NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

Legality? Egads, what kind of medieval society would you have us live in!

I think the possibility of divorce, and all the horrors that entails, should be punishment enough.

"Legal"? "Punishment"?

You're really starting to scare me.


Edit: And that poll is pure lunacy. o_O

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

Adultery is one of the most immoral actions an individual can perform. It's morally reprehensible.

That being said, I see no reason why the government should get involved, except for maybe giving favored status to the dependents and/or possessions of the spouse that was cheated on.

Or is that adultered on?

legal (obviously) and punishable by the cold shoulder or something.

*can't be arsed to try to figure out what definition of "adultery" Sov is blathering about*

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

What do you mean, should it be legal? It IS legal, and it should stay legal.

My BF and I are planning on commiting it regularly, once we're married.

Adultery is disgusting, immoral and I would hate for it to happen to me. Personally I can't imagine being able to cope.
But legality? Punishment? It's not the government's role to get involved in this sort of thing. They have more important things to do. Like, for example, running the country.

Relationship trouble is not something the law needs to bother itself with. Leave it for Dear Jane columns.

Adultery is one of the most immoral actions an individual can perform. It's morally reprehensible.


i think that's overstating the case about 100-fold. murder is one of the most morally reprehensible actions an individual can perform. so is rape. adultery is hardly comparable.

What do you mean, should it be legal? It IS legal, and it should stay legal.

My BF and I are planning on commiting it regularly, once we're married.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

Also, adultery is the problem of those involved, not the government.

I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just agree with Ifreann.


Aaaah, comfortable :)

<snippy>



Ooooooooooooooh, so many colours... :D

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

Everybody has the right to be an asshat.

"Legal"? "Punishment"?

You're really starting to scare me.


Edit: And that poll is pure lunacy. o_O

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just agree with Ifreann.


Aaaah, comfortable :)
Great choice

What do you mean, should it be legal? It IS legal, and it should stay legal.

My BF and I are planning on commiting it regularly, once we're married.

why even bother getting married if you're not going to commit to that person to be in a loving, stable relationship? Why not just keep dating and doing what ever you feel like?

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

Oh... ok. Should it be illegal then to break up with somebody? It does hurt just the same, you know?
And should it be legal to get divorces, then? Or should people be forced to stay together, no matter what?

Making adultery illegal is just as ridiculous as outlawing sex without contraception...

i think that's overstating the case about 100-fold. murder is one of the most morally reprehensible actions an individual can perform. so is rape. adultery is hardly comparable.

Adultery is still pretty bad. Maybe not as bad as rape or murder, but it's still a morally reprehensible action.

why even bother getting married if you're not going to commit to that person to be in a loving, stable relationship? Why not just keep dating and doing what ever you feel like?

Sarcasm, genius. (And they say I'm stupid...)

why even bother getting married if you're not going to commit to that person to be in a loving, stable relationship? Why not just keep dating and doing what ever you feel like?

Because I love my boyfriend dearly, and I'll want to spend the rest of my life with him.
Why would I want to reduce marriage to sex? I'll marry him cause I love him, but I enjoy sex with others, too, and so does he.
Right now, this is the most loving and most stable relationship I've ever had.

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?
I think that adultery is one of the few acts that falls outside the Harm principle and yet should be legal. I don't see how punishment would help anyone. Punishment would just waste money and prison space.

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

You want to make something illegal because it might cause hurt feelings? Great; while you're at it, can you throw into jail all the people who've ever insulted me, the companies that turned me down for jobs; the tutors who have given me bad grades, etc...?

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

How about--a purely private matter between married couples. I don't want police snooping in that area. It's bad enough that the NYPD was going undercover and snooping on peaceful protests on the other side of the country at the behest of the RNC before the 2004 Republican convention--do you want them in your bedroom as well?

Because I love my boyfriend dearly, and I'll want to spend the rest of my life with him.
Why would I want to reduce marriage to sex? I'll marry him cause I love him, but I enjoy sex with others, too, and so does he.
Right now, this is the most loving and most stable relationship I've ever had.

Can't argue with success.

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

Laws should not be written or codified based on morality, and adultery is purely a moral act, and as such should be handled in the personal sphere and not touched by the law at all. By codifying a punishment for adultery we attempt to force our own morals upon others, and that is simply unacceptable.

Because I love my boyfriend dearly, and I'll want to spend the rest of my life with him.
Why would I want to reduce marriage to sex? I'll marry him cause I love him, but I enjoy sex with others, too, and so does he.
Right now, this is the most loving and most stable relationship I've ever had.

so you are just going to be swingers?

What do you mean, should it be legal? It IS legal, and it should stay legal.

My BF and I are planning on commiting it regularly, once we're married.
It's only adultery if it's done in secret, without consent. Otherwise it is polyamoury.

It's only adultery if it's done in secret, without consent. Otherwise it is polyamoury.


adultery

• noun voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/adultery?view=uk)

The dicitionary disagrees with you.

so you are just going to be swingers?

Sort of, yes. I don't like labels like this too much, but to avoid confusion I think that's what you'd probably call us.

You want to make something illegal because it might cause hurt feelings? Great; while you're at it, can you throw into jail all the people who've ever insulted me, the companies that turned me down for jobs; the tutors who have given me bad grades, etc...?

I admit the fact it hurts people's feelings is probably a bad reason to ban. But it does destory families and can leave kids a lot worse off. I'm not saying divorces and broken homes can't happen without adultery. Preventing one way for broken homes to happen isn't the worse thing in the world to me.

It's only adultery if it's done in secret, without consent. Otherwise it is polyamoury.

Polyamoury is having multiple husbands/wives. CW would probably just be a swinger. :)

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

hmmmm toughie depense on your defination of adultery.
1. if one partner has sex with someone without their wife/husband or other knowing then thats wrong and i personally think they should be punished, as it often inflicts long term pain and emotional suffering on said wife/husband or other for a few hours of selfish pleasure.

2. if both parties in the marrage have given permission to each other to have extra marital sex then i dont see the problem.

whither the goverment should get involved hmmm in senario 1 then yes i think they should punish the sod who couldnt keep thier underwear on. but it knowlage and consent from the partner would be hard to prove if they denied it.

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

A civil agreement, and punishable through divorce proceedings and such. Not a criminal issue at all.

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

Does that contract say at any one point anything about "I hereby agree not to fuck with others"? I don't think it does. You're talking about assumptions here...

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

Oh crickey, don't bring that up. It's only 15 years in the UK since spousal rape became illegal because it was previously thought to be part of the 'contract' for a husband to be able sleep with his wife when he wanted to.

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

It's only a breach if its not acceptable to either partner. If it's acceptable to both I'd say there is no breach.

But then you're a social libertarian so you're just providing a Devil's Advocate postion...unless I'm confusing you with someone else again...

I admit the fact it hurts people's feelings is probably a bad reason to ban. But it does destory families and can leave kids a lot worse off. I'm not saying divorces and broken homes can't happen without adultery. Preventing one way for broken homes to happen isn't the worse thing in the world to me.

Consdering that actually "breaking" my home by first having an affair and then leaving my father was the best thing my mother EVER did for me, I tend to disagree with you on that point.
Some homes are just meant to be broken. Others are stable enough to allow for sexual liberties. Homes that need saving don't deserve it.

Does that contract say at any one point anything about "I hereby agree not to fuck with others"? I don't think it does. You're talking about assumptions here...

You mean apart from the whole 'faithful till death do us part' bit?

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

Can you point out where in the marriage contract it forbids sex outside that marriage?

Is there a formally written "marriage contract"?

Does that contract say at any one point anything about "I hereby agree not to fuck with others"? I don't think it does. You're talking about assumptions here...

if you use the tradishonal vows it does say somthing along the lines of
"i give you my body forsaking all others"
something like that anyway.

You mean apart from the whole 'faithful till death do us part' bit?

Does that appear in the civil contract? I thought that was just an antiquated bit from the non-binding religious ceremony?

A civil agreement, and punishable through divorce proceedings and such. Not a criminal issue at all.

The government is indeed involved with this whole marriage thing, and I didn't say it was "criminal." Just not legal.

Oh crickey, don't bring that up. It's only 15 years in the UK since spousal rape became illegal because it was previously thought to be part of the 'contract' for a husband to be able sleep with his wife when he wanted to.

So, the law can be modified. But if you want to have a 'monogamous' partner and yet have side-lovers, why exactly would you go down to the courthouse and inform the government that you wouldn't?

Just doesn't make much sense to me...

Does that contract say at any one point anything about "I hereby agree not to fuck with others"? I don't think it does. You're talking about assumptions here...

Depends on the contract. I don't think any of them specifically mention "fucking."

But look folks, if you don't want adultery to be illegal, that's fine. Perhaps we can make other violations of marriage legal too. Liiiiiiiike spousal rape? Maybe women could no longer have the right to sue for divorce...?

Adultery is still pretty bad. Maybe not as bad as rape or murder, but it's still a morally reprehensible action.

meh, it's a shitty thing to do and i'd think less of someone who did it like any sort of cheating (not counting swinging, wouldn't do that but it's not the same thing) but it's not morally reprehensible, it's just something to curl your lip at and and carry on, maybe lose respect for someone (unless the person they cheated on was a complete psycho) but that's it.

i might be wrong but isnt a verble contract binding and legally admissable in court if witness by so many people?

Does that appear in the civil contract?

No idea. Never read one.

if you use the tradishonal vows it does say somthing along the lines of
"i give you my body forsaking all others"
something like that anyway.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

And where has she said she'd be making traditional vows? Or even having a wedding?

if you use the tradishonal vows it does say somthing along the lines of
"i give you my body forsaking all others"
something like that anyway.

Oh, you mean the religious bit? That's not legally binding, though. A marriage it not legal when only performed as a church ceremony. The legally binding bit is the one at the registry office.

I admit the fact it hurts people's feelings is probably a bad reason to ban. But it does destory families and can leave kids a lot worse off. I'm not saying divorces and broken homes can't happen without adultery. Preventing one way for broken homes to happen isn't the worse thing in the world to me.

So how do you feel about loaning money and modern credit and banking institutions?

What? Debt can break families just as easily if not more so. Should it be illegal to lend and loan money?

i might be wrong but isnt a verble contract binding and legally admissable in court if witness by so many people?

Yes, a verbal contract is legally binding. Strictly speaking you don't even need witnesses, but without them it becomes a case of one persons word against the other.

But look folks, if you don't want adultery to be illegal, that's fine. Perhaps we can make other violations of marriage legal too. Liiiiiiiike spousal rape? Maybe women could no longer have the right to sue for divorce...?

What's that got to do with the price of beans?

Adultery is wrong when you're in a committed relationship.

Adultery should be perfectly legal.

Late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Ellion Trudeau once said, "the government has no place in the bedroom of the nation."

So, the law can be modified. But if you want to have a 'monogamous' partner and yet have side-lovers, why exactly would you go down to the courthouse and inform the government that you wouldn't?

Just doesn't make much sense to me...

Marriages are based solely on who you have sex with?:confused:

Legal...Snaps for keeping my father out of prison.

T

So, the law can be modified. But if you want to have a 'monogamous' partner and yet have side-lovers, why exactly would you go down to the courthouse and inform the government that you wouldn't?

Just doesn't make much sense to me...


Er... I'm not? I'm telling them I want to marry this guy and I want to raise our kids with him.

Soviestan, do you believe everyone should abide by your moral code? No agenda here, just curiosity.

Marriages are based solely on who you have sex with?:confused:

Apparently they are to some people... it's a very strage attitude, I think.

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

Because it is not the job of the government to protect you from your feelings getting hurt by the mean mean person.

it violates no rights, takes no life, destroys no property. It hurts feelings, perhaps severely, but it's not the job of the government to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.

Apparently they are to some people... it's a very strage attitude, I think.

Yeah, I had it figured for more of a "This person is my next of kin and the father/mother of our children" thing.

Of course adultery should be illegal.

It's a breach of a legally binding contractual agreement.

Which is a civil concern, not a criminal one, entirely different things. Moreover can you please point me to the generic terms of such a thing?

Moreover even if a contract said such a thing it would be invalid as one can not contract ones fundamental rights away. Lawrence v. Texax said basically that chosing ones sexual partners is a fundamental liberty. As such any contract that proported to deny you the ability to chose your sexual partner would be invalid, as you can not give away your civil liberties even through a contract.

Which is a civil concern, not a criminal one, entirely different things. Moreover can you please point me to the generic terms of such a thing?

Moreover even if a contract said such a thing it would be invalid as one can not contract ones fundamental rights away. Lawrence v. Texax said basically that chosing ones sexual partners is a fundamental liberty. As such any contract that proported to deny you the ability to chose your sexual partner would be invalid, as you can not give away your civil liberties even through a contract.

Game, set and match.

But look folks, if you don't want adultery to be illegal, that's fine. Perhaps we can make other violations of marriage legal too. Liiiiiiiike spousal rape? Maybe women could no longer have the right to sue for divorce...?

You know what the problem with spousal rape is? I'll give you a hint:

It's not that it's a violation of the marriage

I don't think morality should be legislated.

Legal? Of course. Divorce on those grounds should also be.

Because it is not the job of the government to protect you from your feelings getting hurt by the mean mean person.

it violates no rights, takes no life, destroys no property. It hurts feelings, perhaps severely, but it's not the job of the government to prevent you from getting your feelings hurt.

So how come is it I could sue people for "psychological damages?"

Maybe that courtroom and the judges and whatnot are not part of the government.

Which is a civil concern, not a criminal one, entirely different things

I never said "criminal."

Moreover even if a contract said such a thing it would be invalid as one can not contract ones fundamental rights away. Lawrence v. Texax said basically that chosing ones sexual partners is a fundamental liberty. As such any contract that proported to deny you the ability to chose your sexual partner would be invalid, as you can not give away your civil liberties even through a contract.

Whether Lawrence vs Texas prohibits the validity of marriage contracts is not determined. We'll probably see more of this in the future, especially as folks like yourself will try to use it as the slippery slope against any and all government regulation of any and all such things, but until we do, it's presumptious to claim that it legalizes adultery (or prostitution, or adult incest, or polygamy).

I don't think morality should be legislated.

Amen.

You know what the problem with spousal rape is? I'll give you a hint:

It's not that it's a violation of the marriage


So what? It is a violation of the marriage contract nonetheless. You're not arguing that adultery should be legal because it's harmless, you're arguing it because violating the marriage contract shouldn't be punishable in any court.

But look folks, if you don't want adultery to be illegal, that's fine. Perhaps we can make other violations of marriage legal too. Liiiiiiiike spousal rape? Maybe women could no longer have the right to sue for divorce...?

Can I point out to you the teeny tiny difference between the two? Perhaps the word "rape" might clue you in?

There's no such thing as "spousal" rape. It's rape or it is not. When discussing a violation of rights, whether or not the person you rape is married to you or not doesn't make a difference.

So what? It is a violation of the marriage contract nonetheless. You're not arguing that adultery should be legal because it's harmless, you're arguing it because violating the marriage contract shouldn't be punishable in any court.

Yes, and spousal rape shouldn't be illegal either - if it weren't for that pesky bit about "rape", of course.

wait is this posted by the same guy that in another thread defended a muslim mans right to beat (lightly; without leaving bruises) his muslim wife? (if she wasn't obedient or something or other)

and wanted the goverment to keep out of it?

i find that amusing somehow.


on topic: to those that only think about husbands and wives that cheat on their partners what about the husbands and wives that have children together and stay married out of convinience but still seperate? A law that keeps them from meeting others would just be silly. (the former is hiding the relationship from their significant other but in the later case while the spouse may not be aware of any new relationship it may still be completly unheard of to them for a long time)

And what if one person in a relationship wants a divorce but the other is somehow preventing, should that person then be allowed to controll that persons love life?
(im not to sure about this but i think in atleast some states in america the divorce has to be concentual or have a very good reason to go through)

makeing adultery ilegal is going to create some very fuzzy laws. its just not worth it imo.

So what? It is a violation of the marriage contract nonetheless. You're not arguing that adultery should be legal because it's harmless, you're arguing it because violating the marriage contract shouldn't be punishable in any court.

Speaking of the marriage contract, what exactly is it. The closest thing I could find is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States) wiki article on rights and responsibilities of marriages in the US. I doesn't appear to mention anything about spousal rape or adultery under the responsibilities section, so I'm wondering what marriage contract you're reading this stuff from.

So how come is it I could sue people for "psychological damages?"

Because you can not sue for psychological damages.

You can sue for a various tortious act, which as a result caused psychological damage, but not merely hurting your feelings.

Very different things.

So what? It is a violation of the marriage contract nonetheless.

No, it's fucking rape.

You're not arguing that adultery should be legal because it's harmless, you're arguing it because violating the marriage contract shouldn't be punishable in any court.

Not in the slightest. I am arguing that since Lawrence v. Texas stated that the ability for one to chose his or her own sexual partners provided that partner is an adult who gives informed consent s a fundamental right under the 14th amendment, any law that prohibits adultry and thus prohibits someone from chosing to have a sexual partner would be in violation of the constitution.

And what happens to laws that are against the constitution?

So how come is it I could sue people for "psychological damages?"


hehe americans can sue ppl because the sky is blue =P

in the rest of the world things like that are a bit more uncommon... as i understand it =)

(i dont really have that much insight in law so if you are not american i apologize =P)

hehe americans can sue ppl because the sky is blue =P

Of course you can sue. To sue doesn't mean anything. It simply means "to file a complaint" You can file a complaint for anything you want. Doesn't mean you will GET anywhere with it.

"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

Adultery isn't a crime.

i meant to sue and have it go to court, and possibly win it.

i'm still laughing my ass off at the woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot =)

i'm still laughing my ass off at the woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot =)

Yeah, that's because you, like many, don't know a thing about that case.

i'm still laughing my ass off at the woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot =)

:rolleyes:

Please. Google it. It wasn't a...

You know what? Fuck it. Here. Read. Do that now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Thank you. Come again. You want fries with that?

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?Sure. Capital punishment all the way. And women shouldn't screw around before they're married either, though boys aren't real men unless the has sex at 15 at the very latest. Oh, and men not only have the right to slap their women into submission, they have an obligation eh. And hey, that research project your female underling did, that's just there for you to take, publish and get credit for, right?

What can one say to someone like you without getting deat'ed? ... Perhaps that while it delights the atheist in me to see people like you cast Islam in such loathesome light, it saddens me deeply that people I care about, as well as myself, has to deal with the - completely understandable - prejudice and loathing your sort generate.

I hope some inventive NSGer can come up with a better reply. I wish I could, but this shit makes me too damn angry.

Gravlen... i'm still laughing =)

look at the "Other coffee burn cases"

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's


yes very dangerous stuff that coffee... i mean 1 in 24 million cups. very defective sales policy. when dealing with hot merchendise you have to be careful imo. of course the woman that got burnt shouldnt "suit herself" but the sum of her compensation shot onto outrageous proportions. (at first it was barely covering her medical bills then it skyrocketed because McD didnt agree)
In my country i dont think the woman would sue to cover her medical bill im pretty sure that any medical treatment for that would be free (theres like a nominal fe of a few bucks)


now point out what you wanted me to read.

(also im not to familiar with leagal cases. "he argues that" does that equal it is proven that or does it just mean he claims it is so?)

Actually, that coffee lady was fuxoring with the coffee cup between her knees.

Yah, her injuries were bad, but it really was her own fault.

Something Else: Encouraged.

Seriously, the coffee was to hot. She got second and third degree burns from that thing. That's way too fucking hot.

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

So can a car accident. So can skiing into a tree. We don't legislate against them, though.

So can a car accident. So can skiing into a tree. We don't legislate against them, though.


:confused: why are you compareing physical injury to emotional?


rape would be a closer comparisment but we DO legislate against that...


im not for legislateing adultery but im wondering about your argumentation...

Something Else: Encouraged.

Seriously, the coffee was to hot. She got second and third degree burns from that thing. That's way too fucking hot.
and knives can take off fingers. but people know that they shouldn't juggle them. ok some people know, i juggle em all the time, but i'm not going to sue XXX the knife maker because i did something stupid.

Not only should it be legal, it should be encouraged. Though the honest kind is preferable.

rape would be a closer comparisment but we DO legislate against that....

How is it in ANY way, of any sort, comparable to rape? Whose rights are violated exactly?

Sure. Capital punishment all the way. And women shouldn't screw around before they're married either, though boys aren't real men unless the has sex at 15 at the very latest. Oh, and men not only have the right to slap their women into submission, they have an obligation eh. And hey, that research project your female underling did, that's just there for you to take, publish and get credit for, right?

What can one say to someone like you without getting deat'ed? ... Perhaps that while it delights the atheist in me to see people like you cast Islam in such loathesome light, it saddens me deeply that people I care about, as well as myself, has to deal with the - completely understandable - prejudice and loathing your sort generate.

I hope some inventive NSGer can come up with a better reply. I wish I could, but this shit makes me too damn angry.

:confused:
whoa. thats some pent up emotions bursting out.
or did i miss where he said females (but not males) commiting adultery should be penelised?

and its sad to see an atheist have such hate for a religion. i can understand it against how the followers choose to interperite said religion but most religions (except some, for example those that support human sacrifices like the ancient aztecor incan or whatever) are sound in principle (beeing good to each other, not stealing not murdering) nomatter if you belive in a diety or not.

a different view


adultery is a concept cooked up by religious #@$%^^ that want to outlaw the freedom of love and incarcerate it in an unnatural environment of marriage..


if love were to be free, and not looked down upon, everyone would get more and adultery were not even an issue as people are free to decide who they want to share nookie with..

any nice women can send their e-mail or phonenumber to my account here

peace

How is it in ANY way, of any sort, comparable to rape? Whose rights are violated exactly?

i said closer =P

and knives can take off fingers. but people know that they shouldn't juggle them. ok some people know, i juggle em all the time, but i'm not going to sue XXX the knife maker because i did something stupid.

That's true. When I first got a hattori knife I sliced the fuck out of my thumb 'testing' the sharpness like you do with lesser german knives.

Doesn't mean I should sue because their knives are 'unreasonably' sharp. I was still being a dickhead.

And coffee is supposed to be hot.

You know what else? You make tea with boiling water.

It should be punishable by having sex with Paris Hilton.
She wouldn't mind and the thought of having to get down with that skank would stop all but the most desperate of men from commiting adultery.
I know it would me.

hahaha i derailed the thread =)


gotta go make a jpg file " i derailed this thread" =P

"Legal"? "Punishment"?

You're really starting to scare me.


Edit: And that poll is pure lunacy. o_O

QFT.

It should be punishable by having sex with Paris Hilton.
She wouldn't mind and the thought of having to get down with that skank would stop all but the most desperate of men from commiting adultery.
I know it would me.

is she bisexual? or how does this relate to women?

i demand to know whos right has been violated in the carcrash or skiing into a tree =P

The victim's right to bodily integrity.

Unless it is specifically agreed in the marriage contract that adultery is forbidden to both parties, it shouldn't be an issue. What I hate to see is one person having extramarital relationships while his/her partner is relegated to the sidelines in misery.

Punishment is only an issue if the adultery is an actual break of the contract, then the punishment should be determined the same way it would be for any broken contract - monetary compensation to the injured and nullification of the contract (unless both parties agree to continue the contractual agreement in spite of the breach).

The victim's right to bodily integrity.

yeah i edited the post i didnt think that post through =P

i demand to know whos right has been violated in the carcrash or skiing into a tree =P

No one's. And no one's rights are violated with adultry. Neither party engaged in the act have failed to consent. Likewise the spouse of the cheating partner has no right to dictate actions to the other spouse, so the non cheating partner has not suffered a violation of any rights either.

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

So does wife beating, which also has the plus of actually being illegal, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.

In fact, I think I'll go out on a limb and accuse your definition of adultery to mean only when women do it.

Unless it is specifically agreed in the marriage contract that adultery is forbidden to both parties, it shouldn't be an issue. What I hate to see is one person having extramarital relationships while his/her partner is relegated to the sidelines in misery.

Punishment is only an issue if the adultery is an actual break of the contract, then the punishment should be determined the same way it would be for any broken contract - monetary compensation to the injured and nullification of the contract (unless both parties agree to continue the contractual agreement in spite of the breach).

And for the third time in this thread, no contract may violate ones civil rights, and Lawrence v. Texas articulated that the ability to chose ones sexual partners is a fundamental liberty. Likewise any contract which says "you will not have sex with this person or face criminal or civil penalties" would prevent one from exercising his or her fundamental liberty.

As such any marriage contract that says you may not sleep with someone or face criminal/civil penalty would be invalid.

No one's. And no one's rights are violated with adultry. Neither party engaged in the act have failed to consent. Likewise the spouse of the cheating partner has no right to dictate actions to the other spouse, so the non cheating partner has not suffered a violation of any rights either.

see the post above yours =P

i still think its closer then the carcrash however since its emotional damage. well maybe not if you are brutaly beaten while raped but there are some rapeists that drug their victims instead of manually overpowering them.

Its not comparable to adultery by any means. you dont need to focus on me compareing it. read my post as a whole.

Gravlen... i'm still laughing =)

yes very dangerous stuff that coffee... i mean 1 in 24 million cups. very defective sales policy. when dealing with hot merchendise you have to be careful imo.


now point out what you wanted me to read.

The bit you ignored that stated that MacDonalds admitted, under oath, that they were aware they were selling coffee at a temperature too hot to drink - at a temperature liable to cause 3rd degree burns.
Admitted under oath that they were selling a food item without warning customers of the potential dangers.
That's what they were smacked for. Not for selling hot coffee - but selling extremely hot coffee and not warning people it was too hot to drink.

The post about knives is also wrong. If you look on a the packaging the knife comes in, it warns you it's very sharp and to be careful with it. Which is why knife-makers don't get sued.

see the post above yours =P

i still think its closer then the carcrash however since its emotional damage.

And you don't think a carcrash can't cause emotional damage?

well maybe not if you are brutaly beaten while raped but there are some rapeists that drug their victims instead of manually overpowering them.

The emotional distress a rape victim may or may not face is ancillary, it is still a violation of ones rights because their bodily integrity was violated. No violation occurs in an accidental car crash. No violation occurs in adultry.

All three can cause emotional distress. Only one actually violates ones rights.

is she bisexual? or how does this relate to women?
That'll be the job of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears.

And you don't think a carcrash can't cause emotional damage?


That depends upon the jurisdiction.

That depends upon the jurisdiction.

I didn't ask if one can recover damages through emotional distress due to an accident caused by negligence. I asked if a car accident can cause emotional distress =P

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

WOW! You really are asking for punishment aren't you?

Answer to your question....noLike you can honestly legislate this

And for the third time in this thread, no contract may violate ones civil rights, and Lawrence v. Texas articulated that the ability to chose ones sexual partners is a fundamental liberty. Likewise any contract which says "you will not have sex with this person or face criminal or civil penalties" would prevent one from exercising his or her fundamental liberty.

As such any marriage contract that says you may not sleep with someone or face criminal/civil penalty would be invalid.

that case says that a contract cant forbid anyone to chose any other partner, right? does it say that a contract can be anulled if someone commits adultery if it is in the contract that it will be anulled if someone does?


didnt jennifer lopez and ben afflec have some kind of adultery clause to their prenup (or whats it called)

I didn't ask if one can recover damages through emotional distress due to an accident caused by negligence. I asked if a car accident can cause emotional distress =P

ok rephraseing my question.


would you compare adultery to a carcrash and if you did what would be your bloody point?



and does the skiing into a tree result in emotional damage?

would you compare adultery to a carcrash and if you did what would be your bloody point?

I would compare it to a carcrash in the sense that both of them can break up a marriage (such as, say, a spouse dying). Both has the potential to cause emotional distress (such as, say, a spouse dying).

Neither however are illegal, as neither is an act by someone who violates another's rights.

and does the skiing into a tree result in emotional damage?

I would imagine if someone I loved died in a skiing accident, yes, yes it would.

The bit you ignored that stated that MacDonalds admitted, under oath, that they were aware they were selling coffee at a temperature too hot to drink - at a temperature liable to cause 3rd degree burns.
Admitted under oath that they were selling a food item without warning customers of the potential dangers.
That's what they were smacked for. Not for selling hot coffee - but selling extremely hot coffee and not warning people it was too hot to drink.

The post about knives is also wrong. If you look on a the packaging the knife comes in, it warns you it's very sharp and to be careful with it. Which is why knife-makers don't get sued.

oh god you are just giveing me even more reason to laugh.

you are telling me that americans are to lazy to use common sense?

must a box of knives be labled "warning contents is sharp" to avoid getting sued?

THIS IS WHY IM LAUGHING AT THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF SUEING!


this is why 1 cup in 24 millions arent bothering me.

now did you read the "other burn cases" like i told you to? =)

I would compare it to a carcrash in the sense that both of them can break up a marriage (such as, say, a spouse dying). Both has the potential to cause emotional distress (such as, say, a spouse dying).

Neither however are illegal, as neither is an act by someone who violates another's rights.



I would imagine if someone I loved died in a skiing accident, yes, yes it would.


thats a stretch dude

.... if i stood near a cliff and DIDN'T jump off it you would just to mess with me wouldnt you.

do you really seek a discussion that much? i cant belive that you are bothering about this insignificant thing.

my opinion is that rape is closer. yours differ. is that such a big deal?

also you assume fatalaty in the accidents why? could it be that i assumed something different?

is this really worth discussing? why bother? go discuss the McD coffee case.. thats much more fun and has more potential =)

The post about knives is also wrong. If you look on a the packaging the knife comes in, it warns you it's very sharp and to be careful with it. Which is why knife-makers don't get sued.

If I'm not mistaken, there was also a warning label on McD's coffee cups. It just didn't have klaxons and sirens to draw your attention to it.

The way people are sue happy in America makes me think that eventually, if you want to buy anything, you'd have to sign several waivers of responsibility just to be able to get it past the counter.

also you assume fatalaty in the accidents why?

Because that was what was stated

is this really worth discussing? why bother?

Because that's the topic.

go discuss the McD coffee case.. thats much more fun and has more potential =)

No, I already know all about that case, there's nothing to discuss, McD was negligent.

So can a car accident. So can skiing into a tree. We don't legislate against them, though.

no.
it was never stated by the one that brought it up. you just assumed.


no you are discussing my opinion which is closer to adultery, rape or an accident where the outcome of the accident is unknown.



whether McD was negligent is not what im discussing in the McD case. im using it as an example to make a statement. namely the following: americans are the people most prone to sue others.

it could be because of safetynets or lack thereof but as a country america will take things to court much quicker.

If I'm not mistaken, there was also a warning label on McD's coffee cups. It just didn't have klaxons and sirens to draw your attention to it.

The way people are sue happy in America makes me think that eventually, if you want to buy anything, you'd have to sign several waivers of responsibility just to be able to get it past the counter.

think the warning on the cups apeared after the lady sued. thats atleast how i understand it.

i didnt really buy coffee before McD was sued so i dont really know =P

oh god you are just giveing me even more reason to laugh.

you are telling me that americans are to lazy to use common sense?

THIS IS WHY IM LAUGHING AT THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF SUEING!

this is why 1 cup in 24 millions arent bothering me.

now did you read the "other burn cases" like i told you to? =)
This isn't about some perceived notion of 'American Tradition of suing'. This is about liability.
If a company sells a product that is potentially dangerous, they have to warn people about that danger.

If I buy a cup of coffee that's too hot to drink without scalding myself and possibly causing me 3rd degree burns, the company has to warn me before-hand about that danger.

Read the case again. McDonalds was selling coffee at nearly boiling temperature - tens of degrees above what coffee is normally sold at and tens of degrees above what is considered safe drinking.
If you are to go on about common sense, common sense would tell us that if coffee is meant to be drunk at 140F, it would be served to us at or around 140F. And it is everywhere except at McDonalds which was serving it at 190F - and not warning people of that.
And that's what this whole case was about - not that McDonalds was selling hot coffee, but that they were knowingly selling coffee much hotter than anyone else, much hotter than one would expect it to be, much hotter than it was safe to drink, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns (which aren't pleasant - 3rd degree burn the skin off and can burn right through to the bone). They were fully aware of what they were doing was an unsafe practise yet they continued doing so and didn't bother warning their customers about the potential dangers.

Relating to knives - if everyone sold a butter knife that was very blunt and then I started selling one identical in look but sharp enough to cut you to the bone, is it really 'common sense' to just expect the customer to know the difference and so not warn them?


Also, the $3 mill judgement was mostly punitive damages, which is a judge's way of fining a company and forcing them into better business practises.
The judgement was reduced by 1/3 to recognise the woman at the center of this case was partially responisble, it was reduced even further upon appeal (as it nearly always the case) and then reduced again in an out-of-court settlement (as is nearly always the case).

:confused: why are you compareing physical injury to emotional?


rape would be a closer comparisment but we DO legislate against that...


im not for legislateing adultery but im wondering about your argumentation...

Ah but you're not physically harming the person you cheated on, as you would be in your example of raping them -- in the examples I provided, the emotional pain you cause is because of something you've done to yourself.

americans are the people most prone to sue others.

Do you have a single source to back that up?

Just one?

think the warning on the cups apeared after the lady sued. thats atleast how i understand it.

i didnt really buy coffee before McD was sued so i dont really know =P
You're correct. The warnings didn't appear until after the case - and were as a result of the case.
If they had those before-hand, there would have been no case.

Americans sue because there's usually no other option. In the McD's case the woman's hospital care cost over $10000. McD's offered her $500.
To get recompense she had no other avenue but to sue. afaik there's nothing else one can do in the States.

In NZ, her hospital care and rehabiliation would have been covered by ACC (a govt organisation that apys for all that stuff)
If she had wanted further compensation there are other avenues outside of court
And finally, if there was a case of negligence on the part of the company the Occupational Health and Safety aection of the Department of Labour would have fined them and possibly takent them to court.

Works well in most cases, but not all. Reduces the amount of frivolous lawsuits, but it does make it very difficult to get awards recognising pain and suffering.

Do you have a single source to back that up?

Just one?

read demented hamsters post just under you =)

it will do unless i acctually have to PROVE that. but i didnt claim my statement to be fact, did i? in that case its a language problem from my side =)

Ah but you're not physically harming the person you cheated on, as you would be in your example of raping them -- the emotional pain you cause is because of something you've done to yourself.

But frequently you can harm the person you cheated on - if you pass an STD on to him/her - especially something like Aids.

And, of course, if the person with whom you cheated gets pregnant, you can do financial damage to your family.

read demented hamsters post just under you =)

What he said does not in any way prove your point

it will do unless i acctually have to PROVE that. but i didnt claim my statement to be fact, did i? in that case its a language problem from my side =)

"Americans sue more" isn't a statement of opinion. It's a statement of fact. When you make statements of facts then use them to back up your argument, the burden is on you to demonstrate it.

This isn't about some perceived notion of 'American Tradition of suing'. This is about liability.
If a company sells a product that is potentially dangerous, they have to warn people about that danger.

If I buy a cup of coffee that's too hot to drink without scalding myself and possibly causing me 3rd degree burns, the company has to warn me before-hand about that danger.


If it had been a cup of tea wich is always made with boiling water one could use common sense to assume the tea is hot right?

your right its not a tradition per say but thats how americans settle things and that (this is a personal opinion/belif as i cant back this up) also makes them slightly more prone to go to court in other matters where a european given identical circumstances probably wouldnt simply because he doesnt have that much experience with sueing.

one could also use common sense to not put a cup containing hot liquid between their legs right? (which someone else in this thread mentioned she did and i think thats the story i heard to but i cant prove thats the way it happened)


Read the case again. McDonalds was selling coffee at nearly boiling temperature - tens of degrees above what coffee is normally sold at and tens of degrees above what is considered safe drinking.
If you are to go on about common sense, common sense would tell us that if coffee is meant to be drunk at 140F, it would be served to us at or around 140F. And it is everywhere except at McDonalds which was serving it at 190F - and not warning people of that.
And that's what this whole case was about - not that McDonalds was selling hot coffee, but that they were knowingly selling coffee much hotter than anyone else, much hotter than one would expect it to be, much hotter than it was safe to drink, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns (which aren't pleasant - 3rd degree burn the skin off and can burn right through to the bone). They were fully aware of what they were doing was an unsafe practise yet they continued doing so and didn't bother warning their customers about the potential dangers.


I'm terribly sorry but i must have missed that. i see the lawyer argueeing that but i also read that everyone was selling it at much hotter temperatures and that it was common practise to do so everywhere which is where common sense would make itself applyable


Relating to knives - if everyone sold a butter knife that was very blunt and then I started selling one identical in look but sharp enough to cut you to the bone, is it really 'common sense' to just expect the customer to know the difference and so not warn them?


i acctually expect the manufacturer to have enough common sense to not make them look identical there =P
or the consumer to not buy knives that are identical but one is sharp and one is blunt. those should be kept very seperate.

What he said does not in any way prove your point



"Americans sue more" isn't a statement of opinion. It's a statement of fact. When you make statements of facts then use them to back up your argument, the burden is on you to demonstrate it.

i said it was a statement. i failed to specify which kind of statement. im sorry that was rather sloppy of me.



In NZ, her hospital care and rehabiliation would have been covered by ACC (a govt organisation that apys for all that stuff)
If she had wanted further compensation there are other avenues outside of court
And finally, if there was a case of negligence on the part of the company the Occupational Health and Safety aection of the Department of Labour would have fined them and possibly takent them to court.

Works well in most cases, but not all. Reduces the amount of frivolous lawsuits, but it does make it very difficult to get awards recognising pain and suffering.


it may not prove but it supports my statement.

So how come is it I could sue people for "psychological damages?"



just wanted to remind everyone why this debate about sueing originated.


i felt the need to point out that while we are discussing in a world wide forum most of us take our own legal texts as self evident to apply to the discussion.

somehow i got sidetracked =P

there is a Lawrence v. Texas floating around here as well thats based on the american constitution.


however how relevant is that when it doesnt apply to some ppl takeing part in the discussion? =S

where was the adultery supposed to be legislated anyway?

Ah but you're not physically harming the person you cheated on, as you would be in your example of raping them -- in the examples I provided, the emotional pain you cause is because of something you've done to yourself.

ok katganistan i admitt defeat on that point. f*ck rape beeing closer then skiing into a tree and breaking a leg.

it doesnt matter enough to defend anyway.

i was wrong ppl!

(moahahha i can say it)

Legal. I don't care what two consenting adults do to each other, irrespective of any vows they took.

Adulterers and adulteresses are filthy scum, but since being filthy scum is not a crime, yes, adultery should be legal.

That said, if my (hypothetical) wife cheated, I would bash her face in. Same for her lover.

Do you have a single source to back that up?

Just one?

Aren't there more lawyers in the US per capita than any other country in the world? (Like 1 for every 350 people, compared to france with 1 for every 2000 or so).

Mind you, that doesn't mean that the US is actually more litigious. It could be US lawyers are not very good.

Aren't there more lawyers in the US per capita than any other country in the world? (Like 1 for every 350 people, compared to france with 1 for every 2000 or so).

Mind you, that doesn't mean that the US is actually more litigious. It could be US lawyers are not very good.

Or it could be neither. American lawyers make above average salaries, which attracts more people to the profession, this isn't always true in other countries.

additionally in the states judges are almost universally lawyers, not true in other countries. Additionally our country being bigger has a larger governmental attorney corp than others.

Additionally a lot of lawyers fill rolls that other positions may do in other countries. I haven't been involved in any real civil litigation in...3 years?

It could be US lawyers are not very good.

There's an understatement.

Granted, we have some very great lawyers, but many dickhead ones, as well.

i acctually expect the manufacturer to have enough common sense to not make them look identical there =P
or the consumer to not buy knives that are identical but one is sharp and one is blunt. those should be kept very seperate.
That's the whole point of my analogy:
If you had two identical products, one of which is extremely common (as in every shop stocked it) and traditionally not-particularly-dangerous and the other one much more dangerous and only one store's selling it, then obviously that store selling the more dangerous item has a duty to warn its customers about their product.

