I couldn't find a picture for this so I'll just give you the boring words...

I was pretty much raised in the UK for 26 years of my life barely being a year old when my family first arrived there. I can't really say that I identify with Cambodian culture that much with various facets of it that don't necessarily appeal to me at all. To this day there are still certain things I still don't really dig on. I've seen the better sides and lesser sides and overall its been a bit of a culture shock to say the least. I very much so identify with western culture more then Asian. But when I read a piece that was trying to incorrectly put holes in various projects and Asian culture in general I kind of got the slight urge to write this piece.

I think the whole notion of superficiality is pretty much present in both western and eastern societal cultures alike with many similarities despite how it might uniquely manifests itself in many of the same and other slightly different ways.
Even without a degree I can tell you...
It would also be naive to propose that focus on immediate blood relatives having greater importance over any potential spouse is something that was characteristic and limited only to certain sections of specific Asian cultures. Well versed sociologists with letters after their name would be writhing in held back giddiness at the prospect of somebody even suggesting that.
As far as I was aware such a mentality of "looking after ones own" as it were was often characteristically linked to social deprivation which has historically occurred the world over in many cultures and subcultures within societies of the western world, the influences of which to some degree would have no doubt extended into elements of more affluent sections of society with long term generational social mobility. In fact I'd be willing to bet that it still does exist today in western society amongst certain affluent and lesser affluent social groups within western society.
I can see how trying to be everything to everybody could be a problem with the claim that such folk would have a very questionable moral compass by attempting to make everybody their friend. However the opposite is also true that there are those who don't have many friends due to the fact that they don't actually choose to side with any one particular apposing wider agenda, since it maybe the case that their views aren't fully reflected by any side and in sticking to their stance with any actual moralistic substance will also leave you to stand alone with backing from neither side. Many a time have I had to draw the line and not agree with any side on certain issues to have then received pressure from both. So no, depending on who and why its being done its not necessarily about making friends purely for reasons of what others can do for you but I can very much see how that could be the case and could very much so be a reality when it comes to people with lesser intentions.
But lets keep things in perspective. Many of the things that one side blames another for could be caused by certain actions of the side that's complaining about the other doing in some extended and less obvious ways. Even worse is when its dripping with hypocrisy.
Have you ever seen it where you basically have what are apparently two diametrically apposing sides that want to achieve the same thing but either in their own way and for their own agenda whilst accusing the other of doing it?
How about when kids have to take sides between feuding parents that just don't get on? Surely if they were capable of supporting themselves they wouldn't choose any as regards to the immediate dispute and find their own means.
As for a prenuptial agreement? I can't see why that should be an issue if in fact it wasn't about the money and both had their own means of earning. Sure the option is always there to give if you want. But if you were in any sort of genuine situation whilst in a relationship you would any way because you wanted to. I think history and general experience tells us that it always goes sour when large amounts of money are involved with or without a pre-nup. So you might as well get the pre-nup anyway. But it also depends on whether it was something that was actively done out of choice to begin with.
As far as honesty goes. If someone has proven repeatedly that they can't be honest with you over the smallest and most inconsequential of things to more serious things that effect your relationship when confronted within a so called relationship how do you expect them to be honest with you regarding even larger and more important issues and matters that directly effect your relationship and lives? There's no way such a person would come clean to you about cheating on you unless you had enough proof or had actually caught them in the act.
As far as sexual experiences go I've yet to experience a threesome with two other actual physically female women that were genuinely up for it. Its something that I wouldn't pass up if the opportunity ever arose. But I reckon my missus would have to articulate to me that she was ok with it before I could or at least be single at the time of doing it.
I say physically female as I more and more often come across people who seem to differentiate with a category of so called "mentally female" individuals that are physically male that may not personally consider themselves to be mentally female either. As such some condescendingly reference these individuals as females. The condescending element comes from the fact that they use these references as if they have some sort of higher knowledge or power to appoint it.
Imagine how pissed off a butch lesbian that is biologically female but personally considers herself to be male would get. She may also dress and act like male and she'd prefer it that people consider her to be a male. But with me knowing all of this I still insist on calling her female.
Making the statement that someone might prefer a one on one encounter for its intimacy over other multiples of people having sex together at any one given time still leaves the opportunity for certain people to interpret that as being able to have multiple one on one sexual partners, just not all in one go at the exact same time. Which is basically still infidelity if done without the knowledge of the other partner in the relationship. Sadly you do have to be that specific with some people. Otherwise they will take advantage of the so called loopholes within the statement when it comes to looking for ways to abuse the trust that you place in them within a personal relationship.
I also understand that wanting honesty within any lasting personal relationship is something that shouldn't be too much to ask in regards to your personal relationship and things that affect it. Also unless you genuinely have the balls to end a relationship you basically have no leverage in it as far as getting the honesty you want over questions of fidelity and personal issues go. If after all that such honesty still wasn't forth coming despite being of such high importance to any personal stance, maybe you should ask yourself why you're still in it. Maybe it just wasn't meant to last if your partner fully understood this but yet still continued to lie to you. Do you have children together? Is either of you incapable of supporting yourselves as individuals? If the answer is no to both and the fact that she still lies to you bugs the crap out of you maybe you should end it.
Sex as a means of holding you is a none issue or at least should be. Sure its great to have but keep in mind that in the west where you come from there are far higher safety levels and peoples awareness of and tendency to practice safe sex is much higher too. I guess your point is that you want sex to be something that is significant within a meaningful relationship with someone you want to with. But if you have to question that, the relationship itself might be losing its meaning to you if you have in fact given up in certain respect to have become a doormat whilst she's able to do what ever she likes behind your back amidst the lies.
She's not an uncontrollable child that you have a duty to look after as a parent.
As far as your missus lending out your property without your permission goes with the reasoning that just because you're not using it makes it ok, that is obviously way out of order. Especially if you say it was done to gain favors and status from others and your property gets returned with it no longer being in its original state, damaged, broken or just outright unreturned. If anything it just shows her disrespect of your property and you. Since you're the one that's going to have to replace it when you do finally need to use it. But again I see this being the same as in western cultures over the question of people/friends "borrowing" (taking) CD's and never bringing them back. No doubt many a deep rift has been caused amongst friends, family and university students alike over the issue. It was an annoyance then and it still is now. However nowadays people just instantly download the music which should obviously create less reason to fall out over unreturned CD's.
In any case I think these issues would manifest itself via many different cultures whether western or Asian and I don't believe it is something that is specific to Thai culture, the basis for which I can actually draw from my own experiences and observations of people and people I've known in general. Dishonesty and superficiality is something that is prevalent throughout the fabric of societies the world over and is more a question of individual character then specific countries as a whole. However I will concede to the fact that there will be circumstances under which it will be more likely to be the case amongst certain social groups with western and Asian cultures regardless of country.
You just need to figure out if your situation has become too much for your threshold of what you are willing to accept against the understanding of what you said and how you were from the beginning. If it was something you willingly got yourself into wanting to do it with no questions asked, then I can't help you since it obviously goes much deeper. But if it was something that was done out of pressure from others and not really for yourself from the beginning despite having to put up with all the afore mentioned issues then you really need to think long and hard about why you're in it. Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose. You can't really miss what you never had just as you also can't miss what you never knew you had.
Also the use of the word minimalism out of common sense is obviously something that shouldn't be applied to every single facet of life as if it was the be all and end all. It would obviously apply in certain contexts and not in others. Also different things work for different people as not all people are the same. Just some may reach different ways of thinking at different stages of their life just there will be those that never change. I think people who've experienced nothing but scantness might want a little more substance where as those who maybe feel their lives have got a little too convoluted tangled might want something a little more defined and less complex. Having said that people want different things at different times relative to where they are in their lives relating to many different things. Just because they like minimalism in certain things or aspects of their life doesn't necessarily mean they will in others.