Re: Why FSUW Look Abroad

[CanadaMan]

Many visitors to this thread (the one titled Re: Why FSUW Look Abroad)
are scratching their heads, confused etc. because it seems rather disjointed right now.

I think it requires a brief explanation.

The topic "Why FSUW Look Abroad" is very rich and could take up 100's of pages of discussion and we still would have only touched the surface.

There was another thread going on in another forum section and discussion began to drift away from the original post's theme.

Boethius decided to cut away the drifting part and place it here in this thread (Re: Why FSUW Look Abroad)

While one element of the drifting thread does touch on the broad topic of "Why FSUW Look Abroad", I believe it would have been better to start a new thread of its own, rather than lump it together with the lengthy
"Why FSUW Look Abroad thread".

People are arriving at this thread now, reading the title and saying (
as the witchdoctor just did) holy cow, we are still discussing the same things as 4-5 years ago?

And still others are arriving, not reading the thread from which this was spawned from, and throwing in their opinions about "Why FSUW Look Abroad".

While I think it is very healthy to discuss this broad general topic, it's a pity that the statement that GQ was making in the other thread has not been read by many of the people now reading this thread.

[CanadaMan]

Maybe I just don't get you? You seem to be dangerously close to a Strawman attack.

Faux Pas we really are not that far off from each other.
I am not trying to attack you at all. It is a matter of you "not getting me".

I would wager most woman sign up to seek foreign men on a lark. Never expecting much to come of it.

I agree, 100% FP.

To believe that there was a cradle to grave agenda is stretching it quite a bit. Yes, the women did not sign up for you. They signed up for them. Why does that enrage you?

Of course a woman is not signing up for me, that does not offend (enrage) me in the least!

Nor do I believe there was a "cradle to grave agenda" by these women either.

However, it's one thing for GQ to say that a woman signs up for herself and quite another to say that she comes to her loved one in his country 'for herself". To me, that's not right and not healthy.

Hopefully, a lot of time, face-to-face etc. has occurred before she gets on the plane to immigrate.

Now you are being facetious and silly with more strawman. Of course I wouldn't but, that isn't the case either. My wife signed up with herself in mind. That IMO is what this discussion is about.

No, I was being dead serious FP.

Yes we agree that your wife signed up with herself in mind, that's pretty straightforward.

NO, that is NOT what this discussion is about.

It wasn't about her finding me. It was about her, finding her man, improving her level of happiness and yes, improving her station in life. Is that so wrong? If so, why?

No, nothing wrong with that at all!

It was GQ's suggestion, implication that once a woman 'signs up' that's it.
Everything that she does from that point on is pre-meditated, carefully thought through and considered and only FOR HERSELF.

In fact she no longer needs _anyone in her move abroad.

[GoodOlBoy]

K-1 visa......she's considering primarily due to the fact that she's been without a job for a number of months which has nothing to do with loving the man.......  I bet in her conversations with the man the word "love" is used which only proves the point that sometimes what we are told is not always the truth.....

WOW!....GOB is absolutely shocked!! 
 
GOB
 

[CanadaMan]

This whole idea of planned relocation ,simply by the act of  signing up at a marriage agency, is amusing to me in the context of most RW i have met.

 People generally live day to day there, it's what is required, the future is what it is and left to form itself..
(yes there are exceptions, people with a plan, an agenda etc)

AJ this goes *directly to the heart* of what GQ had said.

In particular, he was telling Salty to stop being a 'wuss', stop worrying about how your woman will feel when she gets to the U.S.

Why was he telling Salty this?
Well, she signed up at a marriage agency didn't she?

Any FSUW who signs up at a marriage agency MUST by DEFINITION, have:

- thought through all the implications of marrying and relocating to a foreign country
- thought about the best place to live in the U.S., the best neighborhoods etc.
- thought about which are the best schools for their children
- thought about where the best driving schools are
- thought about where to shop for the best insurance
- where to shop for food
- thought about the myriad of other details necessary for such a move.
- thought about which toothbrush to buy etc. etc.

and therefore needs no help or sympathy from their loved one when she arrives to his country.