McD's, in selling it's coffee at a much higher temperature than anyone else, was negligent in this respect. Hence the punative damages awarded.



And yes, the woman in the McD's case did have her coffee between her legs. Her nephew and her bought their meal through the drive-in and then parked up to eat. She put her coffee between her legs and attempted to open the lid to let it cool. That's when she spilt it on her thighs, causing 3rd degree burns.
And her actions are what caused the judgement to be reduced by a 1/3, as they considered her actions to be partly at fault.

There's an understatement.

Granted, we have some very great lawyers, but many dickhead ones, as well.

Actually, the 'best' ones are usually the worst. They lose sight of what the job is about.

I'm not sure that the US has any 'great' lawyers at the moment either. Maybe guys like Gerry Spence or Dan Petrocelli, but they are not widely esteemed by the rest of the legal community.

Actually, the 'best' ones are usually the worst. They lose sight of what the job is about.

Well, that depends on if by 'best' you mean morally best, or best at being a lawyer. They are excellent lawyers, but maybe they don't live up to everyone's moral standards.

A lawyer's job is not to be morally responsible.

That's the whole point of my analogy:
If you had two identical products, one of which is extremely common (as in every shop stocked it) and traditionally not-particularly-dangerous and the other one much more dangerous and only one store's selling it, then obviously that store selling the more dangerous item has a duty to warn its customers about their product.

McD's, in selling it's coffee at a much higher temperature than anyone else, was negligent in this respect. Hence the punative damages awarded.



And yes, the woman in the McD's case did have her coffee between her legs. Her nephew and her bought their meal through the drive-in and then parked up to eat. She put her coffee between her legs and attempted to open the lid to let it cool. That's when she spilt it on her thighs, causing 3rd degree burns.
And her actions are what caused the judgement to be reduced by a 1/3, as they considered her actions to be partly at fault.



ah yes i assumed you read the other burn cases part of the wiki article since i refered to that 2 times i belive

here it is as a whole:



Other coffee burn cases
Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee:

If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C [185 °F and 203 °F].[8]
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[11]

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[12] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." [13]

Although Liebeck's attorney claimed that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit, he has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns;[14] McDonald's apparently now serves coffee close to 180 degrees, relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[4][15] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[16]

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F or 82 C in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[17]


suddenly all the companies are selling the sharp knife.

when so many have so similar principles it starts beeing up to the costumer to look it up rather then to assume its safe. doesnt matter if one store sells em as butter knives, if everyone else sells the sharp ones you better make sure you are buying the dull one.

hot means hot and should in itself be a warning.

even if the lady doesnt assume to get 3rd degree burns from the coffee she should assume that in such a situation as described on wikki she might injure and burn herself on the coffee thus she should avoid putting herself in that situation.





its on the sixth page :

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants)

Sure. Capital punishment all the way. And women shouldn't screw around before they're married either, though boys aren't real men unless the has sex at 15 at the very latest. Oh, and men not only have the right to slap their women into submission, they have an obligation eh. And hey, that research project your female underling did, that's just there for you to take, publish and get credit for, right?

What can one say to someone like you without getting deat'ed? ... Perhaps that while it delights the atheist in me to see people like you cast Islam in such loathesome light, it saddens me deeply that people I care about, as well as myself, has to deal with the - completely understandable - prejudice and loathing your sort generate.

I hope some inventive NSGer can come up with a better reply. I wish I could, but this shit makes me too damn angry.

Why are you so angery at me? In case you didn't notice in the quote of mine you just quoted, all I did was ask a question, I wanted to see everyone else thought on the matter. I'm not sure how asking a question casts Islam in any sort of light.

So what? It is a violation of the marriage contract nonetheless. You're not arguing that adultery should be legal because it's harmless, you're arguing it because violating the marriage contract shouldn't be punishable in any court.

No. We are arguing that it's not a violation of the marriage contract, as it's apparently not spelled out in marriage contracts.
It is part of the religious vows, but breaking religious law does not have legal consequences.

You mean apart from the whole 'faithful till death do us part' bit?

Most Christian weddings I've been to the phrase is "love, honor, and cherish till death do you part".

Most Christian weddings I've been to the phrase is "love, honor, and cherish till death do you part".

Teh woman has to obey not cherish. It's in the bible book.

Adultery is one of the most immoral actions an individual can perform.I'm not sure whether to envy or pity your severe lack of imagination. I could think of a dozen more immoral actions off the top of my head.

why even bother getting married if you're not going to commit to that person to be in a loving, stable relationship?Tax benefits, political alliance, convenience, money, inheritance, founding/continuing a dynasty.
Up to one or two hundred years ago, love rarely factored into marriage. And in some places it still doesn't.

what the flocking hell is "adultry"? other then the prejudice of one family of beliefs? and what the 'effing 'ell bussiness of any government is that?

=^^=
.../\...

Adultery should be illegal, because it causes many unnecessary divorces. Most of the time, the breaking up of families is bad, and should be discouraged.

On the other hand, I understand that the government has better things to do than guarding people's bedroom behavior. Therefore my suggestion for the punishment would be that in the possibly resulting divorce, the adulterer gets nothing or very little by default.

Adultery should be illegal, because it causes many unnecessary divorces.On this account marriage should be illegal.

Why is it so hard to imagine the idea of it not being legal? It can destory relationships and families. It also leaves the person cheated on incredibly hurt(most of the time).

You seem to be under the impression that making it illegal would somehow stop it from happening, and that this somehow would prevent families from being destroyed. I've got news for you. It was illegal, a while ago. Guess what? It still happened, and... here's a real shocker... it destroyed families then, too.

Ask yourself, which is worse? Mommy and daddy get a divorce OR mommy or daddy is imprisoned, maybe executed. The fact that you even thought about making it illegal shows that you are incredibly naive, but I think you're smart enough to figure out this question.

Now, I certainly think cheating should be grounds for divorce, but there should be no punishment beyond possibly going through the hell that is divorce.

My personal view is that it's not cheating if the other spouse knows about the sex with other people. It's not the sex itself that is hurtful and destructive. It's the deception, the betrayal of trust that makes it horrible.

Adultery should be illegal, because it causes many unnecessary divorces. Most of the time, the breaking up of families is bad, and should be discouraged.

On the other hand, I understand that the government has better things to do than guarding people's bedroom behavior. Therefore my suggestion for the punishment would be that in the possibly resulting divorce, the adulterer gets nothing or very little by default.

I said it before and I'll say it again : families that need protection from breaking up don't deserve being kept together.

I said it before and I'll say it again : families that need protection from breaking up don't deserve being kept together.

And really, imposing further punishments than divorce would just destroy families further. Then instead of having parents who were divorced, you'd have one in jail or executed. I really don't think that's preferable by any stretch of the imagination.

I was an adulteress, it was the reason that I was able to get divorced from my terrible ex husband. It made life easier for me to allow him to divorce me for adultery rather than fighting him through the courts about his dreadful behaviour. In the end, my divorce still cost me well over £7000.00 and two years of stress through the courts, for a man who has not seen his children for 10 months and won't even let them know where he lives, I ended up paying him money to go away, £40,000.00. But god it was worth it. Adultery was NOT the reason for the end of my marriage, it was the excuse.

I said it before and I'll say it again : families that need protection from breaking up don't deserve being kept together.

With your history, I understand your point of view. But you don't seriously suggest that divorce will always result in happier children, do you? You seemed to imply so last time you said that.

I was an adulteress, it was the reason that I was able to get divorced from my terrible ex husband. It made life easier for me to allow him to divorce me for adultery rather than fighting him through the courts about his dreadful behaviour. In the end, my divorce still cost me well over £7000.00 and two years of stress through the courts, for a man who has not seen his children for 10 months and won't even let them know where he lives, I ended up paying him money to go away, £40,000.00. But god it was worth it. Adultery was NOT the reason for the end of my marriage, it was the excuse.

And this is why it should not be illegal. Among other reasons. Individual situations differ greatly.

With your history, I understand your point of view. But you don't seriously suggest that divorce will always result in happier children, do you? You seemed to imply so last time you said that.

No. Do you suggest that forcing couples legally to remain faithful will result in happy families?

With your history, I understand your point of view. But you don't seriously suggest that divorce will always result in happier children, do you? You seemed to imply so last time you said that.

Would the children be happier if mommy or daddy was in jail or dead?

My kids are ALL happier since my divorce following my adultery. They all adore my new partner, I think he is fantastic with them and they are happier and more stable and grounded as a result. I tried for many years to stay married to an asshole because I thought that staying together was the best for my kids. It was actually the worst, but it took me a long time to realise that. Try not to judge people until you walk in their shoes for a while, I have learned to be less judgemental as I got older.

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?
You know what would happen if you let a bunch of high-school gossips pass all the laws? You'd get a country that looks pretty much exactly like what the religious "moralists" are trying for.

Get your nose out from between other people's sheets and do something productive with yourself. Get a freaking hobby or something.

No. Do you suggest that forcing couples legally to remain faithful will result in happy families?

If the members of that couple already demand faithfulness from each other, and are so strong in their conviction that adultery would most likely lead to divorce, I don't see what harm the legislation could do.

If they're OK with adultery, that's an entirely different matter. There's no point in restricting it in that case.

Would the children be happier if mommy or daddy was in jail or dead?

Did you read my first post to this thread at all? Go on, it's on the previous page.

Did you read my first post to this thread at all? Go on, it's on the previous page.

I pose the same question to you.

I pose the same question to you.

In other words, you haven't, and won't bother. That's OK, I don't mind repeating myself.

Just because something is against the law, it doesn't mean you go to jail or get killed for doing it. I also never supported these forms of penalty for this issue. My suggestion was to give the adulterer a severe disadvantage in divorce proceedings whenever there is no marriage settlement, and the property would otherwise be split in the middle.

Surely that wouldn't suddenly stop people from screwing around, but I believe it would be a major deterrent.

In other words, you haven't, and won't bother. That's OK, I don't mind repeating myself.

Just because something is against the law, it doesn't mean you go to jail or get killed for doing it. I also never supported these forms of penalty for this issue. My suggestion was to give the adulterer a severe disadvantage in divorce proceedings whenever there is no marriage settlement, and the property would otherwise be split in the middle.

Surely that wouldn't suddenly stop people from screwing around, but I believe it would be a major deterrent.

You are very naive, I would guess that you have never been married and are still young and maybe your father committed adultery and this has left you bitter? I may be WAY off the mark here, and you may have been married and been the wronged party. But either way, in my own experience, and that of many people that I know well and also acquaintances, nobody in a happy and stable marriage commits adultery, adultery is caused by, at the very least, discontent, and often lack of love and respect. Would you recommend a way to end a marriage that does not result in pain and distress? Some people are unwilling to admit that their marriage is not working.

If the members of that couple already demand faithfulness from each other, and are so strong in their conviction that adultery would most likely lead to divorce, I don't see what harm the legislation could do.

If they're OK with adultery, that's an entirely different matter. There's no point in restricting it in that case.


So you're saying that this legislation would only help those who wouldn't commit adultery anyway, as it would be against their convictions.
Yep, I can see that being really useful.

In other words, you haven't, and won't bother. That's OK, I don't mind repeating myself.

Just because something is against the law, it doesn't mean you go to jail or get killed for doing it. I also never supported these forms of penalty for this issue. My suggestion was to give the adulterer a severe disadvantage in divorce proceedings whenever there is no marriage settlement, and the property would otherwise be split in the middle.

Surely that wouldn't suddenly stop people from screwing around, but I believe it would be a major deterrent.

To be honest, I can only see that leading to more divorces. Sensible people would try to get divorced before starting a new affair, so as not to be the one losing out in the settlements.
People who think that their partner will never find out about their infidelity will still screw around happily.

And either way, these relationships have already ended, despite the fact that neither partner seems willing to admit it yet.

You are very naive, I would guess that you have never been married and are still young and maybe your father committed adultery and this has left you bitter? I may be WAY off the mark here, and you may have been married and been the wronged party. But either way, in my own experience, and that of many people that I know well and also acquaintances, nobody in a happy and stable marriage commits adultery, adultery is caused by, at the very least, discontent, and often lack of love and respect. Would you recommend a way to end a marriage that does not result in pain and distress? Some people are unwilling to admit that their marriage is not working.

Partially right; I've never been married, and I'm 24 years old (don't know whether you consider that very young). My father hasn't committed adultery, at least not to my knowledge.

The rest is pretty correct too. It's just that what is acceptable amount of discontent in marriage? If you're beaten up on a daily basis, or the partner is otherwise a complete asshole, divorce is obviously a better choice. However, these days it's common for people to get a divorce because married life didn't turn out to be the eternal bliss that they expected, or they have a vague feeling that something is missing, or just because they come across someone slightly more attractive. Maybe they decide that they no longer love each other, because they're no longer having sex three times a day. Granted, this is often the problem of young people, who have gotten married in a hurry, and the best way to solve it might be to make getting married more difficult.

I may be naïve as you say, but I don't think that most of those problems couldn't be solved by talking (and, perhaps, losing some weight). I don't believe that 50% of marriages are so unhappy that a divorce is the only solution (and that in the rest, the woman is beaten into submission, as feminists often claim).

So you're saying that this legislation would only help those who wouldn't commit adultery anyway, as it would be against their convictions.
Yep, I can see that being really useful.

Just because someone doesn't like the idea of their partners cheating, it doesn't mean that they themselves won't cheat. Also there's the possibility that only one of the two is against adultery.

To be honest, I can only see that leading to more divorces. Sensible people would try to get divorced before starting a new affair, so as not to be the one losing out in the settlements.

Most of the time, adulterers are not serious enough about their affairs that they'd let go of their marriage, even if the repercussions weren't as severe as I suggest. If they are serious, then it doesn't really matter that much whether the divorce comes before or after the adultery.

Just because someone doesn't like the idea of their partners cheating, it doesn't mean that they themselves won't cheat. Also there's the possibility that only one of the two is against adultery.

A marriage consists of more two people. If one of them is ready to cheat on his or her partner, how much of a marriage do you think is left at that stage? At best, it's one person trying to have a relationship with another person who is trying to get away from the relationship.


Most of the time, adulterers are not serious enough about their affairs that they'd let go of their marriage, even if the repercussions weren't as severe as I suggest. If they are serious, then it doesn't really matter that much whether the divorce comes before or after the adultery.

They're not serious enough about their marriage not to lie to their partner, either.
And if there are severe legal consequences for cheating within the marriage, but not after the marriage, guess what they'll go for.

A marriage consists of more two people. If one of them is ready to cheat on his or her partner, how much of a marriage do you think is left at that stage? At best, it's one person trying to have a relationship with another person who is trying to get away from the relationship.

They're not serious enough about their marriage not to lie to their partner, either.
And if there are severe legal consequences for cheating within the marriage, but not after the marriage, guess what they'll go for.

Marriage has ups and downs; at least the priest says something to that effect on the altar. If you have one or several moments of weakness and disgruntlement along the years, does that mean that your marriage is lost forever?

I find it strange that you, who said earlier, that you will have sex with lots of people in your marriage, seem now to be saying that people in stable and loving relationships wouldn't even be interested in sex with others.

Even if the cheating happens constantly without the other's consent, it doesn't mean that the cheater is unhappy with the relationship altogether. It could be that they're just not getting enough sex at home, or not the way they want it; I'm sure there are just as many reasons for cheating as there are cheaters.

Marriage has ups and downs; at least the priest says something to that effect on the altar. If you have one or several moments of weakness and disgruntlement along the years, does that mean that your marriage is lost forever?

I find it strange that you, who said earlier, that you will have sex with lots of people in your marriage, seem now to be saying that people in stable and loving relationships wouldn't even be interested in sex with others.

Even if the cheating happens constantly without the other's consent, it doesn't mean that the cheater is unhappy with the relationship altogether. It could be that they're just not getting enough sex at home, or not the way they want it; I'm sure there are just as many reasons for cheating as there are cheaters.

You misunderstand me. I measure a good relationship by the honesty, openess, love and unwillingness to hurt the other.
And yes, if my partner started an affair without telling me about it, I would consider ending the relationship. That is a serious breach of trust, and I don't see what the point is to continue on when he apparently can't confide in me any more.

I think you are assigning far, far too much importance to sex, and far to little to the essential aspects of marriage.

Yes, there might be physical reasons why one partner goes off to seek sexual contacts elsewhere. But as soon as he goes of and does that without telling his partner about it, he is clearly stating that he/she doesn't trust him/her, and can't be trusted himself. I'm not argueing that they should only have sex with each other, I'm saying that when they feel the need to cheat, there's more wrong with the relationship than can be fixed by laws.

Adultery is illegal and actively prosecuted in South Korea. This is one area where we really can learn something from our neighbours.

Adultery is illegal and actively prosecuted in South Korea. This is one area where we really can learn something from our neighbours.
Oh dear, never knew that. Respect for South Korea: -10,000 points.

Adultery is illegal and actively prosecuted in South Korea. This is one area where we really can learn something from our neighbours.

Yes we can, for we've learned what NOT to do when it comes to adultery.

You misunderstand me. I measure a good relationship by the honesty, openess, love and unwillingness to hurt the other.
And yes, if my partner started an affair without telling me about it, I would consider ending the relationship. That is a serious breach of trust, and I don't see what the point is to continue on when he apparently can't confide in me any more.

Sure. Like someone else said, it's not the sex itself about adultery that does the damage. It's when the other person finds out.

I think you are assigning far, far too much importance to sex, and far to little to the essential aspects of marriage.

Depends. Yes, women apparently are not so desperate for sex. For the most part, they get it at home. Men, however, are different. A lot of men complain that the amount of sex they're getting starts to drop rapidly after getting married, and this can drive them to look for it elsewhere. That is not to say that sex is the only reason why men cheat, of course. My point was just that just because one aspect of marriage is not perfect, it doesn't mean that the entire marriage is going down the drain.


Yes, there might be physical reasons why one partner goes off to seek sexual contacts elsewhere. But as soon as he goes of and does that without telling his partner about it, he is clearly stating that he/she doesn't trust him/her, and can't be trusted himself. I'm not argueing that they should only have sex with each other, I'm saying that when they feel the need to cheat, there's more wrong with the relationship than can be fixed by laws.

Or maybe they're just too considerate of their partner's feelings, and don't want to say "you're not enough for me" by asking permission to commit adultery. Openness about even that would be preferable, and it could be considered distrust, but I can understand if someone wouldn't want to risk ruining an otherwise good relationship by bringing that up.

I don't know if that can be fixed, or if it's even seriously wrong. I don't mean cheating, which obviously is, but simple keeping some feelings to oneself. Very few relationships are perfect, and if the only alternative to a perfect relationship is divorce, people can expect to be spending their entire lives looking for that elusive Mr./Ms. Right.

I'm sure most people in a relationship feel the desire to have sex with other people every once in a while, even if their partner wouldn't approve. This is normal and to be expected. Whether that means that the relationship is unfixably bad, depends on the strength of those feelings. Now, actions are under control of the person, and therefore they are what will mostly offend others. If a law can keep the borderline cheaters in check, I have nothing against that.

are all you guys on the same page?

are all you guys from the same country?

do you have the same cultural background?


is it in your country possible that a couple (that has seperated on good terms and with children together) still stays married out of convinience (for a while), but starts to date others in the meantime?

in that case any law would just be in the way imo.

is it in your country possible that a couple (that has seperated on good terms and with children together) still stays married out of convinience (for a while), but starts to date others in the meantime?
My best friend's parents live with that arrangement.

It's rather odd, but it works for them...

I'm terrified by the number of people on this thread who think it should be illegal.

I'm terrified by the number of people on this thread who think it should be illegal.

I find it odd, considering how most people on this forum are usually of a more secular, social and personal freedom point of view.

Yes we can, for we've learned what NOT to do when it comes to adultery.

As well as learning either some geography or the definition of the word "neighbor".

As well as learning either some geography or the definition of the word "neighbor".

Ayup.

My best friend's parents live with that arrangement.

It's rather odd, but it works for them...

I think that arrangement is far more common than people realise. I dunno, maybe it has to do with my experiences.

I find it odd, considering how most people on this forum are usually of a more secular, social and personal freedom point of view.

Agreed. I'm guessing a couple of people voted for the death penalty for a joke but even so it's still worrying.

So, I've changed my mind on this matter. I still think adultery should be illegal... and I also think marriage should be too. Can I get an amen? :)

So, I've changed my mind on this matter. I still think adultery should be illegal... and I also think marriage should be too. Can I get an amen? :)

Marriage for straight people should be illegal.;)

Marriage for straight people should be illegal.;)

Polygamus gay marriages for all!

Marriage for straight people should be illegal.;)

Ugh. No, marriage of any sort. Why should others get free tax cuts and all sorts of social consessions just on the virtue of them being able to find someone to fuck on a regular basis? I mean I can't find someone like that and if I can't, it's discrimination against ugly people. Government-sponsored discrimination. Ban marriage now!

Ugh. No, marriage of any sort. Why should others get free tax cuts and all sorts of social consessions just on the virtue of them being able to find someone to fuck on a regular basis? I mean I can't find someone like that and if I can't, it's discrimination against ugly people. Government-sponsored discrimination. Ban marriage now!

1. There should be no tax cuts for married people.

2. Most married people don't fuck on a regular basis. At least after the first couple of years or their first baby.

3. Marriage serves no purpose unless children are involved. There is a benefit to children and children only.

Polygamus gay marriages for all!

I would dance in the streets on that day!

3. Marriage serves no purpose unless children are involved. There is a benefit to children and children only.

How do children benefit by having their parents married?

3. Marriage serves no purpose unless children are involved. There is a benefit to children and children only.

What is the purpose of marriage with regards to children's benefit?

2. Most married people don't fuck on a regular basis. At least after the first couple of years or their first baby.

Speak for yourself.

Of course it should be legal. What renders marriage worthy of being protected by puntive laws?

What is the purpose of marriage with regards to children's benefit?

It provides the child with two parents that both bring important and different aspects to the parenting process. The father provides for the family as well as providing discipline and strong male figure while the mother looks after the home or works and cares for the kids. She provides the softer side I guess you could say. note though, I know this its the way it works in all cases, I was speaking more to what the ideal is.

While I believe adulutery (or however you spell it) is immoral and a huge sign of weakness, it should by no means be punishable by the government/law enforcement.

If your in a relationship and unhappy, A. end it, or B. TALK TALK TALK about it to your partner. Life is way to short, I personally have never cheated on any of my girlfriends as I see it as a huge sign of mental and physical weakness. If your relationship sucks, talk about it or end it. There's no need to cheat.

While I believe adulutery (or however you spell it) is immoral and a huge sign of weakness, it should by no means be punishable by the government/law enforcement.

If your in a relationship and unhappy, A. end it, or B. TALK TALK TALK about it to your partner. Life is way to short, I personally have never cheated on any of my girlfriends as I see it as a huge sign of mental and physical weakness. If your relationship sucks, talk about it or end it. There's no need to cheat.


Why is adultery a sign of weakness?

It provides the child with two parents that both bring important and different aspects to the parenting process. The father provides for the family as well as providing discipline and strong male figure while the mother looks after the home or works and cares for the kids. She provides the softer side I guess you could say. note though, I know this its the way it works in all cases, I was speaking more to what the ideal is.

No, marriage does not provide any of that. Two parents being committed to one another is what provides it. Marriage is unnecessary, and redundant at best.

How do children benefit by having their parents married?

GET OUT OF MY BRAIN!

It provides the child with two parents....
You don't have to be married to be a parent.
While I believe adulutery (or however you spell it) is immoral and a huge sign of weakness,
How so?
No, marriage does not provide any of that. Two parents being committed to one another is what provides it. Marriage is unnecessary, and redundant at best.
Not exactly. Marrying someone makes them your next of kin and gives them the right to make medical decisions on your behalf, among other things.


GET OUT OF MY BRAIN!

But it's so warm and comfy in here :(

How do children benefit by having their parents married?

Think step-parent scenarios.

Dealing with estate laws if their parents die for one. When people die without wills it's not always cut and dry how the estate is divied up.

Also, in many states step- parents have rights only through marriage. Some states have costly legal processes to give both parents equal rights, some don't.

Speak for yourself.

It's been the topic of many studies. And of course it's generally speaking. Not all married couples suffer bed death, but the majority do.

Edit: I will never get married since I'm never having children. It's a financially stupid thing to do. I'm not religious, so there's no reason for me to in that respect. I'd also like to think that the person is with me because they want to be with me, not because they are worried that I'll take half of what they own (or vice versa).

As well as learning either some geography or the definition of the word "neighbor".

Hahaha, touché, mon ami, touché. :)

Definately legal, due to massive complications if it were outlawed.

Adultery however should still be looked down upon, as it tears apart families and destroys relationships.

Outlawing it would be a really stupid idea, how would it be proved? How would it be punished? Would thousands of men and women who hated their partners accuse them of adultery so they go to prison?

You don't have to be married to be a parent.


Nor, for that matter, do you have to be a parent - or even plan to be a parent - to be married.

Not exactly. Marrying someone makes them your next of kin and gives them the right to make medical decisions on your behalf, among other things.


Yeah, but couldn't one accomplish the first with an addendum in the will? And the latter with some other sort of binding statement? Why must it be called "marriage?"

(Yes, I am just a tad mimicking the anti-gay-marriage arguments.)

(But I also hate married people. And everyone else for that matter.)

Yeah, but couldn't one accomplish the first with an addendum in the will? And the latter with some other sort of binding statement? Why must it be called "marriage?"

(Yes, I am just a tad mimicking the anti-gay-marriage arguments.)

(But I also hate married people. And everyone else for that matter.)

It doesn't have to be called a marriage at all. That's just something that comes in the marriage package. Batteries not included.

Sure. Like someone else said, it's not the sex itself about adultery that does the damage. It's when the other person finds out.

I think we should agree on terms here. My boyfriend knows I'll be an adulteress and I know he'll be one happy adulterer. I think what you mean is not adultery, but cheating.


Depends. Yes, women apparently are not so desperate for sex. For the most part, they get it at home. Men, however, are different. A lot of men complain that the amount of sex they're getting starts to drop rapidly after getting married, and this can drive them to look for it elsewhere. That is not to say that sex is the only reason why men cheat, of course. My point was just that just because one aspect of marriage is not perfect, it doesn't mean that the entire marriage is going down the drain.

You like you social myths, don't you?
As a woman, I can assure you that I love sex as much as the next man, maybe even more so. And I don't know of a single woman who would feel that twice a week on set days is enough for her. In my experience, it's men who seem to start feeling that now they can have it anytime they like, why put much effort in it? Leaving them both unsatisfied and wanting more, men seem to be more ready to place the blame on the women, who in turn resort to reading Cosmopolitan and books about how to spice up relationships, eventually frightening the poor sod nearly to death by opening the door wrapped in cling film.
She'll suggest councelling, which is out of the question for him because admitting that something is wrong would be a direct attack on his manliness after all. She keeps trying, he gets defensive, and in the end he'll turn elsewhere because "my wife doesn't understand me".
Chances are, his wife has long since discovered his best friend.
Mostly I would say it's a communications problem. And sadly a very common one.


Or maybe they're just too considerate of their partner's feelings, and don't want to say "you're not enough for me" by asking permission to commit adultery. Openness about even that would be preferable, and it could be considered distrust, but I can understand if someone wouldn't want to risk ruining an otherwise good relationship by bringing that up.

I don't know if that can be fixed, or if it's even seriously wrong. I don't mean cheating, which obviously is, but simple keeping some feelings to oneself. Very few relationships are perfect, and if the only alternative to a perfect relationship is divorce, people can expect to be spending their entire lives looking for that elusive Mr./Ms. Right.

I'm sure most people in a relationship feel the desire to have sex with other people every once in a while, even if their partner wouldn't approve. This is normal and to be expected. Whether that means that the relationship is unfixably bad, depends on the strength of those feelings. Now, actions are under control of the person, and therefore they are what will mostly offend others. If a law can keep the borderline cheaters in check, I have nothing against that.

You say that you're aware that both will get those feelings from time to time, yet you keep assuming that one would be hurt if the other admitted to them. Why?
I know those feelings will be there, and I know some couples decide not to act on them. Does that include not talking about them either?
I might be rather naive here, but what is the point of having a relationship when I cannot talk about my feelings with my partner?
I'm not saying that a marriage is unfixable if one of the partners has those feelings. I'm saying that if their love for their partners doesn't stop them from going behind their backs and cheat on them, a law won't either.

It provides the child with two parents that both bring important and different aspects to the parenting process. The father provides for the family as well as providing discipline and strong male figure while the mother looks after the home or works and cares for the kids. She provides the softer side I guess you could say. note though, I know this its the way it works in all cases, I was speaking more to what the ideal is.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gifhttp://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gifhttp://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gifhttp://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gifhttp://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Oh dear... oh... haha... my sides are hurting now.

Where on earth did you get that nonsense from???

Oh dear... oh... haha... my sides are hurting now.

Where on earth did you get that nonsense from???

My guess is the "Nuclear Family" and a bunch of other meaningless social constructs about marriage and relationships.

The concept of a man who works from home and takes care of the house/kids while his wife pursues a much more lucrative and high-power career is somehow alien and unreasonable.

i keep thinking its kinda funny that the discussion never expresses WHERE it should be legal/illegal.

even in america different states are allowed to pass different laws right?
isnt there one state where sodomy is illegal?

im not american so i cant speak for americans but it seems that Lawrence vs texas arguments that the constitution can be interperated that adultery is a constitutional right. (someone has been poiting that out repeatedly)

so wether it should be leagal or not in america is pointless to debate as the constitution card will be played over and over again =P

Oh dear... oh... haha... my sides are hurting now.

Where on earth did you get that nonsense from???

Why is the idea of a traditional family so laughable?

Why is the idea of a traditional family so laughable?

Because it's an arbitrary tradition. It's also a tradition in some cultures to perform ritual sacrifices. Doesn't make it "ok."

Gravlen... i'm still laughing =)
There isn't much reason to.

look at the "Other coffee burn cases"

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's


yes very dangerous stuff that coffee... i mean 1 in 24 million cups. very defective sales policy.
It is indeed. 1 in 24 million is quite a bit, considering how many cups of coffee McD sells each year.

when dealing with hot merchendise you have to be careful imo. of course the woman that got burnt shouldnt "suit herself" but the sum of her compensation shot onto outrageous proportions. (at first it was barely covering her medical bills then it skyrocketed because McD didnt agree)
See? so the problem isn't the lawsuit - it's that McD didn't want to settle and got slapped with punitive damages that makes you laugh.


In my country i dont think the woman would sue to cover her medical bill im pretty sure that any medical treatment for that would be free (theres like a nominal fe of a few bucks)
In your country there probably isn't such a thing as "punitive damages" - which might be a good thing :)

now point out what you wanted me to read.
Demented Hamsters did a good job of it. No need to repeat myself. Suffice to say that the lawsuit was justifiable.

It provides the child with two parents that both bring important and different aspects to the parenting process. The father provides for the family as well as providing discipline and strong male figure while the mother looks after the home or works and cares for the kids. She provides the softer side I guess you could say. note though, I know this its the way it works in all cases, I was speaking more to what the ideal is.

I sincerely hope you're not talking about the bitch that calls herself my mother because you'd be dreaming.

I very and full heartedly disagree because that logic is fundamentally flawed, as women can be as malicious as men, and a being a woman doesn't automatically give you a gentler side.

The only thing that my mother brought in was stress and abuse.

I don't see the benefit that comes from this because it just doesn't work unless you're trapped in some retro dream world.

These gender roles have no relevance today. It's simply a remnant of a patriarch system that we need to fully dissolve and place in the history text books.

And you ask what is wrong with a traditional family, I say everything because no one is perfect and tradition is just a damn euphemism for "it's broken but we ain't fixin' it".

Why is the idea of a traditional family so laughable?

Because it's an idea that couldn't be further removed from reality if it included pink unicorns, peace on the planet and Paris Hilton winning a Nobel price.
And it's about as traditional as men in huge wigs and burning witches. People thought it was clever for a while, but they moved on.

...tradition is just a damn euphemism for "it's broken but we ain't fixin' it".

Sigged. :D

Sigged. :D

You should really note who you're quoting it from, dude.

Because it's an idea that couldn't be further removed from reality if it included pink unicorns, peace on the planet and Paris Hilton winning a Nobel price.
And it's about as traditional as men in huge wigs and burning witches. People thought it was clever for a while, but they moved on.

Alright, what type of family unit do you think is best to raise children in?

Alright, what type of family unit do you think is best to raise children in?

Whatever works. I won't stay at home to raise out kids, I wouldn't have the patience. My BF is way more patient than I. Also, I'm making more money and would like to go further in my job, he likes his job but doesn't feel he wants to take it further.

There's no "one size fits all" family, there never was and there never will be.

You should really note who you're quoting it from, dude.

Dude????? :eek:
I thought you've been here long enough to know better...

Whatever works. I won't stay at home to raise out kids, I wouldn't have the patience. My BF is way more patient than I. Also, I'm making more money and would like to go further in my job, he likes his job but doesn't feel he wants to take it further.

There's no "one size fits all" family, there never was and there never will be.

If its whatever works than, the idea of the man working and the woman looking after the home and kids could work as well, no?

If its whatever works than, the idea of the man working and the woman looking after the home and kids could work as well, no?

It might, yes. But to call it an "ideal" is ridiculous.

If its whatever works than, the idea of the man working and the woman looking after the home and kids could work as well, no?

In other words, it's OK for different people to do things differently.

Sigged. :D

:eek: OMFG!!!111!! I've been sigged!

*gets out that bottle of wine she's been saving* Woohoo! :D

It might, yes. But to call it an "ideal" is ridiculous.

I don't find it any less ridiculous then someone saying some other form of family is ideal.

In other words, it's OK for different people to do things differently.

In again other words, there is no such thing as an ideal.

If its whatever works than, the idea of the man working and the woman looking after the home and kids could work as well, no?

As much as any other combination.

I sincerely hope you're not talking about the bitch that calls herself my mother because you'd be dreaming.

I very and full heartedly disagree because that logic is fundamentally flawed, as women can be as malicious as men, and a being a woman doesn't automatically give you a gentler side.

The only thing that my mother brought in was stress and abuse.

I don't see the benefit that comes from this because it just doesn't work unless you're trapped in some retro dream world.

These gender roles have no relevance today. It's simply a remnant of a patriarch system that we need to fully dissolve and place in the history text books.

And you ask what is wrong with a traditional family, I say everything because no one is perfect and tradition is just a damn euphemism for "it's broken but we ain't fixin' it".

You win the thread. No buts.

I don't find it any less ridiculous then someone saying some other form of family is ideal.

Exactly - there is no ideal. Different forms for different situations.

Dude????? :eek:
I thought you've been here long enough to know better...

Don't worry - it's probably just a traditional description :)

I don't find it any less ridiculous then someone saying some other form of family is ideal.

Only nobody does.
There's "traditionalists", usually stubbornly believing that things used to be better and are constantly getting worse for some reason (like women demanding equal rights and the like) who keep proclaiming that they've got an ideal solution that will work for everyone. That being the woman being a good and sweet wife and mother and staying home while he heroically faces the big bad world in his job.
And then there's people with more than two brain cells saying that things weren't better back when, and that even back then the "traditional family" was little more than what the upper classes liked to show to the outside world.

Sure it can work, but it's no ideal. There is no ideal. Whatever works in a given situation is the ideal there and then.

Dude????? :eek:
I thought you've been here long enough to know better...

Would you rather I said dudette? :D

Speaking of adultery:

Charles was happy to be a father to two children by his wife. Then she presented him with a third...and a fourth...a fifth and sixth. But when she fell pregnant a seventh time he KNEW the baby couldn't be his. So how many were?

With hindsight, retired police officer Charles Bostock knows exactly when he fell victim to his wife’s staggering betrayal.

"Sarah started pestering me for sex after a long period of little physical contact," he says.

"I remember thinking she was trying to be a loving wife, but now I realise she was covering her tracks because she knew she was pregnant by someone else - for the first time."

Back then, however, Charles had little reason to think anything was amiss.

The couple already had two children together and went on to have four more, sharing what seemed a blessed life on a rambling property in the West Country. He had always, he says, taken immense pride in his role as a loving father.

But when Sarah fell pregnant for the seventh time five years ago, his life imploded.

Charles knew with devastating certainty that he could not be the father - for by then the couple had not had a sexual relationship for some months.

After a bitter confrontation, his wife confessed that the pregnancy was the result of a one-night stand. Terrible enough after a long marriage, you may think. But worse was to come.

Last year, DNA tests ordered by his wife revealed that Charles was not the father of his four youngest children either.

They were the product of a secret 14-year affair his wife had been conducting with local businessman Richard Mills - the same man who had fathered her seventh child.

Sarah, 49, had known all along, but callously allowed her husband to believe they were his.

The discovery has sent shockwaves through the heart of the family.

The two eldest, Alison, now 26, and 24-year-old Charles junior, have left home.

But the four younger children who Charles also thought were his - now aged 12, ten, nine and six - live with their mother in the former

Charles, meanwhile, has been forced to move out, and is facing his 70th birthday with only with his memories for company.

"Richard is beneath my contempt, but it’s Sarah I really blame," he says. "I now know she used me to raise her children.

"If she’d had the courage to tell me the truth at the start, I could have had a chance of rebuilding my life. Instead, she chose to continue her deception over the years.

"I gave her a home, children and a decent standard of life, and this is how she repaid me. The only way I can deal with it is to tell myself she’s ill."

But if you were expecting remorse from his former wife, you would be disappointed. Instead, Sarah Bostock claims she was only ever thinking of her family.

"I made a deliberate decision to have children by my lover and I would do it again if I had to," she said this week.

"As far as I’m concerned I was trying to do the right thing by the family by keeping us all together.

"If I was a selfish woman I would have left years ago, but I felt it was better for all the children to try to maintain status quo - not that it wasn’t terribly hard at times. But I have always tried to put their best interests first."

Its an astonishing sentiment - but for Charles Bostock, nothing much comes as a surprise now.

Today, his cramped council home in Bodmin, Cornnwall, is a far cry from the sixbedroom detached house a few miles away.

Together with his wife, Charles, a former Metropolitan police officer, moved there in the mid-Eighties from Surrey after an accident on his police motorbike, which meant he had to be pensioned out of the force.

"The move was Sarah’s idea actually," he recalls. "We had had happy times here on holiday and as nothing was tying us to Surrey it seemed like a good."

The couple met at a party held by a mutual friend and married in Woking 1979 following a two-year courtship.

Despite the near 20-year age gap, Charles believes they were happy.

"The age gap never bothered either of us," he says. "It was barely mentioned."

Two children, Alison and Charles, quickly followed.

"We had the typical family life — the children, dogs, a cat," Charles reflects.

"Sarah stayed at home while I got a job working as a council manager. We were happy."

Not, however, according to Sarah, who defended her actions by attacking Charles’s qualities as a husband.

"He did provide for us, yes, but what he didn’t give me was any fun, or affection, or real attention. He never wanted to go out and do anything."

An excuse for tricking him into raising another man’s four children? Few would think so.

Nevertheless, apparently without qualms, in 1989 Sarah began her affair with Richard Mills, who she met while taking her children swimming.

Like Sarah, Richard, now 46, was married with two children.

The two quickly became lovers - while agreeing, according to Sarah, that neither would leave their spouses.

"Richard had two young children and so did I. We enjoyed the excitement and lust and although there were deeper feelings, too, we made a point of not discussing them," she says.

"What was the point? We were committed to our respective domestic situations. Much as I would have liked to get out, I didn’t envisage leaving Charles because I didn’t want to upset the kids."

How ironic, then, that within a couple of years Sarah admits that she took the selfish decision to actively started trying for a baby with her lover.

"I was very broody and wanted Richard’s baby," she says.

"He said it wasn’t sensible but I went for it anyway. I instinctively knew that he would be fine with it and I was so desperate to have his child that I was prepared to take the risk.

"To be honest, Charles didn’t even come into it. I remember thinking I had to do something for my own happiness."

By 1993, Sarah had achieved her goal. She was pregnant.

It was at this point that she made the decision to "cover her tracks" and recommence what had been a sparse sexual partnership with her husband in order to facilitate the idea that the child was his.

"I don’t deny it was calculating," she says.

"In a funny way everyone was happy. Charles and I had discussed the idea of having more children."

A daughter, now 12, was born in 1994, followed in quick succession by another three children - a son and two more daughters.

"People ask me now if I had any idea what was going on but it’s so easy to miss the signs," says Charles. "All the children took after their mother, so I never I suspected a thing - why would I?

"Life was busy, I had a full-time job and a house full of kids. I wouldn’t say Sarah and I had an amazing relationship but it wasn’t bad, and I was perfectly content."

Sarah, meanwhile, continued to meet her lover in secret, sometimes even taking the younger children with her. She introduced their biological father as "Mummy’s friend".

Who knows how long this bizarre deception might have continued had the Bostocks’ domestic situation not come to a head in 2002 when Charles discovered Sarah was three months pregnant with what would be her seventh child.

This time, he knew there was no chance the baby could be his as the couple had not had sexual relations for nine months.

"Even then she tried to pretend," says Charles angrily.

"She said she’d had sex with me while I was asleep - it was rubbish. I felt completely numb.

"I pressed her to tell me who the father was, but she refused. I didn’t know what to do - I didn’t want to abandon my kids but it was also obvious the marriage was at an end."

After consulting a solicitor, a separation order was drawn up which allowed Charles to occupy a room in the house while Sarah and the children lived in the rest.

In another ironic stroke, it was also agreed that he would pay £400-amonth maintenance for ‘his’ four young children.

Only towards the end of the pregnancy, Charles maintains, did Sarah finally admit he wasn’t the father of the imminent arrival.

"She claimed it was a one-night stand and that the father didn’t want to know," he says.

"Later I got an anonymous phone call telling me it was a man called Richard Mills. But Sarah did not react when I confronted her with the name.

"Then, when the baby girl was born in 2002, I didn’t think I would want anything to do with her, but she was such a lovely little thing. I decided that if Sarah would let me, I would bring her up as one of ours.

"As far as I was concerned she had no contact with the baby’s father and there was a chance we could have a fresh start."

If he felt optimistic, however, he was mistaken.

"One night when the baby was a few months old Sarah came home and said she didn’t want a fresh start, she wanted me out," says Charles.

"I was flabbergasted. I had tried to do the right thing, this was my home too, and she was ordering me out."

When he refused, battle commenced.

"Suddenly there were no secrets any more. Sarah boasted about her lover, saying I was washed-up while he was virile and rich.

"She was trying to provoke me into leaving, but I had paid for this house and my family were there.

"I didn’t see why I should leave. I just couldn’t believe what was happening to me."

But Sarah claims her husband became verbally abusive towards her.

"When he talks of being a loving father it makes me laugh," she insists.

Charles furiously denies her accusations, saying that though there were fierce arguments in the house, as often as not, he insists, they were started by his wife.

He also categorically denies any violence but says Sarah called the police to the house on three occasions claiming he was being violent as part of a strategy to get him out.

The police discovered nothing amiss.

By spring 2005, circumstances had become intolerable and after receiving an Occupation Order, which he did not contest because he says he had lost the will by that point, Charles was forced to leave the marital home, moving into a former council house with his eldest son Charles.

"It was a horrible transition. Overnight, I’d gone from seeing my kids all the time to seeing them once a week when Sarah could be bothered to drop them off."

If that was hard to swallow, however, there was a final bombshell which made him realise that much of his family life had been a lie.

Last summer, Charles was told by his 12-year-old daughter that she and the other children had had swabs taken by Richard.

"I was baffled and immediately rang my solicitor to get him to find out what was going on. A few weeks later the children came to see me again and the eldest told me: ‘You aren’t our father. Richard is'."

The same day, Charles’s solicitor confirmed his worst fears.

"I was devastated. How do you cope with news like that?" Desperately hoping there had been a mistake, Charles ordered separate tests, which confirmed he was not the father of four of the children he’d raised as his own. "In just one moment I stopped being Dad to my kids. They are confused, and at the moment I barely see them.

"The 12-year-old refuses point blank to see me at all as she believes I deliberately lied to her about not being her dad."

Sarah, however, remains unrepentant.

"When we told the children they took it really well. My fifth child by Richard already knew who her father was, while the others seemed relatively unfazed by the news.

"I’m lucky in that my kids are happy and well-adjusted. They are all doing brilliantly at school." But is it really that simple?

Meanwhile, not content to stop at seven children, Sarah has gone on to have another baby by Mills, a boy now five-months-old.

While in another twist to the tale, Mr Mills has been publicly accused of having affairs with two other women - claims he denies.

Finally divorced from Charles, Sarah remains in the marital home, although it is due to be sold as part of the financial settlement, with Sarah receiving 61 per cent of the proceeds.

Richard Mills is also now divorced, although he has not yet moved in fully with Sarah.

"I didn’t want to force him on the children so he stays two or three nights a week as well as during the day when he has the chance," she says.

"But we do plan to live together as a family." That he is living only part-time with Sarah is but cold comfort to Charles Bostock.

"He is still in my house, bringing up the children I consider to be mine, while I live in a council house with my eldest son.

"It’s hard for him and my daughter Alison because they feel torn. They are horrified by what their mother did but don’t want to cut her out of their lives completely.

"What she has done has affected so many lives." It is impossible to disagree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=443846&in_page_id=1879

Demented Hamsters did a good job of it. No need to repeat myself. Suffice to say that the lawsuit was justifiable.


ah finally i got to understand what you thought about it. your first post was a bit cryptic.

i read the whole wiki article... a bit sloppy perhaps but i did read it in whole.


again: when an atourny argues something, is that to be considered proven fact or a claim. (hmm seems to be a claim since it was performed by a law student and rather limited testing was performed)

because i see alot of claims that the coffee wasn't unusually hot. infact there are some to this day that sells coffe hotter then that.

some court in britian also rueld that the temperature the atourny proposed would still have resulted in burns.
theres alot of similar cases to Liebeck that has been turned down outright by american courts acording to the wiki article.

there's a quote in there somewhere about lot of non-US lawyers asking US lawyers about this case. so wether it was justified in america and also justified if it had happened in other parts of the world can be debated.
As i said it is my opinion that europeeans dont sue as often because we arent left with that as a last choise that often.


ok wiki probably isnt the most reliable source as it can be edited so freely but it doesnt matter how many times i bring up the other burn cases part of it. you never adress what it says there. you are never telling me why i shouldnt belive that it is in fact so that McD's coffee was unusually hot when the only things we got to go on is the atourny argueeing that it was and some other people saying it wasn't, it was only something that slipped through the system.


if you can show me an official indepenant report that their coffee was hotter i'd apriciate that. the law student that held the thermometer in http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm 's accounts of the events isnt enough for me.

I'm having some difficulty understanding you, but let me see how far I get...
ah finally i got to understand what you thought about it. your first post was a bit cryptic.
I thought my position on it was clear.

i read the whole wiki article... a bit sloppy perhaps but i did read it in whole.


again: when an atourny argues something, is that to be considered proven fact or a claim. (hmm seems to be a claim since it was performed by a law student and rather limited testing was performed)
An arguement is a claim. It needs to be backed up by the evidence. Did you have a point here that I'm missing?


because i see alot of claims that the coffee wasn't unusually hot. infact there are some to this day that sells coffe hotter then that.
Even McD said the coffee was too hot:
* McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

* The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

* Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

* Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

Source (http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)

some court in britian also rueld that the temperature the atourny proposed would still have resulted in burns.
theres alot of similar cases to Liebeck that has been turned down outright by american courts acording to the wiki article.

there's a quote in there somewhere about lot of non-US lawyers asking US lawyers about this case. so wether it was justified in america and also justified if it had happened in other parts of the world can be debated.
As i said it is my opinion that europeeans dont sue as often because we arent left with that as a last choise that often.


ok wiki probably isnt the most reliable source as it can be edited so freely but it doesnt matter how many times i bring up the other burn cases part of it. you never adress what it says there. you are never telling me why i shouldnt belive that it is in fact so that McD's coffee was unusually hot when the only things we got to go on is the atourny argueeing that it was and some other people saying it wasn't, it was only something that slipped through the system.


if you can show me an official indepenant report that their coffee was hotter i'd apriciate that. the law student that held the thermometer in http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm 's accounts of the events isnt enough for me.

I have only the quotes offered above. But in short: When you have 700 cases pf coffee-burns over a 10-year period as McD had, you ought to take a look at your product - the cup and the temperature. They knew there was a danger, and when they choose not to settle, the lawsuit was indeed justifiable.

I cannot speak for other hot coffee-cases, because I wouldn't know the facts of those cases. McD's prior knowledge and refusal to offer compensation even if they had done so to others in the past is key here.

The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "

McD screwed up, both before and during the trial.

Ah, the McDonald's case.

The greatest example of the media writing the story they want to write, rather than what actually happened?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085626349093 (link called one lump or 2 in wiki article)

In the courtroom, though, McDonald's and other sellers have fought back against the jury finding that Liebeck was handed unreasonably hot coffee. In the couple dozen cases that have gone to trial since 1994, coffee sellers have pointed out that the beverage must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit, or else the grounds won't release the flavor. Moreover, most people prefer coffee at 161.8 degrees Fahrenheit, a University of California at Davis study shows, which is why, says Lingle, the industry's standard serving temperature is 160 to 185 degrees. Although Morgan's experts had testified in the Liebeck case that coffee of 170 degrees would cause second-degree skin burns in two seconds, one's tongue and mouth lining are thicker than one's skin. What scars your hand melts in your mouth.


You say McD screwed up during court? yes seems they had a shitty lawyer =P


700 complaints where 1 complaint equalls into 24 million cups served. shees gimme a break. thats nothing. we are talking a hot liquid, common sense tells us to be carefull not to spill. it will hurt even if we do NOT get 3rd degree burns.

we dont even know how serious those 700 complaints was.

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously

the case is silly wether the coffee was defective or not, and apearantly it can be dedebated if it truely was or not. McD testifying in court that it was too hot says nothing they could have fallen under the pressure or had a really dumb lawyer.

but my main point was that americans go to court quicker then europeeans. i mean theres even jokes about "get rich quick scheems(sp?)" in the american culture. homer simpson falling in a pot hole and sueing the church. to my knowledge those jokes doesnt even occur in my country.

I think we should agree on terms here. My boyfriend knows I'll be an adulteress and I know he'll be one happy adulterer. I think what you mean is not adultery, but cheating.

Right. Sorry, my mistake. I've tried to keep those terms straight, so I hope one slip is forgivable?

You like you social myths, don't you?
As a woman, I can assure you that I love sex as much as the next man, maybe even more so. And I don't know of a single woman who would feel that twice a week on set days is enough for her. In my experience, it's men who seem to start feeling that now they can have it anytime they like, why put much effort in it? Leaving them both unsatisfied and wanting more, men seem to be more ready to place the blame on the women, who in turn resort to reading Cosmopolitan and books about how to spice up relationships, eventually frightening the poor sod nearly to death by opening the door wrapped in cling film.
She'll suggest councelling, which is out of the question for him because admitting that something is wrong would be a direct attack on his manliness after all. She keeps trying, he gets defensive, and in the end he'll turn elsewhere because "my wife doesn't understand me".
Chances are, his wife has long since discovered his best friend.
Mostly I would say it's a communications problem. And sadly a very common one.

I wouldn't say social myths, as much as hearsay. I often lurk on a forum that deals with relationship issues, and I hear this kind of stuff as people's personal experiences all the time there.

I'm sure you, as well as most other women, like sex at least as much as men do. But the question is, are you as desperate to get it as men are? I don't know, maybe some are, even if it's hard as hell to notice from a man's point of view. But it doesn't really matter in respect of this debate. We seem to agree that talking, not divorce, is the preferable solution to a great deal of marital problems. Right?

You say that you're aware that both will get those feelings from time to time, yet you keep assuming that one would be hurt if the other admitted to them. Why?
I know those feelings will be there, and I know some couples decide not to act on them. Does that include not talking about them either?
I might be rather naive here, but what is the point of having a relationship when I cannot talk about my feelings with my partner?

I'm not saying that admitting to the feelings hurts, although it can, depending on the other person. What might hurt more is if the person with the feelings actually considered doing something according to the feelings, and made his intentions clear by asking permission. Of course, cheating without asking would be worse, but still, it's indirectly telling that the partner isn't enough for the person.

And I'm not saying that people shouldn't talk about those feelings. I'm saying that if those feelings are not compelling them into action, I understand if some people chose not to possibly upset their relationship for no gain with it.

I'm not saying that a marriage is unfixable if one of the partners has those feelings. I'm saying that if their love for their partners doesn't stop them from going behind their backs and cheat on them, a law won't either.

Maybe not, hard to tell really. After all, people are so different from each other. But at least making cheating illegal would allow cheaters to be treated with the contempt they deserve.

In other words, you haven't, and won't bother. That's OK, I don't mind repeating myself.

Just because something is against the law, it doesn't mean you go to jail or get killed for doing it. I also never supported these forms of penalty for this issue. My suggestion was to give the adulterer a severe disadvantage in divorce proceedings whenever there is no marriage settlement, and the property would otherwise be split in the middle.

Surely that wouldn't suddenly stop people from screwing around, but I believe it would be a major deterrent.

Oh? So I should go back a page and read a post when you're not willing to do the same? Why?

And that's already the case in some places I think. Adultery is already grounds for divorce almost everywhere, should the cuckolded spouse choose to file for one. While what you suggest may work for many cases, a significant amount of situations are more complicated than that. Most things involving love and relationships tend to be a bit complicated.

I don't think the law should get involved in adultery to any great extent, it's really the business of the individuals involved.

Since marriage (in the west at least) is legally treated as a civil contract between two people, adultery should be treated just as any other breach of contract would in a paticular jurisdiction/circumstance.

Since marriage (in the west at least) is legally treated as a civil contract between two people, adultery should be treated just as any other breach of contract would in a paticular jurisdiction/circumstance.

Only if the contract spells out that having sex with someone else is against the conditions of the contract.
Which the civil contract doesn't, as far as I'm aware.

Right. Sorry, my mistake. I've tried to keep those terms straight, so I hope one slip is forgivable?


Sure


I wouldn't say social myths, as much as hearsay. I often lurk on a forum that deals with relationship issues, and I hear this kind of stuff as people's personal experiences all the time there.

I'm sure you, as well as most other women, like sex at least as much as men do. But the question is, are you as desperate to get it as men are? I don't know, maybe some are, even if it's hard as hell to notice from a man's point of view. But it doesn't really matter in respect of this debate. We seem to agree that talking, not divorce, is the preferable solution to a great deal of marital problems. Right?

You mean, would I be willing to pay for sex? I have done so in the past, yes.
And from my experience, that's more than most men would be willing to do.
Women and men don't differ physically this much, and both have a strong sex drive. The only difference is their social conditioning. Men are encouraged to be sexual, to look for sex, to have a lot of sex. Women are discouraged to act in the same way. Women get taught from the very start that men take sex and women give sex. They are taught that to give sex without getting anything in return is cheap, that they will be regarded as sluts if they give sex away for free, and as whores if they take money for it.
Socially, having sex is a whole lot more complicated for women than it is for men, so women will go to much greater length to disguise their feelongs and needs, they will be much more careful not to be found out, they won't boast with their friends if they did cheat on their husbands, etc.


I'm not saying that admitting to the feelings hurts, although it can, depending on the other person. What might hurt more is if the person with the feelings actually considered doing something according to the feelings, and made his intentions clear by asking permission. Of course, cheating without asking would be worse, but still, it's indirectly telling that the partner isn't enough for the person.

And I'm not saying that people shouldn't talk about those feelings. I'm saying that if those feelings are not compelling them into action, I understand if some people chose not to possibly upset their relationship for no gain with it.


I wasn't talking about asking permission, I was talking about admitting to one's feelings. If both agree that they couldn't live with the other cheating, they both need to be aware if there is a danger that that might happen.


Maybe not, hard to tell really. After all, people are so different from each other. But at least making cheating illegal would allow cheaters to be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Rrrright... because breaking the law will get you bad treatment.
Ever had a speeding ticket? Yes? Did that get you disgusted looks? Cause it definitely doesn't here. There are plenty of people who'll boast about getting one, and not just teenagers, either.

What do you mean, should it be legal? It IS legal, and it should stay legal.

My BF and I are planning on commiting it regularly, once we're married.*shudders* That's what my grand parents did. They even talked about it afterwards. I think it was some sort of competition as to who was the best seducer.

My mum objected when my dad tried to do the same thing though.

Oh? So I should go back a page and read a post when you're not willing to do the same? Why?

1) I did, and I believe I replied to your points in this post you're quoting, well enough.
2) You accuse me of implying things that, if you read my post, you'd know I'm clearly not supporting. I did no such thing to you.

And that's already the case in some places I think. Adultery is already grounds for divorce almost everywhere, should the cuckolded spouse choose to file for one. While what you suggest may work for many cases, a significant amount of situations are more complicated than that. Most things involving love and relationships tend to be a bit complicated.

I don't think the law should get involved in adultery to any great extent, it's really the business of the individuals involved.

Sure it's grounds for divorce. Actually, I don't think you even need any grounds for a divorce in most non-catholic Western countries. I'd just like to have the adulterer slapped with some kind of penalty in the divorce proceedings and the division of joint property, for causing the divorce in such a way.

My system does offer a lot of room for negotiation. First of all, the couple would still not be required to get a divorce. A prenuptial agreement would supersede this law. This system would only provide support for the cheated party, if they can't come to friendly agreement on their own. I don't see a reason to treat the two parties as equals, because nobody forced the adulterer into doing it.

You mean, would I be willing to pay for sex? I have done so in the past, yes.
And from my experience, that's more than most men would be willing to do.
Women and men don't differ physically this much, and both have a strong sex drive. The only difference is their social conditioning. Men are encouraged to be sexual, to look for sex, to have a lot of sex. Women are discouraged to act in the same way. Women get taught from the very start that men take sex and women give sex. They are taught that to give sex without getting anything in return is cheap, that they will be regarded as sluts if they give sex away for free, and as whores if they take money for it.
Socially, having sex is a whole lot more complicated for women than it is for men, so women will go to much greater length to disguise their feelongs and needs, they will be much more careful not to be found out, they won't boast with their friends if they did cheat on their husbands, etc.

Ah, but how many women pay for sex, compared to the amount of men, who do? Then how is paying defined? If I take a girl to an expensive restaurant and pay for both of us, that could be considered paying for sex, because I will be expecting something in return. I've never actually paid for sex, but have nothing against it either.

And I never claimed that the difference was biological. Yes, women are programmed into their behavior, but that changes very little outside the woman's head.

I wasn't talking about asking permission, I was talking about admitting to one's feelings. If both agree that they couldn't live with the other cheating, they both need to be aware if there is a danger that that might happen.

So we're talking about different things, then. If the feelings are powerful enough to cause a danger of cheating, then the other should know, of course. That's what I meant when I said "if those feelings are not compelling them into action". Whenever I leave my apartment, I see literally dozens of very attractive women everywhere, but that doesn't mean I'd go and have sex with them given the opportunity. (Actually it does, because I'm single and therefore have no reason not to, but my point is that most people have enough will power to keep their pants on if necessary.) Being attracted to other people doesn't automatically mean that there's a risk of adultery.

Rrrright... because breaking the law will get you bad treatment.
Ever had a speeding ticket? Yes? Did that get you disgusted looks? Cause it definitely doesn't here. There are plenty of people who'll boast about getting one, and not just teenagers, either.

Actually no, I've never gotten a speeding ticket. I obey the speed limit, as well as other traffic regulations.

My wording might have been poor. I didn't mean bad social treatment by peers, but rather the inequal treatment in divorce proceedings, which I've been advocating all the time here. I think I explained it better in my previous reply to Callisdrun.

Actually no, I've never gotten a speeding ticket. I obey the speed limit, as well as other traffic regulations.

My wording might have been poor. I didn't mean bad social treatment by peers, but rather the inequal treatment in divorce proceedings, which I've been advocating all the time here. I think I explained it better in my previous reply to Callisdrun.

Placing blame on one of the two partners in the proceedings. But how do you know which of the two is to blame?
Him for going out and cheating, or her for trying for years to force him to do everything her way by withholding sex if he didn't?
Her for cheating or him for spending his nights in front of the telly with a can of beer in one hand and the remote in the other, watching football and treating her like a servant?
You quite correctly pointed out that there are many different reasons for cheating on the partner. Do you think a law that tries to place blame like that is fair?

Placing blame on one of the two partners in the proceedings. But how do you know which of the two is to blame?
Him for going out and cheating, or her for trying for years to force him to do everything her way by withholding sex if he didn't?
Her for cheating or him for spending his nights in front of the telly with a can of beer in one hand and the remote in the other, watching football and treating her like a servant?
You quite correctly pointed out that there are many different reasons for cheating on the partner. Do you think a law that tries to place blame like that is fair?

The ultimate responsibility is always on the cheater, because he/she makes the conscious decision to cheat.

You are correct, of course, that the other person can have more or less indirect responsibility, and it should be taken into account when deciding on the penalty. In legal speak, these are called extenuating circumstances. Sure, if it's decided that the partner was enough of an asshole, it might even be called even. There's no need to make this, or anything else, black and white.

The ultimate responsibility is always on the cheater, because he/she makes the conscious decision to cheat.

You are correct, of course, that the other person can have more or less indirect responsibility, and it should be taken into account when deciding on the penalty. In legal speak, these are called extenuating circumstances. Sure, if it's decided that the partner was enough of an asshole, it might even be called even. There's no need to make this, or anything else, black and white.

Laws tend to have to take things in black and white.
So you advocate a law that would make it a disadvantage in case of divorce to have cheated on the partner.
Will you also advocate a law that will make it a disadvantage to have treated your partner like a servant?
Will you make it a law to disadvantage people who refuse to have sex with their partners?
Will you make laws about who has to do the dishes and who has to walk the dog?
It's pointless legislation, and would only be an additional burden on divorce courts. The only positive purpose of such laws would be to make lawyers richer.

snip
I may be naïve as you say, but I don't think that most of those problems couldn't be solved by talking (and, perhaps, losing some weight).
snip

*roflmao*

I see.....if everybody was thin then nobody would commit adultery and all marriages would be happy and fulfilled and life would be beautiful all the time!

I now know the secret to all the worlds ills! AND why Posh Spice is so thin! of course...David would never leave her for another woman now!

Maybe we should all lose weight for world peace and talk about sex with other people? or talk about losing weight whilst having sex with other people?

I of course, couldn't possibly comment, as I had fantastic, loud, down right dirty, swinging from the light fitting monkey sex with another man whilst I was married....so I will be quiet now.

Oh god! Adultery is soooo evil! It should be punishable by death because only animals do it and when you do it you are degrading yourself to an animal and should be shot immediately! Also it's very painful to the other half! Did you know that if your partner cheats you enough, your arm falls off? And it gets even worse! :eek:
Oh, come on! Be a little sane here, would you? Adultery is very natural! There is nothing bad in it! (Well, except for the risks that it involves, ie. unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.) The only thing that makes it "oh so evil!" is that the Christians made it look that way a long time ago (with their "marriage is sacred! so sacred that you can even have sex in it once in a while").
So I say have sex with anyone you want to! Although it's better if you tell your partner about it (mainly because of the risks involved but also because you don't want him/her to think you are a liar - because let's face it! Would you rather be with an adultering person or a dishonest person?). People should just talk more.

Laws tend to have to take things in black and white.
So you advocate a law that would make it a disadvantage in case of divorce to have cheated on the partner.
Will you also advocate a law that will make it a disadvantage to have treated your partner like a servant?
Will you make it a law to disadvantage people who refuse to have sex with their partners?
Will you make laws about who has to do the dishes and who has to walk the dog?
It's pointless legislation, and would only be an additional burden on divorce courts. The only positive purpose of such laws would be to make lawyers richer.

Meh. Might make people work harder for their relationships, and lawyers have to eat too.

What do you think about adultery? Should it be legal? If not, what do you think the punishment should be?

I think adultery is best left to the adults, and childery is best left to the children, myuuckyuckyuck!

*roflmao*

I see.....if everybody was thin then nobody would commit adultery and all marriages would be happy and fulfilled and life would be beautiful all the time!

I now know the secret to all the worlds ills! AND why Posh Spice is so thin! of course...David would never leave her for another woman now!

Maybe we should all lose weight for world peace and talk about sex with other people? or talk about losing weight whilst having sex with other people?

I of course, couldn't possibly comment, as I had fantastic, loud, down right dirty, swinging from the light fitting monkey sex with another man whilst I was married....so I will be quiet now.

:rolleyes:
A vast majority of women, who were thin at the time of getting married, gain a lot of weight quickly afterwards, or at least after their first child. This is a major source of grievance for married men, although I don't know how much it contributes to adultery rates.

:rolleyes:
A vast majority of women, who were thin at the time of getting married, gain a lot of weight quickly afterwards, or at least after their first child. This is a major source of grievance for married men, although I don't know how much it contributes to adultery rates.
If that is true, then I think the best possible thing that could be done is for those women to immediately divorce the assholes who think her weight justifies his infidelity.

ESPECIALLY if she gained the weight due to PREGNANCY. She did 100% of the physical work of making your kids, and now you're gonna tell her that it's her job to maintain a sufficiently fuckable appearance in order to keep you from sneaking around and cheating on her?

Guy like that is worthless as a partner , a husband, and a father. Best thing for her and her kids would be to get rid of him, pronto.

If that is true, then I think the best possible thing that could be done is for those women to immediately divorce the assholes who think her weight justifies his infidelity.

ESPECIALLY if she gained the weight due to PREGNANCY. She did 100% of the physical work of making your kids, and now you're gonna tell her that it's her job to maintain a sufficiently fuckable appearance in order to keep you from sneaking around and cheating on her?

Guy like that is worthless as a partner , a husband, and a father. Best thing for her and her kids would be to get rid of him, pronto.

Yeah I tell me wife that every day, 'don't you get fat on me girl' Hehh she just ignorese me, or even better slaps me:eek: