Should she report him to Antidate?

[KenC]

Dan,
Sorry but I still don't understand you or Billy on this subject.  We are not putting Mr. Scumbag into prison and we are not even penalizing him financially.  We are suggesting that the allegations be made public in an effort to warn other potential victims.  Mr. Scumbag can refute the allegations or not.

I believe that the fairness or unfairness is to be judged by how AD labels this guy and how they would respond to his potential defense of the allegations.  If AD lists this guy as a potential problem for ladies in his future, I say God bless em.  If the guy refutes the allegations, which he has not, then they need to weigh the evidence and make a judgement call.  

The fact remains that Gator's lady has endorsed the idea that the woman making the allegations is of good character, so the tendency here is to believe her.  Again, this man is not going to serve prison time or incur a financial penalty, just get a bad report on his character.  If the guy was of good character, he would have handled things differently and with a much better explanation.  And at least a sincere apology.  But he has chosen to act like a guilty man and run away from a problem he had created.  Warning other potential victims of this man questionable behavior is not a very serious penalty at all.  The penalty, if his actions are as stated, are too light for his crime. If his actions could be substantiated, then a full blown smear campaign would be in order.
KenC

[Admin]

Dan,
Sorry but I still don't understand you or Billy on this subject.  We are not putting Mr. Scumbag into prison and we are not even penalizing him financially.  We are suggesting that the allegations be made public in an effort to warn other potential victims.  Mr. Scumbag can refute the allegations or not.

I believe that the fairness or unfairness is to be judged by how AD labels this guy and how they would respond to his potential defense of the allegations.  If AD lists this guy as a potential problem for ladies in his future, I say God bless em.  If the guy refutes the allegations, which he has not, then they need to weigh the evidence and make a judgement call. 

The fact remains that Gator's lady has endorsed the idea that the woman making the allegations is of good character, so the tendency here is to believe her.  Again, this man is not going to serve prison time or incur a financial penalty, just get a bad report on his character.  If the guy was of good character, he would have handled things differently and with a much better explanation.  And at least a sincere apology.  But he has chosen to act like a guilty man and run away from a problem he had created.  Warning other potential victims of this man questionable behavior is not a very serious penalty at all.  The penalty, if his actions are as stated, are too light for his crime. If his actions could be substantiated, then a full blown smear campaign would be in order.
KenC

Ken,

I think you may be underestimating the power of the internet. It is not so much that Antidate has any real power to harm - it is that a decision to list the guy's name, with allegations of wrongdoing, is then made available to a HUGE number of people by performing a simple internet search.

From first-hand experience as a hiring manager, I *know* prospective employers (using just one example) will routinely perform an internet search on the names of employee candidates. I further know from first-hand experience that - all else being equal - any hint of an issue with a candidate can, and does, result in their de-selection from consideration. The financial impacts are real, and can be disastrous.

Using this situation as a hypothetical - what Gator reported is that the guy had a problem with his work. If he lost his job and is now seeking new employment - would it be an appropriate punishment for him to face difficulties because employers find unproven allegations on the internet which raise suspicion as to his character, thence, not hiring him and creating even more problems with his work?

There are so many possible mitigating factors that we are unlikely to ever know - and to create a 'situation' where someone may have to explain themselves - or worse - not be given the opportunity to explain - just deal with a negative consequence - once again, that strikes me as OTT (over-the-top) based on what we know (and what we do NOT know) at the present.

I am not at all in favor of the sorts of behavior recounted by Gator. Quite obviously, the guy should have behaved differently. The question of an appropriate response is a difficult one because we know so little. In the absence of more, and credible, information - any action which could prove either persistent or pervasive to the guy's disbenefit is, I believe, inappropriate. The only reasonable course, IMO, is a posting of the events to warn off others - and leaving any reference to the individuals involved OUT of the public domain.

- Dan

PS - does anyone know if the guy in question has been made aware of the debate over his actions? If not, then he can hardly be accused of acting guilty and slinking away.

