Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Men using Ashley Madison likely didn't cheat...

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Men using Ashley Madison likely didn't cheat...
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason is that nearly ever female profile on the site was fake.

31 million male profiles, 5.6 million female profiles.

Of the female profiles - perhaps 10,000 - 20,000 or so total were real.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe the rest were actually ads posted by sex workers, no?

Only men had to pay for the site's services -- that should have been a red flag.

Liked the commercial jingle though. Catchy.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the article it suggests that essentially none of the female profiles ever responded to any contacts.

I'm not sure what the profession of the individuals who created the profiles, one women who was tasked with creating 1000 of them over a 3 week period sued for carpal tunnel.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/11/ashley-madison-sued-by-profile-faker.html

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honor among fraudsters, LR.

I find it ironic that if someone hosted a pay website to facilitate defrauding contractual partners in any contract OTHER than marriage, that it would have been shut down as illegal.

[ August 27, 2015, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage is not a contract, which is why it doesn't run afoul of contract law. A marriage is an 'unconditional joinder'.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-marriage-contract-include-any-kind-of-rules

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on how spouses define "cheat".
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. For most of them, the act of creating an account was probably over a line (though not necessarily the only line).
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Marriage is not a contract, which is why it doesn't run afoul of contract law. A marriage is an 'unconditional joinder'.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-marriage-contract-include-any-kind-of-rules

Don't let others do your analysis for you, LR. Look up the definition of contract and explain how marriage doesn't fit?

Are you saying that society has less interest in upholding the marriage contract from outside interference, than say, a contracts for sale of DVDs?

You might also look up the definition of civil fraud. Because representing oneself as faithful to one's spouse while systematically conspiring to become or remain unfaithful,

quote:
an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.
Ashley Madison advertises itself as an organized conspiracy to defraud spouses. It should be no surprise that it also defrauds and compromises its own customer base. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be sued for fraud and breach of contract by their supposed partners in fraud.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Depends on how spouses define "cheat".

I understand that spouses might have agreements to accept extramarital sex. But that's not the base that Ashley Madison was marketing to. We aren't looking at a swinger site here. Ashley Madison advertises secrecy, privacy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, scifibum read me correctly there. I was pointing out that one doesn't have to actually have sex with someone else to be unfaithful. Though what you say is true as well - that, sometimes one can have sex with someone else and not be cheating - I didn't think it applied here.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ashley Madison advertises itself as an organized conspiracy to defraud spouses. It should be no surprise that it also defrauds and compromises its own customer base. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be sued for fraud and breach of contract by their supposed partners in fraud.
Since the advent of no-fault divorce, the notion of marriage as a contract has pretty well gone out the window.

It makes no logical sense that you can sue someone for enabling a fraud on behalf of a third party if the fraud isn't actionable between the parties themselves.

It would be like an insurance company subrogating on behalf of an insured who had no underlying right of action himself.

Incidentally, while garden variety infidelity is a terrible thing (and AM is simply that, no more or less), I have far less interest in lambasting the handful of users who might have been using this site for its advertised purpose than I have in going after the criminal extortionists perpetrating this act of terrorism. And quite frankly, while I'm not in any way equating this group with Al Qaeda or suggesting they be sent to Guantanimo Bay, I do believe that what they have done does meet the definition of terrorism and I'd like to see them punished, severely.

Indeed, if I could confess a little guilty thought - it would probably bring a smile to my face to hear that these particular individuals were dealt with via extra judicial means. One can hope that Ashley Madison, being on the shady side of things, would have similarly shady connections and that those people could "send a message" to future would-be hacker / ideological extortionists.

I know just a fantasy of mine. But appropo to the nature of the crime.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Actually, scifibum read me correctly there. I was pointing out that one doesn't have to actually have sex with someone else to be unfaithful. Though what you say is true as well - that, sometimes one can have sex with someone else and not be cheating - I didn't think it applied here.

Agreed that it's not relevant. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, with regard to nonadulterous "cheating," it's more common for the partners to have mismatched expectations. Sadly, intimate trust is too often based on our expectation that our partner will do what we want without needing to be told. You get to "I trusted you to do x.. "Did i say i would?" no. "did you ask me to?" no. = Just trusted you to do it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Ashley Madison advertises itself as an organized conspiracy to defraud spouses. It should be no surprise that it also defrauds and compromises its own customer base. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be sued for fraud and breach of contract by their supposed partners in fraud.
Since the advent of no-fault divorce, the notion of marriage as a contract has pretty well gone out the window.
That's partially but not altogether true, and even to the degree it's true, one might ask if that is good policy.

Parties to a contract can agree to modify or terminate a contract, so no fault divorce does not NEED to destroy the marriage as contract concept.

Furthermore, even today in most US jurisdictions, marriage may serve as consideration for a contract. I can give you a lease to rent my house inexpensively, premised on you marrying my daughter. You don't go through with the marriage, I can take my house back.

But even if we pretend that marriage is no contract at all, the issue of fraudulent inducement remains. The easy right to divorce actually makes the fraud more poignant. If you conspire to materialy mislead someone in order to induce them to act or refrain from acting on their legal rights (e.g. the right to divorce), that is fraud, even in absence of a contract.

Besides, you're wrong about marriage not being contractual. The case law is clear that marriage is a status entered into by contract.

Setting aside the question of whether our courts TREAT marriage as a contract, I dare you to show me any general definition of "contract" that does not by implication include marriage.

Do you disagree that marriage involves an exchange of promises between parties? That being so, how could it not be a contract?

[ August 29, 2015, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Parties to a contract can agree to modify or terminate a contract, so no fault divorce does not NEED to destroy the marriage as contract concept.
What do you call a contract where any party can breach its most fundamental term at any time with no legal consequence?

Not a contract.

Marriage, at this point in time, is sui generis. It belongs in its own category having little in common with conventional contracts.

quote:
I can give you a lease to rent my house inexpensively, premised on you marrying my daughter. You don't go through with the marriage, I can take my house back.
That isn't a marriage contract; that's a lease agreement contingent on someone entering into a marriage as a term of the lease.

quote:
Besides, you're wrong about marriage not being contractual. The case law is clear that marriage is a status entered into by contract.
Assuming you're referring to case law post dating the advent of no-fault divorce, I'd just call that a quaint legal fiction, along the lines of "perfection isn't the standard of care in slip and fall personal injury negligence claims".

quote:
Do you disagree that marriage involves an exchange of promises between parties? That being so, how could it not be a contract?
Marriage as it legally exists in present day, is a husk. No fault insurance was a legal lobotomy that preserved the outward facade of being a legal contract, but excised any legal force of enforcement of its fundamental terms. The only terms of the "contract" enforced by courts today are those concocted by feminists and grafted on, designed to benefit non working female spouses at the expense of working male spouses.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What do you call a contract where any party can breach its most fundamental term at any time with no legal consequence?

Not a contract."

Pretending that there is no possible legal consequences to breaching the marriage contract, the correct contracts 101 answer to your question is a CONTRACT which is NOT ENFORCEABLE AT LAW.

"Assuming you're referring to case law post dating the advent of no-fault divorce, "

Originally dating to, yes, but which continues to be cited as law by modern cases.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete if you're conceding that marriage's fundamental terms are't legally enforceable then while one could certainly call it "contract" in some colloquial sense - in essence there is no legally relevent contract.

It becomes a bit like some gratuitous promise or vow that two people make to one another. If me and my buddy from High School vowed to be "best friends forever" and shook on it - that's kind of what marriage in the no fault divorce era is; a gratuitous promise. The courts can call it whatever they please. As I said, there is no shortage of trite little fictions on the lips of the judiciary. The things most often repeated at the start of legal decisions are frequently the most suspect.

Getting back to the point, if someone can sleep with your wife with no legal repercussion for him or your cheating wife, why would a website that brought the two together be guilty of anything?

[ August 31, 2015, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What do you call a contract where any party can breach its most fundamental term at any time with no legal consequence?
Aren't you presuming a lot when you say "most fundamental term" here? We do have anti-bigamy laws, which are legally actionable. On that basis we end up in an interesting place that points out that, to the state, the "most fundamental term" is that you only present yourself as a member of a single, stable legal economic unit.

From that perspective, you could almost conclude that, by facilitating infidelity that was going to happen anyway in a manner that reduces risk of divorce or bigamy by allowing for more discretion and ensuring that both parties are clear that they're not on a path to a primary relationship that would threaten their contractual one.

I think that the issue isn't that there aren't litigatable breaches of a marriage contract, but rather that who you're having sex with, even if married, is completely outside of the state's purview and shouldn't be legally actionable (no fault divorce means that you don't need it as an excuse to dissolve the contract), outside of an explicit agreement such as a prenup that spells out mutually agreed consequences for infidelity.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pete if you're conceding that marriage's fundamental terms are't legally enforceable then while one could certainly call it "contract" in some colloquial sense - in essence there is no legally relevent contract"

I am not conceding that. Simply saying your "no contract" description was inaccurate even if your assumptions were not inaccurate.

