1 edit
Originally posted by stockenI probably am missing your point but I think you may also be missing mine.
You're obviously missing the point. Let me put it this way..
A sex crime is when a person is forced into a sexual act against his/her
will.
To equate the illegality of infidelity with a sex crime that involves the denial of freedom of choice through the use of force or other means of coercion naturally would make my argument seem irrational.
A better analogy would be a person who likes window shopping and then is tempted to go on a shoplifting spree. Its a victimless crime but it is punishable by law. My whole point has been that you seem to be willing only to protect the laws of property in your argument.
When you acknowledge that theft has other forms and that they impact on some people just as seriously as having had their property taken, then you might come to see the basis of my argument.
Originally posted by kmax87Not victimless at all. The store owners has invested time and
A better analogy would be a person who likes window shopping and then is tempted to go on a shoplifting spree. Its a victimless crime but it is punishable by law. My whole point has been that you seem to be willing only to protect the laws of property in your argument.
money in order to get money (rarely do small business owners gain
time). By shoplifting you are in fact not just hurting their feelings (that's
the least bit), but directly affecting their source of food and shelter, their
means of physical survival. There are definitely victims in your analogy.
To make it clear, I'm not saying that property is the most important
thing to protect. Naturally I feel as bad as anyone else with normal ability
to empathise when I hear about someone being cheated on. I simply
disagree with you that it should be equated with a crime in the eyes of
society at large.
Imagine that the "victim" is emotionally crushed by this act of adultery to
the extent that (s)he can't function properly. (S)he gets depressed and
his/her every thought evolves around "getting back" at the adulterer. If
society really wants to help out here, the best thing would be to 1) spend
the money on providing counselling for the victim (instead of jail for the
adulterer) and helping the "victim" see why this would be a good idea,
and 2) encourage people to be a bit nicer to each other as it makes life
way easier to live (a smile when you meet someone in the street is never
a bad idea).
This way everyone wins. The adulterer had on the side sex (exciting and
rewarding in itself), the "victim" is helped to boost his/her self image
while being a little more self-reliant and yet another counsellor makes
enough money to support a living.
Win-win. 😀
Originally posted by kmax87For many, if not the majority, sex itself has little or no emotional impact on the individuals concerned. Is is usually the actual relationship where the emotional risk is taken. I believe you are putting too much focus on this proposed upheaval in sex itself. Either that or I am misunderstanding you of course.
Maybe. Maybe you could sue someone in your past for turning you into an insecure person willing to raise irrational doubts that your boss would offer you overtime for the express purpose of seducing your woman.
The comment of him having her in every which way that you could only dream of indicates an underlying fear of intimacy that is probably the result ...[text shortened]... and embedded inequalities that seem to now so effectively handicap modern western civilization.
Originally posted by WheelyI do this regularly enough to other people for you not to take it personally. ie : misunderstanding me. Not that I am particularly obfuscatory in my meandering travail along the corridors of reason. I should point out that this being a debates forum I am also charged with the responsibility of taking a point of view to its logical conclusion.
I believe you are putting too much focus on this proposed upheaval in sex itself. Either that or I am misunderstanding you of course.
To your point about shoplifting not being a victimless crime, its all a matter of degrees then isnt it. Compared to a sex crime like rape, surely shoplifting is a victimless crime. Only property is stolen, which even by a minimum wage standard may in most cases only represent a few hours of work to pay for the theft.
In a similar manner compared to shoplifting infidelity is not a victimless crime and if made manifest on a grand enough scale speaks volumes for the social malaise that is our disconnected, anonymous, I can rip off Microsoft because they are a pack of bastards type of society.
If laws were in place that gave caution to the way that people allowed themselvesi to trammel the emotions of their fellow human beings, my guess is that a lot of the insensitivity that masquerades as independence will be revealed as just callous self serving carelessness, and will be exposed for the mirage of freedom it heartlessly simulates.
3 edits
&mode=related&search=
I found this one interesting. Zappa claims (in the eighties - he was
obviously very perceptive, or it was as obvious then as it is now) that the
US moves towards a fascist theocracy.
---
Zappa: When you have a government that prefers a certain moral
code derived from a certain religion, and that moral code turns into
legislation to suite one certain religious point of view, and if that
code happens to be very, very right wing...
Lofton: Well, then you are an anarchist. Every form of civil
government is based on some kind of morality, Frank.
Zappa: Morality in terms of behaviour, not in terms of theology.
---
I think it all boils down to this. If we accept a moral code we do it for
different reasons. Either because we're followers of the religion in which
it's most notably proclaimed, or because we can see a good reason for it.
When discussing legislation I don't think laws can be based on religious
motives and forbidding adultery seems an awful lot like a religious
motive to me.
Zappa ruled.
Addition: Oh, and Lofton seems awfully lofty to me. 😕
Originally posted by stockenImagine being sent to jail for having sex?
I read in a newspaper today that in Michigan, U.S. it's been suggested that if
you have out of marriage sex, you can be sent to jail by the court of law.
Naturally, I just burst out in a spontaneous loud laugh, but then I thought
(with the crazy religious right operating in the US) that it might actually
be true.
Is it? 😕
Go to showers. Do not pass go...
Man...
Originally posted by stockenI could write my own book then, convince enough mindless zealots and in a few generations you'll have another annoying group of people saying that whatever insanities I've written in my book (such as not being allowed to dance) should be made a law that applies to all
Yes, the ten commandments has had a great influence on how people
here in the west think and act, even atheists. But, last time I looked,
adultery was not illegal in this country and I really don't think it should
be. When laws are decided upon, it shouldn't be because a large group
of people points to a work of fiction, claiming that their God says ...[text shortened]... other peoples feelings. It's really no reason to
start punishing people by the law.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm pretty sure shav was thinking normal, healthy bondage and whip sex, or
It's been happening for a long time, shav, and in some cases rightfully so. For example, pedophilia.
just some refreshing consensual sodomy. Not anything as vile as sexual
abuse.
(Disclaimer! Coming from me the above is not at all sarcasm.)
Originally posted by stockenI think we take the freedom to exercise our choice in mating for granted, the way we once took the right to travel the highways and byways and backwood roads for granted.
Not victimless at all. There are definitely victims in your analogy.
To make it clear, I'm not saying that property is the most important
thing to protect. Naturally I feel as bad as anyone else with normal ability to empathise when I hear about someone being cheated on. I simply disagree with you that it should be equated with a crime in the eyes of society at large.
With urbanization and the advent of the motor vehicle it became necessary to legislate to have competency in the form of licenses to determine the suitability of drivers and road worthy certification to declare the safety of vehicles in order to protect the greater good and prevent the unnecessary fatalities on the roads that not having a good licensing system in place would bring.
Is it wrong to speed? Is it wrong to make a U turn? Whatever your belief about driving and rules or the fact that you face a mandatory 10 year jail sentence in the US if you were to accidentally kill a road worker, statistics show that when they lower speed limits, fatal accidents decrease. When they limit the amount of blood alcohol a driver can have behind the wheel of a vehicle fatalities decrease.
All I am saying is that the effects of irresponsible liaisons are no less severe that serious road accidents or fatalities for which in the case of the highways of modern life, both the vehicles and the drivers are required to pass mandatory tests.
Why shouldn't we as humans be required to conform to similar forms of regulation. The effects of uncontrolled human behavior is no less devastating.
Originally posted by kmax87You actually believe that someone having sex with someone else who is married is as irresponsible as someone driving 80mph around city streets while drunk?
All I am saying is that the effects of irresponsible liaisons are no less severe that serious road accidents or fatalities for which in the case of the highways of modern life, both the vehicles and the drivers are required to pass mandatory tests.
Most people are not emotionally scarred by sex you know.
Originally posted by kmax87There is a difference between saying victimless and 'less serious'. Victimless implies no victim whatsoever and it is a fact that shoplifting or any other property theft is not a victimless crime whether or not you compare it to violent crime.
To your point about shoplifting not being a victimless crime, its all a matter of degrees then isnt it. Compared to a sex crime like rape, surely shoplifting is a victimless crime. Only property is stolen, which even by a minimum wage standard may in most cases only represent a few hours of work to pay for the theft.
Most criminal activity's are designated as such because of the risk of repeat behavior and threat to society in general. for example one of the main reasons for jail time is to remove the offender from the streets while simultaneously punishing the offender to try and discourage repeat behavior. Infidelity on the other hand cannot be perpetrated repeatedly against multiple victims (in a short space of time) and the best prevention mechanism is divorce (if the offended party so desires).
I am not sure, but civil damages can probably already be claimed in some countries.