monogamy

[Jive Turkey]

i disagree. i think porn is porn, and its about fucking. .

this

 

[AliEnvy]

i disagree. i think porn is porn, and its about fucking. i think that the male equivalent to the unrealistic expectations in a rom-com would be the heroics of the aforementioned Han Solo or Indiana Jones (or James Bond, or Jason Bourne, or whatever).

Porn is about fantasy fucking and many women feel threatened by the idea that they don't measure up to their partners' sexual fantasies.

In that context, the Indiana Jones comparison isn't valid. If box office receipts are an indicator, women generally fantasize about romantic heroes.

men like porn and women like rom-coms? were i a woman i'd be upset at the simplification of my sexuality required of the comparison.

There are multi-billion dollar industries built on these simplifications spawned from the simplistic notion that men are sexual and women are emotional. Simplistic and prevalent. And profitable.

 

[AEON]

Not sure if I'd agree, I think there's a valid debate to be had around pornography. I would automatically discount viewpoints based solely on religious strictures, but still.

I think the non-religious problem with porn is that it reduces people to nothing more than objects of desire. It can also disturb the wiring in our minds to think of sex differently than what it is actually like. This results in poor intimacy skills in genuine sexual relationships. Also ,anything that degrades the dignity of a human being in fantasy can change your attitude in reality.

I'm not judging those that view it or make it or saying it should be illegal. I once had a problem with it myself. It's an easy trap to fall into. I'm just saying that I think it does cause wounds in the mind and wounds take time to heal. Also, does it pass this litmus test: would I mind if my own daughter did this? (acting in porn movies)

From a religious perspective - I've noticed that since I've been praying the Rosary this year that my overall attitude toward women has improved. Old wounds are finally healing. Now, I appreciate their courage, strength, sweetness, and beauty (in the genuine sense). Reducing women in any way seems terribly sad; it doesn't seem that it is the Better Way...

In my opinion Jesus (forget for a moment the idea he was Son of God), showed us how to live a good life here on earth in a very practical way. The same with Buddha and a host of other men and women of wisdom through the ages. I can't imagine any of the greatest thinkers in our history arguing for the goodness of porn.

 

[financeguy]

I think the non-religious problem with porn is that it reduces people to nothing more than objects of desire.

I think that underlying this is a religious argument.

It can also disturb the wiring in our minds to think of sex differently than what it is actually like. This results in poor intimacy skills in genuine sexual relationships.

Yes, I can see how that might happen, and this is probably getting closer to what I was thinking of in regards to my earlier post. Although, that said, whilst hypothetically it may or may not be true that some kinds of porn, for some individuals, result in poor intimacy skills in genuine sexual relationships, it's also something of a value judgment and not one I'm prepared to accept without seeing some research to validate it.

Also ,anything that degrades the dignity of a human being in fantasy can change your attitude in reality.

Again, I think that underlying this is a religious argument.

Also, does it pass this litmus test: would I mind if my own daughter did this? (acting in porn movies)

Ok, I'll give you that. No father wants to envisage their daughter making a living in that way, and that's understandable. If I had a daughter then, no, I probably wouldn't be over-the-moon if she announced at the age of 18 that she planned on entering the adult entertainment industry. Yes, I'd be disappointed. I'm not sure that I'm be morally outraged, however. Would you be happy if your daughter became an arms dealer, or a Wall Street broker getting rich on mis-marketing securities to old age pensioners, for example? Both these career choices are surely much more damaging to society

I can't imagine any of the greatest thinkers in our history arguing for the goodness of porn.

I have the distinct impression that some of them would, but I take it you would not include Oscar Wilde, Thomas Paine, Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand among your list of greatest thinkers of history?

 

[Irvine511]

Porn is about fantasy fucking and many women feel threatened by the idea that they don't measure up to their partners' sexual fantasies.

In that context, the Indiana Jones comparison isn't valid. If box office receipts are an indicator, women generally fantasize about romantic heroes.

no, it's the Indiana Jones = Meg Ryan that's the legitimate comparison, not Jennifer Aniston vs. porn.

porn is porn. movies are movies. porn is a masturbatory assistant, movies are entertainment.

There are multi-billion dollar industries built on these simplifications spawned from the simplistic notion that men are sexual and women are emotional. Simplistic and prevalent. And profitable.

Hollywood dwarfs the porn industry. romantic comedies are one of several basic genre films that have been around for over 70 years. women are more drawn to romantic comedies than men are, and men are more drawn to action films than women are.

 

[AliEnvy]

Mars meet venus....

no, it's the Indiana Jones = Meg Ryan that's the legitimate comparison, not Jennifer Aniston vs. porn.

No, what I'm saying is that Jenna Jameson (porn object of male sexual fantasy) = John Cusack (rom com object of female romantic fantasy).

 

[Irvine511]

Mars meet venus....



No, what I'm saying is that Jenna Jameson (porn object of male sexual fantasy) = John Cusack (rom com object of female romantic fantasy).

i guess it's a heterosexual thing, then. i guess it really sucks that women think that men are thinking this, because i don't think that they are.

 

[AliEnvy]

i guess it really sucks that women think that men are thinking this, because i don't think that they are.

Agreed...mostly (i.e. unless porn tips into the addictive behaviour category). I do think AEON made some interesting points though about it potentially interfering with intimacy for some.

 

[maycocksean]

So Girls Gone Wild is the exception rather than the rule in the adult entertainment industry? Because I know we all found the owner of that brand and what he does pretty repellant.

That alone should be raise ethical questions about pornography.

 

[mad1]

do married women look at other men as much as married men would look at other women?

 

[cobl04]

i find it odd that these discussions are brought up.

monogamy isn't natural, no, but then again, has anyone noticed that we are much more evolved than apes? it seems silly to me when people campaign against something "because it goes against nature!" we don't live in caves anymore.

 

[mad1]

But, I think there is a certain amount of responsibility if a woman is ignoring legitimate needs of her husband.

see this, I hear and read this a lot more than I do about a womans needs.

its almost like, esp when she marries the guy, that she is his slave.......

'Im the man, you must satisfy me, and slave for me otherwise I leave you, bitch!'





I think Im better off never being more than mates with guys. seriously. if this is what I will be met with.
I know, Im naive because Im an observer.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think both people need to consider the needs of the other equally-that's part of equality in a relationship. We don't live in Mad Men times any more. I get what you're saying mad1

 

[mad1]

thanks Mrs.........cause to be honest wit cha, the more I read and hear all this, the more withdrawn I become.

yes yes, my own issue I know..................but still.......its a bigger issue if its more so seen that men own women.

 

[financeguy]

thanks Mrs.........cause to be honest wit cha, the more I read and hear all this, the more withdrawn I become.

yes yes, my own issue I know..................but still.......its a bigger issue if its more so seen that men own women.

I don't think you should give up on men based on reading some silly posts on a silly internet forum.

 

[hiphop]

my partner is not free to do and be what he needs to do and be ... well, he is, but his behavior could indeed jeopardize our relationship. he might prefer to, say, go on a sex tour of Thailand, but i wouldn't be waiting for him when he returned. i'd be with someone else. relationships have rules, and they're usually mutually created and negotiated, but they do exist. it is not a free for all.

same for my partner.

 

[hiphop]

see this, I hear and read this a lot more than I do about a womans needs.

its almost like, esp when she marries the guy, that she is his slave.......

'Im the man, you must satisfy me, and slave for me otherwise I leave you, bitch!'





I think Im better off never being more than mates with guys. seriously. if this is what I will be met with.
I know, Im naive because Im an observer.

just to play the advocatus diaboli..

a relationship where both partners want to be satisfied has nothing to do with slavery (except bdsm). of course, when man wants sex twice a day and woman once a month they probably should admit they are not sexually compatible.

at times i also think i´m better off just being mates with girls. still, i´ll ask myself where that comes from instead of just being the proud untouchable one. in my case, it´s past experience plus i don´t need any of that lovey dovey stress, seriously, phew, feelings.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Interesting..

yahoo.com

Most of us have never associated Mother’s Day with unfaithful women, but there appears to be a connection – especially if men don’t remember their women on that sentimental holiday.

