[OMGWTFBBQ]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Horrible, horrible people. I doubt they'll be able to continue scamming people now they've exposed themselves on tv, the idiots. calling their clientèle, the people who actually pay their rent "idiots".

It is for exactly this reason that I don't buy this programme.

I suspect that it is heavily scripted and exaggerated (or more likely, the women do actually put out).

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Loneliness is exactly the sort of thing that's apt to be exploited. I have also read stories of escorts where both they and I judged they were exploiting loneliness - though of course these pale in comparison to these women, one of whom it seems rejected not only sexual advances but also mere affectionate ones from the New York bloke. As you say there are many more defensible reasons why men and women would want to do this however.

I also don't understand why the women don't seem to have a long-term view of their lives and their place in the world. If I may be so bold I would say women are more impulsive than men, or at least encouraged into impulsivity by society. Why wouldn't they be when they know that as long as they're reasonably hot they don't necessarily have to work hard for anything?

they made it clear there was nothing sexual, she rejected any kind of sexual advance including hand holding because that was NOT part of the deal and not what he was "paying for". it would give him the wrong idea if she let him do this.

again loneliness is not the sole reason men do this, it may not even be a small part in most cases. already explained WHY they do it.

i'm sure they realise one day it's not going to work. it will be a real shock for them when it does happen and it's very likely they'll overload on plastic surgery trying to get back what they once had and it won't work. the rest of that paragraph is crap, you can't make a judgment on women because of the actions of a TINY minority.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
The girls fully well know the men are expecting sex or at least something in return. You don't spend £100s on girls you've met up with for no reason. They were just trying to justify their exploitative behaviour.

Hence the guy who paid for the girl to travel from England to New York after talking to her online for ages and then spent hundreds on her shopping, was visibly confused and frustrated when the girl began rejecting his advances unless he gave her more money. Then they rowed because the woman was just a gold digger taking him for a ride and he figured it out.

Most girls would do the courteous thing and give something back in return for all that money. However these girls have made it their mission to lead on as many guys as possible and exploit them for as much cash as they possibly can. They all admit this and say all men deserve it. Disgusting.


The girls showed their obvious lack of respect and demeaning behaviour by insulting the guys who were generous enough to take them out, treat them nicely and buy them gifts behind their back, calling them "idiots" for falling for their con. Sexist and degrading.

The men are doing their best by not degrading or demeaning the women by explicitly treating them like prostitutes. They are subtly showering them with attention and gifts in the expectation they will return it with sex without making them feel like a prostitute. Then the girls pay them back by taking the cash and running.

Keep trying to justify it any way you want. It's wrong.


How are they as "bad" at each other? It is obvious the women are exploiting the mens sexual attraction to them which they can't help for monetary gain. How can you justify this?

One girl was teaching her daughter at the end to be a gold digger, what kind of sexist misandrist view will her child have of men when they grow up?
Seeing men as people to exploit with their sexuality for monetary gain.

the women make it clear it's not sexual. it is the man's choice to pay them for their company. it is not the woman's fault if the man seems to think he has some kind of sexual hold/right to have sex with her because he spent some money on the woman when she's made it clear it's not on the cards.
you also seem to think money gives them the right to sex? quite sickening really. the man in new york was dangerous and quite scary, he was very threatening. he knew she had said no to sex, she rejected even the smallest of sexul advances (hand holding) to make this clear, therefore he is NOT paying for sex because that's not what they agreed. just because he decides he is allowed to have it because he's spent some money on her does not give him that right. she certainly didn't take advantage of her if anything it was the other way round.
sorry you seem to have a REALLY warped view on women and sex.

the women called them idiots because they are in their opinions. they spend £100s just for their company. i don't think they are idiots and i think these women underestimate why the men are doing it. it's not because they're idiots or vulnerable. YOU are underestimating these men too.

they are not being treated like prostitutes because THEY ARE NOT PROSTITUTES. they MAKE IT CLEAR there is NO SEX. you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to sex just because you gave them some money/gifts when they have made it clear there's no sex. IF they had come on to them and offered them sex at the end then did a runner then yes, that would be wrong/exploitive but that is NOT what is going on. i feel very sorry for you because you're going to find it hard to get a woman with your attitude for women. also feel sorry for any woman stupid enough to get in a relationship with you, most likely treated with no respect.

no they are not exploiting the men, the men know full well what it is they are offering and most men are not doing it for the sex though would have sex with them if they changed their minds. i've already explained why they do it.

[Rascacielos]

It's the man's own daft fault for buying them a gift in the first place.

