You see, ladies? THIS is why men think you're absolutely insane.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

GistoftheFist:

viranimus:
This is sort of why they used to have laws against entrapment, but hey, If its good enough of a justification for Chris Hansen to catch Pedos, I guess its good enough to catch cheaters, amirite?

What Chris Hansen does isn't entrapment. Busting pedos for trying to commit illegal actions isn't entrapment. Nobody forced them to speak to undercover police posing as tweens, or made them drive hundreds of miles with booze and birth control. Entrapment would be police telling you to do something then arresting you when you do it. And if you're dumb enough to get busted by Chris Hansen you deserve what you get.

Also, there's no law forcing you to remain faithful to a girlfriend. You can be a cheating sack of shit all day long, even though it's douchey it's not illegal.

Its the very definition of entrapment. Your right no one forces them to make contact but you do realize that the cops posing are extremely and aggressively seeking chronophiles, right? Its not like they are simply going to "teen sex" chat room and looking down a list. In the conversations leading up to the event they are incredibly accommodating in order to lead their targets to the outcome they want. In many of the cases it was the Cop who initiates and turns the topic of conversation to sex. This is why 23 of the cases from the show saw the charges dropped and was a major contributor to the show being cancelled. Its not a matter of being dumb enough, these people were led by the nose down a primrose path not for the purpose of catching criminals, but specifically for television ratings, and it usually IS the dumbest who get "caught" in entrapment scenarios like this.

It being illegal does not diminish its nature of entrapment. If you remove the illegal nature of it its not really entrapment any more because that is the nature of what entrapment is, trapping and tricking someone into committing an illegal activity.

And this instance is only different in the context you provided. There is no law making infidelity illegal. Honestly this girl got what she deserved in this respect. It was a matter of not trusting her boyfriend. EDITIf she had trusted him, she would not have been testing his loyalty. And given the fact she needed reassurance in the form of testing his loyalty there relationship was never built on trust. It was a situation that she got burnt by forcing her boyfriend into a scenario that would be hard to resist regardless of if you were a man or woman (Yes, remember women cheat just as much if not more often than men)

inconsequential edit: How the fuck did I end up being the first post on both pages 3 AND 4?

FernandoV:

RJ 17:

FernandoV:

...so you don't understand why a woman would be upset if the persons she hired to TEST her boyfriend instead actually went out with him?

Or, you know, she could have confronted her boyfriend with her suspicions of cheating rather than hiring a seductress to seduce him and then getting mad when they ended up being together.

Sure, but that's not the only reason you're calling her crazy; you are trying to say she's crazy because she got mad at how things ended up, and she has every right to be. Her method is crazy but she HIRED her to TEST her boyfriend, not see if they could be together.

Again: "Or, you know, she could have confronted her boyfriend with her suspicions of cheating."

Seems you can't see the forest through all those damn, pesky trees. She's not crazy for being upset that her boyfriend was cheating on her, she's crazy for intentionally putting him into a situation that encourages him cheating. Essentially she hired a hooker for her boyfriend and then got upset because he went out with said hooker. It's precisely her method that is the joke here, not the final outcome.

Relish in Chaos:

RJ 17:

Relish in Chaos:
No, that's nothing to do with why some men think some or most women are insane, and it works the other way round too.

This is just one crazy woman who you shouldn't take as the goddamn spokesperson for the entire population of women.

Good lord calm the hell down, this was a light-hearted topic poking fun at a person who acted in a ridiculous manner, no need to take it so seriously as though I'm ACTUALLY making an attack on the psychological state of all women everywhere.

Right, well, your title was somewhat misleading and inflammatory, and frankly, I'm fed up of the gender-political threads that keep popping up.

Then why did you pop in and read one?

RJ 17:
Again: "Or, you know, she could have confronted her boyfriend with her suspicions of cheating."

Seems you can't see the forest through all those damn, pesky trees. She's not crazy for being upset that her boyfriend was cheating on her, she's crazy for intentionally putting him into a situation that encourages him cheating. Essentially she hired a hooker for her boyfriend and then got upset because he went out with said hooker. It's precisely her method that is the joke here, not the final outcome.

