Map: More Ashley Madison users in Grand Rapids than voters in mayoral election

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- Data displayed online shows that that in Grand Rapids there were almost 23,000 registered users. That's more than the number of people who voted in this month's mayoral election.

Recently hacked, AshleyMadison.com is the website where married people pay to cheat and not get caught. And fallout continues from the hack of the personal information of its more than 30 million users.

A website has used that data to create a map showing exactly where those users are, and it's pretty shocking.

As the days go by, more and more websites are popping up, making it easier to search through the names and locations of users of the adultery website. These cites reportedly show Michigan State University has the most school email accounts on the site than any other school in the country.

Grand Rapids relationship counselor Joe Martino said that the hack is helping to shine a light on the issue of cheating, which is something more common than people might think, citing recent studies that say about 73 percent of people have affairs.

"That's crazy, that's seven in 10. You always figure some people are lying, so it's probably higher," said Martino.

"There is a peer pressure in your more conservative towns," said Martino. "You know people are going to view issues of marriage as a collective differently here in West Michigan, say, than Cal Berkeley."

Martino said that more times than not, affairs have nothing to do with sex and are more so a grab for power and control.

Anyone who has found their spouse's name in the Ashley Madison user list should face the issue head on, he said. "The truth is always the best option from where I'm sitting. When you use the truth, you can just kind of deal with it and move forward."

Martino said that users who were actively having an affair at the time of the hack will be affected the most compared to someone who had just started or stopped months ago.

"There's got to be someone out there that will check and say, 'Oh man, my husband or my wife is having an affair,'" said Martino.

And then there's the possibility of blackmail. Based on his experience, Martino says it's fairly common for someone to be blackmailed by a scorned lover threatening to expose nude pictures or details of their relationship to their spouse.

"Somebody is having an affair, and it's with somebody at work and now they break it off and they still see each other every day, the person at work is now mad. So you know what they do? Oh I've got pictures of whatever."

It's also important to understand sex addiction is a real illness, Martino noted. Someone struggling with fidelity should get help and not just be labeled as a cheater. "I'm not in anyway excusing what they did, but it is something we need to bring into the conversation. How do we treat them? How do we help them?" said Martino.

The Canadian government, where Ashley Madison headquarters is located, said it is investigating two suicides possibly related to the hack.

There are also a couple of attorneys who have filed $578 million class action lawsuit against the company.

The company itself is offering a $500,000 reward for information leading to the capture of the people involved in the data breach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

23 comments

  • Kevin Rahe

    If this is what HETEROsexuals think marriage means, no wonder same-sex couples were able to convince the SCOTUS judges that they should get marriage benefits from the government, too. I think our society needs a reboot.

      • Kevin Rahe

        Even that idea suggests that marriage should mean SOMETHING. Right now as far as our laws and much of society is concerned marriage has absolutely no particular meaning at all.

        People complain that the Supreme Court has redefined marriage. The reality is much more that it has UNdefined it.

        • Roger Banner

          [shrugs] ok. I’m sure marriage means something different to you than it does to me than it does to that other guy over there. If the govt is going to create laws that affect marriage than they need to cover all marriages- otherwise its a violation of the 14th amendment.

          • Kevin Rahe

            What business does the government have recognizing something – much less granting benefits that cost taxpayers money based on it – that we don’t agree on the definition of?

          • Roger banner

            Sure… So instead of working so hard to deny your fellow man their rights maybe you should be lobbying to repeal the thousand or so laws governing marriage.

          • Kevin Rahe

            What rights was anyone denied before Obergefell? Can you say that same-sex couples fulfill the purpose of laws that grant married couples certain rights and privileges in the first place? I’ve been asking this question for years – including in a letter printed in USA Today a few years ago – but no one has ever answered it.

          • Roger banner

            Can you show me why the several thousand laws were enacted? Seems to me they probably were for several reasons and they’ve never been denied before just because a couple couldn’t fulfill every purpose.

            And yes if you married folks were having their 14th amendment rights denied when they’re marriage wasn’t being recognized but others were.

          • Roger banner

            Sorry- meant to say that married folks were having their 14th amendment rights denied when their marriage wasn’t recognized but others were

          • Kevin Rahe

            Actually even many OPPOSITE-sex couples never fulfill the purpose of laws that grant married couples certain rights and privileges. It’s not whether EVERYONE who benefits from tax-shifting like we have with marriage or entitlements like food stamps can actually DEMONSTRATE that they need them for the law to be just, it’s whether they’re LIKELY to need them based on objective and verifiable measures that justifies the law. A given man and woman making a public commitment to join each other are likely (in fact highly likely) to conceive and bear children, and thereby make an invaluable contribution back to society that justifies shifting some of their taxes and other burdens to unmarried folks. The same is not true of same-sex couples. Looking at it another way, the well-being of the children likely to result from it justifies the cost to society of promoting marriage to a man and woman who want to begin an intimate relationship, who might otherwise choose to merely cohabitate. Again, there is no similar justification for encouraging same-sex couples to make a public commitment to each other. Such relationships are simply irrelevant to the rest of society, since they cannot possibly have any consequences that extend beyond those who choose to be involved in them. Meddling with them the way we do with traditional marriage simply isn’t justified.

          • Roger Banner

            The flaw in your logic here is that you haven’t shown that that is the sole and primary purpose of the thousands of separate marriage laws. Rational thinking disputes it anyways. Until you can prove that your underlying rationale is erroneous.

          • Roger Banner

            That is most likely why you claim “nobody can answer your question”… Because it simply isn’t a valid question and the underlying logic is flawed.

          • Kevin Rahe

            Rational thinking suggests that there has to be some reason to shift taxes from Joe to Bob more tangible and significant than that Joe has a sentimental attachment to Mary.

            You’re asking me to believe that there was essentially no reason that the federal and state governments started recognizing marriage around a century ago. I think you’re wrong.

          • Roger Banner

            How can I be wrong? I haven’t stated what the purpose(s) for the thousand or so laws that govern marriage. You have however, but you haven’t backed your statement up with anything concrete- so it remains your opinion.

          • Roger Banner

            And for the sake of argument- let’s take your premise as fact that the sole and primary purpose of every law governing marriage is simply because of children- just as today most married folks will still have children. I don’t see where you argue that other married folks with little chance of raising children should be denied equal protection under the law.

          • Kevin Rahe

            You haven’t even claimed that the reasons I say the government recognizes and promotes marriage are ILLOGICAL. Why should I be concerned about having concrete evidence for something that is merely common sense?

            You want “equal protection” for same-sex couples not because such relationships are the same in form, practice or likely results as those of traditionally-married folks, but because you feel sorry for them and don’t want them to feel left out. Compassion is a good thing and I also find it to be a tragedy when someone experiences same-sex attractions, especially when they would like a family of their own and they’re one of the minority of that group who also feel unattracted to the opposite sex. I pray for them weekly, but I cannot accept treating same-sex relationships as something they’re not, which requires abandoning truths such as that there is a difference between men and women.

  • mathew

    Give me a call via 5702908280 if you are looking to get any such hack espionage accomplished.Grade change thorough background checks , whatsapp ,emails/social networks all piece of cake . serious inquires only …No B.S please !