Extortionists Begin Targeting AshleyMadison Users, Demand Bitcoin

tsu doh nimh writes: It was bound to happen: Brian Krebs reports that extortionists have begun emailing people whose information is included in the leaked Ashleymadison.com user database, threatening to find and contact the target's spouse and alert them if the recipient fails to cough up 1 Bitcoin. Krebs interviews one guy who got such a demand, a user who admits to having had an affair after meeting a woman on the site and who is now worried about the fallout, which he said could endanger his happily married life with his wife and kids. Perhaps inevitable: two Canadian law firms have filed a class action lawsuit against the company, seeking more than half a billion dollars in damages.

Comments

Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to be at odds with having an affair.

Re:Happily married?

[smittyoneeach]

How so? Is this not simply a higher-order screwing?

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

He's happy to continue to be married to someone he doesn't respect while fucking around on them.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not using that site but I'm fucking a woman into a long term relationship (yes, I know... feel free to judge me) She thinks she's happy in that relationship too. She gets the stable life with her kids, house and stuff with the other guy who she sees mostly as a boring roommate and a caregiver for her kids, and then she gets the sex and fun on the side.

Re:Happily married?

[jdavidb]

but I'm fucking a woman into a long term relationship

But you're not fucking a woman who promised "to death do us part."

Re:Happily married?

[jdavidb]

Happily married? Seems to be at odds with having an affair.

Nope, check the research of Dr. Willard Harley. An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs. The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"He's happy to continue to be married to someone he doesn't respect while fucking around on them."

I'm happy to eat various healthy foods. It is also tempting to eat an Ice Cream Sundae from time to time. Happily Married doesn't equate to "immune to temptation". Claiming he doesn't respect his wife assumes he doesn't have guilt over eating the Sundae. You seem to have missed that it was an isolated incident in this case rather than a pattern.

Re:Happily married?

[dunkindave]

but I'm fucking a woman into a long term relationship

But you're not fucking a woman who promised "to death do us part."

Depending on the husband, you might still get that.

Re:Happily married?

[jargonburn]

Happily married?

Honestly, this was my first question while reading the summary (read the article? Bah!). It's possible that this person availed themselves of AshleyMadison sometime in the past and has since improved his relationship with his spouse; however, it sounds more like rationalization, as such improvement presumably precluded 'fessing up to his indiscretion.

Unfortunately(?), he relied on a third party to assist with the hook-up. Remember: Two people can keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead.

Re:Happily married?

[preaction]

Does her partner know about you? If so, then what's the problem? If not, then she's a stone-cold bitch.

Re:Happily married?

[quantaman]

Seems to be at odds with having an affair.

People are good at compartmentalizing, I wouldn't be shocked if a few people are able to be happily married but still cheat every chance they get.

As for this story paying off a blackmailer only works when they're the only one with the info, but in this case the information is available to anyone who looks. Even if you pay off one extortionist another one will simply pop up and make the same demand, and you still run the risk of a curious friend finding and leaking the info or some digital vigilante tracking down your spouse and spilling the info.

If the cheaters make the admission pro-actively they at least have a chance of controlling the message.

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.

So, if only someone had fenced them in...

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he tell his wife what he did? Or did he continue to hide it from her knowing that it was something that could ruin their marriage? Something he swore he would never do?

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Who cares? Is it any of your business?

Re:Happily married?

[PPH]

Fun fact: Having sex with a second mate often increases sexual desire for the first one

Sometime referred to as the Coolidge Effect.

Re:Happily married?

[penguinoid]

Marriage is about way more than just sex.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW I personally have never married and thus have been single my entire life (never dated either) so as a male on the outside looking in, I'm calling this as I see it.

So you're about as qualified to talk about marriage and relationships as a celibate Catholic priest, which is just about not at all IMHO.

Re:Happily married?

[MastaBaba]

Your analogy, to me, seems quite sound. Except that telling the healthy foods I sometimes eat a sundae is meaningless. Nevertheless, this individual purposely sought to have an extramarital affair, behind his wife's back. This is now coming back to bite him in the ass. Pretty much in the same way as when, say, a 'friend' of his, spilled the beans to his wife. That might be painful, but not a problem with the friend, but with the adulterous husband.

Re:Happily married?

[Billly Gates]

That is not the point.

It is still wrong to extort people and demand ransoms between private affairs that is really none of our business.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Your analogy, to me, seems quite sound. Except that telling the healthy foods I sometimes eat a sundae is meaningless."

The wife is not the healthy foods in the analogy. The wife is the body. I respect my body, but I occasionally eat a Sundae. At the moment I eat unhealthy foods it is hard to argue that I respect my body 100%, but it would be equally absurd to claim I have no respect for my body.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's HER business even if it's not ours. And nobody would have to worry about this if they weren't lying about it.

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

Claiming he doesn't respect his wife assumes he doesn't have guilt over eating the Sundae,

So if he suffers guilt, he's exonerated from the consequences of his shameful behaviour then?

If "til death do us part" doesn't suit then basic Human decency suggests that one shouldn't lie to one's partner by getting married in the first place.

Re:Happily married?

[MtHuurne]

That might be true for some affairs, but "fall into" does not describe signing up at a site with the tagline "Life is short. Have an affair."

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

So you're about as qualified to talk about marriage and relationships as a celibate Catholic priest, which is just about not at all IMHO.

Brilliant logic.

By your thinking I'm unqualified to offer an opinion on Pink Floyd because I can't play guitar like David Gilmour.

I'm equally unable to discuss what I like about BMWs because I've never personally built one.

Furthermore, it's completely beyond my reach to comment on political candidates because I've never been a political candidate.

Thanks for setting me straight!

Re:Happily married?

[tompaulco]

He's happy to continue to be married to someone he doesn't respect while fucking around on them.

Who is to say that he doesn't respect her? If he is happily married I can only assume that he does respect her. However, every male spouse I have ever talked to has desired more sex from his mate than she was willing to give. The unfairness is that not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere.

Re:Happily married?

[Rei]

Not too much to judge about you. But a heck of a lot to judge about her. "Yeah, I'm going to take this guy for free housing and money and labour, and in exchange for that I'm going to do the one thing that would hurt most spouses the most, rather than being honest with him about me not being physically interested in him - because that could possibly ruin this good freeloading thing I've got going on!"

BTW, I find it amazing how many people manage to reach adulthood without noticing that pretty much every relationship starts out full of passion and longing but slowly degrades into a more roomate-like mode. It doesn't mean that John the gardener that you met a couple weeks ago is actually everything you've always longed for and that you had just been deceiving yourself about ever having loved your spouse - it's that you're a human freaking being and this is how human emotions work. And the exact same thing will happen with John the gardener, and you'll once again convince yourself that you never really felt anything for him either, but hey, this NEW guy, wow, he's the real thing, you've never felt so alive with anyone as with HIM!

Just a heads up to anyone who may potentially be moving into an affair-risk situation (as opposed to the douchebags deliberately setting out to find someone to cheat on their spouse with behind their back): That is to say, to anyone who doesn't want to be a cheater but finds themselves unexpectedly developing feelings toward someone who isn't their significant other:

1. Yes, you ARE capable of cheating on your spouse, and you put yourself more at risk by thinking that you're above that sort of thing.

2. No, you should NOT talk to the person you may be starting to get feelings for about said feelings, and you should NOT listen to them talk about theirs. They are the absolute worst person possible to talk about it if you don't want to end up in an affair. If you feel you simply have to talk to someone and can't talk to your spouse about it, talk to random strangers online. Do NOT talk to the person you have feelings for.

3. If you want to avoid ending up in an affair, you need to get this person out of your life. Which can sometimes be hard, due to work or all sorts of other situations where you may encounter them. Just remember: you need to weigh the difficulty of the steps to get them out of your life vs. consequences of an affair v. And once again, see point #1.

4. Yes, your feelings for the new person will go away with time not being around or communicating with them.

5. Once the emotional chaos is dulled or gone (NOT while you're still deep in the middle of it), reflect on what it was that led to the situation in the first place. What was the need in your life that wasn't being fulfilled that pulled you in that direction? Work with your significant other to try to get it met. Communicate your needs - and listen to theirs too. And if your significant other ultimately proves unwilling or unable to meet your needs, then it may be time to begin to think about ending the relationship - talk with them to try to do it amicably. But never make decisions like that when you're in the throw of emotions because of Someone New(TM). It will completely colour your views.

Re:Happily married?

[Dutch Gun]

From the article:

Mac ... says he doesn’t regret the affair he had via AshleyMadison; his only regret is not finding a way to keep his home address out of his records on the site.

Apparently, no guilt at all. He's only worried that he might be caught.

Re:Happily married?

[tompaulco]

but I'm fucking a woman into a long term relationship

But you're not fucking a woman who promised "to death do us part."

And what if he was? "Til death do us part" means that they can't get a divorce. They can't separate until one or the other partner is dead. That doesn't say anything about having sex with someone else. Heck, that doesn't even say anything about marrying someone else as well.
Now, if you had said "forsaking all others...".

Re:Happily married?

[chipschap]

In fact, none of the world's religions actually espouse monogamy.

That's not quite true. They all espouse monogamy for women, but not necessarily for men.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure if she was the one cheating all the sjws here would be defending her privacy to no end, saying he probably deserved it anyway.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exodus 20:14
You shall not commit adultery

Matthew 5:32
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:16-22
And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

Titus 1:5-9 NASB
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

There you go. The original command regarding adultery, Jesus upholding it and directing one who inquired to keep it and the specific requirement that church leaders be faithful husbands of only one wife. As well as the statements that divorce (except due to an unfaithful spouse) and remarriage is adultery.

www.biblegateway.com if you wish to look for some of the many other references I didn't include.

Re:Happily married?

[Dutch Gun]

I think having an affair would be one of the most emotionally hurtful things one person can do to another. Many married couples make explicit vows of faithfulness at their weddings, along with witnesses. An affair is a complete betrayal of that trust. We override raw instincts with reason and intellect all the time. We defer immediate gratitude for long-term payoffs. That's part of becoming an adult and a functioning member of our society. It seems like a bad idea to make excuses based on what our natural instincts are, because that leaves the door open to all sorts of horrible tendencies that are "instinctual".

Also, I'd argue monogamous marriage is more a societal construct than a political one. There are roughly the same number of single men and women in society at large. Unless you plan to kill off large numbers of young men in pointless and frequent wars or turn them into eunuchs, they're probably going to want to get married. The math just doesn't let polygamy work all that well, so we've deemed it bad for society and outlawed it.

Re: Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's more like asserting that you're unqualified to give relationship advice, seeing how you've never been in one.

You know? He's right.

Oh, and you fail at analogies as well.

Re:Happily married?

[ChrisMaple]

Stable families benefit children and civilization. Organizations and belief systems that want to gain power or destroy their enemies frequently try to destroy stable family structure - you can see this in the U.S. Democratic party, and various leftist governments that remove children from their parents to provide state education / indoctrination.

There are political aspects to any arrangement of men and women, and implying that monogamy is unique is this regard (worse yet, implying that it is founded on dark motives) is a dishonest attempt to disparage monogamy. Being an arrangement that forms stronger bonds among a small group of related people, stable families resist external political pressure and tend away from tyranny.

Just looking at the screwed up families that raised Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is enough to predict their sociopathic behaviour and the damage they've done.

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs.

This is pointless rationalization. What you're talking about are people who delude themselves into thinking they're "happily married" but also don't like to live by the rules of marriage... They may be "happy" (in some one-sided "relationship" as they like to define it themselves), but they actually aren't happily married (which, you know, requires both parties to understand and consent to such actions).

You see, the rules are actually quite simple here. Don't "fall into affairs" (as you so nicely put it) by accidentally getting out your genitals and putting them in someone not your spouse.

Sorry, but this is NOT something one just "falls into" -- "Oops, I'm sorry my penis just accidentally fell into there." That's teenage boy logic. Grow up. I don't care how some psychologist may rationalize it.

A hug that goes a little too far? Sure. A woman gives you a drunken kiss at a party? Sure. These can happen, and you stop it and say "sorry -- I'm married, and that makes me happy." That's what people who are actually "happy" to be "married" do.

You sign up for a website, make plans, and stick your genitals in someone else? Sorry -- no, you didn't just "fall into" that. And then you keep it a secret from your wife when it does happen? Nope -- you're definitely not "happily married," as least not when you took a whole bunch of deliberate actions to cheat on the normal principle of marriage.

Re:Happily married?

[fustakrakich]

Oh no! It's much more... It's a torrid tale of deceit and denial! ...And of a bunch of gossipy Slashdotters who come out to lecture the world in a wondrous cacophony of 4 million Aristotles and Freuds.

Re:Happily married?

[narcc]

FWIW I personally have never married and thus have been single my entire life (never dated either) so as a male on the outside looking in, I'm calling this as I see it.

This particular revelation came as a surprise to absolutely no one...

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So if he suffers guilt, he's exonerated from the consequences of his shameful behaviour then?"

Show me where I said that.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

It is called an analogy. Intelligent people understand them. You shouldn't concern yourself with it at all. As you have shown, you'll just be confused.

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

The wife is the body. I respect my body, but I occasionally eat a Sundae. At the moment I eat unhealthy foods it is hard to argue that I respect my body 100%, but it would be equally absurd to claim I have no respect for my body.

It may be absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your wife if you cheat, but it is NOT absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your MARRIAGE, which is an agreement between you and your wife. And usually pretty high on the list of terms of that agreement for most spouses is no adultery. Some may be okay with it, but that's generally something you negotiate with the spouse's consent. This is not the "fine print" of what marriage means -- it's pretty fundamental to the agreement.

To go back to your analogy, you may not completely disrespect your body by eating some ice cream, but if you made an explicit agreement stated before hundreds of witnesses in a formal ceremony that you would not eat ice cream, then you are completely disrespecting that agreement (and, by extension, you are disrespecting all who took part it in, at least to some extent).

You don't want that agreement? Fine. Don't take a vow to it. Or negotiate out of it. Some people want a diet where they can also eat ice cream. Be honest with your body and say that's the only kind of diet you want, and if your body can't deal, well... no diet for the body at all.

I'm getting tired of this analogy. Point is: this is about a formal, binding agreement. Honest people sign onto agreements that they plan to keep. And if they can't hold up the terms, honest people admit to it and either get out of the agreement or negotiate for something else.

And not only that, but we're not talking about some sort of accidental drunken hook-up here... we're talking about a guy who signs up on a website explicitly devoted to cheating and then deliberately makes a choice to cheat.

It's not like you were just at a party and somebody stuck a scoop of ice cream in your mouth, and you succumbed to accidental temptation. You sat at your computer, deliberately sought out a place to acquire ice cream, checked it out in detail, and then made plans to surreptitiously go eat it. A person who respects his dietary plan and is honest about how he is "happily dieting" does not do such things.

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

Show me where I said that.

Apologies, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that is what I took as the thrust of your post.

I'm now genuinely unsure what you meant by the sentence I quoted and replied to. Unless I am further mistaken, how does experiencing guilt over his behaviour imply that he does have respect for his wife?

From where I sit his guilt appears meaningless as he obviously went out and dipped his wick anyway, which suggests a fundamental lack of respect for his wife in the first place.

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Who cares? Is it any of your business?

Nope, it's not our business. But when someone claims to be "happily married" but also clearly chooses to violate the terms of the marriage agreement for his own pleasure, clearly he isn't as "happily married" as he thinks... and if this cheating was something part of his "happy marriage," then why does his wife not know, as a party to that agreement? Doesn't she get a vote about whether they are "happily married," and can't she only evaluate that if she knows whether the other party has actually been faithful to terms?

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'll go on record saying that I haver never cheated on anyone. That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply. In reality, what is lacking is not respect for the wife, but rather respect for self. Maybe he respects his wife, and maybe he doesn't. One cannot determine if he does or does not respect his wife based on the currently available information. It is however clear that he does not respect himself.

Re: Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why do you hate Maynard James Keenan?

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the original poster was more focused on the contradiction between the message that you quoted, and the actions of key Biblical characters. Abraham mated with his wife's slave, and there was no reprimand. Lot's daughters both mated with him after they got him passed-out drunk, and there was no reprimand (each of their children became a great nation, in fact). Solomon was famous for his huge number of wives and concubines, and that was ok. David got to have multiple wives too.

All of that was back when "no adultery" was a command, and before Jesus rode in with his message of universal forgiveness. And yet, these righteous men all broke the command and it was ok.

This kind of contradiction leaves many people scratching their heads. Christians like to go through amazing conceptual and semantic gymnastics to resolve that sort of thing, rather than just admit that the Bible has contradictions.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Define happy, then get back to me.

