Friend going too far

Barracudaincork · 24-02-2010 03:25PM

Peggypeg wrote: »

Hey,

Yeah true, for all I know the wife's celibate and has no problem with her husband sleeping around, usually though marriages tend to be monogamous so I think it would be fairly safe to assume that he intended to cheat, I do admit there could be some other circumstances that would excuse it but I'd say he would have mentioned them to the OP..

Or the wife could be shagging the whole neighbourhood and this is the first time he has strayed and maybe he was to ashamed etc to mention it to the OP. We could all guess and muse over what goes on behind closed doors (and that can be fun!) but in realtity we have no idea whatsoever.

Peggypeg wrote: »

In answer to your second question, I would laugh just as hard at a female cheater getting caught and getting her cumuppance. And yes I do believe that men and women should be treated equally.

So i women is held hostage by two men and you find this funny? Do you really think you could do this? I mean cheating is awful etc etc but this kind of revenge is just sick and twisted.

stephen_n · 24-02-2010 03:42PM

The words, seek professional help come to mind for your friend. She obviously has serious anger and control issues. If she doesn't get herself counseling then she will have a very lonely life ahead of her as if that's the attitude she brings into the relationship, when and if she manages to me a decent guy then as sure as **** she will destroy it fairly quickly. There is no defence for this guys cheating but then again there is no defence for her actions eitherand I would suggest to anyone who would support them that counseling might be an option.

As for you and what you should do, if she won't accept your choice not to be involved then your not really loosing out on much of a friendship are you?

ztoical · 24-02-2010 03:43PM

Peggypeg wrote: »

I would laugh just as hard at a female cheater getting caught and getting her cumuppance. And yes I do believe that men and women should be treated equally.

There is a big difference between someone whose cheating getting their "cumuppance" as you say and what happened here.

Example couple of weeks ago in my friends office a woman walked in and yelled across the room that she had been sleeping with the married manger whose wife also worked there, turned around and left while manger and wife were yelling at each other. That to me is someone getting their cumuppance.

What [supposedly] happened here is abuse regardless of the sex of victim or the attacker. If it was a woman held against her will by two men there would be up roar but we view it as funny when it happens to a man cus men should be able to over power women cus they are stronger etc etc. Physical, verbal, mental abuse are all treated the same in the eyes of the law but chances are slim the guy will say anything cus he would just be laughed at, same with men in abusive relationships...we have plenty of pity for battered wives but little time for men in the situation.

jenny jinks · 24-02-2010 03:44PM

ztoical wrote: »

Under the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997 forcing someone to write out a hundred lines aginist their will or under treat [ie I'll tell your wife] is assault. Physical abuse and verbal abuse are viewed as one and the same so even if she didn't physically touch him if she abused him with words it falls under the 97 act.

Under what Sections? I thought force had to be applied directly or indirectly or threatened to constitute an assault.

meditraitor · 24-02-2010 03:44PM

Mad Mini wrote: »

I have a friend who is in her early 30's. We often go out together hoping to find Mr. Right. She was going out with a guy for six weeks. It turned out that he was married and living with his wife and children. This was about 5 years ago. She now hates meeting married guys on the prowl. She often hangs around with them all night and disappears at the end after getting them to buy loads of drink. Recently she brought a guy home thinking he was ok. Three days later, after no contact she saw him with children. She hung around and saw him bring them to a car. They all sat in the car. After a few minutes a woman came out of a nearby hairdressers and came towards them. She took out her phone and photagraphed the woman. She waited until they drove off and went back to the hairdressers. She said that she had found a silver ring( showing them her own ring) in the car park and she thought a woman who had come out of their shop had dropped it. She described the woman she had photographed. They gave her the name and phone number of the woman. A few days later the guy contacted her asking for a date. She agreed to a date.
When he called around to collect her I was in the apartment with her. She let him in and sat him down. Then she told him she knew he was married. She showed him the photograph and told him his wife's name. He was shocked. She then told him that unless he did exactly as she told him she would tell his wife. She then spent a few hours humiliating him. She got me involved in it as well. It was hilarious and we had a good giggle afterwards.The thing is she now wants to contact him and force him to come around so she can do the same thing again. She also wants to get more of our friends involved. I think she is going too far. He might turn violent. She says that he deserves it, he is only a rat. I don't know what to do. I do not want to break up a friendship over an unfaithful husband, but I think she should move on.

Your friend is in need of pyscological help and a danger to herself,

And the fact you were enjoying this type of behaviour initially shows a distint lack of moral/ethical compass. My advise to you is to drop this friend quickly and spend some time considering why enjoying the phycological torture of another human is not right. If you cant see what is wrong with this then you and your friend will have a long (very long)life together.

Peggypeg · 24-02-2010 03:59PM

Barracudaincork wrote: »

So i women is held hostage by two men and you find this funny? Do you really think you could do this? I mean cheating is awful etc etc but this kind of revenge is just sick and twisted.

Well now I don't remember the OP saying they held him hostage, I thought they threatened to tell his wife and then humiliated him. I wouldn't really call that taking someone hostage. Also I never said I would actually do it, I said would love to have seen his face and that if I did it I would have had his wife there when he called over. Not really sure how helpful this is to the OP but sure there's your answer.

ztoical wrote: »

What [supposedly] happened here is abuse regardless of the sex of victim or the attacker. If it was a woman held against her will by two men there would be up roar but we view it as funny when it happens to a man cus men should be able to over power women cus they are stronger etc etc. Physical, verbal, mental abuse are all treated the same in the eyes of the law but chances are slim the guy will say anything cus he would just be laughed at, same with men in abusive relationships...we have plenty of pity for battered wives but little time for men in the situation.

In fairness he wasn't "held against his will", he was told if he didn't do as he was told they'd tell his wife, he could have said do that and walked out.

I agree though that it's a dangerous game to play and that's why I told the OP not to continue on with it.

Also the example of the girl walking in, telling the wife in front of everyone is way more a satisfying example of cumuppance than what's happened here. And personally I think it's a bit ****ty that they didn't tell the guy's wife, she's the one he's cheating on after all and she should know about it.

ztoical · 24-02-2010 04:00PM

jenny jinks wrote: »

Under what Sections? I thought force had to be applied directly or indirectly or threatened to constitute an assault.

"harm" is defined in the act as harm to body or mind which includes verbal attacks. As the OP has only said "humiliated" and not given any other details we can only assume what took place. If she did verbal yell or scream at him under section 2.2a force here would count as noise. Also under section 20 it says a person shall be treated as using force in relation to another person if he or she detains that person without actually using it. The woman in question may have stopped the man from leaving under threat [ie telling his wife] regardless of wither she physically touched him if can be viewed as force.

Also the woman could be charged under section 9 Coercion and 10 Harassment for following him and his family and under section 15 False imprisonment again depending on the details of what actually happened.

I'm not saying she can/would/should be charged but it's the people saying what she did wasn't illegal, well depending on the actual details it very well could be.

ztoical · 24-02-2010 04:06PM

Peggypeg wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't "held against his will", he was told if he didn't do as he was told they'd tell his wife, he could have said do that and walked out.

Again if the role was reversed and it was a woman you could say she was too intimated to just walk out but when it's a man you think he's bigger then them so should be able to just walk away but we don't know details, just there were two people bullying a third.

Peggypeg wrote: »

Also the example of the girl walking in, telling the wife in front of everyone is way more a satisfying example of cumuppance than what's happened here. And personally I think it's a bit ****ty that they didn't tell the guy's wife, she's the one he's cheating on after all and she should know about it.

Again you don't know any details on this guy to say he was or wasn't cheating on his wife. The OP has left the details very vague and just says they "Humiliated" him...that can cover alot of things and at very least it's bullying which frankly I find more repulsive then some guy cheating on his wife. Bullies are the lowest of the low.

Peggypeg · 24-02-2010 04:19PM

ztoical wrote: »

Again if the role was reversed and it was a woman you could say she was too intimated to just walk out but when it's a man you think he's bigger then them so should be able to just walk away but we don't know details, just there were two people bullying a third.

Again you don't know any details on this guy to say he was or wasn't cheating on his wife. The OP has left the details very vague and just says they "Humiliated" him...that can cover alot of things and at very least it's bullying which frankly I find more repulsive then some guy cheating on his wife. Bullies are the lowest of the low.

I agree the OP didn't give much us many details. My answers are based on the info she did provide. I don't think reworking the details and saying what if? is very helpful or even relevant to the OP or her situation. With regards to the bullying comment, well personally I don't think it was bullying, I think it'll hopefully teach that guy a lesson about cheating (or attempting to) on his wife and hopefully it scared him straight.

force majeure · 24-02-2010 04:29PM

I just read most off the Thread and its comments and draw this conclusion
1 I have lived a very sheltered life.[veey veery sheltered]
2 I need to get out more... :rolleyes:

ztoical · 24-02-2010 04:32PM

Peggypeg wrote: »

With regards to the bullying comment, well personally I don't think it was bullying, I think it'll hopefully teach that guy a lesson about cheating (or attempting to) on his wife and hopefully it scared him straight.

I think maybe you have issue with cheating men and that is colouring your view.

How was it not bullying? Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person - based just on the OP and nothing else it was bullying.

Peggypeg · 24-02-2010 04:41PM

ztoical wrote: »

I think maybe you have issue with cheating men and that is colouring your view.

How was it not bullying? Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person - based just on the OP and nothing else it was bullying.

Hey,
I'm going to assume the "I think maybe you have issue with cheating men and that is colouring your view" comment means you think I've been cheated on or have cheated myself. Just to set the record straight my current bf and my previous bf (adding up to 8 years of relationships) never cheated on me and I never cheated on them, nor did my father cheat or anything else along those lines. The only issue I have with "cheating men" (I think the same of cheating women btw) is that they are cheaters and cheating (in my opinion) is a very disgusting thing to do when you're with someone, I've seen the damage it does to the person that's cheated on and how it tears their trust, confidence and self esteem to ribbons, that's honestly my opinion on it. You can think what you want about my motives but the fact you're second guessing them and drawing them into question just makes me think you don't have a solid argument and are clutching at straws.

Was it not bullying?
Well yeah maybe it was bullying but I think he deserved it (again that's taking the OP at face value and assuming there isn't some other details that we are unaware of).

If you want to debate this further you can pm me if you want. I think we're just talking in circles and kinda hyjacking the thread to be honest.

Jo King · 24-02-2010 04:53PM

ztoical wrote: »

"harm" is defined in the act as harm to body or mind which includes verbal attacks. As the OP has only said "humiliated" and not given any other details we can only assume what took place. If she did verbal yell or scream at him under section 2.2a force here would count as noise. Also under section 20 it says a person shall be treated as using force in relation to another person if he or she detains that person without actually using it. The woman in question may have stopped the man from leaving under threat [ie telling his wife] regardless of wither she physically touched him if can be viewed as force.

Also the woman could be charged under section 9 Coercion and 10 Harassment for following him and his family and under section 15 False imprisonment again depending on the details of what actually happened.

I'm not saying she can/would/should be charged but it's the people saying what she did wasn't illegal, well depending on the actual details it very well could be.

Writing out lines would not cause harm. Noise does not cause an impact on the body of a person. It seems to me the guy was free to go at any time. He chose to do what they said. Harassment is not made out by seeing the family once. Coercion requires a threat of violence. No suggestion of any.
Until the o/p gives more details of what happened no on can say anything was illegal.

ztoical · 24-02-2010 05:07PM

Jo King wrote: »

Noise does not cause an impact on the body of a person.

Regardless wither you think it impacts the body or not noise/sound and light are all listed as 'force' under the 97 act. Force does not need to impact on a body for it to be assault - the act covers both body and mind. Plenty of people use light and sound for torture.

Peggypeg we will just have to agree to disagree you think cheaters are disgusting I feel just as strongly about bullies.

stephen_n · 24-02-2010 05:13PM

Jo King wrote: »

Writing out lines would not cause harm. Noise does not cause an impact on the body of a person. It seems to me the guy was free to go at any time. He chose to do what they said. Harassment is not made out by seeing the family once. Coercion requires a threat of violence. No suggestion of any.
Until the o/p gives more details of what happened no on can say anything was illegal.

Oh so violence is the only form of coercion, nice neat little packaging there. Funny that means that in most cases only men are capeable of coercion. Coercion requires the threat of harm either mental, physical financial or emotional and she defenitely used coercion, no different than if a man threatened to hit a woman to get her to do something, after all it's only a threat she could get up and leave anytime she wants by your logic!

Nevyn · 24-02-2010 05:24PM

force majeure if you can not post in a helpful manner to the op and on topic then don't post at all in this forum.

Please do not make personal coments about other posters it will drag the thread off topic and is not helpful to the op.

Nevyn · 24-02-2010 05:26PM

A person can be held hostage in a manner which is not physical but is threatening all the same. What that 'friend' is doing is blackmail which is illegal and immoral, she has no right to abuse this man as an act of revenge or policing his morals.

The Corinthian · 24-02-2010 05:27PM

Peggypeg wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't "held against his will", he was told if he didn't do as he was told they'd tell his wife, he could have said do that and walked out.

You don't have to be held at gunpoint to be forced against your will.

Reading this rather disturbing thread, I'd have to say the OP's friend has started down the slippery slope to rubber-room-land. That she did this to this idiot once is one thing, and frankly I think most of us would applaud her for this.

However, to begin with we are not told what "humiliating him" means. This could be 'harmless' fun, or it could be getting him to carry out something extreme like a demonstration of coprophilia. If "humiliating him" is even vaguely sexual, then they are both guilty of sexual assault.

Lets gloss over what this humiliation was though, for a moment. What is really worrying is that she now wants to not only repeat this exercise but escalate it, with more people involved. At this point she is certainly entering the realm of blackmail, which is a criminal offence.

So legally we are looking at blackmail and sexual assault, both of which would carry hefty custodial sentences. Psychologically we get to rubber-room-land: There's the rush of doing this for her. She even gets to act out revenge on all the married men in her past. She has control. She can push it as far as she wants because of this.

You see where this is going - not a good place.

So both legally and psychologically, down this road lies a serious disaster. If he gets violent, they'll actually be lucky because it may end it before it goes further and may stop him from pressing charges. I would be worried that she goes too far and the whole thing blows up into a legal nightmare that the OP will inevitably be pulled into. For bonus points, she'll lose it upstairs.

Seriously, it's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Jo King · 24-02-2010 08:46PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Oh so violence is the only form of coercion, nice neat little packaging there. Funny that means that in most cases only men are capeable of coercion. Coercion requires the threat of harm either mental, physical financial or emotional and she defenitely used coercion, no different than if a man threatened to hit a woman to get her to do something, after all it's only a threat she could get up and leave anytime she wants by your logic!

So a woman can't threaten a man with a knife, gun or other weapon? The offence of coercion as defined requires some threat of violence. It is arguable whether telling someone the truth about their husband is a source of mental, physical , financial or emotional harm to the husband. She is entitled to tell the wife. If the guy agrees to do something to forestall that he can hardly complain about it.

ztoical · 24-02-2010 09:21PM

Jo King wrote: »

She is entitled to tell the wife. If the guy agrees to do something to forestall that he can hardly complain about it.

Entitled?? She is not entitled to do anything. She's free to tell anyone she wishes but not entitled.

LegacyUser · 24-02-2010 09:39PM

Agent J wrote: »

Reverse the sexes in this story and there would be an outcry.
Imagine if a man did that to a woman?

The thread is about two women humiliating a man. It's got nothing to do with two men humiliating a woman so why bring it up? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of these barely veiled references that all women want to do is make life difficult for men. It's blatant sexism.
Obviously, the two women are not in their right minds. It doesn't mean that all women are out to make mens' lives hell. If you think they are, that says more about you than the women you meet.

PirateShampoo · 24-02-2010 11:00PM

unregisteered wrote: »

The thread is about two women humiliating a man. It's got nothing to do with two men humiliating a woman so why bring it up? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of these barely veiled references that all women want to do is make life difficult for men. It's blatant sexism.
Obviously, the two women are not in their right minds. It doesn't mean that all women are out to make mens' lives hell. If you think they are, that says more about you than the women you meet.

Why would your veiw be any different from having 2 women do it to 2 men doing it.

There shouldn't be a difference. Both versions are equally wrong.

Only sexism in this thread is that some people think its ok to do this to this man just because he is a man.

Abuse is Abuse, end of.

LegacyUser · 24-02-2010 11:09PM

unregisteered wrote: »

The thread is about two women humiliating a man. It's got nothing to do with two men humiliating a woman so why bring it up? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of these barely veiled references that all women want to do is make life difficult for men. It's blatant sexism.
Obviously, the two women are not in their right minds. It doesn't mean that all women are out to make mens' lives hell. If you think they are, that says more about you than the women you meet.

Disagree. There are some posters and readers no doubt on here who seem to look up to these women for what they did. Nobody would say that if there were two men doing the same.

I've heard stories like this before. I heard of a guy a few years ago who was seen as a bit of a sleaze (note: sleazy but harmless - an older guy who hung around & slept with younger girls) who two girls brought home and tied up, pretending it was a sex game. Then they invited all their friend over to humiliate him. Hilarious! Not.

There's nothing clever about humiliating people. Anyone of us can do it to any one else. If people have a psychological need to control other people they will generally find a way. In S & M, successful men are famous for enjoying beatings. Its understood that people who are powerful in their lives try to 'balance' things with masochism, while people who are weak in real life go for sadism. The OP's friend is obviously trying to redress her own feelings of inadequacy, and with the instinct of a true bully, she has found someone vulnerable. I imagine this is the best craic she's ever had, so she will go back for more. She puts her energy into this because she ultimately believes no man will have a relationship with her.

Regardless of what this man has done (and leading on single women in their thirties is a serious crime! - almost as serious as cheating IMHO), I hope he has the sense to tell this bully to grow up and stop playing kiddie games, even if that means he has to confront his wife and they both have to face the truth about their marriage, which might be a blessing in disguise.

OP, your mate will gain nothing from this and neither will you. Just tell her you don't want to be involved, and that if she had any sense she would find her own man instead - oh wait, she can't right now, because she is far more concerned with reacting to rejection than being loved, because she believes she is unloveable.... Yes, he shouldn't have lead her on. But for all we know, maybe he genuinely liked this girl. Shame she's not a likeable human being at the moment.

And the OP and her mate are both too old for these games. This is the kind of things girls do as teenagers, not women in their thirties. Be straight with the mate and say these games are beneath you - and her. You're doing her a favour actually because power is intoxicating and addictive (for the powerless) and its better than you both just move on and try to heal.

P.S. I know it ain't easy being a single chick of a certain age but if you do things right and live a good life, that can all change overnight! Good luck.

ztoical · 24-02-2010 11:09PM

unregisteered wrote: »

The thread is about two women humiliating a man. It's got nothing to do with two men humiliating a woman so why bring it up? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of these barely veiled references that all women want to do is make life difficult for men. It's blatant sexism.
Obviously, the two women are not in their right minds. It doesn't mean that all women are out to make mens' lives hell. If you think they are, that says more about you than the women you meet.

It had nothing to do with implying "all women are out to make mens lives difficult" People brought it up with regards to the legal issue what the women did and to point out that when two women "humiliate" a man [and in this context we don't know what humiliate means but it wasn't a case of pointing and laughing at someone on the street but rather something more sinister done behind closed doors] the attitude of people appears to be "ah sure it's ok they were only having a bit of fun etc" but had the roles been the other way round and it was two men intimidating a woman there would be up roar and demands that the police be called.

People don't seem to understand that men can be abused and attacked by women just as women can be abused and attacked by men but men rarely report abuse and when they do they are mocked. Had the men in this case posted here saying what had happened he most likely would have been mocked for being "weak" etc

Agent J · 24-02-2010 11:20PM

unregisteered wrote: »

The thread is about two women humiliating a man. It's got nothing to do with two men humiliating a woman so why bring it up? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of these barely veiled references that all women want to do is make life difficult for men. It's blatant sexism.
Obviously, the two women are not in their right minds. It doesn't mean that all women are out to make mens' lives hell. If you think they are, that says more about you than the women you meet.

One hell of a jump from what i am saying to your assumptions.

Doesnt matter what the sex is. It is wrong.

However some people seem to have the view that because its a man that it is ok. That is also wrong and actually sexist.

6th · 24-02-2010 11:25PM

Please stay on topic folks.

LegacyUser · 25-02-2010 11:41AM

I was not in the room when my friend confronted the guy. I was in the kitchen. They were in the living room. Seemingly he said "please don't tell her, I will do anything you want." She then had him drinking water from a basin on the floor like a dog, and then dress up and serve us. He had to call us madam and generally be respectful. We did not assault him. He seemed very shocked. We made him do a few other things such as admitting he was a rotter etc.

ManOfMystery · 25-02-2010 12:00PM

You and your friend should be careful you don't find yourselves locked up, this may seem funny but it's very serious. It wouldn't be unheard of for that guy to report you both to the police even if it means his wife finding out about it.

The Corinthian · 25-02-2010 12:03PM

Mad Mini wrote: »

I was not in the room when my friend confronted the guy

... your honour.

Barracudaincork · 25-02-2010 12:10PM

Mad Mini wrote: »

He seemed very shocked.

Well of course he was, he wasnt expecting to be greeted and treated the way you and your friend did. Regardless of the fact you now claim you were in another room, you knew what was going on and you encouraged it.

Do you even slightly feel what you did was wrong? All im getting is excuses from your posts.

Friend going too far

Comments