should adultery be illegal

moral code to criminal law ?

http://www.loserturdmafia.com/
from JoeUser Forums

presently there is no legal culpability for committing adultery in our 'western' world.

the criminal code of “civilised” countries does allow for legal, monetary, or other compensation for physical or “visible damage”. this extends to take into account “emotional” consequences for a limited number of “approved” pre-existing circumstances (ie: 'victims’ of crime compensation act'; which makes certain allowances for a victims’ mental distress).

in the eyes of the law, an individual is not culpable for any emotional damage they cause, intentional or otherwise, provided they did not break any actual “law”. an action only becomes illegal when it is legislated against and a law is passed either banning or in some other way limiting it’s application to certain circumstances.

so what might happen to the world if our moral ‘code’ became law ?. what if we were bound by legal requirement to behave in a morally ‘correct’ way ?. it has been suggested that the base of a healthy society is the family unit. were adultery to be illegal, chances are it would become paradoxically at once more attractive but less widespread.

if it became a crime to have sex outside of your marriage, or with a person you know to be married regardless of your marital status, doubtless the civil libertarians would cry foul, yet mans’ insistence at exercising his every ‘right’ regardless of the damage to society will ultimately liberate nobody.

fewer ‘affairs’ would lower divorce rates, both by forcing those who view marriage as a ‘non-serious’ commitment to think again before marrying, and by preserving the marriages we already have. fewer unwanted pregnancies would occur, and in the longer term, juvenile crime as a result of broken homes would also decrease.

if facing a criminal charge, single people may think twice before they become sexually involved with somebody who is married. (and the possibility of being charged with ‘adultery’ on your permanent record can’t be very enticing either).

as long as we break no ‘official’ laws, we are free to do whatever we like to each other regardless of the consequences. should i desire, i may seduce a married man, entice him away from his family, break the hearts of his children and shatter the life of their mother.

i may watch young people grow up fatherless, rob the childrens’ grandparents of their presence in their lives, and wreak financial ruin on a man who has built a home and family. i may do all of that with complete freedom, as i’d only be morally wrong at the moment. however, should i do nothing to that same married man but bump his car at a traffic-light, i have committed a crime.

(making it illegal to devastate a family on purpose may even mean we have to jettison some of the other silly laws we have to make room for it. the way we are going, soon people will be able to sue you for clearing your throat after 10pm. but you can still go ahead a trash a bunch of lives, that’s cool).

although ‘adultery as a crime’ could never happen in this modern world, will the taste we have developed for being able to do ‘whatever we like’ unhindered ultimately be our undoing ?.

because sometimes things may not cost money, but everything we do eventually gets paid for somehow.



5,750 views 41 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting post. I love reading your thoughts. I wonder what it is that makes some faithful and others not? We are all faced with temptation to indulge ourselves in a sexual attraction or to create a relationship based on our desire to feel desired or interesting. What is it that makes the difference between giving in to the temptation and choosing to realign ourselves with our spouse?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I loved this article Mumsy, but I'm afraid I don't totally agree with it. I do in a way. For this to happen would ultamately be a good thing, to make people think about other peoples feelings, to not enter into marriage so easily, they are all good things. I don't think it is right to make laws based on peoples emotions though. People can not control their feelings, or their passions, and in cases where it is adultery maybe they should, especially when children our involved. Adultery is not right, but neither is smothering someones emotions. People have to learn from their mistakes when it comes to things like these. The punishments life will eventually deal to them will be far greater than any law, in my opinion.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thought provoking article.


If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?


breach of contract usually carries civil penalties, not criminal penalties, unless some sort of fraud is committed. Brach of a marriage contract also carries with it civil penalties.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this post completely. We cannot be so quick to try to usher in our little utopia; people have a right to make stupid decisions, plain and simple. We COULD legislate that parents have minimum income levels to have children, too...and then we theoretically wouldn't have any children in poverty (because we could take them from their parents as soon as they are discovered). But the longterm repercussions of such a society would be devastating. I cannot see that it would create a more moral culture, just a more hypocritical one.

Here's a thought, as well. If adultery were illegal, it is highly possible that sex crimes and murder would increase. Think of it this way: Joe Blow has an illegal, adulterous affair with Jill Shmoe. Joe wants to end it and get back to his wife and family. Jill doesn't, and threatens to call the police and have Joe arrested. With criminal penalties to consider as well as the loss of family and esteem that happens in our current society, Joe Blow conveniently rids himself of the problem.

I'm not saying this is a necessary end, just one that we should consider before trying to impose a more totalitarian government on the people.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
An argument could also be made that making adultery illegal might make it more attractive to some people, not less. Some people like to live dangerously, and adding a criminal aspect to it... well, the thought of not only getting away with it without their spouse knowing, but without the law knowing would make it an irresistable adrenaline rush.

True, such a hypothetical measure would perhaps stop casual and opportunistic adultery, its true, but in the end, I think such a law wouldn't really make a dent in the incidence of adultery, because it wouldn't really affect the root causes of it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Although I believe in healthy and committed relationships (as I am in one myself), I see a few problems with "adultery charges":

(1) Bringing criminal charges against adulterers would be both costly, and time consuming. As a future lawyer, I always get complaints from people about how lawsuits are overburdening our judiciary. This would only bring a heavier burden, and thus a heavier cost.

(2) Where does one draw the line? What is considered cheating? What is not considered cheating? When can a spouse bring a charge against another? When can they not?

(3) Lawsuits against those who commit adultery would not solve the underlying problem, which is that a marriage is about to dissolve. Often people get caught up in emotion when it comes to adultery, and who can blame them. However, imagine if every spouse who had been wronged by adultery had the ability to seek out justice through the law, rather than discussing the problem with their mate. I am afraid that lawsuits would only be detrimental to marriages, rather than a safeguard against divorce.

At a divorce rate eating at around half of marriages, perhaps we should be talking more about manditory marriage/couple conselling prior to when a couple gets married, thus avoiding problems like this. I am a much larger proponent of stopping the problem before it has happened, rather than after.

Good article. I agree with your underlying argument. People are getting married with too little thought as to the responsibilities a marriage comes with.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
At a divorce rate eating at around half of marriages, perhaps we should be talking more about manditory marriage/couple conselling prior to when a couple gets married, thus avoiding problems like this. I am a much larger proponent of stopping the problem before it has happened, rather than after.


Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gid, I thought about that after I had already posted....duh!


I'd like to stick another 2 cent's worth in here - my husband is a military investigator.  Under military law, adultery (carnal knowledge) is illegal.  Here's the problem:  they have to have either a confession or proof.  So, if they have a scenario where they think adultery is going on, they can't really do much about it unless they catch the parties in flagrante delicto, they have photographic evidence, or if someone squeals. What constitutes 'carnal knowledge'?  Penetration.  'No matter how slight' (see link for explanation)


Link


So, in my world, adultery is already illegal.


 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a thought....could you imagine the difficulty in prosecuting? The US Army has a "No adultry" rule on the books, but the only time someone gets prosecuted is if it is in conjuntion with something else, ie: rape. The logistics in proving guilt is too difficult.
It would be nice if people took the vow (PROMISE) they made at marriage as seriously as other oaths, but I doubt that could ever happen.

PS Several states/counties/cities do have the law on the books, but just like the "no shooting someone in their underwear" rules, it's never enforced.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder what it is that makes some faithful and others not? We are all faced with temptation to indulge ourselves in a sexual attraction or to create a relationship based on our desire to feel desired or interesting. What is it that makes the difference between giving in to the temptation and choosing to realign ourselves with our spouse?


a good question, texas wahine. it was pondering that very thought that provoked this article. thankyou for asking



I loved this article Mumsy, but I'm afraid I don't totally agree with it.


thank's ok, sal. it's allowed hehe

For this to happen would ultamately be a good thing, to make people think about other peoples feelings, to not enter into marriage so easily, they are all good things


i agree, sal

I don't think it is right to make laws based on peoples emotions though. People can not control their feelings, or their passions


sal, sometimes i wonder. people can control their feelings and their passions where other things are concerned though, if those things are illegal. people obsess over material things like crazy, but most of them don't steal because it's the law.

cases where it is adultery maybe they should, especially when children our involved.


maybe if given a legal incentive, sal, they might

Adultery is not right, but neither is smothering someones emotions. People have to learn from their mistakes when it comes to things like these. The punishments life will eventually deal to them will be far greater than any law, in my opinion.


that is also true, sal. although it additionally punishes a entire family and innocent (often young) children in the process. thankyou for you comment, it made me think



Thought provoking article.


i'm very glad you read it. thankyou, dharma.

If marriage is a legally binding contract, why is breaching that contract (ie cheating, adultery) not illegal?


another very valid point. marriage is a legal and binding contract (and a useless one when it comes to looking after it's own vows of fidelity and honesty). so why do we have it ?



I'm sorry, but I disagree with this post completely.


it's ok, gideon hehe !. i'm pleased to have your input regardless

We cannot be so quick to try to usher in our little utopia


can i add that i was trying to be a little hypothetical here, so i don't feel that you (gideon) are actually disagreeing with me personally. i had hoped for any input at all, so please don't feel reluctant to give it. thanks

people have a right to make stupid decisions, plain and simple.


see ?. your diasagreeing with me isn't so bad. that's actually very funny tee hee !

We COULD legislate that parents have minimum income levels to have children, too...and then we theoretically wouldn't have any children in poverty (because we could take them from their parents as soon as they are discovered).


this is true. there are many things we could legislate against if we considered all angles. yet, changing a law in a western country is a much different (and easier) positive step than attempting to change global reproductive rights. an issue, certainly, but perhaps unrealted through it's scale and context.

changing adultery to crime is matter of legislation in western countries. legislating the reproductive rights of the entire world is not an issue i feel i raised or feel able to address, yet thanks for adding it gideon.

Think of it this way: Joe Blow has an illegal, adulterous affair with Jill Shmoe. Joe wants to end it and get back to his wife and family. Jill doesn't, and threatens to call the police and have Joe arrested. With criminal penalties to consider as well as the loss of family and esteem that happens in our current society, Joe Blow conveniently rids himself of the problem.


this is the type of situation i was inferring 'joe schmoe' would think twice about involving himeslf in in the first instance. you are referring to the affair as a done deal turning into a murder (which spurned lovers seem to do sometimes anyway, laws or not). yet i am speaking of prevention rather than damage control. thankyou for this thought provoking comment, gideon .



An argument could also be made that making adultery illegal might make it more attractive to some people, not less


thankyou, historyishere. i actually did make that point in my article. here is the text:

were adultery to be illegal, chances are it would become paradoxically at once more attractive but less widespread.


Some people like to live dangerously, and adding a criminal aspect to it... well, the thought of not only getting away with it without their spouse knowing, but without the law knowing would make it an irresistable adrenaline rush.


agreed, and i also agree with your use of the word 'some', which would mean a minority

True, such a hypothetical measure would perhaps stop casual and opportunistic adultery, its true, but in the end, I think such a law wouldn't really make a dent in the incidence of adultery, because it wouldn't really affect the root causes of it.


this is also a very valid point, historyishere. it would act as a deterent in casual encounters. i do believe it would have an impact on the numbers of 'affairs' as single people would be less likely to be tempted to become involved with a married person, thus also reducing the 'opportunites".


thankyou everyone so much


vanessa/mig XX
"
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bringing criminal charges against adulterers would be both costly, and time consuming. As a future lawyer, I always get complaints from people about how lawsuits are overburdening our judiciary. This would only bring a heavier burden, and thus a heavier cost.


hi, the political machine. nice to 'meet' you. i thought i had the answer to this :

(making it illegal to devastate a family on purpose may even mean we have to jettison some of the other silly laws we have to make room for it. the way we are going, soon people will be able to sue you for clearing your throat after 10pm. but you can still go ahead a trash a bunch of lives, that’s cool).


Where does one draw the line? What is considered cheating? What is not considered cheating? When can a spouse bring a charge against another? When can they not?


as i said, hypothetical. and i'd welcome comment on these points

Lawsuits against those who commit adultery would not solve the underlying problem, which is that a marriage is about to dissolve


in some cases, most definately true. yet in the case of the 'tempted' spouse, perhaps not always so

However, imagine if every spouse who had been wronged by adultery had the ability to seek out justice through the law, rather than discussing the problem with their mate.


obviously no adultery charge would be brought about if the parties had solved the problem privately. the problem which may not exist if it was illegal ?

At a divorce rate eating at around half of marriages, perhaps we should be talking more about manditory marriage/couple conselling prior to when a couple gets married, thus avoiding problems like this. I am a much larger proponent of stopping the problem before it has happened, rather than after.


i have to agree. which was one of my major points. the majority of people do not participate in illegal activites, regardless of how tempting they are. materialism rules this world, yet most of us do not steal expensive items we crave because it is illgeal. it stops us. we know we will get into legal trouble.

if the same detereent were available to potential adulteters, maybe we could prevent some of them taking it further.

Good article. I agree with your underlying argument. People are getting married with too little thought as to the responsibilities a marriage comes with.


thankyou so much, the political machine, for your thought-provoking input


vanessa/mig XX
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly


hehe gideon, i know we have agreed to disagree here, and i thank you for that .

but can i still say that that comment was hilarious !!!

vanessa/mig XX
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I still favor getting the government the hell out of marriage. I don't think it's an area where the government belongs, frankly.


Just a thought, should the government be able to give people tax breaks for being married, then? Lets face it, the government has been, and always will be, involved in marriage. Although, I do disagree with the gov't disallowing same sex marriages...
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, I didn't take the argument personally, mig. I thought it was a very good piece, just not one I agree with (hehe). But don't feel too bad, there's a lot I don't agree with.


this is true. there are many things we could legislate against if we considered all angles. yet, changing a law in a western country is a much different (and easier) positive step than attempting to change global reproductive rights. an issue, certainly, but perhaps unrealted through it's scale and context.


The reason I threw up the reproductive rights issue is that this is a law that does have to do with the lifestyle of certain individuals. There are individuals in "swinging" relationships, polyamorous relationships, etc, that are entirely consensual that would be affected by blanket legislation such as this. While these sort of relationships "aren't my bag, baby" (in best Austin Powers voice), I think the potential harm of such legislation would outweigh the good. There is also the matter of the government legislating what goes on in the privacy of one's home. Numerous violations of individual rights, such as the one I cited, could follow if this legislative precedent was set.

Also of note: In many New England states (New Hampshire being one), adultery actually IS illegal. It doesn't seem to have made a significant change in the morality of the communities.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a thought, should the government be able to give people tax breaks for being married, then?


nope. But then I think the entire tax structure needs major overhaul anyway. Such is the cross I must bear for my libertarian views...lol
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
aarrrgh !. sorry lifehouse and karen. these keep popping up while i'm typing

Gid, I thought about that after I had already posted....duh!


dharma, never say duh !. you don't need to

I'd like to stick another 2 cent's worth in here


go ahead, my lovely !

my husband is a military investigator. Under military law, adultery (carnal knowledge) is illegal. Here's the problem: they have to have either a confession or proof


that's amazing, dharma. thankyou for adding this. i had no idea this was part of military law

So, if they have a scenario where they think adultery is going on, they can't really do much about it unless they catch the parties in flagrante delicto, they have photographic evidence, or if someone squeals.


now this is what i call interesting !. i guess there would have to be a pre-set type of 'acceptable evidence' just like any normal trial. wow. what a thought !. do they actually catch people, karen ?

So, in my world, adultery is already illegal.


gosh. what would happen if somebody did it, dharma ?. hmm. i will follow the link then ask questions !



Just a thought....could you imagine the difficulty in prosecuting?


lifehappens, we were just discussing that above ....

The US Army has a "No adultry" rule on the books, but the only time someone gets prosecuted is if it is in conjuntion with something else, ie: rape. The logistics in proving guilt is too difficult


karen (dharma) had provided a link in her comment above regarding this, also her comments and mine above as well. thanks for adding this lifehappens, follow dharmas' link if you get time

It would be nice if people took the vow (PROMISE) they made at marriage as seriously as other oaths, but I doubt that could ever happen


it is with a heavy heart that i agree with you, lifehappens . thankyou so much for your input

PS Several states/counties/cities do have the law on the books, but just like the "no shooting someone in their underwear" rules, it's never enforced


that's fascinating. do you know which they are ?. thanks again !


vanessa/mig XX
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a thought, should the government be able to give people tax breaks for being married, then? Lets face it, the government has been, and always will be, involved in marriage. Although, I do disagree with the gov't disallowing same sex marriages


the politcal machine, i think that the government will always be involved in marriage. our australian tax system is probably very different than yours, yet i do think any way it can be made easier for people to stay married should be made available. (ie: i agree with government-funded childcare, although i am not a parent).



Oh, I didn't take the argument personally, mig. I thought it was a very good piece, just not one I agree with (hehe). But don't feel too bad, there's a lot I don't agree with.


i was pretty sure you didn't, gideon, but i wanted to make certain. thankyou for your reassurance

The reason I threw up the reproductive rights issue is that this is a law that does have to do with the lifestyle of certain individuals. There are individuals in "swinging" relationships, polyamorous relationships, etc, that are entirely consensual that would be affected by blanket legislation such as this


this is another great point !. this would introduce a "sexual' form of the pre-nup or something ?. there would have to be a release clause signed by the spouses, i guess. tricky !

While these sort of relationships "aren't my bag, baby" (in best Austin Powers voice),


well, i didn't think they were hehe

There is also the matter of the government legislating what goes on in the privacy of one's home. Numerous violations of individual rights, such as the one I cited, could follow if this legislative precedent was set.


yep. as i just said, we have now introduced the idea of the 'sexual pre-nup', with both spouses agreeing to this, or signing a legal 'release' after marriage. ohhhhh.

Also of note: In many New England states (New Hampshire being one), adultery actually IS illegal. It doesn't seem to have made a significant change in the morality of the communities


thanks for bringing this up gideon. i had asked earlier if anybody knew the US states that had such a law ?.

nope. But then I think the entire tax structure needs major overhaul anyway. Such is the cross I must bear for my libertarian views...lol


as i mentioned to the political machine earlier in this huge comment, gideon, being australian clouds me on this one, but i did metion this: ... i do think any way it can be made easier for people to stay married should be made available. (ie: i agree with government-funded childcare, although i am not a parent).


thanks again


vanessa/mig XX"
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm Army too, so it's illegal for us and that's fine by me, especially after seeing the horrendous ways that spouses abuse their marriages during deployments. What kind of assclown runs around all over the place on their husbands/wives, while their spouse faces mortar attacks or combat on a daily basis?

Lack of punishment gives license to frivolous cheating. Yes, there are mature, rational adults, but there are also people out there who'd F*&# their partner over to screw a wet hole in the ground if they thought they could get away with it. It's illegal for us, and that's how I like it.

Now if they'd just make it punishable by stoning instead of lousy article 15s....... I know it's primitive and non pc, but it's me.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

do they actually catch people, karen ?


Yes, but mostly because people squeal.  They're ridden with guilt at what they did and scared shitless because they're under investigation - add to that my husband's persuasive interview techniques and you have the perfect scenario for a confession.  I don't think I've even heard of a case where people got caught red handed (or bare-assed, whichever way you want to look at it).  Here's an example:  the last carnal knowledge case Dave investigated involved 2 nights of surveillance.  The first night he sat on the street outside the subjects house to watch the 'boyfriend' go in after the husband had gone to work.  Sat there all night, watched all the lights in the house go off....and watched the b/f leave at 5am, shortly before the husband came home.  The second night, he watched the same thing, but was waiting outside the front door for the b/f when he left.  He took him back to the station, interviewed him (his partner interviewed the woman involved)...and the both of them confessed.  Done deal. 


I'm with Nobody-Special, I'm glad that it's illegal.  I wish I could show you the things that go on on a military installation shortly after a mass deployment - it'd make your hair curl.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dharmagrl: We have a huge deployment from my base right now - are you telling me there's lots of kinky, juicy gossip I'm missing out on?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The truth is out there.....Find it Scully.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Recently had a gate guard sexually harrass my wife repeatedly at gate because he thought I was away. Started with small flirt, and even though she made it clear she wasn't interested, it got worse to the point that the #&*@$@%% @$$Clown kissed her hand when he gave her id card back......
I started by making a somewhat pointed phone call at 2 in the morning and went from there. Idiot. Don't fool around with your name on your shirt and in the phonebook....especially if you're married. I'd call him more names, but I don't want to insult warm piles of shit by associating them him.
Also don't F@*( with a guy with a two and a half ton, old school mustang when your job involves standing in the middle of the street. Meh.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Idiot


Yep.


Don't fool around with your name on your shirt and in the phonebook....especially if you're married


Yep again.  'Dont shit in your own backyard'. 


 

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow. So there are things going on that would be of interest . . . hmmm . . . My neighbors all sit in their garages and talk all day (well, the evil "Thumbsucker" sucks her thumb, but that's beside the point). I'll bet they have some interesting stories. Wonder if I should attempt to infiltrate their group?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

My neighbors all sit in their garages and talk all day (well, the evil "Thumbsucker" sucks her thumb, but that's beside the point). I'll bet they have some interesting stories. Wonder if I should attempt to infiltrate their group?


NO NO NO!!!   I have members of the same clan living in my neighborhood!!!  Under no circumstances approach them!  They're evil, pure evil, and they will exploit you and your circumstance for their own sadistic pleasure!  Stay away, for your own safety, stay away!