Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook, Friend of Divorce Lawyers

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the data-honey-pot dept.

Privacy 494

crimeandpunishment writes "A lot of Facebook users going through divorces have learned a very costly lesson about their privacy settings. In fact, for many of them their Facebook pages helped lead to the divorce in the first place. More than 80% of the members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers say they've used or run into evidence gathered from Facebook and other social networking sites over the last five years — and some of them have some very entertaining stories to tell. 'Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama,' said AAML's president."

cancel ×

494 comments

Just think before you share (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32728836)

That's all there is to it.

ZipKid

Re:Just think before you share (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729188)

What is this "think" you mentioned?

Re:Just think before you share (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729196)

Oh, and one more thing: Magically somehow force everybody you know to think before they share.

No big deal.

Re:Just think before you share (3, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729222)

not having a facebook page to start with is a good start.

It becomes somewhat harder to find damaging fotos on your friends' pages if they arent conviently linked in your own page

Still you have a very valid point though...

Re:Just think before you share (2, Informative)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729506)

You can untag them - if you don't have a facebook page, people can stick your name in, and you'll never know.

You can also remove the photos link from your profile altogether (or make it restricted to friends only, etc).

Re:Just think before you share (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729240)

Well if you are carrying on an adulterous affair, I would assume that you would be taking measures to ensure that other people do not see you with your lover. Granted, there are a lot of idiots out there who will do things like go on a date with their lover in the same town where all their friends and family (incl. in-laws) live, and I am going to guess that those same idiots are the ones who get caught using Facebook.

Re:Just think before you share (3, Funny)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729444)

Newsflash : Dumb people do dumb things and get caught. Full news at 11

Re:Just think before you share (1, Flamebait)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729200)

If people spent more time thinking before they got married, then perhaps it wouldn't matter what they shared, as they would be much less likely to put themselves into damaging situations.

Re:Just think before you share (5, Interesting)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729492)

As always the issue here is not the type of information (data valuable to divorce lawyers) but the context in which it is gathered (Facebook search unbeknownst to the poster). And once again the usual responses will be - a) Poster is stupid, and b) Facebook is evil.

I tend to think that so long as you are empowered to share or not to share then all is well. With Facebook this is not the case. My sister shared a reasonably embarrassing photo of me with some mutual friends (some of which I work with) which was then shared with my whole building by whatever networking effect took over - nice!. I was not in control of this. Now you can argue that she could have done this pre-social networking site era - but she couldn't simple because she is not in physical contact with 99.5% of people in my building. Social networking makes ones dis-empowerment that much more pervasive.

stupid people (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728840)

so where's the surprize?

here's the surprise (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32728854)

A couple weeks ago, while taking my asian girlfriend shopping at the local mall, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Steve Jobs -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the security guards wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal thinker and had been an Apple customer since 1984. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting Jobs, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Steve Jobs, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman, and thrusting my pink iPod Shuffle into my ass. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Steve Jobs wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than reading an Apple press release!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Steve Jobs dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful Apple customer.

Absolutely... (4, Funny)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729034)

I didn't make it past the first sentence of the article, it was so astoundingly stupid:

Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.

Re:Absolutely... (4, Funny)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729368)

Yeah, because de-friending your wife would so not sound her alarm bells... :)

It seems that... (5, Funny)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728860)

...attorneys are not interested into people posting on Slashdot. Can you guess why ?!?

Re:It seems that... (3, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729000)

...attorneys are not interested into people posting on Slashdot. Can you guess why ?!?

Better privacy settings?

Re:It seems that... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729090)

Ray Beckerman [slashdot.org] is interested!

Rule 1. (5, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728866)

Rule 1. of the internet, if you want it private... DON'T post it.

Re:Rule 1. (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728970)

Better: If you EVER MIGHT want it private, don't post it on the internet.

Re:Rule 1. (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728978)

Which effectively means, don't post anything on the Internet. You never know when something that seems innocent might some day be something you would have preferred to keep private.

Re:Rule 1. (4, Funny)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729118)

Which effectively means, don't post anything on the Internet. You never know when something that seems innocent might some day be something you would have preferred to keep private.

That, There, is the definition of Irony!

Re:Rule 1. (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729324)

Is it?

Re:Rule 1. (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729244)

Why, you seem like someone who has something to hide Mr, betterunixthanunix....

Re:Rule 1. (3, Funny)

PincushionMan (1312913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729382)

Got it. No C++ on the Internet. Someone might see my privates.

Re:Rule 1. (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729456)

You're doing it wrong! Use protected.

Re:Rule 1. (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729388)

That's what I was implying. There is also anonymity, but only for certain values of anonymous - if you post something that attracts the interest of the authorities you probably won't stay anonymous for long.

Re:Rule 1. (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729448)

No. That in itself is suspect.

Post something. Your name, DoB, rough location, a photo, a few of your friends, then never touch it again. You have an online presence, it is your only one, and it's accurate. That way you have a layer of defense if something like this turns up. "No, that's not my account. This is my account, and I can prove it because my friends are on it, not on the one you found. You didn't find this profile because I don't use it except to stop people using my identity fraudulently.

(Note: I refuse to use the term "identity theft." It's called fraud, and it's not my fault the other party wasn't sure of who they were dealing with.)

The lesson: never get married! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728874)

ABOLISH the bourgeois family! For women's liberation through socialist revolution!

From the article (4, Interesting)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728892)

"Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him."

WTF? What kind of @sshole is he? Oh, wait... my ex effectively did that with my daughter pre-facebook...

Re:From the article (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729182)

Oh, wait... my ex effectively did that with my daughter pre-facebook...

Wait a minute... people were @sshole's _before_ facebook existed? Surely you jest?

Re:From the article (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729540)

Aye 'tis true, FB just amplified the assholish dickishness of people. Well, that and the unsubstantiated belief that people actually care about such stupid trivialities. Then Twitter came in and went even further with people tweeting about their bowel movements.

Re:From the article (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729230)

I live in VA, and I believe you can still sue/divorce your wife here under "alienation of affection" if she withholds sex from you. That seriously has to be the most stupid grounds for anything I've ever heard... unless she tries to take the dog. That's just low. P.S. -- I have never been married. I'm not nearly as old as a 5-digit ID would make me seem.

Re:From the article (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729296)

I would gues that you're not as old as that, by the fact that you're posting on a 7 digit UID.

Re:From the article (1)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729340)

I would gues that you're not as old as that, by the fact that you're posting on a 7 digit UID.

Time for another optometrist visit.

Re:From the article (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729346)

I know it's difficult, but 3,2=5 but in some magical worlds where we use new math 3,2=7.

Re:From the article (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729424)

I blame the alcohol... Irish whiskey is to blame for many things, like the poetry of Byron, the music of The Rolling Stones, my liver, multiple teen pregnancies...

Re:From the article (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729476)

yeah... I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Re:From the article (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729510)

My apologies, I work odd hours/days and this is my weekend. I read your post number as your user ID, alcohol is to blame... as with most human mistakes.

Re:From the article (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729562)

Withholding sex for pretty much any reason other than lack of interest or medical reasons is abuse. Which is one of the reasons why one should divorce a spouse that's using that as a tool to get what he/she wants.

People who cheat should blame themselves, not FB (5, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728912)

People who cheat have one thing to blame, and to find it they need only look in the mirror.

FaceBook does not cause divorces. Divorce lawyers don't cause divorces.

Cheaters who get caught and don't change their behavior cause divorces.

If you promised someone your fidelity, and if you have broken that promise, look in the mirror to see whom to blame.

I can't stand hypocrites who don't take responsibility for their actions.

And cheaters.

Ehud
Tucson AZ
P.S. Please don't mod me down. It's my birthday this year.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728986)

What about the cheaters who get divorced in order to marry their other lover? Is their partner on the hook for that?

As a rule though, documenting infidelity anywhere is just plain stupid, whether we're talking a bunch of emails, a compromising video, or a credit card charge at a hotel. Facebook is no different.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729082)

What about the cheaters who get divorced in order to marry their other lover?

If that's the type of person they're going after, they'll quickly discover what it's like to be on the "cheated" side.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729084)

As a rule though, documenting infidelity anywhere is just plain stupid, whether we're talking a bunch of emails, a compromising video, or a credit card charge at a hotel. Facebook is no different.

Well unless you have in-person contact with your lover in your day to day life, that can be a little hard -- how else will you arrange meetings and whatnot? The communication will need to happen at some point.

If I were in such a situation, I would immediately look at steganography. Cryptography is a good first try, but the problem is that it reveals who you were communicating with, which is incriminating in and of itself. Thus, steganography, possibly using some public photo sharing service (ironically, Facebook could serve the purpose here). The messages would have to be short, but that is fine for arranging a meeting or sending a love note.

Not that I really see myself being in such a situation.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729332)

Well unless you have in-person contact with your lover in your day to day life, that can be a little hard -- how else will you arrange meetings and whatnot? The communication will need to happen at some point.

Are you fishing for tips or are you wrong on /. ?

Web-Mail account, registered solely for this purpose. Browser in privacy mode when you access it. You don't need crypto to keep something hidden, you need crypto if you want to keep something secret that you can't hide.

For the experts, or those with much to lose, there are lots of other options, but unless your spouse is a geek, they're overkill.

Disclosure: I worked on some of this stuff many years ago. Our target audience were civil rights activists who in many countries likewise need to communicate with at least plausible deniability. A geeky UN-affiliated NGO built systems where the local military police could confiscate their computers and find absolutely nothing incriminating.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729412)

It's called a Tracphone.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Interesting)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729464)

If you tried any of that shit with a mistress, I guarantee she would not be your mistress for very long. "Just download this program, configure it, and view this random TinyPic hyperlink if you ever want to be honored by my presence and average-sized penis." What a joke; most mistresses are in it for your attention, and the more they feel they are being hidden, the better chance there is that they will drop you like a used rubber.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729146)

As a rule though, infidelity anywhere is just plain stupid,

FTFY

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729258)

Actually, it is not.

It may violate your ethics, moral guidelines, religion or what-have-you. But it is not stupid. On the contrary, successful cheating does require considerable mental ressources, especially if you want to keep the affair going (and secret) for a long time.

It is also a built-in drive, the same way that hunger and thirst are. Look up Helen E. Fisher and read a few of her books, she is the foremost authority on the biology that drives lust, love and attachment. Here's a great TED talk of hers on the subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html [ted.com]

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (4, Insightful)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729542)

It may violate your ethics, moral guidelines, religion or what-have-you. But it is not stupid.

Cheating is not about ethics or morals or religion. It's not even about sex. Its about your commitment (or lack thereof) to your spouse, and to all of the other people in your marriage (kids, in-laws, parents, neighbors, etc.). And if you are not smart enough to find an acceptable outlet for your biological urges, I would have to say that's pretty stupid.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729098)

People who cheat have one thing to blame, and to find it they need only look in the mirror.

In most civilized countries, cheating does not help divorce any more than going to an attorney and asking for divorce.

Marriage should not restrict you to have sex to only one person in any way (or have your marriage broken with the person being 'cheated on' getting all your money).

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729204)

If you want to have sex with more than one person while married; nothing stops you from laying out your preferences beforehand, why wouldn't you ask your partner and get their ok?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729304)

Except that in certain countries, such as the US, then your partner can use this as a motivation for divorce and get a larger part of the pie than if he/she simply asked for it without motivation.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729400)

Except that in certain countries, such as the US, then your partner can use this as a motivation for divorce and get a larger part of the pie than if he/she simply asked for it without motivation.

I was thinking more along the lines of a contractual ok. For that matter, would you agree that if your partner is asking for divorce, they are dissatisfied?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729528)

That's why our wedding vows had notihng about forsaking all others...

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729260)

Marriage should not restrict you to have sex to only one person in any way

Ummm, yeah, that's what marriage IS. Everybody's not cut out for it. If you want to play the field, don't get married.

(or have your marriage broken with the person being 'cheated on' getting all your money).

If you are worried about someone taking your money, then don't get married. Do we see a pattern forming here? Yes. Yes, we do.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729488)

Ummm, yeah, that's what marriage IS.

