I think it is safe to say that it’s a men thing not a race thing. Let’s take a little test…
I’ve got one brother-in-law who is busy “screwing over” his wife now that she is married with kids (talk about getting screwed)
I’ve got another brother-in-law who live and acts like a saint (it’s very annoying - and I think that secretly he is a control freak)
I’ve got another brother-in-law who I think is cool and his behavior is more normal - not perfect but not egregious either.
When I got married about 6 different couples who are friends with my wife and I got married. 2 are now divorced, 1 after kids, 1 after 1 year. 1 after 7 years.
Of any of the above - guess which are the foreigners?
[quote=“James651”]Gosh, since being in Taiwan, I’ve heard so many stories from Taiwanese women about how they were screwed over by western men, thus, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a bad idea for Taiwanese girls to hook up with westerners.
Lydia, you say that you won’t date Taiwanese guys, why is that? Please explain fully.
Granted, I know that Taiwanese are often considered controlling and crazy in relationships, but Taiwan is a value progressive Asian country, so I’m sure not all of them are like that;moreover, do you know every Taiwanese guy in Taiwan?[/quote]
Similarly, I’ve heard many stories from western men and how they got screwed over by Taiwanese women. I kid you not. Some girls actually have a checklist to assess their victims: Monthly salary, occupation, qualifications…
Me mate had a blind date in the Pig & Whistle last year. She arrives with a girl friend and assessment form in hand.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]You know, if you always have the same problem it is typically your fault and not the fault of others.
Maybe you seek out the wrong men.
Maybe you have traits that make men want to get away from you.
Maybe both.
Are you one of those girls who acts and dresses like she THINKS white girls do in order to get a western man?
You know the ones, too loud, too much makeup, too little clothes… “but this is how the girls on Sex and The City are”…? (ARG)
If you are, the problem is you. Cuz men don’t typically dig that shit. You have to dress and act like you want to be treated and seek out the men who are attracted to the kind of person you are.
[/quote]
[quote=“stan”][quote=“James651”]Gosh, since being in Taiwan, I’ve heard so many stories from Taiwanese women about how they were screwed over by western men, thus, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a bad idea for Taiwanese girls to hook up with westerners.
[/quote]
Similarly, I’ve heard many stories from western men and how they got screwed over by Taiwanese women. [/quote]
And I know stories of western women being screwed over by Taiwanese guys. So looks like it all evens out in the end. Everyone is screwing everyone.
Sounds like Humanity to me. Not race.
[quote=“lydiaZ”]
I don’t like Asians ( too complicated to explain why). [/quote]
How complicated could it be? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, Asians, shit that’s a lot of folk out there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in Asia at all? So you don’t like your father, your mother, your relatives, your friends, your neigbours, your mailman… the philippinos, the malays, tibetans, chinese, korean, japanese, mongols, ainu, papua new guineans, singaporeans, thai, cambodians, vietnamese, polynesians. dang.
Tigerman, Congratulations on your Anniversary. Your wife and son are awesome, always with a smile on their faces, just like you!!! :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
maybe you oughta try browsing through some of those mail order husbands catalogues… there’s bound to be one lying about somewheres?
In all seriousness, maybe you ought to take a new approach and change things up… if your relationships are all falling smilarly awry, there might be just a hint that you’re doing something wrong. If that’s the case, I suggest deciphering what the problem is and making due change. Say, for example, broadening your perspectives might help you to realize better potential boyfriends by allowing yourself to meet a better circle of people. There are good and bad foreigner/asians alike out there.
[quote=“tash”][quote=“stan”]Me mate had a blind date in the Pig & Whistle last year. She arrives with a girl friend and assessment form in hand.
He told her after the first question to sod off.[/quote] Did that really happen? I mean, she really had the form?
That’s hilarious!
I want to meet one of those girls. It would be really interesting to talk to them.[/quote]
It really happened!
What REALLY got him was when the two girls compared his answers with that on the other already completed forms. It’s like, “Yes! He earns twice as much as the dude we interviewed earlier tonight at the Flying Pig!”
