Freedom of Infidelity (for a price)

As I was on my way to work this morning, I noticed an article in the Boston Metro that highlighted a service that is not only highly unorthodox, but also (in my humble opinion) highly immoral. It is so immoral, part of me doesn't want to post the website because I don't want anyone I know to go there. But I'm gonna do it anyway. I love a good, healthy debate.

Ashleymadison.com is a service to assist people in having a discreet affair. Their slogan is "Life is Short. Have an Affair". As the article states, the service has been described (negatively) as “a business built on the back of broken hearts, ruined marriages, and damaged families”. It's advertisements have even been banned from Toronto streetcars.

The founder, Noel Biderman, claims to have perfected infidelity. He claims that his website does not make people more likely to have an affair, just assists them in not getting caught after they've already made the decision to have one. To top it all of, this site claims to save marriages, by making infidelity safer and easier.

The logic here is tenuous at best – just as with anything else, the easier you make something for people, the more likely it is that people will go through with it. Yes, many people have already made the decision to take that step. What about those who haven't yet? A service like this is bound to make it look easier and more attractive to those that aren't sure whether it is worth the risk – an affair is much easier to rationalize if there is little to no risk involved.

Ashleymadison.com was started in 2002 and currently has over 6.4 million members in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Initial registration is free, but a full membership will cost $249 plus other fees to contact members. The website offers an “affair guarantee” that refunds the $249 if you haven't found a match within three months.

Wouldn't waiting three months to have an affair with a perfect stranger take pretty much all of the incentive out of it? I guess “spur of the moment” is out of the question.

So not only is this service immoral, but it also charges you $249 dollars to find a match within three months when you can go to any dating website (many of them free) and have a list of people within hours. I'm not seeing the upside here. Biderman promises that the site is “secure, password protected and prevents accidental disclosure”

It is pretty disturbing that 6.4 million people out there are using this service without their spouses knowing it. SPOUSES of the world, take note – be on the lookout for AshleyMadison.com. Check your spouses credit card bills, their internet history, and their wallet! Don't let this service go unpunished!

I know I sound like I'm going overboard here, but isn't this just so wrong? Is this a case of society finally accepting infidelity as an inevitable part of a relationship?  Or is this a case of an egotistical company trying to take advantage of the freedom of today's consumer culture and prey on the insecurities of the modern adulterer (or adulteress)?

Lights out for the CITGO sign

Iconic CITGO Sign Will Go Dark
Company Plans To Replace Bulbs In Iconic Landmark

Boston has one landmark that shines above all others, and if you've ever been to Kenmore Square or Fenway Park, you've probably seen the giant beacon of commercialism that is the CITGO sign. It has been there since 1965, and other than for 4 years in the seventies, has always been lit at night.

If you have never been to Boston, here's a picture of the sign (during the day- i wouldn't want to show you what it looks like at night right now).

It's a very welcoming sight to see when you're on the train and you see the CITGO sign. For me it means I'm almost home, for some it reminds them of Boston, of Fenway Park, of Boston University, or of the Green line trolley.

In any cityscape picture of Boston, one of the most recognizable landmarks is the CITGO sign. These days it looks great from a distance, and it looks great in the daytime, but have you really gotten close to it at night and looked at it? Without all the bulbs lit (a number of them are currently out) it's kind of an eyesore. Strike that - it's a major eyesore. Take the word of someone who has to look at it every day.

It frustrates me when people complain that they should wait until the end of baseball season to replace the 218,00 LED lights. In the meantime all the tourists coming to visit Boston will be thinking that we're just too cheap to fix it. Luckily it will only be out for two months.

They promise that the sign will be back up for the playoffs.

The sign has been an eyesore for months (maybe even longer) and I'm glad someone has finally noticed.

Response to Law Takes Bite Out Of 'De-Barking' Surgery

Law Takes Bite Out Of 'De-Barking' Surgery
Mass. First State In Nation To Ban Surgery



On Wednesday, the state of Massachusetts becomes the first state in the nation to ban de-vocalization of dogs and cats. This is a horrible procedure that cuts an animals vocal cords to stop if from barking or meowing, which often causes the animal pain and suffering, life-long coughing or wheezing, infections, and vocal chord scarring.

I've seen an animal this is done to - it's really very sad. The dog still moves it's mouth to bark, but the noise hat comes it is pathetic and sad. The surgery is only used on animals that will otherwise be euthanized or put into a shelter.

When our kids get too loud, do we remove their vocal chords? No. I don't think it is right to remove an animals vocal chords for any reason unless there is something wrong with them to begin with. If an animal is too loud, there are alternative methods such as obedience training, or muzzles. It is also very possible that the problem lies with the pet owner and not the pet itself. TO torture a dog or cat, just because their owner can not (or doesn't know how to) take control of them and quiet them down is just plain wrong.

I totally agree that this law should be illegal, but the thing that surprised me is that Massachusetts is the first state in the USA where this is illegal. That is appalling - to think that if you want your little poochie to be quiet, all you have to do (in 49 states) is rip his vocal chords out.

Supporters of the surgery say it can allow families to keep a vocal pet that would otherwise be surrendered or euthanized, and it can help diffuse potential neighborhood issues spurred by noisy pets.

Those neighbors should be ashamed of themselves as should the owners for allowing it to get to the point where they have to rip out the vocal chords of a living, breathing animal, so they can get a good nights sleep. At ant point did anyone consider how well that poor animal will sleep?

That "noise" as the owners call it is not just for fun. Dogs and cats use it for communication with other animals, as a defense mechanism, and to express emotion such as fear, pain and excitement. An animal who somehow got out in the wild would find it very hard to get along without their vocal chords. Not to mention this very same pet would likely be euthanized anyway if their owner decided they didn't want them anymore because, really, who wants a dog or cat that can't bark or meow?

It just disgusts me that we still do barbaric things like this these days to poor defenseless dogs and cats instead of learning to train and discipline them. If the dog or cat were the owner, do you think they would ever put us in the same situation? No, to our pets, we are the world, the most important thing ever, and they love us unconditionally. To take advantage of that trust and love is immoral and wrong on every level. They trust us to make the right decisions for their health and well being - and ripping out a necessary part of their defense and communication system strikes me as betrayal on every level.

People who do this should be ashamed of themselves for not being devoted enough and loving enough to find another solution.

The measure, named Logan's Law, was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in April after it received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Legislature.

I applaud the men and women of the Massachusetts legislature for overwhelmingly approving this law with bipartisan support.

And let's be honest, i almost never applaud the Massachusetts Legislature for anything.