I agree that the sensible course of action would have been to confront him about it. But I don't think you can mock her for being upset with the outcome, if he wasn't actually a douche and did love her, he'd have turned down the other girl, it's not like men are incapable of turning down temptation. That was the result she was hoping for.
Of course, if she got that result, she wouldn't have deserved him. :P

ghaleonausa:

Relish in Chaos:

RJ 17:
Good lord calm the hell down, this was a light-hearted topic poking fun at a person who acted in a ridiculous manner, no need to take it so seriously as though I'm ACTUALLY making an attack on the psychological state of all women everywhere.

Right, well, your title was somewhat misleading and inflammatory, and frankly, I'm fed up of the gender-political threads that keep popping up.

Then why did you pop in and read one?

Know your enemy. :) It's stressful to read people slagging off women (or men, or gay people, or >insert group of people whose crime is being born with certain traits here<), but at least if we read what they're saying we can understand why they're so mean about us and what we can say in return to make them be nicer.

lisadagz:

ghaleonausa:

Relish in Chaos:

Right, well, your title was somewhat misleading and inflammatory, and frankly, I'm fed up of the gender-political threads that keep popping up.

Then why did you pop in and read one?

Know your enemy. :) It's stressful to read people slagging off women (or men, or gay people, or >insert group of people whose crime is being born with certain traits here<), but at least if we read what they're saying we can understand why they're so mean about us and what we can say in return to make them be nicer.

I can't argue with that logic.

Qitz:
HAHAHAHAHA!

That's freaking hilarious. Maybe next time you'll think for more than 5 seconds before you pull that same shit. Impossible to feel sorry for someone who brings this sort of thing on themselves. Really, if you can't trust your Boyfriend, Girlfriend, whatever, then you need to choose better.

For anyone interested he went from this:

To this:

I'd say the bloke came out the winner there.

viranimus:

And this instance is only different in the context you provided. There is no law making infidelity illegal. Honestly this girl got what she deserved in this respect. It was a matter of not trusting her boyfriend. EDITIf she had trusted him, she would not have been testing his loyalty. And given the fact she needed reassurance in the form of testing his loyalty there relationship was never built on trust. It was a situation that she got burnt by forcing her boyfriend into a scenario that would be hard to resist regardless of if you were a man or woman (Yes, remember women cheat just as much if not more often than men)

inconsequential edit: How the fuck did I end up being the first post on both pages 3 AND 4?

Um, did you miss the fact he was already cheating? She suspected something after finding a message from another woman on his phone, so thats why she did it. So, she was kind of right not to trust him.

Doclector:

Phasmal:

Doclector:
The disturbing thing? As much as I know plenty of women who wouldn't play these kind of games, the kind of "Walk off ranting then say 'OMG, you should have followed me!" mindf*** games, I know just as many women who would, and do.

The wierd thing is, men don't do that, or at least, I've literally never heard of a man doing that. Every other crappy relationship based action, men can be guilty of just as much as women, and vise versa, but this one thing is something that seems almost exclusively female. Why is that, I wonder?

Then again, I'm sure males have a particular relationship douche move that females almost completely don't do.

To be fair the dude was already cheating.
And my ex used to play mind games like that all the flipping time. I would not think it was exclusive at all.

Intriguing. Of course, that leaves more questions, was such a thing isolated to your ex, or if a signifcant number of men do that, why not where I live?

Gah, understanding humans is the ultimate mindf***.

Here's a question, how many sexual relationships have you had with men?

If the answer quite low, how can you claim to know how men, in general, act in sexual relationships?

Maze1125:

Doclector:

Phasmal:

To be fair the dude was already cheating.
And my ex used to play mind games like that all the flipping time. I would not think it was exclusive at all.

Intriguing. Of course, that leaves more questions, was such a thing isolated to your ex, or if a signifcant number of men do that, why not where I live?

Gah, understanding humans is the ultimate mindf***.

Here's a question, how many sexual relationships have you had with men?

If the answer quite low, how can you claim to know how men, in general, act in sexual relationships?

The same way I try to understand normal, conventionally "sane" human beings despite not being one myself; By observing them. I don't mean of course, that I sit in the corner of the bedroom watching, but you'd be surprised how many public places people consider to be private, and how much you pick up when you're bored, trains being the best place for this kind of thing. The drawback, of course, is that you rarely see what happens truly in private, not just in the places that people sometimes believe to be private.

I'm a feminist and I'm a man.

You can't explain that.

Women have taken enough shit over the years, I think they deserve to be a little crazy every now and then :D

Sounds like a balls of steel gag.

DOUBLE FAIL!!!

