S04.E09: Should've Known Better

[xls]

On 4/19/2020 at 4:03 PM, humbleopinion said:

The waitress takes the flowers to the back door so the vendor can sell it to another "David" meeting "Lana" in the cafe....

The second best option is for "Lana" to stand him up again...then their relationship continues..David can tolerate Fantasyland with his perfect woman firmly living only in his mind...but finding out she doesn't exist for him to meet is bursting his bubble.....the loss of 100K becomes real...right now it is still an investment in his and "Lana's" RV future.

YoLa hollering "But I'm in Love" means she doesn't want reality to infringe on the relationship she's been having with the disembodied voice for 7 months...willing to bet she has sent money along with the va jay jay pictures....

Lets face it; TLC is stringing us along too. We will never see "Lana" or "Williams" because they just don't exist. 

Except Williams may be one of Useman's roomies😎

[Honey]

On 4/15/2020 at 1:35 AM, RealReality said:

So, let's assume for a second that Lana is a real woman who really lives in wherever the hell.

A man she has refused to meet suddenly just decides to show up in her city, admits to it and goes around to your favorite haunts asking people if they can give him your personal information.  After you've ghosted him and stood him up.  

If Lana was a real person, this is so stalkerish and abnormal.  I think we laugh because it's a scam, but if a woman has been this clear that she has no interest in meeting you, and you so all this....you're a stalker.  

That David honestly thought that she was going to meet him and suddenly want to start the Visa process when she has ghosted him several times is just so weird.  

And OMG, that darcy'esque bird bath.  Yikes.  At least he didn't spray any axe or body fantasies colonge on his balls.  

Men who cannot take no for an answer aren't cute, they aren't pitiful they are scary and creepy. 

I would agree with you, if she had ever said NO to him.  She continued to promise to meet him, accept gifts, have online sex, etc.  She has never told him that she didn't want to see him, and she never told him that she didn't want to message him anymore.  I know she doesn't exist, but the sake of argument let's say she does.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Honey

[Brodicea]

Regarding David's cafe scene, a couple of people on Reddit who were from Eastern Block Countries, suggested that the guy in the cafe could be secret police. They contended that no Westerner would be allowed to film without some kind of surveillance.

[xls]

On 4/15/2020 at 3:01 PM, RealReality said:

So we all agree David should just go ahead and get a silicone dolls, right ?  JK...kinda.....maybe....not really. 

Yeah! he could have gotten how man custom "Real Dolls" for 100 grand & had just as real a pretend relationship with them.

[xls]

22 hours ago, GladysCravits said:

Tom loves being in front of the camera, not Darci. 

I saw episodes from 2017 this afternoon and-omg- did Darci look like a different person!

Very little make up and long black hair, I must not have been watching back then. 

[Auntie Anxiety]

7 hours ago, CountryGirl said:

/Avery - see my note to Varya. When he said "I'm not single now," that told her everything she needed to and for once, he couldn't slick-talk his way out of it. If it was just her, I'd say do whatever, but she's got children so she needs to not fuck up their lives in pursuit of her "soulmate."

If I was one of his clients, I’d demand my money back. I guess he could have possibly saved his neck with a philosophic word salad (“Well, aren't we all single in a cosmic way, with this beauty around us and the universe sending us its energy?”). Avery would swoon.

While Darcy is at her doctor’s office discussing her peri menopausal hormonal problems, she also needs to mention her apparent body dysmorphia issues. Stacy can join her and get the group rate.

[EtheltoTillie]

I have not seen this addressed. Why did David say he got Lana’s address from her cruise ship paperwork?  

[Rt66vintage]

10 hours ago, GoGamecox said:

I had the same thoughts. I wondered how much "Lana" (whoever they really are) made off that one interaction and how much they made off of his $100,000 overall investment. Half? You know the management keeps a good portion for running the site. Does anyone out there know more about these sites work for the employees? 

Check out Love Me on YouTube, and you'll probably enter the rabbit hole that is the mail order bride phenomenon. 

[Spike]

17 minutes ago, GussieK said:

I have not seen this addressed. Why did David say he got Lana’s address from her cruise ship paperwork?  

He had booked a cruise for them (which she flaked on) and the cruise ship line needed her address so he saw it on the itinerary.  

[EtheltoTillie]

20 minutes ago, Spike said:

He had booked a cruise for them (which she flaked on) and the cruise ship line needed her address so he saw it on the itinerary.  

Geez, he’s even more of an idiot than I thought. 

[RealReality]

1 hour ago, Honey said:

I would agree with you, if she had ever said NO to him.  She continued to promise to meet him, accept gifts, have online sex, etc.  She has never told him that she didn't want to see him, and she never told him that she didn't want to message him anymore.  I know she doesn't exist, but the sake of argument let's say she does.

You shouldn't have to tell someone that you don't want them to ambush you at your house when you've never asked then to and you've made it clear that you don't want to because you've given them no means to contact you away from a paid site. 

If Lana didn't want to see him, he isn't owed a meeting with her.  And she has been pretty crystal clear, IMO.  Last time she didn't just not show up.  She didn't show up AND she ghosted him online.  Which led to him thinking he should ambush her because he is owed a meeting.  

The default position, IMO, should be that unless someone is told "yes please show up to my house/town" you don't go.  Barring that, it's wayyyyyy not okay to ambush someone at their house.  Especially if your only interaction has been over a paid chat service.  

her job is to keep him chatting for $2.99 a minute.  Why would she tell him to stop contacting her and sending her flowers?  That's her job.   

Edited April 21, 2020 by RealReality

[Spike]

12 minutes ago, RealReality said:

You shouldn't have to tell someone that you don't want them to ambush you at your house when you've never asked then to and you've made it clear that you don't want to because you've given them no means to contact you away from a paid site. 

If Lana didn't want to see him, he isn't owed a meeting with her.  And she has been pretty crystal clear, IMO.  Last time she didn't just not show up.  She didn't show up AND she ghosted him online.  Which led to him thinking he should ambush her because he is owed a meeting.  

The default position, IMO, should be that unless someone is told "yes please show up to my house/town" you don't go.  Barring that, it's wayyyyyy not okay to ambush someone at their house.  Especially if your only interaction has been over a paid chat service.  

her job is to keep him chatting for $2.99 a minute.  Why would she tell him to stop contacting her and sending her flowers?  That's her job.   

Yeah it’s sorta like the stripper has to be nice to you at work but that doesn’t mean you get to follow her home.

[Dobian]

The last two episodes should be required viewing for anyone considering dating Stephanie so they know what they're walking into.

[magemaud]

2 hours ago, xls said:

Very little make up and long black hair, I must not have been watching back then. 

That was her original look. And she always wore some kind of choker or scarf around her neck: 

[nb360]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

That's one of the reasons why the author of YOU (turned into Netflix series) wrote the story she did. 

Good series and good book by Carolyn Kepnes. Read the whole novel within three days. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by nb360

[Dobian]

2 hours ago, RealReality said:

You shouldn't have to tell someone that you don't want them to ambush you at your house when you've never asked then to and you've made it clear that you don't want to because you've given them no means to contact you away from a paid site. 

If Lana didn't want to see him, he isn't owed a meeting with her.  And she has been pretty crystal clear, IMO.  Last time she didn't just not show up.  She didn't show up AND she ghosted him online.  Which led to him thinking he should ambush her because he is owed a meeting.  

The default position, IMO, should be that unless someone is told "yes please show up to my house/town" you don't go.  Barring that, it's wayyyyyy not okay to ambush someone at their house.  Especially if your only interaction has been over a paid chat service.  

her job is to keep him chatting for $2.99 a minute.  Why would she tell him to stop contacting her and sending her flowers?  That's her job.   

Well she's a scammer so I have no sympathy for her.  Sure this guy is delusional and a moron and has creepy romantic fantasies, but she knew that and kept stringing him along when he was talking about marriage and bringing her to America.  If you don't want to have a creepy guy tracking you down to be his wife or something else, then stop milking the same guy for years for money from a fake online relationship.  Lots of cam girls and sex chatters know how to draw the line so their clients know what the boundaries are.  Instead she played into it.  She was greedy and knew she could ghost him and he would keep paying her money to pursue her.  She played a risky game for profit and jeopardized herself.  Maybe she's finally learned her lesson.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Dobian

[RealReality]

55 minutes ago, Dobian said:

Well she's a scammer so I have no sympathy for her.  Sure this guy is delusional and a moron and has creepy romantic fantasies, but she knew that and kept stringing him along when he was talking about marriage and bringing her to America.  If you don't want to have a creepy guy tracking you down to be his wife or something else, then stop milking the same guy for years for money from a fake online relationship.  Lots of cam girls and sex chatters know how to draw the line so their clients know what the boundaries are.  Instead she played into it.  She was greedy and knew she could ghost him and he would keep paying her money to pursue her.  She played a risky game for profit and jeopardized herself.  Maybe she's finally learned her lesson.

The line should be pretty clearly drawn at "I didn't give you a phone number, you make plans and I stand you up, I haven't given you an email address, I haven't given you a social media account and I don't want to talk to you unless you're paying $2.99 a minute"

Stringing him along is her job, she doesn't deserve to be ambushed for doing her job.  She has not entertained a conversation under any context that does not involve her doing her job.  

I disagree strongly with the notion that a woman who "leads a man on" should learn her lesson by getting stalked or having their physical health and safety put at risk and I feel that's an incredibly dangerous road to travel down. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by RealReality

[Adeejay]

I just read that one of my favorite 90 Day couples, Justin and Evelyn from Season 2 are going to have a baby. It made me nostalgic for the early years when this show had real couples. Today, couples like  Kirlyam/Alan, Kyle/Noon and Amy/Danny would be rejected. Instead they have fake storylines like David and Yolanda and Desperate Attention Whores like Stephanie and Tom. This show has really gone downhill.

[Kayz Opinion]

5 hours ago, GussieK said:

5 hours ago, Spike said:

He had booked a cruise for them (which she flaked on) and the cruise ship line needed her address so he saw it on the itinerary.  

Geez, he’s even more of an idiot than I thought. 

With STALKER tendencies.

6 hours ago, Honey said:

I would agree with you, if she had ever said NO to him.  She continued to promise to meet him, accept gifts, have online sex, etc.  She has never told him that she didn't want to see him, and she never told him that she didn't want to message him anymore.  I know she doesn't exist, but the sake of argument let's say she does

Wasn't she just doing her job?  I'm sure many MORE people warned him about his "romance" than those few we saw on camera. "She" may not exist, but there's someone on the other end of that credit card.  It's a business.

[Kayz Opinion]

12 hours ago, jackjill89 said:

I think Lisa is a dummy. I think she really believes that he loves her. BGL thinks that he never had sex without a condom until her... she's quite gullible. 

So gullible, yet BOSSY--bossy without the facts.   If she's THIS bad in a country where she doesn't feel safe, what will things be like back home in he old U.S. of A. ?? 

[Kayz Opinion]

11 hours ago, AZChristian said:

12 hours ago, jackjill89 said:

I think Lisa is a dummy. I think she really believes that he loves her. BGL thinks that he never had sex without a condom until her... she's quite gullible. 

She also believes that other people care about her opinion on any given subject . . . like production and direction of a video, whether it matters if the mother in a matriarchal society will permit a marriage, etc., etc., etc.

I agree with both comments, but want to add that Lisa also thinks that SHE is on a higher level in Nigeria because she's (1) White (2) American (3) Christian.  Those are the only reasons she thinks she's smarter and speaks to the Nigerians in such a condescending (and embarrassing) manner.  In the U.S. she's probably a "3" at best...yet on the Internet and in a Third World country, she's Lisa The Magnificent.

Anyone know what her net worth is?  Or was?

[Dobian]

2 hours ago, RealReality said:

The line should be pretty clearly drawn at "I didn't give you a phone number, you make plans and I stand you up, I haven't given you an email address, I haven't given you a social media account and I don't want to talk to you unless you're paying $2.99 a minute"

Stringing him along is her job, she doesn't deserve to be ambushed for doing her job.  She has not entertained a conversation under any context that does not involve her doing her job.  

I disagree strongly with the notion that a woman who "leads a man on" should learn her lesson by getting stalked or having their physical health and safety put at risk and I feel that's an incredibly dangerous road to travel down. 

If you are dumb enough to engage with creepy individuals online and keep a thing going with them for seven years to get their money when they think they are in a relationship with you and have told you this, and instead of saying no we’re not, you encourage them, you are playing with fire.  Years ago she should have told him, you are a paying client and this is not a relationship.  You keep equating this woman to someone who is being stalked by their ex-boyfriend or something.  This isn’t some innocent victim, this is someone who knowingly engaged with someone for several years who she knew wasn’t right in the head and who she knew had delusional fantasies about her and she exploited that to the tune for a hundred grand.  Sorry, but if you are greedy and try to keep scamming someone who you know isn’t right in the head then yes you are largely responsible for the danger you are putting yourself in.

[jumper sage]

20 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

He could be the guy who, if David had showed up alone without a camera crew, says he's Lana's brother and Lana is in trouble and you need to come with me right away. As soon as he gets in the car, David gets a bag over his head and a gun to his ribcage. Then it's off to an apartment where they begin ripping David's fingernails out until he gives over all his account numbers. After that, it's just a question of dumping his body where it won't be found.

When David was at the door of the apartment, with me forgetting about the crew, I thought, "Oh, we get to see Russian crime first hand.

[mamadrama]

3 hours ago, Dobian said:

If you are dumb enough to engage with creepy individuals online and keep a thing going with them for seven years to get their money when they think they are in a relationship with you and have told you this, and instead of saying no we’re not, you encourage them, you are playing with fire.  Years ago she should have told him, you are a paying client and this is not a relationship.  You keep equating this woman to someone who is being stalked by their ex-boyfriend or something.  This isn’t some innocent victim, this is someone who knowingly engaged with someone for several years who she knew wasn’t right in the head and who she knew had delusional fantasies about her and she exploited that to the tune for a hundred grand.  Sorry, but if you are greedy and try to keep scamming someone who you know isn’t right in the head then yes you are largely responsible for the danger you are putting yourself in.

IMO @RealRealityis talking in a hypothetical sense. The odds of the woman in these photos being the person he's talking to are slim. We don't even know if this is the same person writing him every time. The replies are so generic there may be a "team" who trade off on responding. That's what's happened in previous similar scams. 

It's almost a bad Lifetime movie: crazy dude stalks chick in picture thinking he loves her and vice versa, but she has no idea who he is. 

