Foxy
- 2017-01-15
Yes, but Pigsy's not alone in his fantasy-world. At least when he goes back to Australia he'll be able to watch all the episodes of 'Big Brother' that his mummy will have recorded for him, lol.
Trump diplomacy
- 2017-01-15
No argument. But a few questions, if you will.
If a woman is aware of that social programming, but still chooses to marry a wealthy man, precisely because she desires a comfortable life, prefers not to work in an office but would rather be a full-time mother, raising her children and running a household, do you think that is her prerogative? Do you condemn her decision even if it is not one that you would make?
What about a man who chooses to marry based purely on beauty and requires that his wife be a woman that, voluntarily, stays at home with the children?
If they are honest with their partner about their desires, do you agree with Shag-mart Shaun that this is a form of prostitution?
Curious
- 2017-01-15
Agreed!
It's like visiting Disney Land: It's all ok to give a lot of money to Disney and get some fantasy back, as long as we don't believe it.
Same for watching a movie: The fantasy is refreshing for the mind and helps to relax, but we let it go when the movie ends.
I am confident that SB will do the same after his return to Australia.
Foxy
- 2017-01-15
There is a repetitive loop there that he
can understand one day if he wants, and he can get out of the loop. Meanwhile, I wish
him a safe and pleasant stay in Pattaya.
I join you in wishing Pigsy a safe and pleasant trip. My only gripe with his postings is his incessant need to try to convince people that life in Pattaya is real. It's not!
People such as Pigsy go to places like Pattaya in order to escape 'reality' and indulge in 'fairyland' for a while. There's nothing wrong with that providing you accept it for what it IS, rather than what you WANT it to be!
Curious
- 2017-01-15
Good post, Foxy
I totally agree with the work uniforms they wear (I would wear the same, and less, if I were selling sex). And they cannot be expected to behave like autonomous women if they were raised to be "princesses". SB is attracted to the princess look but does not want the accompanying attitude of dependency: There is a repetitive loop there that he can understand one day if he wants, and he can get out of the loop. Meanwhile, I wish him a safe and pleasant stay in Pattaya.
Foxy
- 2017-01-14
You are with me so far?
You are 100% spot-on! However, I believe the dichotomy you so eloquently portray has been further 'emphasised' by the one-child-policy in China. It's one thing to spend your childhood being treated like a 'princess' when you have siblings; another thing when you're an only child.
My own daughter is, and always will be, 'my little princess', but she grew up with an older and younger brother. By the time she was a teenager all the 'trappings' of WANTING to be treated like a 'princess' had long gone. In contrast, a lifelong friend of mine has a daughter roughly the same age as my own daughter. Raised as an only-child, she is definitely what we could refer to as a 'spoiled brat', and she's now 30 years old!
As for your comment about Pigsy's 'girls', you're correct, but I look at those clothes as being nothing other than their 'work uniform'. After all, that's what it is, right? They are 'sales-girls'. It's difficult to sell sex if you don't look sexy.
Curious
- 2017-01-14
SB, lazy is one cause.
But another cause, very big, is the Cinderella Syndrome (SB, please stay with me): Little girls are given dolls, doll houses, little pink strollers where to place the dolls, little kitchen sets (little stove and sink with dishes, etc). Their mother buys them princess-themed dresses and wall paper for their bedroom and reads princess stories to them in bed just before falling to sleep (when their conscious mind is in the process of switching to the unconscious). Fathers call them "my little princess" and tell them how pretty they are. Boys are not treated like that. In early adolescence, girls are given/allowed to buy some make up and clothes that emphasize their sexuality and make it obvious to anybody who is looking (to various degrees of sexiness). Male teens are not given make up and sexy clothes; they are given tools and clothes that allow them to do things and move/run/jump/hit/wrestle.
You are with me so far?
Yourself, as a child, were not given dolls and little pink strollers to push on the sidewalk while walking beside mom. Right?
But your sister was given those things. Right?
You are intelligent, SB, you can recognize where the programming comes from: It starts when the baby comes home from the hospital: Pink clothes and blankets for the girls, blue clothes and blankets for the boys.
All of this is unconscious programming that requires A LOT OF AWARENESS to toss away. Years of deprogramming.
But the deprogramming won't happen in societies where girls are expected to get married, have babies, stay home and take care of the families. It's impossible for the deprogramming to happen to a substantial extent in such circumstances because the behavior is reinforced by society including movies, books, fashion magazines, the mothers, the fathers, etc etc
Now, bring these elements to a backward environment where the parents and grandparents (and sometimes great grandparents) still nurture values from the 1950's, and you see how hard it is for a pretty girl, that all the boys want, not to dress provocatively and expect some rewards in return.
Take as an example, the photos of Thai girls that you post online: They are all dressed provocatively. You are attracted to them. You never posted a picture of an oriental girl in mountain climbing gear or downhill ski gear or motorcycle gear or karate/judo uniform. All your girls have short dresses, no sleeves, some generous cleavage, perfect hair and a lot of makeup. They belong to the Cinderella group, SB.
Are you becoming more aware of the dichotomy?