[KenC]

Dan,
You know I respect your opinions on many (most?) things, but it is the attitude that you and Billy display here that is weakening this country.  Are we to be so afraid of making a mistake that may hurt or insult someone that we take no action at all?  The majority should suffer to not risk potential insult to a guy that most likely be guilty?  By trying to please everyone, this country is beginning to please no one.  In an effort to be perfectly PC, our values have been so watered down that no one has a right to say much of anything let alone speak their minds.  If your and Billy's methods were to be employed here, are you two willing to reimburse Mr. Scumbag's next victim?  Like I said in my first post, when you hear hoof beats, expect horses not zebras.  You and Billy are just waiting to verify that it isn't zebras.
KenC

[Mir]

I have very little idea what AD is but I see no reason that this story is not published there or anywhere else.
It can be published here as well (it already has been without the names). however this should be as a story and not as absolute facts since we don't know the facts.
Anyone who reads can makeup his/her mind about the facts and the man in question if he reads it and finds it wortwhile he can give his side or clarify etc.

[Admin]

Dan,
You know I respect your opinions on many (most?) things, but it is the attitude that you and Billy display here that is weakening this country.  Are we to be so afraid of making a mistake that may hurt or insult someone that we take no action at all?  The majority should suffer to not risk potential insult to a guy that most likely be guilty?  By trying to please everyone, this country is beginning to please no one.  In an effort to be perfectly PC, our values have been so watered down that no one has a right to say much of anything let alone speak their minds.  If your and Billy's methods were to be employed here, are you two willing to reimburse Mr. Scumbag's next victim?  Like I said in my first post, when you hear hoof beats, expect horses not zebras.  You and Billy are just waiting to verify that it isn't zebras.
KenC

Ken,

I think this is a topic in which reasonable people can find themselves in disagreement.

You call it PC (politically correct), but I think it is merely continuing a fundamental tenet of justice which has guided our country since its origins. I think our Founding Fathers recognized the tremendous INjustice which had been carried out for centuries, and sought to create a new environment which protected, as much as possible, from capricious decisions which could harm others simply because of a person (or persons) whims and feelings.

They established the concept that it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than an innocent man be imprisoned. There is a lot of debate over whether the number should be 10, 100 or 1000 - but that is really not my point. This all revolves around a clear and unequivocal presumption of innocence. Anyone who has faced wrongful allegations carrying severe consequences will know just how important that presumption really is. Sadly, our legal system has only a shred of the original intent and tenets which guide it today - but thank God for those few shreds.

What I mean to say Ken is - my position is not intended to be pandering to the PC crowd. It is sincerely what I believe is the right thing to do. It is based on a principle which has guided many in this country for a very long time. It is not a convenient principle to follow, but it is the right principle to follow. I believe that following correct principles strengthens the country, not weakens it. I believe the wise men who founded our country knew that - and it is as true today as it was hundreds of years ago.

That is just my belief. I could be wrong.

- Dan

[William3rd]

Uhhh- actually Mr B. I am not upset with you at all.

I feel you are obtuse with a strong desire to have the last word on a losing situation but I would not use the word upset.

We would never gotten to this point in court since the debate would have ended long ago after the first go-round.

[Admin]

Uhhh- actually Mr B. I am not upset with you at all.

I feel you are obtuse with a strong desire to have the last word on a losing situation but I would not use the word upset.

We would never gotten to this point in court since the debate would have ended long ago after the first go-round.

I didn't read Billy's comments so much as desiring the last word, as it was a sincere expression of concern about a judgment which could cause harm.

Clearly, the position Billy (and I) staked out is not shared by the majority of RWD members. As stated in the RWD Vision, part of what we encourage is individual choice. Each member makes their own choice about what advice to accept and follow - and certainly, what beliefs to hold - and many here hold a different belief about an equitable response in this particular instance. I accept that others do not share my belief as to an appropriate response. I hope all of us can accept that another may hold a different belief/opinion and allow room for that diversity.

- Dan

[BillyB]

Dan,
the attitude that you and Billy display here that is weakening this country.  Are we to be so afraid of making a mistake that may hurt or insult someone that we take no action at all?  The majority should suffer to not risk potential insult to a guy that most likely be guilty?  By trying to please everyone, this country is beginning to please no one.  In an effort to be perfectly PC, our values have been so watered down that no one has a right to say much of anything let alone speak their minds.  If your and Billy's methods were to be employed here, are you two willing to reimburse Mr. Scumbag's next victim?  Like I said in my first post, when you hear hoof beats, expect horses not zebras.  You and Billy are just waiting to verify that it isn't zebras.
KenC

Me and Dan being PC? We have not jump on the majority band wagon like many of you are doing here. We do not believe every sobbing woman story that comes along without more facts as PC people tend to do and as many of you have done here.  Look how Misha's story is unfolding. He defends RW, blames RM and come to find out, many of the RW he's associated with have commited adultry and other acts to be looked down upon. RM have a reason to be upset.

Ken, how do you like it when other forum's majority passed judgement on you? There are people on other forums(their world) that have as much credibility as Gator does here and they have said things about you in front of you and behind your back. Most people at those forums believe those veterans with credibility when they say you robbed the cradle. With that comes all kinds of assumptions from, there is no love in your marriage, your wife married you for money, you have a perverted mind, and much more. I've read it and even defended you and I'm know you've read it too but I know you have not read all. You proudly post photos of your family yet others will ridicule it after making assumptions. TG takes a lot of heat in this forum. In the world of RW forum cyberspace, you are TG. When there is a need for an example of a man with a large age gap in his marriage, you are the example. Does it feel right to you? Because majority rules over there and since you don't want me to be PC as you define it, should I believe them because if the hoofbeats sound like a horse and it probably is and not zebra? Or maybe  I should believe the fact you had once traded harsh words with your critics and now they hold a personal grudge against you? What some of theoe people say about others on a forum may actually be PC, what they say to each other outside of the forums is worse. I think you know I don't hold a grudge against every man with a large age gap in his marriage as most do and don't quickly judge others based on one side of the story. Less bias in this country is a good thing.

If someone want to give me the man in question's contact info, I will contact him and invite him to defend himself. There were times when people have accused agencies of doing wrong. I have contacted the owners to come defend themselves. Some owners such as Kevin Hayes and Elena from Elena models have shown up when notified. I do want to hear both sides of the story before rushing to judgement. Many times the accuser was wrong or had character issues that nobody or no decent agency would want to do business with.

William, people are debating here and if you haven't noticed lately, it's on how people think to come to their conclusion rather than the situation and conclusion of the poll itself. I find the later part of the debate more educational than the beginning. If I was such a talented writer as Dan, I might be able to deliver my point better since some fail to understand what I'm talking about. Also, KenC thinks the country is going down with mine and Dan's line of thinking. Obviously there's more at stake here than the loss of money from a non refundable airline ticket by a RW. Join in if you wish, save the country, but if you have the need to criticise the "losing" people for having the last word, you need to criticise "winners" too.

[KenC]

I believe that following correct principles strengthens the country, not weakens it. I believe the wise men who founded our country knew that - and it is as true today as it was hundreds of years ago.
That is just my belief. I could be wrong.

- Dan

Dan,
Many of those founding (holy?) principals that were put in place originally were subject to the interpretation of the time and were not even meant to be taken as litterally as you and Billy are taking them here.  The founding Fathers certainly wrote some good prose for the time and much of it was done with a wink wink too.  How does the fact that they treated blacks as less than human and excluded them from any rights completely, or that they did not even allow women the same rights as men fit into your perfect recall of these men?  If I remember correctly one even had to be a property owner in order to be a citizen at the time.  Hell, Jefferson was responsible for most of the important documents of the time and he routinely slept with the female slave of his choice (as was an acceptable practice of the time)  They did a lot of things correctly, but should not be followed blindly either.

They established the concept that it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than an innocent man be imprisoned. There is a lot of debate over whether the number should be 10, 100 or 1000 - but that is really not my point.

No Dan, I disagree, that is exactly your point here.  Where your thought process is in error here is that we are not imprisoning anyone here.  This guy is accused of a wrong doing.  You and Billy want to honor the system and yet you also want to skip a few steps too.  If a person is accused of a crime, he is still arrested until his innocence or guilt can be determined.  Hell, we even publicize photos and names of "alledged" criminals that are being sought.  In my mind, this guy is accused of being a scumbag by a credible source.  Is he guilty as accused?  Who knows?  He still has the right to defend his actions and prove his innocence.  To ignore the possibility that the accusations are true (and we have no credible reason to doubt that they are) is a much bigger crime IMO than to later find out that the man has a different version of the story.
KenC

[ScottinCrimea]

Dan,

I find myself in full agreement with what KenC has written, which may be a first for both of us.  I think of how many times we read reports of people witnessing a crime and not reporting it because "they don't want to get involved" or because of the attitude of "maybe the victim deserved it" or "maybe there's more to the story than what I am seeing".  I think it is our duty as citizens to report any suspicion of a crime, giving the facts as we know them.  I'm not in full agreement with the idea that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished.  This means that you are sacrificing the rights of 10 victims and numerous potential future victims for the sake of one.  It's the attitude of "let's give the criminal the benefit of the doubt" and the legal process that often portrays the criminal as the victim and the victim/accuser as the bad guy that has discouraged people from coming forward and encouraged the criminal element.
     You're getting caught up again in the "all or nothing" view of things.  Sure there are some here who are saying, "Crucify the bastard!", but the majority are saying that it should be reported, just like any other wrongdoing, with all the facts available and with the opportunity for the accused to respond and provide his own facts.  No judgements need to be handed down, only facts reported.

You related your experiences with your ex-wife.  Let me tell you it pales in comparison to what I went through with mine.  We had over 1,000 pages in the transcript with unfounded accusations by her of everything she could think of ranging from criminal contempt to drug abuse to domestic violence to stalking, you name it.  To top it off, she threw my kids into the mix, going so far as to accuse my teenage son, in a public record, of everything from child and animal abuse to perversion.  Of course it was all thrown out, but not before I had spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.  Ironically, because of the disparity in incomes, I had the pleasure of paying the fees of her bottom dwelling lawyer as well as my own. Ultimately the court found her to be the one guilty of contempt and my record clean, so sometimes the courts actually do get it right.  Despite all of this, I still feel the way I do about reporting suspected wrongdoings.  To give an example that I know is on the extreme end, better to have ten  innocent men on sex offender list than to have one pedophile roaming around.

I think this is another of those cases where we will just have to agree to disagree.

[KenC]

Billy,
Don't think that I have not noticed your defense of me on other forums.  I am truly thankful for the actions of guys like you, Maxx and tbelknap there.  But that is a different animal all together.  There are certain members there that have a hard on for me and likely will continue to make innuendos and judgements of me and my actions.  The difference is that they are expressing their opinions, no matter how transparent their motivations, and they are entitles to do so.  I am also entitled to go there and debate with these fools, but choose not to for a number of reasons.  One is that I do not value their opinion, so why bother?  Another reason I do not do so, is that they may actually believe in what they post.  Who am I to refute that I look old enough to be Lena's father?  I am old enough.  It is a fact that I have to face.  Now when they get into what my marriage is or is not, I think the sensible people really understand that it is just a slanderous attack without any basis as very few here in this RW forum society have ever met Lena and I in person.  I am confident in what we have and do not feel the need to justify our love and marriage to anyone.

In this case it is a matter of facts.  I agree the facts are not yet substantiated, but the actions are just much more black and white.  The guy did X, Y and then Z.
Your example is really an apple and oranges comparason.
KenC

[Kvinna]

For the Newbies, Antidate is an organization operated by RW, and they name specific Western men to be avoided by RW.  It is comparable to the many blacklists of scamming RW.  Most of the listed men are accused of sex tourism.

Not only sex-tourism... also the big percentage of married men
should they be reported to Antidate?

[Admin]

Not only sex-tourism... also the big percentage of married men
should they be reported to Antidate?

Hi Kvinna,

You ask an interesting question - and one which may not be so easily answered.

For example - what would you think about the WM who is still legally-married, but has been living separate lives for months, or even years? If that WM had been open about their status, would that be worthy of being blacklisted?

You see, in a society where men (and sometimes women too) are severely penalized by the decision to divorce, there are numerous reasons for remaining legally married - even though lives are no longer intertwined.

Next - as to a definition of "sex tourism", I seem to recall we at RWD failed to reach a consensus as to what, exactly, constitutes "sex tourism". Does Antidate have an iron-clad definition to present which we might consider adopting?

- Dan

[Shadow]

The first reply a similar post got was the best answer I saw on Antidate.

If we will publish all morons like this there is not enough space on the internet.