Re:Happily married?

[gTsiros]

You are annoying.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"To go back to your analogy, you may not completely disrespect your body by eating some ice cream, but if you made an explicit agreement stated before hundreds of witnesses in a formal ceremony that you would not eat ice cream, then you are completely disrespecting that agreement (and, by extension, you are disrespecting all who took part it in, at least to some extent)."

One can honour an agreement. One cannot respect an agreement.

"I'm getting tired of this analogy."

Well that certainly explains why you posted a TL/DNR.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

" Doesn't she get a vote about whether they are "happily married,""

No, because the claim was that he is happily married. If the claim was that they were happily married you would have a point.

Re:Happily married?

[gTsiros]

Do you know how we call those that care only about their own happiness?

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply.

I'll be first to admit I tend to simplify some issues, yes. Reading further you seem rather a lot more informed than myself on psychology of peer bonding so I'll accept the admonishment in good faith.

One cannot determine if he does or does not respect his wife based on the currently available information.

Fair enough. That said, I bet I can guess his wife's opinion on the matter!

Re:Happily married?

[ColdWetDog]

Happy?

Re:Happily married?

[MillionthMonkey]

You can have an affair and be happily married. If you have a hot girlfriend on the side you're probably more likely to be happy.

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

One can honour an agreement. One cannot respect an agreement.

Sure one can, at least in the English language.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot, now go home.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fucking you get isn't worth the fucking you'll get.

Re: Happily married?

[SuperDre]

So cheating means you also have unprotected sex?

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

Well, if I may direct you to the GGP you'll see in my post I largely agree with you.

However if I understand correctly, Zero__Kelvin's point appears to be that it may not be as simple as that.

If there is a possibility that the husband's lack of respect for his wife is the result of him "acting out" his lack of self-respect through something in his life he loves (his wife), then it's impossible to be sure what the problem is without further data.

Perhaps this behaviour implies that he doesn't feel he deserves her love or respect. If so, cheating on her would certainly do much to diminish both if he subconsciously allows himself to be found out. Anonymous e-mails attached to fake names aren't expensive after all.

If I have this right then it certainly follows that we cannot actually know if he respects his wife or not, as there is a much greater chance she is simply being used as a tool of his subconscious to attack himself.

Re:Happily married?

[Dutch Gun]

I do agree with the general notion that an individual's liberties must be held sacrosanct, and not sacrificed at the alter of the common good, because all sorts of evils can be perpetrated with that logic.

I think you're wrong to dismiss the importance of society in general, though. I'd argue that individual liberties can best be protected within a well-functioning society. When you look at examples of highly dysfunctional societies, both past and present, you're likely to see a corresponding lack of respect for individual liberties.

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

Have you listened to Pink Floyd? If so, you're qualified to have opinions on Pink Floyd.

Perhaps, however if someone who did not like Pink Floyd were to talk to a Pink Floyd fan, you could imagine the conversation might go along these lines:

Fan: So you don't like Pink Floyd then. Have you actually heard any?

Non-fan: I haven't heard much but what I did hear I didn't like.

Fan: So you haven't even heard much, you can't tell me the track names, o LOLOLOL you ignoramus you don't even know what you're talking about!

Non-fan: I admit I haven't heard a lot of Pink Floyd. Mostly because I don't like it.

Have you driven a BMW? If so, you're qualified to issue opinions on what you like about BMWs.

No, not necessarily, if we are going by the logic espoused by the GP (yourself perhaps?) Because there is always some bar that the detractor doesn't achieve, therefore their opinion is invalid according to this mindset.

I've only had two relationships in my life, one that lasted nearly three years and another that barely lasted a week.

You can be sure there are plenty here that would tell me I am similarly unqualified to offer an opinion on the matter with such meagre personal experience on the matter.

You may argue back that "this is different because he hasn't been in a relationship at all."

I disagree. Sure, he's not a True Scotsman like you are, but he's still obviously quite intelligent and capable of observing the behaviour of the people around him. He's especially qualified to comment if he has ever discussed people's relationships with them, which I'm sure he has.

By the same token, you're utterly unqualified to render opinions on having a relationship, because - by your own admission - you've never had one.

Well, actually, I think you're conflating me with the original poster, however that doesn't mean that I cannot call out this last point of yours as laughable poppycock.

I drive a BMW and have never driven a Mercedes. That doesn't disqualify me from thinking a CLS550 is an attractive machine, nor does it prohibit me from looking at its 'vital statistics' on paper and deciding that I'd quite like to own one. I might even go so far as to proffer my opinion that it is a desireable automobile to own.

Tell me, just tell me that I have no right to my opinion because I haven't driven it yet.

Tell me that and I'll find someone to tell you that you have no right to your opinion about Mercedes vehicles without knowing the full history of the company and a thorough understanding of the engineering underpinning the marque.

Your position is simply ridiculous.

Re:Happily married?

[SuricouRaven]

Human?

Re:Happily married?

[dcollins]

"... MARRIAGE, which is an agreement between you and your wife. And usually pretty high on the list of terms of that agreement for most spouses is no adultery. Some may be okay with it, but that's generally something you negotiate with the spouse's consent. This is not the 'fine print' of what marriage means -- it's pretty fundamental to the agreement... You don't want that agreement? Fine. Don't take a vow to it. Or negotiate out of it."

In the past, I have argued as you do here. But:

Monogamy is not actually in the standard Catholic marriage vows or its derivatives. Even if it were implied, marriage is a civil contract, many non-religious people get married, and there is no legal requirement for monogamy. The expectation is culturally-specific, and lots of cultures have completely divergent expectations (including polygamy, as among some Mormons, Muslims, etc.)

Furthermore: Is it even feasible to promise a "forever" thing like that at a young age? I would argue "no"; people don't really have a capacity or right to make such an oath, time and variations are deeper than the young person can digest, and the demographic statistics bear that out. To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation. Hopefully the long arc of history will continue to degrade this unrealistic expectation and allow people to be happy and connected without being condemned on by uptight, moralizing craphats.

Re:Happily married?

[Tom]

I think having an affair would be one of the most emotionally hurtful things one person can do to another.

I see you are new to the human race. Pro hint: We are a lot more creative than that when it comes to hurting each other, including emotionally.

I'm not saying it's low on the list. But the most hurtful? Nah.

We override raw instincts with reason and intellect all the time.

And sometimes our intellect is right and sometimes it is wrong. Just "reason" is not a sufficient reason for superiority. Again, I'm not saying we should shut down our brains, on the contrary. But do not underestimate instincts - they made us survive these past million years.

The math just doesn't let polygamy work all that well, so we've deemed it bad for society and outlawed it.

That is true to some extent. Even in societies that allow polygamy it is in practice limited to a) the rich who can afford multiple partners and b) economic security. The most common case for muslim men to have multiple women is apparently that a man dies and his brother marries his wife to give her and the kids a home. In a society where she's not allowed to work that's pretty much the only way to ensure your family genes in that branch survive.

However, in most poly talk we always assume it's a 1:n relationship. In modern polyamoury, the relationships are usually m:n so the relative number of partners in each gender is not of importance because all involved have multiple partners.
Will it work? I don't think so, it will remain a niche, because it requires so much communication and emotional maturity from all involved members that I simply can't see it as a working model for society as a whole. But I personally know enough people who live now or temporarily lived in the past in such arrangements that it seems to me it's no better or worse than traditional monogamy.

To come back to your point: I think we should stop regulating relationships with laws. Our society has advanced enough that the previous arguments - mostly economical - are now moot.

Re:Happily married?

[AK Marc]

What do the commandments have to do with it?

Re:Happily married?

[Your.Master]

You're giving an explanation of how you don't respect monogamy. Like he said, if you expect it, fine, don't agree to it or negotiate your way out. A unilateral decision is unfair after a bilateral agreement.

Re:Happily married?

[bickerdyke]

While this is mostly right, we're now seeing people sueing the ice cream vendor.

Re: Happily married?

[hairyfeet]

Rubbers aren't force fields, plenty of STDs that can kill you just as dead as AIDS (such as HPV which gives you cancer for just one example) can still be caught even if you wear a rubber.

Re: Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he is arguing that those oath should't be made when young. And a testament is the huge number of cheaters.

Re:Happily married?

[kubajz]

"Having sex with a second mate often increases sexual desire for the first one" is not what Coolidge Effect on Wikipedia describes. Wikipedia says that a sexually exhausted mouse lying among females gladly has sex with a new female introduced into the box. It does not come back for more sex with the previous females.