[quote=“stan”][quote=“tash”][quote=“stan”]Me mate had a blind date in the Pig & Whistle last year. She arrives with a girl friend and assessment form in hand.
He told her after the first question to sod off.[/quote] Did that really happen? I mean, she really had the form?
That’s hilarious!
I want to meet one of those girls. It would be really interesting to talk to them.[/quote]
It really happened!
What REALLY got him was when the two girls compared his answers with that on the other already completed forms. It’s like, “Yes! He earns twice as much as the dude we interviewed earlier tonight at the Flying Pig!”[/quote]
I’m not certain why we are critical of girls/women who are looking at a man’s wallet size when considering a potential match.
Bit of a double standard, that once again the women come out of on the bottom.
I mean, when men stray and have outside affairs, it is often explained, and even justified, as a natural tendency that occurs as a result of our hormonal difference and years of genetics and evolutionary workings.
In the wild, male animals endeavor to show off their genetic strongpoints, and females select mates based on a number of factors, including genetic superiority and the ability to provide protection, a nest and food.
None of us human animals ever complain that female birds (the winged type) are selective using factors other than love… and again, we sometimes explain and even excuse male affairs as something that occurs naturally…
So, why shouldn’t the girls size us men up, according to whatever factors are important to them?
I think it’s the demographics in here. I mean, English teachers earn sod all and they’d certainly prefer not to remain the bottom feeders in Taiwan’s love chain. :raspberry:
I think it’s the demographics in here. I mean, English teachers earn sod all and they’d certainly prefer not to remain the bottom feeders in Taiwan’s love chain. :raspberry:
HG[/quote]
Not necessarily. You can make relatively good money teaching English in Taiwan. Plus, the foreign English teacher also has the foreign passport… and if a woman is looking at money, she is also likely looking at future mobility ability as well.
Moreover, money is only one of several factors that women use when sizing us men up.
[quote=“Tigerman”]I’m not certain why we are critical of girls/women who are looking at a man’s wallet size when considering a potential match.
[/quote]
I don
I’m surprised that you find it surprising. Personally, I wouldn’t want to go out with someone whose interest in me was based (to any major degree) on how rich I was. Would you? I think this is a fairly common viewpoint, hence the criticism. Money (in my opinion) is a pretty poor basis for a relationship. … for richer, for poorer … and all that.
I’d equate it with physical beauty: of course it will always play a role - but if it is the primary reason for a (long-term) relationship, I’d think the person was pretty shallow. Same with money.
I don’t understand this: If a woman is interested in a man for the size of his package I’d think she’s shallow. If a man cheats on a woman, I’d think he’s a bastard. Are you implying that a common reaction to a man cheating on his wife is to go “Ah, well, he’s a man. Can’t help it really”? Maybe i’ve misinterpreted you, cause I’d say a common viewpoint is that cheating is much the worse of the two …
Anyway, this whole ‘slave to genetics’ thing is a bit silly - it’s relevant for anthropolgists studying societies, but not for judging individual behaviour (assuming those individuals have functioning brains).
Actually I think these girls are refreshing and upfront! I think many girls do this but in a much more subtle way. These girls get all the important issues that eventually come out after many dates over before the dating begins! How Germanically efficient!
Of course I would make it clear to them before proceeding into the relationship, a list of my expectations. If the size of my wallet and the origin of my passport is required as a minimum standard, I would point out the required number of times that they were required to “do it” and ask for a list of dishes she is capable of cooking.
You don’t think women make such an evaluation? I think that they do, and I think that they are justified in doing so.
We can talk about how shallow this and that is, but in fact, in most places and relationships between humans in the world, it is the woman who gives up the most once she eneters into a marriage. Its usually the woman who quits school to support her husband’s education… its usually the woman who interupts or aborts her career… its usually the woman who rears the children… its usually the woman who does the housework, or most of it… its usually the woman who follows the man around as his career develops… its usually the woman who takes the subordinate role in the relationship. Not saying that all or any of us enlightened Forumosans subject our wives to these things… but, in the majority of relationships around the world and throughout history, it has been and is the women who sacrifice the most in any given marriage relationship.
Why should they not be concerned about their financial well-being before making such a sacrifice… a sacrifice that I dare say most men would not accept?
Easy for men to say, IMO.
I’m not necessarily surprised that this happens. I am merely wondering at how we (generally) regard these similar approaches in a different way.
What am I talking about?
Well, females look for a man who can provide and support both her and her children, and who can pass on goo genes to those children.
Males look for a female with good breeding and nuturing abilities. Those attributes that females have that attract men to them are, afaik, resultant from years and years of genetic selection… broad hips enable an easier birth, and possibly many births of our offspring… healthy breasts are good for nurturing our offspring… beautiful hair indicates a healthy body, etc…
Both females and males are concerned about their offspring, although in somewhat differing ways. These concerns come from the same natural source.
Yet, when we act on these concerns, even if unconciously, we (generally) regard these acts somewhat differently.
Not necessarily the prevailing reaction, but, yes, the tendency to excuse male infidelity is often, even commonly excused. More so, in my experience, than is the tendency of some women to size up a man’s genes or his wallet.
Well, I am talking about societal reactions, not individual behaviors.
OK. We’re talking about slightly different things: overall societies behaviour vs. individual behaviour. But hey, societies are made up of individuals so it’s all much the same.
You don’t think women make such an evaluation? I think that they do, and I think that they are justified in doing so.[/quote]
I’m sure they do too - but I was questioning the extent (and how). In particular, compare two possible sentiments:
“I love him because I know he’ll try to protect and provide for me whatever our situation”
“I love him because I know we’ll be financially secure together”
They both basically conform to your genetically required ‘man as the provider’, but one is about the man and one is about his bank account. I think it’s pretty obvious which statement is more acceptable to the male 50% of society (maybe except the really rich ones).
[quote=“Tigerman”]We can talk about how shallow this and that is, but in fact, in most places and relationships between humans in the world, it is the woman who gives up the most once she eneters into a marriage. Its usually the woman who quits school to support her husband’s education… its usually the woman who interupts or aborts her career… its usually the woman who rears the children… its usually the woman who does the housework, or most of it… its usually the woman who follows the man around as his career develops… its usually the woman who takes the subordinate role in the relationship. Not saying that all or any of us enlightened Forumosans subject our wives to these things… but, in the majority of relationships around the world and throughout history, it has been and is the women who sacrifice the most in any given marriage relationship.
Why should they not be concerned about their financial well-being before making such a sacrifice… a sacrifice that I dare say most men would not accept?[/quote]
Firstly, we’re talking about modern western societies here aren’t we? There have been several threads about the difference in attitude in a moderately westernised place like Taiwan - so I don’t think you can really generalise about “relationships around the world and throughout history”. I can’t really say whether people were critical of overly-materialistic girlfriends in Burma 200 years ago
That said, of course what you said still applies to us modern caring-sharing metrosexual enlightened westerners. However, my main problem is that you seem to be distilling everything down into a very cold business deal: The woman cooks and produces children, and the man pays. Obviously a woman should only enter into a deal like that if the pay is good enough …
Entirely missing from that is the more emotional side of the relationship. Do you really think that when a woman decides to marry/have children she’s thinking that the money’s better as a housewife, or she’s thinking that it’s a sacrifice worth making because of intangibles like love, companionship, desire for children, etc.?
Now I’m not saying that all decisions about marriage etc. are made from a pure ‘love is all that matters’ perspective. There are real world issues like money which are balanced too. But being rich isn’t the same as being willing or able to provide everything a family needs. After all, noone would think twice if a girl dumped her boyfriend because he was a lazy unemployable slob who couldn’t be bothered to go out and get a decent job.
Easy for men to say, IMO.[/quote]
Hmm … maybe. But don’t you think it’s true? I do.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Both females and males are concerned about their offspring, although in somewhat differing ways. These concerns come from the same natural source.
Yet, when we act on these concerns, even if unconciously, we (generally) regard these acts somewhat differently.[/quote]
Perhaps because we have developed intellectually beyond those ape-like instincts. Over the last couple of thousand years (maybe more) we have developed a society with rules to guide us beyond our genetic predispostion to hump anything that moves.
Societies develop on a completely different timescale to evolution, so it’s not at all surprising that genetic urges from the age of wooly mammoths are not just accepted.
I don’t agree - but we’re down to personal experience and opinion here. We’re even living in a country where only one of those actions is illegal (albeit widely done)!
[quote=“david”]I’m sure they do too - but I was questioning the extent (and how). In particular, compare two possible sentiments:
“I love him because I know he’ll try to protect and provide for me whatever our situation”
“I love him because I know we’ll be financially secure together”
They both basically conform to your genetically required ‘man as the provider’, but one is about the man and one is about his bank account. I think it’s pretty obvious which statement is more acceptable to the male 50% of society (maybe except the really rich ones).[/quote]
What is the difference between him providing for her and him having a large bank account so that she is financially secure?
I’m not (necessarily). There was a post that referred to some Taiwanese women bringing a form to evaluate some guy’s assets at a bar. I’m dicussing this in very generalized terms.
There are differences, for certain… but, IMO, only in matters of degree.
Well, I’m not the most articulate poster around here. Of course I believe in things like love and all that… however, I believe that there are other acceptable conditions as well. I knew that I was going to spend most of my adult life in Asia. I knew that it would likely be easier for me to settle down with an Asian woman in Asia than it would be to do the same with a western woman. I was married at a fairly young age (26), and all of the women I knew were classmates of mine in law and grad school. I didn’t think that any of them would be interested in dropping their lives and education to accompany me on my adventure in Asia.
Cold and calculating? Perhaps. But, that doesn’t mean that I did not fall in love with my wife. And I didn’t marry my wife simply because she is Asian, either. I love her.
Not necessarily. See my remarks above.
I think a woman considers many factors.
But, being poor could mean not being able to provide everything a family needs, no matter how much love there is.
Money alone would not make a good base. I agree. But, neither does love alone make a good base.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Both females and males are concerned about their offspring, although in somewhat differing ways. These concerns come from the same natural source.
Yet, when we act on these concerns, even if unconciously, we (generally) regard these acts somewhat differently.[/quote]
Maybe we have… anyway, the fact is, our distant ancestors didn’t hump anything that moved. The men were selective… and that is why women have evolved as they have physically, and the women were selective, too, and men have evolved similarly.
I agree… except, I think these urges are much stronger than you perhaps believe.
Did you know that per Taiwan law, seeking a prostitute and engaging her services is not illegal… but, being a prostitute and selling her services is illegal.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“david”]I’m sure they do too - but I was questioning the extent (and how). In particular, compare two possible sentiments:
“I love him because I know he’ll try to protect and provide for me whatever our situation”
“I love him because I know we’ll be financially secure together”
They both basically conform to your genetically required ‘man as the provider’, but one is about the man and one is about his bank account. I think it’s pretty obvious which statement is more acceptable to the male 50% of society (maybe except the really rich ones).[/quote]
What is the difference between him providing for her and him having a large bank account so that she is financially secure?
[/quote]
There could be a lot of difference.
To some women the difference is huge, to others slight, but everyone who goes through a long term relationship will inevitably come across a situation in which this difference will become self-evident. It’s unavoidable.
I could give you lots of examples but no time now, so here’s a very extreme one that takes us back to basics (but you can think of all kinds of less extreme, every day life situations):
Ann got married to John. John was very wealthy. They had a baby. Life couldn’t be better. Then war came. Everyone lost their possessions. Money didn’t have any value. Ann, John and baby ended up in a refugee camp. Food was scarce. Men who didn’t find ways to provide for their families saw their babies die. Then it got worse, refugee camp was invaded by the enemy. Some managed to escape, others didn’t. Some women were raped, others had someone to defend them. Etc, etc…
Guess what kind of a man Ann would have wanted John to be. Wealthy or brave? Wealthy or resourcefull? Wealthy or smart?
Did that really happen? I mean, she really had the form?
:flowers:
