Private eye defends integrity of "honey trapping"

[JVKn'CVO 11]

There's 2 things in this life no one can avoid: being cheated on at least once...and death.

I was already cheated on (previous bf)... you dump the subject, learn and go find yourself someone better. Truth comes out sooner or later anyways. No need for honey trapping

Saludos,

Caro

Edited February 19, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

There's 2 things in this life no one can avoid: being cheated on at least once...and death.

I was already cheated on (previous bf)... you dump the subject, learn and go find yourself someone better. Truth comes out sooner or later anyways. No need for honey trapping

Saludos,

Caro

if the "honey" is good enough traps won't work

[doodlebugg 10]

There's 2 things in this life no one can avoid: being cheated on at least once...and death.

I was already cheated on (previous bf)... you dump the subject, learn and go find yourself someone better. Truth comes out sooner or later anyways. No need for honey trapping

Saludos,

Caro

Don't forget taxes!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The day I'd feel I need to hire a detective to spy on my spouse is the day my marriage is already doomed.

Indeed - the act of hiring a PI would imply that you don't trust your spouse.

[wishbone 0]

I will not be surprised if this profession will rise, the society was getting even more worse.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I wonder how divorce court would look at this. This sounds to me like entrapment.

I don't think it is. Not really.

It certainly could be perceived as that if divorce court considers infidelity when determining who is at fault. And while a married couple may still be married, the relationship may have ended for them long before the actual divorce.

Legally Speaking

Who is at fault? I'd say the spouse. No matter who tempts the supposedly cheating spouse, the spouse under suspicion does in no way need to "take the bait." We all have the ability to make choices and control ourselves when we need to, so there's no such excuse as "she entrapped me and forced me to cheat!" Sorry, not buying it.

Morally Speaking

I can see what you're saying (I'd be hurt if my wife employed someone to tail me), but if I have given her reasonable doubt as to my fidelity in the marriage and she wanted proof that I wasn't "screwed around," perhaps I could understand it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I could still understand it. Fortunately, I don't plan on cheating, since I see it as just plain wrong on too many levels and it would hurt her far too much.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

I wonder how divorce court would look at this. This sounds to me like entrapment.

I don't think it is. Not really.

It certainly could be perceived as that if divorce court considers infidelity when determining who is at fault. And while a married couple may still be married, the relationship may have ended for them long before the actual divorce.

Legally Speaking

Who is at fault? I'd say the spouse. No matter who tempts the supposedly cheating spouse, the spouse under suspicion does in no way need to "take the bait." We all have the ability to make choices and control ourselves when we need to, so there's no such excuse as "she entrapped me and forced me to cheat!" Sorry, not buying it.

Morally Speaking

I can see what you're saying (I'd be hurt if my wife employed someone to tail me), but if I have given her reasonable doubt as to my fidelity in the marriage and she wanted proof that I wasn't "screwed around," perhaps I could understand it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I could still understand it. Fortunately, I don't plan on cheating, since I see it as just plain wrong on too many levels and it would hurt her far too much.

and most states have a no fault divorce so that point is kinda moot steven.

[almaty 19]

The day I'd feel I need to hire a detective to spy on my spouse is the day my marriage is already doomed.

amen to that sister fracas

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wonder how divorce court would look at this. This sounds to me like entrapment.

I don't think it is. Not really.

It certainly could be perceived as that if divorce court considers infidelity when determining who is at fault. And while a married couple may still be married, the relationship may have ended for them long before the actual divorce.

Legally Speaking

Who is at fault? I'd say the spouse. No matter who tempts the supposedly cheating spouse, the spouse under suspicion does in no way need to "take the bait." We all have the ability to make choices and control ourselves when we need to, so there's no such excuse as "she entrapped me and forced me to cheat!" Sorry, not buying it.

Morally Speaking

I can see what you're saying (I'd be hurt if my wife employed someone to tail me), but if I have given her reasonable doubt as to my fidelity in the marriage and she wanted proof that I wasn't "screwed around," perhaps I could understand it. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I could still understand it. Fortunately, I don't plan on cheating, since I see it as just plain wrong on too many levels and it would hurt her far too much.

You mean, if you cheated before on your spouse already but didn't get caught? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. What would be reasonable doubt? Finding women's panties in the back seat of your car? If your spouse found something like that, or perhaps a suggestive text message on your phone from another woman, it's time the both of you go get counseling, not time to break out the spy equipment, IMO.

In other words, you don't need hard evidence of your spouse's infidelity to realize the relationship needs fixing and spying on your spouse isn't going to save the marriage.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Mister Fancypants