Skip to main content

View Diary: FL Teabag Legislator: Rich Men who Screw Around Will Now Be Protected (174 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because adultery may have many causes (6+ / 0-)

    that are difficult to sort out in a court.

    One spouse can "drive" another to adultery.

    It may be a momentary lapse of one spouse that is relied by the other spouse to gain the upper hand in a divorce from an otherwise doomed marriage. And, sometimes it is one spouse unfairly abusing the trust of the other.

    Wisely, many states and courts have got out of the "deciding fault" business when it comes to failed human relationships.

    It is hard enough for them (courts) to figure out how to fairly divide the property let alone assign blame.

    •  "Drives"? as in "dressed to get raped"? (18+ / 0-)

      One spouse "drives" the other to adultery = "the way that woman was dressed is what got her raped."  

      Are you so sure you want to go there?  

      Sorry bub, that shit doesn't wash, it doesn't rinse, and it doesn't even spin.  

      The sexually dissatisfied spouse can either learn to masturbate, or can get the divorce FIRST and then go screwing around AFTER the divorce.  

      There is NO excuse for screwing around while still married, unless it's an open marriage by mutual consent BEFORE the screwing around starts.

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:19:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see you are (0+ / 0-)

        advocating strict liability for the partner who strays but luckily even in states where adultery is considered, courts (with obvious difficulty) tries to analyze mitigating factors.

        •  sure, analyze the mitigating circumstances! (5+ / 0-)

          Just as with robbery and murder!

          "Your honor, he drove me to murder him!"

          Know what?  Courts ought to have the power to commit a couple to outpatient psychotherapy, consisting of both individual and joint sessions as needed to enable both of them to figure out what's up with them.

          As for the often-heard thing that men tend to "wander" because they "need" "variety," that should be fixable with a good dose of porn and some lessons on wrist exercises.  

          Or if the wife still wants him, prescribe Viagra and let the good times roll.

          Now of course if there truly are mitigating circumstances, for example the wife turned out to be a necrophile and she wanted the husband to take cold baths before bedtime so it would feel like she's having sex with a corpse, well yeah sure let those cases go no-fault.

          But those are few and far-between.  

          Most of them are just straight-up scumbag behavior.  ME! ME! ME! selfish assholes, kids be damned as well.  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:51:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have a history with infidelity (0+ / 0-)

            it is obvious.

            So do I, but it obviously doesn't cut as deep with me as it does with you.

            I also had a spouse that forged a $25,000 check that almost forced me into bankruptcy.

            Both things are equally bad, imho.

            •  Easy Catesby..that's an awfully big accusation (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, Nowhere Man

              to make while desk-jockeying behind a computer screen.

              Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:13:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps he has a thing for personal responsibility (6+ / 0-)

              Neither I nor Mrs. Nowhere have strayed; nor (to the best of my knowledge) did my parents. However, I find myself agreeing with G2Geek. Perhaps it's because I believe that no one can "make" anybody do anything, except through use or threat of violence.

              Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

              by Nowhere Man on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:18:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I've seen the consequences. (5+ / 0-)

              Kids whose lives got fucked when Mom or more often Dad decided to play the sexual futures market.  

              At some point I saw the pattern, with friends who would refer to "Mom and her boyfriend" and "Dad and his girlfriend," who were being bounced around like billiard balls without anything like a stable place to call their own at either end of the billiard table.  

              And they were supposed to be studying in school or developing a career or even just holding down a job under those circumstances?  While sleeping on a couch at Mom's place during the week and another couch at Dad's place over the weekend?

              Yeah sure there are kids who make it when Mom is a crackhead and Dad is a gangbanger who does drive-bys for a living.  What-the-fuck-ever.  There are a few million people halfway around the globe who don't even get one meal a day, plus all the women in various Middle Eastern theocracies who are property.  

              But arguements of the general type "don't complain, after all you could have been a Jew living under Naziism" don't cut it.  Those arguements are morally bankrupt because as long as humans don't go extinct they'll find ways to survive and persist despite the worst sorts of depravities and evils being inflicted upon them.  And the fact that there are always worse depravities and evils to inflict (Hitler could have ground up the Jews into sausage and fed them to his troops at the front lines in Russia) does not make other depravities and evils less so.  

              The depravity of turning a child into a billiard ball as a casualty of the parent's desire to play the sex market, stands on its own two feet as an evil inflicted upon the kid regardless of whatever other bigger and worse evils could have been inflicted (hey at least the adulterous parent wasn't raping their own kid, right?).  

              Parents, as well as politicians, need to learn the graceful art of keeping their pants (or dresses or whatever) on until they are no longer in a position of responsibility for anyone else.  And where would we be today in history if Bill Clinton had kept his pants on (hint: two terms of Gore, no 9/11, and climate mitigation well underway), and Elliott Spitzer had done likewise (hint: Goldman execs painting license plates in the penitentiary)...?

