Ashley Madison is headquartered here in Canada. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see our current Liberal government prosecuting them or supporting extradition to the U.S. under what would be a law which would in essence be the legislation of morality (and directly contravening the first amendment and our charter of rights and freedoms).

Ashley Madison is headquartered here in Canada. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see our current Liberal government prosecuting them or supporting extradition to the U.S. under what would be a law which would in essence be the legislation of morality (and directly contravening the first amendment and our charter of rights and freedoms). — photographer

That is not the question. Do you think they should or shouldn't be prosecuted, and why or why not? I understand Canadian government may not prosecute them, but that is a different question.

However, I disagree that this is the legislation of morality, as much as it is the prevention of socially harmful behaviour and fraud (yes, breaking a marriage contract, especially if done with intent of deceiving the other - entails gaining an unfair advantage over the other party).

I'm all in favour of prosecutions for fraud, where warranted, but not prosecution for "anti-social behaviour", or a prosecution for fraud which is selective (and motivated by the finding of anti-social behaviour). If you're so concerned about anti-social behaviour you might equally argue that prospective adulterers aren't deserving of protection from fraud.

Keep in mind that adultery, if by this we understand sex outside of marriage, is not necessarily objectionable. Open marriages exist, and in that case, it is clearly acceptable as both parties have agreed upon it. However, this type of adultery isn't the type that my OP was dealing with.

If you're so concerned about anti-social behaviour you might equally argue that prospective adulterers aren't deserving of protection from fraud. — photographer

First define what counts as "prospective" adulterers, and how they can be identified. Second, I don't understand how it follows from my argument that prospective adulturers aren't deserving of protection from fraud...

If there are no prospective adulterers among the membership - people who can be encouraged or enabled to commit adultery - then it is very difficult to see who could be defrauded. Perhaps the whole thing is some kind of relatively harmless social media sex talk game? But I doubt that. Certainly the hackers believed - who presumably had inside knowledge - believed that the members were being systematically deceived. But if you believe that a government should legislate morality, I'm not sure that said government should be much concerned with whether the immoral get their money's worth.

On a side note, I'm having difficulty separating your caliphate from ISIS, except on the basis of tactics.

If there are no prospective adulterers among the membership - people who can be encouraged or enabled to commit adultery - then it is very difficult to see who could be defrauded. — photographer

I argue that most members are/were prospective adulterers given the official aims of the website (to attract adulterers). It would be unreasonable to believe otherwise.

It's not the members who were deceived, but the partners of those members; quite obviously the adulterer is the criminal, not the victim.

On a side note, I'm having difficulty separating your caliphate from ISIS, except on the basis of tactics. — photographer

*facepalm* Yes let's see... what comparison is there between people who want to kill others because they have different beliefs, and I who want to punish those who do injustice unto others, who abuse others, and who deceive others? If protecting people from being swindled, decieved, and abused is what you call being similar to ISIS, then I feel sorry for you.

Also I never mentioned any hacking. For what purpose did you bring that up? We're not discussing the legality of hacking them, we're discussing the fact that they should be outlawed for being divisive, anti-social, and encouraging illegal activity.

Well, you and ISIS both believe that adulterers are criminals; you seem to disagree on the punishment. You both seem willing to brush away the subtleties of the secular notion of law when it suits you. Let's be clear here: only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison.

Well, you and ISIS both believe that adulterers are criminals; you seem to disagree on the punishment. You both seem willing to brush away the subtleties of the secular notion of law when it suits you. Let's be clear here: only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. — photographer

No - I clearly outlined that adultery (extra-martial sex) is not a crime if both partners of the relationship agree with this - in other words if it is an OPEN MARRIAGE. Do you understand these words?
Yes - only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. BUT Ashley Madison encourages illegal activity, and provides the means for people to do so, by providing adulterers from CLOSED MARRIAGES (towards which Ashley Madison is aimed to) both the means and the moral encouragement to defraud their partners and break their marriage contracts, all the while attempting to cover their backs. Is this clear enough for you?

I fail to see why people (just like you blindly do so here) associate sexual morality with religion. To me, it's equally an important question for atheists too. And I count as an atheist in this discussion. Sexual morality has never been a question of God - people who put it in those terms are idiots. It's not because of God that adultery is discouraged, it's because people are in-built to feel possessive about their lovers, and adultery encourages lots of harmful emotions. As you can see - has nothing to do with God. But if there are people who are not harmed by adultery - if BOTH of them are not harmed - then let them have an open marriage, and have as many other partners as they want to. If you don't believe this, perhaps I should teach you a little about the evolutionary basis of jealousy, monogamy, and morality which will justify why most of us find it abhorring if our partners cheat on us, while the rest are a mere deviation of nature.

What is clear to me is that we Canadians make no such distinction, nor is adultery simpliciter any longer illegal in Canada or the U.S.. According to your precepts from your incoherent political thread you should respect our tolerance for adultery in Canada and buzz off. Or you can follow Donald Trump's lead and censor the internet in the U.S..

What do you think - should organisations promoting deceitfulness (think for example Ashley Madison which aims to be a dating website for people already in commited relationships, guaranteeing to keep the identity of their members secret) be outlawed, and people engaged in such activities punished by law? — Agustino

Sites like Grindr or Ashley Madison and a million other sleazy sites exist because pointing-and-clicking adults wish for them to exist. And then too, capitalism reduces everything to the cash nexus. (KM)

True, marriage is a contract, and my understanding is that in the US military, adultery is a violation of military rules -- not that a lot of time is spent on enforcement, but never the less... In the larger civilian sphere, sexual activity is covered by the expectation of privacy, meaning the state does not interfere with (is not supposed to interfere with, anyway) individuals' behavior or activities in non-coercive, consensual sexual activity.

The state has pursued other sites for arranging and facilitating fraud and deception. Both site operators and individual users who downloaded illegally obtained music and video were prosecuted. (All of them were not prosecuted, but some were.)

There is another consideration that would/should/might discourage the state from pursuing sites and participants who wish to, or have committed adultery: a flawed relationship can not be forced to be good and whole by legislative, judicial, or ecclesial authorities.

I much prefer the idea of long-lasting stable mutually agreeable marriages when and where children are present. Parents have a binding obligation to their children, and they (parents) should put up and shut up to the best of their ability. My preferences not withstanding, neither the church nor the state has found a way of making people be good parents, putting up with the deficiencies of the marriage, and shutting up about it, and dutifully and cheerfully doing their duty to their children.

One other thing: Adultery is not unforgivable. Even if it isn't a good idea, the failures of one or both partners can be amended, reformed, and wholeness re-established.

The state of the family as it exists in 21st century America is not good. Many children are conceived and delivered by breeding pairs who are thoroughly unprepared to properly parent their offspring. They just don't know how to maintain a relationship, they don't have adequate incomes or the potential to earn them, and they don't know how to nurture healthy children and prepare them for a healthy stable life. This goes for both the male and the female in the pair.

The more urgent obligation these idiot parents have to their unfortunate children is a far more pressing issue than childless adults jacking their partners around and having extramarital affairs.

The freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority - which goes far beyond an expectation of privacy - is considered by some scholars (rightly I think) to be part and parcel to secularism. Our current PM's father stated it succinctly "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.".

Or you can follow Donald Trump's lead and censor the internet in the U.S.. — photographer

Which is a most reasonable option. You have to keep in mind that with the internet the possibility of disinformation is GREATER than the possibility of information. Hence something must be done to cut out from disinformation, so that the average person can more easily access the real information he is looking for. The average person doesn't have your intellectual capacities nor the time to judge whether information is accurate or not.

What is clear to me is that we Canadians make no such distinction, nor is adultery simpliciter any longer illegal in Canada or the U.S.. — photographer

Why not?

According to your precepts from your incoherent political thread you should respect our tolerance for adultery in Canada and buzz off — photographer

I'm not trying to FORCE you to be different - I'm just inquiring why you are so accepting of deception, treachery, betrayal, cheating, and adultery. It seems quite inhuman to my tastes, but if the majority of Canadian people, like you, have no problem with this, then that is fine. However, Mr. Photographer - I doubt the average Canadian would in fact agree to your immoral and violent animalistic mentality. Just take a look:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/graphic-the-demography-of-adultery

66% of Canadians deny that they would commit adultery if they could.
51% think their partners would NOT forgive them if they did
49% (compared to 32% opposite) would NOT forgive their partners if they did

So the evil-doer and oppressor sir, is most certainly you, who wish to take advantage of your fellow countrymen and are not interested to even listen to what they're telling you. Political correctness needs to go out the window - yes, Donald J. Trump is in fact right.

The freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority - which goes far beyond an expectation of privacy - is considered by some scholars (rightly I think) to be part and parcel to secularism. Our current PM's father stated it succinctly "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.". — photographer

The freedom of the individual to abuse his fellow men and women? If abuse goes inside bedrooms, then the state should get its tail there and stop it. Why are you so afraid? Are you an adulterer?

And there's no need to be ashamed Photographer. When I first started my own business, I had people working for me for disgusting sums of money. I knew it was immoral to pay them so little, even though legally this wasn't a problem (it was still legal). But I still did it, and I'm not afraid to admit it. But I KNOW that it is and was immoral and I shouldn't have done it. But I was too greedy and too scared that I'd fail otherwise. But nevertheless I always knew what good and evil were. It seems that you have ceased to be aware of the difference Photographer - and that is much worse than to have committed immoral acts in the past

More irrational posts. The only relevant question is whether Canadians believe that adultery should be criminalized. I'm not aware of any polling data, but I've never heard or read this opinion from a single Canadian. Canadians do consistently rank adultery as one of the two most serious moral issues in polling. It seems that we are capable of making a distinction between an immoral act and a criminal act.

immoral act and a criminal act. — photographer

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral.

Sites like Grindr or Ashley Madison and a million other sleazy sites exist because pointing-and-clicking adults wish for them to exist. And then too, capitalism reduces everything to the cash nexus. (KM) — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are quite right BC, in this case, capitalism has acted as a means of oppression, that is why government intervention is needed to prevent this.

In the larger civilian sphere, sexual activity is covered by the expectation of privacy, meaning the state does not interfere with (is not supposed to interfere with, anyway) individuals' behavior or activities in non-coercive, consensual sexual activity. — Bitter Crank

What if this behavior is non-coercive, consensual but nevertheless opresses and harms third parties? Do you think it's right if privacy is used as a means to justify oppression? Afterall, most people who are cheated on would not accept remaining with their partners if they knew. Hence, they are being greatly decieved, in perhaps one of the MOST important aspects/spheres of their lives.

The state has pursued other sites for arranging and facilitating fraud and deception. Both site operators and individual users who downloaded illegally obtained music and video were prosecuted. (All of them were not prosecuted, but some were.) — Bitter Crank

This is all good :) .

There is another consideration that would/should/might discourage the state from pursuing sites and participants who wish to, or have committed adultery: a flawed relationship can not be forced to be good and whole by legislative, judicial, or ecclesial authorities. — Bitter Crank

True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it.

I much prefer the idea of long-lasting stable mutually agreeable marriages when and where children are present. Parents have a binding obligation to their children, and they (parents) should put up and shut up to the best of their ability. My preferences not withstanding, neither the church nor the state has found a way of making people be good parents, putting up with the deficiencies of the marriage, and shutting up about it, and dutifully and cheerfully doing their duty to their children. — Bitter Crank

Maybe because people expect too much from marriage... if there was a more thorough going pessimism - this isn't going to make me happy, but it's the unhappiness that I choose.

One other thing: Adultery is not unforgivable. Even if it isn't a good idea, the failures of one or both partners can be amended, reformed, and wholeness re-established. — Bitter Crank

Can - but most people would not want to do this, as it goes against their sense of justice and being done wrong.

The state of the family as it exists in 21st century America is not good. Many children are conceived and delivered by breeding pairs who are thoroughly unprepared to properly parent their offspring. They just don't know how to maintain a relationship, they don't have adequate incomes or the potential to earn them, and they don't know how to nurture healthy children and prepare them for a healthy stable life. This goes for both the male and the female in the pair.

