Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry



Decoy women, like Sandra Hope of Arizona-based Mate Check PI,
are paid to tempt boyfriends and husbands fidelity.

Kids, give me your honest to goodness thoughts on:

Temptress Hired To Hit On Men To Test Loyalty



( 43 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Oct. 2nd, 2006 11:12 pm (UTC)
I personally think the whole hiring someone to try and sway your partner to cheat is BS. Women who read that article say "all men are dogs," but if a man hires another man to test his wife's fidelity, she would break. There is a breaking point that everyone has. Let's say you are a man, middle aged, overweight and have been with your wife for 15 years. Now, you hire some young guy with a rock hard body and chiseled abs to approach her in a bar, and she is middle aged, and overweight, she would jump on that in a heartbeat. This is such a double standard.

Even when I was single, if a really attractive woman approached me, I always backed off. My first thought has always been "Why in the world is she even talking to me, there has to be some gimmick or scam she is trying to run." Everyone likes to think they can pull in a really attractive man or woman, but unlike the rest of the world, I live in a little place called reality. Grandpa always told me "if it is too good to be true, then it is not true," and this rings with revelation in all aspects of life.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:13 pm (UTC)
You get an A+ on this one.
Oct. 2nd, 2006 11:23 pm (UTC)
Some people will argue that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
But that arguement can be used to support a lot of things that shouldn't be done. Can we say Patriot Act?
Racial profiling? etc.

It is just a bad idea.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:23 pm (UTC)
vice versa
I can't understand why any woman would be with a man she feels she can't trust, and vice versa.

They must live in constant torment.

(Deleted comment)
Oct. 3rd, 2006 05:07 pm (UTC)
If I were in a relationship, which I'm not, nor will I ever be, I'd get rid of the bastard, faster than you could count to ONE!

How DARE anybody do this type of sneaky low down thing to another person?!
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:08 am (UTC)
Clearly men are the only ones cheating...
when a woman does it, it isn't cheating... *rolls eyes*

So let me get this straight - not that this is new to me btw - :

Hire a professional with an appropriate background (likely an academic base in psych or sociology combined with experience in seduction) in swaying and tempting people to tempt someone? The logic behind such a service relies on circular reasoning pretending to be causal. If a man tried this on a woman, he would be verbally and socialy lynched for daring to question the loyalty or integrity of whoever he's with. After which, it would be excused because of her 'needs' and 'drives' that 'us men simply cannot understand' regardless of whether or not anything was determined through such means that in my mind are universally unethical in nature. Following that, assuming marriage, there would likely be a divorce where in order to compensate the horribly traumatized woman, she would walk away with everything.

Now let's flip this around and apply it to male targets as initially stated. Well... 'we' are expected to cheat because apparently we have no honour nor dignity so it's ok to pay a professional to test a man because - and this is where the logic breaks down - he cannot be trusted and is likely cheating so his loyalty is being tested 'just to be sure'.

If I'm involved with someone who for whatever reason (emotions, especially jealousy and fear are ridiculously irrational) is feeling a sufficient level of uncertainty to pay someone to break the trust and respect in a relationship to determine whether or not that just is there instead of talking to them as their partner in life... enjoy the door. Buh bye. Absolutely no question or hesitation in my mind whatsoever.

Is this to say that men don't cheat? Absolutely not. Both men and women cheat generally for the same basic reasons when applying Mazlow's (sp) heirarchy. It's due, most obviously, to some form of deficiency in the relationship. But in terms of ethics, the questioning partner must initiate a lie to their partner by omission/feigned ignorance to determine the integrity of the person.

And that type of relationship is not something I attach value to.

I'm ranting because this type of thing makes me livid so if my words and thoughts seem scattered, it's because in some ways they are.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:41 am (UTC)
You get two comments from me. First...

If a woman wants to do that, it's her prerogative. Her choice.


However, if she does, it should be noted that it feels to me like a litmus test similar to the Salem Witch Trials...if you drown, you're innocent, and if you're guilty, you go free and become a wench.

In the case of testing fidelity, if the man is guilty, he has fun with the woman, or tries to, at least. If he's innocent, he likely feels betrayed by the woman. I don't much care for either outcome. Each one can undermine a relationship at any stage. I'd sooner risk trusting her and her trusting me. In my opinion there's no real way to reduce the risk in a bond of trust. You have to strive to find someone you can trust and not give yourself over willingly to a person who will use you. You also have to show yourself to be trustworthy. There's no real way to get around it.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:42 am (UTC)
er wench=witch. :)
(no subject) - oninofro - Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:49 am (UTC) - Expand
her/his choice - playgirl - Oct. 3rd, 2006 06:34 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:44 am (UTC)
If you don't have trust then you have nothing to save in the first place
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:51 pm (UTC)
How sad that a spouse would stoop so low as to hire such a disgusting agency.
(Deleted comment)
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:58 am (UTC)
See my responses above; they apply universally.

