАЬdonтАЩt ask, donтАЩt tellтАЭ principle. I believed what I did not know would not hurt me, but I had no reason to think he wasnтАЩt being faithful. However, I think most people would draw the line at finding their boyfriend in flagrante delicto with another guy
Did you catch him with the other guy in Pattaya//Bkk or in issan
In my experience Thai boys rarely "shit on their own doorstep" so i presume it was outside Issan
(or was it with a girl)
Like Matt I was 28 when i first met my BF... he was 18 at the time... 8.5 years we are still together... only get to sepnd 3-4 months of each year tigtehr - but try to make the best of that time.... and both of us are definately still predators... with no sign or monogamy... except on birthdays!
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
" ... When else in history have we had revolutions in so many countries at the one time? ... "
1848.
Like this is the 21st century. Who cares about ancient history?
You said/asked "When else in history ... ".
Now you might guess why Once in a While thinks you're st*p*d. ( *'s for Beachlover )
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles
( *'s for Beachlover )
Smiley, are you insinuating that beachbore is an **shole? I'm sure your not, but if you were, I'm sure you wouldn't be the first!! LOL
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Did you catch him with the other guy in Pattaya//Bkk or in issan
In my experience Thai boys rarely "shit on their own doorstep" so i presume it was outside Issan
(or was it with a girl)
Like Matt I was 28 when i first met my BF... he was 18 at the time... 8.5 years we are still together... only get to sepnd 3-4 months of each year tigtehr - but try to make the best of that time.... and both of us are definately still predators... with no sign or monogamy... except on birthdays!
colmx in reply to your question above, I caught them together in my apartment in Bangkok and the other person was another Thai guy.
I am glad to hear your relationship is still going strong after 8┬╜ years тАУ you are obviously doing something right, I wish you both well.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Once In Awhile
More importantly - how stupid are you?
Why are you dissing me?
I don't know if you're serious or just taking the piss out of the grumpy "intellects"... but I think it's good either way LOL.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Thor69 Wrote:
Quote:
Monogamy and fidelity have two different meanings. Monogamous doesn't mean sexual exclusivity. It means you value that relationship above all others. Fidelity with someone means sexual exclusivity.
Finally, in 8 pages of swash-buckling banter ...an intelligent remark.
TyeDyed...you are living proof that computer keyboards make men out of mice. You're opening comments to CDMatt on this post reveal your idenity as a real "Keyboard Zorro". Can you recommend an effective cleaning fluid for removing venom from a keyboard?
Personally, I value my relationship with him above all others, and I think it's fair to say that he feels the same way, so the term "monogomous" seems to categorize our relationship pretty well.
Thep told me once that he thought I loved my guitar more than him. My response was..." I love you both the same". He wasn't too pleased with that response, so the topic of fidelity is now avoided.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
Thep told me once that he thought I loved my guitar more than him. My response was..." I love you both the same". He wasn't too pleased with that response, so the topic of fidelity is now avoided.
Nice one Dodger: All in all it's not so much as to what you say as to what you do. You have proved your love for Thep by the way you are now standing by him in his time of great need. Well done.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69Thor
Monogamous doesn't mean sexual exclusivity. It means you value that relationship above all others. Fidelity with someone means sexual exclusivity.
Nonsense. Vice versa.
http://www.janthor.com/images/on/melankolicHarem.jpeg
Melancholy in the Harem. Sad to hear that you don't understand males. At least you do understand females!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
Many seem to want a partner, but only as long as they can have friends with benefits on the side. I've never quite understood that, as in my mind, it diminishes the entire relationship, and the entire reason of being together.
"In 2000, Dr. Rice published his findings showing that when flies in normally promiscuous habitats were experimentally forced to be monogamous, the evolution of the seminal fluids proteins ultimately promoted the extension of mate survival time, rather than the reduction of it, relative to the promiscuous controls. In addition to this observation, Dr. Rice noted that monogamous males who were placed back into a promiscuous environment displayed an overall reduction of fitness. These data are of particular interest because they show a correlation between the rate of mutation of sexually antagonistic traits, and the degree of commitment between an individual and its mate. This rate is important because of the elevated evolutionary rate of reproduction-associated proteins. A 2002 article in Science indicates that the divergence of these proteins is especially noticeable in the primate lineage leading to humans, mice and rats, marine invertebrates, and D. melanogaster. The observed relationship shown here, in the reproductive proteins of humans and D. melanogaster, gives credibility to the idea that we can learn about our own evolutionary past by observing the rapidly multiplying fruit flies (~1 generation per 2 weeks).
Because sexual antagonism acts as an evolutionary catalyst, at least in terms of these reproductive proteins, it is quite possible that this mechanism is likely to influence the initiation of other evolutionary landmarks, like speciation, Dr. Rice said in a 1997 sociobiological publication. Speciation is the creation of so much genetic divergence that isolated members of what was once one species will become reproductively incompatible. Over time, they will become separate species. Because inter-sexual conflict is so intimately involved with the genetics of the reproductive biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and behavior, its role as a catalyst for these changes certainly makes it seem like a vitally important factor in the speciation process.
Monandrous (monogamous) groups of female flies were tested against polyandrous (promiscuous females, having high inter-sexual conflict) groups with respect to speciation-causing factors. Another of Dr. Rice's observations, published in 2000, was that speciation occurred four times faster in the polyandrous groups, once again supporting the notion that gender conflict is what Dr. Rice calls an "engine of speciation."
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume7/issu ... pbell.html