Ladies Only - Sex Tourism Poll

[William3rd]

Someone was talking about the STD board.


First comes lust- if you want to talk about the issues, Dan, go ahead
then comes marriage-with unprotected sexual activity, of course
then comes-fill in the blank- in a baby carriage.

[WmGO]

One can not ignore nearly 50% of the members.  As Jack said, just because they supported Pike’s right to report does not mean that these members identify with his behavior....
 
In a broadly representative board, there will always be many different opinions.  If you do not want to associate with a board that allows people to express thoughts that are within the TOS yet possibly differ from your beliefs, then you do need to leave.

Good post. I agree. And I add:

When it is all said and done 99% of Pike's TR is similar to any other TR: goes to FSU, discusses airport (boring) getting lodging (boring) meeting women (for me still boring) discusses cultural issues and differences (interesting and informative) discusses certain personality clashes/differences (interesting and informative) discusses eating and walking about (boring) and yes .01% of the time mentions matters I personally think should be kept private but hey that is just my style and opinion.....and TRs are supposed to be about reality so a mere reference to "she stayed the night" or "we went to bed" isn't going to offend me ( AND I am quite conservative   ................................but as long as there is nothing in a TR that is x-rated or graphic/explicit it should not be censored whatsoever IMHO.

Any TR that is about WM going to FSU to meet FSUW is a potential learning tool for the readers and assuming they are over 21 years old they should be capable of deciding for themselves what they like or don't like or what they do or do not approve of for themself. And it should not take a continous barage for anyone to just state their opinion about it. One comment should be enough, not 5 or 10 or 20 times saying the same thing.

For e.g., "Sounds like a playboy to me" [IMO that is all Pike is/was and all indications from the text is that it was all 100% mutually consensual]. ONE time.

Or, " I think he is a sex tourist"....and here is my PROOF. ONE time.

TRs should not be allowed to be completely hijacked with everyone scrutinizing and objecting to every single sentence of the report. As I said in another thread, why should a man even bother? And the truth is that a TR is the number one item that people want to read. Everything else to be seen and read and posted on a FSUW discussion forum is the same now as it was ten years ago. It is the same old subjects and issues over and over and over. The only thing that is occassionally new is a man's TR. Kill that and you are basically cutting out the heart of an internet  forum such as this one.

FWIW!

WmGO

[Mir]

 

[Sohkay]

Gator,

Glad you enjoyed it.

[Rvrwind]

I was gonna stay out of this debate but stupid statements like this just have to be challenged!

If the women believed that they are meeting for just casual sex with no strings attached and no possibility of a long term resationship, they would have no problem with the idea that he was seeing other women.  The fact that this bothered them and he took such great pains to hide them from each other suggests they were led to believe something different.

Scott, please tell me you don't really believe that. Were you a virgin when you got married??
Thats the biggest bunch of bullpucky I've read in a long time.
Time somebody called a spade a spade & as usual it looks like I'm your hucklberry!!
I was single for 17 years after my divorce & I can tell you flat out that you can tell them to their face that you are seeing more women & they know bloody well you are having sex, will still have sex with you & will still get the claws out if another woman comes around. Its female nature just like being a dog is the males nature. Heck some of  the women I dated knew each other & discussed our relations with each other so they knew the score, but the claws never retracted.
You all are getting holier than thou & crucifying Pike, why, are you jealous?? For crying out loud are you going to tell me all you detractors never have coerced a woman into your bed, cause if you say no you haven't, your a liar!! And what difference does it make, they were certainly over the legal limit & quite capable of making their own decisions, which they did by the way. They were not threatened or bludgeoned.
If you think the women are all so innocent that you have to come charging in like a bunch of white nights to save them, you are sadly mistaken. For crying out loud I still get hit on & they make it quite plain what they are wanting & I wear my wedding ring 24/7 & I'm a good 50lbs overweight. Hell my neighbour has offered & she is married & knows my wife!!!
Its been my experience that there are more women out there willing than there are those who are not, just most of them don't stamp it on their foreheads or make it real obvious. Why do you think the hunt for the good ones is so hard & so long??
If any of you have never had sex with someone you weren't intending to marry, well then you got the right to speak, otherwise I don't figure your opinion in this instance is worth a single kopeck!
When you all are wearing halos then you come back & preach, until then if you don't like the way things are, as Jack said, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out!!