Advising the woman to tell her story is one thing, requesting a man to be put on a blacklist is another.
Antidate has not only a blacklist section, but also a 'Watch out' section. If someone has has a bad experience and wants to know if other women had the same, she can ask or search there. But she might endure also some comments, after all her decisions were far from stellar.

About sex-tourism a definition should be simple. Traveling with the intention of having sex, without any following emotional or financial attachment.

[KenC]

Not only sex-tourism... also the big percentage of married men
should they be reported to Antidate?

Not without a notorized copy of the man's marriage certificate (according to Dan & Billy)
KenC
 

[Kvinna]

Hi Kvinna,

You ask an interesting question - and one which may not be so easily answered.

For example - what would you think about the WM who is still legally-married, but has been living separate lives for months, or even years? If that WM had been open about their status, would that be worthy of being blacklisted?

Don't you think before starting "new life" you have to say goodbye the old one. It means you have to get divorced?
International relationshop between woman and men is more difficult thing than local one. What those separated guys can offer RW, beside some meetings in neutral countries or visiting her place? And how many women will be agree to have a such relationship and turn into concubine?

Next - as to a definition of "sex tourism", I seem to recall we at RWD failed to reach a consensus as to what, exactly, constitutes "sex tourism". Does Antidate have an iron-clad definition to present which we might consider adopting?
- Dan

And we consider sex-tourist any man who come over to FSU having only one agenda is to have sex with a women not divulge his truly purpose

PS I also am glad to see you

[Kvinna]

Not without a notorized copy of the man's marriage certificate (according to Dan & Billy)
KenC
 

Oh, don't worry... seems now we start collecting the phone numbers of wives... so some one who interested to find out true could call those spouses anytime 

[Admin]

Dan,

I find myself in full agreement with what KenC has written, which may be a first for both of us.  I think of how many times we read reports of people witnessing a crime and not reporting it because "they don't want to get involved" or because of the attitude of "maybe the victim deserved it" or "maybe there's more to the story than what I am seeing".  I think it is our duty as citizens to report any suspicion of a crime, giving the facts as we know them.  I'm not in full agreement with the idea that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished.  This means that you are sacrificing the rights of 10 victims and numerous potential future victims for the sake of one.  It's the attitude of "let's give the criminal the benefit of the doubt" and the legal process that often portrays the criminal as the victim and the victim/accuser as the bad guy that has discouraged people from coming forward and encouraged the criminal element.
     You're getting caught up again in the "all or nothing" view of things.  Sure there are some here who are saying, "Crucify the bastard!", but the majority are saying that it should be reported, just like any other wrongdoing, with all the facts available and with the opportunity for the accused to respond and provide his own facts.  No judgements need to be handed down, only facts reported.

You related your experiences with your ex-wife.  Let me tell you it pales in comparison to what I went through with mine.  We had over 1,000 pages in the transcript with unfounded accusations by her of everything she could think of ranging from criminal contempt to drug abuse to domestic violence to stalking, you name it.  To top it off, she threw my kids into the mix, going so far as to accuse my teenage son, in a public record, of everything from child and animal abuse to perversion.  Of course it was all thrown out, but not before I had spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.  Ironically, because of the disparity in incomes, I had the pleasure of paying the fees of her bottom dwelling lawyer as well as my own. Ultimately the court found her to be the one guilty of contempt and my record clean, so sometimes the courts actually do get it right.  Despite all of this, I still feel the way I do about reporting suspected wrongdoings.  To give an example that I know is on the extreme end, better to have ten  innocent men on sex offender list than to have one pedophile roaming around.

I think this is another of those cases where we will just have to agree to disagree.

Scott,

I really do not mean to get caught up in an all or nothing exchange. In fact, I am willing to live with the notion that my views are in the minority. If that is so - I will continue to express my views - and one of those would be disappointment that others do not share my heartfelt belief in the importance of presumption of innocence.

In terms of my ex-wife, I was actually quite subdued with my description and recounting of events - partially because I know she will try to use what I write here against me in some way - now, or in the future. That 540-page transcript was for only 5 days of the 9-day trial - and that was the second trial. There is also another transcript for an earlier 3-day trial - and then there are the lengthy depositions - AND two separate appeals, one of which is ongoing. I didn't mention her physical assault on Olya at our home, in front of my children - nor any number of other things. Nonetheless, the courts grant her some consideration when she files new, groundless, motions and pleadings. Try getting the family law court, ANY family law court, to make a finding of frivolous complaints against a women in today's legal system. I've heard of it happening - just as I read about someone, somewhere, winning the lottery once in a while.

In the citation I used - about 10 guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent be imprisoned - you and Ken seem to focus on the "imprisoned" part of that sentence. What I did not do was offer the myriad of variations, some of which replace "imprisoned" with "punished" - and numerous others. The point of it was to somehow put a stake in the ground about the presumption of innocence. Clearly it was a founding tenet. Clearly it remains a tenet of our society today. Clearly, IMO, that tenet is overlooked/diminished in the RWD court of public opinion.

The example you used - of a person witnessing a crime but not reporting it - is not a direct analog.

In this instance, we have Gator (whom I trust implicitly and believe would not distort nor malign) who presented an account which he, personally, had not witnessed. In a court, this would be inadmissable as "hearsay" (notwithstanding the multitude of rules which ALLOW hearsay). In a court - civil or criminal - the incident would be a non-starter because we do not have a first-hand accounting. Anything less is, correctly, considered unacceptable.

We then proceed to the next step of assessing response. To castigate the guy publicly with an accounting which fails to consider ANY possible mitigations, would be grossly negligent.

Interesting that you picked a pedophile example. I firmly believe anyone of sound mind would find pedophilia repugnant and abhorrent. I also think you may not be aware of the consequence of an innocent being labeled a "sex offender" by the authorities. I have a brother who works sex offenders in the criminal justice system. He tells me of a young man who was 17 years old at the time of an incident in which he reached around and squeezed the breast of a 15-year old girl in a park one evening. The overzealous DA's office, probably seeking notoriety and re-election, charged that 17-year-old as an adult. He is now forever labeled as a "sex offender." The implications to his life are enormous. His prospects for having children are diminished or eliminated. He could easily end up homeless because there are no suitable accommodations which meet the sex offender statutes. The list goes on and on. Sorry - I just do not agree with your conclusion.

BUT - and this is the one redeeming quality of our system in the US - it is OK that we do not agree. I respect your opinion - sincerely, I do. I simply don't share it.

- Dan

[ScottinCrimea]

Dan,  Either way, despite our best intentions and efforts, there are going to be injustices.  That's just life.

[Admin]

Don't you think before starting "new life" you have to say goodbye the old oe. It means you have to get divorced?
International relationshop between woman and men is more difficult thing that local one. What tjose sepereted guys can offer RW, beside some meetings in neutral countries or visiting her place? And how many women will be agree to have a such relationship and turn into concubine?

Generally-speaking, I agree that divorce is a natural step. In my case, I was separated for many months, but not legally-divorced when I first met Olya. In fact, my ex-wife often accuses me of "having an affair" in spite of the fact that we had lived in separate accommodations for a very long time before I even met Olya.

I know some people who maintain their legal married status because of a variety of considerations - even though they live in separate households and have for a very long time. This is not the norm - but it is also not uncommon anymore.

So long as there is honesty by the guy, I fail to see how anyone is misled. In Olya's case, she knew the divorce was imminent - and she knew I was serious about wanting to marry her - and we did.

And we consider sex-tourist any man who come over to FSU having only one agenda is to have sex with a women not divulge his trully purpose

PS I also am glad to see you

Kvinna - here is a link to the post where we tried to arrive at a definition of a "sex tourist" -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=5214.msg91008#msg91008

We never addressed all the scenarios so that we could arrive at a consensus. I still think an ironclad definition needs to be established - so that we can consider behavior with that definition in context.

If the definition which Antidate applies uses "intent" - my question is; "How can you possibly *know* anyone's intentions?" I submit it is only behavior which can be the basis for such a label - and if that is so - then what, exactly, are the behaviors which lead to the condemnation?

- Dan

[Kvinna]

If the definition which Antidate applies uses "intent" - my question is; "How can you possibly *know* anyone's intentions?" I submit it is only behavior which can be the basis for such a label - and if that is so - then what, exactly, are the behaviors which lead to the condemnation?
- Dan

what do you think about such letters

too late for god's help...he didn't help me, when i needed help, now i help myself ...ex-ussr pussies are my paradise...

should I mention that one innocent girl with zero English translated pussy as a kitty and was melted about "this nice and gentle man"

[catzenmouse]

This is not like having a casual date with the girl down the street. I firmly believe that a man should not even consider an international relationship while he is still married no matter what circumstances exist around that marriage. If there are compelling reasons to stay married even though living separate lives should also be compelling enough to keep the man from looking overseas.

There can be no K-1 or K-3 visa or any other binding promise made until the man is free of his past life. If a man cannot be bothered to finalize his divorce he would be very close to being a sex tourist as he really cannot offer the lady a future.

Maybe I'm a bit puritanical in my feelings here but that is just how it is for me.

Dan,
 I think, IIRC, your case was a bit different as you were in-country already and not initiating contact from afar while still married. Not quite the same as the Romeo in question.

Also, I would side with KenC and Scott on this one. How is the greater good served? I don't say "Hang Him" but I do think the story and at least the first name, last initial needs to be associated with the story.

JMHO,
 Ken

Don't you think before starting "new life" you have to say goodbye the old one. It means you have to get divorced?
International relationshop between woman and men is more difficult thing than local one. What those separated guys can offer RW, beside some meetings in neutral countries or visiting her place? And how many women will be agree to have a such relationship and turn into concubine?And we consider sex-tourist any man who come over to FSU having only one agenda is to have sex with a women not divulge his truly purpose

[Fiorella]

For example - what would you think about the WM who is still legally-married, but has been living separate lives for months, or even years? If that WM had been open about their status, would that be worthy of being blacklisted?

You see, in a society where men (and sometimes women too) are severely penalized by the decision to divorce, there are numerous reasons for remaining legally married - even though lives are no longer intertwined.

- Dan

I am nor Kvinna but I want to say.

If a man (or woman) chose to be legally married for any reason (society view or whatever) then they have to act as legally married person or look for a partner who doesn't mind to have relationships with married person.

[Admin]

what do you think about such letters

should I mention that one innocent girl with zero English translated pussy as a kitty and was melted about "this nice and gentle man"

Hmmm - you remind me of a discussion I had with a guy not too long ago about the fact that Colorado has no law requiring a motorcyclist to wear a helmet.

My fundamental premise is that it makes no sense to legislate (and then enforce) laws which require people to use good judgment. His argument is that the cost to society for their failure to use good judgment is too extreme. Both sides have merit.

From the excerpt of the letter you cited, it seems clear that any sincere and 'good' RW would receive such a letter and then take steps to avoid that guy altogether. If the guy sent 20 or 30 or 300 such letters, I would expect he would receive EXACTLY the same response from every single lady - and that is one of rejection. Should there be a 'clearing house' where people need to tell other people to steer clear of this sort of behavior? I don't know. The language issue notwithstanding, the course of action for any reasonable person receiving such a letter should be obvious.

- Dan

[Gator]

I am in Moscow killing some time with an ill boy while his sister and mama have gone to music class.

Before this issue gets diverted too far, I wish to add something.  

We will meet the "victim" Saturday.  I am reluctant to post an elaboration or an update.  Also, I am reluctant to encourage her to report his name and photo.

Why?  This episode reminds me of attempted rape cases in which some people blame the woman because she wore sexy clothing.  Others are claiming "not guilty" because no semen samples were available.  What can the woman gain from reporting the man's name?  She sure can lose.

If the man's name is reported, he could hear about it and defend himself by attacking the woman.  Considering his bad character, can you imagine the lies he would fabricate.  In internet trials, there are no penalties for perjury.  No laws to prevent the press from releasing the victim's name and photo.  It becomes "he said, she said", and her name would be soiled.

My concern is that this man may feel emboldened.  Too bad for the next RW victim.

The story can be publicized anonymously as an example of why RW should not be too enthusiastic about meeting their destiny from a foreign land.  Her behavior is comparable to violating a couple of the RWD 10 commandments. For sure my woman and most RW would not do this.  And I doubt publicising names and photos would ever reach the innocent and naive RW who would do the same.   When encountering bad men and bad women, the first line and most important line of defense is yourself.

This woman is not vindictive.  She  is  progressing with  a new man.  So far, so good.  It is best that she move on without another word,  a few hundred dollars poorer, and with a brick added to the defensive wall around her warm heart.