Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll dissent. Monogamy is a recent social invention contrary to human nature, and attempts to require it or enforce it are - IMO - crimes against humanity. If you want monogamy, and your partner does as well, then great!
Obviously, monogamy is hard for many. If it were the default nature of people, it would be easy. So, rather than enforce something that most don't actually want (despite what lip service they may give to the idea due to social convention and indoctrination), I'd rather see it acknowledged that it isn't natural, and find more natural and less harmful ways to live with our human nature. Some cultures and societies have done so, and can offer valuable lessons in alternatives.
The best post I have read in a very long time...........!
If so, roughly 50% of all married folks, men and women, would be in the pokey.
I also think it's particularly weird that you single out men in this equation. How is it any different if a wife steps out on her husband than vice versa?
You've never seen an E club once a ship pulls out!
PEOPLE CHEAT.
Some don't.
Or a bunch of women having a girl's weekend at the beach.
Here's the thing I've noticed. Men are much more likely to cheat in their 20s and 30s. Women start to get frisky in their late 30s and 40s. Don't know why that is.
Or a bunch of women having a girl's weekend at the beach.
Here's the thing I've noticed. Men are much more likely to cheat in their 20s and 30s. Women start to get frisky in their late 30s and 40s. Don't know why that is.
Those are all valid objections, except maybe for people fired for being cheaters (businesses probably wouldn't search for dirt on current employees). Possibly the fine/family money issue could be worked around by taking it out of yet-to-be-tapped government benefits and be pegged to income.
I don't know exactly how adultery was handled by the law many decades in civilized nations (not places where stoning is done), but there must have been penalties beyond the dubious 'punishment' of granting divorce. Adultery is a big problem - if people don't like proposed solutions, come up with better ones.
Or a bunch of women having a girl's weekend at the beach.
Here's the thing I've noticed. Men are much more likely to cheat in their 20s and 30s. Women start to get frisky in their late 30s and 40s. Don't know why that is.
Check out various forum groups and surveys that will tell you the opposite. Women peak in infidelity statistics (and "cheating initiation") among their early ages, in fact they outnumber men at early age. Men simply drop in statistics much slower. But take note that those statistics are often flawed because there is always a supposed 2-1 ratio (or a bit less than that) in men/women who cheat. This is always argued to be untrue, so any survey that is based on free reporting is flawed - if nothing else, then for the reasons that various people define cheating/affair in different terms.
This topic is quite clear from my point. Marital monogamy can be sanctioned and most people would approve sanctions. Not sanctions that include death penalty, but certain sanctions in regard that would make it a bad idea. Today it plays no role even when it comes to property division or child custody. Legislators simply decided to de-regulate it on purpose, plus they made marriage into a legal mockery when it comes to divorce and regulations that follow it. This is why such institution should be either outlawed as a scam institution or completely ignored.
Unlike what most would think, there were usually no official laws through human history regarding marital affairs, the "clan laws" were often dealing with the stuff because state usually didn't care to enforce anything inside of family lives. Yes, dear CD readers - most societies never had OFFICIAL LAWS regarding many things, including extramarital affairs, but various sources including political representatives, religious leaders and regular peasants gave clear notion that sanctions existed regardless of that and that state officials would often just turn a blind eye on those matters and let them deal with it.
Modern societies used societal disruption and human dignity as a reason to sanction marital affairs. Everyone agrees about such basic thing when they sign a marriage contract yet nothing of such legal act verified by the state can be enforced other than things like alimony and property division. Take note that those things are also heavily flawed and illogical given the present circumstances. This is one of the reasons why whole institution turns irrelevant and gets reduced to resource transfer.
But my point is the following, people who argue against legal sanctions for breaking a legal contract are also the first ones to rise their voice of support the following things: public nudity, sex in public places, (legalizing) prostitution, (paid) surrogacy, selling rights over newborn children to childless couples to adopt them, adoption to gay couples, death penalty, euthanasia, human cloning, various "ethically banned researches", etc. Again, public decency, human dignity, societal disruption. Legislators enforce it as well.
Just about every forum member would find themselves "guilty" on demanding that state supports a large number of those things - yet they are probably the loudest in speaking against regulating something that people WILLINGLY sign. I never heard any sane person arguing against enforcing a bank loan contract even though it's usually far less about fair terms than it is about simple fact not to be promiscuous during marriage.
As a woman, I'm also sad about how it seems no one wants to be faithful anymore. I have never been married, but I feel like..is that all I have to look forward to? Some guy that will cheat no matter how well I treat him? Depressing, really.
This is my biggest concern too. A woman can be drop dead gorgeous, shapely, smart and they'll still want to stick it into a skank.
Just about every forum member would find themselves "guilty" on demanding that state supports a large number of those things - yet they are probably the loudest in speaking against regulating something that people WILLINGLY sign.
Well, your whole argument falls apart here. People do NOT sign a marriage contract that specifies their behavior. They make verbal promises that have no (or few) laws enforcing them. The idea of making a binding life-long promise when future conditions can't be predicted is incredibly stupid, IMO. To think otherwise seems tantamount to enforced slavery and ownership of the person you marry, with is obviously unethical. You can't seriously promise to love someone unconditionally for example. You either love them or you do not, and can't force what's not there.
Essentially, an invalid contract cannot be enforced.
The idea of making a binding life-long promise when future conditions can't be predicted is incredibly stupid, IMO.
The promises don't have to be considered binding. If they're not thought of as such, then they aren't so stupid. Whether they are indeed morally binding or not is a matter of opinion.
In business and international relations, non-binding agreements are made all the time.
Well, your whole argument falls apart here. People do NOT sign a marriage contract that specifies their behavior. They make verbal promises that have no (or few) laws enforcing them. The idea of making a binding life-long promise when future conditions can't be predicted is incredibly stupid, IMO. To think otherwise seems tantamount to enforced slavery and ownership of the person you marry, with is obviously unethical. You can't seriously promise to love someone unconditionally for example. You either love them or you do not, and can't force what's not there.
Essentially, an invalid contract cannot be enforced.
Great post.
This thread gives me a headache. I really don't understand where these folks get off on this "enforcement," but I do find it interesting that the folks most for it are the folks with the least amount of success or experience in relationships. I really don't think they know what they're talking about and have no concept of either interpersonal relations or the role of the state. Aside from rape (which is really more about violence than sex) and pedophilia, the state has no business regulating sexual behavior. It is beyond disturbing that anyone would seem to think it does or should. Honestly? I find such thinking rather sick--and I'm in a monogamous relationship with no cheating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
