In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault divorce bill.
This is Mister Family Values by the way. I didn't know this until just now. We really fucked things up didn't we.
Considering it was 1969, I wonder if he was doing it for the blacks.
If that's the case, he just helped start the destruction of the black family structure.
Well... consider me even more red pilled on this. I didn't know all this. This whole thing was a bunch of fuckups. Fuck.I thought it was mostly left wing socjus advocacy that ruined the tradcon black family the same way it's ruined the tradcon American family, but now I see.
Progs attacked them with welfare, Republicans with the drug and gun wars. Soon as they got the public on side with the Common Humanity Civil Rights approach, the elites needed new tools.
You don't even need to restore fault. Actually having no fault divorce would improve the situation. What we have now is male fault divorce, and that's the root of the problem. Women have no incentive to behave properly because they get to keep all the benefits of marriage while absolving themselves of the obligations upon divorce. Not being able to keep using her ex as an ATM after the divorce might be enough to disincentive being a ho.
This. I fact restoring fault divorce would have been nder men even more. During seperation, if fault divorce was back in, the man could be attacked with adultery clauses due to technically being married still. Sure this works the other way round too, but since when are divorce laws enforced equally.
That's because there was an imbalance of economic power between men and women.
Well, yeah. Women hold some economic power and men hold responsibility for the consequences of the power that women wield. Men also hold some economic power and also hold the responsibility for the consequences for how they wield it.
Kind of like a lot of other forms of power.
If you get married in the eyes of the law, which I feel is completely pointless and signing yourself up to be robbed most likely, then sure. You made a legal contract, someone broke the terms of a contract, it's rather simple.
I'd rather exclude the government from marriages rather than give them more power, but your idea is logical on it's face.
If you get married in the eyes of the law, which I feel is completely pointless
Marriage is important for societal cohesion. If nobody is attached to anybody society breaks apart.
Marriage keeps people together so they don't give up at the first sign of trouble. If everybody is only out for themselves and children have no parents society goes to shit.
Unfortunately progressives have turned marriage into a losing proposition for men. The left is a bunch of short-sighted morons who would destroy all of society to pat themselves on the back for some short-lived virtue signalling.
Because determining whether someone committed adultery is way too invasive, we'd have to give the government complete access to our everyday lives. It would require a massive expansion of the surveillance state, which means the cure would be worse than the disease.
Of course, we're getting that anyway, but the system is not interested in creating a great society, quite the opposite in fact, so get ready for state enforced adultery by 2050.
Also, people must be free to make their own mistakes and pay for them (naturally, not through arbitrary punishments) in order to grow. A society of people who have always been prevented from failing looks... a lot like today's universities, actually. You don't want that.
Divorce laws that require fault and penalize the offending party is a law against adultery that is beneficial to society and doesn't require mass surveillance.
I think it's because of the libertarian idea that what you do is your own business. By policing adultery and shit like that you are essentially making government bigger by adding more reasons for the government to be in your business for things that is none of the government's business.
I don't think adultery should be something that gets you thrown in jail or anything, but I do think adultery should result in some sort of fine. Making adultery actually cost you something, especially when you are the offender should be encouraged. But as someone else pointed out, making adultery a crime, even if it's a misdemeanor or a "regular" criminal offense would result in expansion of the government surveilance state. Think about how much info about us is out there, now imagine giving the government even more power than it already has to monitor who we stick our dicks into - I don't want that.
We're kinda backed into the corner because the far left opened the pandora's box of unchecked and wanton sexuality, but using the state to force that back into the box is not the answer and will only result in the problems that caused the left wing wanton sexuality movement to appear in the first place (religious authoritarianism that is linked closely with the state and church).
It’s a moot point because if we ever had the power to change something like this then that would mean men were not catering to women any longer.
What you have to understand is that women never really have power. They only seem to because men are stupidly enforcing things in their favor. Men could stop that today and what could women do about it?
In reality, laws would come about only after the spirit of men changed. Nothing will change while men are still simping.
No men have the power. We outnumber the elites and the government.
That’s why the entire goal of the marxists is divide and conquer. Pit men against women, different races against each other, etc.
The reason society is enforcing things not in men's favour is because they are in the government+elite's favour. Men don't have the power to overthrow the government+elite.
Men could change it anytime they wanted. It’s just that many men are confused, they believe in “equality”, they’re smoking pot, they don’t care, they have become defeatist, they’re afraid, etc.
Why do you think there is such a push to drug young boys or convince them that they are girls? Why are teachers mostly women? It’s to train men into believing that they have no power, or that female authority is a thing.
Why is there nonstop propaganda about women’s rights, equality, diversity, the threat of white supremacy? It’s all about keeping up the facade to prevent men from changing it. The best way to defeat an enemy is to convince them they’ve already lost. They you don’t have to fight them because they already defeated themselves.
Men have abdicated their role in setting the direction of society. They fucking peaced out and let the women and homos take over while they play videogames and have sex every once in a while.
If men wake up to reality, it would change overnight. It would require men to stop thinking women are special and worshipping them though. That’s where all the problems started.
This isn't the 1700s anymore. In the 1700s the differential between peasant armies in terms of equipment and specialized training compared to organized well-financed armies was very small. Today, the differential is astronomical. Not just with the weapons themselves but with communications, satellites, surveillance, hacking and the required specialized training.
I wasn’t referring to going to war with the government, but even then I think you are way off. Those fancy weapons and communication systems mean nothing when you are attacking your own population. They struggled even with goat herders across the ocean… how do you think they will fare when I can just cut the power near your base? Or cut off your supply of food and fuel? Destroy your roads? Kidnap your family? Not counting all the subversion from defecting soldiers…
The reason men are acting the way they are is because due to the high power differential, most men are acting like submissive bitches because that is what they are.
The problem is the spirit of the men. Change that, and there would be no need for a fight with the government.
Things could change but as it stands the government+elites have too much power compared to average people. You speak of "numbers" yet how well did that work for the Russians or Chinese people? Organized well-financed armies are just way too powerful compared to peasant armies atm.
Again, I’m talking about reform, not war with the government. The elites only have the power that was given to them by people who would rather watch netflix than concern themselves with real things.
It’s easy to bomb foreigners. There’s a reason they choose to visit Jan 6th people in private and haul them off to jail rather than just come and execute all Trump supporters. They don’t have the power you believe they do. In fact I think you are trapped in a defeatist mindset.
Answer me this. If the elites are so powerful, as you seem to claim, then why bother with all the theatrics? Why fake elections? Why work so hard to cheat? Just go door to door and forcibly inject everyone with the vaccines. Send soldiers to each home and steal whatever you like. Pick a dictator and set down whatever rules you want.
They lie because they are afraid. They cheat because that’s the best they can get away with for now. They are always worried that people will organize to oppose them, which is why they went after Trump so hard.
We all get the government we deserve. Russian and Chinese people don’t value freedom. They don’t oppose the status quo in their countries. Numbers only help you when people are unified and want freedom.
If you have it “good enough” and would rather not rock the boat, then why bother?
Regardless, having some war with the government is foolish and counterproductive. Corruption has been happening because our society is corrupt. People drifted away from doing the right things and would rather avoid what is difficult. If people were moral, they would put a stop to the corruption.
I think we should start promoting ideas like making adultery illegal to help promote the nuclear family.
The problem you have is that most, not all but most modern women believe they have the right to destroy other people's lives in order to chase fleeting enjoyment.
You would have to kill everyone in Hollywood, and then strip women of the right to vote, before you were ever able to garner the legislative clout to make adultery illegal again and for it to stick in the minds of the populace.
Now, I'm not saying that it will stay legal, in fact I rather think it won't. I just find it far more likely that we'll end up rewriting most of our laws after a long and blood civil war, rather than actually managing to politick our way back into a decent, civilized society again.
Do you really want to allow the government back into your bedroom?
No, the solution is social pressure - we need to bring back slut-shaming - of both male and female sluts alike. harsher penalties for whoring, and the enabling of whores, and their customers. The stocks might be a good idea to revive in that wise, as a warning to others.
It is immoral but does not violate rights: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Same as how being fat is bad for society but you should be allowed to eat what you want. We simply should make sure others aren't forced to pay for bad choices, like broken homes (divorce due to adultery) leading to single moms on welfare, or obese people raising insurance or socialized health cost for others. You do that by getting rid of such programs, less government.
The goal of a law is threefold: 1) Punish those who endanger societal cohesion, 2) make right the wrongs caused, and 3) discourage others from breaking the laws in a way that doesn't make them break even worse laws.
