position of women within thai society Options

[AEROFORCE1]

Guess what my thai galfren says (she's working as air stewardess on Kenya Airways). Thai men when they have money will always get a mistress. Farang men don't have this nasty habit and also they treat their wives with more respect than thai men do. what do u say?

Funny the problem is oftain start when the girl like the gangsta boyz who she think she can change the guy.

The girl pick the wrong one and then they upset and bias on Thai male then they just find the alterrnative solution which is not always good.

[yokie]

Guess what my thai galfren says (she's working as air stewardess on Kenya Airways). Thai men when they have money will always get a mistress. Farang men don't have this nasty habit and also they treat their wives with more respect than thai men do. what do u say?

Uhm...your friend's opinion is quite biased and she probably has no solid evidence to back up her claim, I say.

From the geneticist or the anthropologist's point of view, human are by nature hunter and gatherer. As a hunter who risks his life on daily basis, human male has a deep urge to get as female as possible to assure the survival of his genetic material. In brief, men would get a mistress regardless of his wealth and nationality whenever he finds himself a chance. That's the nature of men. I suggest if your friend doesn't like it, then she may have to find a girl to marry to.

[skullwrecker_13]

woudn't say thailand is a confucian society..... besides confucian ideas seem a bit "dated" in my view at least

hmmm you only need to go down your local boozer here and keep your ears open - sooner or later some guy will be going on about his "bit on the side" (his mistress), you only need to look at statistics regarding infidelity in marriages etc to realise that men across the globe have tendency to not know where to put their cocks. its almost become the trademark of a noble man - a noble man doesn't cheat on his girl (and let's face it, a noble man shoudn't be a guy who doesn't cheat in his women, that ought to just be the social norm) so to completely label all thai men who have money as pussy-chasers is a bit stereotypical............ its down to the character of the individual. of course some women are attracted to men who have alot of money and some men are weak enough to fall over for a 20-something young lady opening her legs and telling him she love him (whilst she plunders his visa gold card and goes on a big shopping spree in zara, buys herself a new rolex and probably shows it off to anotehr guy she's probably seeing) but rich or not, its perfectly possible to have an affair with anybody - workmate, waitress at a bar you have you lunchtime coffee in, lady who lives down the road, crackwhore who sucks your c@ck for crack.................. its a f*cking thai stereotype (rich men always have mistresses) and for that matter an uncessary one. you get good and bad in every society and social group (subcultural, financial, religious, sexual etc).

as for thai guys not being the best men to see..... well the males within my family always taught me to respect women and that cheating is " a mug's game" ... men who cheat are nothing more than insecure unhappy people with empty emotional spaces in their lives..... im kinda guessing that maybe my clan are an anomaly in the sexually deviant thai society then......i've always found that alot of male groups will respect the guy who has multiple sexual partners and see him an example to live up to since sex is preety much something alot of guys endlessly talk about (and prove to level headed intelligent secure people just how insecure emotionally those people are).

thai marrying farangs...... corky is right most do not know their place and most see marrying a farang as some kind of social status but seem to forget basic manners.. ie - cultural norms. one example - a thai lady where i live happens to be married to an english guy, her topic of choice within in any group is to talk about money and some flat she owns. funny - middle/working class english cultural norms do not revolve around discussing money or financial matters actually. whatever happened to talking about the bloody weather.

clearly this lady lacks the education to realise that money matters are not something you discuss with recent aquaintances. oh - i don't see anything particularly eye opening about some filthy cheap second rate tart being married to bald 40-something mysoginistic (is that how its spelt?) escuse for a human being. yes some thai women married to farangs consider themselves superior but when you look at their relationship with their husband and peers, it doesn't take an expert in social sciences to identify they are quite obviously uneducated and are trying to cover up an inferiority complex. everybody has their insecurities, me included, but there is no need to consider yourself superior because you've married someone who happens to come from a country where the currency has more value than the baht. i wonder what those people think of socialism and sharing the wealth.............................(sarcasm/rhetorical question).im not exactly asking for royal courtesy but basic manners such as not considering yourself to be better than others because of finances or showing off about your new car etc - some basic manners such as mutual respect are universal .....*&*&*%£7hfegr43resbgrfe6td{PUH

This post has been edited by skullwrecker_13: May 20 2007, 03:57 PM

[tangawizi]

Funny the problem is oftain start when the girl like the gangsta boyz who she think she can change the guy.

