• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Sinkie women say $$$ are are top stumbling block to marriage

now comfort blue taxi not hyundai meh?:D

yah...but he say got to sarpok loan mah....drive taxi only pay daily rent...no need to sarpok hyundai loan..

btw...blue taxi still have toyota de....manual...
 
yah...but he say got to sarpok loan mah....drive taxi only pay daily rent...no need to sarpok hyundai loan..

btw...blue taxi still have toyota de....manual...
maybe he is talking abt himself leh? u forgotten krafty came from IMH ah?:D
rent = loan
loan hyundai taxi kekeke
 
Said Ms Kay: "I would feel comfortable letting my husband be the sole breadwinner only if he earns $20,000 a month."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If i can earn 20k per month, i don't think i want to look at her as a wifey material kind of woman.

Spot On!

A man who makes 20K per month or above is spoiled with too many choices of women who can qualify his unspoken criteria. Ms Kay's chances of being chosen by such a man is next to impossible.
 
20k per month is chickenshit. I can earn that in a good week.:rolleyes:

coincidentally thats how much i roughly made in a day selling funeral packages to customers like u. give u some discount ok. u need the package soon.
 
Sorry for bringing this tread back on-topic, but this reminded me of a good article I read recently about marriage and family in the Asian context:

http://www.economist.com/node/21526329

It's long, but relevant definitely worth a read IMO.

I support the notion that upholding the "traditional" family unit is unsustainable in today's world. We have an institution (traditional marriage) founded on clear divisions on paternal/maternal or husband/wife roles, but in the face of rising gender equality, we still expect it to work...

You change the inputs; the outputs are invariably modified. We're swimming against the current by not recognising this.
 
:(:(:(:(:(

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yMpqxvboPrY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
hi there


1. yes, bro.
2. with 20k per mth, why marry one gal that will turn around to haunt you for the rest of my life man!
3. let them come to me, definitely no string attached!

exactly!!! they want to be a golddigger that much, they shouldn't have spent so much time on their careers/education. if they did, they should have spent their savings on plastic surgery and hiring a bapok to teach them some bed techiques to "catch up" with the sweet young things. you can't have your cake and eat it.
 

Strangely enough another way to interpret the article is that Nature never intended women to be educated or dominant coz it basically reduce the chance of the species reproducing. With or without marriage, the trend in all the developed countries highlighted in the article is the same, all of them with the exception of the US have way lower then replacement birthrate of 2.01.

And that too we have to factor in most of them have rural areas(which more likely then not is what is sustaining the US birthrate) which push up the birthrate. If we only look at the major cities where the educated women are concentrated, the birthrate falls even lower
 
Back
Top