              And as for me, I'm gay and single, so take whatever ad-hominem hypotheses you may have, and shove them.  

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:05:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Are you seriously comparing adultery to rape? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, kestrel9000, Sparhawk

        That's beyond offensive.

        •  Maybe you should read the comment again. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nowhere Man, SemDem, myboo, i like bbq

          And the previous one it was in response to.  I don't see a comparison.  S/he's comparing the bogus blame game of the previous comment with adultery to the bogus blame game when someone says a woman is asking for it by the way she dresses.  Big difference.

          "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

          by AnnieR on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:00:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  as for "momentary lapse"... (13+ / 0-)

      ... and "get the upper hand in a divorce from an otherwise doomed marriage," the answer to that is, tough shit, adults can learn to deal with their problems without having to lie and cheat and break trust.  

      You're making dumb-ass excuses that are precisely equivalent to what "enablers" do for substance abusers.

      "My wife drives me to drink!  My boss drives me to pop pills!  Everyone drives me to drink and pop pills!"

      "Oh poor you, that all those mean people are driving you to drink and pop pills!"

      Bullshit.  The alcoholic drinks because he drinks, and the pill popper pops pills because he pops pills, and the answer in both cases is to just stop drinking or popping pills and stop rationalizing it.   And both of those are medical conditions, legitimate diseases, whereas the desire to play the sexual futures market isn't.

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:28:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was not an HRable comment (6+ / 0-)

      The author was expressing his or her opinion.

      I do not think it is obvious that one partner's adultery should automatically lead to a financial penalty.  

      In fact, given the invocation of religious doctrine, it makes me wonder if I'm truly on a liberal blog.  

      Does this bill discriminate against women?  The proposed bill does not specify that only the adultery of men should not be considered.  The bill states that adultery should not be considered, period.  

      Are husbands the only ones who cheat?  I think not.  Do more husbands cheat than wives?  Do husbands cheat more than wives?  There's no proof of that.

      Basically, this diarist has taken the act of a person who may be a sexist and turn it into a sexist act.  The diarist is entitled to his or her opinion.  But we should consider other possibilities as well.  Maybe we should read the frontpage article questioning the idea of monogamy.

      P.S.: If a spouse infects you with an STD due to infidelity, you can sue that spouse under tort law for battery.  

      One man gathers what another man spills

      by John Chapman on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 06:57:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Context makes it a gender issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SemDem

        Men have far more earning power than women overall. Women are the ones who must take time off to give birth. We still live in a country that discourages women from amibition and is sliding backwards on greased rails. You can't strip the divorce question of that kind of context, any more than you can declare "we're all equal now" because the Civil Rights Act was passed nearly 50 years ago but serious discrimination remains.

        As for "questioning the idea of monogamy," I'm all for letting people pursue alternative forms of marriage, but those must be agreed upon in advance, rather than a cheater changing horses mid-stream... or playing the kinds of head games too often found in the polyamory community (e.g., "the one-penis rule," in that he can bang as many women as he wants and so can she, but she can't bring home another guy).

    •  Hey SemDem: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster

      You hiderated in your own diary.
      That's a no-no.

      "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:39:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Adultery has only one proximate cause (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JFeathersmith, milkbone, i like bbq

      You can make your partner to want to cheat, but you can't make them cheat.  That is their choice alone.

      Generally, if one partner is willing to run around on the other, it's a sign of a larger disrespect.  However, as Samulayo points out, this disrespect might well be earned, and there are different motivators of adulterers.

      Sometimes adultery is part of a larger pattern of abuse (in the broad sense), but sometimes it's a response to abuse.  For instance, if your spouse was emotionally or physically abusive, and your new partner/hook-up wasn't, is that as bad as if your abusive spouse locked you down at home (figuratively) to go go hook up?  

      "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

      by nominalize on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:46:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, let's say the wife is suffering (0+ / 0-)

      from a condition that affects her libido. Perhaps she's seriously ill, or she has chronic pain that impairs her sexual response.

      Your implication is that if she doesn't "service" her husband, it's her fault she cheats.

      Or maybe vice versa: the husband is ill and the wife is frustrated sexually. But, statistically, the wife will be too busy caring for her ill husband to have much of a libido. Men are much less frequently caretakers than women are.

      When you insist that one spouse must "service" the other or be considered at fault for cheating, you're defining sex as not an act done enthusiastically by two (or more) participants, but a service provided by one person to another that need not involve the former's enjoyment. This is a pernicious idea, especially considering that patriarchal society considers women to exist for men's convenience and pleasure. It's an idea that, quite frankly, gives aid and support to rape culture.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site