Cheating Spouses on the Web

">disaster.
It had to happen, eventually. There's a websiteInstead, why be deceptive and just use the AM
where cheating spouses get to advertise theirsite I first described? At least there, you know
'availability' to other cheaters. It's called 'Ashleythey're cheating. It's rather a form of lying
Madison' and claims to have over 840,000honesty, if I can create a new phrase. There,
members. This site, which opened in 2002, says iteveryone's on the same lying level. You go there
has 8.5 men to every 1.5 women, a number I'mhoping to have the same low standards and
not particularly proud of. You sign up, put togethervalues as everyone else. There, you can expect
a profile under an assumed name, and wait forthem to fudge all their vital statistics. You can do
the results. So what's so surprising? The fact thata lot with Photoshop to doctor your photo, as
it even exists, or has so many members, or thatwell. As a result, you'll lose poundage, wrinkles, and
you didn't think of first? I think it's more of a sadthe gray in your hair. It's amazing.
social commentary on our morality and how weBut there's a catch. What if you do connect, then
view our lives.what? You begin secret e-mail sessions at three in
The idea of a site for cheaters is nothing new. Forthe morning, or from the office, as not to arouse
years, there have been chat forums such as viasuspicion. You might even make a few phone
Yahoo, offering rooms labeled, 'Married But Flirting.'calls, hoping to get to a physical rendezvous.
By now, I'm sure there are many others, as well.Remember, you both have mates and they have
I admit to using the web for making thatbrains. They might start figuring things out, but
'connection, but in a more honest approach. I waswhat do you care? The fact you went to the
a widower and tried the net, using 'Match.com' andweb for relief means you don't respect them
'Yahoo Personals,' as a way of meeting otheranyway. If they do catch you, you've already
singles. But, on several occasions, I suspected thatcommitted to getting out, or should have. After
several of the so-called 'singles' were actuallyall, you're a cheater.
attached. After all, it's so easy to post a profileTo those of you who would question my
under an alias, and many were doing so. It'sjudgment, I say, really? If going to a website
tempting to concoct false data or even a fakedesigned for cheaters, or chatting online in a flirting
picture, to test the waters. I experienced severalchat room, isn't problematic, I question your
replies from women who had fudged their: (a)motives. What happily married person would do
age, (b) weight, (c) photo (taken years ago), orthese things? If it were years ago, before the
(d) status. I don't consider 'separated' the sameInternet, I would expect the same behavior in a
as 'single.'bar, where you carefully remove your wedding
But that appears to be the new situation. It'sband or ring, before entering. It's just been made
rather like being a little pregnant. Either you are oreasier and more anonymous on the Internet. As if
you aren't. A separation implies the chance for acheating weren't rampant enough already.
possible reconciliation. After all, you haven't filedSome final statistics, to ponder. After a Google
for divorce and are probably working some thingssearch I found the following results for these
out. But in some minds, they're thinking, whileterms: cheating partners-2,240,000,
we're apart, why not toss that line into the oldmarried-1,810,000, adultery-4,080,000. The better
fishing pond and see what bites. Talk about nerve.news is that 'good marriages' produced 8,160,000
The unsuspecting victim fails to establish the realresults. So there's still hope for some of us
motive behind his or her, posting and begins anold-fashioned types. And for the cheaters, you
online relationship. Now there's a recipe forcan see your 'net' results.