# Should Infidelity be Illegal?



## slater (Feb 3, 2012)

I read Nikki1023's post and she mentioned that in the military, adultery is a criminal act. I had forgotten that. Wouldn't it be great if that were the case for civilians in every state? It might serve as a deterrent. If nothing else, it would really help BH's getting custody after their WS cheated.

If only....


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

In less modern countries they still stone unfaithful women ... probably not a good solution. Not so sure it is balanced. 

BUT, and I have zero legal knowledge here, but I would like to see a pre-nup contract where infidelity does impact the outcome. A bandaid? Perhaps. But one that may be sorely needed.

Maybe someone needs to write the Marriage 2.0 Pre-Nup contract. It probably exists. Vows don't seem to cut it any more.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

I personally believe the no fault divorce is destroying marriages. I don't think adultery should be made illegal but there should be definite consequences.


----------



## keko (Mar 21, 2012)

Beowulf said:


> I personally believe the no fault divorce is destroying marriages. I don't think adultery should be made illegal but there should be definite consequences.


:iagree:

Mostly no spousal support if infidelity was part of it, and even no seperation of marital properties and such to the cheating S.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

We don't need more inmates in our overcrowded prison system but I do agree that if the institution of marriage is to be protected then infidelity should be treated as a grievous breach of contract and severe penalties should be imposed (forfeiture of the marital assets - even if he/she contributed half, more or nothing - and custody of the children). Will it stop people from cheating on their spouses? No but those who engage in it will not be able to profit from their betrayal.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

That would certainly be nice in a community property state like Texas!


----------



## warlock07 (Oct 28, 2011)

I think there is a reason the no-fault divorces are adopted in some states. Relationships are complicated. Imagine the [email protected] that would happen,with spouses trying to incriminate one another in a bitter divorce.


----------



## kittykat09 (Mar 26, 2012)

warlock07 said:


> I think there is a reason the no-fault divorces are adopted in some states. Relationships are complicated. Imagine the [email protected] that would happen,with spouses trying to incriminate one another in a bitter divorce.


If they have proof to back up their claims, though...

I guess I just don't think it is right that someone who causes the relationship to end by cheating gets *rewarded* for causing pain and the dissolution of the marriage. They shouldn't get anything, it is called taking responsibility for screwing up. 

Even from a physical health standpoint it makes more sense to get people to divorce before they cheat and bring home STD's to an unwitting parter. :/


----------



## itgetsbetter (Mar 1, 2012)

I don't think it should be illegal in the sense that a person can go to jail for commiting adultery.

I do think there should be possible civil consequences in the judgment of the divorce lawsuit...purely punitive damages.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

You can't make every moral injustice in the world illegal. Or you can, but good luck enforcing that.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

The State and the Church have no business being involved in our sex lives.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

To be fair, the whole institute of marriage *is* an involvement of state and/or church into your sex life.


----------



## gpa (Feb 22, 2012)

Well in Greece adultery was a minor crime until late 70"s. It wasn't a reason to go to prison as one would pay some money and avoid prison.
BUT it was a major factor regarding children custody and support and a no go item in respect with the division of marital properties.
After the introduction of the non fault divorce and the de-criminalization of the adultery, we had in five years 1979-1984 an increase of 2000% in divorce applications!!!!


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

snap said:


> To be fair, the whole institute of marriage *is* an involvement of state and/or church into your sex life.


I disagree. The legalities of marriage are about property rights and custody and should never be about sex. 

No institution has the right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

We are a society that tends to think it is morally wrong to even want to know about a person's past. If a man or woman were to say they refused to marry another person because of their past, they would be labeled as uncaring and judgemental. Would that society actually stand by without protesting while a person was made to feel uncomfortable about a past affair?


----------



## sigma1299 (May 26, 2011)

Here's the biggest problem. What's the definition of infidelity? To be illegal there has to be a specific definition. About the best you could hope for would be something like Entropy suggested where a pre-marriage document defines the rules and if broken the wronged party can pursue a breach of contract claim. Even in that I'm still not sure how you would right the definition of an emotional affair that is enforceable that wouldn't also exclude some appropriate relationships.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> I disagree. The legalities of marriage are about property rights and custody and should never be about sex.
> 
> No institution has the right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults.


Well, in the case of cheating, one adult among the three is not consenting. You are arguing about something else.

As I wrote before, I don't see a point in criminalizing affairs. However, let's not pretend that the social expectation of marriage does not include the concepts of exclusivity and fidelity. In the times of old, cheating was an offense. Morally it still is, somewhere between selling used cars and fraud.


----------



## heavensangel (Feb 12, 2012)

oaksthorne said:


> I should be able to sue the b!tch who intruded into my marriage. There is redress for other kinds of pain and suffering, knowingly imposed on others, there should be for this too. My H is dealing with the effects of his behavior every day, she had suffered no consequences. There had been no negative reinforcement that will prevent her from doing the same thing to others.


Actually, I think there was a case alooonnnggg time ago where a BS did file a suit for 'alienation of affection' against the interfering woman and won.... been too long to remember the details but I remember hearing about it. 

I agree with those saying there should be some form of payment/penalty the WS should have to pay when they cheat on their family (when there's children involved, the WS is cheating on them too).


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

snap said:


> Well, in the case of cheating, one adult among the three is not consenting. You are arguing about something else.


The question was "Should infidelity be illegal". My argument is that it is not the business of the government, nor any other institution, i.e. it should not be illegal. I don't see how I'm 'arguing about something else' as that is a direct response to the OP's question.

Illegal and immoral are two different things, infidelity is immoral, but not illegal (in most Western countries), nor should it be.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> The question was "Should infidelity be illegal". My argument is that it is not the business of the government, nor any other institution, i.e. it should not be illegal. I don't see how I'm 'arguing about something else' as that is a direct response to the OP's question.


If not, it's not for the reasons you stated, that's it. It's not a case of some kink among the consenting adults as you argue, and really is a borderline behaviour. They *do* cause harm (emotional, health or financial) to a non-consenting third party.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

sigma1299 said:


> Here's the biggest problem. What's the definition of infidelity? To be illegal there has to be a specific definition. About the best you could hope for would be something like Entropy suggested where a pre-marriage document defines the rules and if broken the wronged party can pursue a breach of contract claim. Even in that I'm still not sure how you would right the definition of an emotional affair that is enforceable that wouldn't also exclude some appropriate relationships.


Excellent point. EAs can be just as destructive as PAs. But unlike PAs - which are universally viewed as evidence of marital betrayal - EAs can run the gamut from excessive communications to outright declarations of love. So unless there is an inclusion and a universal definition of EAs in any law punishing unfaithful spousal behavior, its effectiveness will be seriously in doubt.

For the moment, if people want to truly avoid the financial hardship of divorce, then avoiding marriage altogether would be the only logical choice for them.


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

I guess I am among those who think it making it criminal is an absolutely horrible idea. 

It's none of the state's business how people sort out their sex lives.

I don't think faultless divorce ruins marriages. Or perhaps more accurately, I think many ruined marriages need to be legally ended as quickly and efficiently as possible.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

slater said:


> I read Nikki1023's post and she mentioned that in the military, adultery is a criminal act. I had forgotten that. Wouldn't it be great if that were the case for civilians in every state? It might serve as a deterrent. If nothing else, it would really help BH's getting custody after their WS cheated.
> 
> If only....


No it would not be great.

It'd be horrible.

70% of people would be up on criminal charges and there'd be protests in the street supporting infinite different definitions of "infidelity"

If you think the children of broken homes are having a hard time now wait until their parents are jailed for this lunacy
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

Lionelhutz said:


> It's none of the state's business how people sort out their sex lives.


State does that all the time in rape cases, and we don't hear many objections to that. Just saying.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

snap said:


> State does that all the time in rape cases, and we don't hear many objections to that. Just saying.


You're equating rape with infidelity ?

Or are you equating rape with "sex lives" ?

Either way you're way off base
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

snap said:


> State does that all the time in rape cases, and we don't hear many objections to that. Just saying.


The law currently prosecutes people for throwing punches but oddly does not put people in jail for giving handshakes...it is a very confusing world


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

tacoma said:


> You're equating rape with infidelity ?
> 
> Or are you equating rape with "sex lives" ?
> 
> ...


Both are the cases of someone fixing their sex life at the expense of others, although, no they are not directly comparable.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

Lionelhutz said:


> The law currently prosecutes people for throwing punches but oddly does not put people in jail for giving handshakes...it is a very confusing world


The law prosecutes both for killing and throwing punches. See, I'm as good as you are at flawed analogies!


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

snap said:


> The law prosecutes both for killing and throwing punches. See, I'm as good as you are at flawed analogies!


Yes, as long as we both agreed that rape analogy is flawed.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

It was not an analogy, but an illustration of state dealing with matters of sex.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

snap said:


> State does that all the time in rape cases, and we don't hear many objections to that. Just saying.


Some victims of both rape and infidelity have stated that infidelity was far worse because it involved betrayal from the one they trusted above all others while the rape was a violent physical act perpetrated by a stranger(s). Nevertheless, rape is not as prevalent - despite feminist claims - as infidelity so its criminalization does not pose the monumental construction and maintenance costs of many new prisons that would be needed to house cheaters. Also let's face it what are the odds that legislators will be swayed to pass any punitive laws against infidelity when they are its worse perpetrators?


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

Yes, given the infidelity stats any legislation is a clear no-go.


----------



## Lionelhutz (Feb 2, 2012)

snap said:


> It was not an analogy, but an illustration of state dealing with matters of sex.


I agree. I apologize for misreading the question. I had assumed that your reference to infidelity was limited to consensual sex and did not extent to rape, paedophilia or necrophilia


----------



## warlock07 (Oct 28, 2011)

snap said:


> It was not an analogy, but an illustration of state dealing with matters of sex.


rape is assault not just sex


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Has anybody else thought that the reason why we have no-fault divorce in almost all States, was because the cheating legislators at the time saw that it would be to their advantage?

The only way that any infidelity legislation would have a chance to pass is if it went the route of the initiative process, passed and survived constitutional challenges. But that is still a monumental endeavor for it would have to gain more than 50% of voters support and that is not going to happen unless there is a change in the public perception that infidelity is a growing problem that is destroying the nation. I seriously doubt that public perception is even close to that.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

snap said:


> *Well, in the case of cheating, one adult among the three is not consenting. You are arguing about something else.*
> 
> As I wrote before, I don't see a point in criminalizing affairs. However, let's not pretend that the social expectation of marriage does not include the concepts of exclusivity and fidelity. In the times of old, cheating was an offense. Morally it still is, somewhere between selling used cars and fraud.


Nicely put. Indeed if all three or four partners are consenting there is by definition no infidelity. Excellent point. 

The state is involved with marriage in that one requires a license to be married. It sets in motion many legal ramifications. So it is indeed a legally binding state. A husband is repsonsible for any children his wife has whether they are his or not. So a spouse "consenting" to have sex with others is indeed a legal issue for that standpoint. That spouse is risking a child to be born and supported by other than the biological father. They are bringing risk of serious illness to their partner as well. Reckless endangerment to be sure. This may even be extortion.

In fact from this perspective Marriage 2.0 is very much a financial agreement sanctioned by the government. Otherwise why all the hoorang over same sex marriages by law makers?

We send people to prison for insider trading because of the harm this does to other investors. One could argue that infidelity can cause harm to the general population. The way that is mitigated is to make the husband responsible for all of the children. Most husbands would not consent to that.

I still think the answer to the current legal systems handling in these areas is to do a pre-nup. After all the government is dictating the fallout of infidelity now. It is very much legal to have a pre-nup. So this is insurance.

There are those that lay no responsibility on the poaching affair partner. There should be legal recourse that a BS can apply against a poacher. It takes two for an affair. If you have a single person in an affair with a married person they are adultry partners. Many say they made no comittment of fidelity and I am saying that IF marriage is a legal / financial which it is that a poacher is tampering with that legal contract and should be responsible in a legal / financial manner.

Right now the BS takes the brunt of the pain both emotionally and financially. So by shifting financial burden we give some relief in that area but also provide some deterrent to predators. We still have folks who fall into EAs innocently enough, but we draw a line somewhere where they are culpible. It would tend to put a greater inmpact on serial predators as well.

It should be noted that it is not in the governments interest to mandate DNA testing as they are very happy with the default of the husband being responsible for all childdren born out of sexual contact by his wife ( seems a tad unfair here but is done in the name of what is best for the children ). Spouses are not disposed to alert their spouse of extramarital sex. This is not just an issue for the husband per se. A wife is at risk that her husbands escapades may be challenged by his APs husband and he may end being responsible for that child. This puts a burden now on the wife. It is just not the default situation. The man having sex with a married woman puts her husband at risk in many ways including the responsiblitiy for the children that come for this. I think this poachers off the hook. In some ways this makes married women a bigger target. They have a default safety net for sexual activity that a single woman does not.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

warlock07 said:


> rape is assault not just sex


Not necessarily. There was no assault in Julian Assange case, and in many more lower-profile occurences. Anyway, I don't equate rape with infidelity, just pointing out that this libertarian streak of "state has no say below the waist" is a bit overzealous.


----------



## snap (Oct 3, 2011)

Entropy, I agree that just making the pre-nup mandatory procedure for marriage would improve the outcomes a lot.


----------



## WeDoExist (Mar 6, 2012)

Adultery is a felony in Michigan:

Act 328 of 1931; Chapter V

750.29 Adultery; definition.
Sec. 29.
Definition - Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person.

750.30 Adultery; punishment.
Sec. 30.
Punishment - Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.

750.31 Adultery; complaint and time of prosecution.
Sec. 31.
Complainant and time prosecution to be commenced - No prosecution for adultery, under the preceding section, shall be commenced, but on the complaint of the husband or wife; and no such prosecution shall be commenced after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.

750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Sec. 32.
Cohabitation by divorced parties - If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

If you do enough research, you'll find that even some states still have statutes on the books that criminalizes adultery. But getting those statutes off of them is an even bigger problem for the legislators; so the county prosecutors normally won't even entertain charging someone with that primarily because of the vagueness of the charge, getting a grand jury to indict, then getting 12 petit jury members on the same page to convict, the more than real possibility of being overturned on appeal, and really just the ever-changing mores inherent in our society.

But most state family law codes does allow for the presence of adultery to be used in property division and in child custody issues. No-fault divorces came about primarily because of the rampant number of cases that were being filed. But the judges and the attorneys just want to get as many of those case filings expedited through the judicial system in as a timely manner as possible, without any kind of regard as to either trying to legislate or to put morality on trial.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

morituri said:


> Excellent point. EAs can be just as destructive as PAs. But unlike PAs - which are universally viewed as evidence of marital betrayal - EAs can run the gamut from excessive communications to outright declarations of love. So unless there is an inclusion and a universal definition of EAs in any law punishing unfaithful spousal behavior, its effectiveness will be seriously in doubt.
> 
> For the moment, if people want to truly avoid the financial hardship of divorce, then avoiding marriage altogether would be the only logical choice for them.


I am assuming that common law marriages are still in scope. That after so long of cohabitation then there is a marriage.

Is this still true?


