Hackers Publish Cheating Site's Stolen Data 319
pdclarry notes that many news outlets are reporting that 9.7 GB of data stolen from cheating website AshleyMadison.com has been published online. "The dump contains files with titles including 'aminno_member_dump.gz,' 'aminno_member_email.dump.gz,' 'CreditCardTransactions7z,' and 'member_details.dump.gz,' an indication that the download could contain highly personal details." Brian Krebs questioned the way this has been reported without confirmation, but added that he's been contacted by several people who found their own accurate details within the data dump. Many of the reports note this detail: "Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."
... using the name and e-mail address of other ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually all sites will send a confirmation email and only enable the account if a confirmation link or code from that email is used.
So i guess it's a bit hard to "create an account using the ... e-mail address of other individuals"
Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:5, Interesting)
Except AM specifically did NOT so as to help avoid leaving a trail.
One of my friends is on this list because I created his account for him as a prank.
Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That for starters depends on the laws of your locality.
Secondly, person registering the account can very well argue they used a pseudonym. Many a pseudonym is a realistic name, and as such can very well happen to match the name of someone else. People that happen to have identical names are a similar case.
It would definitely be identity theft if the person not only uses another person's name, but tries to completely impersonate another individual. Just registering using a name that's not your own is not ide
Re: (Score:3)
Using someone else's email for it pretty much shoots down the argument that it was a pseudonym.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, if you would indeed (have to) use that other person's e-mail, and supposedly gained access to that person's inbox, it'd clearly be identity theft.
However in this case, that's not necessary to register an account.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In what way is this a prank if your "friend" doesn't ever get notified he even has an account there?
Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:5, Funny)
well the second part of the prank was obviously to hack and publish the user database.
a pretty elaborate prank I must say, I salute!
Re: (Score:2)
well the second part of the prank was obviously to hack and publish the user database.
a pretty elaborate prank I must say, I salute!
This hacker/prankster should be easy to find, he probably reads Slashdot uses an Android phone and had a girlfriend (that last fact should shorten the suspect list considerably). Oh, and he probably only got angry enough to hack AshleyMadison.com because she cheated on him with an Apple iPhone using hipster.
Re: (Score:2)
So was this site free? No CC info?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
He's taking the fall for his buddy. Friends don't come much better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess these Ph.Ds need to stop using the term then.
https://www.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com]
http://psychcentral.com/blog/a... [psychcentral.com]
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he... [webmd.com]
Oh, and they need to remove it from the DSM
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or... [psychiatryonline.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, you just proved that you're an idiot. If you don't know what the DSM is, you shouldn't be commenting on this.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I know what the DSM is, it's that volume which claims that simply disagreeing with authority is a mental illness and that anger is something that can be drugged out.
Bring legitimate examples to the table and leave the ad hominems at the fucking door.
Re: (Score:2)
My gmail address gets used as a throwaway rather a lot, and you'd be surprised at the number of sites that don't bother at all.
This message was sent to you ($foo@gmail.com) because you are a valued NBA fan registered with us and we wanted to wish you a happy birthday!
Hi meleonaz,
www.skype.com
Registered email successfully updated
Your email address for the account meleonaz has been successfully updated to $foo@gmail.com
Hi @notme345,
We got a request to reset your Instagram password.
Thanks so much for joining Pandora! We're very happy to have you on board, and we look forward to providing you with endless hours of great music listening and discovery.
Many more sites will still create the account and let you use it without me validating the email, and many more provide no means of saying this *isn't* their email.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. I get crap mail from Best Buy, Enterprise Rental Car, and several others, because they're too damn lazy to do their jobs.
Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:2)
Yeah, me too. AT&T, some casual labour placement place in Phoenix, I even get alarm armed/disarmed/etc. notifications from some woman's house in the NE US. Not to mention the elementary school class parents' mailing list that sent me name, phone number, address, parents' names for all the kids, plus schedules for upcoming events.
People and companies should be more careful.
Re:... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth, more than 15,000 of the e-mail addresses are hosted by US government and military servers using the .gov and .mil top-level domains.
I wonder how many federal employees will be losing security clearances as a result of this?
Re:... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score:5, Funny)
my favourite reaction to this incident is:
"2 years of paying $19 a month... Now I'm finally getting f**ked"
Re: (Score:2)
go via TPB and search "Ashley Madison", it's the 9.69GB one. The 5.somethingGB one (marked "Repack") is fake.
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals.
...And supplying other people's credit card details as well, no doubt.
FWIW, I believe that people's sex lives are their own business, married or not. But I find it difficult to drum up any sympathy for marrieds who are foolish enough to go looking for something on the side via a big flashy commercial website dedicated to that purpose.
Internet privacy was over at least a decade ago. There's been plenty of time for you to figure this out.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's something they don't care about that gets hacked.
But I guess these people "deserved" it because they didn't adequately protect their identities...or something.
Thugs are thugs whether they are stabbing you for your wallet or stealing your personal information. A swift death is the best option for them.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your take on that comment was that he was turning a blind eye? To me it seemed like a lament, that privacy is dead. Long live privacy.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always assumed that GMail isn't really private, either.
For most of the last 25 years, I've followed a little rule I learned in my radio days: "Don't say it on the air if you don't want to read about it in the paper." It's yet to be proven wrong.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Informative)
Email is a plaintext protocol where, by definition, at least two copies exist of every email. Why in the world would anyone expect email to remain private, with or without GMail?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's something they don't care about that gets hacked.
I think we are just laughing our asses off about trying to decide whether Pat Robertson was actually able to employ competent system crackers, or whether the security on the site was so lame, given its purported purpose and clientele.
Also, note that this isn't a privacy issue, it's a database hack; it's just incidental that it involves a website that contained prurient details of illicit affairs, rather than, for example, credit card data for everyone who used a credit card at Target, Home Depot, and Lucky'
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the data mine on specific famous persons and political figures to be published with quite some interest... wonder if anyone is going to be dropping out of the presidential race over it...
Hillary is out...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting for the data mine on specific famous persons and political figures to be published with quite some interest... wonder if anyone is going to be dropping out of the presidential race over it...
I'm thinking more likely Canadian politics is going to be rocked... 1 in 5 people in Ottawa (Canada's capitol) were supposedly members... That's a good chance that a fair number of people seeking re-election right now are going to show up in that database.
Re: (Score:2)
*I'd laugh so hard if Rob Ford is in there.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's victims have done one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another.
FTFY
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, please. Cheating is bad, but "one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another" is at risk of breaking my hyperboleometer. Discounting things like giving your partner a disease, which is a risk that increases when cheating but is its own separate problem, the heartbreak from cheating is nothing compared to the enduring pain from the death of a loved one, or the trauma of violent rape, or the horror of the battlefield, or even the crippling injuries one can get from a car crash. Cheating is cruelty and betrayal, but at the end of the day it's not likely to ruin your whole life, much less end it.
Besides, humans aren't really wired very well for monogamy. I mean, some people find that their completely natural state, sure, but most of the way we view the topic is due to societal expectation. Throughout history, the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems, there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels, and various forms of consensual non-monogamy have been practiced more-or-less in secret for centuries even in "modern" culture. If you think you can truly be your partner's everything, the only one they'll ever need to provide everything they desire, then (statistically speaking) you're delusional. I'm not saying that justifies lying and cheating any more than the DMCA and eternal copyrights justify pirating music, but it does mean you shouldn't be surprised when it happens, and that you're better off changing the rules and saving everybody - yourself included - the anguish.
Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see marriage as a partnership between two people. Each gets a lot out of the marriage - stability, a family, a home, security, companionship etc. So refraining from cheating on your partner is just one of the sacrifices you have to make in exchange for that. Sure, you can agree not to be exclusive with each other and maintain the marriage, but going behind your partner's back when you know it will hurt them is not right.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why this "marry who you love" narrative is so dangerous. Should you marry without love, probably not after all its going to be hard to do the right things in more trying times if you are not committed to the cause of being with your spouse. That said love is not enough.
Marriage should deliver on those things you mention, - stability, a family, a home, security, companionship etc. It should be advantageous for both parties. To that end the partnership is a contract. Many of the benefits flow direct from the belief the other person will honor their commitments.
If society allows marriages to be entered into or exited from lightly the benefits get watered down. So to say "going behind your partner's back when you know it will hurt them is not right" is a understatement. Not only are dealing great harm to that person by depriving them of something they have potentially made an enormous investment in when you have been married along time, its even bigger than the two of you (or three of you as the case may be). It harming society as whole.
