Life Changes...Part Deux

[Hammer2722]

This forum would be a heck of a lot easier to read if the ignore button was brought back.............

[pitbull]

Now we are on the first real interesting (to me) subtopic of the thread.  I'm curious as to why her physical appearance makes such a difference?  What if she were just completely butt rippin' fugly? If she were the homeliest creature from the cabbage patch, what would your opinion be?  Do you think the responses in this thread would have been somewhat different?

Daveman, it is no secret that a young woman's chances for great dating and marriage largerly corellate with her looks. A very homely girl is ususally forced to compromise. If A. were completely ugly, the puzzle would at least fit - she gets a marriage, a middle-aged divorced guy gets a young woman. See this all the time in the US.
 
Here, I can see how Bill is getting an amazing deal with A. But what's in it for her? With her looks and supposedly great personality she doesn't have to compromise, she can have it all. There is a not very pretty decsription for this in Russian - "просрать" your chances.
 
 

[BC]

TAKE YOUR PICK
 
ANSWER 1.
 
The "Antidate" crowd are members of a forum for man hating Russian Women to vent their hatred of men, to give guidance to women who wish to fake domestic abuse cases in order to get citizenship, and to help women take advantage of sincere men who want only to have a happy married life.  On several occassions they have gone in mass to RW forums and spit out vile comments that disrupted the flow of the discussions. 
 
ANSWER 2.
 
The "Antidate" crowd are members of a forum designed to help women cope with the problems they face when they marry the wrong man which can happen so easily in this venture.  It is a place for them to expose men who have evil intentions and to share the problems and difficulties in life abroad and to give support and help to those in need.  In the past they have sometimes joined forums for AM and tried to make the discussions more objective by giving the other viewpoint and a woman's perspective on the situations being discussed.

For me, it's more like this:

Fora such as RWD tend to deal more with optimists, a good many (but not all) from the top 5% of the barrell.

Fora such as Antidate tend to deal with pessimism, drawn from experiences primarily from the bottom of the barrel and other train-wrecks that comprise  the remaining 95%.

Simply flip sides of the same coin.

Both offer valid information from their respective points of view.

[Daveman]

Dunno pitbull, I'll give you the benefit of doubt you are not a mean person, but that wasn't very nice, IMO...
 
I think what's very interesting to note in this saga is the struggle of decent folks injecting conventional standards in an otherwise uncoventional sub-culture of the MOB. Conventionality has no place in the MOB, IMO. At least not yet....
 
In as much as I disagree with many of BillyB's ranting in this thread, if and when they set off in their relationship, I can only bid both of them well for the choice they made. Bottom line is, I wouldn't for a minute doubt that as cute as A is, BillyB wasn't the ONLY suitor she had. I'm certain she had many choices. But when all is said and done, she chose BillyB.

pitbull has been sometimes blunt and to the point,  and has the perspective of a mother (which like you said, we'll never quite actually have).


She posted something quite eloquent and telling a little over a year ago, which would also give a little insight into a) who she really is, and b) another reason she would see this relationship as potentially detrimental for "A"

I believe that there are so many different situations as to whether a woman works or doesn't.

However I don't agree that to work or not to work should be up to a woman. It should be up to what would be best for the family in given circumstances. Both husband and wife should very well understand the consequences of this decision for the family.

Personally I believe in equal partnership. I do not believe it is fare to have the man bear 100% financial responsibility for the well-being of the family. This is too stressful ans risky and getting less and less possible with the state of economy.

Anyone can stay home and be a "homemaker". This is basically unskilled routine that doesn't require education or training. On the other hand how many "professional homemaker wives" can step up and support the family in case the working husband loses his job/becomes sick etc.? Also fatherhood is as important as motherhood. A father cannot be pregnant, give birth and breastfeed. He can do everything else as well or better than a mother.

I really don't believe in "traditional" women's and men's roles in contemporary society. Both should be able to step up the plate big way. Family is a team effort and it is crucial that both partners are flexible.

Can there be an equality in such a relationship as represented here?  I think that could be one aspect which makes the ladies cringe. It seems to have been portrayed as a "teacher/student" etc etc kind of situation. 

 
Sheeesh Dave, LOL! Are you saying Fuglies' youth does not have youthful precious years (careful now, 'cause I'm ugly as they come)?
 
  

LoL... I'm not saying much at all... but the comment struck me as very interesting.  I'm *very* curious as to how the opinions, responses, overall thread would have differed, if at all, if she (A) were considered "average", or  "homely" with (guessing) seemingly fewer options. 


 

[Jooky]

But what's in it for her? With her looks and supposedly great personality she doesn't have to compromise, she can have it all.

A friend of mine is a young (mid twenties) intelligent, educated, successful, beautiful tall model type blonde. If you saw her husband (early 40s, average looking, a bit overweight) you probably wouldn't get it either. You would think she compromised, but she got exactly what she was looking for.
 
See, she had a very active social life and a lot of options amongst the rich and famous. What she wanted though was someone who looked beyond her beauty and superficial qualities and connect with her soul. To find him she also looked beyond the surface. For her, personality, humor, confidence and most of all a connection and how a man makes her feel took precedence over looks, age and money.
 
In my experience, many women are like this. The right feeling and connection trumps all. Their choices might leave others scratching their heads, but that's life.
 
There are plenty of women I wouldn't choose as a wife. That doesn't mean the men that marry them compromised.
 
 

[Misha]

A very homely girl is ususally forced to compromise.

Perhaps it is my Catholic upbringing coming through, but I am one who believes that perfection is not of this world so if you seek perfection, beautiful or homely, you will have to compromise. The best you could aim for would be perfect-enough for you.


Besides, if beauty was enough to ensure successful marriages and perfect matches, then shouldn't the Hollywood stars and the supermodels all be in happy marriages and never divorcing? Yet, plenty of magazines continue to be sold reporting the divorces and break-ups of Hollywood's most beautiful, people who clearly did not have to compromise...

Here, I can see how Bill is getting an amazing deal with A. But what's in it for her? With her looks and supposedly great personality she doesn't have to compromise, she can have it all. There is a not very pretty decsription for this in Russian - "просрать" your chances.

Can she have it all? Or was it a matter of one жених in hand being worth two or more keyboard romeos in cyberspace    Is it love, is it a perfect match, is it something else? Only time can tell and even then it may be murky.


 

[Admin]

So it seems there are a variety of influences in play. Would I be correct in listing these as the major 'polarizing' behaviors:

* wide age disparity - 22 years which, in itself may not have been so polarizing except for the girl's youth - 18 years at time of meeting
* chest-thumping (my word choice, probably due to watching too many Tarzan flicks as a kid - I still recall Johnny Meismueller having by far the best Tarzan yell  ) - or as some others have called it, the 'alpha male' speak that has come from Billy (shades of Anono) in defense of his choices
* caustic moral judgments

Have I missed anything significant?

Insofar as the veiled disparagement directed toward Boethius, I intentionally did not include those criticisms as being among the significant polarizing behaviors. Boethius is a moderator at RWD in other sections of the site. She is entitled to an opinion - even a strong one - and she, like other RWD members, is encouraged to express those opinions (within the bounds of civil discourse). She has opinions as to this topic - they are strong - she has expressed those - and there may be occasions where the bounds of civility were crossed - not only by Boethius.

So back to the question posed above - have I missed anything significant in terms of polarizing behaviors?

- Dan

[Turboguy]

This forum would be a heck of a lot easier to read if the ignore button was brought back.............

Yes, but then some people wouldn't have anyone left to talk to.

[Daveman]

...
So back to the question posed above - have I missed anything significant in terms of polarizing behaviors?

- Dan

Yep, the perceived 'Beauty Gap' (© 2011 GQBlues, LLC)

Age Gap (in this case I'd say it's perceived and more accurately described as Development Gap), Beauty Gap, Morality Gap, What the hell is up with Mama Gap, and Tarzan Yell Gap...

[GoodOlBoy]

....18 years at time of meeting

Yes, very interesting that the OP was "careful" not to [edit] meet her until she was barely legal (18). 
 
 

Have I missed anything significant?

Yes, in GOB's mind the most significant fact.
The lewd and lascivious behavior of a grown man (40) contacting a 16/17 yo girl on the internet to be "friends".
 
GOB
 

[Admin]

This forum would be a heck of a lot easier to read if the ignore button was brought back.............

The ignore feature remains available to you although it is not in the form of a "button" any longer. Just go to your "Profile" - look in the left frame for "Buddies/Ignore List" - find the link for "Edit Ignore List" and add whomever you wish to ignore.

While in your Profile be sure to look also at the Personal Messaging options which, if properly selected, will allow you to ignore the PMs sent by anyone in your Ignore list.

For that matter, while in your Profile just look around at the many configurable options available to you. You might stumble onto something you wish to make use of.

- Dan

[Admin]

Yes, very interesting that the OP was "careful" not to[edit]meet her until she was barely legal (18). 
 
 
Yes, in GOB's mind the most significant fact.
The lewd and lascivious behavior of a grown man (40) contacting a 16/17 yo girl on the internet to be "friends".
 
GOB

Rick,

I am going to remind you of your commitment to abstain. You have repeatedly demonstrated the abject inability to control your responses in this topic in particular.

I am further going to edit your post to remove the caustic sarcasm.

Finally, I am going to offer the observation that you are making moral judgments and using terms in doing so that are intentionally incendiary. The allegation of "lewd and lascivious behavior" is unsupported by the facts as presented here. Have you bothered to look at the definition - particularly in a legal context?

- Dan

[Ade]

Rick,

I am going to remind you of your commitment to abstain. You have repeatedly demonstrated the abject inability to control your responses in this topic in particular.

I am further going to edit your post to remove the caustic sarcasm.

Finally, I am going to offer the observation that you are making moral judgments and using terms in doing so that are intentionally incendiary. The allegation of "lewd and lascivious behavior" is unsupported by the facts as presented here. Have you bothered to look at the definition - particularly in a legal context?

- Dan

Besides GOBs obvious use of artistic license, he was right about one thing; you seemed to overlook the fact that BillyB did contact a minor. Now, say or think what you like but I personally do not believe Billy contacted a 16 or 17 year old girl for the sole purpose of chatting about her Barbie dolls.

[BC]

So back to the question posed above - have I missed anything significant in terms of polarizing behaviors?

TMI - A good amount of personal information and pictures that are quite overboard IMHO. I would feel different if the woma(en) involved were aware of Billy's posts here.  Somewhere along the line (mainly this thread) his tone and interjections into other threads tend to be more about Billy than the woman he was/is dating. From informative to defensive.

Here are links to his previous threads, most of which are quite ok and informative but still contain a lot of personal info and pics.

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=1303.0

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=5066.0

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=7172.0

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=7815.0


Note that his previous fiancee was also 'perfect' and stuff like this:

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=1303.msg35457#msg35457

I hope he also sends it to this fiancee - at least she will know what is expected of her.

They say MOB is a numbers game, but what are chances that lightning strikes twice in the same place?

As for age, little was said about the difference with his 23 yr old fiancee, but yes, corresponding/dating a 17 yr old is a bit different seems to be a sticky point with many.  My 17 yr old daughter is dating a 20 yr old boy but observing, she seems to enjoy more the time she spends with those her age.  In a few months she will be 18.  My daughter is as Russian as it gets and I just could not see her being serious about marriage at this point.  Teens are volatile.. and the warning goes more towards Billy than his A, B, or C.