According to the New York Post, the day following Mother’s Day is the second most popular day women start cheating—or at least looking to cheat. The number one day, as if you hadn’t guessed, is Valentine’s Day.

Women who stray aren’t necessarily looking for sensational sex. They just want to be appreciated. The Post quoted Marie, 52, a woman from New Jersey who went on the prowl after her husband failed to give her anything for Mother’s Day. Even her kids gave her cards, and we know how reluctant kids are to buy cards.

“I’m not asking for roses and being showered with gifts,” Marie told the newspaper. “But how about bringing me a cup of coffee? You’d at least like your husband to acknowledge that you’re the mother of his children.”

That was when Marie hit the online dating sites – especially one for unfulfilled married women looking for a good time. She didn’t have too much trouble finding one, and now she’s having an affair with a man she calls “my lover.”

And there are statistics to back up Marie’s experience: A massive married-dating website called Ashley Madison said that it set a record the day after Mother’s Day 2010. A total of 31,427 women signed up. That’s a lot of angry, unfulfilled women.

The lesson here: Give moms something on Mother’s Day – whether it’s flowers, jewelry, chocolates or an expensive card. (However, flowers, jewelry and chocolates are better. Especially jewelry.)

And women can learn something, too: Ask for what you want. Many women don’t, thinking it’s unromantic and that their guy should “just know” what they want. Well, most of them don’t. So speak up. If you get a fabulous pair of diamond stud earrings, who cares that you asked for them?

For the lucky women whose men do remember Mother’s Day, return the favor by giving him something nice on Father’s Day.

 

[80sU2isBest]

For the lucky women whose men do remember Mother’s Day, return the favor by giving him something nice on Father’s Day.

I can't believe that anyone would forget their wife on mother's day (if she's a mother, of course). It's unfathomable to me.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I would think that the Mother's Day thing would be just part of an overall pattern of forgetting and of neglecting the relationship. The last straw, for these women who decide to cheat after that. For me, that pattern would mean the end- not cheating or a cheating web site. But with kids and all that it's complicated, I understand that. Obviously cheating isn't in the best interest of your kids. And it's a personal choice, to divorce, to end the relationship. But I can understand the desire for some positive attention from a male in that case.That's a natural desire when you're feeling forgotten and mistreated.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But I can understand the desire for some positive attention from a male in that case.That's a natural desire when you're feeling forgotten and mistreated.

Definitely. If people want to keep the love of their spouse, they need to treat them as they themselves would want to be treated.

 

[yolland]

There are "married-dating websites"?

That's pretty sad.

 

[Irvine511]

There are "married-dating websites"?

That's pretty sad.

quite a few married men have made passes at me over the years. i'm just saying. though that's a different expression of frustration.

however ... here's a discussions scenario: let's say, for example, that a man is married to a woman who hates to perform oral sex on him, or hates to have it performed on her (we can reverse the genders as well, this isn't supposed to be gender specific, women can have purely physical needs that go unmet, orally or whatnot). this causes the husband to feel sexually dissatisfied because he misses oral sex. he loves his wife, he knows they have hectic lives, but he also knows that there is place for him to go online where he could seek out a partner to have no-strings-attached oral sex from time to time. he scratches the itch, his wife never knows, and their marriage continues with greater sexual satisfaction. he also chooses this because it's such a relatively small thing that bringing it up might cause greater problems than it's resolution might solve. better don't ask, don't tell.

thoughts?

 

[PhilsFan]

I never remember Mother's Day or Father's Day, so forgetting either is completely understandable to me. Birthdays are way easier to remember; they don't change.

 

[Irvine511]

forgotten or not, they're both Hallmark holidays. like Valentine's Day. buy shit to show people you love them!

 

[yolland]

however ... here's a discussions scenario: let's say, for example, that a man is married to a woman who hates to perform oral sex on him, or hates to have it performed on her (we can reverse the genders as well, this isn't supposed to be gender specific, women can have purely physical needs that go unmet, orally or whatnot). this causes the husband to feel sexually dissatisfied because he misses oral sex. he loves his wife, he knows they have hectic lives, but he also knows that there is place for him to go online where he could seek out a partner to have no-strings-attached oral sex from time to time. he scratches the itch, his wife never knows, and their marriage continues with greater sexual satisfaction. he also chooses this because it's such a relatively small thing that bringing it up might cause greater problems than it's resolution might solve. better don't ask, don't tell.

In my book, if you find the state of your sex life with your partner unacceptable, and s/he is unwilling or unable to make changes, then that is cause for ending the relationship/divorce--not for infidelity. What I would not want to do is pinpoint specifics as to what a "hypothetical reasonable wo/man" should or shouldn't find "unacceptable." (It might not be out of line for a longtime close friend or sibling to argue that this or that expectation is unreasonable on your part, but anyone else, I don't think that's their place.) Monogamy isn't just about the comfort factor of always having someone to come home to, it's an always-evolving partnership and neither person is going to be exactly who the other would like 100% of the time; yet everyone has a breaking point, and it's your responsibility to know and assert yours.

A good male friend of mine from grad school has been married for, I think, 15 years now to another mutual grad school friend (I never knew her that well though). They have a daughter my oldest son's age, and live and teach abroad. For at least five years now, their marriage has been in bad shape, and for the last three he's been having an off-and-on affair with a married woman. As far as it goes, I'm very sympathetic to his feeling that the marriage isn't worth much effort anymore, because while his wife is a good mother, very attractive, highly responsible, intellectually vibrant and all that good stuff, it's painfully obvious that she no longer feels any real affection for him--even friends who don't know the facts have picked up on that much and asked about it. He tried for two years to get her to go to counseling with him, go on just-the-two-of-us vacations, set aside 'date' time every week etc., and she was resistant and uncooperative, which left him constantly depressed. I think he should file for divorce and have told him so repeatedly, and he never seems surprised or disturbed by that advice, but one way or another always works himself back to "But I think it's better for [our daughter] for us to stay together." Sometimes he genuinely seems to believe it, other times I get the sense he just tells himself that because the thought of throwing himself back out there on his own is so disheartening and scary, but either way I find that rationale all kinds of wrong--children that age notice when their parents are routinely cold with each other, they notice when one parent's behavior leaves the other despondent, they remember the behind-his/her-back expressions of resentment and distrust and deceptive intent that inevitably slip out from time to time, which in my opinion risks warping and wounding them even more deeply than the upheaval of divorce does. He does still love his wife, and in a broad sense she still clearly respects him as a person, but he's not making his life or hers or their daughter's any "better" by having this off-and-on affair--it does give him that feverish tizzy of anticipation, which I completely understand feels really good when you're plagued by emotional and sexual dissatisfaction the rest of the time, but it's like taking drugs; his life has become so stunted and messy that it's painful to watch, yet he doesn't even seem to realize it. Even if they didn't have a child, I would say that. What's the point in st(r)aying in a monogamous relationship that simply can't supply what you personally NEED from a committed partner? I can't think of a good one. Either you find value in the risks (and benefits) of being that open with someone else about your needs and your limits in meeting their needs, or you don't.

 

[Irvine511]

In my book, if you find the state of your sex life with your partner unacceptable, and s/he is unwilling or unable to make changes, then that is cause for ending the relationship/divorce--not for infidelity.

What's the point in st(r)aying in a monogamous relationship that simply can't supply what you personally NEED from a committed partner? I can't think of a good one. Either you find value in the risks (and benefits) of being that open with someone else about your needs and your limits in meeting their needs, or you don't.

i find this a little bit too easy, or too black-and-white. certainly, if someone is making you utterly miserable and they're unable to love you back, as it feels as if your friend is, then that's likely grounds for a reevaluation and perhaps an ending of a relationship. it sounds like she's removed herself emotionally from the relationship, not just sexually. that's about much more than just sex, and perhaps men often don't seek affairs simply because they have emotional needs that aren't being met by their wives. perhaps, needs could be purely sexual, or a need for sexual variety that's attainable now in a way that was impossible before the internet allowed enough anonymity to make the blunt expression of need so easy. sex for many men can be very, very simple, and often aren't symptoms of greater problems within the emotional life of a relationship.

