should I or shouldn't I?

[GQBlues]

Come on...  get real!  She's a prostitute!

She's advertising for someone to pay her money and a man responding is expecting sexual favours,  it's prostitution.  It may be wrapped in pretty coloured paper but it's still what it is. 

A mistress is entirely different.  If a man, married or not,  meets a woman, develops some sort of "relationship" and then provides financial support it would be fair to call her a mistress...  but in this case, she's hooking!

I know exactly what sponsorship is in FSU... and I have little problem with it when the support comes after a relationship... but I'm not a fan of prostitution or the promotion of it.

If you're advocating prostitution in RWD maybe you can start up a thread to provide advice and support who have "that" interest in FSU.  You can discuss prices,  the best places to find a "mistresses".  Hell,  men could even post photos of the different ones encountered and compare "services".

Imagine the future...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

LOL.

Either your grandpa reflex is obscuring your perception or you seriously lack reading comprehension. Fortunately, I can't help you with either of them.

So relax Kuna and take a deep breathe....and for your cause, exhaling is entirely optional. You have 5 posts in this short and silly thread, the last being the silliest, though not by much.

I know it will come as a shock to you, but this ain't your world,  and it doesn't matter how much you pull your panties up, it won't change that fact. You'll just give yourself a rash burn.

Now run along and take your medication.

[Kuna]

LOL.

Either your grandpa reflex is obscuring your perception or you seriously lack reading comprehension. Fortunately, I can't help you with either of them.

So relax Kuna and take a deep breathe....and for your cause, exhaling is entirely optional. You have 5 posts in this short and silly thread, the last being the silliest, though not by much.

I know it will come as a shock to you, but this ain't your world,  and it doesn't matter how much you pull your panties up, it won't change that fact. You'll just give yourself a rash burn.

Now run along and take your medication.
[/quote

The posts started out humorous and ended up childish.

Definitely a sign of your mentality and values...

Rock on Sex-tourists!

[GQBlues]

LOL.

You're so fumed right now you abruptly clicked 'post' without realizing your response is out of kilter. Now, go fix it before everyone else sees it...LOL.

Get over it...and enjoy the weekend. Sheeesshh

[Gator]

Partizan,

Let's start with the basics.  What is your goal?  To help, here are three choices:

1. If you are seeking a LTR with a good woman, you have started on the wrong foot.  A good RW would  not solicit nor expect a 100euro gift, and she would question the sanity of the man who sent it.  

2.  If you are seeking sex with a hot babe, the local prostitutes in Kiev will charge less than the air flight.  

3.  If you are satisfied with just having a good time and seeing what happens from there, do not import them into Kiev a la coal to Newcastle.  Your Russian language skills will help.  

Interesting, none of these three involve spending time with the RW from the Urals.  Say goodbye to her.  Gain some confidence, and start anew.

[Kuna]

LOL.

You're so fumed right now you abruptly clicked 'post' without realizing your response is out of kilter. Now, go fix it before everyone else sees it...LOL.

Get over it...and enjoy the weekend. Sheeesshh

You've still not addressed your promotion of prostitution in here... which I do find offensive.  

I can expect someone with these values to be dishonest..  just be man enough to stay on point and not act like a child.

So...  want to get back on topic or are you a coward?

[Daveman]

You've still not addressed your promotion of prostitution in here... which I do find offensive.  

I can expect someone with these values to be dishonest..  just be man enough to stay on point and not act like a child.

So...  want to get back on topic or are you a coward?

Prostitution? Yeah I suppose it could fall under that category from a certain viewpoint, but so could many of these marriages when you really analyze them.  This is a goofy thread which lends itself to goofy responses anyway.  So if you are going to take it seriously...

As far as I understand it, a woman looking for a sponsor isn't a hooker looking for a john, but rather a woman wanting a sugar daddy, a mutually beneficial situation which can be quite long term.  Not unlike some marriages.  Not like some others, and these situations are quite common in the FSU.  

So, no, I don't promote prostitution here or anywhere else.  I don't promote "sponsored" relations either but it is what it is. If Partizan wants to meet this woman he'll understand exactly what she's looking for, though It is difficult to imagine that he didn't already - thus the goofiness of the thread.

[Misha]

Prostitution? Yeah I suppose it could fall under that category from a certain viewpoint, but so could many of these marriages when you really analyze them.

Actually, no. A sponsorship agreement generally means that her "commission" is agreed to in advance.

As far as I understand it, a woman looking for a sponsor isn't a hooker looking for a john, but rather a woman wanting a sugar daddy, a mutually beneficial situation which can be quite long term.  Not unlike some marriages.  Not like some others, and these situations are quite common in the FSU.

Again, marriages don't generally involve "I will pay you X Euros/Dollars/Rubles per month for you to stay married to me otherwise I will put an ad to find someone else wiling to negotiate   

[Daveman]

Actually, no. A sponsorship agreement generally means that her "commission" is agreed to in advance.

Again, marriages don't generally involve "I will pay you X Euros/Dollars/Rubles per month for you to stay married to me otherwise I will put an ad to find someone else wiling to negotiate   

This isn't the way I have heard it - x amount of dollars per month as a salary or whatever.  But of course I haven't really investigated the nuances of sponsorship. 

What I have heard if more like what GQ described earlier. Like a mistress with mutual benefits -- he takes care of her; she takes care of him.  Again, not unlike many of these marriages.   But, if the "comission" is negotiated in advance, does that realy change the situation or how it works?  A flat, gifts, paying the bills, etc isn't really much different than giving a set monthly amount.

What a strange thread anyway.

[Misha]

This isn't the way I have heard it - x amount of dollars per month as a salary or whatever. 

As a salary for what? Generally, it is pretty clear that it is for sex 

What I have heard if more like what GQ described earlier. Like a mistress with mutual benefits -- he takes care of her; she takes care of him.

Generally, a mistress in my understanding does it for love or to satisfy her needs (physical, emotional) and not for a month stipend/salary   

Again, not unlike many of these marriages.   But, if the "comission" is negotiated in advance, does that realy change the situation or how it works?  A flat, gifts, paying the bills, etc isn't really much different than giving a set monthly amount.

Sorry Dave, let's just say that we have a different understanding of what marriage is all about  :noidea:

[Daveman]

As a salary for what? Generally, it is pretty clear that it is for sex 

Generally, a mistress in my understanding does it for love or to satisfy her needs (physical, emotional) and not for a month stipend/salary   

Sorry Dave, let's just say that we have a different understanding of what marriage is all about  :noidea:

I think I was overly vague.. what I heard was that a sponsor pays the bills, gifts, etc, but doesn't have an exact commission negotiated prior.  On this I admit I really have no idea what the protocol is.

So let's go off on the tangent completely.

Our understanding of what marriage is/should be, or should be all about is probably very similar.  Many of *these* marriages are not so much about that.  That was the point.  In those marriages, a woman trades/barters what? cooking? cleaning?  maybe.. but she definitely trades her looks and sex for a better life. No matter how you slice it, those "arrangements" are not exactly what we would consider to be what modern marriage is all about (though it often has been in the past - and convenience still plays a role in a number today).  Any label can be applied but what it boils down to is a barter arrangement (and if you boil down what is being bartered and why even further - what does it actually bring? -  you'll eventually arrive at trading emotions, or emotional states - exactly the same as any other situation in life) which on the surface is a woman trading her assets (beauty/sex) to gain a better situation (and possibly children) with "money" "riches" "status" being the other side of the trade and a man trading his "money" "riches" "status" for the woman's beauty and sex.  Drill that down to the base line and you still have "values" being exchanged, driven by underlying beliefs based on desired emotional states (whether accurate is another topic).

With our Li'l Miss from the OP.  I doubt if she'd actually demand payment in X amount, but if she weren't a complete scam and actually showed up, she'd expect to be wined, dined, taken shopping, etc., and in return she'd show him a good time, and possibly even consider thoughts of marriage if the trade were lucrative enough - or not - that situation, though short term, is still an emotional win/win as long as both parties know what's what from the get go.

[Misha]

I think I was overly vague.. what I heard was that a sponsor pays the bills, gifts, etc, but doesn't have an exact commission negotiated prior.  On this I admit I really have no idea what the protocol is.

Yes, there is a set "commission" and women looking for a "sponsor" online will be quite specific as to how much they want per month. Of course, this is the base salary...

maybe.. but she definitely trades her looks and sex for a better life

You see Dave, some trade love for love and marry for love  And, those of who marry for love (me included) do find it insulting to have marriage compared to a "sponsorship" 

[Daveman]

Yes, there is a set "commission" and women looking for a "sponsor" online will be quite specific as to how much they want per month. Of course, this is the base salary...

