[MAJeff here. I'll remember this one of these times.]
Apparently, John Edwards had an affair. I've been out of the news loop and haven't been following it other than what I see in a few blog comment sections. I'm honestly not all that interested in the sex lives of the powerful; I'm more interested in the social reaction. So, I'm going to talk about a few things that I've seen, and tie those into issues of marriage and sex regulation by the state.
One thing I've heard is, "at least he didn't break the law." Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it's less likely to be the legal "reason" for the divorce ["Irreconcilable differences" or its equivalent is the norm].
Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won't allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you've violated the terms of the contract. You've sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.
Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic it wasn't sex outside of marriage, but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men's property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man's. It wasn't about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman's womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]
Indeed, the comment of Edwards's, that he "didn't love" the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, "Thank you" to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn't gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.
Additionally, marriage has become more focused on intimate life. It has, over the course of the past couple centuries, become a space in which emotional and affective life is more and more important. Indeed, a romantic friendship at work--devoid of sexual activity--or flirtatious talk in an online chat-room are now examples of infidelity, reasons worthy of filing for divorce. The contract has not been violated, but the intimacy and trust held as the contemporary bases of marriage have been. Marriage has become less about procreation and more about intimacy (Griswold severed the procreative imperative from marital conjugality). That has changed both what counts as cheating and which relationships count as marriages.
Even though, in some places, same-sex couples have been included in marriage, another comment I saw yesterday reminded me how homosexuality is still to be excluded from "legitimate" domestic and intimate spaces. Someone wrote: "I'm happy Edwards's affair was with a woman, unlike those Republicans who have affairs with the same sex." Adultery can be forgiven, homosexuality can't.
Well, in Vermont, if that affair had been with a man, it would not have been adultery. Recall above the definition of adultery. I wasn't only sex with a married woman, but vaginal intercourse. It was the sex that would make babies, and only that sex. And, in the 2003 Blanchflower decision, the Vermont Supreme Court held that same-sex activity there did not fall under the definition of adultery. It might be cheating, but it isn't cheating against the contract or the state. What is even more interesting about this is that Vermont's Civil Union statutes are basically the same as their marriage statutes. If the adultery statute is to apply to same-sex couples, it's going to take some special kinds of cheating to make it adultery. [Cossman, linked above, has a discussion of the changing status of adultery in law and popular culture.]
Marriage and the family are constantly changing. "Traditional marriage" is a moving target. A century ago, the statement "I didn't love her" wouldn't have mattered in the least. Marriage was a different beastie then, far less organized around the intimate and emotional than it is today. These news moments provide us an opportunity--not to talk about the individual relationship, but instead the public issues surrounding it, like how the institution and its regulation are changing. Those are, I think, far more important.
- Log in to post comments
Some states don't require a public ceremony.
Some states don't require a public ceremony.
Taking the vows in front of witnesses isn't required for a marriage license? Where?
A fascinating book about it is Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz. I know there are a lot of others as well. It was honestly surprising to me to realize exactly how recent the whole "marry for love and your love must fill all the emotional needs in your life" meme really is.
I'd also suggest Nancy Cott's Public Vows. Anything by Coontz is good, as is Judith Stacey.
Maybe EyeNoU is talking about common law marriages?
I'd forgotten about Common Law. Most states have regulated those out of existence. I can't recall how many, if any, still recognize it...been a few years since I've dealt with that specific issue.
I would argue that modern, no-fault divorces revolve around the construction of a case of abandonment. That's what legal separation is for. Having been a witness in a divorce case, the thing that the judge was most interested in was that the couple hadn't been cohabitating for a year.
It wasn't about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman's womb.
Wouldn't that be, "another man's womb"? After all, the wife was the husband's property.
When public figures having affairs, I only care when it makes them into big hipocryts. Well, yes, I lose a little respect for them, but it doesn't really affect their fitness for office unless they are going against the rhetoric that got them into office. That's why it's always more interesting when an outspoken, anty-gay politicial or religious professional is caught in a homosexual affair.
Wouldn't that be, "another man's womb"? After all, the wife was the husband's property.
oops. yup. Fixing.
I would argue that modern, no-fault divorces revolve around the construction of a case of abandonment. That's what legal separation is for.
But that's not actually no-fault, then. It's a wink at the law by creating a fake cause. New York's is that way (I think it's one of only a handful of states left that don't have no-fault). I don't see why they don't go ahead and have no-fault as an option, if they'll go so far as to say that two people who decide to live separately are "abandoning" each other.
Abandonment is an issue of fault. Separation is a no-fault solution based on the idea that the relationship had simply broken down. The basic idea in no-fault is that of the relationship having dissolved. It is, in part, due to the rise of the intimate and emotional as central organizing features during the twentieth century.
The first "divorce revolution" was probably in the 1820-40s. Indiana was the divorce Las Vegas of the day. Abandonment was introduced as a form of fault, largely because women who had been left couldn't remarry. It was during this era when "Fault" divorces tended to become more common, and when jurisdiction for individual divorces was shifted from the legislatures to the courts. Women, in particular, could now file to end the relationship with a judge instead of asking the state legislature to grant her one. And it was usually women doing so because many men would just pick up and leave without going through the legal formalities.
"Taking the vows in front of witnesses isn't required for a marriage license? Where?"
Texas, for one.
Just to tweak the noses of the bleeding heart Liberals (capital L) here, for whom their darling socialists can Do No Wrong, Mr. Edwards just screwed (literally) himself out of the VP slot, and possibly permanently out of consideration for any office other than his current one. The voters have a short enough memory that they probably will continue to re-elect him to the legislature.
But Mr. Obama will be more than happy to throw him under the bus, just like he has done to others that he thinks no longer benefit his campaign.
#2, #5, and #6: Some religious traditions (including the Society of Friends, if I recall correctly) don't celebrate marriage with a public ceremony, or don't have an officiant, etc. Pennsylvania offers a "self-uniting marriage license" which merely requires the signature of the couple and two witnesses to be valid.
The Federal courts have held that membership in a clergyless religious system isn't necessary to get a self-uniting marriage license, so those with "secular beliefs" (which sounds like a code-word for atheist to me) can self-unite.
Promising to love someone forever is like promising to be lucky forever. It's a fatuous statement that's forgivable if you're high, but for some reason we've legislated it.
TX CHL Instructor writes:
"for whom their darling socialists can Do No Wrong"
Neither Edwards nor Obama is a socialist -- they're not even pale imitations of socialists -- so precisely what the heck are you talking about?
yeah, except that he doesn't currently hold elective office. You should try, you know, actually knowing what you're talking about perhaps.
Nonsense - what we've legislated is not about love, but is about a contract in which one respects the other person. While I fully expect that my wife and I will love each other forever (maybe I'm naive, but we have a good thing), the marriage as a civil union is a way to gain some tax benefits on the condition that we behave in certain ways and respect one another (and the contract) enough not to violate it.
The marriage as a legal construct isn't about love, it's about behaviour - something you really can control.
I don't think that adultery should be criminalized. I don't think adultery is good, and I would lose respect of the person, but making it illegal seems to be going a bit too far. What do you guys think? Am I making an informed idea?
Why the hell would that tweak anyone's noses? A politician had an affair and got caught. Shocker!!!! And that has what to do with being a liberal or conservative?
Conservatives don't get busted having affairs?
Fantastic write-up, MAJeff.
Random thoughts inc:
I've been debating for a long time (with friends and internet strangers) about the legal, religious and social issues involving marriage. I personally hadn't done any reseach into "adultery", so this entry is very helpful.
I have long argued that marriage is primarily a legal contract between the three or four parties involved (couple, state and optionally religion). There are too many tax and legal benefits to be able to label it merely as a "spiritual" contract.
As for Edwards... I don't know what to think. To be sure, I don't care too much; adultery is really a matter for his family to handle. I'll admit to being a little disappointed, in that I've lost a little respect for the man. However, (to me) it wouldn't affect his viability for the Presidency.
Additionally, there are certain social environments where "adultery" is more common. In my experience, this includes high stress levels and areas where charisma is a valued commodity: Politics, Acting (theater, television), etc.
, the marriage as a civil union is a way to gain some tax benefits on the condition that we behave in certain ways and respect one another (and the contract) enough not to violate it.
But why is that? Why give tax benefits on the condition that you not fall in love with or have sex with other people? It's a non sequitur. Tax benefits based on financial responsibility, ok, but that can be done in a lot of ways other than through a romantic relationship. There are already laws in place to ensure people support their children, and there is movement starting to grant legal rights and responsibilities to good friends for single people (think two elderly neighbors who don't have any family, but need each other to visit in hospital, for instance).
#12
IIRR, one of the conditions for establishing a common law marriage in TX is that the parties represent themselves to others as if they were married, which seems to me to fall under the point MAJeff was making about public ceremonies.
#14
Same there - filing a document with witness signatures is a kind of public ceremony. No cake, but ceremony nonetheless.
Fascinating stuff! Is this excerpted from the Soc. of Sexuality class you've alluded to elsewhere?
The notion that adultery could be criminal just horrifies me. I'm sure it's one of those laws that's almost never enforced, but even so...
Yah... and I have real heartburn with the notion that folks' sexuality should be subject to much, if any, regulation. I'm no libertarian: I'm all for government regulation when it's warranted and effective... but regulation of sexuality is (IMHO) neither. The state — which is to say, your neighbors — has no legitimate compelling interest in regulating who you have sex with, or what kind of sex you have, or the frequency or permanence of your sexual activities. And even if it did have such an interest, there's no effective way to enforce control over such a private, intimate aspect of life (as witness the long and inglorious history of adultery in societies where it's nominally forbidden).
Yup. My problem is that the rest of the contract — which is essentially economic and social, and (IMHO) legitimately the subject of state involvement — should be dependent on specific promises about private sexual behavior... promises which, if (all of human) history is any guide, are virtually impossible for a large percentage of us to keep.
And BTW...
...since when has breaching a partnership agreement been criminal? Your choice of the word "sinning" is apt: I suspect it's only owing to religious restrictions on sexuality (i.e., the notion of sexual sin), that we have such comprehensive legal/criminal limitations on sexuality (however unenforceable most of them might be).
Because I believe in fairness and hate legal inequality, I support marriage equality... but in my utopian dreams, we would abolish civil marriage altogether, replacing it with a sensible legal framework for the economic partnership aspects of what we now call "marriage," and leaving the personal, sexual, and spiritual aspects (for those to whom they are important) to nongovernmental organizations (i.e., religious groups, yes, but also any private social/philosophical groups that had any interest in publicly recognizing and celebrating such relationships).
In fact, my dreams — and yes, I know how impossible this is in today's America — go further: I would like to see a constitutional guarrantee of personal sexual liberty... an enshrining of the principle that no law should prohibit, restrict, encourage, or mandate any behavior based solely on its sexual nature. This would have the effect of instantly desexing civil marriage, not to mention legalizing sex work, but it wouldn't be the social apocalypse it might at first seem: Acts that violate others' rights (e.g., rape, child abuse, human trafficking, etc.) would still be crimes because they violate others' rights, but not because they involve sex; behaviors that legitimately affect public health could still be regulated on a public health basis, just not because they're "sinful"; businesses, including those that create a public nuisance or disturb the peace, could still be regulated in exactly the same way as all businesses.
So this would strike down legal restrictions on gays and their relationships; would invalidate prohibitions on pornography and sex toys; and would legalize sex work, nonmonogamous sex, and so-called sodomy. But it would leave our legitimate mutual interests in social and economic regulation intact. In fact, by bringing some of these things out of legal twilight into the light of day, we might be able to exercise legitimate regulation more effectively (e.g., legalizing prostitution would almost certainly make it easier to combat human trafficking and to apply reasonable public health standards).
It'll never happen in 'Murrica, of course, but as the song says, "I can dream, can't I?"
MAJeff at #4:
I'd also suggest Nancy Cott's Public Vows.
Seconded! That book was used in my grad-level "US Women's History" class that I took last fall, and it was probably the most interesting of the six books we read and discussed. I highly recommend it.
The astute TX CHL Instructor noted (#13),
You mean like McCain and the nutbag Hagee?
(It's always fun when capital-R Republicans complain about common political manuevering...like they don't do it themselves. Asses.)
MAJeff,
why can't you just make a stupid post about John Edward's affair ?
You're giving us too much to think about. That's nasty ;-)
Rev BigDumbChimp @ #20:
Of course (male) conservatives get busted having affairs... but how often do they get busted having affairs with adult women?
What a strange story this is. Funny though how the Democrats tend to get caught with women, and the republicans tend to get caught with boys (okay, not often, but the sheer steepness of the hypocrisy involved often makes it seem that way :)
and why did Edwards have to elabourate that "he didn't love her"? What a horrible thing to say. Too bad, I quite liked Edwards, but I guess that sort of thing pretty well dooms his political career since the only politicians who step down after stuff like this are Democrats. Democrats don't like fighting back, it's what separates them from Repugs.
Nobody even on Pharyngula has pointed this out, which surprises me - This isn't just another politician being a scumbag, this is another prominent CHRISTIAN being a hypocrite and not following his religion, even though it's the basis of his public persona.
and why did Edwards have to elabourate that "he didn't love her"? What a horrible thing to say.
Well, that's a lot of the point of the post. He had to say that to prove that he didn't violate what we now think to be the most important part of the marriage contract, the emotional one. However, up until recently, it didn't matter at all who he loved, the important thing was where he could have left a magic sperm to grow a baby. Now it's the opposite.
Carlie @22
Well, I suspect the original goal of marriage was to encourage settling down to have children, and that the tax benefits were a way to encourage it and facilitate life for those thying to start families? I don't know for certain though.
I agree - I think that the benefits should be completely divorced from the romantic bit; most of the benefits have to do with costs of things like child care, education and so on, and pertain to people involved in a long term co-dependency, but limiting it to those who are also romantically linked doesn't seem sensible or fair. Same sex marriage is legal here, which is a good step, but it's still linking the romantic with the practical.
That said, I do support adultery laws, for those that choose to enter into marriage contracts and then break them. I have no sympathy at all for people who violate the trust of others. Perhaps some people need marriages with time periods (like most contracts) so that one can marry for 5 years, and then opt to renew it; an alternative might also be marriage until children hit a certain age. I have no issue with a contract having a time limit, just with violations of trust.
I'm very glad he did not win the democratic primary.
I disagree: Edward's qualification about his affair asserts that while he violated the "rules" about his physical behavior, he did not violate his fundamental emotional commitment to his wife.
Now, whether you believe that or just write it off as self-serving and disingenuous on Edwards' part, it brings up an issue worth talking about: Almost anyone who's post-puberty will tell you that the overlap between sexual desire and romantic love is far from total, and yet our laws and customs around marriage and sexuality cling to the fiction that sex is always an expression of love, and that sexual infidelity is always a betrayal of love.
Even if it was nothing more than a craven bit of CYA excuse making, Edwards' comment about not loving his "bit on the side" reminds us that there's a distinction to be made between what we do with our genitals and what we do with our hearts.
BTW...
As other's have already pointed out (but it obviously bears repeating), Edwards does not currently hold any elective office, so "stepping down" isn't an issue. Further, I don't believe he was on anyone's short list for VP even before this admission (having run for VP and lost once, it strikes me as unlikely he would be interested in running for the second spot again). So as far as electoral politics is concerned, Edwards' only likely future race would be for president in 2016 (I refuse to even consider the possibility that there won't be a Democratic incumbent on the ticket in 2012!). Presuming Elizabeth sticks by him (and it seems she will, as she's known about the affair for 2 years and hasn't left him yet), I think by the time the 2016 election campaign cranks up, this affair will be nothing more than a historical footnote. The real question in my mind is whether this episode excludes Edwards from consideration for Obama's cabinet (I was thinking maybe Sec. Labor or Sec. Health and Human Services, since Edwards is so focused on poverty and social justice issues).
If you doubt that last, consider that John McCain treated his first wife in a fairly beastly fashion (she had a disfiguring accident while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, and was by all accounts no longer pretty enough for the returning war hero when he got home), beginning his relationship with the beer-heiress Cindy while he was still married and moving in with her before his divorce was final. This history has not prevented McCain from winning his party's nomination in an open primary season, nor has it (yet) seemed much of a problem for him during the campaign.
The other obvious comparison is Newt Gingrich, who was essentially forced out of the Congress (during the Clinton impeachment process!!) by revelations of his sexual past. Gingrich famously dumped one of his wives in her hospital room while she was undergoing cancer treatment. (By contrast, and contradictory to initial reports, Edwards did not carry on his affair during his wife's cancer treatment: It was over — and he'd already confessed to her — before the recurrence of her cancer.) Notwithstanding this history, Gingrich was seriously touted as a presidential candidate during this cycle, and probably would've won the nomination had he chosen to run.
Mind you, I don't mean to be suggesting it should be otherwise: I think our electoral politics would be much better served if we let our candidates' sexual lives stay entirely private. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to electoral politics and sexual misbehavior, time really does seem to heal all wounds.
Bill Dauphin @ 24
"Yah... and I have real heartburn with the notion that folks' sexuality should be subject to much, if any, regulation. I'm no libertarian: I'm all for government regulation when it's warranted and effective... but regulation of sexuality is (IMHO) neither."
You know, whenever I look at sexuality laws, I always come to the conclusion that there is only one sexual act that the state could possibly have an interest in regulating, and that is procreation. I mean, I can understand how you might want to be able to control the birthrate to avoid resource disasters - famine, disease, that sort of thing.
But of course, what do we see? Homosexual sex is regulated in many places, and yet any two idiots can get drunk and have a child, and that's OK.
Anyway, enough off-topic ranting, but every time I think about government interference in the bedroom, I come to the same conclusion, and it makes me soooo mad!
Maureen Dowd puts the smackdown on Edwards and hits the nail on the head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?_r=1&em&oref=slog…
I'm with the great sage and eminent adulterer Pierre Eliot Trudeau here, when he said, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." Then again, Canada also recognises common-law marriages, and, in fact, one can find oneself in a common-law marriage here whether one wants to or not, depending on the length of time one has been cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex. This, of course, needs to be fixed, but hasn't been yet. (Hypothetically speaking, it is entirely possible in Canada for a pair of good friends, he a gay man and she a lesbian, to have lived together in a roommate arrangement long enough to find themselves de jure married for certain purposes. Bzzt! Sorry, human rights violation. Go directly to the Commission, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 in marriage license fees.)
My opposition to things like adultery laws would be asking the question, "Does the state have a compelling interest in enforcing all the terms and conditions of the contract?" I would say the answer, at least as it pertains to sexual monogamy, is no. Even assuming there's issues of paternity involved -- and many times there are not -- that to me isn't a state issue, it's an interpersonal issue. The insistence on it, particularly when it is possible to have non-injurious, non-monogamous relationships -- as long as you're not suffering from a religious hangover -- strikes me as being leftover state-sanctioned piety. I also wasn't aware that monogamy was an absolute condition of civil (not religious) marriage; I essentially thought that what you did sexually behind closed doors was your business, where "you" is the collective. There's another reason not to get civilly married, I suppose. Who wants to be monogamous forever? Bleah...
I disagree with MAJeff here. My first guess was that the person who wrote that was pointing out the hypocrisy. What I mean is that 1) despite being gay, Republicans have a beard in the form of a wife and children (which is just evil, assuming she doesn't know) and that 2) they tend to be among the purveyors of distinctly anti-gay legislation.
Benjamin Geiger @ #28
How soon we forget. Newt Gingrich admitted his extramarital affair, but I guess it's ok becuase he got absolution from James Dobson.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html
Geez, if you're going to relegate to scumbag status everone who's ever followed his (or her) genitals into a place he (or she) really shouldn't go, you're going to be awfully lonely on that shining hill (or maybe not, eh?). Edwards has characterized this as a terrible mistake; do you really think it invalidates everything else about him?
Like most Democrats, Edwards has not made his faith a part of his core political identity in anything like the way Republicans regularly do. It's a sad fact of American political life that nobody can run for any office these days without saying something about their personal beliefs... but making conservative Christian "values" issues a core part of the political message is almost exclusively a Republican tactic.
Personally, I think politicians' sex lives should be completely off limits... but when your political identity is based on scolding the rest of the country for its licentiousness (as the current generation of wingnuts invariably do), hypocrisy becomes a legitimate issue, even when the underlying sexual behavior is not. Judge Edwards as harshly as you want; he's not guilty of the same type of hypocrisy as (for instance) a Larry Craig.
Carlie #22 wrote:
I view marriage as slightly more than *just* a legal contract. It also represents a state (and possibly religious) endorsement of lifestyle. To wit: a happy family unit is healthy for the community and state at large.
So, I disagree with you about the utility of marriage (and monogamy); it makes sense that states want their citizens to create (and maintain) healthy families. Cohesive units use less resources (and in theory require less intervention).
Keep in mind: marriage is primarily a legal contract. But I think it's a mistake to dismiss it as "merely" legal.
Hmm. Marriage: that's something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It didn't help that I'm part of the generation that views marriage as completely null and void simply because what's the point if you're going to divorce 2 to 5 years later. Also I am in a relationship right now that marriage is a topic of discussion. NOT because I want to have a ceremony or some sort of recognition by the states but because WE can't get heath care, life insurance, even hospital visits(?) because our names aren't together on a piece of paper? (I may be wrong on a few things but seriously if you're denied the title "family" simply because you didn't have a ceremony.) I suppose the whole thing wouldn't bother me if gays were allowed to marry. Otherwise, I have always viewed marriage as giving off the girl as property (in traditional religious ceremony the father "gives" away the daughter. . UMMM.) or as a validation for having children. As I won't subjugate myself to either so I feel frustrated by the decision to get married.
But there are a lot more ways to make healthy families than a couple who are romantically linked, is the point I'm making. I don't see why that one way should be so privileged in law above all the rest, especially as it seems to be the most fragile.
"The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation", that conclusion?
Encouraging the creation and maintenance of healthy households/families certain does make sense, and is a legitimate interest of the state. What's not so clear — in fact, what I deny emphatically — is that the creation and maintenance of healthy families requires enforced permanent sexual monogamy... or, for that matter, any socially mandated restrictions on consensual sexual behavior among adults. Take the sexual rules out of play and you have more, not fewer, opportunities to create stable, happy households. Or so it seems to me, in any case.
Bill, you sound like a libertarian to me!
And that's OK, I am a long-time (little-l) libertarian myself -- strong on law and order, and strong on law staying OUT of my bedroom, OUT my medicine cabinet, OUT of my kitchen, OUT of my library. We libertarians think it a legitimate function of government legislation to protect me from you, you from me, both of us from others, and others from either of us or anyone who would do us/them harm for fun, profit or prophet; but we do not think it a legitimate role of government legislation to protect me from myself, you from your own self, or others from their own selves -- that's what parents are for (at least up until we ourselves become adults). Any who can agree with what I just said are at least de facto (little-l) libertarians to a substantial extent.
In any event, I think PZ hit every nail squarely on the head on this subject of marriage and infidelity. It does bother me, though, that we might have two standards concerning lying to the public, one where we regard it serious to be lied to by public servants regarding matters that do affect us or are our business, and not too serious when we are lied to by public servants regarding matters that do not (at least, not prima facie) affect us or are not really our business. Just as when the Bible errs in what it plainly says regarding matters we can check and verify SHOULD worry us about where it errs in what it plainly says about matters we can not check and verify, it worries me what a public servant might lie to me about that affects me or is my business when I learn he lied to me about matters that do not affect me or are not my business. I can dismiss a public (or would-be public) servant's peccadilloes that are of a purely personal matter which one candidly acknowledges (or at least remains silent about) when appropriate, but I find it hard to dismiss being lied to on any account by a public (or would-be public) servant. I can't help it, that's just me.
I'm happy with that, they're all scumbags. There are things one doesn't do. I don't like the trivialising of one of the biggest betrayls of trust one can commit. If you want a relationship in which you sleep around, power to you - make sure the other partner is fine with it and have fun. I'm not uptight that way, I have friends who've been in very open relationships, and I think it's great for people who are wired that way.
If you agree not to sleep around and break your word I have no respect for you. Period. You are in a relationship with someone, and want to sleep with someone else? Talk to your partner, explain it - don't cheat.
They'll either be okay with it (good for you), or they won't, at which point you decide between two things - your libido or (potentially) your relationship.
Giuliani is noted for having several affairs, some very public. And, of course, John McCain left the wife that supported him while in Vietnam and raised his three kids for a rich 25-year-old.
"'Family values' -- I do not think that term means what you think it means..."
My whole problem with the Edwards affair is that Rielle Hunter is not hot enough. ;p
Not even close. I have no formal political science or philosophy background, so I won't argue definitions, but in a very practical sense, I'm at political odds with virtually every self-identified libertarian I've ever met. Libertarians make the mistake of assuming anyone who defends some aspect of personal liberty against state intrusion is One of Them... but I don't think that's the case: While I'm a strong advocate for keeping the state out of, as you put it, keeping the Government out of our bedrooms and libraries, along with other aspects of life that I consider essentially private, I do accept that "society" exists as something more than the accidental sum of individual actions... and that "we, the people" have a legitimate concern for espressing our collective voice in regulating and moderating our society "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To me, legitimate "regulation" is not some sort of external oppression, but rather the expression of our common voice in the service of self-governance.
I can't speak for you, of course, but most self-described libertarians I've spoken to would disagree with almost every word of the above.
Not to pick a nit, but it wasn't PZ who wrote this post; it was the inestimable MAJeff, one of several guest bloggers covering this space while PZ is off having more fun than the law should allow.
To what extent has Edwards based his public service on "defending the sanctity of marriage" and promoting other such "family values" stuff? Has he been a crusader for purity laws? I realize he makes a big deal out of supporting his wife, but has he acted upon those things politically?
You know, like Larry Craig and David Vitter, who have championed themselves as the protectors of marriage?
For me, it's never been a case of "ooooo, he had an affair," but "that moron proclaims to be a great defender of marriage and goes out and has an affair." Barney Frank can have all the gay affairs he wants, but he won't get any grief from me because he doesn't spend his time crusading against homosexuality.
It's not adultery that is the sin of the politician, it is the hypocrisy.
Adultery laws are still on the books, but they're not enforced because they are unconstitutional.
Carlie (#43) and Bill (#45) - it seems your opinions can (generally) be summed up by Carlie's statement:
I wont disagree. To be perfectly honest, I think we could do more for "cohesive family units" today by addressing popular media/content than by using endorsing sexual practices via marriage.
With that said, we already have marriage in our box of societal tools - it already does some part of the work. Doesn't that justify its utility?
Hey, this happened to me—and a bunch of people I knew! It's not clear to me whether this is recognized in my current state, but it's a bit disturbing. Especially since normally one requirement is to represent yourselves as a married couple, and where I lived (Quebec) it is actually illegal for a woman to take her husband's name anyway, so this makes it a little confusing now that I'm back in the US. I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't be legally recognized at this point because we're no longer cohabitating, but like I said, disturbing!
Oh, and Bill Dauphin, don't worry, you're nowhere near a libertarian.
McCain, Reagan, Robertson, Gingrich, ... and many other conservative had affairs with adult women. The difference is that the Republican party is the 'Strong Father' party. It's expected that these successful male leaders should be attractive to women - and thus, their affairs with adult women are not news. The Democratic party, on the other hand, is the weak mommy party, and it's definitely news when mommy has an affair.
For some reason the note on demanding public ceremonies gets me to think of the efforts to get de facto partnerships equalized to marriages as going "from public ceremonies to pubic ceremonies".
[One can tell when the first couple of mondays after vacation happens.]
I was minding my own business reading Pharyngula, and somebody posted about a border dispute between Georgia and Russia, complete with tanks on the roll and bombing runs.
I rushed to the TV and began to scan the News Channels. All Edwards, all day long.
US media is a disaster.
Not only is it impossible to mind your own business, but you can't get any information if there is celebrity sex.
ugggggyhhh
"I wasn't only sex with a married woman, but vaginal intercourse."
What a difference a 't' makes. Don't be a vaginal intercourse, Jeff, I suspect you wouldn't like it.
Hunh. Now here I aways thought that the "public ceremony" stuff was because getting hitched is a "public act".
In the same sense as getting a lien recorded on your house, but with more flowers. 'Cause, after the ceremony the couple is treated as a single legal entity, and it's only fair that the public be warned.
So when are we going to find out about the Mittster's secret second (and third, and...) marriages? Potential veepdom looms, and "Enquiring Minds Want to Know!".
Tabloids, start your engines.
Exactly. I like the meme that replaces "family" with "patriarchy" in conservative-speak, which then makes these cheating politicians endorsement of "patriarchy values" much more consistent.
Epinephrine:
I object to your notion that I'm trivializing anything. It's not that I don't understand the importance of keeping one's word (even when it's a promise that we essentially force people to make through law and custom)... but I think you don't understand the scope and scale of human fallibility. Have you seen the statistics on marital infidelity (which don't even begin to include those who've "cheated" in ostensibly committed relationships society doesn't deign to recognize)? Have you, yourself, never broken your word on anything important? Never made a promise that you found yourself, 5 or 10 or 15 years later, incapable of keeping? Never been sexually tempted, perhaps in a situation where if you'd been just a tiny bit more tired or distracted, or if you'd had just one more drink, you might have slipped? Do you really have no cause, throughout your whole life, to say "there but for the grace of FSM go I" in response to Edwards' situation?
If that's the case, more power to you: You're "a better man than I am, Gunga Din." Edwards identified narcicism as his problem, and I think that was a correct self-diagnosis... but it takes a special sort of hubris to believe you're not at least potentially vulnerable to the same weakness. But even if you really are pure as you implicitly claim, I still think relegating everyone who is not to "scumbag" status is going to leave you awfully lonesome.
Whateverman:
Yikes, no!! You want to replace our marriage laws with more censorship?!?! Talk about cures worse than the disease....
Not at the cost of systematically denying equal treatment under the law not only to GLBT folks, but also to anyone who prefers any sexual arrangement other than publicly declared permanent heterosexual monogamy... not to mention those who would like to form a "happy family" completely independent of any sexual relationship.
At various times in our history, we've had slavery and formalized racial segregation in our "toolbox," but we decided (admittedly with great struggle) that the moral stain of enforced inequality mattered more to us than the social utility of those particular tools. I don't mean to be equating marriage inequality to slavery (though I wouldn't be shocked if some of our friends in nontradtitional families chose to do so), but I do mean to be pointing out that not all social "tools" are worth perpetuating merely because they exist and have some utility.
Adultery and sex are very badly defined. Is oral sex really "sex" or just sexual. And why is anal sex defined as sex too? From what I understand its common in the animal kingdom but nothing to do sith sexual reproduction.
Adultery should be something to do with a personal contract between two people and the rest of us should butt out - pun intended.
Marriage laws differ by state although a marriage license, but not civil unions, automatically transfer across state and international lines. Any US citizen can be married in any state irrespective of state residency of the couple. This is why NY now must recognize gay marriages in other states, because their laws explicitly say that they will recognize any legal marriage conferred in any state of the union.
Alabama does not require a public ceremony nor a witness. The minimal requirements for obtaining a legal marriage is to have a marriage license signed and notarized by a state approved person which could be a registered wedding officiant or an active or retired probate judge.
A pastor of some kind does not automatically qualify that person as capable of legally marrying a couple. The minister must be registered with the probate court. Furthermore, not all states recognize all denominations. Some states will not license those ordained under the Universalist Church; i.e., not license them as religious ministers. They might be licensed as a secular wedding officiant.
I am 50, son of an uptight British couple, son of a minister, brother of one of the first hippies, older sister pregnant at sixteen . . . and I have watched (and participated, of course) in the sexual politics of the twentieth century. And gradually, gradually over decades, accurate information about sexuality has been accumulated, over the strenuous objections and denials of society's institutions, those who considered it in their interest to control. This process has not stopped; there's a long way to go -- but now we can begin, as PZminion has posted really talking about how (individual) sex and society go together, rather than just muttering the old mythical tropes. (e.g.'s of mythical tropes: if a man sucks a cock one time in his life, he's gay; women are just naturally not as horny as men; it is easy to control one's sexual feelings, it's just a matter of saying 'no'; old people don't have (or shouldn't have) sex . . . and so on.)
And today: There's been a recent study which claims that one out of five children in the U.S. has not been fathered by the man who thinks he is the father. It is now considered normal for women to have affairs with other women during college.
What I am getting at here is a few things:
1) First of all, everyone, everyone, everyone lies about sex all of the time. The biggest problem with sex research is trying to figure out how and why your respondents/subjects are lying, and whether or not it is relevant. (For instance, about the Edwards affair: what if his wife said, "Due to cancer treatments, I can't have sex with you. Go out discreetly and get your rocks off. If you get caught, I'll stand beside you." It wouldn't be the first time.)
2) Every personal/sexual relationship is different and has its own rules and tolerances which may have NOTHING to do with the public pronouncements parties made in their committment.
3) Sex and the desire for it is and will remain a core part of every adult person's identity, and as such will affect and even dominate their actions, even at inappropriate times. (One of the great hypocrisies of our present culture is that we reward the acquisition of money and power with great sexual access, except in the case of politicians, whom we then expect to act like monks or virgins once they succeed to power.)
Edwards was dumb, but we don't and never will know the whole story, which is as it should be. His sex life ought to have nothing to do with his political future, and I hope President Obama appoints him Attorney-General.
When politicians have affairs, to me it shows markedly bad judgement, given that they know they are being scrutinized so heavily by the media. I don't particularly care how people arrange their personal life, but I do care if they show profound hubris and lack of judgement in doing so.
"You've sinned against the state"
Sin, is a religious term. The state isn't based in religion it is based in Law. There is no since in entangling and adding to the general confusion of society.
Is it a "sin" in sociology to take a stand against social structures that don't reflect quality reasoning? I ask because the ceremony of marriage is one of many places in society where reality is obscured by the ceremony.
Bill Dauphin:
It's not you that I was speaking of re: trivialising adultery, it's society in general.
Yes, the world is full of many things - among them are indeed many cheaters. It's also full of stupidity, greed, selfishness, violence and so on, and their prevalence is no argument as to why I shouldn't condemn them.
I can't recall doing so for anything truly important. I certainly wouldn't do so now, and I'm not the person I was when I was younger.
Never been sexually tempted, perhaps in a situation where if you'd been just a tiny bit more tired or distracted, or if you'd had just one more drink, you might have slipped? Do you really have no cause, throughout your whole life, to say "there but for the grace of FSM go I" in response to Edwards' situation?
I've certainly had the opporunity to cheat, and made the decision not to. That's the important part - we can all be tempted, what matters is the choice we make.
Why? Of course we are all vulnerable to weaknesses, but it ALWAYS comes down to a decision. One's hand is never forced - at some point one decides to break trust, and it's a decision I will never make. Call it hubris, but it's a pretty easy thing to avoid if one wants to Not to be too crass about it, but it's not like slipping on a banana peel, or not looking when you turn a corner. Not only is it a decision, typically there are many stages at which one can turn back.
It's funny that you quoted Rudyard Kipling; his poem "If" has been an inspiration. I certainly wish to fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run.
Perhaps "scumbag" is a strong word. I think it's cowardly, selfish, and weak.
Doug@66: I think you just missed the point with incredible precision. MAJeff was drawing attention to the entanglement of religion and law inherent in the state enforcement of marital contracts.
Well, gee... that was pretty much my point; we could've saved ourselves a bunch of words. ;^)
I guess I just have an instinctively skeptical reaction to people who use such strong language to condemn others' moral weaknesses. Those who do so are not always hypocrites (and I make the charitable assumption that you're not being one in this case), but they are often enough to make me wary of the whole "shocked, shocked!" line of discourse.
Hey Epinephrine, you said, "One's hand is never forced -"
That's just dumb. We are forced by society, education, our family, our background, our demons all of the time. A lot of the time we manage to negotiate with these forces and make good decisions; and sometimes, being human, we fail on the smaller issues.
Smaller issues? Yes, smaller issues. Most people think what they do with their genitals and with/to their spouse is far less important than, say, pressing The Button. Certain mistakes are far more easily made because they fall within what human beings seem to regard as their personal, private space (drug use and diet are a couple that come to mind).
You are self-righteous and unforgiving and disproportionate in your judgement of the situation. But that's only the opinion of one poster on a public board, and it should mean as much to you (especially considering your exalted opinion of yourself) as your opinion should matter to Elizabeth Edwards.
-Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 9:50 AM
-"That said, I do support adultery laws, for those that choose to enter into marriage contracts and then break them. I have no sympathy at all for people who violate the trust of others."-
Criminalizing adultery is irrational and ridiculous. Historically it is based on religious/tribal fundamentalism and the need for men to control women as chattel.
I agree that trust in a marriage is paramount to its success, but that trust can be defined very differently by the people involved. If they want to introduce rules on fidelity in a legal marriage contract, that should be their choice. But that is a civil agreement agreed on by the participants with no criminal punishment to them or forced upon anyone else.
re John Edwards: His sex life is none of our business. The issue of trust is between him and his wife. If he had been out preaching against adultery and promoting its criminalization, that would be baltant hypocrisy like Craig, Vetter, Haggard, Gingrich, et al and a valid public target. Even if he is a Christian, as long as he doesn't accuse and berate others for the same behaviour, he should be left alone. Be it Bill Clinton, Edwards or anyone else regardless of party affiliation, screaming "Adultery!!!" destroys the public discourse about the issues that matter and feeds into the fundie wingnut meme of legal control over people's private lives.
So there we have it - the gays were right. Marriage is just a civil contract regarding inheritance and other financial matters and has NOTHING to with SEX.
Geeze.
Chris P
Edwards likes young attractive women. So what? Did somebody make a big deal out of this?
Do other countries get excited about the private lives of politicians, or is it only Idiot America that has this problem?
Hairhead:
That's not "forced". We have at least the appearance of free will. I notice in your earlier post that you feel "it is easy to control one's sexual feelings, it's just a matter of saying 'no'" is untrue.
I disagree - it's exactly that simple.
Not at the cost of systematically denying equal treatment under the law not only to GLBT folks, but also to anyone who prefers any sexual arrangement other than publicly declared permanent heterosexual monogamy... not to mention those who would like to form a "happy family" completely independent of any sexual relationship.
What Bill said. Its utility is undermined by its privileged status over every other kind of relationship. Note all of the energy going to keep other types of relationships from getting the same legal goodies. I think it's time for a song.
I disagree - it's exactly that simple.
I think the point was that it's never simple to know what's going on in someone else's relationship, and simplistic to say that you would never, never be tempted to have an affair, and therefore other people should have it that easy too. There are all sorts of ways for a marriage to fall apart, physically, emotionally, even spiritually, and a lot of temptations that aren't anywhere near the level of "that person's hotter than my wife". Even if you deal in complete absolutes, sooner or later you'll see a situation where the gray makes the most sense (or is at least the most sympathetic).
Sorry to respond twice to the same comment; I was a little quick on the draw with my first.
If you've truly managed to live every day of your life with perfect moral clarity, never yielding to the temptation to put momentary gratification (of any sort, I mean; not only sexual gratification) ahead of a larger principle, then I envy you. I just caution you to recognize that most of your fellow homo sapiens cannot make that claim... and no matter what you think at this moment, the day may come when you will no longer be able to make that claim, either. While I'm not endorsing bad behavior by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not convinced that unconditional condemnation of the majority of your fellows is a fruitful approach to life. (In case you're wondering, I'm not confessing to adultery here; I'm just aware that we all live in glass houses of one design or another.)
I actually had to stop and review my previous posts to realize what you were talking about here. That "Gunga Din" line was actually a secondhand (at best) quote, rather than some endorsement of a Kiplingesque worldview: It was a line my mother used to use (when I was a kid) to comment wryly on people who were claiming loftier standards of behavior than she thought she could match. Ususally it was a matter of joking about a minor virtue (e.g., being able to turn down a second helping, or skip dessert)... but it seemed apt in this case. I'd been hearing that line for years before I knew where it came from.
BobC #73
apparently you haven't seen the photos. She is neither, and I'm not even picky.
Octopod:
I swear I'm going to put that line on a T-shirt! Priceless!
How old are you, scooter? I find as I get older that both "young" and "attractive" are increasingly flexible terms! ;^)
Just to clarify a few points:
1.You can't becommon law married just by living with someone.
2. Only I think 6 states(plus Canada) even have any form of common law marriage anymore.
3. There are 3 prongs used as a litmus test and all 3 must be passed for a common law marriage to have been formed:
a. Both parties agree to be married(seems obvious)
b. Both parties present themselves as married to the public and this cannot be inadvertant.
c. They must cohabitat for an extended period of time although this is variable. The standard seems to be 2-3 years.
They aren't recognized because they are not married. Why should or would you recognize them as married when they are not? Committed relationships come in varying forms and all are not meant to be permanent in theory. Marriage is.
Agreed.
My ex-wife cheated on me multiple times. I would have been agast had they tossed her into jail. What happened with her and I was exactly that-between her and I. I chose to forgive her, she fell for temptation(multiple times).
The fact that you have no sympathy for her and others like her is distressing to me. I have lived it and while it was briefly difficult I am very happy now. Why would you presume jailtime for her when I lived it and find it absurd?
I find it interesting that the press is so eager to talk about the old affair of a guy whose political career ended last February in large part because the press wouldn't talk about him except to diss him, yet lets stand unchallenged known liar and adulterer (and active politician) John McCain's denial of an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.
Edwards himself subtly and indirectly brought up McCain's having been forgiven by the media for all his catting around. Of course, that part isn't in the partial transcript ABC posted on their website.
JimC:
I'm not sure whether we actually disagree about anything important, here.. but just to clarify my position...
I took Epinephrine to be talking about keeping one's word as regards sexual fidelity... which extends beyond the strict legal boundaries of "marriage."
But many such relationships are intended to be permanent (e.g., people who would be married, if only the law included their type of relationship within that term), and even when they're not explicitly intended to be permanent, it's still possible to betray the basic premise of the relationship. My point was that the real number of people who "cheat" sexually is even greater than the already impressive tally of those who are adulterors under the strictest definition.
Perhaps, but at the same time it's not comparable to adultery in marriage. At least from my perspective. As to gays who aren't permitted to marry that is a different ballgame. From my experience when people are capaable of marrying and don't it is usually for a reason on one or the others end.
But you can't expect those numbers to be included in a survey on marital infidelity. The standard is much looser in non marital scenarios and society understands and accepts as much. People sleep around, it's supposed to end at'I do'.
But your correct this is just quibbling over minor ideas.
Adultery= sex with a married individual by someone not married to that person.
It's not a strict definition, it's the only one. Otherwise it's like being a married bachelor an oxymoron.
Adultery= sex with a married individual by someone not married to that person.
But then you have to define sex. Is it only PIV? Does "fooling around" count? Second base? Third base? Kissing? Cybersex without any actual IRL contact? Doing a Jimmy Carter (lusting after someone in your heart)? I don't think there's a bright shiny line there.
"sex with a married individual"
What is the definition of "sex"? Is kissing on the nose sex? Is touching certain parts of the body sex?
I've never seen a legal definition like :-
"..sex is when a particular male organ penetrates more than X inches inside another particular female organ.."
That's why Clinton said he didn't have sex.
Apparently, John Edwards had an affair.
It's not the affair that matters...it's the lying to the press about the affair and getting caught.
The rules are pretty well-established at this point. If the press asks you if you're having an affair, then you can say, "Well, DUH!" if you're planning on divorcing your spouse and marrying your paramour. Otherwise you say, "My spouse and I have had unspecified difficulties in our relationship in the past, but we have decided to work through them together. We appreciate your future respect for our privacy."
This simple formula is all you need to save your political career if you're a Democrat or a heterosexual Republican.
Saying, "I didn't have an affair! You can't prove it!" is just asking for trouble. Anyone who can't remember that is seriously over-tired and needs a break from the stress of campaigning.
"Edward's qualification about his affair asserts that while he violated the "rules" about his physical behavior, he did not violate his fundamental emotional commitment to his wife."
I wonder, though, how much of the conventional wisdom that it's "better" for a man to cheat with a mistress he doesn't love is due to valuing emotional comitment more than physical, and how much is due to our stereotypes about how men and women view sex. Men are presumed to be sex fiends, slaves to our horomones, etc., so if a man cheats out of physical desire alone, well, that's a moment of weakness to a physical drive and is "understandable."
What about when a wife cheats on her husband? Is it "better" if it was just a physical attraction? My suspicion is no. Certainly in works of fiction, wives who cheat out of physical lust are usually shown unsympathetically, while those who have fallen in love with the "other man" are often shown sympathetically (even to the point of blaming the husband for his emotional neglect, etc.)
Politicians should say "Mind your own business" or "I don't answer questions about my private life".
octopod@68
And perhaps the meaning of my comment flew over your head.
MAJeff is reporting on the history and current conditions but, the only opinion is when he wants everyone to thank the feminists and when he states that "you have sinned against the state". But then, it is common for people to dislike something and express disdain by stating "you can thank (whoever) for that". So again, really no verifiable opinion to hold to.
There is no doubt about the entanglement but, there is also no statement that it shouldn't be there. MAJeff doesn't and apparently didn't want to express his opinion in general.
From MAJeff:
"I'm more interested in the social reaction"
So, octopod, that was my point genius!
Adventures in missing the point:
[sigh] I'm not sure everyone would accept quite such a legalistic definition of the word (esp. given the varying forms and customs around pair bonding around the world and throughout history), but that's kind of beside the point: I was trying to expand the conversation beyond the current legal definition of marriage... and attempt that was, IMHO, consistent with the intent of both the OP and the commenter I was responding to.
Not for nothin', but my whole damn point was that a "survey on marital infidelity" doesn't tell the whole story WRT sexual promise-breaking.
Unless I miss my guess, that is precisely the ballgame MAJeff had in mind in starting this thread. I may seem to have wandered OT, but in reality... not so much.
Well, hyeahhhh! What you're quibbling over was my (obviously futile) attempt to move the conversation beyond the "minor" ideas, and on to the underlying big ones.
Nope, not even close. There's no time requirement for cohabitation in any state that recognizes common law marriage. This is a common misconception.
scooter #78:
I just looked at a photo of her and you're right.
I will change my "Edwards likes young attractive women" to "Edwards likes women."
This is what floors me about the entire discussion. Sex is sex, even a 14year old boy nows when he has had sex and it is not over a computer screen or 'fooling around', or nose kissing. Only adults can't see straight here.
it's not legalistic to accept sex is sex.
No one denied that but the study was on marriage. Including the lifestyles of the single whether they have a boyfriend or a girlfriend is rather outside the scope of the study.
Not quite that simple. You are correct the time element is not specified but precedent in law cases usually includes the presumption of a set period of time which is why I said 2-3 years. It can be less but it depends on the circumstances.
All 3 prongs have to be met for it to even matter.
I know I'm asking for trouble by posting this so here is my disclaimer:
The following comment is meant for humor purposes only and any resemblance to real life is not my fault.
Ever notice how men will forgive anyone for adultery except their own wives
and women will forgive no one except their own husbands?
I wasn't necessarily saying it was "better." It seems clear to me that our sexual urges and our emotional devotions do not perfectly overlap... but I'm also aware that seeming clear to me doesn't necessarily make it so for others. I believe it's possible to genuinely love your partner — deeply and without reservation — and still have sexual interest in others. And I believe it's possible to act on that interest without necessarily ceasing to genuinely love your partner (by which I don't mean to excuse such action; I'm just trying to place it in its proper emotional context). I recognize that others have different beliefs, and that couples live (knowingly or unknowingly) by rules that may not perfectly reflect either individual's beliefs on this matter.
What's "better" or "worse" is defined for each couple entirely by how they feel about the matter. But in any case, the notion that sex and love may not just be different words for the same thing, but rather may have more or less overlap in any given relationship, is something worth discussing... both in public cases like this one, and privately between partners. Which is why I'm glad Edwards said what he said.
I'm not naive about the persistent asymmetry of gender roles in our society, but it's not what I was trying to get at. If your partner cheated on you but insisted it was "only physical" and not about love, you might feel relieved — "well, at least I know your heart is still mine" — or that might make it even worse — "not only did you cheat on me, you've devalued everything I believe in: I might have been able to understand it if you'd fallen in love with someone else, but to throw what we have away for mere physical gratification..." — or maybe any one of an infinite number of other reactions. In any case, though, what I'm talking about would depend on your own values, and your shared values as a couple, rather than societally enforced gender stereotypes.
No, it doesn't include a presumption of any set period of time. I can use Texas as an example, because I live here - if a man and a woman intend to be married, move in together, and introduce themselves as husband and wife just one time, they are married. It doesn't depend on any other circumstances.
That I agree with 100%
@ Bill D, # 24
I love you, man!
This is what floors me about the entire discussion. Sex is sex, even a 14year old boy nows when he has had sex and it is not over a computer screen or 'fooling around', or nose kissing. Only adults can't see straight here.
So, then, if your spouse carried on a years-long relationship with a person of the opposite sex (or whatever the preferred gender) in which they shared emotional intimacy far beyond what your spouse shared with you, in which they engaged in snuggling and kissing, in which your spouse usually left you home alone in favor of being with that other person, you're saying you wouldn't call that an affair and be hurt and offended by it? Really?
Indeed. To me, one's word is the important part, it has nothing to do with dangly bits (or alternatively, non-dangly bits).
As to Bill Dauphin's comment about having never put momentary gratification ahead of something else - of course I have, but only so far as it affects me. I might stop off for a donut while on the way to get stitches for my gashed hand, but I wouldn't stop off to get a donut while driving you to the hospital for your gashed hand.
Carlie:
I'm not saying I could never be tempted, nor that I've never been tempted. I've been in relationships that deteriorated. I'm not saying that I've always "had it easy". But no matter the situation or temptation, it's still a choice - yes or no.
I'm not saying that marriage (or a relationship) is a never negotiable, never terminable situation. You always have to option of ending a relationship, or renegotiating the terms - if the relationship is really bad, end it, or at least tell the other person that you can't live with the prior understanding of monogomy anymore. Then they at least have the choice of whether to stay or not. If the relationship is good, but not sexually fulfilling, talk about it. Maybe you can come to an arrangement - if not, there's a decision to make about whether to stay in a relationship that's not completely fulfilling.
- Posted by: Chris P | August 11, 2008 2:42 PM
- "That's why Clinton said he didn't have sex."
I have never heard someone who said "she gave me a blowjob" or "he went down on me" as referring to those pleasurable moments as "... had sex that person." They might use the term "oral sex" but that is organ specific. Whenever anyone I know, or heard or read, says they "had sex", they "did it" or they "fucked" they are always referring to "penis penetrates vagina" style copulation.
No, your incorrect, well kinda. In your scenario it's possible the couple could be found to be married. I say 'could be' because these 'marriages' don't actually exist until typically some court action. As previously mentioned there are 3 prongs all of which have to be met. If the couple is living together, has agreed to be married, and present themselves as a married couple then they could satisfy the 3 prongs.
Introducing yourself once as a married couple is not enough to pass most judges muster however as it must be consistent and not inadvertant. Likewise most judges look for a certain time element. They are looking to establish legitimacy of the marriage contract claim. Presumptions matter alot in these cases.
Likewise if the couple breaks up and they claim a marriage they must get a divorce to marry again. In Texas if 2 years pass after the breakup then it is agreed that no agreement to be married was ever present in the first place and hence it's impossible for a marriage to have been formed.
I've never seen a compelling case for criminalizing adultery, there aren't any benefits to criminalizing it that I an imagine, and actually establishing and enforcing such laws would create problems and solve nothing.
I would not say they had sex. I would say she left me for another man and leave it at that. Is it an affair, yes. Was it sexual? apparently on the verge as you describe it. is the endresult the same,probably.
BTW I know someone this exact scenario happened to and he didn't equate it with sex either. Just saying. Sex is sex. There are alot of other ways to leave your mate.
I think you might be surprised at the diversity of opinions among 14 year olds as to what does and does not "count" as sex. I doubt many would include nose kissing, but as for "fooling around" or cybersex, I think there'd be a great deal of conversation about parameters and qualifiers: What can the participants see? What gets touched? Does one or more participant have an orgasm? You may think that only what Carlin called "good old-fashioned man-on-top get-it-over-with-quick sex" counts, but I wonder if you'd still think so in the face of a (hypothetical) teenage daughter who insisted "all I did was go down on my boyfriend; it's not really sex." And this is not immaterial to the conversation about marital infidelity: If your spouse were having an online "relationship" that involved mutual orgasms despite the fact that your spouse and "the other" had never met face to face, how accepting would you be of the excuse that "c'mon, it's just a computer screen; that's not really sex... so I haven't really cheated on you"?
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, methinks.
What is this "the study" to which you refer? I wasn't commenting on any particular study, but rather noting that statistics on marital infidelity do not tell the whole story of sexual infidelity, much of which occurs in relationships other than marriages. That may not have been what you wanted to talk about, but I think it was appropriately responsive to Epinephrine's point, and to the thread generally.
The Travis County Courts disagree with you. See: www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp.
I know about the two year limit on filing for a divorce from a common law marriage. I initially thought that perhaps this is where you got confused and came up with your 2 year time frame. I see now that your problem is that you're reading something into the law that doesn't exist.
-Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 3:30 PM
I have as of yet to see Epinephrine convincingly rationalize why he supports adultery as a criminalized activity.
"... I do support adultery laws, for those that choose to enter into marriage contracts and then break them. I have no sympathy at all for people who violate the trust of others."
For all of his supposed open views on the different types of relationships people can agree to, he seems amazingly hypocritical on the issue of letting a government set and enforce criminal standards on private sexual lives.
I would say she left me for another man and leave it at that.
But would you call it adultery? In a state that doesn't have no-fault, that's what the legal system would probably call it.
After having experienced,as previously mentioned, the real thing I can honestly say I would see the above as a harmless delving into fantasy. While it wouldn't thrill me I doubt I would find the computer very threatening. And no matter how you slice it she just masturbated. There was no one else there. If we're going to expand sex that far I could feel the same way over a romance novel or her over a playboy. This is what happens when people get to far from reality. I work with teenagers and none of them think sex is anything but going all the way. Thats not to say they dont' understand other behaviours but they now sex is sex and other activities lead to the Super bowl so to speak.
fair enough.
No, that page is telling you alot of what ifs and possibles.I work on the actual side. All common law marriages to some degree must be proven. As you mentioned once can be enough but in reality it almost never really is. The courts will typically require documentation as is mentioned in the article. At the very least you will need witnesses to the fact that you present yourself as such.
Likewise the same typically holds true for judges looking at cohabitation. They look for something that shows the prong is satisfied. The law states what is required the judges look for evidence of each. Once the 3 are met a marriage exists. If even 1 of the 3 is lacking no marriage.
But you are correct the law states no time limit is necessary as long as all 3 prongs are satisfied but in reality it doesn't work that way in court.
I would not and neither would the state. In my friends case he was flat out told that if he didn't catch them having sex than adultery would not hold up in court.
No reason changing the language to something it isn't. She formed a relationship with another outside the marriage. Good enough for me.
Hey, man, you've been there, and I wouldn't dare try to judge your experience. I'm guessing, though, that not many others — esp. those who do not, like you, have something even worse to compare it to — would be quite so casual about a relationship that strikes me as sexual in ever particular except geography. I'm not challenging your opinion on this, but I am curious: What is it about the actual contact between penis and vagina that makes so much difference in your mind?
This is sorta' what I was getting at: Do you think these kids really don't think oral or anal sex isn't sex, or are they just applying a Clintonesque legalism so they can deny (to their parents and teachers and ministers and perhaps even to themselves) their true level of sexual activity? And do you think the aforementioned adults actually buy the idea that kids who are "only" having oral or anal sex are not having sex? Based on the stories I've seen, adults are rather the opposite of comforted by this sort of distinction!
Not for nothin' but by the PIV-only definition, there's no such thing as gay sex. Do you really think anyone really thinks that? (And as an aside, would you have felt any less cheated on if your wife had had an affair with another woman?)
I'm sorry... I honestly don't mean to sound combative about this. I'm just trying really hard to get my mental arms around your POV.
One last time to Epinphrine: NO, it's not simple to "just say no." If it were that simple, we wouldn't have the sex-media empires we have today, we wouldn't have temporary insanity statutes which allow for reduced punishment when the attacker catches a spouse in flagrante delicto, we wouldn't have all of the social rules which discourage and limit obvious precursors to sex . . . And we probably wouldn't have much of our art and music either.
The desire for and drive for sex is enormously powerful, and can synergize with social and economic situations to even greater power; and this drive for sex, powerful as it is, slops over into other realms, such as political (real) power, social dominance, self-esteem, abusive hierarchies, etc., all of which leads to people, in moments of weakness, self-doubt, need, pain, loneliness, vainglory, forgetfulness, revenge, and (list 46 other human emotions) to have sex.
If it were simple and easy to say no, no persons would murder or injure other people, steal, or rape -- or (the point of this whole discussion) commit adultery (or infidelity, as your situation may define) or do any of the other spontaneous human fuck-ups which happen *all the time and everywhere* in every society, no matter how draconian the social rules and codified laws.
And equating the desire for a doughnut with the life-changing desire for sex . . . well, I noted before that you were judgmental and self-exalted, but that comment makes you . . . jeesh, I'm looking for words here. Anybody who equates sexual desire with liking a doughnut would not seem to have the life experience which most other adults have.
I wouldn't even call you Spock, because at least the screenwriters for Star Trek realized that no intelligence can exist so far above the physical plane as never to have episodes of passion-induced poor judgment.
My views aren't "supposedly" open. I think that whatever the relationship you signed into, that's what you've got. I'm not saying it needs to be criminal law, it would fall under contract law (common law).
Thinking about it, I'm probably wrong - after all, I think a common law relationship, or even simply being commited to one another are just as valuable as legally binding marriage, and deserves as much trust, but there is no written contract. It's the understandings of how one will behave, what trusts are there that is important to me. I withdraw my earlier point, having thought more about it - there is no way to capture all the ways in which one extends trust to a partner, nor to capture all the ways in which one can fail that trust. The law would botch it most assuredly.
So, while I would like there to be some way to hold people accountable for their actions, there likely isn't a reasonable way to do so. I do think that there is such thing as fault, and that one partner can be at fault for making a marriage end.
- Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 4:37 PM
- "I do think that there is such thing as fault, and that one partner can be at fault for making a marriage end."-
Agreed. All personal relationships are about trust and commitment to the basis of that relationship.
And I sincerely respect your ability to reassess a position and withdraw it. I withdraw my unnecessary insertion of "supposed" when referring to your open views.
Gee, how about letting couples resolve that among themselves, with the courts (via divorce) if need be?
I'm trying to decide whether your attitude towards adultery is excessively vindictive or excessively paternalistic. Care to narrow it down for me?
Hairhead:
You seem to be mistaking "simple" with "easy". I'm sure it's not always easy, but it does boil down to "simple". Just because it is hard to do doesn't mean it isn't simple. It's hard to put down your own pet, but it's pretty simple.
It was a (trivial) example. I'm aware that there is a lot more passion for most people in sexuality than in Tim Horton's.
Are you done variously accusing me of being naive, judgemental, self-exalted, self-righteous, etc.? It's hard to deal pleasantly with someone who insists on loading their discourse with such terms.
Yes, passion can induce poor judgement. I've been there, I've done things in passion that I really shouldn't have. And I fully blame myself for them, and they were still decisions. One always has a choice.
For example, I was assaulted by someone, and rather than keeping a cool head, I retaliated, and it could have been bad. Could I have kept myself under control? Yes, of course - it would have been hard. I let myself down there, and I shouldn't have reacted that way. Despite someone else initiating it, I chose (in whatever rage-fueled thinking I was engaged in) to become physical in return. I wouldn't shy away from responsibility, it was a choice - albeit a hastily made, poorly considered, and all around crappy choice. I'm not proud of it, and would hope to have a much better rein on myself the next time.
Could the same have happened, sexually? I doubt it. And if it did, I'd never claim that I didn't have a choice. I might hate myself, but I won't lie to myself in order to excuse responsibility for my actions.
....your personal moral code dicates that fighting back is wrong?
...
I...don't think I need to add anything to that.
Bill-
I'm not sure how to respond here. To equate fantasy with reality is not something I'm capable of doing. Without contact between your body parts your not having sex. Is this really debatable? Most people I know while not always comfortable with online chatting don't equate it with going down the street and banging the neighbor. Like I said once you've lived it the computer fantasy of masturbation seems pretty tame.
No they tend to think oral and anal are sex. But not some of the bizarre things I've seen on this thread. Computer chatting, nose kissing, etc. I don't see legalism from them just some common sense---oddly.
You've mistaken my point of viewor I have misrepresented it. I never said penis-vagina sex is the only sex. Penis/mouth, penis/ass, penis/vagina, and I can't believe I just typed that sentence.
Jerking it by yourself to words or pictures on a screen only counts as sex with yourself! I think we've reached the point of absurdity here:-)
I'm sorry... I honestly don't mean to sound combative about this. I'm just trying really hard to get my mental arms around your POV.
Fuck I will never understand why adultery should be illegal. It's a private affair, and the government should have no business into that.
Epinepherine, I've put loaded terms into my posts because you have put loads terms and concepts into yours. Calling all adulterers "scumbags", for instance, and supporting the criminalization of adultery, for another. I reacted strongly to positions you took which I think were blatantly wrong and ill-informed.
And the result?
You said: "For example, I was assaulted by someone, and rather than keeping a cool head, I retaliated, and it could have been bad. Could I have kept myself under control? Yes, of course - it would have been hard. I let myself down there, and I shouldn't have reacted that way. Despite someone else initiating it, I chose (in whatever rage-fueled thinking I was engaged in) to become physical in return. I wouldn't shy away from responsibility, it was a choice - albeit a hastily made, poorly considered, and all around crappy choice. I'm not proud of it, and would hope to have a much better rein on myself the next time."
Now that's a reasoned, nuanced, honest response dealing with things which happen in the real world, as opposed to some black/white fantasy world which your earlier posts posited. Your statement above allows me to respect you, even if I disagree with you. I'm not apologizing for what I said, for at my blunt points at least made to you consider and reveal things which put your opinion in a different and more reasonable light; but I will thank you for a more considered post.
And I will reiterate my point, the centre of our disagreement: It is not simple just to say no. And if I may quote you in support, " . . . it was a choice - albeit a hastily made, poorly considered, and all around crappy choice. I'm not proud of it, and would hope to have a much better rein on myself the next time." All of us make those kinds of choices, and in the case of "poorly considered" choices, there's not much rationality involved -- your reptile brain was not functioning in yes/no fashion but in an entirely emotional way.
The fact that society works as well as it does shows that most of the time we can make pretty good choices; the fact that society is full of the imperfections of crime and sexual infidelities means that our choices are often compromised by interior and exterior factors.
This thread is becoming oddly prurient... so I'll go just one more time! ;^)
I'm not sure how to respond to you: The hypothetical scenario I described involved a real other person having a real interaction with your wife in real time, leading to the two of them having real real orgasms more or less together. And repeating this type of encounter on an ongoing basis. Forgive my credulous simplicity here, but I find it hard to imagine that you or any other husband would write that off as just an innocent bit of wankery in real life.
I think it is debatable, and getting more so every day as telecommunication technologies get better and better (google "teledildonics" some time)... but even stipulating that what I've described is not sex, surely it's a sexual relationship? I'm quite certain my wife would feel no less cheated on if I were having that sort of relationship than if I were having "real" sex in meat-space. YMMV, naturally.
I'm absolutely fascinated with seeing how other people view violations of marriage vows and where that happens. I don't recall ever seeing a wedding where it was explicitly stated that the couple agreed not to have sex with other people; it's always worded as loving and cherishing and holding that one person's trust above all others. That seems to me to mean that a lot more than sex with another person would violate the agreement.
I'm not sure how to respond here. To equate fantasy with reality is not something I'm capable of doing. Without contact between your body parts your not having sex. Is this really debatable?
Would it change your view if the person on the other end of the conversation with your wife was her ex-lover, who dumped her shortly before you met her, and who you know she's had feelings for ever since? Would it be different if they did it over the phone (a la The Truth About Cats and Dogs) instead of over the computer? What about if they met in a secluded place for lunch, in person, and just talked about having sex? I really don't see, at that point, what difference it makes if the body parts are actually touching - by then the violation of exclusivity took place a long, long time ago.
Obama will be more than happy to throw him under the bus
Throw him under the bus? How do you figure that?
Edwards was one of the possible choices for the VP slot, and he's eliminated himself. That wasn't Obama's doing.
-jcr
Do you think these kids really don't think oral or anal sex isn't sex?
There are plenty of "virginity" insistent cultures and religionists who have and do make that very distinction quite consistently. It's been a practice that has been going on for a very long time.
So, yeah, those who want to save their virginity for marriage due to religious, cultural, or other reasons form a rather noticeable bloc of the population that makes a distinction between "real" sex (PIV) and "play".
You, like many others (including myself when I first heard some of my classmates subscribe to this notion back in the 70s), may think that they are mistaken or dishonest, but that simply demonstrates that people do not have a monolithic understanding as to what constitutes "sex" or "infidelity."
Fuck I will never understand why adultery should be illegal. It's a private affair, and the government should have no business into that.
I can say the same about many other matters.
Not everything that's good should be mandatory, not everything that's bad should be prohibited.
-jcr
Edwards likes young attractive women.
Really? Can't tell that from looking at the woman in this story.
I would guess that this affair happened mostly as a matter of opportunity. In any case, since the guy didn't lie about it under oath, I just can't get too worked up about it. He was never someone I looked up to in any way, so there's no disappointment.
-jcr
My wife is not a possession. If she wants to stare at a computer screen and pleasure herself in a pleasant fantasy that is entirely different than her going next door and having a man slip his penis inside her. I honestly can't see how you don't see the difference. She does not know the person in your scenario, doesn't see him or hear him, certainly doesn't touch him. It's all in her head minus words on a screen. It's a fantasy. Now should the fantasy become reality.......
No it's a sexual fantasy. How is it any different than a simulated computer sex program? Or porn? There simply isn't anything real with another. The only real thing is what your doing to yourself.
She may not like either but I'll bet she makes a distiction when you get down to the bottom line.
Carlie-
I haven't really been talking to you but you picked up one of my comments to Bill:
Perhaps so but we're talking adultery not breaking vows in inumerable ways.
All of this would be behaviour that is inappropriate but wouldn't constitute adultery as it is unless one wants to make the term so broad as to be meaningless. The first two would seem to indicate a relationship is reforming and mine would be in trouble. The last, well, talking is just that and if she didn't follow through I'd say she met temptation and went the other way. So in and of itself no big deal.
I'm not tossing my wife overboard because of a conversation.
I really don't see, at that point, what difference it makes if the body parts are actually touching - by then the violation of exclusivity took place a long, long time ago.
I forgot to cut this from the above. I don't agree with it BTW. Talking about having sex and having sex are very different things. In your scenarios those tempted can't ever really walk away because the temptation itself is the violation.
I guess that's the crux of it, and is exactly what the original post was about - is the violation in who has access to the uterus, or who holds the keys to the heart? I would say that the latter is much more of a threat to the marriage than the former, but some would obviously disagree.
Talking about having sex and having sex are very different things.
Depends on what you're saying, IMO. One can be much more intimate verbally with one partner than they are physically with another, but again, it's the definition of intimacy that makes it one or the other.
. I don't recall ever seeing a wedding where it was explicitly stated that the couple agreed not to have sex with other people;
Most of the wedding ceremonies I've ever attended included the phrase "forsaking all others", which is generally understood to mean not fucking around.
-jcr
Hairhead:
I suppose that I hold myself and others responsible for even their most passionate decisions. To me it's a simple choice, even when laden with emotional drivers.
Azkyroth:
I am willing to fight back, if necessary. In this instance I had the choice of simply shrugging it off, which would have defused the whole situation - I wasn't hurt, only my pride. Instead I let my more aggressive side take over and chose to hit back, and the situation escalated. I don't particularly want to be in brawls at my age/position in life - I'm trying to raise a family, hold down a good job and so on, and an assault conviction wouldn't be a good thing. Sure "he started it", but if I escalate things and someone gets seriously hurt I could still get in a lot of trouble - plus, I might be on the losing end of a confrontation. Really, the rational thing is to accept injured pride and just leave the situation, rather than risk one of the two getting seriously hurt.
Most of the wedding ceremonies I've ever attended included the phrase "forsaking all others",
But that is a much broader statement than who gets to put what into whom, no?
I think adultery should be condemned by society because it violates intimacy and trust. I think adultery is very cruel, and society has every right to pass judgment upon those who engage in it. While I don't think it should be a crime, I think the injured party should be compensated by both offending parties.
Jim C, Bill et al.
I've been reading your debate with fascination and so I would like to take this moment to say 'Thank You' for making me think about a topic that I hadn't given much thought to before.
Also, as an outsider, I think there is a miscommunication going on between Bill's computer example and Jim's understanding of it. If I may, can I point out that in Bill's example, there was an actual real person online with your spouse. Not internet porn, not some cybersex fantasy site but some guy/girl equally getting their rocks off by the exchange. What if your spouse repeatedly did this, and not only did they orgasm togather, but they also talked about other things important to them. They might never meet, but I wouldn't class it as the fantasy Jim makes it out to be. Unless, of course, you count any deviation away from marriage as a fantasy?
Just an observation.
If I gave that impression I didn't mean to, I agree that emotions are more a threat than a sex act which is why I have tried to stay on point.
I really don't buy that Carlie. I can talk all day but at the end I'd rather talk less and have more sex.
No some deviations are firmly in the real world. The point for me on the internet is this: If she doesn't see him- she has to use her imagination, if she doesn't touch him - she only touches herself, and if she never hears her voice- she can only imagine what he sounds like. Looks and smells like a fantasy to me.
Now if those things aren't true and it leads to something else then we have a new scenario.
I just think humans go through alot of ups and downs and we are all pretty failable. I have lived it once and I can tell you I wish at the time it was only online chatting. There is a large real world distinction.
MTran (@128):
I think you and I are in what my engineer friends would call "violent agreement":
Exactly what I was referring to. My point being that, contrary to JimC's literalist take, folks' ideas of what constitutes "real sex" tend to be a bit fluid and situational (and often in self-serving ways).
JimC(@130):
I intended to drop our exchange after my last, but I find I just can't let the following go uncorrected:
Nothing I have written was intended to suggest I thought of wives as "possessions," nor that I thought you should do so. Nor have I suggested you should want to exercise some sort of draconian control over your wife's sexual fantasies. Both notions are odious to me. However, it seems clear to me that there's a difference between masturbating to (clearly fictional) internet porn, on the one hand, and having an ongoing relationship of a sexual nature with a real person, on the other hand... even if that sexual relationship doesn't involve actual genital-to-genital contact. I realize you don't "get" the distinction I'm making; I equally don't "get" your inability to make that distinction. If sexual exclusivity is part of your relationship (as it usually is in a marriage, though I personally am willing to entertain alternative ideas), I can't imagine why you wouldn't think the scenario I've described would violate that principle. To me, once two people have embarked on a relationship with mutual sexual pleasure as its goal, the methods they choose to employ are of secondary importance to the essential fact of their relationship. But that's just me.
Or not really just me:
I have no doubt that the "bottom line" in both cases would be exactly the same: I would be utterly and finally divorced. Frankly, though, I don't plan to put that prediction to the test anytime soon.
Offered as an addendum to this thread with no further comment:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/15/twoperson-teledildon.html
I think it might be useful to explore the options of separating legal marriage from religious marriage. For example, let the churches set whatever restrictions they want, according to their beliefs, on performing the church ceremony, but the church ceremony is not considered a legal marriage by the State. To be considered legally married by the State and be eligible for all the tax and other financial benefits, the couple would have to enter a separate legal contract. So a couple/group could go for one or both according to their own beliefs/needs.
I would suggest then the legal marriages could have time limits on them, like 1 year or 5 years and that to enter a lifetime contract, the couple has to have already signed and abided by a 5 or 10 year contract as probation. There would need to be ongoing child support, for any children resulting from the union.
