I believe those old white dudes who can afford it are just trying to avoid dating the stereotypical modern western girls.
Here in Germany, rich guys go for a Czech, Turkish or Italian wife if they hope to have plenty of kids. And it's no secret that British guys will travel all over Europe to try their luck at dating, because apparently most aren't too happy with the supply at home.
The dynamic is that these old white men aren’t actually that rich by Western standards but are by SE Asian ones, so they don’t have the status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman but do in SEA.
If they were actually rich they wouldn’t need to retire overseas to stretch out their retirement.
Personality arguments aside: if we assume that “buying” an asian wife is an uncomfortable stereotype, doesn’t “status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman” fall into the same category? What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
>What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
Both are uncomfortable stereotypes, but we find the latter more acceptable because Western masculine ideals traditionally interpret the male in that situation as expressing his virility and alpha-dog status (while denigrating the woman as a gold-digger and whore.) Although many people are creeped out by the age differential if it's wide enough, it's expected both that older, powerful men will attract younger women, and that younger women will be attracted to the money and power. It's a sentiment expressed and reinforced throughout Western media and culture.
Meanwhile the Asian version of the stereotype has connotations of the failure of masculinity on the part of the male, as only a step above hiring a prostitute, as well as implications of pedophilia and sex-trafficking.
This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective. If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver), and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom. It is strange that traditions link those two, as a person may be just not interested genuinely in spending effort to accumulate so much bigger than usual money to simply get a normal healthy date and life. Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
Basically, it is a failure of a man to find a decent woman, but it is still unclear who is a failure in general.
>This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective.
I meant to state that the perception is that about Asian women not that I consider it the reality.
> If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
A man is often seen as having earned a Western trophy girlfriend, but as having likely bought the Asian counterpart. Why this is, and why the former is more accepted, is probably rooted in negative stereotypes about Asian women formed during America's wars in Asia (specifically Korea and Vietnam) and about the perceived "submissive" nature of Asian women in general.
>Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver),
It doesn't have to be, but historically, it has been. Trump bragged about being able to "grab'em by the pussy" and it endeared him to (some of) the public, as did Clinton's escapades, as did JFK's. It's been the case since kings had harems.
>and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom.
Yes, people often say ostentatious displays of wealth are a way to compensate for a man's shortcomings.
>Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
There's masculinity, and there's "masculinity" as expressed by commercial culture (call it corporate masculinity.) The latter is telling men that they need wealth and status items (in other words, to participate in conspicuous consumerism) for a woman to find them attractive.
In Vietnam, the women are not submissive at all and I have a bit of a theory on it after living and dating here for 4 years.
All the men were killed in the war. The women ran the houses and the businesses. Now, 2-3 generations later, kids have grown up watching mom and sister be the strong ones.
Trust me, the last thing you want to do is piss off a Vietnamese woman.
So true. I grew up in SE Asia and although women there are not as independent as the ones in the west, they can be pretty passive aggressive/manipulative/controlling in the household. One may not notice it right away, but once you're married or have been with them for a while, you'll start noticing that.
That's why there's the saying in my country that roughly translates to something like "Woman is key of the household (because she keeps all the money)". One of the traditional duties (there are five of them) of a wife is to control and distribute money in the way that is fair (among family, her parents and in-laws).
