Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Of course no cops should be required. But believe me when I say they are almost always required. Nothing is worse than being called to a situation that took years to deteriorate and then be expected to resolve it in 15 minutes.
I agree, for a police officer to try and help resolve a situation in 15 minutes that took years to deteriorate is a tall order.
Adultery is frequently a symptom rather than the cause. We can treat the symptom, but treating the symptom will never be as good as treating the cause.
Unfortunately the only way I can think of to treat the cause is for us humans to graduate beyond the outdated religious based concept of monogamy. The only valid reason I can see for the practice of monogamy is to maybe help prevent the spread of std's. The crime associated with adultery to me is purely based on the long standing societal expectations of what a marriage is. Which we all find out all too often, is unfortunately counter to actual human behavior.
A more natural way to do relationships, is one that complies with general human behavior, and to do away with expectations of monogamy in every relationship. Clear, no string attached agreements by both parties of a marriage can agree to be monogamous relationship, a breach in the agreement would be civil matter if the couple cannot resolve it them selves, but certainly not a criminal or law breaking matter.
@LogicforTW: "graduate beyond the outdated religious based concept of monogamy."
It's not just outdated for religious reasons. Until a couple of centuries ago, "till death us do part" generally meant 20-30 years. With today's rising life expectancies, people who get married in their 20s could be looking at 60-70 years. I'm not sure that human relationships have evolved far enough to accommodate that increased span.
That said, we'll be celebrating our 43rd wedding anniversary in December.
Very strong point.
And congratulations on 43 years soon!
Also, life changes. Nearly everyone eventually retires. Many relationships have difficulty handling the transition from: gone half or more of waking hours for work and work related things to suddenly together nearly all waking hours. The person that retires can also change greatly in their manners and life style that may suddenly be incompatible to the partner.
@LogicForTW: "Nearly everyone eventually retires."
I learned a lot about the impact of retirement in Japan. Japanese husbands are typically out of the house 15 or more hours a day. Then suddenly they retire, often in their early 60s or even their 50s. Japanese life expectancies are going through the roof, so these two strangers suddenly find themselves together 24 hours a day for several decades. The word for men in that situation is "gokiburi teishu" (cockroach husband). A cockroach is something that scurries around your feet and makes the place dirty but has no real purpose. Another word for them is "sodai gomi"(large trash). On certain days in Tokyo you can put out old appliances for collection. I've heard wives say they'd like to do that with their retired husbands.
I think retirement is a very bad idea. It's bad for your health, bad for the economy, bad for marriages. Like longevity, it wasn't part of the social environment when marriage was invented. People need to be useful, to be needed.
I agree, retirement brings a whole host of issues. We are getting a bit off topic here, but I find it fascinating direction of conversation.
I like your insights on Japanese culture, the cockroach and large trash references I found quite humorous.
I feel retirement itself is not necessarily economically bad for the overall economy, but if you end up having a large part of the population that leaves the workforce and/or is not part of the workforce that can be an additional drag on the economy, and in Japan's case, a potentially crippling one. Problems naturally compound if the retired person does not have savings, or run's through their retirement savings. Which can certainly happen if someone finds themselves retired for 40+ years before they die. And end up relying on government dollars and/or the family for support creating a strain on available resources.
＠LogicforTW: "if you end up having a large part of the population that leaves the workforce"
That's on the cards for every developed country. East Asian countries are furthest along the aging track, but it's happening everywhere. People who had fewer children are now living longer and staying healthier, but they stop working. The result is a big transfer of income from the working generations to the retirees. That makes it harder for the younger generations to raise kids, so we've got a vicious circle.
It's going to take some disruptive technology and innovative thinking to break this cycle. We should have started preparing 50 years ago. If health improves and birthrates fall, you're going to get an older population. It was predictable even back then.
I just read a news story about China rapidly changing retirement age demographic. China's incredible growth is already slowing way down, and this huge group of people headed to retirement leaving the workforce, but most of them have little to no savings or social security, ending up being a direct burden on their, (fewer,) children to support for as long as they live, which could be 30+ years after their retirement age. The problem is so large that the article states that it could send China's economy into a long protracted recession, and as China was the engine of much of the world's growth the last 20 years or so, could send the entire world economy into a tail spin.
I feel technology and innovation could save us, but currently technology and innovation is exacerbating the problem rather than helping. Automation is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that few people talk about when we talk about job creation, inequality, and economic growth. I do not think we should stop this automation process, but we do need a huge rethink on how our base economies work. Base policy needs to change, in this new world Adam Smith's capitalism, supply and demand principles will hold us back rather than create better futures and opportunity.
The concept that everyone age 18-65 works a job, gets paid, and buys everything they need or like, and then saves up for retirement will continue to erode until total collapse based on current trends.
Worse still, absent a major scientific breakthrough, (like deuterium based cold fusion,) our economic base concepts of: constant growth/consumption will also collapse, with disastrous repercussions for the planet and nearly everyone except those at the very top of the economic ladder.
People are pretty resistant to the idea of a complete economic overhaul however. Lots of resistance from those at top with all the power as well, status quo works well for them until it does not.