She is after all a strong FSUW, and she did sign up at a marriage agency right?

[Daveman]

But just a few entries ago, in this thread, Gator points out how you can never really do this.  Try yes; achieve no.

I always get a kick out of these admonishments to not marry the woman (man) until you know ABC or are certain about XYZ.

If a person had these abilities, think of  the money they could make in the stock market.

The best we can do is . . .  try to avoid being grossly stupid.

Yes, agreed. Complete and Absolute Knowledge is impossible,  but I do think a few bits of highly pertinent information can be determined.  i do believe that one can "know his woman" well enough to judge sincerity, etc.   


Kuna, who I referenced earlier with the "know" comment has also stated many times that this venture is a matter of risk reduction.  I thik that falls right in line with "try to avoid being grossly stupid". 

[Muzh]

Not simply relocating, I also think one must have in mind that many women on these sites search for western men because they have better values than most FSU men that are available to them.

Hey Roy, please don't tell me you drank the kool aid! 
 
I was away and started reading this. I'll get back to some of the discussion here when I'm done with the reading.

[Faux Pas]

Faux Pas we really are not that far off from each other.
I am not trying to attack you at all. It is a matter of you "not getting me".

I'm am not receiving it as an attack on me either

Of course a woman is not signing up for me, that does not offend (enrage) me in the least!

Nor do I believe there was a "cradle to grave agenda" by these women either.

It appears to me that your problem with GQ's statement is the way he framed it. While it might not sound sexy and appealing, it doesn't change the meaning of what he said. I read it right after he posted it and said to myself, "that'll raise the hair on someones neck". We (you and I) have two different interpretations of what he meant. Despite his clarification you seem to be insisting it was the other one?

However, it's one thing for GQ to say that a woman signs up for herself and quite another to say that she comes to her loved one in his country 'for herself". To me, that's not right and not healthy.

This is where and I meet the fork in the road. I can emphatically state, she came to me, her love, in his country, for herself. I, like you want to think it was just for the love of FP and nothing else. The realist in me says no. She did this for herself, and rightfully so.

Hopefully, a lot of time, face-to-face etc. has occurred before she gets on the plane to immigrate.

  That goes without saying but, unfortunately many times this just isn't the case.

No, I was being dead serious FP.

Yes we agree that your wife signed up with herself in mind, that's pretty straightforward.

NO, that is NOT what this discussion is about.

I beg to differ. That is exactly what this is about. And here is another factoid, I got involved with women in the FSW and it was all for "myself" 

It was GQ's suggestion, implication that once a woman 'signs up' that's it.
Everything that she does from that point on is pre-meditated, carefully thought through and considered and only FOR HERSELF.

In fact she no longer needs _anyone in her move abroad.

Now you've got suggestion and implication into the mix. Go ahead and tell him what his thoughts are now? GQ is a very intelligent guy. He knows what he meant to say and I thought he relay it pretty good. I've never known him to back into denial if/when proven wrong or misstated, as many of us do and that includes you and I.


I'm not trying to bust your bawls here CM. You're an 'Excitable boy'. Thats not a bad thing, it's usually borne of passion. I find you also an intelligent open-minded man. I got to tell you though. You approach at this point to a simple statement is akin to beating a dead horse. I found nothing offensive in his statement and there is nothing in his statement that detracts from her beloved, mule, lover, man or makes him less a man because she did this of herself and for herself. I didn't see when he said it was nefarious intention of the woman, did you?

[Muzh]

So anyway, lol the sleepy hallway for the neighborhood Moose Club all of the sudden came alive, didn't it?....
 
How many RWD members does it take to redefine reality other than what it is? Likely the same amount of RWD members who's been neck deep in the delusional muck they've been propogating on these boards for years. You folks are so drowned down into your own delusional world you could no longer make the distinction between what is said to what you *think* is being said, or worst.
 
