u/Spirited-Energy2410

I've been wondering about the people here who have been coming to Pattaya for years.

At what age did you start mongering, and when did you realize this wasn't just a phase or a one-off vacation thing, but something that would probably remain part of your lifestyle?

Did you consciously decide that a traditional path—marriage, kids, settling down—wasn't for you? Or did life just naturally take you in a different direction?

Do you ever see yourself changing, or have you accepted that you'll probably just keep working, traveling, and meeting girls whenever you're on vacation?

I'm not judging either way. I'm genuinely interested in hearing how people ended up on this path and whether there was a specific moment or age when it clicked for them.

The more I think about it, the more I feel natalism is tied to identity rather than humanity as a whole. In practice, many people appear to be motivated primarily by the continuation of 'their' own community, culture, religion, nation, or ethnicity. And not by a desire for global population growth.

On a global platform like Reddit, where people from every background can participate, these different priorities inevitably come into contact. Discussions that begin with birth rates or family policy can quickly turn into arguments about demographics, identity, or whose community is growing or declining.

Because of that, I sometimes wonder whether separate natalism communities focused on different cultural, religious, ethnic, or national perspectives would lead to more productive discussions than trying to fit every perspective into one subreddit. Each community could discuss its own concerns without constantly running into disagreements over competing demographic goals.

When people bring strong in-group preferences into a shared global forum, conversations can become polarized and sometimes descend into xenophobia or conflict. Acknowledging that different groups have different motivations might make for more honest and potentially more constructive discussions.

Our ancestors weren't a single, unchanging group with one ideology. Human history is full of people who challenged tradition, questioned authority, crossed social boundaries, and fought for greater personal freedom.

Individualism isn't a modern invention. Philosophers from ancient Greece, thinkers in ancient India, religious reformers, poets, and countless ordinary people have defended the right to think independently and live according to conscience.

Liberal values such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, freedom of religion, women's rights, and individual liberty didn't appear out of nowhere—they evolved over centuries through debate, reform, and resistance to unjust traditions. Many of these rights were won because people challenged long-standing customs rather than accepting them simply because they were old.

If conservatives can claim ancestry for preserving customs, liberals can equally point to a long tradition of questioning customs, expanding rights, and pushing society toward greater equality.

And even if one religion becomes the majority in a country, that doesn't make liberalism, individualism, or women's rights any less legitimate. A majority can determine who wins elections, but it doesn't determine whether principles like freedom of conscience, equal rights, or personal liberty are valid. Those principles protect everyone, regardless of which religion is most numerous.

Our ancestors gave us both tradition and progress. Civilization advanced because some people preserved what worked while others challenged what didn't.

Appealing to "our ancestors" doesn't settle a political debate. History belongs to everyone, not just conservatives.

I've never understood why it makes sense to identify so strongly with your ancestors.

You didn't choose them. You didn't contribute to their achievements, and you didn't commit their crimes. So why should either define who you are?

If your ancestors built a great civilization, discovered something groundbreaking, or were famous leaders, that's an interesting part of your family history—but it isn't your accomplishment. You didn't earn it.

The same logic applies in the opposite direction. If you're German today, you aren't guilty of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. If you're British today, you aren't personally responsible for the crimes committed during the British Empire's colonial rule. If you're an American or Canadian of European descent, you aren't personally guilty of the displacement, violence, and other injustices committed by European settlers against Native Americans. Those were the actions of people in the past, not of their descendants.

History should be remembered, studied, and acknowledged. But guilt and pride should belong to the people who actually acted—not to their descendants.

To me, it makes far more sense to identify with your own values, choices, and actions than with people who happened to share your DNA.

Your ancestry explains where you came from, not who you are.

I'm not arguing that heritage, traditions, or culture are meaningless. They can be valuable and worth preserving. What I don't understand is why people feel pride or shame over events they had no control over and no part in.

If we reject inherited guilt, then consistency also requires rejecting inherited glory. You can't logically claim credit for your ancestors' achievements while denying responsibility for their wrongdoing. Either both are yours, or neither is.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the state of the world lately. I know I was incredibly lucky to be born into a good family in a developed country, but I can't shake the reality that half the world lives in poverty.

On top of that, it’s heartbreaking to see so much prejudice, division, and people who still believe their race, religion, or culture makes them superior. Seeing the devastating reality of recent wars and escalating global conflicts only adds to that weight.

It makes me genuinely wonder: how do you justify bringing a child into a world where true equality doesn't exist, where peace feels so fragile, and where so much of a person's life is decided just by the lottery of where they are born?

For those of you who want kids or already have them, how do you process this? Do you see raising a conscious, empathetic child as a way to fight against that inequality and violence, or do you have a different perspective that gives you hope?

I've been thinking about what seems like a contradiction.

Many parents in aging welfare states argue that their children will face higher taxes, worsening dependency ratios, lower economic growth, and a larger burden supporting retirees. Some even believe their kids will be lifetime net contributors who won't receive benefits proportional to what they pay in.

If that's genuinely how they see the future, why don't more families move while their children are still young? If you believe your kids will have better opportunities elsewhere, wouldn't emigrating be the logical choice?

It also makes me wonder: if leaving is a realistic option, why spend years complaining about the direction of the country instead of relocating? Is it because the perceived downsides aren't actually large enough to justify moving, or because family, culture, language, and social ties outweigh the economic calculation?

I'm planning a trip to Thailand and I'm a non-drinker (yes, we exist).
I don't drink , so spending hours in beer bars isn't really my thing.

I'm mainly interested in mongering, so I'm wondering what the best approach is for someone like me.

• Are there good places to meet girls that don't involve sitting in bars drinking?
• Is it still normal to walk through places like Soi 6 or Walking Street without drinking?
• Are there other venues or areas that are better suited for non-drinkers?
• For people who don't drink because of religion, health, or personal choice, how do you usually go about it?

I'm curious how other non-drinkers navigate Pattaya. What's worked best for you if you're there primarily for the girls rather than the nightlife or drinking scene?

Any advice from people who've done the same would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I'm planning my first trip to Pattaya and I'm a bit confused about the best and most common way to handle this.

If I meet a girl (whether from a bar, club, or elsewhere), what do most people actually do?

• Bring her back to your own hotel room?
• Book one of the hourly/short-time hotels?
• Use the rooms above the bars (if available)?
• Or is there another option that's more common?

I'm also wondering about the pros and cons of each option in terms of privacy, convenience, cost, and safety. For example, is it generally considered safer to use your own hotel room, or are short-time rooms or bar rooms a better choice? Are there any common scams or situations that first-time visitors should watch out for?

I'm also confused about hotel rooms. Do I need to book a double room if I might invite a guest back, or is a single room fine as long as the hotel's guest policy allows visitors? I've read conflicting information online, with some people saying the bed type matters and others saying only the hotel's joiner/guest policy matters.

I'd appreciate any advice from people who've been to Pattaya before, especially any tips that can help a first-time visitor avoid rookie mistakes. Thanks!

I've noticed that a lot of natalist arguments seem tied to national identity ideas like preserving the nation, maintaining the population, or ensuring "our country" has enough future generations.

But what if you don't feel attached to your country? Maybe you think it's corrupt, poorly governed, economically stagnant, or just not a place you'd want future generations to grow up in.

If someone doesn't identify strongly with their nation or even actively dislikes living there, does the natalist argument lose most of its appeal? Would they be more likely to support having children only if they planned to emigrate, or would they see fewer reasons to have kids at all?

I'm curious whether natalism can stand on its own without nationalism, or whether the two are more connected than people admit.

What do you think? Are natalism and nationalism fundamentally separate ideas, or do they usually reinforce each other?

A thought experiment:

A farmer might think, "I'm doing the most important job in society because I grow food."

That's true only while there's unmet demand for food.

Once everyone is well-fed, producing additional food doesn't automatically create more value. Beyond a certain point, surplus food is wasted, stored, or sold at diminishing returns. The value came from satisfying a need—not from maximizing output.

I think a similar principle applies to natalism.

A common argument is that having children is inherently a service to society because they'll become future workers, taxpayers, and contributors.

But that assumes society always benefits from simply increasing the number of people.

If a country faces labor shortages, there are multiple ways to respond. One is encouraging higher birth rates. Another is selective immigration of people with skills that are already in demand. A third is increasing productivity through AI, automation, and robotics, which may reduce the demand for human labor in many industries over the coming decades.

This also makes me question one of the most common natalist arguments: "We're below replacement level, so we need more babies."

Do we necessarily?

The replacement fertility rate of about 2.1 assumes that maintaining the current population size is itself the objective. But is that still the right benchmark in a future where AI can perform more work, automation increases productivity, and skilled immigration can help fill labor shortages?

Maybe the goal shouldn't be replacing every generation one-for-one, but finding the population size that best matches society's actual needs.

It's also not obvious that every additional birth is a net positive. Outcomes depend heavily on the environment people are raised in. Parents who raise healthy, educated, and productive adults contribute enormously to society. Parents who neglect their children or consistently fail to prepare them for adulthood can contribute to problems that impose significant social costs. Simply increasing the number of births doesn't automatically increase societal well-being.

So perhaps having children isn't inherently a public service any more than growing food is.

Growing food creates value because it satisfies demand. Once demand is met, producing more isn't automatically beneficial.

Likewise, having children may create societal value when additional people are genuinely needed. But if labor shortages can be addressed through productivity gains, AI, automation, or selective immigration, then the claim that everyone has a moral obligation to reproduce becomes much less obvious.

What am I missing? Is there a compelling reason why maintaining a TFR of 2.1 should remain an objective regardless of advances in technology, automation, and alternative ways of sustaining the workforce?

We don't owe society children—we owe society contribution.

I often see the argument that every able-bodied adult has a duty to have children because society depends on future generations. I think this frames civic responsibility too narrowly.

The real obligation we have is to contribute to society. Parenthood is one way of doing that, but it isn't the only way.

Childless adults pay taxes that fund schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and pensions. They work as doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists, caregivers, soldiers, entrepreneurs, and public servants. They create wealth, innovate, volunteer, mentor, and support extended family members. Many parents also rely on childless relatives, coworkers, and neighbors who help keep society functioning.

If raising children creates future taxpayers and workers, that's valuable. But those children are also raised in a society built and maintained by millions of people, many of whom never become parents. Parents and non-parents are participating in the same social project through different forms of contribution.

I support policies that make it easier for people who want children to have them. Lower the cost of housing, improve childcare, expand parental leave, and reduce financial barriers. Those are positive, voluntary approaches.

What I don't agree with is the claim that someone who chooses not to have children is somehow failing a moral obligation. A person who spends a lifetime contributing through work, taxes, innovation, caregiving, or community service has fulfilled their obligations to society just as meaningfully.

A healthy society should value both parents and non-parents. The goal should be encouraging families, not implying that citizenship is incomplete without biological children.

I've been thinking about this and wanted to see what others think.

A lot of discussions treat low total fertility rate (TFR) as if it's a cultural failure or something governments need to "fix." But what if it's just the expected outcome of an open market where people have more choices?

In a market economy:

• Women have greater access to education and careers.
• People delay marriage because opportunity costs are higher.
• Housing, childcare, and education become expensive in competitive urban economies.
• Parents tend to invest more resources in fewer children rather than having many.
• Individuals prioritize personal goals, travel, financial security, or entrepreneurship over larger families.

If markets reward productivity and human capital, then having fewer children could simply be a rational economic decision rather than a societal problem.

Historically, high fertility often coincided with:

• Agrarian economies where children contributed economically.
• Higher child mortality.
• Limited educational and career opportunities, especially for women.
• Weak social safety nets.

Once those conditions disappear, maybe low fertility is exactly what we'd expect.

The counterargument is that very low TFR creates aging populations, labor shortages, and fiscal pressures. But perhaps those are issues caused by institutions (like pension systems and housing policies) failing to adapt, rather than low fertility itself.

So my question is:

Is low TFR fundamentally a market equilibrium that naturally emerges as societies become wealthier and freer? Or is it evidence that modern economies have become so expensive and demanding that they're actually distorting people's preferences about having children?

I was wondering what the pros and cons are of Soi 6 versus Beach Road.

For those who have tried both, which do you generally prefer and why?

A few things I'm curious about:

• Which has better overall selection?
• Where are the women generally more attractive or friendly?
• Which offers better value for money?
• Is one better for first-time visitors?
• How do prices and negotiations compare?
• Any safety or scam concerns unique to either?
• If you could only choose one for a night, which would it be?

Interested in hearing real experiences and recommendations from people who've spent time in Pattaya. Thanks!

Obviously the v*ginal penetration should be done while wearing a c*ndom. But what about the other stuff ?

Taking BJs are fine without c*ndom ?
Sucking on b*obs ?
French kissing ?

What is the risk of stds in the above cases and what precautions are required ?

PS: I know that nothing is 100% safe, especially with sex workers.

But I wanted to know what precautions do the mongerers follow. Do you wear a condom during bjs too or the pattaya girls s*ck you raw and the risk is not huge ?

I mean the discussions about TFR and birth rates is cool but there isn't a single post about hundreds of children who died in the recent wars from various countries in the middle-east.

So shouldn't natalism include creating a safe environment for the children too. Or we just want as many children as possible so that even if a few hundred die, there are plenty left ?

This was the basic motivation behind having 8-12 children 150-200 years ago as more than half of the children died due to some reason before they turned adult.

But present day problems are all self inflicted due to humans hating other humans based on various parameters like religion, race, language, ideology, etc.

Also it's not just a middle-east problem. There are school shootings in the US, grooming-gangs in Europe, and sharia law in Afghanistan all affecting children in a bad way. So shouldn't that be discussed too ?

It's not liberalism, it's not the women, it's not the current generation addicted to smart phones, neither it's pluralism.

The only 3 major factors are urbanization, birth-control and opportunity cost of raising children.
That doesn't mean we need to ban birth control, go backwards in development and force middle-class to have kids, take away rights from women.

We actually need to change the working of the system to accommodate a slow decline in the civilization to a point where population is mostly constant. Neither growing nor declining.

The pay as you go pension system needs to go. Boomers need to stop being selfish and stop milking the working class to the max. Ultra-rich need to be taxed a bit more and so on.

Ethnical and cultural supremacy only works on men. Women don't care. They know they will suffer like they used to do throughout history if liberalism is not continued. Saying them that they will suffer more in an Islamic state than in a Christian state is not a good enough selling point. Both the religions need to go.

Hi everyone! I'm an Indian planning my first trip to Thailand, and I want to make sure I'm a respectful and considerate visitor. I know every country has its own customs and etiquette, so I'd love to hear from locals and experienced travelers. What are some things tourists—especially Indians—often get wrong, and what can I do to avoid those mistakes? Are there any cultural norms, dos and don'ts, or simple gestures that locals appreciate?

One of my personal goals is to be the kind of traveler who leaves a positive impression. I've seen a lot of negative stereotypes and criticism about Indian tourists online, and I'd rather help challenge those perceptions through my own behavior than ignore them. I want to represent my country well, support local businesses, and enjoy Thailand respectfully.

Thanks in advance for any advice—I really appreciate it!

PS: Thank you everyone for taking your time out to reply. Honestly, the comments were a bit overwhelming. I was almost having second thoughts about whether I should be going to Thailand or go to Dubai, Abu Dhabi instead first and then think about Thailand.

But as some of the comments are very helpful and a few people have pointed out that many comments are from western trolls just hating on Indians and not from local Thai people, I will give it a go. Cheers !!!

Once again I will thank the local Thai people who have genuinely commented with good faith and provided useful information.

Natalism is important for both the liberals and the conservatives. Most people are left leaning when they are young but slowly they shift towards the right as they age. The reason for that might be that people want more freedom when they are young but as they age, they want to take pride in their culture and have a sense of authority towards the younger generation.

But the problem is that instead of solving housing crisis, which is one of the biggest reasons why people are having less kids or no kids at all, we are busy at debating each other on other factors. But for making hosing affordable, the working class will have to unite together and make it an agenda of priority so that both the blue and red parties can't ignore it.

If we can't unite as working class, then we might as well just let the ultra rich have 10+ babies each and repopulate the entire country. And luckily, most of them happen to be white so the culture and heritage of the country is also preserved. They will raise kids under better conditions too. Their kids will get ample amount to inheritance and will truly enjoy life. Why should we as working class care about the country when it's not ours ? The country belongs to the elites. We are just wage slaves anyway. Pun