Does anyone think that having an affare should be a crime?

[Wanttofly]

It used to be and still is in many countries.

If you stand up and say vows and then lie to the other person and have sex with someone else why is it ok?

The affare hurts the other person more than someone steeling their stuff or taking a car and that is a crime.

So why is it not a crime to break up a family, to make children grow up with only one pereant?

When did it become ok to have an affare?

Sorry for spelling i'm dyslexic

So how is divorce handled NOW (directed to stubbornhubby but don't mind who answers)?

Doesn't adultery come into it at all?

In England and Wales, you can only divorce if you have been married for at least one year. There is only one basic ground for divorce: the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. You can prove irretrievable breakdown by establishing one or more of the following 'facts' for divorce:

Fact A. Adultery

You must prove that, either through actual admission or through sufficient circumstantial evidence, your spouse has had sexual intercourse with another person of the opposite sex and that you find it intolerable to live with your spouse. If a sexual liaison short of sexual intercourse has taken place, it's suggested that the unreasonable behaviour ground is used.

You can name the other person involved as a co-respondent but this isn't essential and can have serious consequences. Doing so can make the divorce proceedings more acrimonious, more complicated and more drawn out. It's, therefore, usually best to avoid naming a co-respondent. If you wish to name the other person in your divorce proceedings, you should take legal advice before doing so.

Adultery can be used as the basis for a divorce petition, whether you and your spouse are still living together or there has been a separation, but, in either case, not more than six months must have elapsed since you became aware of the adultery before the divorce petition is sent to the court.

Fact B. Unreasonable behaviour

You must show that your spouse has behaved in such a way that you cannot reasonably be expected to live with them. Unreasonable behaviour is now the most common fact on which to prove the ground for divorce in England and Wales. In an unreasonable behaviour divorce petition, the petitioner sets out a number of allegations against the respondent.

These allegations might include references to excessive drinking or financial extravagance, for example; but it's worth bearing in mind that the court doesn't insist on really severe allegations of unreasonable behaviour in order to grant a divorce. Relatively mild allegations, such as devoting too much time to a career, having no common interests or pursuing a separate social life may well suffice. Using mild allegations may also make it easier to agree a divorce petition with your spouse in advance.

Fact C. Desertion

Where your spouse deserted you without your consent for a continuous period of at least two years; this fact is almost never used.

Fact D. 2-year separation

By consent, you and your spouse have been living apart for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition and you both agree to a divorce.

Fact E. 5-year separation

You and your spouse have been living apart for at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition. In this instance, your spouse doesn't have to consent to the divorce.

Zazen, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression Tibetan women marry multiple partners because they marry all the brothers in a family. This is so that the property of the husband is always kept within the family line. I believe it is true to say that they sleep with all their husbands 'in turn' so that paternity is never known 100%, other than the fact that any children are reckoned to belong to the family one way or another. I think this is somewhat different than choosing to have multiple partners and having a choice in who they are.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Well, that's pretty comprehensive. Ta!

Seems to me that marriage is not a private matter at all!
(Nor should it be, though- if a couple don't want to involve the law in any subsequent relationship breakdown, they shouldn't make an announcement that they do by standing up in front of witnesses and signing a contract of marriage).

OLKN: Interesting points, but I guess the overall point is that criminal elements do exist in principle in adultery. Intention to deceive and/ or defraud is generally regarded as criminal, although each case depends on the facts.

We do, incidentally, criminalise many activities which do not contain individually criminal elements, both blackmail and prostitution (amongst others) being paradigmatic crimes in this context (i.e. in the case of blackmail, there is nothing wrong with passing on information about a person, nor is there anything wrong with asking a person for money, but combining them creates an offence).

This incidentally also kind of negates the idea that we don't criminalise 'immoral' activities just because they're 'immoral. We very clearly do.

Prostitution isn't a criminal offence. Soliciting is, as is controlling prostitution/running a brothel but two (or more) consenting adults exchanging cash for sex is a legal activity in the UK atm.

Total strawman.

Having an affair isn't 'ok'. It has huge ramifications and major fallout for all concerned.

The opposite of illegal is not 'ok'.

If it was possible to legislate against infidelity ie who shags whom, then we could use the same laws to make sure that children were only born to committed couples, nobody could have more then the replacement level of children etc etc.

But the state has no place - and indeed no ability - to tread into those most private aspects of people's lives.

MorrisZapp, I agree that in the case of couples who don't marry the state should keep out of the private lives of couples.

After all, they've done nothing to invite it in, however, if actually married, but a couple have very much invited the state into their private lives.
What do married people think they're doing when they stand there in front of witnesses declaring their devotion to be a couple for life and signing a legal contract?
Marriage is a legal contract whereby it is assumed that sexual fidelity is part of that contract (the marriage provides proof that couple have agreed to be in a monogamous relationship "forsaking all others" etc).
If people don't wish their sexual lives to be discussed in a courtroom, they shouldn't get married.
Sorry, I believe in privacy. But couples give up their privacy to a certain extent by getting married.

Can't make adultery a criminal offence though, that's just barmy.

Look. I've been to weddings, I know the script.

Two normal, fallible adults who 24 hours ago were shouting at each other over where Auntie Lil should sit stand up and claim that from this moment onwards, they will love, cherish, forgive and honour each other until death etc etc.

I think most of it is taken as hyperbole.

The fidelity thing is only one part of marriage - and the rest gets broken the moment they walk up the aisle hissing 'well I can't help it if your family are all alcoholics' etc.

People are people, weddings don't change that, I have found.

MorrisZapp I agree entirely with marriage not actually changing anything. I seriously agree with you.

BUT it is not taken as hyperbole by the legal system. It is taken that a couple actually mean what they say. The legal system take people at their word.
This is why a couple have to go through the legal system to end a marriage.

Is the OP serious??

As if we don't have enough problems with overcrowded prisons already.

And even though I am cynical, some people actually do take their vows seriously. Some don't, I accept that.

I think it should be a crime. Especially when children are involved. If you commit an offense that hurts a mother of young children then you hurt the children.

Girl, can you expand on that.

Do you think that people who cheat should be arrested? Charged? Punished? If so, how?

Also, if it is an offence to have an affair and leave your kids, is it also an offence to end your marriage first (as advised by all on here) then to leave your kids?

In which case, if you have kids does divorce become a crime?

I dont think divorce should be a crime but to lie and cheat and break the vows and there is no punishment, just makes it hurt more. Even if you are not involved but are a family member it has lots of fall out.

op, what a ridiculous question,

and to the view being unfaithful should mean you lose rights to you children.....lost for words

I suppose the punishment really is the loss of the love and respect of all the people you let down when you cheat.

Lying is wrong, but most adults do it on a daily basis. Where would we draw the line.

MorrisZapp Exactly. People are already punished for adultery in the UK. It's hardly shrugged off here, is it? (not by the majority, anyway).

A man who cheats may face the loss of his family, the marital home, the love of a spouse.

I'd say that's "punishment" enough.

You can't make everything a crime I am afraid, particularly not matters of the heart.

Imagine trying to figure out what might be an acceptable defence...provocation, frigidity...ugh, it would make something awful and devastating even more unpleasant...it's bad enough that issues of access to children end up in the courts. I think somethings are best left up to us.

Just playing devils advocate again here MorrisZapp/ marantha.

Loss of family, marital home is certainly not necessarily a fair punishment. After all someone who beats his wife would lose all those and we certainly wouldn't think that was punishment enough. Someone who uses prostitutes would lose those and we wouldn't think that was punishment enough. Someone who defrauds others etc etc.

I think what you're saying is that it is sufficient punishment for adultery but that is arguably a judgement call. After all, if someone doesn't care about losing the love of their spouse and will still have access to their children, that's hardly a punishment at all.

Okay let's look at adultery. It's saying you have had sex with someone else or a romantic affair and as a consequence the marriage is being dissolved.

In adultery there is deceit, betrayal, dishonesty, lack of trust. The adulterer and the partner have to do this as a consequence of their liaison. Who is at the end of all the deceit, betrayal, dishonesty and lack of trust? It is the legally married partner and, if there are any, children.

The children and the partner betrayed will have to live with the knowledge that the person doing this is not the person they thought they were. Bridges are demolished but life must carry on.

The new couple begin their life grateful for the escape but they too eventually must face the consequences of their actions and if children are involved this will happen sooner.

Adulterers can be forgiven but more often than not those bridges demolished are never rebuilt.

I think punishment through legal means is pointless and serves no one, least of all those betrayed. The deed is done, rather like a hurricane that rips through a city, the best thing to do is pick up the pieces and move on. Support and money are needed to do this so I think that adulterers should pay extra to help those they betrayed. But no punishment.

cestlavie I don't think of things like loss of marital home as "punishment" as such.
It's just that marriage is a form of contract and I believe that the assumption is when a couple marry is that it is sexually exclusive, therefore, if a spouse is adulterous, they've broken that contract.
I don't know what the penalties for this "breaking of contract" should be: but if a judge turns around and agrees that the marriage should be dissolved and mum and children remain in family home while dad moves out, then the man will lose the right to live in that home (at least temporarily).

I don't think of this as a "Punishment" - I think of it as an inevitable consequence of marital breakdown. Few people get away unscarred.

Marital breakdown usually means the shit hits the fan, but I don't think the law should punish as such.

Marriage is a matter of civil law, not criminal. Marriage is actually a union of assets, and divorce is a division of assets. It is possible to divorce on the grounds of adultery, but it's a bit silly because you then make the OW/OM the third party in a legal matter, which gives them the right to get involved, argue, delay, fuck you about and all you really achieve is an inflated legal bill and a happy solicitor who has paid for his kids' school fees for the next 3 years. Which is why most people go for unreasonable behaviour, as infidelity also counts as that.

I guess if it was illegal, less people would have affairs but less men would be prepared to marry their girlfriends, who would then either have to not have children or have them but put themselves at financial risk re quitting job, because if he walked out on her she would only get child support and none of his assets, i.e. if they lived in his house she would have to leave it and would have no claim on anything except, I think, 15% of his salary.

What if both parties had been adulterous, each without the knowledge of the other? If one is found out, should the other 'fess up? Who gets the "punishment" (and indeed, the children, the house etc) then?