Gentleman,

I come here to read about travel to this great place and all I see is terrible lies and dirty words about the women of my country.

Our women do not need western men sex pests to come to our country to treat like prostitutes.

You should not speak about women in this way.

it is unhealthy. maybe you behave like the rapist and child molester in your own country, do not come to my country and do it. it is very bad.

and do not write the bad words about the women you know nothing about.

For tourist people who want to visit my country and this great city please be visiting the ukraine.com website or others or visit the good russian tour operator for your advice, you are very welcome to come here and see our country and hysterical monuments of our great times. We make you very welcome and treat you as brother.

Good days to you.

Dmitri.

Go for the travel experience but leave the scammers woman alone. And to drone on, if you must have a foreign bride (for love) then do it. Just know what to avoid. Scammers are all over the world, but hopefully your smart enough to recognize them in your own back yard. Like Igor said "marry in your own backyard". If your a nice normal guy then you shouldn't have a problem. If your European and your looking for a European wife, then just know what not to do.

I do take offense to some of the comments on this board if they are a direct attack that all people there are scammers. But for western guys that just go over there and think that everything is as portrayed on the net (marriage agencies) they need some help.

We could not have said it better ourself.So so true in every aspect, some poster guys on this board should seek proffesional help, they obviously don't even know their own names :-(

I agree with you agreeing with me:)

The fact of the matter is that many people are lonely. And, honestly, I believe that western civilization produces a much larger percent of lonely people. People living in the west are alienated. The westernern civilization is like a race, and not everyone is able to keep up with it.
Hence, we have a small but undoubtly considerable percent of people, who have noone to love them, care for them. And majority of people who come here, including somewhat myself, belong to this category.
Ultimate loners, which self-actualized people refer to as losers.
In the west loners = losers. Doesn't it?

And so, many of us turn to Europe and FSU in search of this one special person, who will make all the dreams come true, who will love us for who we are, and help us throughout life.
Many westerners even considered relocating permanently to one of FSU countries, because there their small savings miraculously become a fortune, which is enough to buy a house/car/provide for one's family w/out a need to ever work again!

For some it worked. For others it turned out be the worst experience ever, because they came to an understanding that their soulmate don't exist, wherever they look - she's not there. Not even in FSU!
Instead, they end up even more heartbroken, more depressed, more feeling like a loser.

So what's the lesson we should learn from international marriage? Looking for love in foreign countries does not increase your chances of finding it.
In fact, it lowers them, because with your own women you have much more in common: language, culture, morality, etc.

So give it another try, do look next door! It's a matter of time, but we'll all find someone. And the costs of finding that someone will be much less than what they charge you at those agencies. Besides saving money, you spare yourself the heartache of being scammed.

Much love to you all

Igor

Igor, I think you are very right about western civilisation producing lonely people.

Your observations on loner = loser, etc. they're very astute observations, perhaps very accurate. You are very perceptive, Igor.

There was another poster on this board who wrote an eloquent message about "desperate times, desperate people" -- also very poignant and accurate.

But, I think you are somewhat wrong about looking next door. Men and women (in the U.S., anyway) may share the language, customs etc., but there is a *lot* that men and women (in the U.S., anyway) do not have in common -- the value systems taught to men and women here are much different.

American women in general appear to have no sense of respect for men, nor any sense of loyalty. I think they are taught to be that way by their peers, and by the media. Lack of loyalty, lack of respect -- these are major complaints I hear very frequently from men.

It is also something I have frequently observed.

American men are taught from childhood that we are to treat women with respect, and be loyal in relationships. If we don't, we are told that we are nothing but d*ckheads. This is what we are constantly bombarded with by the media here.

This dichotomy causes a lot of problems between men and women in the U.S. And I think it is one reason why a lot of men look elsewhere for mates, especially after getting burned a few hundred times by women here. I suppose, some of the men are desperate. I think most of them just have completely given up on finding someone compatible in their own home town. Someone can disagree with these mens' conclusions, but these men didn't give up on the girl next door for lack of trying.

I have a friend who worked for a year in Brazil. What impressed him the most -- the women were actually nice. They were actually nice people. You actually enjoyed being around them. I think a friend of his ended up marrying one.

I once met some Ukrainian immigrants here, I got to know quite a few of them. they were hardworking, honest people. The women were beautiful, and they were very nice. They weren't pushovers, either.

They made American women seem as appealing as cold oatmeal. I still am very impressed by the Ukrainian women I met. I still think they are perhaps the finest in the world.

So I understand why men look overseas, to the FSU, or wherever. Perhaps the men are "desperate". I think they're just seeking options to what they've been unable to find locally, because there obviously is something very wrong with society here -- just as you yourself have observed.

An increasing number of men don't look anywhere. They're the ones lined up, barside, at a tavern; or at home, beer in hand, watching videos on television, basically opted out of the game, headed to die alone. There are a lot more of them out there than society is willing to admit.

People can think I'm exagerrating, if they like. I don't care. Just open your eyes and take a look around. All these guys that provide business for the marriage agencies, they didn't just arise out of a vacuum.

Joe Six Pack

Since we got into this discussion, lemme tell you what I think based upon my excperiences and observations.

I think right now we got to the bottom of it all, to the root of the problem. Why do western men feel the need to look for love in foreign countries/communities?

The problem of alienation does exist in western society. There's actually two kinds:
one is individual alienation
another is sexual alienation
Individual alienation is self-explanatory. The whole concept of capitalism excludes the ideas of brotherly interrelations between people of the West. Each of us, since our childhood, are told of great tales of success of people like Rockfeller, Carnegie, J.P.Morgan. We are further taught by our parents/teachers/guardians that that's what is our ultimate goal - to succeed (often by all means possible and available). Hence, we alienate ourselves from each other, each trying to succeed.
I haven't read much of Marx, but that's what this fella spent his entire life studying.
There's no "love" in all its meanings, wherever there's a struggle for success.

Now, sexual alienation is what you pointed out in your post. And this , in my belief, is the primary cause of why some men are left with no choice but to look abroad.
Since gaining their civil rights back in 60's, western women have become relatively independent, and almost self-sufficient. The outbreak (and I use this word on purpose) of homosexual(lesbian) relationship in USA in the past decades are frustrating for heterosexual men.
We are frustrated.
We're losing women, who were traditionally kept in submissive roles. "A woman's right to choose" is evolving beyond an issue of abortion.
Some of you will say now "what the heck are you talking about, man! it's much simpler than that! Have you checked your facts? Why you're stating your opinion as if it were a Newton's Law of Gravity"
I will not argue with those of you who will disagree with me. I'm just stating my opinion. Whether it's obvious to you or not depends on what you see around yourself.
I live in New York City, and I call it a "Lonely people's town" Remember Beatles' famous:
"All the lonely people -where do they all come from....where do they all belong?" NYC!
And I'm one of those people, who tend to go from observations to generalizations.
Now, we, as men, are not ready to accept these changes. BUt the truth of the matter is, and always been, that the world spins around p..sy. We go to school, we look for a job, we work hard, all because we want to conquer p..sy. Some of you will say: "
no! our ultimate goal is self-actualization, becoming a needed member of society, becoming a professional with my own niche, helping my civilization take another step towards evolutional progress..and so on..
I say, p..sy is your self-actualization. You will never feel more of a man, than when you're man enough to keep that kitty yours, satisfy that kitty, afford that kitty, protect thta kitty...

Different thing was happening in FSU. Before revolution, women were basically in the same position as they were in USA until 1960's. During communism, woman became a friend and comarade of a man. Her duties were to help her man, to keep him on the right track (so he won't drink, so he will work for his Homeland, so he will be a decent individual and a helpful, integrated part of socialistic society).
And, thus, FSU women became mothers of their husbands. If he drank, she wouldn't leave him, she would help him get through his frustrations, she will nourish him like his mother did until he's back at his feet.
If he beat her, she would understand him instead of judging him. Do you see where I'm leading to?
Western women always strived for independence.
FSU women always enjoyed or at least they felt it was their responsibility to keep the family together, and to be an understanding partner for a husband.
It's not a myth, but it's not a reality either nowadays.
The western ideals invaded Russia during Gorbachev. Just like some americans are compaining about these new relationship with russians, so are many russians.
True russian patriots oppose this West-East integration that took place in last decades. If you think that West did all good for Russia, you're mistaken. It's the democracy (or the best democracy they were able to reach in Russia) that gave these scammers the opportunity to run fraudulent businesses. It's the AIDS that finally reached FSU and cause epidemics. Russia had no way of getting AIDS in the country other than foreign tourism. The inflation, the economic crisis, they can't be blamed all at Western invasion, but it played its role.
So, back to my point, Russian women are not these naivettes, young lolitas in high school uniforms with developed breasts and no clue about sex (as it used to be very recently, we're talking about 80's even early 90's) They've evolved as well.
Not all of them, but majority. They've tasted the forbidden fruit. So, if you're going to FSU to find a decent girl, you'll have to go through many before you find one. And, regardless of the fact that you're a "rich westernman" as you may start perceiving yourself to be once you see that you can get an unlimited taxi drive for $1-3, they'll still be picky. You'll still find yourself one of the herd, you'll still be a contestant. They will not fall to your feet and worship you for an idol (just like Anastasia Romanoff been trying to point out). As much as I think of her as being beyond offensive, on that point I do agree with her. They're as proud as western women.

So, just to summarize my opinion and get to the main point:

There's a recent trend in women's attitude towards independence: they knwo what we're after (p..sy for those of you who forgot:), and they're learning to manipulate us with what they have. The important observation is that this trend is world-wide, and does not exclude FSU.
In short, if you're looking for sweet submissive (doesn't necessarily mean she lets you abuse her, but she lets you be a man int he house) girl, don't think FSU is the breeding farm of those species.
Women change with society, and russian society is much like western society, only there's no middle class, but everyone wants to get to the top.

Also, I'd like to advise you to get in terms with this new trend. Woman is NATURALLY MATERIAL. It's not a fault of her character.
There's a concept in psychology known as concept of "sexy son". What it basically means is that every female in each and every of the animal species looks for the fittest male, which will produce the fittest offspring (sexy son). She wants her children to dominate in their society when they grow up. So she will look for the best available candidate. Best available means that circumstances play their role.
In NYC, you may not look your fittest, but in Chernovtsy you just might. BUt no guarantees considering that the trend is world-wide.

Dayam! What did I just write!
I guess I'm a social Darwinist...

Igor,
Excellent points.

I do have one difference with you, I suppose it depends on the definition of "sexual alienation". I think it's not sexual, as much as psychological and emotional alienation that many men in the U.S. feel.

I don't think the problem is sexual -- most people here have had many sex partners in their lifetime. Sex is easier to find here than a decent relationship. It is much, much easier to find sex in the U.S., than it is to find a good emotional bond with a member of the opposite sex.

You do make a good point, though, about men needing women. Statistically, men do not live well alone. Statistically, men die much earlier than women do. Statistically, men die even sooner if they have no partner.

I am aware of natural selection, search images, all that. I studied it in an anthropology class at the university. But those things are not the problem.

Women are liberated from submissive roles, true. That's not the problem, either. It's the hypocrisy, the double standard in female-male relations -- that's the problem.

Since women's liberation hit in the late 1960's, apparently many women decided to become all the negative stereotypes and things they disliked about men, things they somehow equated with the 'freedom' they perceived that men had, that they didn't have. Included in that 'freedom' was the freedom to cheat, the freedom to lie, the freedom to be a hypocrite. They somehow associate these behaviours with "independence".

Numerous times I've noticed married/attached women hitting on strange men, hiding rings, cheating on their mates, going out on a "girls night out" and flirting and sleeping about -- if men do this, they're called ##sholes -- women do it, they're "exerting their independence".

It's this sort of double standard, this dishonest attitude, this notion of "independence" -- this is one of the main complaints American men have about American women. I hear it all the time. I see it happening.

This is one reason a lot of men are looking overseas for mates -- they're hoping to find someone who at least isn't a liar and a hypocrite, who doesn't talk about Love and The Relationship and Honesty Being The Best Policy, while she's cheating on you, or hitting on other men in the bar down the street, or chatting up other men in sex chat rooms on the internet, or secretly has an ad on the internet.

I'm not saying men don't do these things. But, when men do these things, they're lambasted, women usually aren't -- convenient excuses are made up for them, usually in the name of "equality" and "independence".

What I see -- right or wrong, but it's what I've seen -- is that men in the U.S. are raised to be self-indulgent egalitarians; women are raised to be self-centered hypocrites.

I used to believe in marriage, I presently think it has become a fraud. Marriage in the United States was a fraud even before these scams we discuss here were ever invented.

Joe Six Pack

P.S. your comments on capitalism vs. alienation -- very interesting.

Umm...what I meant by "sexual alienation" was alienation based on gender. I should've cleared that out in my previous post, because sex and gender are two different things.

Alienation between the two genders, the differences between men and women in their understanding of abstract social ideas, such as freedom, independence, loyalty, and so on and so forth.

But you did understand what I was reffering to.

Gender alienation! ...my bad:)
In everything you wrote you're right. I think that regardless of whether things are really the way you see them or not, it doesn't matter. What we see is what we react to. Perhaps, some of our "findings" are accidental and do not reflect the reality of things. Nevertheless, it's what forms our perception of how things are, and can't be neglected.
I always trust what I see. I guess being a Social Darwinist I'm bound to be empiricist. I think you are one as well.

Women aren't easy to deal with. Modern women expecially. What I pitched to you in my last post, the major idea of my post was that the trend is world-wide, the fact that should make you think twice before you give up on western women altogether and go to FSU.
Women of the world have changed.
We should get used to it, and accept it, or our genes will dissappear from earth's gene pool.
There's no other way. I mean, do you see a way?
Another sexual revolution?
Taliban?
there's no way, man.

Your points here are all very well taken, Igor.... I understand now what you meant about sex/gender alienation, and I agree with you.

RE: solutions to this problem.... I really don't know. To return to the days where women were treated as chattel slaves -- that's unnacceptable, especially in a country where we believe in individual human rights.

But this battle between the sexes has got to stop, or else the ensuing generations will suffer for it. I don't know how it can stop, or if it ever will stop. The deciders of that issue are the women.

Women of the world have indeed changed.... That is very true. I think much of that change has indeed been for the better. But that change has also inflamed a war between the sexes, a war that one side (the men) barely recognise and the other (the women) seem to enjoy -- they mistakenly think it's empowering them, when it may be slowly destroying our society here. And it looks like we're headed for a new matriarchy, where men are little more than a warrior class of otherwise useless drones.

A world with men who are made to feel like useless drones.... that will not be a good world. That world comes, everyone loses.

In China there is a drastic imbalance in the sexes, the young men outnumber the young women almost by a quarter or so (? not sure the exact percentage). It's a social disaster waiting to happen. Why? Because there are a large number of men who have no stabilising influence that marriage and family provides. When the money and food get scarce, they've got a big problem brewing over there.

I see similarities here -- our situation is not as much a recipe for disaster like they have in China right now -- but it's getting there.

Men who are made to feel like useless drones and appendages eventually get violent, against others, or against self. It's the only way they know of striking back at a society they feel has used and neglected them, especially when they feel they have nothing to live for. Men have always been used, for ages, to fight all the wars. Because of it, violence has become part of our genetic makeup. Violence is part of our nature.

Some feminists dream of a return to matriarchy, that's their version of utopian paradise. They forget that matriarchies were very weak societies, and all of the matriarchal societies I've read about -- they all were barbaric, fractious, war-making societies (the Picts are a classic example), and they all were conquered by non-matriarchal societies, because non-matriarchal societies are more stable.

It's stability, on the most basic level, that a society needs to survive. If this society we live in wants to survive, there needs to be some sort of stability. We have relative stability now only because of relative wealth and luxury -- money always glosses over the ills of society.

Take some of that wealth away, add a bit of starvation in this country, and I can see where U.S. society could very easily implode. The Great Depression was very dog-eat-dog here in the U.S. -- something they never seem to teach in the history books -- about the farmers' rebellions; the riots in the streets over fresh cans of garbage in back of restaurants; the men who were ready and willing to take other men's jobs, even if it meant the other man's family risked starvation. The Great Depression was a much more dangerous time in the U.S. than people realise. But one thing that kept it from turning into wholesale chaos was the family unit -- basic morals were still strong enough to withstand the ravages of a collapsed economy.

If another Great Depression happens, I'm not certain the country would last, because the family unit is not strong. Few people I personally know have anything to live for but themselves. I know plenty of people to whom their parents are just someone you call once or twice a year -- they live 3000 miles away. Grandparents are somebody you remember once or twice when you were 4 years old -- if you ever met them.

I know of women who have several different kids by several different fathers, and they have had several different live-in boyfriends afterwards. What sort of family ties is that? What sort of idea of "family" do those children really grow with? Are they learning that family matters, or are they actually learning, by example, that it's really every person out for themselves?

I know of several single mothers who constantly berate the father of their children. How can a boy grow up with any sort of positive self-image, if most of what he hears as a child is nothing but negative comments about his father, and nothing but negative comments about men? And a situation where men are only temporary accessories in a woman's life? These sorts of "family" situations are more prevalent than people realise, and I think it's not good for society. And it's the women who basically decide what a "family" is.

The family unit, it's basically another fraud, sort of like marriage has become.

The only way, historically, that societies *regenerate*, is by astronomically bad disasters (i.e. the Black Death), or by being conquered (i.e. when the barbarians conquered Rome; when the Saxons conquered Britain, etc.). Sometimes the violence or disaster is accompanied by religious upheaval. But violence, or disaster, is the only way historically that a society regenerates.

(By the word 'regeneration', I mean when there's a drastic change in a society, usually a drastic change that ultimately makes that society more stable, in some significant way).

Where do women fit in this scenario? They're a part of society. The future's in their hands, perhaps even more than the men's hands. They 'raise' the children. They determine the state of the family in society today -- *not* the men. They shape the minds and values of the future generation, more than men ever can. They decide who the father figures are. They decide *if* there even *is* a father figure.

Most don't really care if there is a father figure, because, as Gloria Steinem put it so aptly: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. And, so they teach it, by example, to their children....

I think you get the picture: I see the future rather bleakly. :-) I give it maybe six to eight more generations, then it implodes, if asteroids don't hit us first. :-) I really don't care, I won't be around, and I have no children, and won't have any children, to worry about their future. It's for someone else to worry about. If this society implodes, it's not my problem.

All I know is men seem to have come around from their evil ways of the past, but that apparently isn't good enough. Very few of the men I know, or the men I grew up with, have happy, stable marriages, or really good relationships with women. The weird thing is -- we're all from different environments, and different backgrounds.

Nothing men do seems to be good enough. Marriage has become a fraud, and has become a thing of the past, and with it goes the family and societal stability. You can figure the rest of it out......

To summarise all that I've said on this board: it's no surprise to me that men here look elsewhere.

Natural cataclysms, though commonly unwelcomed, do bring changes for the better (often). However, I'm not a 100% sure that if some sort of meteorith hits the Earth and kills 20 million Japanese, the women of the world will become more understanding of us.

It does seem like a natural process. I believe that all that is happening is leading to a future matriarchy. I mean, all the hard work is done, except maybe international terrorism. Computer technology reached its peak. There've been made enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole solar system, and all of it is under control. Russia is friends with USA. Everybody is equal despite their race, creed, or gender. Capitalism established itself all over the Earth as the best socio-economic system, the best way to do business, the best ever possible.
Next thing - we will destroy the terrorism all over the earth (perhaps a religious war will help deal with it), the oil will get cheap, but by that time, electricity will do oil's job, so Middle East will be none of concern. Men will do all the dirty job, so women will rule this peaceful society.
Ofcourse, I don't really think so:) Women will not become rulers, not in the nearest future. But women will always rule over us. Because, if they didn't know it before, now they have learned really well that they are our only stimulants.
In a man's life, there is no bigger pleasure than to be able to be with a woman. It's not even about sex, although sex is "big" if you know what I mean.
We need them. And I think, we need them more than they need us. That's what I came to grasp.
Perhaps, they're in denial. Perhaps, they don't realize that as Adam and Eve, we're in need of each other. Or, maybe they're on a power trip. I don't even know. But, apperantly, they act as if to them we're second sort.
Or it could be that natural selection is at work, and we're just that small percent of lonely people, that every generation contains.

I doubt we will find the cause of, and solution to what is happening to some of us. Psychotherapy could be a solution. But who would admit to being a social reject?

You briefly mentioned feminists and their utopian ideas.
I just wanted to emphasize how much I hhhhhhhh...dislike* them.

I am absolutely disgusted with women-feminists. I am all for for women's rights (which sorta makes me one), but I think that feminists are demagogues whose job is to brainwash normal women into hating men and getting onto a power trip against normal men.

Feminists are modern-day heretics, who teach against normal (stable) family values. They destroy everything feminine in women, claiming that women are people before they're women. We're well aware of that fact!
And there's no second meaning to the word "HIStory"

Just my opinion...

Igor,
I agree with you on womens-liberation and feminisim. I was raised a feminist, so I saw the movement from a perspective a lot of men don't....
Like you, I agree with equality. Equality under the law, and equal pay for equal work, that's the only way to be.

But the social side-effects of the feminist movement appear to be more destructive than constructive to society -- as you have illustrated in your post.

Female rulers, I have no problem with. Women often make excellent executives, and skilful and intelligent rulers (Queen Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi -- they were excellent rulers). But the individual women who treat men as useless drones, or refuse to see the good in good men, while rewarding the bad behaviour of bad men -- they are the ones who I see as contributing to the destruction of their children's future.

I think there are more of us "lonely" types, the ones who not only are somewhat cast off by society, but dimly see what most refuse to see -- I think there are more of us out there than we realise.

It could be because (as you mention) no one wants to admit being a social reject that more men don't realise how many of them are being treated as useless drones.

Psychotherapy can help people with psychological problems, but what many men suffer from is *not* a psychological problem -- I see it as a social problem. I see it as a social problem, that has *psychological effects* (as most social problems do).

I have no idea what the solution is.

I suppose for some men here in the U.S., finding a mate overseas could be the answer. For those who try, like Mr. Anonymous says, I wish them all the luck, they'll definitely need it. It's a gamble. So is marrying/living with the woman across town. I know men who's ex-wives and ex-girlfriends slash the tires of their car; cut the lines to their telephone on the side of their house.... one guy's ex took a skateboard to his car, broke all the windows, dented it up, cost thousands of dollars of damage.
I know of two men who's ex-wives made up phony child abuse charges, just to get back at their ex-husbands. In most states, when it comes to child abuse charges, the man is basically guilty until proven innocent. By the time the man is proven innocent -- the damage is done between him and his children.
Another guy's wife -- a woman he married from his home town -- got angry over something and started *kicking him in the head as he's driving their car down the freeway*. Luckily, he was a tough guy (apparently with a tough head!) and didn't drive the car into another vehicle and kill them and somebody else.
Scaaaaaarrrry.
Sometimes women can get downright psycho (like sometimes men get violent in relationships) -- most times they don't, of course; but it's always a gamble. Even if you know someone, you never really know what you're getting into....

I see finding a mate overseas as an option, but a more *risky* option than finding a mate locally. I don't gamble with my money -- I gamble less with my life. Until I find someone, I live alone, and live as well as I can. That's my way of dealing with this war between the sexes here in the good ol' U.S.A.

Your observation on the possibility that some women are in denial over their need for male companionship -- very perceptive. We all can live alone, but that doesn't mean that it's the best way to do things.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you accept the rules of this "emerging" society.
In your post you talked about your observations of how women fail to notice good in "good" guys and seem to embrace the "badness" of "not-so-good" guys.
I know that you don't assign absolute values of badness and goodness to people (I believe you're smarter than that).
There's this small philosophical doctrine that I believe in, called "Egoism", which denies goodness or evilness of people. What is says is that people act the way the need to act in a given set of circumstances. It interwines well with Darwin's natural selection. The problem again is society and not people. Society dictates rules for the most "fitting" behavior. So guys acting like jerks with women are appreciated by women because that's the way society works nowadays.
From personal conversations with many women/girls I learned that the most crucial quality that today's women are after in men is......Assertiveness.

So those we call "bad guys", possess this quality, and "good guys"....well you know about them: "good guys don't get laid" or "good guys sleep alone".
We lack assertiveness, man. And partially because we fail to fully accept this society. I mean that's the way it is for me.
There are people who simply lack assertiveness, which makes them unwilling to accept society. I'm not one of those. I used to be very ambitious, very goal-oriented, but it all stopped right when I had to step over someone (methaforically). I couldn't do these things. And I couldn't cheat my way to the top. I changed my mind about going for Master's degree in Business for the sole reason of lacking assertiveness.
I can't work as a telemarketer or a broker. I despise lawyers (New York City lawyers). I despise white-collar wall street thiefs, who spend their passtime tipping strippers in New Jersey. I am just not like them! I sometimes hate myself for not being that way, but I can't go against what nature put into me. My DNA code seems to withstand peer pressure and all kinds of social pressure. I just don't follow the mainstream.
I'm naturally not a fashionable person (in all possible meanings of the word).
Sounds like a major anti-social disorder. Might be, I can't really diagnose myself. I think I'm sort of to myself quiet a bit, but I think it's because I can't afford to have people fail me again and again, as it'd happened in the past oh so many times. I guess I'm waiting for someone to open up to me in exchange to my opening up to her (or him for friendship).
I'm not really an outgoing type, sort of intraverted. But I'm not, when surrounded by friends.
I guess that majority of women don't really wanna bother to open me up. It must seem like a whole lotta work for them. And knowing their values in life, I don't bother to ask for it. So that's how we cruise away from each other...
Besides the limitations that my character sets upon me, I live in a russian community in Brooklyn, and majority of women I interact with are russian-Jewish. Russian women in NY are about twice as material as the general female population here. So it makes it even harder.
Things like: BMW (Infinity/Maxima/Audi), Cartier wristwatch, having your own crib (preferably in Manhatten), well-paying, highly competitive job (such as lawyer, doctor, your own business (couple of medical offices usually), loaded parents, etc are pre-requisites. I've got none of this s..t. I just got myself and my being trustworthy, loyal, and attentive person to offer. Nothing else so far. I'm still young, and I have lots to do in my life, but I feel inhibited by what I see all around me.
It's like: what's the point? She'll be saying she loves me when I have all that? I wanna hear it now! Cause when I have it, I won't be sure about her being sincere anymore. Now it's the perfect timing!
But all they care about is stability, man! All they care about is having a stable future. Not one of them is willing to risk few years to try out something sincere.
And I see no point. I subconsciously (how do I know? analyzing myself mostly) refuse to develop my qualifications. Because in the end, I will be used. And I hate to be used. Anyone does.
But also of course I feel the urge to grow up and reach my full potential...for my own good.
So I will be working on it. But in the meantime, I have noone to relate to, and that's pretty f...ing annoying!
God-fosaken city of loners.....NYC

I'm outs with best wishes to all of you readers, who took their time to hear me out. As desperate as I must sound, I give you props.


Thank you

Igor,
Your comment on assertiveness is interesting. I think perhaps the women who tell you that are mistaking "aggressiveness" for "assertiveness". there is a difference in the terms, and in my observations over the years, women appreciate aggressive men -- if one is merely assertive, it's a positive trait, but a man who is merely assertive is not necessarily as attractive to most women as one who is aggressive.

Your comments on women seeking stability -- interesting. I think perhaps they are confusing financial stability with emotional and personal stability?
"A stable future" and "financial stability" do not necessarily equate with each other. One only has to look as the numerous failed relationships of the rich and famous to see that stability is a lot more than economic.
I know plenty of women who dumped/were dumped by men who made a *lot* more money than I do. Those women learned the hard way that looks and money may be important, but they aren't everything, and they definitely do not guarantee a good relationship.
Then they go back to make the same mistake again, with a different version of the same type of man......

I met a girl at a party once who told me "you are the nicest, most genuine guy I've met in this town", this is while she's giving me a hug and kissing me on the cheek, so I know she doesn't find me ugly. Then she left with the same jerk she came in with. Go figure. She'd rather be with the younger jerk who treats her like a piece of meat, than the guy she says is the only "genuine, nice" guy she's met lately.

Whatever.

I have observed what you mention: women want a guy who makes a lot of money, has a lot of fancy junk about. The illusion of financial stability.
They may preach independence for women, but most women just want a replacement daddy, to buy them everything, take care of them like daddy did when they were three years old.....

Out here in the NW U.S. the thing women seek is looks and b*llsh*t first, and then money. If the guy is a bullsh*t artist with good looks, he'll score plenty of girlfriends. He can even cheat on them and make them feel like they are at fault. I've seen it happen. An acquaintance of mine is that way. He treats his women like total sh*t, but *always* has a girlfriend -- usually very nice girls, usually great looking also.

I have the looks to get away with it if I wanted to be a jerk enough to play the game (I know that, because enough women have hit on me over the years), but I don't like jerks, so why would I want to be one?

I think part of what our problem is, is perhaps we live in the wrong parts of the country. New York City is famous for being an impersonal, cold city -- ironically, so is the section of the NW U.S. where I live -- people are very reserved here. Perhaps if guys like us lived in Texas or the Midwest we'd lead more socially satisfying lives. Who knows.

But, perhaps if you keep playing the game, play it your way, you'll find someone.

To Joe Six Pack and Igor...

I have been reading your conversations and there is much in there that rings true.

I don't want to sound too pessimistic [ or even patronising ], but you're right in saying that it is the nature of things the world over, but some countries are perhaps less inclined to what I would call the decline of civilisation. Inevitably, of course, they will fall just like the rest of our western countries. You see, the age we are living in was known by the ancients of the East as the Kali Yuga, that is the age of Kalii, the [ female ] goddess of destruction sex and desire and it is the age that we live in that metaphysically imprints its characteristics on the people that live within it. You are right in saying what you do that men have become more passive - it's not that women have become stronger - they have been allowed to usurp the natural hierarchy of the sexes [ which are, in essence only reflections of universal principles ]. But at the end of every civilisation there always is a withdrawal of the male, with a predominance of the female - that's why when most historians look back they only see part of the icture. Oswald Spengler, a German philosopher wrote a book called, 'The Decline Of The West', which goes into this in some detail, as did Julius Evola in his 'Revolt Against The Modern World' and Rene Guenon in 'The Crisis Of The Modern World'. All these men could see what was happening, not necessarily on the sexual level, or even the cultural, but the spiritual - they saw it all happening almost organically - like any organism, it is born, it lives and it decay. But don't misunderstand me here - I am not some hippy with my crystals, but the causes of these social 'problems' are often found on a much deeper [ or higher ] [ or perhaps lower? ] level, if you see what I mean.

We can blame women for all these things, but the blame really lies with men as they allowed it to happen.

Those universal principles were often reflected in traditional art, literature and even religion, where the male is the active; sun; fire; intellectual and the female is the passive; moon; water; sensual and so it is no surprise that when we are living in such an age that the most negative characteristics of the sexes become more prominent. Men lose thier active generative nature and become passive beasts of burden led by the sensual desires, with no asopiration for anything of a higher nature - just as the negative woman would want him, under her feet, so she can be raised on a pedestal.

I would argue with one of your points that women have some sort of upper hand - actually this goes against almost every cultural belief - it is only a characteristic of our present time... which will not last any great length of time, as it seems to be involuting upon itself. Feminism, to use your example, is just another branch of those liberal positivist ideologies like marxism, which are basically destructive in their nature, but which have been ingrained into the minds of men over the past few hundred years to such a degree that nowadays they are taken as some sort of unquestionable truth. They all have the effect of de-stabilising society, which will eventually fall in on itself. But the point I would argue with was that men can not live without women - the traditional sex types were, for women, the mother and the lover - obviously neither of which could actualise without a man - and for a man, the warrior and the ascetic - the warrior, such like the knights of the middle ages, perhaps adored a female or at least a female archetype, such as the sapienta [ or knowledge, which was known as female ], but the ascetic was the only one capable of transcending all and this was only a man. So, I would say that whilst both need each other as positive needs negative in order to know itself, it is the active principle that holds the upper hand and always will - it only seems otherwise. The male was always related to the one, which is unity, whereas the female was the two, which requires something outside of itself in order to recognise itself, hence the aphorism, men look at women, but women look at men looking at women.

Anyway, I could go on, but I would be here all night.

Suffice to say, the reason I turned up at this website, was that I thought that the degeneracy and decadence of the west may not have spread so much to the east, but it seems that whilst it has taken several generations for the west to decline, it may only take a decade or two for the east to catch us up, as the frequency of scams seems to point out.

Now I'm even more confused.

Dmitri... I agree with your sentiments. I've been visiting the Ukraine for sometime now... I love your country and its people. Not only do they treat me like a brother and a member of their family... but they accord me respect too. I have a Ukrainian girlfriend who I love very much and one day hope to marry... she has become the focus of my life. I would even like to settle in the Ukraine, as life in the West has little value in terms of morality.

Good luck.

Hello, Dmitri
I would like to have you Email me Dirrect, as I have many questions for you. I sent you a responce before this, but it didn't seem to Post ? Maybe it doesn't post ? I know my computer had to rehookup a few times, as my Post was very long, and it may have not Posted, as I don't see it ? Maybe the letter goes to you instead ?
Well, I hope that you got my letter. I spelled your name as I would pronounce it, as Demeetry. SO please don't take offence. My Email ( usadave60@hotmail.com )Spasibo. Sincerely David

Hello Dave !
I want not your business, you not a man's man ! You show to much woman ! You not good for me or my friends.Leave me alone !