I will ask again, how many amongst you can HONESTLY tell me your wife, gf, fiancee, inamoratas personally knew you and thus, YOU ARE the very specific reason why she (they) decided to sign herself up in an international marriage venue?
 
bullsh!t here: _____________________________
 
(I honestly didn't realize this was in fact a very difficult question to get a straight answer for, so yes indeedy, so please take your time)
 
You folks really do need to understand what is actually being said instead of huffing yourself up to what YOU THINK is being said.
 
In the meantime...So please Gator, as soon as you're able to heave yourself up from down there, share this juicy tidbit with everyone, will you?
 LOL, that is more than obvious Simoni. Thank you very much for explaing yourself. LOL.
  Read your first post in this thread: Reply #37 on: June 02, 2011, 08:06:34 PM. I thought that was your 'specific' issue, man? Is your sense of specifics a little bit off kilter? How many 'specific' issues are you personally stricken with, CanadaMan?
 
LOL! Look, let me ask you this question: how can you possibly understand what anyone is talking about when you don't even know what YOU'RE talking about? The rest of your post is nothing but irrelevant banter..
 Yeah. And most of the men I know who bought tickets to Russia had NOT decided to go to Russia...mostly they did it on a whim, or to see if there will be a reason to go...(RWs are pragmatic and matured, eh?) Try a little harder understanding what I* actually stated, please.
 LOL. Then tell me vwrw, did YOU specifically KNEW TurboGuy personally the day you walked into an international agency/service, and that specific fact is the SPECIFIC reason WHY YOU decided to sign yourself up to (that) an international marraige agency/service? (Is this what you told TurboGuy? ).
 
If your answer is 'NO', will you kindly help explain this simple reality to your hubby please?
 LOL. Well, it doesn't surprise me how well you know that time in Russia pretty well Turbo. I need not even ask, as I'm sure you were there doing church missionary work for the Sisters of Mercy.
 
btw, did that gal (who was 50 (?) years your junior) you filed a K-1 for, and came to the US, did so because the two of you were just madly in love? How long did that 'love' last? 60 days, maybe 89?
 ...and what exactly were those I mentioned?
 Huh? What 'theory' was that?
 WTF? Where the heck are you getting all these from? LOL, It's little wonder you're having a hard time digesting the reality of what I ACTUALLY said in this discussion.
 
Boy-oh-boy! Pretty darn funny!

In boxing this is called bobing and weaving. You're doing a good job with the dancing too.
 
I don't want to debate the issue until done reading, but let's say I will agree somewhat with you basic premise. And guys, I said somewhat.

[Muzh]

 

• sexually loose or unrestrained: a wanton woman

 
lol, that was my understanding..
and I was trying to work in how GQ was fitting it into that context..
 
 
 
 
Most peoples actions are self motivated for their own best interest.Regardless if its a man signing up at a local dating site to meet local women, or a RW signing up at mamba to meet a local RM.
Or if headed to the Disco, fishing,golfing,  or the gym.
 
 
If single, she signed up at any dating or agency site , to better herself emotionally, financially or in some way?
so did the man!!
That wouldn't make any difference locally or cross culturally.
 
 
I don't get the hulabaloo..

Actually, so far I've read it this way:
 
 

• recklessly or arrogantly ignoring justice, decency, morality, etc.: wanton disregard of human rights

[Muzh]

I have to say this before I forget. Old geezer, you know.
 
First, the majority of women anywhere in the world will marry to relocate. That is, unless the hubby is unemployed or a good-for-nothing-sob and will move in with her parents. Reality is, women will be considering the relocation factor in her decision to marry.
 
When I said that I somewhat agreed with GQ I was referring to the man with a woman way, way out of his league that we all know what is going to be the end result. This guy is a wanton mule. And then again, there are the exceptions.
 
Many, if not the majority of RW who sign with an IMB, are definitely planning to relocate. After all, the man will, in the overwhelming majority of the times, provide for the housing and if she wants to marry, she better go where he is.
 
I don't know about you GQ, but have you noticed what the majority of RWs do when they have that luxury of idle time? They read a book. Usually, a romance novel or worse, unicorns and fairy tales. They are scheming right there to hook this poor loser and make him her Prince Charming. You can say that she has personally met you before this process started. It is because you fit the mold she has painstakingly developed in her mind what her future husband will be.
 
I'll be back.
 
EDIT: So, basically, I somewhat agree with him.
(I forgot to explain why I wrote this, DUH!)

[Muzh]

I know I am completely and totally in love with her and I confidently believes she feels the same. The fact that she made that choice for her doesn't tarnish or soil that in the least.

Aw shucks.

[CanadaMan]

 We (you and I) have two different interpretations of what he meant.

Yes indeed it appears that way.
It also appears from reading many of your posts that we are just different in how we think generally.

You may gaze at a glass that has water up to its midpoint and say "It's half empty" whereas I would say "It's half filled".
Just two different personalities that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Despite his clarification you seem to be insisting it was the other one?

 That's part of the problem.
I don't think he clarified anything really.
He will need to step in, himself, and offer a good clarification.

This is where and I meet the fork in the road. I can emphatically state, she came to me, her love, in his country, for herself. I, like you want to think it was just for the love of FP and nothing else. The realist in me says no. She did this for herself, and rightfully so.

Once again you are pre-judging me FP. You really shouldn't.

I never said that she came (or someone else) would come "just for the love of FP and nothing else".

I am not delusional.
There are many factors involved in making the decision to pack up and leave your country.

However, GQ was implying that the man she was moving to
was a 'nothing', a cipher, not an important part in her grand scheme, her grand plans.

That was the *tone of his post*. Until he clears that up, that is what I will continue to believe.

I beg to differ. That is exactly what this is about.

No, the following is what the break-away thread is about.
Something that many others besides you, don't realize:

1. GQ telling Salty not to fret about his woman coming to his country, because she had everything planned in advance, long before she even knew he existed.
She knows all about his country and doesn't need any assistance, thank you very much!

2. GQ was trying to take away from the loving part of a FSUW-AM relationship by saying that, you specifically, are not that important.

That she would have gone for any Tom, Dick or Harry.
The most important part was getting the heck out of her country.

Until GQ clears up these two points, I will continue to believe that is EXACTLY what he was saying.

And then to throw salt on the wounds, he mentions that:

"Just remember, you must also blame yourself for the rest of your life if someday the relationship falls apart for whatever reason."

WTF!!!   That was just a downright nasty thing to say!

[Gator]

Sorry, don't buy it.

Don't lie, you are not sorry.
 
 

In my experience, goals can change. 

That can be huge, a watershed event.  "I don't want a baby" changes to "I want a baby."   "I love nature" changes to "I don't want to live in a village."
 

Values, perhaps with age and experience.

Again, huge.  "My children's education is very important" can change to "They are on their on; if they don't want to study, I can't change that."
 
 

  But from my observations, character doesn't change much over time, absent some great epiphany, such as adopting religion, and certainly not in the short time you were together.

Upon starting a business, buying a house and my wife getting pregnant, I dropped out of the Democratic Party and campaigned for Reagan. Short time? Again, although you may think you know everything, you don't have all the facts.  Is 6 years before marriage a short time?  I knew her longer before marriage than the mother of my sons (25 years together).
 
I will agree that a liar at age 40 was probably lying at age 12.  But a wall flower at age 18 can be the toast of the town at 28 and head of sales at 48.
 

Are you willing to harbour the notion that that she either hid aspects of her character, or that you were willing to overlook them?  She had choices available to her once she was living with you that she did not have previously.

Suffice it say for this particular topic I will not be drawn into revealing details about my ex-wife’s change in values. 
 
  Even though I do not like my ex-wife, I still respect her.

• No matter what I said you would automatically take exception.

Boethius, you write with the smugness as if you had ever fact, and actually you have only 1% of the facts. Yes, you are an attorney as evidenced by arguing a case even though you know your position is wrong.   
 