[snozzle]

I couldn't decide if these women were borderline sociopaths or were somewhat 'playing a role' for the TV?

Certainly the men were 'willing victims' but these women were awful. They will die alone and miserable if indeed they were being authentic.

[snozzle]

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
Getting laid is a game to men like this; ever heard of the 'pick-up artist'? Except these men clearly think it's much less complex than Neil Strauss does.

A guy who is a 'player' would never get caught up in the game these girls are playing, he's too smart and self-centered, he is the manipulator not the manipulated. These guys are losers who are being manipulated and abused.

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
What would you suggest then? That pretty women are never friendly to rich, ugly men? If these men continue to insult women by buying them expensive things and believing they're gonna get laid because of it, women are going to respond in whichever way they feel necessary to show they're not objects.

These women are seeking out men who can be manipulated into giving gifts. One cannot then claim they are being 'insulted' as victims - and thus justified in making some ridiculous feminist statement - when it is they who have consciously instigated the scenario.

These women are on the face of it extremely cold and borderline sociopathic. Kind of like con-men (or should I say con-women!).

[Indieboohoo]

The girl with the black hair and her mum was just I don't even have words. Not surprised she does what she does if her own mother doesn't care if she does it.

[InspectorSophie]

The free market is a bitch, but these women are true capitalists. I watched it whilst revising, I did feel at one point 'what the hell am I doing with my life, striving for academic attainment will not get me all the shoes I want'.

[Mr Dangermouse]

They should be done for theft.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
The girls fully well know the men are expecting sex or at least something in return. You don't spend £100s on girls you've met up with for no reason. They were just trying to justify their exploitative behaviour.

Hence the guy who paid for the girl to travel from England to New York after talking to her online for ages and then spent hundreds on her shopping, was visibly confused and frustrated when the girl began rejecting his advances unless he gave her more money. Then they rowed because the woman was just a gold digger taking him for a ride and he figured it out.

Most girls would do the courteous thing and give something back in return for all that money. However these girls have made it their mission to lead on as many guys as possible and exploit them for as much cash as they possibly can. They all admit this and say all men deserve it. Disgusting.


The girls showed their obvious lack of respect and demeaning behaviour by insulting the guys who were generous enough to take them out, treat them nicely and buy them gifts behind their back, calling them "idiots" for falling for their con. Sexist and degrading.

The men are doing their best by not degrading or demeaning the women by explicitly treating them like prostitutes. They are subtly showering them with attention and gifts in the expectation they will return it with sex without making them feel like a prostitute. Then the girls pay them back by taking the cash and running.

Keep trying to justify it any way you want. It's wrong.


How are they as "bad" at each other? It is obvious the women are exploiting the mens sexual attraction to them which they can't help for monetary gain. How can you justify this?

One girl was teaching her daughter at the end to be a gold digger, what kind of sexist misandrist view will her child have of men when they grow up?
Seeing men as people to exploit with their sexuality for monetary gain.

You seem a little upset by this, I thought you were a libertarian open to anything and everything.

[Arekkusu]

(Original post by Bellissima)
they made it clear there was nothing sexual, she rejected any kind of sexual advance including hand holding because that was NOT part of the deal and not what he was "paying for". it would give him the wrong idea if she let him do this.

again loneliness is not the sole reason men do this, it may not even be a small part in most cases. already explained WHY they do it.

i'm sure they realise one day it's not going to work. it will be a real shock for them when it does happen and it's very likely they'll overload on plastic surgery trying to get back what they once had and it won't work. the rest of that paragraph is crap, you can't make a judgment on women because of the actions of a TINY minority.

Hand-holding isn't a sexual advance. It's a tie-sign which signifies a close relationship, similarly hugging, sitting on someone's lap, talking with heads close together. Rejecting hand-holding is rejecting affection.

I halfway knew that paragraph was crap as I was writing it, it just goes to show how corrosive media influence can be. Men will hate women after watching this programme and women may be given to copy it. (Never thought in my younger days I might be Mary Whitehouse enough to write that.)

To respond to your concern there about paying or not paying for sex is a very fraught area. I think the sanctity of sex, particularly when we talk about women giving "it" up - what are they giving up? - is something cultural. I understand that this is not supposed to be indirect prostitution, but if I was the woman the more money and gifts I received the more I would feel I should at least be giving something back.

By comparison, I do not feel I can withhold sex from my girlfriend because I am a man and therefore if I'm not up for it all the time I am a failure.

