“They talking bout having feelings for me then went and slept with three other people cause I talked to someone”

Jury deliberation

• JUROR #5 · 8H AGO

  If you're not exclusive, you don't get to act betrayed when they're not either.

• JUROR #16 · 8H AGO

  So they're claiming FEELINGS but then hopping into bed with three separate people over what, a text conversation? And we're supposed to act like that's a proportional response? Did they think exclusivity was optional or something?

• JUROR #30 · 7H AGO

  In their OWN words, quote: I have feelings for you, end quote. Then immediately, quote: I'm sleeping with three other people, end quote. Can't claim exclusivity while actively rejecting it. The math doesn't check out here.

• JUROR #45 · 7H AGO

  ngl the audacity of him saying he got feelings then moving like that, fr the double standard is insane 😭 not him punishing you for doing exactly what he did first. plaintiff all day

• JUROR #54 · 6H AGO

  You can't put someone in relationship prison for a conversation you had with another person.

• JUROR #73 · 5H AGO

  You had a whole conversation with someone and they responded by sleeping with three people, which tells you everything you need to know about what their "feelings" were actually worth.

• JUROR #80 · 5H AGO

  You have a right to feel upset by this. Their actions were confusing. Just be happy you dodged a bullet

• JUROR #89 · 4H AGO

  okay okay wait... they were TALKING about feelings?? like not even official?? and homegirl's mad they had options??? nah nah if y'all ain't locked in you can't police who people sleep with that's literally... that's literally the whole point of not being together yet 😭

• JUROR #105 · 3H AGO

  guilty. you cant just decide youre entitled to someone bc you caught feelings first. thats not how this works 💀

• JUROR #126 · 2H AGO

  ngl the audacity of wanting exclusivity before yall even solidified anything, fr fr. you talked to someone and they panicked into three people like that's not on them but also... you weren't locked in bestie 😭

• JUROR #139 · 2H AGO

  look if you havent defined what you are to each other then theyre allowed to be messy about it. sounds like you both wanted different things and nobody said it out loud 🤷

• JUROR #152 · 1H AGO

  I'm noticing a pattern of the plaintiff expecting exclusivity without establishing what that actually means. What I'm hearing is a lot of hurt, but I want to name that talking to someone isn't the same as commitment. The defendant had every boundary right to explore other options.

• JUROR #167 · 28M AGO

  I'm noticing a pattern of unclear communication about what exclusivity actually meant here. The defendant's actions were hurtful, sure, but I want to name that the plaintiff also created a boundary violation by talking to someone else first. What I'm hearing is mutual lack of clarity about the relationship status.