She smokes cigarettes...

[harley quinn]

I suppose I fall into that group of tolerant lust buckets that don't indulge in smoking but do indulge in hanging about in smoky bars.

I prefer non smokers, and really would rather that LBs do not smoke in my hotel room. I am however honest enough to admit that there are several LBs who could light a bonfire let alone a cigarette if it meant I was going to cross that famous threshold with them!

[stogie bear]

What's interesting in the early stages of this poll is that judging by the responses and comments, everyone (except maybe smokers who don't care) gives the issue some thought when making their choice for a screw.

Just for the record - I know quite a few lbs in Bangkok and Pattaya who aren't in the P4P game and I can't think of one that smokes cigarettes. In fact I'm nearly certain that none of them do.

In 131 the other night I don't think there was an lb that was NOT smoking a ciggy at some point. Even the delcious May from 131 who I almost whisked off, produced a round of ciggies that eventually made my decision for me.

Also in the poll - there are a lot more smokers than I expected there would be. I honestly thought that only a sprinkling of us indulged in the government tax machine that is smoking cigarettes.

So for those that DO smoke... are some of us making too much out of this issue? Should we be more forgiving and tolerant? Where do you hide in Heathrow?

[brocklanders]

That is the one thing I notice big time when partaking in this hobby no matter where it is. The mongers all over the world really abuse their bodies. A large chunk of them are chain smokers and many of them are obese(not fat, but seriously obese). Granted mongers are a diverse group but mongering is also an addictive lifestlye which draws to it people with addictive personalities, especially smokers. I would think working ladyboys smoke cigarettes to calm their nerves as they work in a taboo job and have to allow smelly, hairy, chain-smoking old bastards fuck their ass for small amounts of money.

[stogie bear]

I've never thought of the way I live to be an 'addictive lifestyle.' Maybe it is. I sure don't want to change it and I want more and more years just like it! If we are lucky enough to live a harmless 'addictive lifestyle' that surely beats a lifestyle devoid of pleasure or lives that provide less of the things that we want to be addicted to.

As for the unhealthy side of it... I assume that you mean all sexpats and not just lb hunters. Hmmm... certainly a look around the streets of Pattaya would seem to suggest that you are right. The pack hounding the girls and lbs are an unhealthy lot of self destructive, 'live for today', whore mongering, out of shape, drunken loafers... me included to a certain degree.

It certainly makes me sympathise more with the poor angelic souls who are forced from the rice farms to wriggle under my heaving sweaty carcass to feed their loved ones back in Bumfuckburi!

(That's especially for Breakermorant!)

Maybe it's a two way exchange of good and services... The girls are addicted to money and the (more glamorous) lifestyle that it can (supposedly) provide them and we are compulsively willing to shell out hard earned money to stretch their asses!

They are too lazy to get into tip top shape to provide us with tip top service as they don't really have to and they are lazy. Whilst we are content to huff and puff on top of them and wouldn't appreciate a well turned out piece of meat if it slapped us in the chops, anyway!

Damn... that's depressing...

[divertwo]

......just for those who keep thowing around the "correlation" word..........."Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in the sciences and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Its converse, "correlation implies causation", is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. It is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. In the strictest sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation". With casual use of the word "imply" the idea of a causal connection is in some sense true, but that is because the word "implies" can loosely mean suggests rather than requires. And correlation is certainly needed for causation to be proved. However, in logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means " to be a sufficient circumstance".

This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain.

[stogie bear]

Exactly and I think that this may be causing some confusion with the post made by grunyen on the previous page.

It's likely (to me) that cigarette smokers of any age are more likely to do recreational drugs. But not because they are smokers. It makes sense to me that non-smokers are less likely to do recreational drugs but that said - most of the recreational drug users I know don't smoke cigarettes.

I think it's this idea that is getting a bit confusing where some readers are trying to tie the two habits together when they can be measured as indicators seperate from each other.

As an added note, I only know older people and fewer older people smoke cigarettes than younger people but I'd say the use of recreational drugs is probably similar across the age spectrum of people I meet. Therefore the older people that I meet are more likely to do recreational drugs and NOT smoke cigarettes than younger people.

Then again most people I meet are non recreational drug users anyway. But those that users are are less likely to smoke cigarettes.

Fuck me... I need a lie down now!

[newwriter]

Gents, I'm lost. The leap from high time preference / low time preference theory to the link between cigarette smoking and hard drug use is a step too far for my small brain to grasp. And I find the most reasonable post in the whole thread came from Sangabriel. NEVER thought that would happen.

Is it my imagination or are the threads on this site becoming progressively more intellectual without ever actually demonstrating any more understanding or providing any more answers?

As for cigarette breath? I am a life-time non-smoker and find a mix of tobacco and alcohol on the breath of a woman I am kissing to be rather sexy.

[stogie bear]

(newwriter @ Jun. 04 2007,19:11) 1 Is it my imagination or are the threads on this site becoming progressively more intellectual without ever actually demonstrating any more understanding or providing any more answers?

2 As for cigarette breath? I am a life-time non-smoker and find a mix of tobacco and alcohol on the breath of a woman I am kissing to be rather sexy.

#1 - Good point! We'll try to dumb it down even more...

#2 - That's just sick, erm... literally!

[newwriter]

(stogie bear @ Jun. 04 2007,20:21) #1 - Good point! We'll try to dumb it down even more...

#2 - That's just sick, erm... literally!

Thank you - and sign me up for another 12 months subscription.

[stogie bear]

Happy to oblige and as a bonus for having a sense of humor your new membership will include a month of www.lbflix.com. PM me for details...

[Guest]

if she,s smoking while ur doing the bizz ......... then complain ................

[norh]

(stogie bear @ Jun. 04 2007,03:28) I think there is a corellation between cigarette use and illegal drug use. If the girl in question does not smoke cigarettes then she (in my opinion) is less likely to do illegal drugs.

Hello

Maybe your right about smoking and drugs. Maybe you are more proned for drugs when you smoke.

On the other hand in my opinion there probaly are more drugusers among the LB's.

But that have nothing to do with smoking or no smoking. It's more related to the buisness there in.
Again if you look at the statisk there are more drugusers in the world of prostitutes than in any other form of employment.

Norh

[stogie bear]

Again if you look at the statisk there are more drug users in the world of prostitutes than in any other form of employment.

Uh Huh? And what would these 'statistics' be? I agree it's high and if you take communities, cities and/or countries individually you can prove your case...

But that blase statement actually doesn't say or prove anything that is salient to this thread.

[stogie bear]

Maybe your right about smoking and drugs. Maybe you are more proned for drugs when you smoke

You missed the whole point... It's not WHEN you smoke - it's IF you smoke. The two habits are related but not causal.

[mardhi]

Nothing more than anecdotal evidence from me. I know of 1 girl in Guess that is a regular smoker and thats Koko. Nan and Fern are very light smokers - maybe 2 or 3 in a night from what I have seen. To the best of my knowledge all the others are non smokers.

Every ladyboy I know that plays about with drugs is also a smoker. Again no hard science just my own observation.

So make of that what you will and analyse accordingly for anyone who really feels the need

Cheers
Mardhi