The girl pick the wrong one and then they upset and bias on Thai male then they just find the alterrnative solution which is not always good.

Haha..i think most gals start out by going out with the gangsta and then end up marrying a boring steady salaryman!

Uhm...your friend's opinion is quite biased and she probably has no solid evidence to back up her claim, I say.

From the geneticist or the anthropologist's point of view, human are by nature hunter and gatherer. As a hunter who risks his life on daily basis, human male has a deep urge to get as female as possible to assure the survival of his genetic material. In brief, men would get a mistress regardless of his wealth and nationality whenever he finds himself a chance. That's the nature of men. I suggest if your friend doesn't like it, then she may have to find a girl to marry to.

it was a general opinion on her part, she's working as an air stewardess and has studied mandarin in university. But she was really bumped to find out she'd be operating flights to africa rather than chiina! yea..she's fishing for a mate regardless of his wealth and nationality. But one thing's for sure, she's not interested in african prime ministers! Freaken racial mindset

woudn't say thailand is a confucian society..... besides confucian ideas seem a bit "dated" in my view at least
as for thai guys not being the best men to see..... well the males within my family always taught me to respect women and that cheating is " a mug's game" ... men who cheat are nothing more than insecure unhappy people with empty emotional spaces in their lives..... im kinda guessing that maybe my clan are an anomaly in the sexually deviant thai society then......i've always found that alot of male groups will respect the guy who has multiple sexual partners and see him an example to live up to since sex is preety much something alot of guys endlessly talk about (and prove to level headed intelligent secure people just how insecure emotionally those people are).

errrrrrrr....bro, i think rich men always have mistresses is not necessarily true in some urban groups. Westerners tend to divorce and have multiple or serial marriages/partners. But asian men (and africans if i may add) tend to think it's socially a status symbol to be rich enuff to maintain a pretty young thing as a mistress. Sometimes, the wives even accept the status quo for the sake of financial dependence.

thai marrying farangs...... corky is right most do not know their place and most see marrying a farang as some kind of social status but seem to forget basic manners.. ie - cultural norms. one example - a thai lady where i live happens to be married to an english guy, her topic of choice within in any group is to talk about money and some flat she owns. funny - middle/working class english cultural norms do not revolve around discussing money or financial matters actually. whatever happened to talking about the bloody weather.

A thai woman married to a farang sees her social status symbol rise above those of her peers, who are probably of the more uneducated and crass lot (in your eyes) anyways. She made it, the others in the pile haven't. That's natural behavior right?

This is a mirror of the thai rich tycoon who maintains a pretty young thing as a mistress. He made it as alpha male, the other are losers.

It's all abt face and status.

A whole bunch of my galfrenz are actually learning how to cook thai curry this weekend from a thai woman who's married to a German farang... she nice... but she rike toorking abt money and how to spend it..

This post has been edited by tangawizi: May 21 2007, 04:44 PM

[AEROFORCE1]

Haha..i think most gals start out by going out with the gangsta and then end up marrying a boring steady salaryman!

Ahem Ahem You made me think that the girl is just like the carnivore ,you girls really know what and when to hunt


Do you like to date with Batman or Bruce Wayne

This post has been edited by AEROFORCE1: May 22 2007, 01:47 AM

[tangawizi]

I will be like the thai rich tycoon, marry Bruce Wayne and keep Batman as my mysterious lover!!

[AEROFORCE1]

Edit

This post has been edited by AEROFORCE1: May 22 2007, 08:30 AM

[corky]

Uhm...your friend's opinion is quite biased and she probably has no solid evidence to back up her claim, I say.

From the geneticist or the anthropologist's point of view, human are by nature hunter and gatherer. As a hunter who risks his life on daily basis, human male has a deep urge to get as female as possible to assure the survival of his genetic material. In brief, men would get a mistress regardless of his wealth and nationality whenever he finds himself a chance. That's the nature of men. I suggest if your friend doesn't like it, then she may have to find a girl to marry to.

bollocks yokie.... totalp bollock.
the evolution of man has meant that becoming bi-pedal meant women's hip bones had to re-structure drastically, meaning pre-mature births. this means women suddenlly had to spend time, 100% of it, taking care of the babies. human evolution of men had to change also, they had to give up the alpha male role who dominates several women, to actually help with rearing. that was a shift that sent modern man towards a confusion of old animal habits and modern human values.
in short your idea of males is a throw back to fomer times.
modern men who dont crave mistresses ( and there are many) are more evolved.

[skullwrecker_13]

tanga speaks many good points although i can't find a (in my eyes) reasonable link between making it and marrying a farang - plus you probably know what my views are on people who judge others by how much they have sitting in their bank accounts. basic manners are still basic manners and considering yourself higher because you have a husband who can pay for a new dress.... i don't so much think its a reflection of success, just personality. like said not every thai woman who has married a western bloke has that superiority mindset - plenty simply see themselves having met the right guy and he happens to come from a different side of the world.


corky and yokie - the position of women in society has changed alot generally (voting, job positions, balance of power) in the last 100 or so years but then again social change does take time to adjust and adapt to - alot of gender-assigned roles (cooking and cleaning, breadwinner) as well as gender assigned stereotypes (men drink more booze than women, women prefer chit-chat as opposed to sports etc... and when was the last you bought your baby daughter an action man figure for her birthday or caught your wife quoting arnold schwartzanegger lines such as "if it bleed we can kill it"...) are social constructs "constructed" by whatever society they are found in. but with changing times (well you get women in high ranking job positions these days...,. unthinkable in say victorian time) alot of these social constructs and stereotypes are begining to dissapear. the problem is not all people welcome social change and you do get some individuals who still hold onto "traditional" ways of thinking. plus some societies have changed more drastically and quickly than others - i don't really think a country like (and im not trying to make brash ethnocentric statements here) like say afganistan has progressed to the level that say sweden or singapore have in terms of male/female equality (sweden and singapore having head starts on social development etc) and re-assigning gender/sex based roles. anyway, women have a habit of not screwing things up the way men do and can make the strongest of men fall of their knees so let's not piss them off ok ! (still maintain women can't drive - j/k!). you both make good points though.

anyway going off topic..... so women and thai society - yay or nae

[yokie]

bollocks yokie.... totalp bollock.
the evolution of man has meant that becoming bi-pedal meant women's hip bones had to re-structure drastically, meaning pre-mature births. this means women suddenlly had to spend time, 100% of it, taking care of the babies. human evolution of men had to change also, they had to give up the alpha male role who dominates several women, to actually help with rearing. that was a shift that sent modern man towards a confusion of old animal habits and modern human values.
in short your idea of males is a throw back to fomer times.
modern men who dont crave mistresses ( and there are many) are more evolved.

I don't understand how modern men's new responsibility in rearing would stop them from acquiring many mistresses. I also think that a man who has many mistresses and at the same time is able to provide good support for his children would have a better chance of leaving his genetic material behind.

I rather doubt if there exists any modern men who wouldn't crave mistresses if he could afford two or three (or even if he couldn't afford it). Lemme ask you this, if there is a damn gorgeous girl with a great looking body wanting to sleep with ya, can you sincerely say that you absolutlely have no urge to have sex with her? Chances are that you might not cheat on your wife, but is it really possible for the mind not to crave for what it sees?

This post has been edited by yokie: Jul 12 2007, 04:07 AM

[tangawizi]

what corky is trying to insinuate is that western men who don't go for mistresses (but rather, they couch them in serial marriages) are evolutionarily more evolved than the thai rich tycoons who go for mistresses... its all about 'political correctness' in speech, but thought patterns and actions, ALL MEN are the same whatever their creed and color, they'd bed anything so long as they can get away with it without being found out or even if found out, they calculate that the penalty is not too heavy


in understanding such evolutionary behavior in men, i would have thought the enlightened men would 'choose' his choice of mate and not spread his genes indiscriminately, but how few and far between are these men?

[corky]

I don't understand how modern men's new responsibility in rearing would stop them from acquiring many mistresses. I also think that a man who has many mistresses and at the same time is able to provide good support for his children would have a better chance of leaving his genetic material behind.

I rather doubt if there exists any modern men who wouldn't crave mistresses if he could afford two or three (or even if he couldn't afford it). Lemme ask you this, if there is a damn gorgeous girl with a great looking body wanting to sleep with ya, can you sincerely say that you absolutlely have no urge to have sex with her? Chances are that you might not cheat on your wife, but is it really possible for the mind not to crave for what it sees?

well, not everypone is capable of understanding.
i dont want a misstress. but i guess as usual you will make up your own mind about me and my situation based on your character projected on everyone else.

what corky is trying to insinuate is that western men who don't go for mistresses (but rather, they couch them in serial marriages) are evolutionarily more evolved than the thai rich tycoons who go for mistresses... its all about 'political correctness' in speech, but thought patterns and actions, ALL MEN are the same whatever their creed and color, they'd bed anything so long as they can get away with it without being found out or even if found out, they calculate that the penalty is not too heavy
in understanding such evolutionary behavior in men, i would have thought the enlightened men would 'choose' his choice of mate and not spread his genes indiscriminately, but how few and far between are these men?

i never brought the race/nationality into it. culture sure but not race. please dont explain for me i can do that for myself thanks.
and all men will not bed anything be it because of religion/creed/culture or just common sense.
i hate it when people say all men this and that. who gave you guys the riight to represent all men/all thai men/anyone but yourselves.
maybe i am a freak but no, i wont cheat on my wife at least not in my current state of sanity/insanity

speak for yourselves guys...... and dont hide behind your race/sex


ps any thai men here agree that not all men/thai men are dogs?

now fellas read whatever you want into what i said and feel free to tell me what i am/feel.

but i swear on my sons lives i have not ever and intend never to cheat on my wife. and i have had oppurtunity. perhaps i am just more mature...
no offence. i remember what its like to have more hormones than control. some day you may grow out of it and than again you might not. thats your deal.

[tangawizi]

hey corky, if u think i didn't read your insinuation abt race/culture right, by all means, please explain what did u mean with your sentence:

"modern men who dont crave mistresses ( and there are many) are more evolved."

who are these modern men (and there are many) who are evolved?? from what u have further written it sounds like u are saying u are one of them modern men who don't crave mistresses, and that those men who crave mistresses are lesser evolved... who are these lesser evolved men?

[corky]

hey corky, if u think i didn't read your insinuation abt race/culture right, by all means, please explain what did u mean with your sentence:

"modern men who dont crave mistresses ( and there are many) are more evolved."

who are these modern men (and there are many) who are evolved?? from what u have further written it sounds like u are saying u are one of them modern men who don't crave mistresses, and that those men who crave mistresses are lesser evolved... who are these lesser evolved men?

you answered that yourself in your own post.

"modern men who dont crave mistresses ( and there are many) are more evolved."

