The very first Korean man I met put his hand on my thigh.

I was young, stressed and already freaking out as the enormity of moving to Korea hit me. By the time I’d finally strapped myself in on the plane, I was just about ready to snap. So, when the very friendly guy from Daegu next to me introduced himself, and suddenly began groping me?

But I didn’t snap, because the day before I’d read that Koreans were very touchy-feely, including the men; it was all I needed. I was still wary, of course, but quickly realized he was just being very friendly, in his own way.

Same with a university student of mine last week, who started stroking the hairs on my arm as I was explaining something to her. Or an ex-student of mine who saw me in the corridor the next day, and, just delighted to see me, came bounding up to me as if to plant a big kiss on her favorite uncle. She seemed surprised at my flinching, yet completely unconcerned that she was standing closer to me than my wife normally does.

“There is often something to such explanations. But other times, they can be quite tortured, and obscure more than they enlighten. When that happens, it can be helpful to remember that Koreans and Westerners are all just people too and to seek a simpler explanation accordingly.”

Koreans, I’m constantly reminded, have a very different sense of personal space than that which I was raised on.

But sometimes, such simple explanations just don’t seem to cut it, and something deeper seems called for. When does your (male) boss get in your face? Perhaps he’s repeating what he learned during his military service. When your Western coworkers seem unsociable? Perhaps it’s because they haven’t experienced the months-long induction camp common at Korean companies, where new trainees live together and get to know each other very well. When you’re a woman, and you’re constantly hit on when you’re just being friendly? Perhaps it’s because of ‘yellow fever’ or Occidentalist stereotypes. And so on.

There is often something to such an explanations. But other times, they can be quite tortured, and obscure more than they enlighten. When that happens, it can be helpful to remember that Koreans and Westerners are all just people too and to seek a simpler explanation accordingly.

Let me give you an example that, well, changed my life.

For various reasons, my high school in New Zealand, Macleans College, probably had (and still has) the highest number of Taiwanese students in the country. So, naturally, I started hanging out with some of them. But that’s when the problems started: I couldn’t put my finger on it, but something about them just really, really bugged me. I started finding excuses to avoid them. I got close to deciding that Taiwanese people, and by extension all Asians, just rubbed me up the wrong way for some reason. In turn, they later admitted to me they were angry how friendly Kiwis appeared at first, yet cold, unwelcoming and really rather racist once you got to know them.

Fortunately, I figured it out in time: They were standing too close to me.

You’re probably aware that we all have various ‘zones’ around our bodies. Generally speaking, there is the ‘intimate zone,’ ‘personal zone,’ ‘social zone’ and ‘public zone,’ depending on who can enter them without making us feel uncomfortable. Step into the wrong zone though, and people instinctively tense up. That’s why it’s so awkward to talk normally in a crowded elevator or subway, why we never, ever make eye contact with strangers while we’re on them, and why we feel compelled to stare at our phones or the elevator number until we can – with great relief – leave and be ourselves again. They’re all part of the social code that’s developed to help people overcome the tension caused when we can’t avoid being squeezed together.

too close for comfort

(That tension may sound like no big deal, but it’s so explosive that, in volatile crowd situations, the first thing the police do is to split people into smaller groups to calm them down.)

Now imagine being squeezed together 24/7. It means that your average East Asian, who tends to live in a dense city, usually has much smaller zones than your average Westerner. So when they meet, the potential for misunderstandings is magnified before they even speak.

Picture this: A Korean woman meets a Western male colleague for the first time. She is friendly and welcoming, and moves closer to him until he’s in her social zone accordingly. But his own social zone is much wider than that, so to him, she’s actually moving into his personal, even intimate zone.

Before I came to Korea, I dated most of the women that did that.

He may respond positively to her perceived advances, not helped by any ‘yellow fever’ stereotypes he has and/or if she’s touchy-feely, or he may feel uncomfortable and step back to put her in his social zone again. She, wondering why he’s so standoffish, may step forward to put him in hers again to keep being friendly; he steps back … and they end up chasing each other around the room.

Likewise, your boss may not be in your face so much as standing at a distance appropriate for Korean workplaces. Or, if you’re Korean, and having trouble getting to know Westerners, consider that they’re not necessarily being unfriendly -they may just be standing at a distance that’s comfortable for them.

