4 ms·

I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about

I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.

aetherson 11y ago
Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
- stdgy 11y ago
  Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
- bmelton 11y ago
  "the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal? I have also made descriptive statements about what cheating actually does in the real world versus the people who say, "This site is cool because everyone should be in an open marriage." Which, you know, I doubt the site even agrees with. It looks like it competes based on the illicit nature of its services. It charges you money to delete your profile, guys! And then, the hackers assert, doesn't actually delete your profile. I think that polygamy should be legal. But this is not a polygamist's website. It's a cheater's website. The logo is of someone making the "shhh" gesture! And all the "but I think everyone should be polygamists" in the world is: 1. Not actually going to happen. 2. Ignoring the actual pain of people who very much did not sign up for or want their spouses to cheat, in service of some silly untenable goal.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      "The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal?" You do whatever you like, but it's worth noting that not everybody's definition of net misery is the same as yours, and to many, discreet encounters run the gamut anywhere from morally fine to morally evil, no matter how far adrift your own moral compass is from the median. There are people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you'd approve, just as there are undoubtedly people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you wouldn't. That said, that's all irrelevant, as my only point is that getting people to agree with you isn't the high water mark for correctness. Otherwise smart people routinely agree on really dumb things, and referencing my earlier post, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who disapprove of gay marriage who would be able to put their views into similarly noble phrasings. Also, I did not assert that everyone should be in an open marriage, or involved in polygamy. I don't care what kind of marriage you're in, or anybody else. I just don't think that "society says so" is a valid reason for allowing or disallowing other people from getting married. That same logic was being used to discriminate against interracial and gay marriages, and is currently being used to discriminate against polygamy and polyamorous marriages. None of those marriages take anything away from mine, so whatever I might personally think of people I cannot identify with, their right to marriage is no business of mine.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  It's an evidenceless statement, full of self righteous judgmental undertones. "civilized society" is not disney cartoons and soap operas. There is no reason to add anything to the statement that adults are free to handle their relationships as they choose. No need to add a "but I think they're wrong to do it".
  - malka 11y ago
    It is usually seen 'wrong' to unilateraly and sneakily violates the terms of a contract.
KingMob 11y ago
But people in open relationships have no need to use a site based on cheating. They just use OkCupid, which is fairly poly-friendly. Despite what you said, Ashley Madison doesn't facilitate relations between "consenting" adults, because in an affair, 1 or 2 people didn't consent: the spouses being cheated on.
- unchocked 11y ago
  Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Full stop. The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses weren't involved in the sex. Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship, and the resolution of betrayal can only be handled within that relationship. For an Internet vigilante mob to throw what is entirely a private matter into a public light is irresponsible in the extreme, and tangentially is probably harmful to the spouses being cheated on as well.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't test my luck with expecting a previously unfaithful partner to suddenly be faithful with me if they have a track record of unfaithfulness. I have more personal value in knowing if someone is unfaithful than if they are an RSO - and yet being an RSO is made public knowledge.
    - unchocked 11y ago
      Not at all sure what you're saying here, nor what RSO means to you.
  - KingMob 11y ago
    > Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Unless all parties involved (spouses included) consented, this is partially false. Full stop. > The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses were betrayed, even if unaware and not "involved" in the sex. Full stop. Even in cases where cheating is remotely justified, an honest conversation beats sneaking around.

aetherson 11y ago

Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.

stdgy 11y ago
Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
bmelton 11y ago
"the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.
- aetherson 11y ago
  The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal? I have also made descriptive statements about what cheating actually does in the real world versus the people who say, "This site is cool because everyone should be in an open marriage." Which, you know, I doubt the site even agrees with. It looks like it competes based on the illicit nature of its services. It charges you money to delete your profile, guys! And then, the hackers assert, doesn't actually delete your profile. I think that polygamy should be legal. But this is not a polygamist's website. It's a cheater's website. The logo is of someone making the "shhh" gesture! And all the "but I think everyone should be polygamists" in the world is: 1. Not actually going to happen. 2. Ignoring the actual pain of people who very much did not sign up for or want their spouses to cheat, in service of some silly untenable goal.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    "The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal?" You do whatever you like, but it's worth noting that not everybody's definition of net misery is the same as yours, and to many, discreet encounters run the gamut anywhere from morally fine to morally evil, no matter how far adrift your own moral compass is from the median. There are people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you'd approve, just as there are undoubtedly people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you wouldn't. That said, that's all irrelevant, as my only point is that getting people to agree with you isn't the high water mark for correctness. Otherwise smart people routinely agree on really dumb things, and referencing my earlier post, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who disapprove of gay marriage who would be able to put their views into similarly noble phrasings. Also, I did not assert that everyone should be in an open marriage, or involved in polygamy. I don't care what kind of marriage you're in, or anybody else. I just don't think that "society says so" is a valid reason for allowing or disallowing other people from getting married. That same logic was being used to discriminate against interracial and gay marriages, and is currently being used to discriminate against polygamy and polyamorous marriages. None of those marriages take anything away from mine, so whatever I might personally think of people I cannot identify with, their right to marriage is no business of mine.
vectorjohn 11y ago
It's an evidenceless statement, full of self righteous judgmental undertones. "civilized society" is not disney cartoons and soap operas. There is no reason to add anything to the statement that adults are free to handle their relationships as they choose. No need to add a "but I think they're wrong to do it".
- malka 11y ago
  It is usually seen 'wrong' to unilateraly and sneakily violates the terms of a contract.

KingMob 11y ago

But people in open relationships have no need to use a site based on cheating. They just use OkCupid, which is fairly poly-friendly. Despite what you said, Ashley Madison doesn't facilitate relations between "consenting" adults, because in an affair, 1 or 2 people didn't consent: the spouses being cheated on.

unchocked 11y ago
Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Full stop. The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses weren't involved in the sex. Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship, and the resolution of betrayal can only be handled within that relationship. For an Internet vigilante mob to throw what is entirely a private matter into a public light is irresponsible in the extreme, and tangentially is probably harmful to the spouses being cheated on as well.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't test my luck with expecting a previously unfaithful partner to suddenly be faithful with me if they have a track record of unfaithfulness. I have more personal value in knowing if someone is unfaithful than if they are an RSO - and yet being an RSO is made public knowledge.
  - unchocked 11y ago
    Not at all sure what you're saying here, nor what RSO means to you.
- KingMob 11y ago
  > Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Unless all parties involved (spouses included) consented, this is partially false. Full stop. > The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses were betrayed, even if unaware and not "involved" in the sex. Full stop. Even in cases where cheating is remotely justified, an honest conversation beats sneaking around.