Weird definition of marriage. I don't think marriage is only and strictly a pledge of monogamy. Marriage, strictly speaking, is a binding contract. Beyond that, it's up to the couple to define what it is. Marriage vows vary, even if held in a religious institution the official (minister) are fairly flexible about what the couple wants in the vows. I know a number of couples with open marriages; are they not married? Some have been married for decades and have kids and great relationships.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729308)

Marriage should not restrict you to have sex to only one person in any way

If you said "to the exclusion of all others" or something to that effect when you took your wedding vows then yes it should. Otherwise you are cheating the other person out of what they signed up for.

If you want to have an open marriage then go right ahead and do whatever works for you, but don't tell other people what works for them because that's just dumb.

And if you got married on the basis that you would only have sex with your partner and then change your mind, at least be honest about it. It's the not being honest about it that makes it "cheating".

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729158)

This may earn me some negaitve karma, but so be it.

Oh yes, because people who cheat are ALWAYS bad, and it has nothing to do with the fact that their partner might be completely unsuitable for them and/or positively damaging to them. I *love* black and white morality. I thought we had some people that appreciate shades of grey on /.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (4, Insightful)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729228)

This may earn me some negaitve karma, but so be it. Oh yes, because people who cheat are ALWAYS bad, and it has nothing to do with the fact that their partner might be completely unsuitable for them and/or positively damaging to them. I *love* black and white morality. I thought we had some people that appreciate shades of grey on /.

Why wouldn't they get a divorce first?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729330)

I'm guessing that you've never been through the potentially multiple years long and extremely expensive process.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Insightful)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729428)

I'm guessing that you've never been through the potentially multiple years long and extremely expensive process.

You're saying that it makes more sense to go behind your partner's back than to tell them because it's too hard to be straight?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Interesting)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729474)

I'm saying that while you are "separated" and no longer in a sexual relationship with your legal spouse, you can still be accused of cheating in a court of law.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729498)

I'm saying that while you are "separated" and no longer in a sexual relationship with your legal spouse, you can still be accused of cheating in a court of law.

This seems like a hard sell if you already have divorce papers being filed? Can it still make a difference?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729392)

"Why wouldn't they get a divorce first?"

I can think of a few reasons. Maybe there are children involved, and the divorce would harm the children emotionally or possibly deny one parent access to their children. Maybe there is a risk of alimony payments. Maybe there is a risk of losing a house, car, or other very valuable property.

Divorce is not like breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend. It is a legal process with legal and financial ramifications.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729458)

"Why wouldn't they get a divorce first?"

Maybe there are children involved, and the divorce would harm the children emotionally...

You mean, emotionally other than growing up watching their parents be part of a loveless relationship filled with lies and deceit?

Maybe there is a risk of alimony payments. Maybe there is a risk of losing a house, car, or other very valuable property.

So money is more important than ethics? You sound ripe for a CEO of a major corporation. You'll go quite far!

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729472)

I can think of a few reasons. Maybe there are children involved, and the divorce would harm the children emotionally or possibly deny one parent access to their children.

So it's better for the children to see you cheat on their other parent?

Maybe there is a risk of alimony payments. Maybe there is a risk of losing a house, car, or other very valuable property.

This won't happen if you get caught and sued for divorce?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729322)

So leave the incompatible marriage first? Not only is it the morally responsible thing to do, but it's also the most legally responsible thing to do (to minimize damages come the divorce).

Cheating is always bad, if for no other reason than it is a betrayal of the vows you made when you get married. The very least you can do in a broken relationship is to end the marriage first before moving on to others.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729546)

As I've stated above, you are technically cheating when you sleep with someone during a legally mandated separation. Are you saying that people should put their emotional/sexual lives on hold for a dead relationship?

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (2, Insightful)

nixNscratches (957550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729344)

There are lots of views on morality, but for me personally, I'd say yes, cheating is ALWAYS bad, because above all, it's dishonest. More than that though, you are cheating yourself, and your professed parter, and even your person on the side out of a chance at a real love relationship. If you have real and significant problems with your spouse, get those issues out in the air. If they can't be worked on between the two of you, get some counseling, or get some papers filed. It's really that simple. "Staying together for the kids" only teaches the children that abuse and unhappiness are okay as long as you can justify it to yourself. Besides, they learn almost everything about love relationships by watching their parents. If you don't love someone, but you're staying with them anyway, expect your kids will do the same until or unless they learn better. It's a complex problem to be sure, mainstream media has stressed the fairy tale courtship, where the magic of love is all about finding the right person. Unfortunately most people find out falling in love and living in love can be rather different. If you find the right person though, and you inspire each other to each be the right person for one another then you may wake up every day feeling like you are the luckiest person alive.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729358)

Yes...you are always bad if you are cheating on your spouse to whom you are married. This of course doesn't apply to so-called "open" relationships, where you can have relationships with whomever you want while you are married. Let's look at it this way...marriage is one of two things, either a religious construct going back thousands of years, or a social construct for the purpose of seeing a distinct benefit in being with someone else. In the religious side, adultery is bad. On the social side, if you aren't deriving any benefit from the marriage, why stay married? All the b.s. Lifetime movies (Bridges of Madison county I'm lookin at you) are fantastical stories where the women are strong for cheating on their husbands because they aren't getting what they need emotionally, and the men are pigs when they cheat on their wives.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729486)

Actually, marriage has always been a legal matter; the only reason religion ever became involved is that at one time, religion was the way laws were defined. Marriage is nothing more than a way to codify family units into the law, thus simplifying things like inheritance, access to land and property, and so forth.

As for the issue of cheating, well, keep in mind that humans are not known to be naturally monogamous. People can start out a marriage with strong feelings of love and devotion, but things change. Sometimes an affair can be a temporary thing, just a couple of weeks, and then the devotion to the marriage takes over again. Sometimes the feelings that were so strong at the beginning of a marriage can fade, and sometimes only for one of the people involved. Leaving the marriage behind is not necessarily the best answer in all situations, especially in situations involving children.

Things are not black and white.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729586)

Thank you BUTU, you've restored (some) of my (completely non-denominational) faith in /.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729398)

Oh yes, because people who cheat are ALWAYS bad

That's pretty much my opinion.

, and it has nothing to do with the fact that their partner might be completely unsuitable for them and/or positively damaging to them.

If the marriage isn't working out for you and you think there is no way it's ever going to work then grow a spine and be upfront about it _before_ you go chasing someone else. Don't go behind the other persons back because that's what makes it cheating.

I *love* black and white morality. I thought we had some people that appreciate shades of grey on /.

I like to think i'm not so black and white when it comes to this sort of stuff but I can't think of a situation where sneaking around behind someones back is anything but the wrong thing to do.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729174)

Cheaters who get caught and don't change their behavior cause divorces.

Uh, no. In the same sense that you post above.

People who file for divorce cause divorces.

If you promised someone your fidelity, and if you have broken that promise, look in the mirror to see whom to blame.

As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.

Now if your vow actually did contain these words then yes. In which case it is breaking your word that is causing all the trouble, and that could be on sex, but also on a lot of other things.

So on the traditional marriage, one could say that breaking an unspoken expectation of one party is what caused the breakup. Yes, it is a very common expectation. You'd be surprised at the small percentage of people who actually voiced it.

And then, of course, we could go down the road of "it wasn't the cheating, it was the finding out about it that caused the divorce", because there are tons and tons of marriages where one partner cheats or cheated that are still perfectly intact, because the other one doesn't know.

What all that leads up to is very simply: There are no simple answers. Relationships and their involved commitments and emotions are too complicated and interrelated for simple answers. What makes one, breaks another. What one partner sees as the root cause, the other sees as the reaction to something else.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729234)

As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.

"The" traditional christian marriage vow? You're fired.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32729256)

As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.

forsaking all others...

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (4, Insightful)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729390)

As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.

Let's see....something in Genesis if I recall pertained exactly to this. Something about adultery....I think it was one of ten ideas, or laws, or fuzzy warm feelings, or something like that. Maybe commandments? Who knows, the Bible isn't really worth anything really to a Christian marriage....

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

justthisdude (779510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729274)

People who cheat have one thing to blame, and to find it they need only look in the mirror.

It's not always the cheater's fault. Why, lots of the times I cheated it was totally the woman's fault... oh, wait, this isn't going out on the internet is it?

Please disregard.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729470)

You must watch a lot of Lifetime movies....

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729288)

I think that you are understating the power of environmental influences, and the effect of feedback loops.

People certainly differ in their willingness(and quite possibly capacity) to resist temptation; but this means that, on a population level, if you change the ease and availability of temptation, you change the number of people succumbing to it. It's like obesity. Yeah, everyone is, in theory, in control of what they eat, though metabolisms differ; but if the price of corn syrup drops by $1 a gallon, the number of fat people in a population will increase. Facebook is to infidelity what cheap HFCS is to obesity. It doesn't magically cram itself down your throat; but the population effects are clear and pronounced.

Second, of course, is feedback loops. Divorces occur over more than infidelity. If, for example, one or both parties have a predisposition to jealousy, a service that allows them to see all the old-people-from-highschool that their partner never bothered to defriend, and ruminate endlessly about whether they just didn't bother, or whether they are still exchanging steamy messages every day, is not going to help very much. Dealing with someone spiralling into crazy-jealous mode isn't going to be very pleasant. Things can easily spiral down from there, whether to actual infidelity, or just to "I can't fucking stand to be in the same house as this crazy bastard" territory.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32729314)

FaceBook does not cause divorces. Divorce lawyers don't cause divorces.

Nope, outdated legal constructs based on stone-aged belief systems causes divorces by forcing people into "marriages" in order to benefit from tax and legal protections not afforded those who don't proscribe to a system based on religious beliefs.

if we didn't have marriages we wouldn't have divorces.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729482)

Nothing says you can't be married only for the tax and legal reasons.....I don't agree with it, but it's not illegal.

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729318)

But why did you mod him down?? It's his birthday this year!!

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32729446)

NOTE 1: I'm divorced
NOTE 2: I live in Estonia (EU)

Not all may apply to you, but this is what I noticed in the local law:

Infidelity is not illegal. In the laws that govern matrimonial rights, infidelity is never mentioned.
Moreover, the law specifically states that by marrying one cannot demand the other to agree to things that would limit their rights. This open an interesting question, can a husband/wife demand that the other would not be infidel? or would that be "limiting the rights of the other"?

Most divorces are because of love fading away (my case), and not necessarily infidelity, though probably large part involves infidelity. But since that was not my case, I never got to ask this question in court.

Though I now that courts here wouldn't care at all if you said that you oppose divorce from religious reasons. That, too, is not in the law.

Therefore, I guess, infidelity only enters the decision making process when custodial rights are decided (or division of property?), when it's decided who is more suitable to take care of the children.

And I wonder what kind of photos people post on FB to be able to infer from them that someone is infidel? Dancing in a party? Hugging someone? Would people scream "infidelity!"?

My job is to take photos, so I know how easy it is to get a photo that "looks bad". Tons of photos with people with drinks in their hand, for example, though they would swear they never drink alcohol (!), and they don't, because those photos are taken right after some friend goes "hold this, I have to..."

Re:People who cheat should blame themselves, not F (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729574)

Please don't mod me down. It's my birthday this year.

In fact, mod him up some more. Not because it's his birthday, but because he's 100% correct. I should have divorced the adulterous Evil-X the first time I caught her. There are two kinds of people in the world, those that are faithful and those that aren't. If they do it once they'll keep doing it; they're not going to change their behavior.

Oh, and happy birthday, gavron.

And what gets me are sanctimonious people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32729578)

Sanctimonious people who don't realize that if people choose to live in an open relationship, even when married and do not promise sexual fidelity - only financial and emotional fidelity - everything works out much better. Fifty percent of couples cheat and fifty percent get divorced. They never tumble to the conclusion that if they make their relationship about an act, like sex or skydiving or hacking or whatever, they are statistically doomed to failure. Define the relationship differently and the divorce rate drops.

Happily in an open marriage for 15 years.

And some useful advice (2, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728916)

From the article again, some rules for FB.

"WHAT YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU"

"BEWARE YOUR FRENEMIES"

"A PICTURE MAY BE WORTH ... BIG BUCKS"

"PRIVACY, PRIVACY, PRIVACY"

Useful advice, and not just on Facebook. Sorry about the caps, but that's how this advice was posted in the article.

Will people never learn? (4, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32728960)

It is simple, don't post anything online that you don't want others to see.

For more info, visit my website. hsa://goatse.cx

Yours truly,

S.E. Goat

Stupidity (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729002)

Seriously, for centuries, people carrying on secret affairs would go to great lengths to maintain their secrecy. The Kama Sutra even recommends that cryptography be used, and provides a cipher, to help protect messages sent between lovers. What kind of idiot would post anything related to an adulterous affair anywhere on Facebook?

Re:Stupidity (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729218)

The same kind of idiot who posts all the rest of their life on social networking sites.

The vast majority of people today simply neither want nor understand privacy.

I just want to see who's quit... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729086)

...that horrible information gathering site. I deactivated my account about 2 months ago - would have been sooner if I hadn't make quite a bit of progress in backyard monsters! Hahaha...

One person I know said it best - "I won't sign up for a facebook account because its like an after highschool popularity contest. And yes - I realize that you can "reconnect" with people from your past, but how much of a reconnection besides of couple of messages back and forth have you had? (rhetorical question - I really don't care)

So yea - if you had an account and deleted it for whatever reason, i'd like to hear.

Why would you care? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729148)

... if you had an account and deleted it for whatever reason, i'd like to hear.

Why?

Re:Why would you care? (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729378)

To compare motives.

Re:Why would you care? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729560)

To compare motives.

Whenever I read that someone's pissed off enough to leave something then ask why other people are doing the same (particularly when the reasons are widely publicized in the various media), it seems to me that that person is just looking for validation of their own reasons for leaving.

Re:I just want to see who's quit... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729262)

Actually, I've found the "re-connecting" feature the best thing about FB. I've managed to catch up with a few people who I'd lost contact with and enjoyed it immensely. Mind you, I don't play the data gathering games that have chronicled every aspect of a persons life to generate marketing data. Farmville, Mafiawars etc may as well be labeled spyware, except that people DELIBERATELY let them in to their lives.

Re:I just want to see who's quit... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729402)

Oh, I agree - reconnecting is the best thing, but its lackluster, to me at least. Maybe I never made serious connections as a youngster that I would want to reconnect with.

Where maybe == true.

Re:I just want to see who's quit... (3, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729454)

So yea - if you had an account and deleted it for whatever reason, i'd like to hear.

I'm keeping mine. You can find out why on my facebook page :)

Seriously though, facebook is whatever you make of it. Sounds like you made a bit of a mess. If you post anything on there that you wouldn't want _everyone_ in the world to see (not that they'd really care) then you're doing it wrong.

Rest assure (4, Funny)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729100)

Rest assure, only in exceptional cases including computer hardware life on /. is not really promiscuous. The lawyer may find evidence of marital lethargy though.

Oh, come ON! (5, Insightful)

Guru Meditation (12823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729208)

"-- Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children."

And THAT amounts to some degree of 'evidence' in court? Really, WTF? Since he's eeking custody, the being 'single' part is assumably correct. As for the childless status. Debatable, since he obviously does not have custody (yet). Besides that, I'm not going to buy drinks for every 'childless' single in a random bar who turns out to have at least one.

And then:
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." "
If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.

How about better balance? (5, Insightful)

Heian-794 (834234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32729500)

From the article:

Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.

-- Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.

-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."

-- Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.

Three examples in a row of husbands/fathers being in the wrong before we finally get one where the wife is the lying one (and in that one, the mother's guilt is established at the end of the paragraph)? Here's a hint, journalists: don't make your readers wade through half an article of one-sidedness before tying to inject a little balance. Had I not kept at it, I would have thought that this was yet another hit piece on fathers, who seem to have no way of standing up to the pro-wife, pro-mother, pro-woman mainstream media. Fathers don't cheat any more than mothers do, and don't deserve the bad press they always seem to get. No wonder young men are refusing to get married these days.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...