Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

Individuals who were using a website to cheat on their spouses and significant others will not remain anonymous if they choose to remain on the lawsuit against that website–Ashley Madison. This week a judge ruled that anyone who continues in the legal fight will not be allowed to use pseudonyms in the lawsuit.

Let’s start at the beginning of this whole mess: this lawsuit began in response to last summer’s hack of the Ashley Madison website, a service with the motto: “Life is short. Have an Affair.” The website, which purports to facilitate men and women in finding people to have affairs with, is used most predominantly by men. In the hack, 11 million account passwords were discovered because of improperly secured accounts. This led to the release of 32 million customers’ emails, sexual preferences, names, and addresses on the internet, which caused backlash in small communities, investigations of government employees found using the site, and even the blackmailing of some individuals whose information was released.

In response to the release of personal information, several Ashley Madison users have decided to sue the company for claiming to secure personal information and then failing to do so. While many of their identities have already been released, the plaintiffs petitioned to use pseudonyms in the case in order to protect themselves from judgment of the public.

Unfortunately for the roughly 50 people suing Ashley Madison, Judge John A. Ross, a United States District Judge, ruled on April 6th to deny the motion for plaintiffs in the case to use pseudonyms. Part of the judge’s ruling was based on the fact that:

The personal and financial information plaintiffs seek to protect has already been released on the Internet and made available to the public.

In addition, the judge acknowledged the fact that:

Only in extraordinary circumstances may civil litigation proceed under fake names, like in cases such as sex crimes and suits about juveniles.

What the judge did allow is for the members who are currently involved in the suit to dismiss their complaints and instead file as members of a class in a class-action suit. If it is certified they will not need to release their names individually in order to sue.

A lot of the people whose names were released in the hack have faced serious consequences because of the release of information. Some people have been blackmailed into paying bitcoin bribes in order to try to stop blackmailers from ousting the cheaters to their oblivious spouses. Town officials have been shamed by their local newspapers and publications.

While the huge breach in security was unexpected for the members of the Ashley Madison site and the people whose information was released may have legal standing to sue the company, it’s hard to have much sympathy for cheaters whose significant others found out about their infidelity. This is a good lesson for all of us to be a little more skeptical about the security of personal information online and the reality of bad karma. Next time you go online to find a hot date with whom to two-time your wife, maybe think twice before plugging in your government email address.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Judge Denies Cheaters’ Request to Remain Anonymous in Ashley Madison Suit appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for international athletics events (track and field, marathons, etc.) announced it was provisionally banning the Russian Federation from international events, effective immediately. The ban will prevent Russian athletes from competing in any competitions, including the 2016 Rio Olympics, stops Russia from hosting any IAAF-sanctioned events, and calls for lifetime bans for five athletes and five coaches.

Russia has been given the opportunity to prove that its athletics programs and drug-testing procedures have been reformed in order to have the ban removed in time for the 2016 Olympics. However, the scandal continues to cast a long shadow over international athletics, calling into question the results of prior competitions (such as the 2012 London Olympics) and raises suspicions of other countries’ athletics programs. Read on to see the allegations against the Russian Federation, the concern of institutionalized doping programs in other countries, and where Russia and athletics as an international endeavor can go from here.

The Secrets of Doping and the WADA Independent Commission Report

In December 2014, the German television channel ARD released a documentary featuring journalist Hajo Seppelt titled “Top-Secret Doping: How Russia Makes its Winners.” The documentary alleged collusion between the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, the Russian Athletics Federation, and the Russian national laboratory. Most troubling is that all of these organizations are funded by the federal government, suggesting their awareness of the cheating, which caused the documentary to declare the cheating “state-sponsored.” The documentary was based around allegations from Russian whistleblowers Vitaly Stepanov, a former Russian Doping Control Officer, and Yuliya Stepanova, a world-class 800-meter runner. The hour-long documentary provided the names of several athletes, coaches, other officials, and a doctor who used or provided banned substances.