Perhaps it is just a wrong link, so I wonder if you might have some other link to a description of this effect? It would be a shame if anyone on Slashdot took this advice seriously, lied to their spouse and hurt them by an affair and defended themselves by an unrelated experiment in a different species...

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

It's not a matter of respect so much as it is that mammalian males are naturally driven to desire more than one mate.

It is a matter of respect when you promise to behave one way (as is normal in western unions, and that's most of what we're talking about with A.M.) and then behave another way. That makes you a liar, and you don't fucking lie to people you respect. If you lie to everyone, you're just a piece of shit who respects no one, and fuck you anyway, DIAF.

So yes, males are wired to seek multiple mates. And if they promise to be faithful when they can't do that, they're a piece of shit.

I've never been married, but I've been in numerous long-term relationships. I've never cheated, but I did arrange a hook-up while I was in one relationship which was supposed to be open but turned out not to be. Then I left it. I feel bad enough about that, it's pretty sleazy. It was so long ago I was a teenager. Since then I've acted in my integrity and not made any promises I couldn't keep. It's just that simple. I could have been married long since, but I didn't want kids and that's what all the women who I broke up with did right after they got married right after they were with me. I'm sure goddamned glad I didn't knock some woman up and then spend the next few years cheating on her. That's called integrity, that's called respect, and you can't buy it or cheat your way into it. You can only live it, or not.

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

If we take marriage (and children) out of the equation, as increasing numbers of men have, the question becomes how does society satisfy men's sexual instincts?

Hopefully, someday, with free love. Women have more sexual capacity than do men, so one woman can couple with numerous men, if she wants to. Sadly, most encounters like that are probably unwilling. If we fix the problem of sex by force, there will likely be more sex to go around, because women won't be hiding away in fear. (Clearly not all of them are; equally clearly, a percentage of them are.)

Prostitution is not an artifact of men seeking sex. Prostitution is an artifact of a social system in which it's a crime to be poor; in which if you do not earn money, your needs are not met. In such a system, some people will turn to such means in order to arrive at their necessary ends. Like most of society's ills, it would be "solved" by an MGI/COLA. It wouldn't vanish overnight, because some people are actually attracted to the process of exchanging money for sex.

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

Who is to say that he doesn't respect her? If he is happily married I can only assume that he does respect her.

If he's happily married, then he doesn't need to have sex outside the agreed-upon parameters of that marriage. He obviously felt like he did need to, so he's obviously not happily married. QED. If he had only arranged an open marriage to begin with, he'd be happy; assuming that he'd be happy with his wife fucking other people. Presumably he wouldn't be, because his vows obviously included monogamy — otherwise there would be no danger to his marriage if his infidelity were found out. In fact, it would not be infidelity.

The unfairness is that not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. Nobody is forcing you.

Re:Happily married?

[anmre]

Reality check: you can hunt for new sex partners or you can have a best friend for life. You can't have both, which is why it's called cheating rather than "indulging", and why it's done in secret.

Re: Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

By your own admission, you've never been in a relationship

You are a fucking idiot. These are not my words, as I've already explained to you.

Go argue with yourself then, if that's what you enjoy.

Re:Happily married?

[serviscope_minor]

Reality check: you can hunt for new sex partners or you can have a best friend for life. You can't have both,

It is possible to have both: not all married people are monogamous.

Re: Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

One does not need to build a BMW to know what ones likes about them. But one does need to have at least been in one. You fail analogies, like the other guy said.

You fail logic and you fail rational debate. Your reading comprehension is mostly non-existent and you have nothing to add to the conversation. If this is your best, you are absolutely not worth engaging further.

Given your repetitive and simplistic attempts at argument you've piqued my curiosity. Are you, anonymous oxygen-thief, actually APK? He's the only one I know mentally deficient enough to pretend to be two people who agree with each other in a similar style.

Re: Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please someone mod parent up.

Actually my best friend got HPV in a one night affair that she always regretted (of course) and couldn't have vaginal sex in her last relationship for two years until it went away.

Re:Happily married?

[anmre]

not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere

Barring obvious trolls, that's quite possibly the most misogynistic comment I've ever read on Slashdot. You clearly have no interest in being married (which is fine), so don't presume to know what it's like simply because you have some friends who wish their wives would "put-out" more or some other bullshit.

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Monogamy is not actually in the standard Catholic marriage vows or its derivatives.

No, it doesn't need to be, because it's a stipulation that defines marital behavior in the Sixth Commandment, as well as numerous other places in both Old and New Testaments. (See official Catholic catechism.) To someone who assents to a Christian "marriage," they are inherently agreeing to the basic definition of that word, which precludes adultery. I don't think this is a secret.

Even if it were implied, marriage is a civil contract, many non-religious people get married, and there is no legal requirement for monogamy.

False. Adultery is still officially a criminal offense in roughly 20 states. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare these days, but they used to happen. States are repealing these laws, but they're still on the books many places. And even if adultery isn't prosecuted, in almost all states divorce law allows adultery to be considered as part of "bad behavior" which can either be cause for a divorce (in states that still allow grounds for cause) or at a minimum it is something that judges can explicitly use as evidence against a spouse in making a determination about how to split assets.

The expectation is culturally-specific, and lots of cultures have completely divergent expectations (including polygamy, as among some Mormons, Muslims, etc.)

That's true, of course. But we're talking here about one specific dude who signed up on Ashley Madison, and clearly lied to his wife because he thought it was wrong. So whether someone else may have different expectations about marriage, this guy is clear that the "no adultery" clause is pretty relevant to his own marriage.

Furthermore: Is it even feasible to promise a "forever" thing like that at a young age? I would argue "no"; people don't really have a capacity or right to make such an oath, time and variations are deeper than the young person can digest, and the demographic statistics bear that out.

There are two options for such people. Divorce and "open marriage." Both involve talking to your spouse. Choosing instead to continue to benefit from the marriage while lying to your spouse and breaking your vows is definitely not adhering to spirit of the marriage agreement.

To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation.

"Oops, my penis just accidentally fell into the lady parts of another woman. It isn't entirely my fault!"

Seriously, owning your decisions is part of being an adult. You don't want to be married anymore? Fine. Get divorced. At a minimum, be honest with your spouse about what you need and what's wrong -- you might be surprised that many people who make an effort can find that they actually can be happy in their marriage... but when you make unilateral decisions about that relationship and lie about them, that's not going to be good for anyone.

I am happy to give honest people "sympathy and charity." I understand that many young people make mistakes in getting married. But that doesn't mean you get to reap the benefits of a "happily married life" (as TFS puts it) while lying and cheating on the person who's giving that life to you.

Hopefully the long arc of history will continue to degrade this unrealistic expectation and allow people to be happy and connected without being condemned on by uptight, moralizing craphats.

Look -- I think marriage is pretty much a stupid idea for many folks, too. I never said otherwise. But it is a thing, a

Re:Happily married?

[drinkypoo]

I'm happy to eat various healthy foods. It is also tempting to eat an Ice Cream Sundae from time to time.

Did you make a promise to healthy foods not to eat an ice cream sundae? Will healthy foods be upset if they find out you were eating ice cream? Are you risking healthy foods' life by eating ice cream? Don't be a disingenuous douchebag if you don't want people pointing out that your arguments are bullshit.

Re:Happily married?

[serviscope_minor]

All sound advice, but you're missin 0.

Unfortunately 0 has to come first because some people simply don't realise it exists. Unfortunately not realising it means that they don't even realise they need to follow 1 - 5.

0. Getting married didn't switch off either your brain or genitals. If you hadn't married your current spouse you'd almost certainly be in a relationship with someone else. All those potential spouses out there still exist and you're going to bump into them and click with just as much as if you were single. And there's nothing you can do about it so you better learn to deal with it.

A friend of mine (lovely chap, but terribly naive) got completely blindsided by that. Naturally he did not handle it well.

Re:Happily married?

[anmre]

We're talking about a website that facilitates cheating and a man being upset for getting caught, not a swingers club bulletin.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent here.

From the GP

. And for what it's worth, for you Christians, monogamy has no biblical basis.

There is a specific basis for monogamy in the bible. Just because it was violated does not mean it didn't exist. And if you'll read you'll see that in each of those cases having multiple wives, concubines, etc caused nothing but trouble. Also, Lot and Abraham predate the 10 commandments.

Re:Happily married?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Tho in the vowles it also says the woman must obey

Umm, no. As I was told 30+ years ago when I asked the pastor to leave out the "obey" part of the vows, "that hasn't been part of the vows since you were a child"

Re:Happily married?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Who is to say that he doesn't respect her? If he is happily married I can only assume that he does respect her.

For most people, "respect" does not include lying. If he respected his wife, he would have asked for an open marriage before breaking his marriage agreement. If she refused and he still needed to screw around to be "happy," then his next option is divorce. Marriage is an agreement between two parties -- a person cannot be "happily married" while violating the agreement without the other's knowledge.

However, every male spouse I have ever talked to has desired more sex from his mate than she was willing to give.

Have you ever talked to a person over the age of 30 or who has been married for more than 5 or 10 years? Sex may be great, but people who are married long-term tend to often be concerned about other benefits from a durable, caring relationship.

The unfairness is that not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere.

Unfairness? No -- what's unfair is if you agree to something in exchange for a person's affection and then you secretly break that agreement and lie to that person while continuing to benefit from that affection.

You don't want to be married? Fine -- don't get married. You get married, and you find it doesn't make you happy (because you can't get enough sex or whatever)? Fine. You have a legal option since no-fault divorce was created.

But what we're talking about here is a person who wants to benefit from his marriage and all the good things it brings him while lying to the people who give those good things to him. If he doesn't like the terms, get out of the marriage. But claiming that he's "happily married" while deliberately lying and cheating on those terms is just nonsensical.

Re:Happily married?

[serviscope_minor]

This is pointless rationalization.

No it's not rationalization, it's that humans don't think and behave in ways that people feel they ought to.

You see, the rules are actually quite simple here. Don't "fall into affairs" (as you so nicely put it) by accidentally getting out your genitals and putting them in someone not your spouse.

Doesn't matter. The rules might be simple to elicidate in some cases, but that doesn't make people any less strange. It also doesn't mean they weren't happy. Some people simply have poor impulse control and are not very good at controling themselves when the opportunity arises.

Poor impulse control is not the same as not happy.

And some people, frankly suck at monogamy. It's a hell of a thing to commit to for live (and we don't appear to be built for it). Some people can do it successfully, other people can't. Some small number recognise that and have marriages where they can shag other people. Other people are not so self aware, but it doesn't make them any better at it.

That's what people who are actually "happy" to be "married" do.

Except that someone has (see grandparent post) shown that that is not in fact the case.

That is how you *want* humans to behave. Humans are very strange and don't behave in obvious or sensible ways for much of the time.

Re:Happily married?

[serviscope_minor]

The website faciltates sex. Not all affairs are cheating.

The man's still an arse for doing it (he didn't have any kind of arrangement with his wife) and an idiot for using his main email address. Still, the previous statement was not true: you can in fact have a life partner and more sexual partners.

Re:Happily married?

[Bing Tsher E]

Morally corrupt hedonists.

Re:Happily married?

[jmac_the_man]

Two of the Matthew ones are just critical of divorce.

You don't think that "You're not allowed to divorce your wife for any reason at all, unless she cheats on you" is relevant to a conversation about Ashley Madison?

Re:Happily married?

[smittyoneeach]

I'd always thought that was spelled "cacaphony".

Re:Happily married?

[AmiMoJo]

Divorce should not be punitive. In the UK assets are divided according to how much each partner contributed and how much they need. Unless one had significantly more assets before the marriage the baseline contribution is normally 50/50. Home making and raising kids us considered contributing equally to work.

Then the court looks at need. If children are shared then again it's 50/50, otherwise the judge looks at what material needs they have. Same for partners.

There is no punishment or loss for what one person did.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right - if you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with the NSA reading all your communications.

- President Barack Obama

Re:Happily married?

[retchdog]

rational?

Re:Happily married?

[Whorhay]

A truly non-punitive 50/50 split in divorce is like a mythical unicorn. People value things differently and so working out any arbitrary split isn't going to be viewed as fair by at least one party, and frequently both. Where I grew up there was a rich couple going through an unpleasant divorce. The husband sold all his wife's favorite race horses at fair market value to spite her. Despite the fact that she would get the money for the horses she couldn't necessarily use it to buy the horses back and comparable horses still wouldn't be the horses she wanted.

Most of us don't own horses but there are usually many assets which you would value for more than just their replacement cost. Your spouse is likely to have differing value assessments than yourself. This is a big part of what commonly makes divorce settlements so challenging, even when they are amicable. When things start to get ugly then fault starts getting passed around. If it goes far enough it'll end up in a court where judge decides whose at fault and who gets the, perceived, better deal.

Re: Happily married?

[SuperDre]

Well, and some deceases which a common to STD's you actually can get without having sex at all and without having an affair, but ofcourse people will think you got it from having an affair..

And not all affairs are as easily quantified as being the fault of the one who has the affair, a lot of times it's also about the partner who was stubborn and not listening.. For instance if the partner is refusing sex for a very long time (due to intimacy problems) and you and your partner have talked about it over and over, than it's quite possible to have an affair even though 'you' love your partner.. So if you really say the one who had the affair is always the POS, you are one ignorant moron.. YES a lot of times that one IS the POS, but don't think it's very uncommon that a problem in the relationship is the base for having an affair even though they talked about the problem with their partner before the affair..

Having an affair doesn't mean you don't love your partner, a human is in general not even a monogamize creature, it's society that set's monogamy as the default....

Re: Happily married?

[retchdog]

uh, what would those diseases be? the only one i can readily think of is cervical cancer which, if your partner infers is from undisclosed HPV, that mostly just says they're crazy.

other diseases can cause genital irritation or discharge, conjunctivitis, lesions, etc., but again, assuming your partner isn't retarded or batshit crazy, it's pretty easy to distinguish the etiology. if your partner's immediate and irreversible conclusion from sores on your body is that you've been screwing around, something else is wrong.

Re:Happily married?

[ArmoredDragon]

There is a specific basis for monogamy in the bible.

Ah yeah, about that...

Exodus 20:14
You shall not commit adultery

Guess what adultery means in this context? It means a male having sex with another woman who is married to somebody else. However there is no stipulation against married men having sex with unmarried women.

Kind of like how the commandment for "thou shall not kill" doesn't actually mean not to kill, just not to do so unjustly.

Re:Happily married?

[mikeiver1]

Really? Temptation is when you randomly connect with someone at say a store and feel an attraction to them that you may or may not resist. In the case of these assholes we have a group of generally deceitful individuals that not only actively signed up for and payed for the service but chose to seek out the very temptation. I feel no sorrow for those caught by this, only for the manner in which their partners are likely to be finding out about the shitty person they have been living with. Let us also keep in mind that there are medical consequences to cheating too. How many innocent partners have found their lives turned upside down permanently by an unfaithful partners transmission of an STD for which there is no cure. I will not get into the tearing up of the family and the hurt to the children at having to go through this. I suspect that a number of your a on that list, not hard to pick you out though.

Re:Happily married?

[Stan92057]

I'll go on record saying that I have never cheated on anyone. That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply.

either you cheated or you didn't. FYI online affairs of the heart IS cheating. online webcaming and showing body parts IS cheating. And yes Viewing porn while married is cheating, Anything your wife is unaware of involving another women is cheating. Funny how people make excuses for what they do to make it ok to themselves.

Re:Happily married?

[gTsiros]

the term is 'malakas'

Re:Happily married?

[Dahamma]

You seem to have missed that it was an isolated incident in this case rather than a pattern.

How do you know that? Because he anonymously told someone in an interview? So he's perfectly capable of cheating and lying to the person he married and promised to be faithful to, but not some random guy he doesn't know?

And the respect for self vs spouse is absurd. If he promises someone and then broke the promise, he hasn't respected the promise to her. Whether he respects himself or not is irrelevant, it clearly means he did not respect their relationship at the time. And obviously he knows that, and knows that she would interpret it that way, or he wouldn't be so worried about her finding out.

Also: the Ice Cream Sundae analogy is very flawed. It's not like he randomly met a person in a bar and was tempted. He signed up for a paid service - using his real name and a credit card - with the express purpose of finding someone to cheat on his wife with. And then he did it. That's like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.

Re:Happily married?

[Dahamma]

Maybe he respects his wife, and maybe he doesn't. One cannot determine if he does or does not respect his wife based on the currently available information. It is however clear that he does not respect himself.

Did you RTFA? The information was there.

he doesn’t regret the affair he had via AshleyMadison; his only regret is not finding a way to keep his home address out of his records on the site.

It's clearly the OPPOSITE of what you said. Maybe he respects himself, maybe he doesn't. But he clearly doesn't respect his wife because he (despite your earlier supposition) actually states he doesn't even feel guilt over the affair.

Re:Happily married?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sort of get where he's coming from. Men are great at compartmentalising. He has a happy marriage. His wife is happy (as long as she doesn't find out about AM), and he likes his married life. Then he has a compartment of sex on the side.

An analogy would be a guy who has a guys' long weekend with his mates and gets rip roaring drunk every now and then. The missus mightn't like it, but she'll accept it. It is something he does in another compartment of his life and doesn't carry over into everyday life.

I suspect if Mr Affair's wife found out, though, she wouldn't like it, wouldn't accept it and probably rip his nuts off, because she knows that her relationship with her husband has just been puttering along all these years. He hasn't tried to grow their relationship, and he's wasted a shitload of money in the process.

Re:Happily married?

[Sardaukar86]

If you opined about all the great interior finishes of the BMWs, and had never been inside one yourself, then you'd be exposing yourself as a shithead who mindlessly parrots what he read about something in a magazine somewhere.

So, for example, someone who hungrily devours all the car magazines, knows very well the interior finishes of the cars he or she has an interest in - this person has absolutely no place voicing their opinion because their thighs have not yet pressed against the seat of such a car? Ridiculous.

In other words: the shallowness of your experience in the topic that you're commenting on suggests that your commentary is of remarkably low value and insightfulness

Thanks for proving my point - that there is always some arsehole happy to measure other people by an arbitrary yardstick and judge them accordingly. Most reasonable people know when they are light on details and offer their opinion with that caveat. You are so determined to stamp out the edge-case with your rebuttal that you're oblivious to your squashing of the rest of the bell curve.

and as such, perhaps you should shut your mouth and listen to your betters, rather than talking to hear yourself talk

From the tone of this last sentence I find it hard to tell whether you are aiming this directly at myself or using 'you' in a more general sense.

If the implied hostility is intended, I'd love to know why you feel I deserve it. Perhaps, like nearly every other AC who has replied to me, you are conflating me with the OP who stated that they'd never actually had a relationship before. I am not that person and those are not my words.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Do everyone a favor. You don't understand the analogy. Just accept that and move on, rather than polluting the thread with your ridiculous misunderstanding of the analogy.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

" You can't have both,"

Your naivete is precious. Plenty of people have both. It is called an Open Marriage.

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Which part of "I'll go on record saying that I have never cheated on anyone. " are you having trouble understanding?

"And yes Viewing porn while married is cheating"

Oh, never mind. I didn't realize you were mentally challenged. Good luck in the Special Olympics!

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

The analogy is perfect, however your understanding of it is certainly flawed. Don't worry about it. Slashdot is flooded with people who have trouble understanding analogies lately :-(

Re:Happily married?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Don't feel so bad. A lot of people don't understand the concept of self-respect.

Re:Happily married?

[Stan92057]

Well im disappointed, i thought you were smarter. This is what i commented on

That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply.

and mentally challenged? ..why so oh wait if you disagree with someone you call names or question thir mental state. Don't know how that can be unless you have hard facts viewing porn without your partners OK isn't cheating or ?

Re:Happily married?

[Tom]

I frankly don't give a fuck what the kids call anything. They can talk to me when they can hack their way out of a paper bag. I respect skills, not age. Old, young, male, female, black, white - none of that matters the least bit. All I care is if people use their brains, or waste them.

And doing things differently just because you feel a pressing need to differentiate yourself from the generation of your parents is a waste. The social psychology behind that is quite interesting, but all that energy could be used in so much more productive ways.

Re:Happily married?

[Pubstar]

I was just being a bit of an ass, poking fun at you. The whole PROTIP thing stems from an old gaming magazine that is no longer around (GamePro - RIP). I find it quite funny that most of the kids online today that do the whole PROTIP thing have never actually read a GamePro before.

Re:Happily married?

[Tom]

Neither have I, because it was an american magazine. :-)

But thanks for the heads-up. I appreciate a good poke, when it's done with a smile and a thought.

Re:Happily married?

[anmre]

Right. You're comparing covert extramarital sex to eating a cookie dough blizzard, but I'm naive.

We're talking about a website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair.", and those who get caught using it without their spouse's consent. You can't do that and expect your spouse to remain committed to you.

Also, your google-fu sucks. You've described "polyamory", which is quite uncommon. You may have an "open relationship" with your partner, and that's cool. But it's not the topic of this discussion.

Re:Happily married?

[Dahamma]

Ad hominem: the last, desperate argument of someone who has nothing useful left to say.

Re:Happily married?

[rhodium_mir]

Only partially correct which is probably why you've been modded down to -1. Only individuals WHO OWN THAT RIGHTEOUS METAL RHODIUM matter. All else is slavery.

Re:Happily married?

[rtb61]

Equating relationships with people to something to eat, something you use up and consume, something you digest, extra value from and then pass the rest as excreta, represents a particularly nasty Freudian slip by you and those who modded you as interesting. So sucking the life out of your married partner whilst treating yourself to others and will tossing away the waste when you are done with them, pretty much makes you an, well, I don't need to tell you do I, you already know.

Re:Happily married?

[wardrich86]

I love Subway sandwiches, but I'll be damned if I had to eat the same sandwich every day. Sometimes it's about trying something else to realize that what you have is actually perfect for you.

Re:Happily married?

[dcollins]

"To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation."

"Oops, my penis just accidentally fell into the lady parts of another woman. It isn't entirely my fault!"

I'm just going to focus on this one part, because your reading comprehension failed so spectacularly here. I'm talking about it not being someone's fault to be tricked or forced into a commitment that they don't understand. Forced into sex: not my claim. Forced into marriage: actually my claim.

If you go to the Brooklyn City Clerk (for example) on any given day, then you will see in the line couples who appear to be anxious teenagers from certain religious sects, literally fenced in on both sides by parents, escorting/herding them to the clerk for marriage licenses. It's painful to watch. And of course the next thing you know is that they'll have kids -- and surely you know the tens of millions of people who feel stuck in marriages for the kids' sake.

I consider this to be just one more extreme example. Contracts are not valid when consent is not freely given -- and consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake. This happens routinely in the case of marriage, and it seems ludicrous to hold people to commitments they didn't really have the capacity to consent to under those terms.

I agree that being fully informed, one should avoid marriage. But the majority of people are not fully informed. Hopefully the expectation for marriage, and the minority of states with adultery laws on the books (even vestigial as they currently are), will continue to be reduced, because the whole institution is so farcically unbelievable on its face.

Re:Happily married?

[jdavidb]

There is no husband. She's just in a "long term relationship," not marriage.

About that

[pushing-robot]

a user who admits to having had an affair after meeting a woman on the site and who is now worried about the fallout, which he said could endanger his happily married life with his wife and kids.

I think you accomplished that all on your own, sir.

P.S. With so much personal info floating around the Internet, what's to stop scammers from creating fake profiles and going after anybody?

Re:About that

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I think you accomplished that all on your own, sir."

You are confusing the precipitating event with blame. The man has to accept responsibility and blame for committing the wrong, but that fact remains that the blackmail is the (potential) precipitating event that results in the actual fallout. He put himself in the situation that allows him to be vulnerable. That in no way excuses the blackmailer from exploiting the vulnerability.

Re:About that

[Anonymous Coward]

All he simply needs to do is go to his wife and tell the truth. Problem solved.

Re:About that

[Zero__Kelvin]

Maybe. Maybe not. The wife may understand, or the wife may cry rape and have him arrested. He is probably in a better position to know which is likely than you, wouldn't you agree?

Re:About that

[AthanasiusKircher]

"I think you accomplished that all on your own, sir."

You are confusing the precipitating event with blame.

And I think you're confusing what GP was talking about.

The man has to accept responsibility and blame for committing the wrong, but that fact remains that the blackmail is the (potential) precipitating event that results in the actual fallout. He put himself in the situation that allows him to be vulnerable.

While this may all be true, what GP quoted from TFS was that the man was worried about: "the fallout, which he said could endanger his happily married life with his wife and kids."

Let's be clear here -- this statement is deluded. A man who has a "happily married life" does not lie to his spouse and participate in affairs without her knowledge. It's as simple as that. GP is absolutely correct to say that the man is primarily responsible for "endangering" this life, because this life clearly does NOT exist for him. He's living a lie, or at least has clearly lived a significant lie at some point. And now he's lying to others about that supposed "happily married life."

