Exploitation: Real, imagined, or deliberately disingenuous?

[missAmeno]

Which guys who got scammed, are you talking about? 

The guys who never got on the plane but paid ADate a lot of money; or the guy that goes to FSU and is unrealistic; or the guy that goes there but is realistic, but still gets scammed?

And I kind of thought I included them all.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Wise Daveman, don't spoil all the fun 

Golden words. They choose to pay to chat with Anastasia girls, they choose to send money, they choose to help to get green card
 

Lying isn't scamming? 

[fathertime]

Calmissile,

Actually I do not criticize. But I struggle to understand why some are seeking justifications and acceptable excuses for their actions and decisions. Guys go to FSU because economical situation gives them advantage and they want to use that advantage. Most of FSUW in MOB also would not mind at all of taking advantage. Be it 'marrying 'UP' to someone more wealthy', getting expensive gift and paid holidays trips or having a job (as example pay-per-min dating sites). Most of people in it for some kind of advantage.
What I do not understand (and was point of my previous posts in this thread) is why I suppose to be sorry for the guys who ended up being taken advantage of when they actually by themselves intended to take advantage?

I don't think you are 'supposed' to feel sorry for 'guys' that got taken advantage of.  I'd say there are individual cases, where I could feel empathy for either the man/woman when one of the two obviously gets taken advantage of by someone who never intended on fulfilling a spoken or implied expectation.  Sometimes it is just how the cookie crumbles, other times I guess it is a devious plan.  Mendelyev made very good points somewhere recently about waiting things out because that flushes out ladies that are looking to scam, because those types of women don't have much patience....I'd say the same applies for men, if a woman suspects something is amiss with a guy, slowing things down and forcing the man to jump through a hoop probably isn't a bad idea at all. 


When somebody rejoices in somebody getting screwed, or enjoys a little vicarious tit-for-tat and makes me wonder why or what prompts this sorta response. 




Fathertime! 

[LiveFromUkraine]

When somebody rejoices in somebody getting screwed, or enjoys a little vicarious tit-for-tat and makes me wonder why or what prompts this sorta response. 

You tend to see this type of responses when it comes to men getting scammed.  Now, when something bad happens to a woman, hell have no fury!

[Daveman]

... economical situation gives them advantage and they want to use that advantage. Most of FSUW in MOB also would not mind at all of taking advantage. Be it 'marrying 'UP' to someone more wealthy', getting expensive gift and paid holidays trips or having a job (as example pay-per-min dating sites). Most of people in it for some kind of advantage.

Then anyone who has ever dated outside his/her own economic "class" has engaged in exploitation. 

Women who are out of a man's league, and in a different class of we'll call "looks advantage" want to use that advantage. They are obviously exploiters because it is highly unfair for a woman to be pretty and use that.

Also, any married person here who married someone from Ukraine or Russia (even Boethius) "exploited" them somehow. 

Considering the very small.. very very small.. very very very small percentage of RW or UW ladies who actually did or do marry foreigners... considering the very very very small percentage of men doing this who actually succeed in actually getting married... What exactly is that advantage everyone keeps bringing up? 

The oft repeated economic disparity advantage hypothesis certainly didn't assist me in any of this.

What I do not understand (and was point of my previous posts in this thread) is why I suppose to be sorry for the guys who ended up being taken advantage of when they actually by themselves intended to take advantage?

How, again exactly, do they intend to take advantage? By aspiring to have a family with a woman?  By finding a younger more attractive woman who is equally using her looks to gain an advantage?  By engaging in an equally beneficial exploitational barter of looks for money and money for looks?


Now, on the other side of things, I don't really feel too sorry for the majority of men who wind of being scammed either - because I do absolutely believe that they delude themselves in one way or three.  They are, in effect, an accessory to the scam.  Not all, but most.  So, we do agree there. 

[Daveman]

Wise Daveman, don't spoil all the fun 

it's so much fun to ruffle Boethius' ... I actually enjoy these exchanges immensely... it's my guilty pleasure.. 

Golden words. They choose to pay to chat with Anastasia girls, they choose to send money, they choose to help to get green card
    

HAHAHA.. Hey, I am with you there.. they do make a choice as well.

[missAmeno]

Then anyone who has ever dated outside his/her own economic "class" has engaged in exploitation. 
...

There is something you missing and that is difference between someone who dated outside his/her own economic "class" while economic "class" had no influence on decision to date that person or not and someone who on purpose been seeking to date those who lower/upper in  economic "class".

While concept of being in relationship/get married with someone who could provide better living standards is really old. Concept of seeking someone exclusively from economically unstable areas does makes to wonder.

[ML]

As old timers here know; I have been going to FSU for 10+ years in business consulting situations.  For many of those first years, I did not interact with the females in a romantic sense.

But later, I deliberately did so.

I knew from my earlier trips that I could indeed 'trade up' and obtain a woman that I could not obtain in the USA. My 'trade up' desire was in terms of 'more slender' and with 'high interest in sex.'

This latter criteria dictated that the woman be substantially younger than myself.

