Why Can’t All Ashley Madison Hacking Victims Be Josh Duggar?

Josh Duggar, the eldest son of the family featured on TLC's "19 Kids and Counting," apologized after a 2006 police report alleging he molested underage girls when he was a teenager surfaced.
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The long-awaited data dump of private information for 32 million users of Ashley Madison, a dating website specifically aimed at married people looking to cheat, has arrived, and the internet is gleeful. Despite somber warnings from some corners not to celebrate a security breach on this level, the pleasure at seeing cheaters and attempted cheaters get their comeuppance appears to be winning out on social media, where divorce jokes abound. As all this unfolded, I immediately started drafting a self-righteous piece explaining the dangers of glass houses and stone throwing.

And then I was stopped short by a headline at Gawker.

Family Values Activist Josh Duggar Had a Paid Ashley Madison Account,” the headline reads, and of course I clicked. The details are a wonderland of schadenfreude, a pure shot of serotonin to the brain at pondering what must be going on in the head of this sleazy little sex scold as he tries to figure out how to explain to his permanently pregnant wife why he felt the need for some non-procreative sexytimes with a “Stylish/Classy” woman with “Natural Breasts” who “Dislikes Routine.” (UPDATE: Duggar addressed the news on the family’s website Thursday afternoon, writing that he was “the biggest hypocrite ever.”)

I luxuriated in the knowledge that this would probably be enough to derail his fundamentalist family’s attempts to get another TV show, where they disingenuously hold themselves out as “counselors” for sex abuse victims, even after they concealed the fact that their son was himself a sex abuser.

So maybe I’m the one who needs a lecture about not throwing stones. But maybe not. True, Josh Duggar absolutely deserves what’s coming to him after he has spent his entire adult life fighting the rights of gay people and women to choose how to live their own lives. But it’s also true that nearly everyone whose personal data was leaked is a private citizen whose choices aren’t the world’s business. Adultery — or, in many of these cases, attempted adultery — matters to your partner, your family, your friends, maybe to people in your direct community. But it shouldn’t matter to anyone else.

The hacker who stole this data is likely an insider from the company who has some weird, garbled excuse about this being a protest against company abuses against its users. The hacker or hackers argue that the company is harming customers by not having a functional “full delete” option that is supposed to be there for people who decide, for obvious reasons, to abruptly get rid of their account with no traces of it left. But if user privacy were really a concern, it’s hard to imagine that the best way to address it is by putting user information out in public for everyone to read.

It’s hard to shake the sense that one reason a person might choose to out a bunch of cheaters is because they are a group of people who have few defenders. For some reason, most of us can easily empathize with the cheated-upon party, imagining ourselves in the role of the person enduring this level of betrayal. But there’s very little pity for the cheaters of the world. Or, if there is, it’s hard to express it openly without immediately drawing suspicion that you are also a cheater.

Well, I’m no cheater. I have neither the time nor energy for the high personal dramatics of cheating. I don’t feel much pity for cheaters, as a general rule. It’s a shitty thing to do and you deserve to pay a price for it.

But — and this is critical — the price you pay should be proportionate to what you did. Cheating isn’t the public’s business in most cases, because it’s not a violation of the social contract. Cheating is breaking a personal promise to another person to honor a monogamous commitment. If you break that promise, you can’t be surprised if you’re dumped. Or your parents and children find out. Or that your ex, who is well within her rights, tells all your friends what you did. Those are appropriate, personal consequences for breaking a promise.

It’s not like domestic violence or rape, which are often kept quiet but are, in fact, the business of everyone else in the larger community because violence is a violation of the social contract. Or even just creepy or harassing behavior. When you harass someone, you really don’t deserve a modicum of privacy. These behaviors are about maintaining basic order and setting a standard for how we treat people, regardless of who they are. It’s about ensuring that we all have a right to safety that other people can’t violate.

But cheating is about violating a deeply personal agreement between two people. If the person you’re with doesn’t care if you sleep with other people, it’s not cheating. It’s all about an agreement that you decide between yourselves, and like all such agreements, the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects. It’s not the business of the world at large.

Unless you’re Josh Duggar, of course. Or anyone else who fights publicly to use government interference to mess with the private sexual choices of consenting adults. If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business. If only there were a way to do a targeted search of Ashley Madison data for that, while leaving everyone else alone.

Amanda Marcotte is a freelance journalist who writes frequently about liberal politics, the religious right and reproductive health care. She’s a prolific Twitter villain who can be followed @amandamarcotte.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for ajm ajm says:

    The details are a wonderland of schadenfreude, a pure shot of serotonin to the brain at pondering what must be going on in the head of this sleazy little sex scold as he tries to figure out how to explain to his permanently pregnant wife why he felt the need for some non-procreative sexytimes with a “Stylish/Classy” woman with “Natural Breasts” who “Dislikes Routine.”

    This is something that both Josh (if it’s really his account) and his permanently pregnant wife no doubt well understand: a permanently pregnant woman spends a high proportion of the time disinterested in, disinclined for, or totally unavailable for sex.

  2. Avatar for anniew anniew says:

    Yeah, I don’t like Duggar and what he stands for at all but I cringe now knowing that he wants cuddling/hugging and even , gasp, a woman with short hair. It’s not my business.

    His parents and their teachings really messed up these kids.

  3. A woman’s interest in sexytimes is not relevant in their paternalistic religion- shouldn’t have mattered at all!

  4. If these characters wanted to blackmail Ashley Madison, which they clearly did, it’s rather obvious they’re too stupid – or, more likely, too self-righteously self-aggrandizing – to recognize they don’t understand what blackmail is. Anyone who’s seen a mid-afternoon black-and-white matinee of a B-noir knows that you have to credibly threaten to punish the target. These dirtbags are punishing bystanders, simply because they (purport to) disapprove of what the bystanders were doing. Frankly, I have no qualms whatsoever about these “hackers” being hauled off to the furthest CIA black site and having them done away with.

  5. Mike Huckabee will put this all into perspective for us.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

105 more replies


Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for ajm Avatar for anniew Avatar for pluckyinky Avatar for fgs Avatar for marby Avatar for erikthered Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for matthew1961 Avatar for dv01 Avatar for humpback Avatar for nineo Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for tomdibble Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for whiteboar Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for joelopines Avatar for bardi Avatar for dnl Avatar for beattycat Avatar for henk Avatar for bplewis24 Avatar for chicagopov

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: