My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds.
If not, visit http://jessicabrody.com/blog
and update your bookmarks.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Quality Affairs at the Quality Hotel

Someone really has to tell me what they're putting in the water over there in that Tri-State area.

Spitzer's Prostitution ring in New York, McGreevey's semi-homosexual threesomes in New Jersey, and now the new NY Governor, David A. Paterson is being accused of using campaign money to rent seedy hotel rooms in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in order to conduct his serial extramarital affairs. (Wait, do seedy hotel rooms even exist in the Upper West Side of Manhattan? Or is that an oxymoron?)

The blogosphere is buzzing. TV news viewers are hooked. And all the sources seem to be reporting the same thing: Paterson has claimed that yes, he did occassionally use his campaign credit card to rent rooms at the Quality Hotel on the Upper West Side for $100 bucks a pop when his other personal cards were declined, but he swore on his grave that he always reimbursed the card afterwards. Well, that's nice. And very considerate. "Hey campaign contributors, my credit card doesn't seem to be working. I have no idea why. I'll have to call the bank in the morning and sort it all out. In the meantime, I've got a girl waiting down here (wink, wink), mind if I borrow a few bucks from y'all if I promise to pay you back tomorrow. Cross my heart and hope to die."

Yes, that's exactly how it went down in my mind.

But the bigger question here that nobody seems to be asking is why did he choose the Quality Hotel (now the Days Inn) in the first place? Out of all the beautiful places to stay in Manhattan and he comes to the Quality Hotel? This is what I really want to know. Was it because it was discreet? Anonymous? Cheap? I mean, if his credit cards are getting turned down at the Quality Hotel, maybe it was a matter of penny pinching necessity. Or did he just read a really kick-ass review on Hotels.com? I believe I must have missed the "Ease of Affair" attribute in the five-star rating system.

I do know this much, however. The Quality Hotel (or Days Inn) on the Upper West Side, is no longer discreet, anonymous or cheap. In fact, it's now probably the most talked-about, frequented hotel in New York. And I actually feel kind of sorry for all those non-celebrity cheaters who often frequented this little gem of a hideaway. Now they'll have to start going to the real seedy hotels in Jersey with the rest of the seedy adulterers.

Monday, March 24, 2008

The Brits Love Their Honey

You've gotta love the web. You can find everything about anything or anyone at any hour of the day. I'm honestly not sure what we did before it? I'm trying to remember....nope, just can't do it. Although something called an Encyclopedia seems to ring a bell.

For instance, the other day I found a website for a real-life agency in the UK that you can pay to send a hot man or woman to test the fidelity of your spouse or significant other. That's right. A real-life fidelity inspector, just like the main character in my novel. And here I thought I was just being extremely creative.

Try locating "Fidelity Inspector" in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Exactly. Hmmm....just give me a second to pull this giant "F" volume from the shelf here...

And after locating this agency, which appropriately calls themselves "Honey Trappers," I got curious and wanted to see who else was talking about Honey Trappers and Fidelity Inspectors on the world wide web. And for a country like America that is so in love with our sex scandals, I found surprisingly little information here on our own cyber shores but much to choose from abroad, particularly in the UK. Apparently, the Brits are not taking this infidelity thing lying down (so to speak).

For example, in my search, I came across this article: http://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2008/02/brits-hire-hott.html, written by the Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics and electronic evidence company. The article explores this so-called Honey Trapping phenomenon across the pond where the business of testing your loved ones appears to be booming. Essentially these PIs are hired to show up at the subject in question's favorite local pub or other highly frequented location and flirt with them to see if they take the bait. And according to this article, 80% of these "sting" operations fail.

A surprisingly high percentage? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, "Not." Because let's break this down. What kind of women (and men) are going to be hiring these kind of agencies in the first place? The suspicious kinds. And if you take into consideration women's (and men's) keen intuition when it comes to matters of the heart, this is not an 80% failure rate, but rather an 80% success rate. 80% of these women (and men) were correct in their suspicions and had good reason to hire the agency in the first place.

But then of course there's the question of whether or not a test like this is an accurate measuring of someone's faithful tendencies. But I think I'll leave that honey trap of a subject for another time.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Proof is in the MySpace Profile

I don't have a PhD in psychology. I didn't study human behavior at Harvard. I don't have a plaque on my wall that qualifies me to make assessments about other people's relationships. But I do have eyes that are usually open and a common sense that is usually fine tuned...and a MySpace account that is in good standing. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those three attributes have given me some pretty in-depth insight into the world of infidelity.

This is the story of something that happened to me a few years back that has obviously stuck with me over time, otherwise I would never be to re-tell it with such acute detail. One boring and uneventful day at work, I was browsing through my extended network of profiles on MySpace and I came across the page of one of my boyfriend's close friends. Let's call him Tom (because everyone knows a Tom on MySpace).

Now Tom was recently known to be in a semi-serious relationship with "Judy." And the only reason I knew that was because my friend, "Rachel," seriously wanted to get with Tom. But alas, she could not because, you know, Judy was in the picture. So I told her he was off-limits. But that particular day, I'm browsing through Tom's profile, being the nosy MySpacer that I am and I decide that I'd really like to get a look at this infamous Judy. But as I scan his page, I find that there is absolutely no evidence of her to be found. She hasn't left comments. She's not pictured in any of the photos. She's not even listed in the Top 8 Friends. Judy is unmistakably absent. And so I decide to investigate further. I scroll down to the profile information box and see that he is in fact, "single" again and "looking for a relationship" Hooray! I think and immediately get on Instant Messenger to tell Rachel that Hottie Tom is finally back on the market. Then I whip up a quick email to Tom's regular non-MySpace email address and tell him that I heard he was single again and wondered if he'd be interested in going for a drink with me and Rachel, whom he'd met once before at a party and thought was cute.

A few days go by and no response from Tom. And I'm getting a little annoyed because Hello! Rachel is hot and she and Tom would make a very adorable couple. But I calm myself down and think, okay, perhaps he's still getting over Judy and therefore not ready to date yet. I can respect that.

Finally, after a week has passed I get an email from Tom. And I can already hear the choir serenading me with a rendition of "Matchmaker, Matchmaker, make me a match!"

But when I open the email, I find that it is not in fact from Tom. Although it is sent from Tom's email address. But the letter itself, is actually from Judy! And she's writing it from Tom's email account! Now, this happened a few years ago so I'm going to have to paraphrase, but basically the email went something like this:

I don't know who you are or what you think you're doing but Tom is NOT single nor has he been for the past six months. We are extremely happy together so I'd appreciate if you'd stop trying to fix him up with your single friends.

Sincerely,

Judy (Tom's Girlfriend)

You can imagine the considerable restraint it took me to not immediately punch in a hasty and very petty reply such as "if you're so happy together a) why does his MySpace page say he's single with absolutely no trace of you whatsoever and b) why do you feel the need to read AND respond to his emails? And I know some of you are going to think that I should have done exactly that. But I truly felt that it wasn't my place. If Judy felt the need to read Tom's emails on a regular basis then she had enough problems on her plate and she certainly didn't need to add me to the growing list. And if Judy is anything like the person her email suggests, then I imagine Tom would be hearing enough about this from her and probably didn't require my help in that department either. So I kept my mouth shut. I didn't reply and I didn't attempt to make any further contact.

When I told my boyfriend the story later that night, he informed me that Tom is one of those guys who likes to keep a MySpace profile that reads "single," just in case. Just in case what? Just in case his girlfriend finds it, kicks his ass to the curb and then he has a head start on the dating game? Hmmm....the logic in that seemed just a little bit fuzzy. And what did my boyfriend mean by "one of those guys who likes to keep a single MySpace profile?" Is this what men are doing nowadays to keep their options open? And if so, wouldn't this be the first tip-off to Judy that there's just the slightest chance Tom doesn't really see her as a "long-term" thing? And if it is, why bother writing the email to me at all? Save your time and finger muscles and just dump him and move on to someone who respects you. Someone who loves you enough to take that giant leap of faith, make the commitment and change his MySpace profile to "In a relationship."

But again, it's not really my call to make. And it's not really my place to judge.

I'm no longer with my boyfriend at the time and in staying true to traditional break-up rules, I no longer hang out with any of his friends. And so I don't have a clue what Tom or Judy are up to these days? But to this day, I do often wonder. Did they make it? Are they still together? Is she still fending off potential matchmakers on Tom's behalf? And did he ever find it in his heart to update his MySpace page?

My curiosity recently got the better of me and I went searching once again for Tom's profile but I couldn't find it. Maybe he changed his name. Maybe he went into the witness protection program and came out with a whole new web identity. Or maybe in the end, he decided that his very own online space just wasn't worth the drama.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

When Monogamy Becomes Monotony

So what does happen when monogamy becomes monotony? Well, according to a very unique website that was recently brought to my attention, when monogamy becomes monotony, the answer is simple: Start meeting other monotonous monogamists online at www.ashleymadison.com--a website strictly devoted to married dating. That's right, married dating. And here I thought "married dating" was an oxymoron. Well, as it turns out, it's a website.

The Ashley Madison Agency is the host of the site where bored married men and women can have online affairs that may or may not also lead to offline affairs. Although the site's FAQ section claims that they don't encourage infidelity, nor do they believe that a service such as this makes it easier for married people to stray, it does beg a few interesting questions.

We all know that there are plenty of married people registered on match.com and other popular dating sites (if you didn't already know or suspect this, then it's time to pack up your things, file a change of address with the post office and move out of the cave you've been inhabiting for the past ten years) but I would assume that most of the members on those mainstream dating sites are trying to appear not married. In other words, deceivingly posing as singletons in the hopes of landing a new, non-monotonous date. It's the virtual equivalent of taking off your wedding ring when a hot girl walks into the bar. But apparently the members on this particular niche site have nothing to hide. After all, the site clearly states that it was designed for married people looking for affairs. (I guess it's true, there is something for everyone on the internet.)

But this seems to present quite a paradox in my mind. Doesn't the very definition of an affair automatically imply some level of secrecy? Is cheating really cheating if it's done right out there in the open with search engine key words like "married dating" "extramarital affairs" and "cheating husbands" labeling the act for all to see (and google)?

I would think that being this open and relatively public about your desire to stray only opens yourself up to a higher chance of getting caught. Is the Ashley Madison Agency website eventually going to replace a man's email account as the go-to place to look for signs of a cheating spouse? Because if you were suspicious of your man's ability to stay faithful, wouldn't this be one of the first places you looked?

You can't browse the selection without a membership, however registration is free and I would guess there aren't all too many hoops to jump through before you are granted full access to their ever expanding database of the unfaithful. This is, without a doubt, the real, online version of "the fidelity files." And the key to the top secret file cabinet is only an email address and a 6-8 digit password away.

Blog Description

Jessica Brody, author of the forthcoming novel, The Fidelity Files, explores the thorny topic of infidelity in modern-day society