Therefore if you are religious and value the 'till death do us part', you can have both a religious ceremony and sign a probationary contract with the state with the intention to sign a lifetime one later. Or if you're not religious you can sign a contract for a shorter time, knowing at the end of the time you will be free to resign or move on without legal penalty. Of course provision for kids has to be carefully considered.
The contracts should be very flexible, allowing co-habiting with financial benefits but a committment to no kids (both should be equally responsible for contraception) or a contract for a child, with access and support after the contract agreed at the start, and any other conditions as needed, eg. Power of Attorney or sharing of income/assets.
Anyhow, that's one of my fantasy futures.
My wife is not a possession. If she wants to stare at a computer screen and pleasure herself in a pleasant fantasy that is entirely different than her going next door and having a man slip his penis inside her.
If being "not a possession" is the important criterion, how are the two situations any different?
To me, once two people have embarked on a relationship with mutual sexual pleasure as its goal, the methods they choose to employ are of secondary importance to the essential fact of their relationship.
This is one of the things I was trying to say, but didn't do as well.
There is no 'sexual' relationship, thats the point. If it's totally anonomyous and she couldn't pick him out of a crowd I'd hardly call that anything but fantasy.
Oh no I get the distinction your making I just don't think it is a real world sexual relationship.
I don't disagree with the above but it essentially eliminates all form of masturbation to be consistent. If that is ok with you then we are in agreement. I see the scenario as you have described it as simple masturbation with the computer being a prop and nothing more. You can actually buy programs to do sex talk and simulate scenarios. How is that different from an anonymous person on the other end who you cannot recognize,do not know, and have never seen/felt/smelled/heard?
I'm not saying it is always innocent as it can lead to greater wrongs but in and of itself it's simply fantasy.
It's all in her head unless she takes it further.
Oh c'mon Carlie, One she is quite literally alone and touching herselfperiod. The other she is not. That is a chasm of a difference. How does any human masturbate if not for fantasy? The words on a screen are just that, words.
Huh, so having sex requires a penis now? Lesbians can't have sex?
Seriously, defining "sex" is a much more difficult question than you'd think. Greta Christina has an excellent post on the topic.
Ug, cath. No. I didn't intend to type all the possible orifices. I'll now add vagina/vagina. I'm sure others now feel isolated.
:-)
One she is quite literally alone and touching herselfperiod. The other she is not. That is a chasm of a difference.
Yes, it's a difference, but one that you predicated on the fact that she's not a possession of yours. If the meaning was that she's free to do as she pleases, then one should be equivalent to the other in that particular definition.
How is that different from an anonymous person on the other end who you cannot recognize,do not know, and have never seen/felt/smelled/heard?
Ah, there's the point of talking past each other, I think. You're picturing some random "sexyhotdude1972" in a chat room, the rest of us were picturing an actual constant person, with whom a relationship had developed either IRL or as pen pals. You can definitely know and develop strong attachments to someone even if you don't see them in person.
Edwards is ambulance chasing scum. I remember watching him debate Cheney in '04 and he actually made me feel bad for Cheney. He was dragging out Cheney's daughter in a way calculated to guilt Cheney for his political alignment. This would have been fine if he had done it in a straightforward manner...it's an interesting question, though probably one not relevant to the position of VP. However, he did it in an almost gleeful TV trial lawyer way, obviously trying to manipulate the emotions of the audience.
I've had a hard time seeing any sincerity in anything he's said since. This is a man who lies and tweaks heartstrings for a living.
So really, I'm not sad his political career just self destructed.
Also, having read some of the woo his airheaded mistress is spouting, I'm kind of glad that someone who listens to that crap isn't going to end up as the VEEP. We've already had one lunatic warming the office for 8 years. That's enough.
I don't consider fantasy and masturbation overtly offensive seeing how nearly 100% of humanity does it. Having sexual intercourse with my neighbor is more than a little different.
Ok, I can see that as more harmful. No sex but potentially very harmful to the marriage. We agree.
Scrabcake:
You're getting your debates mixed up: It was Kerry who was roundly criticized (unjustly, IMHO) for his mention of Mary Cheney; Edwards, OTOH, was praised by Cheney himself for how he handled the issue:
And BTW, why shouldn't Cheney have been called out over the hypocrisy inherent in being the loving father of a gay daughter who nevertheless supported and even led his party's virulently anti-gay agenda. Mary Cheney was a grown woman at the time, and already "out," and active in the campaign. It was a legitimate campaign issue... and IMHO neither Edwards nor Kerry said anything out of bounds about it.
Assuming my daughter was of reasonable age and the relationship between my spouse and whoever she was having cyber sex with was purely net friends + cyber sex, I wouldn't find either of them threatening, though in each case there would be issues I'd want to work out.
Also, I'm curious how people with open marriages or similar arrangements fit into the adultery-laws setup the more totalitarian-inclined among you envision.
Make adultery a crime? Haven't US prisons got enough christians in them as it is?
At it's one thing I - an (as-described-so-well-by-Nesbit) grumpy, uncharismatic loner don't have to worry about since I'm not in a relationship and unlikely to remedy that in the near future in anything other than miraculous circumstances - or perhaps head trauma.
But, hypothetically, I just don't think I could manage an affair - it'd kill me. On the one occasion I had two people attracted to me at the same time the stress I suffered in trying to choose between them made me physically ill.
Really, I'd be more worried about being cheated on.
It amazes me people think that chatting on the computer is equivalent to really having sex. I had sex with my wife tonight and it was much different than pulling pud to words on a screen by myself regardless if I was talking to Jenna Jameson herself. Bottom line at the end of the night it's still me jerking my own chain. Are people really that insecure?
That Greta person from the link above rolled around on the floor fully clothed and counted that as sex. Seriously that is a messed up concept. No easy way to say it.
If I say I'm whooping you ass online do I get to count it as a beat down or do I actually need to hit you in person?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4060480
You can listen to the debate yourself. Cheney's praise of Edward's patronizing compliment is very disingenuous. I had a lot of respect for him at the time for handling this gracefully.
Also, having read some of the woo his airheaded mistress is spouting, I'm kind of glad that someone who listens to that crap isn't going to end up as the VEEP.
What makes you think he listened to it? Just sayin'...
-jcr
Azkyroth:
Scrabcake:
No, thanks; I listened to it live at the time, and never thought there was anything objectionable about what Edwards said. The most disingenuous thing about Cheney's comments was not his (IMHO sincere... or at least as sincere as Darth Cheney ever is) praise of Edwards, but his slamming Kerry later on for saying almost exactly the same thing.
I say again: The disconnect between Cheney's love for his own gay daughter and his support of anti-gay public policy was a legitimate issue for discussion. The only possible way to believe either Edwards or Kerry said anything disrespectful about Mary Cheney is if you think "lesbian" is an insult... but it's the Republicans who think that way, not the Dems.
Really, I'd be more worried about being cheated on.
That can be very painful, and my experience leads me to conclude that once it happens, it's best for all concerned to terminate the relationship immediately. I've not always had the strength to follow that policy, but with hindsight I would say it's the right one.
Once the trust is lost, it's rather silly to talk oneself into believing that it would never happen again.
-jcr
Given that most of my close friendships have been with members of the opposite sex, I wouldn't stay in a relationship that had those kinds of terms.
I didn't.
JefffromLA @153
Yeah, I can't understand at all why people equate on-line fantasy chats with infidelity or adultery. To me, cyber "sex" is scarcely different from looking at porn, reading erotica, or writing erotica, for that matter.
Yet I've known a handful of women who had serious marital problems (including a few divorces) because the wife could not stomach the existence of the husband's Playboys or jpegs.
For some reason, these women insisted on showing me the "evidence" of their husband's objectionable habits, but all I could say was, "Ya know, this stuff is pretty tame. I wouldn't worry about it."
I guessed that the two who got divorced were unhappy in their marriages regardless of the "porn" and the others simply needed to be reassured that their husbands weren't total perverts who needed to be institutionalized.
Azkyroth #159
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with those kinds of terms either. There are of course "intimate relationships without cybersex", and "intimate relationships without cybersex". The difference between the two is going to vary greatly depending on the people involved and the nature of the relationships.
For me at least such a relationship might be more threatening than sexual infidelity (Bill Dauphin's "at least your heart is still mine" scenario), because of the implication that I've been replaced in someone's affections.
The real problems is that Edawards arrogantly continued to lie about it when he knew the information was in the hands of reporters.
And amazing lack of judgment.
And if he used campaing funds to pay this bitch off, then he has committed a serious crimes.
More later.
I'm not in any way endorsing Cheney. My opinion of the debate was that there was no reason at all to bring up his daughter at that point in the conversation. There was no reason to personalize the debate topic at all. He brought up Cheney's daughter just so he could *go there*. He made a polite albeit condescending remark into a subtle jab, when had he really wanted to be polite, he wouldn't have brought it up at all. He would have stated his opinions on gay marriage and supported them with reason from his own experience rather than dragging his opponent's private life out.
Bush and co have seriously buggered up the country, etc, etc, etc, (can I have my liberal card back yet?) but if he represents everything bad about the right, Edwards in my mind exemplifies everything that sucks about the left. He's a goody-two-shoes who can't practice what he preaches, and he has the trial lawyer's penchant for turning every fight into a dirty one.
And as for his mistress' new age leanings, sure he was at least sympathetic to them. They must have been somewhat compatible ideologically, because he certainly wasn't dating her for her looks! XD
Edwards in my mind exemplifies everything that sucks about the left.
I've got to say that he's an awfully mild example of what sucks about the left. Sure, he's sleazy, but he's no Bill Clinton.
-jcr
Republicans love families. That's most of them have at least two...
Dancaban (@165):
T-shirt!!
I don't personally give a flying leap about who John Edwards sleeps with, but then again I try not to give a flying leap about the consensual sex lives of ANY adults I don't know. The only time that political "sex scandals" register on me is when a public figure is doing something that s/he uses power to discriminate against, persecute, or arrest someone else for doing. (Two egregious and bipartisan examples: Homophobe Larry Craig's public-restroom foot-tapping, and urban-prostitute-banisher Eliot Spitzer's pricey call girl.)
And whether or not Elizabeth Edwards wants to stay married to the guy is no one else's business either. Some people can forgive this kind of thing and some can't. Hell, some people can tolerate or even embrace the baggage of an openly polyamorous marriage, although most of us wouldn't bet the mortgage money on such an arrangement working indefinitely.
This is a private marital problem, NOT a public or political one. The press has no more business in people's beds than the government does.