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.

Affairs are always morally wrong.

Some affairs may be more understandable than others and two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry Ziggy crossed. As an atheist did you also vow to a life long commitment akin to "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer" etc till death do us part?

Probably upbringing, to answer the specific question of where my sense of right and wrong has come from.

I can't actually think of circumstances that are improved by betrayal or cheating.

Lem wouldn't you say being abusive to a partner is also grounds for saying the 'contract' is broken so adultery there would be wrong - makes no sense to jump straight into a new relationship from an abusive one and muddies the waters - but not the primary cause of the broken contract?

Nope. Civil ceremony for us but adultery has affected the lives of those close to us and it is important to us. We talked about this stuff.

My view comes from my conscience which has been developed over my lifetime from multiple sources.

I believe cheating is wrong because it causes harm to others. I believe lying is wrong because it causes harm to others. I believe causing harm to others is wrong. Whether I have a partner or not doesn't affect my conscience.

In some circumstances causing harm to others may be the least wrong available option or the best choice. That wouldn't make causing the harm right.

None of this equates to wanting adultery to be criminalised.

Where does that absolutism come from?

It comes from pain OP. It comes from the pain of betrayal and worry about the implications for the future. When people are hurt and scared it is common totalk in absolute terms about those who have caused the hurt.

It would really be more productive if the op elaborated an argument against affairs being morally wrong...

Otherwise what's the point?

I think the question in relation to morality and law is adequately dealt with. People who think affairs are wrong do not think adultery should be criminalised.

I don't think it should be criminalised, but the definition should be widened beyond PIV which it currently is. No Clinton defence and adultery being recognised for same-sex sexual activity.

It is a bit strange that you can divorce for adultery if your spouse is indulging in extramarital PIV but it if they're shagging a member of the same sex or having non-PIV heterosexual sex.

During the hideous interlude where XH and I shared a house while our divorce was going through, XH told me in all seriousness that adultery was illegal. I laughed and pointed out that (a) no, no it isn't; (b) it is grounds for initiating divorce, not for contesting it, so wouldn't be very helpful in preventing my leaving him; and (c) I hadn't committed adultery, so it was all a bit irrelevant really.

Bloody good thing we lived in the UK in the 21st century, not in one of the stricter Middle Eastern regimes, where it's quite possible his accusations would have had me put to death for something I hadn't even had the pleasure of committing. Whether death by stoning would be preferable to being married to XH is another question.

I don't think adultery should be a criminal offence.

I do think that sex with someone else, then sex with your spouse without their knowledge and consent that they have been exposed to disease should be a crime.

I do think adultery should entitle the cheated on partner to an annulment, and I do think that in financial settlements, the adulterous person should get less.

I also think that the gender of the person should be irrelevant in adultery - my (bisexual) husband cheated with men and women.

Abuse and control of a partner are far more morally wrong than adultery. So is leaving your children and then refusing to pay child support simply because you dislike your former partner.

It's upsetting to have a partner end a relationship when you would have preferred it to continue, whether that's because the partner wants to continue or begin a relationship with someone else, or because s/he has any other reason to end the relationship, but everyone has the right to end a romantic relationship for any reason s/he likes. The idea of forcing people to remain sexually/romantically committed to each other for fear of legal penalties is barbaric.

It's an interesting question and it was interesting to hear that an OW had once been prosecuted successfully for 'alienation of affection' (if that's true).

Adultery is devastating for the wronged party but I don't see how you could criminalise it, in a world with so many double standards around male vs female sexuality. I would like there to be even more of a taboo around having an affair, on the basis that it's just better for people to either open up their relationship or call time on it, rather than deceiving their spouse. For many people it seems to be the lies and betrayal that destroy the marriage, rather than the sex.

In countries like Saudi, women are beheaded or stoned to death for adultery ( including where a woman has been raped), so no, I don't think it's a good idea at all!

WRT Civil (as opposed to Church) marriage ceremonies - the set wording on the UK does not make specific mention akin to "forsaking all others".

Did you add specific wording to your civil "contract" making the expectation of lifelong fidelity explicit?

Or was it an "understanding" based on upbringing / expectations as mentioned by PPs... no sexual relations with any other person for the rest of your lives?

If that's in response to my earlier post, I think the post gives you, a stranger to me, enough detail and I don't wish to share any further.

Not necessarily to you Giddy - I am just interested in general. Our civil laws and the wording of the ceremony do not explicitly ban or outlaw adultery yet so much of the commentary here is still absolutely sure that it is always absolutely morally wrong. I don't feel confident to be so sure myself.

You could argue that a religious ceremony is an explicit contract / vow for lifelong fidelity. But I don't see that in the Civil wording (correct me if I'm wrong). So for a Civil ceremony I am just curious as to how two people come to a shared expectation re adultery.

It isn't in the civil ceremony as the default wording. Couples may add vows though. How couples come to a shared expectation is down to each couple.

Law. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Morality.

Do you only consider things that are against the law to be wrong things to do?

If you believe it is not morally wrong have the guts to make your argument.

Stop pussyfooting around and being unclear...

I think most people who have an 'absolute' approach are really saying it is 'absolutely' not on to lie to and betray someone you have vowed to enter into a life-long contract with in which you are both supposed to act in each other's best interests. It's not really about the sex at all.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

BTW For clarification to Offred and others. I have never suggested or recommended that adultery should be recriminalized. I asked a question because I'm interested.

I'm interested how something which was once considered so morally wrong and harmful that it was illegal (in Ireland up until 1976), but now is somehow less wrong (??) so that most agree it cannot and should not be a crime.

What happened to bring about that change and what does it mean for unmarried relationships, religious marriages and civil marriages?

It was considered legally wrong in the past. Not 'so morally wrong that it was illegal'.