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

It could only possibly be remotely reasonable to make breaches of monogamy a criminal offence if you also made all the other Bad Things Spouses Do criminal offences. OK, so assaulting one's spouse is a criminal offence for which one can (rightly) be imprisoned, but how about complete refusal to do any domestic work or childcare because that's the other person's 'job' when you didn't admit that you were this lazy and selfish before marriage? How about expecting your spouse to support you, uncomplainingly, while you fanny around trying to 'get a break' in some dream career such as music or art, but don't actually do anything to contribute to the family budget? How about refusal to have sex, or have children? Or having sex with your spouse when s/he doesn't want you to? Or dishonestly impregnating your spouse or indeed getting PG by deception (saying you are infertile/using a non-barrier method of contraception when you're not doing so).

There are many things that people implicitly expect/hope for when getting married. Love and kindness. Fidelity. Support. Financial backing. Children. All sorts of stuff. My point is that none of this is written down, and if you wanted to take a legal view you'd need a great long contract, legal advice prior to signing it, and penalty clauses built in. Much like an employment contract (my last one was 10 pages long). I'm not sure that's what people really have in mind when they get married, although perhaps it would be a good idea to be a bit more explicit about expectations.

Yes, but family law overrides pre-nups so although they might be taken into consideration by a judge (especially if there are no children)as indicative of intent,they cant be used to override basic legal principles such as the fact that the English legal system does not seek to use divorce settlements to apportion blame/punish the transgressor.

I think pre-nups are most successfully used to ringfence pre-marital earnings and assets.

nooka I think it would be an excellent idea to have these things laid out on paper.
Given that there are a number of things that can end a marriage (according to the law), I feel it's only fair that people know what these are beforehand and agree that they won't do them.

When a person drives a car -they're aware of all the things they shouldn't do to continue being legally allowed to drive it- why isn't marriage the same?

Riven Among half-hearted-get-married-in-a-church-go-to-Church-at-Christmas-not-really-believe-as-such-but-there- must-be-something types, marital break-ups are probably the same as for atheists.

Among GENUINELY religious people, it is probably lower.

I've actually got more respect for the latter.
At least they mean it when they say their vows in a church.

I think they're a bit nuts for putting up with all kinds of s*, but at least they stick to their word/s.

Message deleted

Yeh, off with their heads!

NO. Don't be stupid.

Message deleted

Sassysusan- you're actually wrong there. Personal assets do not legally become joint assets on marriage. Money in a joint account is joint and severally owned- all named parties own all the money (although this has nothing to do with the relationship between those parties. Accounts held in one name only legally belong to the account holder- their spouse has no legal entitlement to it, and efforts to access it without the consent of the owner would be fraud/theft (i.e. criminal).

Therefore your view that all assets become joint upon marriage may be a personal one, but it's not upheld in English law. Married people are still perfectly entitled to hold separate assets.

On divorce, the assets are viewed collectively to determine a settlement, but when there are no children and both parties are economically self sufficient, it's just as likely that the parties may just keep their individually held assets and just split the joint ones.

Message deleted

Sassy your hypothetical case sadly happens all the time. One partner - usually but not always the husband can get completely shafted on a divorce. And lose contact with his children. That is one of the reasons I wil never ever marry again.

Also assets don't always follow the kids. I left with just the kids and some of their bedroom furnture... end of; my xH kept everything else.

Our mediator said I had a good chance of getting a job eventually and as I had walk out, then all he needed to provide was maintenance for the kids until they turned 18...

Maybe things have changed in the last ten years

Message deleted

Depressing that this continues to be discussed seriously. It's an obsession with sex surely.

@SS - everything else was a large house full of beautiful furniture, & money in the bank...
And I partly left because of my personal safety and my mental health.

@AT - not sure it's just sex - being being happy/content with other aspects of life play a large part. Emotional affairs acn be just as strong (if not stronger) than physical ones.

I do believe the mn obsession with adultery "it makes everything else a lie" etc etc springs from a belief that sex is the most important aspect of any relationship.

There is another thread going at the moment about paedophilia and it has struck me that mners are more sympathetic to paedophiles than adulterers.

It's not just MNers, though, Appletrees: the cult of monogamism is everywhere and very damaging. Because, even if you are a person with a rational attitude to this (it's not that big a deal for many people) there is immense social pressure to conform to monogamism, to respond to breaches of monogamy by violence etc.

appletrees , well said. "it makes everything else a lie". That just makes me despair when people say / think that.

The party line on mumsnet about adultery is so extreme.
As SGB says, for many it is NOT that big a deal.
I am very glad to see this viewpoint being discussed openly here.
I am probably inviting a stoning

onedead, I think many do mean it. I think many think marriage is like a magic charm that will make them cease to seek others. Of course it wont

Many others are coerced into marriage by their partner.

And you are right, some just plain dont mean it

Appletrees for me it's less about the sex, much more about the lies. The fact that he could keep a whole part of his life away from me when we're supposed to be a partnership. That's what I have so much trouble coping with.

No, it should not be a criminal/civil offence.