If you've never met the writer, you can't help but get a impression of them from their submissions. Case and point: Caveman's submission titled "What Women Want." Reading it I don't think I was ever as much in love with myself as this man is (though I've probably come close), but I do remember thinking much the way he does about the subject. I think I was 25.
Chuckling my way through the submission I came upon the thought that if this man doesn't modify his thinking, and start really paying attention to women and what they really want, that when his youth fades along with his hairline, he'll probably end up being a stereotypical resident monger with a bad attitude. Worse, he'll probably end up thinking the only value he has to women is the money in his wallet. It doesn't need to be this way. But it is a valid way to look at these things when you're at a certain age. Heck, Stick agreed with him so much he gave it a Green Star.
On the other hand Stick also gave a Green Star to a submission by JTG titled "What We Think Are Mistakes Western Men Make With Thai Woman" and went on to comment (paraphrased) "Brilliant! Wake up, White man! You bring plenty to the table.." I guess you could say he agreed with her submission as well.
The differences in the way these two writers think are HUGE. Can they both be right? It's possible, but it would depend on what each expects to get from a relationship. You would be forgiven for thinking there is a vast difference in age between these two writers, but knowing one and working out from clues about the other, it's rather ironic they're approximately the same number of calendar years in age. I suppose maturity now becomes the issue, as maturity can be independent of age.
My personal take on these two submissions and their differences, is that the two writers are simply interested in different types of relationships. If I was Caveman though I'd take note. You'd be surprised how easily some of the older guys can reel in the women in much the same manner JTG denotes.
Now just when I'd reconciled those differences without needing to bore the readership with a submission Caveman goes and does it again with "PUNT" which some might say should have been titled "*UNT" after the writer's attack on religion in a rather lame attempt to justify what he calls his morality. Once the writing was on the wall the usual bevy of submissions followed written by the usual suspects. Not that I'm complaining, my own mug is often on the Wanted posters as well.
Caveman went on to defend his "personal philosophy" about the Thailand nightlife scene. This Caveman has no shortage of personal philosophies. Thus began the influx of "personal philosophies" from Korski, Marc Holt, Rahiri, and others.. all trying to tell us why they feel it's okay to pay for sex with Thai women.
Do you know how you can tell when someone doesn't truly believe, or wants to believe but hasn't yet convinced themselves, of matters concerning morality? Yep, when they feel the need to justify their views. Their justifications are just as much if not more for themselves, as the readers they address them to.
It's even worse when a submitter feels they need to attack the religion of a few billion individuals in the crude and ineffective way Caveman did in "PUNT." Crude because the attack was base, and ineffective because his logic was exceptionally weak. Here's a hint: It's probably not wise to lump 80%+ of the world's population into angry stereotypes.. and for Stick: It's probably not good to comment you strongly agree with most of the points without some sort of disclaimer to distance yourself from the comments that trash billions.. and probably the logic too.
On the other hand I found myself agreeing with much of what Caveman said, as I did about what Korski, Marc Holt, and Rahiri said. How could I not, these are issues or morality and no one here is a bad person or out intentionally doing bad things. We're humans participating in acts of human nature. What could be more human?
I'm not going to justify mongering either way. I think it's evident to even a 12 year old that when you feel the need to justify anything.. you already know whether or not it's right or wrong. And I think it's evident to any reasonable person, at least reasonable persons who are honest with themselves, that we often do things we know are wrong. Back to human nature again.
We know it's wrong to speed, but we justify speeding. We know it's wrong to pee in the car park but pee we do. We know we shouldn't smoke, but we smoke, and we drink, we let one rip in the lift, we double dip in the salsa, we might even cross swords, we are forever in the indefatigable process of being human. Would we want to be less than human? After all morality is purely a human matter.
Has anyone else noticed that the biggest critics of the nightlife scene are often young men. They have choice names to label older men who partake. Then as they near their 30's (or sooner if they are the type who couldn't get laid in a cat house) they change their views. And often these exact same guys once married and "living the good life" will once again become critical and speak of immorality? How irritating is it when these exact same guys feel the need to impart their fatherly advice to you and anyone else who will listen?
I think the most interesting question being raised isn't the morality of the Thailand based nightlife, but that we as humans consistently and forever do many things we think immoral. We know it's immoral, or wrong, or maybe even illegal, uncouth, rude, annoying, irritating, financially unsound, detrimental professionally, yet we do it anyway. We continue to do such things over and over again.
Is this where a "personal code" comes in? Perhaps because as humans we're so utterly bad.. that we need to carefully choose and even defend small sets of personal values such as 'honor' 'courage' and 'commitment' which we can more easily control. Maybe at some level we rationalize that "if we show honor, courage, and commitment.. then we're good to go for the Thailand nightlife?"
One thing for sure, there are no shortages of rationalizations and justifications out there concerning the Thailand nightlife. Everywhere you go, everyone you talk to, every participant has got it worked out in their mind so they can continue to enjoy their patronage of the naughty nightlife. Dueling moralities.
Until Next Time..
Why do we do the things we do? That's where this all seems to be going.