Honestly no-fault divorce should have never been a thing, and society should look down on adultery. Its really better for all of us. We need more shame and more shaming not less. If you don't want to commit don't get married its that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
I see marriage as a partnership between two people. Each gets a lot out of the marriage - stability, a family, a home, security, companionship etc. So refraining from cheating on your partner is just one of the sacrifices you have to make in exchange for that.
It doesn't have to be a monogamous relationship to begin with. That's a societal construct designed to control people. It's only going behind their back if you have that kind of relationship to begin with.
If you can't trust a happy partner who's having their needs met, how can you trust an unhappy one who isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I agree with you, as long as both parties are aware and happy with the situation it's fine.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
the heartbreak from cheating is nothing compared to the enduring pain from the death of a loved one
This is one of those generalisations that betrays a close to zero understanding of human emotion. Cheating and unexpected death are both often experienced in similar ways as losses: you had a strong bond with someone that was very important to you, and now suddenly you don't. The loved one has gone, and it's not relevant whether they've gone to the guy/gal the next town over, or six feet under.
the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems
They've also waged brutal offensive wars and raped and pillaged. "The powerful" tends to be a fairly vicious standard to look up to - fortunately, most people don't.
there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels
Polygamy is not about cheating. There is nothing dishonest in everyone agreeing to a particular arrangement, whatever it is. In confounding two separate arguments, you're making polygamy look bad, even when you seem to want to make it look good.
If you think you can truly be your partner's everything, the only one they'll ever need to provide everything they desire, then (statistically speaking) you're delusional.
This is a ridiculous strawman, and you know it.
Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.
This statement is vacuous. What does "human" mean here - that it's something humans can and sometimes do do? Then murder is "very, very human". It's certainly not inevitable for even a small minority to cheat. You don't want to be faithful to Bob? Go tell Bob!
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, humans aren't really wired very well for monogamy. I mean, some people find that their completely natural state, sure, but most of the way we view the topic is due to societal expectation. Throughout history, the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems, there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels, and various forms of consensual non-monogamy have been practiced more-or-less in secret for centuries even in "modern" culture.
You're talking about societies in which women had few to no rights compared to men.
Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.
Agreed. But note well that while we are free to exercise non-monogamy, once we make a monogamy choice we are punished if we deviate from it. Sure, you can leave your wife/husband of 10 years if they decide not to "be okay" with your new choice to have many partners, but a divorce (for a man, anyway) is a very punitive experience.
So, while you are correct that humans are monogamous, and it is also correct that we are not force
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, while it's interesting to note that while polygamy has been moderately common at times and in some societies throughout human history, polyandry is fairly rare, and true mixed polyamory very rare. And most cases of polygamy, there was no expectation that the wives would physically love each other, only that they'd get along and try not to be jealous of each other getting attention from their husband.
Interestingly, the views toward children vary significantly between polygamy and polyandry. One of t
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. Cheating is bad, but "one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another" is at risk of breaking my hyperboleometer.
Let's see you build your life around a commitment and the other person breaks it. From the biological standpoint of a man you forgo all other chances to reproduce on the belief that you're partner will have your child and then you spend a huge portion of your life caring for that child and earning money to support that child. Then you find out it's not your child. You've been tricked into spending your whole existence serving the interests of another man. If you believe the theory of evolution you understand that you have been murdered for eternity.
There are reasons men get jealous and why in most successful societies female infidelity incurs severe punishments, and why rape should also incur severe penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have much life experience do you sonny. When you grow up you'll realise relationships arn't as black and white as you seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's the NSA's private files getting leaked. But I guess the NSA "deserved" it because they were not being honest about what kind of information they were gathering... or something.
Thugs are thugs whether they are murdering little babies or exposing dishonesty. A swift death is the best option for them.
