What is an MOB'er?

[TheTraveler]

Well like most of people here since most of us have not met others in real life I make my judgement based 100% on what people write.

believing 100% of what some guy writes about himself on the internet?

isn't that what got you into your mess in the first place?

[BillyB]

sitting on the toilet seat?  isn't that unhygienic?

Can be. I certainly don't sit on a toilet when peeing especially in a public restroom. When I do sit, I coat the seat with toilet paper. The secret to peeing and not spashing is to aim next to the bowl of water along the porcelain. Pee itself is not that bad. Cats and dogs drink out of toilets. If you're thristy and stuck in the desert, one can drink their own pee. Also if it were bad on your skin sitting on a toilet, people wouldn't be doing oral sex getting it on their mouth.

[Vaughn]

I still don't think MOB'er even applies because it's a meaningless label. Basically, I wanted to date/marry an FSUW. I pursued, dated, broke up, dated again, until I found someone with whom I really wanted to build a future.  I did what I wanted to do and found someone who wishes to travel with me through this journey of life.  That's what you did. Misha did. Muzh... the list goes on. That's the alpha and omega.


From a certain perspective I am an MOB'er, a wife importer, whatever.  It makes no difference what label someone else places on it. Bottom line is that I'm quite happy with my life, my decisions, my history, all of it.  My wife seems to be quite happy too.  Other members are as well.  I may be a social reject too.  I couldn't care less - ignorance is bliss! heh.. At least it has never stopped me from going for - and getting - whatever I wanted.

Amen. If I really seriously considered others' opinions about method, I'd still be paddling against the current. Social reject, MOB'er, desperate man, used goods woman, with child, requiring a financial rescue.....  don't pull your shoulder out tossing the names.
 
Someone forgot to mention "agency" girl.....  Mine was. How could I have been so...  so..... (fill in the blank, it doesn't mean jack to us....)

[Daveman]

And taking a step back to touch (again) on another important point..

OK, so let me ask you this.  Knowing most of these women are not in love, why would a man "settle" for a woman who is with him for what he can provide, rather than for who he is? 


I suppose it is not something I understand, both from personal experience and from my family.  I just cannot fathom choosing to live with someone who was not madly, passionately, in love with me, and vice versa.

And

...

But, if one reads FSUW forums, many of them, even a slight majority, are not in love with their partners.  They readily admit their partners do not know this.  Hence, they are insincere.  You can ask some of the FSUW who post here for confirmation of this.

Technically, if he doesn't know then he's not settling.. however, as far as I'm aware, Actorol is not widely available in the FSU (though very much needed as the clip in another thread indicates), AND - call it a hunch - RW as a group are not the greatest actresses in the world, so the anecdotal husbands of the anecdotal insincere wives must be delusional, clueless, or that love doesn't play such a large, or as large, of a role as T and A.  Ooooops, make that much younger and firmer T and A.


So, if typical exists, then perhaps that would lend some insight into traits of typical MOB'er and MOB's..


Such as insincerity, delusion, willingness to settle or choosingness to enter an arrangement, stellar acting skills (and and untapped goldmine of potential for agents of a different field).


Others?

[Boethius]

Technically, if he doesn't know then he's not settling.. however, as far as I'm aware, Actorol is not widely available in the FSU (though very much needed as the clip in another thread indicates), AND - call it a hunch - RW as a group are not the greatest actresses in the world, so the anecdotal husbands of the anecdotal insincere wives must be delusional, clueless, or that love doesn't play such a large, or as large, of a role as T and A.  Ooooops, make that much younger and firmer T and A.


Others?

In Soviet times, the "propiska" for a closed city was coveted by escapees.  I saw the after effects of acquaintances (male) who'd married women for whom they were nothing more than a means to that propiska.  I've posted about it in the past.  My husband could give you at least a hundred, probably more, stories.  The one that sticks out in my mind is one where he was present when she gave him the news.  After three years of marriage, the wife, an extremely pretty young woman, received her propiska.  The next day, he came home to find her packing.  He asked what he had done.  She said nothing.  She told him she had what she needed.  She was taking some of his things.  When he protested, she turned to him and said "I earned it."  What struck my husband, and gives him chills to this day, decades years later, is, he said she had the coldest eyes he had ever seen.  The husband never recovered, he was so destroyed, and never remarried.


This was an extremely common story.  mies and I posted about it some time ago, she was familiar with it as well.  So, uh, yeah.  They can be great actresses.  If they can fool FSUM, why not WM?  I don't mean it as a slag on FSUW, WW can do these things as well, it's not a particular ethnic trait.



If a man doesn't know his spouse doesn't love him?  Great!  I hope he is happy! However, as one FSUW told a dumped husband here who didn't understand it, "You were no longer useful to her."    So, as long as he is "useful",  he'll be happy.  He just better hope his health, and money, hold up.

[pitbull]

And taking a step back to touch (again) on another important point..


And





Technically, if he doesn't know then he's not settling.. however, as far as I'm aware, Actorol is not widely available in the FSU (though very much needed as the clip in another thread indicates), AND - call it a hunch - RW as a group are not the greatest actresses in the world, so the anecdotal husbands of the anecdotal insincere wives must be delusional, clueless, or that love doesn't play such a large, or as large, of a role as T and A.  Ooooops, make that much younger and firmer T and A.


So, if typical exists, then perhaps that would lend some insight into traits of typical MOB'er and MOB's..


Such as insincerity, delusion, willingness to settle or choosingness to enter an arrangement, stellar acting skills (and and untapped goldmine of potential for agents of a different field).


Others?

There was a discussion on RWD not so long ago about whether it's okay for two people to get married if there is no love, but other reasons, such as the future husband can provide financially (for W) and the woman having a tight body and they tolerate each other well (for M), and such.
I was surprised how many RWD-ers said it's okay to marry without love, and being in love when standing at the altar is not the foundation of a happy marriage - but rather all those "mutual gain" reasons. If loves develops later in marriage - it's fine, they'll take it.
So, I assume that many MOB marriages are really marriages of convenience, with both parties being aware and okay with this. Again, no wonder they fail when one party doesn't feel that they are still getting their "covenience" out of the marriage.
 
When I have a moment I might try to find that thread and post a link
 

[ML]

Also if it were bad on your skin sitting on a toilet, people wouldn't be doing oral sex getting it on their mouth.

I wouldn't be participating in either category without thorough  showering by both parties immediately prior to.

[Daveman]

[clipped for brevity]

If a man doesn't know his spouse doesn't love him?  Great!  I hope he is happy! However, as one FSUW told a dumped husband here who didn't understand it, "You were no longer useful to her."    So, as long as he is "useful",  he'll be happy.  He just better hope his health, and money, hold up.

Not sure, but perhaps you thought I was disagreeing with you?  nope, not this time..   merely pointing out that the same man cannot both "settle" AND not know (unless of course he was settling on, e.g., looks, etc, and was fooled about the 'love'.. but I think the point is clear).. settling implies a certain knowledge.  Which brought me to "delusional"..


In fact I am 100% with you on this:

OK, so let me ask you this.  Knowing most of these women are not in love, why would a man "settle" for a woman who is with him for what he can provide, rather than for who he is?  [/size]I suppose it is not something I understand, both from personal experience and from my family.  I just cannot fathom choosing to live with someone who was not madly, passionately, in love with me, and vice versa.

Our only potential disagreement would be that there are so many great RW actresses... a few, yes.. but mostly I am a firm believe in both sides of this exchange:

There are very few women that are clever and talented enough to fool a wise man as to whether they are truly in love with them.

Women don't have to try very hard. Men deceive themselves quite well enough by themselves...

I assert that most of the men are who are fooled are complicit participants in their duping.  Something discussed here ad nauseum. The gut feelings, the warning  signs rationalized away or ignored completely.  While exceptions may exist I think the norm is self delusion in those situations. Call it the 'head in the sand' syndrome, which of course is ultimately very painful, regardless of which head is currently in use.... (owww.. yeah, definitely lose/lose on that one...).. and it seems the younger and tighter the flesh, the greater the power of delusion a man suddenly possesses.