Much of the tension could be attributed as common consensus that marriages should be among equals.. but of course MOB is a realm that depends thrives upon disparity.. With BillyB's situation with A I think the fabric is stretched to the limit.

[BC]

Besides GOBs obvious use of artistic license, he was right about one thing; you seemed to overlook the fact that BillyB did contact a minor. Now, say or think what you like but I personally do not believe Billy contacted a 16 or 17 year old girl for the sole purpose of chatting about her Barbie dolls.

Ade,

She may have been a minor in the US, but within the age of consent in hers and even yours. 

Don't try to pull legal stuff on Billy.. It does not apply.

I'd object less about him having sex with a 16 year old than marriage, believe it or not.

[Admin]

Besides GOBs obvious use of artistic license, he was right about one thing; you seemed to overlook the fact that BillyB did contact a minor. Now, say or think what you like but I personally do not believe Billy contacted a 16 or 17 year old girl for the sole purpose of chatting about her Barbie dolls.

No, I am not overlooking it. I may not be fully informed just yet, but from what has been offered it seems there is no clarity as to her age when they first began communicating. Some have said it was 17 and others surmise it was 16. It does seem clear she was 18 at the time of their first meeting. To get one's knickers in a twist over her age at the time of internet/telephone contact seems left to those whose moral compass points directly to 'OPPRESSION'. I mean, imagine trying to legislate/regulate when someone is able to make initial contact with another person. Oh wait! IMBRA already addressed that.

Let me ask something. Let's play out this moral indignation. Would we prohibit contact of any sort between men and women - or only men and/or women of a certain age - or is it only women of a certain age ?!?

Rick - you have a 'pass' to participate in this debate SANS your typical caustic sarcasm - but feel free to make your points directly and succinctly.

Back on-topic - I am, admittedly, still under-informed of the details and facts. I 'get it' that some folks feel nauseated at the idea that a 40-year-old man would seek contact with a 16-year-old girl for purposes of a romantic/sexual nature. It raises a number of questions for me that have probably been addressed in this topic, but suffice to say that I understand the reaction in general. To take it to the level of moral indignation and attendant condemnation is a leap I am not prepared to make - particularly since it is acknowledged that she was 18 before they ever met. How and what transpired in the time she was a minor is largely conjecture (or is it - was there something Billy said about that time in particular that you find so morally repugnant).

Returning to the question then - the three points I made as to polarizing behaviors. Are you disputing those, or clarifying one  of them, or just what?

- Dan

[Ade]

Ade,

She may have been a minor in the US, but within the age of consent in hers and even yours. 

Don't try to pull legal stuff on Billy.. It does not apply.

I'd object less about him having sex with a 16 year old than marriage, believe it or not.

At 17 she would still be considered a minor here. Yes, age of sexual consent is 16 but teens are not considered legal adults until 18 here or in the UK.

And yes, he didn't do anything illegal but I think that is besides the point. I have many issues with her age and I've mentioned most of them in the thread so I won't rehash them. I do wonder what your reaction would be if it were your 16 or 17 year old daughter that was the object of Billy's affections.

[GoodOlBoy]

Rick - you have a 'pass' to participate in this debate SANS your typical caustic sarcasm - but feel free to make your points directly and succinctly.

Ok Dan.
 
Not trying to get out of line here, BUT, IIRC you and your wife have a daughter...correct?
 
I would really like to be there (with a camera) the night you are sitting at the kitchen table with your family, (maybe your daughter is doing her High school homework?), suddenly you hear a knock at your front door. You go to open the door and there stands a 40 year old man saying: "Hey, I'm here to pick up your 17 year old daughter".
 
GOB
 
PS....BC JMO but there is nothing odd or abnormal about a 21 yo man dating your 17/18 yo daughter.
 
 

[Misha]

Ade,

She may have been a minor in the US, but within the age of consent in hers and even yours. 

Don't try to pull legal stuff on Billy.. It does not apply.

I'd object less about him having sex with a 16 year old than marriage, believe it or not.

In Canada the age of consent depends on the nature of the relationship:

However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.

Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

[Ade]

No, I am not overlooking it. I may not be fully informed just yet, but from what has been offered it seems there is no clarity as to her age when they first began communicating. Some have said it was 17 and others surmise it was 16. It does seem clear she was 18 at the time of their first meeting. To get one's knickers in a twist over her age at the time of internet/telephone contact seems left to those whose moral compass points directly to 'OPPRESSION'. I mean, imagine trying to legislate/regulate when someone is able to make initial contact with another person. Oh wait! IMBRA already addressed that.

Let me ask something. Let's play out this moral indignation. Would we prohibit contact of any sort between men and women - or only men and/or women of a certain age - or is it only women of a certain age ?!?

Rick - you have a 'pass' to participate in this debate SANS your typical caustic sarcasm - but feel free to make your points directly and succinctly.

Back on-topic - I am, admittedly, still under-informed of the details and facts. I 'get it' that some folks feel nauseated at the idea that a 40-year-old man would seek contact with a 16-year-old girl for purposes of a romantic/sexual nature. It raises a number of questions for me that have probably been addressed in this topic, but suffice to say that I understand the reaction in general. To take it to the level of moral indignation and attendant condemnation is a leap I am not prepared to make - particularly since it is acknowledged that she was 18 before they ever met. How and what transpired in the time she was a minor is largely conjecture (or is it - was there something Billy said about that time in particular that you find so morally repugnant).

Returning to the question then - the three points I made as to polarizing behaviors. Are you disputing those, or clarifying one  of them, or just what?

- Dan

Although some may label this "morally repugnant" I tend to see it a little more pragmatically. You understand the concept of Child Grooming I guess? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
You understand that adolescents can be manipulated and exploited by authority figures? And you probably understand why there are certain checks and balances in place between children/adolescents and teachers, doctors and the like?

I think you are being a little melodramatic; this is not about oppression. It is about discouraging manipulative behaviour. It is about discouraging men from setting out to pursue relationships that will more than likely damage one or both parties; and I'm not talking of preventing them, this isn't about forcing people to do anything. This is about frankly discussing the issues, not least of which are the issues of exploitation.

[BC]

At 17 she would still be considered a minor here. Yes, age of sexual consent is 16 but teens are not considered legal adults until 18 here or in the UK.

And yes, he didn't do anything illegal but I think that is besides the point. I have many issues with her age and I've mentioned most of them in the thread so I won't rehash them. I do wonder what your reaction would be if it were your 16 or 17 year old daughter that was the object of Billy's affections.

Ya know.. there ain't a damned thing I could do about it if BillyB called on my daughter - If she insisted..  I'd only state the reigning curfew and that would be that.  As stated upthread I would neither support nor prohibit and insist only on a long talk.  At 18 she could do as she wished, in her own home.

So far she seems to value the worth our support during her studies and plans for university more than the men in her life.

[BC]

In Canada the age of consent depends on the nature of the relationship:


Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

Take Italy for example... a very Catholic country..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Italy

The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent).[20] Not knowing the fact that the victim is underage is not a legal defence.[21] It is also illegal to perform sexual acts in the presence of a minor aged less than 14 with the intent of allowing the minor to witness the acts, even if they do not take an active part.[22]

I really believe the moral majority has won west of the Atlantic.

The moral East/West disparity evidences a huge gap.  Teachers in the US or Canada are today in jail just because they live in a different country.

[GoodOlBoy]

This is about frankly discussing the issues, not least of which are the issues of exploitation.
 

And don't even believe for one minute that "A" was the first and only 16/17 yo that was contacted on the internet.
 
GOB

[BC]

And don't even believe for one minute that "A" was the first and only 16/17 yo that was contacted on the internet.
 
GOB

Certainly not.  So what?

[Admin]

Ok Dan.
 
Not trying to get out of line here, BUT, IIRC you and your wife have a daughter...correct?
 
I would really like to be there (with a camera) the night you are sitting at the kitchen table with your family, (maybe your daughter is doing her High school homework?), suddenly you hear a knock at your front door. You go to open the door and there stands a 40 year old man with a paunch belly saying: "Hey, I m here to pick up your 16/17 year old daughter".
 
GOB
 
PS....BC JMO but there is nothing odd or abnormal about a 21 yo man dating your 17/18 yo daughter.

No, you are not out of line at all. I make no secret of the fact I have a daughter. In fact, here is a YouTube that you might find of particular interest:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJicPHh0Mj4]www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJicPHh0Mj4[/youtube]

As I composed my previous post I gave some thought to a similar scenario as you have described - and here is what I concluded:

* I cannot imagine my daughter having a serious interest at that age.
* If she were to express such an interest it would be met with a good deal of heart-to-heart discussion and I am quite confident I would know about it far in advance of anyone showing up at the door - though, admittedly, teenagers are experts at keeping things from their parents.
* I doubt I would even consider violence directed toward the man - though it is likely he and I would develop an unusually close association for at least a short time.
* My family's circumstances are vastly different than many of the families in the FSU. I have always had great difficulty condemning the actions of others - particularly when I know I am ignorant of their pressures and life circumstances.
* I have a fairly large family and in many ways an unconventional family. I have been quite close to teenage girls as an adult and seen their 'judgment' in action. Most parents of teenagers will tell you that it is virtually impossible to 'control' them. You end up relying on the values impressed in their earlier years, and your very limited powers of persuasion as you both (all) try to survive them exiting the teen years - and that is ALL you can do.
* I have borne personal witness to a VERY successful marriage of one of our members who pre-dates the formation of RWD and who married a girl from Crimea when she was 18 and they had been communicating for quite some time prior to that.
* Having lived overseas in both Asia and Europe I have seen far stranger situations than a 40 year old with an 18 year old. By comparison, this factoid is so trivial as to be unimportant - to me. Obviously, it is not to you - and I know it will annoy you Rick, but as I've indicated in the past, when a person finds their button being pushed over a subject, there really is value in looking inward to understanding WHY that particular action/behavior affects you so.

My life experiences are quite different than yours - and placing this hypothetical into *my* context, I do not feel any sense of outrage whatsoever. Perhaps it is because it is virtually unimaginable knowing my daughter and wife the way I do - or perhaps it is the context of having seen many other things that are vastly more significant - to me. I am not sure - but you asked the question and that is my honest response.

Although some may label this "morally repugnant" I tend to see it a little more pragmatically. You understand the concept of Child Grooming I guess? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
You understand that adolescents can be manipulated and exploited by authority figures? And you probably understand why there are certain checks and balances in place between children/adolescents and teachers, doctors and the like?

I think you are being a little melodramatic; this is not about oppression. It is about discouraging manipulative behaviour. It is about discouraging men from setting out to pursue relationships that will more than likely damage one or both parties; and I'm not talking of preventing them, this isn't about forcing people to do anything. This is about frankly discussing the issues, not least of which are the issues of exploitation.

Fair enough. Use of the phrase "morally repugnant" was my word choice and not yours - and it is appropriate for you to correct me. FWIW, my use of that phrase emanated from my interpretation of the strength of some of the responses, yours included.

Re: Child Grooming. Actually, your reference to it is the first I have seen using those terms - though it makes definitional sense. Let me ask directly - are you alleging that BillyB was engaging in the act of "child grooming"?

Your quote: discouraging men from setting out to pursue relationships that will more than likely damage one or both parties.

Implicit within that quotation is the judgment that we know, or can know, which characteristics of relationships to identify so that we might be effective at discouraging them. Be specific as to those characteristics. I would like to see what the limitations would look like.

- Dan