RW with children: pros and cons

[Eduard]

Here is my 2 cents on the topic.

Many men who want to start a family prefer to find a woman who doesn't have children yet. If a guy is young enough, up to his early 40s it is very realistic and possible. There are many RW in their late 20s or very early 30s who would consider marriage to a WM of that age range and who have no children yet.
When a WM is approaching 50 years old and up, looking for a woman with a child makes a lot more sense IMO. Here's why:

Since the most realistic age gap shouldn't be much wider than 15 years (in most cases) that puts the age of the women a late 40s - 50+ year old guy would be searching for in the mid 30s and up range. Most normal RW would have had a child by then. I occasionally come across women in their mid and even late 30s who are childless and through the years I discovered that it's almost inevitable that these childless women have "issues". Initially my clients get excited about finding a woman of that age range without a child, but later always make a decision to move on because certain personality issues do seem to always pop up in the course of correspondence and getting to know each other.
So basically in most cases there is a reason why these women are both single and childless... Off course some couldn't have a child for health reasons but I haven't come across any one of those women. Usually it is more about being selfish, selfabsorbed, with psychological and even psychiatric issues.

Another thing to consider is that most local Russian men in their 40s and 50s would also prefer to date/marry a RW without a child so the competition for an attractive, childless yet "normal" woman in her 30s can be pretty tough. On the other hand there are plenty of beautiful single women with a child in their late 20s and 30s who have few good options of serious male prospects in the FSU and who would definitely consider a WM if they find him attractive, interesting and trustworthy and if they feel that he can provide love and security for both her and her child. Paying lots of special attention to the child will help you build a relationship with the mother. It's a package deal and you have to learn to accept the child as your own and treat him/her as such. This is a must in order to find the way to her heart and make a marriage work (it goes without saying that you have to treat the woman right, off course!).

[ML]

One additional item that you could discuss Ed, is the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man, even when it is a trivial matter that doesn't affect the health and well being of the child.  It goes way beyond the normal situation of mother protecting her children.

And with respect to the women above 35 with no children and perhaps never married; I have experienced sort of a mixed bag there.  A couple did have some serious issues (that unfortunately took a while to come out); but a couple of others seemed to be pretty good mates.

[tfcrew]

.. the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man   

Not such a phenomenon ...actually, women do this no matter where they're from.

[ECOCKS]

Pros:

You get to see a variety of different facets of the lady by watching her interactions with the child(ren), her family as well as seeing how she has handled the practical side of being responsible for another.

She may be a bit more family-oriented (course, she may prove to be the opposite).

If having a family without the kids being "your biological off-spring" is acceptable (even preferred) then you can skip straight to a more advanced family situation.

More family to love.

Cons:

Financial considerations. (Immigration and vacation travel for instance but also all sorts of other obligations and needs).

More paperwork and a longer process in bringing your family to your home country.

Risk of negative personal issues with the child.

Resettlement issues related to the child's assimilation.

[I/O]

A warning bell if I may please, if you meet a woman with a child, consider the child first, then consider her, then consider the child, then consider them both and only after completing those tasks, consider whether or not you can add something to that unit.
 
Ed, I understand why you're raising this subject but I'd like it to scope in this also. Whether or not it is intended, I'm sensing around the forums, a school of thought which suggests ones options may be wider if one considers women with children, in other words there are more "gettable" Smokinhotkovas who have kids, simply because they have kids and the local men aren't interested (the latter part is not entirely correct but that's another debate). In essence, this maybe true but it is mighty dangerous territory to be steering men into.
 
A ready made family can be a real blessing but, it requires a very special set of circumstances, special effort and dedication. Frankly, I don't think most guys in this pursuit have what it takes to pull off an international marriage and even less would get close to surviving one where children are involved.
 
Proceed with extreme caution, the ones most at risk here usually have no say in the matter.

[BC]

A warning bell if I may please, if you meet a woman with a child, consider the child first, then consider her, then consider the child, then consider them both and only after completing those tasks, consider whether or not you can add something to that unit.
 