[Sohkay]

...And the truth is that a TR is the number one item that people want to read. Everything else to be seen and read and posted on a FSUW discussion forum is the same now as it was ten years ago. It is the same old subjects and issues over and over and over. The only thing that is occasionally new is a man's TR. Kill that and you are basically cutting out the heart of an internet forum such as this one.

FWIW!

WmGO

Dan,
You see? This is what I was trying to explain to you. The read-only trip report section could possibly increase the number of trip reports posted. And there is still moderation and TOS so there are checks and balances. You remember checks and balances, don't you? That old system of government we used to have in the U.S. where the three different branches of government worked within a structure of checks and balances. Yeah, those were the days. But I digress...there's many advantages to the read-only trip report. One more thing...it's so eminently readable in that format. Too many pluses. Simple, clean, pure.

And maybe many, many more clicks.

[Mir]

Sorry I will try again.

For the feminists all WMVM or even all foreign men travelling to FSU to meet women will be sex tourists.

My statement did not imply that all WMVM are almost sex tourists or vice versa but that they can easily be confused with each other.
A man travelling through FSU and meeting women as he goes along can be seen as a sex tourist even thought in his heart he is honestly looking for a wife.
A man arrives in Kiev and stays 7 days, meets a girl everyday and on day 4 sleeps with her first time. Keen to explore more he goes to Odessa for 7 days and repeats the same and then goes to Lviv and the same. Each time he feels affection for the women but he has to find the best so he keeps trying the next. His intentions are pure to find the wife but he can't decide after just the first girl can he?
Some will say he is a genuine WMVM and others will label him a sex tourist.

[batman]

I agree with this definition:

"men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible"

- Pike fit into that very clearly
- Someone going over to find a wife and sleeps with a few candidates over a period of time would not fit this definition. His primary purpose is to find a wife or at the least a long term relationship.
- Someone who tries to sleep with as many women as possible but sleeps with none and had no intention of looking for a wife/long term partner is a sex-tourist, and an unsuccessful one.

It becomes clear when you look at the persons primary purpose while on the trip.

It's not too hard to Judge someone by his actions. If a guy goes to FSU and says he is seeking a wife and yet beds as many women as possible. He is a sex tourist. He lied about his primary purpose obviously.

[Dan C.]

Mir, in my opinion you have hit the nail on the head:

My statement did not imply that all WMVM are almost sex tourists or vice versa but that they can easily be confused with each other.
A man travelling through FSU and meeting women as he goes along can be seen as a sex tourist even thought in his heart he is honestly looking for a wife.

Others may view those who go to the FSU as a sex tourists because it is hard to see what is going on in the traveller's heart.

[Daveman]

- Someone who tries to sleep with as many women as possible but sleeps with none and had no intention of looking for a wife/long term partner is a sex-tourist, and an unsuccessful one.

How about Tripturbator for the unsuccessful sex-tourist?

OWW's can be Premature Immigrationators

I think we need to start with defining nice nicknames for all the categories... 

[Admin]

I agree with this definition:

"men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible"

- Pike fit into that very clearly
- Someone going over to find a wife and sleeps with a few candidates over a period of time would not fit this definition. His primary purpose is to find a wife or at the least a long term relationship.
- Someone who tries to sleep with as many women as possible but sleeps with none and had no intention of looking for a wife/long term partner is a sex-tourist, and an unsuccessful one.

It becomes clear when you look at the persons primary purpose while on the trip.

It's not too hard to Judge someone by his actions. If a guy goes to FSU and says he is seeking a wife and yet beds as many women as possible. He is a sex tourist. He lied about his primary purpose obviously.

Discerning another's motives - judging the level/depth of their sincerity. These are NOT so easy.

Judge them by their actions? That is why I spelled out the various scenarios using only observable variables.

- Dan

[ScottinCrimea]

Dan, none of your scenarios talked about intent or what methods were employed to obtain the sex.  It's not just an issue of how long there and how many.  If someone comes to the FSU for only one day with the sole intent of misleading a woman about his intentions in order to lure her into bed, maybe we wouldn't define him as a sex tourst, maybe we would, but either way he is scum. While we can debate ad nauseum the definition of a sex tourist, what won't change in each person's mind is his definition of a gentleman versus a bottom dweller.  Does anyone here think Pike is a gentleman and a class act?  Sex tourist or no, I don't want to be associated with him in any form.  Others here may disagree and would enjoy buying him a beer and giving hiim a nice pat on the back.  We all have our different standards of who we choose to associate with.

[wxman]

In the end, the definition of a sex tourist is determined by each individual woman. We can discuss this til no end, but in the end if you don't walk in her shoes, you can't talk in her shoes. If she feels she was used for sex she will label the man, whether right or wrong. Men do the same thing if they feel they were duped or used. Again whether right or wrong. This discussion isn't any different than what men on this forum have given for a definition of a scammer. We all have different moral compasses, and with it, different definitions.

[KenC]

Dan, none of your scenarios talked about intent or what methods were employed to obtain the sex.  It's not just an issue of how long there and how many.  If someone comes to the FSU for only one day with the sole intent of misleading a woman about his intentions in order to lure her into bed, maybe we wouldn't define him as a sex tourist, maybe we would, but either way he is scum. While we can debate ad nauseum the definition of a sex tourist, what won't change in each person's mind is his definition of a gentleman versus a bottom dweller.  Does anyone here think Pike is a gentleman and a class act?  Sex tourist or no, I don't want to be associated with him in any form.  Others here may disagree and would enjoy buying him a beer and giving hiim a nice pat on the back.  We all have our different standards of who we choose to associate with.

Scott,
OK, let's say I agree with everything you said (hypothetically).  The bases for if a man is a sex tourist is solely on intent.  Right?  So, if a man has honorable intentions (according to your standards) and he beds a RW, it is OK.  Right?  Maybe he beds more than just one, but he is seeking a wife ultimately, so it is still probably OK.  Right?

This "honorable" man writes a T/R and makes it clear that he had the best intentions.  Why should we believe him?  Because of what he tells us?  Or should we make our own assumptions about his intentions?  Who is the ultimate judge?  Him?  because he said so or you because you don't believe him?

There are many members here that I wouldn't cross the street to meet in person as well as some that I would travel across the nation to meet.  This RWD club is very diverse and ultimately we have no control over who joins.  We are banded together with some commonalities.  Some more than others.  But what we cannot do IMO is to force our values, morals and opinions on others that think differently.  We can give our side of the issues and support them with logic and common sense (or in some cases emotion and bravado) , but in the end, it is every members own right to decide these things for himself.  No amount of censorship or accountability will change that.  People are who they are and no amount of posts here are going to change them.  We have to accept those that might think a little different from us as long as they follow the rules of the forum (TOS)  If you start playing games with the TOS here, where does it stop?  Do we amend the TOS to eliminate those who go on a WMVM because we don't agree with their methods?  Or do we amend the TOS to eliminate those men that travel to small villages to take advantage of some desperate and naive village girl?  Do we exclude the men that line RW up like cattle and pick the prettiest one?  Hell, I can go on and on about the people that should be excluded, but then I would just end up talking to myself.
KenC

[KenC]

Can one of the ladies that voted here fill us in on the score?
KenC

[Yulz]

Go see "Deuce Bigelow- American Gigolo" for a good laugh.

can't handle a bit of humour, William3rd? or am i reading you wrong?

[catzenmouse]

People are who they are and no amount of posts here are going to change them.  We have to accept those that might think a little different from us as long as they follow the rules of the forum (TOS)  If you start playing games with the TOS here, where does it stop?  Do we amend the TOS to eliminate those who go on a WMVM because we don't agree with their methods?  Or do we amend the TOS to eliminate those men that travel to small villages to take advantage of some desperate and naive village girl?

I asked earlier in this (or the other related thread, they've basically become one in my thinking) for those advocating for changes to the TOS to write something up and give it to Dan (and the mods) for review.

That request was totally ignored so I've come to believe that what is wanted here is something along the lines of "Dan, Fix this site so it will be more like "I" want it to be." Rather than take some of this "energy" and actually provide something that can be reviewed.

To me, this kind of yelling without action is like those people on welfare who won't get off their @sses to blow their noses complaining about not having their kleenex delivered.

This forum is way beyond fair in making changes to meet the needs of the WHOLE community. If you cannot bother to take the time to put it down in writing then I am sorry, I don't have an ear left to listen to the noise.

Ken

[KenC]

To me, this kind of yelling without action is like those people on welfare who won't get off their @sses to blow their noses complaining about not having their kleenex delivered.

Ken, I don't like those people either. Let's amend the TOS so they can't play here too.
KenC

[William3rd]

Yulz- you arer reading me wrong- I liked your post. I also love the movie I mentioned and it talks all about "man whores."

[catzenmouse]

KenC,

 Amen, Let's draft up some changes right away...

Ken (not C)

[BillyB]

I agree with this definition:

"men whose sole or primary purpose of his trip is to bed as many women on his trip as possible"

- Pike fit into that very clearly

Batman, if you ever want to convince Pike to debate or win a debate with any guy here, you need to be fair and balanced. With Pike you need to acknowledge Pike's written words that he turned away and turned down sex from women he didn't like. You and others have selectively chosen what you want to believe, ignored the rest of what Pike wrote, and then called Pike a liar/deceiver. If you're going to believe he had sex on his trip because "he wrote it", then you need to believe he turned women away too because "he wrote it". Clearly, his objective was not to bed as many women as possible. But at least one of his objectives was to bed a woman on this trip. See the difference? Pike does not fit into the sex tourist definition above.

- Someone who tries to sleep with as many women as possible but sleeps with none and had no intention of looking for a wife/long term partner is a sex-tourist, and an unsuccessful one.

I don't know if I can call that person a sex tourist but I sure could call him "stupid". If the objective is to have lots of sex overseas and be successful at it, then one is to bring some money for hookers. A guy does not spend thousands of dollars on airfare and accommodations with expectations sex will always happen for free.

I wonder if someone wrote a gay trip report, will members think this place is promoting homo play or turning gay?
http://www.gay-russia.com/

[KenC]

Batman, if you ever want to convince Pike to debate or win a debate with any guy here, you need to be fair and balanced. With Pike you need to acknowledge Pike's written words that he turned away and turned down sex from women he didn't like. You and others have selectively chosen what you want to believe, ignored the rest of what Pike wrote, and then called Pike a liar/deceiver. If you're going to believe he had sex on his trip because "he wrote it", then you need to believe he turned women away too because "he wrote it". Clearly, his objective was not to bed as many women as possible. But at least one of his objectives was to bed a woman on this trip. See the difference? Pike does not fit into the sex tourist definition above.


I don't know if I can call that person a sex tourist but I sure could call him "stupid". If the objective is to have lots of sex overseas and be successful at it, then one is to bring some money for hookers. A guy does not spend thousands of dollars on airfare and accommodations with expectations sex will always happen for free.

I wonder if someone wrote a gay trip report, will members think this place is promoting homo play or turning gay?
http://www.gay-russia.com/

BiilyB,
What is wrong with you?  You just don't get it, do you?  What we need here at RWD is a panel of judges to determine just who is telling the truth and who is  lying.  This panel's decision will be final and nonnegotiable.  Once they clean out the rift raft (people they don't like or agree with) then they will be able to concentrate on their real mission.  To read the minds of the few that are left as members.  Any impure thoughts?  Yer outta here!

I open the nomination for judges now.  Because of time differences, Australia and Ukraine will have a slight edge in the voting process.  Sorry.
KenC

[wxman]

Can we resurrect the Spanish Inquisition? Fun times will be had by all! 

[catzenmouse]

Nyet! Nyet! It will be the Russian Inquisition!

 First dibs on Rack duty! WooHoo!

 

[Gator]

We need a new rule.  If a man makes more than two posts in this "Ask the Ladies" forum that are not directed specifically to a RW, he should post his photo wearing a skirt.