Slashdot Mirror


Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

HughPickens.com writes: Michelle Cottle reports in The Atlantic that today, spouses have easy access to an array of sophisticated spy software that record every keystroke; compile detailed logs of calls, texts, and video chats; that track a phone's location in real time; recover deleted messages from all manner of devices (without having to touch said devices); and that turn phones into wiretapping equipment. One might assume that the proliferation of such spyware would have a chilling effect on extramarital activities. But according to Cottle, aspiring cheaters need not despair: software developers are also rolling out ever stealthier technology to help people conceal their affairs. Right or wrong, cheating apps tap into a potentially lucrative market and researchers regard the Internet as fertile ground for female infidelity in particular. "Men tend to cheat for physical reasons and women for emotional reasons," says Katherine Hertlein. "The Internet facilitates a lot of emotional disclosure and connections with someone else."

But virtual surveillance has its risks. Stumbling across an incriminating email your partner left open is one thing; premeditated spying can land you in court. A Minnesota man named Danny Lee Hormann, suspecting his wife of infidelity, installed a GPS tracker on her car and allegedly downloaded spyware onto her phone and the family computer. In March 2010, Hormann's wife had a mechanic search her car and found the tracker. She called the police, and Hormann spent a month in jail on stalking charges. "I always tell people two things: (1) do it legally, and (2) do it right," says John Paul Lucich, a computer-forensics expert and the author of Cyber Lies, a do-it-yourself guide for spouses looking to become virtual sleuths. Lucich has worked his share of ugly divorces, and he stresses that even the most damning digital evidence of infidelity will prove worthless in court — and potentially land you in trouble — if improperly gathered. His blanket advice: Get a really good lawyer.

304 comments

  1. Already gone by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you feel the need to use these tools, your relationship is already in trouble.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    1. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It appears that the person resorting to those tools already have decided that they don't trust their partner and wants a divorce. Now they are just looking to get out of it with a better economy than they would otherwise have.
      I guess the problem is that they married the wrong person and probably for the wrong reasons to begin with.

    2. Re:Already gone by jehan60188 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "if you feel the need to use data encryption, you're committing a crime"
      "if you feel the need to own a gun, you're going to rob a liqueur store"
      "if you feel the need to wear a seat belt, you're planning on getting in an accident"

    3. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All relationships are ALWAYS in trouble.

      Even the one with your pet rock. It's just waiting for you to die.

    4. Re:Already gone by Charliemopps · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It appears that the person resorting to those tools already have decided that they don't trust their partner and wants a divorce. Now they are just looking to get out of it with a better economy than they would otherwise have.
      I guess the problem is that they married the wrong person and probably for the wrong reasons to begin with.

      In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup. Even if one spouse is an axe murderer. I think the courts got so sick of the circus the trials would turn into they just threw up their hands.

      The only thing stuff like that will have a baring on is child custody. And infidelity still wont count. You'd have to have pretty strong evidence of them abusing drugs or something worse.

    5. Re:Already gone by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size:

      "If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, even if you are aware the relationship is in trouble, it does not mean it is easy to get out of it.

    7. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you know your partner well enough, you might know there are, in fact, certain things you can't trust them with. Some couples have separate bank accounts for this reason - one or both of them might be big spenders who waste money needlessly. That doesn't mean a 'healthy' (utterly subjective) relationship can't be had.

    8. Re:Already gone by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      WAIT...this summary of the article bears one HUGE question.

      How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???

      I mean, if you're married, living in same house, etc...by definition isn't stalking impossible, there is all kinds of implied consent there, no?

      I'm not arguing right or wrong on what the guy did, but either that is a huge stretch on saying what "stalking" is, or the law was written FAR too broadly!!!

      :O

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very much this.

      "Get a really good lawyer" -- my god, what a world we live in. Get your relation in order (which might mean terminate it, reboot it, whatever). Spare the lawyers for other things.

    10. Re:Already gone by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      I don't get it.

      I have no problem with a woman of mine "emotionally cheating". Just as long as she isn't actually FUCKING someone physically, what's the big deal?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      While you are correct that it is 50/50, in my state (Florida), that only holds for 7 years. After 7 years it goes to a judge, who determines alimony (if the parties disagree on the subject, which they do).

      After 7 years it really becomes a crapshoot. You can say things like:
      "I didn't move across the country to California because my husband/wife had a job here and didn't want to move. My wife/husband has limited my ability to grow my earnings in the market and I would like to be compensated for the sacrifice that I made on his/her behalf. Additionally, after having made these sacrifices, my wife/husband began cheating on me."

    12. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do tell, how many states have "Modern Divorce law"?
      Or any Modern laws for that matter?

    13. Re:Already gone by jehan60188 · · Score: 1, Troll

      the problem is that she's "a woman of [yours]" as in you own her, and don't see her as anything more than property.
      since your blender functions just fine whether you pay attention to its emotions, you don't care if it exhibits emotions

    14. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???

      Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse? Following someone around all the time or tracking them without their consent seems like a pretty clear-cut case of stalking to me, regardless of whether you're married or not.

    15. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are robbing a liqueur store, you're committing a crime"

      Just because it is phrased in that way doesn't mean it is a fallacy, and even if it were a fallacy that doesn't mean that the conclusion is incorrect.
      We have come to a point were the fallacy fallacy is the most common fallacy in discussions.

    16. Re:Already gone by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a sick society where a lawyer is a basic necessity, like water and electricity.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Already gone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you can't go out on your own without your partner following you and watching everything you do, they are stalking you. Fitting a GPS tracker to her car certainly seems to fit that definition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Already gone by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Err...it is a common way to refer to someone you have a relationship with. I have "my" friends. I have "my" cousin, I have "my wife"...I have my woman....My girlfriend.

      I'd think if you were old enough to try to contribute to the discourse on Slashdot, you'd have a better grasp on semantics.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Already gone by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When my wife refers to me, she sometimes says 'my husband' , or 'my man'. I sometimes refer to my wife as "my wife".

      Maybe there are people that need to quit trying to form complete characterizations of people based on the use of a common phrase.

    20. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in this state. Adultery pretty much forfeits your right to anything, ESPECIALLY alimony.

    21. Re:Already gone by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Spare your money and put off hiring a lawyer... Problem is, once one side lawyers up, you are at a distinct disadvantage if you don't too.

      The advice is sound... Get a lawyer BEFORE you start down the path of spying on your spouse.... Personally, I'd say that you first try to discuss the issues in private, failing that in the company of a unbiased third party (hire somebody) and only resort to getting a lawyer should it be clear you cannot come to any kind of settlement on your own. Always remember that the lawyers will only cost you both lots of money, and the more you fight, the more they make, so don't expect them to try and mediate your dispute but egg it on.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:Already gone by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup.

      This is almost entirely wrong.

      There are two different philosophies you'll run into, depending on which State you're in.
      1. Equitable distribution - 40 States + Alaska + DC
      2. Community property - 9 States + Alaska + Puerto Rico

      Community property states presume a 50/50 ownership interest in marital assets (a lot of money gets spent on defining what is and isn't a marital asset), but judges can still base their distribution on what is fair (aka equitable).

      /Alaska's default is equitable distribution, but couples can sign a community property contract
      //I'm not a lawyer

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    23. Re:Already gone by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse?

      So, when did you stop beating your wife?

      Ahem.

      The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars? By the same reasoning, does it also count as "stalking" to take advantage of all the insurance companies' offers to track your kids' driving habits with similar devices?

      As for email, I maintain our home network. By the same weasel-logic corporations use to spy on their employees' emails, if I "just happen" to come across a damning email in the course of a routine security audit of my home IT infrastructure, how exactly does that count as unkosher?

      Now, I wouldn't do any of that, because I trust my SO. I still, though, have an awfully hard time understanding how a court can draw arbitrary lines between "allowed" and "illegal" based on something they can't physically know - My intent.

    24. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable for spouses to keep up with each other, that way for years...just that tech is putting a new spin on it.

      Following someone around like that is stalking. It doesn't matter what technology you use, or whether or not you're married. Stop being creepy.

      As for marital rape, I think there is so much implied consent

      What implied consent? Get actual consent first. There are numerous ways to consent, but it's absolutely required. Not just, "We're married, so they consent!"

      After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.

      No, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't mean, "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."

    25. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      The post I replied to asked: "How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???" That looks to me like he's saying it isn't possible to stalk your spouse at all, which is what I found objectionable.

      So, when did you stop beating your wife?

      I didn't imply anything about him, and nor was it that sort of question. I just find it absurd that people think you can't stalk/rape someone just because you happened to be married to them.

    26. Re:Already gone by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, because women and men cheat for different reasons.

      I know someone who eventually always seems to be drawn to chatrooms and texting people -- in no small party because he's a complete man-child (not that everyone who cheats is).

      It absolutely devastated his wife, because while he wasn't always available to her emotionally or sexually, he was having 'interactions' (purely virtual AFAIK) which were both emotional and sexual with someone else. He said it put some zest back in his life, which devastated her even more.

      It was just as hurtful as if he'd actually been schtuping someone. He thinks he's done nothing wrong, and completely makes the same argument as you do -- and it boils down to "if you're going to overtly flirt with strangers, or start having on-going conversations with people are aren't strangers ... sooner or later you're probably going to just go ahead and do it, and that might be a line they're not willing to accept."

      It also massively undermined trust and pretty much everything else in the relationship. Because if your partner is spending all of their time wondering who you're rubbing your parts up against when you go out, the rest of it starts to deteriorate.

      So, I figure your options boil down to: 1) accept that it's going to happen but stay in the dark, 2) accept that it's going to happen and be informed, 3) try to prevent it from happening, or 4) realize you're not gonna stop it and move on with your life.

      And depending on the kind of person you are, there may only be 1 or 2 in that list which are even options for you.

      In university I did the whole open relationship thing. It's not for everybody. I don't have a problem with people who can do it ... for me it was a lot of work, and very draining, and wasn't what I wanted longer term.

      It was fun, because I was in my 20s, and who wouldn't have liked a couple of different flavors? Would I do it now? I don't think so, but you never know.

      Me, I think people started screwing around within 6 months of the first people getting married (at most). Men seem to have an evolutionary imperative to cat about as much as they can.

      So either we need to fix evolution, or we need to better understand what we think marriage is for and what it means.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50/50, lmao.

      Never divorced I take it?

    28. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???

      Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse?

      WTF is your problem? The guy to whom you're replying was reasonable. Treat him as such.

      Following someone around all the time or tracking them without their consent seems like a pretty clear-cut case of stalking

      How do you reconcile this with the implication there are legal ways to use these tools? I'm also confused by that. Perhaps there are no legal ways to use these tools? Nobody seems clear on that.

      I don't like the word "stalking" because it's so easily conflated with normal fascination during courtship, or in this case expectation of intimacy, cooperation, and openness in marriage. I think usually there's an intent to scare the other person or disrupt their lives involved in the pattern of stalking that we've seen and tried to criminalize. The stalker is not just trying to gather information but wants their victim to know they're doing it, nervously feel watched all the time, wonder if this locked door is really creating a private space, etc,

      I really hope there is some definition like this. The other possibility is that the same behaviour can either be loving or stalking depending on how the potential victim feels after the fact, and during the fact the victim might not even communicate this clearly. "My husband is so attentive" vs. "I didn't like the way he was looking at me all the time" == "Prince" vs. "Criminal stalker, 1mo prison".

      To help fix this I've an impression there is often one round-trip involved, TRO, ARO, AVO, whatever---it seems every English-speaking society has five different words for these slips of paper because they are so fascinating and prevalent like eskimos and snow or whatever. Do you think it's possible to get a restraining order that your husband or wife must stay xx yards away from you and not attempt to contact you, without actually being divorced or separated, just as a sort of emotional prophylactic to use all the time within a healthy marriage?

      The case you think is "pretty clear-cut" is somewhere between. The stalker has to be paying attention to the victim in an inconvenient way, but doesn't necessarily need to be trying to scare them. Maybe that's workable, but it doesn't agree with very established movie impression of typical dramatic divorce cases---hiring private investigators to prove infidelity, photos through insecure window blinds, etc. Is all that really stalking? I guess the police are full-time stalkers, then. Are you comfortable expanding the definition of stalking to any observing of the potential victim that the proposed victim decides, after the fact, that they don't like? wrt divorce cases that is how wide you're going to have to expand it to make a "clear-cut" case.

    29. Re:Already gone by MrTester · · Score: 1

      When a person cheats they are usually (not always, I know) looking for something that they are missing.

      In one case you may have an otherwise happy couple that are not on the same page sexually. Maybe one partner has no sex drive and is not interested in sex at all. But otherwise the relationship is solid. So someone steps out and has a physical relationship with someone else, but remains emotionally tied to their partner.

      On the other hand you have a couple that is having great sex but are not on the same page emotionally. So one of them steps out and has a purely emotional relationship with someone else but continues having great sex with their partner.

      Which relationship is in more trouble? Which betrayal is greater?

    30. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      WTF is your problem?

      Nothing. It's a simple question. What's with you overreacting to it? Why does stalking seem to far-fetched?

      How do you reconcile this with the implication there are legal ways to use these tools?

      I already know there are legal ways to use these tools, and nothing I said contradicts that. However, you can also use them to stalk people, even if that includes stalking the person you're married to. Not that hard to understand.

      My entire point is not to get into the specifics of what exactly constitutes as stalking, but being married to someone does not mean you can't stalk them.

    31. Re:Already gone by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Maybe not but it's assumed that if you're married that you have sex with your spouse. If you don't want to and he forces you it should take more than just going to the police and saying he raped you to convict him of rape. Now if you are estranged and he's sleeping in a hotel or his car then I'll believe you didn't agree to have sex. If you're living together in the same house I'm going to have to signs of force being used befor I believe it was rape.

    32. Re:Already gone by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. However, if monogamy is important to you, and your partner can't be trusted to be monogamous, then I'd say you've got a real major problem on your hands. Now if your partner also recognizes the problem and will consent to constant surveillance or a chastity belt or some other "separate bank accounts" solution then maybe you can still make it work - but probably not if you have to resort to spying on them behind their back. After all spying doesn't do anything to promote faithfulness, it just makes it more likely that you'll discover the inevitable betrayals.

      Alternately there's the situation where your partner is utterly trustworthy, and it's your own insecurities that lead you to fear them cheating. In which case your baseless accusations will likely be deeply insulting, even if their intellectual self recognizes that the failing is yours rather than their own. In which case your partner may be willing to cater to your insecurities for a time, but unless your jealousy satisfies one of their own emotional hungers you'd better get busy addressing your problem at the source.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it can matter. A person whom I worked with back in the 1990s moved to another state, got married and settled down.

      Then the divorce happened, right after he got laid off. The judge rubber-stamped what the lawyer of the wife wanted, which were some incredibly high alimony and child support payments. Well, he couldn't find a job, so the judge stuck him in the country lockup for six months for not paying child support. He got out, started looking for a job (staying at a friend's place), and several weeks later, he was locked up again for not paying.

      I'm sure he probably could have gotten out of it... but with no money to afford anything but the Legal Aid office, and an estranged wife that pretty much got everything (the divorce gave the husband the upside down house with the $3000/month mortgage payments, everything else went to the wife), it wasn't going to happen.

      This cycle went on for at least two years, until earlier this year, said person just high-tailed it to Mexico.

      The 50/50 thing is great in theory, but in reality, it can mean little. Especially if one party stashed funds away and was able to hire some heavyweight divorce lawyers who can get the kids to testify in court.

    34. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Maybe not but it's assumed that if you're married that you have sex with your spouse. If you don't want to and he forces you it should take more than just going to the police and saying he raped you to convict him of rape.

      That applies to any rape case. People are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Marriage is not a special case.

    35. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't mean, "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."

      This may be true for your marriage and many others. I bet you are one of those guys that makes jokes about how little sex he gets once you put a ring on her finger.
      For many others, sex is absolutely part of the deal. I'd make sure it was included in their vows, and if my wife ever tries to hold out on me, I'd be filing for divorce. Why on earth would you take on the costs and responsibilities of marriage if you aren't at least getting sexual satisfaction out of the deal?

    36. Re:Already gone by jythie · · Score: 1

      This is pretty jurisdiction dependent. Even from city to city within the same state laws can vary. There is no national '50/50' rule even by a long shot.

    37. Re:Already gone by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GP didn't say there's no such thing as raping ones spouse. In fact, GP said "I'm sure it happens". Followed by "but it seems harder to prove".

      Similarly, if I'm asleep and my wife wants to wake me up in a special way, that's fine (that's awesome, actually). If she did the same thing to sleeping stranger, that would be rape / sexual assault. The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.

      If I walk up behind a random woman at Walmart and wrap my arms around her, with my hands on her breasts, that's called sexual assault. If I do the exact same motion with my wife, that's called "good morning". The difference being that my wife consented in a general way, announcing to me and to the rest of the world that she _wanted_ to do "what married people do" with me. Obviously if she tells me "I'm in a bad mood, please leave me alone for a bit", I should honor that.

    38. Re:Already gone by jythie · · Score: 1

      People have a habit of actually leaving their house now and then.

    39. Re:Already gone by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not in rape cases. Many a man has gone to prison where the only proof he raped the woman is the fact that his sperm was found in her and she stated that she said no to sex. Most of the time it is assumed, most likely correctly, that the woman would not lie about such a thing. They appear distraught and seem like they were indeed violated but didn't struggle due to duress. This doesn't mean that they can't lie about it though and there have been cases where years later witnesses came forward and recanted their testimony. In a married scenario where the wife might have actual reason to lie, for example she's getting ready to divorce her husband for cheating on her, well you can see where more than just her word would be needed.

    40. Re:Already gone by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      No, but there's precedent. Which is what counts in court.

    41. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I bet you are one of those guys that makes jokes about how little sex he gets once you put a ring on her finger.

      I'd never get married to begin with, because I think it's garbage.

      Why on earth would you take on the costs and responsibilities of marriage if you aren't at least getting sexual satisfaction out of the deal?

      There is a difference between "I can have sex with this person if they consent." and "I can have sex with this person whenever I want." Some entitled people feel that being married to someone means you can do as you please to them. That is not so.

    42. Re:Already gone by jythie · · Score: 1

      Shared assets yes, but something like a car may or may not fall into that category depending on the paperwork. I know plenty of married couples who have separate finances and outside the house there is a pretty bright line regarding who owns what.

    43. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I didn't imply anything about him, and nor was it that sort of question. I just find it absurd that people think you can't stalk/rape someone just because you happened to be married to them.

      I don't think anybody's claiming such. I think what they are claiming, and I agree with, is that placing GPS trackers on your own property is not stalking according to any sane definition.

    44. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm not really informed about how often men go to prison based on accusations alone, but that definitely shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen in cases where the two people are married, and it shouldn't happen when they're not married. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that.

    45. Re:Already gone by jythie · · Score: 1

      As someone who both knows stalking victims and been one, no, stalking and normal fascination look nothing alike in real life. They look similar on TV but mostly because the writers sprinkle pixy dust on the recipient to ensure a ratings friendly response. There are people in real life who try to emulate these tropes and think they are being romantic, but there is rarely any question in the subject's mind and any attempt to communicate this is written off by the stalker as playing hard to get.

    46. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.

      I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.

    47. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup.

      This is almost entirely wrong.

      There are two different philosophies you'll run into, depending on which State you're in.
      1. Equitable distribution - 40 States + Alaska + DC
      2. Community property - 9 States + Alaska + Puerto Rico

      Community property states presume a 50/50 ownership interest in marital assets (a lot of money gets spent on defining what is and isn't a marital asset), but judges can still base their distribution on what is fair (aka equitable).

      /Alaska's default is equitable distribution, but couples can sign a community property contract
      //I'm not a lawyer

      You're also forgetting "No Fault Divorce" states, when one doesn't need to show cause for divorce, a lot of the "so-and-so did this!" stuff goes nowhere. Asking for increased alimony based on infidelity will get you nowhere in my state (and probably shows your attorney is incompetent), spousal support (our term for it) exists for 4 reasons and none of those reasons are retaliatory toward actions during a marriage.

      Might a judge set alimony artificially high if he/she thinks one party is a huge jerkbag? Yes, it can happen, in practice it doesn't, because an out of line award is grounds for an appeal and judges HATE getting appealed on. What is more, family law judges are fucking jaded, they've seen way worse than whatever went on during your marriage just that week, let alone that month, good luck trying to gin up sympathy with someone like that.

    48. Re:Already gone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker

      Assets are not automatically "marital". I live in California, a community property state. We share most assets, but I own my car, and my wife owns hers, and the titles of each clearly state that we are sole owners. Furthermore, you don't automatically have a right to violate someone's rights just because they are using your property. I don't have a right to record your phone calls just because you are using my phone.

    49. Re:Already gone by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars?

      It doesn't--assuming you can show that you installed the GPS tracker primarily for one of those legitimate uses and not to find out where your spouse is.

      If you installed it on the car that is primarily used by your spouse and not the car primarily used by you, if you installed it around the time you began to suspect them of infidelity, etc., a judge may end up deciding if you were using it to track your spouse or using it for other reasons and just coincidentally ended up tracking your spouse.

    50. Re:Already gone by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      "The only thing stuff like that will have a baring on is child custody. And infidelity still wont count."

      in many states, that is an incorrect statement Florida is one of many states.
      http://info.legalzoom.com/flor...

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    51. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re intent: what's the difference between murder 1 and murder 2? Courts evaluate and judge based on intent all the time.

    52. Re:Already gone by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      So, are you saying that it's OK to rape and beat your wife as long as you don't leave marks?

      And absent signs of physical trauma, you won't believe it happened?

      Wow. Just ... wow.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    53. Re:Already gone by jythie · · Score: 1

      We are talking about family court here, they are kinda the mirror bizzaro world version of the US legal system. I still see cases referencing 16th century english common law in decisions.

    54. Re: Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is right. Wife gets 50%, wife's lawyer gets 50%, husband gets the rest.

    55. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage is the consent. It isn't entitlement to expect both parties to live up to their agreement.

    56. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously, this is not the middle ages where the wife is not too far removed from property with respect to what her husband can do to/with her. whatever the historical implications of marriage may have once been, today it's a legal agreement that's largely related to financial dealings. there's no "implied consent" in any states' marriage laws. and if i'm mistaken on that point (example?), that is something that citizens should move to have changed post haste.

    57. Re:Already gone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      in many states, that is an incorrect statement Florida is one of many states.

      Also in Louisiana, where family law is based on French traditions.

      In America, family law tends to differ by regions:
      1. Most of the country is based on English common law.
      2. Many western states are based on Spanish community property law.
      3. Louisiana is based on French law.
      4. Hawaii has their own "Ohana" laws

    58. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Marriage does not mean that you own the other person. Where do these misconceptions even come from?

    59. Re:Already gone by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size: "If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"

      "Widely considered" is an interesting standard of expertise to use about relationships, since the vast majority of relationships and marriages fail. In fact the vast majority of people who get counseling report that it didn't help them.

      Dr. Willard Harley is the author of His Needs, Her Needs, one of the few relationship books that was indicated by a study to actually be successful, and he has actually applied statistics and science to measure the success of his approach to marital counseling. His approach is successful in saving relationships and restoring the feeling of romantic love (or creating it if it did not previously exist).

      Harley stands outside of mainstream advice on a number of issues, but as I just said, mainstream advice hasn't been demonstrated to be particularly helpful. Dr. Harley's opinion on trust is that you should not trust each other in a relationship but that instead you should invite each other to check up on each other to whatever extent you choose. In his words, snoop until snooping is boring because you've snooped enough that you know you won't find anything. When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally (i.e., without evidence, or in contrast to what the evidence actually says).

    60. Re:Already gone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a sick society where a lawyer is a basic necessity, like water and electricity.

      Lawyers just make it worse. The last thing they want is for the couple to reconcile, so they just try to inflame the situation. When my wife filed for divorce, her lawyer did everything he could to throw gasoline on the flames.

      We ended up staying together. What saved my marriage was this yogurt machine. She is lactose intolerant, and also calcium deficient. So she was taking calcium supplements that threw her magnesium electrolytes way out of kilter, and caused her emotions to go berserk. But the bacteria in the yogurt digest all the lactose, and yogurt has calcium and magnesium in the appropriate proportions. That solved the problem.

      So if your marriage is in trouble, don't talk to a lawyer. Talk to a chemist.

    61. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it does happen. And it gets pretty bad.

      Women have successfully put total strangers behind bars with nothing more than words, and no evidence at all. It should not happen, but it does, and far too much for comfort.

    62. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because once she starts cheating emotionally, it's only a matter of time before she starts cheating physically.

    63. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where you live. Some states assume communal ownership between spouses when it comes to assets, so it doesn't matter who's name is on the car's title.

      Also, by the court's logic, LoJack should now be illegal. Also any and all satellite navigation systems like OnStar where they use your location to assist you.

      Dude should've argued that he was just LoJacking the car in case it got stolen. Nothing illegal there.

    64. Re:Already gone by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally

      Which would seem to suggest that trust is important - he's just suggesting a realistic route to establishing it. After all you can't just will yourself to trust someone any more than you can will yourself to love them, at best you can choose to ignore your doubts and let them fester subconsciously in the hope that they'll eventually heal.

      By your same argument it could be said that love is extraneous to relationships, traditional marriage is a business arrangement - it's only within in the last thousand years that love has been widely touted as an important feature for marriage, before that the advice was predominantly in the vein of "The man who marries for love will have warm nights and cold days" - you were encouraged to marry for practical reasons, and find romance elsewhere if you didn't find enough at home. And that might be good advice, all things considered.

      Marriage is arguably an important social institution for the raising of children and inheritance of property, in addition to the personal and social support granted by a long-term partner, and our species does appear to be at least moderately predisposed to long-term monogamous pair-bonding. But there's not a single species on the planet that practices sexual monogamy. All those wolves, swans, etc. that get held up as examples only pair-bond monogamously - most individuals also have offspring with other partners. And that makes good evolutionary sense - there's no telling what recessive genetic landmines might be lurking in your partner's genes, nor what genetic jackpots might be available through other pairings. And as a male what does it really matter if some of the offspring you're helping to raise aren't related to you? There are likewise offspring out there you fathered and are not having to help raise - it all balances out.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    65. Re:Already gone by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars?

      Exactly. In fact, I lost the link, but the guy who was mentioned in the OP who installed a GPS tracker on his and his wife's jointly-owned car had his conviction reversed on appeal because he was allowed to put a tracker on his own car.

      He was, however, still convicted of stalking, but that wasn't because of the GPS tracker. It was because he attacked a family member and physically intimidated them or something like that. The tracker was fine.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    66. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that makes babies.

    67. Re:Already gone by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing right or wrong on what the guy did, but either that is a huge stretch on saying what "stalking" is, or the law was written FAR too broadly!!!

      Actually, tracking someone's every step seems like a textbook case of stalking.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:Already gone by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.

      Eh? Not so much. Consent is the only thing that implies consent to sexual relations, nothing else does. Marriage does *not*.

      Marriage is a contract which *may* acknowledge a sexual relationship, but that contract is not consent to sexual relations.

      Consent is not optional, friend. Non-consensual sex is rape, regardless of those involved.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    69. Re:Already gone by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, are you saying that it's OK to rape and beat your wife as long as you don't leave marks?

      And absent signs of physical trauma, you won't believe it happened?

      Absent signs of physical trauma, do you have any kind of evidence it happened? If not, why would you automatically believe a person has committed a heinous crime just on another person's word? Malice is equal opportunity.

      Violence leaves marks that can be examined, but it's not in general possible to determine afterwards whether someone consented or not. It's bat that a criminal might walk free, but it's also bad that an innocent might not. If you have a solution to this situation, do feel free to share.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    70. Re:Already gone by swb · · Score: 2

      No shit is family court weird.

      My neighbor got a divorce. As divorces go, it was pretty amicable -- neither one had a substance abuse problem, was cheating, no domestic violence, etc. She became more and more religious and he grew disaffected with religion and wanted "more" out of life than her religious-centric world would allow. (This was his take, but since he was at the house a lot to fix stuff and waited on the divorce process so she could get a hip replacement, I'm inclined to believe he was honest).

      Anyway, one of the biggest snafus was that she received a $50,000 inheritance when her dad about 6 years before the divorce. They spent most of the money remodeling their kitchen, within about a year of getting the money.

      However, during the divorce settlement it turns out that inheritance money wasn't considered community property and he became somehow liable on coming up with a big chunk of it when they split the assets. In spite of the fact the money was inherited years before the divorce and she willingly agreed to spend it on the remodeling soon after receiving the money.

      I didn't understand the finer points of this, but it sure seemed crazy that the legal system somehow treated this money as if he hadn't been spent. It's not clear to me, either, whether she got a double benefit from the increased sale price of the house or if they negotiated down her share of the house since the dollars spent on the house somehow apparently weren't hers, even though the actual dollars spent came from her inheritance. Or maybe she was able to claim some larger share of the house price by retaining some kind of non-community ownership of it since the kitchen was paid via her inheritance.

      Bottom line? Don't get divorced, I guess. Or plan the financial end of it years in advance to shield yourself from it.

