Large caches of data stolen from online cheating site AshleyMadison.com have been posted online by an individual or group that claims to have completely compromised the company’s user databases, financial records and other proprietary information. The still-unfolding leak could be quite damaging to some 37 million users of the hookup service, whose slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.”
The data released by the hacker or hackers — which self-identify as The Impact Team — includes sensitive internal data stolen from Avid Life Media (ALM), the Toronto-based firm that owns AshleyMadison as well as related hookup sites Cougar Life and Established Men.
Reached by KrebsOnSecurity late Sunday evening, ALM Chief Executive Noel Biderman confirmed the hack, and said the company was “working diligently and feverishly” to take down ALM’s intellectual property. Indeed, in the short span of 30 minutes between that brief interview and the publication of this story, several of the Impact Team’s Web links were no longer responding.
“We’re not denying this happened,” Biderman said. “Like us or not, this is still a criminal act.”
Besides snippets of account data apparently sampled at random from among some 40 million users across ALM’s trio of properties, the hackers leaked maps of internal company servers, employee network account information, company bank account data and salary information.
The compromise comes less than two months after intruders stole and leaked online user data on millions of accounts from hookup site AdultFriendFinder.
In a long manifesto posted alongside the stolen ALM data, The Impact Team said it decided to publish the information in response to alleged lies ALM told its customers about a service that allows members to completely erase their profile information for a $19 fee.
According to the hackers, although the “full delete” feature that Ashley Madison advertises promises “removal of site usage history and personally identifiable information from the site,” users’ purchase details — including real name and address — aren’t actually scrubbed.
“Full Delete netted ALM $1.7mm in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie,” the hacking group wrote. “Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”
Their demands continue:
“Avid Life Media has been instructed to take Ashley Madison and Established Men offline permanently in all forms, or we will release all customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails. The other websites may stay online.”
I think most fraud through 'hacking' is actually an inside job just because it's so much easier than actually trying to crack modern computer security especially that related to online banking.
Funnily enough I don't have sympathy for people using this site. It's not a nice thing to happen but if you're cheating on your partner and lying to them them then you're not a very nice person, what goes around comes around.
I have no sympathy for those 37m users (seriously, wtf?!). If they're not happy with the person they're with, they should finish the relationship and move on.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Does this mean you'll start to practice more divorce law Frazz?
Did I mention the "He Needed Killing Your Honor" self defense clause for Texas women applies to divorces as well? We call it the "quickie divorce" also known as the "roadkill mediation settlement" wait....
Huh, I confused this with another big bit of news in the hacking world that occurred recently. I can't remember the name of the company, but it was Italian, and had a business model based around selling day zero vulnerabilities and other exploits to the highest bidder. Ironically their own security was rather poor and all of their data was released online. It turns out that Adobe Flash is full of holes and that company was selling to really, really shady countries.
Ah here's the article, sorry if this is thread jacking (though I didn't see any threads here on the subject, which given the extent of the crap this group was pulling was unusual).
angelofvengeance wrote: If they're not happy with the person they're with, they should finish the relationship and move on.
I disagree with that. For one thing, cheating on your significant other doesn't necessarily mean that you don't love them anymore, and for another if the relationship is mostly going well and you're both benefiting from being in it, it seems counter-productive to break it off if you don't have to- especially if you have little kids. I would rather some dude cheat on his wife and keep the family together then file for a divorce and feth up his kids for life.
angelofvengeance wrote: I have no sympathy for those 37m users (seriously, wtf?!). If they're not happy with the person they're with, they should finish the relationship and move on.
angelofvengeance wrote: If they're not happy with the person they're with, they should finish the relationship and move on.
I disagree with that actually. For one thing, cheating on your significant other doesn't necessarily mean that you don't love them anymore, and for another if the relationship is mostly going well and you're both benefiting from being in it, it seems counter-productive to break it off if you don't have to- especially if you have little kids. I would rather some dude cheat on his wife and keep the family together then file for a divorce and feth up his kids for life.
Because the person youre with doesnt deserve to know/be happy?
BlaxicanX wrote: Are you trying to claim that if you cheat on your significant other you don't love them?
yes, further you are a mangy rat who should be shot fourteen times, starting in the foot and ending in the mouth. is that clear enough? Your view may be different, but it is of course, wrong.
If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
Putting aside the cheating morals for a moment, I think the biggest kick I'm getting from this is
In a long manifesto posted alongside the stolen ALM data, The Impact Team said it decided to publish the information in response to alleged lies ALM told its customers about a service that allows members to completely erase their profile information for a $19 fee.
According to the hackers, although the “full delete” feature that Ashley Madison advertises promises “removal of site usage history and personally identifiable information from the site,” users’ purchase details — including real name and address — aren’t actually scrubbed.
The narrative of the hack is not "cheating is wrong, and you should all be ashamed!"
It's "AM isn't protecting your privacy, so we are sharing it with the world!"
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk to me, or at me.
There's financial losses, violation of trust, violation of marriage contracts, and potential risk of harm.
You have Person A, who is cheating on Person B. Person A is spending money, potentially a lot of money, on Person C, with whom they are being unfaithful. In most marriages, this is a fundamental violation of the terms of the union and, in terms of shared accounts and such, might also constitute theft (especially if Person B is the "breadwinner").
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk to me, or at me.
Just wondering about your answers. Would you stay with a person that cheats on you?
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk to me, or at me.
Just wondering about your answers. Would you stay with a person that cheats on you?
I don't know, but I wouldn't look down on anyone who wanted to end the relationship upon finding out that they've been cheated on. Anyone who feels an emotional disconnect from their partner has the right to move on.
But that's not what we're talking about. My assertion is that A) Cheating on your partner doesn't explicitly mean that you don't love them (as studies show), and B) If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
B) If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship and you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to getting a divorce.
Probably not for the cheated-on spouse, and the person doing the cheating is an unadulterated piece of gak.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk to me, or at me.
Just wondering about your answers. Would you stay with a person that cheats on you?
I don't know, but I wouldn't look down on anyone who wanted to end the relationship upon finding out that they've been cheated on. Anyone who feels an emotional disconnect from their partner has the right to move on.
But that's not what we're talking about. My assertion is that A) Cheating on your partner doesn't explicitly mean that you don't love them (as studies show), and B) If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
I understand your viewpoint and I can agree on the points youre presenting (even though I wouldnt agree personally), but its quite one sided towards the one doing the cheating and not the one cheated on. Didnt intend to come across as hostile, so apologies if it seemed that way.
I wonder what the fallout will be from this, if anything actually gets done with the data.
Cheating on a spouse is like gambling with the rent money: you can do it, but you have to realize how bad things can go wrong.
I've been around enough relationships that have weathered long term affairs that I don't see things quite so black and white. Nobody that's getting everything they need is out there cheating. Sure, some people are just dogs, but others might be in relationships that don't fill all of their needs any more.
angelofvengeance wrote: If they're not happy with the person they're with, they should finish the relationship and move on.
I disagree with that. For one thing, cheating on your significant other doesn't necessarily mean that you don't love them anymore, and for another if the relationship is mostly going well and you're both benefiting from being in it, it seems counter-productive to break it off if you don't have to- especially if you have little kids. I would rather some dude cheat on his wife and keep the family together then file for a divorce and feth up his kids for life.
You may still think love the person you cheat on, but you don't respect them and you don't care for their feelings if you lie to them or pursue other relationships without their knowledge. And if they do know, you think it's preferable they just put up and shut up so you can let your children live the lie of a happy family life, for however long it takes for the truth to eventually come out. There's other things too, the other person the the marriage won't have consented you to spend family money on other people, and they've only consented to having sex with you in the knowledge you're faithful, not sleeping with people they know nothing about.
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
Yes, but what if they invented a better form of chocolate cake?
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
Yes, but what if they invented a better form of chocolate cake?
Impossible situation. No dude is going to be on a cheater's site having created a better form of chocolate cake. His wife will be fulfilling needs he didn't even know he had.
Psienesis wrote: I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
That's a genuinely interesting moral view, in that you view people that sign up to have an affair, but may not have done yet, are morally bankrupt regardless of any other factors.
I'm curious what percentage of the staggering number of people (37 million? ) actually succeed in having an affair?
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
Yes, but what if they invented a better form of chocolate cake?
Or bacon..............
This is to funny. I've an account form way way back when I was single and have not deleted it.
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
Yes, but what if they invented a better form of chocolate cake?
Impossible situation. No dude is going to be on a cheater's site having created a better form of chocolate cake. His wife will be fulfilling needs he didn't even know he had.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Does this mean you'll start to practice more divorce law Frazz?
Did I mention the "He Needed Killing Your Honor" self defense clause for Texas women applies to divorces as well? We call it the "quickie divorce" also known as the "roadkill mediation settlement" wait....
Is it not unreasonable to assume that out f 37 million people we may just encounter those that haven't actually successfully had an affair or situations in which both partners are on the site?
I think nuance is the best approach here, assuming every single one of the 37 or so million people are bad people because x seems simplistic. Cheating and getting caught can often be the straw that broke the camels back but there are any number of reasons for it.
Are we to assume no other dating website is used for infidelity? This whole thing has a weird sorta puritan glee to it that I find disturbing. Anything that can unite facebook god and the catholic church is something worth closer inspection.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it not unreasonable to assume that out f 37 million people we may just encounter those that haven't actually successfully had an affair or situations in which both partners are on the site?
I think nuance is the best approach here, assuming every single one of the 37 or so million people are bad people because x seems simplistic. Cheating and getting caught can often be the straw that broke the camels back but there are any number of reasons for it.
Are we to assume no other dating website is used for infidelity? This whole thing has a weird sorta puritan glee to it that I find disturbing. Anything that can unite facebook god and the catholic church is something worth closer inspection.
They tried to get an affair.
When you marry someone, you should be honest with your other, trust them, and respect them. When cheating or trying to cheat you don't do any of those things.
BlaxicanX wrote: You realize that appeals to morality are a strawman in this discussion, yes?
This isn't a "discussion".
Well okay, opinion disregarded.
Howard A Treesong wrote: And if they do know, you think it's preferable they just put up and shut up so you can let your children live the lie of a happy family life, for however long it takes for the truth to eventually come out.
Are you seriously asking how cheating on your partner behind their backs could hurt them? Well, lets start with a complete breakdown of trust.
That doesn't hurt them.
- - - - -
I know this is difficult for you guys, I can see that you're struggling, but can you at least try to make a modicum of effort to actually comprehend what I'm saying and get a dialogue going, as opposed to these knee-jerk appeal to emotions?
Crablezworth wrote: Is it not unreasonable to assume that out f 37 million people we may just encounter those that haven't actually successfully had an affair or situations in which both partners are on the site?
I think nuance is the best approach here, assuming every single one of the 37 or so million people are bad people because x seems simplistic. Cheating and getting caught can often be the straw that broke the camels back but there are any number of reasons for it.
Are we to assume no other dating website is used for infidelity? This whole thing has a weird sorta puritan glee to it that I find disturbing. Anything that can unite facebook god and the catholic church is something worth closer inspection.
They tried to get an affair.
When you marry someone, you should be honest with your other, trust them, and respect them. When cheating or trying to cheat you don't do any of those things.
So if one cannot end a marriage due to socail/financial/religious reasons they shouldn't be able to engage in infidelity? That doesn't seem very fun or very fair.
There's an element of absurd schadenfreude to this whole thing. Like all the spouses who find out about the infidelity will somehow be celebrating their significant other getting caught, rather than say, committing acts of violence against said individuals or harming themselves or loved ones. I'd love to see the smile on the hackers face as they realize the direct causal link between revealing 37 million cheaters and the inevitable handful of murder suicides that fallowed in its wake.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it not unreasonable to assume that out f 37 million people we may just encounter those that haven't actually successfully had an affair or situations in which both partners are on the site?
I think nuance is the best approach here, assuming every single one of the 37 or so million people are bad people because x seems simplistic. Cheating and getting caught can often be the straw that broke the camels back but there are any number of reasons for it.
Are we to assume no other dating website is used for infidelity? This whole thing has a weird sorta puritan glee to it that I find disturbing. Anything that can unite facebook god and the catholic church is something worth closer inspection.
They tried to get an affair.
When you marry someone, you should be honest with your other, trust them, and respect them. When cheating or trying to cheat you don't do any of those things.
So if one cannot end a marriage due to socail/financial/religious reasons they shouldn't be able to engage in infidelity? That doesn't seem very fun or very fair.
There's an element of absurd schadenfreude to this whole thing. Like all the spouses who find out about the infidelity will somehow be celebrating their significant other getting caught, rather than say, committing acts of violence against said individuals or harming themselves or loved ones. I'd love to see the smile on the hackers face as they realize the direct causal link between revealing 37 million cheaters and the inevitable handful of murder suicides that fallowed in its wake.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it not unreasonable to assume that out f 37 million people we may just encounter those that haven't actually successfully had an affair or situations in which both partners are on the site?
I think nuance is the best approach here, assuming every single one of the 37 or so million people are bad people because x seems simplistic. Cheating and getting caught can often be the straw that broke the camels back but there are any number of reasons for it.
Are we to assume no other dating website is used for infidelity? This whole thing has a weird sorta puritan glee to it that I find disturbing. Anything that can unite facebook god and the catholic church is something worth closer inspection.
They tried to get an affair.
When you marry someone, you should be honest with your other, trust them, and respect them. When cheating or trying to cheat you don't do any of those things.
Can people not regret their actions? Out of 37mil I find it hard to believe that each and every one of them found an affair. Not to mention, they could have made an account, set up a rendezvous, and regretted the decision never following through with it. Possibly even hashed it out with their SO, and everything worked out fine. Or have been single to begin with, and used it as a site to meet people for a fling
This whole Black/White "once they signed up they are garbage" thing is a little too simple for the situation I think. Personal data was obtained by a third party that had no right to it should be the main issue here. Not taking glee in the misfortune of anonymous others.
Are you seriously asking how cheating on your partner behind their backs could hurt them? Well, lets start with a complete breakdown of trust.
That doesn't hurt them.
- - - - -
I know this is difficult for you guys, I can see that you're struggling, but can you at least try to make a modicum of effort to actually comprehend what I'm saying and get a dialogue going, as opposed to these knee-jerk appeal to emotions?
Except that my point is not an appeal to emotion. It is a logical statement that betraying your partner will directly lead to a breakdown in trust when they find out.
If you feel that so many members of the community are misrepresenting your argument perhaps you could be clearer in the message that you are attempting to convey, and explain precisely why you believe that cheating on a significant other is not causing them hurt
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Does this mean you'll start to practice more divorce law Frazz?
Did I mention the "He Needed Killing Your Honor" self defense clause for Texas women applies to divorces as well? We call it the "quickie divorce" also known as the "roadkill mediation settlement" wait....
Are you seriously asking how cheating on your partner behind their backs could hurt them? Well, lets start with a complete breakdown of trust.
If you want an open relationship fine. Just make sure your partner is cool with it
The breakdown of trust is just the starting point. People have picked up any kind of STD you'd care to name from a cheating spouse and more than a few have contracted AIDs.
Then get into the fact there are those emotionally unstable types that might try killing the cheater's spouse. Long Island Lolita, anyone?
How about the emotional toll on the cheater's spouse, where suicide is the end result?
It really doesn't take a lot in the way of brains to see all of the negatives involved with cheating, even if those involved are trying to keep it a secret.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you love them enough then why not tell them? If they love you they wont leave you right? Guess these people dont have that much confidence in their own 'love' life.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk to me, or at me.
Just wondering about your answers. Would you stay with a person that cheats on you?
I don't know, but I wouldn't look down on anyone who wanted to end the relationship upon finding out that they've been cheated on. Anyone who feels an emotional disconnect from their partner has the right to move on.
But that's not what we're talking about. My assertion is that A) Cheating on your partner doesn't explicitly mean that you don't love them (as studies show), and B) If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
You realize the link you posted had nothing to do with love. It said that most people who had cheated were not near the end of the relationship.
It is morbid, but humans don't do well with betrayal. I'd love to think 37 million humans will do the right thing and not physically harm themselves or others in the wake of this but that's wishful thinking. I wonder if cheating is a large factor in most domestic violence... oh wait.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is a logical statement that betraying your partner will directly lead to a breakdown in trust when they find out.
While what you've said is true, BlaxicanX was arguing from the standpoint the spouse hadn't found out yet. How can there be a breakdown of trust if the partner hasn't found out?
Unless the partner is a fortune teller, in which case they really should have seen it coming
I have a friend getting married soon, he cheated on his fiance once, prior to the engagement. I plan on saying nothing, why? Because clearly he decided to continue the relationship, even move on to big steps like marriage. I'm not sure where I would go about finding the righteous indignation and puritan rage necessary to get on a soap box and ruin a $20,000 wedding. If I did, I certainly would struggle to think it was the moral thing to do.
That's a totally different ball of wax there. People who are in legit open relationships have a) phenomenal communication skills, b) time-management skills out the wazoo, and c) sexual endurance to make porn stars blush.
Props to those who can have and maintain such relationships...
... but that isn't what this site was about.
I don't give a feth for the people (single or otherwise) who were using it for a spank-bank. That's... whatever. You're not actually cheating in that situation, I don't care.
Those actually going out, spending money, and cheating on their spouse/SO? Yeah... just... end your first relationship first, then go out and play the field.
Psienesis wrote: That's a totally different ball of wax there. People who are in legit open relationships have a) phenomenal communication skills, b) time-management skills out the wazoo, and c) sexual endurance to make porn stars blush.
Props to those who can have and maintain such relationships...
... but that isn't what this site was about.
I don't give a feth for the people (single or otherwise) who were using it for a spank-bank. That's... whatever. You're not actually cheating in that situation, I don't care.
Those actually going out, spending money, and cheating on their spouse/SO? Yeah... just... end your first relationship first, then go out and play the field.
Never understood that from certain people. I mean your either in a committed relationship or your not. (or an open or complicated, etc etc.)
I think it is between the two partners what they are doing, if it is a marriage and they have both vowed to take no one else. You can't unless you divorce them.
Shesh I feel like that is not so hard to deal with.
Well one is a illegal the other one is just frowned upon.*
I can see that argument . But the other one is a social issue that sometimes for some people takes precedence over physical and mental well being. I do agree we are sorta blaming the victims, but the victims are akin to someone who steals, cheats, and lies. And pays for it.
Hell you could consider it prostitution if you really want to get technical.
Relapse wrote: I think now would be a great time to invest in popcorn futures.
Or in the gun market. Bound to make a killing there.
*badum tish*
I'll see myself out.
It'll be a show, alright. I wonder how many people are trying to figure out how to tell their spouse about the "mistake" they made and how many are gonna roll the dice and hope they don't get outed.
Anyone that doesn't work even if they don't have to. Should, be apart of the community and do things for the sake of it. Don't be a lazy roundabout that cheats on your wife because you know you were bored.
Anyone that doesn't work even if they don't have to. Should, be apart of the community and do things for the sake of it. Don't be a lazy roundabout that cheats on your wife because you know you were bored.
Being in a relationship in which your significant other brings home all the money does sound like a lot of work IMO, especially if there's kids.
Anyone that doesn't work even if they don't have to. Should, be apart of the community and do things for the sake of it. Don't be a lazy roundabout that cheats on your wife because you know you were bored.
Being in a relationship in which your significant other brings home all the money does sound like a lot of work IMO, especially if there's kids.
What? I am pretty sure that compared to a full time job person, their free time is pretty fething high.
Anyone that doesn't work even if they don't have to. Should, be apart of the community and do things for the sake of it. Don't be a lazy roundabout that cheats on your wife because you know you were bored.
Being in a relationship in which your significant other brings home all the money does sound like a lot of work IMO, especially if there's kids.
What? I am pretty sure that compared to a full time job person, their free time is pretty fething high.
Psienesis wrote: I have no pity, none, for those getting their data released as part of this hack. Zero. They are pieces of gak. Full stop. I don't care if one of them was curing effing cancer.
That's a genuinely interesting moral view, in that you view people that sign up to have an affair, but may not have done yet, are morally bankrupt regardless of any other factors.
Im also curious because it also says that those that do something not illegal, but morally wrong for others, is subject to illegal things and basic rights getting taken from them
After all this talk about the ethics of cheating, it made me wonder how many people in marriages used this as a way to swing or "hotwifing". You know, technically cheating things but where the other spouse is perfectly fine with it or in a lot of the situations, encourages it.
I feel like those would be the innocent people harmed with their information being made public.
Cheating can cause harm in lots of ways. For example, many couples who are together long term do not use condoms, perhaps using a different source of contraception. They do this because they can trust that they will not catch anything off their partner. If one partner cheats and catches something, they will likely pass it on to the other. I've actually had this happen to a friend of mine, awful situation.
There may be some situations where cheating does not cause any direct harm (the cheating happens, is never found out, and the awful case I pointed out above doesn't happen). But there are many more cases where cheating causes emotional distress, financial harm, and eventually destroys relationships.
I don't see a lot of homocides happening
I see a lot of material gain on one spouse and the other spou...............
SHE GETS HALF OF EVERYTHING!!!!!! BANANA!!!
Still though that would be one huge database to put 37 million names out in the public domain
How many you wonder have already reported known and unknown credit cards being reported stolen
I am curious to see how many of them are the "family values" type of politicians, civic leaders, etc. I mean, I can just see Larry Flynt smiling gleefully over this list looking for the hypocrites.
I saw this morning on the news and I laughed and laughed. I mean, sure, hacking is illegal and all that, so I expect police to try and find whoever did and punish them to the extent of the law and all that, but in the meantime suck it cheaters.
BlaxicanX wrote: Are you trying to claim that if you cheat on your significant other you don't love them?
However much you love them, you're prioritising sex. Which means you either don't love them very much, or you're a complete gak that is willing to put aside a deep love for some physical gratification.
BlaxicanX wrote: Are you trying to claim that if you cheat on your significant other you don't love them?
However much you love, you're prioritising sex sex. Which means you either don't love them very much, or you're a complete gak that is willing to put aside a deep love for some physical gratification.
BlaxicanX wrote: B) If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
Maybe. But none of those circumstances are preferable to showing some control and not putting your dick wherever you can.
I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Ultimately though, these people should divorce and just hope they don't lose everything instead of cheating. Cheating ruins reputations big time.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Ultimately though, these people should divorce and just hope they don't lose everything instead of cheating. Cheating ruins reputations big time.
I think you should watch Mike Birbiligia he has a rant on it and said that most marriages end in divorce, that he doesn't believe in the institution, pretty funny actually and I can see that point of view.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Ultimately though, these people should divorce and just hope they don't lose everything instead of cheating. Cheating ruins reputations big time.
I think you should watch Mike Birbiligia he has a rant on it and said that most marriages end in divorce, that he doesn't believe in the institution, pretty funny actually and I can see that point of view.
See I think marriage can work, it's just so easy for women to call it quits and ruin your life. Why give them that power over you? See it with a lot of men in their 40s after they worked decades for their wives who merely tidied the house. By not marrying you can simply leave your long term partner of they don't keep themselves at their original standard. Since I, the dude, is likely to have the money and the house etc it means I have nothing to lose if it goes bad. Unless children are in the mix. But I am not too sure if I am willing to have kids because then I have the burden of child support if it goes bad. Marriage is like a really one sided business contract. I was going to get married this year, looking at rings and everything, after 6 years of dating. But I think I will wait after seeing a guy at work after his divorce.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Ultimately though, these people should divorce and just hope they don't lose everything instead of cheating. Cheating ruins reputations big time.
I think you should watch Mike Birbiligia he has a rant on it and said that most marriages end in divorce, that he doesn't believe in the institution, pretty funny actually and I can see that point of view.
See I think marriage can work, it's just so easy for women to call it quits and ruin your life. Why give them that power over you? See it with a lot of men in their 40s after they worked decades for their wives who merely tidied the house. By not marrying you can simply leave your long term partner of they don't keep themselves at their original standard. Since I, the dude, is likely to have the money and the house etc it means I have nothing to lose if it goes bad. Unless children are in the mix. But I am not too sure if I am willing to have kids because then I have the burden of child support if it goes bad. Marriage is like a really one sided business contract. I was going to get married this year, looking at rings and everything, after 6 years of dating. But I think I will wait after seeing a guy at work after his divorce.
I will check out that video though tonight maybe.
Hear Hear! Not mention their accused orifices shoot spiders at you.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Given your assumption seems to be that a woman's role in marriage is to provide sex, then it's probably for the best that you don't get married.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Given your assumption seems to be that a woman's role in marriage is to provide sex, then it's probably for the best that you don't get married.
Also the spiders thing.
No that was not the point, if the guy feels the need to cheat, I merely suggested maybe the wife was not able to satisfy him...
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Given your assumption seems to be that a woman's role in marriage is to provide sex, then it's probably for the best that you don't get married.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Given your assumption seems to be that a woman's role in marriage is to provide sex, then it's probably for the best that you don't get married.
Also the spiders thing.
No that was not the point, if the guy feels the need to cheat, I merely suggested maybe the wife was not able to satisfy him...
While cheating does arise from needs being unmet in relationship, nobody needs to cheat and your framing it "was not able to satisfy him" is still particularly off-putting. Even then one of if not the single most common cause of a breakdown the quality of a married couples sex life is the man failing to do his part domestically.
Not to mention it's just really hard to get it up when your dick is covered in spiders.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Given your assumption seems to be that a woman's role in marriage is to provide sex, then it's probably for the best that you don't get married.
Also the spiders thing.
No that was not the point, if the guy feels the need to cheat, I merely suggested maybe the wife was not able to satisfy him...
While cheating does arise from needs being unmet in relationship, nobody needs to cheat and your framing it "was not able to satisfy him" is still particularly off-putting. Even then one of if not the single most common cause of a breakdown the quality of a married couples sex life is the man failing to do his part domestically.
Not to mention it's just really hard to get it up when your dick is covered in spiders.
I said at the end I despise cheating... I just said it sucks that these men may have a wife that won't fulfil his needs and divorce is not really a nice option either. As anyone who has been divorced will say its awful. What is wrong with saying that? If she cannot satisfy him he may likely look elsewhere. Of course this is not limited to sex and nor is it limited by gender.
I don't understand the spiders bit... I mean I have been with my partner for over 6 years (am 21) so it's not like I am scared of women?
Swastakowey wrote: As anyone who has been divorced will say its awful. What is wrong with saying that?
Because you've (intentionally or not) framed it in the most awful RedPill/MGTOW style that your posts are spontaneously sprouting their own cargo shorts and terrible hats.
Swastakowey wrote: As anyone who has been divorced will say its awful. What is wrong with saying that?
Because you've (intentionally or not) framed it in the most awful RedPill/MGTOW style that your posts are spontaneously sprouting their own cargo shorts and terrible hats.
Ok I have no idea what it means (men go their own way?). But when I read what I said it doesn't sound bad at all. What is bad about expecting your partner to uphold their end of the deal? Or not wanting to marry so you aren't tied down into a relationship that doesn't hold up long term?
Swastakowey wrote: No that was not the point, if the guy feels the need to cheat, I merely suggested maybe the wife was not able to satisfy him...
Of course it wasn’t the point, but it was the conclusion that can be found by reading between the lines of your post.
And yeah, some couples have different libidos. Typically the guy wants to screw more, but not always, and even then the amount each person wants to do it will change over time, even from month to month. So you in a marriage you won’t get to have sex every time you’re in the mood.
But here’s the thing – it’s just fething. It’s good fun and it’s important to a marriage but dozens of other things are at least as important and some are much more important. So if you aren’t getting as much as you like, well then that’s life. It’s just like a million other things, you just grow the feth up and deal with it.
Swastakowey wrote: No that was not the point, if the guy feels the need to cheat, I merely suggested maybe the wife was not able to satisfy him...
Of course it wasn’t the point, but it was the conclusion that can be found by reading between the lines of your post.
And yeah, some couples have different libidos. Typically the guy wants to screw more, but not always, and even then the amount each person wants to do it will change over time, even from month to month. So you in a marriage you won’t get to have sex every time you’re in the mood.
But here’s the thing – it’s just fething. It’s good fun and it’s important to a marriage but dozens of other things are at least as important and some are much more important. So if you aren’t getting as much as you like, well then that’s life. It’s just like a million other things, you just grow the feth up and deal with it.
Or you can ditch the unwilling partner and move on to someone who will? Why should one party suffer? Would you tolerate your wife not cooking/cleaning while you work all day? If they are unwilling to change then there is something wrong with them. Likewise would a wife tolerate a husband who refuses to work or pull their weight?
Ultimately it's one partner failing. I understand not gettign it any time you want, but to the point someone will consider sleeping around as another way of getting it then there is clearly a problem yea?
While you're taking advice from stand up comedians, Louis CK has a good bit on divorce.
You sound like you just crawled out of a bunker that you've been locked in since the 50s.
'I'll never get married because it might end in divorce and then I'd have to give that hateful shrew some of my wonderful money!' Is a pretty sad outlook for a 21 year old.
You definitely shouldn't get married though, at least until you no longer consider her 'end of the deal' to be cleaning the house and accommodating your thrusting member at a moments notice.
plastictrees wrote: While you're taking advice from stand up comedians, Louis CK has a good bit on divorce.
You sound like you just crawled out of a bunker that you've been locked in since the 50s.
'I'll never get married because it might end in divorce and then I'd have to give that hateful shrew some of my wonderful money!' Is a pretty sad outlook for a 21 year old.
You definitely shouldn't get married though, at least until you no longer consider her 'end of the deal' to be cleaning the house and accommodating your thrusting member at a moments notice.
Well as long as she lives in my house that I pay for and uses the power/internet/water and so on I pay for yea she will have to keep the place clean and cook. I will not come home and do more after she spent most of her day at home etc.
But yea maybe it is pessimistic. Maybe the 40 year old divorced men around me just whine too much? Just seems like a huge risk to get married thats all.
Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing. Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
I very much doubt all 37M members are men. The site only works if the gender ratio is fairly level. Quite a lot of them may not even be married, and just using it to get committment freee shagging.
It seems a bit harsh to bnlanket blame evveryone involved. However Europeans tend to take a more relaxed view of such things.
Kilkrazy wrote: I very much doubt all 37M members are men. The site only works if the gender ratio is fairly level. Quite a lot of them may not even be married, and just using it to get committment freee shagging.
It seems a bit harsh to bnlanket blame evveryone involved. However Europeans tend to take a more relaxed view of such things.
Depends what you mean by "Fairly Level" assuming it's like most online dating ventures the ratio is probably somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30. If we assume it skews more than normal because of the extra risk factor my (i'll admit rather uneducated) guess might be as skewed as 80/20.
In typical form I'd wager it's mostly over aggressive, crass or just plain delusional men making so much barely-tolerated white noise at disinterested women out of their league.
Swastakowey wrote: As anyone who has been divorced will say its awful. What is wrong with saying that?
Because you've (intentionally or not) framed it in the most awful RedPill/MGTOW style that your posts are spontaneously sprouting their own cargo shorts and terrible hats.
Ok I have no idea what it means (men go their own way?). But when I read what I said it doesn't sound bad at all. What is bad about expecting your partner to uphold their end of the deal? Or not wanting to marry so you aren't tied down into a relationship that doesn't hold up long term?
Or thereabouts. What I'm saying is your posts are coming off as rather anti-woman. The money-stealing, lazy, no-job-having, sex-denying, child-as-trap-having, devils.
Swastakowey wrote: Or you can ditch the unwilling partner and move on to someone who will? Why should one party suffer? Would you tolerate your wife not cooking/cleaning while you work all day? If they are unwilling to change then there is something wrong with them. Likewise would a wife tolerate a husband who refuses to work or pull their weight?
Of course you can ditch the unwilling partner. But to ditch a partner over just sex and nothing else, that's a really gakky thing.
I mean, you've mentioned you're 21 and I don't want this to sound like a put down based on your age... but people aren't 21 forever. Sex doesn't go away, but it stops being quite such an all important thing. For most people anyway - others prioritise enough that they'd risk their marriage by screwing around through an adultery website.
Ultimately it's one partner failing. I understand not gettign it any time you want, but to the point someone will consider sleeping around as another way of getting it then there is clearly a problem yea?
It isn't a failure to be less in to sex than someone else. A dude could want sex four times a week. His wife isn't a failure if she only wants it once a week, any more than the guy would be failing if it turns out his wife wants it every night. It's just libido, and there's no right or wrong amount.
Swastakowey wrote: As anyone who has been divorced will say its awful. What is wrong with saying that?
Because you've (intentionally or not) framed it in the most awful RedPill/MGTOW style that your posts are spontaneously sprouting their own cargo shorts and terrible hats.
Ok I have no idea what it means (men go their own way?). But when I read what I said it doesn't sound bad at all. What is bad about expecting your partner to uphold their end of the deal? Or not wanting to marry so you aren't tied down into a relationship that doesn't hold up long term?
You seem to think a wife is like a lodger/maid that lives in your house using the utilities and in return tidies it up and puts out sex. Most women work a job and only those becoming housewives do so after popping out your kids. There are some that want to live entirely on their husbands bank account their whole lives but you have to be quite wealthy to support two people entirely on one wage so it's not really an option for the young.
Don't forget the woman takes a risk too. She doesn't work so she can raise the kids and do all the cleaning and cooking. Then aged 40 you get bored of her so throw her out with no savings and a huge gap in work experience. That's why divorce laws have developed the way they have, to give security to women who spend their life cleaning the house and kids only to be thrown out destitute.
