That really rubs me the wrong way. Infidelity is orthogonal to its purpose.
I find that I disagree. From a purely contractual standpoint this makes sense.
We are married and that implies a covenant of good faith, and part of that implies that one side isn't going to cheat on the other. Cheating by one side is a breech of contract. Alimony in this regard is contractual and based on the assumption that one party is going to take a hit career wise because of the marriage (by taking care of the household). If a party breeches contract, they should not benefit from it as well.
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
+2
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Alimony is less part of the contract - after all, it only kicks in when the contract is terminated - and more a recognition by the state that the contract can be exploitative in the long term when terminated.
This is sort of tangential to cheating though, I guess. It just surprised me it was a thing.
Most contracts contain breech and termination clauses, in Virginia if you and your spouse can agree, you can put alimony terms in your prenup/postnup agreements and proof of cheating means the cheater doesn't get alimony. Contracts are important, the marriage contract included, just because it involves people, love and sex doesn't mean there aren't implied and explicit agreements in place.
That really rubs me the wrong way. Infidelity is orthogonal to its purpose.
I find that I disagree. From a purely contractual standpoint this makes sense.
We are married and that implies a covenant of good faith, and part of that implies that one side isn't going to cheat on the other. Cheating by one side is a breech of contract. Alimony in this regard is contractual and based on the assumption that one party is going to take a hit career wise because of the marriage (by taking care of the household). If a party breeches contract, they should not benefit from it as well.
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
agreed
you kind of (at the moment) just have to lawyer up and hope for the best.
Worth the read, though mostly the same as the ready linked post: you don't know why people are cheating, or even IF they are cheating (arrangements are common), so it's not your business and outing them isn't right.
Having done my time in a fucked up marriage, I've become more accepting of the idea of cheating*. Not fully accepting, just...more so. I never cheated, I was just miserable, and I still say that when practical leaving is the proper option. But I also understand that leaving isn't always feasible.
I still judge people who just cheat* because they don't do the whole monogamy "thing."
* - Noting that open arrangements with your partner aren't "cheating."
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I've been on both sides of the cheating thing, and in all cases it boiled down to a breakdown in communication allowing problems to snowball. I sort of feel like cheating is something on the far end of a continuum of shitty things that people can do to one another for all kinds of reasons.
Like, you can have a bad day and say something really awful to a loved one, and that's a lousy thing to do, but it doesn't make you an irrevocably bad person. Or you can just be kind of a dick who says dickish things to people because dicks. I feel infidelity is qualitatively similar, even if it's generally quantitatively much worse. Some people cheat because they're in bad situations, some people cheat because they're kind of dicks, and some people cheat for a variety of reasons.
It's complicated, because people are complicated.
All that said, this hack would be a shitty thing even if every person affected was certified asshole. Privacy and associated rights are valuable for everyone, regardless of how wonderful they are as individuals. That's kind of the point of rights.
That said, I'm not going to shed many tears for someone doing a shitty thing to someone and getting caught.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Worth the read, though mostly the same as the ready linked post: you don't know why people are cheating, or even IF they are cheating (arrangements are common), so it's not your business and outing them isn't right.
Having done my time in a fucked up marriage, I've become more accepting of the idea of cheating*. Not fully accepting, just...more so. I never cheated, I was just miserable, and I still say that when practical leaving is the proper option. But I also understand that leaving isn't always feasible.
I still judge people who just cheat* because they don't do the whole monogamy "thing."
* - Noting that open arrangements with your partner aren't "cheating."
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between these two stories.
That really rubs me the wrong way. Infidelity is orthogonal to its purpose.
I find that I disagree. From a purely contractual standpoint this makes sense.
We are married and that implies a covenant of good faith, and part of that implies that one side isn't going to cheat on the other. Cheating by one side is a breech of contract. Alimony in this regard is contractual and based on the assumption that one party is going to take a hit career wise because of the marriage (by taking care of the household). If a party breeches contract, they should not benefit from it as well.
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
While this is true, somehow I don't think separated-and-divorced-in-all-but-name is really Ashley Madison's target market.
"I'm separated from my wife but our divorce hasn't completed" isn't going to bar you from other dating sites.