Similar examples abound. Often, these are chalked up as ineffable ‘cultural misunderstandings,’ but this is really just a lazy, catch-all term that covers many simple things that can be learned easily and that are of enormous help when navigating a new culture or meeting foreigners. Knowing about different zones is one, which is still helping me after 14 years in Korea. It’s also good to remember that your pushy boss may just be a jerk too, whether by Korean, Western or any society’s standards.

According to the book Culture Shock! Korea, though, Koreans invade my space because they think of me as a ‘nonperson,’ all due to -you guessed it – where I rank in their Neo-Confucian hierarchy.

My advice? Bin books like that, and read something like The Definitive Book of Body Language by Allan Pease instead. You won’t regret it!

Wire Transfer Payday LoansGetting wire transfer payday loans is as easy as going with an online lender that will EFT the money right into your account. This is why most lenders will have you enter your bank account information during the application process. They are verifying that you have an eligible account so that they can deposit and then withdraw the funds on your payday, check online here.

That’s the main difference between going with an online lender and a brick and mortar lender. When you opt for online you will have the money go right into your account rather than being handed the cash like you do when you go in person. The only drawback to this method is if your bank account is overdrawn and you have other things to pay off other than your NSF fees at the bank. The bank will get their money first and you’ll only have what’s left.

In person you’d write the lender an actual check which they’d hold until your next payday, at which time you return to the lender with cash and they give you back your canceled check. The online process is pretty much the same, but you don’t have to write them a check, and you don’t have to go anywhere on your payday. The flip side to that coin is that you’re giving them authorization to both put money in and take money out of your account, so if the funds aren’t there when they go to take them, you’ll suffer overdraft fees on top of all your other financial problems.

Wire Transfer Payday Loans – How It Works

The concept of a payday loan is that they’re giving you your future pay today, and then getting their money back plus the fee on your payday. The reason that they wire it to your account is so that they can establish the transfer agreement to take the money out of your account when it’s your payday. That’s why you won’t have to worry whether or not you get the money right into your account, since it’s the place that 99% of lenders will send it to once you agree to the terms and conditions. Most people prefer the convenience of having everything automated.

Other Options

Some lenders allow you to control where your money goes, depositing it onto a prepaid debit card, or sending it using a service like MoneyGram. But that is not the case with the majority of lenders that like to know where they are going to get the money from when it comes time to get paid. One thing you’ll also notice is that they will require that your pay be directly deposited into the bank account where they are wiring the money. This is so that they know the day and time that you’ll be paid so they can be the first one in line to collect.

Things to Avoid

One thing we’ve seen is that when you enter your bank account information during the application process the lender will approve you and send the money to your account even before you confirm that you want the loan. This is one tactic they use, so be sure to read the terms and conditions and make sure that you aren’t automatically accepting their offer when you submit your application. You should be able to review the specific rates and charges you’ll be paying before agreeing to go ahead with the loan.

Our Recommendation

If you need the money to pay for things immediately, the best thing to do is go in person to a local branch and walk out with cash in your pocket. From there you can get money orders to pay off any immediate needs, or you can load the money on a prepaid debit card to make online purchases or pay off bills with online bill pay. Then when your paycheck comes in you can clear up matters at the bank and be all squared up, except that you’ll now have to pay off your payday loan. This is why most people end up in the payday loan trap and end up reloaning the money a few times before they’re clear.

Why Do Payday Loans Exist? With everyone saying how bad they are, it’s easy to wonder why do payday loans exist? Or a better question, might be: why do they still exist? Since some states outlaw them entirely, and other states are lobbying heavily against them, it might not be long before they don’t exist at all.

Payday loans haven’t been around for an incredibly long time in the grand scheme of things, and most lenders are only a few decades old, if that. It’s a relatively new phenomenon, and one that has its fair share of criticism.

Those opposed to them say it drains low-income communities of their last bit of money, and they violate usury laws. It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that payday lenders are benefiting from the misfortune of others.

But those that support payday loans say that they provide a service that is needed but is not being met by any other industry. They say if payday loans didn’t exist, people would have nowhere else to turn.

Why Do Payday Loans Exist? Simple Supply and Demand

Payday loans couldn’t exist unless there were people demanding them. But the simple fact remains that when a new payday loan shop opens in a town, it immediately starts giving out loans. Of course this is because the companies choose their locations strategically, and open them in places where the demographics suggest that people are struggling. But the simple fact is that there’s a gap being filled here. The gap exists because banks make it too hard to borrow small sums from, and they make it impossible to borrow larger sums without any collateral.

Fear of Loss

People like to make a villain out of payday lenders, but you have to go back to the real source of the problem. Banks gouge their account holders with outrageous overdraft fees, credit card companies charge high interest rates on balances that don’t get paid off in full each month, as well as late fees, and retailers make it easy to buy things on credit that need to be paid off or they end up getting repossessed. All of this creates an innate fear in people and they will do anything to keep their lifestyle going and avoid paying fees or having their account closed. For many people, a payday loan represents a last ditch effort to keep it all afloat.

Lack of Savings

America consistently ranks as one of the worst countries in regards to savings. Since most payday loans are for less than $1000, this means that people don’t have an ounce of savings, or they’ve already spent through it. Most of these loans could be avoided if people would establish a savings account of just a few hundred dollars. That way they could loan themselves the money, and then pay back their savings account on payday. The trouble occurs when bad things happen back to back, of keep happening. This means you can spend your savings on one problem, and before you can replenish your savings account, something else comes up requiring that money.

That’s why most financial advisers recommend setting up at least 6 months of living expenses as an emergency savings account. It’s easier said than done of course, but this would be able to see you through any sort of calamity the Universe can dream up.

A Real Solution

It’s not realistic to think that payday loans will ever go away, but they will probably evolve. People likely won’t start saving money, and banks and other institutions aren’t going to get any friendlier as we go along. Payday loan reform is the best solution. There’s just no need for them to charge such high fees and interest on their loans.

There’s also no reason why they need to demand payment in full on your payday. The best way to go would be to offer small loans, with moderate interest rates, about half of what they currently charge, and allow people to pay it off in 3 monthly installments. That way they would really be providing what’s needed, and more people would probably use it, so they could make up for the lower interest with higher volume.

As it stands though, they are just kicking people while they’re down, and choosing to do business only with those desperate enough to go against their own common sense.

by Stephanie Laurens

To someone unfamiliar with the genre, the question fairly leaps to the eye–why, of all the time periods in history, is the British Regency (1811-1820) and its flanking time periods so frequently used as the setting for romances?

As a longtime reader of Regency romances, and as an author of 14 romances all set in the Regency, I have some inklings as to why that might be so–why romance authors and readers both find the Regency so rewarding.

First–and for a romance author very definitely foremost–the concept of love as an appropriate, useful, and perhaps even desirable element within marriage within the upper echelons of society evolved and gained acceptance during the Regency.

Prior to that time, while the concept of romantic love between a man and a woman had been recognized for centuries, among the upper classes, it had not been considered at all necessary in marriage. Indeed, in the minds of many who had lived primarily in Georgian times and were old in the Regency, the new-fangled fashion for ladies to wear their hearts on their sleeves was shocking. And even more shocking when the objects of their affections were their own husbands!

While there were rebels to this prevailing view, both in Georgian times and earlier, they were the exceptions, very definitely not the norm. While much milder “affection” was considered a felicitous circumstance within marriage and entirely appropriate, love was something else again.

The attitude against love (as distinct from affection) in marriage in all likelihood sprouted from the view that love was a potentially dangerous force, one too powerful to be allowed to influence such vital contracts as marriages then were. Marriages were the primary means of merging and

furthering familial estates, many of which were huge, politically powerful and wealthy. Divorce, and all the potential legal difficulties which could arise, or any form of marital disruption or instability, were to be avoided at all costs. Love is a force not amenable to the control of men and

their laws, it was considered too dangerous to be allowed to touch the institution of marriage. Marriage was, indeed, a civil contract blessed by the church, and as such should not be subject to emotional urges. Thus ran the prevailing wisdom.

Thus, until the Regency, marriage within the upper classes had very little to do with love. It was not only not required, but actively disapproved of. During the Regency, this changed.

What caused this fairly fundamental shift seems buried in the mists of time. But the romantic poets certainly heard the bugle call, and lent their strong and at the time highly influential voices to the push for change.

The waning of French influence on British society was one factor which not only contributed to, but was essential for, the emergence of the acceptance of love within marriage. When it came to love in marriage, the French were even stricter and more disapproving than the English (that was where the attitude had originally evolved from). While very strong during the Georgian era prior to the French revolution, and in the years immediately after, French influence on British society waned and then was eclipsed during the Napoleonic years. During this time, English fashions mirrored the change in English society, as it evolved beyond centuries of French influence, into something distinctly English.

So change came, but it came slowly–even in the 1820s and later, it is likely the majority of marriages within the upper classes were still arranged on the basis of other, unemotional criteria. But love had become acceptable–and having been let into the equation, as it were, love within

marriage was always destined to become the ideal. Very much along the lines of monkey see, monkey like, monkey do.

It could be said that the Regency is the first time we see love within marriage as we now know it, and the very fact that this circumstance was unusual–not the norm–makes it easier to highlight, easier to showcase its desirable qualities.

One aspect useful to the romance author which directly derives from this “newness” of love within marriage, is that the characters know this is not the “required” state–they could just as well marry without it. So there is also an element of “choice”–at some point our Regency hero and heroine

must actively choose to accept and pursue love, rather than do without it. This is a natural consequence of the fact that in the Regency, love was not an automatic given in marriage.

During the Regency, time was also on love’s side. For a young lady of good family, of course, there was no other desirable career–anything less than marriage was considered a failure. So young women were encouraged to spend all their waking hours considering matrimony, and their entrance to that state. As for the gentlemen, both within the ton, and in the wealthy families in the shires, there were men aplenty who did not have to work for a living, but could spend serious time pursuing the objects of their desire–or their heart. Partly as a reflection of this, the Regency was a

the time when gallantry and elegance still held sway, and where such characteristics remained the yardstick of gentlemanly behavior.

Furthermore, society considered it wise to spend time choosing and negotiating the best matrimonial alliances–hence, there was plenty of time to be legitimately devoted to courting rituals, and a plethora of suitable social events at which eligible parties could meet and explore their mutual situations. In the upper classes during the Regency, marriage was a serious business, pursued with due consideration.

By the dawn of the Regency, society itself had become distinctly English in a highly recognizable way–rules abounded. It was an extremely strictly-mannered society. At no other time in history, before or after, were there so many things that were “simply not done!”

Etiquette ruled. Period.

A lady’s reputation could be destroyed through some simple and harmless, quite inadvertent action. There were rules for this, rules for that–even rules for the exact degree of depth of curtsies, which varied according to who one was curtsying to. If you got it wrong, either too deep or too shallow, you might very well never see the inside of Almack’s.

But, like all things English, for instance, the English language, all the rules of the Regency had their exceptions.

So while there were countless rules about just about everything, there were always exceptions–this creates a very dynamic situation, where virtually every case has to be considered on its merits. If a lady walks down a street alone, is this reprehensible, or perfectly acceptable? It depends on the street, on the lady, her age and station in life, her clothing, who was potentially watching, on the time of day–and on a host of other variables.

While such a rigid but exceedingly variable social structure imposes and requires a great deal of care to be exercised by the author, it simultaneously presents untold opportunities for all sorts of situations guaranteed to a) bring our hero and heroine together, b) put them in circumstances where they have to act, or are impelled to act demonstrating their characters and c) to create satisfyingly exciting scenarios through which they move as their love develops and evolves into a grand passion.

Where, you ask, do the exciting scenarios come from?

Ah–that’s the other side of the Regency that makes it so beloved of romance authors. For beneath the glitter and glamor of the ton’s balls, behind the elegance and wealth of the upper classes and their indolent and hedonistic lifestyles, England was changing dramatically. It would never be the same again. The Regency was one of those rare times in history when an old order was being put aside, superseded, by a new order–but it all happened peaceably.

The Regency was a time of social revolution, culminating in the Great Reform Bill of 1832. This extended voting rights to the majority of adult males and restructured representation in Parliament in the most sweeping social reform of the century. It changed Britain forever.

And it’s seeds were sown and nurtured during the Regency.

It is beyond the scope of this short essay to go into the depths and breadths of the social changes, but the interested reader will find no better source than J.B. Priestley’s The Prince of Pleasure.

Suffice to say there was an awful lot happening during the Regency. And it happened against a backdrop of war, victory, an extravagant Prince Regent, a fabulously wealthy and powerful elite, an emerging middle class and an upper echelon of society who could waltz while the cannons rolled past. Indeed, as Priestley intimates, throughout the Regency there was a sense of waltzing while London burned–of living on the edge of great upheaval–of living through times that were rapidly and fundamentally changing, when the very ground of society shifted–of living life to the limits, as if there was no tomorrow.

All of this resonates with the here and now–and is, I believe, deep down, one of the reasons the Regency continues to fascinate–because, from nearly two hundred years’ distance, it holds up a mirror to our lives today.