The documentary provided the spark for what turned into a media firestorm and a debate about doping in international swimming was inadvertently started. Sports officials the world over began reconsidering their punishments and procedures to deal with doping in their own sports. Athletes accused in the documentary had to worry about potentially forfeiting medals and other prizes. As would be expected, Russian officials decried the film and whistleblowers, calling into question the legality of their recordings.

The documentary rocked the athletics world and triggered an independent investigation from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The agency established an independent commission with the mandate to investigate “serious allegations of doping practices, corrupt practices in doping sample collection and results management, corruption and related ineffective administration of anti-doping processes.”

On November 9, the independent commission (IC) released its final report concluding:

The IC has identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant… the IC has recommended that the IAAF suspend ARAF.

The report found that Russian athletics had a “deeply rooted culture of cheating,” exploited athletes for financial gain, confirmed the widespread use of banned substances by actively competing Russian athletes, confirmed the involvement of coaches, doctors, and laboratory personnel, and found evidence of corruption and bribery in the IAAF.

Finally, the report concludes that it would be naive to assume that athletics is the only Russian sport affected by the state-sponsored doping program. The commission offered no conclusive opinion on other sports in Russia but stated that while no written evidence currently implicates the Russian government, such an extensive cheating program would not have been possible without some level of government approval.

On November 13, the IAAF announced it had voted 22-1 in favor of suspending Russian athletics from international events. Russia’s IAAF council member was allowed to participate in the vote.

Additional Allegations

Currently, the allegations against specific athletes are unproven. Two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans have said they will pursue legal action. Specific allegations against Russia’s anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) include the tampering or destruction of at least 1,400 test samples, giving advance notice to athletes before drug tests, and intentionally scheduling tests immediately before athletes began doping regiments. Russian athletes are currently banned from competition and the country is no longer eligible to host the scheduled 2016 World Race Walking Cup or the 2016 World Junior Championships, both of which were to be held in Russia.

The independent commission’s report also criticized the way drug testing was handled leading up to and during the 2012 London Olympics, alleging that testing failures sabotaged those games. Russia came in second in the medal count behind the United States in 2012. This has also started whispers that the United States and other large countries ought to be investigated regarding athletic doping.

Midway through 2015, ARD, the German television channel, released a follow-up documentary titled “The Secrets of Doping: The Shadowy World of Athletics.” Both ARD and The Sunday Times acquired access to the test results of 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012. In addition to providing evidence that further implicates Russia, the documentary turned its attention to Kenya. In the last three years, 33 Kenyan athletes have failed drug tests, some escaping penalties and still managing to compete when they should be facing bans. WADA has suggested that Kenya could soon face a four-year ban for the myriad of problems with its drug-testing program.

Russian Response to the Suspension

Key figures on the Russian side have sent mixed messages since the WADA released its report and IAAF handed down its ban. While most Russian officials have pledged to cooperate with IAAF and WADA to ensure the program is reinstated in time for the Olympics, several have criticized the report and its findings. The director of the Russian anti-doping Agency denounced the report. According to current officials, the management of the ARAF was changed in the spring of 2015, meaning the current heads of the federation aren’t responsible for the faults found in the report. However, it should be noted that according to the second ARD documentary, ARAF has a history of keeping removed coaches and doctors around to provide athletes with performance-enhancing drugs while not officially being a part of ARAF.

What’s Next?

While the threat of suspension looms large for countries like Kenya, a full ban on international athletics competition is the reality for Russia. WADA has removed their endorsement of the Moscow lab that was identified as being the primary culprit for sample tampering. From top to bottom, the process of preventing doping in Russian athletics will receive oversight from WADA personnel. Additionally, an IAAF team will begin work next year to see if Russia can be readmitted to the international community of athletics. At least two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans are planning to appeal.

The IAAF has also faced some criticism for its investigation. The question has been raised of how much geopolitical issues may play in major sporting federations like the IAAF and FIFA, which has been going through its own highly-publicized scandal. Former IAAF officials have also been implicated in the WADA report though details have yet to be released due to the nature of the legal proceedings.

Based on the data on athlete drug tests from 2001-2012 acquired by ARD and the Sunday Times, an estimated one-third of medals in endurance events were won by athletes with suspicious test results. One in seven of those athletes named have tests that suggest doping or some other abnormality. Ten medals from the London games were won by athletes with suspicious results. From 2001-2012, 80 percent of Russia’s medals have been won by athletes with suspicious test results and 18 of Kenya’s medals were given to athletes with suspicious test results.

Conclusion

The world of international athletics is facing a full-blown crisis rivaling that of FIFA’s. The disturbing trend of suspicious tests from Russian and Kenyan athletes appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Most alarming is the evidence of state-sponsorship of doping in the case of Russia. While Russia is working to become compliant with standards set by WADA and the IAAF in time for the 2016 summer Olympics, it is entirely possible that one of the foremost powers in global athletics may not send a team to Rio. Meanwhile, the IAAF has its own problems that it must sort through in order to secure the integrity of a sport that has been much maligned in the past year. There has always been suspicion of drugs and cheating in athletics, but the WADA report and ARD documentaries put hard evidence in the spotlight.

Resources

Primary

WADA: The Independent Commission Report #1 Final Report

IAAF: Provisionally Suspends Russian Member Federation ARAF

Additional

BBC: Athletics Doping: Russia Provisionally Suspended by IAAF

BBC: Athletics Doping Scandal: Russian Runners say they are Innocent

BBC: Athletics doping: Wada Commission Wants Russia Ban

BBC: Leaked IAAF Doping files: Wada ‘Very Alarmed’ by Allegations

BBC: Lord Coe Role in Eugene 2021 Worlds Decision Questioned

al Jazeera: Two Kenyans Suspended for Doping at World Championships

al Jazeera: Russia Reacts After ‘Systematic Doping’ Accusations

CNN: Russia Could be Banned from 2016 Olympics after Doping Report

The Guardian: Russian Athletics Chief ‘Prepared to Resign’ as Olympic Ban Risk Grows

The Guardian: IAAF Confirms Investigation into Allegations of Kenya Doping Cover-up

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: how Russia Makes its Winners

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: the Shadowy World of Athletics

RT: Russia’s IAAF Expulsion about Geopolitics and Prelude to War – Not Doping – Tony Gosling on RT

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State-Sponsored Doping in International Athletics appeared first on Law Street.

It’s the end of the week, which means its time to relax and reflect on all the stupid things people have done this week. Specifically, some fantastically odd arrests. Check out the slideshow below:

An Unexpected Getaway Car

Image courtesy of Eric Eggertson via Flickr

A still-unidentified woman was arrested after shoplifting at a Rochester, New York mall. But it was her transportation to and from the mall that makes the arrest newsworthy. She took a limo to the mall, allegedly stole about $300 in merchandise, then called the limo to come pick her up again. Police picked her up too.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

As students we’re quickly taught that getting caught cheating will get you in serious trouble, whether that be in the form of detention, suspension, or even expulsion. However, an Atlanta judge decided yesterday that when teachers, principals, and administrators decide to cheat their punishment could be much harsher–jail time.

In a courtroom Tuesday, Judge Jerry Baxter of Fulton County Superior Court sentenced ten former Atlanta Public School educators convicted of conspiring to falsify state standardized tests to collect bonuses in a cheating scandal. According to Judge Baxter’s rulings, all but one will be serving time in jail, according to USA Today.

Atlanta educators were guaranteed bonuses by inflating scores: Ringleader got $500K http://t.co/oquKMYLMqw pic.twitter.com/9QoMm6icoL

— slone (@slone) April 14, 2015

According to the Washington Post, three high-level school system administrators were told they would serve seven years in prison and 13 years on probation plus 2,000 hours of community service and a $25,000 fine, which was much harsher sentencing than prosecutors had requested.

Five others were sentenced to either a year in prison and four years on probation or two years in prison and three on probation; they must also pay fines and complete community service time.

Two of the defendants negotiated lighter sentences in exchange for admitting guilt and apologizing in court for their actions, as well as waiving their rights to appeal. While both face community service and fines, this allowed for one of them to serve his time in the county jail for only six months on weekends, while the other avoided jail time altogether but was sentenced to one year of nightly home confinement.

Judge Baxter’s sentencing severity came as a surprise to many, since cases of academic fraud usually end with little more than a slap on the wrist for offenders. In defense of his sentencing, he was quick to remind the courtroom that these educators cheated some of the city’s most vulnerable children by deluding them into believing that they were learning reading and math skills. Judge Baxter said:

That’s what gets lost. Everyone starts crying about these educators. . . .There were thousands of children that were harmed in this thing.This is not a victimless crime that occurred in this city.

However some are actually calling the educators themselves victims of a “corrupt educational system.” Rev. Bernice King, daughter of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., initially called for leniency and no jail time for the Atlanta educators after they were convicted this month, saying in a statement:

Teachers are under tremendous pressure to meet standards and ensure that students pass tests, even to the extent that their jobs, their livelihoods may be threatened.

The sentencing doled out yesterday in many ways does seem harsh, but even if there was pressure for these teachers to help their underachieving students pass, moral ethics should have trumped cheating hypocrisy. Judge Baxter is sending a strong message that when it comes to protecting the education of our children and ensuring that they have bright futures, cheating won’t be tolerated.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Educators Sentenced in Atlanta Cheating Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Love. This chemical cocktail of adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin has the power every year to make people all over the world get all kinds of gushy in celebration of Valentine’s Day. But love isn’t all flowers and candy. This complex emotion can turn once sane individuals into lovestruck lunatics, and even criminals.

Check out the slideshow below to see just how love can turn illegal with these bizarre crimes that will have you saying “WTF”!

[SlideDeck2 id=34162 ress=1]

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Love Gone Wrong: Top WTF Crimes Involving Couples appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether.

Right now, the bans on watches seem to be catching on in the United Kingdom, with the University of London and London’s City University both banning the accessory.

It makes total sense that a school would want to ban smartwatches. They could obviously be used to store notes or cheat sheets that could be pulled up with just a flick of the finger. But it goes further than that–the whole idea of the technology is that it acts as a sort of extension of a smartphone. You can set them up so they give you certain notifications–for example, emails, or text messages. So, you could have a friend text you information at a particular time. Or, more simply, set up a timed email or message to send you information at a particular time during your test. Depending on what watch you have, you could also look up information during the test itself.

Some schools have banned the smartwatches themselves. Weber State University, for example, a college in Utah, has banned smartwatches during tests. It’s not just colleges, either. The College Board, the organization that runs SAT testing, has already banned them as well.

Why would schools ban all wrist watches though, in the hopes of catching just a few students who have smartwatches and hope to use them to cheat? Well, smartwatches look pretty snazzy, pretty much like real watches. If you’re not familiar with a smartwatch, as some professors may not be, it would be difficult to figure it out by just glancing at the device. It would also be a tough task for professors who teach large lecture halls with hundreds of students, and end up being a waste of time.

That being said, I think there are definitely downsides to a ban on watches as well. For one, it’s a pretty common accessory–it would be easy to forget to take off a watch the day of an exam. Secondly, any classrooms that banned watches would basically have to ensure that a clock is present in the classroom. Being able to manage time effectively is an important testing skill–many professors design tests that will take up more time than the class is allotted, if you aren’t careful. While banning watches may prevent incidental cases of cheating, it’s simpler said than done.

This is yet another example of the ways in which technology, while great, can run straight into commonsense rules. While smartwatches certainly are a threat to the integrity of our classrooms, schools will have to be very careful when it comes to figuring out the right way to mitigate that danger.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating? appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media networks introduced endless applications, opportunities, and hundred of thousands of attention-seeking men and women searching for that new fix, that something different. Nowadays, with television shows broadcasting adulterous affairs and advertisements screaming sex, one questions whether the provocateur’s nature is encouraged in the United States. Read on to learn about the ways in which our society addresses, promotes, and deals with adulterous behavior.

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

From Showtime’s hit show “Masters of Sex”, to the “Game of Thrones” saga on HBO, nudity and passion play on our society’s imagination. Scandal reigns supreme in the monotonous lifestyle of working, paying taxes, and drinking endless Iced Venti Americanos. No one will openly condone cheating, but infidelity is pervasive; it’s something that’s constantly talked about in modern society.

In 2010, the National Opinion Research Center inquired into the percentage of men and women cheating on their spouses. The percentage of men involved in extramarital affairs remained steady, around 21.6 percent. However, the infidelity rate amongst married women rose to about 14.7 percent. This jump was attributed to more women joining the workforce and obtaining jobs requiring them to travel.

But why shift any blame? Perhaps allocating responsibility isn’t a working testament to the truth about infidelity. Maybe people just get tired of each other and hope for a change. Gary Neuman quantified his studies of adulterous men in his book “The Truth About Cheating” in 2008. He provided that about 1 in 2.7 men cheat on their wives. He blamed male insecurity.

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling under-appreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures. Men are very emotional beings. They just don’t look like that. Or they don’t seem like that. Or they don’t tell you that.

But is the driving force behind adulterous men purely insecurity driven? And can a woman’s indiscretions be explained by working more, or in different places? That may have once been the case; however, in modern years, our marriage discussions have shifted from treating bedrooms sacredly, to coffee-shop chit-chat and salon banter. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it, or don’t frequent barbershops and Starbucks, but, what if George Clooney in “Out of Sight” was right? What if that moment passing someone on the street transforms wayward thoughts into scandalous realities?

Is infidelity easier today?

It’s 2014, and apps such as OkCupid and Tinder exist. Today, “swiping,” has erased the formal face to face contact typical to traditional relationship notions. With a flick of a finger one can generate an obscene amount of potential lovers, both hopefuls and hopeless prospects. It takes no longer to find someone than the time it takes to inconspicuously avert your eyes from the married neighbor’s wife, after the husband notices you “creeping.”

A simple Google search for “apps for cheating” generates countless articles, magazine excerpts, and ratings of new phone applications easily designed and ranked to help one cloak mischievous manners. Apps like Ashley Madison, SnapChat, and Black SMS, not only encourage infidelity, but make discovering it much more difficult. On the other hand, applications for exposing a cheating spouse, like ThaiSpy and CoupleTracker, make catching one affordable and accessible. Incidentally, the internet provides a tech black market, allowing one to fulfill scandalous desire and retain anonymity. Is it really a surprise, that Millennials, thrust into technology’s embrace, are showing symptoms of a swelling infidelity rate? Technology has injected itself into the relationship process, and it shows no signs of stalling. For example, a new survey published by IBISWorld, a Santa Monica market research firm, discussed the implications of mobile dating, yielding that approximately one third of new marriages start online.

Societally, we are going to increasingly meet more of our romantic partners online as we establish more of an online presence in terms of social media,” says Caitlin Moldvay, a dating industry senior analyst for IBISWorld in Santa Monica, Calif. “I do think mobile dating is going to be the main driver of this growth.

But, what does this have to do with infidelity? Perhaps, not much at all, but could the way people meet and explore their sexual inclinations dictate modern cultural trends? If meeting Casanova becomes easier, is it easier to cheat? That could make sense.

Contrarily, research conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, rebuts this presumption. In his independent study published in the American Sociological Review, he found that 22 percent of new couples met online; however, these couples were twice as likely to marry as those who met offline.

 Couples who meet online are more likely to progress to marriage than couples who meet in other ways.

He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that dating sites typically arouse interest in people genuinely seeking marriage as their goal. Although his results seem noble, they remain dubious because internet-formed relationships are still in their infancy stages. Delving deeper into research shows that infidelity mostly occurs after 5-7 years of the marriage or when a child was born. Therefore, although online couples are initially happier, studying their long term speculations may be premature, considering the relative new-ness of social media and online dating. Nevertheless, both ideas suggest that taking a look into our nation’s divorce rate may shed some light on the issue.

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

Statisticians rank the United States as having the sixth most divorces in the world. Although the specific divorce rate is relatively unknown, it is speculated that around 40-50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. However, this statistic does not account for the complexities surrounding marital difficulties. For example, the largest rate of divorcing men and women are between the ages of 20-24–37 percent for women, and 39 percent for men:

“f you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes. But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.

David C. Atkins, an associate research  professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, studied the infidelity rate among married couples and discovered that although the divorce rate has not risen significantly, particular age groups, including newly married couples and couples over 60, are cheating more often. He cites the availability of pornography on the Internet as a motivator for younger couples, and the prevalence of remedies treating erectile dysfunction for older couples. Moreover, the modern trend deemphasizes sex as the primary driving force of infidelity. Instead, intimacy and openness with one’s new flame boosts the infidelity rate. This idea was qualified this year in a new study published in a journal, Evolutionary Psychology, which recruited 477 adults: 238 men and 239 women. The study asked all participants two questions:

Which would distress you more: Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person or imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment with another person?

Interestingly the results varied, depending on who you asked. Men were most distraught about physical infidelity and women by emotional cheating. Thus, examining all the reports above presents us with a trend that shows a possible gender-specific irony: 1) Men do not always appreciate a spouse’s physical infidelity; however, men usually cheat due to emotional insecurity, and 2) Women do not  always appreciate a spouse’s emotional attachment, but can be attracted to a man’s sexual prowess. Although, our nation’s mushrooming divorce rate isn’t directly attributable to infidelity alone, a question remains as to why infidelity is so ubiquitous today.

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

Today, we are constantly connected. Many people maintain activity on one or more social networks or maintain “friends,” many of whom they haven’t spoken to in years: friends, exes, people they don’t know, or people they would like to know. Face to face relationships are no longer as mainstream as they used to be. But what role does our ability to connect with people from all over the world play in expansive relationship betrayal?

Researchers at Indiana University studied the connection between social networks and relationship availability. The study coined the term “digital cheating” and investigates suspicions about relationship demise by social networks. It found that people keep Facebook and other outlets to monitor the availability of their romantic/sexual prospects and whether or not they are in a committed relationships. Their breakthrough suggests that modern networking trends illustrate adults breaking from meeting new people, and instead, holding on to old flames, or as they called them, “Back-Burners.” As the study explains:

We use the term back burner to describe a desired potential or continuing romantic/sexual partner with whom one communicates, but to whom one is not exclusively committed. Although communication with back burners is not new, modern technology affords novel channels (e.g., social networking applications and text messaging) that individuals are using to connect with back burners.

Additionally, the study found that some partners in adult relationships maintain romantic or sexual conversations, on average, with two people other than their significant other. Interestingly, this trend is gender neutral, resulting in a similar average rate for both men and women. Although the larger pool of prospects and digital back-and-forth are not necessarily dispositive of physical wrongdoing, these findings lend credence to the English idiom that there really are plenty of fish in the sea.

Conclusion

Perhaps the loyal spouse today shouldn’t blame his or her philandering partner. Modern philosophies describing today’s adultery clash with old-school promiscuity notions, which ascribe different reasons for extramarital affairs. Maybe infidelity by one spouse is just a byproduct of emotional yearning. Although cheating compromises the values of one spouse at the expense of another’s selfishness, our society mimics this trend by condoning infidelity for some, while celebrating it for others.  For example, our infamous double-standard provides that philandering men will mostly receive “props” from their “boys,” while unfaithful women are labeled with the love chords of revulsion. Even though both sexes may be equally guilty in entertaining back-burners for that just-in-case moment, it seems unfair to brand one sex with the Scarlet Letter celebrated by the other. Nevertheless, the problem might not lie between or among the sexes, considering this issue permeates every facet of modern life, such as our phones, homes, and television shows. Maybe it has now just become a part of today’s life.

Resources

USA Today: Study: More Than a Third of New Marriages Start Online

Computers in Human Behavior: Using Modern Technology to Keep in Touch With Back Burners

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

Bloomberg: More U.S. Women Report Cheating on Their Spouses

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

Huffington Post: Why People Cheat: 12 Differences Between men and Women

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infidelity in the United States: Why is the Trend Growing? appeared first on Law Street.