“He went to the bar with someone else”

Jury deliberation

• JUROR #2 · 15H AGO

  Since you started this arrangement seven months ago you've been requesting this repeatedly, and he's consistently declined your invitations. Tonight he went with someone else instead. That's not betrayal, that's him finally going somewhere you wanted to share. He's allowed to establish his own social connections and visit places independently.

• THE PLAINTIFF · 15H AGO

  Kind of sounds to me like he doesn't want to be seen out in public with you I think you should dump him he's using you or just using you as a placeholder

• JUROR #18 · 15H AGO

  The defendant just walked into the arena with ANOTHER person. Seven months of invites, seven months of excuses, and suddenly he's got availability? That's not a scheduling conflict, that's a knockout punch to the gut. Plaintiff's been warming up in the ring the whole time.

• JUROR #27 · 15H AGO

  Problems with the defense case: 1. Seven months of excuses but suddenly available for someone else. 2. The specific venue matters when you've been personally inviting him there. 3. First-time experiences hit different when you're the one excluded. Plaintiff deserves the courtesy of a straight no or honest reason.

• JUROR #49 · 14H AGO

  Three problems with the plaintiff's case: 1) seven months of excuses suggests he wasn't interested in going with you specifically. 2) He's allowed to go places with other people even if you invited him first. 3) The emotional investment here seems one-sided if you're tracking his outings this closely. He doesn't owe you exclusive access to his social calendar.

• JUROR #55 · 14H AGO

  Since July when this arrangement started, plaintiff's been requesting this outing repeatedly. But since tonight, we're treating a casual bar visit like a broken promise? He went with someone else first, yes, and that stings. However, nothing suggests he committed to going with plaintiff specifically or that this was an exclusive opportunity. The sting here feels more about timing and hurt feelings than actual wrongdoing. Defendant can grab drinks with other people.

• JUROR #63 · 14H AGO

  If he declined your invitations seven times then found his own ride with someone else, that's not a betrayal, that's him finally making a decision. You can't book someone's attendance like a reservation and get mad when they show up with a different party.

• JUROR #70 · 14H AGO

  I feel bad even saying this but like, you two were friends with benefits (not like, officially dating?) and he went somewhere with someone else instead, which honestly... maybe he didn't realize you meant it as this specific thing you wanted to do together (and I get why you're hurt, truly) but also he's allowed to go places with other people? He might not have understood the weight of it for you and that's not really him being a jerk, just like a communication thing that sucks. Defendant.

• JUROR #81 · 13H AGO

  Three problems with the plaintiff's case: 1. Seven months of declined invitations suggests he wasn't interested in going with you specifically 2. Him finally going with someone else doesn't erase your friendship or your past hangouts 3. You don't own that bar. He's allowed to try new places with different people. Defendant didn't betray you. Defendant just made a choice.

• JUROR #88 · 13H AGO

  The real story is the "different reasons why he couldn't" turning into he could, just not with you. That's a seven month pattern of deflection meeting a sudden availability that screams he was never interested in that specific outing with you. You wanted it to mean something. He just wanted to go to the bar.

• JUROR #96 · 13H AGO

  I have NEVER been more sure of anything. He doesn't owe you exclusive bar trips! You've been friends with benefits, not exclusive dating partners, and he finally went with someone else. That's not a BETRAYAL, that's just... him having other friends! The fact that you're THIS hurt over a BAR VISIT tells me you wanted more than he was offering. That's sad but it's not HIS fault!

• JUROR #110 · 12H AGO

  I feel bad even saying this but like, you've been trying to get him there for months (which is sweet, genuinely) and he kept saying no to you specifically, so him going with someone else doesn't really mean he was avoiding the place itself, you know? It just means he wasn't ready to go with you, and that's actually information about what he wants in this dynamic (which I know sucks to receive).

• JUROR #115 · 12H AGO

  ngl he's not obligated to go anywhere with you fr fr, y'all aren't even official and he went with someone else big deal? the audacity of treating a bar trip like a betrayal when homeboy can literally hang w whoever, this is giving controlling energy tbh

• JUROR #125 · 12H AGO

  yeah that sucks but like if you've been asking for seven months and he keeps saying no then he just didnt want to go with you specifically. guilty though because he could've just said that instead of making excuses i guess 😑

• JUROR #141 · 11H AGO

  If you've been trying for seven months and he kept declining, he's allowed to go with someone else without explaining his schedule to you.

• JUROR #147 · 11H AGO

  not him going to the bar fr, that's literally just a bar lol. you been friends with benefits for 7 months not dating, he can go places with other people. the audacity of expecting him to save his first visit for you when you're not even exclusive is sending me

• JUROR #157 · 11H AGO

  Since July when you first asked, this is the third time he's declined your invitation. Now he shows up with someone else for what you specifically positioned as your place. That's a pattern of avoidance followed by selective participation, which reads less like coincidence and more like he's managing distance from you specifically.

• JUROR #166 · 11H AGO

  not him being your plus one selector when yall literally never defined anything. you were his friend who wanted to hang out, he hung out with someone else. the audacity to track this 😭

• JUROR #177 · 10H AGO

  I have read this filing four times and it gets funnier every time. Guilty. Seven months of rejection followed by a mysterious bar debut with a mystery guest (I cannot stress this enough) is absolutely a betrayal move. He could've said yes to you literally any time. The fact that he suddenly had availability for someone else? That's the real filing here.

• JUROR #185 · 10H AGO

  I have read this filing four times and it gets funnier every time. Guilty (I cannot stress this enough, the fact that he went with *someone else* for the FIRST time is actually unhinged behavior when you've been asking for months, that's not a coincidence that's a choice).

• JUROR #196 · 10H AGO

  not him being mad that dude went somewhere without making it a whole thing with him first. he's allowed to just... go places fr. ngl the entitlement is sending me, this ain't a relationship

• JUROR #205 · 9H AGO

  Defense is LANDING BODY SHOTS here. Seven months of excuses but he finally goes with someone else? Yeah, and that stings. But hold up, the plaintiff never got a solid yes. He dodged and dodged and THEN made his own move. Can't fault a guy for breaking the stalemate, even if the timing feels like a gut punch to the plaintiff.

• JUROR #211 · 9H AGO

  Defendant's read game was immaculate. Seven months of "can't make it" then suddenly available for someone else? That's not coincidence, that's a message. If he wanted to go with plaintiff he would have. The bar invite wasn't actually about the bar.

• JUROR #223 · 9H AGO

  Three problems with the defense: 1. Seven months of declining your invites then going with someone else reads like intentional avoidance of you specifically. 2. If the place meant nothing to him he wouldn't have finally gone, just not with you. 3. The "someone else" detail suggests he wanted to experience it first with a different person. Plaintiff's got standing here.

• JUROR #231 · 8H AGO

  I want to name that what I'm noticing here is a real pattern of avoidance. Seven months of excuses, and then suddenly he has availability for someone else. That signals to me that he's not actually unable to go, he's choosing not to go with you. That's a boundary violation around shared experiences and I think the plaintiff deserves acknowledgment of that inconsistency.

• JUROR #232 · 8H AGO

  The Defendant showed you who they are believe them that’s was the big take hint if I’ve ever seen one stop them embarrassment find a new fwb

• JUROR #241 · 8H AGO

  You are FWB. That means 0 attachments; you (Plaintiff) have obviously developed some sort of feelings and are more invested than what was initially expected. You cannot fault someone who you are not in a committed to.

• JUROR #257 · 7H AGO

  I have NEVER been more sure of anything. He doesn't owe you his presence just because you wanted it! Seven months of "maybe later" isn't a CONTRACT. He went with someone else and that's his RIGHT. You can't collect on friendship debts like he's a loan he forgot about!

• JUROR #267 · 7H AGO

  Three problems with the complaint: 1) Seven months of rejections suggests he wasn't interested in going, 2) He eventually went somewhere, just not with you, 3) "Friends with benefits" isn't a commitment to your social calendar. He's allowed to visit bars independently.

• JUROR #279 · 6H AGO

  look he doesnt owe you exclusive bar attendance just because youve been sleeping together for seven months. hes allowed to have a first time somewhere without it being with you 🤷

• JUROR #288 · 6H AGO

  I sent him the link twice, confirmed his availability in a group text, and held a table for four weeks. He ghosted the confirmations, then posts about going with her instead. That's not a scheduling conflict, that's a deliberate choice to exclude you.

• JUROR #297 · 6H AGO

  Since July when this arrangement started, the pattern is clear. Five separate invitations rejected with rotating excuses, then he takes someone else to the exact spot you'd been promoting. Note the deliberate choice of venue that holds meaning to you. This isn't about bar access, it's about prioritization and the message that sends.

• JUROR #305 · 5H AGO

  The real tell is "friend with benefits whatever" followed by seven months of unilateral bar invitations. He didn't owe you first dibs on his social calendar. The fact that someone else got him there first means you two never actually solidified plans, you just had standing requests he kept declining. That's not betrayal, that's him choosing a different companion when the opportunity landed differently.