Anyway, as you get a bit older you'll worry less about women trying to take half your stuff when they leave you, relationships aren't as one sided as you think they are.
Kilkrazy wrote: I very much doubt all 37M members are men. The site only works if the gender ratio is fairly level. Quite a lot of them may not even be married, and just using it to get committment freee shagging.
It seems a bit harsh to bnlanket blame evveryone involved. However Europeans tend to take a more relaxed view of such things.
Actually the moment I entered this thread I started matching flags to harsh comments. I've not been disappointed.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, and you deceive your partner because you don't want to leave them, or you would just leave, or have open liaisons.
Yeah, I'm sure that people having affairs are out for the best for their partner!
...except they're not. It's egotistic, fulfillment of some sort of desires that they feel need to be fulfilled. You are breaking the promise you made and the commitment of a relationship to fulfill your own need to bang someone else.
If you have an "open relationship" there shouldn't be any problem with telling your spouse all about this.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
Yeah, because "clean my house and have sex with me whenever I want or I'll throw you out of my house" sounds like a very healthy relationship.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing. Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point. You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
Yeah, because "clean my house and have sex with me whenever I want or I'll throw you out of my house" sounds like a very healthy relationship.
When did I say that? I am a reasonable man, I would explain she is not holding up her side of the relationship and give her a warning to fix it first.
I will not work full time, clean the house and pay for everything because ït would be mean of me not to when my GF sits around doing nothing all day".
Explain where my relationship is wrong please? I mean I have lasted 6 years at the age of 21 with the same women, I must be doing something right yea?
Or do you have some weird thing about women and cleaning being evil all the time or something? She is not a child and is free to leave whenever she pleases. Please don't demean my partner because you disagree with our decisions.
I honestly do not understand what is wrong with how we do things. If sex is important to me, then I expect my partner be able to satisfy that need. That is very fair yes?
Well if she's getting to live there and enjoy it then it should be expected she earn her keep. If he and her agreed for her to clean the house then that's up to them, and it does sound a good deal to clean for 20 hours while he works to support her and him.
Re sex, surely if their in a relationship and fancy each other then that should be something happening frequently? I don't see him saying the sex has to be when he wants it. Have I missed this point from a previous post?
Duce wrote: Well if she's getting to live there and enjoy it then it should be expected she earn her keep. If he and her agreed for her to clean the house then that's up to them, and it does sound a good deal to clean for 20 hours while he works to support her and him.
Re sex, surely if their in a relationship and fancy each other then that should be something happening frequently? I don't see him saying the sex has to be when he wants it. Have I missed this point from a previous post?
You are correct. They are assuming because she cleans I am some kind of nasty person?
I would love to have my current lifestyle and work 20 hours a week, which is effectively what she has.
As for the sex, if someone wasn;t getting enough sex then something is wrong or they are not compatible. Unless they think one person should suffer in the relationship.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
What happens when/if the relationship stops working and his girlfriend's got no retirement savings, little to no job experience and nowhere to live?
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
Yeah, because "clean my house and have sex with me whenever I want or I'll throw you out of my house" sounds like a very healthy relationship.
When did I say that? I am a reasonable man, I would explain she is not holding up her side of the relationship and give her a warning to fix it first.
I will not work full time, clean the house and pay for everything because ït would be mean of me not to when my GF sits around doing nothing all day".
Explain where my relationship is wrong please? I mean I have lasted 6 years at the age of 21 with the same women, I must be doing something right yea?
Or do you have some weird thing about women and cleaning being evil all the time or something? She is not a child and is free to leave whenever she pleases. Please don't demean my partner because you disagree with our decisions.
I honestly do not understand what is wrong with how we do things. If sex is important to me, then I expect my partner be able to satisfy that need. That is very fair yes?
I'm honestly not sure how your post is being viewed in a negative light.
I did something similar with my now wife and she does the stay at home mum who cleans and looks after the house while I work. If anything she gets to enjoy life more as she's not stuck in a 9-5.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
What happens when/if the relationship stops working and his girlfriend's got no retirement savings, little to no job experience and nowhere to live?
that all depends on a vast number of reasons, was it her fault, did she choose to leave, why did he dump her etc. she's a big girl I'm sure she knows what she's doing and is not forced into this by him. As I said there are lots of variables so answer will vary
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing. Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point. You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
What happens when/if the relationship stops working and his girlfriend's got no retirement savings, little to no job experience and nowhere to live?
She has family... She also chose that risk. As long as she does her thing then it is a pretty low risk. She is not a child.
plastictrees wrote: Jesus Christ. You aren't rolling the dice on a mobile vagina that can also hold a pan and a mop, you're sharing your life with someone you love and that makes you a better person through that sharing.
Do women not have jobs in New Zealand anymore? Maybe a 21 year old shouldn't be hanging around with so many 40 year old divorced guys.
Yes she has a part time job a few hours a day. Why does she need anything more? I earn enough and I would rather a clean house. Something wrong with that?
I mean it's like you guys think im some women beater because my GF cleans while I work and cooks when I get home. If anything she has it easy. We share the jobs I.E I work 50 hours a week and she works less than 20 and cleans. I wish I could clean up after 2 people and then do what I please most of the day.
How is this not sharing again? If she however stops doing what little she needs to do then currently I am free to make her move out. Because as you say it's about sharing and I will not be picking up the slack etc.
How has anything I said been wrong? Would you tolerate doing everything? If so then fine.
Must be trolling at this point.
You're relationship sounds very sad and your visionof what can be shared in a relationship very small indeed.
I have read what he is saying and agree with it... don't agree with you that he's trolling. I suspect his relationship is actually working quite well.
Yeah, because "clean my house and have sex with me whenever I want or I'll throw you out of my house" sounds like a very healthy relationship.
When did I say that? I am a reasonable man, I would explain she is not holding up her side of the relationship and give her a warning to fix it first.
I will not work full time, clean the house and pay for everything because ït would be mean of me not to when my GF sits around doing nothing all day".
Explain where my relationship is wrong please? I mean I have lasted 6 years at the age of 21 with the same women, I must be doing something right yea?
Or do you have some weird thing about women and cleaning being evil all the time or something? She is not a child and is free to leave whenever she pleases. Please don't demean my partner because you disagree with our decisions.
I honestly do not understand what is wrong with how we do things. If sex is important to me, then I expect my partner be able to satisfy that need. That is very fair yes?
I'm honestly not sure how your post is being viewed in a negative light.
I did something similar with my now wife and she does the stay at home mum who cleans and looks after the house while I work. If anything she gets to enjoy life more as she's not stuck in a 9-5.
I know. Honestly I see no reason to be upset. I mean I am providing her with an easy life yet they are angry?
I know. Honestly I see no reason to be upset. I mean I am providing her with an easy life yet they are angry?
Have you done housekeeping yourself? It's not as little work or as easy as you might think if done well...
Either way, to get back on topic, you said you could perfectly understand a man cheating if is wife couldn't "satisfy his needs" or "became fat" and such, does this go the same for the woman in this heterosexual relationship if the man can't "satisfy her needs" and "became fat"?
I know. Honestly I see no reason to be upset. I mean I am providing her with an easy life yet they are angry?
Have you done housekeeping yourself? It's not as little work or as easy as you might think if done well...
Either way, to get back on topic, you said you could perfectly understand a man cheating if is wife couldn't "satisfy his needs" or "became fat" and such, does this go the same for the woman in this heterosexual relationship if the man can't "satisfy her needs" and "became fat"?
Cleaning our house is easy. There are only 2 people here. I grew up in a family of 7, I know a mess and I know the pain of cleaning it.
On topic I was merely saying I can see the trap these people may feel they are in. A partner that has let themselves go too much or will not sleep with them (or is even emotionally distant etc). Their options may be to cheat or divorce or to suck it up. I can imagine there are millions of people who chose one of those 3 options (obviously since there are so many divorces or dead bedrooms and people who use sites like the above).
I also said if you read that I personally would never cheat nor do I excuse them. I personally am going to avoid marriage to avoid a sticky situation like the above.
Swastakowey wrote:
I know. Honestly I see no reason to be upset. I mean I am providing her with an easy life yet they are angry?
Mate, you're coming across as the most misogynistic person on Dakka right now, a relic of the 1950s who believes that marriage is simply a housing contract. You're missing the point of marriage altogether. It's not just some "deal" you make with a woman because you want someone to clean your house and make snu snu with.
It's a declaration of love. Your wife is someone you marry because they're someone you love, someone you cherish and adore. They should be your equal. They should challenge you to make yourself a better person.
Clearly, this is not how you feel if you think that you might have to give her a warning for not cleaning the house or making you dinner.
As for the people cheating on their SOs? I am genuinely sorry for the innocent people that'll be hurt by this. But I hope the cheating dicks get what's coming to them.
Swastakowey wrote:
I know. Honestly I see no reason to be upset. I mean I am providing her with an easy life yet they are angry?
Mate, you're coming across as the most misogynistic person on Dakka right now, a relic of the 1950s who believes that marriage is simply a housing contract. You're missing the point of marriage altogether. It's not just some "deal" you make with a woman because you want someone to clean your house and make snu snu with.
It's a declaration of love. Your wife is someone you marry because they're someone you love, someone you cherish and adore. They should be your equal. They should challenge you to make yourself a better person.
Clearly, this is not how you feel if you think that you might have to give her a warning for not cleaning the house or making you dinner.
As for the people cheating on their SOs? I am genuinely sorry for the innocent people that'll be hurt by this. But I hope the cheating dicks get what's coming to them.
She is my equal. As I say she is not a child and can think for herself. She respects my wishes and I respect hers. In fact I do more in the relationship both in hours and money. I wouldn't stay with her if I did not love her.
Why would I be with her if I did not love her? See being in a relationship, no matter what your views, is still a deal. Even if the deal is "I will not leave you if I love you" or "You will not hit me and I will not hit you etc". Just we all have different deals and agreements in a relationship. We have different tolerances, different wants and likes. It pays to find someone who shares those same things as you yes? If it was the other way round (me cleaning and doing minimal work while she provided) would you be have a second thought?
Because I value my GF and the care she provides does not at all mean I hate women or "am somehow oppressing her". Do all of you assume I beat her into submission? Or can you not comprehend that she may be happy with our arrangement?
Also I do not hate women, if I hated her I would not be with a women. Nor do I discriminate or anything.
I want you to explain how the agreement my GF of over half a decade and I have a "misogynistic " relationship? We have standards and hold each other to them, as any couple does. Please explain how that is wrong?
"She is my equal, but I do more!"
"Marriage is a deal, and I better get my half of the bargain!"
Are you for real? Like, genuine question, is this a ruse cruise?
You assign value to her like she's some kind of object, rather than another person. I'm sure you do love having her around to clean your house. But I'm not sure you actually respect her, based purely on what you've said in this thread - which is now being dragged off topic, so I'm going to leave it here. Better people than I have tried to reason with you, and you don't seem to be seeing what is, IOHO, the problem.
liquidjoshi wrote: "She is my equal, but I do more!"
"Marriage is a deal, and I better get my half of the bargain!"
Are you for real? Like, genuine question, is this a ruse cruise?
You assign value to her like she's some kind of object, rather than another person. I'm sure you do love having her around to clean your house. But I'm not sure you actually respect her, based purely on what you've said in this thread - which is now being dragged off topic, so I'm going to leave it here. Better people than I have tried to reason with you, and you don't seem to be seeing what is, IOHO, the problem.
Yes I am for real.
What do you suggest, I have no values in a partner and just take whatever lazy women comes my way and appreciate her? I want a lady (and have one) that I can appreciate and who appreciates me in return, who does not think so highly of herself that she will not do her part to make our household work like I do mine. Love is not a one way thing, it takes 2 to tango etc. Of course I respect her. I have been with her for 6 years! How can I not? WE (as in she and I) have our arrangement and we care for each other and respect each others wishes.
I give up anyway. Ultimately it does not matter as long as she is happy and I am happy and so on. But lets not assume because someone has roles in their relationship that they are disrespectful and backward women haters yea?
I'm suggesting that the idea that "I have a lady" is misogynistic and repugnant. I feel that saying things like that in a public forum is something you should be called out on.
We can agree that things such as this Ashley Madison site are terrible though, right?
It's probably not a great idea to judge the intimate details of anothers relationship. There are many ways two people can be happy together, so presuming you know what's best is... boorish. Especially when one of the individuals is very clearly a late adolescent who will no doubt mature a bit over time.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is a logical statement that betraying your partner will directly lead to a breakdown in trust when they find out.
While what you've said is true, BlaxicanX was arguing from the standpoint the spouse hadn't found out yet. How can there be a breakdown of trust if the partner hasn't found out?
Unless the partner is a fortune teller, in which case they really should have seen it coming
If the argument is that in the short term the partner hasn't found out there is a certain amount of short sightedness that comes with that. Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Time spent cheating on your partner is time that you are neglecting intimacy with your partner, or other household tasks which also directly impact your relationship, the financial impact on the household, the secretiveness, and the potential for STDs.
If you aren't satisfied with the love you receive from your partner then be honest with them and go your separate ways. Don't treat them as the fall back in case you don't pick up a stranger.
Looks like florists will also be reaping the rewards
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is a logical statement that betraying your partner will directly lead to a breakdown in trust when they find out.
While what you've said is true, BlaxicanX was arguing from the standpoint the spouse hadn't found out yet. How can there be a breakdown of trust if the partner hasn't found out?
Unless the partner is a fortune teller, in which case they really should have seen it coming
If the argument is that in the short term the partner hasn't found out there is a certain amount of short sightedness that comes with that. Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Time spent cheating on your partner is time that you are neglecting intimacy with your partner, or other household tasks which also directly impact your relationship, the financial impact on the household, the secretiveness, and the potential for STDs.
While I agree that cheating is morally reprehensible, that's a slippery slope you've got there.
Swastakowey wrote: Well as long as she lives in my house that I pay for and uses the power/internet/water and so on I pay for yea she will have to keep the place clean and cook. I will not come home and do more after she spent most of her day at home etc.
Get a janitor and a prostitute. You will waste less time and get better results. Also you can change the janitor and keep the prostitute or vice versa if one of them stops giving satisfaction and the other continues to do so. Really, it is a way better deal.
(Or you could stop considering a relationship based entirely on gender role, but rather envision living as equals. Both working, both bringing in some money, both taking part in household chores, and living together not for purely practical reasons but because you actually enjoy each other beside what a robot could do.)
Chongara wrote: Because you've (intentionally or not) framed it in the most awful RedPill/MGTOW style that your posts are spontaneously sprouting their own cargo shorts and terrible hats.
Have mercy on the weird-hated. Some of us hat-wearers are not that bad, please stop associating us with such terrible behavior :(.
Swastakowey wrote: I think it is best simply to not get married. I reckon that a lot of these men have ended up in sexless marriages. Often I hear about how women slowly stop putting out after a few years of marriage. I imagine websites like this have huge numbers of men who have wives that don't hold up their end of the bargain in marriage. Otherwise they likely would not feel the need to cheat. Maybe some of their wives got fat too. Who knows.
I know I personally will not be getting married, would hate to lose half my stuff because I divorce a wife who does not satisfy me. Especially since I am likely to be earning more and working more.
Ultimately though, these people should divorce and just hope they don't lose everything instead of cheating. Cheating ruins reputations big time.
I think you should watch Mike Birbiligia he has a rant on it and said that most marriages end in divorce, that he doesn't believe in the institution, pretty funny actually and I can see that point of view.
See I think marriage can work, it's just so easy for women to call it quits and ruin your life. Why give them that power over you? See it with a lot of men in their 40s after they worked decades for their wives who merely tidied the house. By not marrying you can simply leave your long term partner of they don't keep themselves at their original standard. Since I, the dude, is likely to have the money and the house etc it means I have nothing to lose if it goes bad. Unless children are in the mix. But I am not too sure if I am willing to have kids because then I have the burden of child support if it goes bad. Marriage is like a really one sided business contract. I was going to get married this year, looking at rings and everything, after 6 years of dating. But I think I will wait after seeing a guy at work after his divorce.
I will check out that video though tonight maybe.
Don't get married. You aren't ready.
Frankly, I'd make it illegal to get married before 25. Most people just don't know what the hell they're getting into before then. I certainly didn't.
Figure your own gak out before fething up someone else's.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: While I agree that cheating is morally reprehensible, that's a slippery slope you've got there.
What are you objecting to specifically which does not inevitably follow from another event without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability?
Frankly, I'd make it illegal to get married before 25. Most people just don't know what the hell they're getting into before then. I certainly didn't.
Figure your own gak out before fething up someone else's.
Just my 2 cents.
I'd second this. I got married at 35, and it's been great. My wife is my best friend, she supports me, and we're a team. But until you're comfortable trusting somebody with everything you have, you shouldn't get married.
And the stats about divorce are both misstated and skewed. If you look at divorce rates seperated by education or age, you'll find that college educated couples in their upper 20s are far less likely to get divorced than high school educated people even five years younger. The overall divorce rate has also been falling since about 1980:
The reality is that 50 years ago, people felt more pressure to marry, and had fewer options, particularly women. When options opened up in the 70s and 80s, that lead to a boom in divorce.
Today, people do not feel the same pressure to get married, which has lead to a decreasing marriage rate, but also to declining divorce rate.
Swastakowey wrote: Just seems like a huge risk to get married thats all.
Sure, but thats why you should be really sure of the decision to get married. I think most marriages fail because people jump into them without taking the necessary steps and being prepared. And then too many people resort to divorce without trying to fix the marriage and instead just think because the honeymoon is over divorce is the only option.
That doesn't mean marriage is bad, it means people are stupid.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: While I agree that cheating is morally reprehensible, that's a slippery slope you've got there.
What are you objecting to specifically which does not inevitably follow from another event without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability?
Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Cheaters getting caught is not an inevitability, and the fact that something becomes easier does not make it inevitable, although it certainly is worrying.
Frankly, I'd make it illegal to get married before 25. Most people just don't know what the hell they're getting into before then. I certainly didn't.
Figure your own gak out before fething up someone else's.
Just my 2 cents.
Matters on the two people. My parents got married when they were 25, but they were both intelligent people, who had their lives figured out by then.
I agree with that sentiment though, as most people I know have no idea what their personalities are like, they don't really know themselves that well. They don't have the experience needed to maintain a real relationship.
I think I have dumped every girl I have had a first date with, mostly because of the experience thing, and not being open minded.
I know tons of people that are twenty and twenty one that are already married or are getting engaged. And the single thought that goes through my mind is "Well thats going to end pretty quickly". Because at my age, I don't even think I am ready for a full on relationship. Especially with balancing trying to go to school, getting a degree, writing a book, I don't think I have the patience nor the need to get into a relationship. Why people can't figure that out on their own I will never know.
This cheater website is stupid and I think anyone that does anything like that has no understanding of other people, and how they work.
Though that is an assumption on my part, we really don't know the situations for everyone.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: While I agree that cheating is morally reprehensible, that's a slippery slope you've got there.
What are you objecting to specifically which does not inevitably follow from another event without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability?
Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Cheaters getting caught is not an inevitability, and the fact that something becomes easier does not make it inevitable, although it certainly is worrying.
Then it is a good thing that I didn't suggest that something becoming easier did not lead to inevitable consequences of disrespect manifesting in other ways.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: While I agree that cheating is morally reprehensible, that's a slippery slope you've got there.
What are you objecting to specifically which does not inevitably follow from another event without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability?
Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Cheaters getting caught is not an inevitability, and the fact that something becomes easier does not make it inevitable, although it certainly is worrying.
Then it is a good thing that I didn't suggest that something becoming easier did not lead to inevitable consequences of disrespect manifesting in other ways.
You certainly implied it, and now we're going to do the whole "did not, did too" that we inevitably do.
Further, you're assuming that cheating must mean that you're (general you, obviously) neglecting your spouse by not spending the time spent cheating with said spouse, but there's nothing saying that "time spent cheating" is inversely proportional to "time spent with spouse". Cheating during a business trip when one is away from one's spouse, for example, is not taking any time away from the spouse.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You certainly implied it, and now we're going to do the whole "did not, did too" that we inevitably do.
Absolutely no implication either, "becomes very easy" =/= inevitable. Whatever inferences you mistakenly made were entirely your own. You can do the whole "did not, did too" if you so choose, but I hope you'll appreciate if I choose not to indulge you.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Further, you're assuming that cheating must mean that you're (general you, obviously) neglecting your spouse by not spending the time spent cheating with said spouse, but there's nothing saying that "time spent cheating" is inversely proportional to "time spent with spouse". Cheating during a business trip when one is away from one's spouse, for example, is not taking any time away from the spouse.
Perhaps you understand why I was speaking in generalities, and not giving an exhaustive list of precisely when cheating on a spouse was taking time away from that spouse. In any event, cheating on your spouse/partner/significant other while on a business trip still shows a fundamental breakdown in respect and an erosion of trust. What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.
Kilkrazy wrote: People have been having affairs since time began. 10% of children are not related to their supposed fathers, according to DNA testing.
My better half and her mother had genetic testing done through Ancestry.com and were were both wondering how many people had unexpected results. Is that 10% for Europe, US, Western World?
How do you know he wasn't fething in his spare time?
Ah charity work. Well Kronk does believe in giving back to his community. Me, I believe the only good hyenadon is a dead hyenadon. Remember, young neaderthals, you don't have to be fastest, just faster than the caveman next to you.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the argument is that in the short term the partner hasn't found out there is a certain amount of short sightedness that comes with that. Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Time spent cheating on your partner is time that you are neglecting intimacy with your partner, or other household tasks which also directly impact your relationship, the financial impact on the household, the secretiveness, and the potential for STDs.
If you aren't satisfied with the love you receive from your partner then be honest with them and go your separate ways. Don't treat them as the fall back in case you don't pick up a stranger.
I have a hard time believing all cheaters get caught, and I'd wager that some cases of cheating happen despite having respect for the partner, due to alcohol. My point was that you both were arguing about different things, though.
I agree that better communication between partners would fix the majority of these situations.
Disclosure: I'm happily married, have never cheated, have zero interest in cheating, and have no respect for anyone who cheats.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: (Or you could stop considering a relationship based entirely on gender role, but rather envision living as equals.)
Meh, being married actually is super awesome. You spend the rest of your life with the most wonderful woman you've ever met. I could not imagine a happier event!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the argument is that in the short term the partner hasn't found out there is a certain amount of short sightedness that comes with that. Cheaters get caught. Even before then there are things that take their toll on the relationship; cheating indicates a fundamental lack of respect for your partner. Once you make peace with that level of betrayal it then becomes very easy for this disrespect to manifest itself in other ways, all of which are detrimental to the relationship.
Time spent cheating on your partner is time that you are neglecting intimacy with your partner, or other household tasks which also directly impact your relationship, the financial impact on the household, the secretiveness, and the potential for STDs.
If you aren't satisfied with the love you receive from your partner then be honest with them and go your separate ways. Don't treat them as the fall back in case you don't pick up a stranger.
I have a hard time believing all cheaters get caught, and I'd wager that some cases of cheating happen despite having respect for the partner, due to alcohol. My point was that you both were arguing about different things, though.
I agree that better communication between partners would fix the majority of these situations.
Disclosure: I'm happily married, have never cheated, have zero interest in cheating, and have no respect for anyone who cheats.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: (Or you could stop considering a relationship based entirely on gender role, but rather envision living as equals.)
Flip a coin to choose who gets pregnant!
"But Bill both sides are tails"
"Exactly honey. How do you think nature actually works."
*Grumble*
I am still investing in the gun market after this hack.
Swastakowey wrote: When did I say that? I am a reasonable man, I would explain she is not holding up her side of the relationship and give her a warning to fix it first.
I will not work full time, clean the house and pay for everything because ït would be mean of me not to when my GF sits around doing nothing all day".
Explain where my relationship is wrong please? I mean I have lasted 6 years at the age of 21 with the same women, I must be doing something right yea?
You sound like a very reasonable employer. You just don't really sound like you're in a relationship with a person you love.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: It's probably not a great idea to judge the intimate details of anothers relationship. There are many ways two people can be happy together, so presuming you know what's best is... boorish. Especially when one of the individuals is very clearly a late adolescent who will no doubt mature a bit over time.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
Two psychotherapists operating EastWind Health Associates in Halifax reported their clinical experience that chronic viewing of pornography by adult men can lead to emotional estrangement from their partners, even though the men may desire emotional intimacy.[16] Because of the increasing numbers of men presenting such problems, one therapist remarked “I think we’re at a tipping point with this phenomenon”.
Polonius wrote: Hell, volunteer work with disabled puppies is harmful to a relationship if its chronic.
Yup Almost anything can be harmful when used in a chronic manner, like water.
There is evidence that pornography does have other benefits;
http://www.christopherjferguson.com/pornography.pdf "Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How does it affect the relationship if the partners have a chronic pornographic habit of making amateur videos?
The study I linked to dealt with "chronic viewing of pornography by adult men ", not the making of it. When you say chronic habit is it affecting their relationship in other ways? Or is it affecting their interactions with others?
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
I remember 'video games' being on the rise as one of the reasons for divorce.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
I remember 'video games' being on the rise as one of the reasons for divorce.
Video games are as much of a reason of gang violence as porn is.
Or divorce for that matter.
Correlation doesn't really work as games haven't been linked to that. It is mostly societal. As crime in general has gone down considerably. We could say that people are playing more video games so violence has gone down because of it. Divorce has only become more and more common because of change of societal beliefs and people are not maturing as quickly as they used to.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
I remember 'video games' being on the rise as one of the reasons for divorce.
Video games are as much of a reason of gang violence as porn is.
Or divorce for that matter.
Correlation doesn't really work as games haven't been linked to that. It is mostly societal. As crime in general has gone down considerably. We could say that people are playing more video games so violence has gone down because of it. Divorce has only become more and more common because of change of societal beliefs and people are not maturing as quickly as they used to.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
I remember 'video games' being on the rise as one of the reasons for divorce.
Video games are as much of a reason of gang violence as porn is.
Or divorce for that matter.
Correlation doesn't really work as games haven't been linked to that. It is mostly societal. As crime in general has gone down considerably. We could say that people are playing more video games so violence has gone down because of it. Divorce has only become more and more common because of change of societal beliefs and people are not maturing as quickly as they used to.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
I remember 'video games' being on the rise as one of the reasons for divorce.
Video games are as much of a reason of gang violence as porn is.
Or divorce for that matter.
Correlation doesn't really work as games haven't been linked to that. It is mostly societal. As crime in general has gone down considerably. We could say that people are playing more video games so violence has gone down because of it. Divorce has only become more and more common because of change of societal beliefs and people are not maturing as quickly as they used to.
I wonder if the prevalence and ease of access to porn is behind some of these...new attitudes, or at least a major contributing factor?
Maybe, but at a guess I’d say no. I remember having a conversation like this a few times back in the late 90s, and there wasn’t a whole lot of internet around here back then. A couple of half remembered conversations are hardly a representative sample, though.
I’d guess that attitudes like the ones in this thread have been around as long as people have really wanted some sex, which is probably forever. As we’ve opened up conversation about relationships outside of traditional marriage people have felt more free to talk about them, but they’ve probably always been there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: It is. Kinda. I don't have the chart at hand, but I read a study on it about 2 years ago. Porn videos watched and number of sexual partners had a significant correlation.
There’s a pretty obvious factor, libido, that can easily explain the correlation between the two.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How does it affect the relationship if the partners have a chronic pornographic habit of making amateur videos?
The study I linked to dealt with "chronic viewing of pornography by adult men ", not the making of it. When you say chronic habit is it affecting their relationship in other ways? Or is it affecting their interactions with others?
I was attempting a joke. Mostly. Certainly by using the word chronic. Does Skype count as interacting with others?
Heart 73(?) info was release
Upper New York.
Like cuddles and hugs
Has marked himself as "married"
Better luck winning the Power Ball since it was 37M to 1
Canada's prim capital is suddenly focused more on the state of people's affairs than the affairs of the state.
One in five Ottawa residents allegedly subscribed to adulterers' website Ashley Madison, making one of the world's coldest capitals among the hottest for extra-marital hookups - and the most vulnerable to a breach of privacy after hackers targeted the site.
Hackers threatened to leak details including the credit card information, nude photos, sexual fantasies and real names of as many as 37 million customers worldwide of Ashley Madison, which uses the slogan: "Life is short. Have an affair."
The website's Canadian parent, Avid Life Media, said it had since secured the site and was working with law enforcement agencies to trace those behind the attack.
"Everybody says Ottawa is a sleepy town and here we are with 200,000 people running around on each other," said municipal employee Jon Weaks, 27, as he took a break at an outdoor cafe near the nation's Parliament.
"I think a lot of people will be questioned tonight at dinner," added colleague Ali Cross, 28.
Some 189,810 Ashley Madison users were registered in Ottawa, a city with a population of about 883,000, making the capital No. 1 for philanderers in Canada and potentially the highest globally per capita, according to previously published figures from the Toronto-based company.
The one bright spot for millions of Ashley Madison's nervous clients is that the hack appears to be an inside job, according to police and intelligence sources. Avid Life has also said it is convinced the hackers were formerly connected to the company.
That means, for now at least, the perpetrators are driven by ideological and not commercial motives.
The hackers, who referred to customers as "cheating dirtbags who deserve no discretion," appear uninterested in blackmailing individual clients, unlike an organized crime outfit.
"If it had been organized, they wouldn't have advertised it," said a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But there's going to be a lot of people with lots of explaining to do."
The hotbed of infidelity was also the seat of power: The top postal code for new members matched that of Parliament Hill, according to Avid Live chief executive Noel Biderman in a newspaper report published earlier this year.
Biderman said capital cities around the world typically top subscription rates, a phenomenon he chalks up to "power, fame and opportunity," along with the risk-taking personalities that find themselves in political cities.
The Ottawa mayor's office and city council either declined to comment or did not return emails.
The hackers want Avid Life to shut down the website, as well as a second one it runs, EstablishedMen.com which is widely described as a "sugar daddy site," but has no issues with CougarLife.com, a site for older women looking for hookups.
"In our buttoned-down city, it may not be acceptable to openly explore outside of a committed relationship," said Ottawa marriage counselor Nataxja Cini.
In a city full of professionals with demanding careers, many in government, Cini said marriage may come under more strain than usual. But with a stable family life still a badge of success, an Ashley Madison subscription may be preferable to divorce, she said.
To be sure, the subscription data may not be that reliable.
A former employee sued Avid Life, saying she had developed debilitating wrist pain, insomnia and anxiety while writing 1,000 fake profiles for a Brazilian version of Ashley Madison, according to court records. The case was dismissed earlier this year.
Still, one Ottawa resident, who declined to give her last name, said it is unsurprising the small government town is home to so many Ashley Madison clients.
"In a blue collar city, they're not going to use a website, they're going to do it at a bar," said Kary, 38. In Ottawa "you can't run the risk of someone seeing you at a bar doing that."
The town is also not famed for its rollicking social scene.
"Why do you think everyone goes to Montreal to have a good time?" she added. "Ottawa is the city fun forgot."
If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
[...]That doesn't hurt them. ( - cheating behind their back )
This kind of reasoning in people is exactly the reason why I have trust and commitment issues as well as part of the reason why I have to go to a therapist once a week.
If you're in a completely stable, loving relationship with your partner, and they don't know that you're banging your secretary on the weekends, there are circumstances where that may be preferable to filing for a divorce.
[...]That doesn't hurt them. ( - cheating behind their back )
This kind of reasoning in people is exactly the reason why I have trust and commitment issues as well as part of the reason why I have to go to a therapist once a week.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They also released a list of sexual fantasies posted to the site. For obvious reasons I won't link to them
That's the bit I'm not happy with. Revealing who's cheating on their partner, you can make a moral argument for that, but what's the point of this? Having a sanctimonious, shaming laugh at someone who likes 'weird' stuff?
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.
Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.
Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.
The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.
Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.
Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.
The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?
Are the hackers making demands? I thought they were just doing it for the thrill of it, or because one of their leaders discovered that they'd been cheated upon.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.
Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.
Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.
The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?
No its not illegal. But both do violate a moral code.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Morality is not the basis of law, contrary to popular belief. Practicality is.
Actually, all laws are based in moral codes. Someone somewhere decided that X was morally wrong, everyone then came to a consensus that was the case, and so they codified it into a law for everyone to follow.
For practical reasons, not all moral codes or ideals get made into law.
I have to say no not really, they are more based on practical reasons, doing drugs isn't morally wrong, but we decided from a practical reason society doesn't need people high.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have to say no not really, they are more based on practical reasons, doing drugs isn't morally wrong, but we decided from a practical reason society doesn't need people high.
Actually, most religions consider drugs to be morally wrong.
Except quite a few people have gone to no longer consider it morally wrong. But this doesn't matter. Cheating is not illegal, and while to some it iscwrong, it doesn't matter. They do no deserved to have illegal stuff done to them.
I don't disagree that the leak of information was wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right afterall. But you'll forgive me if I don't feel sorry for the victims.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The big one I can think of for starters is keeping a cheater from potentially infecting their spouse with an STD picked up somewhere. 10 % of the population has genital herpes:
Throw other STD's into the mix, including AIDs, and I guess that could be what qualifies for a moral argument.
That being said, anyone throwing those accusations around could end up doing far more damage than good, especially if the accused is innocent.
Are the hackers making demands? I thought they were just doing it for the thrill of it, or because one of their leaders discovered that they'd been cheated upon.
I heard on the radio here that they were demanding that the site close down or else they would release the details they stole.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The big one I can think of for starters is keeping a cheater from potentially infecting their spouse with an STD picked up somewhere. 10 % of the population has genital herpes:
Throw other STD's into the mix, including AIDs, and I guess that could be what qualifies for a moral argument.
That being said, anyone throwing those accusations around could end up doing far more damage than good, especially if the accused is innocent.
There is something in that though I don't think it is 100% conclusive, for various reasons.
OTOH, there is the certainty of damaging the marriages of everyone who is exposed, which surely is not a good thing.
I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.
Jihadin wrote: I think its the blackmail bit people are defending AM with
That makes sense, though the way I see it AM are the medium trough which though which people can cheat.
I can see why people would want something like that gone.
Also it will be interesting to see if they will shut down those websites or instead let the hackers leak the information about their members.
Daemonhammer wrote: I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.
Personally, I cannot judge anyone who has cheated, Everyone's situation is different, and everyone handles their own situations differently. I have (technically speaking) been on both sides of a relationship where "cheating" has gone on. In the one case, I was the person the cheater was cheating with (it was high school, and I was getting laid, so I didn't really care... but she did, and was "heartbroken" that I was leaving to join the army). In the other, I was dating a girl, and we had mutually agreed to see other people while we were separated (she was in school).. and apparently that hiatus was considered to be "one sided" (as in, she could see other people, but I couldn't, lol)
As it was posted on another page of this thread, the majority of the time that "cheating" happens, neither party entered into it with the intention of cheating. It just sorta happens. And depending on your religious/moral viewpoints, a person doesn't even need to have sex with another person to be considered a "cheater"
Daemonhammer wrote: I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.
I'm not defending those who cheat, I just believe that they shouldn't be publicly exposed, including their financial details, for doing so.
People who want to cheat will do it. At least with the website both parties are going into it knowing full well what is going on and what is going to happen. There's no moment where a man or woman discovers that the person they've fallen in love with is actually married, there's no expectation that they're going to leave their wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend etc.
Hell, some of the users on there might be in open relationships, do they deserve to have the details of that published onto the internet for everyone to see?
Daemonhammer wrote: I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.
I'm not defending those who cheat, I just believe that they shouldn't be publicly exposed, including their financial details, for doing so.
People who want to cheat will do it. At least with the website both parties are going into it knowing full well what is going on and what is going to happen. There's no moment where a man or woman discovers that the person they've fallen in love with is actually married, there's no expectation that they're going to leave their wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend.
Hell, some of the users on there might be in open relationships, do they deserve to have the details of that published onto the internet for everyone to see?
I wasnt specifically talking about you, instead people in general.
You do have a point there, though such a website makes it way easier for people to cheat, as we can see from the massive amounts of users that they have.
People in open relationships are not really the target audience of the website, as they arent trying to cheat on someone they are with so I suppose in a way they will be collateral damage.
I have come to a point where I will tell a person I am with that if they want to they can sleep with other people because I am sick of being cheated on.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.
That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.
If laws are based on practical reasons and not moral reasons, why were interracial marriages illegal, and why was it changed? Gay marriage? Polygamy? For what practical reason is animal abuse illegal? It's my dog, what practical reason should anyone else care if I kick it? How does it effect them?
AduroT wrote: If laws are based on practical reasons and not moral reasons, why were interracial marriages illegal, and why was it changed? Gay marriage? Polygamy? For what practical reason is animal abuse illegal? It's my dog, what practical reason should anyone else care if I kick it? How does it effect them?
Back in the day, there were a whole lot more laws pertaining to the mixing of races than just marriage laws. Marriage in particular, is a whole can of worms set of laws that are probably equal parts morality and practicality.
Animal abuse is a little easier.... Pretty much every study out there shows that people who abuse animals are much, much more likely to commit abusive crimes against humans. By locking up, and tracking/monitoring people who abuse animals, you most likely cut down some of the crime rate as it pertains to other "abuses"
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.
That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.
The ones I have sympathy for are the spouses and children who suddenly have their lives turned upside down. I think most here have been around the block and have seen the results with others or experienced them first hand.
One friend had a cheating wife bring home an STD, infect him, and wreck his ability to have any further children. For all that, he still loves her even though they've been divorced over 20 years.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Animal abuse is a little easier.... Pretty much every study out there shows that people who abuse animals are much, much more likely to commit abusive crimes against humans. By locking up, and tracking/monitoring people who abuse animals, you most likely cut down some of the crime rate as it pertains to other "abuses"
Except animal abuse laws were in place before that relationship was ever known, and most prosecutions of animal abuse are against abusive commercial practices, where the link to psychopathy isn't a factor.
Nah, we have laws against animal abuse because people feel a need to protect animals and punish those who treat them in ways we don't think is acceptable. Whether that's a purely moral standpoint or something else is kind of meaningless, it is what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The ones I have sympathy for are the spouses and children who suddenly have their lives turned upside down. I think most here have been around the block and have seen the results with others or experienced them first hand.
One friend had a cheating wife bring home an STD, infect him, and wreck his ability to have any further children. For all that, he still loves her even though they've been divorced over 20 years.
Sure, I have sympathy for the spouses. But I have sympathy for them whether they're being deceived or have had their partner's adultery revealed - either way that's a gak place to be in.
Like dogs are team human, they evolved with us, they are part of our side so they are +5.
Other primates are okay, we can relate to them. Some of them are complete a-holes who want to rip off your face and genitals. This makes them more like humans, not less. +4
Mammals - basically we can kind of pick up what they are putting down. Sometimes we can coexist. Some of them are large and angry, some of them are delicious. +3
Reptiles - not really on the same page at all, but mostly they are like slowed versions of mammals. Too lazy to warm up their own blood, but they are kind of on similar tracks to us. +2
Fish - Too lazy to evolve lungs and join us air breathing badasses, but also not much of a threat unless you are dumb enough to go where they can kill you. There are even a couple types that don't taste terrible, plus if they ever really screw with us they'd be super easy to wipe out. +1
Amphibians - Nature's cowards. Can't make up their mind about air or water. -1
Birds - Birds used to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs used to run this place. Can't let them get aspirations towards doing that ever again, so -2
And that should adjust your sentence for animal cruelty.
(note, not really sure what to do with marsupials)
In the UK there's a clear line between vertebrates and invertebrates. You can't be cruel to an invertebrate and can experiment on them without any licences, etc.
No its not illegal. But both do violate a moral code.
Whose moral code?
Whichever ones include "It's wrong to freely give a promise of fidelity and then break it." Heck, I'd be more interested to hear about moral codes which that sort of behaviour.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As it was posted on another page of this thread, the majority of the time that "cheating" happens, neither party entered into it with the intention of cheating. It just sorta happens. And depending on your religious/moral viewpoints, a person doesn't even need to have sex with another person to be considered a "cheater"
You can commit adultery for sympathetic reasons, but when I sign up to a site with a credit card, and start chatting with other people (who I had never met before that point) in order to choose which one I'm going to cheat with based on who is the most compatible and convenient, I think it would be fair to say I knew what I was getting into.
(edit) Not saying I agree with the hackers, but I really can't manage to feel that bad for the victims either.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.
That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.
What about sympathy for the cheats' partners, who now stand in danger of this unpleasant knowledge being forced upon them?
This is what I find strange. A lot of people seem to think it more important to punish the adulterers than to protect their partners.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)
The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.
That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.
What about sympathy for the cheats' partners, who now stand in danger of this unpleasant knowledge being forced upon them?
This is what I find strange. A lot of people seem to think it more important to punish the adulterers than to protect their partners.
If they were in a relationship where their partner was cheating on them, it was likely only a matter of time until they found out anyway--by checking credit cards, browsing history, having the third party spill the beans when the affair went sour, a confession from their partner, or any number of other tell-tales which have been blowing the cover of affairs for centuries.
If a friend of the partner noticed the cheater getting friendly with their AM buddy in a restaurant somewhere and decided to alert the partner, would that make them the one in the wrong for "forcing unpleasant knowledge" upon someone?
Elemental wrote: If they were in a relationship where their partner was cheating on them, it was likely only a matter of time until they found out anyway--by checking credit cards, browsing history, having the third party spill the beans when the affair went sour, a confession from their partner, or any number of other tell-tales which have been blowing the cover of affairs for centuries.
If a friend of the partner noticed the cheater getting friendly with their AM buddy in a restaurant somewhere and decided to alert the partner, would that make them the one in the wrong for "forcing unpleasant knowledge" upon someone?
You could also make the argument that if someone confesses to cheating that is "forcing unpleasant knowledge" on the innocent partner.
To expand, I get what KilKrazy's getting at--that "moral" arguments against doing something are often highly subjective, and can be appeals to an arbitary authority. So I'll entirely agree that I can't dismiss something as universally "immoral" with any authority. But on the other hand, breaking a promise to someone who trusts you and to whom you presented yourself as trustworthy seems like as close to basic, universally agreed morality as we have ever come--and personally, if someone proved to me that they didn't subscribe to that, I couldn't see myself ever trusting them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Animal abuse is a little easier.... Pretty much every study out there shows that people who abuse animals are much, much more likely to commit abusive crimes against humans. By locking up, and tracking/monitoring people who abuse animals, you most likely cut down some of the crime rate as it pertains to other "abuses"
Except animal abuse laws were in place before that relationship was ever known, and most prosecutions of animal abuse are against abusive commercial practices, where the link to psychopathy isn't a factor.
Nah, we have laws against animal abuse because people feel a need to protect animals and punish those who treat them in ways we don't think is acceptable. Whether that's a purely moral standpoint or something else is kind of meaningless, it is what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The ones I have sympathy for are the spouses and children who suddenly have their lives turned upside down. I think most here have been around the block and have seen the results with others or experienced them first hand.
One friend had a cheating wife bring home an STD, infect him, and wreck his ability to have any further children. For all that, he still loves her even though they've been divorced over 20 years.
Sure, I have sympathy for the spouses. But I have sympathy for them whether they're being deceived or have had their partner's adultery revealed - either way that's a gak place to be in.
You feel the exact same way about it as I do. I can't envision crapping all over my wife and kids like that.
Bromsy wrote:Animal abuse laws should be on a scale.
Birds - Birds used to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs used to run this place. Can't let them get aspirations towards doing that ever again, so -2
And that should adjust your sentence for animal cruelty.
(note, not really sure what to do with marsupials)
You forgot one... Cats. See, cats aren't mammals (well, lions, tigers, pumas and the other biguns are, I'm talking fething housecats here) and they are worse than birds.... As such they are a -10 and killing such devilish creatures gets you a tax bonus, a civic medal and a "key to the city" ceremony
Marsupials... ehh, lets call them a net 0, because while I'd say things like kangaroos would be a +1 or 2 penalty, you then have to deal with things like the Platypus (which I guess isn't really a marsupial )
Elemental wrote:
You can commit adultery for sympathetic reasons, but when I sign up to a site with a credit card, and start chatting with other people (who I had never met before that point) in order to choose which one I'm going to cheat with based on who is the most compatible and convenient, I think it would be fair to say I knew what I was getting into.
(edit) Not saying I agree with the hackers, but I really can't manage to feel that bad for the victims either.
