Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#231

Post by FireBeyond »

rdancer wrote: post #212
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, technically men cheat a little more than women, according to studies that aren't done by dating companies. But the 'why' is varied. It's illogical to say "they cheat because they are more likely to cheat". They cheat because of many factors, but according to surveys, they cheat more often out of a need for physical satisfaction, while women cheat more out of a need for emotional or intimate satisfaction. As far…

> men cheat a little more than women, according to studies Women admit to cheating less than men, and this is reflected in a bias of studies whose methodology includes self-reporting. In general, women self-report about one third less sex partners than men. That presents a curious mathematical problem: who are all those extra men partnering with? Let's say the average reported number of sex partners for males is 11.7…

"Women admit to cheating less than men, and this is reflected in a bias of studies whose methodology includes self-reporting."

I remember reading something that said something along the lines of "A married man in a bar, cheating, is more likely to do so without thought to the wedding ring - either oblivious to taking it off or apathetic".

Women doing the same thing were much more likely to make a conscious point of removing the wedding ring in the same situation.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#232

Post by 6t6t6 »

edent wrote: post #24
JupiterMoon wrote: post #17

What is the legal status of looking at hacked datasets like this?

In the UK, it looks like a breach of the Data Protection Act - https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/personal-data-i... Likely to be similar across Europe.

Now it is a good moment to remember when they started to pass Data Protection laws in Europe 15 years ago and everybody was freaking out like "Oh my good, with this laws it will be impossible to do Internet business in Europe! All the companies will go to America!"

Profit...

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#234

Post by vidarh »

JohnBooty wrote: post #189
vidarh wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me you ignored the following part. The point is unless you have attributes that scream "status" in some for or other, as a man you have to put in effort to find a partner that women are more likely to be able to avoid (that said: women who want good partners still have to put in a lot of effort too). Women have a whole different level of choice. Not necessarily good choices, but choice nonetheless. Just t…

Didn't ignore it. Yes, in Western (or at least American) society men do tend to pursue women more actively than vice-versa. This is probably true in most cultures though I don't have firsthand experience. No, you do not need to be "handsome, wealthy and well endowed (i.e. perfect)" in order to avoid being "at the mercy of women." Just try to put up a fake profile on a dating site as an experiment and see what ends up…

> Saw lots of guys who weren't "perfect" have a great time and find success in relationships

That's not the point. The point is the relative difference in effort. And it's not just that men tend to pursue, but that the starting point on dating sites is so extremely uneven - the threshold to message someone is so low that men approach at a far higher rate than they dare to in real life, and approach women well outside of the "range" they'd normally do.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#235

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #210
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those are objective facts, backed by statistics. Completely different than Not really, considering that the gender wage gap often pointed out (the 70-something cents to the dollar) is not standardized for time worked, experience, career choice, or a number of other factors. I would say Clinton is wrong to bring up the 70-something cents to a dollar, but I wouldn't call her bitter. >If that doesn't sound bitter to yo…

An objective fact doesn't stop being an objective fact because one can debate whether it is the most appropriate fact for the discussion.

An objective fact presented in a way to mislead should no longer be considered just an objective fact. Consider how many racists like to throw around 'objective facts' about the rates of crimes between different races. Devoid of the sociological understanding and comparisons of other base rates and correlations, such facts are worse than useless.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#236

Post by pluma »

k__ wrote: post #63

As a poly guy I like how this incident holds a mirror up to society. So many people who lied to everyone about how they believe in mongamy.

Reminds me of Ted Haggard when he was found out to mysteriously have a sexual interest in men.

AM seems extremely representative of the American attitude to sex: seemingly everybody knows about AM, supposedly only sexual deviants use it, yet the leak reveals a significant portion of the population (and a lot of conservatives I would bet) signed up for it.

Compare that to the porn industry: it's one of the US's biggest markets, tons of people work for it, insane amounts of people consume it, but if any individual admits to using porn they're some kind of sex addict or pervert (and oh my god the Christian family values -- won't someone think of the children!).

A weird place, that country. Victorian morals on the outside, sexually liberated on the inside.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#238

Post by Lawtonfogle »

adriand wrote: post #202
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how our modern view of what was then a capital crime matters. When the quote was said, it was said to a group who were asking to carry out a death sentence for a capital crime. That is to say, the line of reasoning is that you should not carry out an execution for a capital crime unless you are without sin. To insist that this quote only applies to adultery and not to other actions which different societi…

I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort. I'm reminded of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's comment when he defended a bill decriminalizing homosexual acts: "There's no p…

>I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort.

Comes from the same set of books where anyone guilty of breaking one law is guilty of breaking them all, and comes from the guy who claimed to not only be the son of the one who made the laws that carried capital punishment, but who was there to give people a way to not be punished regardless of the crime. Nothing in His message was 'these crimes here are far worse than those crimes there'.

As for the bedroom bit, I find that almost no one believe that as soon as you have either money exchanging hands or some person who has been around the sun one too few times.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#239

Post by pluma »

NotOscarWilde wrote: post #49
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #4

Immediately, somebody should begin a study on the impact of this data leak. Millions of cheaters exposed? What will be the increase in counseling? Divorce rate? What percentage of folks will carry on like nothing has happened? It's an incredible story. I'm not sure the English language has a word to describe this: watching millions of people go through marital pain all at the same time. It's not a train wreck -- you…

> But I also do not approve on taking action that would result in folks I do not know getting exposed. Folks have a right to their own lives. I do not think there is such a right, because what you are describing is (in probably many cases) a right to break an agreement (marriage in this case) and keep pretending that you honor it until you yourself disclose it. In simpler terms: you may have "a right to your own life…

For the most part, you have the right to disclose or not disclose information on your private live to your partner as much or as little as you please.

You just can't demand there won't be consequences when they find out. And you can't force other people to respect your decisions if they find out.

So, no. If you cheated and someone finds out, they are under no moral obligation to shut up about it. There are of course exceptions (e.g. if you're a woman in a country that applies Sharia law) but as a general rule: if you fuck up and lie about it, you should think about it as a delay rather than a way out.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#240

Post by pluma »

edent wrote: post #24
JupiterMoon wrote: post #17

What is the legal status of looking at hacked datasets like this?

In the UK, it looks like a breach of the Data Protection Act - https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/personal-data-i... Likely to be similar across Europe.

I'm not entirely sure about that.

It's personal data in the sense that you're likely not allowed to process them (as a business or corporation -- whether for commercial use or not). But most of these laws are written for companies and for individuals granted access to personal information by those companies.

As a person you're certainly not allowed to distribute the information (or at least not any personally identifiable parts of it) but mere "looking at them" doesn't seem like it would be a breach in and of itself.

The article you linked would indicate this: looking at the data isn't a breach of the data protection act, it merely means whatever you do with the data falls under the provisions of that act, limiting what you can do with it.

Post reply on HN