Ladies Only - Sex Tourism Poll

[Gator]

Lilly wrote,

If he writes me directly that he is going to date as many women as possible and perhaps to have sex with some of them, I would not even meet him, let alone dating him.

In reality, I never received any letter like this.

Only an idiot would voluntarily disclose such.   It is too presumptuous for a woman to accept it. 

Is this a case of, “it is okay to do it, but don’t tell me”?  Your surely know that a man spending two weeks in Russia and asking to meet you in the middle of his trip  is probably dating multiple women and will probably have sex with some of them if the opportunity arises. 

This is getting back to WMVM, and I avoid those discussions.

[Mir]

I started realizing that really the difference between "a sex tourist" and, well, for the lack of a better word, "a playboy", is that a "sex tourist" travels to other countries to obtain the desirable.. for whatever reason..

Well you got it wrong, a playboy is simply one who like to play the field, home or away.
A sex tourist is one who travels somewhere, just to find sex, the vast majority pay for it.
A whore, male or female needs to be one who offers sexual service for money, not one who pays the sexual partner to travel to him/her, feeds and treats them etc.

Gator

Yes you got it, the line between Pike and WMVM is thin indeed. And that is what I have been trying to put across, finally you can see it

[Admin]

Scenario 1

Single WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none. Sex tourist?

Scenario 2

Married WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none (already married). Sex tourist?

Scenario 3

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 1 FSU woman. Does not marry her. Sex tourist?

Scenario 4

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 5 FSU women. Marries one of them. Sex tourist?

Scenario 5

Single WM visits FSU on business on 3 occasions, staying 3 weeks each visit. Has sex with 1 prostitute and 1 'normal' FSU women. Marries none. Sex tourist?

.
.
.
.
.
OK - you get the idea. Make up your own scenarios - and let's see if we can 'bracket' the ends of the spectrum, and then begin to converge on a behavioral definition of what constitutes a "sex tourist."

- Dan

[Kvinna]

Scenario 1

Single WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none. Sex tourist?

Scenario 2

Married WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none (already married). Sex tourist?

Scenario 3

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 1 FSU woman. Does not marry her. Sex tourist?

Scenario 4

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 5 FSU women. Marries one of them. Sex tourist?

Scenario 5

Single WM visits FSU on business on 3 occasions, staying 3 weeks each visit. Has sex with 1 prostitute and 1 'normal' FSU women. Marries none. Sex tourist?

It looks like there is the association reflex - a visit in FSU is necessary included sex...

[Gator]

Dan

I get your point.  I would call Pike a sex tourist because 1) he did not seek emotional involvement and 2) he was “doing” multiple women concurrently.  So after my calling Pike a “sex tourist”, somebody else might call me a sex tourist based on their definition (values).
  
Mir wrote,

Yes you got it, the line between Pike and WMVM is thin indeed. And that is what I have been trying to put across, finally you can see it.

IMO there is a very broad line (see first paragraph above).  But you are welcome to your own definition consistent with your values.

[Admin]

It looks like there is the association reflex - a visit in FSU is necessary included sex...

Kvinna,

Feel free to develop your own scenarios and post them which include NO SEX.

Since the subject was "sex tourism" - it logically follows that at least SOME sex had to be a part of the scenario.

BTW - are you suggesting that if a Single WM visits the FSU and has NO SEX - that he could be labeled a "sex tourist"?!?

- Dan

[Jack]

Yes you got it, the line between Pike and WMVM is thin indeed. And that is what I have been trying to put across, finally you can see it

Hey, is this the day for stupid statements or what? ???

Mir, you have just won the award for the second most stupid post I have seen in this thread, but I will tell you that you were a very close second.

Wow, .... unbelieveable the minds of some.  So their is a thin line between "write many, visit many" and the adventures of Pike?

This is one of the wonderful things about Russian discussion boards and learning, seeing just how stupid of ideas and statments (attacking the idea/statment here) that some people can make. I simply shake my head in dis-belief.

[Admin]

Hey, is this the day for stupid statements or what? ???

Mir, you have just won the award for the second most stupid post I have seen in this thread, but I will tell you that you were a very close second.

Wow, .... unbelieveable the minds of some.  So their is a thin line between "write many, visit many" and the adventures of Pike?