Ed, I understand why you're raising this subject but I'd like it to scope in this also. Whether or not it is intended, I'm sensing around the forums, a school of thought which suggests ones options may be wider if one considers women with children, in other words there are more "gettable" Smokinhotkovas who have kids, simply because they have kids and the local men aren't interested (the latter part is not entirely correct but that's another debate). In essence, this maybe true but it is mighty dangerous territory to be steering men into.
 
A ready made family can be a real blessing but, it requires a very special set of circumstances, special effort and dedication. Frankly, I don't think most guys in this pursuit have what it takes to pull off an international marriage and even less would get close to surviving one where children are involved.
 
Proceed with extreme caution, the ones most at risk here usually have no say in the matter.

Amen, +1, whatever..  Listen to I/O very carefully.

These kids have already been through one breakdown in the family structure.  They don't deserve repeats.

The challenges involved with AM/RW relationships are often reported.. I can only describe the effect of children (on your, her side or both) as exponentially increasing the level of complexity involved.

If you applied for your first passport and never had kids, such a venture may not be where you want to go.

[Lily]

One additional item that you could discuss Ed, is the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man, even when it is a trivial matter that doesn't affect the health and well being of the child.  It goes way beyond the normal situation of mother protecting her children.

And with respect to the women above 35 with no children and perhaps never married; I have experienced sort of a mixed bag there.  A couple did have some serious issues (that unfortunately took a while to come out); but a couple of others seemed to be pretty good mates.

I agree with this point of view. There is a lot of individual lives, families and circumstances that may have surrounded a particular woman who is above 35 or so. A number of factors may have been in play that left the woman childless. Abusive parents, especially her own mother. Tough life conditions that made her struggle just by herself, let alone any offsprings. If you believe that a harsch life may have negatively impacted her character, it may not necessarily be the result.

I don't think that a mature woman without kids have issues. Some indeed may, but for many of them raising a kid alone would be increased responsibility that might be unbearable for a woman alone. We talk the FSU, not the US with its relative safety. Other than that, how about not having met the man who the woman would see as a potential father for her kids, given the huge competition for good men? Doesn't it speak positively about your prospective fiancee?

[GoodOlBoy]

Proceed with extreme caution, the ones most at risk here usually have no say in the matter.

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Seeing what I have seen here, embedded in my "little" Russian community (SIB) and knowing what I have personally observed (teenagers and pre-teens).... I wouldn't try to bring an FSU kid to the GoodOl' USA.... NO WAY! 
 
An FSU baby? .... MAYBE.
 
GOB

[ML]

ManLooking .. the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man 
tfcrew  Not such a phenomenon ...actually, women do this no matter where they're from.   
= = = = = =

You conveniently left out the most important part of my words.

"the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man, even when it is a trivial matter that doesn't affect the health and well being of the child.  It goes way beyond the normal situation of mother protecting her children."

[Faux Pas]

Here is my 2 cents on the topic.

 I occasionally come across women in their mid and even late 30s who are childless and through the years I discovered that it's almost inevitable that these childless women have "issues". Initially my clients get excited about finding a woman of that age range without a child, but later always make a decision to move on because certain personality issues do seem to always pop up in the course of correspondence and getting to know each other.
So basically in most cases there is a reason why these women are both single and childless... Off course some couldn't have a child for health reasons but I haven't come across any one of those women. Usually it is more about being selfish, selfabsorbed, with psychological and even psychiatric issues.

Whoaaa there Eduard. Thats a very broad and way over generalization there. There are as many reasons why women do not have children as there are why they do. Do you not think the selfish with psychological and psychiatric issues might be the exception as opposed to the rule? I do.


What you are saying in essence is any woman childless in her 30's is damaged unless it's a health issue. Very faulty logic there IMHO

[ML]

Proceed with extreme caution, the ones most at risk here usually have no say in the matter.

Several people seem to like these words; however, I have no idea what/whom they refer to.

[tfcrew]

You conveniently left out the most important part of my words.

"the phenomena that the FSUW will always put her children first above the man, even when it is a trivial matter that doesn't affect the health and well being of the child.  It goes way beyond the normal situation of mother protecting her children."

Not 'Conveniently'?
I don't even know what all that means. Psychoanalytical ?

What I meant was simple...
The man says.. Either the kid goes or I do.
The woman says...OK, I'll help you pack.

[ECOCKS]

Several people seem to like these words; however, I have no idea what/whom they refer to.

 "ones most at risk" = THE CHILDREN

[Daveman]

Some excellent points to ponder in this thread...

Not 'Conveniently'?
I don't even know what all that means. Psychoanalytical ?

What I meant was simple...
The man says.. Either the kid goes or I do.
The woman says...OK, I'll help you pack.

 Well, yeah, I guess that does happen, especially if the "kid" is over 18 and being a terror... but that scenario, "either the kid goes or I do" seems, IMO, a rather exceedingly rare occurrence (the husband would have to be a real schmuck).  Yeah, all women protect their children and put them first.  Some do this to an extreme, but I think a more likely scenario is presented by a mixed family where both spouses have step children.  A woman will make damn sure her biological children are not placed second, and, from the many stories I've read, seems to have a proclivity for placing her own children well above the man's in the familial hierarchy.  I doubt (but admittedly don't know for certain) this is actually more prevalent in these cross cultural marriages but rather that FSUW are more transparent in their favoritism whereas in the west it occurs by more insidious actions.
 
 This type of competition and rivalry is present and documented, though often speculation plays a role, throughout history in royal and aristocratic families.  I think it is probably a minority, though how much of a minority I wouldn't venture to surmise, of women or men who actually treat step children as equal to their own, and a lesser minority truly view all the children in the mix as equals.

[BC]

This type of competition and rivalry is present and documented, though often speculation plays a role, throughout history in royal and aristocratic families.  I think it is probably a minority, though how much of a minority I wouldn't venture to surmise, of women or men who actually treat step children as equal to their own, and a lesser minority truly view all the children in the mix as equals.

Dave,

I think it has much more to do with 'taking care of your own' in the sense that it is all one can reasonably do in a less than aristocratic setting.. - more realistic than intrinsic.

An example... mention to a RW that someone donated a rather large amount of money to an animal shelter.. The likely response might be 'Why would someone do that when there are many orphanages that could benefit more from the same donation?'

Such may be a quirky response in (affluent) western terms, but in essence quite valid in the FSU 'hierarchy' model.

My view may be that step children from a previous marital relationship are included as 'family' whereas a FSU woman may not necessarily share the same views.

Distinct challenges are involved.  I think it would be prudent to know that the FSU mindset may be more firm than flexible within this topic.

 

[Lily]

Whoaaa there Eduard. Thats a very broad and way over generalization there. There are as many reasons why women do not have children as there are why they do. Do you not think the selfish with psychological and psychiatric issues might be the exception as opposed to the rule? I do.


What you are saying in essence is any woman childless in her 30's is damaged unless it's a health issue. Very faulty logic there IMHO

Yes, it is sad to read this from Ed. For instance, I don't consider myself damaged or with any issues.

At the same time, it might be beneficial for Ed's business to try to draw his clientele's attention to women with kids. As people noticed here, RW tend to be very attentive to their children, probably even more than WW. They are even willing to go to greater lengths if this will benefit their kids, sometimes to the point of self sacrifice. At times, a RW would put her kid's interests beyond her own. This may be an additional factor in her inclination to agree to marry a WM who otherwise would not be of her interest.

Her motherly status may make her more agreeable, she may be willing to close her eyes at some, even at a number of drawbacks in a man. When in the West, a RW with a kid may be okay with the things that she may not tolerate in case she 'd be on herself. Childless women are generally more willing to take initiative and risk, while single mothers usually need increased protection. WM should generally be ready to supply this. That's why women with kids may be a good target group for international introductions.

[Boethius]

As people noticed here, RW tend to be very attentive to their children, probably even more than WW. They are even willing to go to greater lengths if this will benefit their kids, sometimes to the point of self sacrifice. At times, a RW would put her kid's interests beyond her own. This may be an additional factor in her inclination to agree to marry a WM who otherwise would not be of her interest.

I don't think RW are any more attentive to their children than WW.  All normal mothers around the world, no matter where they are from, sacrifice their own interests, sometimes their lives, in favour of their children.

[BC]

I don't think RW are any more attentive to their children than WW.  All normal mothers around the world, no matter where they are from, sacrifice their own interests, sometimes their lives, in favour of their children.

Maybe more pragmatic as it regards their life choices?  Not to say such is bad having seen a few WW basically use their kids as pawns (even hostages) in attempts to achieve their goals.  Luckily, I haven't enough experience to note such as a universal quality.

[GQBlues]

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Seeing what I have seen here, embedded in my "little" Russian community (SIB) and knowing what I have personally observed (teenagers and pre-teens).... I wouldn't try to bring an FSU kid to the GoodOl' USA.... NO WAY! 
 
An FSU baby? .... MAYBE.
 
GOB

+1
 
Based on my personal observation, I fully concur. I've yet to see a single FSUW, especially one with a small boy, who would be a 'blessing' to any one man. There's enough members here who can attest the challenges of having to deal with not just the single FSU mother, but with an almost guaranteed spoiled rotten, undisciplined young boy...
 
She better be one hell of a knock-out to make that even a fair trade. Even then, I'd give this some serious, serious consideration. A young Russian boy raised by a single (young herself) FSUw, mixed with some babushka care, LOL, there ain't too many things worst in life to go through...I won't wish this fate with men I dislike, let alone others...

[Boethius]

Maybe more pragmatic as it regards their life choices?

Borne of necessity, I suspect, as they don't have as many life choices. 

 I've yet to see a single FSUW, especially one with a small boy, who would be a 'blessing' to any one man.

I/O is one.  But I suspect he's exceptional in most regards.

[GoodOlBoy]

At times, a RW would put her kid's interests beyond her own. This may be an additional factor in her inclination to agree to marry a WM who otherwise would not be of her interest.

Newbies, pay very close attention to what this nice RW just said.
 
In GOB's mind, this would be a huge RED FLAG the size of a football field.
 
JMHO....But anyone that would go into a relationship with somebody who is willing to "settle for less" for the sake of their child(ren's) welfare is asking for big troubles in the future.
 
Don't marry someone that is hell bent on using you.
 
For example, beware of an FSUW that professes her love to you but insists that her 18 yo son MUST come along. She may have ulterior motives, such as for her son to avoid the Russian Army (conscription).
 
No joke, this actually happened to a man where I live. 
 
GOB

[ECOCKS]

It's a factor but I would say anyone who eliminates consideration of a gal because she has a child (of any age) is making a basic mistake, UNLESS they don't want non-biological children for personal reasons.

Certainly, if your radar goes off that she's using you that would be a flag.

However, the woman having a 16-17 year old with pending conscription or university opportunity would NOT be a flag IMO.

[I/O]

I/O is one.

Actually, Mrs I/O is one.
 

But I suspect he's exceptional in most regards.

I'm glad we're discussing the young boy here. His younger sister may be a very 'nother proposition if early indications are anything to go by.
 

Several people seem to like these words; however, I have no idea what/whom they refer to.

I'm not entirely surprised.
 

I've yet to see a single FSUW, especially one with a small boy, who would be a 'blessing' to any one man. There's enough members here who can attest the challenges of having to deal with not just the single FSU mother, but with an almost guaranteed spoiled rotten, undisciplined young boy...

Actually GQ, it was Babushka and Dedushka who provided me with the most useful advice, by example to be clear, regarding tiger taming. There were adjustments to be made in the first instance but IMO it would be fair to say, the circumstances surrounding the creation of that child are by far the biggest factor in determining how that child will have been raised prior to you being involved. IMO there are even more reasons to dig into the womans character if children are involved than if not. Most of this will probably go over most peoples heads.
 
Lily, I traveled a very great many places in my mid to late 30's, met a wide variety of people form a wide variety of backgrounds and unfortunately I have to disagree, of course I met exceptional people and present company is certainly exempted but for the most part, Ed is right although it applies to both men and women. Late 30's or more, never married, high percentage of whack jobs.
 
 
 
 
 

[BC]

Most of this will probably go over most peoples heads.

Indeed.

[GoodOlBoy]

Late 30's or more, never married, high percentage of whack jobs.

FWIW....I have sure met my fair share of whack jobs in their 30's and divorced (both men and women).

GOB