So while the question of what constitutes cheating when legally married is a messy one, AM specifically seems to be aimed at people intent on having outside relationships that they are concealing from their significant others. I suspect that restricting potential partners in this scenario to others with similar motivations and a similar amount to lose is part of the appeal.
japan on
+1
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
From the perspective of someone who is into ethical non-monogamy, Ashley Madison is pretty much the devil among the poly communities that I know of. While I have nothing by sympathy for people who aren't getting what they need out of their current relationship and would encourage them to explore other options, cheating is inexcusable. Get out of your relationship, renegotiate your relationship, but don't put your partner through that breach of trust. Having been on both sides of the coin, it sucks. It sucks so much, and can ruin a person's future relationships for years, if not forever due to trust issues.
On the issue of the hack, while I don't condone people cheating, they still don't deserve to have their info stolen. Relationship issues should stay between the people involved (to a point, abuse and other illegal activities are different), and while cheating is wrong, doing something immoral doesn't mean you deserve to have immoral things done to you.
That really rubs me the wrong way. Infidelity is orthogonal to its purpose.
I find that I disagree. From a purely contractual standpoint this makes sense.
We are married and that implies a covenant of good faith, and part of that implies that one side isn't going to cheat on the other. Cheating by one side is a breech of contract. Alimony in this regard is contractual and based on the assumption that one party is going to take a hit career wise because of the marriage (by taking care of the household). If a party breeches contract, they should not benefit from it as well.
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
While this is true, somehow I don't think separated-and-divorced-in-all-but-name is really Ashley Madison's target market.
"I'm separated from my wife but our divorce hasn't completed" isn't going to bar you from other dating sites.
So while the question of what constitutes cheating when legally married is a messy one, AM specifically seems to be aimed at people intent on having outside relationships that they are concealing from their significant others. I suspect that restricting potential partners in this scenario to others with similar motivations and a similar amount to lose is part of the appeal.
My Little Pony is targeted at young girls, yet has plenty of fans approaching 40 of any sex/gender.
Ashley Madison itself might be dicks, that doesn't mean that you throw their clients under a bus.
Nestle is a vile, disgusting company, that doesn't mean you slap children for eating a Crunch bar.
That really rubs me the wrong way. Infidelity is orthogonal to its purpose.
I find that I disagree. From a purely contractual standpoint this makes sense.
We are married and that implies a covenant of good faith, and part of that implies that one side isn't going to cheat on the other. Cheating by one side is a breech of contract. Alimony in this regard is contractual and based on the assumption that one party is going to take a hit career wise because of the marriage (by taking care of the household). If a party breeches contract, they should not benefit from it as well.
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
While this is true, somehow I don't think separated-and-divorced-in-all-but-name is really Ashley Madison's target market.
"I'm separated from my wife but our divorce hasn't completed" isn't going to bar you from other dating sites.
So while the question of what constitutes cheating when legally married is a messy one, AM specifically seems to be aimed at people intent on having outside relationships that they are concealing from their significant others. I suspect that restricting potential partners in this scenario to others with similar motivations and a similar amount to lose is part of the appeal.
My Little Pony is targeted at young girls, yet has plenty of fans approaching 40 of any sex/gender.
Ashley Madison itself might be dicks, that doesn't mean that you throw their clients under a bus.
Nestle is a vile, disgusting company, that doesn't mean you slap children for eating a Crunch bar.
Oh sure, I'm not making a "they deserve it" argument.
It's more: if you take the population of people that have cheated by strict definition, there will be a proportion of people in there with sympathetic stories, or whose circumstances make it understandable or acceptable.
Within the population of Ashley Madison members, I'd be willing to bet that proportion is a lot smaller, premised as the site is on the assumption that you are seeking to have relationships that you are concealing from a significant other.
I just think that each group probably merits a separate discussion when it comes to justifiability of infidelity.
I think that in most cases you have a moral responsibility to expose destructive liars who harm people. Knowing that someone is cheating and declining to expose the fact is tantamount to condoning it.
I think that in most cases you have a moral responsibility to expose destructive liars who harm people. Knowing that someone is cheating and declining to expose the fact is tantamount to condoning it.
Telling the world, as opposed discretely mentioning it to the spouse, seems like an over corretion, though. Publicizing a spouse-approved affair could be damaging to the party you were intending to help.
+9
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
More harm is likely to come of exposing them. We can argue forever about whether cheating is inherently particularly harmful, but in any case, this will also harm people and you're going to have to have a pretty hardcore argument to convince me pwople are morally obligated to harm others, regardless of what they've done.
I think that in most cases you have a moral responsibility to expose destructive liars who harm people. Knowing that someone is cheating and declining to expose the fact is tantamount to condoning it.
How is it your business? It's really strange to see how people's expectations of privacy disappear, especially considering infidelity isn't illegal in most states, and is rarely prosecuted. This isn't child pornography, or drug trafficking. It's people hooking up!
I think that in most cases you have a moral responsibility to expose destructive liars who harm people. Knowing that someone is cheating and declining to expose the fact is tantamount to condoning it.
How is it your business? It's really strange to see how people's expectations of privacy disappear, especially considering infidelity isn't illegal in most states, and is rarely prosecuted. This isn't child pornography, or drug trafficking. It's people hooking up!
I think there are degrees of difference here, particularly once children enter the picture. I think it's worth retaining a social taboo against betrayal, illegal or otherwise. It's not merely "people hooking up" though.
It's my business because I don't want a society in which I can be thoroughly betrayed and everyone around me ignores it. I want to live in a society where betrayal and destructive dishonesty is taboo, and where such behavior results in being ostracized. So I'm going to behave in that way toward others, for exactly the same reasons I reject racist behavior and ostracize it, give up my seat on a bus for a pregnant lady, and a million other social behaviors that reinforce the kind of society I want to live in.
I'm not sure I want to go all the way toward exposing a massive database of dishonest, destructive liars to public scrutiny, but I'm not sure I'm opposed to it either.
More harm is likely to come of exposing them. We can argue forever about whether cheating is inherently particularly harmful, but in any case, this will also harm people and you're going to have to have a pretty hardcore argument to convince me pwople are morally obligated to harm others, regardless of what they've done.
Inaction makes you complicit in the harm. Exposing a cheating spouse doesn't cause harm - cheating causes harm when it is exposed. You're not the cause of harm that results from exposing a lie! The liar is the cause.
However, if you become a party to that betrayal, you're complicit in whatever results from it.
+4
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I think we have a philosophical difference, here. I think that you bear responsibility for the harm caused by your actions regardless of the unsavoriness of the initial actions which led to the possibility of harm. I can't make someone go back in time to avoid what they did, but I can make a choice here and now about what I think is the right course of action. And I think, regardless of what I end up doing, anything that causes suffering is something which should be considered thoughtfully.
+8
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Also, for what is is worth, I generally would probably tell people I knew if I knew slmethjg was going on, but it would be something I would not do reflexively.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
If I found out a friend of many years was being cheated on by their spouse, I would be in a difficult situation, mostly in how I was going to tell.
I would probably talk to the person who was cheating and try to get some context / give them the chance to come clean about it before I talked to the friend... but I would talk.
Because it is personal and close to me, is why I would handle it this way.
In what world do I have the right to pass judgement on millions of people I do not know, and do something that will likely cause hundreds of thousands of divorces and broken homes with kids losing access to parents, etc... the ripple effect of this data breach is going to be massive and awful and devastating for so many people and I could never see myself as one to do something like this or support it in any way whatsoever.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think we have a philosophical difference, here. I think that you bear responsibility for the harm caused by your actions regardless of the unsavoriness of the initial actions which led to the possibility of harm. I can't make someone go back in time to avoid what they did, but I can make a choice here and now about what I think is the right course of action. And I think, regardless of what I end up doing, anything that causes suffering is something which should be considered thoughtfully.
For me, it's pretty simple: Once you know, there is no course of action that avoids your involvement in some harm. The only question you have left to answer is whether you'll help a liar to keep lying, or not.
I think that in most cases you have a moral responsibility to expose destructive liars who harm people. Knowing that someone is cheating and declining to expose the fact is tantamount to condoning it.
How is it your business? It's really strange to see how people's expectations of privacy disappear, especially considering infidelity isn't illegal in most states, and is rarely prosecuted. This isn't child pornography, or drug trafficking. It's people hooking up!
I think there are degrees of difference here, particularly once children enter the picture. I think it's worth retaining a social taboo against betrayal, illegal or otherwise. It's not merely "people hooking up" though.