    71. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between 1) knowing you cannot trust your spouse about X, and 2) suspecting that you cannot trust your spouse about X, but instead of talking with your spouse about X, you secretly go behind your spouse's back to monitor their every move.

    72. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying to jail anyone who has ever been accused of rape? Because if so, I'm about to accuse you so that you can go ahead and go.

    73. Re:Already gone by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      When I and the ex got divorced, we got one really good lawyer for both of us, and split the cost. He helped keep things amicable, and didn't charge a lot because we didn't create a lot of work, but it was still only borderline worth it. The kids were already grown, and we ended up getting back together in a few months although we still haven't bothered to remarry, so a lot of what the lawyer's fees bought us was intangibles, such as having the hearing privately in the judge's chambers instead of in open court. Those things matter more to some people than others.
              There were some legal issues we might not have thought of on our own, like reworking some power of attorney forms for things like taking our nieces or nephews to hospitals for emergency admission when either of us was baby-sitting, or making sure the state knew what to do about her last name. (A good lawyer in such a case should be able to tell you if your state usually screws something up - mine at the time, usually automatically decreed that the female partner now was known by her maiden name again, and filed appropriate forms with about half the state agencys and no federal agencies to get it 'corrected', on roughly half the female partner's personal records, if you just used internet standard forms and filed it yourselves - OTOH in an acrimonious case, lawyers have been known to file forms to get the other person added to the no-fly lists under false pretenses and similar dirty tricks, so doing it yourself may be better for everyone than picking a lawyer that fights dirtier than you want him to. I recommend a lawyer who's good in both senses - competent and ethical.).
                I hate to say it, but if the two parties are in a situation such as one of them having a security clearance, or a foreign bank account, or a special needs child, or many, many other circumstances, the couple should talk to a lawyer even if they don't get separate representation - that's because most states have at least a few really badly implemented or archaic laws on the books, which will turn out to bite one or both of you on the ass about a year after you thought the divorce was final. I am not a lawyer, but I am a tax professional, and I have seen IRS audits where the agents involved seemed to regard the couple filing for divorce without a lawyer as Ipso-Facto proof of intent to evade on some failure to pay taxes on foreign account cases. I have even heard of a case where the couple resisted both attending the audit together, only to be compelled to go through the audit with armed agents present. The IRS claimed to simply have interpreted the pair's reluctance as possible fear of the other partner and so provided security on their behalf. That may have been the case, but it does sound rather intimidating, and the claim that they were doing it because of concerns expressed by the clients would probably mean there was no effective way to object.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    74. Re:Already gone by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Wait, your vows will include sex? As in, you're at the church/court, you've written your own vows, and yours will say "Also, I demand consistent sex, plus blowjobs twice daily?"

    75. Re:Already gone by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      however, answer honestly, would you find it strange if someone told you: "we've been married for ten years, and never had sex"?

    76. Re:Already gone by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The problem is what is reasonable. If I'm on a jury and a woman says she was raped and she appears credible then it's very likely I'm going to assume she's telling the truth. If there is evidence that he had or attempted to have sex with her and she says it wasn't consensual then absent some motive for her to lie I will probably vote to convict. A breakup is a likely reason to lie. Hence the doubt.

    77. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It is absolutely alright to rape your wife if you don't leave marks. Without them no one can prove I raped her. That's what the prosecutor told her, what my defense lawyer told the jury, and that's what I tell her every time I rape her. She keeps coming back, so she must like it. Tonight I think I'll rape her ass.

    78. Re:Already gone by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's not that common but of course the ones falsely imprisoned are very upset I'm sure. I will say I told my son to think before he has sex with a woman. If she's a nutcase you're much better off to just jack off.

    79. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      That's not a very high standard. I'd say you have to prove that an actual rape took place. Barring video evidence or extreme circumstantial evidence, I would say don't convict. Just because you can't think of a reason she might lie doesn't mean she isn't lying. Evidence that sex took place and one person saying it wasn't consensual just isn't enough for me, relationship or no relationship.

    80. Re:Already gone by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Which would seem to suggest that trust is important

      Well, he goes on to say that trust is still irrational, and to insist that it is not trust that makes a marriage successful. Since a big part of his work is about motivation, he's very careful to word things such that people don't feel like they "ought to" trust. In fact, trying to make a spouse feel like they "ought to" trust and that something is wrong with them if they do not is a common tactic for spouses in an affair who do not want to be discovered.

    81. Re:Already gone by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm actually being serious here, and not trying to be a jerk. I don't know anybody who has been the victim of stalking, nor have I been.
      Are there particular crowds/groups/cultures in which this is more common?

    82. Re:Already gone by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Look up New Jersey's alimony laws for a good laugh.

    83. Re:Already gone by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I've been followed around by a nutjob who was secretly taking pictures of me - I only found out that they had found where I was hiding from them because they showed the pics to another person. I've been cyberstalked to the point that the police got involved and that nutjob lost their job. It happens a lot more often than we think.

      Also, I've had women telling me about how they followed their partner/spouse/soon-to-be-ex around to see who they're cheating with, and I've told them they have to get a grip - that's stalking. If it's over, it's over. Clean up any legal details, and move on.

      Both sexes seem to kind of "lose it" when one party, for one reason or another, wants out. I can see how, if there's nobody around to add a voice of reason, but instead everyone is egging them on, this becomes a self-reinforcing behavior. Their hurt makes it "justified" to them even when, by any rational standard, it's not the way to move ahead with your life.

      Relationships are complicated. Ending them, depending on the parties involved, can be dangerous. Or almost impossible, because the other party is insisting it's not over. I have one relative, she ended the relationship years ago because of his continual cheating. He's still sleeping with a variety of other women, but still following her around whenever he can, showing up in her parking lot at night, leaving roses on her car, then the next day a pile of burnt photos of when they were together, broken a window, texts her like crazy, goes out of his way to drive down her street. It's creepy, and the police are like "we have more important things to do."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    84. Re:Already gone by mendax · · Score: 1

      I wish it were the case in California. I bugged our bedroom with my iMac. I set it up so that it looked asleep so she would not suspect that I had a hidden sound recording program running. It caught the first ten minutes of the blow job before the program reached its limit, but that was all I needed to confront her on it. Unfortunately, California has no-fault divorce so I had to pay alimony even though I had the goods on her. I will never get married again without a prenuptial agreement that is rock-solid.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    85. Re:Already gone by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Jimmy Carter admitted that there were times when he had looked upon a woman and lusted. It's NORMAL for BOTH sexes.

      You get into trouble when you try to "squeeze the Charmin".

      Actions count for a lot more than words.

      As for the down-mod, making stuff into a "thought-crime" is so old-old-old-skool. Just because Jesus did it doesn't give him or thought-crime any legitimacy; even less in a discussion on cheating. We're adults, and as such accountable to each other for our actions. And to argue that the "thought is the father of the action" is provably false in the vast majority of cases, such as Jimmy Carter.

      Besides which, it was also written that Jesus was tempted in all ways like a man. So, for that to be true, he lusted after women. And probably, if he was to be the representative of all people, after men as well.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    86. Re:Already gone by oblivionboy · · Score: 0

      I like how you said men and women cheat for different reasons, and only made it one sided against men. Nice balanced perspective there :)

    87. Re:Already gone by Cammi · · Score: 1

      I'm in Alaska ... and it does not work that way. The ex-wife gets everything, period. Too many corrupt judges in this state.

    88. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that anecdotal, or hearsay? Because unless you can point to a law on the books in Alaska that literally says "the ex-wife gets everything, period", those are your only choices.

    89. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you saying that it's OK to rape and beat your wife as long as you don't leave marks?

      He isn't, and you don't believe that he is. Strawman arguments are lies.

    90. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry - what do you think marriage means?

      "You don't need marriage to agree to something like that" != "Marriage is something like that"

      Marriage without "that" is fraud to get a deal on insurance & taxes.

    91. Re:Already gone by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing.

      While I've not had the pleasure of a relationship, I would think that a healthy, long-term relationship would involve knowing the boundaries of each other, both mentally and sexually (and maybe politically.) There will be some bumps (excuse the pun) as those boundaries are felt out (okay I'll stop now) early on, but eventually each one will know what they can and can't do both in public and private without explicit permission.

      Another way to look at it is personal space in general. As a kid (and even the rare occasion as an adult) my mom can wipe a stain or smudge on me without asking me, or my dad can hold my shoulder while talking to me about something serious or to comfort me, and I wouldn't feel uncomfortable at all. But if a stranger or even a loose acquaintance did that it would make me incredibly uncomfortable and be seen as a massive invasion of private space (the wiping more than the shoulder.)

      There's also implicit vs. explicit trust. A long-term relationship has implicit trust, but marriage makes it explicit.

    92. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

      No, reasonable doubt. Very different thing. "Shadow of a doubt" is for television.

    93. Re:Already gone by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sure trust is irrational, so is love, happiness, and pretty much the entirety of the human psyche. I can surely see the point in avoiding making people feel like the "ought to" do anything - it's a wholly destructive concept wherein you hold yourself up to an arbitrary yardstick and inevitably fall short (if you didn't fall short there would be nothing that you "ought to" be doing). That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for it, it just means yardsticks will only get in your way.

      You can't will yourself to trust someone anymore than you can will yourself to be happier or lose weight - they all take concrete action one small step at a time. As with climbing a mountain where it's best to avoid looking at the peak, especially when the trail right in front of you is hard and you're getting discouraged - seeing the peak far in the distance will only reinforce just how much struggle is still in front of you. As Yoda said - "Do or do not, there is no try". The moment you "try" to do something you've already resigned yourself to failure.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    94. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Equitable distribution - 40 States + Alaska + DC
      2. Community property - 9 States + Alaska + Puerto Rico

      Why is Alaska not a state?

    95. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a very long post to try to justify cheating. Guess what buddy. I'm male. I'm a total hornbag. And I don't cheat on my wife. Never have. Never will if I can help it (and if I lose my mind and do I consider myself an idiot). 10 years together, 7 married and we don't always agree on everything. But we don't cheat. And neither of us are religious.

      It all depends on who you want to be and what you want from your relationship. Life's hard enough with just 2 people who do actually love, care for and have regard and respect for one another. Start treating your genitals like Disney Land and you can forget anything stable.

    96. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he is Muslim. Remember, it's important to respect people's religious beliefs. Beat and rape away!

    97. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he also offered up a great way to solve the problem. Remember, Jeebus also said that he didn't come to change god's law and that the old testament would stand until the end of time. So this applies as well. Guess we should follow the bible and stone people to death for looking at someone with lust. Still seem like a smart man to you?

    98. Re:Already gone by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.

      I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.

      What sort of terrible marriage are you in? As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission. When she indicates she doesn't want to be touched I'll lay off until she indicates otherwise.

      The sort of marriage that you're implying is normal is actually horrific... why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    99. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always keep hearing about precedent in American law. Why does precedent matter so much there? Doesn't in my country (which can, of course, have both a postive or negative effect).

    100. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottom line? Don't get divorced, I guess.

      Don't get married, more like.

    101. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is site for nerds for f.s sake - what f. relationship?

    102. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is one more reason to believe that nerds are higher beings - they do not get into relationships by virtue of staying in cellar of their parents, as it should be.

    103. Re:Already gone by umghhh · · Score: 1

      this is a side track but I think important enough: counselling actually does help but not necessarily in holding a relationship - mine helped in determining that we do not want to live together anymore.

    104. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my own cars?

      In the cited case, Danny Lee Hormann's use of a GPS tracker on his own vehicle was ruled perfectly legal, as you propose. His conviction was based (and upheld on appeal) on his intimidation and abuse of his wife and lover(s).

    105. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars?

      It doesn't--assuming you can show that you installed the GPS tracker primarily for one of those legitimate uses and not to find out where your spouse is.

      If you installed it on the car that is primarily used by your spouse and not the car primarily used by you, if you installed it around the time you began to suspect them of infidelity, etc., a judge may end up deciding if you were using it to track your spouse or using it for other reasons and just coincidentally ended up tracking your spouse.

      And in this specific case, an appeals judge decided that Hormann had every right to install a GPS tracker on a vehicle that was primarily used by his wife, due to the fact that he was part owner of the vehicle. Hormann's stalking conviction was upheld on evidence unrelated to the tracker. (Bad summary.)

    106. Re:Already gone by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      Men seem to have an evolutionary imperative to cat about as much as they can.

      And women don't?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    107. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      What sort of terrible marriage are you in?

      None, because I think marriage is trash.

      As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission.

      Then, unless she told her you could do that beforehand (perhaps when getting married), you have no real consent. Marriage doesn't mean "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."

      why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?

      There are a number of benefits of marriage that many people like to take advantage of, and none of them are, "I no longer have to have consent."

    108. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Pedantic, aren't we?

    109. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Again, marriage itself implies no such thing. I don't recall anything like, "I no longer have to have consent." being one of the benefits of marriage; that would be screwed up beyond belief. Fortunately, we eventually recognized that marital rape is, in fact, possible.

      Any details (such as "implicit consent" or when that is okay) have to be worked out between the individuals.

    110. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry - what do you think marriage means?

      I think it's a completely secular (as far as the government should be concerned) contract between two people that can have a number of benefits (many which I think should be available to unmarried people, but that's not the point) that have absolutely nothing to do with "I don't need consent anymore."

      Marriage without "that" is fraud to get a deal on insurance & taxes.

      Marriage without being able to rape your spouse is fraud? Believe it or not, you don't own someone's body just because you're married to them.

    111. Re:Already gone by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      What sort of terrible marriage are you in?

      None, because I think marriage is trash.

      As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission.

      Then, unless she told her you could do that beforehand (perhaps when getting married), you have no real consent. Marriage doesn't mean "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."

      But you are missing the fact that she did in fact consent to sex with me for the rest of our lives together in a public setting in front of hundreds of witnesses where she said "To have and to hold". What exactly did you think "have" meant? Have over for dinner? I've already got her consent until such time that she explicitly withdraws it. All couples do.

      Until she explicitly withdraws consent we're in a default state of consent, not in a default state of non-consent. When she withdraws her consent she makes it perfectly clear that it is only temporary (She says, "next 3-5 days only, I promise"), and even in that situation she doesn't always withdraw her consent (throw a towel on the bed and get busy).

      I'm honestly shocked that there is someone out there naive enough to believe what you believe about married couples. Married couples have sex together all the time, and no, we don't ask for permission first. If one party is not in the mood then consent is temporarily withdrawn. But unless it is expressly permanently withdraw we will wait for the mood to change and try again.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    112. Re:Already gone by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      And...what if the chick in questions LIKES sex to be rough, which you do consensually...and then one day, she flips and says "rape"....then you're screwed (no pun intended).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    113. Re:Already gone by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing.