I noticed that you have taken exception to many of my posts recently.  You certainly are entitled to your opinion, yet there seems to be a pattern.  This pattern started when I gave you in private some constructive criticism about something that went against my sense of fair play.  You never acknowledged my position and instead continued to state that I read the offending post incorrectly (i. e., I can not read).
 
When posting and reading we unfortunately do not have the immediate feedback of each other’s facial expressions.  Nevertheless, for someone harboring animosity, time will reveal all.  I surmise that my advice made you sulk, you put on a mean mug, and  looked for opportunities to  take exception to my opinions.  I have many faults, Boethius, so if that is you goal you will become weary of writing about the many ways I am wrong.
 
 

[Faux Pas]

Yes indeed it appears that way.
It also appears from reading many of your posts that we are just different in how we think generally.

You may gaze at a glass that has water up to its midpoint and say "It's half empty" whereas I would say "It's half filled".
Just two different personalities that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Agreed

 

That's part of the problem.
I don't think he clarified anything really.
He will need to step in, himself, and offer a good clarification.

I think that he did. I do understand that you were not satisfied with it

Once again you are pre-judging me FP. You really shouldn't.

I never said that she came (or someone else) would come "just for the love of FP and nothing else".

I am not delusional.
There are many factors involved in making the decision to pack up and leave your country.

However, GQ was implying that the man she was moving to
was a 'nothing', a cipher, not an important part in her grand scheme, her grand plans.

That was the *tone of his post*. Until he clears that up, that is what I will continue to believe.



No, the following is what the break-away thread is about.
Something that many others besides you, don't realize:

1. GQ telling Salty not to fret about his woman coming to his country, because she had everything planned in advance, long before she even knew he existed.
She knows all about his country and doesn't need any assistance, thank you very much!

2. GQ was trying to take away from the loving part of a FSUW-AM relationship by saying that, you specifically, are not that important.

That she would have gone for any Tom, Dick or Harry.
The most important part was getting the heck out of her country.

Until GQ clears up these two points, I will continue to believe that is EXACTLY what he was saying.

And then to throw salt on the wounds, he mentions that:

"Just remember, you must also blame yourself for the rest of your life if someday the relationship falls apart for whatever reason."

WTF!!!   That was just a downright nasty thing to say!

Seriously, I am not pre-judging you.


CM you seem hell-bent on kicking GQ in the teeth based on your perception that he is kicking Salty in the teeth. Again, I do not see it in the same light as you. I thought earlier in the thread GQ gave Salty some excellent advice. I took the remark in question in the same spirit as GQ's earlier advice. Of course that theme was basically lost with the splitting of thread but none the less it is still in the old thread.


The way GQ framed it, I admitted could be taken to a positive spin, negative or like me to a neutral. GQ can speak for himself if he wishes to clarify it further for you. You are making a deal of it as if he's trying to make an asshat of Salty. I just am not seeing it that way. I thought Simoni's first remark on it was over the top and all of the subsequent ones as well. You don't have to agree with it but, I see nothing offensive about it. If what you state is true as a man married to a RW, I should be offended no?

[Boethius]

Don't lie, you are not sorry.

A general term.
 

 
That can be huge, a watershed event.  "I don't want a baby" changes to "I want a baby."   "I love nature" changes to "I don't want to live in a village."
 
Again, huge.  "My children's education is very important" can change to "They are on their on; if they don't want to study, I can't change that."
 
 
Upon starting a business, buying a house and my wife getting pregnant, I dropped out of the Democratic Party and campaigned for Reagan. Short time? Again, although you may think you know everything, you don't have all the facts.  Is 6 years before marriage a short time?  I knew her longer before marriage than the mother of my sons (25 years together).

But none of those are indications of character.  Character, to me, is what defines the essence of who a person is.  Did you become less honest when your wife became pregnant or you became a Republican?  Did you suddenly think that padding bills was okay?  Likely not.  Conditions of life, in my view, are not "character".  Character is the foundation.  All of your examples, to me, don't indicate a person's fundamental nature has changed.  Only their decisions to pursue certain options have changed.
 

I will agree that a liar at age 40 was probably lying at age 12.  But a wall flower at age 18 can be the toast of the town at 28 and head of sales at 48.

I don't disagree with that.  The former is an example of character.  The second is not. 
 

Suffice it say for this particular topic I will not be drawn into revealing details about my ex-wife’s change in values. 
 

I don't expect you to do that.

 

Even though I do not like my ex-wife, I still respect her.

• No matter what I said you would automatically take exception.

Boethius, you write with the smugness as if you had ever fact, and actually you have only 1% of the facts. Yes, you are an attorney as evidenced by arguing a case even though you know your position is wrong.   

LOL.  Okay.  But I think we are discussing things at cross purposes.  I think our definitions are probably at odds - the challenge of online communication.  You are one type of thinker, I am another.  Neither is right nor wrong, just different.

I noticed that you have taken exception to many of my posts recently.  You certainly are entitled to your opinion, yet there seems to be a pattern.  This pattern started when I gave you in private some constructive criticism about something that went against my sense of fair play.  You never acknowledged my position and instead continued to state that I read the offending post incorrectly (i. e., I can not read).

No, I have often taken exception to your posts.   And, I didn't take exception to you entire post, only one portion of it.  I am not wet behind the ears.  In my experience, the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.  That is, by my definition, a part of "character".   I have seen people change, usually for the better, but in almost all those cases, the person found religion or had a shocking event (mostly addicts who hit bottom). 

When posting and reading we unfortunately do not have the immediate feedback of each other’s facial expressions.  Nevertheless, for someone harboring animosity, time will reveal all.  I surmise that my advice made you sulk, you put on a mean mug, and  looked for opportunities to  take exception to my opinions.  I have many faults, Boethius, so if that is you goal you will become weary of writing about the many ways I am wrong.

True.  But I have no animosity toward you, and I do wish you happiness in the future.  Everyone has faults. 

It's a message board.  Don't take it too seriously.

[CanadaMan]

Thanks for your last reply FP.

I'm glad we got pretty much everything straightened out between us now! 

There's just one last thing.

...You don't have to agree with it but, I see nothing offensive about it. If what you state is true as a man married to a RW, I should be offended no?

I want you to understand this is a complete hypothetical FP.

If you were able to overhear a conversation between your wife and an aquaintance who was asking your wife why she moved to the U.S. (they didn't know you were listening) and you heard your wife say the following:

"I moved to improve my financial situation, better employment opportunities, better pay here,
better retirement options, better schools for my children, more choice purchasing products, better quality products overall, more safety and security overall in the country, better climate than where I lived, etc etc."

and you didn't hear a single word mentioned about yourself, would you feel you got slightly short-changed in the deal?
Would it hurt you at all?

Again this is completely hypothetical.

[Muzh]

 
GOB is surprised that some of the older more mature RW like Doll  , haven't chimed in on this particular part of the topic already.
 
I have never been able to understand the mindset of a grown man who can "meet and fall in love" with a stranger?
 

GOB, have you been living under a rock?


There are pages in history books that talk about the same thing; strangers falling in love. Keep n mind that a paragraph in a history book is the equivalent of your lifetime.


 

But the fact of the matter is, in order to truly "love" somebody, you have to know that person and spend a lot of time with that person.

Twenty paces at dawn; pistols or epees.
 
I challenge this statement, obviously.

Then we move on to my "favorite" subject....AGE.
 
If you are chasing a TEENAGER or a girl in their young 20's it is impossible to say with a straight face "we met and fell in love"...Oh please! 
 
I hate to burst anybody's bubble here, but FSU teenagers and young 20 yo's "fall in love" almost every other week with somebody new (Heck they are no different than teenagers or young 20 yo's living here in the GoodOl' USA  ).
 
And I am not talking out of my a$$ here Dan, I have a grown daughter.

Let's rethink that appointment at dawn. Agree.