I think there are still sympathetic reasons one might join a site like AM, but as one of our other esteemed Vet users here pointed out, he has an account from way back when he was a single soldier, and was looking for, basically a hook-up, and tinder hadn't been invented yet Obviously, AM is going to attract a certain clientele, especially with how they "advertise" their services. But to call everyone on the site a cheater is a bit much.
I have this vision of hackers posting the data and their server immediately being taken down via DOS attack because of all the divorce attorneys downloading copies.
The offenders are not the cheaters the offenders are people who seem to think they have the right to police peoples morality. They are no better then governments trying to dictate society morality through social policy. These guys were just much more effective
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
But yet... for us government shlubs, we would lose our clearance and our jobs if we had undisclosed affairs because anything which opens you up to blackmail or shows an inability to be trusted invalidates you from dealing with sensitive information.
Imagine if a high ranking senator used this site and china attempted to blackmail him about an affair in order to have him vote a certain way on a high profile trade agreement?
If Johnny Data Analyst can be fired because someone might use his adultery to force him to breach security, then why do elected officials get 'personal life is not my business' when personal life is DIRECTLY THE BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT and why we have extensive background checks for most positions?
It is a big double standard, and the DB china hacked where they got all of our feds background check info shows every gov employee who has a vice or hole or place to be exploited to compromise security.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out what I have seen on the internet. It seems like others have brought up issues that would impact their ability to perform their job, however.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.
Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.
Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.
you realize that just because someone registered for AM under the name "tony blair" or some such well know figure, that doesnt necessitate them having actually signed up themselves right?
its just more blackmail on top of black mail really.
I got a junk email once from one of these cheating sites several years ago. Saw a picture of my fiancée at that time listed as someone in my area looking for a sugar daddy. Thankfully I found out and quickly ended the relationship. Her excuse was her information was hacked and someone made a fake account with her picture. But her information described her to the T, things nobody would know about her. Thankfully I got rid of her and several years later meet my wife.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.
Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.
you realize that just because someone registered for AM under the name "tony blair" or some such well know figure, that doesnt necessitate them having actually signed up themselves right?
You realize that in order to actually make full use of the site, they had to submit payment information. That would be a bit harder to fake.
I think Ashley Maddison inflate their membership by quite a bit and they might be embarrassed by quite how much. One employee made a complaint for repetitive strain injury caused by constant working on fake profiles.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think Ashley Maddison inflate their membership by quite a bit and they might be embarrassed by quite how much. One employee made a complaint for repetitive strain injury caused by constant working on fake profiles.
IIRC there was a court case against them that showed 95% of their membership are fake profiles.
I wonder what the policy is on using your work email for this sort of thing
You're not actually wondering that, are you?
Why wouldn't I? I haven't worked for a government agency here and don't know their rules. I assume there is a difference depending on security clearance.
Is the policy very strict that specifies that your account cannot be used for these activities? Does it have a "do not bring the organization into disrepute" clause? If no sexually explicit messages or images were exchanged by the user will that save their job? etc.
Dreadwinter wrote: I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)
Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.
Why does it matter?
If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.
It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.
To be fair, with all this being public its not really valid blackmail material anymore. So the fact they were using this site can't make them a security threat anymore. You can't threaten to expose what's already public knowledge.
Ouze wrote: Additionally, if you're in the military, you could be charged with adultery.
Really? I didn't know that the military could discipline members for adultery.
Yeah, it's totally a thing. I can't speak to how often it happens though, I have no idea. I think it's uncommon, but with something so public as this, which clearly brings the service into disrepute... I dunno.
Radio listeners have responded with anger after a Sydney woman was told live on air that her husband was registered with the Ashley Madison website for casual affairs.
Breakfast radio hosts Fitzy and Wippa put a call out on Thursday morning for any female listeners who suspected their partner might be cheating.
The Nova FM hosts offered to find out if the suspected person was registered with Ashley Madison by checking their email address against the data released by hackers this week.
Jo* from Blacktown phoned in because of her “snippy” husband.
“When that little thing came on the news about the Ashley Madison hack, he sort of went a bit funny,” Jo said. “I asked him straight out. He said, ‘Don’t be stupid. We’re married, we’ve got two kids.’”
She said his work hours had changed, he now kept his phone close by him and he could not account for some money. Jo gave her husband’s details to the radio program.
“We’re putting him into this website right now and his details have revealed that he’s actually on the website, Jo,” said radio host Fitzy.
“Are you serious?” Jo asked. “Are you freaking kidding me?”
“Yeah, no ...” stammered Fitzy.
“These websites are disgusting,” Jo said before hanging up.
Listeners took to Twitter to voice their outrage at the stunt.
“I, for one, do not want to listen to you two destroy someone’s life on air. It’s not funny. It’s horrible,” tweeted The Sydney Rant.
Alexander Rose-Innes tweeted: “You guys are a shameless disgrace @fitzyandwippa ...” Ian Jankelowitz said: “Things not to do for ratings ... reveal to a woman live on air her husband has an @ashleymadison acct #fail @fitzyandwippa @novafm.”
After Jo hung up live on air, Wippa said: “Oh I don’t know if we should have done that. That hasn’t left me with a good feeling. I’m sorry that that happened, Jo. I feel a bit bad.”
Ouze wrote: Additionally, if you're in the military, you could be charged with adultery.
Really? I didn't know that the military could discipline members for adultery.
Yeah, it's totally a thing. I can't speak to how often it happens though, I have no idea. I think it's uncommon, but with something so public as this, which clearly brings the service into disrepute... I dunno.
I dont know how factual it is, but according to a number of the Company Commanders I had in my time, just about the only way to get an adultery charge to stick was to catch them in the act. Apparently talking about it wasn't enough, or, Im guessing signing up for a website isn't enough.
Maybe she shouldn't have asked on air? Seems a bit like a publicity stunt to me, either that or it proves some people will risk anything to get on TV or radio.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe she shouldn't have asked on air? Seems a bit like a publicity stunt to me, either that or it proves some people will risk anything to get on TV or radio.
^ this
They didn't do anything she couldn't have done, and she clearly wanted to know.
She called in and asked. She made it public business. Not them. People getting up in arms about it need to read better. They may have made the offer, but unless they're reading the full list of information out, the people who call in and ask on air are the ones making it public via their requests.
I'll confess, I didn't catch the part where she called into the show which does shift the onus of responsibility a bit. Nonetheless, pretty crappy "entertainment".
Ouze wrote: I'll confess, I didn't catch the part where she called into the show which does shift the onus of responsibility a bit. Nonetheless, pretty crappy "entertainment".
A radio show in Houston did "War of the Roses" every Wednesday morning. The maintenance guys would listen during their morning break.
Basically, if you suspected a spouse, boyfriend, whatever of cheating on you, you could call in. They would pretend to be a local florist and call the person saying they are starting a new floral business, that they had their name from previous floral arrangements they did, and wanted to offer a free dozen roses with no cost in order to get their name out there.
After some convincing that no credit card information or money was needed, they'd ask the person for a name to go on the card, and perhaps a little message.
Invariably, the poor shmuck would make it out to the person they were cheating with and include a line like "I can't wait for our next rendezvous". Meanwhile, the person that suspected them is listening the whole time and then the fight starts.
It's usually a Jerry Springer moment...
They (the maintenance guys) loved that gak, even though a few bragged about having 2-3 girlfriends in addition to their wives...
Ouze wrote: I'll confess, I didn't catch the part where she called into the show which does shift the onus of responsibility a bit. Nonetheless, pretty crappy "entertainment".
A radio show in Houston did "War of the Roses" every Wednesday morning. The maintenance guys would listen during their morning break.
Basically, if you suspected a spouse, boyfriend, whatever of cheating on you, you could call in. They would pretend to be a local florist and call the person saying they are starting a new floral business, that they had their name from previous floral arrangements they did, and wanted to offer a free dozen roses with no cost in order to get their name out there.
After some convincing that no credit card information or money was needed, they'd ask the person for a name to go on the card, and perhaps a little message.
Invariably, the poor shmuck would make it out to the person they were cheating with and include a line like "I can't wait for our next rendezvous". Meanwhile, the person that suspected them is listening the whole time and then the fight starts.
It's usually a Jerry Springer moment...
They (the maintenance guys) loved that gak, even though a few bragged about having 2-3 girlfriends in addition to their wives...
Ugh, this is going on in my area too. There is a new weekly segment on a local show I listen to called Put Your Man Where Your Mouth Is, that uses a honeypot trap with a former Playboy Playmate. Basically a wife or girlfriend can call the show, give the show their significant other's contact information, and the Playmate will "happen upon" the unsuspecting guy to see if he accepts her phone number and calls her to set up a rendezvous. If the guy calls the Playmate's number it takes him to a voicemail that is recording for the show's benefit. Then when the segment airs, they live call the wife/gf and play the voicemail for her to see if her guy has been loyal.
I find the whole bit disgusting, and after hearing last week's call (guy wasn't loyal, guy started screaming at his wife that he wants a divorce) I am not going to listen during that segment any longer. I just don't find the humor in seeing people's lives unravel.
But I have no sympathy for the women who call up and willingly subject themselves and their SO to that kind of exploitation.
I am fairly sure these radio pranks are fake guys.
1: you need persons permission to air it, if it was real most people on the butt end would not allow the prank to be aired.
2: they are pre recorded so they can edit out swear words and shorten it etc to the best effect. AKA edit.
3: If it is on TV or Radio as entertainment it is likely scripted etc.
I am unsure of the specifics but I know here in NZ you can't just go up to someone, ask them questions then put it on the radio. They have to be informed that it will be on the radio first and so on.
1: you need persons permission to air it, if it was real most people on the butt end would not allow the prank to be aired.
2: they are pre recorded so they can edit out swear words and shorten it etc to the best effect. AKA edit.
3: If it is on TV or Radio as entertainment it is likely scripted etc.
I am unsure of the specifics but I know here in NZ you can't just go up to someone, ask them questions then put it on the radio. They have to be informed that it will be on the radio first and so on.
I doubt the show I referenced was staged.
In the US a radio host has to identify that a caller is on the air. That was done both for the wife who called in, and when the honeypotted husband got on the line. I would imagine too, that the wife signed or gave verbal consent before handing over the contact info of her husband to the radio station, who in turned set up the meeting between him and the Playboy Playmate.
Live radio shows here are on a delay which allows the station to "dump" or delete offensive material before it reaches the live listeners. I believe the delay time can range from 30 seconds to a minute or two. However most radio programs are very much live affairs. It is usually the overnight or weekend shows that are taped, especially those Top 20 weekly countdowns.
Regarding scripts, I think that depends on the radio program. Bits and live reads are certainly scripted, but many shows offer a lot of improvisational comedy via the hosts interacting with callers and guests.
So, I dunno. I think I heard a real marriage break up on my drive in to work last week and I didn't like it.
I was talking about the prank calls. The ones that trick the person into releasing information etc. They are fake. They tend to be recorded earlier in the day then released at the time needed (how else do you guarantee the person is available at the time of calling etc, not that it matters since the prank set up is fake).
The Ashley Maddison situation earlier may very well be real, but I was talking about the pranks mentioned above like the "war of the roses" etc. We have one in NZ called "Wind up your Wife Wednesday" and it's pretty much the same prank set up, however it is likely fake. I don't see how you can trick someone into the prank legally, then air it after they just admitted they slept with their husbands brother with their permission is just far fetched to have it done on a weekly basis and always be interesting.
I'll see myself out.
.
)