This is one of the wonderful things about Russian discussion boards and learning, seeing just how stupid of ideas and statments (attacking the idea/statment here) that some people can make. I simply shake my head in dis-belief.

Jack,

Mir has a point. Some people - those maybe who have a vested interest in some way - will clearly associate WMVM with sex tourism.

Whether it *is* or not - depends on if we can arrive at a definition of "sex tourist" which we all agree - but my guess is - we will never get there.

Still - ask Kvinna if a person who follows the rules of WMVM is a "sex tourist". You may have to throw in a hypothetic, like I did in the scenarios - but the answer will prove interesting.

- Dan

[Admin]

Dan

I get your point.  I would call Pike a sex tourist because 1) he did not seek emotional involvement and 2) he was “doing” multiple women concurrently.  So after my calling Pike a “sex tourist”, somebody else might call me a sex tourist based on their definition (values).
 
Mir wrote,
IMO there is a very broad line (see first paragraph above).  But you are welcome to your own definition consistent with your values.

Gator - you added a variable into the equation - to "seek emotional involvement." That is unmeasurable in any tangible manner - although we can get SOME indication through what was written. My scenarios sought to simply address the knowable, objective facts - and see if it gets us anywhere.

FWIW

- Dan

[William3rd]

Scenario 1

Single WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none. Sex tourist? I DONT THINK SO

DIFFERENCE WHEN SOMEONE IS LIVING IN THE COUNTRY AS IN THESE SCENARIOS.

Scenario 2

Married WM lives in FSU for minimum 6 months. Has sex with 3 FSU women, marries none (already married). Sex tourist?
ADULTERER FOR SURE. SEX TOURIST? WHAT IS HE DOING THERE?

Scenario 3

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 1 FSU woman. Does not marry her. Sex tourist? I DONT THINK SO

Scenario 4

Single WM visits FSU for 2 weeks. Has sex with 5 FSU women. Marries one of them. Sex tourist? MAY BE A SEX TOURIST WHO LATCHED ONTO SOMETHING

Scenario 5

Single WM visits FSU on business on 3 occasions, staying 3 weeks each visit. Has sex with 1 prostitute and 1 'normal' FSU women. Marries none. Sex tourist? WHAT WERE HIS INTENTIONS- AND HOW HORRIBLE DOES HE LOOK? THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST HE COULD COME UP WITH

.
and then begin to converge on a behavioral definition of what constitutes a "sex tourist."

- Dan

[Kvinna]

BTW - are you suggesting that if a Single WM visits the FSU and has NO SEX - that he could be labeled a "sex tourist"?!?

Yes, if he supposed to have sex but was unlicky to lure a woman

[philb]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying Jack, the wmvm/wovo debate has no place in any of this. This has all been debated ad nauseum for many years.  Any method can be done in either an ethical or unethical manor.  

This is exactly what Dan is alluding to with his scenarios.


BTW - are you suggesting that if a Single WM visits the FSU and has NO SEX - that he could be labeled a "sex tourist"?!?

ROTFLMAO at the above post Dan

[Admin]

Yes, if he supposed to have sex but was unlicky to lure a woman

OK - so:

Scenario 6

Single WM visits FSU for ?? days, has sex with no-one - but tries. Sex tourist?

Yes, according to Kvinna.

Other votes?

- Dan

[Rvrwind]

No Jack, we have a new first place winner!!!

Quote from: Admin on Yesterday at 23:54:09
BTW - are you suggesting that if a Single WM visits the FSU and has NO SEX - that he could be labeled a "sex tourist"?!?


Yes, if he supposed to have sex but was unlicky to lure a woman

[philb]

OK - so:

Scenario 6

Single WM visits FSU for ?? days, has sex with no-one - but tries. Sex tourist?

Yes, according to Kvinna.

Other votes?

- Dan

I got to vote on this.  At this point we can no longer categorize him as a sex tourist, he now falls into the category of loser.

[William3rd]

unlicky? did we spellcehck?

[Admin]

unlicky? did we spellcehck?

Oh !

I thought that was INTENTIONAL !!

[William3rd]

I thought I would approach it diplomatically. I thought it might be intentional as well

[Jack]

Dan, sorry but not going to get into "voting" on anything Kvinna has to say with regards to what constitutes a sex tourist, ...or asking her of my own hypothesis.   She essentially, as demonstrated by each of your varying scenarios, saw each and every foreigner who was visiting the FSU as a sex tourist. There is no reasoning with this type mentality but   Hey!, you got the time, go for it!