I'm with you and PB on the "arrangement/convenience" deal. What two consenting adults choose to do is their own business - more power to them - I just don't have too much sympathy later if/when it does fall apart.


But, as for typical MOB'er traits (perhaps no consensus can exist, but let's go with majority rules)..


Age gap, delusion, settling for a convenient flesh/money arrangement...


What else?

[Ranetka]

believing 100% of what some guy writes about himself on the internet?

isn't that what got you into your mess in the first place?

judging is not equal believing




no, wishful thinking did

[pitbull]

But, as for typical MOB'er traits (perhaps no consensus can exist, but let's go with majority rules)..


Age gap, delusion, settling for a convenient flesh/money arrangement...


What else?

We can come up with a list of traits of a typical MOB-er. However, there is one major philosophical distinction which I use when judging whether a guy married to a RW/seeking a RW is a MOB-er or not. I believe GQ said this once:  "The relations is with the woman in your Russian, not the Russian in the woman". A man who generally looks at the whole endeavor from the former vantage point is quite probably not a MOB-er. The one who subscribes to the latter one - almost inevitably is a MOB-er.

[Daveman]

We can come up with a list of traits of a typical MOB-er. However, there is one major philosophical distinction which I use when judging whether a guy married to a RW/seeking a RW is a MOB-er or not. I believe GQ said this once:  "The relations is with the woman in your Russian, not the Russian in the woman". A man who generally looks at the whole endeavor from the former vantage point is quite probably not a MOB-er. The one who subscribes to the latter one - almost inevitably is a MOB-er.

"The relations is with the woman in your Russian, not the Russian in the woman"


With the firs part I absolutely agree... but the latter.. doesn't that sound more like a wickedly twisted cultural fetish?     I could be mistaken, but it seems for someone who may be an MOB'er, the "Russian" itself perhaps would be a tolerable inconvenience embedded in the prize.. when the real story would probably be more fitting as "not the young ass on the woman". 

I think, for a good many, the whole "Russian" thing is a smokescreen guys toss out there to cover the real deal. 




Joking aside, I agree. It is the attitude which creates all of the other observable symptoms - positive or negative.

[BillyB]

So, I assume that many MOB marriages are really marriages of convenience, with both parties being aware and okay with this. Again, no wonder they fail when one party doesn't feel that they are still getting their "covenience" out of the marriage.

Love is just another convenience in a marriage too just as is financial stability. It's real hard to be happy in love when the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving. If a woman has a choice to choose love or financial stability in a man but can't have both, it's wiser of her to choose financial stability. Love doesn't solve real life problems.


Imagine in the old days when men were hunters and brought home the meat. If a man were strong and intelligent and brought in lots of food compared to the dumb weak guy, he gets the girls. Through his work ethic and abilities proving him a good provider for a family, he is respected and with respect, then comes love.


As fast as some people marry in this endeavor, love can't be all that strong when they marry. It can grow later and that is acceptable to most people.

[ML]

If a man were strong

WOW, someone under age 50 knows subjunctive mood!!

[pitbull]

Love is just another convenience in a marriage too just as is financial stability. It's real hard to be happy in love when the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving. If a woman has a choice to choose love or financial stability in a man but can't have both, it's wiser of her to choose financial stability. Love doesn't solve real life problems.

Fair enough and all good and well- as long as both parties are aware of the deal before marriage.
Only ya know, life is an interesting thing. Today a man can provide financial stability and this is precisely why a woman married him. Tomorrow (and much more typical of marriages with a large age gap, as witnessed by sad stories on this very board), the man's health deteriorates, or he gets fired, or his business goes down hill, as well as 401K. And what happens to this marriage? Yep, the woman leaves cause he can not provide financial stability anymore AND she doesn't love him. Why would she stay?
Also, I know it's not the case of your marriage, Billy  but a wife is not a helpless little pet. She can provide financial stability just as well the the husband can, so that they both work together as a team for their family and because they love each other. And in times of "real life troubles" she can step up and provide financial stability for the the family by herself.
Because only love and commitment keep people together through trying times, not a marriage of convenience.
Personally I love my husband too much to let him bear 100% stress of financial responsibility for the family, especially to the point that if it's not for his work, "the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving"
 

[Daveman]

Fair enough and all good and well- as long as both parties are aware of the deal before marriage.
Only ya know, life is an interesting thing. Today a man can provide financial stability and this is precisely why a woman married him. Tomorrow (and much more typical of marriages with a large age gap, as witnessed by sad stories on this very board), the man's health deteriorates, or he gets fired, or his business goes down hill, as well as 401K. And what happens to this marriage? Yep, the woman leaves cause he can not provide financial stability anymore AND she doesn't love him. Why would she stay?
Also, I know it's not the case of your marriage, Billy  but a wife is not a helpless little pet. She can provide financial stability just as well the the husband can, so that they both work together as a team for their family and because they love each other. And in times of "real life troubles" she can step up and provide financial stability for the the family by herself.
Because only love and commitment keep people together through trying times, not a marriage of convenience.
Personally I love my husband too much to let him bear 100% stress of financial responsibility for the family, especially to the point that if it's not for his work, "the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving"

What a B***, come on guys! do NOT let her get away with this atrocity!  the audacity!


   I have very little doubt there's a man somewhere out there who is extremely happy and very proud.  I've know that for quite a while now... but shhhhh, I don't wanna lose my rep...

[jone]

I thought the same thing, Dave.  But it's hard to compliment someone on doing something extraordinary when she will only believe you are patronizing her.

[Faux Pas]

Love is just another convenience in a marriage too just as is financial stability. It's real hard to be happy in love when the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving. If a woman has a choice to choose love or financial stability in a man but can't have both, it's wiser of her to choose financial stability. Love doesn't solve real life problems.


Imagine in the old days when men were hunters and brought home the meat. If a man were strong and intelligent and brought in lots of food compared to the dumb weak guy, he gets the girls. Through his work ethic and abilities proving him a good provider for a family, he is respected and with respect, then comes love.


As fast as some people marry in this endeavor, love can't be all that strong when they marry. It can grow later and that is acceptable to most people.

No Billy, when woman is "strong like Bull" she bring home meat, no problem. And she not miss toilet seat or mouth 

[Ade]

Fair enough and all good and well- as long as both parties are aware of the deal before marriage.
Only ya know, life is an interesting thing. Today a man can provide financial stability and this is precisely why a woman married him. Tomorrow (and much more typical of marriages with a large age gap, as witnessed by sad stories on this very board), the man's health deteriorates, or he gets fired, or his business goes down hill, as well as 401K. And what happens to this marriage? Yep, the woman leaves cause he can not provide financial stability anymore AND she doesn't love him. Why would she stay?
Also, I know it's not the case of your marriage, Billy  but a wife is not a helpless little pet. She can provide financial stability just as well the the husband can, so that they both work together as a team for their family and because they love each other. And in times of "real life troubles" she can step up and provide financial stability for the the family by herself.
Because only love and commitment keep people together through trying times, not a marriage of convenience.
Personally I love my husband too much to let him bear 100% stress of financial responsibility for the family, especially to the point that if it's not for his work, "the kids and you don't have good clothes and are starving"

Yes, all of that!


FWIW, I grew up knowing  many a poverty stricken but blissfully happy couple in love. Money and things ain't everything by a long shot.

[Misha]

Imagine in the old days when men were hunters and brought home the meat.

Which old days? Technically speaking, even when men hunted, the women gathered and usually what they gathered produced more food calories than the meat the men hunted 

[BillyB]

 

Yep, the woman leaves cause he can not provide financial stability anymore AND she doesn't love him. Why would she stay?
Also, I know it's not the case of your marriage, Billy 

I told my wife that most every man loses his job or business in his lifetime. There will be struggles and trying times. She told me she'll be by my side if that happens to me.
 
I wouldn't marry a woman if she wasn't into me physically and emotionally. I can accept people marrying for only financial convienence or a warm body in bed but I can't accept that for myself. There has to be love. I dated a lot of women and had options. Not every man or woman have options and if they wait for their dream man/woman to show up in their life, they'd be single for a long time or the rest of their life. They have to settle for less but for many people less is better than being alone.
 

