Scenario 1 : A woman hire another woman to seduce her male partner in order to TEST his loyalty. Should the guy be pissed off when the woman do such thing? Of course if he didn't fall for the trap he would be angry because he thinks the woman doesn't trust him. But if he fell for the trap, then he can't be angry because his partner would have kill him for his infidelity.
Scenario 2 : a common one actually, this is when a partner checks his/her partner's phone WITHOUT PERMISSION. Or reads his diary, or do a check up on his lap top, social networking etc, WITHOUT PERMISSION. There are some relationship where the partner check each other phones. If you don't show your phone, there's an IMPLIED PRESUMPTION that you are hiding something. Then again, if you know your partner is very obsessed with checking your stuff, you will master the talent of hiding your secrets pretty well. Come on, people who are married and living under the SAME BLOODY ROOF can have affairs, what more mere non married couples? As the saying goes, "when there's a will, there's a way".
Personally for me, i don't like it when my partner checks my stuff. It's an invasion of privacy. If you think you can explore my phone because you have the status of a bf or husband, why don't i just shove my diary at your face? I might have something to hide, i might NOT have something to hide, i have my reasons but it definitely doesn't involve having another lover. If i don't love you, i will simply break up with you instead of continuing the failing relationship. the rule of breaking up is simple, you break up because you want to be with another person and the break up is a necessity for you to be able to go out with another person without being accused of cheating. So if someone ask for a break up, just give it to them, to beg to rethink the matter. Why do you want to be with someone who doesn't have the intention to be with you? Okay, i'm running away from the main topic that i'm suppose to discuss about.
Whatever it is, i believe you don't have to be a busybody to find out the truth by invading people's privacy. I'll tell you a REAL INCIDENT that happened. This woman suspects her husband was cheating. She checks his phone without his permission, and go through his bills. Sure when she checks her husband's phone there were flirty messages from other women but there were no reply messages from the husband and perhaps even if they were, it was not flirty. So she became very upset that the husband was being friends with such flirtatious women. pretty normal, who doesn't get jealous? But she has no proof that the husband was having affairs. She only rumors and see flirty text messages from other women. The husband on the other hand, couldn't be bothered to check her phone. He never invade her privacy. But the husband eventually caught that the wife was CHEATING behind his back without ever having to invade her privacy. There were some indications she was cheating but the husband just asked her a simple question whether she cheated. Perhaps she was scared, but she admitted. And later more concrete proof surfaced.
What i'm trying to tell you is that the squirrel can hop from one tree to another perfectly without falling but eventually it will fall. Sorry, i translated that literally from Malay :-p. "Sepandai pandai tupai melompat, akhirnya jatuh ke tanah juga". Cheat all you want but one day you will get caught due to your carelessness. Perhaps it's God's power to show your partner your cheating without your partner having to go through your stuff to see whether you are having affair.
Trust is an important thing in a relationship. If you can't trust, don't be in a relationship. The habit of accusing your partner of having affair when it's not true will only irritate your partner. It will eventually lead to a broken relationship. I think my bad habit when i'm in a relationship is JEALOUSY. I won't accuse my partner of cheating but i will bitch any woman who my partner seem to "like", that would include celebrities :-D...
Scenario 3 : this is more of a legal matter in relation to entrapment. This is when the police secretly use devices or set traps to catch offenders. Like putting up a listening device to record conversations that might be prejudicial to the offender. The issue is whether such evidence will be admissible since the device was secretly located at the offender's house. Of course in a public area there won't be an issue. Cases have shown such evidence is admissible even though it was obtained "improperly". Some seem to think the manner in which the evidence was obtained was irrelevant, what matters most is that the evidence is RELEVANT. On the other hand, some would think it's against the Human Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment