Would you like this to be illegal? — coolazice

Yes, and it should have a punishment according to the harm it causes. Maybe a fine of 5$ is enough for such a simple thing. Or maybe no punishment is necessary as it's taken as banter by the other. Anyway, it should be up to the insulted person to decide if he was sufficiently hurt to pursue the other with legal action, and whether the legal action will be worth the effort.

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 — discoii

Yeah, 50 million out of 7 billion. Great! You proved it to me that they aren't outliers. Because they are MILLIONS!

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. — discoii

There was an option not to answer in this poll. Also answers were anonymous. Again you are spewing bullshit because you're afraid you won't be able to carry on hurting other people in the future. Classic opressor. And yes, a site containing only people who agree with something, is certainly a reliable sample of the population that can be used to measure the population's opinion of that something in question. That's what they teach in statistics 101. Who the fuck are you kidding mate? You don't know basic statistics. Go back to school.

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. — discoii

Homosexuality is a natural deviation of the tendency which exists towards heterosexuality. And yes, people are born homosexual. How does this suggest that they do not represent a natural deviation? A natural deviation implies that among a population of 100, only 1 is, let's say, homosexual. Yes, obviously that one will be born homosexual. But that doesn't mean that the tendency is homosexuality. You can't even understand the distinctions employed here.

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. — discoii

Mate - go learn some history please. Please. This is embarassing. Name 6 rulers who had no spouses. Not to mention that there never was an attempt to control women's sexual reproduction... Only the communists would make you think so. Show me any ancient (or Victorian) first-hand source which documents an attempt by ANY ONE ruler to control women's sexuality. I don't care about revisionist history, I'm asking for real history, factual, as it happened. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what revisionist history is. Being a learned man and an intellectual is not easy. It's not enough to complete school and have a few University degrees mate. You can still be the village idiot, even after you have all those qualifications.

Also, many women in our days support views which call for sexual morality. Look at how many women supporters Donald J. Trump has for example. Sexual morality has nothing to do with whether men and women enjoy sex or not. Of course they do. It has to do with preventing others from getting harmed. Smart men and women realise this. They're not against enjoying sex, they're against harming others while you enjoy sex.

Also sexual morality PREDATES religion, and has nothing to do with it. You don't have to believe in God (like I don't), to press on for sexual morality.

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. — discoii

Ah - the old tactics. You disagree with my views on morality - just because you have a psychological problem. How to solve it? Just do what my moral view demands. Absolute, utter nonsense and smelly shit.


PS: What is worse about the revisionist theory against sexual morality is that it fails to explain adequately why most people are so against it (fails to match empirical evidence). Also it fails to explain even why it exists (lacks internal completeness). Whereas the normal theory for sexual morality explains its existence by tying it in to our biological evolution, which is necessary given the biological asymmetry between man and woman. You tell me people enjoy sex. You don't explain to me why? Why did they evolve to enjoy it? That is why the theory I presented trumps yours, without a shadow of a doubt. In terms of both explanatory power and fitting in with all the historical data that we have (because even if today's society was as you say, that means very little, since for thousands of years society was never like that).

Agustino, If you didn't like Stalinist/Marxist/Soviet/Eastern European style of oppression, believe me, you really shouldn't like the old fashioned, western, Christian, morally rigid, repressive, oppressive, vindictive, punitive approach either.

Lots of people are in a reactionary mode with respect to morality. They hate "old fashioned morality" because it is the cold dead hand of the past. It was inflexible. It was intensely judgmental. It was restrictive, repressive, life-denying and punitive. (It was, and it is. The past is never past.)

What you are objecting to in the Ashley Madison site is the result of a confluence of various developments. Radical changes in the economy have produced a lot of economic instability and a decline in working class and middle class economic conditions which has undermined the family. Upheaval is, surprise surprise, socially disruptive.

Technology (everything from the transistor to the birth control pill) has also brought about destabilizing changes. The internet and the smart phone have created new fields of economic activity. Ashley Madison (for heteros) or Grindr (a hookup site for homos) are examples.

Take Grindr: Feeling the need to get laid? Like some cock? Don't want to go to a bar and sort through the dismal offerings? Your smartphone Grindr app will notify you if other Grindr members are in the vicinity--any vicinity--in the store, in the office, in the theater, in the neighborhood...wherever. A quick check of profiles, a message or two back and forth, and the party is on.

I'm beyond the age where Grindr is going to be of any use to me, but had it been available 40 years ago, I'd have been on it, most likely.

Is it dehumanizing to so-thoroughly commodify and routinize sexual access? Not in itself. After all, people have long used non-electronic means to do the same thing. I used to visit a park which was sort of like Grindr al fresco. Just show up at the right time and voila! Sex.

There are some good things one can say about the old fashioned family and about old fashioned morality. And there are a lot of bad things one can say about it as well. "That old-time religion" was a capable dehumanizer and alienator itself. It was oppressive, punitive, and stultifying.

Some of the benefits that were attributed to old-time religion and family are more properly attributable to economic growth and prosperity. People do better in stable, prosperous circumstances. People with jobs and economic security who see that there is a future in working and getting ahead commit to family creation and stable community. When things fall apart, when the center does not hold, people are reluctant to risk investment in family and community.

It's not a sudden change, Agustino. The changes you are lamenting were in the works for all of the 20th century, and longer. The sharp decline in religious participation began in the late 1950s. By the end of the 1960s the volume of the American religious establishment had been significantly deflated. And the deflation hasn't stopped. You are (un)fortunate enough to be living in an important transition period.

When things fall apart, when the center does not hold, — Bitter Crank

Chinua Achebe and William Yeats :p

Right BC. Unfortunately I am not disagreeing with anything you said there. My point is that some people, those who get married in closed marriages, do not want to take part in this. They want to keep their partners for themselves. If they are decieved and harmed, then they need the tools to protect themselves, and legally punish those who have harmed them. Otherwise, they will take a gun and go out there to do justice themselves. You want that to happen? Violence will always happen when people are oppressed. Right now, around the Western world, there are large masses of people who feel oppressed exactly for those reasons. Keep denying them any possibility to live as they want to live, and in 50-100 years time, their anger will build up, until it will explode in massive wars. And guess who will be the first to support them? The Church, which is still the richest institution out there. Guess in whose arms they will run? The Church. Of course! Because you refuse to care for them. That's why.

I don't see where you can possibly disagree with me.

Not all people want closed marriages. Some do want them. If they want them, and then their partner decieves them, then they have been done an injustice. They need a way to protect themselves or to punish those who have done them wrong. Simple.

It has nothing to do with adultery being morally wrong or whatever. It just has to do with people who are decieved and done wrong. It's that simple really.

Furthermore such people should be treated RESPECTFULLY, instead of with scorn as discoii and other idiots do. Because disrespectful treatment also is oppressive and builds up hatred.

Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality and should screw that Excalibur Cock on the right way and find yourself the right woman-sheath so that you may become one with nature. Remember, righty tighty, lefty loosy.

Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual, and that's a very low ball estimate. Historically, people have fucked both men and women, and there are many, many examples of this not being an issue whatsoever. What you don't understand is that, even if you don't believe there is a God, all your views basically correspond to Victorian era Christian norms and values. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. I'm gonna have to break it to you: you're probably gay.

You might want to re-read what I said about history. I said that the rulers who set these sexual norms and rules, the ones you hold dear (no, they weren't hammered into through a million years of evolutionary struggle), all fucked multiple people, none of them had just one spouse. But the hypocrisy is that they enforced this whole notion of monogamous ethics and morality which you are spewing now.

If you are hurt from someone else having sex with people other than yourself, maybe it's time to re-think why it's painful and why you added unnecessary conditions to your being in a relationship with said person in the first place.

Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality and should screw that Excalibur Cock on the right way and find yourself the right woman-sheath so that you may become one with nature. Remember, righty tighty, lefty loosy. — discoii

I never said that there is something wrong with being a deviation. (or that a deviation should try to be normal) I even said that I am a deviation in some regards you idiot. If I did say that it is wrong to be a deviation, please show me where I have. Let me guess - you won't be able to. That's right.

Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual — discoii

This is false. Show me proof. And keep in mind, do not include bisexuals. They are a separate category :)

And even if it was true. 10% is a deviation, it's not the natural tendency :)

If you are hurt from someone else having sex with people other than yourself, maybe it's time to re-think why it's painful and why you added unnecessary conditions to your being in a relationship with said person in the first place. — discoii

Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why you want to oblige everyone to live like you. Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why, despite having no intellectual foundation for your theory, and failing to counter any of my arguments, you still attempt to hold an intellectually superior position. Or maybe you should really think if it's right for a person who agrees to be in an exclusive relationship with someone to have sex with other people. Maybe you really should :) Afterall that's why you have a brain. Let's see if you can use it.

One thing we can be sure of is that if adultery were criminal, the burden would fall disproportionately on black males. What sort of maximum punishments did you have in mind?

You might want to re-read what I said about history. I said that the rulers who set these sexual norms and rules, the ones you hold dear (no, they weren't hammered into through a million years of evolutionary struggle), all fucked multiple people, none of them had just one spouse. But the hypocrisy is that they enforced this whole notion of monogamous ethics and morality which you are spewing now. — discoii

Yes indeed - you are correct, and I misread. My apologies. Nevertheless, if you re-read what my theory says:

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. — Agustino

You will be perhaps shocked to discover that it already accounts for men in power desiring and having more than one spouse. Since most of the absolute rulers in European history have been male, it is in perfect accord with the theory that they would be capable to express their real nature most fully. Their real nature according to the theory is polygamous. Hence it is to be expected that if most leaders were men, most of them would have more than one spouse. Why? Because nothing stopped them, hence their real nature manifested most fully.

Now, I also mentioned that woman is a monogamous animal by nature and that she wants man to be monogamous as well - hence the source of conflict. If you look at those leaders who have had concubines or consorts, which are many of the Chinese emperors, and also the Turkish Sultans, you will notice that the females were, most of the time, always scheming against each other, and always looking for a way to get their lord to favor one of them to the detriment of the other. What does the theory say? Exactly that. That women will try to keep their men only to themselves if they can.

Now we turn to the poor. Could a poor man have multiple wives? No. Did he want to? You bet! But why couldn't he? First of all - economic reasons -> he couldn't provide for them. Second of all, they wouldn't accept it, because it's in their nature to want the man for themselves (this reason combines with the first). So of course he would have to resort to cheating on his wife if he was to fulfill his nature completely. Hence why the popular image of man being the one who cheats, and not woman. Notice that this nowhere implies that man SHOULD fulfil his nature or not - there's no question of morality here, just describing what happens.

Now why is it that women also cheat sometimes? Nature's interest: women want the alpha male. Hence if they see a man whose genes fit with theirs better, they will be tempted to cheat. Most often this won't happen. Why not? Because even if the genes are better, they're not SIGNIFICANTLY better. Hence it is better for a woman to stay without cheating (which in the past was a very dangerous attempt, which would most likely result in death for her). It's not worth the opportunity cost. The theory which states that women will generally find a stable male to live with and then be tempted to cheat at a certain point in the month when their fertility is highest in an attempt to get some better genes implanted in them is, I believe, wrong. The reason is that this was an extremely dangerous attempt, and failure to hide it would result in death, or if not in death, then certainly in conflict with her male, as well as other women. Hence, I believe that by and large, Nature has eliminated these genes which compelled woman to cheat in those moments - since it was more likely for a woman and her offspring to survive if she stuck with a relatively weaker male all the time instead of trying to profit whenever she could to get better genes. This type of opportunism would be sanctioned by all, even the alpha male, who would fear she would do the same to him, if she found someone better than him. Also, another male would be unlikely to want to take care of another's offspring - hence if she already had children with him this would be a HUGE risk. This accounts for both why it is in woman's nature to be monogamous and to cheat less than men, and also for why they do cheat when they do (which is either a deviation, or the other male's genes are vastly superior and better matching which combines with other favorable circumstances, such as having no children yet, etc.).

One thing we can be sure of is that if adultery were criminal, the burden would fall disproportionately on black males. What sort of maximum punishments did you have in mind? — photographer

Well probably it should start with something preventing them from causing future suffering in the same way. This may be declining them the right to marry someone else (talking about closed marriages now) for their whole life, or maybe for a fixed period of time. This includes the right of future closed marriage partners to know about their past (in other words, it needs to go on some record). They would still be allowed to form open marriages and open relationships freely.

It may be coupled with certain economic sanctions, such as having to provide their ex partner with a certain percentage of their income, especially if they have children with them.

That, to begin with, I think is sufficient. The punishment doesn't have to be big (in fact, making the punishment TOO big is probably detrimental, as people would stop getting married out of fear - rendering it an empty law, with no one to apply to). But a point must be made that people will not be allowed to be exploited, and that it is not culturally okay to do this. Everyone has a right to live as they wish, provided they do not interfere and harm others. In our day and age, the one who cheats is often seen as "cool" or "smart" by the media. If it's a woman, she's also seen as assertive, strong, and not allowing herself to play the role demanded by certain cultures. This is nonsense, and it is just as terrible as seeing the slave-owner as cool or smart. So long as harm is done, the action is and remains evil.

I'm not sure I get this. Are you saying that a marriage is registered as closed or open? Does the couple register as closed or open on marriage? If so, is that election closed for all time? Does the election require mutual agreement? How would other jurisdictions be persuaded to enforce judgements? I suppose you are blissfully unaware of the impact of a criminal record on employment opportunities, something that would impair the adulterer's ability to pay settlements which already exist in most marriage breakups. If the woman is guilty and the kids stay with her does that diminish her settlement, impacting on the children's welfare? Were you on drugs when you dreamed this up?

Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality... — discoii

Damn right I am, and proud of it.

Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual, and that's a very low ball estimate. Historically, people have fucked both men and women, and there are many, many examples of this not being an issue whatsoever. — discoii

Now, now; let's not get carried away here. If at least 10% of men are gay, who has been getting my share all these years?

"Polymorphous perversity" seems to characterize human sexual behavior; people are capable of all sorts of sexual behavior either through opportunity or necessity. But sexual identity doesn't follow occasional behavior. A gay man who has sex with a woman once doesn't thereby become "heterosexual" and a straight man who has sex with another man once doesn't thereby become "homosexual" or even "bisexual".

You are wrong because it is not a "deviation" from human nature. This people are exactly what, as humans, they are. Humans are, in themselves, beings who are sometimes not heterosexual. The notion this is a "deviation" form what humans "normally" or "properly" is incoherent. It is an error formed out of supposing that higher numbers are what creates the "nature" of a being.

In reality, gay people no more deviate from heterosexual people than heterosexual people to from gay people. They are just different existing people with their respective sexual interests, attraction and feelings. There is no "norm" to deviate from. Just people as they are.

One of our problems with marriage these days is that a lot of people are entertaining VERY STUPID IDEAS about it. Like...

- Single women who think "I can raise a family all by myself and it will turn out just great"
- Married women who think "And we'll all live happily ever after."
- Men, single or married, who haven't really thought through what marriage entails.
- Couples who sign on the dotted line who think "Our love will last forever and nothing can go wrong."
- "Oh, money doesn't matter." It fucking matters a lot. Poverty is hard on marriage.
- All the sentimental claptrap and just plain hooey that society frosts marriage with.

Don't get me wrong: I think long lasting stable marriages are a social good, a desirable institution, and it should be protected. (Note to Agustino: Punishing everybody who fails isn't "protection" It's just more stupidity about marriage.)

But people who enter marriage need to be realistic, especially after the warm glow and rosy light fades -- maybe in a year or two, maybe longer, maybe less, maybe before the damned wedding is over.

Long term relationships (gay, straight, or otherwise) are not easy. Economic hardship; emotional upheaval; difficult pregnancies; difficult children (yes, Virginia; some children are difficult; some of them are little sons of bitches); too much clingy dependency; too much time together with no particular common interest; too much work; too little play (for both partners, together); bad sex (yes, Virginia; some people become unimaginative, dull, boring, uninspiring, etc. sex partners); chronic illness; bad housing. All kinds of things.

Many couples stay together through all these challenges (gay and straight ones both). But, a good share of marriages fail for one reason or another. It doesn't matter why. (No, Agustino -- it doesn't matter. That's why many states now have 'no-fault divorce'. If it didn't work, it didn't work. Punishing people won't make it better. It won't. It can't. It doesn't.)

There are ways of supporting marriage -- mostly things the American State is not willing to do and that the churches don't seem to be very good at in their own way. For instance, Income support for nuclear families would help. If they can't make ends meet, poverty isn't going to improve the marriage. Free pre-post natal care. It helps if pregnancies go well, and if problems are taken care of rather than neglected. Pre-marriage counseling (where couples are told the blunt and unappetizing facts of life) would help -- it might even forestall some marriages from happening.

Bureaucratic regimes like child support seem to be a good idea, but in practice it sometimes adds another layer of injustice for both the estranged parents. If we really thought children were important, we wouldn't have the hit or miss system of child support that we do. The state would support the children. (Milton Friedman -- hardly a left wing liberal -- and others thought that a minimum income would be a good thing. If the State was really interested in its families, in its children, it would do this.

Just to repeat: Punishing people for failed marriages is not going to help, Agustino. It just won't.

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. — Agustino

That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.

Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work.

The 'it gets better' movement has encouraged more and more people to come out. This would have been a great time for you to be 30 years younger again!

That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.

Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work. — Landru Guide Us

All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not.

It is an error formed out of supposing that higher numbers are what creates the "nature" of a being. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, your statement is an error of inversion, supposing that higher numbers create the nature of a being, instead of realising that the nature of the being creates the higher numbers :)

One of our problems with marriage these days is that a lot of people are entertaining VERY STUPID IDEAS about it. Like... — Bitter Crank

All this post is a red-herring and straw-manning BC. You know it. Adultery is not a requirement for a failed marriage. Hence it does not follow that punishing adultery punishes failure in marriage. Failure in marriage is divorce. There's nothing wrong if someone who wants to commit adultery first divorces and then does it. In fact, that's the right way to do it, and shouldn't be punished.

It doesn't matter why. — Bitter Crank

Yes it does. "We don't get along, we should divorce" is different than "Why the fuck did you cheat on me??". Understood? One of them involves much stronger emotional reactions than the other.

Just to repeat: Punishing people for failed marriages is not going to help, Agustino. It just won't. — Bitter Crank

You can repeat as much as you want. All through this thread you've attempted to change the topic in subtle ways. The topic is clear, and you have failed to counter any of the arguments. This is a straw-man and a red-herring. Adultery is not "failed marriage". Divorce is failed marriage, and does not require adultery in order to happen.

Were you on drugs when you dreamed this up? — photographer

Ah Mr. Photographer, why the need to insult? I suppose your question was not asked in bad faith was it? Asking a question just to shoot down the answerer regardless of the answer is most definitely the most rank nonsense, and betrays an intellectual dishonesty in openly investigating the issues at hand. Not right for a philosopher. If you didn't ask the question in bad faith, then you implicitly agree that there is an answer to your question, otherwise why ask the question? If you implicitly agree there is an answer, the please enlighten me what this answer is, as clearly you think you know better than I :)

Asking a question like that, and expecting me to give you a fully detailed answer that is ready to be passed by Parliament is nonsense. I am merely sketching an answer. Of course my answer will have HUNDREADS of holes and potential difficulties. Laws like these require hours upon hours of work by groups of people to get them in shape before they can be passed. However, I am sure the difficulties you raised can be resolved. I am sure that with a bit of effort you can resolve them as well.

Are you saying that a marriage is registered as closed or open? — photographer

Yes

If so, is that election closed for all time? — photographer

Until divorce. In theory they could divorce and then re-marry under an open marriage if both of them want to change. But remember, it has to be both. If only one wants to change, then they will just divorce, end of story.

Does the election require mutual agreement? — photographer

No - it is one partner enslaving and forcing the other to agree... What do you think? Of course, as it involves both partners it does require mutual agreement.

I suppose you are blissfully unaware of the impact of a criminal record on employment opportunities, something that would impair the adulterer's ability to pay settlements which already exist in most marriage breakups. — photographer

Tough luck, it's a percentage of income he needs to pay. Even if his income is lower, he can still pay it. Of course the punishment is supposed to be sufficiently harsh to prevent the adulterer from harming their partner. If they no longer want to live together, they should divorce. Then he can go around having sex as much as he wants to without having a criminal record. Did anyone force them to make their partner go through intense emotional turmoil? No. Therefore they have done it knowingly, and deserve the punishment.

If the woman is guilty and the kids stay with her does that diminish her settlement, impacting on the children's welfare? — photographer

If the woman is guilty, then this will count as a strong reason NOT to have the kids stay with her :) .

See Mr. Photographer... was that difficult? I'm sure you could've done it as well, if only you were a little bit more constructive, as opposed to destructive.

Governments that promote monogamy should be sued to repeal those laws because it directly impacts my right to family life (however I should wish to form that), my sexual freedoms and privacy.

The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this.

Governments that promote monogamy should be sued to repeal those laws because it directly impacts my right to family life (however I should wish to form that), my sexual freedoms and privacy.

The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei

And I repeatedly state that people who want to live in open marriages, or other non-monogamous ways should be allowed to live so. Proof that you haven't read the thread properly. How could you understand?

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. — Agustino

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? — Agustino

@Benkei - See? These are everywhere. Please read the thread completely next time instead of addressing some imaginary straw-man of yours. So your statement:

The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei

Is most certainly false.

There's a large difference between open marriages and allowing polygamy. Why shouldn't the latter be legally recognised? Both polygyny and polyandry and any mix thereof, of course.

Your assumption is still very much there but you don't seem to be aware of it.

There's a large difference between open marriages and allowing polygamy. Why shouldn't the latter be legally recognised? Both polygyny and polyandry and any mix thereof, of course.

Your assumption is still very much there but you don't seem to be aware of it. — Benkei

Where do I indicate that they shouldn't be allowed? They should also be allowed. But this OP wasn't about that.

You implied it by discussing open marriage, which is a private agreement between spouses, as opposed to polygamy. Usually, people's choice of words is rather indicative of their actual motivations.

So they are allowed now. Good to have that clear.

In that case, after 3 pages it isn't clear to me what the problem is with people breaking a promise? What's so horrible about breaking a marriage vow as opposed to, say, hiding your mounting debts from gambling from your spouse?

People lie and cheat all the time, most types of lying and cheating isn't criminalised because it's perfectly human. Going by the number of divorces and cheating even before the existence of Ashley Madison, perfectly human.

Finally, if we're going to criminalise this, we should jail every hooker and mistress for tempting married men from having sex outside of marriage as well. But we all know that in the end the decision to cheat is a personal one that we cannot blame on alcohol, the existence of Ashley Madison, hookers or mistresses.

In that case, after 3 pages it isn't clear to me what the problem is with people breaking a promise? What's so horrible about breaking a marriage vow as opposed to, say, hiding your mounting debts from gambling from your spouse? — Benkei

It depends what the consequences of breaking that promise are. Hiding your mounting debts from your spouse is a serious problem yes. But if you told her, is she likely to have a psychological trauma from it? No. She will just get angry, not speak to you for a week, and then she'll try to sort it out together with you, or seek to divorce you. On the other hand if you break your marriage vow, she could end up having serious psychological trauma because of it, assuming that the marriage vow was important to her (and to many people it is). Afterall, you hear that someone shot their husband because they cheated. You don't hear that they shot their husband because he lied about his debt.

