Extortionists Begin Targeting AshleyMadison Users, Demand Bitcoin 286
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.
Happily married? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to be at odds with having an affair.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Happily married? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's happy to continue to be married to someone he doesn't respect while fucking around on them.
Re:Happily married? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 fait
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You are annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how we call those that care only about their own happiness?
Re: (Score:3)
Happy?
Re: (Score:2)
Human?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Happily married? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Show me where I said that.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Oh, never mind. I didn't realize you were mentally challenged. Good luck in the Special Olympics!
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
While this is mostly right, we're now seeing people sueing the ice cream vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Your naivete is precious. Plenty of people have both. It is called an Open Marriage [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
One can honour an agreement. One cannot respect an agreement.
Well that certainly explains why you pos
Re: (Score:2)
One can honour an agreement. One cannot respect an agreement.
Sure one can, at least in the English language.
Re: (Score:3)
"... 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 actuall
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [vatican.va].) 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 [wikipedia.org] 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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun fact: Having sex with a second mate often increases sexual desire for the first one
Sometime referred to as the Coolidge Effect [wikipedia.org].
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [biblegateway.com] if you wish to look for some of the many other references I didn't include.
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 respe
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
N
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.
So, if only someone had fenced them in...
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Marriage is about way more than just sex.
Re:Happily married? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Seems to be (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Obviously the fault of Gay Marriage (Score:2)
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 wer
Re: (Score:2)
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"!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
About that (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
All he simply needs to do is go to his wife and tell the truth. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"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 "endange
Re:About that (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Serves em right! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not the morality ... (Score:2)
... 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 [cnn.com]?
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bitcoin (Score:2)
False positives? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
The cat is out of the bag (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no sympathy for their members getting "extorted" for being lying, cheating partners in a marriage. They deserve the shitstorm coming their way.
Death of Bitcoin? (Score:2)
I see that the extortionists use of bitcoins is what may kill the currency and force the world to traceable transactions even harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.