« Am I at Club Tropicana? | Poverty »
@ 2008-11-24 – 12:28:57
I heard on the radio the other day that 30% of people who join up to singles and dating websites are in fact not single.
Does this figure justify the creation of dating websites for people already attached, or do you think it is making money from the weakness of certain relationships?
Bearing in mind that everyone who joins these websites KNOW that the other users are already attached, whereas with a regular one they may be being lied to by one third of the users.
The_Walrus
Pro 
la_spice
Why can't people just be honest?
joebangles
I believe that most of those users that are married only wish to chat and have a "on line" affair with no intention of following it through to the actual meeting.
SeasideMan
Pro I'd be quite surprised if sites didn't already exist to help people cheat on their partners. Such cheating is repugnant to me, but if others are OK with doing it I don't see why they shouldn't be given a helping hand.
Tom.
DominicGee
That;s the reason I ask, because there a adverts on the internet that have links like "Married but bored? Click Here." When you click on it (I was strangely curious) it takes you to a dating site for people who are attached. I just think it's a bit wrong to capitalise (which is what they're doing) on people's weakness. It's not offering advice to save your marriage, or how to get out of an abusive relationship... but simply encourages you to give into temptation and curiosity. I suppose people are free to make those decisions, but unlike other things like this, there is a clear knowledge that somebody else is likely to be hurt - not mentioning the children.
SeasideMan
Pro If I leave my wallet on a table in a restaurant and someone runs off with it, I haven't encouraged them to become a thief, they have merely taken an available chance based on their pre-existing propensity to steal. I see these adultery-made-easy websites in the same capacity. If someone has no moral problem with infidelity, they'll manage it one way or another if they want to. The spark has to be in the person already and they take 100% of the blame for being a dirty cheat.
Tom.
DominicGee
Would you apply that logic to other trades, i.e. selling knives/guns?
That humerous adage "Gun's Don't Kill People, People Kill People".
I don't mean to a brinkman, but where is the line?
MonkeyPie
I agree with Tom, making it an available 'service' shouldn't tempt people to the point of uncontrollability. Plenty of morally reprehensible things are widely available but most people are intelligent enough, well-balanced enough or ethically aware enough to not act upon them.
At least this dating site is up front about it. If you were intending to cheat you would be cheating anyway it's not because the site is geared to attached people that an adulterer is more likely to use it.
As far as your other comment- I personally don't see why anyone would need to buy a gun or a knife (unless it applies to their trade or hobbies- not including attacking people as a hobby!) but banning them won't make them impossible to get hold of. Controlling society in how accessible and appropriate 'services' are doesn't stop these things happening. You, being normal, see this dating site as morally questionable- which it is, but adultery is an age old habit neither helped nor hindered by modern society. It's become easier only because it's more accepted but I'm sure it happened just as much before although probably in secret.
SeasideMan
Pro Knives yes, guns no. Each case on it's merits - you can kill someone as easily with a brick as a knife - should we ban bricks? Than there's the famous Prince Philip post-Dunblane statement about cricket bats.
Tom.
SeasideMan
Pro P.S. I don't think people's sex lives should be anything to with any branch of government or law as long as all parties involved are willing and no other laws are being broken...
MonkeyPie
Good point. How would you even begin to regulate a personal freedom!
DominicGee
I agree with you there, I suppose the most you can say is that it's distasteful.
Interesting question.
I am against this sort of site but would not support a ban.
I am sure there is a great inconsistency in this position but as I am not a philosopher I don't think I have to justify it!
DominicGee
Oh, I was never advocating a ban; a more honest me might say a ban on advertising, but heyhoe. If it is to be consistent with banning and restricting advertising on smoking and fast food - adultery is also damaging. But, whatever. No, I wouldn't say a ban, I'd prefer if they just dwindled and died.
Thanks for the comment.
interesting question, i think these people are cashing in and don't approve, but again i guess if you've got a market to corner why not.
In the end like seasideman says, people who will have affairs will anyway. I guess.
DominicGee
Thanks for the answer. Would you say the same for someone who commits a crime? Eats too much? To reduce your argument is to say that all advertising/persuasion is pointless as it depends upon the person.
A cheater may cheat because they are in an unhappy relationship - the website makes it easy for them to do this.
A criminal may burgle because they are finding it hard to get a regular job. Should the same defeatist attitude be applied?
Related posts
The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.
About twenty years ago, I met somebody via Dateline who had lied about her height. She was not 5'4", but about 4'0", the same as her width. Did she think I would not notice?