These sexual issues are important to human beings. There is no denying that. That is why all through history we see people fighting over sex: to let it free, not to let it free. All religions speak about sex, none skips it. Why? Because this problem is terribly important in the consciousness of man. Even in the modern liberal consciousness which wants sex to be just like eating, it is terribly important. But fact of the matter is that sex isn't just like eating. We never killed someone because he ate the wrong meat. But we certainly killed them because they had sex with the wrong person. Why? Because to many human beings, sex is terribly important. How sex is practiced is terribly important. So important that the whole psychological well-being of many depends on it.

And yes, I agree with you, it is completely irrational that sex is so important. But it still doesn't change it. Man is an irrational being. In man's consciousness, sex will always remain terribly important. Why? Because we have been biologically programmed to be so. There is nothing more important to Nature, who is our master, than sex (reproduction). Hence Nature uses the most powerful of all instincts to govern someone's sex life - more powerful than those which govern even one's own survival sometimes. Reason cannot oppose these instincts. That is why all it can do is build a society which minimises conflicts arising due to sexuality. A completely free society when it comes to sexuality, as most neo-liberals want, doesn't do this. It makes segments of the population terribly angry, it puts social pressure on them, disregards their cultures and values, and promotes oppression. So the only option is to have different rules for different people, depending on which type of sexual life they want to live. That is what Reason can do.

Finally, if we're going to criminalise this, we should jail every hooker and mistress for tempting married men from having sex outside of marriage as well. — Benkei

No, because they are not specifically aimed at closed marriage men. Prostitution should go on exactly as it does. So should other dating websites. It's just those which are aimed specifically at people in closed marriages that should be taken off because they are promoting what would be an illegal kind of adultery.

We never killed someone because he ate the wrong meat. — Agustino

What's for dinner? Beef, you say? In that case, we're going to beat you to death right now.

Anti-beef-eating Hindu zealots killed a Moslem man for allegedly eating beef, and there have been similar incidents.

You may have seen this video of an Afghan woman being beaten to death by an enraged mob for allegedly burning a Koran. (The court found her innocent of the charge -- after she had been beaten to death in front of a mosque. Way to go, guys.)

Nothing to do with adultery of course (except that in some parts of the world women get stoned to death for adultery).

Your very hard line on adultery is the kind of thinking that can lead to this sort of enraged violence. You seem to be fixated on this issue -- don't know why. Was your wife unfaithful to you? If so, you might be allowing your personal feelings to be directing your thinking here. That's a very human thing too. God knows my thinking has been directed by anger on more than a few occasions. At times my mental dungeons were very well stocked with people I've felt wronged by.

What's for dinner? Beef, you say? In that case, we're going to beat you to death right now.

Anti-beef-eating Hindu zealots killed a Moslem man for allegedly eating beef, and there have been similar incidents. — Bitter Crank

As far as the article says "Villagers in northern India beat a Muslim man to death and injured four others who were accused of smuggling cows to be slaughtered for beef". Slaughtering beef is illegal in India, so those mentally retarded peasants beat up the poor man thinking they are doing justice. However - you have to remember slaughtering beef is illegal in India - so if someone does plan to slaughter beef, they are planning an illegal activity and nevertheless deserve punishment (even if this punishment is not getting beaten up, or killed).

It seems that killing for eating the wrong type of meat also exists, and I was wrong there. In fact, anything exists, even 50 year old virgins. Why would I be surprised...

Nevertheless, I believe that getting killed for adultery was, historically, much more common than getting killed for eating meat.

Your very hard line on adultery is the kind of thinking that can lead to this sort of enraged violence. — Bitter Crank

No, it is what is required to prevent such enraged violence. Otherwise, people who are done injustices will take matters into their own hands and will commit exactly this type of injustice that neither of us likes.

Was your wife unfaithful to you? — Bitter Crank

I am not married BC. If I had been married, and my wife cheated on me with the intent to cheat on me (this excludes possibilities that she was too drunk to know what was happening, or she got raped, etc.), then I would have kicked her out of the house (if she lived in my house) and divorced her the next day (even if I had kids with her). We all have things we can't tolerate, here's what I can't tolerate. From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out.