Adultery bans after Dobbs?

King Arts

Well-known member
Polyamory could at best only result in hurt feelings. Drunk driving, meanwhile, can result in people actually getting killed.
I'm sorry this argument is the dumbest thing ever. Going completely materialist here, rape only leads to hurt feelings. If you are asleep, and then I do things to you, but no one ever tells you you won't be harmed. Yet if someone tells you, your emotions will cause you pain. Same with adultery.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Same with adultery.
The thing basically being that because adultery is fundamentally about a behind-closed-doors act, it ends up demanding a police state to enforce as a crime. It ultimately boils down to "permissible reason for divorce", unless you want the government peeping on your bedrooms to pin you for "breech of contract" or just bluntly adultery itself.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Yes.

"You cheated, so I get everything in the divorce" is something I'd go for, but not "You cheated, so the cops will drag you off to prison".
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I'm sorry this argument is the dumbest thing ever. Going completely materialist here, rape only leads to hurt feelings. If you are asleep, and then I do things to you, but no one ever tells you you won't be harmed. Yet if someone tells you, your emotions will cause you pain. Same with adultery.
Pregnancy? Rape actually causing enough injury when resisted that medical professors are trained to recognize it?

Yes.

"You cheated, so I get everything in the divorce" is something I'd go for, but not "You cheated, so the cops will drag you off to prison".
I'd say compensation, not everything.

Really, marriage (legally speaking only) ought to just be a contract, with terms for violating it dependent on what the people involved in the marriage want. Fortunately, liberal government laws as to divorce allow (somewhat) for a prenup to define such terms, imposing financial penalties for leaving because of tough times, adultery, etc. This is a problem best solved without use of a one size fits all government contract, but a unique marriage contract that people should spend time considering and putting effort into. A church/religion could have a standard contract they use, for example, which would define what they consider to be acceptable, etc.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Really, marriage (legally speaking only) ought to just be a contract, with terms for violating it dependent on what the people involved in the marriage want. Fortunately, liberal government laws as to divorce allow (somewhat) for a prenup to define such terms, imposing financial penalties for leaving because of tough times, adultery, etc. This is a problem best solved without use of a one size fits all government contract, but a unique marriage contract that people should spend time considering and putting effort into. A church/religion could have a standard contract they use, for example, which would define what they consider to be acceptable, etc.

In a very real sense, that was how things worked, until No Fault Divorce and the crap Feminism came up with started affecting the Legal system.

It wasn't fully written down, but everybody knew the rules, and the pentalties were also quite standard. It was a part of the culture.


It's a pity we don't have a culture anymore.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
In a very real sense, that was how things worked, until No Fault Divorce and the crap Feminism came up with started affecting the Legal system.

It wasn't fully written down, but everybody knew the rules, and the pentalties were also quite standard. It was a part of the culture.


It's a pity we don't have a culture anymore.
The problem with that (and the chief problem people had with it) is that you don't get to choose your penalties or other options. The one size fits all-ness of it doesn't match up with what people (or religions, as they have different standards) want. Some want the option to opt out if stuff went to shit. The issue with no fault divorce isn't that it exists, it was the change, IMO. People signed up for one marriage, that then got changed on them because they weren't in control of the rules, the government was. Then the new form is something that was easy to leave, so people did. This sudden governmental change was a problem always looming over it.

Having no fault divorce plus a standard of pre-nups solves this (or would solve it for those who would use a pre-nup). It dodges government power and restores it to the family by the government leaving the space. Overall, I think it allows for an improvement.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Having no fault divorce plus a standard of pre-nups solves this (or would solve it for those who would use a pre-nup). It dodges government power and restores it to the family by the government leaving the space. Overall, I think it allows for an improvement.

Eh.

It means starting your marrage with planning for it to fail, and thinking in those terms is likely to push it that way. It's very cold blooded.

If we're looking for a busness merger, that's fine, but for the person you love, and are sure you want to live the rest of your life with? That's a very bad start.


If there were universal pre-nups, perhaps..... I'm not really sure about that, either.


Frankly, having it be universal seems like the best option, to me. There's a few who don't want to go that way, but if you try to accomidate the tiny minorities, you tend to screw the majority.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Eh.

It means starting your marrage with planning for it to fail, and thinking in those terms is likely to push it that way. It's very cold blooded.

If we're looking for a busness merger, that's fine, but for the person you love, and are sure you want to live the rest of your life with? That's a very bad start.


If there were universal pre-nups, perhaps..... I'm not really sure about that, either.


Frankly, having it be universal seems like the best option, to me. There's a few who don't want to go that way, but if you try to accomidate the tiny minorities, you tend to screw the majority.
Not planning for it to fail, but most religions have rules under which divorce is acceptable. For example, a catholic marriage (from what I recall from catholic school) wouldn't allow for divorce in cases of adultery. Others would allow for it. Which is why the prenup should be a standard thing a religion/church issues in most cases.

Also, in theory the idea of just jumping into a marriage without looking is nice and tempting, it also just isn't smart. Causing both parties to really look at what will happen if something goes wrong (and that it would absolutely suck) means that they are actually considering the cost of divorce.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Pregnancy? Rape actually causing enough injury when resisted that medical professors are trained to recognize it?
Me, and Wolf are both men. As for injury, like you'd have to really go at his ass to do that lol. I'm saying if you put your penis in someone's mouth they probably won't be harmed. Yes we could go final destination shit, where ridiculously implausible but technically possible things like drowning in cum happen, but let's be serious. The main damage of rape is emotional social. You were violated so now you are emotionally hurt and there is psychological damage, and you might be sanctioned socially either seen as less than, or are seen as "sullied" or whatever. Most of the time it's not physical damage like if I punched you and knocked a tooth out.

I'd say compensation, not everything.

Really, marriage (legally speaking only) ought to just be a contract, with terms for violating it dependent on what the people involved in the marriage want. Fortunately, liberal government laws as to divorce allow (somewhat) for a prenup to define such terms, imposing financial penalties for leaving because of tough times, adultery, etc. This is a problem best solved without use of a one size fits all government contract, but a unique marriage contract that people should spend time considering and putting effort into. A church/religion could have a standard contract they use, for example, which would define what they consider to be acceptable, etc.
I might be willing to agree to such a compromise as long as the government allowed ANY terms in the contract not just what the west allows. So if both me and the other party agree that whoever violates the contract that party will be executed. Would that be ok in your thought experiment?
 
Eh.

It means starting your marrage with planning for it to fail, and thinking in those terms is likely to push it that way. It's very cold blooded.

If we're looking for a busness merger, that's fine, but for the person you love, and are sure you want to live the rest of your life with? That's a very bad start.


If there were universal pre-nups, perhaps..... I'm not really sure about that, either.


Frankly, having it be universal seems like the best option, to me. There's a few who don't want to go that way, but if you try to accomidate the tiny minorities, you tend to screw the majority.

eh, you want to be careful not to screw with the minority to much either as it will lead to social stratification and rich and powerful people will take advantage of that and use it as an opportunity for a power grab, and you end up with what we are dealing with modern progressives. We are still dealing with the aftereffects of American slavery and the jim crow era even if it's not in the way the left says it is.
 
I might be willing to agree to such a compromise as long as the government allowed ANY terms in the contract not just what the west allows. So if both me and the other party agree that whoever violates the contract that party will be executed. Would that be ok in your thought experiment?

I mean it's your funeral. It's a good way to get the Darwin award. why does every political and philosophical argument you have always go back to killing people? Do you have like a death wish or something? serious question.

you live by that philosophy and eventually you get the Viserys's Golden Crown treatment.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
I mean it's your funeral. It's a good way to get the Darwin award. why does every political and philosophical argument you have always go back to killing people? Do you have like a death wish or something? serious question.

you live by that philosophy and eventually you get the Viserys's Golden Crown treatment.
Only, if you break the rules you intend to live under. If you believe that something is worth death, and agree to it, don't do it. You are acting like everyone cheats, it's possible to only have sex with your wife if you are married and forsake all others.
 
Only, if you break the rules you intend to live under. If you believe that something is worth death, and agree to it, don't do it. You are acting like everyone cheats, it's possible to only have sex with your wife if you are married and forsake all others.


not saying everyone cheats, but I do think everyone sins. not sure it's a good idea to make every crime or even a mistake punishable by death. If the same punishment for being late is the same punishment as attempting to overthrow the kingdom, what do you have to lose?
 

King Arts

Well-known member
not saying everyone cheats, but I do think everyone sins. not sure it's a good idea to make every crime or even a mistake punishable by death. If the same punishment for being late is the same punishment as attempting to overthrow the kingdom, what do you have to lose?
I was not saying make every punishment death.
I was asking Abhorsen, since he is libertarian if he would be ok if the law allowed people putting their life on contracts. Because I do believe that people do have a right to their life and should be able to duel or whatever(unless it is prohibited by God).
 
I was not saying make every punishment death.
I was asking Abhorsen, since he is libertarian if he would be ok if the law allowed people putting their life on contracts. Because I do believe that people do have a right to their life and should be able to duel or whatever(unless it is prohibited by God).

ok that's fair. Personally I'll be having at the people who make stupid contracts like that.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
ok that's fair. Personally I'll be having at the people who make stupid contracts like that.
I mean is it stupid if you are the type to not cheat?
For me the only situation I could see myself maybe deciding to cheat is either 1. in revenge she cheated on me, now I'll cheat on her, 2. She is infertile so I go with another woman to get her pregnant and have a child to carry my blood, but I still love my wife so I'd come back to her, or 3. She let's me have an open marriage where I can go with other women.

Otherwise I would heavily look down on any person who breaks their oath and cheats. We really should hold oaths to be more sacred.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Me, and Wolf are both men. As for injury, like you'd have to really go at his ass to do that lol. I'm saying if you put your penis in someone's mouth they probably won't be harmed. Yes we could go final destination shit, where ridiculously implausible but technically possible things like drowning in cum happen, but let's be serious. The main damage of rape is emotional social. You were violated so now you are emotionally hurt and there is psychological damage, and you might be sanctioned socially either seen as less than, or are seen as "sullied" or whatever. Most of the time it's not physical damage like if I punched you and knocked a tooth out.
Fair, I get where you're going here. But the thing is, words by themselves can cause emotional/social harm as well, and those are legal. Actions done with others can harm people for irrational reasons too. So we need to be careful that when we define the justification for laws, we don't use a justification that will allow mean words to be banned as well.

The difference with rape is that there is a physical component. Yes, it mostly causes mental harm, but the immediate harm (by which I mean violating of consent) is physical.

Adultery, meanwhile, could justifiably be at most breach of contract, as yes, you broke a contract (relationships and cheating on non-marriage ones still break an oral contract as well, so those could be argued as well).

I might be willing to agree to such a compromise as long as the government allowed ANY terms in the contract not just what the west allows. So if both me and the other party agree that whoever violates the contract that party will be executed. Would that be ok in your thought experiment?
Generally, I believe most contracts need to be exitable. For your health, I'd recommend it, as it incentivizes spousal murder and other abuse to an insane degree. That's not a moral requirement, to be clear, just a common sense one that a lot of history has shown to be worthwhile: non-terminal contracts are no good. Its the same reason voluntary enslavement is banned as well: too exploitable by the powerful, and lends itself to abuse and problems.
 
Otherwise I would heavily look down on any person who breaks their oath and cheats. We really should hold oaths to be more sacred.

I guess that's where you and I ultimately diverge. Oaths are like cars sports car. they are used (mostly) by people trying to overcompensate for a lack of something.
 
Last edited:
I'm never going to trust you with anything serious.

honestly it's why I try to be care why to be careful when I promise something and when I do, I just say I'm going to do something and I do it. I don't take people who give me a salespitch seriously. I've gotten burned every time I did.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top