It's my business because I don't want a society in which I can be thoroughly betrayed and everyone around me ignores it. I want to live in a society where betrayal and destructive dishonesty is taboo, and where such behavior results in being ostracized. So I'm going to behave in that way toward others, for exactly the same reasons I reject racist behavior and ostracize it, give up my seat on a bus for a pregnant lady, and a million other social behaviors that reinforce the kind of society I want to live in.
I'm not sure I want to go all the way toward exposing a massive database of dishonest, destructive liars to public scrutiny, but I'm not sure I'm opposed to it either.
Yeah. This is why all the "should I tell XYZ their spouse is cheating" questions blow me away. If you would want to be told, do it for someone else. I'd never want to end up in a scenario where my significant other empties the joint account, takes our hypothetical kids, and then runs off to Venezuela, and a friend finally says, "Well, that sucks. I guess I should have told you I knew about that shit for six months."
My concern with this database is it lacks nuance, and it's not okay to tell everyone about Mr and Mrs. Smith's open marriage, but in the poster child case of one spouse stepping out all the time with multiple partners and/or unprotected sex, I'd argue there's an outright moral obligation to tell the spouse, barring tremendous harm to oneself.
I think we also need to make sure to make a distinction between hypothetical situations, and what actually happened. There's no way to prove if the users of Ashley Madison are actually cheating or what their intentions are. And even if they are their information shouldn't be exposed publicly.
But considering an example someone posted a link to earlier about a "C-suite executive" who was publicly exposed as cheating. Now I don't think that posting that information publicly is the correct source of action whatsoever. However I would absolutely support emailing his wife that information and exposing his actions to her in that scenario.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Right, I guess I have a different mental weight placed on abstract harm (such as lying) than you.
Though there is also the question of how to do such things, and Syndalis has the right idea I think. Releasing this much data is very different from pressuring a friend to tell his girlfriend that he has been having an affair.
Membership of Ashley Madison isn't proof of anything other than making a user profile on their site. Unless the site demands people take pictures of their infidelity as well.
There's such a gulf between what I personally believe is right (encouraging the cheater to be honest, but ultimately letting the cheated upon know if the cheater doesn't come clean and there aren't other extenuating circumstances), and what is happening here. If I find out a stranger on the other side of town is cheating, it doesn't mean I'm not at fault if I put up a billboard downtown exposing the cheater, those they cheated with, and their financial information for all to see.
Even if you feel that the absolute moral response requires letting anybody being cheated upon know that fact, the nuance of how to deliver that information to minimize harm is something you do have to consider. That is in fact your responsibility. I'm not going to tell somebody they've been cheated on while they've got a gun in their hand, to go with a rather extreme example. But I'm also not going to tell somebody they're being cheated on right before they go teach a class or attend a meeting. There's a lot of variability here no matter your views on the morality of infidelity.
I think we have a philosophical difference, here. I think that you bear responsibility for the harm caused by your actions regardless of the unsavoriness of the initial actions which led to the possibility of harm. I can't make someone go back in time to avoid what they did, but I can make a choice here and now about what I think is the right course of action. And I think, regardless of what I end up doing, anything that causes suffering is something which should be considered thoughtfully.
For me, it's pretty simple: Once you know, there is no course of action that avoids your involvement in some harm. The only question you have left to answer is whether you'll help a liar to keep lying, or not.
Well you actually have to figure out if harm is done by the affair to begin with. If it's never found out, arguably none is. If my ex cheated on me I never knew it, so it may as well not have happened.
Of course there's the question of discretion...if everybody /but/ me knows then yes we have harm.
And all of this is assuming it's even cheating, and not an arrangement...if it's the latter then the only harm is the embarrassment you cause by telling them you know.
I'm not saying /don't/ expose it. Just that it should be carefully considered and isn't as B&W as you seem to think.
I think we have a philosophical difference, here. I think that you bear responsibility for the harm caused by your actions regardless of the unsavoriness of the initial actions which led to the possibility of harm. I can't make someone go back in time to avoid what they did, but I can make a choice here and now about what I think is the right course of action. And I think, regardless of what I end up doing, anything that causes suffering is something which should be considered thoughtfully.
For me, it's pretty simple: Once you know, there is no course of action that avoids your involvement in some harm. The only question you have left to answer is whether you'll help a liar to keep lying, or not.
Well you actually have to figure out if harm is done by the affair to begin with. If it's never found out, arguably none is. If my ex cheated on me I never knew it, so it may as well not have happened.
Of course there's the question of discretion...if everybody /but/ me knows then yes we have harm.
And all of this is assuming it's even cheating, and not an arrangement...if it's the latter then the only harm is the embarrassment you cause by telling them you know.
I'm not saying /don't/ expose it. Just that it should be carefully considered and isn't as B&W as you seem to think.
I think Possum is right regarding timing but...
It seems entirely black and white to me. Now that I know, even if I'm the one and only person, harm exists. I'm now forced to keep a distasteful secret. I'm complicit in the lie! I am actively lying to the other person by not exposing the truth. Moreover, if I refuse to speak up, I'm damaging the society I want to live in.
For me, the only question is when and how, not if. I guess the takeaway is that if any of you folks are fucking around on your SO, don't let me know because I am going to tell.
Regarding the more distantly known person... I feel a moral and social responsibility to tell random people!
Regarding the AM hack though... I'm still not sure I'm entirely supportive of exposing 37 million account logins. But I might be. Yes @syndalis the harm is widespread but it's a harm that people have brought upon themselves. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind...
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Why would you want to tell random people? I don't get THAT impulse. That seems needlessly destructive - I don't at all think your convictions are bad, even if I might make different choices, but I don't see how telling random people helps anyone. It doesn't even help the victim - now he or she has to live with the stigma of everyone knowing they've been cheated on (which isn't huge, but is present)
Well you actually have to figure out if harm is done by the affair to begin with. If it's never found out, arguably none is. If my ex cheated on me I never knew it, so it may as well not have happened.
Ehhh, you're ignoring both the harm done to any potential children and the potential harm done to the person being cheated on vis-a-vis sexually transmitted diseases. Banging multiple people does increase that risk, and if the cheater gives syphilis to the cheatee that is definitely measurable harm above and beyond the betrayal, loss of trust, and breach of contract.
And yes, harm is done, because both parties entered into an agreement to only have sex with the other. If someone's breaking that contract that's not fair.
Alimony is less part of the contract - after all, it only kicks in when the contract is terminated - and more a recognition by the state that the contract can be exploitative in the long term when terminated.
This is sort of tangential to cheating though, I guess. It just surprised me it was a thing.
Cheaters shouldn't get alimony, period. If you break the contract, you don't get to have the safety net that comes with it. Should an abusive spouse receive alimony?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+7
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
More harm has come to me by family members' infidelities coming to light than those infidelities so, you know. Maybe don't "you're not thinking about the children" this.
Why would you want to tell random people? I don't get THAT impulse. That seems needlessly destructive - I don't at all think your convictions are bad, even if I might make different choices, but I don't see how telling random people helps anyone. It doesn't even help the victim - now he or she has to live with the stigma of everyone knowing they've been cheated on (which isn't huge, but is present)
Once I know about it, I have the choice:
pretend I don't know, and aid a destructive liar who is harming others and behaving in a way I find (and wish others to also find) socially revolting
expose the lie and at least live up to my own moral beliefs.
I mean, do we just ignore someone being racist? Do we ignore emotional abuse?
If you would tell a random girl that the dude chatting her up is a PUA and she should watch her back, why wouldn't you tell her that the guy wearing the ring matching hers had his hands all over another woman while she was in the bathroom?
I feel a moral and social responsibility not to aid liars in their efforts to conceal their betrayal. I don't think that should stop at people I know!
Posts
Divorce laws are pretty horrible in a lot of areas like Utah, where you have to wait a full year to actually get divorced, and situations where people can delay divorces, and there are a number of scenarios in which someone would be legally "cheating" but not actually cheating where someone could just change their mind later in order to screw someone over.
It's really really important to not only look at laws from the perspective of the most simple possible scenario.
agreed
you kind of (at the moment) just have to lawyer up and hope for the best.
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/07/20/22573934/gawker-outs-one-cheater-and-the-internet-condemns-gawkerhackers-expose-37-million-cheaters-and-the-internet-condemns-cheaters
Worth the read, though mostly the same as the ready linked post: you don't know why people are cheating, or even IF they are cheating (arrangements are common), so it's not your business and outing them isn't right.
Having done my time in a fucked up marriage, I've become more accepting of the idea of cheating*. Not fully accepting, just...more so. I never cheated, I was just miserable, and I still say that when practical leaving is the proper option. But I also understand that leaving isn't always feasible.
I still judge people who just cheat* because they don't do the whole monogamy "thing."
* - Noting that open arrangements with your partner aren't "cheating."
Like, you can have a bad day and say something really awful to a loved one, and that's a lousy thing to do, but it doesn't make you an irrevocably bad person. Or you can just be kind of a dick who says dickish things to people because dicks. I feel infidelity is qualitatively similar, even if it's generally quantitatively much worse. Some people cheat because they're in bad situations, some people cheat because they're kind of dicks, and some people cheat for a variety of reasons.
It's complicated, because people are complicated.
All that said, this hack would be a shitty thing even if every person affected was certified asshole. Privacy and associated rights are valuable for everyone, regardless of how wonderful they are as individuals. That's kind of the point of rights.
That said, I'm not going to shed many tears for someone doing a shitty thing to someone and getting caught.
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between these two stories.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
While this is true, somehow I don't think separated-and-divorced-in-all-but-name is really Ashley Madison's target market.
"I'm separated from my wife but our divorce hasn't completed" isn't going to bar you from other dating sites.
So while the question of what constitutes cheating when legally married is a messy one, AM specifically seems to be aimed at people intent on having outside relationships that they are concealing from their significant others. I suspect that restricting potential partners in this scenario to others with similar motivations and a similar amount to lose is part of the appeal.
On the issue of the hack, while I don't condone people cheating, they still don't deserve to have their info stolen. Relationship issues should stay between the people involved (to a point, abuse and other illegal activities are different), and while cheating is wrong, doing something immoral doesn't mean you deserve to have immoral things done to you.
My Little Pony is targeted at young girls, yet has plenty of fans approaching 40 of any sex/gender.
Ashley Madison itself might be dicks, that doesn't mean that you throw their clients under a bus.
Nestle is a vile, disgusting company, that doesn't mean you slap children for eating a Crunch bar.
Oh sure, I'm not making a "they deserve it" argument.
It's more: if you take the population of people that have cheated by strict definition, there will be a proportion of people in there with sympathetic stories, or whose circumstances make it understandable or acceptable.
Within the population of Ashley Madison members, I'd be willing to bet that proportion is a lot smaller, premised as the site is on the assumption that you are seeking to have relationships that you are concealing from a significant other.
I just think that each group probably merits a separate discussion when it comes to justifiability of infidelity.
Telling the world, as opposed discretely mentioning it to the spouse, seems like an over corretion, though. Publicizing a spouse-approved affair could be damaging to the party you were intending to help.
How is it your business? It's really strange to see how people's expectations of privacy disappear, especially considering infidelity isn't illegal in most states, and is rarely prosecuted. This isn't child pornography, or drug trafficking. It's people hooking up!
I think there are degrees of difference here, particularly once children enter the picture. I think it's worth retaining a social taboo against betrayal, illegal or otherwise. It's not merely "people hooking up" though.
It's my business because I don't want a society in which I can be thoroughly betrayed and everyone around me ignores it. I want to live in a society where betrayal and destructive dishonesty is taboo, and where such behavior results in being ostracized. So I'm going to behave in that way toward others, for exactly the same reasons I reject racist behavior and ostracize it, give up my seat on a bus for a pregnant lady, and a million other social behaviors that reinforce the kind of society I want to live in.
I'm not sure I want to go all the way toward exposing a massive database of dishonest, destructive liars to public scrutiny, but I'm not sure I'm opposed to it either.
Inaction makes you complicit in the harm. Exposing a cheating spouse doesn't cause harm - cheating causes harm when it is exposed. You're not the cause of harm that results from exposing a lie! The liar is the cause.
However, if you become a party to that betrayal, you're complicit in whatever results from it.
I would probably talk to the person who was cheating and try to get some context / give them the chance to come clean about it before I talked to the friend... but I would talk.
Because it is personal and close to me, is why I would handle it this way.
In what world do I have the right to pass judgement on millions of people I do not know, and do something that will likely cause hundreds of thousands of divorces and broken homes with kids losing access to parents, etc... the ripple effect of this data breach is going to be massive and awful and devastating for so many people and I could never see myself as one to do something like this or support it in any way whatsoever.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
For me, it's pretty simple: Once you know, there is no course of action that avoids your involvement in some harm. The only question you have left to answer is whether you'll help a liar to keep lying, or not.
Yeah. This is why all the "should I tell XYZ their spouse is cheating" questions blow me away. If you would want to be told, do it for someone else. I'd never want to end up in a scenario where my significant other empties the joint account, takes our hypothetical kids, and then runs off to Venezuela, and a friend finally says, "Well, that sucks. I guess I should have told you I knew about that shit for six months."
My concern with this database is it lacks nuance, and it's not okay to tell everyone about Mr and Mrs. Smith's open marriage, but in the poster child case of one spouse stepping out all the time with multiple partners and/or unprotected sex, I'd argue there's an outright moral obligation to tell the spouse, barring tremendous harm to oneself.
But considering an example someone posted a link to earlier about a "C-suite executive" who was publicly exposed as cheating. Now I don't think that posting that information publicly is the correct source of action whatsoever. However I would absolutely support emailing his wife that information and exposing his actions to her in that scenario.
Though there is also the question of how to do such things, and Syndalis has the right idea I think. Releasing this much data is very different from pressuring a friend to tell his girlfriend that he has been having an affair.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Even if you feel that the absolute moral response requires letting anybody being cheated upon know that fact, the nuance of how to deliver that information to minimize harm is something you do have to consider. That is in fact your responsibility. I'm not going to tell somebody they've been cheated on while they've got a gun in their hand, to go with a rather extreme example. But I'm also not going to tell somebody they're being cheated on right before they go teach a class or attend a meeting. There's a lot of variability here no matter your views on the morality of infidelity.
Well you actually have to figure out if harm is done by the affair to begin with. If it's never found out, arguably none is. If my ex cheated on me I never knew it, so it may as well not have happened.
Of course there's the question of discretion...if everybody /but/ me knows then yes we have harm.
And all of this is assuming it's even cheating, and not an arrangement...if it's the latter then the only harm is the embarrassment you cause by telling them you know.
I'm not saying /don't/ expose it. Just that it should be carefully considered and isn't as B&W as you seem to think.
I think Possum is right regarding timing but...
It seems entirely black and white to me. Now that I know, even if I'm the one and only person, harm exists. I'm now forced to keep a distasteful secret. I'm complicit in the lie! I am actively lying to the other person by not exposing the truth. Moreover, if I refuse to speak up, I'm damaging the society I want to live in.
For me, the only question is when and how, not if. I guess the takeaway is that if any of you folks are fucking around on your SO, don't let me know because I am going to tell.
Regarding the more distantly known person... I feel a moral and social responsibility to tell random people!
Regarding the AM hack though... I'm still not sure I'm entirely supportive of exposing 37 million account logins. But I might be. Yes @syndalis the harm is widespread but it's a harm that people have brought upon themselves. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind...
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Ehhh, you're ignoring both the harm done to any potential children and the potential harm done to the person being cheated on vis-a-vis sexually transmitted diseases. Banging multiple people does increase that risk, and if the cheater gives syphilis to the cheatee that is definitely measurable harm above and beyond the betrayal, loss of trust, and breach of contract.
And yes, harm is done, because both parties entered into an agreement to only have sex with the other. If someone's breaking that contract that's not fair.
Cheaters shouldn't get alimony, period. If you break the contract, you don't get to have the safety net that comes with it. Should an abusive spouse receive alimony?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Once I know about it, I have the choice:
pretend I don't know, and aid a destructive liar who is harming others and behaving in a way I find (and wish others to also find) socially revolting
expose the lie and at least live up to my own moral beliefs.
I mean, do we just ignore someone being racist? Do we ignore emotional abuse?
If you would tell a random girl that the dude chatting her up is a PUA and she should watch her back, why wouldn't you tell her that the guy wearing the ring matching hers had his hands all over another woman while she was in the bathroom?
I feel a moral and social responsibility not to aid liars in their efforts to conceal their betrayal. I don't think that should stop at people I know!
I think infidelity is at least in the same ballpark as other forms of emotional abuse.
Can we maaaaaaaaybe just not go down that road and stick to the topic at hand?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Cheating is not abuse.
This is not a debateable thing, it is simply factually incorrect. It may be a component but it is simply not the same as abuse.
How is it not emotionally abusive?
Sure it is. Emotional abuse is a thing