Re: Honest question

1

Are you implying that the bots were using the site to conduct illicit affairs?


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
2

No.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
3

As opposed to conducting research projects?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
4

As opposed to having licit extramarital affairs, or finding casual sex partners while unmarried, or the like.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
5

I was wondering about the question in the post, too. 37 million sounds like way too many people who are actually looking to cheat.

I'm also trying to square my sense that gawker is a bunch of assholes with my desire to see the entire database leaked.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
6

Googling to remind myself what the hell Ashley Madison is and seeing the latest news I'd now have to say we're about to find out.

Also, there was a bot userbase?


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
7

I'm also trying to square my sense that gawker is a bunch of assholes with my desire to see the entire database leaked.

The solution to this equation is "ogged is also an asshole", maybe.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
8

That's probably it. I hadn't heard of the site (or if I had, I thought they sold eyeglasses) which seems like the kind of thing I would have heard about.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
9

My guess would be that at least 1/3 are aspiring "tempters" not in a relationship but looking to scam desperate people. I remember hearing radio ads for this site and thinking that they should just rename it baddecisions.com.

With that said, life sentences for the hackers are appropriate.



Posted by: Roberto Tigre | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
10

baddecisions.com.

Reminds me of this.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
11

I know I've heard of AM, but can't recall -- is it explicitly targeted at people looking for extramarital partners, or is the targeting somehow deniable? If the latter, maybe there were a lot of users who just didn't get it?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
12

11 -- the radio ads were pretty explicit that it was for cheaters or people looking to meet cheaters.


Posted by: Roberto Tigre | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
13

or is the targeting somehow deniable?

No. It's explicit.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
14

9: There's a bar in a nearby neighborhood called Bad Decisions. I've never been in, but it looks appropriately dreary from the outside.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
15

9.1 Another blow to my view of human nature. If you can't trust cheaters, who can you trust?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
16

I know one of the women in this article. She certainly was using it for its intended purpose, and certainly got a lot of value out of it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
17

14: There's a nearby shitty bar called Teabags, with the tagline "Always in hot water." The logo is a grinning teabag wearing sunglasses.

It's been around forever, so therefore before the wide knowledge, and possible coining, of the salacious meaning of the term. But still.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
18

14, 17 -- there's a bar in Detroit called "O'Blivion's" which seemed extremely appropriate to its setting.


Posted by: Roberto Tigre | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
19

18 - Order a brain eraser shot?


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
20

5: Extra-marital affairs are pretty common, at least according to most studies. I suspect that that article is right about a lot of them overestimating the numbers, or at least I'd hope so, but that's still a pretty massive number of people given the married/otherwise-coupled population in the US.

But like a lot of other people have said there's probably a large percentage of people using that site who are looking to sleep with married people even if they aren't married themselves.


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
21

AIMHMHB there used to be a gay bar in Boston called the Rockin' Ramrod. Which I believe someone responded to with a bar in New Orleans called the White Swallow.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
22

The name of the place is Cheater's Heaven.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
23

21: the Ramrod is still a gay bar in Boston. Never heard it called the "Rockin' Ramrod", though.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
24

As opposed to having licit extramarital affairs, or finding casual sex partners while unmarried, or the like.

Or, cough, fantasizing.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
25

Can someone go to the Fair Housing thread and tell me if my comment showed up? It's in the sidebar, and the comment count on the FP says it should be there, and I previewed to see it before clicking away, but when I go to the thread it's not there.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
26

It's there.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
27

Where's Will? This is in his wheelhouse. Presumably this is going to lead to an explosion of business for him once the information is more widely distributed.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
28

16: I wonder how carefully that author of that article protected the identity of his source "Megan" given this description:

I thank her for meeting me. She says it's no big deal. It is, though--if her identity were somehow unmasked, it could torpedo her high-powered career: She's worked for one of the most prominent political figures in the country and nearly ended up in Obama's administration.

Given that they are meeting up in NYC, I'd say the identity of that "prominent political figure" is likely to be one of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Charles Schumer. Maybe Cuomo. Combining that with her physical description and age, I'd be surprised if insiders who work in those offices don't have a pretty good guess at her identity.


Posted by: Dave W. | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
29

Given that they are meeting up in NYC, I'd say the identity of that "prominent political figure" is likely to be one of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Charles Schumer. Maybe Cuomo.

Or Anthony Weiner.

Also, it says "She's worked for" that prominent figure. Maybe that was for one week.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
30

8 and 11 are surprising, since Ashley Madison has been the subject of at least one front page post on this blog. (Even though I'm not finding a link right now.)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
31

I hadn't heard of the site (or if I had, I thought they sold eyeglasses)

You're thinking of Warby Parker.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
32

Paisley Parkeline Posey Madison's Poking and Sunglasses Hut.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
33

30 is what I thought as well.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
34

She certainly was using it for its intended purpose, and certainly got a lot of value out of it.

It's not what you think! I'm not having an affair, I'm adding value!


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
35

As opposed to having licit extramarital affairs, or finding casual sex partners while unmarried, or the like.

If this was your intention, why not just be openly non-monogamous on a regular dating site? Does Ashley Madison provide some extra level of protection if you don't want to be "out" as non-monogamous?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
36

I'm guessing it does do that, but even better it isolates the group of people who are going to see it to a specific set of people and (probably) makes it less likely it's going to come out more generally if someone who knows you runs across it. "Holy cow guys I just saw that so-and-so lists themselves as non-monogamous on okcupid!" is probably something people are more willing to say than "Holy cow guys I just saw that so-and-so lists themselves as nonmonogamous on that site where people pay for private accounts so they can arrange to cheat on their spouses!" There's an element of mutually assured destruction on sites that are openly about adultery.


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
37

This seems relevant to both this and the Snowden thread where ogged expressed surprise that encryption may only delay things.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 07-20-15 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
38

35: 36 is one possibility. Some more come to mind: some people may enjoy the thrill of something illicit, even if they don't have a partner on their side to make it illicit; it may seem like a more reliable guarantee that the sex will be no-strings-attached; and prostitutes looking for johns.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 1:33 AM
horizontal rule
39

You may not currently want to have an affair, but you can be fairly confident from observing the behaviour of others that, when you start, you will not want to stop having one; therefore the rational thing to do is to force yourself to have an affair qua transformative experience. (Paul, op. cit.)

Let's all try this line out in bars and see how well it works.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 5:38 AM
horizontal rule
40

"My wife doesn't understand my qualia."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 5:39 AM
horizontal rule
41

"If I told you your body was a transformative experience would you hold it against me?"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 5:42 AM
horizontal rule
42

How many affairs end well? Genuine question. Realize there's probably not much good data on this.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
43

41: I think opting later for "Was it transformative for you?" works better, but actually it probably doesn't.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
44

42 - Depends on what counts as ending well. As far as not horrible consequences (for the cheaters) go it's either (1) eventually it fizzled and no one else found out or (2) there was at least one divorce and the people involved got married to each other. And the first one is probably a substantial/majority part of the people who admit when surveyed to having cheated on their current partner in the past. (It's not all of them, obviously, but I'd guess more than not.)


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 6:42 AM
horizontal rule
45

"My wife doesn't understand my qualia."

I'm not the only one who gets word-meld between qualia and genitalia, then.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
46

45, 43: So yeah, I should have used "qualia" to make 41 semi rather than totally lame.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
47

45: oh, you pronounce it as though it were a comparative adjective meaning "more similar to a quail"? I would have used a long a, "quahlia".


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
48

I've only heard qualia as in quality but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a range of pronunciations, or regional differences like with "Kant".


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
49

Qualia rhymes with Dahlia for me.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
50

47: I'm pretty sure I've never heard it spoken outloud.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
51

Qualia isn't an experience, though.

Qualia reminds me more of labia than genitalia.

That's just me, isn't it.


Posted by: conflated | Link to this comment | 07-21-15 7:23 AM
horizontal rule