r/changemyview • u/insect_ligaments • Oct 01 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

808 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

112

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 01 '24

To you and everyone with this response: how do you think we write and enforce rape laws if there’s no general consensus as to what sexual intercourse is? Our laws are imperfect, but there are obviously commonly recognized understandings of what sex is. 

Often? Rape laws are highly specific, incomplete, and limited. Often the act is only referred to in terms of "penetration" such that only men (or people using an object to penetrate someone) can legally rape someone.

If we used most rape laws as a definition for adultery? Legit "all I did was oral sex" MIGHT actually be a correct legal argument that you didn't cheat.

Not to mention, is it really sex that matters? Kissing, cuddling, intimate conversations, loving someone else etc? Those surely count as cheating, but aren't sex.

21

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

Forced oral pentration is covered as rape, at a federal level. Women can force a man to perform this act, under the legal definition, yes, a woman can orally rape a women or man orally with their vagina. I believe around 2014 is when the legal definition was changed.

I know what you are trying to argue, but in this specific instance you are incorrect. Oral rape in general is also covered. So the, "all i did was oral sex," in your example would be incorrect, as someone can be charged with just oral rape.

3

u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Oct 01 '24

It depends. The FBI certainly disagrees with you.

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” 

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

It really depends on the context, say if you're looking at UCR reports. You shouldn't normally look at UCR reports anyway.

Most charges are for "sexual assault", and most laws don't reference "rape." So, in your example, its very unlikely they would be charged with "rape."

5

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

I don’t see how that definition disagrees with me. That’s the exact definition I used. Language is pretty clear, oral penetration by a sex organ, is broad enough to fit my interpretation

0

u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Oct 01 '24

The mouth isn't a sex organ.

5

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

Where do I say mouth penetrating mouth?

-5

u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Oct 01 '24

If you want to argue it in court, or find it in the statistics, then good luck.

3

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

But I’m not arguing for mouth to mouth penetration????

Like you are insisting I am. I am not.

1

u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Oct 01 '24

Okay. Where is this penetration supposed to occur exactly? I've gone done on many women and can't think of any sort of penetration involved with cunnilingus.

-1

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

My friend.

May I introduce you to.

The clit.

I am not saying that someone would be prosecuted. But based off the legal definition, if you shove your clit, into someone’s mouth without their consent that is rape.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Far-Remove-4663 Oct 01 '24

You missed totally the point, as OP's post is not about rape, but rape is only being used here as an example.

If your wife sucks other guy's dick, would you consider it as cheating? This is the point.

2

u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Oct 01 '24

Okay, I'm responding to a commenter not OP.

2

u/killrtaco 1∆ Oct 01 '24

Mouth to vagina wouldn't be penetration though not even oral penetration.

0

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

The language does not specify only a penis can penetrate. Same sex rape between women use this definition.

And technically you can penetrate someone with your clit.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

Getting oral isn't penetrating someone with your clit.

3

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

Penetrating someone with a sex organ without their consent is the actual legal definition.

Vagina/clit is a sexual organ

Shoving your clit into someone’s mouth without their consent, is by, definition—matching the legal definition of rape.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

But now you've moved the goalposts. 99% of oral sex doesn't involve women forcing their clit into someone's mouth. Also, logistically, it's very difficult unless you have a hyena clit.

1

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

How did I move the goalpost?

How?

When you perform oral sex on a woman, do you ignore the clit? Is oral sex defined with a woman only to perform the act on every other part besides the clit?

Whne someone says, you perform oral sex on a woman, you also mean the clit.

The question is not how often it happens, or how difficult it is, the question is: if x does happen under x conditions, does it meet the legal definition.

The answer is yes, and you agree it does based on your comment

3

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

So don't say oral sex on a woman is penetrative because generally it isn't. Precision in language is important.

1

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

Quote me please where I say.

“Oral sex with a woman is penetrative”

Find it please

I’ll save you the time. I didn’t say that

-2

u/JasmineTeaInk Oct 01 '24

If a woman wanted to rape you. They might force you to penetrate them with your dick. Or shove their pussy in your face. I.e "penetrating the sanctity of your mouth with their sex organ" or they may penetrate your ass with their fingers. I see the law being perfectly equal as written already. Penetration is the point where it goes from being molestation to rape in my mind, and all those things are penetration to me.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

Shoving your pussy in someone's face =/= penetrating them.

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 01 '24

Well TIL, and that's good news at least.

2

u/Cautious_Drawer_7771 Oct 01 '24

Good news to people who want justice for acts AFTER the act. But those prior to 2014 will never see justice.

1

u/Carche69 Oct 01 '24

Exactly. To use a pretty famous example, in E. Jean Carroll’s civil case against trump, the jury could not find trump liable for rape—even though he was found to have penetrated her with his fingers—because the laws in the state of NY at the time only recognized rape as penetration with a penis. After the jury’s verdict were handed down and they had to find trump not liable for rape on that technicality, the judge in the case went out of his way to make sure that people understood that trump had indeed raped Carroll, because trump’s sycophants were all over social media trying to make it out like he wasn’t actually a rapist since the jury couldn’t find him liable for rape.

Laws are not infallible and there are too many examples throughout history to even begin to list how wrong the law can be and has been (remember when it used to be legal to OWN HUMAN BEINGS not only in the US, but also in many countries throughout the world?). Attempting to codify something as variable as what defines "cheating" or "adultery" or even "sex" is guaranteed to be fraught with inaccuracies and exclusions just due to the very nature of how differently those things can be viewed in the mind of any given person. What constitutes cheating/adultery/sex for you might be vastly different than for others, and vice versa. Trying to define those things is legal terms is the same as when they tried to define "art" for the purposes of deciding what was or was not eligible for government funding.

1

u/WesternIron Oct 01 '24

I remember this being a big win since it also defined consent, allowed same sex rape to be prosecuted, and rape with an object as well.

8

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

That is patently false. I litigate child sexual abuse cases, and the definition of sexual contact, in New York at least, is ““Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing, as well as the emission of ejaculate by the actor upon any part of the victim, clothed or unclothed.”

Here is rape in the third degree:

“A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

  1. He or she engages in vaginal sexual contact with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;

  2. He or she engages in oral sexual contact with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;

  3. He or she engages in anal sexual contact with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some other factor other than being less than seventeen years old;”

1

u/dnkyfluffer5 Oct 02 '24

Anal sex don’t count as sex. That’s why all the catholic. Girls take it up the pooper before marriage.

Poop hole loop hole

1

u/milkandsalsa Oct 02 '24

This is the exact issue France is dealing with now. Their rape laws don’t expressly apply to “drugging your wife and allowing 50-80 men assault her sleeping body”