      I'm pretty sure the majority of married folks agree with exactly what the parent poster stated...married changes it to implied consent unless rejected. You don't have to ask first before you grope in marriage. Marriage for 99.99999% of the people implies sex between the couple. Otherwise, why would you put up with the legal and fiscal baggage that comes along with it?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    114. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      But you are missing the fact that she did in fact consent to sex with me for the rest of our lives together in a public setting in front of hundreds of witnesses where she said "To have and to hold".

      No, that's not what marriage means. Marital rape does exist and yes, it's possible for someone to not consent to have sex with you. This isn't difficult.

      What you have decided between yourselves is different from what marriage itself is. Random words in a vow that's ignored all the time mean nothing.

      I'm honestly shocked that there is someone out there naive enough to believe what you believe about married couples.

      Married couples have sex together all the time, and no, we don't ask for permission first.

      I'm shocked that you're stupid enough to interpret what I'm saying as saying that married couples don't have sex. There are multiple ways besides explicitly asking for it.

    115. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the majority of married folks agree with exactly what the parent poster stated...married changes it to implied consent unless rejected.

      And most people believe in magical sky daddies. Who cares what most people believe? If they want "implied consent," then that can work that out between themselves. What I actually said was that marriage itself implies no such thing and that not everyone wants it to imply such a thing.

      Are you attempting the bandwagon fallacy, here?

      Otherwise, why would you put up with the legal and fiscal baggage that comes along with it?

      Why would you put up with that shit just for "implied consent"? That's utterly idiotic. You can actually come to such an agreement with an individual without any marriage at all.

    116. Re:Already gone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Seems like installing a GPS tracker in your own car, but not telling your wife who uses it, and for the purpose of tracking her is stalking by any normal definition. Sounds like he got off on a technicality and since he was convicted for something else they didn't bother argue the point.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    117. Re:Already gone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Psychological bullying that leads to things like rape or slavery are not that uncommon. There have been cases of modern day slavery where people were not physically restrained or abused but none the less felt unable to leave and worked for free, sometimes for years.

      As for relationships, it's a well established pattern for people to stay with abusive partners even after they become violent. It's just as bad when the abuse is psychological, and just as much rape.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    118. Re:Already gone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You completely missed the GP's point. In some religious marriages those involved might not expect their partner to touch them in a sexual way whenever they feel like it. The mere act of marrying does not imply consent, it still has to be given. Granted, most people give it long before they get married, and not explicitly, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage itself does not grant consent in this regard.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    119. Re:Already gone by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      However, during the divorce settlement it turns out that inheritance money wasn't considered community property and he became somehow liable on coming up with a big chunk of it when they split the assets.

      Did your neighbor have a lawyer? Because my understanding is that inheritance is not considered part of the marital estate, but only if the inheritance money has been kept separate from the marital estate. As soon as wifey spent it on her new kitchen, it should have become joint property unless something really weird happened in this case.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    120. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      They spent most of the money remodeling their kitchen, within about a year of getting the money.

      Over $25,000 to remodel a kitchen. This sort of shit is why people complain about having no money; they waste it. Here we have plenty of people living on less than $20,000 a year (while still having things like computers, cell phones, and cable), and yet there are people who can waste more than that in such a short amount of time, and usually on junk.

      Whereas people who value their money and invest wisely can retire at the age of 30, these people will be working their whole lives.

    121. Re:Already gone by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Actually, I doubt that installing a GPS tracker on your own car and not telling your car's driver about it could be considered stalking. For an action to rise to the level of "stalking", there would need to be harassment involved. And the harassment would need to rise to the level that a reasonable person would fear for his or her safety.

      The the case that we're discussing, the dude was definitely harassing his ex, making her very reasonably fear for her safety, so the stalking conviction makes total sense here. It was those actions, however, that led to the conviction as decided upon appeal. Had he just collected the GPS data for use in the divorce proceeding and not followed her around and threatened her and attacked a family member, the GPS tracker would have been fine.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    122. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proving that it happened is a different matter, though.

    123. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you couldn't satisfy her she should give up her financial investments in the marriage?

    124. Re:Already gone by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      For every one of these spouse monitorings that is used for divorce, there's probably 10 that are used to justify assault or murder.

    125. Re:Already gone by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Preach it brother.

    126. Re:Already gone by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You completely missed the GP's point. In some religious marriages those involved might not expect their partner to touch them in a sexual way whenever they feel like it. The mere act of marrying does not imply consent, it still has to be given. Granted, most people give it long before they get married, and not explicitly, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage itself does not grant consent in this regard.

      I never said that marriage by itself gives consent. GP's point was that my stated position, that marriage puts a couple in a state of default consent unless otherwise retracted, is wrong. I simply don't understand this anti-women stance.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    127. Re:Already gone by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I can surely see the point in avoiding making people feel like the "ought to" do anything - it's a wholly destructive concept wherein you hold yourself up to an arbitrary yardstick and inevitably fall short (if you didn't fall short there would be nothing that you "ought to" be doing).

      You wouldn't believe how destructive it is when a philandering spouse wants to maintain a secret second life and uses this to guilt you into not checking up on them.

      That doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for it

      Well, you shouldn't strive for it, because it's your mate that has to strive for it. The feeling of trust is a feeling that is created by the mate's actions. You check up on them to see what they are doing, and if they are behaving in a trustworthy manner, eventually you feel trust.

      One of Harley's major premises is that as a psychologist, it's easier to change behavior than feelings. The change in feelings comes after your spouse changes behavior (which sometimes comes after you yourself change behavior - for example, by starting to check up on them).

    128. Re:Already gone by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Correct it's called "co-mingling of funds" but in practical reality it's the rare couple who has completely separate bank accounts plus a joint account where the shared expenses go, so unless the inheritance goes into a separate account POD to the other (.vs. JTROS) its co-mingled.

      Imagine the spouse's response when that inheritance comes in and you say "Well we might get divorced someday so to protect me and my selfish interests I'm putting it in a separate account and only spending it on me"

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    129. Re:Already gone by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      If she dies good luck ever getting a dime out of that car. It will be sitting on your property forever.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    130. Re:Already gone by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Imagine the spouse's response when that inheritance comes in and you say "Well we might get divorced someday so to protect me and my selfish interests I'm putting it in a separate account and only spending it on me"

      This is why if there is enough money involved that you care about it, you get an experienced attorney to do your estate plan.

      I'm not by any means an expert in this area, other than that I had to face this a few years ago when my wife was very ill and her doctors were telling us that she wouldn't make it (she did make it and is 100% cancer-free!). We planned our estate so that if/when she passed, her half of the estate would go into a trust for the benefit of our children. That way, if I remarried, those assets wouldn't go to my new spouse in the case of a divorce or in case of my passing. They would still be held aside for the children.

      My point being, if the dollars are significant enough to you that you would want to protect them, then you have to do the proper planning. If your parents are wealthy, for instance, you'll want to make sure that they use the proper trust structures to hold your inheritance so that these assets aren't directed into the wrong hands.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    131. Re:Already gone by swb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they both had lawyers, and I'm sure most all of it was his ex-wife's attorney's idea. I'd guess he maybe could have tried to fight it but felt that the anomosity and weakness of chances to win would have just cost money.

      His wife only worked part time at a lot of low-end administrative jobs and I'm sure she had a lot of economic security fears, and I would imagine that a good divorce attorney recognizes when a spouse is at risk economically.

    132. Re:Already gone by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much the amounts were exactly, but kitches are extremely expensive.

      And these people were notoriously cheap, so whatever could be done for less I'm real sure they did. When we did more extensive remodling my neighbor was replacing a lot of damaged wood in his deck and kept slipping his debris into our remodleling rubbish so he could avoid paying to have it disposed.

    133. Re:Already gone by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, and while very sad, it's very true: Death brings out the worst in people

      My mother died fairly young, my father remarried. The family he married into had a fair amount of money. For the last five years I have watched from the sidelines in abject horror as that family tears itself apart fighting over grandma's estate - She had a trust. She had a will. It didn't matter. Now they all without exception hate each other, and will probably never speak to each other ever again. It is so... just incredible. They seemed like such nice people. The worst and greediest offender is a pastor no less....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    134. Re:Already gone by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much the amounts were exactly, but kitches are extremely expensive.

      Maybe so, but you shouldn't buy useless crap you can't afford. It amazes me to watch middle class families complaining about having no money, and then I see people with families making ~$15,000 a year who still have lots of stuff. If you can't survive on a middle class income and still have lots of money left over, chances are you're wasting your money. Remodeling is usually a waste.

    135. Re:Already gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the time it is assumed, most likely correctly, that the woman would not lie about such a thing.

      FBI statistics taken over many years, and fairly consistent from year to year, show that in about 25% of cases, the forensic evidence clearly rules out the accused suspect. In a large percentage of other cases, the forensic evidence does not support the accusation, but can not prove it false. When one is wrongfully accused of a crime, being lucky with respect to the physical evidence can be more important than the quality of one's lawyer.

      Even in cases where the forensic evidence does show that two particular people did have sex, that does not, of course, mean that a rape took place.

      A lot of exaggerated claims and propaganda have been created regarding this issue, but the studies that are methodologically sound come up with numbers similar to the FBI statistics.

      For example, Eugene Kanin (Sociology Professor, Purdue University) looked at 109 rape complaints made in a particular city from 1978 to 1987. 45 of the 109 were determined by the police to be false accusations. This study adopted a very conservative measure of what constitutes a false accusation, which means it is extremely likely it under-counted the false accusations, possibly by a huge amount.

      In another study, Kanin determined that half of the rape accusations reported at two major universities were false.

      Note that in both these last cases, it is likely that many false accusations could not be detected by the authorities, for a whole variety of reasons. Thus, the actual percentage of false accusations is likely higher than reported.

      Ironically, a number of badly designed and flawed studies have claimed to "debunk" Kanin's work, and those of many others on this issue. Examination of these purported studies shows them to have serious problems. The "publish or perish" system strikes again.

      In short, women lie about sex a lot.

      This will come as no surprise to intelligent persons who are good observers of human behavior.

      Many societies have a double standard about sex for men and for women. A woman's reputation can be hurt if it is known that she is sexually active outside of marriage - possibly a legacy of the far distant past when communities did not want to have to expend their limited resources in the raising of fatherless children.

      This double standard creates a strong incentive for women to lie about sex.

      Another issue to consider it that a fair percentage of people -- women as much as men -- are sociopaths, who feel no moral qualms about telling lies that hurt other people since other people aren't real to them.

      Bias in the law in favor of one sex or the other is discrimination, and as such is an illegal violation of fundamental rights.

    136. Re:Already gone by swb · · Score: 1

      The point was, at the time they remodeled the kitchen they had a windfall that allowed them to pay cash for the work. The houses in our neighborhood date from the 1950s and their kitchen hadn't ever been remodeled -- newer appliances, but the cabinets dated from the 1950s. The ROI for a kitchen remodel when you sell an older house is often huge. The same floorplan in the same condition in our neighborhood went for a significant discount because the kitchen was 1950s vintage.

    137. Re:Already gone by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Psychological bullying that leads to things like rape or slavery are not that uncommon. There have been cases of modern day slavery where people were not physically restrained or abused but none the less felt unable to leave and worked for free, sometimes for years.

      You just described minimum wage employment, and we as a society have already decided that's awesome as long as the exploiter goes through the motions to let us pretend it's voluntary. So we probably shouldn't be surprised that some people drop the mask of civility, nor shocked of the grinning skull beneath.

      But you have to admit, a system that makes the slaves compete for wearing chains while repeating slogans about freedom is pure evil genius, farcical as it might be.

      As for relationships, it's a well established pattern for people to stay with abusive partners even after they become violent. It's just as bad when the abuse is psychological, and just as much rape.

      As bad, yes, but even harder to prove.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. What if it was a man who was tracked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A Minnesota man named Danny Lee Hormann, suspecting his wife of infidelity, installed a GPS tracker on her car and allegedly downloaded spyware onto her phone and the family computer. In March 2010, Hormann's wife had a mechanic search her car and found the tracker. She called the police, and Hormann spent a month in jail on stalking charges.

    I wonder if a woman would be arresting for tracking a man in such ways, or if she would be met with "You go girl!"-type responses.

    1. Re:What if it was a man who was tracked? by jehan60188 · · Score: 1

      arrest? maybe if you're well connected.
      conviction? only if you can pick the right jury

    2. Re:What if it was a man who was tracked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That right there is is why "Funny" mods deserve karma.

  3. so what you're saying... by jehan60188 · · Score: 0

    ...is that I need a warrant to keep track of my loved ones (in case they're a kid and get kidnapped, or they have dementia and are prone to wandering), but the government can keep track of everyone, all the time without any such permission?

    1. Re:so what you're saying... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. shovel your shit elsewhere.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:so what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really doubt anyone would get you in trouble for tracking your kid during his/her bike ride to school or even using the technology to track grandma on one of her dementia benders. I agree government surveillance is wrong and horrible and stupid, but you are clearly not seeing the fine line that separates creepy spying and genuine concern for someones well-being. An emotionally abusive husband who decides to spy on his wife is pretty clearly on the wrong side of that line.

    3. Re:so what you're saying... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Only if you aren't their legal guardian and do it without their consent - in which it's not only illegal but you're also horrible person.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:so what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is that I need a warrant to keep track of my loved ones (in case they're a kid and get kidnapped

      Ah, the lament of douchebags and cowards ... won't someone please think of the children, if I do it to protect the children it must be OK.

      Fuck you.

    5. Re:so what you're saying... by jehan60188 · · Score: 0

      emotionally/physically, abusive, yes.
      But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?
      these tools can empower that person. Do we condemn the tool (ban cars/guns/cigarettes!) or do we condemn the people who use them immorally?

    6. Re:so what you're saying... by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?

      That's their own damn problem. None of it justifies spying on someone like that without their consent.

    7. Re:so what you're saying... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's not? Why not?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:so what you're saying... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?

      What is the point of proving it? You don't get double-divorced if you can prove it. You don't get more money if you prove it. Decide to stay together or split up, then do it.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:so what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because his freshman year Wymyns Studies professor said so.

    10. Re:so what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know they call 1st graders "freshmen" now... How times change...

  4. Paranoia Strikes Deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty pathetic, really. If you can't trust your spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy without spyware, maybe you need to find a new spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy. If you are unhappy enough with said spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy to cheat and haven't got the guts to just leave, screw you anyway.

    1. Re:Paranoia Strikes Deep by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Pretty pathetic, really. If you can't trust your spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy without spyware, maybe you need to find a new spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy. If you are unhappy enough with said spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy to cheat and haven't got the guts to just leave, screw you anyway.

