February 14, 2008
God and Girls in Thailand
In honor of Valentine's Day, John Allen Paulos has sent us the following expanded excerpt from his new book Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up:
I found myself at loose ends in a beach town in Thailand on Christmas morning, 2006. Away from my family in Philadelphia, I was visiting a friend who was planning an early retirement in Southeast Asia. While wandering near the edge of town, I spotted a spirit house, a sort of miniature temple mounted on a pedestal like a bird house. Although irreligious, I noted the fruit offerings strewn around it and was attracted to its makeshift beauty.
Pausing at the shrine, I saw a small Internet café just beyond it, empty except for three nubile young women who were giggling and periodically running up to one or another of the many computers in the room. The desire for my morning Diet Coke, the need to check my email, and the palpable mirth bubbling out of the women drew me into the place.
Despite the goings-on, I first took care of my caffeine and correspondence demands. Soon, however, I noticed there were Webcams on all the computers. It was obvious that the young women were multi-tasking, sending instant messages and occasional pictures in quick succession to nine farangs (Thai for Western foreigners) scattered around the world.
Feeling unmoored and a bit voyeuristic, I eavesdropped and soon gleaned that the girls had met the men on their earlier trips to Thailand. (Perhaps sexist-sounding, "girls" nevertheless seems the more apt term for them.) I noted with amusement that when new pictures of their admirers appeared on the various monitors, the girls would chortle, and the English "expert" among them would write something endearing. The three girls would then quickly move on to the samey (Thai for boyfriend or husband) of another of the girls. Each girl seemed to have three.
Seeing my obvious interest, the girls started to ask me what certain words in the e-mails meant. "Sawatee (hello), Mr. Diet Coke, what 'pine for you' mean?" I explained that "pine for you" meant "miss you very much," that "obsessed with you" meant "think about you all the time," and so on. The men seemed strangely oblivious to the girls' limited English vocabulary. They also seemed lovesick, lonely, and mooning over their "true loves" at Christmas.
After I proved myself as a translator, the girls asked me what else they could say. I suggested that they write how lonely the beach was without their boyfriends and helped them a bit with their spelling. My lines elicited good responses from their sameys, causing them to laugh uproariously. They pumped me for more good lines, which I happily provided. The girl who had distractedly taken my money for the Diet Coke now offered me another one gratis as well as various coconut candies, which I accepted, and some fried insects, which I declined.
Christopher Moore, A Bangkok-based novelist whose compelling mysteries are set in Thailand, once jokingly remarked to me that Thai has no common word or phrase to describe integrity of a rigid, abstract type, but many frequently used terms for "fun." And great fun it was helping the girls dupe farangs on three continents out of their money via the Western Union office in town. (Perhaps "dupe" is the wrong word since I think the bargain was a fair one and inexpensive at that: a Yuletide fantasy for a few dollars.)
After a while, however, the pain underlying the men's instant messages began to weigh on me. The girls had taken to reading me all the messages, and it was clear that most of the men were somewhat forlorn. They seemed to be unmarried, isolated, and searching for a connection, for some sort of emotional salvation. My supercilious attitude toward them and the idealized fantasies they had constructed was morphing into empathy. In very different circumstances fortunately, I nevertheless could acknowledge some kinship with them. After all, I had myself entered the café to make some email re-connections of my own. The girls too, I began to see, felt a bit more than their charmingly mercenary behavior might suggest.
Since it took place on Christmas day, this vignette comes to mind when I meet people who seem to have a fierce yearning to believe, whether in a person or a divinity. Even if aware of the illogic and gaping holes in the arguments for God, they may continue to believe as willfully and needfully as these farangs believed in their Thai girlfriends, their goddesses.
So what of my role which, despite my rationale above, was problematic? I was doing the opposite of what I often do in my professional life, which is to espouse critical thinking, numeracy, skepticism. Here on the Gulf of Siam I was facilitating a chimera, albeit an emotional one with which I have considerably more sympathy than its religious analogue.
Why? I'm not sure. It may simply be that, though I don't believe in God, I do believe in love, even deluded love. Or maybe it was a lark. Or perhaps I saw the incident as a telling sidelight on the effects of globalization, on mixing spirit houses with Diet Cokes. All I'm sure of is that I don't want to scoff too much at yearning and need, whether it be for love or for a divinity. I just don't possess the latter.
John Allen Paulos is a mathematics professor at Temple University and the author of, among other books, Innumeracy and the just released Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 12:00 AM | Permalink




Comments
John,
Your last two sentences here are very touching and serve to set you apart from the more polemical of the recent anti-religion books. Thanks very much for sending this funny and charming piece along. If only I were still dating, I'd ask you to be my Cyrano!
Alas... I mean... Abbas :-)
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 14, 2008 2:30:30 AM
It's not exactly fair to judge the morality of the whole nation from the behavior of a few giggling "girls" at an internet cafe, is it?
Your friend's glib comment about the lack of a common word for integrity is insulting, not to mention wrong, apparently his grasp of the Thai language is as strong as he might have let you think.
Posted by: Pim | Feb 14, 2008 2:43:56 AM
Pim,
While it is always possible to read everything in the darkest light possible, imagining the writer to be bigoted with perhaps malicious motives to go along with that, I prefer not to, thank you. John said his friend was only joking and it is hardly going too far to suggest that "fun" is an important part of Thai culture. Even as a joke, Christopher Moore didn't say Thai doesn't have a word for integrity, he said it doesn't have a "common word or phrase to describe integrity of a rigid, abstract type." If you are making a fatual correction, go ahead and provide the common Thai word or phrase for that. In any case, this will do little to change the point of John's anecdote. Where do you get that John is judging the morality of a whole nation based on the behavior of those girls? No, really, where does he generalize from their behavior to the morals of all of Thailand as you would have us beieve? John has simply told a story and it is you who are making unjustified inferences from it on his behalf. Try to read in a more charitable way sometime. You might be less angry at the world that way.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 14, 2008 3:47:45 AM
Nicely written. Would make a lovely short story.
Posted by: The Worst of Perth | Feb 14, 2008 7:18:19 AM
For the record: Christopher Moore loves Thai culture, the Thai people, Thai food, and the Thai language. Canadian born and a former law professor, he has a Thai wife and has lived the last twenty years in Thailand. He'd be the last one to judge an entire nation on a few "giggling girls" nor would he judge a person on an offhand joke.
Posted by: J.A. Paulos | Feb 14, 2008 9:06:53 AM
Paulos and people like E.O. Wilson are very wise.
I think their approaches to religion are much more effective in the long run.
Posted by: beajerry | Feb 14, 2008 9:20:16 AM
In reading of these giggling Thai girls and sad "lovelorn" farang, it is hard to know who is exploiting whom.Clearly it has a lot to do with sex, but I don't see where love enters into it. Another thought - who is the more exploited, the Thai prostitute or the Thai factory worker who must work a month to make the same money the prostitute makes in a day? Not that either is good....
Posted by: Jared | Feb 14, 2008 12:00:31 PM
Jared,
Can one not love a prostitute? By definition? Can one not at least miss her, or want to be with her, when lonely?
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 14, 2008 12:14:54 PM
Abbas,
An interesting question and timely! Clearly, in this story the prostitutes (or sex workers,if you prefer) do not love their Johns, but laugh at their naivety. Some of the Johns may think they really love, but their "love" is sadly misplaced. Without the mutual aspect and mutual respect, I do not define this as love, but delusion.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 14, 2008 12:38:06 PM
Jared,
They seem to at least "like" their one John. :-) Yes, of course those men are deluded. John says, "It may simply be that, though I don't believe in God, I do believe in love, even deluded love."
Plus, are you sure you can't love someone who doesn't love you back? I guess the word love means many things...
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 14, 2008 12:47:50 PM
"Love" has come to mean so many things that it pretty much meaningless. That's why I never use it. I agree with Aesop - "Actions speak louder than words"
Posted by: Jared | Feb 14, 2008 1:23:06 PM
Abbas,
It was a glib comment, the intent of which-as I read it-was merely to illustrate the "foreignness" of a culture, saying that they are so different from us they don't even understand the concept of "abstract" integrity. It was perhaps as misguided and uninformed as someone-who shall-soon-be-jobless making that silly comment about how the French are so un-enterprising they don’t even have a word for entrepreneur.
It was also gratuitous. Mr.Paulos could have got across essentially the same idea by pointing out how often the Thais over-use the term Sanook, the Thai word for "fun", to describe the--at times perilously--light attitude with which they take the world. And in which case he would be right. Instead, he made a glib comment that I saw to be a sweeping judgment about a culture he clearly does not understand well enough.
As someone from that culture, I am offended. I said so. Am I not in my rights to have done it? How you made that jump, from my being offended by a glib comment about my culture to implying that I am angry at the world, I do not quite understand. You lost me in the chasm there. For what it's worth, I found Mr.Paulos's comment in the article patronizing, and your response to my comment even more so.
As for the factual correction, I'm afraid you wouldn't understand the nuance of my language well enough to know which end of my physique I am speaking from. Yes, now it's my turn to be patronizing. But if I may indulge you, the word your friend is looking for is Sujarit.
The word Sujarit--often used in combination with a similar word Sue-satya, as in suesat-sujarit--is superficially translated as truthful, which is more the meaning of its pair, sue-satya, rather than its own. Sujarit means integrity in that rigid designation your friend was looking for. It means integrity in its pure form, integrity as the culmination of action, expression, and intent, but without particular adherence to one single code of law or religious prescript. I should point out, however, that because the concept of Sujarit is necessarily a postriori, it is often judged by the predominant reference of Buddhism, although it is--by definition--not specific to the teachings of that religion.
cheers,
Pim
Posted by: Pim | Feb 14, 2008 6:10:51 PM
Pim,
I understand your point. The context perhaps suggested more generality than I intended, but I think that a fair reading of the piece makes it clear that the comment was not "a sweeping judgment" about anything, but simply a vignette that took place in a specific time, place, and situation. Pom rak meuang tai.
Best,
John
Posted by: J.A. Paulos | Feb 14, 2008 9:03:32 PM
I usually like reading the comments here, but I don't like reading chastisements of other people's comments. I can see how the comment about not having a word for a certain type of integrity could be taken as a judgment. I thought it was rather off-putting myself. Integrity indeed. Where was the integrity of those supposedly forlorn and lonely "johns" when they traveled to a third world county and paid much younger women to have sex with them, women in a financial situation such that they could hardly refuse? That in my book is more creepy than pitiful, and hardly soulful. Why not have a good laugh at their expense later? I find those "girls" to be delightfully resilient. Now who is going to chastise and correct me for saying that?
Posted by: Grouch | Feb 15, 2008 12:01:46 AM
two cents:
the scene presented is, at the very least, an uncomfortable one. touching, telling, interesting, perhaps. but also problematic in its framing of thailand, only ever seen in the international imagination as the world's greatest beaches-cum-sex-tourism destination. surely not the most fertile sites for the investigation of thai linguistic cognitive and cultural categories... i think it's reasonable for people to object to conclusions drawn therefrom -- certainly i would have commented on a piece making claims about indians based on experiences in goa, hampi or ladakh.
also, i think 3QD needn't rush to the defense of invited authors -- they're big enough boys used to a public forum, no?
Posted by: aditya | Feb 15, 2008 3:12:25 AM
"Pine for you"? What a Joycean (or is it Nabokovian?) pun for French-speaking people!!!
Posted by: jean-paul | Feb 15, 2008 3:27:56 AM
"I think that a fair reading of the piece makes it clear that the comment was not "a sweeping judgment" about anything, but simply a vignette that took place in a specific time, place, and situation."
In truth, it is very difficult to write anything that is flung out to the whole world on the internet and not offend someone. In the relationship between the author of a book and the reader, there is an implicit trust, built up over the time it takes to read the book. This does not exist on the internet. Having said that, it is pretty clear that it is the Johns are who are deluded, not the "girls" and that this self-delusion is what compromised their "integrity" to the extent that they would go half way around the world seeking sex with women half their age. I'll take Thai "fun" over that kind of "integrity" any day.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 15, 2008 11:57:22 AM
Jared,
I'm not as sure as you that the men involved lack integrity. Unless you believe that all men who pay for sex in any situation lack integrity, in which case I simply disagree with you, what in this case makes it exploitation? If adult and consenting women (and there is nothing in John's piece to suggest that these were children) choose to take money for sex, do you really think it is our place to make that choice for them? And to have that choice, there must necessarily be men willing to pay. What in this situation makes them lack integrity. I'm not getting something here. Please explain.
Pim,
I am sorry for the last sentence of my comment addressed to you. It was flip and unnecessary. I still think you read too much into John's piece. But as Aditya suggests, I'll let John himself deal with it. I got a meal to cook! (Got a good recipe for Thai beef salad? My favorite!)
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 15, 2008 12:24:35 PM
Let's grant that John Paulos was making a sincere point about human desire. Let's further grant that Abbas naturally sees the posting of an excerpt from Mr. Paulos' book as a boon to his site, which only a couple of weeks ago he announced was looking for new ways to remain solvent. I'm sure that everyone who gathers here with any consistency wishes Abbas continued success in this very engaging endeavor.
However, the criticism from Pim, Aditya, and Grouch is warranted. With all due respect to Professor Paulos, this type of writing is not his strong suit, and the insight he fumbles for is a little off key.
It is not only the Thai language that wants greater precison in this piece. Among atheists, whose number includes both Dr. Paulos and myself, there is an absence of the belief in God, which is to say, we don't think there is one. But this is not the same usage of the word "belief" that one employs to speak of matters of love or other human affairs. We all believe that Jack Abramoff, for example, exists. But how many of us "believe in him"? Perhaps not even his wife, in her more candid moments.
What, therefore, can it mean to say that one "believes" in deluded love? To reflect merely that it exists (as it clearly does in quantities too numerous to contemplate) is too banal a thing to mount a vignette upon. But I don't think Dr. Paulos means to express his support for the positive influence of deluded love, such as one finds among men who pretend that far-away exoticized girls have profound feelings for them. But somehow this elicits more "sympathy" in Dr. Paulos than the "yearning" for a religious connection (though he doesn't expound upon why.)
It takes a bit of a tin ear for globalization in general, and Orientalism in particular, to set this scene without any exploration of what makes some Western men fetishize young asian girls, and what makes some of these girls succomb to this fetishization (often in ways far less "mirthful" than flirting by computer). I don't mean to suggest that Dr. Paulos actively promotes these fantasies, just as I don't think he meant to imply with his glosses on "integrity" and "fun" that young Asian women are craven and shallow. But given the context and history involved, many readers who don't have any good reasons to give Paulos the benefit of the doubt could be forgiven for coming away with that impression.
Often, when people make the "wrong" reading of a text, the culprit can be found in the unexamined difference between what the writer meant to express, and what was actually written. Writers (and their defenders) should not be too quick to presume an unfair bias lurking behind every criticism. It's only certain to impede their continued development as communicators.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Feb 15, 2008 12:41:20 PM
Abbas,
The OED defines "integrity" as: "Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity." Now it seems to me that in the relationship between a prostitute and a customer, honesty and sincerity are not compromised provided both parties clearly understand the quid pro quo nature of the exchange. But as soon as there is talk of "love" or "feelings", then honesty and sincerity go out the window, along with "integrity", and lies and delusion enter in. The men are deluding themselves and are therefore not being sincere with themselves. It is in this sense that they lack integrity. The "girls" exploit this lack of integrity to squeeze more money out of them. But they should not be blamed for this, considering the men are usually much older and richer than they are. There is a power imbalance here.
People with integrity would be honest enough with themselves not to be so deluded.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 15, 2008 1:55:38 PM
One last point that is tangent to, but completely independent of Thais, farangs, and my article: Individuals hold to different notions of integrity and one dimension of these differences ranges between the abstract and the situation-based. What understandably (at least in retrospect) appeared to Pim and maybe others as a patronizing privileging of the abstract is actually not how I feel. Rather I think that an over-valuing of rigid, square-jawed integrity is often loathsome and inferior to a more situation-based ethics. But again, the piece was a vignette and loading it down with distinctions, distributions, and demographics would have killed it.
Posted by: J.A. Paulos | Feb 15, 2008 1:57:04 PM
John,
While I agree with you that individuals, and especially societies have diffent notions of "integrity", I do not think that intergrity is completely relative. I feel that being self-deluded as these men are reflects a lack of integrity (or self integration) in any individual or culture. They lack self awareness. This is why the girls are laughing at them. It does seem the case that western individuals are often more fragmented than in eastern cultures. Loneliness is more common in the west and more people live alone outside strong family structures. I do feel some empathy for these lonely Johns. By the way, John Burdett, in his novels like Bangkok Haunts, explores exactly these issues in a very entertaining way. His Thai characters are typically far stronger and more well-balanced than the western types with their "square -jawed intergrity"
Posted by: Jared | Feb 15, 2008 2:33:06 PM
My gosh, isn't it obvious that this is not a simple monetary transaction between consenting adults, when the much younger women are in need of money, probably have little education, are from the countryside, and may have few prospects for making a living? Power imbalance indeed.
Poor lonely johns--perhaps someone should ask them if they would like to have sex and affection from women their own age, as out of shape as they are, etc etc?
Posted by: Grouch | Feb 16, 2008 3:52:36 AM
“The OED defines "integrity" as: "Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity." Now it seems to me that in the relationship between a prostitute and a customer, honesty and sincerity are not compromised provided both parties clearly understand the quid pro quo nature of the exchange. But as soon as there is talk of "love" or "feelings", then honesty and sincerity go out the window, along with "integrity", and lies and delusion enter in. The men are deluding themselves and are therefore not being sincere with themselves.”
Jared I found this quote of yours very interesting, but I disagree with it. The initial quid pro quo of sex for money seems to have then launched in these men feelings of attachment which are sincere and are being expressed “honestly.” It is easy to think that they are just a naïve batch of suckers and not worth sympathizing with, but even the love that you distinguish as legitimate with the “mutual aspect and mutual respect” can be shot through with delusion. Indeed Freud argued that those initial magic moments of falling in love necessarily contain it. Unrequited love gets a bad rap these days, but let’s remember that much great art has come from it. Dante only ever got a hello in the street from Beatrice (it was interesting to have been in a classroom with some young women while reading “La Vita Nuova,” the charges of “unstable” and “stalker” came fast and furious) and writers from Sappho to Coetzee have all described its very real torments – deluded or not.
I enjoyed the vignette Mr. Paulos – strong stuff, keep writing it down.
Posted by: Jesse | Feb 16, 2008 6:51:08 AM
I am not familiar with Thai culture or language, but the fact that a language does not have a single, clear word for a concept does not mean that the concept is not validated in that culture.
For example, we don't have a "single word" in American English language for the joy that we feel when we see friends after a long absence. Yet is that concept not important to us? We have a word for the things we miss from a long time ago - nostalgia, from the Greek - and for missing old friends, family and hometown when we are away - homesickness - but not for the happiness of meeting again.
"It was good to catch up with her" is about as cleanly as we can express it, but who can deny that this feeling is one of the major joys in life? Yet someone from a culture that had such a clean word - maybe a culture involving merchant traders who would routinely be gone and sometimes not come back - might joke that we Americans did not care about catching up with our departed and returned friends.
Perhaps the linguists - which I am not - among the fine folks assembled could comment further.
Posted by: Bruce | Feb 17, 2008 12:22:52 AM
What started out as just my own glib comment in response to another has grown quite a bit out of proportion. Don't we love the interweb?
John,
I admit I read to critically into a piece that was, as you said, meant to be a small window into a time and place. In my defense--and a compliment to Abbas and others who keep 3Quarks--I come to read this blog with my critical-thinking faculty in full force. When I feel like leaving it behind I read Gawker (and quite enjoy it too!).
Abbas,
No worries. I'll post a beef salad recipe soon. Call it a peace-making salad?
Aditya, Grouch, Chris,
Thank you for seeing my point.
Cheers,
Pim
Posted by: Pim | Feb 17, 2008 8:22:37 PM
Bruce,
I don't disagree with what you said, but reference to a culture lacking a word to represent a concept --or having too many of them--have long been used to infer either a lack of comprehension of said concept or the over-obsession with it. The notion "the eskimos and their many words for snow" is a good example.
Pim
Posted by: Pim | Feb 17, 2008 8:27:08 PM
As I understand it, there were only Western men writing to Thai girls. Why is that do you suppose?
Maybe this is yearning for love, but I am not convinced.
Posted by: bernarda | Feb 18, 2008 3:22:24 PM
what is the English word for the smug sense of superiority one feels when deciding that a person who send money to someone in a poor country is a deluded fool at best, or full of moral turpitude at worst?
Posted by: gbruno | Feb 18, 2008 4:55:34 PM
Gbruno,
Are you suggesting these were acts of charity on the part of the men? Interesting!
Posted by: Mina | Feb 18, 2008 8:06:39 PM
Wow, Paulos, what a story.
You are a GRADE A hypocrite.
Posted by: Singh | Feb 19, 2008 6:29:47 AM
Re. the "integrity" debate. This whole discussion is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:- if you can't say it, you can't think it. Those here who are extending it to "if you can't say it, you can't act it" are outlining a very extreme version of SP that borders on racism, and one that has never (to my knowledge) been seriously proposed. There is no point in discussing it unless someone wants to propose that some humans are inherent liars and theives by reason only of the language they speak.
My experience and belief is also that Thai's have very strong notions of what we would English speaking farangs call integrity. In sexual relations alone Thai women have very strong expectations of their partner's faithfullness - castrastion of wandering male partners is not an uncommon crime in Thailand.
Apropos of Thai women and their role in the global sex industry (and the fact that my partner is just such a woman), I can say also that the feelings of these women are less cruel than you might suppose.
Relationships between mature adults are more "knowing" than teenage puppy love which is what seems to be assumed here.
There appear to be two questions here. 1.) is a relationship with a sex-worker possible at all, 2.) is a man seeking a relationship with a sex-worker completely blind, half seeing or completely aware.
My view (and my experience) is that 1.) is possible, but very difficult for the woman as she can never be sure if she is truly loved; and that 2.) varies.
I won't go into 1.) in detail because it would take too long, other than to say that my wife's sister is currently being wooed from afar by a farang who she genuinely loves, but she is doubtful of because she has been hurt before.
2.) is something I can speak to more directly, as it is something my wife and I discussed quite a bit in the early part of our relationship. It boils down to this:- both sides exploit and both sides mistrust. Establishment of a real relationship takes real effort on both sides but is possible. And if successful, the result can be wonderful.
1.) and 2.) are the two blades of a scissor. Whether it cuts through distrust or trust is up to each participant.
Posted by: RM | Feb 19, 2008 7:11:54 AM
Where's all this talk of prostitutes coming from? Paulos says nothing about the women's jobs, except that one of them sold him a diet-coke. Do Thai prostitutes typically also sell soft drinks and run internet cafés?
Posted by: NelC | Feb 19, 2008 8:09:06 AM
Humans are emotional animals. Even the most educated among us strive for emotional fulfillment.
There's a lot of people struggling with inner emptiness, and I would suspect that the Thai girls have it too, despite their outward mirth.
"Girls" is probably an OK word in this context. Having traveled a bit in SE Asia and India, I have noticed that the word doesn't carry the same stigma that it does in the US. Different from "mom" or "auntie" but without negative connotations.
Posted by: yogi-one | Feb 19, 2008 9:26:50 AM
After reading the post below:
"Just Desserts: Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain" it seems to me that the main transgression committed by those Thai ladies was selling John the Diet Coke.
Posted by: aguy109 | Feb 19, 2008 10:45:18 AM
I thought that was a sweet little story. I'm not entirely certain why most seem to assume the girls were sex workers. The line between love and prostitution isn't always as clearly demarcated as those who would sneer at strippers and hookers would like to believe. Don't we all know a beautiful lady who married a total jerk because he has a big house and an SUV? I once had an asian girl-friend and it was the most open and honest relationship I've ever had. The American girls... well, integrity is not what comes to mind. Now that I think about it, neither does fun. I caught one cheating on me and she called me a stalker and got a restraining order. So, hows the job market in Thailand?
Posted by: ambulocetus | Feb 20, 2008 12:44:21 AM
Way up at the top-- are you the same Pim who runs the food blog "ChezPIM?
Posted by: Danielle Day | Feb 23, 2008 8:40:38 AM
Thai's have a word (i've forgotten)like the Chinese "xiao-mei" meaning "little beauty- sister", sort of better than our "girls". The Xiaomei's are just playing along with the western men. The intent is to amuse and maybe get lucky and "catch one". And it's an irony not mentioned that if one of the guys rocked up and was a plausible suitor without regards to age difference, they may very well make a loyal wife - even with a sense of fun too. Those lonely guys are not so pathetic after all. All in all were's
"the 'arm in'it"?
Posted by: dennis | Mar 11, 2008 3:30:13 PM
Post a comment