should I or shouldn't I?

[Misha]

Or presumably there is a woman, who has a sponsor, and she loves him. She would be happy to marry him, but he does not want to marry her. Is she a prostitute? Based on your and Kuna's definition - she is. Because she receives money and offers sex.

Let's see, the definition of prostitute according to dictionary.com: "a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money." So, yes, in my opinion if she is trading sex for money, then she is a prostitute according to the accepted definition of the word.

[SFandEE]

I just found a great website (it was on my news website) for anyone looking for a sugar babe or a sugar daddy, no need to travel so far away, plenty of sugar babes right at home  
http://www.whatsyourprice.com/

This site only let me look at the first three pages, but lots of women with Russian names.  Sugar daddy/sugar babby is something that I know about by definition only, I really don't know of anyone that is doing this kind of relationship and certainly it is very foreign to me. 

Perhaps it is more common in US than I would have thought--is it familiar to all Russians, or just the wealthy?

[Ranetka]

Aloe, you are a bit too far from reality. Probably because you lived with your parents while going to university, and did not have to care about paying rent, buying food and supplies, and other things of that sort.

My stipend during undergraduate years was 14 UAH/mo. At that time, the rate UAH:USD was approximately 1:3. So my stipend from the university was a little less than $5.
The bed in a dormitory room shared with 3-4 more people was UAH13/mo.
Monthly unlimited transportation card at that time was approximately UAH12-15.
A liter of milk/kefir was about 1UAH. 1 lbs jogurt was 1.5UAH. The cheapest meat was approximately UAH12-15 per kg. The cheapest cheese was 10UAH/kg.

My parents were able to support me financially, and I started working in my freshman year. Now, I had a classmate, a boy, whose parents were divorced, his father did not pay child support (refused to do it, and there was no way to enforce court orders), and the boy also had a 12yo sister. Mom was not earning much. The boy was eating plain boiled potatoes 365/year. Now, he was very smart and very talented in math, so he made a schedule of tutoring math to fellow students, and in the end of classes every day he was habitually saying "so who is providing my dinner tonight?" In a spirit of sharing, of course we were feeding him dinner with or without his tutoring services. Living in a dormitory is very alike to living in a friendly commune. But it was tough for him. Good side - he did not care much about clothes, and wore same pants and same sweater (regularly washing them) for at least 2-3 years of college. Shoes were a bit more problematic because they were leaking in wet weather, but his mother could not afford to buy him new/better ones.
Now imagine a girl whose family is in the same financial situation, maybe is not as smart in math, but still managed to enter the university in big city.

[mies]

Let's see, the definition of prostitute according to dictionary.com: "a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money." So, yes, in my opinion if she is trading sex for money, then she is a prostitute according to the accepted definition of the word.

so any prostitute who enjoys having sex with her client is not a prostitute?
or any woman who enjoys having sex, but also receives financial support from her man, as an extra benefit - is a prostitute?

Again, you are purposefully confusing two different concepts. There is the "sponsorship" required by immigration and the "sponsorship" as defined in Russia whereby a man will pay an allowance to a woman to be his "sugar baby." Yes, I sponsored my wife for the purposes of immigration, but no I was not her "sponsor" in the Russian sense. If she had put on her site that she was looking for a "sponsor" I would never have asked her out on a date and if she told me that she was going out for me solely for material support, I would never have married her either. I understand that English is not your native tongue, but I do not know how to explain this any more clearly so you will be able to understand.  

Misha, no need to get irritated and start questioning my English proficiency or trying to insult me. I am sufficiently fluent in English to be able to understand you.

If you strip the scenario from all socio-cultural buildups and feeling of "guilt" and "pride" and "good virtue," what's left in "dry residue" is that, ceteris paribus, you are eager to pay for the woman if:
- she does not ask for it (even though it is understood on both sides that you will pay for her)
- you have decided that you love her enough to marry her.
If those two conditions aren't met - you consider the woman to be "unworthy." So you do not object to the fact of payment, you object to the fact that woman may assertively and openly discusses with you her financial needs. I think this is plain hypocritical.
I hope my English is good enough so that you are able to understand the flow of my reasoning

It is surprising to me that whereas you proclaim to know much about sponsorship and sugar-baberism in Russia/FSU, you fail to understand the simple fact that vast majority of those sugar babies would be more than happy to get married with their "sponsor", and quite many of female "sponsored lovers" - may love the men who sponsors them. It's not upon them to decide whether a man will marry her or not.

[Muzh]

LMAO

Mies, you are a ball buster. I love you being the devil's attorney.

Now, this is my opinion. I would not use the term prostitute but more of a hired "hand" if you pardon the pun.

(Just erased a lot of longwinded BS)

That is the difference. You pay the hired hand to do some service on you (You also includes females) which sometimes the spouse is not willing/refuses/do not inspire to have sex. Then you go home to your spouse. The difference is that you choose to go to your spouse and stay with her/him.

Then there are the lucky ones who do not have to get a hired hand because everything they need is at home.

You should know better, this has been going on for eons.

Aloe, normally most of the western guys don't have enough currency to afford being "sponsors". Sugar daddies somehow falls a notch below sponsor and is more affordable.

[mies]

I studied in 90s, enetered Univercity in 1990. My parents were retired and did had thier pension paid late sometimes 4-5-6 months. (Thanks Mr Eltsin for bringing the democracy and market economy). I was studying full time and working 50 hours a week. Supported my parents since second year. God knows how I managed to find a job not even having a phone ! (student dormitory and no one had mobiles at the time) Stipend was covering dormitory rent the rest was up to me so when I mentioned in another thread of choosing between shows and dinner its a bit of a lie, that was more like between showes and week of dinners  lol
I think it was much easier in 2000s though, much more jobs around...

great story. looks like we are on the same or similar wavelength here. Luckily I was supported by my parents, and did not have to support them. Yet, my "allowance" from parents was $1/day, and I could use it anyway i wanted: buy food, or books/textbooks, or office supplies for my studying needs, or clothes, or makeup, or go to shows So yes, working and having my own extra income was quite helpful.  
The years I mentioned in my post were late 90s: 1996 onwards, after the countries settled a bit after FSU collapse, but before the first crisis hit. Early 90s were the toughest years for FSU countries.

[SFandEE]

I will say to FSUW posters that for me this is a foreign subject within the US culture and especially FSU.  So I am learning through your posts.  I think I better understand after your post Mies that if I paraphrase correctly the FSUW had her preference she would have a marriage with a man of means (her sponsor), but if that is not possible she would prefer to be sponsored by a man with means than to be married to a man without money.

It might have been mentioned earlier, but is it accepted by a sponsor to have a FSUW with multiple sponsors or is this an exclusive arrangement.  I do think it was mentioned earlier that a sponsored woman can have a boyfriend/husband.

One of my most powerful Moscow images was a 164 cm, shaved headed man with several bodyguards walking into the restaurant/club Galleria with four of the leggiest, stunning model types.  Made quite the impression on this WM.

They may be all around me in San Francisco, but I do not know of a single situation like this and I live and move where the big money exists.

[SFandEE]

I am recalling from a thread several months ago that a sponsored woman would not share her status as a sponsored woman with her family.

Do I remember correctly, or is this something that family accepts on face value?

[Muzh]

I will say to FSUW posters that for me this is a foreign subject within the US culture and especially FSU.  So I am learning through your posts.  I think I better understand after your post Mies that if I paraphrase correctly the FSUW had her preference she would have a marriage with a man of means (her sponsor), but if that is not possible she would prefer to be sponsored by a man with means than to be married to a man without money.

It might have been mentioned earlier, but is it accepted by a sponsor to have a FSUW with multiple sponsors or is this an exclusive arrangement.  I do think it was mentioned earlier that a sponsored woman can have a boyfriend/husband.

One of my most powerful Moscow images was a 164 cm, shaved headed man with several bodyguards walking into the restaurant/club Galleria with four of the leggiest, stunning model types.  Made quite the impression on this WM.

They may be all around me in San Francisco, but I do not know of a single situation like this and I live and move where the big money exists.

I can point you to a couple of Russian nightclubs in Washington DC where you'll see the same. One of them you can see the White House from the bar.

I was there with a co-worker and he could not keep his mouth shut. "Look at that!" he kept repeating.

[mies]

LMAO

:evil:

Thank you Muzh.
My personal take on this is that I do not have personal take on the way other people organize their life, and I organize my life the way that makes me feel emotionally comfortable. However, I love having discussions on important topics like this one, and always try to get the the core and the essence of the subject.  :brightidea:

[Muzh]

:evil:

Thank you Muzh.
My personal take on this is that I do not have personal take on the way other people organize their life, and I organize my life the way that makes me feel emotionally comfortable. However, I love having discussions on important topics like this one, and always try to get the the core and the essence of the subject.  :brightidea:

You're more than welcome. I am enjoying your discussions on this topic. 

[GQBlues]

Perhaps it is more common in US than I would have thought--is it familiar to all Russians, or just the wealthy?

In the US, they are 'more' commonly known as Girl Friend Experience, or GFE. Think Ashley 'Kristen' Dupre.

They've even made a movie about this already...

This is what Tiger Woods indulged himself in and got him in trouble...

[Ranetka]

I am recalling from a thread several months ago that a sponsored woman would not share her status as a sponsored woman with her family.

Do I remember correctly, or is this something that family accepts on face value?

Sometimes all it means that the woman will only accept the potential boyfriend if he is prepared to help her financially. And of course in this case noone discuss monthly amount etc.... I beleivein the West the woman would not put it in profile but will only search for men of certain standards of living/wealth etc...By the way from what i remember ALL WMs living in Russia will sponsor theire women Thats expected.

[Ranetka]

Sometimes all it means that the woman will only accept the potential boyfriend if he is prepared to help her financially. And of course in this case noone discuss monthly amount etc.... I beleivein the West the woman would not put it in profile but will only search for men of certain standards of living/wealth etc...By the way from what i remember ALL WMs living in Russia will sponsor theire women Thats expected.

Do you think WAGs are not sponsored women???

[SFandEE]

I can point you to a couple of Russian nightclubs in Washington DC where you'll see the same. One of them you can see the White House from the bar.

Please do share--I imagine this is also seen in Manhattan, Miami, Las Vegas, and LA--just haven't seen it in SF Bay Area.  Close in San Jose, but not the whole entourage.  I might have looked like that once in San Jose when I was out with a Moscovite friend and her GFs.  It was after that night that I had a serious reality check about the downside of a committed relationship with the wrong FSUW.

[Misha]

Aloe, normally most of the western guys don't have enough currency to afford being "sponsors". Sugar daddies somehow falls a notch below sponsor and is more affordable.

Why? The main deterrent/cost would be the flights, travel, etc... As to the rate charged, this would vary based on the woman and this would be true for the Russian woman looking for a sponsor and the American woman looking for a "sugar daddy" 

[KevinD]

I am sorry but acting like young women dating and/or marrying older rich guys is unique to Russian women is silly. It happens the whole world over. In this country we do not call it sponsorship. We use euphamusisms. "mistress", "gold digger", "sugar daddy", "it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man", etc etc etc.

It happens in the white, black and Hispanic communities. It happens in the rich neighborhoods and the poor neighborhoods.

So get off your moral high horses.

[Misha]

If those two conditions aren't met - you consider the woman to be "unworthy." So you do not object to the fact of payment, you object to the fact that woman may assertively and openly discusses with you her financial needs. I think this is plain hypocritical.

No, I simply object to the idea that paying a woman to be your lover is somehow comparable to the institution of marriage. If a woman is seeking a sponsor or a sugar daddy, it is generally understood that sex is being traded for money. If men and women want to do this, they are free to do this. However, I will personally never accept this being equated with a marriage based on love, respect and equality. A marriage for me is a partnership and the marriage should involve more than pecuniary interests. A marriage should be for "richer or for poorer" not merely "until I find a better sponsor or a better priced sugar baby"  Let extend this to other examples. Do you pay your friends an allowance so they will be your friends? Do you pay your parents an allowance so they will love you as parents? .... I hope not.

[GQBlues]

....We use euphamusisms. "mistress", "gold digger", "sugar daddy",....

...or just simply ghosts.

There's a very popular monthly mag that quasi-advertises their line-up in which mainstream America apparently isn't very aware of. Not all of them are aspiring Hollywood actresses, yah know...

[SFandEE]

You talk about Playboy?

[mies]

I will say to FSUW posters that for me this is a foreign subject within the US culture and especially FSU.  So I am learning through your posts.  I think I better understand after your post Mies that if I paraphrase correctly the FSUW had her preference she would have a marriage with a man of means (her sponsor), but if that is not possible she would prefer to be sponsored by a man with means than to be married to a man without money.

No, i did not say that I definitely do not make any generalizations here. I just try to pick the features that are common across the board, and remove all other factors. and I am also naturally curious of men's opinion on the topic.
Furthermore, I definitely do not speak for FSUW only. Imagine an American female lawyer of 30yo and no boyfriend yet. Imagine she lives in a big city, her work pays well, she is ready to get settled and wants to have a family.  She also wants to buy a house jointly with her future husband, or find a guy who owns a house, or maybe wants to buy bigger house to meet the needs of future growing family. Now, let's offer her three choices:
1) marry handsome man of her age group, also a lawyer/businessmen/medical doctor maybe
2) marry a guy who is stacking the shelves at WallMart, 35-40yo, no education beyond high-school, no business skills, and no bright perspectives (not to offend wonderful people who do important work and are paid modestly, this is just an example)
3) date a boyfriend who is maybe older than her (or not), and maybe not yet available for marriage, but his income is at least the same as hers, and potentially - x5-10 hers, he can afford lush vacations and occasional nice gifts to her.

so. whom this woman would chose?
Next: eliminate the first option in the list. What the woman will do then?
I think she will be waiting for "complete set" rather than settle with a blue-collar low-paid worker.  

My intuition would be that our nice and smart and successful young professional female will be looking for the "option #1", and until then - will be dating the option #3, hoping that maybe over time - option #3 will propose to her. Or maybe she will find her ideal guy and will drop option #3.
But those are just speculations. I really don't know how those things are done in USA. None of my American female friends, colleagues, or acquaintances have ever dated or married a guy who was significantly inferior to her in his social and financial status.

It might have been mentioned earlier, but is it accepted by a sponsor to have a FSUW with multiple sponsors or is this an exclusive arrangement.  I do think it was mentioned earlier that a sponsored woman can have a boyfriend/husband.

My guess (since I never had any first- nor second-hand familiarity with the situation): it all depends on the arrangement, and on whether woman seeks only money or loves her sponsor.

[Muzh]

No, I simply object to the idea that paying a woman to be your lover is somehow comparable to the institution of marriage. If a woman is seeking a sponsor or a sugar daddy, it is generally understood that sex is being traded for money. If men and women want to do this, they are free to do this. However, I will personally never accept this being equated with a marriage based on love, respect and equality. A marriage for me is a partnership and the marriage should involve more than pecuniary interests. A marriage should be for "richer or for poorer" not merely "until I find a better sponsor or a better priced sugar baby"  Let extend this to other examples. Do you pay your friends an allowance so they will be your friends? Do you pay your parents an allowance so they will love you as parents? .... I hope not.

I'm sorry Misha but your argument is not convincing. There are many guys on these fora who are looking for the "traditional" woman; the one that stayed home and took care of the kids and housework. The lady does not earn a salary. If she want to splurge in some "nonsense" the husband has to give her money. She will be very happy and appreciative, wouldn't she?

It is basically the same "transaction" as with a sponsor. The difference is that our ethics were developed to keep the family unit together and it serves as a huge deterrence on the man straying into what comes natural. We make a choice to stay faithful because there will be repercussions. We've known this since we started going to school, it is ingrained in us. The reason there is prostitution is because we need it. If there would be no prostitution it would be a free for all.

Misha, you most probably abhor prostitution based on your writings, but the reality is for everyone of you there are 5, 10, 20, who knows how many that is happy there are prostitutes. It's civilization's relief valve.

[Misha]

It is basically the same "transaction" as with a sponsor.

No, because a marriage is seen as a partnership between two individuals. For those who are even somewhat religious, it is quite often a union blessed in their faith. However, it is a bit ironic that the men in such forums (though this is not directed at you Muzh) who generally decry those nasty feminists have pretty much swallowed line, hook and sinker their line of thought that marriage is merely a form of prostitution morally acceptable to the patriarchy 

Misha, you most probably abhor prostitution based on your writings, but the reality is for everyone of you there are 5, 10, 20, who knows how many that is happy there are prostitutes. It's civilization's relief valve.

Again, if if men want to go see prostitutes and women want to prostitute themselves, more power to them. However, I refuse to see marriage as a glorified form of prostitution....

[mies]

Let extend this to other examples. Do you pay your friends an allowance so they will be your friends? Do you pay your parents an allowance so they will love you as parents? .... I hope not.

No. But when I do give my money or offer help to my friends or parents - I never view it as payment for their parenthood or the friendship. I simply share what I have, with people who are dear to me and can use my help at a given moment in time. And if they do need my help - I do not think that they like me only for my usability. At the same time - I do expect that when they are in need - they will ask for my help, and I know that if I refuse to help them - they will probably be upset. And possibly - would no longer want to be my friends. If this was something really important to them and I ignored their need. And I would not be offended if they ask me for help.
 

No,....

sometimes watching the sun is painful.
There is no point in claiming that "all marriages are sane" and "all non-marriages are evil". Because in each of these groups you can find the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I did not want to offend your religious feelings, this is why I never mentioned religion in my posts. We are all entitled to our personal opinions, i presume. But you MUST admit, that religion is not a rational thing. In religion the fact is the fact because you believe in it, and not because you can prove it. What i am talking about is purely rational approach to the issue.
If we were to had a religious discussion - there would be no discussion at all. You would make a statement: "marriage is sacred, relationship outside of marriage are sinful" and from a point of view of Christianity - I would agree with you. And that would be it.

[mies]

.