Life Is Short. Have an Affair, New York.

Was [CEO Noel] Biderman angry his billboard got taken down? His response: “Disappointed but not deterred.” He’s also quick to point out, “There’s absolutely nothing illegal in what we do. We offer freedom of choice.” Of course, Ashley Madison’s critics, who feel the site flaunts and romanticizes cheating, would call that “freedom” an encouragement of immorality. But Biderman has a point: “I don’t think a billboard is going to convince you to commit adultery. It just makes you aware of our service. People come to us because we offer them a lack of judgment. Step back and look at marriage and divorce rates. Monogamy is obviously up for debate.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, Ethics / Moral Theology, Marriage & Family, Sexuality, Theology

15 comments on “Life Is Short. Have an Affair, New York.

  1. libraryjim says:

    [i] People come to us because we offer them a lack of judgment.[/i]

    “Lack of judgement” is right! Just not in the way they mean it!

    🙄

  2. John Wilkins says:

    Looks as thought the church has more work to do with straight people in marriages than gay people looking to be monogamous.

  3. Paul PA says:

    John – are you suggesting the church has an an either or choice – or is this a challange to the church to work harder at challenging both?

  4. libraryjim says:

    It’s actually a challenge to the church to proclaim that the ONLY appropriate place for sex is in a committed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman for ONE lifetime (as we were asked to do with Lambeth resolution 1.10).

  5. Phil says:

    There’s nothing in ECUSA’s current “theology” to find fault with this. Men come by this naturally; and, if it feels good, do it. It’s hatred and injustice to say otherwise. Forcing this billboard to come down is bigotry – in fact, it feels like the ’50s in the South all over again. That’s OK, though: young people don’t care about this. This kind of obsession with sex is what drives them away from religion, and especially Christianity, which should change to fit MTV as rapidly as possible if it’s to stay relevant. Good grief, in an age of text messaging and MySpace, I don’t know what these kind of stultifying, patriarchal rules have to do with really being close to God. In forty years, we’ll look back on this in amazement that it could have even been an issue, and we’ll see that ECUSA was in the vanguard. Just you all wait.

  6. Chris says:

    I’m very interested to hear what the “inclusive people” (i.e. liberals)think of this. Gawain appears to think it shows that gay sexual relationships are to be ignored as distressed married couples are a more pressing problem. Sort of the defense of “what we’re doing might not be good, but it’s not as bad as those OTHER people.” Hmmm.

    It seems we haven’t left the spouse swapping 60s and 70s behind to the degree I had thought. And this campaign is by comparison a far more mainstream, matter of fact appeal that marriage is dead and how can we capitalize on it? Stunning its audacity, really, but is there such a thing as audacious anymore? I fear not…..

  7. Jeffersonian says:

    [blockquote]Looks as thought the church has more work to do with straight people in marriages than gay people looking to be monogamous.[/blockquote]

    AshleyMadison.com is hetero-only?? How behind the times.

    But it’s not immediately clear why the church shouldn’t be scrambling to validate this behavior instead of squelching it. Hasn’t science shown humans to be serially monogmous?

  8. Jeffersonian says:

    That is, of course, “monogamous.”

  9. Baruch says:

    Phil,
    In forty years no TEc and papers on the decline and fall of the United States of America. Don’t believe it, look at the UK and the coming of Londonistan.

  10. Philip Snyder says:

    John,
    [blockquote]Looks as thought the church has more work to do with straight people in marriages than gay people looking to be monogamous.[/blockquote]
    It is not the reasserting dioceses that are electing bishops who have been married three times. It is not reasserting dioceses that have liturgies celebrating divorce. Reasserting bishops are not writing books that say premaritial sex is OK and sex outside of marriage is OK of both parties are financially not able to get married due to Social Security rules and inheritances etc.

    I have a deal for you. Why don’t we all (reasserters and reappriasers) condemn all sexual sin – whether sanctioned by advertisements and culture or not.

    YBIC,
    Phil Snyder

  11. John Wilkins says:

    I think Phil, we should condemn the sin we are most likely to be guilty of. Not other people, but ourselves.

    It’s harder, I know. It’s easy to condemn other people. If you are straight, Phil, condemn young people for sleeping together before marriage. If you’re gay, condemn people for sleeping around at all. Otherwise, you’re a hypocrite, taking the easy route spending time condemning people who aren’t like you, when you should be watching your own house.

  12. Larry Morse says:

    When there are no standards save “What do I want?” then the billboard is a mere logical extension of an existing condition. That this is crass to a degree, even for America, is also surely true. Will we pay for this? Of course. We are paying now for the narcissism that the Boomers set in operation 40 years ago, for it not merely sexual excess wherein the Dionysian culture of the Boomers can be seen working its harm: The Housing debacle is another aspect of this curse, crassness wedded to a failure of self-discipline. Larry

  13. Philip Snyder says:

    John,
    As clergy and leaders, is it our duty to condemn sin (and offer absolution/assurance of forgivenss when hearing confession) in all cases. So, we are called to uphold and promote the Church’s teaching and to condemn those acts that are contrary to the Church’s teaching – such as any sex outside of marriage and marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.

    YBIC,
    Phil Snyder

  14. Shumanbean says:

    Biderman seems to believe that his livelihood of promoting illicit sex for profit (pandering?) is morally neutral, and that monogamy as a standard for marriage is open to discussion. Really, the only difference between him and an ordinary pimp is that he receives money from both parties. Since he claims to enjoy a committed, monogamous relationship, I have to wonder how he’d feel if he came home and caught his wife in bed with another man. And wouldn’t it be the height of irony if she’d arranged it through his organization…For every act of adultery he arranges, there is at least one victim involved, maybe two. It can hardly be considered morally neutral, and whether I’m conservative or liberal, I don’t have need to first survey my own sins to understand that, and to condemn it.

  15. Phil says:

    I’m not condemning any particular sin or person, John. I’m lampooning the “if it feels good, do it” teachings of the Episcopal Church. And, what I am advocating is that ECUSA return to upholding Christian standards, not the world’s.