What's the difference between "we have fun for a few hours" and "violated by a random stranger"? Not getting paid. r/legaladvice/

submitted by useless_aether from (files.catbox.moe)

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't understand how this is a crime. Anyone care to explain?

[–]Zombi 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The agreement was "I pay you money, we fool around."

I don't understand how neither you or OP don't see how this is fucked up in any way. She's literally ONLY doing this for the money. Imagine if you had gone to work and your boss, the person you agreed to do something for in return for money, gave you fake bills and cut off contact. You would be rightfully pissed off and you'd definitely consider it a crime.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ofuk i totally missed that. thanks.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Tax avoidance is the real crime.

Of course, neyneymar may have an S corp set up, and she may file taxes as a corporation.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, but agreeing to pay someone for services without actually paying them is ALSO a crime and so is distributing/using counterfeit money. There seems to be a really weird agenda against this woman in this thread lmao.

We have proof he committed a crime and we have speculation as to whether she's paying taxes or not. I don't even see how tax avoidance even comes into the discussion besides grasping at straws in order to put her in a bad light (again, for some really bizarre reason).

Maybe I'm taking your post too seriously or something. It's just so odd how I am seemingly the only person who sees that the guy in this situation is 100% in the wrong.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, MeanwhileOnReddit is for mockery of Reddit absurdity. This post fits the bill. .

It's unfortunate that this gal feels ripped off. It's also unfortunate that this person is a freelance mooch.

My understanding of the sugar daddy/momma relationship was that the sugarperson pays for X, Y or Z; but doesn't pay money for the time spent with the other person.
if they went out and he paid for the entertainment then that meets the general criteria of this arrangement. The cash up front is a bit dubious, and unusual.

He was probably interested in more, and couldn't be certain that she wasn't an undercover cop.

Getting paid for dating typically means working as a call girl. If she was a call girl, then she was cheated.

She documented the time spent as a "date". Clearly there wasn't a contract; given she doesn't have any of his info (or even a full name). This strongly suggests that he didn't break any laws.

However, not breaking laws does not mean what he did was right.
Do you still think he is 100% in the wrong? If so, why?

[–]Zombi 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, because it's very simple. He told her she would get $500 for a date, she accepted and even says the fact she was getting paid so much was what piqued her interest right there in the post. Is there a literal signed with pen and paper contract? No, but that's not what I meant.

Specifically asking to be someone's sugar daddy means you PAY them for their time. Again, it's not literally written down, there are no guidelines, but that's just how the sugar daddy thing works. If you're looking to be a sugar daddy, you already know it. It's common knowledge. If you want to be a sugar daddy the girl will 100% be expecting you to pay money, regardless of what she does and doesn't do for you.

It's extremely simple. She offered a service (herself as a date), he offered to pay for the service. She provided the service to what I'd assume is a satisfactory degree and he refused to pay after receiving that service. I really don't see how she is in any way in the wrong. What he did was basically sexual assault and he took advantage of her. He tricked her into doing borderline sexual favors for him without her consent. I HIGHLY doubt she would have agreed to it if the offer was "Go on a date and cuddle/make out with me" instead of "For $500 dollars go on a date and make out with me."

You're missing the key part: He told her he would give her $500, he didn't. That's all there is to it. Sorry If I sound like I'm repeating myself, but again, if I told you "Hey, for $500 would you make out with me?" and you said yes, UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT I WILL GIVE YOU MONEY, and then I didn't, wouldn't you be pissed off and feel tricked? You would totally see that as sexual assault and it is. I feel like you keep ignoring that very simple fact: They both clearly agreed to an exchange, she kept her end of the exchange and he didn't. Hence HE is in the wrong.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. I guess that I don't disagree that the guy is a jerk.

Unfortunately, this will generate many copycats.

Plus it will probably end up in r/UnethicalLifeProTips.

You wouldn't like it there. It's a den of scoundrels...

[–]Parentcraft 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Op should get a job and stop acting like a hooker.

[–]useless_aether[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

relevant handle!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Or get a job as a hooker.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sounds like she already has one

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I though hookers counted the money up front.

She's still an amateur.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I never said she was good at it

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough.