Man ends virtual romance over suspected scam

Man ends virtual romance over suspected scam

Can you call it dating if it’s just video calls for six weeks with someone you’ve never met? A twice-divorced man, who met his partner—a 53-year-old woman from another Asian country—on a friend-finding app, cut ties immediately after spotting what he believed was the start of a financial request. The trigger was a message where she said she would see a doctor the next day for heart pain. He replied that doctors don’t work on Sundays. She corrected herself: the doctor would come home and send medicine. The message was deleted instantly. Since then, silence.

The pattern repeats: trust, daily affection, and finally, the ask. The protagonist describes a modus operandi he claims to have seen in several women on that platform: first, they build trust with constant love messages, promises of cohabitation, and future plans; then comes the illness, the troubled child, or government debt. The amount requested is usually modest: €40, €80, or €100. That is, according to him, the signal to leave.

What is a relationship without physical contact?

The discussion quickly moved to an uncomfortable question: if two people say they love each other daily, have intimate video calls, and plan to live together, is that dating? The protagonist is clear: “If a man and a woman say they love each other and show and touch their private parts, what do you call that?”. His conclusion is that this constitutes being boyfriend and girlfriend.

There was no consensus. Some argue that a relationship without physical presence isn’t dating but rather long-distance erotic exchange with a borrowed label. Another harsher view points out that the issue isn’t the definition, but the time invested: six weeks of daily conversation, video calls, and a gift worth €70 plus €30 shipping via courier—earrings, chocolates, perfume, and nougat—before the first alarm bell rang.

The industry of simulated affection: how emotional scams work

The most detailed analysis in the thread points to a known phenomenon: organized networks building fake romantic relationships to extract money from older men. They note the scheme replicates both online and offline, with the digital version using the same script: creating an intense emotional bond, promising a shared future, and at peak trust, introducing an urgent financial need.

The protagonist’s story fits this pattern. The heart pain appeared suddenly, with no history, on a Sunday, solved by a home doctor sending medicine. The sequence—sudden illness, inability to visit a health center, need to buy drugs—is, according to many, the usual prelude to asking for money. Some warn of additional risks: recordings of intimate encounters that could later be used for extortion.

Financial filtering as a selection method

Among practical suggestions emerged a screening proposal: present yourself from the start as someone with no resources, recently divorced, and starting over. The argument is that this profile filters out those seeking financial support and lets through only those who value something else. The protagonist admits his real situation—two divorces, the second still pending—fits that script, though he hadn’t used it as a filter.

The trade-off is evident: if the filter works, you lose most people; if not, you waste time and sometimes money. The total calculation of what was invested in this specific case—gift, shipping, hours of conversation—yields a figure that invites reflection on the real cost of these relationships.

Signs that anticipate a money request

Recurring indicators in testimonials are specific: sudden urgency, health issues with no prior history, inability to use public services, and a solution requiring immediate cash. Add to this quick corrections when inconsistencies are spotted—the deleted message—and subsequent affective insistence to regain contact.

The outcome remains open: there is no confirmation the request actually peine, only that the protagonist stopped responding. The reasonable doubt—whether it was a scam or a real relationship with a real problem—isn’t resolved by available data. What is clear is that the line between affection and transaction blurs when the only channel is a screen.