Daystar Clarion:
I'm a feminist and I'm a man.

You can't explain that.

Women have taken enough shit over the years, I think they deserve to be a little crazy every now and then :D

Usually I agree with you but you know that mentality is just wrong.

Matthew94:

Daystar Clarion:
I'm a feminist and I'm a man.

You can't explain that.

Women have taken enough shit over the years, I think they deserve to be a little crazy every now and then :D

Usually I agree with you but you know that mentality is just wrong.

I know it is :D

What I mean is that crazy people do crazy things.

What happens to be inbetween their legs is irrelevant.

OP reeks of confirmation bias (even is it is a joke).

Qitz:
HAHAHAHAHA!

That's freaking hilarious. Maybe next time you'll think for more than 5 seconds before you pull that same shit. Impossible to feel sorry for someone who brings this sort of thing on themselves. Really, if you can't trust your Boyfriend, Girlfriend, whatever, then you need to choose better.

For anyone interested he went from this:

To this:

Hahaha! Just fantastic!

OT: well, she did find out :D

Phasmal:

Um, did you miss the fact he was already cheating? She suspected something after finding a message from another woman on his phone, so thats why she did it. So, she was kind of right not to trust him.

Didnt really miss it.

Their relationship was doomed the moment she booked me because once the trust goes in a relationship that's it.

Note, that all she had was a supposition. It really does not matter if he had been cheating or not, (which thats sort of up in the air because the only confirmation that he actually confessed to cheating before this was the testimony of a woman wounded claiming that her ex admitted to it. I dont think thats a very reliable source) The fact is she proactively breached any sort of trust based on that supposition without having anything resembling irrefutable evidence and decided to go mining for it.

I say this as a man who has been accused of cheating based on similar circumstantial evidence yet I have never once cheated in my life. Though this is far from my only instance, its the most relevant. I was accused of making a pocket phone call on my cell that suggested instead of being at work like I had claimed, I was watching a movie/tv somewhere. I was called every name in the book over this and even when I showed that I didnt even take my phone to work with me that day because I could not find it as it had been lodged in the couch it still was not an acceptable answer. I have seen the trumped up and unsubstantiated logic that can be used.

See the problem here is that by her own admission she had always had bad luck with guys, so you really cannot separate the point of her loosing trust from circumstantial evidence to being predisposed from being hurt in the past and simply assuming that everyone was going to hurt her.

lisadagz:

I could sort of follow her reasoning at first, I don't think that my boyfriend's going to look to go out and cheat on me but my self confidence is low enough that I can easily imagine him falling for someone better if they let him know he had a chance with them. It's not a trust issue, merely an "I am not worthy" issue.
But yeah, once someone says they should have privileges that their partner should not, that's stupid. Do unto others and all that. (It pissed me right off when my ex-boyfriend made me cut off my male friends - not all of them, just the single and attractive ones - even if I wanted to be selfish about the issue, I'd still be silly to give my boyfriend a reason to be similarly pissed off with me!)

Your argument makes a lot more sense but even if you feel you are not worthy, it still comes down to you not trusting your boyfriend to say no, I do see it as a bit more understandable when it has to deal with a personal self-confidence issue. I think it is pretty stupid that your boyfriend would cut you off from certain male friends, or that anyone in a relationship would make their significant other cut out relations with the opposite sex. After all it's not like you are going to be able to monitor them constantly, if they want to cheat on you, they'll find a way. Letting them keep their friends just proves your trust and the fact that you aren't insecure, besides that, if you think they are capable of cheating on you, why the hell would you want to be with them anyway?

Her ex doesnt sound all to great but it is her fault because she tested him like that. When you hire someone experienced in seducing men in relationships and then he falls for it then you cant compare it to normal cheating. You encouraged it and you made it a difficult test. By that point if you havent got that sort of trust after a year things are probably bad anyway. At the same time he does sound like scum for cheating blatantly like that. This isnt solely for women so the title for the thread is kinda stupid but this women sounds crazy. Plus its in the mirror so she must be pretty thick.

I wonder if Ms. Honeytrap still got payment... I can see the scene now, as she asks for payment after being confronted on the date...

I fucking lol'd.

But yeah, the message you should take from this is that men are just as much dicks as women. But we're dicks in different ways.

lol that sounds hilarious. why would you pay somebody to steal your bf and than be shocked that they do it? this person must have been an expert if they did it so easily, either that or the original gf was just a crazy loser lol.

it seems that the lack of trust this girl has led to her losing her bf. gotta trust the person your with, even if they aren't to be trusted, because in the case that they are, do you really want to ruin what could be the best thing in your life?

EDIT: after reading the whole article, it actually seems like a good thing she arranged this trap. it really did expose the guy for what he is. it's unfortunate how much bad luck this girl has but at least she didn't have to waste any more time with a guy like that.

viranimus:

GistoftheFist:

viranimus:
This is sort of why they used to have laws against entrapment, but hey, If its good enough of a justification for Chris Hansen to catch Pedos, I guess its good enough to catch cheaters, amirite?

What Chris Hansen does isn't entrapment. Busting pedos for trying to commit illegal actions isn't entrapment. Nobody forced them to speak to undercover police posing as tweens, or made them drive hundreds of miles with booze and birth control. Entrapment would be police telling you to do something then arresting you when you do it. And if you're dumb enough to get busted by Chris Hansen you deserve what you get.

Also, there's no law forcing you to remain faithful to a girlfriend. You can be a cheating sack of shit all day long, even though it's douchey it's not illegal.

Its the very definition of entrapment. Your right no one forces them to make contact but you do realize that the cops posing are extremely and aggressively seeking chronophiles, right? Its not like they are simply going to "teen sex" chat room and looking down a list. In the conversations leading up to the event they are incredibly accommodating in order to lead their targets to the outcome they want. In many of the cases it was the Cop who initiates and turns the topic of conversation to sex. This is why 23 of the cases from the show saw the charges dropped and was a major contributor to the show being cancelled. Its not a matter of being dumb enough, these people were led by the nose down a primrose path not for the purpose of catching criminals, but specifically for television ratings, and it usually IS the dumbest who get "caught" in entrapment scenarios like this.

It being illegal does not diminish its nature of entrapment. If you remove the illegal nature of it its not really entrapment any more because that is the nature of what entrapment is, trapping and tricking someone into committing an illegal activity.

And this instance is only different in the context you provided. There is no law making infidelity illegal. Honestly this girl got what she deserved in this respect. It was a matter of not trusting her boyfriend. EDITIf she had trusted him, she would not have been testing his loyalty. And given the fact she needed reassurance in the form of testing his loyalty there relationship was never built on trust. It was a situation that she got burnt by forcing her boyfriend into a scenario that would be hard to resist regardless of if you were a man or woman (Yes, remember women cheat just as much if not more often than men)

inconsequential edit: How the fuck did I end up being the first post on both pages 3 AND 4?

Yeah you can underline words all you want, it's still not entrapment. Do YOU realise that when the conversations turn to sex and the guy finds out she (the cop) is underage, he goes on and on about how he could get in "big trouble" or arrested if they did offline what they talk about online? And yes they are going to "teen sex" chatrooms, if they weren't they wouldn't be lured into your "entrapment" scenario would they? Grown men should know better than to sit on chatrooms having steamy sex roleplay with anyone who admits to being underage and if they don't then they deserve getting busted on camera for driving hundreds of miles to turn the fantasy into reality.

You aren't talking about jaywalking here. They know it's illegal, they usually say it when they chat, and that's why most of them hesitate at the door when the underage-looking cop tells them to come inside. It's not "tricking them into commiting illegal activity". It's people with the intent in mind getting confronted on camera. Most lie instantly when asked what they are doing in the house, and it isn't until Hansen shows them the chat log that they come clean. If the bumbling moron specifically mentions in his chat that what he's doing is illegal, then you can't say it's entrapment when he's arrested.

Phasmal:

DoPo:

Yes, because the reputable source of news called 4chan says so. I mean, it's not even anecdotal evidence followed by sweeping generalisation, if it comes from /b/.

You must be crazy to not believe that. And you are a woman therefore you are crazy. You can see how Man-logic proves its superiority yet again. Please, know I am joking. Take the bunny in the beginning of my post as an excuse if I disturbed you.

Of course, how could I question Man Logic.
Careful giving me a bunny, I just might boil it. ;)

Mr Pantomime:

Man, these forums make me feel like my dick puts me on the far side of a very large fence sometimes.

I misread that `dicks` and I was like... `plural?`.
Don't worry, there's a hole in the fence somewhere.
Come to the dark side.

Would crossing the fence make me a transvestite?

Because being a multidicked transvestite is either very Total Recall or very Silent Hill.

GistoftheFist:

Yeah you can underline words all you want, it's still not entrapment. Do YOU realise that when the conversations turn to sex and the guy finds out she (the cop) is underage, he goes on and on about how he could get in "big trouble" or arrested if they did offline what they talk about online? And yes they are going to "teen sex" chatrooms, if they weren't they wouldn't be lured into your "entrapment" scenario would they? Grown men should know better than to sit on chatrooms having steamy sex roleplay with anyone who admits to being underage and if they don't then they deserve getting busted on camera for driving hundreds of miles to turn the fantasy into reality.

You aren't talking about jaywalking here. They know it's illegal, they usually say it when they chat, and that's why most of them hesitate at the door when the underage-looking cop tells them to come inside. It's not "tricking them into commiting illegal activity". It's people with the intent in mind getting confronted on camera. Most lie instantly when asked what they are doing in the house, and it isn't until Hansen shows them the chat log that they come clean. If the bumbling moron specifically mentions in his chat that what he's doing is illegal, then you can't say it's entrapment when he's arrested.

Look man, that is uncalled for. It seems like your loosing objectivity and making your responses too personal and irrational. I underlined the one section not for emphasis edit: but to denote where the corresponding edit began and ended. Edit: Hell the underlined section didnt even have anything to do with arguments about creating pedophiles. It was clear to see that was meant as an edit

Now... If you want to continue talking about this, go make a thread about it instead of keeping this thread derailed onto a subject that the thread is not about. I wont be party to further discussions on the matter of how Chris Hansens tv show performed miscarriage of justice in this thread.

On Topic:
I wish there were something more I could add on the actual topic of this thread, but basically ive already said all I can about the situation. The woman had been hurt in the past, that means she was predisposed to being suspicious . Its entirely possible that it was that lack of trust that helped facilitate this whole scenario. So really, theres a good chance she created a self fulfilling prophecy for herself.

Because simply talking to someone is bullshit, let's pull a convoluted plan I would expect from saved by the bell.

Say, aren't there bible stories like this? You know, like God telling Abraham to kill his son and then saying "No, don't kill your son! It was a test of faith!" Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, this woman is a fair chunk of what's wrong with the world. She could be a larger chunk, if she also enjoys Justin Bieber, Jersey Shore, and/or Keeping up with the Kardashians.

This just sounds awful for all involved.

I see OP's point in this shit, You put someone in a situation where you want them to do something, they might just do it, You leave 3000 bucks in a cash register open in front of me, someone might just take it, you leave the back of a bank van open, someone is going to jump in, you put a female in front of a male and she is flirting with him, yea, you can connect the dots on this one.

We ad a tv show with the exact same concept a few years ago in Japan.
Yeah, it's insane.

Hah, her money wasted.

If you have doubts, wouldn't you just outright ask about it and stuff? Rather than waste money like that. Mind boggles.

I'm reminded of that Futurama where Bender disguises himself as his girlfriend's ex-husband and tries to seduce her to see what if she'd cheat on him with himself.

"That's thinking like a man!"

They're both in the wrong.

He shouldn't have cheated on her. He took advantage of her big time, and he's a sleeze.

She shouldn't have hired a detective to investigate him. People have a right to privacy.

Sexy Devil:

Phasmal:

So, you would rather believe random stories on the internet and say that I am insane.
Oh, don't worry about a ban, mods don't seem to care about this sort of stuff.

It's the internet, of course people have a reason to lie. And even if they WEREN'T this says nothing about women as a whole.

You are being sexist by believing all women are a certain way, and it's not justified at all.

`I think all women are insane but some are okay, but if you're not okay I fucking hate you`.

Yeah, well done. I am so tired. of. this. shit. And I guarantee it will just get a pass from everyone else.

Why is it okay on this forum for people to say they hate and mistrust women (I've seen both those things posted several times, not by you, but enough to piss me off), or think they are insane?

Not to mention in the second story the guy was 18 and the girl was 17, which is illegal in the States, so even if he did show the video it would have opened up a whole new can of worms. In short, fake.

Where did he mention he was from the states? he said "ausfags" would that be Australia? I don't speak meme.

1. Shes dumb for doing that, it goes directly against the "Don't fuck with a good thing" rule.

2. Kharmas a bitch ain't it?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked