Women hire hookers to get better divorce settlements.

[Segnosaur]

Is entrapping the right word? In police work, a charge of "entrapment" is pretty specific, and the victim has to show that s/he would have been unlikely to commit the crime without police enticement. As such, when considering whether hiring a prostitute to initiate/spur on divorce proceedings is "entrapment", we also must consider the character and motivations of the husband.

You're right in that 'entrapment' must involve someone doing something they might not otherwise do. But then, such actions should be taken in context.

There is a difference between a wife setting up a husband (via a hooker) who "naturally" (for lack of a better word) cheats even when times are good, and a wife setting up a husband after the marriage has failed even if the divorce isn't final. In the second case the husband might not have cheated if he and his wife were still getting along (in which case hiring a hooker isn't showing that "the husband is bad", its more a symptom of "both parties recognize the relationship is over except for the paperwork".)

 

[Rasmus]

Looks like this would be a consequence of there not being any "no fault divorces", no fair way for both parties to go their separate ways.

 

[Dragonrock]

Is entrapping the right word? In police work, a charge of "entrapment" is pretty specific, and the victim has to show that s/he would have been unlikely to commit the crime without police enticement. As such, when considering whether hiring a prostitute to initiate/spur on divorce proceedings is "entrapment", we also must consider the character and motivations of the husband.

In police work, the difference between entrapment and undercover work usually comes down to who approached who. If the hooker just stands on the street corner and the guy goes to her, that's undercover work. If the hooker goes up to the guy, especially if it's a specific guy, that's entrapment. All that comes from a cop who is a friend of my wife's so I reserve the right to be wrong.

I can see how you'd think I'm "itching for a fight", considering divorce is a very sensitive subject for many people. I am cursed with the tendency to see both sides of a story. I don't believe in Evil, only in Human Nature. If one person is capable of, say, cruelly entrapping her husband in a greedy attempt to live the high-life post-divorce, then we are all capable of such callous measures and should consider our own actions (and our rationalization for such actions) in this new light.

He mentioned both sides of the story, and since the thread started with an article about wives sending hookers to their husbands your post seemed more along the lines of either "men would do it to women if they could" or "all men are trolls and deserve it." Of which neither comment was really relevant to the discussion.

This reminds me of an occurrence at my place of work. A few years ago a study found that during their college years, the rate of boyfriends being abused by their girlfriends was about as high as that of girlfriends being abused. The main difference being the result of the abuse. It's a bigger deal when men do it because they can simply do more damage.

Because I work at a university this info was sent to the staff along with a reminder of how to tell if someone is being victimized. We were also warned that it can be harder to tell if a man is being abused. A female coworker of mine got angry about the email and refused to even consider the possibility that women might be abusive. She countered any story or article about abusive women by saying basically "men do it too".

Your post was written in a similar style as Fnord with similar wording, only turned around to make the man the bad guy. Doing this is usually seen as mocking. I didn't see anything anyone said as deriding all women so I took your comment to be something akin to my coworker's apologetics for the misdeeds of some women.

 

[BenBurch]

At least in Illinois, conduct does not factor in to the rehabilitative maintenance and property division rules.

 

[Mark6]

In Japan, of course, things are different. I don't know if there is any such thing as "Irreconcilable Differences" in Japanese divorce court, but the person filing for divorce seems to be considered the disloyal partner when there is no proof to the contrary. It seems that unless the woman filing for divorce can prove abuse, neglect, infidelity or criminal activity, she seems likely to be given the short end of the deal. The easiest of these to 'prove' is infidelity. Just snap a few photos of the cheater in the arms of a prostitute, and that's money in the bank for life.

Sounds like Japanese divorce law is unfair to women (or to whoever initiates the proceedings), and some women are trying to "get back". Although now that this practice is common knowledge, I can't imagine its continuing success. At least not as much.

Looks like this would be a consequence of there not being any "no fault divorces", no fair way for both parties to go their separate ways.

I can imagine following "fair way":

Wife and husband both want a divorce. They know court will not grant it without "fault" of some kind. They work out (possibly with help of a lawyer) how much money husband can fairly pay her after the divorce. Wife signs a legally binding agreement to accept that much and no more. Then they hire the hooker. Wife take pictures of husband with the hooker, and husband takes pictures of wife with the hooker.

At court wife presents her pictures. She asks for agreed-upon amount. Judge grants it. If she decides to get greedy and asks for more, husband presents his pictures demonstrating she is just as much "at fault".

 

[Rasmus]

Sounds like Japanese divorce law is unfair to women (or to whoever initiates the proceedings), and some women are trying to "get back". Although now that this practice is common knowledge, I can't imagine its continuing success. At least not as much.

I can imagine following "fair way":

chances are, this would be illegal to boot.

If not, it assumes that the parties can ask for an amount and it further assumes that they have a good chance of getting it.

And I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome if both parties end up accusing the other side.

Plus there's the minor detail of having to sleep with a hooker just to get a divorce?

 

[Fnord]

Is entrapping the right word? In police work, a charge of "entrapment" is pretty specific, and the victim has to show that s/he would have been unlikely to commit the crime without police enticement. As such, when considering whether hiring a prostitute to initiate/spur on divorce proceedings is "entrapment", we also must consider the character and motivations of the husband...

One might also consider the fact that while 'Entrapment' is applicable to criminal procedings (drug dealing, pedophilia, et cetera), it may not carry the same legal weight in a civil proceding, such as divorce.

 

[luchog]

Anyone else feel a "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit coming on?

I'm pretty sure they've already done that one.

 

[sthomson]

He mentioned both sides of the story, and since the thread started with an article about wives sending hookers to their husbands your post seemed more along the lines of either "men would do it to women if they could" or "all men are trolls and deserve it." Of which neither comment was really relevant to the discussion.

That's an odd interpretation of my comment. I was attempting to re-frame the previous comment in the opposing light. The original comment was highly biased against the wives in such a situation, so I re-wrote it to be highly biased against the husband (and I thought I had made my purpose intentionally clear by stating that I was playing "Devil's Advocate" - in common terms, this means "Stating a position that I do not actually hold for demonstrative purposes".)

In other words, Fnord posited a scenario where greedy wives entrapped their husbands. I posited the "reverse" scenario, where battered wives turn to their "only outlet" (besides hiring an assassin ). Personally, I believe both Fnord's scenario and my scenario are rather far-fetched. In fact, I believe the entire article, like most lifestyle articles, in incredibly poorly sourced and should be taken by any skeptic with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Dragonrock]

That's an odd interpretation of my comment. I was attempting to re-frame the previous comment in the opposing light. The original comment was highly biased against the wives in such a situation, so I re-wrote it to be highly biased against the husband (and I thought I had made my purpose intentionally clear by stating that I was playing "Devil's Advocate" - in common terms, this means "Stating a position that I do not actually hold for demonstrative purposes".)

In other words, Fnord posited a scenario where greedy wives entrapped their husbands. I posited the "reverse" scenario, where battered wives turn to their "only outlet" (besides hiring an assassin ). Personally, I believe both Fnord's scenario and my scenario are rather far-fetched. In fact, I believe the entire article, like most lifestyle articles, in incredibly poorly sourced and should be taken by any skeptic with a huge grain of salt.

Ah, so you were saying "men do it too". Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Bill Thompson]

My ex-wife tried this back in the eighties. The ho she hired was a lousy actor...

You mean "actress", unless...

 

[Bill Thompson]

I thought this already happened in the UK and the USA? Wasn't there a TV show in the USA that was about people who did this?

Something simular was on Dr. Phil last month.

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Not the same, but a somewhat similar premise in the film Chloe.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_(film)

 

[Accidental Martyr]

You mean "actress", unless...

Not necessarily.
From Wikipedia:
"The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be referred to by either term. The Oxford English Dictionary states that originally "actor" was used for both sexes. The English word actress does not derive from the Latin actrix, probably not even by way of French actrice; according to the Oxford English Dictionary, actress was "probably formed independently" in English. As actress is a specifically feminine word, some groups assert that the word is sexist. Gender-neutral usage of actor has re-emerged in modern English,[4][5] especially when referring to male and female performers collectively, but actress remains the common term used in major acting awards given to female recipients and is common in general usage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor