Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race 304
HughPickens.com writes: Michelle Cottle reports in The Atlantic that today, spouses have easy access to an array of sophisticated spy software that record every keystroke; compile detailed logs of calls, texts, and video chats; that track a phone's location in real time; recover deleted messages from all manner of devices (without having to touch said devices); and that turn phones into wiretapping equipment. One might assume that the proliferation of such spyware would have a chilling effect on extramarital activities. But according to Cottle, aspiring cheaters need not despair: software developers are also rolling out ever stealthier technology to help people conceal their affairs. Right or wrong, cheating apps tap into a potentially lucrative market and researchers regard the Internet as fertile ground for female infidelity in particular. "Men tend to cheat for physical reasons and women for emotional reasons," says Katherine Hertlein. "The Internet facilitates a lot of emotional disclosure and connections with someone else."
But virtual surveillance has its risks. Stumbling across an incriminating email your partner left open is one thing; premeditated spying can land you in court. A Minnesota man named Danny Lee Hormann, suspecting his wife of infidelity, installed a GPS tracker on her car and allegedly downloaded spyware onto her phone and the family computer. In March 2010, Hormann's wife had a mechanic search her car and found the tracker. She called the police, and Hormann spent a month in jail on stalking charges. "I always tell people two things: (1) do it legally, and (2) do it right," says John Paul Lucich, a computer-forensics expert and the author of Cyber Lies, a do-it-yourself guide for spouses looking to become virtual sleuths. Lucich has worked his share of ugly divorces, and he stresses that even the most damning digital evidence of infidelity will prove worthless in court — and potentially land you in trouble — if improperly gathered. His blanket advice: Get a really good lawyer.
But virtual surveillance has its risks. Stumbling across an incriminating email your partner left open is one thing; premeditated spying can land you in court. A Minnesota man named Danny Lee Hormann, suspecting his wife of infidelity, installed a GPS tracker on her car and allegedly downloaded spyware onto her phone and the family computer. In March 2010, Hormann's wife had a mechanic search her car and found the tracker. She called the police, and Hormann spent a month in jail on stalking charges. "I always tell people two things: (1) do it legally, and (2) do it right," says John Paul Lucich, a computer-forensics expert and the author of Cyber Lies, a do-it-yourself guide for spouses looking to become virtual sleuths. Lucich has worked his share of ugly divorces, and he stresses that even the most damning digital evidence of infidelity will prove worthless in court — and potentially land you in trouble — if improperly gathered. His blanket advice: Get a really good lawyer.
Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Interesting)
It appears that the person resorting to those tools already have decided that they don't trust their partner and wants a divorce. Now they are just looking to get out of it with a better economy than they would otherwise have.
I guess the problem is that they married the wrong person and probably for the wrong reasons to begin with.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It appears that the person resorting to those tools already have decided that they don't trust their partner and wants a divorce. Now they are just looking to get out of it with a better economy than they would otherwise have.
I guess the problem is that they married the wrong person and probably for the wrong reasons to begin with.
In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup. Even if one spouse is an axe murderer. I think the courts got so sick of the circus the trials would turn into they just threw up their hands.
The only thing stuff like that will have a baring on is child custody. And infidelity still wont count. You'd have to have pretty strong evidence of them abusing drugs or something worse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While you are correct that it is 50/50, in my state (Florida), that only holds for 7 years. After 7 years it goes to a judge, who determines alimony (if the parties disagree on the subject, which they do).
After 7 years it really becomes a crapshoot. You can say things like:
"I didn't move across the country to California because my husband/wife had a job here and didn't want to move. My wife/husband has limited my ability to grow my earnings in the market and I would like to be compensated for the sacrifi
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Informative)
In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup.
This is almost entirely wrong.
There are two different philosophies you'll run into, depending on which State you're in.
1. Equitable distribution - 40 States + Alaska + DC
2. Community property - 9 States + Alaska + Puerto Rico
Community property states presume a 50/50 ownership interest in marital assets (a lot of money gets spent on defining what is and isn't a marital asset), but judges can still base their distribution on what is fair (aka equitable).
/Alaska's default is equitable distribution, but couples can sign a community property contract
//I'm not a lawyer
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Interesting)
In modern divorce law it doesn't matter. It gets split 50/50 unless there's a prenup.
This is almost entirely wrong.
There are two different philosophies you'll run into, depending on which State you're in.
1. Equitable distribution - 40 States + Alaska + DC
2. Community property - 9 States + Alaska + Puerto Rico
Community property states presume a 50/50 ownership interest in marital assets (a lot of money gets spent on defining what is and isn't a marital asset), but judges can still base their distribution on what is fair (aka equitable).
/Alaska's default is equitable distribution, but couples can sign a community property contract
//I'm not a lawyer
You're also forgetting "No Fault Divorce" states, when one doesn't need to show cause for divorce, a lot of the "so-and-so did this!" stuff goes nowhere. Asking for increased alimony based on infidelity will get you nowhere in my state (and probably shows your attorney is incompetent), spousal support (our term for it) exists for 4 reasons and none of those reasons are retaliatory toward actions during a marriage.
Might a judge set alimony artificially high if he/she thinks one party is a huge jerkbag? Yes, it can happen, in practice it doesn't, because an out of line award is grounds for an appeal and judges HATE getting appealed on. What is more, family law judges are fucking jaded, they've seen way worse than whatever went on during your marriage just that week, let alone that month, good luck trying to gin up sympathy with someone like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but there's precedent. Which is what counts in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No shit is family court weird.
My neighbor got a divorce. As divorces go, it was pretty amicable -- neither one had a substance abuse problem, was cheating, no domestic violence, etc. She became more and more religious and he grew disaffected with religion and wanted "more" out of life than her religious-centric world would allow. (This was his take, but since he was at the house a lot to fix stuff and waited on the divorce process so she could get a hip replacement, I'm inclined to believe he was honest)
Re: (Score:2)
in many states, that is an incorrect statement Florida is one of many states.
Also in Louisiana, where family law is based on French traditions.
In America, family law tends to differ by regions:
1. Most of the country is based on English common law.
2. Many western states are based on Spanish community property law.
3. Louisiana is based on French law.
4. Hawaii has their own "Ohana" laws
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???
I mean, if you're married, living in same house, etc...by definition isn't stalking impossible, there is all kinds of implied consent there, no?
I'm not arguing right or wrong on what the guy did, but either that is a huge stretch on saying what "stalking" is, or the law was written FAR too broadly!!!
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???
Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse? Following someone around all the time or tracking them without their consent seems like a pretty clear-cut case of stalking to me, regardless of whether you're married or not.
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when did you stop beating your wife?
Ahem.
The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars? By the same reasoning, does it also count as "stalking" to take advantage of all the insurance companies' offers to track your kids' driving habits with similar devices?
As for email, I maintain our home network. By the same weasel-logic corporations use to spy on their employees' emails, if I "just happen" to come across a damning email in the course of a routine security audit of my home IT infrastructure, how exactly does that count as unkosher?
Now, I wouldn't do any of that, because I trust my SO. I still, though, have an awfully hard time understanding how a court can draw arbitrary lines between "allowed" and "illegal" based on something they can't physically know - My intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker
Assets are not automatically "marital". I live in California, a community property state. We share most assets, but I own my car, and my wife owns hers, and the titles of each clearly state that we are sole owners. Furthermore, you don't automatically have a right to violate someone's rights just because they are using your property. I don't have a right to record your phone calls just because you are using my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars?
It doesn't--assuming you can show that you installed the GPS tracker primarily for one of those legitimate uses and not to find out where your spouse is.
If you installed it on the car that is primarily used by your spouse and not the car primarily used by you, if you installed it around the time you began to suspect them of infidelity, etc., a judge may end up deciding if you were using it to track your spouse or using it for other reasons and just coincidentally ended up tracking your spouse.
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Informative)
The law doesn't distinguish between the two "owners" of shared marital assets. How, therefore, can it count as "stalking" to install a GPS tracker - Which have a plethora of entirely legitimate uses - in my own cars?
Exactly. In fact, I lost the link, but the guy who was mentioned in the OP who installed a GPS tracker on his and his wife's jointly-owned car had his conviction reversed on appeal because he was allowed to put a tracker on his own car.
He was, however, still convicted of stalking, but that wasn't because of the GPS tracker. It was because he attacked a family member and physically intimidated them or something like that. The tracker was fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable for spouses to keep up with each other, that way for years...just that tech is putting a new spin on it.
Following someone around like that is stalking. It doesn't matter what technology you use, or whether or not you're married. Stop being creepy.
As for marital rape, I think there is so much implied consent
What implied consent? Get actual consent first. There are numerous ways to consent, but it's absolutely required. Not just, "We're married, so they consent!"
After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.
No, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't mean, "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not but it's assumed that if you're married that you have sex with your spouse. If you don't want to and he forces you it should take more than just going to the police and saying he raped you to convict him of rape. Now if you are estranged and he's sleeping in a hotel or his car then I'll believe you didn't agree to have sex. If you're living together in the same house I'm going to have to signs of force being used befor I believe it was rape.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that it's OK to rape and beat your wife as long as you don't leave marks?
And absent signs of physical trauma, you won't believe it happened?
Wow. Just ... wow.
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Insightful)
Absent signs of physical trauma, do you have any kind of evidence it happened? If not, why would you automatically believe a person has committed a heinous crime just on another person's word? Malice is equal opportunity.
Violence leaves marks that can be examined, but it's not in general possible to determine afterwards whether someone consented or not. It's bat that a criminal might walk free, but it's also bad that an innocent might not. If you have a solution to this situation, do feel free to share.
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Interesting)
Not in rape cases. Many a man has gone to prison where the only proof he raped the woman is the fact that his sperm was found in her and she stated that she said no to sex. Most of the time it is assumed, most likely correctly, that the woman would not lie about such a thing. They appear distraught and seem like they were indeed violated but didn't struggle due to duress. This doesn't mean that they can't lie about it though and there have been cases where years later witnesses came forward and recanted their testimony. In a married scenario where the wife might have actual reason to lie, for example she's getting ready to divorce her husband for cheating on her, well you can see where more than just her word would be needed.
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
GP didn't say there's no such thing as raping ones spouse. In fact, GP said "I'm sure it happens". Followed by "but it seems harder to prove".
Similarly, if I'm asleep and my wife wants to wake me up in a special way, that's fine (that's awesome, actually). If she did the same thing to sleeping stranger, that would be rape / sexual assault. The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
If I walk up behind a random woman at Walmart and wrap my arms around her, with my hands on her breasts, that's called sexual assault. If I do the exact same motion with my wife, that's called "good morning". The difference being that my wife consented in a general way, announcing to me and to the rest of the world that she _wanted_ to do "what married people do" with me. Obviously if she tells me "I'm in a bad mood, please leave me alone for a bit", I should honor that.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
What sort of terrible marriage are you in? As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission. When she indicates she doesn't want to be touched I'll lay off until she indicates otherwise.
The sort of marriage that you're implying is normal is actually horrific... why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.
Eh? Not so much. Consent [wikipedia.org] is the only thing that implies consent to sexual relations, nothing else does. Marriage [wikipedia.org] does *not*.
Marriage is a contract which *may* acknowledge a sexual relationship, but that contract is not consent to sexual relations.
Consent is not optional, friend. Non-consensual sex is rape, regardless of those involved [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't go out on your own without your partner following you and watching everything you do, they are stalking you. Fitting a GPS tracker to her car certainly seems to fit that definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, tracking someone's every step seems like a textbook case of stalking.
Can We Get This for Kids? (Score:2)
Kids have cell phones at younger and younger ages. You can argue if this is good or not but if they do have them, then it would be a nice feature and provide some peace of mind if you could call up their location (OK, the location of the phone) via a web app.
Are they late getting home and not answering their phone? If the locations service says they are at a friends house, then fine. If it says they are on I-35 traveling north at 80 MPH....not so fine.
Lojack for your kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
Ah... You DON'T have kids eh? Privacy? Really?
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are. Say they are out skipping school, I'm the one who ends up being charged for their truancy, I pay the fine and I risk jail if it doesn't stop. So I monitor...
My kids understand this and know full well they are subject to monitoring as long as they are under the age of majority and/or choose to live with me. Once they start
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... You DON'T have kids eh?
I do. I don't appreciate it when idiots assume that anyone who disagrees with them don't have kids.
I also remember being a kid, and I had a lot more freedom than most kids today do. Everyone is paranoid about terrorists/child molesters/some other such bogeyman, when in reality, we're safer than ever. No need for all this garbage.
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are.
