Realities of FSUW

[ScottinCrimea]

Scott.. of course she has a variety of ways to build a future, just none that are clear to you or probably her at this point and all of which will be difficult.  

At this point I have absolutely no idea what her ideas are regarding the future. To be honest, I don't think she is looking that far ahead.  She has always been one to just let the future take care of itself.

In the short term, she is achieving her goal of financial independence, at least on a needs met basis, but in the long term she is in a relatively low paying dead end job with no means of building a future.

I suppose she could just enter into a marriage of convenience with a wealthy man, as Doll did, but she could have had that with me and turned it down.  As for me, I'll just crawl back into my overly comfortable six figure income and make different plans.

[goforit]

Doll, my first marriage was with a Norwegian, I was just starting out and recently graduated. Sure, I wasn't poor by a long shot by then but far from a "success". That first marriage was as much an international marriage as the one I plan this coming summer and yet money didn't enter the equation - it was just not a factor. Of course there have been other relationships too but I guess those would be dismissed as they weren't "international" in the same sense.

Right, money wasn't a question because while you were not a "success" you weren't "poor by a long shot" and apparently she was happy with that. Money didn't matter or didn't seem "meaningful" because you had enough of it for her so that it didn't enter into the picture.

I can fully understand what you are getting at though when you say that women look for a successful man; who wants to deliberately put themselves into financial straits before they even know a guy, right? But, you and I know that there are women out there that are just mercenary and their main consideration is money.

Right again. I don't think anyone has denied in this thread any of what you said above. Heck I know men who are just mercenary and their main concern is the money (or assets) a woman brings to the table.

The issue, at least in the part of the thread I am involved in, is whether a RW who places an emphasis on a WM financial situation (not a sole emphasis, since it is obvious to all that such a woman is a "mercenary") in searching for a husband, is a mercenary as you define it. The answer in my book is no. In fact I think it would be unwise for a RW not to take that into consideration. If he is younger she ought to be concerned about his goals and ambitions to see if they match with hers. If he is older then she only need look at the body of work he has already produced and determine whether she is comfortable with that. In fact I would be concerned about a woman who was not interested in such, thinking that she was still a dreamer, and did not really understand the reality and pressure of every day marital relationships.

[Doll]

She made her lists too.  

So what's on her list, Sculpto?

[Doll]

I suppose she could just enter into a marriage of convenience with a wealthy man, as Doll did,

How do you know my marriage is the marriage of convenience?

[Doll]

In fact I think it would be unwise for a RW not to take that into consideration. If he is younger she ought to be concerned about his goals and ambitions to see if they match with hers. If he is older then she only need look at the body of work he has already produced and determine whether she is comfortable with that. In fact I would be concerned about a woman who was not interested in such, thinking that she was still a dreamer, and did not really understand the reality and pressure of every day marital relationships.

[murmur]

How do you know my marriage is the marriage of convenience?

hmm, there is really nothing wrong with the " marriage of convenience" if and only if both sides are aware of this and satisfied with this.
It's not different than many AM/AW marriages.

[goforit]

well I agree, attention and affection are vital to any happy relationship. I was specifically reffering to the buy me a new car or I won't love you anymore and divorce you. To me a Car might be a present for like brad pitt to buy, but me I don't make enough money to go around buying cars because someone "can't be happy." without one. Perhaps the dating profiles should come with this attached "Happiness is a BMW 750 series, or Lexus model number blah blah blah, oh and my own home in barbados and private jet so I can fly to the south of france to shop."

There are some "sugar daddy" websites listing just such things

[Wienerin]

Why is not typical? Such gestures seem pretty typical to me.

And to me. I guess I never had family members or close friends, who acted differently. Maybe I am do not get close to people for whom it's "not typical"?

[Doll]

hmm, there is really nothing wrong with the " marriage of convenience" if and only if both sides are aware of this and satisfied with this.
It's not different than many AM/AW marriages.

murmur, some men think if a woman married a man with a good income she only did it for money.

[Doll]

And to me. I guess I never had family members or close friends, who acted differently. Maybe I am do not get close to people for whom it's "not typical"?

Let's leave Misha alone but I'll tell you,Wienerin, ,many men so-called executives don't do it just because of their nature.
So you say that the loveyou note on the fridge is very typical in most of families?
I doubt.

[brucen36]

The issue, at least in the part of the thread I am involved in, is whether a RW who places an emphasis on a WM financial situation (not a sole emphasis, since it is obvious to all that such a woman is a "mercenary") in searching for a husband, is a mercenary as you define it. The answer in my book is no. In fact I think it would be unwise for a RW not to take that into consideration. If he is younger she ought to be concerned about his goals and ambitions to see if they match with hers. If he is older then she only need look at the body of work he has already produced and determine whether she is comfortable with that. In fact I would be concerned about a woman who was not interested in such, thinking that she was still a dreamer, and did not really understand the reality and pressure of every day marital relationships.

Good post.  This is right.

[murmur]

murmur, some men think if a woman married a man with a good income she only did it for money.

Who gives a rat's ass what " others " think???
It only concerns the couple in question. As I said, they could be sado/mazo, black/white, 20y.o./80 y.o. Asl long as they are both happy and truthful to each other....

[Doll]

Who gives a rat's ass what " others " think???

Nobody. We are just talking of labeling.

[goforit]

Misha pointed out something earlier that rings true. Women who value wealth above all else will walk backwards on their hands trying to convince everyone that "all" women share the same desire and those who won't admit it are either lying or delusional. I see the same behavior in my male friends who cheat on their gfs/wives - when asked why they do it they insist all men cheat - quite simply it allows them to live like pigs without having to accept the fact that there's something lacking in their character.

I don't think that anyone is disputing the above. What has yet to be demonstrated, although people keep bringing it up as if it was a settled fact, is that some of the RW in this thread value wealth above all else or have said all RW value wealth above all else.

All you single guys out there should read this thread over and over - don't get involved w/a woman who is standing on the opposite side of a huge psychological divide over a subject as important as $$.

But that is exactly what Zhena said.

[Zhena]

Men,I am glad to see there are some reasonable people on this forum.
I am sure there are much more of them-they just dont saying anything....

[Doll]

In fact I would be concerned about a woman who was not interested in such, thinking that she was still a dreamer, and did not really understand the reality and pressure of every day marital relationships.

If a woman says she doesn't care how much her husband-to-be earns then who is she? Very often a GCG

[Gator]

Joining late, but here are my 10 kopecks:

As I have already said earlier in this thread, I don't believe that all, or even most, RW are mercenary as some others have stated. It's my guess that some people have gotten that impression because they've been exposed to a skewed sample from agencies and tours - we all know that agencies and tours do attract a disproportionate number of women whose primary goal is to better their life financially.

SJ, you and Misha were the ones endeavoring to imprint this label on RW, and were using a couple of the RW in this thread as examples.  

I am only guessing, yet the two of you impress me as men in their 40s who have never had a child, or at least your wife/girlfriend does not have children.  Do you know how expensive kids are?  Do you think that a family-oriented RW would not stress financial security?

This is not about “skewed samples.”  I met many RW through Freepersonals, EM and Angelika.  For sure all wanted a better life, and one of the many pillars of a better life is financial security.   The non-desperate women had a long list of criteria other than financial security.  They would laugh at men who tried to buy love.

[acrzybear]

  In the 4+ years I've been on this forum I find it interesting how so many people place such high importance on money.  There are folks on this board that talk about how rich they are, how sophisticated they are, how many opportunities they can take advantage of and how much better there life is then others.

 Is anyone here truly happy?

  I have my health, food in the pantry, a roof over my head, a good secure recession proof job and I can afford to travel to foreign lands several times a year and almost no debt and money in the bank.  I enjoy my job (most of the time) where I can make a difference in my little part of this earth and most importantly I can look at myself in the mirror every morning without any problems. I am content with who I am, how many people can say the same?

    The good thing about not being rich is that I know the few people I call friends like me for who I am and not my money.  For those who find true love that lasts-well there is no price you can put on that.

  

[Doll]

BTW, I am thinking- how much is an average teenager  a month?
What are we considering? Food, clothing, sport, school lunches, movie theaters.
What else? Add the ticket to go to Russia (or any home country).

[Doll]

Is anyone here truly happy?

Why?

[acrzybear]

Why?

That was a rhetorical question ma'am, in all reality I could really care less.   

[Doll]

That was a rhetorical question ma'am, in all reality I could really care less.   

We call rhetorical the questions which don't require the answer. So what you are implying is that "nobody here" is happy. Just for your education 

[Gator]

To continue my thinking, some of Zhena’s, et al words got twisted in the discussion and she got pushed into a corner.  Also, he debate did not focus on such core issues as providing for kids.  

For example, your words “All else being equal between two suitors…the most wealthy will be the obvious choice”  is biased, not just because the situation is unrealistic.  It is misleading because RW can not measure true wealth (assets, debt, income, expenses, etc.) to the degree necessary to compare one man vs. another.   Second, RW know there’s much BS in the world so they likely would dismiss what a man would say.  All they can really trust is their intuition.

The more likely decision process is to meet different suitors, become attracted to a couple, and become serious with one.   They would marry this man if they felt confident about his financial stability and generosity plus a number of other factors.  

Thus, there is no way to categorize Zhena as exemplifying the mercenary RW whom AM need to avoid.  IMO, reading between the lines, Zhena, Doll et al have revealed part of the mentality of RW who put family first.  They are included in the 75% below:

i just realized, some time ago i saw a topic with a poll (anonymous, so trustworthy i presume) on a russian forum for women who are married or are going to marry  american guys, the question was: "will you leave your husband when you have enough money", 75% said "no, i love him", about 10% said "yes i will" and the rest said maybe. so there.

[Doll]

BTW, Gator, I remember this poll and I answered "no, I won't"

[acrzybear]

We call rhetorical the questions which don't require the answer. So what you are implying is that "nobody here" is happy. Just for your education 

Thank you for the education Ma'am, I had no idea what the meaning of that that big word (rhetorical) was.  Was I implying that no one here is happy? Well only the people that know themselves can answer that.