Back from Kazan

[Chuckles 0]

I don't remember actually saying he paid a prostitute for sex. I only recall him saying he had some story involving a hooker that he never elaborated on. I really don't want to read this again, so if I am wrong, whatever.

[akdiver 3]

He doesn't exactly say he paid her, but it seems to be implied. Again, not judging. I'm all for prostitution actually. Legalized prostitution would make it safer for the women and the men all around. But I do believe money was exchanged, and a good time was had by all.

By definition, the fact that she is a hooker, more or less indicates she was paid. It's possible she gave him some sympathy sex I guess. It's possible she just jumped at the chance to have sex with some American who was there investigating the possibility to getting engaged to someone else - because, you know, according to Russian mythology, American men are fantastic lovers and you should #### them whenever possible, even if it means taking a loss on the transaction. It's even possible that he was supposed to pay her, but "stiffed her". But my guess is the most obvious and probable one - that the hooker was paid for services rendered.

As I probably noted on here earlier - I'm all for prostitution. If you can sell your mind, why not your body? If you can sell your body digging ditches and doing hard labour, why shouldn't you sell it for more pleasurable activities? The moralism around prostitution is just loony. However - if Cam was unwilling or unable to inform the woman the he went to Kazan to meet that he had sex with a hooker - then he is hiding something, for one reason or another. Most of the time, in this case, someone would hide something because they fear the reaction of someone they would tell. That being the case, it seems dishonest to the girl he was going to meet. After all, if it were all perfectly natural and there is nothing wrong with it, then why NOT tell her? Only one reason - 'cause she wouldn't have anything to do with him afterward. The fact that he came on here and blabbed about it just emphasizes this point.

Edited September 18, 2008 by akdiver

[slim 1,533]

Is it just me, or does this forum have the best stories? I mean, I've been to the UK and Europe, lived in Scotland for 3 years, lived in Saudi Arabia for 9 months, had some interesting times and all that, but absolutely nothing beats my short time in Russia, just in terms of pure jaw-dropping "holy #### did I just see what I think I saw," or "holy #### did I just do what I think I did?" moments. Maybe it was that I was so far into the interior.

If you wanna talk crazy times, both Korea and Bahrain are pretty high on my list. Like you said though, there is a "#######?" factor in Russia that doesn't apply to the same degree in a lot of other places. There's a danger element that goes along with all the drinking, sex and drugs that's more pervasive in Eastern Europe than maybe anywhere else in the world.

By definition, the fact that she is a hooker, more or less indicates she was paid. It's possible she gave him some sympathy sex I guess.

Hookers are like taxi cabs... as long as the meter's off, it's just a car!

[akdiver 3]

I would say that the golden rule applies: if you would not be ok with your prospective girl sampling the local boy-toys during whatever phase of your relationship you happen to be in, then you probably ought not to do it yourself.

I was going to add something like that to my last post...."If the girl you went to see in Russia told you something like, "oh yeah, last night some guy paid me $100 to have sex with him. It was easy money. I told him to come back after you leave if he wants to spend another $100," would that be something that would affect your interest in pursuing a relationship with her?

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Most definitely true! Always loved the old double standard. Its fine for the guy to go over there and meet multiple women and perhaps sample each. However, each one of those girls had better be 100% faithful, to him, until he decides between them!

I would say that the golden rule applies: if you would not be ok with your prospective girl sampling the local boy-toys during whatever phase of your relationship you happen to be in, then you probably ought not to do it yourself.

[Mags 112]

Is it just me, or does this forum have the best stories?

Oh my gawds, yes! Me the Russian forum!

[slim 1,533]

There has to be an agreed upon standard. Or, you can "forget" to set a standard. If both parties never really bring it up, then it doesn't really exist, right? Then by having no standard there is indeed, a standard. And that is a standard of no standard.

Along the lines of standards....

Quantity or quality?

And would a change in your quality standard have effected your quantity standard? Here? Abroad? Compare and contrast, for the masses....

[Brad and Vika 129]

Mox - Water is wet, don't you agree? Sheesh!

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

:lol:

Mox - Water is wet, don't you agree? Sheesh!

Best Bill Clinton impression: Well it depends on what the definition of "wet" is.

[slim 1,533]

Now...imagine if Cam's story had gone something like this: He had gone over to Kazan, remained faithful to his beautiful Tatar woman, only to find out on the last day of his trip that she had been sleeping with other men while he was there. She explained to him that she loved him very much, and that these men meant nothing to her. She even shed tears as he boarded the plane to leave.

Didn't that actually happen?

Anyway, I would argue the reason Cam, or any other man going over there to "shop" for a wife, would be "entitled" to it and she wouldn't is because he's taking the time and money to visit her in her environment, and her life should be "normal" at the time. He's on vacation and/or a fact-finding mission to view her in her natural habitat, not the other way around.

If she were to come visit him, then by all means, she would be "entitled" to sample the local fare and see what America had to offer, Cam and others, if she so desired.

If they were to meet at a "neutral location" then all bets are off for both. Or, all bets are on, depending on lodging arrangements and agreed upon standard.

I'll resort back to my earlier post, if there's an agreed upon standard following a somewhat lengthy courtship, "I love you so much, I'm only coming over so we can meet the requirement and get the paperwork done then we're going to be together forever......" then both parties should be "locked in" and not seek out other sources. However, if a guy clicked on a girl's profile, used a translator to talk to her a few times and then a couple months later spent thousands of dollars to go see her after she agreed he could meet her in person, then by all means, he's still "shopping" and not "locked in" to anything.... yet. He has the right (I would even argue - responsibility) to seek out other possibilities. Same goes for her if she's shopping abroad.

[akdiver 3]

Bottom line, regardless of anything else: If you're not willing to tell the woman that you had sex with the hooker, then you're being dishonest, and substantially so.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Bottom line, regardless of anything else: If you're not willing to tell the woman that you had sex with the hooker, then you're being dishonest, and substantially so.

Now that is a moral code!

[Brad and Vika 129]

Now...imagine if Cam's story had gone something like this: He had gone over to Kazan, remained faithful to his beautiful Tatar woman, only to find out on the last day of his trip that she had been sleeping with other men while he was there. She explained to him that she loved him very much, and that these men meant nothing to her. She even shed tears as he boarded the plane to leave.

Didn't that actually happen?

The facts from his posts are that he went over, had sex with a hooker, waved goodbye to his girlfriend at the airport. There are a lot of details missing, so any combination of events is likely. I threw this little fairy tale together just to kind of make a point, which is that a lot of guys would completely condemn a woman who did this, but would give the guy a pass in the same situation.

Anyway, I would argue the reason Cam, or any other man going over there to "shop" for a wife, would be "entitled" to it and she wouldn't is because he's taking the time and money to visit her in her environment, and her life should be "normal" at the time. He's on vacation and/or a fact-finding mission to view her in her natural habitat, not the other way around.

Hmmm. I can see if the situation was one of those bride tours where you and 10-15 other guys are set up with a disco full of women. You have no previous relationship with these women, so of course anything goes.

I would also agree if you've set up meetings with more than one other woman, and they are all aware of this situation.

But I think it would be unconscionable to do this to a woman who you have been corresponding with and will be exclusively visiting. It doesn't matter how much money you've spent. It now just boils down to an extended blind date where exclusivity should be the default.

Same goes for her if she's shopping abroad.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why geographical location or how much money you spent should matter. Also...if I understand Brad correctly...the humidity level has something to do with it too.

But I do appreciate the fact that you have a moral code of sorts, and it sounds like you've put a lot of thought into it. It's a lot different than mine, but I'll take yours over the "do what feels good at the time" code many guys live by. I have absolute no doubt that if your wife didn't know what she was getting in to when she met you, she had at least been read her rights.

No Mox, I was just suggesting that not even a comment as tame as "water is wet" could get by you without a critical comment about the chemical composition of water, or the subjectivity of the word wet. I see you chose the latter this time around. I suspect the same would occur if I had said water is dry. I am still learning the personalities of some of you guys, but I get the impression that you are one who enjoys a, shall we say, robust discussion. The conclusion of same is really far secondary, or maybe irrelevant to the discussion itself. This is not a slam at all, just a follow up to the earlier comment. I like a good discussion too, so long as the other parties to it are articulate and persuasive. I have always found you civil - even when being stalked

[slim 1,533]

But I think it would be unconscionable to do this to a woman who you have been corresponding with and will be exclusively visiting. It doesn't matter how much money you've spent. It now just boils down to an extended blind date where exclusivity should be the default.

If you've been corresponding with a woman, through a translator, for a couple months, why should you be exclusive with her when you're basically spending several thousand dollars to simply "test drive the car before you buy it."

I would agree with you, if there's been a long courtship (sans translator) and you've developed some intimacy and know you're both really 100% into getting married, you're just going over to fulfill the meeting within two year requirement, then partaking in the services of a "working girl" would be immoral, especially if you didn't tell your fiancee.

For the guys that "click on a profile", send a few e-mails through a translator, call through a translator, then fly over there three months later to meet her (and the translator) they might as well "employ" as many girls as possible while there. Hell, by all means, they should go ahead and have the translator do a little side work! That's the one they've been talking to, after all.

I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything they think immoral. However, guys like Cam and many, many others, spend thousands and thousands of dollars to go over there and meet a girl they don't really know and there's no guarantee she'll be as cool as the translator said she was. If they don't partake in the services of other girls, then they're limiting themselves and wasting their money. (That is, if nothing comes out of the relationship they were there to investigate.... through the translator.)

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why geographical location or how much money you spent should matter.

The person spending all the money is the one taking the chance to make the relationship work. They're the one leaving their home and "gambling" on something coming out of it. The person staying home and meeting "a guest" isn't taking that chance so if nothing comes out of the visit, they've lost nothing.

There's no guarantee it's going to work. So, if/when it doesn't work with the person you went to meet, if you've "met" a few others while there, you minimize your risk of nothing coming out of the investment. Not to say partaking in the services of prostitutes actually "gains" something from the investment, but when reconnecting with the $5000 trip to the FSU is the story going to be "I met this nice girl over the Internet, went over to meet her, had a nice week together but it just didn't work out." Or, is it going to be "I went over to the FSU to meet up with one chick, that didn't really work out, but dude, I nailed the hottest chick(s) in the world while I was there and had a great time."

And I know that's not the story everyone wants to hear, but it sure beats, "Yeah, I met this girl over there.... and it just didn't work out. I have some nice photos of me drinking with her uncle and cousins, the local churches, a river..... it was a good experience." $5000 for some pictures and a "good experience." If I'm paying $5000 for anything, it's going to be the "experience of a lifetime" and there better not be any pictures!

But I do appreciate the fact that you have a moral code of sorts, and it sounds like you've put a lot of thought into it. It's a lot different than mine, but I'll take yours over the "do what feels good at the time" code many guys live by. I have absolute no doubt that if your wife didn't know what she was getting in to when she met you, she had at least been read her rights.

As F'd up as my moral code is, there is a method to my madness. My wife has an equally F'd up moral code, slightly different from my own, but it mirrors mine on key points and doesn't stray into the "feels good at the time" so it works for both of us.

If I were to sum up my moral code, it would look something like this -

((10 Commandments + Bill of Rights) X (Necessity / Drive) - (Desire - Possession) + (relative ease) / ((beauty - age) X (alcohol) / (cost))) X Long term satisfaction ....... and then I determine a percentage based on that. If it's above 50, I go for it. If below, I hold off. Pretty simple, really.

My wife's looks something like this -

(100 - Bad) X Long term satisfaction / short term loss Or, (0 + Good) X Long term satisfaction / short term loss ...... in this case, if it looks more bad than good, she'll hold off. If more good than bad, she'll go for it. Pretty simple, really.

When you think in long terms, it helps avoid the "feels good at the time" which leads to so many poor decisions. One thing that really helps me is to keep in mind how long eternity is. That pretty much kills my average and anything I was thinking about doing to gain short term satisfation gets blown out of the water.

[Bobalouie 0]

Mox - Water is wet, don't you agree? Sheesh!

Best Bill Clinton impression: Well it depends on what the definition of "wet" is.

Wet like a warm apple PIE