I fully knew and still know that I could only obtain this 'trade up' because of the economic disparity.

However, I also knew that I was a very nice guy and would treat the woman better than 99% of other men (from anywhere), so it would be a pretty good deal for the woman also.

As it turned out, by mostly pure luck, I am with an FSU gal here in USA who really was not economically disadvantaged.

But I fully acknowledge that economic disadvantage would have been the key in most every other situation . . . just as Miss A and many others claim.

[JayH]

.

 desire was in terms of 'more slender' and with 'high interest in sex.'

This latter criteria dictated that the woman be substantially younger than myself.

I fully knew and still know that I could only obtain this 'trade up' because of the economic disparity.

However, I also knew that I was a very nice guy and would treat the woman better than 99% of other men (from anywhere), so it would be a pretty good deal for the woman also.


But I fully acknowledge that economic disadvantage would have been the key in most every other situation . .

+1   add a few other ideas in and that is pretty much how I saw/see it all !!

[jone]

As old timers here know; I have been going to FSU for 10+ years in business consulting situations.  For many of those first years, I did not interact with the females in a romantic sense.

But later, I deliberately did so.

I knew from my earlier trips that I could indeed 'trade up' and obtain a woman that I could not obtain in the USA. My 'trade up' desire was in terms of 'more slender' and with 'high interest in sex.'

This latter criteria dictated that the woman be substantially younger than myself.

I fully knew and still know that I could only obtain this 'trade up' because of the economic disparity.

However, I also knew that I was a very nice guy and would treat the woman better than 99% of other men (from anywhere), so it would be a pretty good deal for the woman also.

As it turned out, by mostly pure luck, I am with an FSU gal here in USA who really was not economically disadvantaged.

But I fully acknowledge that economic disadvantage would have been the key in most every other situation . . . just as Miss A and many others claim.

That is an out and out lie, ML. 


We all know that you have more money than the US Government (oops, bad example.) Well, than most people.

Are you saying that your gal has as much money as you?  Where did you find her?  Does she have a sister?

Or maybe you should say that you are economically ADVANTAGED where upon she has nominal assets.  (Oh, I didn't get that right either.)

Anyway, Happy New Year.

[ML]

No, she does not have a much money as I do.

But she has much more than 'nominal' and does not need me or any man to lead a good life economically.

She just bought a dress at Neiman Marcus (more on that and maybe pics later) with her own money.  I could only gag at the thought (of the price) and couldn't even watch her complete the transaction.

But quite a beautiful red dress for New Years Eve party with some billionaires (and me).

I told her she could probably buy the same at WalMart for $29.95, except it wouldn't have the Calvin Klein label.  However, those can probably be purchased (the labels) and sewn in.

But generally, she is pretty frugal.

= = = = = = =

And, the story of Ochka and I is fully written in the Trip Report section.

[Slumba]

There is something you missing and that is difference between someone who dated outside his/her own economic "class" while economic "class" had no influence on decision to date that person or not and someone who on purpose been seeking to date those who lower/upper in  economic "class".

While concept of being in relationship/get married with someone who could provide better living standards is really old. Concept of seeking someone exclusively from economically unstable areas does makes to wonder.

It is always the case that women who are more attractive, or who have other advantages (in terms of how men view them) will naturally try to trade "up". 

Have a look at parties held in yacht clubs, stockbroker offices, high ranking politician offices - it is not just an accident that those places have many more very attractive women, than an average gathering would.

But is it not also the case, that there are some good points to Western Men?  Or all of us are just wallets with legs and blue passports?

[The Natural]

But is it not also the case, that there are some good points to Western Men?  Or all of us are just wallets with legs and blue passports?

Won't comment on my good points or wallet, but I'm a western man and I have a red passport 

[lordtiberius]

Akhmetov loses it.   Демократический альянс @euromaidan

[Boethius]

Also, any married person here who married someone from Ukraine or Russia (even Boethius) "exploited" them somehow. 

When I married, I was a student.  I had no source of income.  My husband had a steady income.  He supported me, not vice versa (although I did buy him a winter coat with money received as a gift).  He did not wish to emigrate, he said that he was "a fish in water" in Kyiv, and it took me two years to convince him life abroad was a better alternative.

[Boethius]

Nonsense.. pure and simple.


That just proves the point even further.  It doesn't really matter whether you agree, the definition is clear "mean", "unfair".  The fact of the matter is that they CHOOSE NOT to be as interested and CHOOSE something different. It is still free choice.

Free choice negates ALL of the arguments of MEAN or UNFAIR.  They are presented with a choice. They choose.  Quite simple.

Drop everything, including all your material possessions, move to Ukraine, and make a go of it on a Ukrainian level salary, with no funding from external sources.  Then come back and tell me it is nonsense, and how much "free will" exists.


If many here were FSUM, making FSU level salaries, they could be living next door to their now wives and in many cases, that woman would not give the man a second look. 

[Daveman]

When I married, I was a student.  I had no source of income.  My husband had a steady income.  He supported me, not vice versa (although I did buy him a winter coat with money received as a gift).  He did not wish to emigrate, he said that he was "a fish in water" in Kyiv, and it took me two years to convince him life abroad was a better alternative.

Look, I'm not knocking you or your husband.  Of course not. Silliness it just silliness which is what this exploitation label is.

The point is, you married someone from an country with a lower economic status.  So did any other married western person here. It seems, the core of this discussion is that the difference in economic status is the determining factor of exploitation rather than individual circumstance or intention.  The difference in that economic status must somehow automatically create "meanness" and/or "unfairness" in your, my, or anyone else's (from the higher economic status country) decision. 

Someone must prove the "meanness" or "unfairness" of free choice ( not to mention personal responsibility) for those free choices made before this can warrant a generally applied label of exploitation.   

[Daveman]

If many here were FSUM, making FSU level salaries, they could be living next door to their now wives and in many cases, that woman would not give the man a second look.

Ahhh, so, the women are actually exploiting the men.. I see... yes, it IS exploitation. 

[Boethius]

Hmm, I am not so certain that, when I married, there was a huge economic disparity, at least, not for the average Soviet citizen vs the average Westerner.  That could be true from a GDP perspective, however, Soviet citizens had guaranteed employment (in theory, and in practice for the "working class"), free housing, free medical care, free education, subsidized transportation, subsidized food, even subsidized vacations.  The issue was not economics, but rather, lack of freedom. 

Ahhh, so, the women are actually exploiting the men.. I see... yes, it IS exploitation.

I take it you have never lived in a state where you had few options to better your station in life.

A woman uses her youth and beauty to better her situation.  Yes, she is making the decision "freely", but it is "freely" given the cards she has been dealt in life - to live in a destroyed country, with economic and political uncertainty, where upwards of 80% of the population, in polls, express a desire to emigrate. 

I am not posting that women should not be marrying, just that the stories of "true love", "we found each other against all odds", blah, blah, blah are, more often than not, wishful thinking rather than reality.  Call a spade a spade, which is that women would not be marrying men far older than themselves who are "below" their league were it not for that economic disparity.

[Daveman]

...

I take it you have never lived in a state where you had few options to better your station in life.

There's the crux... it is mutually advantageous -- quite the opposite of "unfair".  We really need not go any farther because this proves that it isn't and cannot be exploitation.  If she makes a free choice, and in return is getting something equal to, or better than what she herself "barters", then it is a "fair trade". 

Now, my personal suspicion is that this is a convenient negative label to drop on something because you, and others, see "mismatched" couples and feel repulsion.  Then, you justify that prejudice with "he could never get her in his own country, so it must be something bad... what could it be?? what could it be???? AHHHH, exploitation!!!"

It really is just silly.

[Boethius]

In Cambodia and Thailand, children are routinely sold into Bangkok brothels by their parents, often at very young ages (6, 8, 10).  Those children that age are often bought out of prostitution, only to return to that life. Based on your logic, this too is not exploitation, as it is advantageous to both parties.[size=78%]  [/size]

[fathertime]

Well done Daveman,  I think you have provided a good and reasonable distinction here.  Women and men do have free choice.  If a woman chooses to marry a man from her own neighborhood that is around her age then she is free to do so and perhaps she has young true love.  Conversely if a woman has chosen to marry an older man from a far away land that is also HER CHOICE, and although that relationship will probably not be the same as one from the homeland, it has an opportunity to be very good, maybe even better. 


Once men are labeled as  'exploiters',  then the terms 'sex tourists' and 'abusers' are not too far behind, as has been shown on other threads from this site.   In my opinion, it is 'exploitative' to use the term 'exploiter', when there are truly other injustices around the world that makes what goes on between the majority of Russian/American couples look like a friendly game of paddy-cake.


Fathertime!     

[fathertime]

In Cambodia and Thailand, children are routinely sold into Bangkok brothels by their parents, often at very young ages (6, 8, 10).  Those children that age are often bought out of prostitution, only to return to that life. Based on your logic, this too is not exploitation, as it is advantageous to both parties.[size=78%]  [/size]

This is an entirely different subject and a smokescreen.    Are you REALLY equating 6 year olds being sold into prostitution, to two ADULTS from different cultures that make a choice to get married?  There is no sense of proportion to this argument, which makes it ridiculous. 


Fathertime! 

[Daveman]

In Cambodia and Thailand, children are routinely sold into Bangkok brothels by their parents, often at very young ages (6, 8, 10).  Those children that age are often bought out of prostitution, only to return to that life. Based on your logic, this too is not exploitation, as it is advantageous to both parties.[size=78%]  [/size]

Au contraire.. the children have not the choice... they do not have free will.. load up and try again...

[Boethius]

This is an entirely different subject and a smokescreen.    Are you REALLY equating 6 year olds being sold into prostitution, to two ADULTS from different cultures that make a choice to get married?  There is no sense of proportion to this argument, which makes it ridiculous.  Fathertime!

I am pointing to the ridiculousness of the argument of equality.