Adultery is, at its core, a tort law infraction. You sign a contract to be faithful, and then breach of contract occurs. At-Fault Divorce, pros and cons, have already been discussed here. But does that right the wrongs caused? You say "emotional damage", but then if you put a dollar value to it, that isn't fixed with a paycheque, or with a lack-of-paying-them-cheque. The most you could get is reimbursement for costs for therapy. That would be righting the wrong, after all, but I have a feeling "people who provably cheat on their partners, need to pay for their partners' shrink" is not the law you're seeking.
So emotional DAMAGE... Like Emotional Violent Battery. In New York, that would mean if you cheat on anyone twice, you're in jail for 10 years MINIMUM. A third puts you away for 25, minimum (according to a quick Google search). Well, that certainly fulfills requirement "1", but it doesn't right any wrongs. But many felony charges don't do so, so it's not too important. So "3": If you cheat on a man, you get 25 years. If you KILL a man, you get 6 months, maybe a year. That DEFINITELY goes against the idea of discouraging breaking laws in a way that doesn't make you break worse laws. You'd be making a pile of corpses since the penalty for murder-but-self-defense-but-reasonable-doubt-it-wasn't-self-defense is so much lower than the penalty for adultery.
So really, the issue is our current legal framework doesn't have an idea as to how to ethically enforce such a law, if At-Fault-Divorce (Which isn't a criminal illegality thing) isn't good enough.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with establishing the principle that "significant emotional damage" is sufficient basis to make something illegal. That seems to lead to anybody who isn't a communist facing charges within a few short years.
I'm fairly sure that "Why shouldn't we make X illegal?" is the antithesis of US jurisprudence. US legal theory, in contrast to European, is that US citizens can do whatever the hell they like until they run up against the law, rather than being property of the state, graciously granted some small permissions if they promise to be good.
That shit already happens lmao. Except it's rape instead.
At least there's a semblance of defense against the infidelity accusation. You can take the chick he supposedly banged and put her up on the stand to testify at a trial.
I don't think it's a hard sell to suggest that nobody's truly satisfied with our present system of crime punishment. Paying a fine or going to jail aren't adequate for correcting some behaviors.
All illegality necessarily implies is government intervention. Community self-policing is quite adequate, but denying the government's proposed monopoly on violence is a big no-no.
You don't need to.
You just need to restore the concept of fault divorce. Adultery historically was "YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY!" outcome in divorce court.
This is Mister Family Values by the way. I didn't know this until just now. We really fucked things up didn't we.
Also signed some of the first gun control legislation. Reagan was only good in speeches.
Considering it was 1969, I wonder if he was doing it for the blacks.
If that's the case, he just helped start the destruction of the black family structure.
Well... consider me even more red pilled on this. I didn't know all this. This whole thing was a bunch of fuckups. Fuck.I thought it was mostly left wing socjus advocacy that ruined the tradcon black family the same way it's ruined the tradcon American family, but now I see.
Progs attacked them with welfare, Republicans with the drug and gun wars. Soon as they got the public on side with the Common Humanity Civil Rights approach, the elites needed new tools.
Reagan was literally an actor before He got into politics. He had practice at pretending to be what He wasn't.
You don't even need to restore fault. Actually having no fault divorce would improve the situation. What we have now is male fault divorce, and that's the root of the problem. Women have no incentive to behave properly because they get to keep all the benefits of marriage while absolving themselves of the obligations upon divorce. Not being able to keep using her ex as an ATM after the divorce might be enough to disincentive being a ho.
This. I fact restoring fault divorce would have been nder men even more. During seperation, if fault divorce was back in, the man could be attacked with adultery clauses due to technically being married still. Sure this works the other way round too, but since when are divorce laws enforced equally.
No, historically that was enough disincentive to prompt society to stigmatize it.
There used to be. I wonder who ended that?
Well, yeah. Women hold some economic power and men hold responsibility for the consequences of the power that women wield. Men also hold some economic power and also hold the responsibility for the consequences for how they wield it. Kind of like a lot of other forms of power.
If you get married in the eyes of the law, which I feel is completely pointless and signing yourself up to be robbed most likely, then sure. You made a legal contract, someone broke the terms of a contract, it's rather simple.
I'd rather exclude the government from marriages rather than give them more power, but your idea is logical on it's face.
Marriage is important for societal cohesion. If nobody is attached to anybody society breaks apart.
Marriage keeps people together so they don't give up at the first sign of trouble. If everybody is only out for themselves and children have no parents society goes to shit.