You see Dave, some trade love for love and marry for love  And, those of who marry for love (me included) do find it insulting to have marriage compared to a "sponsorship" 

Misha,
If you are insulted, it's inside your own head, and that's your own responsibility for how you chose to process my words - not from me.  I certainly didn't infer anything about your marriage, or mine, or any specific marriage of any specific individuals.  Hopefully most trade "love for love", but obviously not all do. Some also trade for whatever with the hope love might one day come.  It comes back again to the concept of marriage being a container - anything can be put into it. It doesn't make sense to be offended over the exploration of various situations.

[Misha]

If you are insulted, it's inside your own head, and that's your own responsibility for how you chose to process my words - not from me.

I am simply analyzing your words Dave.

[Daveman]

I am simply analyzing your words Dave. Again, if you truly believe that a marriage is comparable to a sponsorship, then I must say that I misjudged you.

Let's try this a different way.  What SOME people choose to put into their container called "marriage" can be very similar to what SOME people choose to put into their container called "sponsorship".  Frankly I don't understand the problem with stating the obvious (at least this seems obvious to me).

They are directly comparable in that there are relations involved between people based on a set of beliefs and expectations of emotional states, and in each case they are perceived by the individuals involved to be win/win.  Marriage itself is neither good nor bad, but is considered one or the other due to the emotional states derived from the relationship (two people choosing to relate together in some way) contained therein.  The same can also be said about sponsorship.  The emotional states derived by the individuals based on how they chose to relate together may be very similar or quite dissimilar, but they are still based on the perceptions of attaining desired emotional states.

An important emotional state desired most by women is the feeling of security.  Different means to similar ends provided by both scenarios (as well as other possible scenarios), so they are indeed comparable in that sense at that level.

Neither is inherently good nor bad but judged so by the individuals involved through the emotional states experienced, or judged so by others through glasses colored by their own value and belief systems derived from a myriad of sources - e.g., religion (value and belief system), or morals (just another value and belief system) passed from the parents, etc.  Of course, I prefer my own to be a marriage based on a relationship blessed with love, but different people have different values and values can change.

[Misha]

Let's try this a different way.  What SOME people choose to put into their container called "marriage" can be very similar to what SOME people choose to put into their container called "sponsorship".  Frankly I don't understand the problem with stating the obvious (at least this seems obvious to me).

Oh brother. Let me guess, you will start telling us how we "import" wives and are just buying for love.... Okay, Dave, I am happy to agree to disagree.

[Daveman]

Oh brother. Let me guess, you will start telling us how we "import" wives and are just buying for love.... Okay, Dave, I am happy to agree to disagree.

Interesting. 

[Ade]

Prostitution? Yeah I suppose it could fall under that category from a certain viewpoint, but so could many of these marriages when you really analyze them.  

Well, yeah, you could look at things in a lot of different ways and make almost anything seem like its opposite depending on perception... but, if don't start playing with semantics and you go by generally agreed upon definitions then anyone selling their body explicitly for money is prostituting themselves and is therefore a prostitute.

But, having said that, I do agree with you about relationships, perceptions and mutually agreed upon goals. I think Misha should read your posts again and really think about what you are trying to say rather than dismissing the ideas out of hand because some of these relationships tend to offend his particular moral standpoint. He does have a habit of getting all defensive (here and other places) when there's even a hint that his marriage may be somehow "tainted"...

[Kuna]

Dave,

You ARE promoting prostitution...  you're just not aware of how fractured your thought process is.

+1

and, tell her to take the train... 

As long as you know what you're getting for your money (that you will be spending with this lady).. hey,  it'd probably be quite an adventurous week for you.. if that's what you want then send her a refundable (only to you) e-ticket and enjoy the ride while it lasts.  Though if it's a partner you seek, your time there could be spent more productively... but hey, nothing wrong with some fun as long as everyone knows the score.

Everything else you say is basically a poor attempt at slithering your way out of something that was probably said in jest in the beginning.  We know you're a joker, and sometimes when you have nothing to say you try to spin a funny line.  The problem is that this time you're promoting prostitution...  and I think this community should be above that!

[dbneeley]

This is the first I have read this thread--and, frankly, I find it somewhat hilarious!

Whenever sex enters the picture, people seem to go all goofy for one reason or another. In every country, there are women who are quite willing to trade their looks and sexual favors for cash in one way or another. Those ways obviously range from street prostitutes through "bar girls" and call girls to mistresses--and some even view marriage in this fashion...as, obviously, so do some men. I should add that I am speaking of no particular person's marriage here, and my own is certainly much different from that and always has been. (In fact, it is often quite difficult for me to get my wife to permit me to spend money on anything for her that she views as remotely extravagant.)

Now, I have met a few people here in Ukraine who either are or have participated in the "sugar daddy/mistress" kind of relationship. Quite often--but obviously not always--this is a side relationship for a man who is married at the time. Surprisingly often, these can lead to the man divorcing his wife and marrying the mistress.

So far as I know, there are simply no rules regarding how these things are handled. Some do seek them with a definite level of financial support in mind; others would be offended at such a suggestion, yet are happy to receive support in having the bills paid.

For a foreign man to seek such a thing seems to me to be a step over the line into sex tourism. Besides, you simply cannot be sure that a woman who seeks this sort of cash-generating activity would be amenable to any sort of real and honest relationship.

I also agree that Partizan paying for the woman's plane ticket to Kyiv from her home in the Urals under these circumstances seems rather silly.

David

[Misha]

He does have a habit of getting all defensive (here and other places) when there's even a hint that his marriage may be somehow "tainted"...

Yes, I will admit that I have that odd trait of actually loving my wife and I actually believe that marriage should not be equated with prostitution or prostitution-lite which is sponsorship

[Daveman]

Well, yeah, you could look at things in a lot of different ways and make almost anything seem like its opposite depending on perception... but, if don't start playing with semantics and you go by generally agreed upon definitions then anyone selling their body explicitly for money is prostituting themselves and is therefore a prostitute.

Agreed, of course, and that's because we are using language labels with preconceived notions to describe the physical context of an emotional transaction, and thus semantics come into play.   Remove the labels and examine/break down/analyze what is actually occurring in the underlying primitive transaction(s) of emotive impetus. There are similarities. Every relation *is* an emotional transaction of some sort, only varying by degree of individual committment to duration of repetitive interaction, how that interaction is perceived, and the physical (superficial) modi operandi of the transaction(s). Other variables are pretty much related to depth and duration of emotional states attained by the transaction(s).  Not really the venue for this stuff but absolutely fascinating topic for me, so I got a little carried away in my enthusiasm.  

But, having said that, I do agree with you about relationships, perceptions and mutually agreed upon goals. I think Misha should read your posts again and really think about what you are trying to say rather than dismissing the ideas out of hand because some of these relationships tend to offend his particular moral standpoint. He does have a habit of getting all defensive (here and other places) when there's even a hint that his marriage may be somehow "tainted"...

"Is it an insult to say a dead man... is dead?" ... Odysseus from the movie Troy

I don't understand how anyone could actually be offended by the stating of something/anything that exists, occurs, whatever in this world.  People have sex. Unmarried people have sex. People enter into short term and long term relationships for various individual reasons and expectations, and then language labels are applied to those situations for communicative purposes. The relation between one set of individuals may be labeled "marriage", whereas a very similar (or even exact) physical and emotional transaction by another pair may be labeled "sponsor".  That doesn't insinuate in any way that all marriages are identical in transaction to all sponsorships save that there are indeed emotional transactions taking place in all relations.

Dave,

You ARE promoting prostitution...  you're just not aware of how fractured your thought process is.

Everything else you say is basically a poor attempt at slithering your way out of something that was probably said in jest in the beginning.  We know you're a joker, and sometimes when you have nothing to say you try to spin a funny line.  The problem is that this time you're promoting prostitution...  and I think this community should be above that!

Kuna, I am promoting knowledge, and was having a little intellectual fun.  People will do what they do regardless.  Yeah, my initial post was intended in a jovial manner to say that the girl probably ain't what he's actually looking for (and thus the double entendre of "tell her to take the train").  He's looking to meet the girl. So, I stated what I think the options really are with her.  If he decides to proceed with the meeting, that is his business, his trip, his life, his money, his risked appendage, his doctor bills if he contracts some unwanted parasite, his decision to make concerning a girl in whom he expressed interest.  Neither one of them is deceiving the other, as far as I know, about intentions. He's not promising marriage to get some innocent dream filled romantic woman into the sack. She's not pretending to be interested in marriage to get a green card. So, yeah, if two people want to enter into something together with all the cards on the table from the get go, I see no problem with that.  I don't condone it. Neither do I condemn it. It is what it is.

I merely have a more moderate, tolerant, and less judgmental approach to people and the situations in which they find themselves.  

As far as my "slithering". That's actually hilarious. Anyone is welcome to counterpoint anything I've written in this or any thread and I'll respect the effort as long as it responding to the post sans patronizing concescention and/or attempted guilt inducing moral judgments or condemnations without actually acknowledging the points I've made (whether agree or disagree).  

This is the first I have read this thread--and, frankly, I find it somewhat hilarious!

Whenever sex enters the picture, people seem to go all goofy for one reason or another. In every country, there are women who are quite willing to trade their looks and sexual favors for cash in one way or another. Those ways obviously range from street prostitutes through "bar girls" and call girls to mistresses--and some even view marriage in this fashion...as, obviously, so do some men. I should add that I am speaking of no particular person's marriage here, and my own is certainly much different from that and always has been. (In fact, it is often quite difficult for me to get my wife to permit me to spend money on anything for her that she views as remotely extravagant.)

...

As do I... excellent commentary.

[Misha]

Every relation *is* an emotional transaction of some sort, only varying by degree of individual committment to duration of repetitive interaction, how that interaction is perceived, and the physical (superficial) modi operandi of the transaction(s).

Dave, as you yourself noted, you do not know what a sponsorship entails.

First, sponsorship ads on free Russian sites. Generally, a woman seeking a sponsor will be quite explicit as to how much she wants. She will often specify that she wants 800 or 1000 Euros or dollars per month and she may specify other conditions (trips, clothes, whatever). In exchange for the agreed upon salary, the expectation is that she will be on call for he sponsor. If he wants sex or company, he will call her and she will meet. If she refuses, then she risks his finding another woman and she will lose her income. Generally, a woman will only have one client sponsor, though from what I understand it is expected that she could have sex with other men if she wants, just as long as she is there when her sponsor wants her. Though, I expect she would not tell her sponsor.

What is it that the sponsor expects? Sex of course, but also the implicit agreement that the woman he is sponsoring won't be too demanding. She can't expect him to drop everything is she wants him and she can't expect him to divorce his wife and marry her. If he has to be with his wife, then it is expected that she won't bother him. If she becomes pregnant it is generally expected that the sponsor even if he is the biological father will not accept the child as his legitimate child. In other words, the woman who is sponsored cannot expect any emotional attachment and, likewise, the man who is sponsoring a woman shouldn't expect love or commitment from her. It is a commercial transaction. Sure, feelings may develop, but the whole goal behind a sponsorship is to avoid emotions getting in the way of the exchange of cash for unfettered access to sex.

To summarize, then, a woman who is sponsored is not a mistress as it is understood in the west.

[Ade]

"Is it an insult to say a dead man... is dead?" ... Odysseus from the movie Troy

I don't understand how anyone could actually be offended by the stating of something/anything that exists, occurs, whatever in this world.  People have sex. Unmarried people have sex. People enter into short term and long term relationships for various individual reasons and expectations, and then language labels are applied to those situations for communicative purposes. The relation between one set of individuals may be labeled "marriage", whereas a very similar (or even exact) physical and emotional transaction by another pair may be labeled "sponsor".  That doesn't insinuate in any way that all marriages are identical in transaction to all sponsorships save that there are indeed emotional transactions taking place in all relations.

I'll state the obvious and say that he gets all defensive because he thinks you are implying that there's some sort of similarity between his relationship and those other less "wholesome" relationships. It's a fairly predictable response from Misha. But of course their incredibly loving relationship is far purer and frugal than any other so his self righteous indignation about being compared to a sponsored arrangement is entirely justified of course...

Perhaps he protests too much...

[dbneeley]

To summarize, then, a woman who is sponsored is not a mistress as it is understood in the west.

Misha,

Perhaps you can enlighten me about how a mistress is "understood in the West." I have known several over the years one way or another, and it seemed completely similar to what I have seen and have been led to believe, at least in the U.S. It's also similar to what I observed in Mexico in many ways, although there it is generally much more open.

David

[Gator]

Perhaps you can enlighten me about how a mistress is "understood in the West." I have known several over the years one way or another, and it seemed completely similar to what I have seen and have been led to believe, at least in the U.S.

I am also puzzled. 

I have actual experience.  After my divorce from my AW of 25 years, I was in no mood for a serious relationship.  I dated a couple of fine AW, and both walked because "the relationship is not advancing."  Desiring companionship,  I became a Sugar Daddy.  No future, but a lot of fun and it satisfied my few but compelling needs.    She was about 30 then, gorgeous, SOH, had already graduated (magna cum laude, almost summa), never married, in a financial hole and had recently broken up with her lover. 

Money was not exchanged around sexual acts, but given out as needed (e. g., brakes for her BMW 3 convertible, weed, etc.).  After 3 months I had enough, which is rather short for sugar daddy.  We stayed in touch and she is now a happily married mother.

So what's the difference?  Was I a John?  Far removed from a crack whore on the street.