This.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Online Cheating Site Hacked
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
This.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Whether it is illegal or not, it is bad Karma to engage in such disrespectful behavior (to their partners) and now some of that bad Karma is coming back to haunt them
... sometimes bad things happen to bad people TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
I see this catch22 in a lot of debates today. On the one hand, you'll have people arguing, "It isn't illegal, so there isn't any reason for me/them not to do it."
On the other (and not saying this is Kaitian), many of the same people argue about the constant creep of new laws and, "Why does that need to be illegal, it's government overreach!"
If there isn't some societal normality or morality "enforced" via negative reactions from other people (not actual civil/criminal censure), then it's basically a free for all unless the government actually steps in and creates a law; we can't have it both ways.
At least in the societal sense we can have the constant conversation and interplay to allow morals evolve. Although then how do you decide what are truly rights and at the same time protect against the tyranny of the majority....it's all very complicated.
On the other (and not saying this is Kaitian), many of the same people argue about the constant creep of new laws and, "Why does that need to be illegal, it's government overreach!"
If there isn't some societal normality or morality "enforced" via negative reactions from other people (not actual civil/criminal censure), then it's basically a free for all unless the government actually steps in and creates a law; we can't have it both ways.
At least in the societal sense we can have the constant conversation and interplay to allow morals evolve. Although then how do you decide what are truly rights and at the same time protect against the tyranny of the majority....it's all very complicated.
Ashley Madison is not a dating site. It's not a porn site.
It's a site specifically marketed to people who are already in relationships so they can cheat on their partners.
No, it's a hookup site. Tinder, Grinder, etc all does the same shit. They don't care what relationship you are in provided that you pay something. Tinder has a limited amount of swipes so you pay to get unlimited for example.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,315
I see this catch22 in a lot of debates today. On the one hand, you'll have people arguing, "It isn't illegal, so there isn't any reason for me/them not to do it."
On the other (and not saying this is Kaitian), many of the same people argue about the constant creep of new laws and, "Why does that need to be illegal, it's government overreach!"
If there isn't some societal normality or morality "enforced" via negative reactions from other people (not actual civil/criminal censure), then it's basically a free for all unless the government actually steps in and creates a law; we can't have it both ways.
At least in the societal sense we can have the constant conversation and interplay to allow morals evolve. Although then how do you decide what are truly rights and at the same time protect against the tyranny of the majority....it's all very complicated.
Well said. This alone would be a great topic of discussion. Maybe even a presidential debate lol.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
The difference is that those other sites assume (sometimes incorrectly) that you are single and available for your dangerous liaison but they are general purpose sites ... this one was targeted specifically at those who were in a relationship already and were wanting to engage in a hookup ... although not illegal it is socially undesirable behavior (which is why they went to a site where the could engage in the behavior without feeling the societal pain of being caught as a cheater) ... they are now starting to discover some of the risks of their behavior ... as I said earlier, welcome to the Karma Cafe where the only thing you are served is what you deserve
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,315
The difference is that those other sites assume (sometimes incorrectly) that you are single and available for your dangerous liaison but they are general purpose sites ... this one was targeted specifically at those who were in a relationship already and were wanting to engage in a hookup ... although not illegal it is socially undesirable behavior (which is why they went to a site where the could engage in the behavior without feeling the societal pain of being caught as a cheater) ... they are now starting to discover some of the risks of their behavior ... as I said earlier, welcome to the Karma Cafe where the only thing you are served is what you deserve
Many others have an option for your relationship status and you can put in married and still be looking for a relationship. Most do support this kind of ''relationship'' (maybe not eharmony or christianmingle) but I do agree it is a bit shady of a website to target it. But, if I knew I could nail a niche and make money off it for a while I probably would too.
I do feel the hackers need to not be labeled any kind of hero by any stretch though because I do know we like to do that as a society. We want to idolize a robin hood so badly nowadays.
I know what the site is. You seem to miss the point that adults regardless of their matrimonial status can and do talk to each other and can and do consensually engage in adult sexual activities and you utterly fail to state why it's anyone's business except for the parties involved why it is everyone else's business. Care to elaborate?
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Are people being purposefully obtuse? It's called cheating for a reason, and regardless of what your morals are, they don't matter if those morals don't match those of the person being cheated on.
How is an affair non-consensual by definition? It requires to people to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement to engage in sexual activity outside of their respective relationships. If it wasn't, then it's rape since it would be non-consensual. Should a spouse know what her other spouse is doing? That depends on who is involved in telling that spouse or if they have an agreement with each other to begin with. Again, outside of those relationships it is no ones business and clearly the English language much less some minor critical thinking eludes you.
What if there is an open marriage or open relationship involved? Oh dear, that killed your theory. The other unknowing partner is by definition unaware and therefore if they are unaware, they cannot give consent. That doesn't make it non-consensual because that would require foreknowledge to give or not give consent. But between the two sexually engaged parties it is clearly consensual.
no, from common sense which you apparently lack
if someone is having an "affair" then he or she is cheating on another person in the relationship
willingly or unwillingly.
there are examples of ethical non-monogamy and "affairs" are not part of the picture.
you seem awfully caught up in defending cheaters
I wouldn't defend any of them. What I would defend however, is their ability to conduct their personal relationships within the privacy of their own actions without busy-bodies like you passing judgement on what you think consent vs. non-consent between adults means.
No, then it's not an "affair"
If they can not give consent then it's by definition a "non-consensual" arrangement
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
It isn't our business as you noted but since they were engaging in socially undesirable behavior they are receiving little sympathy for being caught in their activities ... normally I am all against the hackers but in this case they are the lesser of two evils, especially since in this case people have chosen (of their own free will) to engage in a behavior that may have negative repercussions ... so c'est la vie (you live by the sword, sometimes you die by the sword) ... I hope my platitude generator doesn't run dry
Whether it is illegal or not, it is bad Karma to engage in such disrespectful behavior (to their partners) and now some of that bad Karma is coming back to haunt them
Karma is not a criteria for consent or non-consent. You know, I never realized there was such child-like naivete that runs rampant throughout these forums. Oh wait.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
...
So yes, being purposefully obtuse. It wouldn't be cheating if it was an open relationship, nor would it meet the criteria of my initial definition, which was an explicit or implicit monogamous relationship.
But keep on pwning those windmills, Don.
My explanation to you of the difference between consensual vs. non-consensual and how an extra-martial affair is not merely "consensual sexual behavior between two parties" is not "passing judgement."
He's been doing that since he started responding.
I specifically pointed out that while it may not be everyone's business, that's not the same as concluding that it's no one's business.
Since then he has been trying to personally insult my understanding of the English language by repeating that I should explain how it's everyone's business, which is something I never stated.
And that's a problem for you why? If for nothing else, you don't like it. We get that, but maybe for people who have no issue engaging in such immoral behavior, they don't have a problem with it, but yet, you are there on the front line denouncing such behavior and you know what, good for you. Gold star coming your way. You are the forums up and coming moralist and I applaud your actions. Now tell me again who you are in telling adults what they can or cannot do with each other?
"Consensual" in this context is referring to the relationship between the two people engaged in the illicit act. The knowledge of either persons original partner is irrelevent.
That's the application of the word I would apply in this context anyway.
If you're looking at the situation from the perspective of the person who is married to the cheater, then sure, they did not give consent for their spouse to be off buggering someone else.
In any normal circumstance where I've heard the word "consensual" being used, it refers to the 2 parties performing the act, not anyone else who may or may not have an interest in the implications of the event.
That's the application of the word I would apply in this context anyway.
If you're looking at the situation from the perspective of the person who is married to the cheater, then sure, they did not give consent for their spouse to be off buggering someone else.
In any normal circumstance where I've heard the word "consensual" being used, it refers to the 2 parties performing the act, not anyone else who may or may not have an interest in the implications of the event.
You're simply making things up in your head.
All I wrote was that extra-marital affairs are not simply "consensual sex between two adults" as you claimed and that it's inaccurate to claim that their behavior is "no one's business but their own" as you also claimed.
I made no moral issue out of the site, I made no denouncements of any behavior, I also made no personal insults toward you although you weren't able to refrain from them yourself.
As for who I am? I practice ethical non-monogamy with my spouse and in the scenes we participate in "cheating" is about as worse as one can do...for a variety of reasons.
Non-consensual sexual behavior is a breach of contract, violation of one's efficacy and personal choice, and it exposes the non-consenting partner to a variety of risks that he or she never agreed to participate in.
I don't know how any reasonable adult can defend that kind of behavior. It's reprehensible on every level.
Somebody with a brain?
Somebody who has standards?
Somebody who understands that the underpinning of civilization is moral uprightness?
I dunno... just throwing some ideas out there.
You can't apply "normal circumstances" to sexual behavior because it carries specific risks that other behaviors do not.[L]imey;1041743236 said:
That said, in any other context where the behavior impacts a 3rd party then yes, "consent" requires their knowledge and acquiescence as well.
There is no obtuseness on my part. You and Moped have made statements that are in clear contradiction to what consensual/non-consensual agreements between adults are or means. Cheating is cheating even if it was in an open relationship. That's what an open relationship is, which allows one adult to agree to their own moral rules to give permission if not consent for the other to engage in extra-relationship or extra-marital relationships without repercussions or sanction. To say it isn't cheating is willfully ignorant. It is cheating, but it's accepted.
However, you've moved the goal posts of the argument now by using implicitness/explicitness as a means of a monogamous relationship. All monogamous relationship are consensual and explicit, not non-consensual and implicit. Look, before your fingers hit the keyboard again, just stop and think what you are going to say next because so far this isn't going well for you.
Actually, Methadras, you're completely wrong and that's why a number of forum members are trying to explain the same thing to you in different ways.
You've even gone so far as to redefine words to make them match up to your understanding as your latest post about how open relationships are "cheating" without consequence.
You've even gone so far as to redefine words to make them match up to your understanding as your latest post about how open relationships are "cheating" without consequence.
I disagree with your definition, on the basis that simply because a 3rd party is impacted by an event, does not mean that that consent did not exist between the 2 primary parties.
Webster's Definition of Consent:
to agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done
You're telling me that in a relationship between a married man and someone other than his spouse, there is no "consent" between him, and the woman with whom he is cheating? If so, that would be rape. Therefore, your definition of consensual is incorrect.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I was not engaging in the consent debate as I consider it academic to the Karma of the action itself ... the people chose to use a site specific to their unique sexual need (they were in a committed relationship with one person but seeking to have a physical but not a committed relationship with another person) ... if they were so confident of the righteousness of their cause they could have done it openly and proudly (as affairs are not a recent thing and have been done openly for millennium) ... they chose to try and take a more discreet route so they could have these liaisons covertly (which implies they knew of the bad reception these activities would have) and now they are potentially paying the price for that (negative action resulting in negative outcome = Karma ... at least in the Karma of my universe
)TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
The level of comprehension is depressing.
No one is arguing that the two people involved in relations, sexual or otherwise, unbeknownst to one or either of their "official" partners, is not consensual between them.
But clearly, for the other "official" partner(s), if it is unknown and not permitted, then it is a non-consensual in regards to them. An open relationship is open...why would you even be on a website designed for affairs and not simply any dating website? This is pretty obvious stuff...
No one is arguing that the two people involved in relations, sexual or otherwise, unbeknownst to one or either of their "official" partners, is not consensual between them.
But clearly, for the other "official" partner(s), if it is unknown and not permitted, then it is a non-consensual in regards to them. An open relationship is open...why would you even be on a website designed for affairs and not simply any dating website? This is pretty obvious stuff...
I never said any of that and that kind of position would be patently ridiculous.[L]imey;1041743268 said:
What I wrote was in rebuttal to Methadras claim that extra-marital affairs are only consensual behavior between two adults and that their behavior is no one else's concern.
I pointed out that there is a non-consenting 3rd party and that, at the very least, the sexual behavior of his or her spouse is of concern.
We're certainly on the same page in regard to that. Perhaps I misinterpreted what I thought was your definition of "consent" based on what you wrote.
