Website Built on Broken Families & Questionable Morals

AN attractive couple lie entwined in a cotton sheet - clearly satisfied after what seems to have been a steamy sex session.

Cue subtitles for a dramatic finale: "This couple is married . . . NOT to each other."

The controversial TV ad for an infidelity website caused outrage when it aired in America.

And now it could hit Britain as part of the multi-million pound UK launch of ashleymadison.com.

Branded "a business built on the back of broken hearts, ruined marriages and damaged families" but hailed by others as "an honest format for an age-old human weakness", the online phenomenon already boasts seven million members in the US, Canada and Australia.

Its owner Noel Biderman, a married father of two, hopes to add one million UK cheaters to his portfolio by Christmas.

Canadian-born Biderman, 39, says: "Ashley Madison is like a traditional dating site but for people already in relationships.

"It was becoming increasingly apparent people who wanted to cheat on their partners were using more traditional sites like Facebook and match.com but concealing the fact they were married when they began dating.

"My research showed around 30 per cent of these people were effectively taking off their wedding rings when they went online.

"So I didn't need to generate infidelity but I saw that I could capitalise on it by taking this pool of people away from the mainstream dating sites and letting them know about another community where both parties could be more honest about what they're doing."

Ashley Madison - which carries the slogan "Life is Short. Have an Affair" - has become a multi-million pound phenomenon, receiving news coverage on leading US shows and channels including CNN and Fox News.

Biderman clearly revels in the "King Of Infidelity" title given to him by the US media and delights in explaining the intricacies of his website.

Starting from £49 for 100 credits, members can email one another (five credits); engage in real-time chat, enter virtual bars and bedrooms (both 30 credits for 30 minutes) and even post virtual gifts to one another.

Launched on February 13, 2002 (a day Biderman has dubbed "Mistress Day"), the following years have been spent honing the product.

Dressed in chinos and brogues, Biderman attempts to present himself as a relaxed charmer but he sips on a can of Red Bull and talks at 100mph as he tries to excuse the questionable morals behind his business.

"I've spent years perfecting the product," he says.

"Lipstick on the collar doesn't catch out people these days. Digital lipstick - emails and text messages that get into the wrong hands - catches them out.

"I've had to convince people that communicating on Ashley Madison is safe, with billing under a pseudonym."

Biderman christened the business Ashley Madison because it combines the two most popular girls' names in the US and he wanted the brand to appeal to women as well as men.

In the UK around 40 per cent of people married or in long-term relationships cheat at some stage.

More than half of women and around 60 per cent of men have been unfaithful in the past.

Love or hate Biderman, he has so far managed to tap thriving markets for infidelity in other countries.

And the no-holds-barred messages on his website have given him an insight into cheating in the 21st Century.

Biderman says this comprises: "Around two men for every woman on the site and a three to four-year itch scenario as opposed to the more mythical seven-year phenomenon."

He adds: "There is also a dramatic shift in family dynamics after the birth of the first child. Intimacy levels between couples change because of the way people feel about their bodies.

"For years, infidelity was viewed as a male phenomenon but Ashley Madison revealed more and more women have been having affairs as opportunity has allowed them to enter the workplace.

"Not every woman a man cheats with is a mistress, is she? And the more emasculated men feel, the more it causes them to lash out and want to cheat on their wives."

Biderman is currently staying in a luxury Mayfair hotel as he prepares to launch his "service" in the UK.

A round of media interviews has been lined up and a £10million advertising budget is poised to be spent if he can get his controversial message past the Advertising Standards Authority.

He claims he has seen enough messages on his website from people in the UK to know there is a "captive market waiting to join".

And he claims: "By Christmas, I estimate that one million Brits will be using the site."

The product of a stable middle-class home, Biderman says there was no role model in his own family for infidelity.

The son of a dentist and a housewife, he thrived at school and was a sports attorney. His older brother is a banker.

Married for eight years, Biderman swears he has been faithful to his wife - a stay-at-home "mom" who looks after his son, five, and daughter, two.

"Have I been tempted to stray? Yes," he says confidently.

"But I talk about infidelity ten times a week. If there is anyone who should know about what it takes to be monogamous, it's me.

"Is our relationship perfect? No. But I try hard to keep it on the right tracks.

"I might one day find myself in a similar position to my members and, if so, I would rather stray then leave the family unit."

So has Biderman considered the possibility his wife might be cheating on him right at this moment?

Appearing a little flustered for the first time, he pauses before responding more slowly: "If my wife was cheating on me right now, I would be shocked."

By all accounts, Mrs Biderman would rather he got a more respectable job, but the legitimising of extra-martial affairs has reaped rich rewards.

Biderman admits to living in a "big house" and driving a Maserati sports car.

He clearly revels in the debate over his business but, amazingly, also tries to convince the world there are heart-warming stories surrounding infidelity.

Like the Ashley Madison Diaries, a book written by a woman trapped in a loveless marriage who allegedly found her Prince Charming on the website.

Or the elderly gentleman nursing a wife with Alzheimer's.

Biderman claims: "With the permission of his children, he joined and spent once a week with a married woman. He wanted to tell me his story because he could see I was getting a hard time in the media."

Actually, Biderman appears to delight in his role as a moral villain because he knows controversy sells.