Re: (Score:2)
you would only need the credit card details to remove the account.
now, who the fuck in their right mind would get on a site like that anyways? the site was probably just full of fake women anyways and fat men, if their business was to blackmail money from people to delete the account.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> just full of fake women anyways
One report I read said only 4% of the profiles were from women. I have three good friends that are male that each spent hundreds of hours on that site without ever meeting anyone. It wasn't any better than any other dating site I've seen, and considering I've done several marketing studies on them and worked for one, I know. All of these sites have very few actual women and lots of desperate men. Very, very few of the men ever even get a real response. It's sad how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they were supposed to _not_ store them.
if you work in the biz you should know that bunch of companies still do store them if they happen to see them. it's bad practice/against the PCI but they still do it. usually it just costs them a bit more money to do it so that their servers send the stuff over from their UI(in which case they can store it because they see it) instead of using an iframe from you or similar.
for a company this size it doesn't really matter to them to put down the 20-50k whatever
As a wise man once said (Score:5, Insightful)
"Information wants to be free".
The idea that AshleyMadison (or any other entity) would keep registration information private forever was laughable. My rule of thumb is that if I don't want what I do to be published all over the internet, then don't do it.
Re:As a wise man once said (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing you don't seek any medical attention or do any kind of banking as that kind of information is also stored in computers now. Either you have no problem with your medical or financial records being open for all to see, or outside of the occasional
Re:As a wise man once said (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As a wise man once said (Score:5, Insightful)
"Information wants to be free" isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for the fact that it is very hard to restrict access to information once a large enough number of people have already have access to it. It only takes one person to leak it, and the odds that no one will leak it goes to nearly 0 pretty quickly.
So yeah, don't create or share any information with anyone unnecessarily if you don't want it leaked. The morality of violating someone's privacy is irrelevant, to the reality of the difficulty of restricting access to information.
And yes, if I actually cared about keeping my medical information secret more than I cared about getting medical treatment, then I wouldn't get the medical treatment. Luckily, no one gives a shit about my medical records. Medical record are like genitals, everyone's got them. The same goes with financial records.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure that no-one is interested in your medical records. Your boss might be. Maybe it looks like you might need a lot of time off to fight cancer, or expensive treatment on the company health insurance, or maybe you or your partner is pregnant and likely want to leave.
There have been incidents of people being stopped at borders because of their medical records too. There was a Canadian women a few years back who suffered from depression about a decade before trying to enter the US. Border se
That's Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
I just felt a strange disturbance in Di Vorce, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I just felt a strange disturbance in The Force, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!
No no no - you've got it all wrong.... They're just backing up their database to 'the cloud'.
Re: (Score:2)
I also guess a bunch of them were going "Oh shit!"
Yeah, for some it may just be easier to gather all their clients in a small auditorium and tell them, "Ok, each of you just lost the house, the kids, and the frequent flier miles."
In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
Ashley Madison rebrands itself as "Cheating Liar" dot com, reality show on the way.
Missing the point... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The men that joined that site are delusional. They think women are as interested as they are in sex. That just isn't true.
Keep telling yourself that, and your man will find one and be fucking gone.
'It's bad': Aussie cheaters exposed .. (Score:2)
Give me the time to download.... (Score:3)
Re:Give me the time to download.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the database is legit, my phony ID is it.
"Where do I find the database?" asks every divorce attorney ever....
Re: (Score:3)
Sanctimonius pricks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sanctimonius pricks (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent fails English interpretation. The first sentence groups Ashley Madison members with other freethinkers as the subjects of illegal action. Freethinkers aren't the perpetrators, they're another class of victim roped in by the AM crowd to make out that hacking a cheaters website was just gosh-darned un-American.
Of course, the hackers aren't doing this out a sense of morality. Quite the opposite in fact - they just want to stir shit up and cause havoc.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent fails English interpretation.
Sentence fragment.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sentence Fragment" is also a sentence fragment
- Lisa Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
I think Ashely Madison was trying to paint their clientele with the brush of being the freethinkers; you know because they are not bound by silly ideas like fidelity in marriage. That was how I read it anyway. I think it really is a rather naked attempt to make them and their customers into sympathetic figures.
It fails to recognize the other person in the relationships they are helping to undermine. Their own logo and nature of the service offering betrays the fact that all of this has to happen in secr
Re: (Score:2)
According to this [freep.com], adultery is illegal in 21 of the 50 United States.
Ashley Madison as at the very least being hypocritical, considering their business is probably guilty of criminal conspiracy for its actions in those states.
people use the CCs of others for sure (Score:2)
Get what they deserve (Score:4, Funny)
Cheaters really should just suck it up. I mean, yeah it is their own stupid fault in cheating.
Next lets go for the bot boxers, their servers should get hacked next, bring down all forms of gaming cheating!
Wait, what do you mean this has nothing to do with computer games? Da fuq?
let's not downplay this (Score:2)
"...people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."
People should also remember it is very difficult to randomly generate a VALID credit card number.
Sites like this use credit card numbers to "confirm" the age of the individual signing up (I know, I know, having access to Daddies' CC isn't proof of age, etc.).
Called out as fake (Score:2)
This dump has already been called out as fake
http://krebsonsecurity.com/201... [krebsonsecurity.com]
Yeah, that's what I tried to explain to my wife (Score:4, Funny)
people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals
See honey, even Slashdot acknowledges it! It was a hack. It could have been anyone using my email and credit card. They probably just got lucky on the penis length thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
False:
Update, 11:52 p.m. ET: I’ve now spoken with three vouched sources who all have reported finding their information and last four digits of their credit card numbers in the leaked database. Also, it occurs to me that it’s been almost exactly 30 days since the original hack. Finally, all of the accounts created at Bugmenot.com for Ashleymadison.com prior to the original breach appear to be in the leaked data set as well. I’m sure there are millions of AshleyMadison users who wish it wer
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like someone's started mod-bombing him, probably in retaliation for this post [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:More social decay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?
Who said it does? Nobody says it has to be your norm. You don't have to get married, lots of people don't. You certainly don't have to stay married, again lost of people don't.
There is nothing particularly immoral about having multiple partners over your life. The immorality is the deception and betrayal of trust. If your going to bang strangers from the internet fine... tell your partner(s) that's what your going to be doing. If they're cool with that great. If they're not, you can leave each other and find a partner(s) that will accept it.
But sneaking around behind their back(s), lying to them, and violating their trust? What's your "moral" argument for doing that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention the possibility of passing STDs to your current partner.
Re:More social decay. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long it's going to take before polyamory and related "ethical non-monogamy" concepts become as accepted in society as, say, anal hetero sex or lesbian sex (neither of which are universally accepted, but at least they aren't seen as completely bizarre anymore). The ideas aren't new; swinging/wife-swapping (at least in semi-secret) goes back at least a hundred years, there have been multi-partner communes since decades ago, Heinlein wrote of multi-partner families as a social norm in a number of his books... but it's only relatively recently that social norms have come to accept the concept, and it's still viewed askance by many even in those parts of the west coast where it's most common.
Re: More social decay. (Score:2, Informative)
Anal sex is old school ans was accepted in lesser civilisations long ago as a mean to get on with the business without having to worry abou babies since they did not have anything to wrap their dicks into. Also it could be performed to keep the girl as a virgin.
Re:More social decay. (Score:5, Informative)
I find a weird assumption of many of the polyamory folk that most everyone would be polyamorous if not for "societal mores keeping them repressed". Don't get me wrong, I think greater acceptance of polyamorous folk is a good thing, and there probably are some polyamorous people in the closet for some reason or another. But it's simply not true that most people would be polyamorous if "given the chance", as a lot of polyamorous people think, any more than most people would be gay if "given the chance" or whatnot.
Look at human societies throughout history, and not just Judeo-Christian ones. How common is polyamory? I'm not talking about cheating, or leaving one's spouse and finding another, or anything of that nature - I'm talking a group of people who live together, love each other, and all F* together as desired. The reality is, it's been extremely rare. Many societies have normalized "playing the field" - having sex for fun without feelings getting involved - while others frown upon it. But that's not the same as polyamory, which implies a love and bonding relationship between multiple partners.
When feelings get involved, poly situations can get very complicated. "Why is he favoring her???" "Is she no longer interested in me???" "He keeps wanting to spend time with this new girl but I can't stand her". Etc. Don't get me wrong, some people do pull it off - and kudos to them. But let's not pretend that it's for everyone, or even the majority.
I live in a country (Iceland) where there's very little judgement about people for having sex or who they sleep with, in comparison to the US. It's pretty much just expected that if you're an adult, you're F*ing someone, at least one person, possibly multiple, of whatever gender. When our previous prime minister's party was elected, the fact that she's a lesbian was such a big deal that when a call went out for rat's asses, nobody gave one. When she was in office, it only came up in the context of "X country is causing inconveniences for Iceland because they don't like the fact that our PM is gay". Same-sex marriage passed parliament without a single vote in opposition. Reykjavík Pride is one of our country's largest annual festivals, with as much as a third of the population attending. The concept of "dating" without having sex is pretty much an alien concept here. When a couple has been together for a long time, their families generally don't start asking "when are you two going to get married", rather "when are you two going to have kids?" The typical order is meet->sex->get to know each other while having more sex->start dating->kids->optional marriage if you feel like it.
But people from overseas hear this and they misinterpret it, applying their own stereotypes about "how the world would be without holdups about sex" to Iceland. So for example, we get tourists (mainly guys) who come over here and think that this means that any girl he starts talking to in a bar is going to want to F* him. It's really annoying - they don't get the connection that "not being ashamed of sex" doesn't mean "interested in F*ing anyone who says hi". Likewise, polyamory isn't particularly common here. People sleep around aplenty, but if they start getting feelings toward someone, it usually stays toward one person. If things change, the result is usually the same sort of "cheating and/or breakup" situation that you're used to in the states. And people cheating on their spouse - aka, deceiving them - is still very frowned upon, because deceiving a person is a scummy activity no matter what country you're from. There's no shame in divorce here, but cheaters are still rightly seen as scumbags.
Regardless of where you're from: Either be open and honest with the person you're with, or accept that you're a total douchebag.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I have no problem with polyamory.
I suspect I'm outside the norm in that regard, but not nearly as far as one might suspect.
I had a discussion with a divorced man in his 40's not too long ago. He said that life isn't much like it used to be, where people stuck it out in marriage because there really weren't any better options. Divorce was difficult, living independently was difficult, people were more judgmental of your life choices, people lived shorter lives and didn't change environments, whatever.
I
Re: (Score:2)
I find a weird assumption of many of the polyamory folk that most everyone would be polyamorous if not for "societal mores keeping them repressed".
I find the opposite assumption to be completely bizarre. That's how basically our whole society works. You get forced into a lifestyle because if you don't at least appear to live it then your whole life gets shit upon continually by jealous fucks in a position to make it harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Where you live, but not where I live. People here really don't care who you're F*ing. Honestly. Yet polyamory still isn't common.
Re: (Score:2)
Where you live, but not where I live. People here really don't care who you're F*ing. Honestly. Yet polyamory still isn't common.
I don't believe you. People everywhere care who you're fucking. Sometimes, though, they're just politely interested or curious.
Re: (Score:2)
I clearly was raised in the wrong country. No wonder my wife doesn't want to go on that Iceland vacation I suggested.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It will require changes in the law, because the current system is set up for two person relationships. Adapting to homosexual relationships was relatively easy, and often included recognition of non-married couples as well. In most of Europe if you live with someone for a long time, have kids together and generally act like you are married then when you break up the courts will treat it more or less like a divorce.
Dealing with polygamy is more tricky. For example, infidelity is grounds for divorce, but with
Re:More social decay. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.
Oh piss off. The average intelligence of the /. readers and posting community is not in doubt, especially in comparison to more mainstream discussion forums. Contrary to popular opinion, many nerds are the man or woman of their own family, usually one made with a completely normal game of hide-the-sausage.
In my experience - and despite the 'Aspie' stereotype - nerds are keenly aware of other people's feelings and I often find they hold their own behaviour to a higher standard than most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More social decay. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, lies to strangers and casual acquaintances are a different thing than lies to someone who is supposed to be able to have implicit trust in you. I'm not talking about small lies like "I'm on my way right now" when you'd totally forgotten something, but the big important ones like "I'm swear not fucking the babysitter." It's a sheer betrayal on a personal level - it causes emotional pain and suffering, and is of the type that such relationships almost never recover from.
Re:More social decay. (Score:5, Insightful)
The average American of course commits 0 felonies a day, but by repeating that lie you're at least providing evidence for the lying part.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get it now. You're on a crusade to de-construct the virtues of humanity one by one.
Well, lots of luck to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, animal behavior covers the whole gamut, from sexual free-for-alls to lifelong monogamy without repartnering after death. There've been some interesting studies of cheating behavior in duck species that are mostly monogamous but still sometimes cheat on their partners. It makes for an interesting read because they approach it in a similar manner to humans - waiting for their partner(s) to leave, meeting up, checking around to make sure they don't think they're going to get caught, having the tryst (u