Básicamente, las necesidades de las personas que buscan pareja en línea están más cubiertas para los hombres que para las mujeres, lo cual juega a favor de ellos. Para nosotras, es más difícil usar esas habilidades evolutivas a través de una app que para ellos.
On 2 February, at the cusp of Valentine’s Day, the Los Angeles sheriff’s department warned of the “growing criminal epidemic” of romance scams during a community meeting called Love Hurts. Romance scams are a type of online fraud, in which criminals pose as desirable partners on dating sites or email, win the hearts of their victims and end up fleecing them of their money.
Modern love is digitised. Letters and unrequited love have been replaced with modern iterations (saucy pictures and ghosting). You do not go on blind dates, you go on dates with people whose best photos you deem, at best, attractive and, at worst, passable. No one asks each other out in person any more, probably.
Love is no longer a case of serendipity — it is big business. From the success of the online dating industry, dominated by the likes of Tinder and Match.com, has sprung an array of new jobs: from software engineers to virtual dating assistants. Here is a look at some of those who make a living helping Cupid.
A few years ago the idea of someone publishing explicit photographs of a former lover, out of spite or as a form of blackmail, was still in the realms of fiction. But advances in technology have created fresh opportunities for sexual predators, and the criminal justice system is finding it difficult to cope with new forms of aggressive and controlling behaviour.
Tendrá que indemnizar con 145 dólares a cada víctima y pasará tres años con acceso limitado a Internet
A San Diego man who operated a “revenge porn” website and then charged victims to remove nude images and personal information was sentenced on Friday to 18 years in state prison, the attorney general’s office has said. Kevin Bollaert, 28, was convicted in February of 21 counts of identity theft and six counts of extortion in San Diego superior court for running a pair of websites that capitalised on the internet as a forum for public shaming.
Jilted lovers and hackers could anonymously post nude photos of people without their consent, along with personal information, at a website Bollaert created called ugotposted.com. More than 10,000 images, mainly of women, were posted between December 2012 and September 2013. People who sought to have the explicit images taken down were directed to changemyreputation.com and charged $250 to $350 to remove the content.
I have been with my husband for five years and we have just had a baby. He has always used pornography and he has quite specialist sexual tastes. At the start of our relationship, he was very honest and we tried to incorporate this into our sex life quite successfully.
However, over recent years, his use of pornography and masturbation has come at the expense of our sex life. He rarely instigates lovemaking yet masturbates and uses porn daily. He will look at it on his phone when I am in another room. He also confessed recently that he had been masturbating to porn at work.
Things came to a head with our new baby; he would hold her and still have his phone with him. I asked him not to look at porn when he was with the baby. He said of course not, but over the following weeks would still constantly have his phone with him when looking after her. Last week, he admitted he was looking at porn while he was looking after our daughter.
I was horrified and there were rows and tears. He was very sorry and ashamed and I have pushed him to go to counselling. I cannot move forward until I understand how he could do this.
I am angry and ashamed of his behaviour. We did have a very good relationship outside of his porn problems; it was loving, respectful and supportive but now I fear I can never see him in a sexual way again as I am haunted by the image of him making himself sexually aroused with our sleeping daughter feet away from him.
Uno de los ensayos que mejor acogida está teniendo en España es La agonía del Eros (Herder editorial), la obra del filósofo de la Universidad de las Artes de Berlín Byung-Chul Han. En ella, el pensador alemán de origen coreano parte de las teorías sobre la forma en que seleccionamos hoy a nuestras parejas descritas por la socióloga Eva Illouz para señalar cómo el amor está amenazado por algo más que la libertad sin fin y las enormes posibilidades de elección.
Antes, argumenta Illouz, estábamos ligados a nuestro entorno, de forma que el número de partenaires que podíamos conocer era limitado; hoy existen muchísimas más posibilidades de elección gracias a internet y eso, entre otros factores, nos ha hecho mucho más utilitaristas. Para Han, el problema va mucho más allá, ya que vivimos en una sociedad narcisista, donde la libido se invierte en la propia subjetividad y el mundo se presenta sólo como una proyección de sí mismo. Esa “erosión del otro” es la que mata al Eros, porque el narcisista no puede encontrar nada fuera que sea distinto de sí, y por lo tanto no hay nada que pueda amar.
La mejor prueba de esa erosión del otro está en el porno, que es la antípoda del Eros porque aniquila la sexualidad misma. Bajo este aspecto, dice Han, es incluso más eficaz que la moral: lo obsceno en el porno no es el exceso de sexo, sino que allí no hay sexo. La sexualidad hoy, no está amenazada por aquella razón pura que, adversa al placer, evita el sexo por ser algo sucio sino por la pornografía.
Las agencias matrimoniales se han transformado en modernas webs con millones de contactos que suponen un potencial de negocio que no acaba de tocar techo. Buscar pareja en Internet se llama online dating, y es un mercado tan grande como opaco, con cifras sesgadas para no informar a la competencia. Ningún organismo público o asociación sistematiza los datos de los cientos de webs de parejas que hay por todo el mundo con múltiples ofertas. Junto a los supermercados generalistas comoMeetic o eDarling, hay exclusivas boutiques para buscar maridos millonarios a hijas de buena familia, sitios para afroamericanos, webs para homosexuales o portales para casados infieles.
Casi el 5% de los norteamericanos que se casan cada año se conocieron en portales de online dating, hacen parejas más estables. “Estas webs son casi inmunes a la recesión”, asegura Lluís Carreras, CEO y cofundador de Mobifriends. Aunque la publicidad alimenta los sitios web gratuitos, el grueso son portales de citas que viven de los servicios premium de pago, aunque utilizan el gratis como gancho para realizar la inscripción y el examen de personalidad. Es la fórmula utilizada porParship, una distinguida web alemana con portales en 15 países europeos que promete un 38% de éxito. Unos 23.000 nuevos miembros se apuntan cada semana para optar a la cuota de felicidad basada en un algoritmo de 136 reglas, resultado de 40 años de investigación. “Parship abrió sus puertas online el día de San Valentín de 2001 en Alemania, y hoy tenemos 11 millones de usuarios en todo el mundo. Ofrecemos servicios con diferentes precios por países, en España están a partir de 14,99 euros”, cuenta la portavoz de la empresa.
The ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling is actually a powerful tool for victims of revenge porn, but a new House of Lords report says no new laws are needed
Revenge porn is an undoubtedly vile phenomenon. A couple, often young and foolish with lust, get together and share trust and intimacy. In the modern style, they take pictures or videos of each other or “sext” each other revealing selfies.
Then they break up and he posts these pictures on a website and labels her a whore to the world. Modern love?
This is, of course, a very partial description. Revenge porn can cut across same-sex as well as heterosexual couples, and can be done by the girl to the boy as much as the other way round. Yet revenge porn is typically one of the nastiest offshoots of the misogynistic abuse rampant and normalised in the online space, as seen in recent cases like the Criado-Perez and Stella Creasy Twitter abuse storms.
How then do we try to stop revenge porn, as we undoubtedly should? The kneejerk reaction – which we saw in hasty and ill crafted amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill last week – is to say Something Must be Done. New criminal laws must be passed. Sentences must be extended. Draconian powers must be given demanding all social networks institute real name policies (even though these would be unenforceable and harm the vulnerable more than abusers).
It’s not only Facebook treating us like lab rats. Dating sites can manipulate our emotions, too – and blame it on user testing. The possibilities are endlessly scary
If you thought the internet industry was chastened by the public firestorm after Facebook revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of its own users to affect their emotions, think again: OKCupid.com, the dating site, is now bragging that it deliberately arranged matches between people whom its algorithms determined were not compatible – just to get data on how well the site was working.
In a Monday blog post entitled – I’m not making this up – “We Experiment On Human Beings!” the site’s co-founder, Christian Rudder, essentially told us to face the facts of our modern world … at least as he sees them:
[G]uess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.
Human experimentation is definitely part of how websites work, in a way, because all online services of considerable size do something called A/B testing – seeing how users respond to tweaks, then adjusting accordingly. But that doesn’t mean sites can, do or should routinely and deliberately deceive their users or customers.
Yet Rudder – whose observations about data on his site’s “OKTrends” blog were almost always fascinating when he was posting regularly – acknowledges that OKCupid wasn’t merely A/B testing when it recently tried to figure out whether its human recommendation algorithm was actually correct:
To test this, we took pairs of bad matches (actual 30% match) and told them they were exceptionally good for each other (displaying a 90% match.)
Where I come from, we call this deception, and the Washington Post’s Brian Fung asks, reasonably, “If you’re lying to your users in an attempt to improve your service, what’s the line between A/B testing and fraud?”