All I said was, "I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too." I take it that, in your imagination, you saw my comment as, "Parents should never have any idea where thei
Saying of the Bhudda (Score:2)
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size:
"If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"
Re: (Score:3)
Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size: "If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"
"Widely considered" is an interesting standard of expertise to use about relationships, since the vast majority of relationships and marriages fail. In fact the vast majority of people who get counseling report that it didn't help them.
Dr. Willard Harley is the author of His Needs, Her Needs, one of the few relationship books that was indicated by a study to actually be successful, and he has actually applied statistics and science to measure the success of his approach to marital counseling. His approach
Re: (Score:2)
> When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally
Which would seem to suggest that trust is important - he's just suggesting a realistic route to establishing it. After all you can't just will yourself to trust someone any more than you can will yourself to love them, at best you can choose to ignore your doubts and let them fester subconsciously in the hope that they'll eventually heal.
By your same argument it could be said that love is extraneous to r
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. However, if monogamy is important to you, and your partner can't be trusted to be monogamous, then I'd say you've got a real major problem on your hands. Now if your partner also recognizes the problem and will consent to constant surveillance or a chastity belt or some other "separate bank accounts" solution then maybe you can still make it work - but probably not if you have to resort to spying on them behind their back. After all spying doesn't do anything to promote faithfulness, it ju
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
the problem is that she's "a woman of [yours]" as in you own her, and don't see her as anything more than property.
since your blender functions just fine whether you pay attention to its emotions, you don't care if it exhibits emotions
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Informative)
I'd think if you were old enough to try to contribute to the discourse on Slashdot, you'd have a better grasp on semantics.
Re:Already gone (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe there are people that need to quit trying to form complete characterizations of people based on the use of a common phrase.
My woman (Score:4, Insightful)
Read a lot into things? I'll admit cayenne's usage was borderline, but when I talk about "my woman" I don't mean "the woman I own" I mean "the woman I'm pairing with", as opposed to the 3.5+ billion women in the world whose happiness and well-being have negligible impact on my life. She is my woman, I'm her man, no power imbalance implied. How would *you* phrase that? After all we're not married, and I'm not in the habit of referring to grown women as girls.
Re:Already gone (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, because women and men cheat for different reasons.
I know someone who eventually always seems to be drawn to chatrooms and texting people -- in no small party because he's a complete man-child (not that everyone who cheats is).
It absolutely devastated his wife, because while he wasn't always available to her emotionally or sexually, he was having 'interactions' (purely virtual AFAIK) which were both emotional and sexual with someone else. He said it put some zest back in his life, which devastated her even more.
It was just as hurtful as if he'd actually been schtuping someone. He thinks he's done nothing wrong, and completely makes the same argument as you do -- and it boils down to "if you're going to overtly flirt with strangers, or start having on-going conversations with people are aren't strangers ... sooner or later you're probably going to just go ahead and do it, and that might be a line they're not willing to accept."
It also massively undermined trust and pretty much everything else in the relationship. Because if your partner is spending all of their time wondering who you're rubbing your parts up against when you go out, the rest of it starts to deteriorate.
So, I figure your options boil down to: 1) accept that it's going to happen but stay in the dark, 2) accept that it's going to happen and be informed, 3) try to prevent it from happening, or 4) realize you're not gonna stop it and move on with your life.
And depending on the kind of person you are, there may only be 1 or 2 in that list which are even options for you.
In university I did the whole open relationship thing. It's not for everybody. I don't have a problem with people who can do it ... for me it was a lot of work, and very draining, and wasn't what I wanted longer term.
It was fun, because I was in my 20s, and who wouldn't have liked a couple of different flavors? Would I do it now? I don't think so, but you never know.
Me, I think people started screwing around within 6 months of the first people getting married (at most). Men seem to have an evolutionary imperative to cat about as much as they can.
So either we need to fix evolution, or we need to better understand what we think marriage is for and what it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Men seem to have an evolutionary imperative to cat about as much as they can.
And women don't?
Re: (Score:2)
In one case you may have an otherwise happy couple that are not on the same page sexually. Maybe one partner has no sex drive and is not interested in sex at all. But otherwise the relationship is solid. So someone steps out and has a physical relationship with someone else, but remains emotionally tied to their partner.
On the other hand you have a couple that is having great sex but are not on the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Spare your money and put off hiring a lawyer... Problem is, once one side lawyers up, you are at a distinct disadvantage if you don't too.
The advice is sound... Get a lawyer BEFORE you start down the path of spying on your spouse.... Personally, I'd say that you first try to discuss the issues in private, failing that in the company of a unbiased third party (hire somebody) and only resort to getting a lawyer should it be clear you cannot come to any kind of settlement on your own. Always remember that the
Re: (Score:2)
When I and the ex got divorced, we got one really good lawyer for both of us, and split the cost. He helped keep things amicable, and didn't charge a lot because we didn't create a lot of work, but it was still only borderline worth it. The kids were already grown, and we ended up getting back together in a few months although we still haven't bothered to remarry, so a lot of what the lawyer's fees bought us was intangibles, such as having the hearing privately in the judge's chambers instead of in open cou
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a sick society where a lawyer is a basic necessity, like water and electricity.
Lawyers just make it worse. The last thing they want is for the couple to reconcile, so they just try to inflame the situation. When my wife filed for divorce, her lawyer did everything he could to throw gasoline on the flames.
We ended up staying together. What saved my marriage was this yogurt machine [amazon.com]. She is lactose intolerant, and also calcium deficient. So she was taking calcium supplements that threw her magnesium electrolytes way out of kilter, and caused her emotions to go berserk. But the bact
Telling quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is meant tongue-in-cheek, but if taken at face value it's completely wrong. I've been married for about 20 years. I think the pleasures of being married to my wife this long, and of her being able to trust me, and of not having betrayed my family, far outweigh any benefit I would have gotten from succumbing to the temptation to cheat.
So aspiring cheaters should actually despair that some technology increases their temptation to cheat. In my estimation, they're just being more tempted to make a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your fidelity and trying to do the right thing, but statistics simply aren't on your side.
What are we up to now? 50% of all marriages end in divorce? It's going to happen regardless.
Many argue that monogamy isn't a natural state for humans. I certainly think it's one which takes a lot of effort and isn't for everybody.
For many people, the mistake was in the decision to get married in the first place. I've lost count of the number of people who while they were getting married there were alre
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 50% divorce rate is a myth based on a faulty statistical inference. The highest it ever got to was around 40%, and the divorce rate is now declining. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to happen regardless.
So is cheating at school, or plagiarism, or fishing without a license, or bullying, or vandalism, or gossiping about the neighbors. That doesn't mean we need or should celebrate apps to facilitate any of those.
Many argue that monogamy isn't a natural state for humans.
Nobody forcing people to get married and take vows of monogamous fidelity.
For many people, the mistake was in the decision to get married in the first place
Agreed. And the solution is to terminate the marriage no
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to happen regardless.
With that attitude it certainly is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's only because marriage rates are on the decline. In terms of percentages of marriages that end in divorce, it's as high as ever [rand.org].
Marriage is the #1 cause of divorce.
Studies such as this one report a higher level of feelings of commitment between recently married couples than those cohabitating for a long period, which just goes to show that marriage tends to give people a false sense of commitment, given the high divorce rate. Feelings change.
Not being married makes it much easier to kick the chea
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. It seems that many people cheat on their spouses, but I can't think of any time, ever that I've heard of som
Re: (Score:3)
21 states still consider adultery a criminal offense [wikipedia.org]
Most countries that criminalize adultery are those where the dominant religion is Islam, and several Sub-Saharan African Christian-majority countries, but there are some notable exceptions to this rule, namely Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and 21 States in the United States.
and
As of 2014, adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare. Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland) to life sentence (Michigan). In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.
Kind of backward, is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think whether or not it's backward is relevant to the point you were making.
You had made this statement:
You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each
Re: (Score:2)
Of course spying has a lot to do with jealousy and gaining the upper hand in court. And that's what you are saying when you sum up my statements as "You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each other."
Divorce courts are noted for threats to air the dirty laundry and other forms of blackmail. We know this because on occasion the other side doesn't cave and all the stuff leaks out into the tabloids. "Revenge divorce" anyon
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with, in some states, adultery being a crime
That is, the blackmail is never of the form, "Let me have 70% of our marital assets, or else I'll give evidence of your infidelity to the local district attorney who will lock you up." Remember, this whole discussion you and I are having is about whether or not the criminal law aspects of infidelity are actually relevant in today's U.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, of course feelings change. People who are committed to their spouse generally know this, and learn to ride out those dry spells. Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person. This is the
Re: (Score:2)
Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person.
It's a two-way street, and cheating is a symptom of a lack of commitment. To argue that the one cheated on should be obliged to sacrifice their own integrity by continuing in such a relationship creates a very unequal and unfair "partnership."
If a person quits a marriage (by divorce or cheating) any time his/her feelings of affection wane, then not only are they being immature and selfish, but they're also missing out on the joys of a life-long love story.
How is it selfish or immature to say "you broke the rules, there are consequences?" Seems to me that the one being selfish and immature is the one who wants to keep someone in such a relationship "because." Adults know that there are consequences for their acts - it
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't arguing that one should stay committed to an unfaithful spouse. I was arguing that I've had a very happy life for having stuck with my wife even through periods when I didn't feel warm and fuzzy.
Re:Telling quote (Score:5, Interesting)
So aspiring cheaters should actually despair that some technology increases their temptation to cheat.
I think the trouble starts with the 'aspiring cheater'. Not the enabling technology. I'm responsible for my own self control and resistance to temptations. I don't need laws, restrictions on technology or some silly holy book to enforce agreements I have with my wife, family or friends.
Granted, there are people who need supervision. But that's a problem with their internal moral compass. Why should the rest of us have to give up nice things because some people suffering from arrested development can't keep it in their pants? Or get permission to have something on the side without turning it into a case of cheting?
Re: (Score:3)
I see it a little differently. I almost always know what's right or wrong, but sometimes I'm more tempted than others to do what I know is wrong.
When I come back to my senses, in hindsight I'm grateful for anything that help
Re:Telling quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I've cheated many years ago. It felt great for the half hour or so of actual sex. Immediately after I felt nothing but shame and despair. It really wasn't worth the feeling of being a lying piece of shit. Even now almost 30 years later I occasionally think back on it and hate that it happened. There's nothing like sitting there while your wife talks about what a great husband you've been with that scene replaying itself in your mind. I'd give anything to erease that.
Re:Telling quote (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really sorry. I guess you can take some small comfort that your moral compass seems to be working well, and that you've been a good enough husband otherwise that she appreciates you.
Husband uses a kiddie phone (Score:2)
On the one hand, even if I wanted to spy on him, I couldn't. On the other hand, his texts cost him 10 cents each on a grandfathered pre-paid plan, and he certainly can't install or run any kind of app on it. So the few texts he make
Or you know, not marry (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps it's unthinkable in American minds, but here in the Netherlands, only about half of the people in solid relationships decide to marry. And there seems to be no set time for this either. More often than not, I've seen friends marry after their first child.
I'm not marrying, the odds are decidedly in favor of women. The Netherlands has the highest percentage of women working parttime. As a man, you'll be paying through the nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or you know, not marry (Score:5, Informative)
that's the thing, marriage is financially beneficial under US laws.
it's also necessary for things like wills, and who can/can't testify against you, or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital
Re: (Score:3)
that's the thing, marriage is financially beneficial under US laws.
it's also necessary for things like wills, and who can/can't testify against you, or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital
Yes, and that middle one is important. Um, to some people, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
" or even allowing certain people to visit you in the hospital"
Not exactly.
I have never seen a hospital with a family only rule. Only if you are incapacitated can your family decide to ask the hospital to make it family only or to exclude someone. If you are married you spouse is your "closest" family member and can actually exclude other family members.
Related: 'Stalking app' maker arrested (Score:2)
This is two weeks ago, but I don't think it popped up on Slashdot;
Feds charge tech CEO with making app for stalkers, domestic abusers [cbsnews.com]
Although people are usually quick to defend the tool (and its makers) and suggest authorities go after its users instead, similar stories from the past seem to suggest that not very many would be jumping to his defense:
Man Creates "Creepy" Stalking App [slashdot.org]
World's Creepiest iPhone App Pulled After Outcry [slashdot.org]
Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Simple solution, Always be honest in your relationship!
My wife and my girlfriend get along great, even take them out shopping together. The only issue I have is when we all go out, I can not get a word in edge wise.
Keep it honest and there is no need for all those tools.
Re: (Score:2)
This, you can't "cheat" on me since I give you permission. (Of course, that doesn't mean my trust can't be betrayed in other ways, or attempts to manipulate me, etc., but there's less emotional agita.)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, how do you truly know she has never cheated? Or does that not matter to you? The only way you can be 100% sure is by "trusting your feelings" and your ability to judge a person's character .. its like believing in God. You don't have any real proof but it feels correct. Not like anyone has been wrong about their spouse or God being the Juju under the tree before.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans do better in a Poly when they are mature and evolved.
Kudos to you!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct and I fully agree with you.
On the other hand, its not damn hard for the person who wants to cheat to get the divorce FIRST. If my wife's no longer interested in me, I'd hope she'd just tell me. I'd be heart broken, but at least we could clean the slate in a civilized manner. From the moment she tells me (even before the divorce goes through), she'd have no moral obligation whatsoever and can go and sleep with whoever the hell she wants.
Sure, she technically can even without telling me anythin
Re: (Score:2)
A contract which controls someone else's sexuality is just silly.
I disagree, completely.
I don't worry about protecting myself in intercourse with my wife because we're both confident that the other is monogamous. The party who violates that agreement and risks bringing a disease home to the other has done more than damage an emotional bond, they've potentially created actual harm.
For that matter, damaging the emotional bond -- even if it was apparently somewhat one-sided -- is also a harm.
Finally, it's not as if the contract was entered under duress. If you choose
The God-approved meathod for detecting cheats (Score:2)
Call me a luddite, but I still use the traditional method. I can't see why any self-respecting Christian would turn to this technology when the answer is right there in the Bible!
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Numbers 5:11-31
Never underestimate psychosomatic effect of belief (Score:2)
Interestingly if users beleieve apps have the power too whether they really work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure,while we're at it, let's go back to stupidity like "Tie a rock to the witch and throw her in the water. If she drowns, she wasn't a witch."
Re: (Score:3)
then he is to take his wife to the priest.
Did that. He says he's not finished with her yet.
In my case (Score:2)
If my wife were to have sex with someone else behind my back, I'd be disappointed.
She knows I like to at least watch!
Read the 69 comments (Score:2)
Overturned on appeal (Score:2, Insightful)
www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/27/scary-stalker-husband-in-the-legal-clear-to-track-wifes-car/
So why do we get married again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the term "Good" lawyer is an oxymoron.
It's a given that any lawyer is going to f*** you. A good one is one who will f*** the other side more.
The guy's a hack (Score:2)
There are already decryption utilities that we use to decrypt all of Microsoft products, this will be one more. However, there are technologies that are already out that can make our job harder. These are file-shredding utilities, which overwrite data numerous times making it impossible to recover the data. However, we often get some of the data back because users get lazy in using the shredding utility and some shredding utilities are not the best quality and do a horrible job.
Disk encryption > file shredding, 100 times over. Yes, BitLocker shouldn't be trusted because of the NSA, but, even if the NSA did backdoor it, it would still be impenetrable to standard law enforcement. Handwaving this problem away is either bluster or ignorance. Either way, he's a hack.
Contracts. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
arrest? maybe if you're well connected.
conviction? only if you can pick the right jury
Re: (Score:2)
No, not at all. shovel your shit elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you aren't their legal guardian and do it without their consent - in which it's not only illegal but you're also horrible person.
Re: (Score:2)
> But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?
What is the point of proving it? You don't get double-divorced if you can prove it. You don't get more money if you prove it. Decide to stay together or split up, then do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty pathetic, really. If you can't trust your spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy without spyware, maybe you need to find a new spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy. If you are unhappy enough with said spouse/S.O./fuckbuddy to cheat and haven't got the guts to just leave, screw you anyway.
Never trust a woman or a government:
-Yellowbeard
Re: (Score:2)
Because throwing your kids' lives into turmoil is the better course? For some people quietly cheating is a better option, believe it or not, many marriages survive affairs and are still rated as average to above.
Children are not oblivious. They can tell when there are problems in their parents' relationship. What sort of relationship role models are parents who have really dysfunctional relationships? They give a really horrible idea about what romantic relationships *should* be to the children exposed to them.
That's not to say (for all the not-so-deep thinkers out there) that a couple should split up at the first signs of problems, but when it becomes clear that the issues in the relationship are intractable, s
Re: (Score:2)