Mir has a point. Some people - those maybe who have a vested interest in some way - will clearly associate WMVM with sex tourism.

Whether it *is* or not - depends on if we can arrive at a definition of "sex tourist" which we all agree - but my guess is - we will never get there.

Of course we will NEVER get there!   It will never happen where everyone is going to agree to what constitutes a sex tourist. Look at Kvinna's replies to your scenarios as a great example.  

And look at the words of Mir as another fine example.  YOU think he is making a valid point when he says "the line between Pike and WMVM is thin indeed."  Come on Dan, I am not buying that.

Your never going to get a complete consensus as to what constitutes a sex tourist.  If your going to accept anything, and I think as a community we have to accept something, your going to have to accept it in it's broadest, simplest form, such as "an individual whose sole or primary purpose is to have sex with as many individuals as possible on there trip.

Now I worded that to include both sex's as well as Lesbians and Blue Boys to cover everyone but in 95% of the cases it will probably apply to "men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible".  

Is their anyone who would disagree that that statement does NOT constitute a sex tourist?    Sure we can include this and that as well, but as a backbone, as a starting out point, you have to agree on some wording and once you think you have put together the best wording  it's as simple as putting it to a vote. And no, you will not get 100% to agree with even the most basic of a definition.

[philb]

Now I worded that to include both sex's as well as Lesbians and Blue Boys to cover everyone but in 95% of the cases it will probably apply to "men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible".  

"Blue Boys" ?  Jack, you have been over there way too long. 

[Admin]

Dan, sorry but not going to getting into "voting" on anything Kvinna has to say with regards to what constitutes a sex tourist, ...or asking her of my own hypothesis.   She essentially, as demonstrated by each of your varying scenarios, saw each and every foreigner who was visiting the FSU as a sex tourist. There is no reasoning with this type mentality but   Hey!, you got the time, go for it!





Of course we will NEVER get there!   It will never happen where everyone is going to agree to what constitutes a sex tourist. Look at Kvinna's replies to your scenarios as a great example. 

And look at the words of Mir as another fine example.  YOU think he is making a valid point when he says "the line between Pike and WMVM is thin indeed."  Come on Dan, I am not buying that.

Your never going to get a complete consensus as to what constitutes a sex tourist.  If your going to accept anything, and I think as a community we have to accept something, your going to have to accept it in it's broadest, simplest form, such as "an individual whose sole or primary purpose is to have sex with as many individuals as possible on there trip.

Now I worded that to include both sex's as well as Lesbians and Blue Boys to cover everyone but in 95% of the cases it will probably apply to "men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible". 

Is their anyone who would disagree that that statement does NOT constitute a sex tourist?    Sure we can include this and that as well, but as a backbone, as a starting out point, you have to agree on some wording and once you think you have put together the best wording  it's as simple as putting it to a vote. And no, you will not get 100% to agree with even the most basic of a definition.

Jack,

Kvinna only responded to one scenario. It is not clear to me what she thinks of the other 5.

As for 100% agreement - let me give it a try:

Scenario 7

Single 45-year-old WM living in FSU half-time. Has sex with 34 FSU women, including (by his account) 6 virgins. Marries none. Sex tourist?

My guess is that we could get 100% agreement that this guy is a "sex tourist." But backing off from that, where do we draw the line of NOT a sex tourist?

- Dan

[Sohkay]

Guys,
Give it a rest, eh. We all know what a sex tourist is. We all have good reason to believe that the vast majority of us out here are not sex tourists.

This board is becoming sextouristdiscussion.com, or the STD board.

[William3rd]

Have we gotten to sexually transmitted diseases yet? I was hoping we could talk about that over the 4th of July.

[Gator]

Sohkay,

For once you made me laugh.  You look good in "wit".  I think you should wear it more often.

[Admin]

Have we gotten to sexually transmitted diseases yet? I was hoping we could talk about that over the 4th of July.

Huh ?!?

I thought it was:

First comes LUV

Then comes MARRIAGE

Then comes Luda [insert name here] with a BABY CARRIAGE


There was never any STD's or licking or anything like that. What kind of ghetto you pick that up?

- Dan