Adultery and the Law

roachboy

Please elaborate the issues with my definitions and I will be more than happy to elaborate on them or, if needed, revise any issues.

I also don't see anything wrong with the train of thought I've employed. Please elaborate.

I'll get back to your points tomorrow.

Cheers.

 

it's simple. it's in the assumption you start with, that adultery is a social problem. it's not at all obvious how you attribute that status to it, particularly considering the variability of adultery as a construct, of marriage as an institution and so of the social meanings that adultery might have, all of which require an argument (or at least a laying out of a position, as this isn't a seminar)....i think the main problem that folk are having lay with that. it's not the utilitarian argument itself---that's simple. anyone can make that kind of machinery do as it does. the squirreliness hides in definitions. so here.

 

OK, Remixer, I've thought about your post and I think I've worked out my issue.

It's this. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I mean that in the nicest possible way, but I still expect that it doesn't come across that nicely.

Your point 1 was a fascinating fantasy of what my experience must have been like and why I described things as I did. However, that's all it was - a fantasy. Really, unless you have lived with someone for the length of time I did and raised two children and then faced this sort of hurdle you can have no clue. That isn't your fault, but it's a fact. Nearly everything you said was completely wrong about the emotional reality. I'm also not inclined to lay out my soul on this so you can play it back at me with your cold imaginings, thanks. Please bear in mind that I have a pair of boots that I suspect have been around longer than you have and it is galling to be talked down to by someone who has no experience of what is being discussed.

Your point 2 begins with "My case was based on a general understanding of humanity, psychology and ethics/morals/"religious bigotry".".

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence of any true understanding of humanity and psychology. I just see judgement from a low experience base. No empathy or compassion or understanding at all.

You go on to replay Kirstang's comments. Kirstang's arguments are weak, in my opinion, and go no further than to say that cheating is used as a mitigating argument for bad behaviour quite often in court. I'm not surprised. It isn't relevant, though.

This bit is interesting:

You quoted:

I'd argue that Sports produces enough social "good" to counter-balance the negativity associated with sports (drunken and disorderly acts, DUIs, etc.). In my mind, sports generates enough employment, economic activity, and entertainment (so that people have something to do), that the criminal acts associated with sports are, on balance, far outweighed by the social positives. In contrast, adultery produces very little social good.​

And said:

"Your argument is weak, because you completely omit positive and negative externalities of certain patterns of behavior. Something I wouldn't expect from a Management Consultant, but now that it's mentioned I'm sure you're on my train of thought.


Well, pfft.

As it happens I am no longer a Management Consultant (I have just started work with a steel trader on a global change initiative). However, the economic thing doesn't work. The hotel and entertainment industry, the telecomms industry, the travel and the petrochemicals industries all make good money from adultery - as do lawyers! It's not an argument in this case. Incidentally, I'm not talking about a few "drunk and disorderly" people when I mentioned football. I'm sure you are aware that many have died as a result of hooliganism.

Regarding point 3. My argument is that you have made no argument to change the status quo worth consideration. An assertion made with no supporting evidence can be dismissed with no need for evidence to support the dismissal.

Point 4. Adultery may be incompatible with your mindset. As far as I am aware, that is not a valid argument for criminalisation, however much you may wish it was.

Point 5. Understood.





z1gpNGWWrR

 

My experience is that up until my second marriage I was always the one cheated on, I never thought I could cheat on someone I "loved". I was no saint before as I have stated in the past here, while I was in my addiction I only dated married women (it was easier and I didn't have to worry about commitment something a practicing addict fears).

I found that when i thought about it, even driving to Canada to meet the woman, it was a sense of danger more than anything, a rush, NOTHING happened, no sex not even a kiss. Looking back and having looked back since that time, it was an act out of what I perceived and quite possibly was lack of attention by my wife. She had been busy with her pagan teachings from a woman that commanded 90% of her time, all we did was argue and neither of us at that time were happy. The wife was seriously hurt and never forgave me to the point we ended up getting divorced but there were far more issues than that, that led to the divorce.

My first wife, met a woman while playing Yahoo games while I was going to school at night. When she left for that woman I understood, it was hard and the "man" in me took it very hard to my ego.

My experiences in myself, my 1st wife and the women who I serviced that were married, I think that the adultery was a by product of feeling unimportant in the spouse's life. That love wasn't an issue as much as the attention the person received from the person that the adultery was committed with. Hence attention and respect for your spouse and from your spouse are of the utmost importance.

As for should it be "illegal" and thus punishable by law? I don't think so. I think much like same sex marriage what other people want to do in the sanctity of their bedrooms and sex lives is strictly up to them and their higher power. I am not God, nor is ANYONE on this planet. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Some married couples do the whole sex swap and swinging. That would be considered adultery, but that is their choice and what they choose to do. It is not hurting anyone, perhaps in some odd way it is helping their marriage. It is not for me or the government to say what 2 adults wish to do behind their bedroom door.

Hell, the governments can't even keep the guys working on Wall Street from ripping off the people, how can someone even think that laws against adultery could possibly be enforced? And how would they be enforced? we have far, far worse things to worry about in society and in this country than adultery.

 

I understand that you have a problem with me. Fortunately, that is your problem, not mine.

I am not the one who has tried to psychoanalyze anyone on this thread, rather you have made quite a preoccupation with it. Try reading over your last reply to Alastair again.

You may think you can intimidate me by strutting around like a bully. I really don't give a fuck what you think about me or my opinions or the way I choose to express them. I am here and I have every bit as much right to share what I think as you do. I have very little respect for your opinions and the way you express yourself, if you want the truth. You are irrational and unreasonable and come off with a hysterical stridency when people disagree with you that is really off-putting. But you haven't seen me try to push you around verbally. If anyone is making this into a sideshow, it is you.

 

A divorce is final. An affair or adulterous incident can be dealt with between partners. In many marriages it could be considered a red flag that motivates the couple to address real issues in their marriage. But you would prefer to see the marriage dissolved first in order to prevent the great sin of adultery. Not a very moderate position. Quite a drastic remedy, if you ask me. Silly, even. A 67 yr old retired husband wants to go out and blow $75,000 of their meager nest egg on fancy sports car which he knows will cause his wife incredible grief and emotional pain - would you advise him to divorce her first with the idea it would cause her less emotional pain?

Emotional hurt within a marriage is unavoidable. Emotional hurt is unavoidable, full stop. Finding out one's partner has cheated brings on a very complex mix of emotions, most having to do with one's own personal identity and identity as a couple. Hurt pride, betrayal, abandonment. How one deals with these emotions is dependent upon one's own emotionally stability. It's not the end of the world though a rare few will react to it as if it were. We are as responsible for our reactions as we are our actions. Not everyone will pick up a gun and shoot the cheating bastard. Most will take the hurt feelings, process them, deal with them and move on. You seem to have little regard or understanding for the bulk of humankind, Remixer.

You don't have to reference anything. You don't need to back up assertions with anything other than re-assertions of your opinion. Just know though, that those of us who see things differently are not likely to buy what your selling based on a smooth talking pitch alone.

I've seen nothing tangible to refute. I don't see the grave harm to society. I need more than your judgement and opinion if I'm to truly refute it.

Surely, a sampling of proven cases of adultery can be found within the allegedly vast number of documented incidences Kirstang claims to have inside knowledge of. "Real and tangible harm" continues to elude me.

For starters:
1) difficult to prove
2) questionable deterrent value
3) slippery slope to criminalization of anything a moral majority sees fitting
4) my relationship is none of your fucking business

Why are you so up in arms to criminalize it? How exactly are you personally affected by it? Let me make some of my own assumptions as you felt so terribly free to make with Alistair's situation.

