Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

    The recent flare-up of all of this agency vs tour stuff has
probably scared away more nubies than has helped. Why the
positions have to be so polarized is beyond me. They are differnt
means to the same end, right? And the cost of meeting, dating,
visiting, importing and living with a foreign woman dwarfs the
first meeting cost, right? The tours offer a servce for a fee. So do
the agencies. There are, of course, cost differences and service
differences and different levels of participant experience,
language ability, time, and goals. For the first-time guy with
limited Spanish, a tour is a good way to get introduced to a city.
Is $1000.(or $750 for repeat customers) too much to pay?
Comes to about $200 per day (or $150) for what the tour
company provides -100s of live, 3 dimensional ladies (lovely and
not-so), dressed about as well as they can, ballroom, music,
food (of a sort), city tour, pool party with lunch, translators,
comeraderie of the other guys, top notch hotel (not included in
price), secure environment, photo mag with names, addresses
and emails of the 3-400 ladies. And through meeting the
orphans, i was able to open a new wing in my heart (and hole in
my wallet). I went to Cali with TLC (2000), I had a blast. Being my
1st time there, with my rusty Spanish in a new city, I appreciated
a bit of hand holding. I paid for it with no grumbling and had no
complaints. Got names and phone #s and fotos of a bunch of
ladies, along with little 5-15 minute (or more) intro
conversations. Are the tours perfect? Nope. For me, not matter
how nice the ladies looked, there were just too many to talk to.
Heck, IÕd have to leave the ballroom every 1/2 hour to rest my
voice and dancinÕ feet. Felt like a college chearleader in a biker
bar. Tours are not for shy guys. DidnÕt much like the
introduction line-up at first, though it turned out to be kinda
fun. I felt bad for the ladies who no one was talking to. I thought
it a bit strange in the lobby, where IÕd go to catch my breath,
with all of the various hangers-on from Cali agenciies trying to
get me to visit their place (like, right now), local Òtour guides/
translators/money changersÓ, and others who wanted my $ (all
of whom apparently didnÕt mind deriving their income from
TLCÕs advertising). Then there were the guys who told me every
year theyÕd schedule their vacations around tour events to
cherry-pick ladies in the lobby, the girls who werenÕt actually
invited to the socials, but came anyway, the semi-obvious
hookers. What a zoo. And what a good time. As it is, I met my
current girlfriend at a Barranquilla small-agency social (maybe
40 ladies). Coincidence? HellifIknow. Somebody was busting my
chops because IÕve attended 3(!) tours. Actually 4 including St.
Petersburg (got engaged as a result). 2nd tour was to Panama
City in 2002. Again, I had a great time, met nice ladies and
enjoyed it more than the Cali tour. Then went to Cali again in
Ô03. Probably wonÕt go the tour route again, as IÕve met enough
ladies on the tours (and their friends) to keep me busy for years.

    I really donÕt care if someone has a problem with an agency
or agency owner. If itÕs personal, then keep it that way. If you
feel youÕve been ripped off by them, then say so. And prove it.
IÕve noticed much of the fussing is by guys who havenÕt been
clients. Regarding TLC in particular, I am a satisfied client and I
recommend them. If other guys are happier and more
comfortable in an agency setting, prefer appointments, the
personal touch of an agency owner, lower key functions, I
understand and IÕm not going to berate them for their decision.
Or call them names. But all this dick-fencing isnÕt helping
anybody and proves nothing. And reflects very badly on the
fencers.

Who said it would be easy?

The MOB industry, that's who.  What will they do (Congress and the Feminists)  pass laws which make it harder for the average guy to bring home a foreigner bride.

They, the agencies make money with unscrupulous business practices and we pay the price in legislation.

When you have to pay more, are restricted in your ability to bring a bride home.  When it takes six months longer than it used did before.  You will be able to thank them.

In a way I suppose you could blame the agencies, because without them there would be far fewer marriages occurring, and therefore, far less attention being paid to it.

I agree 911 did slow everything down a bit.

But I respectfully disagree that they are not at fault for not screening the girls better.

for not protecting the client.

When the Embassy see them sending 60-70 year old men to the green chard sharks.

They are much tougher with the average guys.

Thus they are aiding and abetting fraud.

Why?  Follow the money.

The changes I'm aware of are those requiring that the women be informed up front of their ability to get out of an abusive relationship without risking deportation, the penalties for immigration fraud, and the fact that the agency industry is unregulated.  The other involves providing any woman who asks for it, a background check of the man interested in her.

The "client" being protected by these changes is the woman, not the man.  I believe adding more protections for the women is a good thing.  However, the way it's proposed to be implemented is to place the burden on the agency with heavy fines for non-compliance.  You see, they're attacking the agencies just as you are.

The problem is that the US government can not impose any penalty on a foreign agency owner and they can not enforce these regulations on them.  They will simply drive more ownership of agencies to the foreigners.  The women will not be informed of their immigrations rights, nor will background checks be available.

What should be done is to add the warnings to the documentation delivered in the immigration forms.  They could also force the petitioner (i.e. the man) to pay for a background check that is sent to the woman as the first step in the immigration process.

Having been around this for the last ten years, I've come to the conclusion that there are indeed sleaze-bags.  The percentages are probably higher on the client side than on the agency owner side.  People tend to blow trivial things into major lapses in ethics when it comes to agency owners.  Guys who abuse their wives and treat them like objects are "victims."  I don't buy it.

"Having been around this for the last ten years, I've come to the conclusion that there are indeed sleaze-bags. The percentages are probably higher on the client side than on the agency owner side. People tend to blow trivial things into major lapses in ethics when it comes to agency owners. Guys who abuse their wives and treat them like objects are "victims." I don't buy it."

Either do I, excellent post Patrick.