![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLong before President Clinton's famous impeachment and trial over his personal love life, I had a fascination with the ways that adultery are approached by various cultures. In his translation of Ibn Ishaq's collection of Muhammadan memorabilia, Alfred Guillaume mentions a discrepancy in the prescribed treatment for that most renowned love crimes. Had I not seen Mel Gibson's graphic portrayal of scourging, I might have taken stoning to be the more brutal of the two penalties. Ibn Ishaq does not make a definitive determination on the matter except to say that Allah is said to have claimed credit for Jewish literature.
What interests me more than the variety of punishments for the act are the variety of reasons for its criminality. In Clinton's case, the act itself was not as severe as the cover-up. By the rationale of Ibn Ishaq's account, Clinton may not have qualified as an adulterer. It seems that Allah was primarily concerned with the legitimacy of offspring and the integrity of the secrecy of the harem. Where neither exist, can there be a crime?
Rationalist literature views adultery as a degradation of the body politic. The offending participants create a rift in the social fabric by sewing the seeds of animosity. From such a perspective, the act is not nearly as problematic as its exposure. People who keep the secret of the affair act to preserve the social fabric and those who bring it into the public spotlight serve to divide the body politic. We witnessed such a division up close and personally at the close of the previous century.
In a slave society, such as America, one partner in marriage is the property of the other. Adultery is a property crime where one person robs another of their due monopoly on affection. This rationale does not apply for traditionalists because it requires establishing an actual alienation. If affections were squandered prior to the act in question, a theft could not have occurred. Traditionalists prefer to ignore the reason and simply seek the sacrificial blood of the participants. Whether by stoning or by scourging, a blood sacrifice must be made to the Most High.
My own reasons for avoiding adultery include the fear of violence against my person, but not at the hands of blood-thirsty religious zealots. On the positive side, I prefer to spend my time with a partner who has no prior commitments. In such cases, fornication is a crime of lesser consequence. Free love, though an affront to the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth, confers greater benefits on the participants and on the body politic than l'amour enchainee.
What do you think would have happened if adultery were brutally punished in America? Would Herman Cain still be running for office?
What interests me more than the variety of punishments for the act are the variety of reasons for its criminality. In Clinton's case, the act itself was not as severe as the cover-up. By the rationale of Ibn Ishaq's account, Clinton may not have qualified as an adulterer. It seems that Allah was primarily concerned with the legitimacy of offspring and the integrity of the secrecy of the harem. Where neither exist, can there be a crime?
Rationalist literature views adultery as a degradation of the body politic. The offending participants create a rift in the social fabric by sewing the seeds of animosity. From such a perspective, the act is not nearly as problematic as its exposure. People who keep the secret of the affair act to preserve the social fabric and those who bring it into the public spotlight serve to divide the body politic. We witnessed such a division up close and personally at the close of the previous century.
In a slave society, such as America, one partner in marriage is the property of the other. Adultery is a property crime where one person robs another of their due monopoly on affection. This rationale does not apply for traditionalists because it requires establishing an actual alienation. If affections were squandered prior to the act in question, a theft could not have occurred. Traditionalists prefer to ignore the reason and simply seek the sacrificial blood of the participants. Whether by stoning or by scourging, a blood sacrifice must be made to the Most High.
My own reasons for avoiding adultery include the fear of violence against my person, but not at the hands of blood-thirsty religious zealots. On the positive side, I prefer to spend my time with a partner who has no prior commitments. In such cases, fornication is a crime of lesser consequence. Free love, though an affront to the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth, confers greater benefits on the participants and on the body politic than l'amour enchainee.
What do you think would have happened if adultery were brutally punished in America? Would Herman Cain still be running for office?
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 17:28 (UTC)Ah, masturbatory consequentialism -- the religion of the infantile.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 17:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:37 (UTC)"Aw how touching."
"I shall continue on with my grand project dedicated to my own ego."
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 19:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 19:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 00:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 01:13 (UTC)I would certainly hope that the reason I don't cheat on my wife is that I recognize it as a moral wrong.
I mean, what if circumstances would arise where I can be quite certain that I could cheat without getting caught? Should I then go ahead and do it? I think not.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 01:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 01:23 (UTC)If one requires an omniscient God to be a rigorously moral person, then maybe the evangelicals are right. But I don't think this is the case at all. I believe one can be an atheist and be a rigorously moral person -- which of necessity means not being a consequentialist.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 02:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:30 (UTC)I find the entire concept of adultery to be a bit silly. Why does society need to intervene in private property contracts like marriage. Want consequences for adultery, write it into the prenup. Or better yet, have the state and federal governments stop recognizing marriage, at all. It is a private matter, subject to private agreements.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 18:43 (UTC)It's the drama.
nd most of them I know do this from a place of ego more than anything; thinking themselves "above" "banal" "social" "constraints".
It's hipsterism.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:25 (UTC)I'll take your word for it, you must know a thing or two on this topic.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 07:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 20:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 23:54 (UTC)My wiccan cousin is like this. She actually wonders why I don't bring the family around to see her very much.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:22 (UTC)You mean the trial on abuse of power, perjury and obstruction of justice?
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 18:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 17:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 01:27 (UTC)Also, while frowned upon, strictly speaking adultery isn't illegal.
Mildly irked you refer to America as a slave society... but I suppose i could see the argument. When applied to marriage, yes the wife does take ownership of the husband. He becomes her property. She changes him, fixes him, and should he violate their bond... she leaves him but takes ½ of his stuff.
Very amused you refered to sex as fornification. I thought only Temperance Brennan did that in this day and age.
I don't think Herman Cain is out of the running for adultery. While certainly a factor, it was minor in his case. It was the multiple instances of his sexually harassing, I'd even go so far as to say assaulting, various women he worked with. Even if he'd been single at the time all that went down I'm sure that'd've cost him any chance of running for president.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 02:23 (UTC)This is incorrect. While there's an argument that Lawrence v. Texas would invalidate adultery laws, it hasn't yet been tested, and many states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States_2) still have adultery laws on the books, though they're rarely enforced.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 03:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 03:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 20:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:25 (UTC)In California, it is very difficult to get a full divorce. State law tends to perpetuate marital financial arrangements for life. Your observations on the male/female dominance depends on whose income is greater. It is possible for the woman to wind up supporting the man.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 18:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 23:52 (UTC)I want my president to get tons of pussy. If your president doesn't get pussy, your country gets screwed. XD