Unfortunately progressives have turned marriage into a losing proposition for men. The left is a bunch of short-sighted morons who would destroy all of society to pat themselves on the back for some short-lived virtue signalling.
Because determining whether someone committed adultery is way too invasive, we'd have to give the government complete access to our everyday lives. It would require a massive expansion of the surveillance state, which means the cure would be worse than the disease.
Of course, we're getting that anyway, but the system is not interested in creating a great society, quite the opposite in fact, so get ready for state enforced adultery by 2050.
Also, people must be free to make their own mistakes and pay for them (naturally, not through arbitrary punishments) in order to grow. A society of people who have always been prevented from failing looks... a lot like today's universities, actually. You don't want that.
Divorce laws that require fault and penalize the offending party is a law against adultery that is beneficial to society and doesn't require mass surveillance.
Yeah, that's an excellent point; Piroko talked about it somewhere around here as well. I think that's the correct way.
You might need a loicense to present that much fact and logic in one comment.
I think it's because of the libertarian idea that what you do is your own business. By policing adultery and shit like that you are essentially making government bigger by adding more reasons for the government to be in your business for things that is none of the government's business.
I don't think adultery should be something that gets you thrown in jail or anything, but I do think adultery should result in some sort of fine. Making adultery actually cost you something, especially when you are the offender should be encouraged. But as someone else pointed out, making adultery a crime, even if it's a misdemeanor or a "regular" criminal offense would result in expansion of the government surveilance state. Think about how much info about us is out there, now imagine giving the government even more power than it already has to monitor who we stick our dicks into - I don't want that.
We're kinda backed into the corner because the far left opened the pandora's box of unchecked and wanton sexuality, but using the state to force that back into the box is not the answer and will only result in the problems that caused the left wing wanton sexuality movement to appear in the first place (religious authoritarianism that is linked closely with the state and church).
It’s a moot point because if we ever had the power to change something like this then that would mean men were not catering to women any longer.
What you have to understand is that women never really have power. They only seem to because men are stupidly enforcing things in their favor. Men could stop that today and what could women do about it?
In reality, laws would come about only after the spirit of men changed. Nothing will change while men are still simping.
No men have the power. We outnumber the elites and the government.
That’s why the entire goal of the marxists is divide and conquer. Pit men against women, different races against each other, etc.
Men could change it anytime they wanted. It’s just that many men are confused, they believe in “equality”, they’re smoking pot, they don’t care, they have become defeatist, they’re afraid, etc.
Why do you think there is such a push to drug young boys or convince them that they are girls? Why are teachers mostly women? It’s to train men into believing that they have no power, or that female authority is a thing.
Why is there nonstop propaganda about women’s rights, equality, diversity, the threat of white supremacy? It’s all about keeping up the facade to prevent men from changing it. The best way to defeat an enemy is to convince them they’ve already lost. They you don’t have to fight them because they already defeated themselves.
Men have abdicated their role in setting the direction of society. They fucking peaced out and let the women and homos take over while they play videogames and have sex every once in a while.
If men wake up to reality, it would change overnight. It would require men to stop thinking women are special and worshipping them though. That’s where all the problems started.
I wasn’t referring to going to war with the government, but even then I think you are way off. Those fancy weapons and communication systems mean nothing when you are attacking your own population. They struggled even with goat herders across the ocean… how do you think they will fare when I can just cut the power near your base? Or cut off your supply of food and fuel? Destroy your roads? Kidnap your family? Not counting all the subversion from defecting soldiers…
The problem is the spirit of the men. Change that, and there would be no need for a fight with the government.
Again, I’m talking about reform, not war with the government. The elites only have the power that was given to them by people who would rather watch netflix than concern themselves with real things.
It’s easy to bomb foreigners. There’s a reason they choose to visit Jan 6th people in private and haul them off to jail rather than just come and execute all Trump supporters. They don’t have the power you believe they do. In fact I think you are trapped in a defeatist mindset.
Answer me this. If the elites are so powerful, as you seem to claim, then why bother with all the theatrics? Why fake elections? Why work so hard to cheat? Just go door to door and forcibly inject everyone with the vaccines. Send soldiers to each home and steal whatever you like. Pick a dictator and set down whatever rules you want.
They lie because they are afraid. They cheat because that’s the best they can get away with for now. They are always worried that people will organize to oppose them, which is why they went after Trump so hard.
We all get the government we deserve. Russian and Chinese people don’t value freedom. They don’t oppose the status quo in their countries. Numbers only help you when people are unified and want freedom.
If you have it “good enough” and would rather not rock the boat, then why bother?
Regardless, having some war with the government is foolish and counterproductive. Corruption has been happening because our society is corrupt. People drifted away from doing the right things and would rather avoid what is difficult. If people were moral, they would put a stop to the corruption.
Compared to faith in God, an army is nothing.
This is very broad, but there used to be laws against adultery. You can start by researching why they were removed.
It seems outright wrong.
Because the proverbial they want to destroy Western Civilization. The backbone of which is marriage.
The problem you have is that most, not all but most modern women believe they have the right to destroy other people's lives in order to chase fleeting enjoyment.
You would have to kill everyone in Hollywood, and then strip women of the right to vote, before you were ever able to garner the legislative clout to make adultery illegal again and for it to stick in the minds of the populace.
Now, I'm not saying that it will stay legal, in fact I rather think it won't. I just find it far more likely that we'll end up rewriting most of our laws after a long and blood civil war, rather than actually managing to politick our way back into a decent, civilized society again.
Great start!
Do you really want to allow the government back into your bedroom?
No, the solution is social pressure - we need to bring back slut-shaming - of both male and female sluts alike. harsher penalties for whoring, and the enabling of whores, and their customers. The stocks might be a good idea to revive in that wise, as a warning to others.
It is immoral but does not violate rights: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Same as how being fat is bad for society but you should be allowed to eat what you want. We simply should make sure others aren't forced to pay for bad choices, like broken homes (divorce due to adultery) leading to single moms on welfare, or obese people raising insurance or socialized health cost for others. You do that by getting rid of such programs, less government.
The emotional damage can be significant, true.
So... What?
The goal of a law is threefold: 1) Punish those who endanger societal cohesion, 2) make right the wrongs caused, and 3) discourage others from breaking the laws in a way that doesn't make them break even worse laws.
Adultery is, at its core, a tort law infraction. You sign a contract to be faithful, and then breach of contract occurs. At-Fault Divorce, pros and cons, have already been discussed here. But does that right the wrongs caused? You say "emotional damage", but then if you put a dollar value to it, that isn't fixed with a paycheque, or with a lack-of-paying-them-cheque. The most you could get is reimbursement for costs for therapy. That would be righting the wrong, after all, but I have a feeling "people who provably cheat on their partners, need to pay for their partners' shrink" is not the law you're seeking.
So emotional DAMAGE... Like Emotional Violent Battery. In New York, that would mean if you cheat on anyone twice, you're in jail for 10 years MINIMUM. A third puts you away for 25, minimum (according to a quick Google search). Well, that certainly fulfills requirement "1", but it doesn't right any wrongs. But many felony charges don't do so, so it's not too important. So "3": If you cheat on a man, you get 25 years. If you KILL a man, you get 6 months, maybe a year. That DEFINITELY goes against the idea of discouraging breaking laws in a way that doesn't make you break worse laws. You'd be making a pile of corpses since the penalty for murder-but-self-defense-but-reasonable-doubt-it-wasn't-self-defense is so much lower than the penalty for adultery.
So really, the issue is our current legal framework doesn't have an idea as to how to ethically enforce such a law, if At-Fault-Divorce (Which isn't a criminal illegality thing) isn't good enough.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with establishing the principle that "significant emotional damage" is sufficient basis to make something illegal. That seems to lead to anybody who isn't a communist facing charges within a few short years.
I'm fairly sure that "Why shouldn't we make X illegal?" is the antithesis of US jurisprudence. US legal theory, in contrast to European, is that US citizens can do whatever the hell they like until they run up against the law, rather than being property of the state, graciously granted some small permissions if they promise to be good.
That's a stretch tbh.
Last time there was actual bad to it was before DNA tests were invented, i'll gladly hear argument to the opposite though.
Nigga it's not that hard to not sleep with someone else when you're married. Fuck em
That shit already happens lmao. Except it's rape instead.
At least there's a semblance of defense against the infidelity accusation. You can take the chick he supposedly banged and put her up on the stand to testify at a trial.
I don't think it's a hard sell to suggest that nobody's truly satisfied with our present system of crime punishment. Paying a fine or going to jail aren't adequate for correcting some behaviors.
All illegality necessarily implies is government intervention. Community self-policing is quite adequate, but denying the government's proposed monopoly on violence is a big no-no.