[Kangatush]

3 hours ago, Dobian said:

If you are dumb enough to engage with creepy individuals online and keep a thing going with them for seven years to get their money when they think they are in a relationship with you and have told you this, and instead of saying no we’re not, you encourage them, you are playing with fire.  Years ago she should have told him, you are a paying client and this is not a relationship.  You keep equating this woman to someone who is being stalked by their ex-boyfriend or something.  This isn’t some innocent victim, this is someone who knowingly engaged with someone for several years who she knew wasn’t right in the head and who she knew had delusional fantasies about her and she exploited that to the tune for a hundred grand.  Sorry, but if you are greedy and try to keep scamming someone who you know isn’t right in the head then yes you are largely responsible for the danger you are putting yourself in.

6 hours ago, RealReality said:

The line should be pretty clearly drawn at "I didn't give you a phone number, you make plans and I stand you up, I haven't given you an email address, I haven't given you a social media account and I don't want to talk to you unless you're paying $2.99 a minute"

Stringing him along is her job, she doesn't deserve to be ambushed for doing her job.  She has not entertained a conversation under any context that does not involve her doing her job.  

I disagree strongly with the notion that a woman who "leads a man on" should learn her lesson by getting stalked or having their physical health and safety put at risk and I feel that's an incredibly dangerous road to travel down. 

 

I think you both have valid points and I also think they don't apply in this situation.  "Lana" is a character employed by a company to chat with men.  It might be one person, or many people.  They may be male, female, a bot, or a trained monkey.  What I can basically guarantee though is that they aren't the woman in the pics and that I'm 99.99% certain that address has nothing to do with them.  

If it were one person working a catfish scam, like Williams, then they would have a level of personal responsibility about what happens to them.  They could also go to the police and say they feel unsafe when David told her he was in town.  He certainly has no "right" to see her, no matter what has been said, over however long a time period.  

But in this case it's like if David fell in love with a costumed Minnie Mouse at Disneyland and has now gone to "her place" at Cinderella's Castle to confront her.  The person inside the suit isn't actually in any danger.

[Gobi]

Do we know how this site presents itself? That is, is it openly a sex chat site or does it pretend to be a dating site? It seems to me that a genuine dating site wouldn't last long if the members (and only the males, presumably) had to pay $2.99/minute to be on it, whereas a sex chat site would.

It all comes back to why I think this is fake. This isn't David's first Ukrainian rodeo. He claims to have dated over 100 Ukrainian women, some of whom wanted to marry him. He's travelled there several times. Surely, he would have to know the difference between a legitimate dating site and a scam by now. A woman who genuinely is interested in him will get off the $2.99/minute site and give him real contact info. He has to know that; hell, it may have happened to him before this.

I could see a first timer falling for this scam. David just doesn't fit the profile.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Gobi

[RealReality]

4 hours ago, Dobian said:

If you are dumb enough to engage with creepy individuals online and keep a thing going with them for seven years to get their money when they think they are in a relationship with you and have told you this, and instead of saying no we’re not, you encourage them, you are playing with fire.  Years ago she should have told him, you are a paying client and this is not a relationship.  You keep equating this woman to someone who is being stalked by their ex-boyfriend or something.  This isn’t some innocent victim, this is someone who knowingly engaged with someone for several years who she knew wasn’t right in the head and who she knew had delusional fantasies about her and she exploited that to the tune for a hundred grand.  Sorry, but if you are greedy and try to keep scamming someone who you know isn’t right in the head then yes you are largely responsible for the danger you are putting yourself in.

Why should she have to tell him what he is?  He is a client who only talks to her on a chat service.  That's it.  And she has been crystal clear that she is not interested in more.  If he is too stupid to realize he is a paying client and nothing more, it doesn't mean she deserves to have her safety put at risk. 

Why shouldn't she do her job?  David's feelings are not her responsibility.  She isn't responsible for stopping him from spending his money on a fantasy relationship.  

She has never once initiated contact with him.  She had never once given him a phone number.  She has always stood him up.  She has never given him an email address.  She has never given him her social media accounts. 

But now she is responsible for making sure he correctly interprets these very clear messages?  She isn't allowed to do her job because a sixty year old man spending his money is her responsibility?

I posit that David's actions are his responsibility and that no one, no one deserves some guy ambushing them at their house so that they "learn a lesson" because they "led them on." 

I think that is a very, very slippery and scary slope and has been justification used by men for years to excuse all sorts of horrible behavior towards women.  The sort of behavior that men have justified over the years with the "but she was leading me on, so she deserved it" defense is staggering.  

 

[Zevious Zoquis]

11 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Why should she have to tell him what he is?  He is a client who only talks to her on a chat service.  That's it.  And she has been crystal clear that she is not interested in more.  If he is too stupid to realize he is a paying client and nothing more, it doesn't mean she deserves to have her safety put at risk. 

Why shouldn't she do her job?  David's feelings are not her responsibility.  She isn't responsible for stopping him from spending his money on a fantasy relationship.  

She has never once initiated contact with him.  She had never once given him a phone number.  She has always stood him up.  She has never given him an email address.  She has never given him her social media accounts. 

But now she is responsible for making sure he correctly interprets these very clear messages?  She isn't allowed to do her job because a sixty year old man spending his money is her responsibility?

I posit that David's actions are his responsibility and that no one, no one deserves some guy ambushing them at their house so that they "learn a lesson" because they "led them on." 

I think that is a very, very slippery and scary slope and has been justification used by men for years to excuse all sorts of horrible behavior towards women.  The sort of behavior that men have justified over the years with the "but she was leading me on, so she deserved it" defense is staggering.  

 

you keep saying she's been crystal clear about not wanting more out of the relationship.  That just isn't true.  We all know what the reality of the situation is.  But if you want to argue based on a hypothetical "real woman just doing her job" notion then she should have been more clear about the nature of their interaction.  Standing him up and then returning and continuing the scam online when he's proven himself to be perfectly willing to get on a plane and come to meet her is asking for trouble.  He's creepy obviously, and she's almost certainly not a real person, but if she is I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.  She's playing a very dangerous game and she bears some responsibility for the situation too...

[Normades]

27 minutes ago, Zevious Zoquis said:

She's playing a very dangerous game and she bears some responsibility for the situation too...

 

27 minutes ago, Zevious Zoquis said:

 

I completely agree.  They are both at fault here.  He's a creep and she (or whoever is behind the curtain) kept things going knowing he was a creep.  Lana scheduled meetings with him and led him to believe she would be there.  Apparently, she even provided an address for her ticket on a cruise.  She has some responsibility.  If once it became clear that he was really making plans and coming to meet her she had told him that wasn't on the table, I could give her a pass, but she kept playing with fire. 

I hope it's some big, burly, pissed off Russian behind that door.  His face would be priceless!!

[Stinamaia]

5 hours ago, Kayz Opinion said:

I agree with both comments, but want to add that Lisa also thinks that SHE is on a higher level in Nigeria because she's (1) White (2) American (3) Christian.  Those are the only reasons she thinks she's smarter and speaks to the Nigerians in such a condescending (and embarrassing) manner.  In the U.S. she's probably a "3" at best...yet on the Internet and in a Third World country, she's Lisa The Magnificent.

Anyone know what her net worth is?  Or was?

I agree.  I also think Lisa knows how much Usman wants a visa.  She acts as if she owns him because she feels the power she has over him.  Her treatment of him lacks respect.  I do think Usman is using her, but I think she is buying a handsome young lover.  I think Usman’s mother sees it clearly and is right to worry, but I think she will give into to her son’s desire.  
Lisa’s contempt for Nigeria is endless, but I doubt she is less complaining in the U.S.

[DiamondGirl]

On 4/14/2020 at 5:02 AM, Gobi said:

She's bicelibate.

She wants to be “sexy” without having to do any of the cooties stuff.  That’s why she does it all alone on YouTube.  Phony.

[Kyanight]

Lana has said that she wants to marry David and come to America.  She said she wanted to get their pictures taken and get her Visa.  After she refuses to meet him when he flies to Russia, she makes up excuses and starts the whole situation going again.  He's a true idiot for not getting the message - but she takes the chat job too far, IMO.

It's one thing to string guys along to make the chat service big $$, but you don't have to encourage a doofus to fly out to meet you FOUR times.  I'm not saying David doesn't deserve what he gets - but why are people seeing this as one-sided?  There are consequences for all of our actions.  If you don't want to get burned, don't play with matches.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Kyanight

[Zevious Zoquis]

17 minutes ago, Normades said:

 

I completely agree.  They are both at fault here.  He's a creep and she (or whoever is behind the curtain) kept things going knowing he was a creep.  Lana scheduled meetings with him and led him to believe she would be there.  Apparently, she even provided an address for her ticket on a cruise.  She has some responsibility.  If once it became clear that he was really making plans and coming to meet her she had told him that wasn't on the table, I could give her a pass, but she kept playing with fire. 

I hope it's some big, burly, pissed off Russian behind that door.  His face would be priceless!!

yeah I mean let's face it, in the real world (aka not "sharp-landia") if David does this, he's highly likely to end up getting a beating and then a ride to the airport...if he's lucky.  

[Eme]

BGL is simply horrid. She makes no bones about Her wants, needs and demands.  No charm at all in dealing with anyone in Nigeria-especially Usman #1.  There is absolutely no love, care or chemistry between them. She barks and he responds.  She has zero clue that in his culture and religion he will not be able to put up with her bossiness after he seals the deal in getting to America.  Also, can’t help but wonder if she knows that in his religion he can have several wives?  He has his Eye On The Prize snd very well knows he Will have a Family -just Not With Her!

The way she glares at his mother, never stands and doesn’t bother to smile or attempt kindness is riveting!  She’s there to pick up her belongings (Usman) and she will bulldoze her way to get him.  
She is completely oblivious and tone-deaf in her Individual interviews-so arrogant in listing her wants and how Usman better toe the line....no care of his feelings at all. She’s a piece of work and one can only hope that when she sees herself on teevee she will realize how poorly she behaves.

[Normades]

13 hours ago, xls said:

Lets face it; TLC is stringing us along too. We will never see "Lana" or "Williams" because they just don't exist. 

 

Umm, that's "THE Williams" to you. 😀

[Zevious Zoquis]

16 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

Lana has said that she wants to marry David and come to America.  She said she wanted to get their pictures taken and get her Visa.  After she refuses to meet him when he flies to Russia, she makes up excuses and starts the whole situation going again.  He's a true idiot for not getting the message - but she takes the chat job too far, IMO.

It's one thing to string guys along to make the chat service big $$, but you don't have to encourage a doofus to fly out to meet you FOUR times.  I'm not saying David doesn't deserve what he gets - but why are people seeing this as one-sided?  There are consequences for all of our actions.  If you don't want to get burned, don't play with matches.

yeah, I mean someone mentioned strippers as a similar situation where a woman is just "doing a job."  I get that, but most strippers know enough not to make dates with dudes they just lap-danced.  If "Lana" is a real working woman who has to be concerned for her own safety (as in she doesn't have a Ukrainian crime organization to look after her), SHE needs to take the hint when she realizes that David ISN'T taking it.  She really has all the power in the situation.  She doesn't HAVE to string dudes along for 7 years to get her 2.99/minute.  She can just as easily tell David to fuck off and move on to the next guy.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Zevious Zoquis

[Kyanight]

24 minutes ago, Eme said:

 

The way she glares at his mother, never stands and doesn’t bother to smile or attempt kindness is riveting!  She’s there to pick up her belongings (Usman) and she will bulldoze her way to get him.  
She is completely oblivious and tone-deaf in her Individual interviews-so arrogant in listing her wants and how Usman better toe the line....no care of his feelings at all. She’s a piece of work and one can only hope that when she sees herself on teevee she will realize how poorly she behaves.

This is probably not "PC" but I'm old and kind of say what I want to, most of the time.

No wonder Usman's mother is worried about him.   Lisa TOTALLY comes across as a slave owner.  She barks commands at him and expects to be obeyed.  "Translate!"  Even if the mother doesn't speak English, she recognizes voice tones (commands) and facial expressions, and lack of respect towards ANYONE, not just "Mommy".   I was thinking that Mommy was a little racist since she didn't want Usman to have a white wife, but the way Lisa behaves and talks and acts and looks - I can see how this reinforces Mommy's beliefs and I don't blame her.

[humbleopinion]

15 hours ago, deirdra said:

David sleeps in his polo shirts?

No, he sleeps naked. Pass me the brain bleach.

The polo muumuu was for the benefit of the camera crew and audience.

[blubld43]

25 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

This is probably not "PC" but I'm old and kind of say what I want to, most of the time.

No wonder Usman's mother is worried about him.   Lisa TOTALLY comes across as a slave owner.  She barks commands at him and expects to be obeyed.  "Translate!"  Even if the mother doesn't speak English, she recognizes voice tones (commands) and facial expressions, and lack of respect towards ANYONE, not just "Mommy".   I was thinking that Mommy was a little racist since she didn't want Usman to have a white wife, but the way Lisa behaves and talks and acts and looks - I can see how this reinforces Mommy's beliefs and I don't blame her.

Could not agree more.  Her terrible, condescending attitude towards every person she's encountered there would be enough to put any mom off, she couldn't even manage to cover ALL her hair in the mosque.  Clearly she hasn't bothered to learn anything about the religion or the culture.

I hope Usman makes it to the U.S., then dumps BGL asap.

[RealReality]

2 hours ago, Zevious Zoquis said:

you keep saying she's been crystal clear about not wanting more out of the relationship.  That just isn't true.  We all know what the reality of the situation is.  But if you want to argue based on a hypothetical "real woman just doing her job" notion then she should have been more clear about the nature of their interaction.  Standing him up and then returning and continuing the scam online when he's proven himself to be perfectly willing to get on a plane and come to meet her is asking for trouble.  He's creepy obviously, and she's almost certainly not a real person, but if she is I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.  She's playing a very dangerous game and she bears some responsibility for the situation too...

How much more clear can she be when she hasn't given him a phone number, has never initiated contact, has never met him, won't give him an email address or a social media account?  

How much clearer can that be after seven years?  The only place she will talk to him is a chat room where he pays $2.99 a minute.  

A stripper and phone sex operator aren't going to say "okay, pay me $50 for this lap dance, but let me first make it clear we are not in a relationship.". No, they are going to take your $50 and grind on you and if you tell them to meet you around back after the lap dance they are going to stand you up.  

Her job is to keep him chatting and be amenable to whatever he says to keep him paying $2.99 a minute.  That is her job and the reason why she has never initiated any contact with him. 

If some guy who called a phone sex line started talking about meeting offline as part of some fantasy, I wouldn't ding her for playing along.  And she doesn't deserve to get stalked.  

No one who has made it clear that they don't want to meet you deserves to get stalked. 

That women "deserve things" because they "led a man on" is part of the reason why so many men get away with raping prostitutes.  Because "well, she put herself in a dangerous situation so she is responsible for getting herself raped because she led the guy on"

I'm fine with a transactional relationship, stalking someone who doesn't want to meet you isn't a transactional relationship.  David paying $2.99 a minute for chat room Lana only IS transactional.  

[Zevious Zoquis]

4 minutes ago, RealReality said:

How much more clear can she be when she hasn't given him a phone number, has never initiated contact, has never met him, won't give him an email address or a social media account?  

How much clearer can that be after seven years?  The only place she will talk to him is a chat room where he pays $2.99 a minute.  

 

"we aren't in a relationship and I won't ever show up no matter how many times you come to the Ukraine."

 

That much more clear.  Or like I said, just ghost him for good and move on to the next loser.  

Edited April 21, 2020 by Zevious Zoquis

[RealReality]

1 hour ago, Kyanight said:

Lana has said that she wants to marry David and come to America.  She said she wanted to get their pictures taken and get her Visa.  After she refuses to meet him when he flies to Russia, she makes up excuses and starts the whole situation going again.  He's a true idiot for not getting the message - but she takes the chat job too far, IMO.

It's one thing to string guys along to make the chat service big $$, but you don't have to encourage a doofus to fly out to meet you FOUR times.  I'm not saying David doesn't deserve what he gets - but why are people seeing this as one-sided?  There are consequences for all of our actions.  If you don't want to get burned, don't play with matches.

But Lana didn't make any excuses after she didn't meet David at the train station.  She ghosted and he then decided it was okay to stalk her.  

And i don't believe that Lana encouraged David to fly anywhere.  I think that is David's version of events and I think it is a misconception.  I think HE said he was going to fly there and they would meet and she said yes.  

I don't think that's her fault, he flew there without a scintilla of personal information.  She had some excuse about her dog being sick when he got back on the chat service to pay $2.99 a minute.  

And that's her job.  If he is going to pay $2.99 a minute, she has to chat with him.  That makes sense.  She doesn't get a cut from delta or American airlines so I don't think she encouraged him to fly anywhere.  

 

[Lily247]

3 hours ago, Kangatush said:

I think you both have valid points and I also think they don't apply in this situation.  "Lana" is a character employed by a company to chat with men.  It might be one person, or many people.  They may be male, female, a bot, or a trained monkey.  What I can basically guarantee though is that they aren't the woman in the pics and that I'm 99.99% certain that address has nothing to do with them.  

If it were one person working a catfish scam, like Williams, then they would have a level of personal responsibility about what happens to them.  They could also go to the police and say they feel unsafe when David told her he was in town.  He certainly has no "right" to see her, no matter what has been said, over however long a time period.  

But in this case it's like if David fell in love with a costumed Minnie Mouse at Disneyland and has now gone to "her place" at Cinderella's Castle to confront her.  The person inside the suit isn't actually in any danger.

David did mention video chatting with her thru the site, but without audio or something like that. If Lana is the one behind the screen here, then she IS largely responsible for this. It is definitely not some woman getting stalked by a stranger, she encourages him nonstop for the sake of greed. No one "deserves" a stalker, but - she should DEFINITELY not be surprised at such an outcome, since David is clearly not right in the head. If she wants to keep the $2.99 per minute, she can say ,"No, we cant meet up, but I can continue to talk on the site if you like." 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Lily247

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, Zevious Zoquis said:

"we aren't in a relationship and I won't ever show up no matter how many times you come to the Ukraine."

 

That much more clear.  Or like I said, just ghost him for good and move on to the next loser.  

That.  Is not her job.  Her job is to be chatty with these guys online and give them the girlfriend experience.  

And if the theory is that he wouldn't have done any of this had he only known she wasn't interested I think that's untrue,

He knew darn well she didn't want to meet him.  But he "had invested so much" so he needed to see her in person.  He "knew she would be mad" because he knows she doesn't want to meet him.  

So he knows she doesn't want to meet him, but he has decided to stalk her and ambush her.  Knowing that she doesn't want to see him 

[PamelaMaeSnap]

22 hours ago, RealReality said:

For a long time, I honestly thought that Netflix and chill meant you hung out with someone and watched "grace and Frankie" or "orange is the new black" over a bowl of popcorn.  

It doesn't???

[Zevious Zoquis]

1 minute ago, RealReality said:

That.  Is not her job.  Her job is to be chatty with these guys online and give them the girlfriend experience.  

And if the theory is that he wouldn't have done any of this had he only known she wasn't interested I think that's untrue,

He knew darn well she didn't want to meet him.  But he "had invested so much" so he needed to see her in person.  He "knew she would be mad" because he knows she doesn't want to meet him.  

So he knows she doesn't want to meet him, but he has decided to stalk her and ambush her.  Knowing that she doesn't want to see him 

yeah, he's a creep.  And if she's a real person, she is too.

 

Her job (if she is real which isn't likely the case) is to be chatty with guys.  It doesn't have to be any specific guy.  She doesn't have to string guys along for 7 years and as you note she gets nothing from getting him to come to the Ukraine.  She can chat with any of likely dozens of other guys rather than David...

Edited April 21, 2020 by Zevious Zoquis

[RealReality]

2 minutes ago, Lily247 said:

David did mention video chatting with her thru the site, but without audio or something like that. If Lana is the one behind the screen here, then she IS largely responsible for this. It is definitely not some woman getting stalked by a stranger, she encourages him nonstop for the sake of greed. No one "deserves" a stalker, but she should DEFINITELY not be surprised at such an outcome, since David is clearly not right in the head. 

She talks to him for the sake of making a living.  This isn't even a Maria situation, where he at least had a phone number.  David has no contact with her unless it's on a paid chat site.  People are often stalked by someone they know, it doesn't make it more acceptable. 

[Dobian]

2 hours ago, RealReality said:

She has never once initiated contact with him.  She had never once given him a phone number.  She has always stood him up.  She has never given him an email address.  She has never given him her social media accounts. 

But now she is responsible for making sure he correctly interprets these very clear messages?  She isn't allowed to do her job because a sixty year old man spending his money is her responsibility?

 

Others have made the point it is possible that "she" is possibly multiple people over the years who just chat with him while sending him fake pictures.  But if this is a single individual, of course she is responsible for the risk she is taking.  It is obvious you do not believe in personal responsibility, but I do.  I have a daughter.  If she did that for a living the first thing I would tell her would be to find anther way to make a living.  But if I heard her joke about a guy who thinks they are going to get married I would tell her to stop immediately because of the danger she is putting herself in.  Scamming a person is not s legitimate job.  If a person is just paying for sex chat it is one thing, if you are deceiving them it is something else.  No, standing a person up and ghosting them is not a clear message to a deranged individual when you are sending them a text the same day (as we watched on the show) that yes, you are going to come to America with them.  You want to argue about who is right or wrong, well it does not matter who is right or wrong if this woman ends up dead.  Prostitutes get beaten up all the time by their johns.  Do they deserve it?  Of course not.  But when you go into a room with a man you never met before you are taking a huge risk.  The difference between a prostitute and the woman in this story - if she is indeed real - is that the prostitute is not deceiving anyone.  She has seen the warning signs for years and persisted in encouraging this possibly dangerous fantasy of his.  If she winds up hurt - or worse - because of this, it doesn't matter that he had no business coming out there.  She played a game with a dangerous individual and ignored the signs for the $16-17K a year she was getting from him.

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, Zevious Zoquis said:

yeah, he's a creep.  And if she's a real person, she is too.

I'm not saying hypothetical Lana is a good person.  But she could have easily gotten a burner phone and had him start sending her money and gifts directly.  All it takes is a ukranian woman with a feminine voice.  She didn't do that. 

She could have given him her email address and harvested direct money and gifts that way.  That would have been much more profitable for her.  

Instead she has clearly ONLY talked to him on the chat site for $2.99 a minute.  

[Kyanight]

7 minutes ago, RealReality said:

How much more clear can she be when she hasn't given him a phone number, has never initiated contact, has never met him, won't give him an email address or a social media account?  

How much clearer can that be after seven years?  The only place she will talk to him is a chat room where he pays $2.99 a minute.  

A stripper and phone sex operator aren't going to say "okay, pay me $50 for this lap dance, but let me first make it clear we are not in a relationship.". No, they are going to take your $50 and grind on you and if you tell them to meet you around back after the lap dance they are going to stand you up.  

Her job is to keep him chatting and be amenable to whatever he says to keep him paying $2.99 a minute.  That is her job and the reason why she has never initiated any contact with him. 

If some guy who called a phone sex line started talking about meeting offline as part of some fantasy, I wouldn't ding her for playing along.  And she doesn't deserve to get stalked.  

No one who has made it clear that they don't want to meet you deserves to get stalked. 

That women "deserve things" because they "led a man on" is part of the reason why so many men get away with raping prostitutes.  Because "well, she put herself in a dangerous situation so she is responsible for getting herself raped because she led the guy on"

I'm fine with a transactional relationship, stalking someone who doesn't want to meet you isn't a transactional relationship.  David paying $2.99 a minute for chat room Lana only IS transactional.  

Clearly a man who shows up over and over after you stand him up each time is not right in his head.  Why would someone encourage that kind of behavior?  I'm not saying she "deserves what she gets" and I never said that.  I said she has to EXPECT that a man might go psycho if he's already demonstrated that he's willing to fly across the world multiple times even when she doesn't meet him like she says she will.  Saying you want a Visa and a green card and want to get married is unnecessary and taking things a bit far - and it IS unethical behavior and to me criminal as well, to make someone pay that kind of money to fly to your country multiple times.  That is more than encouraging a man to keep chatting on an expensive phone line.

Yes, it is David's CHOICE to fly out there four times, five times - however many times he is going to do it.  But all of US can see that this isn't normal behavior - why can't "Lana" see that she isn't dealing with someone who possesses a "full deck of cards?"  

So while NO ONE deserves violence or stalking - if you are going to engage someone who is CLEARLY not your normal average person - that IS taking things too far and it's like playing with fire.   Chat/sext/knock yourself out - but don't say you will wear a blue dress and meet at the train station or that you want to meet for pictures for a Visa when a person has to fly clear across the world to do this.  Don't you see that this is wrong?