Ashley Madison again sets the bar for online dating

By J. DeVoy

I’ve discussed Ashley Madison on two prior occasions.  By all appearances, it’s a a dating service people actually use, and it has money to throw around.  For the uninitiated, Ashley Madison is a paid dating website that pairs married men with married women, so that they may cheat on their respective spouses with one another under the safety umbrella of mutually assured marital destruction.  Unsurprisingly, it was started by a former lawyer.  Kudos to you, good sir.

The stroke of brilliance that led to Ashley Madison’s success is now evident in its marketing.  A recent advertisement that has the whiners at Jezebel all up in a huff shows a corpulent woman in revealing clothing, asking “did your wife SCARE you last night?”  If so, the natural conclusion is to join Ashley Madison and cheat.

In a country where the majority of divorces are initiated by women, who are then entitled to lavish amounts of alimony and child support – which does not necessarily even go to the child – a rational man should be scared of his wife every night. (And day, for that matter.)  A woman will cheat on or divorce a man if his earning power drops, or even if she has some nebulous Eat-Pray-Love experience where she no longer “feels” an emotional bond for her spouse – why not cheat if she’s done something that concretely diminishes your attraction to her, such as gaining 200 pounds?

I’m not necessarily advocating adultery.  What I am saying, however, is that I can understand why cheating would make sense, as opposed to “manning up” and just filing for divorce, in light of materially changed circumstances and the prevailing misandrist legal climate.  A woman’s looks to a man are what a man’s intelligence, charisma, earning potential, social status, looks and “confidence” are, combined, to a woman.  Suddenly male aversion to a fat wife isn’t so shocking.

In all, this is good advertising.  My friends in that field probably are angry that they didn’t come up with the idea first.  It’s subversive and offensive because it embraces reality.  Woe unto its detractors.

11 Responses to Ashley Madison again sets the bar for online dating

  1. Charles Platt says:

    Have you checked out http://www.seekingarrangement.com, where women (or men) can seek a quasi-relationship that involves cash payments? (It is emphatically not an escort service, although a few escorts seem to advertise there.) I find it fascinating because it formalizes something that happens all the time, on a more discreet and unadmitted basis. It also interests me legally, because if a woman who “seeks an arrangement” and receives a “gift” of $3000 a month is a lawbreaker, then millions of supported women are lawbreakers too. So far as I can see.

    • J DeVoy says:

      While outside my budget, I am aware of the site’s existence.

    • wda says:

      “because if a woman who “seeks an arrangement” and receives a “gift” of $3000 a month is a lawbreaker, then millions of supported women are lawbreakers too. So far as I can see.”

      So how do these millions of women get supported, again? Is it by alimony? Or spousal support? Or is it by child support? (and don’t for one second suggest that if you conceive a child that you should not share in the cost of raising him/her.)

      To find such misconceptions on this site is somewhat disturbing as most of the writing is fairly accurate.

      Hey Platt, give us your source that “millions of supported women” recieve alimony or spousal support.

  2. Scott Jacobs says:

    Honestly, anything that annoys the writers and commenter-base at Jezebel is OK in my book…

  3. Justin T. says:

    I can understand why cheating would make sense, as opposed to “manning up” and just filing for divorce, in light of materially changed circumstances and the prevailing misandrist legal climate.

    So how is cheating going to make things any better when the inevitable divorce finally happens? I understand your arguments about the site, I just fail to see how committing adultery will do anything other than completely screw over the guy in the end, even if he was morally justified in doing so (which I’m not conceding). This just seems like asking for things to be a lot more complicated when the divorce does happen.

    • Charles Platt says:

      Personally I believe that cheating can sustain a marriage. The assumption that it will lead to disaster is–well, an assumption.

  4. Todd says:

    Ugh, what a horrible, unfulfilling idea of the nature of romantic relationships. Does it come from being a lawyer and seeing the worst case ways they can end? Or having had a bad breakup? Why would you even enter into a long-term relationship?

    • J DeVoy says:

      I’m in a LTR now and have always come out ahead when prior relationships ended. I just think monogamy and particularly marriage, as they exist in America, are terrible deals for men.

      • Todd says:

        Ahh, well, I’m with you there, though from what I’ve seen, the deal isn’t awesome for women, either.

  5. anon cause it's not final yet says:

    J, I don’t disagree with your analysis at all but just to clarify: Ashley Madison is not a dating site where married women advertise for trysts. It is purely whores looking for a sugar daddy. They’re all pros.

  6. wda says:

    In what state do you live in where alimony, as a legal concept is still used?

    I’d be hard pressed to find anyone in California who has ever paid alimony. Child support, now that is a different story because if you breed them you feed them.

    But why do you use the term alimony? Unless you are a rich dilitante, isn’t alimony a legal anachronism?

    I welsome your feedback.

%d bloggers like this: