Why do Farang men fall for ladyboys?

When you begin to gather information about the sex market in Thailand, you can't avoid running across numerous warnings about ladyboys: how there are so many of them and how they are so difficult to detect.

"Ladyboy" is a common term for transvestites and transsexuals. Transvestites are men who wear women's clothes, and apparently many of them pose as women in Thailand and woo tourists, so they would take them back into their hotel room – only to discover that what they thought was a girl has a penis. Transsexuals are persons who were born male but later chose to undergo sex-change surgery. From what I've read, they have surgically-constructed vaginas that can actually be fucked, although they don't get wet, and there is supposedly a slight risk of rupturing the thing when the penis is too big or the fuck too intensive.

On almost all photos, ladyboys look very obviously non-women. However, I remember a photo of a naked girl whom I would have never suspected, yet the person who had posted the photo claimed that the person on it was a ladyboy.

When I went to Thailand for the first time, I was very cautious about it. Before I took a girl back to my hotel, I stuck a hand into her panties regardless of her protests to make sure she had a vagina and not a penis. As to transsexuals, I found myself agreeing with one writer who said that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then he'll just treat it as a duck. I decided that when a person looks like an attractive woman, talks like an attractive woman and acts like an attractive woman, I don't care if he or she is a sex changer or not. I will fuck him or her and not worry about it. After all, it's the nice body that matters, not its ability to produce children.

As to the supposed difficulty of detection, one mustn't forget that transsexuals have only their genitals and breasts altered, not their throats or arms. Regardless of the silicone breasts and such, there is a good chance that the voice should give them away, and regardless of them having learned to walk like women, their manly muscles still have a good chance to make them look unattractive to us.

However, there is this weird thing – I have seen white women back home and in other white countries whose faces look very much like Thai ladyboys to me. Their percentage is especially large among beauty pageant contestants. In the distant past when I still watched those, I often found myself wondering how could any man find such women beautiful. Women I saw looking out of my window were on average clearly prettier than those tall and big girls especially chosen as suitable candidates for the titles of beauty queens. To make it absolutely clear – I am not talking about fat ugly dykes here. I am talking about women who are generally very stylish and attractive to many men, but tall and with crude mask-like faces. (To give you an idea what I mean – look at the porn models Sandee Westgate and Priya Rai. They have obviously female genitals, and I have no reason to suspect that they weren't born female, yet their faces look repulsively unfeminine to me, as does the large size of their bodies.)

Anyway, on my second trip to Thailand, I had this curious experience. I was walking along Sukhumvit Road, and there was another one of those places where girls stand on the sidewalk and do all they can to awake your interest. One of the girls gently grabbed my arm and addressed me, as girls do. When I looked at her, I not only found I didn't particularly fancy her – I also had a strange feeling that something was wrong. Anyway, I happened to be on my way to somewhere else, so I walked on. A little later it occurred to me that those girls were unusually tall for Thai women. Also they had faces like those big blatantly unfeminine chicks back home. So they might well have been ladyboys, I realised. The point I am trying to make is this – while I don't know what they had in their panties, I do know they didn't look like anything I'd ever want to fuck.

I also had my suspicions about a quite normal-looking, petite girl I took from a go-go bar in Angeles. When I was inserting my penis into her vagina, she began to wail and protest like she was in pain or something, and she adjusted her position and I tried it again, and again she wouldn't let me, and so we continued until I lost my erection and she gave me a blowhandjob. (I rewarded her with a correspondingly small tip.) Also she acted in a strangely dominant and aggressive way with the other girl. So she might have been a transsexual. Again, I have no way of knowing for sure.

Those two are the closest encounters I have personally had with ladyboys. Need I tell you that I stopped worrying about the ladyboy danger eventually? So I was mildly amused when a friend of mine told me this story. I knew his grown-up son who had moved to Australia after school. He was still living there, and the two of them decided to have a holiday together in Thailand. My friend told me how he took a woman into his hotel room and he or she turned out to have a penis. And he said there were several occasions when a woman caught his fancy and his son was like: "Get real, dad, that's a man!"

The point is, some men (such as my friend's son and myself) seem to be able to easily tell ladyboys from actual women, and some men just can't.

That story, along with that beauty pageant weirdness I mentioned, brought me to the realisation that many white men are apparently attracted to tall big women with rough unfeminine faces. That is why such women keep scoring high in beauty contests and that is why some men keep ending up with penissed girls in their hotel rooms.

Another thing about that buddy of mine: I have noticed how he keeps getting mildly gay when drunk – not outright touching, but brushing against me all the time, and generally getting uncomfortably into what I perceive as my private space. Whenever I try to move away by 20-30 cm, he just moves closer, apparently not aware of it himself. Apart from that private space thing, he has never shown the slightest sign of homosexuality. The way he talks, sober or drunk, he is a staunch hetero. Married and a repeat adulterer, for that matter.

Could it be that the men who fall for ladyboys fail to recognise them as such because, subconsciously, they don't want to?

Could it be that they sense the male pheromones naturally secreted by the ladyboys' bodies, and that turns them on (as well as turns men like me off)?

The suppressed homosexuality hypothesis does not explain the popularity of tall stone-faced white women. It is therefore likely that the primary reason for the ladyboy-gullibility syndrome remains the affected men's yearning for a big strong woman taking care of them (in other words, a substitute mother), while subconscious homosexual tendencies enhance the effect in some cases.

No, women aren't innocent and naive (Part 1)

In the English language, the testicles are colloquially often referred to as "balls". In a number of languages, such as German and my own native language, the word is "eggs". Now, the same word "eggs" obviously also means chicken-eggs, the ones we eat. When men talk about chicken-eggs in my native language, they usually say "chicken-eggs" and not just "eggs", so as to avoid the allusion to the testicles. Women, by contrast, virtually always say simply "eggs", as if it had never crossed their mind that the word can also be understood to mean "testicles".

There are a number of other words and expressions that mean everyday things but can also have sexual meanings. Undoubtedly, that is the case in English and other languages as well. The point is, women frequently use those expressions and men find themselves smirking and rolling their eyes, amused at the women's ignorance of those words' sexual meaning.

Actually, women know precisely what those words' sexual meanings are, and they use them intentionally – either to bring men's thoughts to sex without coming across as sluts, or because they simply happen to be in the mood to tease the men in earshot a little.

* * *

Ever since we're old enough to understand what sex is, we are told on every step how women detest being viewed as sex objects and how we are supposed to value a woman's personality rather than looks, and how it's despicable if not even sick to desire sex before deep emotional closeness between the partners has been reached. In virtually all American movies today, it's women who initiate sex. Men seem to be spending no thought on sex at all unless it's with their steady partner. Whenever a man shows sexual interest in a woman without a clear initiative from her part, or (shudder) in more than one woman, it is usually a cue to the viewer that that man will turn out evil in one or another way. Positive heroes pretty much run away from horny women until one of them grabs him and drags him into bed – after which he will, of course, be unable to have sex with any other woman for the rest of his life.

Being brainwashed by feminist propaganda, being constantly surrounded by feminist propaganda, it is no wonder that when we see an attractive woman and approach her, we automatically assume that we must under no circumstances let her guess our true intentions. We are certain that she is not interested in sex and will consent to it only after a highly attractive man has wooed her for a long time, eventually overwhelming her with romanticism she just can't resist. We are certain that as soon as she realises we want to have sex with her, she will be repulsed and hold us for a pervert and never want to see us again.

The truth is: she knows you want to fuck her. She knows it from the moment you lay your eyes on her. What she doesn't know is if you have the guts to go through with it. Neither can she know if you have decided to remain faithful to your girlfriend no matter what. But she most certainly knows you desire her body. When you approach a woman and address her, don't think for one second that she is so naive as to believe you are "not like that".

Why am I so certain? Because – blood-chilling as the realisation may be – she is bound to have been approached like that tens if not hundreds of times. A man leering at her from distance trying to look like he isn't, then approaching her coyly, then making conversation on some innocent topic, trying to make it look like he has no interest in sex whatsoever, then asking for her phone number and leaving, so as to not scare her by advancing too quickly, then calling her after a week or two when she's already tired of wondering if and when he'll call and ask her out... I can imagine how fed up women must be with one likeable man after another turning out to be an insecure dork.

Women know we want to fuck them. We are not supposed to say it directly (I will come to the why), but we aren't supposed to be ashamed of it either.

* * *

The overwhelming majority of men think that dating is a kind of war – your goal is to get her into bed, her goal is to amuse herself with you and avoid having sex with you afterwards. Either you win and she loses, or she wins and you lose. 

That mistaken assumption is made because men think in terms or giving and reciprocating. They see sex as a kind of commodity which she owns and you want, and which she can give you or not. Now, women's resolute resistance to men's sexual advances is an obvious fact each one of us has, if not experienced personally, then extremely familiar with from books, movies and conversations. When we think like a man, there is only one possible conclusion we can draw – either sex is unpleasant to the women, or they are able to enjoy it only under some very special circumstances. After all, if women enjoyed sex the way we do, we could simply approach them and propose it and they would agree – or, in some cases, excuse themselves with being busy at the moment or having their periods or us being not handsome enough or such. That is obviously not happening. In movies, we can see women hitting men or throwing their drinks into the men's faces for offences much less grave than an outright proposal of sex. That leaves no doubt in our minds that women don't want to have sex with us.

How come women have sex with men at all then, we ask ourselves. The answer is not hard to find. Why do people do things they don't want to do? Either because they are forced, or because they get something in return that makes it worth their while. The first option being clearly out of the question here, only one solution remains – in order to make her submit to getting fucked, we must give her something of comparable value. With every date – we believe – we gather some satisfaction points with her, and when we'll have gathered enough points, she'll reward us with sex. When another guy gets a woman into bed after the first date and we don't, we assume that our date wasn't cool enough, and try to think of something more spectacular for the next time. As a result we find ourselves in constant stress, wondering how other men seem to be able to come up with romantic ideas that get women into bed and we don't.