i have friends who simply have a sex problem. a fairly specific one, as well. and it's ending a 17-year relationship that both partners had been quite happy with excluding the specific sexual parts. now, they're both miserable, especially the one who's in danger of being "left," so to speak, though they've chosen to continue to cohabitate, albeit from different bedrooms, because they get along very well and are very used to sharing the day-to-day of life together.

my bigger question is whether or not we are placing too much emphasis on sexual exclusivity, and demanding that we be totally fulfilled (or, at least satiated) by our partners in so many areas of life that it becomes very, very difficult to find that one person who can do all those things, and those things may change over time. in many cultures, even those not so different from our own, sexual activity "on the side" is often overlooked for the good of the union, so to speak ... one thinks of Mad Men and the frequent "nooners," or perhaps the burial of Mitterand and his 6 mistresses. that's excessive, i think we'd agree, but is it not also a bit selfish for one partner to think: "wow, so you're telling me i'm not everything you need me to be? well, go find someone else then."

 

[yolland]

Then have an open relationship, not a fake monogamous one. I've never understood why so many people talk about open relationships as if they're on a par with incest and bestiality. My impression of people who believe in that as a way to manage their intimate lives is that they'll be the first to tell a prospective partner that upfront, because they don't want misunderstandings and they don't want to lie to anyone.

My aforementioned friend's wife is in fact French, and that's where they live. I do tend to assume that this "overlooked for the good of the union" thinking--which, yes, is more prevalent there, and from what I gather, characterized her own parents' marriage as well--plays a role in her delusion that she can just withdraw from the intimate part of the relationship, and that somehow that's supposed to be okay with him. That has not meant, though, that she has no resentments or distrusts about him having an affair, which she doesn't officially "know" about, but in practice (according to him) clearly suspects and holds against him, to the even greater detriment of her attitudes towards him. Which is very often what happens with women in a cultural environment like that, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if distrust of and jealousy towards him (though unwarranted at that stage) was part of what made her withdraw in the first place. Because the thinking is that this is a 'man's privilege,' an inevitability, and you're not supposed to talk about it, you're just supposed to anticipate and accept it, which needless to say is not the way to maintain high ambitions and goodwill towards the relationship. If I had the assumption that for sure my husband's going to help himself to what's out there and this is only natural and not mine to inquire into or protest, I can pretty much guarantee you that would seriously sap my enthusiasm (on multiple levels) for the relationship over time. Because of course there's always going to be someone(s) out there who's more attractive, more of a social charmer, less burdened with work responsibilities, funnier, bolder, better at this or that sexual technique, or whatever it is a given partner might long for at some point in time. Why even bother trying at all? And you could certainly reverse the genders on this if you like--why should he bother trying either, if that were my attitude?--but in practice, this kind of thinking always seems to stress men's needs and wants at women's expense. If you have a daughter and you tell her, 'Look, here's something I think you need to know about men in relationships, there will be mistresses and that's just the way it is,' you are not only telling her something about what she should *expect* from men (dishonesty, for starters), you are also prescribing limits to her about her rightful social place which WILL have psychological impact.

When I taught in southern France for a summer, one of my French male colleagues quite bluntly propositioned me in the office at one point. I found him completely unattractive sexually, so I wouldn't have been tempted anyway, but he *and his wife* had been probably the friendliest people I'd met there in terms of driving me around, taking me to lunch, showing me some of the nature places in the region etc., and I had every reason to assume they'd do so again, so at that point I'm thinking, Um, and what exactly were you figuring I'd do next time the three of us went out together? Beam innocently at your wife and kiss her on the cheeks while casting you nudge-nudge-wink-wink glances? When I told the aforementioned friend, who also teaches at uni in France, about this, he laughed knowingly and said that yeah, he'd had more than one experience where he was discussing the academic progress of some female student with one of his male superiors, and the guy grinningly responded to the effect of, Right, now she's a hot one, why not try getting some action from her? Which to an American academic, as my friend was in the formative years of his career, is utterly jaw-dropping, no matter what sex you are.

There was an article in the NYT several years back about some survey of marital infidelity in the US and several European countries, don't recall the specifics now, but one finding was that American women were far more likely to have affairs than French women, whereas for men the figures were the other way round (though American men were still slightly more likely to have affairs than American women). That finding did not surprise me at all. Not saying I consider the US stats an occasion for 'feminist' celebration, lying is lying no matter who does it, but I did take a certain pleasure in the speculation that perhaps American women are less inclined to swallow the "it's a man thing, you must understand" blanket excuse and all its attendant implications. I've never seen a sociocultural situation in which that thinking prevails that was NOT saturated with condescending attitudes towards women, and in particular with Madonna-Whore thinking. (This one gives a great blow job, that one you can count on to run your household, that one's the biggest thrill to have on your arm in public...etc.)

I realize this is a heavily anecdote-reliant response, and that your question was more philosophical in nature. But I don't know how to explain why I distrust this line of thinking so strongly without trying to illustrate the dynamic I personally feel I've seen to be associated with it. I can grasp it as a fair argument against the general premise of monogamy, but if one's conclusion there is that yes, this is an institution whose negatives outweigh its positives, then it seems to me the only ethical response to that is to choose open relationships and tell prospective partners so openly, rather than exploiting them by hedging your bets.

 

[Irvine511]

Then have an open relationship, not a fake monogamous one. I've never understood why so many people talk about open relationships as if they're on a par with incest and bestiality. My impression of people who believe in that as a way to manage their intimate lives is that they'll be the first to tell a prospective partner that upfront, because they don't want misunderstandings and they don't want to lie to anyone.

[...]

I realize this is a heavily anecdote-reliant response, and that your question was more philosophical in nature. But I don't know how to explain why I distrust this line of thinking so strongly without trying to illustrate the dynamic I personally feel I've seen to be associated with it. I can grasp it as a fair argument against the general premise of monogamy, but if one's conclusion there is that yes, this is an institution whose negatives outweigh its positives, then it seems to me the only ethical response to that is to choose open relationships and tell prospective partners so openly, rather than exploiting them by hedging your bets.

yes and yes. it is heavily anecdotal, and the "boys will be boys" attitude -- which, again, i feel is less true since i think any woman could seek sex-for-sex outside of a relationship in the same way that a man could -- is antiquated and destructive to people and to relationships. it's a remnant of a former world where female options were limited and a man's privilege unquestioned.

but i also think that it's American attitudes towards sexual exclusivity -- sort of a feminist reaction to said man's privilege -- is wrapped up in unrealistic expectations of our partners, particularly today. we have pills that keep men erect and ejaculating well into their 70s, we have creams and hormones that keep women sexually active later and later. sex toys, lubricants, exotic techniques ... all these have lost their taboo nature. so many articles in magazines are devoted to improving your sex life well past one's prime child bearing years, and i can't help but think it might be a bit of a tall order to expect someone to be fully satisfied for what now could be 50+ years of lovemaking, and through all the ebbs and flows of a relationship between two people out in the world making comparable incomes and sharing household duties. and yet, not only do we blame ourselves (maybe) if we don't live up to this, and the societal punishments are swift and often final. i'd like to think that it would be as simple as "well, just have an open relationship," but i don't think most people would be able to intellectualize their sexuality on such a level. and i think it's from this kind of pressure to keep a marriage together while at the same time the pressure to make sure that you are squeezing every last drop of fun from your sexuality that a website like AshleyMadison (and it's 3.2 million members) comes into being.

here's an article from the LA Times:

For starters, the commercials are hilarious. One television spot shows a glamorous couple in the throes of passion. A title card reads, "This couple is married ... but not to each other." In another ad, a man retreats to the sofa to escape his obese, snoring wife while a voice-over declares, "Most of us can recover from a one-night stand with the wrong woman, but not when it's every night for the rest of our lives."

The ads, as well as the slogan, were written by the company's 37-year-old founder and chief executive, Noel Biderman, a former attorney, sports agent and self-described happily married father of two who started the company in 2001.

I met up with Biderman, who is from Toronto, on Monday at KTLA Channel 5, where he was a guest on the morning news. Despite much hand flapping and righteous indignation from the hosts (even the weatherman wanted in on the questioning), Biderman calmly suggested that because many members are in sexless marriages but don't actually want to leave their spouses, the company "preserves more marriages than we break up." He added that the most sign-ups occur around New Year's and that, ahem, Los Angeles is the company's biggest market.

When I talked to him after the broadcast, Biderman, whose mild-mannered comportment belies the seediness of his enterprise, explained that in hard economic times, a lot of people who've been planning a divorce suddenly cannot afford one. The money-saving solution? Seek carnal comfort in others. He also made an analogy between his extramarital dating service and handing out condoms to teens.

"Some people say it promotes promiscuity," he said. "But if you don't do it, you get behavior that's way more harmful to society. Infidelity has been around a lot longer than Ashley Madison."

He believes that hearing about the service in a commercial is not going to persuade anyone to have an affair. "It's a decision they've come to already. All I'm saying is, don't do it in the workplace where it could result in someone losing their job, don't go to a singles dating service and lie about your status, don't hire a prostitute. Given that affairs are going to happen no matter what, maybe we should see Ashley Madison as a safe alternative."

And just who is Ashley Madison? Is she the steamy love child of Laura Ashley and a Dolly Madison chocolate Zinger? Is she Heidi Fleiss with a Daughters of the American Revolution name? Alas, she doesn't exist. In an effort to attract women to the site, Biderman and his colleagues combined two of today's most popular baby names and invented their fictional proprietor.

By tracking information provided on user profiles, Biderman has been able to learn quite a bit about his clients, even if he doesn't know their real names. Seventy percent are men, he says; among those who are "active" members (sign-up is free but you must purchase credits to interact with others), the male-to-female ratio is 1-1. The majority of the men, who tend to be in their late 30s to early 40s, are married. The women, who skew a bit younger, fall into three categories: the suburban housewife "who is seeking validation of her desirability"; the "quintessential mistress" who is not interested in a family life but wants things like trips and dinners out; and women who've been married only a short time and suddenly wonder what they got themselves into.

The company put me in touch with a "quintessential mistress" named Jackie (at least she wanted to be named Jackie for the purposes of this column) who professes total satisfaction with Ashley Madison. A self-described "very fit and attractive" 43-year-old college graduate who lives in Beverly Hills and works in real estate, she says she values her independence too much to pursue a conventional relationship. Of all the dating sites she's tried, Ashley Madison has worked out the best for her. (It can't hurt that the site sometimes offers free points to members who will talk to the media.)

"A few weeks ago, I had a fantastic meeting with someone who's been married for 15 years and has three children," Jackie said. "I met him at the Four Seasons on Friday night and we met up again Saturday morning and went to Vegas for two days. I didn't really care that the guy's married. He has no desire to leave his family, and I have no desire for a commitment. So it's ideal."

What's that furious clacking sound I hear? Is it the sound of apoplectic readers typing irate e-mails about the subject of this column? Or is it the sound of people signing on to Ashley Madison?

Or is it the sound of divorce lawyers lowering their fees? Maybe some good can come of this after all.

Ashley Madison's secret success - latimes.com

i also wonder, is this necessarily true:

this kind of thinking always seems to stress men's needs and wants at women's expense.

really? seems to me that women are now more than capable of having affairs of their own, and women become more empowered to seek ownership and responsibility for their own sexuality -- no longer "did he give you an orgasm" but more "did you get an orgasm" -- so too will the demand for sexual satisfaction be shared by the couple. so too will women feel entitled to more from their sexual relationships.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't believe you have to buy shit to show people that you love them, not at all-but a man who doesn't even acknowledge a day to honor the mother of his kids (or a woman for the father)..it's like the woman said, a cup of coffee. Obviously you should do the little things as often as possible. Like I said, I think it's more of a last straw thing as part of an overall pattern.

Ashley Madison is pretty famous-they even had a storyline based upon a fictional identical site on The Good Wife last night. Sarah Silverman played the owner of the site.