it means exactly what it says. those who dont need mistresses are more evolved.
if YOU want tor ead racism into that then thats up to you. but it simply means exactly what it says.
yes i regard those men who crave multiple partners to be less evolved. and its quite easily explained if you have a few brain cells to understand it.
simply enough all men like most mammals in out hostory as more primitive men managed harems of women like chimps and gorillas (our very close relatives still do) however as we evolved to walk upright the bones of the pelvis were forced to change shape, making them more narrow and meaning women could no longer carry the baby as long as we had done previously. this means in comparison to other mammals our babies are born prematurely. this is easily seen by virtue of the fact babies cannot walk,stand,move,feed or take care of themselves at ALL when they are born. this means women needed much more hlep for them and the baby to survive. thus men had to evolve. for a man to be committed to the baby means a better survival chance. (i am not saying it is/was always necessary but it definately was a hige advantage hence the evolution.
now this was a sudden swing in evolutionary pressure and has led to the male dilemma of today. many men (but not all still have the lusty more primitive urges to fu-k around (in all races) but also the newer urge to commit. that balance is there and its fighting itself out. across the globe and through all races we see the full spectrum. them man who obeys his animalisitic urges to fu-k around and the family man who truly commits in every sense to monogomy and all variances in between.
just like there are people whoes teeth show a more primitive structure forom when our jaws were bigger and the brain was smaller, who need to have wisdom teeth pulled. am i saying these people are inferior? no pulling th teeth is necessary because the jaw has not kept pace with the evolution of the head and skull. we all have primitve thorw backs its natures way of ensuring that if necessary we can swing back in another evolutionry change. same thing with our diets and the fact we crave fat and sweets, in our evolution we could not get enough of those things, whereas we had plenty of vegetable around us. our tatse evolved to insure we chased what we needed, hence our sweet tooths and liking of fatty stuffs, but again evolution has swung, and those triats are now a disadvantage (obesity/diabetes/heart disease. i hlove fat/sweets so i am a throw-back in that sense.
like it or not, modern men are far less promiscuous than our ancestors and whether you will admit the reaosns to yourself you cannot deny that around the world(and thorugh all races(i suppose i have to keep saying that in case you mis-concsrew it again ) ) men are less and less promiscous meaning quite simply its more primitive to be promiscous. at no point was i dentifying this as a thai/asian/white/black or whatever trait. you ddi that all by yourself
ps ask skull wrecker (who is thai) if wants to fu-k around....i already know that answer.
now stop brading us all with you "all men are dongs" attitude and kindly speak for yourself and let the rest of us do the same.

[yokie]

you answered that yourself in your own post.

it means exactly what it says. those who dont need mistresses are more evolved.
if YOU want tor ead racism into that then thats up to you. but it simply means exactly what it says.
yes i regard those men who crave multiple partners to be less evolved. and its quite easily explained if you have a few brain cells to understand it.
simply enough all men like most mammals in out hostory as more primitive men managed harems of women like chimps and gorillas (our very close relatives still do) however as we evolved to walk upright the bones of the pelvis were forced to change shape, making them more narrow and meaning women could no longer carry the baby as long as we had done previously. this means in comparison to other mammals our babies are born prematurely. this is easily seen by virtue of the fact babies cannot walk,stand,move,feed or take care of themselves at ALL when they are born. this means women needed much more hlep for them and the baby to survive. thus men had to evolve. for a man to be committed to the baby means a better survival chance. (i am not saying it is/was always necessary but it definately was a hige advantage hence the evolution.
now this was a sudden swing in evolutionary pressure and has led to the male dilemma of today. many men (but not all still have the lusty more primitive urges to fu-k around (in all races) but also the newer urge to commit. that balance is there and its fighting itself out. across the globe and through all races we see the full spectrum. them man who obeys his animalisitic urges to fu-k around and the family man who truly commits in every sense to monogomy and all variances in between.
just like there are people whoes teeth show a more primitive structure forom when our jaws were bigger and the brain was smaller, who need to have wisdom teeth pulled. am i saying these people are inferior? no pulling th teeth is necessary because the jaw has not kept pace with the evolution of the head and skull. we all have primitve thorw backs its natures way of ensuring that if necessary we can swing back in another evolutionry change. same thing with our diets and the fact we crave fat and sweets, in our evolution we could not get enough of those things, whereas we had plenty of vegetable around us. our tatse evolved to insure we chased what we needed, hence our sweet tooths and liking of fatty stuffs, but again evolution has swung, and those triats are now a disadvantage (obesity/diabetes/heart disease. i hlove fat/sweets so i am a throw-back in that sense.
like it or not, modern men are far less promiscuous than our ancestors and whether you will admit the reaosns to yourself you cannot deny that around the world(and thorugh all races(i suppose i have to keep saying that in case you mis-concsrew it again ) ) men are less and less promiscous meaning quite simply its more primitive to be promiscous. at no point was i dentifying this as a thai/asian/white/black or whatever trait. you ddi that all by yourself
ps ask skull wrecker (who is thai) if wants to fu-k around....i already know that answer.
now stop brading us all with you "all men are dongs" attitude and kindly speak for yourself and let the rest of us do the same.

1. How exactly does men having 2 or more wives literally translate into fu-king around?
2. In islamic culture, it is possible for men to have up to 4 wives. Is islamic doctrine more promiscous than any other religion by your definition?
3. In your earilier writing, you said, men who don't crave mistresses are more evolved, and now you say men who don't need mistresses are more evolved. Truthfully, I don't think they mean the same thing.

[skullwrecker_13]

ps ask skull wrecker (who is thai) if wants to fu-k around....i already know that answer.
now stop brading us all with you "all men are dongs" attitude and kindly speak for yourself and let the rest of us do the same.

1. How exactly does men having 2 or more wives literally translate into fu-king around?
2. In islamic culture, it is possible for men to have up to 4 wives. Is islamic doctrine more promiscous than any other religion by your definition?
3. In your earilier writing, you said, men who don't crave mistresses are more evolved, and now you say men who don't need mistresses are more evolved. Truthfully, I don't think they mean the same thing.

@ yokie - Islamic culture isn't exactly revered and respected by a significant number of westerners and one of the reasons many of its detractors quote is the position of women within islam. I personally question why Islamic doctrine makes it possible for men to have more than one wife and why women should cover themselves up (but with that said I am quite prejudiced against Islam and I will admit that). I woudn't say myself its promiscuous due to the rules regarding adultery although I am misinformed on the topic. I do find the way women are treated in some Islamic countries disgusting (and I am sure there are people out there who find my views disgusting too). I don't think using Islam was a good example.

Anyway I would like to use this opportunity to commend your command of the English language - most non-native English speakers have a poor command of both everyday and formal language but your command of (written) English is practically flawless. I know a considerable number of people who have been living here for a while or have been specifically studying English here whose English is still - by my standards anyway - comparable to that of a baby.

@ corky - well I always get compared to Mark Antony from the television series "Rome" (and if you haven't seen it i recommend that you do), one reason being my love of women but once I am in a relationship, I devote myself to my "better half" out of moral conviction (men should never have more than one partner at any one time - PERIOD!). I also beleive that women should be open to the same opportunities presented to men and what women do with their bodies is strictly their own business (so if they want to sell themselves or go for an abortion is their problem, not someone else's....). Anyway what's the point of devoting your time and efforts to somebody when you are lying.
Women in general are better administrators than men and are somewhat more level-headed but the feminist who screams that all men are useless and mysoginistic has issues herself which need to be tended...... I find that most feminists are sexually frustrated and cannot find a decent man

This post has been edited by skullwrecker_13: Jul 18 2007, 05:04 AM

[tangawizi]

Feminists or not, it's a fact of life that men and women will invariably have more than one partner in their lifetimes.

Let's not split hairs by asking if we mean mistresses or spouses, boyfrens or husbands...

Having more than one spouse or mistress (la di da), even if that is morally wrong in the eyes of men who are westerners or asian, in evolutionary terms, it doesn't make you any less evolved than one who sticks with one partner.

My issue with Cork is that he views sticking to one partner as evolutionary more superior than the men who don't stick to one partner and cultivate a harem. It's nonsense what he's saying.. it's Eugenics*, he's trying to draw moral convictions from evolution, which will always give rise to nasty connotations..not just in scientific terms (Science should never be inveighed with morality) but also in religious and cultural terms. With a view like Corky's, one will easily jump to the concussion that all Christians or Hindus or Buddhists are evolutionary more 'evolved' (advanced) than the Muslims by virtue of fact that they have shed the practice of the harem along long time ago... which is bollocks.

I think he's completely wrong in using the word 'evolved'. Perhaps he could have said 'evolutionary more successful in natural selection'.. Yes, perhaps societies which promote monogamy are more stable as their strategy for natural selection does not require that much in-fighting than those societies which promote polygamy and mistresses outside of the marriage. But surely the verdict is still out on this.

*Eugenics : from Greek eugenes or "...good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities"[/i]

[corky]

1. How exactly does men having 2 or more wives literally translate into fu-king around?
2. In islamic culture, it is possible for men to have up to 4 wives. Is islamic doctrine more promiscous than any other religion by your definition?
3. In your earilier writing, you said, men who don't crave mistresses are more evolved, and now you say men who don't need mistresses are more evolved. Truthfully, I don't think they mean the same thing.

1. well it does.
2. 2 fine if islam suits you. and you want those ives that is your yours and hopefully your wives choice.....
3. i would argu that those who crave and those ho have are essentially the same thing.

@ corky - well I always get compared to Mark Antony from the television series "Rome" (and if you haven't seen it i recommend that you do), one reason being my love of women but once I am in a relationship, I devote myself to my "better half" out of moral conviction (men should never have more than one partner at any one time - PERIOD!). I also beleive that women should be open to the same opportunities presented to men and what women do with their bodies is strictly their own business (so if they want to sell themselves or go for an abortion is their problem, not someone else's....). Anyway what's the point of devoting your time and efforts to somebody when you are lying.
Women in general are better administrators than men and are somewhat more level-headed but the feminist who screams that all men are useless and mysoginistic has issues herself which need to be tended...... I find that most feminists are sexually frustrated and cannot find a decent man

ill check it out if i can. may mean a trip to mbk...

Feminists or not, it's a fact of life that men and women will invariably have more than one partner in their lifetimes.

Let's not split hairs by asking if we mean mistresses or spouses, boyfrens or husbands...

Having more than one spouse or mistress (la di da), even if that is morally wrong in the eyes of men who are westerners or asian, in evolutionary terms, it doesn't make you any less evolved than one who sticks with one partner.
My issue with Cork is that he views sticking to one partner as evolutionary more superior than the men who don't stick to one partner and cultivate a harem. It's nonsense what he's saying.. it's Eugenics*, he's trying to draw moral convictions from evolution, which will always give rise to nasty connotations..not just in scientific terms (Science should never be inveighed with morality) but also in religious and cultural terms. With a view like Corky's, one will easily jump to the concussion that all Christians or Hindus or Buddhists are evolutionary more 'evolved' (advanced) than the Muslims by virtue of fact that they have shed the practice of the harem along long time ago... which is bollocks.
I think he's completely wrong in using the word 'evolved'. Perhaps he could have said 'evolutionary more successful in natural selection'.. Yes, perhaps societies which promote monogamy are more stable as their strategy for natural selection does not require that much in-fighting than those societies which promote polygamy and mistresses outside of the marriage. But surely the verdict is still out on this.
*Eugenics : from Greek eugenes or "...good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities"[/i]

once agian you are applying races and religioons to something i said. allow me to speak for myself please. you can apply those races and cultutres/religions to my posty if you like but it was never my intention nor do i beleieve that. firts off many islamic men who could have more than one wife choose not too......and many christain men choose to have more than one. the only one apllying races /religions here is you. please stop.
who is tying to draw moral convictions? again you assuptions are way off and honestly slightly insulting.

[skullwrecker_13]

^ You might be able to watch it online (its a HBO/BBC production) - its very good and despite funding from an American establishment, the (Roman) characters speak with English accents and use archaic, eloquent speech, making a change from listening to that nasal, screeching noise (no apoligies, I don't like the American accent, get over it!).

The second series which documents the fall of Julius Caesar and the rise of Octavian is the better of the two I think - maybe website such as quicksilver.com will have it.

[helloworld]

AEROFORCE1:"the status of women in Thai society is greater then men."

You're joking right ??? Women never have higher status than men in ANY society on earth. Thailand has never been ruled by female. Some western countries have been ruled by female. Thailand female's role are probably among the worst in the world. Apart from academic achievement, I don't see how thai women can be treated as equal to male at all.

This post has been edited by helloworld: Oct 26 2007, 12:47 PM