I don't believe in excusing behaviour due to gender. Gender and gender roles can effect the cause. It can provide a rationale but I do not allow gender to dismiss behaviour; it's folly.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - oninofro - Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:02 am (UTC) - Expand
should be outlawed - playgirl - Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 3rd, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
This is entrapment. The cops can't put out a decoy for prostitution who actually solicits. All she can do is strut her stuff and play along. If the guy makes the move, then he's at fault. If she makes a move on him first, then it's her fault.

Now, more than likely the guy who hits on a prostitute would probably do so regardless of whether or not she solicited him, but it's possible (though unlikely) that he would not have initiated. Same goes for this.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - sputnik - Oct. 3rd, 2006 10:22 am (UTC) - Expand
unsuspecting guy - playgirl - Oct. 3rd, 2006 04:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 3rd, 2006 01:10 am (UTC)
I'd say that it would damage the trust in the relationship, but in such a circumstance, the trust was already damaged. Personally, I'm happy to ogle women, and my wife has no objections to that; her rule is "look, but don't touch." One of the benefits of not believing myself to be physically attractive is that, as an earlier respondent suggested, I'd assume that it was some sort of scam if a woman came on to me.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:26 pm (UTC)
My mom and dad had a relationship somewhat to yours.

Dad had an eye for the pretty women, and mom knew it, but she didn't mind because she knew he loved her and was faithful to her.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 01:57 am (UTC)
Es muy cierto lo que dicen los demas, si tientas a cualquiera, tarde o temprano caera, hombre o mujer no importa que tan fiel seas...pero esta muy bueno eso que te prohibieran regresar a tu bar favorito...
Oct. 3rd, 2006 06:47 pm (UTC)
libre y tranquila
Que feo ha de ser, vivir con una persona tan desconfiada, que llega a tales extremos de pagar dinero para que alguin vijile a la persona.

Vivir con una persona con tanto celo y orgullo, creo que fuera tremendamente dificil vivir una vida libre y tranquila.
Re: libre y tranquila - ormembar - Oct. 5th, 2006 01:22 am (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:09 am (UTC)
That wouldn't work on me. #1 I am loyal when I am with someone #2 Women that are really forward usually indicates there is something seriously wrong (like they might mug you!)
Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:15 pm (UTC)
In my city, there are undercover policewomen who will approach men at night, pretending to be prostitutes. When the man falls for the bait, he is arrested, and the next morning, his name is in the newspaper.

I believe this is totally wrong, because it affects the entire family. The children of this man will have to endure the cruelty of other children. And I'm sure this could lead toward a divorce, or possibly the wife eventually murdering the husband.

I only see great harm in such tactics by the police.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:10 am (UTC)
I have always always ALWAYS said "NEVER ask a question you don't want the answer to!".
Oct. 3rd, 2006 02:36 pm (UTC)
Isn't it crazy that they spend all that money to hire one, and then after they're told he's a cheater, they still stay with them?

Your little quote makes a great deal sense!
Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:27 am (UTC)
Anyone in a relationship that needs to hire someone else as tempting bait to know the other person's motives, thoughts and weaknesses needs to just get the hell out of the relationship by the time they ponder this thought.

You really either know each other, and accept them for who they are, or you keep on looking for Mr. or Mrs. right until you have no concern about what they do with strangers out of your paranoid boundaries. I learned a long time ago that the person most worried about cheating is far worse than the potential cheater. There is no trust or sanity in checking up on this stuff. Communication and knowing what you want wins every time.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 03:01 pm (UTC)
I believe that these people will never find Mr. or Ms. Right, because they already have this sickness inside that makes them suspicious of anybody they're in a relationship with, whether that person is faithful or not.

A person who can never trust, is a miserable person, and makes the other miserable, too.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 05:39 am (UTC)
Yea Im agreeing with everyone else here.

Women are just as bad, if not, worse than men.

Im currently messing around with another girl that has a boyfriend.

Women really dont give a damn if theyre taken or not. Ive fooled around with way too many 'taken' women.
Oct. 3rd, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
two timing assholes
Not all men and woman are two timing assholes, Sweety Pie. The majority are faithful.

Keep away from the type of girls you're dating. You're playing with fire!
Oct. 3rd, 2006 08:05 am (UTC)
And my response is: OINK!
Oct. 3rd, 2006 04:35 pm (UTC)
Mr. Crispy
You're not going to get away from me so easily!

You are filled with wisdom, and I want to know your thoughts on this, Mr. Crispy!!
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 43 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com