The existence of no fault divorce does not preclude other fault causes of action in many us jurisdictions, where you can sue for divorce for adultery, cruelty, abandonment, etc.

the most fundamental aspect of modern marriage is legal unity, and in some states community property. Fraud that induces a partner to remain in that legal unity, and to fail to investigate waste and embezzlement of ccommunity property, should be actionable just as the waste is actionable.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the most fundamental aspect of modern marriage is legal unity, and in some states community property.
I am not sure what you mean by "legal unity" but I wouldn't call that "fundamental" to marriage. In Canada spouses do not even file joint tax returns so this is not even universal in common law jurisdictions. Community property is also non fundamental. Married people can divide their property as they see fit. They can have separate bank accounts, joint accounts, etc... It's not fundamental to marriage at all.

If you're talking about the division of assets on divorce, this isn't a term of the marriage contract; it's typically a statutory or common law rule that applies at the dissolution of the contract - hardly fundamental and not part of any marriage vows I have ever heard of.

Saying that communal property is part of the marriage contract is like saying the Occupational Health and Safety Act is part of my employment contract because it happens to dictate some legal rights and remedies I might have against my employer if they mistreat me. I never signed or agreed to any such provisions; they are merely statutory or common law rules that apply to certain types of contracts.

The "fundamental" terms of marriage would be the ones that actually make it into classic marriage vows, with fidelity near the top of the list. These vows are non enforceable, thus they are of no legal significance.

quote:
The existence of no fault divorce does not preclude other fault causes of action in many us jurisdictions, where you can sue for divorce for adultery, cruelty, abandonment, etc.
What exactly are the criteria for the "adultery" cause of action you mention? That sounds awfully like "fault" based divorce to me. Not saying it isn't real - but it's nothing like the divorce we have here in Canada. I suppose cruelty might be buried somewhere in our common law, but when does this apply? How extreme must a spouse's conduct be to invoke this cause of action, and does it simply overlap with other actionable torts?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you serious, Jason? Of course adultery abandonment and abuse are Fault actions for divorce. In most us juristictions you CAN sue for fault, even though a no fault action exists.

Ashley madison operates fraud enqablement in numerous states that allow divorce for cause (adultery).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, family law is now fuzzy in my mind, but wasn't the whole point of "no fault" that anyone could end a relationship for any reason, regardless of fault? I think in Canada it was called "irreconcilable differences" or something.

Point being, you don't need to prove anything to divorce someone. And what that person did or didn't do doesn't affect their rights. Whether your wife cheated on you or not, she still gets 1/2 the net family property, no?

But okay, I'll bite: in an "adultery" cause of action, what exactly is your remedy? So my wife cheats on me. Then what?

[ September 03, 2015, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In Utah, and many other states, adultery can affect whether alimony is ordered, in situations where it would otherwise be ordered.

quote:
The only terms of the "contract" enforced by courts today are those concocted by feminists and grafted on, designed to benefit non working female spouses at the expense of working male spouses.
Well, that's a really distorted way to look at it. Actually these terms were concocted by humanists to make it easier to escape terrible circumstances even if the other spouse holds all the property and income.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But okay, I'll bite: in an "adultery" cause of action, what exactly is your remedy? So my wife cheats on me. Then what?"

Then you have a choice, whether to file for the no fault "irreconcilable differences", or you can try to legally brand her an adulterous contract breaker by filing for divorce with cause (adultery).

In my case, I could have sued for divorce in Georgia for abandonment, or exie could have sued me in Nevadea for "insanity" (alcoholism is arguably a form of insanity), or either of us could have claimed irreconcilable differences, but NV offers another no fault basis basis: separated for more that one year.

The fact that contraCt is severable doews not mean that it has NO legal enforcement, btw. In all 50 states, it is criminal for you to marry another person while your first marriage remains in effect. Joint property rules also apply.

Also, while some of the changes to marriage law have been designed by misanthropic advocates of greedy women, men can also take advazntage of the same laws. i could have, if I wished, have gotten an award of alimony from my ex. I chose not to for the same reason that I went along with the no fault divorce. I felt that an adversarial court proceeding could only hurt me, exie, and our kids, and that taking spousal support would be unfair in my situation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are antimarriage states like NV where you can only use no fault causes of action. But most states offer fault causes such as adultery, abuse, abandonment, addiction, alcoholism ... A whole bevy of scarlet letters. And you know what? Cause filings are very rare. It is good that they exist, in theory, because their availability preserves some legal meaning of marriage as a contract.

Allowing the marriage contract to be terminated without litigation is a good thing, and consistent with the law of contracts wherein the parties can mutually agree to terminate.

and in some jurisdictions, successfully proving a cause may affect alimony and even child custody.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1