novicecourtesan
Posts: 116
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
|
LordandMaster:
I confess the subject of adultery laws does interest me, and you have finally brought something substantive to the table with that case. It does not prove your point at all, but at least it seems to be a fact rather than an attack at my grad school, my reading, my attempts to discover whether monogamy fits into my lifestyle. I wouldn't mind your disagreement, however vehement, if you wouldn't undercut yourself by launching that one last personal missive at me. It makes me take you much less seriously. That said, it does seem to be goading me into writing, so if it works, it works.
To the rest of you: I am happy to move this to another thread if it is annoying.
There is a case of Lyman v. Illinois, and a very few others, including Spencer v. State. The enforcement of extraodrinary adultery in that time had to be "open and notorious." A wife trying to leave her husband for his discreet affairs could bring the cause under the ordinary adultery statute. Guess what her chances were? And the "enforcement" usually was no more than a slap on the wrist--while a woman could be sent to an asylum for wanting a divorce. Lyman v. People is not a "famous case."
The most famous and typical case of adultery was Beecher-Tilton case in the mid 19th century. If I recall, the case only came to the attention of the court because of the very famous people involved--preacher Henry Ward Beecher, sister of Harriet Beecher Stowe, feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Henry Ward Beecher cheated on his wife with the wife of his best friend, who then brought the action. Henry Ward Beecher's own wife stood loyally by him; she did not bring the action, and would have been condemned for leaving him. The cuckolded best friend brought the action once it became a political and religious issue and there was too much public and damning evidence to avoid it. He would have been the Jimmy Swaggard of his day except that the first court couldn't reach a verdict and a second court exonerated him. I think he continued his life pretty much as before, married to the same woman, screwing around--so much for enforcement of the adultery statute.
I would love to hear of adultery cases being enforced against husbands in China, Greece or Rome. But I don't think throwing one instance at me is going to prove your case. That's like saying that black men in 20th centuyr American get off for murdering their wives despite overwhelming evidence, and pointing out the O.J. Simpson case to support it. One extraordinary case does not disprove a longstanding pattern of conduct.
As I said, I find the subject interesting, but it is way off point. I have no idea how we got here. The closest I can get back to point is what I said earlier: monogamy has very rarely been enforced, by law or society, for men, before the 20th century. So being inspired by historical women, it's hard to find a class of woman who had a truly mutual sexually monogamous relationship with a man.
This is where I launch all sorts of personal attacks against you for your ignorance. Oh, wait...that's not me....
< Message edited by novicecourtesan -- 2/16/2007 8:03:26 AM >
|
RE: monogamy-hopeless? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread