Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP thai family here again. The fact that there are some rich or some middle class thai is immaterial to the question of one person's situation. You sound more deluded now than before. Who cares is "others" are well off? The question is her situation and on that you are totally clueless. You cannot see outside past your own shoes. I feel sorry for you.

Then you can apply the same argument to women pretty much anywhere. Eve in the US. Who cares if other Americans are well off? THAT particular American might not be!

But in the common sense land, the existence of solid middle-class segment indicates that there are other ways to "good life" than giving your baby away to a citizen of a rich country.

You can apply that argument here, so why are you being obtuse? The existence of a middle class doesnt mean that they are in it! Get it?

There is no need to get emotional over this. You think that being adopted by an American family is the only way a Thai baby can have a good life. I disagree. That's all there is to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOU have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know the players. First, I said nothing speculative about anyone's primary motivations! But the anecdote shows someone in a terrible situation being kind, correct?

The Thai woman - if she's human, is it not reasonable to wonder how she felt giving up her daughter?

Since you want to posit without having the ovaries to just SAY it, that the Thai woman is a monster who didn't care about the daughter anyway (which one cannot know), please get some therapeutic help. And learn to focus your obvious anger on the man (men?) who hurt you.

You don't understand what I am trying to say. You think the wife is being kind. What I'm telling you is that her actions may have the effect of kindness toward the other child. But that's not what drives her. What drives her is the good of her marriage and family. The child, independently of her marriage and family, is simply not a factor to her. She isn't doing what she's doing "for the good of the child." She concluded, based on her own reasons, that her marriage and family has the highest chance of surviving if the child is integrated vs. left behind. That's why she acts the way she acts.

I don't think women who give up their children are monsters, women give up their kids for adoption or leave custody to fathers every day around the world. Not all women have the primordial desire to rear their own.

How could you possibly know that? If I were in this situation my primary motivation would be the innocent child that chose none of this. I think it says something about you that you literally cannot comprehend two adults choosing to put the well being of a child before their own. I would certainly hate to have you as a step parent that's for sure.

No one can know anything about this situation, we can only theorize. Your theory is as good as mine. I don't want any stepchildren so we are aligned on that account.

It's not that I can't comprehend it, it's that I don't think it's natural or common. If I were in this situation, my primary motivation would be MY innocent children who didn't choose any of this either. And the wife is also innocent. So these two innocents come first, and everyone else should get in line. As for me, I would not put the wellbeing of someone else's child before my children's or my own. My children come first because that's my job, I come next because my children need me, everyone else gets in line and gets whatever is left.

I also think that you would not put the wellbeing of someone else's child before your own if the cost of this was the ruination of your family or damage to your own children. You are just saying this because you never faced that choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOU have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know the players. First, I said nothing speculative about anyone's primary motivations! But the anecdote shows someone in a terrible situation being kind, correct?

The Thai woman - if she's human, is it not reasonable to wonder how she felt giving up her daughter?

Since you want to posit without having the ovaries to just SAY it, that the Thai woman is a monster who didn't care about the daughter anyway (which one cannot know), please get some therapeutic help. And learn to focus your obvious anger on the man (men?) who hurt you.

You don't understand what I am trying to say. You think the wife is being kind. What I'm telling you is that her actions may have the effect of kindness toward the other child. But that's not what drives her. What drives her is the good of her marriage and family. The child, independently of her marriage and family, is simply not a factor to her. She isn't doing what she's doing "for the good of the child." She concluded, based on her own reasons, that her marriage and family has the highest chance of surviving if the child is integrated vs. left behind. That's why she acts the way she acts.

I don't think women who give up their children are monsters, women give up their kids for adoption or leave custody to fathers every day around the world. Not all women have the primordial desire to rear their own.

How could you possibly know that? If I were in this situation my primary motivation would be the innocent child that chose none of this. I think it says something about you that you literally cannot comprehend two adults choosing to put the well being of a child before their own. I would certainly hate to have you as a step parent that's for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP thai family here again. The fact that there are some rich or some middle class thai is immaterial to the question of one person's situation. You sound more deluded now than before. Who cares is "others" are well off? The question is her situation and on that you are totally clueless. You cannot see outside past your own shoes. I feel sorry for you.

Then you can apply the same argument to women pretty much anywhere. Eve in the US. Who cares if other Americans are well off? THAT particular American might not be!

But in the common sense land, the existence of solid middle-class segment indicates that there are other ways to "good life" than giving your baby away to a citizen of a rich country.

You can apply that argument here, so why are you being obtuse? The existence of a middle class doesnt mean that they are in it! Get it?

Anonymous wrote:
PP thai family here again. The fact that there are some rich or some middle class thai is immaterial to the question of one person's situation. You sound more deluded now than before. Who cares is "others" are well off? The question is her situation and on that you are totally clueless. You cannot see outside past your own shoes. I feel sorry for you.

Then you can apply the same argument to women pretty much anywhere. Eve in the US. Who cares if other Americans are well off? THAT particular American might not be!

But in the common sense land, the existence of solid middle-class segment indicates that there are other ways to "good life" than giving your baby away to a citizen of a rich country.

Anonymous wrote:^ PP, these women don't have a heart. This part of the thread is just disgusting.

I have no pity AT ALL for spoiled, smug idiots who want to villainize this woman who gave up her daughter to what sounds like a rather manipulative man. FUCK YOU and work on being a little honest about the vulnerabilities in your own marriage, you insecure cows.

LOL! We don't need nor did we ask for your pity. I have a very nice life, thank you.

I DEFINITELY villainize any woman who sleeps with a married man. It is akin in my mind to breaking into another person's house and stealing their belongings.

I really don't understand why people consider this fact at odds with the other fact that the man is also a POS. BOTH people are nasty, selfish, and destructive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Women are programmed to care about their own children and prioritize their interests above everyone else. Certainly above other children."

Compassionate human beings are capable of making the best decisions, and usually that means putting a child's needs ahead of your own. Plenty of women and mothers are capable of teaching and showing their children how to be compassionate.

No one puts interests of a random child ahead of their own. We put our children's interests ahead of our own, yes. Other people's children? No, not really. That's their parents' job.

It is not a random child, so your argument fails. It is a half sister / brother to my child. We have that in our family too. There is no word in thai for half sibling. It is just sister or brother!! Get it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happened to my Mom's friend. She wasn't too close to her but was good friends with her friends.

This woman, her husband and teenaged daughter moved somewhere in SE Asia, maybe Thailand. After a few years, they move back to DC and they've 'adopted' a baby. Everyone thought it was weird to suddenly adopt when you have a teenager. The rumor mill was it was the daughter's baby (she would have been 12-13 when the baby was born).

But as it turns out, it was the DH's with his Thai mistress. The DW adopted it and raised it as her own. Last I heard she and DH were still together.

In all seriousness, no sarcasm, this wife is a winner. She clearly understands the fate of her husband's child if she does nothing. I give her high marks for clarity, compassion, and composure.

Eh, I've lived in this part of the world and I hope you are right. The wife is either saintly for raising this child when the child may have had no one, OR they could very well be people who essentially pressured this child to be given up by the mother "you can give her less, we can give her so much more" etc , when any decent man would be paying $ for the child either way. I hope that not the case but it's not unheard of for these situations to be a horrible choice for the mother to feel giving away her child is the only hope for a good life

The horrible choice the mother made was to sleep with a married guy. All other bad choices followed.

Please don't act like having to feel like you had to never see your child again in order to give them a better life is even close to being fucked around on.

Don't be silly. People have babies and keep them in Thailand every day. There's tons of rich and middle-class people in that country. It's not exactly a den of wretchedness. If you want to give your child a good life, an excellent start would be to have them within a marriage, so what's with pretending that the child's mother is a victim? She made a very bad choice. That's the truth. No one can force you to give up your child if you don't want to, and if you think having lots of stuff is a better life than growing up with your own mother, then maybe the mother deserve the sadness that comes with losing her child.

This is the prior poster ("In all seriousness"). We are in fact a local Thai family and you are poorly informed and should not speak about what you do not know. So no, I am not being silly. Sadly, it is you. Have a heart.

I am sorry if your family situation is not the best. This doesn't change the truth that middle-class Thai people exist, and that millions of Thai people lead happy lives without dreaming of shipping their children to America. So, no, that wasn't her child's ONLY hope for a good life.

PP thai family here again. The fact that there are some rich or some middle class thai is immaterial to the question of one person's situation. You sound more deluded now than before. Who cares is "others" are well off? The question is her situation and on that you are totally clueless. You cannot see outside past your own shoes. I feel sorry for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ PP, these women don't have a heart. This part of the thread is just disgusting.

I have no pity AT ALL for spoiled, smug idiots who want to villainize this woman who gave up her daughter to what sounds like a rather manipulative man. FUCK YOU and work on being a little honest about the vulnerabilities in your own marriage, you insecure cows.

There are no villains or saints in these situations typically. Everyone is just trying to make the best decision for themselves under very unfortunate circumstances. You have no idea what goes on in other people's marriage and heads. It's not all Lifetime Television for Women. People are too complex.

Lady, please. I am very comfortable describing the m.o. of these kinds of posters in this thread on this topic.

I am sure you are, but how much does your comfort really mean? It's not a real metric of anything.

Nothing you've said has any resonance for me or perhaps anyone else. At least a couple of others agreed with me that the demonization of the woman who gave up her baby was absurd and gross to read.

I didn't say much about the woman who gave up her baby, only about the wife who picked up the pieces. And I don't think it's demonic to give up your baby. Women around the world give their children up for adoption or leave custody to fathers every day. We don't call them demons and they aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ PP, these women don't have a heart. This part of the thread is just disgusting.

I have no pity AT ALL for spoiled, smug idiots who want to villainize this woman who gave up her daughter to what sounds like a rather manipulative man. FUCK YOU and work on being a little honest about the vulnerabilities in your own marriage, you insecure cows.

There are no villains or saints in these situations typically. Everyone is just trying to make the best decision for themselves under very unfortunate circumstances. You have no idea what goes on in other people's marriage and heads. It's not all Lifetime Television for Women. People are too complex.

Lady, please. I am very comfortable describing the m.o. of these kinds of posters in this thread on this topic.

I am sure you are, but how much does your comfort really mean? It's not a real metric of anything.

Nothing you've said has any resonance for me or perhaps anyone else. At least a couple of others agreed with me that the demonization of the woman who gave up her baby was absurd and gross to read.

Anonymous wrote:^ PP, these women don't have a heart. This part of the thread is just disgusting.

I have no pity AT ALL for spoiled, smug idiots who want to villainize this woman who gave up her daughter to what sounds like a rather manipulative man. FUCK YOU and work on being a little honest about the vulnerabilities in your own marriage, you insecure cows.

+1

A man decides to break his marriage vows and betray his wife by sleeping with some woman, and it is the woman who does not have a heart. Merde!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In terms of duration, or frequency, or anything - like sleeping with DWs sister or DHs boss or anything.

That's on my bucket list but haven't gotten around to it yet. Ideally she'll have my baby, too.

Okay, sorry, but this made me ROFL.

The husband had a whole other family the wife didn't know about. Divorced, but then they got back together.

Not sure if the other kids ever visit or what happened there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill and Hillary

Donald gabbing pussies and having his way with women when married to his third wife Melania. The marriage survived.

Or so we think.

My prediction is that she will not move to DC. They are already living separate lives.

Absolutely. She signed on to live a life of luxury. Not to be the First Lady.

Whatever. The marriage did survive for whatever reasons. Donald rescued her parents from an East European country and they live in a condo that he has provided in NY Her entire family survives because he provides for them. Maybe, that was the deal for her going into the marriage. She was a struggling East European model who was old - (27 years or so), and she would get a cushy life for her family and herself if she married a much older, much married man. And I am sure that it was a good bargain for her, and it was not as if she was an 18 year old virgin. It was an arrangement and this was a business transaction. That pact has not been broken. The marriage has survived. Maybe she has no other options, but the bottom line is that there is no divorce.

You realize he's not in office yet, right? Right?

Of course the marriage has survived this far. Luxury was the point as you spelled out. She wanted her luxury which she's had. Once he's President it's a whole new game.

Technically, I suppose mine. >year long affair. Yes, we were caught. And spouse and I are "recovered" although honestly I'd never trust me again.