That in no way excuses the blackmailer from exploiting the vulnerability.

Of course not. Blackmail is of course still wrong. But if you commit a violent crime and think you got away with it, you can't go walking around saying you live a "happily non-violent life" and expect other people to excuse you from blame when you get caught.

It is possible for events to have more than one "cause." While blackmail is wrong, this man's actions are the primary thing that ended his own delusional myth of a "happily married life." Should his wife and kids suffer because of his actions? Probably not -- but they'd probably be better off in the long run knowing what kind of scumbag they're trusting: the kind who not only cheats, but then complains that he's "happily married" when he doesn't get away with it.

Re:About that

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had been honest from the start, he wouldn't be worried now. The only threat here is that a lie of omission will be exposed.

Re:About that

[Tom]

A man who has a "happily married life" does not lie to his spouse and participate in affairs without her knowledge. It's as simple as that.

Nothing in humans is simple. You do not know the details of this persons life. Maybe you are right and he is deluded. Maybe a choice quote doesn't tell a persons life story.

Whatever is between his wife and him is between them and not your business nor mine. Maybe his marriage was not always happy. Maybe they just restored it from completely broken. Sure he should have been honest with her, but do you know all the circumstances so you can judge, or are you taking all your information from a three-liner in an online paper?

Should his wife and kids suffer because of his actions? Probably not -- but they'd probably be better off in the long run knowing what kind of scumbag they're trusting

Right. Because human beings are so simple that we can classify them with binary parameters.

I'll let you know where I come from. Many years ago, I was betrayed. I hit her in the face and left, the only time in my life I've ever hit a woman. But I'm also smart enough to ask myself why it happened and how much of it was my fault (pro hint: If you answer 0% you are always wrong). I understand that people are humans and nobody is the villain of their own life story.

I don't judge this guy without knowing a lot more about what was going on in his life. Maybe he's a scumbag, maybe he's just weak, maybe I could even understand him. The point is: I don't know and I find it disgusting how we judge other people from three lines of text.

Re:About that

[AmiMoJo]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, he could have had the affair some time ago and since fixed his marriage. He's still guilty of something, but sometimes the best option in a bad situation is secrecy. I don't know enough about the circumstances, in just saying that since you can't really delete your profile it's like that a number of people signed up and then changed their minds and fixed their marriages. Could be hard to prove that in divorce court though.

Re:About that

[meta-monkey]

If you've ever listened to Dr. Laura, that was her advice for repentant cheaters. The people who would call up and say "I made a terrible mistake" or "we were going through a bad time and I did something awful but now we've fixed our marriage and want to move forward, do I tell him/her?" And as long as the person didn't get an STD (meaning the spouse needs to be informed for testing) and swore not to do this again (meaning they should be honest and get a divorce) the advice was almost always no. Because the person who wants to confess will only hurt their spouse. They feel guilty and want forgiveness so they feel better. But now the spouse feels worse. It's selfish. Go forth and sin no more, and your punishment for cheating is having to carry that baggage in silence.

This is good news for Bitcoin

[squiggleslash]

This is good news for Bitcoin...

Re:This is good news for Bitcoin

[R3d M3rcury]

I gotta admit, I liked the "high volume/low margin" aspect of this.

Rather than picking one person and threatening to ruin their lives unless they pay a large amount of money, you hit everybody and see if they'll pay a small amount. I might think twice about $10,000 to keep this quiet, but I'd probably be fine with "Yeah, here's a dollar, don't e-mail my wife." Obviously, I'd be making plans to tell her anyway, because they'll certainly be back asking for more...

I'd be curious to see how this works out for them. If nothing else, maybe you'll start seeing new Spam being sent to everybody about this. "Saw your name on Ashley Madison. Send $10 or I tell your wife." Lots of people wouldn't even know how to prove them wrong and you might scare enough people into sending you money.

Just sayin'...

Re:This is good news for Bitcoin

[Kyogreex]

I might think twice about $10,000 to keep this quiet, but I'd probably be fine with "Yeah, here's a dollar, don't e-mail my wife."

In the example here they're asking for 1 bitcoin, which is currently valued at $225.65 USD according to Google. That's a lot more than just a dollar, even if it is a lot less than $10,000.

Re:This is good news for Bitcoin

[meta-monkey]

Which gives you another business opportunity: verifying AM data. Been falsely accused? Have your spouse contact us! We will troll through the data and clear your name.

Serves em right!

[p51d007]

Marriage, is a contract between two people. Suppose to be a sacred contract, but, like everything else in "modern" life, subject to change. I say the cheating b*stard gets what he deserves!

Re:Serves em right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage, is a contract between two people. Suppose to be a sacred contract, but, like everything else
in "modern" life, subject to change.
I say the cheating b*stard gets what he deserves!

So what do you say to the people who were on AM that weren't married? Or even those that have an open marriage? Is their personal information being scattered around the interwebs getting them what they deserved?

Re:Serves em right!

[DrXym]

All of which is besides the point.

The people who stole and revealed this information had no higher purpose than their own extortion. After the extortion failed they concocted a bullshit reason to fuck the company over. I heard one radio station even call them "hacktivists". No, they were simply extortionist assholes. And now we see other bottom feeders come along to try their hand at extortion too.

The extortionists are working on both sides

[Anonymous Coward]

2 days ago I plugged my throw away email address into the Trustily site to see what would happen. That site told me that my email was a part of the AM breach. Today I got an email from Trustily saying:

You or someone you know recently used our search tool to see if your email address was compromised in the Ashley Madison leak, and we confirmed that your details were exposed.

This sensitive data can affect your love life, employment, and follow you across the web forever.

There are ways to hide the exposed details, but first you need to see what information can be found across the web. Talk with our experienced investigative consultants to learn how you can find our what incriminating information is available and could ruin your life.

The email was chock full of links back to various domains and looked like nothing more than a spear phasing email.

I saw on CNN today that Trustify was charging about $70/hour to investigate your personal data and would charge on average about $260 for a full investigation. Think what you want about me*, but Trustily's actions are scummy to say the least.

* I am amazed at the invective being flung around by people who are basically assuming that you are a sleaze bag just because you belong to a particular website, and are lumping ALL people in this data breach in the same boat.

It's not the morality ...

[CaptainDork]

... it's the stupidity of using an email that's not a decoy.

Sure, a person can be tracked and traced via credit card number and address, but most people don't have the raw data or a database to put it and certainly no skill level regarding same.

But a lady puts her husband's email address into a web site and gets a hit?

She and her husband had been having marital issues lately, and she figured she'd plug his personal email address into a search tool.

It was a match, and she immediately called him. Here's how she remembers the conversation:

"What do you know about this website, Ashley Madison?" she asked.

Uhhh, the information has already been leaked

[Patent Lover]

What are they paying for? For them to remove the information from the Interwebs?

Re:Uhhh, the information has already been leaked

[SeaFox]

They're paying for Mr Anonymous on the Internetz to not proactively try and contact their less-internet-savvy spouse.
The information can't be removed -- which also means the target cheater could potentially be hit up with this racket over and over again by every person doing it.

The only way to really prevent being bilked for 1 BTC x Everyone is simply to confess the affair to begin with to the spouse.

Slashdot Tabloids

[fustakrakich]

Affairs that matter...

I cannot believe this....

Re:Slashdot Tabloids

[Barny]

I honestly thought, the first time I saw their article about it, that it was in reference to a game-cheat site.

Yeah there is the 'another internet thing hacked'-ness of it, but that is about all it is. The rest is just a tale of human stupidity, not anything that really belongs here.

Re:Slashdot Tabloids

[fustakrakich]

Well, it's a good story in a tragi/comedy kind of way, with a splash of high technology ... But the comments.. What a bunch of meddling prudes around here!

Seems to be

[Etherwalk]

Seems to be at odds with having an affair.

"Seems to be" is one key phrase here. People can sleep around and still love an SO, or can do that when they are unhappy and later they become happy. Turns out people are more complicated than "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Who knew?

Re:Gender differences in an affair

[iggymanz]

"I won't say if I ever followed through or not" is something only someone who followed through would say, of course.

"unsuccessful couples": number one issue is not infidelity but financial issues.

Even if not having affair women will get into mode where everything partner does is wrong. Money matters can do it, boredom can do it, husband too focused on entertainment and fun outside the home, or lack of attention and intimacy can trigger that. Those kind of problems have a solution.

Bitcoin

[Canth7]

And who says bitcoin is worthless? Its clearly better than credit cards or cash in this case.

Re:Bitcoin

[ShaunC]

Bitcoin, perfect for all your illegal extortion needs. What a shining endorsement!

Re:Bitcoin

[Canth7]

Bitcoin, perfect for all your illegal extortion needs. What a shining endorsement!

Well, it has one major competitor for criminal activity - the US Dollar. Yeah, I'll take that endorsement.

Re:Gender differences in an affair

[PPH]

Everyone likes a bit of novelty to spice up their sex life after a few years. Some people can get by with the occasional vacation at Club Med. Some people buy the Little Red Riding Hood and Big Bad Wolf costumes. Other people need another person, even if its just a fling.

Men have been socialized to understand the difference between a relationship and sex. Women, not so much. So, when the hormones kick into high gear, their mind tells them it must be true love. Which means the marriage must be over. That is not really the case, because eventually the boy toy will get just as monotonous as the husband was.

There is also a 'type' of woman (and man) that fall in love with tragedy. For them, an affair is just a tool used to break up a marriage. Maybe they were abused as kids and this is just the adult version of cutting (self inflicted injury). Personnally, I've steered clear of women who get get to wrapped up in soap operas featuring psychological basket cases.

False positives?

[Applehu Akbar]

Did users of this site have to pay to be listed on it? How easy was it for someone who just doesn't like you to put your name and address on there? Was "ashleying" people a thing, like swatting?

Re:False positives?

[roger10-4]

Registration is free and there is no email verification (FAQ from AM). So yeah, someone could register you without your knowledge. However, it's the credit card transactions (for male users only?) that's getting people caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Without the CC transactions, there does't seem to be anyway to definitively prove someone was actively using the site.

Re:False positives?

[drinkypoo]

However, it's the credit card transactions (for male users only?) that's getting people caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Bondage-a-Go-Go used to give free drinks to women chained to the bar... who needs more men?

Re:False positives?

[meta-monkey]

Email verification was an option. So one could be an unverified user, a verified user, or a paid user. An unverified user like barrack.obama@whitehouse.gov is probably not legit and the owner of the address can say "wasn't me" and not be proven to be lying. But if you verified your email, you now must also claim your email was h4xx0red (probably by the hacker on steroids known as 4chan) and somebody's really out to get you. Unlikely. And if you're in the credit card data....yeah...

The cat is out of the bag

[RubberDogBone]

Why are extortionist's victims falling for this? The information is OUT there. :Lots of people have copies now. If you are dumb enough to pay off one extortionist, so what, there will be five or twenty more lined up also wanting money.

If your info is in there and going to cause you trouble, oh well. Paying extortion on top of that is just dumb.

I have no sympathy for their members

[msobkow]

I have no sympathy for their members getting "extorted" for being lying, cheating partners in a marriage. They deserve the shitstorm coming their way.

Re:I have no sympathy for their members

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't mistake extortionists for divine punishment. That sort of thinking only gives breathing room to organized crime. Extorting users of adult sites is routine business for certain criminal conglomerates. The extortions don't stop with demands for periodical payments, they start making demands over a person's work decisions, which messes with far more people than the adulterer and his/her family. So as much it is a responsibility for members of society not to engage these sites, adulterers shouldn't be left to the mercy of bad guys. Extortion can potentially have far more reaching consequences than cheating.

Death of Bitcoin?

[Z00L00K]

I see that the extortionists use of bitcoins is what may kill the currency and force the world to traceable transactions even harder.

Re:Death of Bitcoin?

[Jack Griffin]

How exactly?

Re:Death of Bitcoin?

[Baron_Yam]

Bitcoin was once an interesting concept, but for practical application on any scale it's completely crap.

But one thing it isn't is anonymous. Once you match a person to an address, you can follow them forever... and since most people get their Bitcoin from a Chinese Bitcoin mine via an exchange - where they have to register and send money - that wouldn't be particularly difficult for someone with any police resources at all to do. Really, you just need to have the authority to get the exchange's records then read the blockchain.

The problem comes from the fact that the extortionists will operate out of countries that aren't particularly interested in cooperating, or don't even care about regulating their exchanges.

It's no different than an extortionist demanding you wire them money to a country where the Canadian authorities have no pull, Bitcoin is not especially enabling here.

Really?

[SuperDre]

The lawfirms are maybe even the biggest bastards in this game, sueing the company but not the hackers who actually put the data on the internet.. You really believe their claim about them having hacked the servers due to the company not actually deleting the data (which ofcourse is a different matter)... Uhh the only way the hackers knew this was AFTER they already hacked the server...

A Google Map version of the account data...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cheatersmap.com

Obviously the fault of Gay Marriage

[billstewart]

All those gay folks getting married were clearly the reason 20% of the straight adults in the US were on that site, plus some number of gay people (not identified how many of them were married to people of the opposite sex, vs. single or "it's complicated".) (Though some non-trivial fraction of the customers claimed to be single, and just looking to hook up.)

As an old straight married guy, who was not one of AM's customers, I'd like to remind the Republicans that lots of their folks were, and maybe they were talking to the wrong people about the sanctity of marriage.

Re:Obviously the fault of Gay Marriage

[GNious]

20% of (straight) US adults were on that site?!?
Reports says it was 85% male, so as much as 34% of all (straight) US male adults were there?

Why bother mailing people from the dump, just mail random US males, and there's close to 1-in-3 chance that they're "guilty"!

Any girls speaking up here?

[no-body]

Sure exposes the hypocrisy and illusion of the marriage idea fantasy.
And look at the greed - the holsters exploiting the lie and the legal vultures circling the prey.

  I love it, it sure stirs the pot and everyone can babble about it.
What a show!

Looking for suckers...

[Registered Coward v2]

As some have pointed out, what is the value of extortion when the info is already public? It's value lies in looking for people who are willing to pay up, even a small amount. Once you find them, you can keep threatening and demanding more since you know they have given in and no have even more to hide; i.e. they paid to keep their spouse from finding out.

what a concept

[guygo]

maybe he should try being honest with his wife.

Truth Requires Brutal Punishment

[JimSadler]

OK so someone let the light shine in and now society feels he must be squashed. We are supposed to be all about "The truth shall set you free.". Yet it seems we are perverted enough as a nation to want to punish people for revealing the truth. A certain corporal Manning leaps to mind. We owe a great debt to people who refuse to be part of illicit behaviors such as torturing people or even risking their mates lives and health by cheating in marriage. Be right and never be covert!

Re:Completelty crazy to pay for silence

[EdwardFurlong]

Probably why nobody would actually pay, but if you get 1 out of every thousand you make some bucks.

Better to spend your money making a fake list, or lists, mix them up, say it's a scam to extort money.

Violence versus contract

[Immerman]

You are conflating violence perpetuated against an individual with violation of a contract. Because remember, a marriage is essentially just a life-long business contract, and it's only since the Romance Era that love, much less sexual monogamy, was assumed to be part of it. It may be in the interests of society to uphold the validity of contracts, but unless you're personally involved in the process it's none of yours.

And as an aside, humans are the ONLY species to even attempt sexual monogamy. Plenty of species practice monogamous pair-bonding, but *none* practices sexual monogamy as a common trait, in either gender. (Well, with the exception of species where the male is commonly devoured as part of the mating ritual). In that light there's good argument to be made that the whole concept of sexual monogamy is an emotional violence perpetrated upon the human species by a not-even-very-old tradition, an ongoing emotional counterpoint to circumcision or other ritual physical scarring.

Consider, the primary reason people are severely emotionally hurt by being cheated on is because our society says (possibly falsely) that that isn't the norm, and that it reflects some lack in the cheated-on partner. It doesn't. At it's root it reflects a deep biological drive to diversify our genetic investment in the next generation.

Bitcoin?

[pickin_grinnin]

So the blackmailer is assuming that people who don't know how to protect their online identities are going to know how to buy and transfer a bitcoin???

Why bother paying up?

[technicalnotebook]

You know... for anyone that used this site... I have little sympathy to be honest... HOWEVER, something they should remember is... if they pay up once... another 100 people might come knocking at their door demanding money to "keep the details secret" too... So really they shouldn't bother lest another person come knocking on their door demanding the same. Sorry, once it is out on the net... that is it... game over!

Get married

[NewYork]

"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." --Socrates