[Muzh]

Dear Doll, for those of us who weren't here 9 years ago, or 7, or 5 - please enlighten us!
 
It's interesting to me that there only appears to be a handful of "still lookings" in those who post (reasonably) regularly - myself, LAMan, ManLooking, The Natural, Vincenzo and Patagonie amongst them - and that the remainder are already married, engaged or otherwise seriously committed.  Although of course there are pearls of wisdom scattered amongst the threads, it still amazes me just how easily threads can get side-tracked as those who've already completed this journey bicker amongst themselves.  Please, guys, concentrate - I've already learnt a lot in the few months I've been here, and I'm sure that others have too, but too often you're seeming to lose sight of the ball (so to speak).
 
I would have thought that a topic such as this should have the biggest flag available, and be locked onto everyone's radar.  If we are looking to the FSU for a partner, we need to know what the women there are looking for in return - surely that's common sense?

Grasshopper, it is not who you want, it is what you want. Open your heart and she will find you.

[Anotherkiwi]

Grasshopper, it is not who you want, it is what you want. Open your heart and she will find you.

My problem is that, if you take notice of some of these threads, several people are quite sure that your heart will ripped out!     So far so good with correspondence and Skype this year, but I do get highly p****d off with RW who just disappear (which point has been made MANY times since I joined the forum! ), especially when things seem so promising to start with.  Something I've always made a point of saying to women in this particular pursuit is "If you change your mind about me, whatever the reason - TELL ME!  Don't just leave me wondering what I did wrong."  Alas, it so often seems to fall on deaf ears.

[Muzh]

Ah, but you are forgetting how women think. They are trying to spare you some heartbreak while you prefer them give it to you straight. Happens all the time. Miscommunications.

[GoodOlBoy]

 
Again, huge.  "My children's education is very important" can change to "They are on their on; if they don't want to study, I can't change that."
 

Watch yourself Ivy League.
The spelling/grammar Nazis are on the loose. 
 
GOB

[Anotherkiwi]

Ah, but you are forgetting how women think. They are trying to spare you some heartbreak while you prefer them give it to you straight. Happens all the time. Miscommunications.

I'm a mere male - how could I possibly have any idea how women think? 

[OlgaH]

I'm a mere male - how could I possibly have any idea how women think? 

In the contest of random number generators a woman logic won 1st place.

- Darling, where is the remote control?
- First, dear, I did not take it! Second, I already put it back!"

"My dear husband, our door lock has broken. I have changed it. I have left the new key with our neighbor." She put her note on the telephone table, locked the door, gave the key to the neighbor and left... 

A man complains to his psychiatrist:
- No, you can not understand how it is difficult for me. My wife asks me a question, I don't have any time, she answers her question right away and  begins to explain to me why my answer was wrong.

[Faux Pas]

If you were able to overhear a conversation between your wife and an aquaintance who was asking your wife why she moved to the U.S. (they didn't know you were listening) and you heard your wife say the following:

"I moved to improve my financial situation, better employment opportunities, better pay here,
better retirement options, better schools for my children, more choice purchasing products, better quality products overall, more safety and security overall in the country, better climate than where I lived, etc etc."

and you didn't hear a single word mentioned about yourself, would you feel you got slightly short-changed in the deal?
Would it hurt you at all?

Again this is completely hypothetical.

Hypothetically answering, absolutely I would. The very best we as men in this particular scenario can hope for is to be included in that list somewhere. Hopefully, higher in the priority but basically, just somewhere "in there". BTW CM, that same conversation could be made by any woman in North America moving to another place in North America and the result is the same isn't it?


To not be included on that list might indicate a problem. That problem should have been approached long before she had an opportunity to have such a conversation IMO. If one found themselves in such a predicament at that stage in the relationship, it's probably too late 

[Admin]

Watch yourself Ivy League.
The spelling/grammar Nazis are on the loose. 
 
GOB

Hey GOB - have you ever heard of 'Godwin's Law'? You might look it up and see if it makes a difference in your posting references.

Just a thought . . .

- Dan