Ukraine K-1 initial denial - next steps to fix

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But dude, next time do NOT file for a K-1 until AFTER there has been intimacy.

If there is no intimacy before agreeing to leave her country and marry you, you should assume something is awry...

If there is no intimacy before dessert you should...oh, NM

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If by intimacy you mean sex, I would have to disagree. In general, I think the perception on this board is that FSU women are promiscuous. I disagree. My wife and I were both virgins when we married. I don't think there was any problem in the trust just because we hadn't had sex.

I don't know why Scott thinks that if she had sex with you that would instantly mean she could be trusted. It's a pretty silly litmus test.

In general FSU women are promiscuious. They were formerly much more discrete about it. For an example, Russia and Ukraine have by far the highest ratio of abortions to live births in civiized world. Abortions outnumber live births by 2 to 1. Slim was spot on in his post in another thread...FSU chicks do it like rabbits.

As Scott says, having sex before marriage with someone is not promiscuous, particularly if that is where it is going. SMR, if your wife was over 20 and a virgin, she was a very rare breed, not at all the general norm. Alla had two sons, one of them ready to start college when I met her. I never asked if she was a virgin. Her virginity ended well before the Soviet Union did.

Besides, I am with Scott on this one...no way I am buying shoes without trying them on.

[eekee 182]

In general FSU women are promiscuious. They were formerly much more discrete about it. For an example, Russia and Ukraine have by far the highest ratio of abortions to live births in civiized world. Abortions outnumber live births by 2 to 1. Slim was spot on in his post in another thread...FSU chicks do it like rabbits.

As Scott says, having sex before marriage with someone is not promiscuous, particularly if that is where it is going. SMR, if your wife was over 20 and a virgin, she was a very rare breed, not at all the general norm. Alla had two sons, one of them ready to start college when I met her. I never asked if she was a virgin. Her virginity ended well before the Soviet Union did.

Besides, I am with Scott on this one...no way I am buying shoes without trying them on.

That's not necessarily an indicator of promiscuity. That's called "thinking pulling out is a good form of birth control." Also, birth contol pills are "heeeeemiya." And it's only in the past few years that attitudes toward condoms have changed from "I know what I'm doing, we don't need one" to guys carrying them around.

Among the women I know, they tend to have lost their virginity at younger ages, but I wouldn't say that they're more promiscuous overall than American women. And there's a LOT more stigma to sleeping around.

[SMR 368]

That is not what I said.

Promiscuous?? Having sex at some point prior to giving up your life and moving to a foreign country to marry a man who speaks a different language is promiscuous? Gimme a break.

I would not trust a woman who is not willing to be intimate with me, yet is willing to drop everything in her life, leave her job, family, and friends, and come to America to marry me.

To each his own.

Well, I wasn't saying that it's by definition promiscuous but as Gary demonstrated, there has been a considerable amount of assertions to that end on this board. Perhaps not from you. As far as the morality issues are concerned, I guess we disagree and it's not a gap we're likely to bridge by talking about this.

But I still think that your litmus test is somewhat silly and useless. I suppose I can see two somewhat indirect advantages. The first is that even if she does scam you, at least you "got some." If that's a consolation, I suppose to each his own; I imagine it would have been to MCat. The second is that if the guy is somewhat blinded by the desire for sex, having sex may serve to open his eyes and allow him to realize that he's getting scammed.

But I see little logic for the idea that if she agrees to have sex, she is proving herself. If she has no qualms about scamming you, she very well may have no qualms about having sex with you for the purpose of furthering that scam. And on the other hand, if she wants to save it for later, you are still left to your own devices to distinguish between an actual good girl who wants to save it for marriage and a fraudster that wants to get your money but doesn't want to have sex to do it. In short, unless you know her honest opinion about pre-marital sex, having sex with her tells you nothing. And if she's scamming you, there's no reason to expect you would know her honest opinion.

In general FSU women are promiscuious. They were formerly much more discrete about it. For an example, Russia and Ukraine have by far the highest ratio of abortions to live births in civiized world. Abortions outnumber live births by 2 to 1. Slim was spot on in his post in another thread...FSU chicks do it like rabbits.

As Scott says, having sex before marriage with someone is not promiscuous, particularly if that is where it is going. SMR, if your wife was over 20 and a virgin, she was a very rare breed, not at all the general norm. Alla had two sons, one of them ready to start college when I met her. I never asked if she was a virgin. Her virginity ended well before the Soviet Union did.