One is a crime of property & the other is a crime of the heart.
@breezy
Totally agree with this.
My premise is that in many human cultures there is a social understanding at work when it comes to entering in an exclusive relationship with another and cheating on that relationship could be considered a breach of contract for civil purposes, not criminal.
Also, due to this general understanding, it is a shitty thing to do when one has not told the other party in the relationship that they intend to screw around or see other people or whatever. I'm not saying that one person is bound to the other for all eternity, but it is just decency to at least let them know so that they can decide if they want to remain in the relationship or not.
And that is solely a matter of preference of social interaction and responsibility. For instance: I "dated", if that's what it's called, a myriad of people through my teens and twenties, almost never exclusively and sometimes many at the same time. But when I chose a life partner and made a commitment, I felt the onus to not sleep around or otherwise romantically see others any more, and I never did. I even asked my spouse, if she felt like finding sex or affection outside the marriage please let me know and I would do the same. That way we both can make informed life-choices. Unfortunately, she didn't keep up her side of the bargain, but whatever; I'm a pragmatic person and as you said, "life goes on".
My point is we do live in societies, and people do have certain expectations based upon what is socially understood, and those understandings could be considered contractual; and even if they aren't, they do represent a social moral obligation.
I second your sentiment, and to be totally transparent, I was unaware of the civil vs criminal distinction prior to this post.
What is marriage if not a contract of exclusivity and commitment? No one is forcing us to marry. We are voluntarily choosing to enter into an exclusive relationship.
Personally, I think if you want to sleep around and you're married, at least tell your spouse. Get consent from them, come to some agreement. If the person doesn't want those terms, then get divorced. Cheating is a cowardly act.
Lastly, marriage is possible one of the most important things our species does. As a whole, almost everything our species does revolves around being in a relationship. I think it was in WestWorld that they said all of life is one elaborate mating ritual. Everything we do has the end goal of finding someone to mate and marry.
There should be some form of protection for the one being cheated on.
If you make an agreement with your spouse re: financial/ property/ joint ownership/ "who pays the kids insurance"/ etc , .then a court may be necessary to attain a just balance. This only matters when the solution to adultery is divorce. As far as getting your feelings hurt, tough up!. My tax dollars are not to be used because you could not keep your spouse satisfied or chose the wrong mate! Learn something from your experience and quit expecting the cops to be your Mommy!
I agree with this ideal, but it is not the reality of how society deals with it. When one is engaged in public service, one has to deal with the reality.
No - You don't miss a slice off a cut loaf!
Sham, I don't understand that sentence... Is it a proverb or sth like that?
Whatever it is it sounds funny lol
When something is new and perfect, you'll be really upset if its damaged even a little bit. Once it has been marred, further damage doesn't worry you so much. It could be the first scratch on a new car, or the first betrayal by a lover .
It's like that Rod Stewart song, "The First Cut is the Deepest."
Damage? What damage? A person isn't property. You mean emotional distress? As the Beatles said, "Love has the nasty habit of disappearing overnight." Shit happens with humans. Unethical - sure, but if it was a crime just think of the strain on the prison system.
Hahaha! Nice one.
What can I say - people are 'funny'.
I am so going to steal this. Thanks.
hahaha! I am sooo with you there, pal!!
@John 6IX Breezy:
Of course, free sex between adults outside marriage should always be a crime, yes ¬¬)-♫
All those in favour of recreation sex!
I don't think there's any such thing as 'free' sex.
Recreation sex.....Yaaaaay!
I've thought about this for a long time, like 40 years. I don't like adultery. I understand that relationships end, but adultery is sex driven. I think that people should be honest and end a relationship before engaging actively in a new one. BUT....... I don't think it has anything to do with criminal law. It is sufficiently covered under civil statutes.
Hold on there mister. There are lots of other reasons for adultery than sex. Maybe one partner - or both of them - isn't getting what they want out of the relationship in other ways.
Yeah - they're not getting what they want - sex. If you want companionship - get a dog.
I actually feel sex with another person you are not married to, when married, should not even be a "marriage issue" It should be a separate, agreement/promise between two willing individuals, to not have sex with any other person other than the person they they are married to.
And a breach of this is more about breaking promises and lying and hiding crucial things from the individual you made the agreement. The actual act itself, to me almost takes a backseat to the lying, subterfuge, and broken trust. (If someone was open and honest, saying: "hey I am breaking this agreement I want to go sleep with person x.") The other person can say okay, the agreement is off, I can now choose to not stayed married to you, and/or also sleep with other individuals, because the original agreement is now null and void.
The agreement is really a promise of: "For as long as we are together we will not sleep with others." Marriage is closely related in concept but it should be a separate promise beyond the marriage vows. Marriage should not have such a promise implied, in every marriage, especially not by law.
The problem with this is that there really isn't a reasonable way to convict. There are only two witnesses to the act and usually neither are reliable, particularly if you intend to prosecute them on their own testimony. Witnesses can say they saw two people check into a motel together but that isn't witnessing the act. So no, without a reasonable way to prosecute, it doesn't make sense.
Pages