Mail order brides...
 

Some blokes in wealthier countries use a service to meet several women in poorer countries. If he finds one that pleases him, and she reciprocates, they may get married. Happy ending.

Then they usually live in his country. Sometimes the marriages work out. Sometimes they don't...

Often the women in these relationships are accused of being gold-diggers, who will stay married just long enough to secure permanent visa status here in the US, for example. Often the men in these relationships are emotionally insecure. Sometimes they are abusive to their new wives. In Australia there have been two high-profile murders of mail order brides in the last 3 years.

And even in cases where they are not malevolent, each of the parties involved may have unreasonable expectations for the relationship.

Legislators have proposed requiring background checks to all men who participate in the service to provide fair warning to perspective brides, or shutting down the industry altogether.

In many of these cultures, marriage is much more important than it is to us over here. Included with that is an inherent desirability of the people that want to leave of American men. They and their children will get a better, more stable lives. Is the want any different for any woman seeking a husband, conversely, any different for men seeking women with the same qualifications?

What do you think?

I don't think they need to legislate something like this. If a guy wants to ship his dates in from other countries, and is willing to marry them, then it's his perogative. I am sure governments have something more important to worry about...at least I would hope they do.

They're proposing to legislate to prevent things like this:

It is not good policy to legislate just because of two incidents. Laws do not solve everything.

What's the difference in this and some moron being abusive to his wife thats originally from his country. Maybe they should just background check every man before letting them get married. This is dumb and shouldn't even be considered. Thats just my opinion.

i think the laws about should be somthing like the laws about being a surregate(sp?) mother. Mainly becuase the laws about that are very strange and confusing and no one really understands how they work...

Hi Meridae'n,

That's an interesting point. IMHO the basic drive is procreation. The male is biased toward a female who can bear and raise young (HIS young). Thus the male finds youth, fitness, slim waist (no other children), firm buttocks and legs, and large firm breasts (food) attractive. In effect someone who'll pop out loads of little copies of himself(!!). The female is attracted (read finds desirable) a male who's patently able to provide well for her children, and that's where it starts to get complicated.

In some ways, the female preferences kind of mirror the males. Height, youth, fitness, physical bulk (muscle) satisfies the attraction in terms of a "hunter gatherer", but in modern times such a male is not neccessarily the "pack leader". today wealth, and power in themselves make a male desirable sexually because of the perceived ability to provide for the female's young. (Doesn't this explain the ability of old ugly politicians to bed young nubile women).

Now apply this to any "third world" country's females. Any "first world" male who can afford to travel to such a country, while he may be only averagely well off in his own country will appear rich in terms of the host country. firstly he is a tourist and even if he's survived on dry bread for 3 years to save up for his vacation, now he's there he thinks nothing of spending a months local earnings on a single nights hotel bill, He'll be both profligate and conspicuous in his spending. The local hotel and service industry staff serve him (he's spending money, relatively lots of money of course) and thus the impression is wealth AND power (pack leader).

There you go, sexual attraction without having to be sexually attractive. In my travels over the years I have noticed what seems to be an ubiquitous rumour among "third world females (even females from a relatively third world country) to the effect that "first world" men are better endowed. In effect that "White / Occidentals have bigger cocks, better lovers, know "how to treat a lady". It's not true, but it's handy to justify the attraction towards apparently wealthier, more powerful males.

The "Mail Order Bride" companies trade on this by offering introductions between "third world" females (who pay a fee) and "first world" males of sufficient affluence (to travel to the third world country several times AND pay the agency's fee). Often the agency's only screening method is to establish that the male can pay the $x,000 for the introduction fees, hotel fees and the 3 or 4 airline tickets he'll use on his visits. This is usually only offered as a package, so the male would pay, say $30,000 all inclusive, the girl, say $100 - $500. Both want this thing to work, after all, they've paid a lot for this.

So now we have a collection of (frankly slightly desperate) "first world" males and "third world" females thrown together for a brief period, each with their own agenda. The girl's been promised a selection of affluent foreigners looking for love ('cos the women in his own country don't appreciate their men), and the man's been promised a selection of nubile native girls "gaggin' for it". At least the "nubile" part's usually true.

As such, the girl's offered not just the man, but the whole "better life" deal which is what makes the middle-aged "first world" telephone linesman (e.g.) so primae facie attractive.

Only when they marry and the girl moves off to her "better life" does reality set in. The man isn't as affluent or powerful in his own country as he seemed in hers, so his sexual attractiveness reduces (let's face it - he's probably gone for this deal 'cos he can't get or keep a woman in his own country). The girl's gone moody, homesick, doesn't "put out" as promised, and all his mates are laughing behind his back at his "having to go away to buy a woman".

It takes a genuine understanding, committment and a desire to make this work to overcome all the problems associated with a cross cultural marriage, particularly one based on short term romance.

Of course the vast majority of these "mail order" marriages don't work. I suspect that none of them actually work as envisaged by both parties and whether an individual "mail order" marriage works depends on how "flexible" the bride and groom are with regard to their expectations. The reason for this is the "introduction agencies (remember - the ones making a $hitload of money out of this) who're promising the parties "The Sun, The Moon, and The Stars", but only delivering a ball of mud.

Of course you'l never adequately regulate these agencies, or stamp them out. Perhaps the only way to screen these marriages out would be to refuse to recognise a marriage where both parties have not provided proof of "close geographical habitation" for a continuous period of at least 6 months in the past 2 years. By close geographical habitation I mean the same country or within 200kM of each other. At least in that way there's some indication that the couple have actually had opportunity to get to know each other.

Mike.

Meeting online,searching a soulmate from another country,or indeed seeking your partner through means other than "whatever is normal these days" is up to the individual.
The subject matter is very relevant to Australia due to the "supposed" high rate at which our Country involves itself with "Mail order brides".
Finding a partner through these avenues is percieved as "not normal".

Thats the quandary.

Personally,I am of the view that it is a non-issue.

The more we judge,the more we stereotype.

I am rich.
Come here for better life.
I have none.

I am dumb.
Will milk you plenty.
I am smart.

On my way.


There is no answer.