[Anon420]

Disgusting specimens of humanity all of them.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Bellissima)
the women make it clear it's not sexual.

No... it's obvious they don't. What with the excessive flirting, come-to-bed eyes and suggestive texting? Please.

(Original post by Bellissima)
it is the man's choice to pay them for their company. it is not the woman's fault if the man seems to think he has some kind of sexual hold/right to have sex with her because he spent some money on the woman when she's made it clear it's not on the cards

That is because she's led him on to believe that he has.

It's the woman's fault for purposefully deceiving him, and exploiting his desire.

(Original post by Bellissima)
you also seem to think money gives them the right to sex? quite sickening really. the man in new york was dangerous and quite scary, he was very threatening. he knew she had said no to sex, she rejected even the smallest of sexul advances (hand holding) to make this clear, therefore he is NOT paying for sex because that's not what they agreed. just because he decides he is allowed to have it because he's spent some money on her does not give him that right. she certainly didn't take advantage of her if anything it was the other way round.
sorry you seem to have a REALLY warped view on women and sex.

The women know full well they were leading men on, that's how they can get £1000s for doing nothing. And then running away before they have to do anything.

That woman went all the way to New York just to lead that guy on and steal his money. He gave her money to go have breakfast, she spent it all on clothes. They have an argument about their arrangement, and then the only thing she can think about is how to squeeze him out of more money and buy another handbag before he clocks on she's taking him on for a ride.

And you're justifying this?

SORRY... but you're the one with a warped view on relationships and sex.

(Original post by Bellissima)
the women called them idiots because they are in their opinions. they spend £100s just for their company. i don't think they are idiots and i think these women underestimate why the men are doing it. it's not because they're idiots or vulnerable. YOU are underestimating these men too.

No... they spend £100s in the expectation for sex and the women call them idiots for falling for their ploy.

And the women full well know they're exploiting them, call them idiots for falling for it, and have made a living off it. Then they justify it by saying "all men deserve it".

(Original post by Bellissima)
they are not being treated like prostitutes because THEY ARE NOT PROSTITUTES. they MAKE IT CLEAR there is NO SEX. you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to sex just because you gave them some money/gifts when they have made it clear there's no sex. IF they had come on to them and offered them sex at the end then did a runner then yes, that would be wrong/exploitive but that is NOT what is going on. i feel very sorry for you because you're going to find it hard to get a woman with your attitude for women. also feel sorry for any woman stupid enough to get in a relationship with you, most likely treated with no respect.

When do they make it clear there is no sex? From the very outset it is implied that is the whole point of it all.

Why do you think the programme is called "Sex, Lies and rinsing guys"?

Because they don't have sex, they don't lie and they don't rinse guys?

You're obviously biased towards your gender that you can't see the reality, you think women should be able to behave any way they like towards men.
Sexist and vile.

Already got a woman thanks, but why would I want a woman who only wants me for my money?

(Original post by Bellissima)
no they are not exploiting the men, the men know full well what it is they are offering and most men are not doing it for the sex though would have sex with them if they changed their minds. i've already explained why they do it.

No men don't do anything for sex!! ever! That's right, keep rationalising and justifying scamming people to yourself! So you don't have to admit these women are horrible exploitative charlatans who in a better world would be thrown in prison. I seriously doubt you'll ever have a boyfriend with that attitude.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Bellissima)
the men are pathetic and the women, opportunists (i am sure most men are fully aware of what is going on, so who is to blame?). the women also seem to have issue with men/insecurity, especially the black haired one!

So the men are pathetic for being exploited? That's right, keep blaming the victim. People like you make me sick.

And the women are just "opportunists"? No one is forcing them to actively hunt down vulnerable guys and con them out of their wallet. They don't just con guys they happen to meet, they actively go looking for them.

These women are ruthless predators looking for targets on the internet to exploit, as soon as these nice guys, thinking this girl is nice too, and buys them a gift, the girl immediately puts it on ebay and asks for more, but something more expensive this time. Yeah real nice.

[Pindar]

(Original post by TheHansa)
You seem a little upset by this, I thought you were a libertarian open to anything and everything.

Since when does a libertarian accept purposefully exploiting, deceiving, conning and defrauding vulnerable people?

When did I ever say I was open to "anything and everything"? Like a normal, rational person I am only against things which actually cause harm to other people. Otherwise there's no reasonable reason for disallowing it.

[chronic_fatigue]

These men are fools!!!! The woman are heartless, with all the rising they do they should ask one of these men to get them better weaves their hair looks terrible!