Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example. — Agustino

I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. There should be a rational sense of proportion in terms of defining crime as a function of pain and suffering. This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury?

We should do a national survey and ask people to weigh which illegal and legal behavior would cause them more pain or sense of personal violation. We will contrast each illegal behavior with adultery. For example, what would hurt you more; someone stealing your wallet or someone having sex with your married spouse, leading to family conflict and trouble? How about jay walking or spitting on the sidewalk? How about breaking the speed limit? One would have to almost reach murder before the scale shifts, yet adultery is the only violation of others that is legal.

If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system. It is not based on special interest groups, such as creating jobs for lawyers and double resource usage needs for merchants.

This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury? — wellwisher

What an unfortunately silly person you are! Silliness can be amusing, and normally I'm in favor of it, particularly where the law is concerned. But one should employ wit when being silly, and wit requires some knowledge of one's subject matter, and I fear you have none in this case. Silliness without wit is merely tiresome, or clumsy in an embarrassing manner. Like Valvert was when trying to make an amusing comment on Cyrano's nose.

Lawyers are prohibited from testifying in any trial in which they are advocates except as to undisputed and unimportant matters, for reasons which I would think even the dullest among us would understand. But, when testifying under oath, they must tell the truth like any other witness. Very few ever testify, unless called as a witness in matters where they're not advocates (when they're not advocates they don't represent anyone in a matter).

As for making adultery a crime, I assume the punishment would involve wearing a scarlet "A"? Ah, those were better times, the times of the Puritans--though certainly not happier. But if the laws are inadequately draconian, not to say Orwellian, for your taste and you seek to legislate morality you must petition your legislators; they might buy it. After all, Prohibition was the law for 13 years (enforceable through the Volstead Act).

I agree with Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others — Erik

It's quite odd, I think, but perhaps the tendency to moralize about and condemn the sexual conduct of consenting adults is merely another way in which those obsessed with sex can safely think about it and express their obsession. A kind of voyeurism which avoids the need to peek through keyholes or windows and may be indulged in publically?

If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system — wellwisher

Your posts are painful to read and probably inflict more pain on their readers than my stealing a stick of gum did on the supermarket I stole it from. If only we had a rational justice system, you would be committing a crime and I'd be chewing on free gum every day with impunity.

I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. — wellwisher

I agree with you on this point. If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. Those who say otherwise are much like the slaveowners, who, attached to their slaves, and not wanting to let go of the power they wield over them, want to maintain an unjust status quo. And whoever says that taking the slaves by force if one must and freeing them is tyrannous, only proves his own tyranny by that assertion.

I think this problem of adultery is, in our day, much like slave ownership was 200 years ago. The root of the problem seems to stem from a ruling class of men who like to treat women as property instead of individuals. Most adulterers out there are men for a reason. And so, they have worked hard to create a culture, and laws, that are permissive of such abuse. Look even at Donald Trump's behaviour towards his wife.

It really comes across as tyranous. — Benkei

What is tyrannous is subjecting your marriage partner to something they haven't agreed to, THAT, now, is tyrannous, and ought to be punished accordingly. If you want to cheat on your partner, then you should never get married, it's very simple. And if you do get married, then you should divorce beforehand. Who is forcing you to get married? Is someone putting a gun to your head? Of course not. So if you do get married and you end up cheating, then you ought to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to cheat either. If you cannot control yourself, shame on you, and if you actually plan it out, even bigger shame on you. There really is no excuse. There can't be, not without claiming that people are not responsible for their actions. If people are responsible for their actions, then they are responsible for this too and should pay the price. If they cannot control themselves, it is much like not being able to control yourself and going on a murder spree against people who make you angry. It doesn't absolve you of guilt.

So freeing the slaves (and they are slaves, since they are forced to bear consequences that they never agreed to) from undeserved oppression is not tyranny, it is freedom. A society of the future cannot accept adultery in its midsts, just like it cannot accept slavery.

Thank you for not replying to my arguments and just giving me more opinion. Let's leave it at that shall we?

Thank you for not replying to my arguments and just giving me more opinion — Benkei

I haven't seen much of any relevancy there.

I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. — Benkei

You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.

I really don't see much of any argument as to why adultery should be treated differently than theft or worse crimes. It's really pathetic to be honest. Look:

Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian. — Benkei

Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? :s Obviously in certain circumstances adultery would receive a lower punishment than in others. Just like some instances of theft deserve lesser punishment than others. But this doesn't change the fact that they should both be a crime.

Then you tell me about your own relationship, which is fine, but again I see no arguments at all. No arguments about the harmfulness of adultery, no arguments about the deceitfulness involved, no arguments about the effects it has on intimacy, children, and the rest of society, no nothing...

You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite. — Agustino

There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like

If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. — Agustino

But I will let you know that that personally disgusts me as one of the more immoral statements I've read on this site.

Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? — Agustino

The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. Also, as with rape and incest, the disapproval, shock and horror expressed by people's surroundings actually worsens how victims can cope with it. The same holds true for most emotional harms. I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with.

The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. Here's some more reading material:

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369

There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like — Benkei

You assert maintaining the status quo, I assert changing it. Both are equally taking a stance / action. I see no reason for there being a difference between us, merely because yours happens to be the prevailing opinion at this historical juncture.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. — Benkei

Yeah, and people have been living with slavery for millennia as well! You should get on with the program.

I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? — Benkei

Well, if the respective woman were to attend a psychologist, they would go through a process which would reveal that the cheating has nothing to do with her - she is not a cause of it nor responsible for it - but rather it has to do with the man and his (lack of) character.

The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with. — Benkei

:rofl:

Just like slavery is what makes us civilised people and superior to the barbarians, as the Greeks used to say :)

The same old excuses that have always been given historically in support of an unjust and immoral practice. Downplaying the pain, telling everyone else to get on with it, it's part of what makes us human etc.

The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. — Benkei

Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. But there is a historical progression, as even Engels illustrates in his book, from promiscuity towards monogamy. It seems to be THE requirement for fulfilment in human beings in terms of sexual relationships and intimacy.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. — Benkei

The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you. — Benkei

Why is "the personal shit" going to be harmful if the underlying action is so benign or trite?

If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. — Agustino

What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship.

One of the 'planks' in the original gay liberation platform was an understanding that a committed relationship is maintained by the desire of the partners to remain in that relationship, not by an externally enforceable contract, namely marriage; and that a commitment to one person as the most important person in the other's life isn't dissolved by having sex with somebody else. What would dissolve it is making commitments to other people that they are the most important person in one's life.

Granted, this was/is aspirational, and the drive for total respectability that led the gay movement to seek official marriage is altogether in the opposite direction.

None the less, many gay relationships were founded on the principle of mutual commitment - with no added legal enforcement, and last/lasted for life. These relationships seem to be a lot like most long term relationships -- not perpetual bliss, but a working through of ordinary problems as they arise.

A lot of gay men enter into relationships the same way straights enter relationships. Regardless of professions of trust, lust, and love no major commitment is made and at some point the couple go there separate ways. That it didn't work out is not tragic and may not even be unfortunate.

What is more unfortunate for gays and straights alike is when a long-term relationship with mutual commitments breaks up 25 or 30 years later. Chances are the cause of long-term relationships breaking up is the withering of interest, emotional elasticity, and things like mental illness, alcohol or drug addictions... stuff like that, rather than one partner having "adulterous" sex with somebody else.

Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. — Agustino

Nice. Real nice.

What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with you. My view emphasises the total commitment that love itself demands from the two lovers for their relationship to be authentic. Namely the willingness to even die for one's partner, a wholehearted giving of oneself to the other completely.

It is in virtue of disturbing THIS commitment that adultery becomes such a crime. It is in light of the failure of this that adultery is disturbing.

In essence marriage is monogamy because it is personality — immediate exclusive individuality — which enters into this tie and surrenders itself to it; and hence the tie's truth and inwardness (i.e. the subjective form of its substantiality) proceeds only from the mutual, whole-hearted, surrender of this personality. Personality attains its right of being conscious of itself in another only in so far as the other is in this identical relationship as a person, i.e. as an atomic individual.

Further, marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — a personality in every possible way unique in each of the parties. Consequently, it ought not to be entered by two people identical in stock who are already acquainted and perfectly known to one another; for individuals in the same circle of relationship have no special personality of their own in contrast with that of others in the same circle. On the contrary, the parties should be drawn from separate families and their personalities should be different in origin. Since the very conception of marriage is that it is a freely undertaken ethical transaction, not a tie directly grounded in the physical organism and its desires, it follows that the marriage of blood-relations runs counter to this conception and so also to genuine natural feeling. — Hegel

So the social commitment, the contractual aspects, etc. those are secondary. The gravity of the offence is spiritual in nature. You can replace spiritual with a Marxian-materialist word, and it will become no less true.

(with regards to polygamy)

I am opposed. Having multiple partners that satisfy different aspects is not true love. True love is in despair: I choose you because I can not survive without. They are in this romantic, monogamous and violent. Love is violence, abuse of themselves and others, is unique. And obscene, today, because the feelings are ousted from a world where porn reigns more and more. — Zizek

You know what book I really didn’t like from this perspective? Laura Kipnis’ "Against Love." Her idea is that the last defense of the bourgeois order is ‘No sex outside love!’ It’s the Judith Butler stuff: reconstruction, identity, blah, blah, blah.

I claim it’s just the opposite. Today, passionate engagement is considered almost pathological. I think there is something subversive in saying: This is the man or woman with whom I want to stake everything.

This is why I was never able to do so-called one-night stands. It has to at least have a perspective of eternity. — Zizek

If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. — Agustino

If only you were in charge! But I think you should consider requiring them to wear a scarlet "A." It far more effectively meets the need of the sexually self-righteous to shame others, and it goes without saying it would go a long way towards satisfying the interest of the prurient.

But would fornication be a necessary condition of the crime of adultery? What if a married person spent an inappropriate amount of time with someone not his/her husband or wife, but didn't engage in sexual intercourse with them? What if they just "made out"? Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? Proving actual copulation may be difficult. What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant?

You have to think this out, you see, if you really want to do the job right.

:vomit:

marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — Hegel

Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Hegel did this? What did Mrs. Hegel say? "Don't believe everything my husband says."

Are you ready to surrender your personality? If so, please do so at our earliest convenience.

Look guys, I found Agustino's twitter account

Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes kissing on the mouth + sexts would still consist in adultery. Though obviously less severe than if it's a 6-month long affair that involved everything for example, including hotel bookings and the like.

Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? — Ciceronianus the White

No.

What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant? — Ciceronianus the White

Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.

I know what you're trying to say. Too hard to prove. I don't buy it. We can easily prove such things, there is always a trail left. So those people who try to say that it's too difficult to prove, really have no idea how the police (not even mentioning secret services now) work. And especially when dealing with regular folk, who would leave so much evidence behind anyway, it's really not difficult at all. Especially with modern technology.

So I think that we definitely have what it takes to do the job well, if only there was the will to do it. I see this much like the situation was 100 years ago with slavery. Largely, part of the ruling class wants to maintain adultery as legal, as part of their oppression of those weaker than them who cannot defend themselves.

And look, there has to be a punishment, just like for other crimes. I don't see why this is controversial at all. I mean if some guy steals your car, you want them to go to jail, but if they have sex with your wife, ahhh that's all good, no problem - very strange.

@Wayfarer - actually yes, during Communist times, adultery was punished for the most part, that's why it was very rare. It is one thing to permit immoral actions like promiscuity and not legislate against them, and a totally different thing to permit adultery which destroys families, harms children and spouses, and generates social conflict.

Are you ready to surrender your personality? — Bitter Crank

Yes, in the process of building a family, sure! I don't see a problem with that. Building a strong community of any kind requires some form of "surrender" and adjustment to mutual goals. Don't you think?

Let's see what your reaction will be when you read my post ;)

Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion. — Agustino

Evidence of what, though? It's necessary, first, to define the crime. What kind of conduct constitutes the crime of adultery? What is it that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless you think that standard should be dispensed with for this new crime)?

Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct?

Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.

Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. But if fornication is required:

May the vehicle be searched?
Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest?
If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.?

I envy those who will prepare law school/bar exam questions when adultery is made a crime

Once the crime of adultery is adequately defined, we may consider whether attempted adultery should be a crime as well, whether adultery should be a felony, the range of sentences available, whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment, whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime, and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself.

Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence.

People should get in the habit of tipping policemen because they do a dangerous job for little money. People who can't (or won't) tip should have their vehicles searched fairly regularly.

Codifying laws is a form of blasphemy because it implies that the Bible is not complete. Offending adulterers should be brought to an ordained judge (who should also be tipped). The judge will sort through the matter according to what Jesus would do, which is immediate stoning, I think.

Well, I suppose someone will first have to file an official complaint with the relevant court (sorry not sure about the English terms). The person who files it would have to supply some evidence, or reasons for initiating the case. Then some relevant official will have to decide if the case is worth pursuing or not.

If the case is worth pursuing, then an investigation will begin of the people involved. Phones and text messages will be checked, emails will be checked, hotel bookings will be verified, relevant witnesses will be called to give their testimony, the people involved will be called to give their testimony. Vehicles or whatever may be searched if such is deemed necessary.

Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, for the most part fornication is required. But obviously making out for example, and similar types of conduct would also be considered adulterous.

Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

May the vehicle be searched? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes.

Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest? — Ciceronianus the White

No.

If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.? — Ciceronianus the White

No, only if a relevant court official decides to further pursue the case. The police should only be able to submit their evidence/report to the relevant court, which should decide if further investigation is required or worth pursuing.

Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.

Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. — Ciceronianus the White

So far the police found SOME evidence which could indicate adultery. They have to take a decision if they will file a report for it, get the testimony of the witnesses, and submit it to court, or not. If they think the evidence requires it, then yes, otherwise no.

attempted adultery should be a crime as well — Ciceronianus the White

Depends. I would say no.

the range of sentences available — Ciceronianus the White

4 months to 5 years I would say.

whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment — Ciceronianus the White

You mean after already being punished, as in repeat offences? Yes, I would say so.

whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime — Ciceronianus the White

Same crime.

and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself. — Ciceronianus the White

Single crime.

This is fucking hilarious

I think I'm going to convert to an ancient Sumerian religion or ancient Islam to worship God by having sex with prostitutes and concubines. Then I'll come back and be as draconian and sanctimonious as @Agustino is over sex with just as much religious fervour, the damn heathen.

4 months to 5 years I would say. — Agustino

How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex?

How is imprisonment the lesser evil? Where's the balance of harm and justice?

What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe?

Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others.

So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone.

Why not just save us all time and money and cut the noses off of adulterers? Works great as deterrence, and then who's going to want to have sex with the adulterous nose-less freaks afterward?

Oh yeah, blabbering your mouth is certainly an argument. Again, all those people who just blabber their mouths in this thread provide no arguments as to why adultery should not be a crime.

How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex? — VagabondSpectre

It's not long. Where I'm from, for forgetting to renew your gun license you go 6 months in jail.

How is imprisonment the lesser evil? — VagabondSpectre

A punishment doesn't have to be the lesser evil. That's why it's a punishment. That's why things like PUNITIVE damages exist.

Where's the balance of harm and justice? — VagabondSpectre

It is balanced. Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved.

What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? — VagabondSpectre

Multiple repeated offences, long-drawn out affairs, etc.

Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe? — VagabondSpectre

Irrelevant.

Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others. — VagabondSpectre

So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone. — VagabondSpectre

Nope. This is bullsnit. If I go out on the street wearing a Rolex, I'm not inviting people to rob me.

Let's see some serious arguments if you have any.

Let's see some serious arguments if you have any. — Agustino

Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved. — Agustino

Lots of things very seriously negatively affect other people. When a father goes to work in a mine, or on an extended military tour, the wife and children are very seriously negatively affected, emotionally speaking. While it's true that the actions of others can have indirect emotional impacts on us, it is not always the case that our emotional discontent gives us the right to forbid others from taking those actions. Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely.

The law already provides recourse when the marriage contract is broken, but you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults. In this case, your argument is that the future spouses of these individuals (and they themselves)are being seriously negatively affected by the fornication. Is that correct?

I don't exactly see how such a non-affair actually harms anyone. It's clear that consensual sexual intercourse feels good and has been a natural part of human biology and evolution since the dawn of man; sexually transmitted diseases are a risk but we risk disease all the time in daily life; by driving cars we risk death to ourselves and others, but the risk is not significant enough to forbid the action entirely. Any children that are produced from casual adulterous sex are probably better off existing, and so they benefit much more directly than they suffer indirectly from the criminal sex in question.

Maybe family members would be ashamed of you, but the mob-mentality of our family and our family's cultural values need not be legally binding. Sometimes people and families have really shitty cultural values, and we should be free to seek out our own.

My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Though the idea of other people fornicating might cause you emotional distress, your emotions are for you to sort out.

You don't actually have the right to never be offended.

P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive.

But if we make the comparison fair, if purposefully drop your Rolex watch in front of a homeless person and pretend not to notice, and then come back later and accuse them of theft, then you will have incited them (entrapped in this case).

Let's see some serious arguments if you have any. — Agustino

He who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults — VagabondSpectre

Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral.

Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely. — VagabondSpectre

It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent.

My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. — VagabondSpectre

Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices.

He who has not sinned, cast the first stone. — frank

Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.

P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive. — VagabondSpectre

A needless generalisation, just like the previous one with the clothing. Some women do, some are offended by the opulence. Not all people have the same preferences.

It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex. No doubt that some women ARE like that, but not all. There are many women out there who find it offensive to be looked at sexually because of the way they dress.