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

I don't think it should be illegal, but there should be some consequences, legally.

Marriage is a signed contract, based on the vows. When those vows are broken, there should be NO 'no fault states'. The cheater should get nothing. They chose to leave the marriage.

If I signed a business contract and broke that contract, my ass would be in court and I'd have to buy myself out, whatever.

Marriage should be treated the same...or else why sign the paper? 

Or, just add "In fidelity and without" to the vows.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Entropy3000 said:


> I am assuming that common law marriages are still in scope. That after so long of cohabitation then there is a marriage.
> 
> Is this still true?


CA doesn't recognize common law marriages. You could live with someone for 20 years and not be legally married in CA.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Entropy3000 said:


> Nicely put. Indeed if all three or four partners are consenting there is by definition no infidelity.


By whose definition?

Right now there is an active thread in these forums debating whether or not viewing porn is by definition infidelity.

It`s amazing how many view it as such.

:scratchhead:


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

warlock07 said:


> rape is assault not just sex


Some people feel extremely violated if not bordering on raped when their spouse is taken sexually by another. This is especially true of the AP is a predator type. I personally draw a distinction between someone who has poor boundaries and becomes emotionally involved with someone and the person who is out to nail that wife or play with that husband. They are both wrong, but I view one more heinous and willful that the other. Premeditated if you will. I see premediatetd adultry / poaching as more severe. Not saying it would be easy to prove but it exists on my view.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

tacoma said:


> By whose definition?
> 
> Right now there is an active thread in these forums debating whether or not viewing porn is by definition infidelity.
> 
> ...


By definition of agreement. If all four parties consent to any activity whatever it is it is by definition it is not infidelity. So in this case you do not have to fully define except to say that the four may agree to something that breaks other laws but that is not the question.

I am saying that if all four partners agree to swing then by definition it is not infidelity. If all foru agree that only two of the partners can do whatver then it is consenting. If a married couple engage in a threesome with a single person and all three agree it is consenting and not infidelity.

So may answer is -- logically it does not matter what the activity is.

I will not address the porn comment here as you point out there is another venue. But we can reel this in a bit. There are existing laws that we live under now where the government controls the ramifications of infidelity. In answer to the OP, I do not think that we need to make infidelity illegal, but we sure have made it legal already and with little consequence for the APs. The burden appears to be on the BSs by default. You can say it is even by splitting assets 50 / 50 but is that really equitable whne infidelity and especially children are involved?


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

I think the entire institution of marriage needs to be revisited. Do one or five or ten year contracts which, when over, just end. Put a lot of lawyers out of business! And infidelity could be part of that - if it occurs, the union can be dissolved early.

Of course that doesn't solve the problem of what exactly the definition of infidelity is.


----------



## Nikki1023 (Sep 24, 2011)

I think its horrible. And heres WHY. I am LIVING with INFIDELITY being viewed as a CRIME. My husband is being FALSELY accused of Sexual Assault, because his OW does not want to have an adverse write up on her record. It is disgusting. BUt lets just pretend for a second she didnt cry fowl..and owned up to what she was doing. Her, as well as my Husband would be reduced in rank..which means he would be making LESS money..and have low chances of being promoted. SO his career..in essence is OVER. 

Him cheating was WRONG. But should his career be over because of it? Should my children and I be faced with receiving less financial means because of it? ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is a personal matter. 

I think its ridiculous, on so many levels. Making something like this illegal is sort of a form of prohibition. It brings out the worst in people, and they only look out for themselves. If we didnt have the financial means to hire a CIVILIAN lawyer...this would have been very ugly.


----------



## sigma1299 (May 26, 2011)

Entropy3000 said:


> I am assuming that common law marriages are still in scope. That after so long of cohabitation then there is a marriage.
> 
> Is this still true?


Must vary by state. Mississippi does recognize common law marriage.


----------



## jnj express (Mar 28, 2011)

7 states have the Alienation of Affection, and Criminal Conversation torts---all states need to put them back in their codes----Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress---these are always available against the Lover.

As to the Spouse----if they wanna cheat---they should get nothing, nada, zip---in a D.---No alimony---Child Support should be set in an acct, where the money is only doled out for the child's expenses---and they give up all the assets, in the property settlemen-------WHOOPS---I GUESS I CAN WAKE UP FROM MY DREAM


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I'm all for it, if there's also legal consequences for spouses who shut down sexual intimacy... 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

PBear said:


> I'm all for it, if there's also legal consequences for spouses who shut down sexual intimacy...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And the madness begins!!


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Well, people should write their OWN vows about what is important to them.

"I vow to eff your brains out at least 4 times a week, except when I'm on the rag."

Romance! hahaha but at least y'all know what you're getting into.

It BLOWS MY MIND how many people do not talk about these things before marriage.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

snap said:


> If not, it's not for the reasons you stated, that's it. It's not a case of some kink among the consenting adults as you argue, and really is a borderline behaviour. They *do* cause harm (emotional, health or financial) to a non-consenting third party.


I'm not arguing about whether they cause harm or not. I am just arguing, in response to the OP's question that it is not, nor should be a legal matter directly. 

You seem determined to misunderstand what I am saying. Morally wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. Ok?


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

tacoma said:


> And the madness begins!!
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I figured it was time for some gasoline on the flames... Just in time for lunch!

*donning flame-proof suit*

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

morituri said:


> Some victims of both rape and infidelity have stated that infidelity was far worse because it involved betrayal from the one they trusted above all others while the rape was a violent physical act perpetrated by a stranger(s).


This is absolute BS, especially considering that the vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim trusted.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

PBear said:


> I'm all for it, if there's also legal consequences for spouses who shut down sexual intimacy...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Suing for sex. Sounds like a game or reality show.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

There is nothing else I can think of that one person can legally do to another that is more abusive and damaging (mentally & physically) than commiting adultery. Yet, there are no legal deterants, or recourse for this very personal assault on someones well being and quality of life. Kinda defies logic. 

Of course my logic is defined on a very small scale in the grand scheme of things. 

Im certain that a crime as old as maritial infidelity has been examined, disected, and addressed at the levels that control law and manage the big picture of society... _They_ decided it's ok. I'm sure as with all things that defy basic logic, there is a good reason that things are the way they are. For someone.

Sadly, I suppose it's a waste of mental capital to concern myself with it.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Entropy3000 said:


> Suing for sex. Sounds like a game or reality show.


And the only "people" who win are the lawyers, as they f*ck over everyone!

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Maybe vows should be optional now. Many people ignore them anyway.

I take mine seriously. Which is why I waited until 33 to marry. I knew I would break them before...so I never took them.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> There is nothing else I can think of that one person can legally do to another that is more abusive and damaging mentally and physically than commiting adultery. Yet, there are no legal deterants, or recourse for this very personal assault on someones well being and quality of life. Kinda defies logic.


Really?

I can think of dozens of acts worse or more damaging.]
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Hope1964 said:


> I think the entire institution of marriage needs to be revisited. Do one or five or ten year contracts which, when over, just end. Put a lot of lawyers out of business! And infidelity could be part of that - if it occurs, the union can be dissolved early.
> 
> Of course that doesn't solve the problem of what exactly the definition of infidelity is.


I get your point but I would not be interested in such a thing. Maybe folks can do marriage a la cart. I think this reality exists now to a large degree. Folks are married for some number of years and then divorce for various reasons. They are all just in their free agent year it seems.

This concept would fit right into hypergamy though. Marriage loses much without the "illusion" of permanency. 

So folks can then get a letter of reference from thier previous spouse?


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

tacoma said:


> Really?
> 
> I can think of dozens of acts worse or more damaging.]
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So can I. 

But, I said legally.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

Yes it should be illegal
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

