Should adultery be re - criminalized?

[SlowFJH]

There's been a plethora of threads from OW in recent days. The general feeling on MN seems to be "cheating is always wrong". Yet most "civilised" countries have removed "Thou shalt not commit adultery" from their statute books many years ago. Was this a mistake?

Of course in those same countries it is still a legitimate grounds for divorce.

Hiya Offred..
I am going to do my best to clarify my position for you..

Your challenge (repeated ad nauseam) "Just explain why you think cheating is not wrong"

Because I happen to disagree with your assertion "Affairs are always morally wrong " this does not mean I automatically believe the diametric opposite.... "cheating is [therefore always] not wrong".

It is possible to have a position that is more in the realm of "I just don't know for sure" and "It all depends".

Perhaps they'll teach you that in the fourth year of your law course assuming they let you progress further... or perhaps they'll continue to charge their exorbitant tution fees regardless

For me to say "cheating is not wrong" It. Would. Be. Another. Moral. Absolute.

I. Do. Not. Feel. Qualified. Or. Able. To. State. Moral. Absolutes. Because. I. Am. Not. God.

Do. You. Get. That?

N3w
"How would anyone prove adultery had taken place?"

Just read every other thread in the Relationship section of MN. Mobile phone records would appear to be the most cost effective and efficient means of gathering evidence.

• For any latecomers to this thread, I want to clarify that I do NOT support the recriminalization of adultery. It would be a bad idea IMO.

You do know that undergraduate degrees last 3 years?

Anyway, I'm aware you don't think cheating is always right.

I'm asking you to elaborate why you disagree with other people feeling it is always wrong... When you think it is right?

And texting/calling someone is not necessarily evidence of sexual activity.

I'm still at a loss as to why you posted this thread if it was not about snugging regarding your moral standards being better than your perception of the "General MN consensus"...

Your comments, such as So I am irritated. Because this is irritating (see 14:41 from 3rd Jan) just about sum up the clarity, persuasiveness, power and indisputable logic of your arguments.

In many countries it takes more than three years to qualify in law. Clearly though - there is nothing more anyone could teach you. You are more clear of your own moral high horse position than God.

Good luck with paying off your student loan. If your contributions to this thread are anything to go by, I am sure job offers from the top legal firms will come flooding in.

Lovely.

I. Am. In. No. Position.To. Dictate. To. Anyone. Else. What. Is. Right. Or. Wrong. Morally.

I can disagree. I can state my preferences.

Have a .

What does "snugging regarding" mean?

What does mean? Is it code for I'm flouncing?

Slow your 23:08 comments were really really nasty. Totally uncalled for.

You totally deserved that for that and played straight into offred's hands when she's said you have failed to back up your assertions.

And FYI a is mn shorthand for "you're being a twat".

Point taken. My apologies Offred.

OP is clearly having a wank of some sort. Laws were/are made according to the moral values of the people in power, which initially focussed on the idea that women (and children) were the property of men, and that those who had amassed a certain amount of property (whether in terms of other human beings or in terms of land) were entitled to keep it, defend it with violence and take ownership of the people who happened to be living on it. The core of human morality is basically about not being too shitty to other people because then they won't be too shitty to you.

YY SGB.

I also agree with that SGB. That's a nice way of summing up the Golden Rule (Do unto others.. as you would have others do unto you) ..

Apologies again Offred. I take my

The laws to give women the vote were passed after great struggle and changes in the broadly held values and beliefs of the early 20th century. Churchill and others like him were vehemently opposed to women's suffrage. I don't believe the argument was won and a new (better) law passed by the complete separation of moral considerations (counter to "The. Law. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Morality.")

The legal arguments in favour of continuing slavery in the British Empire made extensive use of Biblical references. They argued that not even Jesus himself spoke out against slavery so it should continue. The American Civil War was fought on this very issue.

In the British Empire enough voices influenced the generally held values and beliefs of the time to persuade enough people to accept that slavery was a pretty shitty way to treat a fellow human being. Even though Jesus didn't condemn it specifically.

Again I don't think this could have been achieved without a moral consideration.

So the laws of the land tend to reflect and legislate "the morality" of any particular era.

"Affairs are always morally wrong" (Offred 2nd Jan).

Here's why I personally disagree.

A very good friend of mine (and former boss) was brought up in a strict devout Christian family. When her mum was in her late 40's, the mum was finally able to come to terms with the fact that she had always been a lesbian. She (the mum) would most likely have continued living her lie had it not been for the fact that a close friendship with a female friend turned into a sexual affair. This happened while she was still married and unbeknownst to her husband.

The whole experience caused untold physical, emotional and financial "harm" to all parties concerned and their extended families (all over the world). My friend was still attending a strict Christian school and was bullied mercilessly. She herself believed for many years that her mum was going to go to hell.

Despite the fact that the whole incident caused untold harm (at the time), I cannot say it was "morally wrong" for my friend's mum to have acted as she did.

For this reason, I do not agree with the statement "Affairs are always morally wrong"

The most I could say is "Affairs might be wrong some of the time, but it all depends on the situation."

I don't understand;

A. Why you didn't just say that pages ago,

B. Why you didn't start the thread saying that that is your issue (that you disagree with the idea that cheating is always wrong),

C. Why you are affected in any way by other people having moral standards which are different to yours,

D. Why you needed a whole new thread criticising the general consensus, as you perceive it, on MN re cheating rather than just making a contribution on the cheating threads.

All quite strange and goady.

And I don't agree with that interpretation of the history of women's rights or slavery etc. clearly.

Thinking about this thread, something has occurred to me. I think that if you have a civil ceremony and don't swear anything about foresaking all others and decide mutually to have an open marriage with both couples having extra-marital liaisons, then it's still possible for one party to effectively renege on the deal and sue for a quicky divorce on grounds of adultery (although there is a time limit so if you've been aware of the adultery for 6 months without taking action then you're time-barred).

Not really relevant to the OP's dubious argument but interesting I thought.

So, no-one thinks adultery should be criminalsed.

Obviously 'adultery' always takes place in a context and may even be directly or tacitly condoned . The view of the outsider has no currency in what passes within a consenting adult relationship, let alone the state.

Offred re the law on slavery
I'm not clear actually. You don't think the impetus for a change in the law came from people who challenged something that had previously been morally acceptable?

What are disagreeing with?

Blu

I would agree 100% with a slightly condensed wording of your post:

Obviously 'adultery' always takes place in a context. The view of the outsider has no currency in what passes within a consenting adult relationship, let alone the state

I am slightly less sure about the part about "directly or tacitly condoned"

Did you see The Theory of Everything? Some people live happily non-nuclear lives. Is it Tilda Swinton who lived for a while with both the father of her children and her more recent partner, all at the same time?

But I agree, the main point is the point of principle, as you emphasise in the shortened version of my post. What people do with that freedom
And privacy is up to them.

Yes I think that's a far more realistic position than "Affairs are always morally wrong".