Dan ([info]blackfrost) wrote,
@ 2008-11-18 16:02:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
My take on Ashley Madison
After giving it some thought, I've come to some conclusions about the marital affair "dating" service known as Ashley Madison.

The very idea of the site isn't as bad as I initially thought. Granted, encouraging lies and deciet and in some cases like MA, illegal activity, is abhorrent. However, in terms of a business venture, I can't see how what they're doing is any different than what some other companies profit from. Pharmaceutical companies profit from sickness and suffering. Defense contractors profit from wars. Evangelists profit from faith and religion. How does Ashley Madison fit into the grand scheme of shady business models? There are too many variables, but I can't put them even close to the top.

The site advertises exploring extramarital affairs if you are living a life "of quiet despair". If that is even remotely true, then people should consider moving on to someone else. It's my opionion that personal happiness is more important than simply upholding the sanctity of a marraige. If you're miserable, I think its within your rights to call it quits.

Where A.M. bothers me, is in its wording. They seem to make you want to believe that an affair is something that is "not to be missed", and life's too short to not have one. The problem there, is that it can persuade and attract those who are currently in happy relationships to explore this idea. It takes a certain type of person, but advestising is a powerful tool. If you get it in someone's head that affairs are a social norm, then a surprisingly high amount of people would probably contemplate acting on this newly discovered void in their life.

"I didn't know I should be doing this! I hope I'm not missing out on something cool!"

That's the dangerous type of mindset that I think A.M. may be unintentionally (or intentionally) fostering.
Manipulating people into thinking that Pepsi is a better drink than Coke through advertising doesn't involve personal character dilemmas, life-changing consequences, lawyers, or anything like that. If A.M. seeked to help people realize they're not trapped in a loveless marriage, and helps them take the first step into rectifying that...I think I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it stands, it glorifies and encourages people to test their own moral standards in a deceitful and malicious way.

I simply cannot accept that.

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]zoarpirate
2008-11-19 02:11 am UTC (link)
Adultery is an objective moral bad. If you are unsure whether you want to continue in your marriage, adultery will not answer that question. It will fundamentally and irrevocably (though possibly not irrecoverably) damage the foundation, which may or may not circumvent an actual decision about your marriage (like if you get thrown out). But seeking nearly anonymous sex as a referendum on your marriage indicates that it's not the marriage that's a problem so much as you.

The pharmaceutical companies aren't a good comparison - they profit from world circumstances, but they objectively attempt to curtail the negative. And even if you believe Law and Order or various conspiracy theories, they take some bad actions amidst a whole lotta good.

Arms manufacturers profit from wars, yes, but weapons are a necessity in an imperfect world. And if an arms company actively seeks to increase conflict in order to increase profits then that is an objective moral evil (one flaw in Iron Man was the idea that super powerful missiles always increase death toll disporportionately; they don't. In the hands of a mostly benevolent superpower, the death toll is way lower with complete firearms superiority then with protracted wars of attrition).

I originally wrote that the whizzinator was a better comparison, but I'm beginning to lean towards meth dealer. I think a pretty good analogy is that dealing drugs is objectively bad. I'll allow fuzziness for pot, but I'm willing to take a hard and fast stand that selling meth is bad. To say, "well, they could have cooked it themselves or bought it elsewhere almost as easily" is a crock - your business model is making yourself the easiest/cheapest/most attractive option.

So I don't think it should necessarily be illegal to sponsor the AM site, but I do believe that it should be publically and privately shamed and deplored. That's a perfectly good middle ground (and one that I think the left, in its eagerness to govermentalize everything, often misses).

Following the shame route, if I had a neighbor who was a drunk I'd think, "what a loser" and I'd expect the other neighbors to look down on his behavior (though not necessarily him, until his drunkenness became character defining). If someone said to me, "well, that's his choice. If he wants to live that way then it's ok..." then I'd reply that it's a damn bad choice (again, happy to help someone coping with addiction, but that doesn't include excusing it as "a lifestyle").

As to the fact that many people lead lives of quiet desperation - well, that's got nothing to do with this website guy. If he wanted to help them he could become a therapist.

All in all, a good rule of thumb is "walks like a scumbag, talks like a scumbag, is a scumbag."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]blackfrost
2008-11-19 03:56 am UTC (link)
To reiterate, I never condoned adultery. I just think A.M. is not as bad as what some other businesses profit from. I did however point out that I feel people have a right to personal happiness and should never feel trapped in wedlock. "calling it quits" is different than having an affair.

I'll respectfully disagree with you, as someone who works in public health, with the pharma companies analogy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zoarpirate
2008-11-19 12:57 pm UTC (link)
I know that you're not condoning adultery!

The reason I don't like the pharma comparison is AM's business model is singular - to maximize the number of people committing adultery by increasing the ease and pleasure and minimizing the risk.

That would be like saying that a pharma's singular goal is to maximize the number of people who contract curable communicable diseases.

As an aside (and not argumentatively - just out of legit curiosity!) - how is pharma promoting bad health? I can imagine some responses - encouraging over diagnosis, slowing down generic speed to market, etc, but I'm curious as to your take.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blackfrost
2008-11-19 04:53 pm UTC (link)
There is a alarming lack of R&D going into many prescription drugs, like opiods, to prevent long term addiction and side effects. Pharma companies are willfully not develping non habit-forming drugs when those with lower thresholds for abuse can make them more money.
It's a lot more complicated than that, but combating that trend is one of my companies largest projects.
There are more issues too, but not many i could just type up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lordbrand
2008-11-20 03:34 am UTC (link)
I am woefully uninformed, but this makes sense. One thing to keep in mind that that basic business model of pharma is totally wild. HUGE R&D expenditures overall, all relying on patent law - almost solely - to support the huge front-end expenditure.

When you get big time from cash spent to cash in skews like that, it's ripe for corner-cutting. Add in the ever unpredictable FDA and patent process that can completely kill a whole drug family's chances at ever being profitable, the stakes run pretty high.

AM's stakes are the relative decline of American values and the happiness of current marriages. They're not the meth-dealer - they're a shaded window bus service from happy home life to Hell's kitchen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ratgash
2008-11-19 02:52 am UTC (link)
On the bright side, it provides a much more viable target for accusations of eroding the sanctity of marriage than the gays...

(Reply to this)


[info]lordbrand
2008-11-20 03:28 am UTC (link)
I would draw a further distinction between pharma and AM: pharma basically doesn't have to be evil. Hard for AM to get much better than "hygienic but skeezy"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]zoarpirate
2008-11-20 03:39 pm UTC (link)
Right - the difference between actions that can make an entity worth less and an entity that is worthless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blackfrost
2008-11-20 03:57 pm UTC (link)
Mmmmm, human souls taste delicious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…