Maybe you're titillated and tempted by the idea and feel you need a legal deterrent to prevent yourself from engaging in it (sorry, a personal theory of mine regarding the right wing conservative stance on homosexuality)

You like the idea of a criminal deterrent for your soon to be spouse.

You imagine yourself on some sort of high ground above the immoral fray. You feel it your duty to impose your right-mindedness to those below you.

No one is willing to have an adulterous affair with you. If you can't have any fun why should anyone else.

What case?

Humility never killed anyone but arrogance is often the victim of drive by shootings.

Really?

 

Now look what you made me do!!!!! Why do you make me do this!!!!????!!!!

(I have a feeling there are a couple of people in this thread who think this is some kind of valid statement.)

 

Hey--READ:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2039804...s-cheating-husband-walked-knife/#.Tu0W-GPNlGU

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2039804...s-cheating-husband-walked-knife/#.Tu0W-GPNlGU

Hello? Headline?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2011/02/24/17400116.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/17/crime-writer-nancy-gelber_n_1154534.html

I guess I need photographic evidence of adultery in each article to convince you guys it was motivated in part by adultery.

 

You don't need to convince me, Kirstang. I willingly acknowledge that people will claim that they were so enraged by their partner's behaviour that they had no choice but to commit a crime.

It doesn't wash with me as an excuse, but it is common, I'm sure. I don't think it amounts to a legal defence.

I will also state that I think that adultery is hurtful to individuals and is unethical.

It's also, at least as often as not, a symptom of relationship failure.

Where I differ is that it would in any way help to make it a criminal act. Just as divorce is not always the best answer when it happens, neither is jail time (or the death sentence). That could just make a bad situation worse.

 

Where is the harm to society in any of this? Where are the statistics that signal a call to action? Only one of the above examples provides some sort of proof that adultery occurred. The case of Phyllis. Her husband is dead. Phyllis is....I don't know how she is. Probably worse off than if she'd kept her head about her.

Do we own people? Do we have the right to hold them to commitments they made when they were 16 years old? Was it his fault he fell in love with someone else? Did he deserve to die for it? Who but the young believe the diamond commercials that make the claim "Love is Forever?"

I can only guess that social and religious pressures kept him from taking the necessary steps to end his marriage. I don't really know but I do know how influential those pressures can be.

Phyllis is sad. Her entire identity was probably wrapped up in her coupleship. If she'd managed to maintain an identity apart from her role as wife, he might still be alive and she would have moved on. Which she may have now done anyway, hopefully. But he's still dead for no crime greater than falling in love with someone else.

Commitment is tough. It's even tougher when the love to back it up is gone. Those of you who judge without experience are forgiven for your ignorance.

 

It's all in the reaction and how the affair is handled.

Now if as in the cases I have been involved with the "affairs" were done so because there was a lack of communication and feelings that the marriage didn't matter to the other, then it's a matter of rebuilding communication and work on the marriage or get a divorce.

If the spouse is flaunting the affairs and has multiple affairs, then divorce is probably the only way to go.

Affairs hurt, I don't argue that. But I will argue that someone who is going to kill or has killed because of a spouse's infidelity probably was a bit batty to begin with and the affair just drove them over the edge. In other words it gives them an excuse they believe people can identify with, instead of just saying, "I wanted to kill him/her because I no longer loved them and wanted out of the marriage, but divorce wasn't an option they wanted." Same goes for spousal physical/verbal abuse, chances are the affair was just an excuse. To imply an affair would be the only reason those events happened would be ridiculously naive. IF the marriage was great to begin with there'd have been no adultery/affair. If there was an affair, chances are very high there were deeper problems than just that.

And trust me, adultery is not just the spouse having sex with another. It could be too much time at work, too much time away from the spouse. Those examples and many others can be in and of themselves a reason the other spouse sought companionship elsewhere. To lay adultery on just one is ridiculously silly and unrealistic.

 

It doesn't amount to a legal defense. Nor should the law be constructed to protect a few unpredictable people from their own criminal impulses. People will kill other people for a myriad of reasons. A person that killed because of an affair might just as likely kill for another offense. I don't buy the argument that "I was as normal as apple pie until my husband fooled around and I killed him." No, sorry, there was something preexisting that made that person unstable, even if it wasn't clearly evident until the infidelity triggered it. Particularly when the murder involves premeditation. Most people don't have the impulse to kill when they've been hurt by someone. Even when the 'crime' is far worse than marital infidelity.

My objection to criminalizing adultery is twofold.

Number 1. It is a personal matter and no one else's business. Divorce hurts children, some more than others. And ideally, if infidelity is involved, there is no reason for the children to even know about it until they are older. If the children are involved, that is not due to a failing by the state to protect them. It is bad parenting. And having their parent dragged into a courtroom, put into prison and deprived of their financial security is not going to make them feel better about what happened. It's barbaric and is more likely to cause trauma and stigmatization to a family already suffering through a divorce.

Number 2. Passing a law against adultery is not likely to discourage people from indulging in it. Christ, if your spouse killing you in your sleep is not a deterrent then why would a prison sentence be one? I don't believe that such a law would gain enough traction with the public to be effective and it would be used primarily as a way of exacting revenge by spiteful spurned spouses. I've already acknowledged that I wouldn't allow that to happen to my husband, and I'm going to take the liberty and vouch for a large segment of the population that wouldn't want to see the person they have shared a life and raised children with go to prison for having sex with someone else. It's extreme and while we may be moving toward a more extreme society, we're not there, yet.

(I see that Pan beat me to the punch here. My mom called as I was finishing up this post so I was delayed.)

 

How in the world will making it illegal to fuck someone else while you're married keep one from murder or being murdered?

 

I think Remixer is going at this the wrong way. Negative deterrents never work. Rather than a punishment for adultery, he should advocate for rewarding good behavior. A tax deduction incentive or chances in a multi-million dollar lottery. Free babysitting services for well behaved sexually monogamous parents.

An all paid for couples cruise around the Caribbean?

I'm in!

 

Quoted because this is one of the funniest things I have read or seen lately and it is very true.

(I have no life.)

 

What do you mean negative deterrents never work?

 

Damn iPad spell check put in detergents instead of deterrents. And now I can't edit.

 

Thanks

 

I cannot fully agree with you regarding my failure to define the relevant terms. There are only two relevant definitions, namely "marriage" and "adultery", the latter of which I did define on Page 1. If anything, I agree with Alistair regarding a need for me to better elaborate to what extent society is harmed.

However, I don't see your previous and the above-quoted post as anything more than a structural dissemination of my argument and then labeled as a logic machine that is twisted in every which direction its creator wishes it to be. If the "harm to society" aspect to adultery has been accepted, the consequences I have outlined are logical and consistent with the purpose of criminal law in a society. If you have a sound rebuttal to that, I'd love to hear it.

Moving on, let me define the relevant terms.

Marriage: a contract-based union of two or more individuals, recognized by law.

Adultery:

(Keep in mind, that I am/was discussing Adultery and the Law in general, and non-regionally/religiously-specific terms.)

On Alistair's point of having to elaborate to what extent society is harmed, I cannot extend what I already provided. For one, I believe I have covered what needed to be covered, but the issue of searching for supporting sources/references is one that remains and will remain.

I have never argued that people have to accept the "harm to society" aspect. If they do accept it, however, then given the externalities mentioned it does not make sense let the issue propagate (at the very least, I wasn't given arguments contrary to this).

It also appears that your recent comments had a snide undertone, but I may be wrong on that one.

Appreciated. It did annoy me for a bit last night, but I attribute it to having slept 6 out of 72 hours at that time. Issue fixed.

You have not grasped what I said. I stated numerous possibilities (and mentioned there were a myriad more possibilities) of what could have gone on in your head because of your ex-wife’s affair.

They were mentioned as grounds for why I consider you biased in favor of adultery. Unfortunately, neither you nor Joniemack bothered to take it as the neutral text I wrote it to be.

Yeah, you’re much older than me, but experience has nothing to do with it. I don’t need to have cheated/be cheated on in order to form an opinion and stance on the matter, nor do I require that experience in order to legitimize that stance.

The experience argument is silly. In other words, I simply have to show you someone who had a family for 10+ years, who has been cheated on, went through the shit-hitting-the-fan process and now holds the opinion that adultery should be punished. Good, I know multiple people who went through the ordeal and maintain both your and my stances. Pit fight?

Regarding the point on empathy/compassion/understanding: I see adultery as a crime against society. I mentioned this before (I don’t think to you, though), but forgiveness and the like aren’t acceptable reasons to not pursue a criminal case.

Good to see that you display no comprehension of the issue on externalities. While it’s part of economic theorem, it’s not an economic argument (can be made into one with the right context, though).

The point was merely the social benefit vs. liability. A point you neglected to respond to.

Being German and with our huge football culture, I’m perfectly aware of that. I do, however, know first-hand and have seen many, many cases both in the developed and less-developed world where sport has literally changed people’s lives for the better, and away from crime and drugs. To offset the positive impact of sports on society, there’d have to be an immense amount of hooliganism.

It would also require us both to attempt to quantitatively measure the impact of Sports on society, which is hardly possible, especially when I’m talking about less-developed countries as well.

No worries.

I’ve stated multiple times that I only advocate general punishment for adultery of some form. If it’s financial-only or results in life in prison, I’m happy with it. I simply dislike that there are currently no consequences whatsoever to adultery in the developed world. Cheers anyway.

There’s nothing drastic about taking the better route. If you feel your partner is not attentive enough, doesn’t care for you, doesn’t love you, doesn’t find you attractive, etc, you can always attempt to communicate. If you’re miserable for an extended period of time and can’t communicate, it may be better to divorce. If your partner changes upon realizing what’s going on (maybe was completely oblivious), changes his/her behaviour and the issues can be reconciled before the divorce is finalized, all the better.

I thought it was you (but maybe another TFPer), who said that children are much better off with divorced parents who are happier by themselves than those who are miserable and stay together for the sake of staying together. And I completely agree with that.

In an irreconcilable situation between the partners, what is the point of/possible justification for causing the damage by cheating in the first place? If anything, it is surely often enough used to hurt the partner emotionally, and it usually would do so very much.

I understand that it is part of an interpersonal relationship that emotional hurt is commonplace. The case of adultery is on a wholly different level of emotional hurt, though.

If there is one thing that I severely disagree on with much of humanity, it’s the extremely widespread tendency to find excuses for anything and everything.

I’m not making you accept my arguments. Thanks for letting me know, though.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then.

Thank you, Joniemack. You keep confirming that you don’t bother to fully comprehend the things I write. I mentioned to you specifically that I am talking from the perspective of having accepted the “harm to society” notion. If that’s not accepted, I don’t have anything further to add. C’est la vie.

And regarding “1) difficult to prove”:

I doubt you don’t understand the “real and tangible” notion, but I’ll humor you.

Tangible = able to feel it with your hands; physical presence

Intangible = unable to feel it with your hands; non-physical existence

Intangible harm -> psychological/emotional damage; financial loss

Tangible harm -> murder, rape, assault, etc

I love how a linguistics course enables me to make up word combinations at will. This case was very easy to put together, though, and I believe you intentionally refused to understand it, for whatever reason.

I’m not in arms about it. It’s simply what I think is appropriate. I already said at the very beginning that I don’t expect to see much change towards my direction when it comes to this and that hasn’t changed.

Always good to have to remind you of another thing I said on this topic.

Nice. Grasping at strawmen much?

No case at all, Joniemack.

Meh.

You didn’t see the “On a serious note” right after it, huh? Wonderful, Joniemack. Absolutely wonderful.