Post: #126

(10-29-2018 09:18 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 07:56 PM)realologist Wrote:  Threads like these always make it easy to spot out who loves women and who fucks vs. who hates women and who doesn't.

This is a really compelling point, logic and evidence are nothing compared to your ability to tell "who fucks".

Dare I say this is even better than snarky gifs and the hilarious use of the word "creditable" (although those were good, too).

It's an interesting trend in this argument. One side seems to rely on facts and reason, the other is leaning on baseless ad hominems. Why is that?

I wonder how many of the guys saying she is responsible would also be crying about false rape charges instead of telling the guy he is responsible for sticking his dick into crazy.

A 1 minute search of jeffrey pulls up a lot of posts in the Ronaldo thread.

Quote:Dammit bro when does this bullshit end. Tired of watching these high achieving, high caliber men have their name attempted to be brought down by conniving whores.

I didn't once see him say Ronaldo's at fault for sticking his dick into some crazy chick. Ronaldo didn't spend any time getting to know this chick to see if she was crazy. Yet, there is jeffrey giving him a pass and blaming those conniving whores.

Personal responsibility only seems to go one way for some.

At least be consistent.

Post: #127

^^^^

He should have fun her Hoefax

Post: #128

(10-29-2018 01:24 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  No, she bears no responsibility for being gunned down by some psychopath. If she had stayed with him after finding out he was a psychopath, then you may have a argument.

So what if she had some pictures taken of her while banging the guy? That is quite the leap to what you're trying to say, that she is responsible for the guy shooting her.

Some of you guys need to change the way you think. It is poisonous and your life will be much harder for you in the long term if you continue with that line of thinking.

It's unclear if you're purposely ignoring the facts of this particular case because they make you feel sad, or if you just can't understand them at all.

Let's consider "responsibility" for a second.

Question: If you and your family live in a flood zone, and you don't buy flood insurance, are you "responsible" when a once in a century flood destroys your home and bankrupts you?

Answer: It doesn't matter, because "responsibility" is something you can redefine and debate endlessly. What matters is REALITY. In REALITY, when you expose yourself to large risks, sometimes you get completely rekt. Arguing about what "should" have happened, who "deserved" what, etc, is childish and pointless.

Adult men operate in the realm of REALITY. It's a place where taking risks has serious, real world consequences. Women and children can't play this game, because they don't really understand it on a deep level. It seems like you don't either.

My personal definition of responsibility is directly tied to REALITY. I am responsible for the outcomes of my decisions, regardless of how "fair" the outcome is. If I miscalculate the level of risk I am taking, or ignore risk altogether because I want to indulge myself, that can have serious consequences. I could lose my job, girlfriend, or worse- my life.

By that definition of responsibility, there is no debating the fact that this young woman was ludicrously irresponsible.

In fact, she not only took one risk, she KEPT TAKING LARGER AND LARGER RISKS:

1) Slept with a guy she didn't know (risk level: minor)
2) Let him take ultra embarrassing nudes early on (risk level: moderate)
3) Spent the night with him after finding out he was a convicted sex criminal who lied about his age and background (risk level: high)
4) Refused help from police in dealing with him after he began behaving in bizarre and aggressive ways (risk level: comically high)

I eagerly await whatever gifs or platitudes about "toxic" attitudes you have.

Post: #129

(10-29-2018 09:39 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  In fact, she not only took one risk, she KEPT TAKING LARGER AND LARGER RISKS:

1) Slept with a guy she didn't know (risk level: minor)
2) Let him take ultra embarrassing nudes early on (risk level: moderate)
3) Spent the night with him after finding out he was a convicted sex criminal who lied about his age and background (risk level: high)
4) Refused help from police in dealing with him after he began behaving in bizarre and aggressive ways (risk level: comically high)

I eagerly await whatever gifs or platitudes about "toxic" attitudes you have.

How many people did he kill prior to this woman? Did she know he was a murderer or did she think, based on her interactions with him, that he was harmless? You or anyone else in this thread can't answer those questions.

You seem to be a mind reader, making up arguments on how she should have reacted based on reading a story and knowing nothing about their interactions together.

How about your pal Ronaldo. He met some girl he didn't know, took her up to his room and stuck his dick into her. Then paid her off. That doesn't look innocent yet you're ready to give the dude a pass on his "responsibility".

You guys crack me up. I can't tell if you just lived a very sheltered life or you really do hate women.

Post: #130

(10-29-2018 09:28 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  I wonder how many of the guys saying she is responsible would also be crying about false rape charges instead of telling the guy he is responsible for sticking his dick into crazy.

A 1 minute search of jeffrey pulls up a lot of posts in the Ronaldo thread.

Quote:Dammit bro when does this bullshit end. Tired of watching these high achieving, high caliber men have their name attempted to be brought down by conniving whores.

I didn't once see him say Ronaldo's at fault for sticking his dick into some crazy chick. Ronaldo didn't spend any time getting to know this chick to see if she was crazy. Yet, there is jeffrey giving him a pass and blaming those conniving whores.

Personal responsibility only seems to go one way for some.

At least be consistent.

Let's pretend I was a major hypocrite....would that actually make me wrong about this girl being irresponsible, or just a hypocrite who happened to be right in this case?

To your second point, I have actually posted multiple times that these days, men have to audio record their sexual encounters due to the #MeToo phenomena.

And the post you quoted isn't mine. Good try, though.

Can you make an argument about the subject matter, without attacking an individual? It would help your posts be more persuasive.

Post: #131

(10-29-2018 09:45 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  Did she know he was a murderer or did she think, based on her interactions with him, that he was harmless? You or anyone else in this thread can't answer those questions.

You seem to be a mind reader, making up arguments on how she should have reacted based on reading a story and knowing nothing about their interactions together.

She knew he was hugely muscular convicted sex criminal who had lied to her repeatedly. How "harmless" does that seem?

I am not mind reading, just going by the available evidence. Is there something else we should go by?

The Ronaldo stuff isn't on topic. You're losing this argument and therefore trying to start another. For what it's worth, I think any man who doesn't audio record random hook ups these days is an idiot.

Post: #132

One of the worst things about SJWs that I (and surely most others here) detest is this entire idea of "being offended". Sure, everybody technically has the right get offended at anything, but the SJWs have taken this idea and decided that the propagator, not the offendee, is responsible for being offended in every single case.

So when a guy tells a chick "you look great in that outfit" (sexual harassment!), or wears a Halloween costume that makes fun of Native Americans/disabled/etc (cultural appropriation!), he is the one responsible in their eyes. They have made it clear that the burden of being non-offensive is on YOU, rather than just maybe, the person being offended should get the fuck over it and quit being offended over stupid shit.

I've seen a similar concept play out sometimes on non-mainstream message boards, where people begin to propagate conspiracy theories such as the Earth being flat (!!!), or making edgy statements such as a 21-year old chick being culpable for her own murder, and when faced with backlash in response, claim that the burden of proof is on the responder for not providing "sufficient facts", not on themselves for posting comments that don't warrant a logical response.

Yes, you have the right to say mostly whatever you want. But just because you do doesn't mean people have to reply to you in a logical fashion.

I read your response to my earlier comment. With my multi-year financial background, I'll say this: Comparing mathematical modeling and handling of "tail risk" of a financial portfolio to how a human behaves in interaction with other humans isn't even comparing apples and oranges... its comparing apples and baseball fields.

Women are different than men, in that in many cases, especially in interactions with men, women are not rational. Women are emotional and can be "manipulated" by the right man. That is why social framework is so important in guiding how interactions between men/women occur, and why some places have more "traditional" women and others don't.

Perhaps one can argue that society failed this woman. She probably shouldn't have been in this situation to begin with, and this piece of shit should've never had the chance to do what he did.

I don't believe we are culpable as individuals for society's mistakes.

Post: #133

(10-29-2018 09:45 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  Let's pretend I was a major hypocrite....would that actually make me wrong about this girl being irresponsible, or just a hypocrite who happened to be right in this case?

To your second point, I have actually posted multiple times that these days, men have to audio record their sexual encounters due to the #MeToo phenomena.

And the post you quoted isn't mine. Good try, though.

Can you make an argument about the subject matter, without attacking an individual? It would help your posts be more persuasive.

My apologies for posting the wrong quote. My statement is still correct in that you gave Ronaldo a pass on any responsibility for fucking a crazy chick and paying her off which does make you a hypocrite.

No, you are still wrong about the girl being responsible for being murdered. It would just make you more consistent and not a hypocrite.

I already made a argument about the subject matter. You have no idea how their interactions went.

You continue to say the rest of us aren't commenting on the facts. You don't know all the facts yet you are making wild speculations that she should have been afraid for her life. Where did that "fact" come from? Because he has a record she should automatically think the guy is going to kill her? He must not have made her afraid for her life while they were dating yet you think she should have known he was going to kill her eventually.

It's just wild speculation on your part.

Post: #134

(10-29-2018 09:55 PM)RDF Wrote:  I've seen a similar concept play out sometimes on non-mainstream message boards, where people begin to propagate conspiracy theories such as the Earth being flat (!!!), or making edgy statements such as a 21-year old chick being culpable for her own murder, and when faced with backlash in response, claim that the burden of proof is on the responder for not providing "sufficient facts", not on themselves for posting comments that don't warrant a logical response.

Yes, you have the right to say mostly whatever you want. But just because you do doesn't mean people have to reply to you in a logical fashion.

I read your response to my earlier comment. With my multi-year financial background, I'll say this: Comparing mathematical modeling and handling of "tail risk" of a financial portfolio to how a human behaves in interaction with other humans isn't even comparing apples and oranges... its comparing apples and baseball fields.

Women are different than men, in that in many cases, especially in interactions with men, women are not rational. Women are emotional and can be "manipulated" by the right man. That is why social framework is so important in guiding how interactions between men/women occur, and why some places have more "traditional" women and others don't.

Perhaps one can argue that society failed this woman. She probably shouldn't have been in this situation to begin with, and this piece of shit should've never had the chance to do what he did.

I don't believe we are culpable as individuals for society's mistakes.

I actually agree with the last part of this. Women shouldn't have rights they can't exercise responsibly, and society probably failed this young woman in a major way. In that sense she's not responsible for what happened.

However. Every argument I've made I included plenty of support for, both logical and the available evidence. Critically different from making baseless, edgy claims.

One of two things is true:

1) My argument is ridiculous, and like the flat earth thing, would be really easily to immediately discredit. For example, if she had just been shot randomly in a drive by, and I argued it was her fault for not wearing body armor.
2) My argument is strong but ideologically objectionable, in which case the rebuttals will be ad hominems, convoluted nonsense, straw men, etc, that avoid the core of the argument.

It sure looks like #2 is what's happening.

Post: #135

(10-29-2018 09:55 PM)RDF Wrote:  Women are different than men, in that in many cases, especially in interactions with men, women are not rational. Women are emotional and can be "manipulated" by the right man. That is why social framework is so important in guiding how interactions between men/women occur, and why some places have more "traditional" women and others don't.

I wonder which gender manipulates more? I tend to think men are manipulated more than women. You got a lot of guys finding the red pill because of bad relationships where they got fucked over. Men may be more rational, but not enough to stop them from being taken for fools in a lot of different ways.

Post: #136

(10-29-2018 09:53 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 09:45 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  Did she know he was a murderer or did she think, based on her interactions with him, that he was harmless? You or anyone else in this thread can't answer those questions.

You seem to be a mind reader, making up arguments on how she should have reacted based on reading a story and knowing nothing about their interactions together.

She knew he was hugely muscular convicted sex criminal who had lied to her repeatedly. How "harmless" does that seem?

I am not mind reading, just going by the available evidence. Is there something else we should go by?

The Ronaldo stuff isn't on topic. You're losing this argument and therefore trying to start another. For what it's worth, I think any man who doesn't audio record random hook ups these days is an idiot.

Yes, a criminal who lied to her repeatedly and she should have known he was going to kill her regardless if he never threatened her during their brief affair. The daft woman.

Those are your "facts".

The topic is about personal responsibility. The Ronaldo stuff is on topic. I understand why you don't want to address the discrepancies on who you think is personally responsible and who isn't.

Post: #137

I don't get why there's so much argument.

21 year old white millenial american girls are dumb and naive as fuck and get themselves into stupid situations that wouldn't have happened hundreds of years ago if they were still under the protection of either a husband or a father. I would say the same about English girls too, including my own family.

37 year old roided up black ex con sex criminals are also likely dangerous or at the very least, aggressive and best avoided if you want a peaceful life.

This shit is obvious, there is no need for a debate and definitely no need for people to get triggered and post 'counter stories' of the opposite situation so they feel better lol.

Post: #138

(10-29-2018 09:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  It's just wild speculation on your part.

Is it? Read the below story.

"Here’s a timeline of events in the extortion and shooting death of University of Utah student Lauren McCluskey
....
Oct. 12: Lauren McCluskey contacted University police, reporting she had received suspicious messages she believed were from Rowland’s friends. The texts said Rowland was dead and that it was her fault. But she found he had recently posted on social media, disproving the claim. Such posts were a violation of Rowland’s parole terms, which prohibited him from using social media. Lauren told the reporting officer she did not feel in danger or threatened by the texts, but felt his friends were trying to lure her out of her dorm."

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/10/26/t...extortion/

She knew she was being stalked and harassed by a convicted sex criminal, and thought his friends were trying to lure her out of her room.

BUT SHE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE SHE WAS IN DANGER.....????

Post: #139

100 years ago the black guy would have been lynched for messing with a white woman. Not a great time in history to reminisce about.

Post: #140

(10-29-2018 10:25 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 09:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  It's just wild speculation on your part.

Is it? Read the below story.

"Here’s a timeline of events in the extortion and shooting death of University of Utah student Lauren McCluskey
....
Oct. 12: Lauren McCluskey contacted University police, reporting she had received suspicious messages she believed were from Rowland’s friends. The texts said Rowland was dead and that it was her fault. But she found he had recently posted on social media, disproving the claim. Such posts were a violation of Rowland’s parole terms, which prohibited him from using social media. Lauren told the reporting officer she did not feel in danger or threatened by the texts, but felt his friends were trying to lure her out of her dorm."

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/10/26/t...extortion/

She knew she was being stalked and harassed by a convicted sex criminal, and thought his friends were trying to lure her out of her room.

BUT SHE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE SHE WAS IN DANGER.....????

I wouldn't have felt like I was in danger. I just would have chalked it up to my ex acting out because I broke up with her. Some people do non-violent crazy stuff when they break up. It would come down to how she acted when we were together. If she was violent with me, then yeah, I wouldn't mess around with her any more. But if she wasn't, then there would be no bells ringing that I should be worried.

Post: #141

(10-29-2018 10:36 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 10:25 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 09:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  It's just wild speculation on your part.

Is it? Read the below story.

"Here’s a timeline of events in the extortion and shooting death of University of Utah student Lauren McCluskey
....
Oct. 12: Lauren McCluskey contacted University police, reporting she had received suspicious messages she believed were from Rowland’s friends. The texts said Rowland was dead and that it was her fault. But she found he had recently posted on social media, disproving the claim. Such posts were a violation of Rowland’s parole terms, which prohibited him from using social media. Lauren told the reporting officer she did not feel in danger or threatened by the texts, but felt his friends were trying to lure her out of her dorm."

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/10/26/t...extortion/

She knew she was being stalked and harassed by a convicted sex criminal, and thought his friends were trying to lure her out of her room.

BUT SHE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE SHE WAS IN DANGER.....????

I wouldn't have felt like I was in danger. I just would have chalked it up to my ex acting out because I broke up with her. Some people do non-violent crazy stuff when they break up. It would come down to how she acted when we were together. If she was violent with me, then yeah, I wouldn't mess around with her any more. But if she wasn't, then there would be no bells ringing that I should be worried.

So if you're a small white girl being stalked by a roided out sex criminal who lied to get into your pants and extorted you for $1000 to keep nude pics from going public, you wouldn't feel threatened?

I am done with this argument.

Post: #142

(10-29-2018 10:42 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  So if you're a small white girl being stalked by a roided out sex criminal who lied to get into your pants and extorted you for $1000 to keep nude pics from going public, you wouldn't feel threatened?

I am done with this argument.

I suggest you be very careful where you stick your dick or you may end up with a sex crime yourself. You better get to know the girl and her family really well before you try to get into her pants.

No doubt you will take personal responsibility if that were to happen.

BTW, you keep saying he was on roids yet I don't see anything that states that fact.

Post: #143

(10-27-2018 03:22 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  When you're attractive and charismatic enough to bang 21 year-old girls and shoot porn with them, yet because you're a sick imbecile who can't control his psycho tendencies you fuck it all up and end up getting gang-banged to death by the firing squad...

But isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Charismatic, sick imbecile? Sort of like the cool popular sex offender he turned out to be? Don't these glaring contradictions warrant a deeper dive?

This is why, earlier in this thread, I suggested a girl like her isn't going for a man like him unless she's been raised without the ability to choose good men (which I attribute partly to her parents and partly to society at large). I realize that almost every woman can be gamed, but I refuse to believe a guy this unhinged was just so goddamn smoove that this poor naive 21 y/o was helpless against his charm and there's nothing else to be said about the whole thing so the haters should just stfu. Obviously game was a huge factor, but the contributors who weren't interested in doing a deeper should have just said their piece then exited.

There are many other factors at play, and in starting this thread I had high hopes of discussing them (notice that race took a while to come up, and took even longer to boil over). It was going relatively well until certain individuals derailed it for whatever reasons. I think the guys who accuse me of not understanding female nature or being a game denialist or a race troll just don't want to examine or acknowledge the real reasons things like this happen, presumably because this information would add nothing to their game/their life (I say this based on the lack of counterarguments and the sheer volume of ad hominems). I wonder why they hang around threads like these...

And cue further ad hominems with few or zero counterarguments.

Post: #144

(10-29-2018 10:51 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 10:42 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  So if you're a small white girl being stalked by a roided out sex criminal who lied to get into your pants and extorted you for $1000 to keep nude pics from going public, you wouldn't feel threatened?

I am done with this argument.

I suggest you be very careful where you stick your dick or you may end up with a sex crime yourself. You better get to know the girl and her family really well before you try to get into her pants.

No doubt you will take personal responsibility if that were to happen.

BTW, you keep saying he was on roids yet I don't see anything that states that fact.

With all due respect... that's a Recipe for a Man to never ever ever ever Get Pussy for the Rest of his Life unless he builds a Time Machine!

Post: #145

Many of the small social clues people use to judge people, are not instantly transferable across cultures.

That's what I take away from this.

She probably wouldn't have gone out with a similar white dude, cause he'd give off vibes that she recognized as bad. Because she presumably isn't experienced with blacks, then she didn't know which clues to spot, because lets face it, judging from the few pics, the guy did not look ghetto.

Why do westerners date prostitutes and very trashy women in some expat destinations? Cause they can't spot the obvious whore social clues. Why does a fat lager lout keep shouting off to some really dangerous looking asians? Cause he can't spot the obvious danger clues.

Someone should probably teach people about such things.

Post: #146

(10-26-2018 10:08 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Real life has consequences. Women used to be educated to understand this. Now they're educated to the opposite end, creating the mindset that says: Sleep with some bouncer whose backstory you evidently are unfamiliar with, make a sex tape with him (assuming that's what he was extorting her with--can't imagine it was just simply nude photos if she was willing to pay $1000 to try and keep it quiet) and you'll still get a happy ending in life.

^Youre applying a man's rationality to your assessment of this woman's ability to judge and assess this man's character.

That's a fallacy

Women, especially young, privileged, coddled women who have likely been protected from the dangers of the world and the consequences of poor decisions are less capable of "seeing" danger until much later. A chick from the other side of the tracks would have been more alert and likely spotted this scumbag's game from a mile away.

Post: #147

(10-29-2018 09:39 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 01:24 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  No, she bears no responsibility for being gunned down by some psychopath. If she had stayed with him after finding out he was a psychopath, then you may have a argument.

So what if she had some pictures taken of her while banging the guy? That is quite the leap to what you're trying to say, that she is responsible for the guy shooting her.

Some of you guys need to change the way you think. It is poisonous and your life will be much harder for you in the long term if you continue with that line of thinking.

It's unclear if you're purposely ignoring the facts of this particular case because they make you feel sad, or if you just can't understand them at all.

Let's consider "responsibility" for a second.

Question: If you and your family live in a flood zone, and you don't buy flood insurance, are you "responsible" when a once in a century flood destroys your home and bankrupts you?

Answer: It doesn't matter, because "responsibility" is something you can redefine and debate endlessly. What matters is REALITY. In REALITY, when you expose yourself to large risks, sometimes you get completely rekt. Arguing about what "should" have happened, who "deserved" what, etc, is childish and pointless.

Adult men operate in the realm of REALITY. It's a place where taking risks has serious, real world consequences. Women and children can't play this game, because they don't really understand it on a deep level. It seems like you don't either.

My personal definition of responsibility is directly tied to REALITY. I am responsible for the outcomes of my decisions, regardless of how "fair" the outcome is. If I miscalculate the level of risk I am taking, or ignore risk altogether because I want to indulge myself, that can have serious consequences. I could lose my job, girlfriend, or worse- my life.

By that definition of responsibility, there is no debating the fact that this young woman was ludicrously irresponsible.

In fact, she not only took one risk, she KEPT TAKING LARGER AND LARGER RISKS:

1) Slept with a guy she didn't know (risk level: minor)
2) Let him take ultra embarrassing nudes early on (risk level: moderate)
3) Spent the night with him after finding out he was a convicted sex criminal who lied about his age and background (risk level: high)
4) Refused help from police in dealing with him after he began behaving in bizarre and aggressive ways (risk level: comically high)

I eagerly await whatever gifs or platitudes about "toxic" attitudes you have.

You left out 0. It's the one that comes before 1). Here it is:

0). Passed up dozens upon dozens of law-abiding, responsible college guys she interacted with every day who would have taken her out on dates before attempting to bed her.

This is where the trouble began. This is where the trouble begins for a lot of "adventuresses" (and old word, but one that's applicable). Everything follows from there.

Post: #148

What bugs me is that women will blame beta males for this while the other deranged thugs will continually be worshiped.

Post: #149

(11-15-2018 01:29 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:08 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Real life has consequences. Women used to be educated to understand this. Now they're educated to the opposite end, creating the mindset that says: Sleep with some bouncer whose backstory you evidently are unfamiliar with, make a sex tape with him (assuming that's what he was extorting her with--can't imagine it was just simply nude photos if she was willing to pay $1000 to try and keep it quiet) and you'll still get a happy ending in life.

^Youre applying a man's rationality to your assessment of this woman's ability to judge and assess this man's character.

That's a fallacy

Women, especially young, privileged, coddled women who have likely been protected from the dangers of the world and the consequences of poor decisions are less capable of "seeing" danger until much later. A chick from the other side of the tracks would have been more alert and likely spotted this scumbag's game from a mile away.

You're kind of contradicting yourself here, no?

> rationality is a male trait; a woman is incapable of thinking rationally in order to avoid sexual danger, it's a fallacy to think otherwise
> in this instance a woman from a different, more street-wise background would have known how to avoid this situation

Pick one.

Post: #150

(11-15-2018 02:02 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 01:29 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:08 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  Real life has consequences. Women used to be educated to understand this. Now they're educated to the opposite end, creating the mindset that says: Sleep with some bouncer whose backstory you evidently are unfamiliar with, make a sex tape with him (assuming that's what he was extorting her with--can't imagine it was just simply nude photos if she was willing to pay $1000 to try and keep it quiet) and you'll still get a happy ending in life.

^Youre applying a man's rationality to your assessment of this woman's ability to judge and assess this man's character.

That's a fallacy

Women, especially young, privileged, coddled women who have likely been protected from the dangers of the world and the consequences of poor decisions are less capable of "seeing" danger until much later. A chick from the other side of the tracks would have been more alert and likely spotted this scumbag's game from a mile away.

You're kind of contradicting yourself here, no?

> rationality is a male trait; a woman is incapable of thinking rationally in order to avoid sexual danger, it's a fallacy to think otherwise
> in this instance a woman from a different, more street-wise background would have known how to avoid this situation

Pick one.

I dont think so.

Im saying that a man regardless of background would have likely seen this scumbag for what he was for several reasons not the least of which there being no sexual tingles involved

In this particular instance her privileged / protected upbringing likely gave her world view a rose colored hue that blinded her to whatever red flags would have been picked up on by a more street smart (conditioned to be more skeptical but not necessarily more logical ) woman