My trip to Ukraine - Part three

[Boethius]

You are thinking in terms of someone held at a higher standard ( the women) instead of an equal. You are expecting something in return. Like I said not good in starting a relationship.

I could easily say she owes me a coat for entertaing her or choosing her for the week? I'm not chump change.

See what happens when you think you deserve something instead of letting the heart take care of things.

Substitute the word "heart" with "penis" and your post makes more sense.

If you want an "equal", look for a woman in the US.  Isn't that the what most of you are moaning about regarding AW?   In this type of situation, one is using the miserable economic conditions to take advantage of poor people, leading the woman into believing he (a generic "he") is interested in her, and you're trying to equate this?  There is no equality.  Suggesting so is lunacy.

[SMS60]

Substitute the word "heart" with "penis" and your post makes more sense.

If you want an "equal", look for a woman in the US.  Isn't that the what most of you are moaning about regarding AW?   You are using the situation of miserable conditions, taking advantage of poor people, and then you're trying to equate this?  It's lunacy.

The reason men are not looking in the US is because some AW thinks she is on a pedastal. We want to get back to the natural order of nature.

[Boethius]

It is not about "pedestals".  You know you couldn't pull this crap with an AW. 

[brave girl]

You know you couldn't pull this crap with an AW. 

It is EXACTLY truth!!  brave girl

[SMS60]

It is not about "pedestals".  You know you couldn't pull this crap with an AW.  

I know my spelling is bad but you will have to deal with it with a smile

Honestly, I cannot recall buying or even thinking about buying a 700 dollar coat for a women I was just getting to know. Just ridiculous. Even if I'am sleeping with her. And to think about it more, I could say the same for my male friends who just started dating a AW.

[Boethius]

I wasn't commenting on your spelling.

Don't you think the AW, who were your equals, were sleeping with you because they wanted to get laid?

[SMS60]

I wasn't commenting on your spelling.

Don't you think the AW, who were your equals, were sleeping with you because they wanted to get laid?

I think Im not understanding your question??  What crap???

Of course, they wanted to get laid. They are horny too. And Im such a handsome guy they couldnt resist the urge.

[BillyB]

The good news is there's someone for everyone. If a man likes to lead with his wallet, there are women out there who like men who lead with their wallet. If you're a man who wants to win a woman over based on your character and personality, there are women who will value your character and personality more than your money. Choose wisely.

I guess NickB's woman is older but I went out with a number of young ladies in the FSU in their older and younger 20's. No RW old or young has asked me for a high dollar gift when we dated. In our discussions some of those women have told me that it's a man's responsiblity to take care of his woman. I agreed that he should take care of her within his means and when he is her man.

[KenC]

 

First, because of the way their economy is structured, a lot of Ukrainians don't see this price as significant (and really, for most Westerners, it isn't).  Second, the price has nothing to do with the issue.  If you think it does, we go back to the point of wanting the cheapest cow.  It's okay to paw her for a week and throw her a few trinkets, and well, she should just be grateful.

Boethius,
You know I am a fan of yours but I do think there is a cultural gap here in this discussion.

You have a built in conflict here in this post.  First you say the price doesn't matter and yet complain about the value of the gifts offered.  Which one is it? :noidea: It cannot be both.

You DO seem to be putting a value on the sex offered by the UW.  It was well within the means of the rich western man to pay $700 for a coat and he DID live with her for almost a week so it is OK for her to ask for it.  Sorry, but that is prostitution in my book.  It is just that the terms of the sale were not discussed completely until after the fact.

If the man is to value the time living together, why is not the woman held to the same standard?  The sex and affection was not a purchase but a mutually shared experience for both the man and the woman.  They both enjoyed the time together, eating dinners in and at fancy restaurants.  They both (I assume) enjoyed some physical and emotional time together.  Why is it that the man has a bill due at the end? (Because he can afford it, is not the answer BTW)

I have gone away on more than a few romantic weekend trips with AW.  None asked for a gift for their "services" after.  I also spent a wonderful week in Moscow, with my ex Lena before we were married.  Being together, sharing time together, bonding emotionally along with all the fun things that Moscow had to offer was more than enough for her.  She never asked for a material gift after.

I understand that the woman in question may not understand the difference between $70, $700 or even $7,000, but that is not the point either.  It is the asking for the gift that is inappropriate, especially with your explanation that it is owed because she lived with him.

The only thing I see that NickB may have done wrong is not to put an end to the talk of a $700 coat from the beginning.  He could have been more clear that he was never going to make the purchase.  His answer of "we will see" gave the woman false hope.
KenC

[KenC]

NickB,
I for one would love to hear the rest of your trip report.
KenC

[Boethius]

Boethius,
You know I am a fan of yours but I do think there is a cultural gap here in this discussion.

Yes, I agree there is a cultural gap.

You have a built in conflict here in this post.  First you say the price doesn't matter and yet complain about the value of the gifts offered.  Which one is it? :noidea: It cannot be both.

No, you misunderstood.  I'm not complaining about the value of the gifts.  I was responding to Dave's comment, which was:

Of course, and if she would have asked for a $20 teddy bear, or to go to a decent restaurant, etc., it would have been perfectly normal as well. The price of the gift DOES matter in this case, living together or not, because of the early stage of the relationship process.  

He seems to be implying if she'd asked for a cheap trinket instead of one determined, subjectively, to be "expensive", it would have been okay.  

You DO seem to be putting a value on the sex offered by the UW.  It was well within the means of the rich western man to pay $700 for a coat and he DID live with her for almost a week so it is OK for her to ask for it.  Sorry, but that is prostitution in my book.  It is just that the terms of the sale were not discussed completely until after the fact.

No, I'm not saying it was okay for her to ask.  What I am saying is that Nick took advantage of her, knowing she wasn't "the one", and only threw her out when she had "the nerve" to ask for a coat.  And, it is my understanding they didn't actually have sex.

If the man is to value the time living together, why is not the woman held to the same standard?  The sex and affection was not a purchase but a mutually shared experience for both the man and the woman.  They both enjoyed the time together, eating dinners in and at fancy restaurants.  They both (I assume) enjoyed some physical and emotional time together.  Why is it that the man has a bill due at the end? (Because he can afford it, is not the answer BTW)

Did they?  Probably not.  But this gets back to being "equals". I have at no time suggested the woman was a paragon of virtue.  But in Ukraine, as an over 40 woman, she is useless to local men, more than likely doomed to a life alone in a fairly macho country.  Nick used her desperation (likely unwittingly) to his advantage.  That is my point.  He was fine with the arrangement as long as she kept her mouth shut and was compliant.  Do you think this is the way to build normal relations?

I have gone away on more than a few romantic weekend trips with AW.  None asked for a gift for their "services" after.  I also spent a wonderful week in Moscow, with my ex Lena before we were married.  Being together, sharing time together, bonding emotionally along with all the fun things that Moscow had to offer was more than enough for her.  She never asked for a material gift after.

Would you pluck a woman you've never met face to face out of Hillbilly Hell, Arkansas, plonk her in a Manhatten highrise, share a bed, allowing her to introduce you to her adult daughter (thereby implying the beginnings of a "relationship"), continue to share a bed with her, and then, if she asked you for something, throw her to the curb?  Because that is what happened.  

I have never suggested the woman was right.  What I have said all along is the guy was fine with exploiting this woman until the price was too high.  And others here agree with his position.  To me, it indicates an attitude about the worth of a woman, and it certainly is not one of being an equal.  

I understand that the woman in question may not understand the difference between $70, $700 or even $7,000, but that is not the point either.  It is the asking for the gift that is inappropriate, especially with your explanation that it is owed because she lived with him.

I don't think she ever stated it was owed to her.  

Culturally, a lot of UM would flash cash because they want to impress a woman.  They would know, though, exactly what type of woman this attracts.  She isn't usually one who wants a normal family life.

A man seeking a wife and a normal family life doesn't shack up for a week with a woman he doesn't know, let alone one with whom he cannot even communicate with in a common language.

The only thing I see that NickB may have done wrong is not to put an end to the talk of a $700 coat from the beginning.  He could have been more clear that he was never going to make the purchase.  His answer of "we will see" gave the woman false hope.
KenC

He did a lot of things wrong.  He shouldn't have rented a one bedroom apartment.  If he couldn't have afforded more, he should have waited until he could.  He shouldn't have slept with a stranger.  He should have chosen women with whom he could converse.  He should have learned a little about Ukrainian culture and expectations.   Or maybe, if he wanted an equal who wan't expecting something, he should have dated an AW.

[KenC]

Boethius,
Thank you for your good answer:

Would you pluck a woman you've never met face to face out of Hillbilly Hell, Arkansas, plonk her in a Manhatten highrise, share a bed, allowing her to introduce you to her adult daughter (thereby implying the beginnings of a "relationship"), continue to share a bed with her, and then, if she asked you for something, throw her to the curb?  Because that is what happened. 

I have never suggested the woman was right.  What I have said all along is the guy was fine with exploiting this woman until the price was too high.  And others here agree.  To me, it indicates an attitude about the women, and it certainly is not one of equality

Now I DO see your point. Would not any woman with a lower income than the man be "exploited" under your train of thought?  Was not the woman trying to exploit the man by asking for an expensive gift?

What about "casual sex?"  Is it not allowed?  Does there have to be serious intentions (marriage) in order for there to be intimacy?  There was a member, some time ago, that traveled to Ukraine to meet multiple women around 40 years old.  He was very specific in telling them that he really was not interested in marriage and just in having a good time.  Was he exploiting the more than willing participants?
KenC

NickB,
Sorry for taking your T/R further 

[Boethius]

Boethius,
Thank you for your good answer:Now I DO see your point. Would not any woman with a lower income than the man be "exploited" under your train of thought?  Was not the woman trying to exploit the man by asking for an expensive gift?

Not if she knows the rules of engagement beforehand.  

The woman's mentality was not necessarily one of "expecting something".  She very well may have viewed this as helping her rather than as a gift.  

What about "casual sex?"  Is it not allowed?  Does there have to be serious intentions (marriage) in order for there to be intimacy?  There was a member, some time ago, that traveled to Ukraine to meet multiple women around 40 years old.  He was very specific in telling them that he really was not interested in marriage and just in having a good time.  Was he exploiting the more than willing participants?

It depends again on the terms of engagement at the outset.  A woman introducing her daughter to a man is not looking for casual sex.  She is expecting a relationship.  That woman is probably still wondering what, exactly, happened.

A man who says he only wants a good time, with no expectation of marriage, is not exploiting the women if he is open about it from the outset.  

[Sculpto]

I might be wrong but I thought he was getting laid and was frustrated that she wouldn't kiss him.

Maybe her existing coat was ragged and she was surprised he didn't offer to replace it.  Maybe he made a mention of her existing coat that he forgot to tell us about and that prompted her to tell him about the lovely coat she saw in the market.

re: the moment a relationship begins.  This is different for everyone, but, I have a short story from my past that might illuminate the mind set of some women.  About 15+ years ago I went to visit an ex GF on New Years eve when I had heard she had broken up with the man she was with after me.  I hadn't seen her in five years.  We talked for hours and hours, it was pretty cool.  I slept on the couch.  In the morning she said.. "Now we are living together again, what will you do for us today?" (new years day) 

In her mind, just because I stayed over the night, even though I slept on the couch, we were back on.  Frankly she was nuts and I split a few hours later, but, for her it was that simple.  She was completely living in the moment and in her way of seeing things, I had become the man of the house in that short time. 

So, back on topic.. yes the lady appears to have asked for an expensive gift from a man she was serious about.  On the other hand, communication was taking place through a device, so, is it possible some subtlety was lost in translation?  Is it possible she suggested a coat she liked and he took it as a specific request?  At the point which this dude led her on by not specifically saying NO to the request the relationship moved into an exploitation phase.  I think the guy was more wrong than the lady.

And, as was pointed out upthread, a "good man" would already know she needed a coat and would have never put her in a position to ask for one. 

[KenC]

Not if she knows the rules of engagement beforehand.  

The woman's mentality was not necessarily one of "expecting something".  She very well may have viewed this as helping her rather than as a gift.  

It depends again on the terms of engagement at the outset.  A woman introducing her daughter to a man is not looking for casual sex.  She is expecting a relationship.  That woman is probably still wondering what, exactly, happened.

A man who says he only wants a good time, with no expectation of marriage, is not exploiting the women if he is open about it from the outset.  

Boethius,
Again, I believe I understand your point and agree more than not.  I do not necessarily understand how a $700 coat could be construed as "help" and not a request for an extravagant gift however.  I consider myself a generous man, but I personally get put off by people requesting "gifts."  Gifts should be offered freely not requested IMO.  This matter, as told in this thread, may indeed be a cultural difference.  Would it be typical for a UM to offer a $700 gift after "living" with a UW for a week?  If it were not offered, would it be acceptable for the UW to ask the UM for it?

You do make a valid point in that introducing the daughter was a sign that the woman was thinking long term and not short term.

At the heart of this matter may be the lack of ability to communicate (as 2012 pointed out.)  We don't know if NickB clearly understood that she asked for the coat nor do we know if she understood his non committed answer.  In fact the whole seriousness of the relationship may be a language gap matter.
KenC

[I/O]

That woman is probably still wondering what, exactly, happened.

I doubt it. Within a week the sex tourist label is applied.

[RussianWind]

And here I always thought a "good woman" meets her man at the door wearing only a $700 coat and asks for sex!

I would add some jewelry for a better picture 

[JR]

I would add some jewelry for a better picture 

What's wrong with the one you have now? Oh yeah, it's not you

[Boethius]

Boethius,
Again, I believe I understand your point and agree more than not.  I do not necessarily understand how a $700 coat could be construed as "help" and not a request for an extravagant gift however.  I consider myself a generous man, but I personally get put off by people requesting "gifts."  Gifts should be offered freely not requested IMO.  This matter, as told in this thread, may indeed be a cultural difference.  Would it be typical for a UM to offer a $700 gift after "living" with a UW for a week?  If it were not offered, would it be acceptable for the UW to ask the UM for it?

First, there are many people in all the FSU who are "show offy".  Of course there is the same here, but it is really to a whole different level there.  So, that may have been a factor, I don't know.  It would seem to me one could find a coat, particularly in Odessa, for far more than $700 if that were the woman's aim.  People there for the most part take great care in their appearance and their clothing, and that, too, may have been a factor - i.e. - he would want "his woman" to look good.

Second, a lot of Ukrainians don't really have a concept of money in "our" terms.  To her, asking for something that is $700 (assuming that is true) could be like asking for something that for her is, say, 700 UAH - not a lot, in her estimate, and if the roles were reversed, she may have thought, she would buy something of similar value for him (and her daughter did, I believe, give Nick a small gift for his daughter).  The "value" of money is often lost because they don't have a concept of our expenses, our taxes, etc. and cash doesn't mean the same thing, even now, as it does here.  They see people with the ability to travel, who are well fed, usually (I hope) well dressed (though by their standards, sloppily), who have homes, cars, etc.   I did have someone, a friend of my husband's ask me, when I was being ejected from the country, to buy him a winter coat.  He did it surreptitiously, as he didn't want my husband to know (though we have never had secrets).  I did buy him the coat, which, in today's dollars, would be about $400, at a time when I didn't have a lot of money, and I did it because I took pity on him.

Third, I don't think we can say what a "UW" or a "UM" would do.  I have pointed to the cultural aspects in general, but, like here, there are all sorts of people.  In my husband's immediate family, this would have been unusual.  However, no one in his family would have shacked up with someone they know for a week, let alone a stranger, either.  But, I knew lots of people for whom partying, going to restaurants, drinking, coveting and buying something rare, etc., was the "good" life and something they aspired to.  They are the same today.  It all depends on the person.

The majority of UM just want a normal family life.  But I knew, through my husband, plenty of men who wanted to just sleep around.  They viewed family life as something for suckers.  I must say, I admired them for being true to themselves, and not ruining some woman's life by running around on her while she sat at her window crying.  One of the favourite tactics of these men was to "catch" a woman by flashing cash.  They knew who they were attracting, and what they needed to do.  This was usually followed by dinner at a good restaurant, lots of alcohol, etc.  But, for the most part, these relationships were intended to last a night or a weekend, not long term, and that was understood by the parties involved.  It was very easy even in those days to find a short term partner on the street or in what my husband termed "vipers' nests".  There were even certain districts where you could find partners to indulge particular fetishes.  My husband says the only thing that has changed in this regard is the faces.  The guys of his age who did this are still single, still chasing women, but now, they are, as my husband describes them, "worn out" from all their drinking, smoking, and (pardon the language) whoring around.  

From the descriptions, it doesn't seem the woman falls in the category of women who attract, and are attracted to, such men.

I also knew a guy who thought he could "own" a woman (a friend of my SIL) by throwing cash at her, and buying her gold jewellery.   She invited all her girlfriends to one of the finest restaurants, with him being the only male, and obliged to pay the extremely inflated bill at the end of the evening.  Her purpose was to drain his financial resources so that he would understand he couldn't "own" her, and, she assumed, would settle down with her.

I provide the examples as an illustration of the variety of views and ways of life.  Just like we experience on this side of the pond.  Most of my experiences are from Kyiv and west, rather than Odessa, but I doubt it is particularly different there.  The bottom line is I don't think there is one pat answer.  But, in my view, throwing the woman out in the way described here was immoral and unethical.

[Daveman]

You missed the point completely, Dave.  

First, because of the way their economy is structured, a lot of Ukrainians don't see this price as significant (and really, for most Westerners, it isn't).  Second, the price has nothing to do with the issue.  If you think it does, we go back to the point of wanting the cheapest cow.  It's okay to paw her for a week and throw her a few trinkets, and well, she should just be grateful.

I'm not missing the point, I just disagree with the logic as you and your husband have presented it thus far.  I look at this in terms of a normal relationship growth, progression, and etiquette. 

And I neither stated nor inferred that it is okay to "paw her for a week at gunpoint, repeatedly raping her".  Did she not freely choose to be there?  So, she is presented as the sweet helpless damsel who was pawed, seemingly from these illogical reality stretching thread inferences - somehow against her will, and he as the dastardly demon with unscrupulous hands.  If two adults decide to do whatever together, that remains in the realm of personal choice in which economic disparity doesn't play a decisive role (unless we want to debate the psychological issues of perceived power, the lure of dream fulfillment, etc. etc.).   

Why should he rent her a separate flat or room? Hell, she could simply go home at any time but she chose to visit, chose to stay and also chose to have sex, and,at least in theory, received reciprocal pleasure from that situation.

What has happened to this T/R is entirely ridiculous.

 

[Boethius]

If you  hadn't missed the point, you wouldn't have focussed on cost.

We are not talking about equals.  Or perhaps we have different views of what constitutes decent behaviour.

ETA - You're a moderator.  Hive off all these posts to a separate thread.

[boaterguy]

Some of the posts by the FSU ladies here are a testiment to the entitlement attitude!

If a lady asks for a gift...IT IS NOT A GIFT! A gift is spontaneous and thoughtful. When I 1st met my wife, she came to Moscow with only those high heeled,pointy toed boots. There was no way she could comfortably navigate all our excursions. The 1st thing I did was take her out and buy her a comfortable pair of shoes. That is a gift.

I believe so many of the ladies would be surprised if they would be patient with their demand for gifts. If a relationship evolves the gifts will come! If a lady can not be patient, she is not seeing the man with the true intention of developing a serious relationship. I don't know how so many FSU ladies have been taught that a WM that doesn't shower her with gifts is not relationship material. It is totally the opposite in Western Culture. I am talking about a relationship truely based on love.

I would be willing to wager the majority of men who are seriously looking for a real relationship would balk at the demands for a gift. This is a sure fire sign the lady is only with him because of what he can give her!

[Boethius]

It is not, nor ever was, about the gift.  It is about attitudes.  

With the exception of brave girl, nobody here has stated the woman was entitlted to anything.  And, the request was not a "sure fire" way to know anything. 

You overstate the Western attitude toward "gifts".  Lots of men give women gifts from early in a relationship.  Others, not at all.

[boaterguy]

You overstate the Western attitude toward "gifts".  Lots of men give women gifts from early in a relationship.  Others, not at all.

How did I overstate? Of course western men give gifts in the west. My point is I have never seen(or for that mater) heard of a WW asking or demanding a gift from someone she was dating. I'm sure it happens, but it is not the norm where it seems to be in many parts of the FSU.

[Boethius]

I never posted it was the "norm" in Ukraine.  See my response to Ken.

Isn't the whole point of the endeavor that you reject WW because they "want to be men"?   How many times have I read that on this forum?  Nevertheless, don't tell me fairy tales.  There are plenty of WW who have dumped men because they don't make enough money, don't take them out enough, etc.