Besides, I am with Scott on this one...no way I am buying shoes without trying them on.

Whether or not sex before marriage is promiscuous is debatable. I tend to believe that I'm not that special. If you've had a long term face to face relationship and have been engaged for a while, although I still don't agree with pre-marital sex, I can see your point. But if you meet on the internet and then meet in person and are sleeping together on the first night, you have to really think you're special if you don't think she's done similar things before. For the record, I never asked my wife if she was a virgin either. I just knew her well enough that I didn't have to ask.

As to the actual promiscuity of FSU women, we are probably both going on anecdotal evidence. As Eekee pointed out, abortion numbers are not a real indicator of promiscuity. And you'll find all types both here and there.

That's not necessarily an indicator of promiscuity. That's called "thinking pulling out is a good form of birth control." Also, birth contol pills are "heeeeemiya." And it's only in the past few years that attitudes toward condoms have changed from "I know what I'm doing, we don't need one" to guys carrying them around.

Among the women I know, they tend to have lost their virginity at younger ages, but I wouldn't say that they're more promiscuous overall than American women. And there's a LOT more stigma to sleeping around.

I think you make some very good points here.

[eekee 182]

Well, I wasn't saying that it's by definition promiscuous but as Gary demonstrated, there has been a considerable amount of assertions to that end on this board. Perhaps not from you. As far as the morality issues are concerned, I guess we disagree and it's not a gap we're likely to bridge by talking about this.

But I still think that your litmus test is somewhat silly and useless. I suppose I can see two somewhat indirect advantages. The first is that even if she does scam you, at least you "got some." If that's a consolation, I suppose to each his own; I imagine it would have been to MCat. The second is that if the guy is somewhat blinded by the desire for sex, having sex may serve to open his eyes and allow him to realize that he's getting scammed.

But I see little logic for the idea that if she agrees to have sex, she is proving herself. If she has no qualms about scamming you, she very well may have no qualms about having sex with you for the purpose of furthering that scam. And on the other hand, if she wants to save it for later, you are still left to your own devices to distinguish between an actual good girl who wants to save it for marriage and a fraudster that wants to get your money but doesn't want to have sex to do it. In short, unless you know her honest opinion about pre-marital sex, having sex with her tells you nothing. And if she's scamming you, there's no reason to expect you would know her honest opinion.

Whether or not sex before marriage is promiscuous is debatable. I tend to believe that I'm not that special. If you've had a long term face to face relationship and have been engaged for a while, although I still don't agree with pre-marital sex, I can see your point. But if you meet on the internet and then meet in person and are sleeping together on the first night, you have to really think you're special if you don't think she's done similar things before. For the record, I never asked my wife if she was a virgin either. I just knew her well enough that I didn't have to ask.

I know some Russian girls who are very religious and are indeed saving sex for marriage. I would say they are few and far between though, just like in America. Barring beliefs about chastity-before-marriage, I would say that without a real physical relationship, it's definitely unadvisable to get married. I wouldn't say it's a litmus test, but it does raise a huge red flag. I would also surmise that there's a huge difference between sex with someone who is scamming you and sex with someone who genuinely cares for you and wants to spend their life with you, and that this would probably be evident.

[SMR 368]

I know some Russian girls who are very religious and are indeed saving sex for marriage. I would say they are few and far between though, just like in America. Barring beliefs about chastity-before-marriage, I would say that without a real physical relationship, it's definitely unadvisable to get married. I wouldn't say it's a litmus test, but it does raise a huge red flag. I would also surmise that there's a huge difference between sex with someone who is scamming you and sex with someone who genuinely cares for you and wants to spend their life with you, and that this would probably be evident.

I would also surmise that there is a huge difference between, say, having dinner or going to a museum or walking in the park or going to the beach with someone who is trying to scam you versus doing those things with someone who genuinely cares for you and wants to spend their life with you and that this would probably be evident. But the reality is people still get scammed. Obviously, anything you do spending time together is going to give you a better idea of the sincerity of the relationship. And if you know that she doesn't have any particular qualms about pre-marital sex but is hesitant to do it with you, that's obviously a huge red flag.