You said "That said, in any other context where the behavior impacts a 3rd party then yes, "consent" requires their knowledge and acquiescence as well."
In this example, for there to be "consent" doesn't actually require the 3rd party to know, or acquiesce at all. The consent exists between the cheater and the new partner. For the 3rd party's "consent" to exist, then yes knowledge and acquiesence is required, but you cannot label a relationship "non-consensual" simply because a 3rd party did not know and did not give permission.
With sexual intercourse, when someone you sleep with sleeps with someone else, you end up sleeping with that other person, as well.[L]imey;1041743303 said:
So when a sexual partner has an extra-marital affair and then comes home to sleep with the spouse, that spouse is now being subjected to a non-consensual sexual event.
You may not think this is how it works, but it's certainly how it works biological and it's how the law will see it if you are engaged in a legal even that hinges on sexual fidelity (e.g., states that prosecute for infidelity, states that prosecute for harming a sexual partner with a communicable disease, etc.).
I was clarifying to you that your understanding of consent law is inaccurate.[L]imey;1041743303 said:
Simply because someone does not know about something, and can not give consent, does not rise to the level of consensual behavior.
If I use your credit card and purchase something at the store without your knowledge and consent, the transaction between me and the merchant is consensual but I can still be prosecuted for fraud and theft because you, the third party, did not give consent. It won't be a defense to say that you didn't know about it and therefore did not refuse consent.
Consent is not given by default. It's assumed under the law to be retained by the affected party unless otherwise specifically granted.
I have to deal with consent issues when I sit on my university's IRB, as well. We have to go over issues of liability and proper consent (which is different from assent, a lower threshold of agreement) in the context of research projects.
There is no circumstance I'm aware of that allows for an affected party's consent to be considered granted on the basis that it was not withdrawn.
Yes, I learned that in sex ed class in the 8th grade as well.
I disagree with your 2nd line. In a case where I don't have all the facts, I can still provide consent.
In your 2nd line, the spouse consents to have sex with her (unbeknownst to her) cheating husband. Would she if she knew everything? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that he raped her or that the act itself (between husband and wife) was non-consensual.
I disagree with your 2nd line. In a case where I don't have all the facts, I can still provide consent.
In your 2nd line, the spouse consents to have sex with her (unbeknownst to her) cheating husband. Would she if she knew everything? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that he raped her or that the act itself (between husband and wife) was non-consensual.
You can not give consent to something you do not understand.[L]imey;1041743337 said:
Instead of citing the law for you (which does exist, btw), I'll simply ask you to consider how you belief you can give someone permission to do something that you do not know about?
Obviously consent requires knowledge about the event requiring consent.
Secondly, your next paragraph about consensual sex between spouses is mixing things up a bit. The issue is not whether the sexual relationship between a spouse and non-spouse is consensual (I agree that it is), or whether the sexual relationship between the two spouses is consensual (I agree that is it), but whether the relationship between the spouse and non-spouse and the 3rd party non-consenting spouse makes the sexual relationship consensual: that is where the problem presents.
When an event impacts a 3rd party then that person also needs to willingly and knowingly grant consent or the behavior is "non-consensual." Sexual behavior impacts the non-consenting spouse so extra-martial affairs fall under non-consensual sexual behavior.
I think we're in agreement about the moral principles here, but I think that in order to label a relationship as non-consensual vs consensual, it's imperative to define WHICH relationship you're referring to.
As you said, above we have 2 relationships that are consentual, husband and mistress, and husband and wife. Both consensual when viewed on their own.
We have 1 relationship that is non-consensual, wife's permission regarding husbands relationship with mistress.
It is necessary to specify which relationship is being referred to in order to apply the label, because as you agreed, there are 2 consensual relationships (or 1 if we discount the husband and wife relationship)
Perhaps it's a matter of diction differences or something, but if I said "I had a non-consensual sexual relationship" everyone I know would believe me to be speaking of the consent that should exist between me, and the person I slept with.
Grahamkracka
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,052
Yes, red handed. She forgot we had a security camera pointed at the driveway.