And as he points out: "Extra-marital affairs existed long before Ashley Madison and will continue to long afterwards."

original article here

Cyber-Harassment Trial Found No Proof of 'Emotional Distress'

Your thoughts, readers? -- EOPC

by Shane Anthony

Jurors who acquitted a St. Peters woman in a cyber-harassment case said prosecutors failed to prove a 17-year-old girl suffered emotional distress when the woman posted her information in a sexually suggestive Craigslist ad.

On Thursday, the jury of seven women and five men found Elizabeth Thrasher, 41, not guilty of felony harassment for making the post after she and the teenager exchanged a series of insults on MySpace. Attorneys said this was the first case to go to trial since the state Legislature passed a cyber-harassment law in 2008 in the wake of Dardenne Prairie teenager Megan Meier's suicide.

Jury foreman John Seifert said Friday that all the jurors believed the state had proven all but one element of its case against Thrasher — that the girl had suffered emotional distress.

"We really felt for her," Seifert said. "She made this claim, but we felt like there wasn't any evidence that supported the claim."

The state was required to prove seven elements of the crime. Juror Christine Cundiff said jurors agreed unanimously that prosecutors proved six. But they didn't believe the girl's testimony was proof enough that she had suffered emotional distress, she said.

"We felt the charge of a felony was extremely serious to send someone to prison when we were not 100 percent guilty on all seven (elements)," Cundiff said.

The spat between Thrasher and the girl erupted on May 1, 2009. Thrasher had a conflict with the girl's mother, who was dating Thrasher's ex-husband.

After the two exchanged insults over MySpace, Thrasher used information from the girl's MySpace account to create a sexually suggestive Craigslist ad under the "Casual Encounters" section. The posting featured the girl's photos, cell phone number, e-mail address and the restaurant where she worked.

The girl testified that after the Craigslist post, she started receiving text messages, pictures and phone calls from men. One came to the restaurant looking for her and was asked to leave by the manager, she said.

The girl said she eventually quit her job. She testified she was afraid of being raped and killed.

Prosecutors also called two police investigators to testify, but jurors said they wanted to hear from someone else who could corroborate the girl's testimony about distress.

"Anybody that could have taken the stand and said this is what I've noticed about the young lady," Seifert said.

St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas said he had not thought other witnesses were needed. (note: Banas was the Prosecutor in the Megan Meier case.)

"We didn't feel it was necessary to go on any further to prove what comes out of her mouth based on the assumption that most people would be distressed to have their personal information put on Craigslist," he said.

Thrasher's attorney, Mike Kielty, said the law is flawed.

"It criminalizes behavior that, but for the medium, wouldn't be criminal."

original article here

eHarmony Promoting Casual Sex Hookups

J.P. and Amanda Duffy expose dating service's encouragement of 'one-night stands'

..excerpts (Think Online Dating is "safe"? THINK AGAIN!)

Wednesday evening, a friend called expressing dismay about eHarmony's most recent e-newsletter which included an article, "Navigating the one-night stand." Our friend read the first few lines: "So you're a swinging single, and you've had a one-night stand. What's the etiquette for establishing boundaries, calling the day after and getting out without hurting feelings?"

Promoting such high-risk, promiscuous behavior is outrageous and irresponsible.

The advice column glosses over the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. In flippantly urging readers to "always use protection," the columnist ignores the ugly realties of "one night stands." The Center for Disease Control reports that sexually transmitted diseases are at epidemic proportions in this country, with 19 million new infections added every year. The consequences of an STD infection range from infertility to impaired reproductive health.

Also glossed over is the increased risk for violence among those who "navigate" multiple sexual partners. The article states, "It's true you can't spot an ax murderer just by talking to him, but it's a good sign if you are comfortable with someone in the light before deciding to dance in the dark." Does anyone really believe that "talking in the light" is enough to sufficiently reduce this high risk of dating violence?

What the column doesn't report is that sexually active females are five times more likely to be victimized by dating violence than girls who are abstinent.

Several years ago, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony, was closely associated with Focus on the Family. He separated from the organization after deciding to expand his services to the wider market. However, "Navigating the One Night Stand" takes this a step further by completely breaking eHarmony away from its Christian, pro-marriage beginnings.
After 24 hours, the article was removed from the eHarmony website. However, this will do little to undo the damage to their reputation. How did the advice column get there in the first place? It was clearly an intentional element of a well-designed newsletter, complete with a graphic of a tousled couple in bed together.

eHarmony can make amends by issuing a full retraction, an apology and an explanation of how this occurred. At minimum, this e-newsletter represents gross negligence. The apology should also be sent to all e-newsletter recipients.

eHarmony has assisted thousands of couples in building strong marriages. However, this goes beyond eHarmony's corporate reputation. A full retraction and reaffirmation of their mission will signal that eHarmony will remain an ally of millions of couples who endeavor to build strong marriages in the face of a culture that degrades marriage and family.

However, eHarmony's silence would signal something entirely different. A failure to retract will lead many to believe that eHarmony sees this as a minor issue and is open to "navigating" its readers into such risky territory again in the future.

Let's hope they realize that their standards should be compatible with the morals and values of their members.

SOURCE

Who wants to bet that eHarmony does it again? And other sites will or are doing the same! EOPC does not condone online dating or ANY online dating site in ANY way, shape or form.