Naturally this debate is going to somewhat splinter along the lines of who had pre-marital sex and who didn't and probably I'm in the minority there. But my point is that it's somewhat silly to base much solely on whether or not she is willing to have sex with you. You of course need to spend time and determine the sincerity of the relationship. But it's easy to imagine reasons why a sincere or insincere woman would or wouldn't have sex. Understand who she is. If who she is doesn't add up with her not wanting to have sex (ie. she isn't particularly religious and doesn't have such principles) then you should consider that a red flag. On the other hand, if she is willing to have sex but seems to be using it to manipulate, that should similarly be a red flag.

I don't know Scott well so I can't really comment on how he intended the original comment. But it certainly came off as women that won't have sex are scamming you. Not only is that somewhat insulting and chauvinistic, it's also not logically good advice. There are many honest women who are saving sex for marriage (I think that used to be part of the definition of an honest woman). Also, I can't imagine that there aren't scammers that have no qualm about sex as part of the scam. And if they're good enough to scam you day in and day out by internet, phone, and in person, I sincerely doubt Eekee's inference that a man is going to wise up to things during sex.

Edited October 14, 2010 by SMR

[AKguy 1]

There are many honest women who are saving sex for marriage (I think that used to be part of the definition of an honest woman).

According to Princeton, the deffinition of an "honest woman" is, "a wife who has married a man with whom she has been living for some time (especially if she is pregnant at the time)) "he made an honest woman of her""

Honest Woman

[SMR 368]

According to Princeton, the deffinition of an "honest woman" is, "a wife who has married a man with whom she has been living for some time (especially if she is pregnant at the time)) "he made an honest woman of her""

Honest Woman

I believe that is the proper reference. But it's always used in the context of "being made" an honest woman. That is, a woman having sex with a man to whom she is not married is not an honest woman. When she is married to him, she becomes an honest woman.

Now, unless you intend to argue that all single women are dishonest (hey, I suppose someone will try) there has to have been something that made that woman dishonest before her marriage. The implication is that it is the premarital sex that made her dishonest. Thus, I arrive at the conclusion that the classic definition of an honest woman, implied by the phrase "to make an honest woman out of her," is that an honest woman is a woman who only has sex with a man to whom she is legally and lawfully married.

[LvivLovers 39]

I would just point out that many Ukrainians are very religious and often have religous reasons for wanting to save themselves for marriage. So it really just depends what type of person you get ahold of and what their personal beliefs are...that's one of the things that attracted me to my wife initially. She was ultra-religious and had high moral standards.

[eekee 182]

I would also surmise that there is a huge difference between, say, having dinner or going to a museum or walking in the park or going to the beach with someone who is trying to scam you versus doing those things with someone who genuinely cares for you and wants to spend their life with you and that this would probably be evident. But the reality is people still get scammed. Obviously, anything you do spending time together is going to give you a better idea of the sincerity of the relationship. And if you know that she doesn't have any particular qualms about pre-marital sex but is hesitant to do it with you, that's obviously a huge red flag.

Naturally this debate is going to somewhat splinter along the lines of who had pre-marital sex and who didn't and probably I'm in the minority there. But my point is that it's somewhat silly to base much solely on whether or not she is willing to have sex with you. You of course need to spend time and determine the sincerity of the relationship. But it's easy to imagine reasons why a sincere or insincere woman would or wouldn't have sex. Understand who she is. If who she is doesn't add up with her not wanting to have sex (ie. she isn't particularly religious and doesn't have such principles) then you should consider that a red flag. On the other hand, if she is willing to have sex but seems to be using it to manipulate, that should similarly be a red flag.

I don't know Scott well so I can't really comment on how he intended the original comment. But it certainly came off as women that won't have sex are scamming you. Not only is that somewhat insulting and chauvinistic, it's also not logically good advice. There are many honest women who are saving sex for marriage (I think that used to be part of the definition of an honest woman). Also, I can't imagine that there aren't scammers that have no qualm about sex as part of the scam. And if they're good enough to scam you day in and day out by internet, phone, and in person, I sincerely doubt Eekee's inference that a man is going to wise up to things during sex.

I didn't mean that it was the ONLY way. This was in response to the fact that someone can be scamming you and still have sex with you. I was simply pointing out that while someone may be a good enough actress to fake romantic feelings on a walk on the beach, it's a bit harder to fake that during sex and sex has a lot more to do with emotions for women than men, generally speaking. So someone who might not be bright or aware enough, or too blinded by beauty, to realize when they're being taken for a ride, might realize it when it becomes clearer in the bedroom.

Edited October 14, 2010 by eekee

[LvivLovers 39]

I didn't mean that it was the ONLY way. This was in response to the fact that someone can be scamming you and still have sex with you. I was simply pointing out that while someone may be a good enough actress to fake romantic feelings on a walk on the beach, it's a bit harder to fake that during sex and sex has a lot more to do with emotions for women than men, generally speaking. So someone who might not be bright or aware enough, or too blinded by beauty, to realize when they're being taken for a ride, might realize it when it becomes clearer in the bedroom.

Wouldn't they technically be taken for a ride in either case? Sorry...couldn't resist.

[SMR 368]

I didn't mean that it was the ONLY way. This was in response to the fact that someone can be scamming you and still have sex with you. I was simply pointing out that while someone may be a good enough actress to fake romantic feelings on a walk on the beach, it's a bit harder to fake that during sex and sex has a lot more to do with emotions for women than men, generally speaking. So someone who might not be bright or aware enough, or too blinded by beauty, to realize when they're being taken for a ride, might realize it when it becomes clearer in the bedroom.

I suppose I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with you. Scott was stating that a good test to find out if a woman is really committed to you is to find out if she will sleep with you. That seems ridiculous both because there are women that are committed but want to wait until marriage and because there are women that would sleep with you without being committed.

You're saying that a man will be able to better judge the seriousness of a relationship based on how a woman acts in bed with him. You inarguably learn something about a person while having sex with them. I suppose you and I just disagree on the likelihood that what you learn about someone while having sex with them is going to be the key to knowing whether or not they are scamming you. In my opinion, 99 times out of 100 it won't be.

[Scott and Iryna 2]

Scott was stating that a good test to find out if a woman is really committed to you is to find out if she will sleep with you.

It amazes me, all the things I am supposedly saying without saying them. How is it that I don't remember saying these things?

Oh, right. Because I didn't.

I really don't want to repeat what I actually said... because I already said them.

I think most who read my opinion understood what I was saying. I'm not sure why you can't.

Perhaps it's because it offended you, and for that I apologize.

But it is my opinion, and I stand by it.

And, like any advise found on this forum... take it or leave it.

But please stop creating opinions that I don't have.

[SMR 368]

It amazes me, all the things I am supposedly saying without saying them. How is it that I don't remember saying these things?

Oh, right. Because I didn't.

I really don't want to repeat what I actually said... because I already said them.

I think most who read my opinion understood what I was saying. I'm not sure why you can't.

Perhaps it's because it offended you, and for that I apologize.

But it is my opinion, and I stand by it.

And, like any advise found on this forum... take it or leave it.

But please stop creating opinions that I don't have.

You said, "If there is no intimacy before agreeing to leave her country and marry you, you should assume something is awry..."

Unless you intended intimacy to imply something other than sex (I suppose that's possible), I really can't see how this could be interpreted another way. You stated that you should assume something is awry if a woman agrees to emigrate and marry you without having had sex with you. Now, we can debate the definition of awry if you want. But given that the discussion was about scamming, that would have been the contextual implication of the word.

I'll admit that you state this as way of indication, not as way of a test. You're not necessarily encouraging guys to go out and "test" their women. You're only implying that if a woman wants to marry you but isn't having sex with you, something is awry.

I realize that any advice on this forum is take it or leave it. But I also think that if someone gives rotten advice they should be called out on it. Your advice is not only insulting and chauvinistic, it's also not very useful. The simple fact that a girl wants to marry you but doesn't want to be intimate yet does not mean anything is awry. (I realize you connected marriage with emigration in this context but I see that as extraneous).

Unless you meant something else by "awry..." other than being a scammer (which would be odd since the discussion was about scammers) that is exactly what your advice consists of: If she isn't willing to sleep with you but wants to marry you, she is probably a scammer.

[Scott and Iryna 2]

You said, "If there is no intimacy before agreeing to leave her country and marry you, you should assume something is awry..."

How does the above quoted statement equate to "if she has sex with you, she will be really committed to you", or "if she had sex with you, that would instantly mean she could be trusted", or any of the other things you claim I said?

I said what I said. The advise was meant for the OP. The OP met her online, 3 months later met her in person, and 3 months after that they agreed to marry. During the 6 month wait, he met with her a couple more times. He was being scammed. She was scamming many men. Women who do this do not sleep with these men. My advice stands. If he is going to go about this the same way again, he should wait until there is intimacy between them before he files his next K-1.

I understand you have a differing opinion. And you have a right to disagree.

However, I ask that you not claim I say something completely different...