The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why isn't adultery illegal in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

There are plenty of reasons you could use to argue one way or the other, but one that sticks out in my mind is practicality with regards to polyamorous and open relationships. In these relationships it is generally understood that one or both partners will have relationships of some kind with other people, yet if any of the people involved in these relationships is married their other relationships would become offenses. There is also potential for a partner who had been hurt in one of these relationships to press charges against the other partner out of spite and claim they had not agreed to an open relationship
Some marriages do not work out in the long run. I rather have two people who cause each other stress and emotional pain to separate than to be in a marriage to resent each other and be bitter and unhappy until death. That is not a way to live. The best way to deal with emotional trauma is to get counselling. If the husband abused the wife physically then I think a law suit of trauma is justified. Other than that, no.
We really don't have enough space in prisons to make it illegal!
Original post by thunder_chunky
As I said, no because in most cases people get money anyway as a result of the divorce procceedure.
Not only that but I don't think a person should be obligated or even force morally or legally to give compensation just because they had an affair with someone else. I think that's silly. I'm not saying people don't have the power to restrain or control themselves, but sometimes if you really can't help yourself and you have an affair I don't see why you should get punished for it as such.


Wtf do you been can't help yourself? Does this not apply to abuse? Anger? Thievery? A million other things?

Breaking a pact with another human at your own will and escaping without any retribution is so wrong.
Original post by SmileyVibe
Some marriages do not work out in the long run. I rather have two people who cause each other stress and emotional pain to separate than to be in a marriage to resent each other and be bitter and unhappy until death. That is not a way to live. The best way to deal with emotional trauma is to get counselling. If the husband abused the wife physically then I think a law suit of trauma is justified. Other than that, no.


Why is physical the only measure? What about psychological abuse?
Original post by TillSoft
There are plenty of reasons you could use to argue one way or the other, but one that sticks out in my mind is practicality with regards to polyamorous and open relationships. In these relationships it is generally understood that one or both partners will have relationships of some kind with other people, yet if any of the people involved in these relationships is married their other relationships would become offenses. There is also potential for a partner who had been hurt in one of these relationships to press charges against the other partner out of spite and claim they had not agreed to an open relationship


Simple solution: include it in the marriage contract.
Original post by donutellme
Wtf do you been can't help yourself? Does this not apply to abuse? Anger? Thievery? A million other things?

Breaking a pact with another human at your own will and escaping without any retribution is so wrong.


No. Being unfaithful isn't the same as thievery or abuse. That's a false equivalence.

Also, why are you responding to a post I made five years ago?
Original post by Hopple
Not that I'm advocating the stoning of adulterers like they do in Afghanistan, but why does the law turn a blind eye to it?

People get seriously pissed off if even a boyfriend or girlfriend cheats on them, but to do it within a marriage is to break vows said in front of (usually) dozens of witnesses.

Should adultery be punished? If not, how about being sued for 'extreme emotional trauma' or something? If yes, what should the punishment be?

Edit: Note that marriage is officially recognised by the law, giving benefits to married couples etc.


Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony (eg vows), the legal bit is shared property rights, tax changes etc etc.

What is silly question.

what on earth has marriage vows got to do with Conservative or Labour MPs.
Are you having a laugh?
Original post by donutellme
Why is physical the only measure? What about psychological abuse?


I never heard of any court case for psychological abuse. You can sue others for physical abuse, and/or tampering with your property. I'm not sure what else. The best thing to do in abusive relationship is to leave. I'm sure some people have gone through bullying or emotional abuse but you can't sue someone for degrading language. You can choose to say or leave though.
Original post by Hopple
Not that I'm advocating the stoning of adulterers like they do in Afghanistan, but why does the law turn a blind eye to it?

People get seriously pissed off if even a boyfriend or girlfriend cheats on them, but to do it within a marriage is to break vows said in front of (usually) dozens of witnesses.

Should adultery be punished? If not, how about being sued for 'extreme emotional trauma' or something? If yes, what should the punishment be?

Edit: Note that marriage is officially recognised by the law, giving benefits to married couples etc.


no, there is nothing wrong with cheating.
Original post by craymonDAX
no, there is nothing wrong with cheating.


Cool story
Then in that case why get married
Democratic societies don't make their laws and governance policies based on what is right or wrong, they make them based on what is popular or unpopular amongst the public.

A very large proportion of married people commit adultery at some point, and many of them do so as a result of a lack of self-restraint more than anything else. I think a lot of people would therefore feel safer in the knowledge that they can't be punished for it.
Original post by tazarooni89
Democratic societies don't make their laws and governance policies based on what is right or wrong, they make them based on what is popular or unpopular amongst the public.


That must be why we don't have capital punishment then.
Original post by Good bloke
That must be why we don't have capital punishment then.


I think it probably is part of the reason why punishments in general are so lenient compared to other societies.

A big factor is simply the emotional, knee-jerk response to it, and whether or not people can stomach the thought of it rather than its actual effectiveness.
This is an old thread.

Why should the state intervene? What other people get up to, is their business. Surely, you'd rather the CPS were spending their time dealing with murderers, etc. rather than people who are unfaithful?
Original post by tazarooni89
Democratic societies don't make their laws and governance policies based on what is right or wrong, they make them based on what is popular or unpopular amongst the public.

A very large proportion of married people commit adultery at some point, and many of them do so as a result of a lack of self-restraint more than anything else. I think a lot of people would therefore feel safer in the knowledge that they can't be punished for it.

Absolute unmitigated BS.

Democracy is a system of politics. Elected politicians can propose new laws or amendments to existing law, which are then voted upon in Parliament by the House made up from members of all political parties. The general public votes for a manifesto and NOT individual laws. Newly proposed laws are challenged in Parliament and are not guaranteed to automatically pass into law. i.e. there are checks and balances in the system to prevent abuses of power.

Contrary to your OPINION, laws are overwhelmingly not created on a public 'whim'.

So I say again. Your comments are worthless BS.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by uberteknik
Absolute unmitigated BS.

Democracy is a system of politics. Elected politicians can propose new laws or amendments to existing law, which are then voted upon in Parliament by the House made up from members of all political parties. The general public votes for a manifesto and NOT individual laws. Newly proposed laws are challenged in Parliament and are not guaranteed to automatically pass into law. i.e. there are checks and balances in the system to prevent abuses of power.

Contrary to your OPINION, laws are overwhelmingly not created on a public 'whim'.

So I say again. Your comments are worthless BS.


I don't claim that individual laws are created solely according to public whim. However, popularity with the public is a factor when passing laws (contrary to your OPINION), because politicians are incentivised or disincentivised by the likely effect their actions may have on the next vote.
Original post by tazarooni89
politicians are incentivised or disincentivised by the likely effect their actions may have on the next vote.


Explain why we no longer have a death penalty then.
Original post by Good bloke
Explain why we no longer have a death penalty then.


Because members of parliament voted to abolish it a few decades ago. How popular their decision would be with the public would have been a factor in making it.

In theory it would be possible to reintroduce the death penalty, but in practice, politicians who campaigned or voted in favour of this would be committing career suicide, because of how unpopular this would be.
(edited 6 years ago)

Latest