      Never trust a woman or a government:

      -Yellowbeard

    2. Re:Paranoia Strikes Deep by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Because throwing your kids' lives into turmoil is the better course? For some people quietly cheating is a better option, believe it or not, many marriages survive affairs and are still rated as average to above.

      Children are not oblivious. They can tell when there are problems in their parents' relationship. What sort of relationship role models are parents who have really dysfunctional relationships? They give a really horrible idea about what romantic relationships *should* be to the children exposed to them.

      That's not to say (for all the not-so-deep thinkers out there) that a couple should split up at the first signs of problems, but when it becomes clear that the issues in the relationship are intractable, staying together "for the children" is not only dumb, it may well be harmful to the children later in life.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    3. Re:Paranoia Strikes Deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never trust a woman or a government:

      Higher managerment in any company, salesmen, adverts, or anyone who wants to borrow money.

  5. Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    aspiring cheaters need not despair:

    I know this is meant tongue-in-cheek, but if taken at face value it's completely wrong. I've been married for about 20 years. I think the pleasures of being married to my wife this long, and of her being able to trust me, and of not having betrayed my family, far outweigh any benefit I would have gotten from succumbing to the temptation to cheat.

    So aspiring cheaters should actually despair that some technology increases their temptation to cheat. In my estimation, they're just being more tempted to make a mistake.

    1. Re:Telling quote by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your fidelity and trying to do the right thing, but statistics simply aren't on your side.

      What are we up to now? 50% of all marriages end in divorce? It's going to happen regardless.

      Many argue that monogamy isn't a natural state for humans. I certainly think it's one which takes a lot of effort and isn't for everybody.

      For many people, the mistake was in the decision to get married in the first place. I've lost count of the number of people who while they were getting married there were already clues that they'd be miserable and/or it wouldn't last.

      The relationship was already dysfunctional or toxic and doomed to fail. But who is going to be the one to tell the bride and groom that??

      When I see TV ads for websites which are pretty blatant about the fact that you're there to have an affair, it's pretty evident there's a market for it.

      I agree the technology arms race around cheating is a little creepy.

      But just think, if your wife can easily do the things in the summary ... the government can do MUCH MUCH more. So, it's hard not to be in favor of any tool which tries to make it harder to track what you do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Telling quote by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So aspiring cheaters should actually despair that some technology increases their temptation to cheat.

      I think the trouble starts with the 'aspiring cheater'. Not the enabling technology. I'm responsible for my own self control and resistance to temptations. I don't need laws, restrictions on technology or some silly holy book to enforce agreements I have with my wife, family or friends.

      Granted, there are people who need supervision. But that's a problem with their internal moral compass. Why should the rest of us have to give up nice things because some people suffering from arrested development can't keep it in their pants? Or get permission to have something on the side without turning it into a case of cheting?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      I think the trouble starts with the 'aspiring cheater'. Not the enabling technology. I'm responsible for my own self control and resistance to temptations. I don't need laws, restrictions on technology or some silly holy book to enforce agreements I have with my wife, family or friends.

      I see it a little differently. I almost always know what's right or wrong, but sometimes I'm more tempted than others to do what I know is wrong.

      When I come back to my senses, in hindsight I'm grateful for anything that helped me avoid actually doing those wrong things. Even if it's the absence of particular enabling technologies.

    4. Re:Telling quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, divorce is the lowest it's been in *decades*.
      Why?
      Because people aren't pressured into getting married at young ages, sex is more openly discussed, and so contraceptive use is on the rise (leading to fewer "I married him because I was pregnant" scenarios), and people are getting to settle into their careers and mid-life personalities before tying the knot.
      You hear more about divorce because the older generations believe ours is doomed, and because media and social networking makes it easier to get that news out.

    5. Re:Telling quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've cheated many years ago. It felt great for the half hour or so of actual sex. Immediately after I felt nothing but shame and despair. It really wasn't worth the feeling of being a lying piece of shit. Even now almost 30 years later I occasionally think back on it and hate that it happened. There's nothing like sitting there while your wife talks about what a great husband you've been with that scene replaying itself in your mind. I'd give anything to erease that.

    6. Re:Telling quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 50% divorce rate is a myth based on a faulty statistical inference. The highest it ever got to was around 40%, and the divorce rate is now declining. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0

    7. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's only because marriage rates are on the decline. In terms of percentages of marriages that end in divorce, it's as high as ever.

      Marriage is the #1 cause of divorce.

      Studies such as this one report a higher level of feelings of commitment between recently married couples than those cohabitating for a long period, which just goes to show that marriage tends to give people a false sense of commitment, given the high divorce rate. Feelings change.

      Not being married makes it much easier to kick the cheat (of either sex) to the curb. There's no "OMG the marriage is over."

      Of course, if you had civilized laws that didn't make adultery a criminal offense (it's not in Canada; the only grounds for divorce where I live are the desire of one of the parties to exit the relationship) you wouldn't have so much need for people spying on each other. It's bad enough when facebook and google and the government do it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you had civilized laws that didn't make adultery a criminal offense (it's not in Canada; the only grounds for divorce where I live are the desire of one of the parties to exit the relationship) you wouldn't have so much need for people spying on each other. It's bad enough when facebook and google and the government do it.

      I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. It seems that many people cheat on their spouses, but I can't think of any time, ever that I've heard of someone being criminally prosecuted for it in the U.S.

    9. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      Studies such as this one report a higher level of feelings of commitment between recently married couples than those cohabitating for a long period, which just goes to show that marriage tends to give people a false sense of commitment, given the high divorce rate. Feelings change.

      Yes, of course feelings change. People who are committed to their spouse generally know this, and learn to ride out those dry spells. Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person. This is the grown-up's definition of love.

      If a person quits a marriage (by divorce or cheating) any time his/her feelings of affection wane, then not only are they being immature and selfish, but they're also missing out on the joys of a life-long love story.

    10. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      It's still on the books in several states. We have this TV show about Canada Border Services, and one American who wanted to come into Canada was red-flagged because he had a criminal record for adultery. After verifying, since there is no equivalent crime in Canada, he was allowed in.

      21 states still consider adultery a criminal offense

      Most countries that criminalize adultery are those where the dominant religion is Islam, and several Sub-Saharan African Christian-majority countries, but there are some notable exceptions to this rule, namely Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and 21 States in the United States.

      and

      As of 2014, adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare. Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland) to life sentence (Michigan). In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.

      Kind of backward, is it not?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Telling quote by vux984 · · Score: 1

      It's going to happen regardless.

      So is cheating at school, or plagiarism, or fishing without a license, or bullying, or vandalism, or gossiping about the neighbors. That doesn't mean we need or should celebrate apps to facilitate any of those.

      Many argue that monogamy isn't a natural state for humans.

      Nobody forcing people to get married and take vows of monogamous fidelity.

      For many people, the mistake was in the decision to get married in the first place

      Agreed. And the solution is to terminate the marriage not lie to and betray your partner.

      When I see TV ads for websites which are pretty blatant about the fact that you're there to have an affair, it's pretty evident there's a market for it.

      There being a market for it doesn't make it right, or moral, or even acceptable. If you want multiple partners, fine, but find partners who are ok with that arrangement. Don't find partners who aren't ok with that arrangement and then do it anyway behind their backs. Its really that simple.

    12. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I don't think whether or not it's backward is relevant to the point you were making.

      You had made this statement:

      Of course, if you had civilized laws that didn't make adultery a criminal offense (it's not in Canada; the only grounds for divorce where I live are the desire of one of the parties to exit the relationship) you wouldn't have so much need for people spying on each other.

      You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each other.

      What I'm saying is that, at least in the U.S., I've seen no evidence that those legal codes are on the mind of almost anyone. I suspect the spying has more to do with jealousy, or (diminishingly) to gain an upper hand in divorce court.

    13. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person.

      It's a two-way street, and cheating is a symptom of a lack of commitment. To argue that the one cheated on should be obliged to sacrifice their own integrity by continuing in such a relationship creates a very unequal and unfair "partnership."

      If a person quits a marriage (by divorce or cheating) any time his/her feelings of affection wane, then not only are they being immature and selfish, but they're also missing out on the joys of a life-long love story.

      How is it selfish or immature to say "you broke the rules, there are consequences?" Seems to me that the one being selfish and immature is the one who wants to keep someone in such a relationship "because." Adults know that there are consequences for their acts - it's immature children who say "if you really loved me you'd stay with me." Sounds a lot like a 10-year-old whining about how they should have their own cell phone "because if you really loved me you'd give me a cell phone."

      There's a HUGE difference between a "dry spell" and cheating. Cheating is a breech of trust at such an elemental level that it cannot help but call the relationship into question. When you're caught stealing, you can make restitution. There is simply no way that anyone can make restitution for cheating. What are you going to do - offer a "hall pass" to the aggrieved party? That certainly won't restore trust. Al that gets you is a "You don't really know me at all, do you?"

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      It's a two-way street, and cheating is a symptom of a lack of commitment. To argue that the one cheated on should be obliged to sacrifice their own integrity by continuing in such a relationship creates a very unequal and unfair "partnership."

      I wasn't arguing that one should stay committed to an unfaithful spouse. I was arguing that I've had a very happy life for having stuck with my wife even through periods when I didn't feel warm and fuzzy.

      How is it selfish or immature to say "you broke the rules, there are consequences?"

      If appears we're talking about different situations, as I mentioned earlier in this current post.

    15. Re:Telling quote by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's going to happen regardless.

      With that attitude it certainly is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm really sorry. I guess you can take some small comfort that your moral compass seems to be working well, and that you've been a good enough husband otherwise that she appreciates you.

    17. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course spying has a lot to do with jealousy and gaining the upper hand in court. And that's what you are saying when you sum up my statements as "You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each other."

      Divorce courts are noted for threats to air the dirty laundry and other forms of blackmail. We know this because on occasion the other side doesn't cave and all the stuff leaks out into the tabloids. "Revenge divorce" anyone?

      Heck, just watch Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, or any of the other pop shows that deal with couples whose relationships are train wrecks, and watch the emails, the voicemails, the stalking, the threats of violence , the internet histories, the accounts on dating and pr0n sites... anything to discredit the other party.

      There would be a LOT less of this if you simply enacted no-fault divorce. The only grounds for a divorce are the desire of one party to end the marriage. No reason need be given, the judge doesn't want to hear it because it's simply irrelevant under no-fault.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    18. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Divorce courts are noted for threats to air the dirty laundry and other forms of blackmail.

      Sure, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with, in some states, adultery being a crime

      That is, the blackmail is never of the form, "Let me have 70% of our marital assets, or else I'll give evidence of your infidelity to the local district attorney who will lock you up." Remember, this whole discussion you and I are having is about whether or not the criminal law aspects of infidelity are actually relevant in today's U.S.

      There would be a LOT less of this if you simply enacted no-fault divorce.

      From Wikipedia: "Since at least 1985, no-fault divorce has been available in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia."

    19. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Well, the story is about spying on cheaters, so I was taking your comments within that context. I'm sorry that I mis-read it.

      But how do you expect someone's "feelings of affection" NOT to wane when they find out they've been cheated on. Or worse, forgiven it and had it happen to them again? Once, I can try to understand, love conquers all, etc... but twice, the relationship's as dead as if you had nuked it from orbit using sharks with lasers attached to their heads.

      In such cases, the aggrieved party has to come to terms with the fact that they made a mistake entering into the relationship in the first place. Otherwise, vile bitterness can consume them forever, and we've all run into people who can neither forgive nor forget, because it (being cheated on) really does hurt right to the core, and I guess it's easier to stay angry than to say "this was a mistake on both sides."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    20. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      But how do you expect someone's "feelings of affection" NOT to wane when they find out they've been cheated on.

      I don't expect that. Let me clarify what I'm arguing for:

      - In the case of adultery, divorce is probably reasonable, and I wouldn't expect the cheated-on spouse to necessarily ever feel affection again towards the cheater.

      - Even marriages which don't involve adultery generally go through dry spells of affection. But for many (most?) committed couples who stick it out, those feelings come back, and are sometimes accompanied by the additional respect and admiration and affection that come from a seeing each other grow, and from a life-long love story unfolding.

      - So even people who want to reason from a purely hedonistic standpoint (which I wouldn't recommend) should consider whether or not they're selling themselves short by committing adultery.

    21. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      No-fault is an option, not mandatory, as it is here.

      Also, I guess you forgot about the Roxanne and Herbert Pulitzer divorce, that set the style for these sort of "let's get the dirty laundry out" celebrity divorces, such as Britney Speares in 2007, and everyone now airing all the dirty laundry on facebook.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    22. Re:Telling quote by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Even if no-fault is merely an option, it doesn't change the fact that, as far as I know, the criminality (in some states) of adultery is hardly ever a factor in people's thinking, and therefore wouldn't explain the prevalence of divorce-related snooping activity.

      I don't understand why you keep on bringing up the fact that dirty laundry is aired during some divorce proceedings. I can see how that's relevant to snooping technology, but I thought we were arguing whether or not the criminality of infidelity drives the use of snooping technology. If anything, you're kind of making my point for me, by providing an alternative explanation for that prevalence.

      Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I need to get back to work now. Be well.

    23. Re:Telling quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why not get rid of marriage? Then you don't need to even worry about it! There, problem solved.
      After all, by your definition, it's just an overly moral stinky leftover from the time of barbarians.

    24. Re:Telling quote by vux984 · · Score: 1

      There would be a LOT less of this if you simply enacted no-fault divorce.

      A lot less of this sure, but I'm not sure that would be more equitable.

      Now someone can betray your trust, maybe even give you an STD they picked up screwing around, get pregnant, become addicted to drugs or some combination of all that... and then when you leave them they take half your stuff, plus alimony, child support too (perhaps not even for your child)?

      Is that equitable?

      Oh and they've decided they want your dog too... the one they don't give a shit about but you love, and are just demanding it to be spiteful...

      Yeah, divorce courts going to be ugly, even with no-fault as the reason.

    25. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So why not get rid of marriage? Then you don't need to even worry about it! There, problem solved.
      After all, by your definition, it's just an overly moral stinky leftover from the time of barbarians.

      I tell people that marriage is the #1 cause of divorce. Splitting after marriage is harder and more stressful, due to the legal complications, than after cohabiting.

      Cohabiting couple - someone cheats, is abusive, whatever - "The door is there, your stuff is on the other side of it. Goodbye." Or alternatively, "I'm out of here. Goodbye"

      Married couple - all the above, PLUS lawyers, the court, costs, and because the process is harder, it ends up being more acrimonious.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The division of property is a separate issue.

      I live in a no-fault jurisdiction, one of the few where people who are not married have zero claim on each other's assets, except for child support. And those who are divorcing only have a right to "partnership of acquests" - you only divide up what is acquired by the partnership during the marriage.

      What's needed are more equitable laws. No-fault is part of it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    27. Re:Telling quote by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Once you've been cohabiting for a year (may vary on jurisdiction) you're considered married in common law. If you've bought stuff as a couple such as a house or have children, splitting can be much the same as divorce. The opposite can also be true, if married but not owning anything substantial, with no kids, divorce can be pretty simple.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    28. Re:Telling quote by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      So why not get rid of marriage? Then you don't need to even worry about it! There, problem solved. After all, by your definition, it's just an overly moral stinky leftover from the time of barbarians.

      I tell people that marriage is the #1 cause of divorce. Splitting after marriage is harder and more stressful, due to the legal complications, than after cohabiting.

      Cohabiting couple - someone cheats, is abusive, whatever - "The door is there, your stuff is on the other side of it. Goodbye." Or alternatively, "I'm out of here. Goodbye"

      I'm seeing this sentiment thrown around a lot in this thread. In my jurisdiction marriage+pre-nup is definitely better than cohabiting. Where I am (and likely elsewhere as well, seeing as we simply inherited our laws) cohabiting for 12 consecutive months leaves you both as common-law spouses to each other, which means it's legally considered a community-of-property marriage after 12 months of living together.

      And a community-of-property/common-law marriage is a whole lot harder to dissolve than a pre-nupped one.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    29. Re:Telling quote by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Once you've been cohabiting for a year (may vary on jurisdiction) you're considered married in common law. If you've bought stuff as a couple such as a house or have children, splitting can be much the same as divorce. The opposite can also be true, if married but not owning anything substantial, with no kids, divorce can be pretty simple.

      Nope. The best answer is "it varies."

      Here there is zero recognition of common-law relationships. A couple were living together for two decades, they had 3 kids (court order prevents naming them because of the kids, but a LOT of people know who we're talking about, wink wink nudge nudge), they separated and she filed for support as his common-law wife. Her new boyfriend paid lawyers a million bucks to take it to the supreme court of canada - and the supremes ruled that divorce is strictly a provincial matter, so if the province (Quebec) doesn't recognize common-law relationships, just too damn bad.

      Which is interesting because for the longest time courts in Quebec acted as if common-law relationships gave rise to the same rights - until this presumption was challenged. Now, forget it.

      The other provinces recognize common law marriages, but the restrictions - and what you're going to get in a split - are not going to be the same as a legal marriage. However, it's only a matter of time until someone challenges the foundation of common-law marriages in the other provinces as being against the freedom of association clause of our constitution, and that will be that.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  6. Husband uses a kiddie phone by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    Kiddie phone from Verizon. He is clinging to his 2004 state of the art clamshell phone that is at best a feature phone with no features actually supported any more besides phone calls, calendar, and text messages. In the meantime, I have not one but two Samsung galaxies.

    On the one hand, even if I wanted to spy on him, I couldn't. On the other hand, his texts cost him 10 cents each on a grandfathered pre-paid plan, and he certainly can't install or run any kind of app on it. So the few texts he make can be counted in dimes (and he gets grouchy when someone texts him too much as a result) and there's no way to hide them or delete them. I'm not terribly worried either way.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Husband uses a kiddie phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his 2004 state of the art clamshell phone

      Sounds like you're safe, unless he's been hanging out near a retirement home.

  7. I think this practice is wholly evil and nasty by Grindalf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Remember, psycho-sexually isolative schizophrenics should not be listened to at all or given equipment. Call the police! Sexual slavery by any name or disguise is wholly evil and has no place in any country in the world. Women OWN themselves and they OWN their genitalia and can do WHAT they like, WHEN they like and under any given circumstances whatsoever! That's my best advice, this is how morality REALLY works in sexual people.

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:I think this practice is wholly evil and nasty by Bardez · · Score: 1

      It is non-obvious what you are talking about. Do you mean to say that marriage is evil?

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
  8. Or you know, not marry by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps it's unthinkable in American minds, but here in the Netherlands, only about half of the people in solid relationships decide to marry. And there seems to be no set time for this either. More often than not, I've seen friends marry after their first child.

    I'm not marrying, the odds are decidedly in favor of women. The Netherlands has the highest percentage of women working parttime. As a man, you'll be paying through the nose.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Or you know, not marry by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I doubt not marrying changes the relationship dynamics of cheating by much. It's like trying to eradicate greed by abolishing property rights.

    2. Re:Or you know, not marry by jehan60188 · · Score: 4, Informative

      that's the thing, marriage is financially beneficial under US laws.
      it's also necessary for things like wills, and who can/can't testify against you, or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital

    3. Re:Or you know, not marry by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      That's a reason to change US laws.

    4. Re:Or you know, not marry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. Many programs require certain income levels that a married couple would exceed but an individual would not (assuming the couple makes roughly the same). Additionally there are tax cases where similar to the above where filing separately can be a gain.

      My fiance and I have not found a single financial benefit for getting married in the context of our lives.

    5. Re:Or you know, not marry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S. there is still a lot of social stigma towards unmarried couples having children. And divorce laws so overwhelmingly favor women that it's in their best interests to hold out on a man until he'll commit.

    6. Re:Or you know, not marry by RaccoonBandit · · Score: 1

      Or even be allowed to live together in the same country, if you're not lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the same nationality.

    7. Re:Or you know, not marry by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      that's the thing, marriage is financially beneficial under US laws.
      it's also necessary for things like wills, and who can/can't testify against you, or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital

      Yes, and that middle one is important. Um, to some people, that is.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:Or you know, not marry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do think that the pressure to have state or church sanctioned sex drives too many marriages, and then the thought of rebelling against the state or church drives some to cheat for the thrill of being naughty. That is the only reason I can think of some wanting marriage, blessed by the church and state as holy, as opposed to civil union with all the practical rights and privileges except for those conferred by your chosen mythical creature. It kind of sanctifies their kind of sex. Not that I don't think marriage equality is great. My church has been marrying all couples for 30 years or more. Not legal in the state, which is unfair, but I think that is what should happen. A church marriage should have nothing to do with legal status of couple.

    9. Re:Or you know, not marry by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital"
      Not exactly.
      I have never seen a hospital with a family only rule. Only if you are incapacitated can your family decide to ask the hospital to make it family only or to exclude someone. If you are married you spouse is your "closest" family member and can actually exclude other family members.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Or you know, not marry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a man, you'll be paying through the nose.

      Said like a true Dutchman. And people say Americans are materialistic.

    11. Re:Or you know, not marry by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      As a man, you'll be paying through the nose.

      Then don't cheat! Otherwise, let me introduce you to Divorced Barbie. Divorced Barbie comes with: Ken's Car, Ken's House, Ken's Boat, Ken's Furniture, Ken's Computer, one of Ken's Friends, and a key chain made with Ken's balls.

      And she comes with G.I. Joe. She was just faking it with Ken.

      But seriously, don't cheat. Or accept that there will be consequences.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:Or you know, not marry by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought about that. I think you're right, that being married or not doesn't really change the premise of the article. It's still cheating, and it's still stalking.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    13. Re:Or you know, not marry by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      But seriously, don't cheat. Or accept that there will be consequences.

      That's your solution. My solution is to never opt into the gamble in the first place.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    14. Re:Or you know, not marry by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup. This means that if your partner gets deathly ill, and is incapacitated, and your partner's family doesn't like or approve of you, you get no visits or possibly even no updates. This has happened. The cases I've heard about have had same-sex partners and families who disapproved, but there's no reason it couldn't happen under other circumstances.

      One of the fundamental legal roles of marriage is formally stating that somebody else is not only family, but next of kin.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Or you know, not marry by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But the flip side is a spouse can prevent other family members from seeing you.
      So a spouse that does not like your parents can block them out of spite.

      This could all be solved by just simple good manners and kindness but those are in short supply.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  9. Paranoia Strikes Deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pretty pathetic, really. If you can't trust your spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy without spyware, maybe you need to find a new spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy. If you are unhappy enough with said spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy to cheat and haven't got the guts to just leave, screw you anyway.

    Because throwing your kids' lives into turmoil is the better course? For some people quietly cheating is a better option, believe it or not, many marriages survive affairs and are still rated as average to above.

    Sometimes the right answer is to leave, anyone who tells you the right answer is ALWAYS to leave or ALWAYS to stay is selling you some sort of moralistic bullcrap.

  10. Low tech solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rocks.

    Proven effective, for both sexes, for over two millennia.

  11. Related: 'Stalking app' maker arrested by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

    This is two weeks ago, but I don't think it popped up on Slashdot;
    Feds charge tech CEO with making app for stalkers, domestic abusers

    Although people are usually quick to defend the tool (and its makers) and suggest authorities go after its users instead, similar stories from the past seem to suggest that not very many would be jumping to his defense:
    Man Creates "Creepy" Stalking App
    World's Creepiest iPhone App Pulled After Outcry

  12. Simple solution by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Simple solution, Always be honest in your relationship!

    My wife and my girlfriend get along great, even take them out shopping together. The only issue I have is when we all go out, I can not get a word in edge wise.

    Keep it honest and there is no need for all those tools.

    1. Re:Simple solution by RJFerret · · Score: 1

      This, you can't "cheat" on me since I give you permission. (Of course, that doesn't mean my trust can't be betrayed in other ways, or attempts to manipulate me, etc., but there's less emotional agita.)

    2. Re:Simple solution by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Umm, how do you truly know she has never cheated? Or does that not matter to you? The only way you can be 100% sure is by "trusting your feelings" and your ability to judge a person's character .. its like believing in God. You don't have any real proof but it feels correct. Not like anyone has been wrong about their spouse or God being the Juju under the tree before.

    3. Re:Simple solution by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Humans do better in a Poly when they are mature and evolved.

      Kudos to you!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, you can't "cheat" on me since I give you permission.

      Enjoy your herpes; or maybe you only touch her through a plastic bag now.

    5. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say mature and evolved, I say selfish and childish. To each his own.

    6. Re:Simple solution by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You are correct, People that are hell bent on Monogomy are selfish and childish.

      They are the same horrible sociopathic scumbags that demonize homosexuals that want to marry.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say humans do better in a Poly when they are selfish and childish? How do you figure?

    8. Re:Simple solution by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rather be too trusting than too mistrusting (I can't trust people the right amount in all cases, so I will err, and I'm choosing to mostly err on the side of trust). I also think that, if I trust somebody to do something, and that's known, they're at least a bit less likely to not do that. Therefore, I'm completely certain that my wife has not had sex with anybody else since we got together. This doesn't mean I'm necessarily right, but I think I'm happier this way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. Can We Get This for Kids? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Kids have cell phones at younger and younger ages. You can argue if this is good or not but if they do have them, then it would be a nice feature and provide some peace of mind if you could call up their location (OK, the location of the phone) via a web app.

    Are they late getting home and not answering their phone? If the locations service says they are at a friends house, then fine. If it says they are on I-35 traveling north at 80 MPH....not so fine.

    Lojack for your kids.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.

    2. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.

      Ah... You DON'T have kids eh? Privacy? Really?

      Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are. Say they are out skipping school, I'm the one who ends up being charged for their truancy, I pay the fine and I risk jail if it doesn't stop. So I monitor...

      My kids understand this and know full well they are subject to monitoring as long as they are under the age of majority and/or choose to live with me. Once they start driving their own car, paying for their own cell phone and living in a place they pay for, my right to monitor ends. So any complaints are answered with "So, when you turn 18, get a job, a car, a phone and your own place and I'll stop being a pest." I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      Ah... You DON'T have kids eh?

      I do. I don't appreciate it when idiots assume that anyone who disagrees with them don't have kids.

      I also remember being a kid, and I had a lot more freedom than most kids today do. Everyone is paranoid about terrorists/child molesters/some other such bogeyman, when in reality, we're safer than ever. No need for all this garbage.

      Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are.

      All I said was, "I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too." I take it that, in your imagination, you saw my comment as, "Parents should never have any idea where their kids are ever and should pretend they don't exist."

      Tracking your kids through their phones all the time is quite different from occasionally checking up on them at reasonable times. No one's talking about your rights or anything else, but about morality.

      I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.

      Since I don't care for all the preemptive warfare our worthless government gets us into, I think I'd pass regardless.

    4. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet your kid is the 'special' kind that you call precocious and adventurous and everyone else calls a fucking monster. Not that you'd realize that because your head is so far up your ass.

      Heads up: if that privacy leads to your kid trying to break into a home or storage unit that belongs to me I will shoot to kill. I may show up at the funeral and pee on the casket.

      The captcha made me laugh so hard I have coworkers coming into my office trying to figure out if I was choking:
      kidnaps

    5. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the only way to ensure your kids aren't skipping school is to put a tracking collar* on them? Piss poor parenting. My children went to school in the 80s, so no cell phones, no GPS stalking, and no terrorist/pedophile paranoia, and they never skipped a class. Our trust was mutual. I trusted them to go to school, they trusted me to respect their boundaries. If you're constantly hovering over your children to "make sure" they're obeying, there's no way they'll ever trust you, and that will lead to issues with authority later in life. I know, because my little sister is currently on parole for assaulting police officers. My parents clamped down on her hard because of one single incident in elementary school, and following that upbringing she never trusted another adult again.

      Comparing to someone joining the Marine corps? Laughable. Your children aren't soldiers, nor are they your property, or even your subjects, they're children.

      * Not a literal collar, obviously.

    6. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I bet your kid is the 'special' kind that you call precocious and adventurous and everyone else calls a fucking monster.

      Wow, yeah, that's what happens when you don't track your kids 24/7. Everyone born before all this great tracking technology was a monster.

      Are you that dumb?

    7. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So any complaints are answered with "So, when you turn 18, get a job, a car, a phone and your own place and I'll stop being a pest."

      So they go from constant surveillance to complete freedom in one step. What could possibly go wrong?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Having the "right" does not mean I always monitor. My point was that as a parent I have the responsibility, thus I have the right to monitor my kids as I see fit. But I don't always believe that it's necessary, even for minor children. If they are responsible (like my oldest) you don't need to monitor anything, but if they are prone to be irresponsible (like my youngest), constant monitoring is absolutely necessary.

      I wonder though, what you might suggest for a child that refuses to be responsible? Do you think it will go better for them if the parent just slowly goes hands off regardless of the child's maturity level? Just throwing up your hands and giving up is a recipe for disaster too. As in all things, there is a happy medium in all this, with the understanding that every kid is different.

      So, if there is a child who refuses to be responsible and refuses to mature into an adult (i.e. grow up) even when they come of age, then there comes a time when you have to use the boot and evict them from your home. In that case, things will likely go very wrong, but likely as not it went very wrong decades ago. I've know kids that simply needed to realize the world was hard work and became responsible adults. I've also known a few that self destructed. Again, everybody is different.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Can We Get This for Kids? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I wonder though, what you might suggest for a child that refuses to be responsible? Do you think it will go better for them if the parent just slowly goes hands off regardless of the child's maturity level?

      Actually, yeah, it might. You said it yourself below:

      I've know kids that simply needed to realize the world was hard work and became responsible adults.

      It's much better for everyone that this wakeup call comes before the person in question can, for example, make legally binding contracts or other actions with long-lasting consequences.

      That said, it just occurred to me that I'm arguing with someone who's family I've never met about their parenting methods based on a three-paragraph Slashdot message, so... sorry.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. And people are surprised why? by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was perfectly predictable when those who said "adultery is a private, consensual matter" won the argument and adultery effectively became a dead letter crime and tort. If adultery were reasonably enforced on those with licensed marriages, it would create a much greater argument for regulating these apps.

    See funny thing is most people don't regard marriage as something where good behavior is strictly optional. When you take away recourse to the courts on the worse forms of betrayal in a state-recognized relationship, people are bound to take private action.

    1. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      This was perfectly predictable when those who said "adultery is a private, consensual matter" won the argument and adultery effectively became a dead letter crime and tort.

      It is a private, consensual matter. Don't like it? Get a divorce. You don't own that person.

      it would create a much greater argument for regulating these apps.

      I don't want government thugs regulating such software. Why would anyone, except perhaps for mindless authoritarians? There is no good argument for the government regulating what features you put into your software, or whatever nonsense you're planning.

      But if you're not talking about the government, then who else would do it?

    2. Re:And people are surprised why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't want governments telling whomever what is and isn't adultery (or what is or isn't a "private matter").

    3. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      i don't want governments telling whomever what is and isn't adultery

      Neither do I.

      (or what is or isn't a "private matter").

      All that means to me is that the government should stay out of it. Isn't that what we want?

    4. Re:And people are surprised why? by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

      Two people should be able to enter into a legally binding contract if they so desire. A "marriage" contract being just one of many possible kinds of legally binding contracts people should be able to enter consensually.

    5. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if you don't like what the person is doing, the answer is divorce, not severe government intervention.

    6. Re:And people are surprised why? by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

      The legal answer in breaking most contracts is a collection of damages, not a mere breaking of the contract. Just imagine, Google and Motorola make a contract for Motorola to deliver Google 300,000 new Nexus 6s. Motorola makes the phones, but when time to deliver arrives, Google has "cheated" on Motorola, and had Samsung make the Nexus 6. The courts response, in your argument, should be Samsung and Google just breaking their contract? No. Of course not. Motorola should sue for damages.

    7. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      This is a private matter, and you don't own the other person. A contract which controls someone else's sexuality is just silly.

    8. Re:And people are surprised why? by Shados · · Score: 1

      You're correct and I fully agree with you.

      On the other hand, its not damn hard for the person who wants to cheat to get the divorce FIRST. If my wife's no longer interested in me, I'd hope she'd just tell me. I'd be heart broken, but at least we could clean the slate in a civilized manner. From the moment she tells me (even before the divorce goes through), she'd have no moral obligation whatsoever and can go and sleep with whoever the hell she wants.

      Sure, she technically can even without telling me anything...but that's one hell of an assholish thing to do. Tell the partner that its over FIRST, sleep around later. Its not that complicated.

    9. Re:And people are surprised why? by swillden · · Score: 1

      A contract which controls someone else's sexuality is just silly.

      I disagree, completely.

      I don't worry about protecting myself in intercourse with my wife because we're both confident that the other is monogamous. The party who violates that agreement and risks bringing a disease home to the other has done more than damage an emotional bond, they've potentially created actual harm.

      For that matter, damaging the emotional bond -- even if it was apparently somewhat one-sided -- is also a harm.

      Finally, it's not as if the contract was entered under duress. If you choose to contract with someone for sexual exclusivity, and then violate that contract, why should you not be penalized? I mean, all questions of morality or religion or whatever aside, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't want to enter such a contract, don't. If you do, abide by the terms or be prepared for the financial consequences.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:And people are surprised why? by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and so now they've undermined any ability for marriage contracts to hold teeth. Apparently people can enter contracts for anything (you can contractually give up all rights to your children, for example), except protect yourself in marriage.

    11. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I don't worry about protecting myself in intercourse with my wife because we're both confident that the other is monogamous. The party who violates that agreement and risks bringing a disease home to the other has done more than damage an emotional bond, they've potentially created actual harm.

      True regardless of marriage. But unless any tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsense.

      For that matter, damaging the emotional bond -- even if it was apparently somewhat one-sided -- is also a harm.

      Subjective nonsense.

      If you choose to contract with someone for sexual exclusivity, and then violate that contract, why should you not be penalized?

      Again, because you shouldn't be trying to control others to that degree. I don't think marriage is specifically for that purpose, regardless of what religious nutters try to make it out to be. And again, unless tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsensical.

    12. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Again, because you shouldn't be trying to control others to that degree.

      I'm not trying to control anything; there are many different contracts which regulate behaviour. Violating a contract is a violation regardless if someone's feelings were hurt or not, and penalties accompany violations. There is no "controlling" here - if you don't like the contract then don't sign it. If you sign it and then breach a clause or two in it then you have to pay the penalties. All contracts are like this, why should marriage contracts be different?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to control anything; there are many different contracts which regulate behaviour.

      In fact, you are. The instant you try to get government thugs to enforce your contract, you are trying to control someone. Many contracts are, in fact, not enforceable. I see no reason why contracts controlling sexuality should be the government's business. If you believe otherwise, you're an authoritarian of the highest caliber.

    14. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to control anything; there are many different contracts which regulate behaviour.

      In fact, you are. The instant you try to get government thugs to enforce your contract, you are trying to control someone. Many contracts are, in fact, not enforceable. I see no reason why contracts controlling sexuality should be the government's business. If you believe otherwise, you're an authoritarian of the highest caliber.

      All contracts are the governments business, otherwise contracts would be worthless because they cannot be enforced. If the person does not want to be "controlled" (as you put it) they are free to not sign the contract. It is not authoritarian to say "You agreed to this, if you don't follow through on our agreement there will be penalties". It is senseless to tell people that they can sign whatever they want to because the signed contract will be ignored anyway.

      TLDR: If you sign a contract, you will be held to it or face penalties, but luckily no one forces you to sign it in the first place. That's what freedom means - you can walk away without signing.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      All contracts are the governments business, otherwise contracts would be worthless because they cannot be enforced.

      Some contracts actually aren't enforceable. I do not believe that marriage should automatically have such restrictive terms, and I don't believe they should be enforceable. Just say, "Well, it's a contract, therefore the government should automatically be involved and it should always be enforced." is stupid and won't work on me.

      If the person does not want to be "controlled" (as you put it) they are free to not sign the contract.

      And you've just ruined any other benefits marriage might have by trying to control such trivial things. Now people can't have any of the other benefits marriage might have because of your religious nonsense.

      That's what freedom means - you can walk away without signing.

      Actually, part of what freedom means is that the government can't do shit to interfere with your business, even if it means enforcing a silly contract that shouldn't be legally enforceable to begin with. And here, I think they have no business enforcing such "contracts."

      But these "adultery" laws seem to be getting weaker, if the very first poster is correct. If so, you and your ilk are already losing. Good, I say.

    16. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      All contracts are the governments business, otherwise contracts would be worthless because they cannot be enforced.

      Some contracts actually aren't enforceable. I do not believe that marriage should automatically have such restrictive terms, and I don't believe they should be enforceable. Just say, "Well, it's a contract, therefore the government should automatically be involved and it should always be enforced." is stupid and won't work on me.

      The government is not automatically involved in all contracts, it is only involved when a dispute arises.

      If the person does not want to be "controlled" (as you put it) they are free to not sign the contract.

      And you've just ruined any other benefits marriage might have by trying to control such trivial things. Now people can't have any of the other benefits marriage might have because of your religious nonsense.

      Well, it's your damn contract - if you want all those other things, hey, feel free to put this into your marriage contract: "This marriage does not include any consent to sexual congress between the parties".

      That's what freedom means - you can walk away without signing.

      Actually, part of what freedom means is that the government can't do shit to interfere with your business,

      That would lead to me "buying" stuff from your business but never sending the money after I receive the goods. Contracts being worthless means that eBay cannot exist, credit cannot exist and even slashdot cannot exist. Not having enforceable contracts would mean that little shits like you who want your particular brand of religious nonsense in other peoples lives would have nowhere to peddle their brand of sky-fairy logic.

      even if it means enforcing a silly contract that shouldn't be legally enforceable to begin with. And here, I think they have no business enforcing such "contracts."

      But these "adultery" laws seem to be getting weaker, if the very first poster is correct. If so, you and your ilk are already losing. Good, I say.

      My "ilk"? Eactly who do you think I'm affilated with? All I pointed out is that anyone who breaches a contract should face penalties. That law is not changing, and it never is going to change without a complete overhaul of civilisation that removes law enforcement (courts, justice system, etc) from society. Face it, My side, the side that will enforce contracts within the law, has already won and is in no danger of losing. Your side, wanting total anarchy where any party to a deal can simply and without penalty fail to fulfill their side of the deal, is never going to win this one. People who sign contracts aren't going to sign if the state refused to enforce penalties for breaches.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    17. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Well, it's your damn contract - if you want all those other things, hey, feel free to put this into your marriage contract: "This marriage does not include any consent to sexual congress between the parties".

      Again, you're missing the actual point. It seems that some terms in a contract being unenforceable is an alien concept to you.

      That would lead to me "buying" stuff from your business but never sending the money after I receive the goods.

      You're straw manning me. You have no actual idea what it is that I'm saying.

      All I pointed out is that anyone who breaches a contract should face penalties.

      Haha, okay. I'll keep that in mind next time someone signs themselves into slavery. Oh, that's not enforceable.

      Your side, wanting total anarchy where any party to a deal can simply and without penalty fail to fulfill their side of the deal, is never going to win this one.

      Except, that doesn't describe my side at all. My side just says that certain things are none of the government's business to enforce. Like signing people into slavery, or controlling others' sexuality.

    18. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Except, that doesn't describe my side at all. My side just says that certain things are none of the government's business to enforce. Like signing people into slavery, or controlling others' sexuality.

      It actually described your "side" perfectly - fact is, if you want to control your own sexuality so that your partner never has consent unless they explicitly ask for it, you can have it easily enough - put it into that contract you're signing. But don't you dare stand up in a crowd of witness and actually swear that you are giving consent, and then try to argue later that those words mean nothing. Even absent an actual contract, you gave consent in front of witnesses.

      You are free to withdraw that consent at any time and if you fail to do so you can't very well claim that consent wasn't sought. It was sought, it was given, it was witnessed. You didn't have to give consent, but you did. You could have given qualified consent, but you didn't. You have a rather large number of options in which to practice your particularly horrible brand of relationships so there's no need to jump into other peoples personal lives. How dare you tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies? How dare you imply that women should be subject to your special flavour of marriage. You tell women that you know better than they do how their marriage should be? My wife enjoys being awoken in a "special" way, and would be damn pissed if I had to ask her beforehand and spoil any surprise.

      People like you should move to places where there aren't any womens' rights - that's the only thing that'll apparently make you happy - removing all rights women have.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    19. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      It actually described your "side" perfectly

      If you have to lie about what my position is, then I doubt you have anything of value to offer.

    20. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It actually described your "side" perfectly

      If you have to lie about what my position is, then I doubt you have anything of value to offer.

      No lies - your bone-headed and ill-thought out position was made perfectly clear throughout this thread, and now you can't go back and edit it. Shame.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    21. Re:And people are surprised why? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      I don't need to edit it. You are lying about my position, which I've stated multiple times. Either you have severe reading comprehension problems, or you're attacking an imaginary position out of convenience.

    22. Re:And people are surprised why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I don't need to edit it. You are lying about my position, which I've stated multiple times. Either you have severe reading comprehension problems, or you're attacking an imaginary position out of convenience.

      Your position, repeatedly stated, is that my stated position, that marriage gives you default consent unless otherwise retracted, is wrong. Why are you so sexist? What do you have against women having full autonomy over their own bodies?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    23. Re:And people are surprised why? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Business contracts often have explicit provisions for failure to perform, and in this case the contract is about doing something for money. Motorola is entitled to payment from Google, in this case. If a judge has to make up contract penalties, they're likely to be monetary damages, and will frequently fall far short of what is needed to restore the situation (somebody who went bankrupt because of cash flow problems while clearly being owed money is not likely to get set back up in business, for example).

      Every marriage agreement I've seen has had no penalties attached for failure to observe the contract. (Some marriages have supplementary agreements, often called "pre-nups".) There is no basis for judges to award money based on hurt feelings. About all that can be done (barring a pre-nup) is to dissolve the contract. If one party wishes to argue to the judge that he or she was relying on the marriage financially, and that he or she feels forced out because of the other's behavior, the judge is free to award support payments of some sort.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:And people are surprised why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your position, repeatedly stated, is that my stated position, that marriage gives you default consent unless otherwise retracted, is wrong.

      Are we mixing up the two discussions here?

      What do you have against women having full autonomy over their own bodies?

      Nothing. That's why I think consent is needed. Do you think my position is that women shouldn't be able to give consent? Furthermore, who said anything about women? It applies to both women and men. Strange that you think it only applies to women; women need the guy's consent, too.

  15. My woman by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read a lot into things? I'll admit cayenne's usage was borderline, but when I talk about "my woman" I don't mean "the woman I own" I mean "the woman I'm pairing with", as opposed to the 3.5+ billion women in the world whose happiness and well-being have negligible impact on my life. She is my woman, I'm her man, no power imbalance implied. How would *you* phrase that? After all we're not married, and I'm not in the habit of referring to grown women as girls.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:My woman by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 0

      She is my woman

      Bess, you is my woman now?

      "My wife", "My sweetheart", "My girlfriend", "My Significant Other" are okay. But "My woman" has a certain neanderthal sound to it.

    2. Re:My woman by Immerman · · Score: 1

      "Sweetheart" and "girlfriend" sound fine among teenagers sharing something intense and ungrounded, but are hardly suitable for adults traveling together down the road of life. Wife implies a long-term commitment (or at least that's the theory). Significant other is practically clinical. "A woman" seems to me to perfectly encapsulate the fundamental nature of the thing you want in your life, and all the many motives behind that desire. "My woman" similarly encapsulates all the many levels of satisfaction and frustration inherent in having found a woman to appease those desires and trying to forge some mutually acceptable journey together.

      If it sounds "Neanderthal" to you then perhaps you have a problem accepting the animal foundation upon which our minds are built. We've developed a lot of technology and social institutions since then, but our underlying emotional nature is still basically unchanged - and trying to deny that fact only makes it more difficult to find happiness. Treat your inner monkey right and life will be good, try to deny its existence and that bastard will club you upside the head when you least expect it. (S)He's you after all - if he's unhappy, you're unhappy. All the intellectual satisfaction in the world won't bring a smile to your face if your animal nature is miserable. And all the good intentions in the world won't make it any easier to resist the temptations appealing to a part of yourself whose existence you deny. Face him head on, embrace him, make his happiness your number one priority in life, and keep a firm hand on his leash because his judgment isn't always so hot and he really benefits from having someone with a longer attention span and a bit more perspective calling the shots.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:My woman by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I think the reason "My Woman" has an effect is the generality and the idea of ownership.

      My Car. My House. My Dog.

      These are things that I own. There are millions of houses, cars, and dogs out there but this one is mine. I own it. My car goes where I tell it to go. For the most part, my house is set up the way I want it to be. My dog does what I want him to do. I am in control. So adding "Woman"--another human being with the same intelligence, wants, needs, and desires--just doesn't sound right in my ear.

      Don't get me wrong--if it works for you and the woman in question, more power to you. This is something that has been debated since it became acceptable for men and women to live together without being married. My personal favorite terms was "Posselque" (POSSLQ -- Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) from the 1970s census.

      Years ago, I had this discussion with someone I cared about: "How do we introduce each other to the other people in our lives?"

      • "Girlfriend"/"Boyfriend" -- It has kind of a high school feel to it. Fine when you're 16. Feels a little off when you're in your late 20s.
      • "Esso" or "Posselque" -- As you say, a little too clinical.
      • "Lover" -- implies cheating. A lover is something you have "on the side" from your regular relationship.
      • "Honey"/"Sweetie" -- Too cute.

      We actually settled on "sweetheart" (e.g., "This is Maria, my sweetheart.") It denotes a romantic relationship and isn't too syrupy.

  16. The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Call me a luddite, but I still use the traditional method. I can't see why any self-respecting Christian would turn to this technology when the answer is right there in the Bible!

    The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

    11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

    16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

    23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

    29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

    Numbers 5:11-31

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's just so much simpler to tie them up toss em in a river and see if they float...

    2. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Sure,while we're at it, let's go back to stupidity like "Tie a rock to the witch and throw her in the water. If she drowns, she wasn't a witch."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A self-respecting Christian would recognize that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and it no longer applies to anyone.

      Seriously, it's been 2 millennia now. Harp on something else for a while. Perhaps you won't seem so desperate.

      Even ultra-strict Jews don't perform animal sacrifices or maintain the temple/tabernacle sanctuary or its implements anymore. Kinda makes you wonder why they bother with any of it, really. I guess "in for a penny, in for a pound" isn't really a Jewish thing (even if you swap out for shekels and talents).

    4. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Evolution-based objection needed

    5. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      A self-respecting Christian would recognize that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and it no longer applies to anyone.

      Seriously, it's been 2 millennia now. Harp on something else for a while. Perhaps you won't seem so desperate.

      Most Christians recognize that Christ fulfilled the part of the Mosaic Law that they don't like and it no longer applies to them. The parts they do like still apply to everyone.

      Even ultra-strict Jews don't perform animal sacrifices or maintain the temple/tabernacle sanctuary or its implements anymore. Kinda makes you wonder why they bother with any of it, really. I guess "in for a penny, in for a pound" isn't really a Jewish thing (even if you swap out for shekels and talents).

      Odds are, because the Muslims would be upset if a bunch of Jews went and replaced one of their favorite mosques with a Jewish temple, so that they could make sacrifices. And then they still need to get a consecrated priest, which is much harder to do if you can't find another consecrated priest to consecrate them, and don't remember who Aaron's sons are. So of course ultra-strict Jews aren't making sacrifices. If they were making imperfect sacrifices, they would not be ultra-strict (and would probably be heretics).

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by PPH · · Score: 2

      then he is to take his wife to the priest.

      Did that. He says he's not finished with her yet.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got figures in the middle of your text. It's cool that you copied it from some line numbered thing, but you could have cleaned it up.

  17. Consent to stalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh great, so now if you are going to marry someone, you have them sign a document consenting to being stalked (or at least orally agree to it). Then what? If you refuse to sign something like that, what kind of a marriage is it? It means your partner and yourself are not truly combined into a single unit. Insecurities can develop, and people do cheat. Doesn't a person have to right to verify the integrity of their partner. Cheating on a spouse is a kind of fraud. People DO get lied to. If the government wants to verify something you say, they can. Why can't private citizens?

  18. In my case by GlennC · · Score: 1

    If my wife were to have sex with someone else behind my back, I'd be disappointed.

    She knows I like to at least watch!

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  19. Tradition = failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More proof that humans are supposed to be Poly and not Monogamous.

    Yet the puritans that hate sex calling it "dirty" are the ones still pushing these stupid traditions.

    1. Re:Tradition = failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans aren't "supposed to be" anything, you twerp.

  20. Read the 69 comments by sideslash · · Score: 1

    I guess not anymore. (Sorry.)

  21. Overturned on appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/27/scary-stalker-husband-in-the-legal-clear-to-track-wifes-car/

  22. Use all the stealth you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my so was cheating or using these apps I'd know.

  23. why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 50+yo male and do not care no more. Not because I am in bad shape (in fact ever since I threw last bitch out and stopped drinking I feel like a young good) but because I am fed up with the bitches. I did close combat on dating sides and some such nonsense and found out that for having an interesting conversation I better turn to discussion groups with moderation without sexual context as females are not that much interested in arguing about sense of life but rather why I should bring out the garbage and why I was not romantic on last date. Fuck - if I am to be romantic then she has to agree on some extras too but that is just too difficult for the bitches of today. Thus I limit myself to documentaries that most of us cherish but none of us admits watching f. you very much!

  24. Saying of the Bhudda by emil · · Score: 1

    One who has fifty loves, has fifty woes. One who has no loves, has no woes.

  25. So why do we get married again? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    And the term "Good" lawyer is an oxymoron.

    1. Re:So why do we get married again? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And the term "Good" lawyer is an oxymoron.

      It's a given that any lawyer is going to f*** you. A good one is one who will f*** the other side more.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  26. Never underestimate psychosomatic effect of belief by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Probably much of modern pharmacology operates on that.

    Interestingly if users beleieve apps have the power too whether they really work.

  27. The guy's a hack by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    There are already decryption utilities that we use to decrypt all of Microsoft products, this will be one more. However, there are technologies that are already out that can make our job harder. These are file-shredding utilities, which overwrite data numerous times making it impossible to recover the data. However, we often get some of the data back because users get lazy in using the shredding utility and some shredding utilities are not the best quality and do a horrible job.

    Disk encryption > file shredding, 100 times over. Yes, BitLocker shouldn't be trusted because of the NSA, but, even if the NSA did backdoor it, it would still be impenetrable to standard law enforcement. Handwaving this problem away is either bluster or ignorance. Either way, he's a hack.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  28. So complicated.... by jythie · · Score: 0

    It is amazing what lengths people will go to when a simple solution would be something like poly or open relationships.

    1. Re:So complicated.... by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

      "simple solution" I don't think you know what 'simple' means.

    2. Re:So complicated.... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Once you drop the idea of owning your partner, they become pretty simple relationships.

  29. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another day I feel depressed for being socially isolated from all society.
    Another day I am happy that I don't have to interact with this horrible offline society.

  30. Private Eye? by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

    The guy got arrested for putting a GPS tracker on her car, but what about hiring private eyes? Is that even a real thing or just something on TV? Isn't it still stalking if you are hiring someone else to do the stalking?

    --
    X
    1. Re:Private Eye? by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

      Private eyes have very strict rules about what they're allowed to investigate. They would never be hired if they actually followed those rules, but it gives the clients plausible deniability during investigations. They just claim the PI did it without their knowledge.

  31. Contracts. by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 2

    Under any other circumstances, when two people enter into a contract, and one of the individuals is suspected of breaking the contract, the other usually has recourse to investigate that, especially when it only involves tracking an object they own in unison.

    1. Re:Contracts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think the primary issue is reading of all communications, iirc you're required to inform callers and those you communicate that communications may be recorded for quality assurance or training purposes.

  32. LOL this one line in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers blame this technology for “turning divorces into an arms race,”

    - http://www.rmtracking.com/blog...

    I failed English is that irony?

  33. Re:Never underestimate psychosomatic effect of bel by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    I have heard a suggestion that they had some sort of poison that reacts differently when someone is anxious vs calm. Think of it like a polygraph test with potential physical consequences. It could well have had better than chance odds of affecting the guilty (anxious) more than the innocent (calm). And no doubt the priests could have helped with that, by telling them "don't worry, God knows" and all the ceremony. Of course, this is all speculation as no one knows exactly what the stuff was. And being "better than chance" isn't even saying much.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  34. In some places you do by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    In Arizona, it is a one party state for recording and you are automatically a party to things on your property. So you can record someone using your phone, without prior notification.

    Not that it is the same as tracking someone all over via GPS, just saying recording laws vary greatly by state.

  35. Score one by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Actually score multiple points there for open relationships. One problem my wife and I have never had is having to worry the least bit about these issues. One of us wants to do a little dating or fool around with someone we just.... are honest about it.

    Its amazing that nobody ever thought of this before, it really is a lot easier, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention less stress. That way we can argue about important things like the housework.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  36. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right or wrong, cheating apps tap into a potentially lucrative market and researchers regard the Internet as fertile ground for female infidelity in particular.

    It's wrong. That's why it's called cheating.

  37. Yet another reason never to marry by mikein08 · · Score: 1

    As if you needed one ...

  38. Adultery is not private and consent is irrelevant by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Marriage is the state's business and most people strongly believe that. If they didn't, they'd support the abolition of all of the legal rules pertaining to it including presumptive paternity, alimony and child support. Marriage also forms the basis of most families since the history of recorded civilization which means marriage is the vehicle by which society is regenerated. To say there is no state interest there is laughable. What you do to your marriage may typically be of minimal interest to the state or none, but a serious breach like adultery is not.

    But even setting that aside, you have no right to "give consent" to someone other than your spouse. You swore away that right once you got married. No, you don't "own your spouse" but you and your spouse pledged mutual fidelity in a politically and legally important, state-sanctioned relationship. Don't like that? That's cool, just live as an unmarried couple.

  39. Re:Adultery is not private and consent is irreleva by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

    Marriage is the state's business and most people strongly believe that.

    I don't care what most people strongly believe.

    Marriage also forms the basis of most families since the history of recorded civilization which means marriage is the vehicle by which society is regenerated.

    It's just a title. It is not some magical thing which allows society to continue. Take your religious nonsense elsewhere.

    but a serious breach like adultery is not.

    There is no "serious breach"; your puritanism is showing.

    But even setting that aside, you have no right to "give consent" to someone other than your spouse.

    Yes, you do.

    You swore away that right once you got married.

    You can't swear your sexuality away. If any laws say otherwise, they're broken and need to be fixed, just like contracts which sign you into slavery are invalid.

    The government should get out of people's private business.

  40. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10/10, would find poly girls if I could, though I wouldn't marry any of them. Likewise I really don't care if they have other boyfriends (assuming everyone can play safe).

    Most women I meet don't dig the idea of poly or open relationships (though honestly, for casual sex both are likely in their favor).

    I know some poly folks, I have no idea how they made it work out for them, wish I did, but glad even to know it does work out.

  41. Read my story and heed my words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may not quite be the right forum, but I think it's appropriate, given the technology bent.

    My advice to any man or woman thinking about cheating: DONT! Love your partner/spouse and you will get it back. If you're not looking you won't find.

    I got caught nearly a year ago after cheating on my wife for close to 12 years. The fallout and ripple effect of discoveries made and slow admission and realisation of what I have done is horrific. One phrase that should be erased from the world is "no-strings attached". That was one of the lies I told myself to justify in my own head what I was doing, among other lies. It's what I did for far too long, focusing on the wrong things in life meant my career and marriage suffered, I was not the father I should have been, and the way I have treated my wife is beyond awful. She has said that she would have preferred being hit (I have never done this, btw)

    It's taken me a while to fully absorb and admit what I have done and, and I've had therapy to discuss what I have done and try to figure out why. Why remains to be a big question, apart from the fact "because I could" - I am an IT guy and I used a range of technology and methods (fake email accounts, remote desktops, hidden apps, multiple phones, you name it) to maintain my "lifestyle" and conceal what I was doing. I lied, I cheated, and I hate to say (like one poster on here) I enjoyed what I did at the time. There was no justification or excuse for what I did, ever, it's never ok to do this to the person you love. Yes I do love my wife, which is hard to understand with the paradox of "if you love her then you would not do that to her".

    I look back on what I have done with incredible shame and guilt, the lies I have perpetuated, the damage I have caused to so many around me, to those I know and those I don't know. I even found out that a husband of a woman I screwed killed himself over her affairs of which I was the first. I have killed people, ruined careers, and lives, for what: nothing. I didn't even care what sort of woman I was screwing, what she looked like, I didn't even think about they fact that they were willing to go there with a married man, some of them turned out to be real bunny-boilers. I didn't care because I was "The Man", a stud. In fact I am not either - no man would do what I have done.

    I got nothing out of it because I was looking for something but I didn't know what. Was was a self indulgent sex addict who didn't care about anyone but my self. Oh, and I really did think I'd not get caught - or at least I was able to push concerns and moral aside and do what I wanted to do. Me, me, me. Correction, I *am* a sex addict, just like alcoholics are alcoholics for life.

    I can't fix the damage I have done but I sure can try to be a better person and be a real man - I have a lot of moral payback to go before I'll ever (if ever) forgive myself. I have been "clean" for nearly a year now, and I will never go back to that lifestyle because it is so destructive and my daughters (now in their late teens) would never ever speak to me again, I have hurt them enough and I have affected their lives and views of men forever. That is unforgivable.

    Now I know there will be readers of this who are cheating on their partner or spouse, and leveraging technology to do so. Those people will be thinking, I'm fine, no one is getting hurt, it's all a bit of no-strings fun, they won't find out - those are the same lies I told myself.

    So one last time - do it for yourself and those you love and others around you: Stop, you are hurting more people than you think with what you are doing.

    For me, there is a open road ahead. I have to man up and walk it and take the far reaching consequences of my actions in my stride. You know, I'm looking forward to the journey.