Adultery bans after Dobbs?

WolfBear said:

How many people get divorced? 1/3 of the total, right? So, around 33%. What's 2% of 33%? Less than 1%. Even if we round up to 1% here, and estimate that 6% of the population have open marriages, then this would mean that 1 in 6 open marriages end up in divorce as a result of this marriage being open. That's 17%, which fares rather favorably with the general 33% divorce rate. Even if some people in open marriages divorce for other reasons, it's entirely possible that on the net, the divorce rates for people in open marriages would be comparable to the divorce rates for people in closed marriages. And if this is indeed the case, then there is sound logic behind this: Specifically assortative mating. People often choose compatible traits in their marriage partners, which in turn makes it easier for them to get along as married couples. This applies to polyamory just as well as it applies to various other traits, such as people who love fat people marrying fat people. Obviously sometimes people have their expectations disappointed, but that's true in general, not just for polyamorous marriages.

Click to expand...

@History Learner Did you ever take a look at this post of mine?

Anyway, FWIW, I see it like this: We have tried forcing monogamy onto people for centuries or more and in a lot of cases it didn't work out, with cheating and betrayal and hurt feelings and whatnot. Why not try giving people who are wired to engage in polyamory a different model to work with?


No relationship model would be absolutely perfect and flawless, of course, but a model that results in less hurt feelings and less betrayal seems like a better model, don't you think? At least polyamorous people would be honest up-front about what they want with their partners from the very beginning rather than trying to make an arrangement that might not work for one or both parties. It's one thing to voluntarily enter a polyamorous marriage from the very beginning and another thing to try opening up a marriage later on; the latter can work, but it might also be riskier.

Personally, I myself really like polyamory since I don't want to limit myself in regards to sexual partners any more than I want to limit myself in regards to food varieties. And since I'm especially attracted to women who are capable of ovulating, I will definitely need to engage in polyamory in any case after my future wife will hit menopause. Yes, seriously. She can also find her own lovers, of course, just so long as she'll also be sterilized.

The reason why we have monogamy is for social stability, because having a large number of men who cant get laid and have nothing to lose is historically kind of a very bad thing.

Cherico said:

The reason why we have monogamy is for social stability, because having a large number of men who cant get laid and have nothing to lose is historically kind of a very bad thing.

Click to expand...

That's a reason for limiting marriage to two people but not necessarily for making marriages monogamous.

WolfBear said:

That's a reason for limiting marriage to two people but not necessarily for making marriages monogamous.

Click to expand...

The pile of dead corpses caused by husband's who found out their spouse was cheating on them is huge. Best not to mess with something as emotion fulled as people's marriages.

Cherico said:

The pile of dead corpses caused by husband's who found out their spouse was cheating on them is huge. Best not to mess with something as emotion fulled as people's marriages.

Click to expand...

I was talking about polyamory that occurs with the consent of one's spouse/SO, not the kind that occurs without the consent of one's spouse/SO.

WolfBear said:

I was talking about polyamory that occurs with the consent of one's spouse/SO, not the kind that occurs without the consent of one's spouse/SO.

Click to expand...

If you really think people can just 'decide I don't care about a lack of commitment' in sexual intimacy, you really don't understand the human psyche.

History Learner said:

...or sheer demographic weight of people like me.

Click to expand...

As evidence of this:

yeah this makes sense when a little tiny human depends on you for life itself you suddenly don't want to take crazy risks.

Yeah I see nothing wrong with criminalizing adultery. Like you at least have an argument if you were forced into the marriage, but now just don’t make marriage vows if you want to sleep around.

Cherico said:

yeah this makes sense when a little tiny human depends on you for life itself you suddenly don't want to take crazy risks.

Click to expand...

This is the reason I've always laughed at people saying demographics is destiny or white replacement theory. The people not reproducing are by and large leftists or leftist leaning, which seems like a self solving problem to me.

WolfBear said:

How do you think that SCOTUS would decide the constitutionality of adultery bans if this question will ever come before them in the future? Especially if Dobbs will still stand while SCOTUS's various other due process privacy precedents such as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell will likewise still stand. Let's say that some conservative US state will actually be bold enough to arrest someone for adultery, with this person suing this US state all of the way up to the US Supreme Court. What happens next?

There's been a legal article that states that adultery bans' constitutionality is unsustainable after Lawrence:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4712&context=flr

But then again, Lawrence is in some tension with Dobbs. So, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Folks are still gonna have sex

Sergeant Foley said:

Folks are still gonna have sex

Click to expand...

With someone other than their spouse for poly couples.

The underlying issue with adultery bans is that, to be blunt, humans are not innately loyal in the ways required to be naturally in favor of it. To my awareness, the most stable equilibrium we have found is culturally-enforced monogomy as the long-term goal, using brothels as a stigmatized but permitted short-term outlet until this is achieved. Wealthy men going to the brothels after marriage was rarely not stigmatized by the general populace, and still kept them from causing "surplus men" problems.

Modern standards show no such thing, the stigmatized but permitted outlet of pornography gives no proximity to the consequences like the brothels did, and the "long-term" goal is no longer concerned with lineage. The celibate who channels all into work and leaves behind a successful company is far more valued than the man who miraculously manages to provide a decent life for his eight children by three different mothers for them to be marginally better off than any of the four parents.

Hence the demographic problems, because the old monogomy+brothels system valued actually having offspring to pass successes to, while the current system not only doesn't value it, but actively glorifies contrary pressures as exemplified best by "career women", directly and inarguably sacrificing peak fertility for short-term quarterly gains. Also the drastically different price-tag of the outlet and survival making the disengaged coomer of old still be much more productive than the modern one.

Fundamentally, a hard ban on adultery that's seriously enforced with the modern capacity for such does not make sense, because we have far too long and strong a track record of it being just a fact of life no matter the prior efforts. Full-on prostitution is still a thing despite those measures. Stopping it is in considerable excess of the utility by any pre-existing model, and placing bets on a new one relying on new outlets is an open invitation for the Grand Simpdom to continue.

As has been pointed out, murder, rape and slavery still exist, with all the force arrayed against it.

We can minimize it, with a combo of social and govenment pressures. That's what's being advocated, for adultery.



I kinda lean towards criminalising it, personally. If you swear an oath, sign the contract, you should be bound by it. I also don't like no-fault divorce, for the same reason.


If I take a job, and sign a contract as part of it, I expect to be held to said contract. As I should be. A marrage is, and should be, more important.

Cherico said:

The reason why we have monogamy is for social stability, because having a large number of men who cant get laid and have nothing to lose is historically kind of a very bad thing.

Click to expand...

This and STDs. Historically up until about 5,000 years or so ago, only about 20% of men successfully reproduced; after this switched to around 80% (likely due to the STDs), civilization sprung up because you now had community consensus to enable building. As for why STDs specifically played a role in this:

Simonbob said:

As has been pointed out, murder, rape and slavery still exist, with all the force arrayed against it.

Click to expand...

Murder, rape, and slavery do not have an incredibly blunt value to society as well-trodden outlets for unavoidable instincts. I'll point to the War on Drugs and Prohibition for where this kind of shit-fest goes, actively fighting human nature to an absolute degree causes no end of problems. And do you seriously think this would ever see any kind of enforcement against the upper class?

The entire point being made is that looking back through history, monogomy was the end goal but not strictly mandatory. Serious legal enforcement is overwhelmingly European, and still quite sparse, with no particularly meaningful success because of the sheer number of masks to work through for the behavior.

What makes you think you can avoid a new Prohibition or War on Drugs style clusterfuck trying to brute-force social friction out of existence? What makes you think you can undo the Sexual Revolution without a police state? The issue I have, in the end, is that this has proven enduringly structural of civilization. There's a bias toward monogamy, but it is not the natural default, and as the subject is one inherently happening behind closed doors the enforcement avenues are almost all shit.

Morphic Tide said:

Murder, rape, and slavery do not have an incredibly blunt value to society as well-trodden outlets for unavoidable instincts.

Click to expand...

Those things also automatically hurt other people, whereas polyamory does not have to do so, especially when it is done with the consent of one's spouse/SO.

WolfBear said:

Those things also automatically hurt other people, whereas polyamory does not have to do so, especially when it is done with the consent of one's spouse/SO.

Click to expand...

Dammit, now I'm in it.



Bad argument. Drunk driving is not something that is certain to hurt anybody, either. It's just a greater risk. There's a bunch of things we punish on that basis.

And, yes, as best as we can tell, it is a greater risk. Even with consent.

Simonbob said:

Dammit, now I'm in it.



Bad argument. Drunk driving is not something that is certain to hurt anybody, either. It's just a greater risk. There's a bunch of things we punish on that basis.

And, yes, as best as we can tell, it is a greater risk. Even with consent.

Click to expand...

Polyamory could at best only result in hurt feelings. Drunk driving, meanwhile, can result in people actually getting killed.

WolfBear said:

Polyamory could at best only result in hurt feelings. Drunk driving, meanwhile, can result in people actually getting killed.

Click to expand...

...... Hurt feelings could well lead to suicide and murder.


Not that adultery is anywhere near that level, but, still.


Heck, we're not even arguing the same thing, now. I'm not really against Polyamory. I think it's stupid, but if people want to screw up, I don't really care. (I don't want to pay for their fuckups, though!) I think it should be looked down on in 'Polite Society', but that's about it.


Adultery isn't the same thing, after all.