During your frustrated ponderings over that dating nonsense, it is not surprising when the question occurs to you: why have there to be intermediaries? What is the point going through that charade with dinners and movies? Why not just give the woman an appropriate amount of money and be done with it? Why are we required to pay for sex indirectly, but forbidden to pay directly? Why is the latter viewed as insulting, humiliating or even criminal?

Let us assume, for instance, that you spend 150 euros on dates and then succeed in seducing her. Suppose that from those 150 euros, you get roughly 50 euros worth of food and pleasure, she gets roughly 50 euros worth of food and pleasure, and the remaining 50 euros is the restaurant-owners' profit. (The numbers may differ from case to case, but the principle remains the same.) Now, if you would have just given her 100 euros, she would have received twice as much benefit. You would have spent the same amount in material terms, but saved a lot of time and spared yourself a considerable amount of anxiety, frustration and embitterment. There is no question that the emotional cost of seduction can easily be worth more to a man than the actual money spent.

So why doesn't this logic work? Why won't the women just take the cash and spare you all that effort of figuring out dates romantic enough to be worth to be rewarded with sex?

The mistake men make is to go out from the erroneous presumption that dates are about giving to her. It seems reasonable from a man's point of view, but women don't work that way. For a woman, dates have three functions. Firstly, a date enables her to get comfortable with your presence. (For you, seeing what a woman looks like is sufficient to decide whether or not you want to have sex with her. It's not that simple for a woman.) Secondly, going out on a date first makes it easier for her to not appear like a slut when she does go to bed with you. (It is not sufficient for her to want to have sex with you. It has to take place in a socially acceptable way. Having sex after a date is socially acceptable, it's what people do. I'll cover this in more detail later.) Thirdly (and that's what this article is all about), it allows her to learn what kind of a man you are. It's not what you give her. It's what kind of money you are comfortable with spending.

Perhaps the principle can be made clearer by this simple analogy. There was a cartoon set in the village of a hunter tribe. Two young men were courting a girl old enough to get married. The girl said: go into the woods and kill an elk and bring it to me. I will get married to the one who does it. One of the men actually killed an elk. The other man found a way to lure him into a trap and stole the elk from him. I won't go into the rest of the plot. The point is: why did the girl tell her suitors to bring her an elk? Because she wanted a dead elk? No, she wanted her future husband to be able to hunt down an elk, because if she commits herself to spending the rest of her life with him, he has to be able to provide for her and their children. She had no use for a man who stole an elk from someone else and brought it to her, because she didn't need the actual elk. It was not about increasing her possessions by one elk, it was about making sure that her fiancé was an able hunter.

As much as many of us like to pretend to stand above "such things", we still have the same instincts. The woman wants you to take her to a fancy restaurant not because she wants to get a meal at your expense. She wants to see that you are the kind of man who is wealthy enough to be cool about paying for an expensive dinner.

Look how Vin DiCarlo so brilliantly sums up the dating problem from a man's point of view:

"I ran my own cleaning business after college, and I recall spending tons of money on fancy dates, just to be rejected when I'd go for the kiss. And then she wouldn't return my calls. I EARNED that money – what'd she do to earn it? Sit there and look pretty, so I could sweat and rack my brain for conversation topics for two hours straight."

The sad truth is: if taking her out is bleeding you dry, what is your value as her future husband? Close to none. No matter how amusing you are to spend time with, you won't be able to give her and her future children a secure and stable life. Actually, you will be far more attractive when you take her to a date affordable to you. That will show her that instead of trying to show off, you are able to get things done with the means you have. Yes, on average she would prefer a rich man over a poor man, but she will prefer a poor man who takes her to a walk in the park to a poor man who spends his savings to take her into a fancy restaurant – because the latter is reckless and the former is responsible. A fool ruining himself trying to impress her might be good enough to take advantage of, but a man resourceful enough to come up with a date without ruining himself is clearly more qualified as a husband. (Yes, I know you don't want to marry her, you just want a fuck. But in order to efficiently lure women into your bed, you must understand what it is that makes them attracted to you.)

To clear away a possible misunderstanding – I don't mean to say that a woman goes to bed only with men she would like to get married to. I mean to say that one and only life-long marriage is her supreme goal, and the qualities that make you suitable for becoming her one and only life-long husband are the very qualities that make her sexually attracted to you. That is why, contrary to what the porn magazines insist, the size of your wallet affects your attractiveness far more than the size of your penis. (For that matter, it's the exact same reason why men are aroused by well-shaped bodies. Men are subconsciously looking for women able to produce many big strong healthy children. Women are subconsciously looking for men capable of defending the family and providing for the same.)

To clear away another possible misunderstanding: of course it's not primarily about money. Even if you aren't all that wealthy at this moment, you can still be attractive if you show her that you have goals and are willing to work to make something out of your life.

For that matter, even if you are a complete and utter loser, you can still be attractive if you are an unusually glib talker who can make her believe that you have a great future ahead. But we can skip that part because if you were, you wouldn't be needing any advice on handling women.

In any case, when out on a date with you, she is not after getting flowers and food and gifts and amusement out of you. She is after getting to know what kind of a man you are.

next part