lady boys

[nordicguy]

A culture with a history of poverty within living memory of most of the population will put more emphasis on being taken care off, have someone to treats them nicely in a relationship that is more submissive/dominant oriented.
In western culture love has been known to include much more equality since the sixties and partnership.

Sounds indeed very plausible, but I don't think it's the concept of love that is so different - love and crushes are probably more universal. I think it's more about what forms the basis of a marriage/relationships in difference cultures.

In northwestern Europe and Scandinavia (that I know well), the ideal relationship is considered to be the one between two equals and the two have to be homogenious to some extent - if one part is significantly richer or older or more educated than the other one, it causes weired looks, slander and raised eyebrows when you introduce your new partner to friends and families. People will question the motives, the foundation and the authencity of the relationship. Above all, it has to be strictly love-based. If romantic love is gone, the marrige/relationship is considered dead.

My perception of the Thais is that they are far less concerned about equality and homogeneity in a relationship and that practical matters, financial security, ability to support the in-law parents etc. etc. counts just as much. Feelings of love can grow based on this, but it is not a start-up condition for a good marriage/relationship. Calling it submissive/dominant is taking it a bit too far I think. I would rather put it this way: For a Thai, there is nothing to be ashamed about if you're uneducated and you marry an educated guy, or if you're much younger than him, or if you're from a poor background compared with him, and there is no reason to be ashamed of being obedient and serviceminded in such a relationship. On the contrary, most people will think you have done well, and the older/richer/more educate one won't lose prestige either.

[cdnmatt]

I'm sorry, but this conversation is a bit retarded. Most of you guys are in your 60s, taking on partners in their early 20s. Are you seriously perplexed as to why it seems as though they don't have genuine feelings of love for you?

[nordicguy]

I'm sorry, but this conversation is a bit retarded. Most of you guys are in your 60s, taking on partners in their early 20s. Are you seriously perplexed as to why it seems as though they don't have genuine feelings of love for you?

That's always why I question that this is about whether perception of the concept of love is different in Thailand etc. vs. Western Europe. It think it just a question of what is generally understood by a good and valid foundation of a relationship or marriage. The modern western post-60s ideals of a relationship is that it should be purely love-based and partners should be equal which presupposes homogeneity to some extent. If you're an older, rich, well-educated man and you marry a quite young ineducated guy without any education, it's hard to claim that you're equal as the one part is far more experiences and is also funding everything. Many westerners will disapprove this setup more or less explicityly. But exactly this constallation I've described here as an example works very indeed well in a Thai setting and is seen as fine arrangement (win-win).

[Tintin]

But exactly this constallation I've described here as an example works very indeed well in a Thai setting and is seen as fine arrangement (win-win).

Maybe the selection of members of the Thai society you get to know is a bit limited. Ask some wealthy, well educated Thais and you will be surprised by their answer.

[nordicguy]

Maybe the selection of members of the Thai society you get to know is a bit limited. Ask some wealthy, well educated Thais and you will be surprised by their answer.

I don't think I will be surprised

But the majority of the Thais are not wealthy. The majority of the Thais are not even middle class. The majority of the Thais are relatively poor and THEIR views are therefore far more relevant to consider than the views of the small BKK area Thai middle class and upper class.

In northwestern Europe, the majority of the population belongs to the middleclass and it was therefore the European middle class view on relationships/marriage that I tried to describe (love marriage, partners of roughly the same age/maturity, same educational level, both are financially indepent etc.) If you then compare this view of marriage with the view among the general (poor) Thai population, you will see much more flexible views on marriage/relationships where financial security ("being taken good care") is considered far more important than being at same age, having the same educational level and being based purely on romantic love and common interests .. the things you tend only to care more about as a privileged westerner living in a welfare state.

[kkjason]

I don't think I will be surprised

But the majority of the Thais are not wealthy. The majority of the Thais are not even middle class. The majority of the Thais are relatively poor and THEIR views are therefore far more relevant to consider than the views of the small BKK area Thai middle class and upper class.
.

What is your definition of poor? Most Thai's are not anywhere near what I would consider poor. Just look at neighboring Cambodia as an example. Most Thai's have their basic needs met while UNICEF estimates that more than half of all Cambodians lack even one basic meal a day. Go further to Africa. How can you possibly say a Thai is poor when looking at country like Sudan or Liberia? Take car ownership. Many Thai's have a car. Most now have air conditioning. The list can go on and on. In fact, with the cost of living continuing to rise in Europe and America, I would say that the percentage of Thai's considered to be middle class or above may very well be higher than in those 'Western' countries. Also, do not forget that many Thai's place a different importance on their wealth than in other countries. Even wealthy Thai's, for example, will forgo a clean and luxurious house, preferring instead to spend their money on luxury items that are more immediately attainable, such as cars and electronic gadgets. Many Thai's that look like they are 'dirt poor' actually have millions of baht in the bank, but would never know it because they do not flaunt their wealth the way we are taught to in America and Europe.

So, again, I guess it would depend on your definition of poor, but from my experience classifying 'most Thai's' as poor is nowhere near an accurate statement.

[cdnmatt]

Yeah, just because wages are lower, doesn't really mean people are poor. In general, I'd say purchasing power is close to the same in Thailand at least.

For example, I've been looking for an actual job lately, and may have found one that pays $120k CAD/yeah, so say 300,000 THB/month. Leo's ecstatic and says we'll be rich, and I have to explain to him it's in Toronto, hence a lower standard of living than in Khon Kaen. Definitely not renting a nice 3bdrm house with large gated yard or having dogs, that's for sure. I have to explain to him, in Canada, that's nowhere close to being rich, and is decent and not really poor, but FAR from rich.

Making say 300,000 THB/month in Canada is about the equivalent of making around 50,000 THB/month in Thailand, and lods of Thais make that much and more.

[nordicguy]

@cdnmatt @kkjason

I guess you're right that it's wrong to state that most are "poor" - what I meant what that relatively few Thais belong to a middle class in they way that you see in Northwestern Europe. But the perception of wealth and poverty is relative and subjective of course!

I cannot offer you a perfect theoretical definition of being rich or poor or somewhere in between, but it has to due with how even the income distribution is and the the average wage levels in a province or country adjusted for purchase power.

Thailand is characterised by a high level of economical inequality. Gini coefficient is reportedly at US level, which is high level of income inequality, but in reality it is even worse as there is limited insight in the income of the riches families in countries like Thailand. I've read a report suggeesting a gini coefficient of >0.5. There are many poor people living ín the US. It's a big and growing issue. In Scandinavia, where I live, the gini coefficient is generally around ~0.25. There are also poor families, but fewer than in many other countries. There are also less rich people. If your ambition is to get rich, you should move elsewhere. The marginal tax is very high, but this keeps the income span more narrow.

The other statistical measure relevant to look at would be the average family income adjusted for purchase power. I've looked a little around and I cannot find any data sources suggesting (anywhere near) parity between Canada and Thailand.

One of you also mention that the relative price level difference in rent, services and consumer goods (which must include all the imported goods like electronical items, pharmaceuticals, medical services, cars, household equipment, clothes, entertainment etc. to make sense) is 1/6 in Thailand versus Canada . I've not found any price indeces anywhere near this: It's more like 1/2 (some categories below, some above) if you look at the whole package or items. It's not enough to look at the cost of going out for dinner or the price of food in the local super market.

[francois]

@cdnmatt @kkjason

I guess you're right that it's wrong to state that most are "poor" -

No, you were right most Thais are poor in comparison to First World countries.
But in comparison to Third World countries then they are not poor.

[kkjason]

No, you were right most Thais are poor in comparison to First World countries.
But in comparison to Third World countries then they are not poor.

I just don't see this being anywhere near accurate. Yes, individuals in many countries around the world earn much more money than the average Thai, but how does that fact alone make them better off? In Thailand - everyone I know (and most Thai's will agree with this) have a job if they want one. The figure of less than one percent unemployment is not an exaggeration. Just look around in the big cities and see the number of migrant workers that keep things going. They depend on them, because there are not enough workers to go around. My niece finished university and got a job at TOT in Bangkok within two weeks (and she is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I love her to bits). Now, let's fast forward to Europe. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and many other countries hold little hope for young people. Unemployment for 18-29 years old in Greece in over 30 percent. Soup kitchens are filled daily with people struggling to survive. I've never even seen a soup kitchen in Thailand (I'm sure they exist, so no need to correct me). In fact, even in the 'poorest' villages I have been in Thailand have people eating plenty of food. They might not make much money, but they have food. So, what again is your definition of poor? I see life as being much more difficult for the average person in many parts of Europe (just as an example) than they are in for the same type of person in Thailand.