The more urgent obligation these idiot parents have to their unfortunate children is a far more pressing issue than childless adults jacking their partners around and having extramarital affairs. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino

It is interesting that beating one's children (and wife) was once considered private behaviour - as they were property - and is now generally criminal; while adultery was often considered criminal (And still is by the Taliban you so admire,), but is now considered a private matter in the West. But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law from property-owning whites who have reached the age of majority to all. As to the latter phenomenon, the history of adultery - both its definitions and punishments - is extremely complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery .

True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it. — Agustino

Being the pessimist you are, you surely hold to the idea of a profoundly flawed, lying, cheating, stealing, sneaking, and conniving humankind whose very nature it is to be hypocritical: thinking one thing about themselves, but actually doing something quite contrary. Original sin, in other words. In some ways, original sin is the most valid idea in all of Christendom.

It's one thing if people are just too stupid to behave properly. They can be taught, trained, and schooled. It is quite another to have high expectations for people to behave morally -- especially in behavior powerfully driven by gonads which have no interest at all in morality. (A stiff dick has no morals.) No amount of education has ever prevented people from sinning in all of the various and sundry ways to which we are prone. No amount of force has ever worked either in this area.

Had we more leisure, more imagination, more energy, more money, more time -- we'd probably get more sinning done. As it is, most of us spend our days working, striving, persevering -- despite the whole thing being a monstrous hoax, possibly.

And, you know, sexual sins are no worse than other sins. Sin is sin--if that is what we are talking about. All we, like sheep, have gone astray. Your particular sin may not be sexual; perhaps it is related to gluttony, greed, jealousy, or sloth -- I don't know, there are various possibilities. It doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Lust as much as larceny.

Not only is sin sin, but we are incapable of not sinning, Left to our own devices, we will sin. I will, you will, he will, she will. Everybody.

So, apparently there is no hope. But WAIT! Here comes the calvary over the hill, just in the nick of time. Why, it's God Himself! At least in Calvinist theology, we are dependent on the action of God (Christ) to redeem us from the sin we are doomed to commit. We can't help it. Without the intervention of Christ, we are totally and irrevocably 100% screwed. On our own strength, we can not "be good".

It is God's problem. If God decides to save X, Y, or Z from the depths of hell, they are in the Good Grace of God. If God does not so choose, nothing, NOTHING, can help them.

This is, see, a nice pessimistic way of looking at morals and behavior. One can lament naughty behavior, but then realize we can't help it. You can't help it either. If you come off as a self-righteous prick, it is original sin at work and you are powerless. If I come off as a sanctimonious liar, that is my doom. I am powerless.

This is the theology I was raised on, and I haven't been able to rid my self of it altogether. On a good day, my compromise is to acknowledge that people behave abominably, which is most unfortunate. But what does one expect from bright apes, if not occasional lapses into appalling chimpanzee behavior.

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino

No it's not. The legislation of morality is a leftover from an earlier age. Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." Sometimes there is a overlap - most people think murder is immoral in general. Often there is not - most people don't think it's immoral to drive through a red light by accident, but it's still a crime.

In any case, the legislation of morality (especially personal sexual morality) has led to more so many problems that most states have stopped doing it. For instance, adultery is no longer illegal in any state I know about because it's so easy to accuse somebody of it, whether true or not, and the remedy is so simple for those who don't want an adulterous spouse - they can divorce him. Criminalizing adulterous serves no purpose except pandering to prudes.

I find Ashley Madison to be an incredibly moral thing. Your relationship is almost certainly a vacuous sham, you are most likely biologically predisposed to want to fuck as much as possible but aren't doing so for a variety of nonsensical reasons, you're probably unhappy in your relationship, listening to Katy Perry Taylor Swift definitely won't help you but their constantly being spammed on the radio makes you believe certain things are more important than they should be, society frowns upon your thoughts and ideas when it comes to sex, society essentially corralled you into a family unit so as to ensure you reproduce the next generation of labor, you teach your children the same bullshit about love and marriage as you were taught, which, let's not forget, is a huge reason why you are incredibly unhappy in the first place, and you give too much value to what is simply the act of coitus.

Ashley Madison is just a reaction to all this, providing a temporary way out for you and your genitalia.

But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law — photographer

I think spouses also deserve the protection of the law from being deceived (which as far as I am aware is a harm - if it is not, emotional suffering which it entails surely is).

Being the pessimist you are, you surely hold to the idea of a profoundly flawed, lying, cheating, stealing, sneaking, and conniving humankind whose very nature it is to be hypocritical — Bitter Crank

Well - I don't really. I think man is both angel and devil; there's both a principle and source of altrusim in us, and a principle of selfishness. But yes - I think we are bound to always make mistakes regardless of what we do.

It's one thing if people are just too stupid to behave properly. They can be taught, trained, and schooled. It is quite another to have high expectations for people to behave morally -- especially in behavior powerfully driven by gonads which have no interest at all in morality. (A stiff dick has no morals.) No amount of education has ever prevented people from sinning in all of the various and sundry ways to which we are prone. No amount of force has ever worked either in this area. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Had we more leisure, more imagination, more energy, more money, more time -- we'd probably get more sinning done. — Bitter Crank

Definitely.

Your particular sin may not be sexual; perhaps it is related to gluttony, greed, jealousy, or sloth -- I don't know, there are various possibilities. It doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Lust as much as larceny. — Bitter Crank

Sure - but I think the emotional damage done to one's spouse due to cheating is in many cases worse than the damage done by every-day kind of gluttony, greed, sloth, etc. It is the damage that we should prevent and punish, not the sin itself.

Not only is sin sin, but we are incapable of not sinning, Left to our own devices, we will sin. I will, you will, he will, she will. Everybody. — Bitter Crank

Sure - but at least let's seriously try not to hurt others.

This is, see, a nice pessimistic way of looking at morals and behavior. One can lament naughty behavior, but then realize we can't help it. You can't help it either. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the point isn't to lament harmful behavior (such as stealing for example, which still goes on even if there is a law and punishment against it), but rather to prevent it as much as possible and to punish it when it can't be prevented.

Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." — Landru Guide Us

Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society.

Being cheated on - that is probably one of the worst emotional pains one can encounter. I have a friend that I haven't met for a long time, and finally we saw each other now (we live in different countries). She told me that she recently found out her husband cheated on her, and that literarily, her whole psychological well-being has been totally destroyed. She compared the experience of finding about the cheating to the experience of finding that one has cancer. Now to tell me that the state doesn't have a duty to prevent, and if not to prevent, at least to punish in some way the perpetrators of this harm? Yes - it's a duty to prevent people from being harmed this adultery business, much more than it is a "moral" business. And in fact, what is morality, if not preventing harm to others?

I find Ashley Madison to be an incredibly moral thing. Your relationship is almost certainly a vacuous sham, you are most likely biologically predisposed to want to fuck as much as possible but aren't doing so for a variety of nonsensical reasons, you're probably unhappy in your relationship, listening to Katy Perry Taylor Swift definitely won't help you but their constantly being spammed on the radio makes you believe certain things are more important than they should be, society frowns upon your thoughts and ideas when it comes to sex, society essentially corralled you into a family unit so as to ensure you reproduce the next generation of labor, you teach your children the same bullshit about love and marriage as you were taught, which, let's not forget, is a huge reason why you are incredibly unhappy in the first place, and you give too much value to what is simply the act of coitus. — discoii

Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is.

Keep in mind that for Nature reproduction is MORE important than individual survival or flourishing. Hence the most powerful instincts are implanted to assure it. That is why the fires of jealousy are so strong, that is why love so easily turns to hate. You hear all the time about someone shooting their girlfriend's partner because of cheating on him. But if that same person who had sex with their girlfriend stole their car - they would be much less annoyed. Why? Because Nature has put extremely strong emotions to be associated with these sexual issues. That is why they interest us so much. Hence society must be organised in such a way as to MINIMISE the arising of such strong emotions, and the conflicts that they lead to.

So what are you saying? That our society is not organised as best as it could given our natural predispositions? Perhaps. Perhaps men should be allowed multiple wives so long as they can provide care for all of them, like it is in the Arab world. But apart from this - I see nothing wrong with our current system of organisation given our natural predispositions.

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. — Agustino

If you really believe this, your ideal state would be several shades more totalitarian than North Korea.

If you really believe this, your ideal state would be several shades more totalitarian than North Korea. — coolazice

Why is protecting people from harming each other (because immorality means bringing harm to another) totalitarian?

Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is. — Agustino

Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot.

Also, you know, your account of why women are naturally monogamous is actually pretty fascist. Women like to have sex too, and not only for bearing children, and you do know that women can still have sex while pregnant, right?

Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? — discoii

Nature's interest, as I said, is in reproduction. Homosexual sex cannot be explained by this, but must rather be explained by a derivative of these basic principles (it CAN be explained - but I don't see the point of going into it; it's not related to the explanation above in any way).

This argument above also explains why homosexuality is a minority position among men. Most are by FAR heterosexual, or otherwise bisexual (many for cultural reasons, such as in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome)

Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot. — discoii

Sexual arousal is the mechanism that Nature uses in order to get you to achieve its aims (reproduction). Otherwise, how could it get you to reproduce? Of course most people don't consciously desire reproduction, but rather "fun" or something like that. I am not saying that Nature doesn't bribe you as it were in order to get you to reproduce. Of course it does. But people, they are, however, most often unaware of how they will react to different situations that will occur, because they don't have a solid understanding of themselves. Many men don't understand a priori that they would feel extremely jealous if they saw other men having sex with whoever they see as their sexual mate. Their intelligence just isn't strong enough. Once it happens, then they start realising. So they get into all sorts of dangerous situations, because they don't understand the dangers.

Women like to have sex too, and not only for bearing children, and you do know that women can still have sex while pregnant, right? — discoii

I am talking about Nature's interest. Of course women love sex, otherwise how could Nature get them to have it?? Women could not have sex without getting pregnant in the past. Now, man has found a way to circumvent Nature's aims (and even this isn't very successful), as people who repeatedly do this, will reproduce less, and will in the end be replaced by those who reproduce more (Europe's population is declining - because we use condoms and have subverted Nature's interest - not a problem, in 200 years, those who use condoms will not exist anymore - Nature is smarter than us, in the end it keeps us as its slaves, even while we think in our arrogance that we are masters). Man, also because he is unaware of how Nature has made him - fails to realise that, even though pregnancies can be avoided now, this does not mean that sex can be allowed to go on completely free. Why? Because when I see another man having sex with my wife, even though I know she won't get pregnant, I still want to kill him. My natural impulse, which was developed and strengthened over millions of years, is and will always be there. You cannot overcome it. I will still feel terribly angry (much more angry than if you stole my car, beat me up, mocked me, etc.) Of course I may try to control it, but, I may not be able to (and it's reasonable that I may not be able to - you have no reason to expect me to). Nature gave me that instinct such that I would prevent others from approaching my sexual mate. I will go on having that instinct, because my subconscious brain does not understand condoms, avoiding pregnancies, etc. For it, sex = pregnancy, end of story.

Who cares what nature thinks? You're a human. Humans do things that aren't a direct byproduct of the function of human cyclical desires all the time. For example: having sex without intending to reproduce. Your theory has to be able to explain the instances where humans wish to have sex but not reproduce. It currently cannot. For the record, your theory is almost certainly wrong.

Don't you find it interesting that you have this senseless impulse that allegedly was strengthened over millions of years, yet I, also a human, don't care whatsoever if my girlfriend fucks whomever? Plenty of societies historically weren't monogamous, or were monogamous but not limiting in the amount of sexual partners someone can have. In fact, when I was younger, I didn't care whatsoever how many people someone had sex with. I was conditioned to care when the soap operas and music and social symbols started entering my life and my social circle operated under such assumptions.

This is a fact of human life: heterosexual girls tend to like cock, heterosexual men tend to like pussy, homosexual men tend to like cock, and homosexual women tend to like both, and on and on. Except for the unusual few asexual beings, this is an observable phenomenon that neither of us can deny. But I can reject your claim that humans have this strengthened impulse to consider another person as property because... well, Ashley Madison exists, and that's millions of data points to support the contrary to your claim.

No matter how you try to rationalize your fascist views here, it doesn't fit empirical reality. The only thing you can say without a doubt about humans and sex is that they like to have sex. None of that overly abstruse justification of your secret desire to have a women as your personal property, your Excalibur Cock being the one true cock that you and only you may pull out from her vaginal sheath, is really justifiable empirically, whether historically or presently.

Who cares what nature thinks? You're a human. Humans do things that aren't a direct byproduct of the function of human cyclical desires all the time. For example: having sex without intending to reproduce. Your theory has to be able to explain the instances where humans wish to have sex but not reproduce. It currently cannot. For the record, your theory is almost certainly wrong. — discoii

As far as biological evolution is concerned, if I have sex for personal interest (which is pleasure), then its aims are fulfilled. Full stop. Biological evolution has no conscious mind to realise that I could, in millions of years, find a way to circumvent this. So yes - my theory DOES say that men and women love and desire to have sex for fun. However, it explains the origin of this desire - Nature allows this desire because it fulfills its interests :)

Don't you find it interesting that you have this senseless impulse that allegedly was strengthened over millions of years, yet I, also a human, don't care whatsoever if my girlfriend fucks whomever? — discoii

You my friend. But most people, as I showed above, are STRONGLY against adultery, and would NEVER forgive their partners if they committed it. I didn't say there aren't deviations in Nature, which don't fit the general trend. Of course there are. But this says nothing about the natural tendency of human beings. So in order to universalise any element from your personal experience you need to make it fit. You can't. You just tell me you are like this, and therefore everyone is like this. I have my own peculiarities which don't agree with the natural tendency. For example, I wouldn't want more than one woman even if I could. Most men aren't like me, instead they agree with the natural tendency to want more than one woman if they can. For something to be a natural tendency it doesn't mean we all agree with it. Heterosexuality is a natural tendency, even though there are homosexuals (deviations from the natural tendency) out there. Men being polygamous is true, even if there are wierdos like me out there who are monogamous.

This is a fact of human life: heterosexual girls tend to like cock, heterosexual men tend to like pussy — discoii

Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know that already.

But I can reject your claim that humans have this strengthened impulse to consider another person as property because... well, Ashley Madison exists, and that's millions of data points to support the contrary to your claim. — discoii

No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. Ashley Madison is simply a community of outliers (and yes, even a community of 50 million outliers is nothing compared to the world's population of 7 billion).

Why is protecting people from harming each other (because immorality means bringing harm to another) totalitarian? — Agustino

All heavy-handed state measures are justified under the banner of 'protection'. This is what sets the Leviathan going - we ask the state to harm us instead of us harming each other...

Passing legislation on absolutely everything perceived as immoral simply codifies the prevailing norms and replaces individual agency with coercion. Think of the calamity of 1920s prohibition, now apply it to every social ill you can think of. It probably harms somebody to call them fat, or a dirty liar, etc. Would you like this to be illegal? If so, you're welcome to your police state.

No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. — Agustino

Clearly not, since there are millions of users on Ashley Madison, and millions more on other websites that are meant for the same or similar purposes. The best you can do is claim that most people think they do not agree with such things. You can try to find a poll that supports your claim, but it would be entirely flawed since there's the pressure of not being honest in answering said polls. A site with millions of paying customers engaging in consensual sex with people that aren't their partner is a much more reliable measure of people's opinions here.

I find it interesting you decided to remove the part about homosexuals from my comment about the fact of human life. Oh, here's another fact: homosexuality is natural, people are usually born homosexuals, it isn't a derivation. Finally, last fact: your knight in shining armor Excalibur cock fantasies is so Victorian era, your views on sex originate from attempts by rulers to create a family unit and control women sexual reproduction and this is pretty well documented. Almost none of the rulers themselves actually had one spouse, but politically they aligned with religious sectors (morality police) to try to corral everyone else into this nonsensical and completely unnatural sexual arrangement. Really, the problem with people that would never forgive their partners for sleeping with other people is that they have some sort of sexual repression that they haven't yet resolved. Best way to resolve it currently? Sign up for an account on AshleyMadison.com.