Which old days? Technically speaking, even when men hunted, the women gathered and usually what they gathered produced more food calories than the meat the men hunted 

Even if true, the guy that gets better results over the next guy is more benefitial to a family as a provider and protector and his genes is the genes a woman wants her kids to have.

[Misha]

[size=78%]Even if true, the guy that gets better results over the next guy is more benefitial to a family as a provider and protector and his genes is the genes a woman wants her kids to have.[/size]

Hunting and gathering societies are/were by nature very egalitarian. Quite often it was believed that success was achieved when animals gave themselves to the hunters and failure occurred when rules/taboos had been broken and central to success was working together with the group. There were usually set rules as to how the meat and food was divided among the group when the hunt was successful.

[BillyB]

 
 
I'm going to rewind now that I got some time to read more of this thread since it happened at warp speed.
 

Isn't the "traditional FSU woman" mostly agency hype that members here and other fora consistently debunk?

Even the term itself is ambiguous. I did meet and date the one who aspired to raise a family and stay at home - which is fine by me.  "Traditionally" families had as many kids as possible to work the fields, hunt, for some to merely survive until adulthood - which is not really fine by me .. heh..
as well as a benefit to her individually.  If she chooses to be a stay at home mom it will be the same.

Yes "traditional woman" can be ambiguous. Some people assumes it means a woman that stays home and have babies. Wrong. For most people it means it's a woman that have skills compared compared to many modern women who don't. Most younger women will admit their moms, on average, may have more skills than they. Even modern men have these problems. They know how to play video games but they don't know where the dipstick in their car is located.
 
More than what people know they want, they probably know better what they don't want. Most of of here have been through one marriage already. We've been educated and we can do better on our second if we make adjustments in ourselves and/or understand what is a better fit for ourselves in our marriages.
 
Some of us may have been married to a "modern woman" who is independent in the way she doesn't need a man unless it's when she wants and knows how to cook a mean tv dinner or popcorn in a microwave. Yes, it's true not all women know how to cook or take care of kids. Why did men marry these women? Love, something we want, something that's supposed to take care of us through thick and thin, blinded and deceived us.  Most men here can admit missing red flags in their previous marriage or some of us realized the red flags are coming from ourselves and their wives missed it.
 
It's important for men and women to have skills in life, call it traditional if you like. Aloe who is married to a man close in age with her has a husband that likes to spend lots of time on video games. She probably wished her man did more things constructive, such as fix the house, take the family to a park, take the family on a trip, clean the yard, etc.... She probably wished she had a traditional hard working man....maybe like her father but love could've blinded her and she safely assumed all men are like the examples of the ideal men she had in mind.
 
Some posters earlier mentioned reading FSU women forums of the wives complaining about their large age gap cross cultural marriages. Of course problems happen in those situations but a small population on an internet forum doesn't represent everybody. Those that complain do it louder and more often than those that are happy. People in happy marriages don't tend to talk about their marriages as much on the internet. I'm also not very sympathetic to those who enter into a marriage willingly and complain about it and put down their spouse.
 

 

[GQBlues]

The things I know about your finacee is that she is 38, a single mother of two kids from two different fathers. Is it that hard to come by in the US?...

Heck NO!

There's plenty of these types in the US. Matter of fact, San Bernardino, the white trash capital of California have a multitude of these types of women...but apparently even in San Bernardino, these women won't date men long past their...

 

[jone]

Yeah, and when San Bernardino overflows, they send their rejects to Visalia.

[Daveman]

Here's another interesting statistic from the survey...


http://www.goodwife.com/survey/xcultural_p16.html


The median age for men is 40.  Age gap median is 8 I think it was.. hell I can't remember, senility obviously setting in but there's the damn link.


I took the time to investigate the birthdays in the calendar here.  While very unscientific, still, our membership tends to reflect a similar, though perhaps not exact, median value.


Seems that "old", though a relative term (40 is old to 20.. etc), isn't actually typical.