Cybersex grounds for divorce ?

[doc_bean]

I just heard on the radio that in a local court an 'erotic' conversation over the internet has been allowed as a valid reason for divorce. I'm not sure how I feel about that, I consider most of the internet as make believe, entertainment. On the other hand, it could be quite painful to know your wife is getting her kicks from someone else...

So, what do my fellow patrons think about this ? Is it a valid reason to ask for a divorce ? Can it be considered cheating even ? Is cybersex sex ?

[Sjakihata]

Is it a valid reason to ask for a divorce?

Yes, I think so.



Can it be considered cheating even?


In a way, yes, the same as telehpone sex. You get your needs stimulated from someone else than your husband/wife. Some would might argue that pornography and masturbation is cheating as well, however, every fantasy would be so. If it's from a christian moral viewpoint, all these would probably be considered cheating, but in a legal sense, no they are not.



Is cybersex sex ?


Of course not.

[yesdachi]

About 10 years ago a friend of mines parents got divorced because she was having an online affair (no actual contact). Not sure of any details but she went to be with her online “lover” and he dated and ended up marrying a total babe that was younger than my friend/his son ~D .

Seems like a valid reason for divorce, could be considered cheating but I don’t think it is really sex.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Mrs. Corleone and I have a strict Sicilian marriage, no divorce. When the minister read out 'till death do you part', my beloved patted the revolver strapped to her thigh and said 'you better believe it'. What do I think would happen if I got caught having an online rendezvous? The words 'shallow unmarked grave' come to mind. :skull:


And Mrs. Corleone doesn't mind the occassional adult entertainment. It's not the sexual content really, it's the intimacy. I think she'd be equally hurt and offended if she found out I has having online chats every day with a specific woman, baring the contents of my soul to her and such. I can certainly understand that, and therefore, don't put myself into positions where that might occur. :no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is selfish behavior that excludes one's spouse inappropriate?

Is sharing intimacy with someone outside your marriage inappropriate?

Fidelity isn't soley based on a lack of physical fluid exchange.

All in all, it may be grounds for divorce. Depends on the couple and what is correct for them. Some people live happily in open marriages :dizzy2: , so there is no one answer for all marriages, but I believe it can be legitimate grounds for complaint.

Seamus

[doc_bean]

Oh, I forgot to mention, it was the wife that was having the 'chat'. The court considered it 'insulting behaviour', not adultery, but still grounds for divorce. I'm not up to date on the current Belgian divorce law, but I assume this means she is at fault and he can get the divorce without too much concern that she will run off with all his money and (if they have them) the kids. I think that was his plan all along, divorce is normally expensive...

[Don Corleone]

I don't know how divorces go in Belgium, but in most states in America, unless the woman has proven herself to be a clear threat to the welfare of the children, she will receive primary custody, no matter how responsible she is for the dissolution of the marriage. Generally speaking, if the mother gets custody of the children, regardless of who was to blame, the father is ordered to pay child support. Theoretically, it's supposed to work the other way too, but in practice, as the only way for the mother to lose custody in the first place is to be dysfunctional, she is generally only ordered to pay child support if she voluntarily reliquishes custody (wants to start a new life). Should she be out of work and receiving support from a new husband/boyfriend/girlfriend, the new partner cannot be required to pay child support.

All in all, once American men say "I do", we are HIGHLY motivated to keep our spouses as content as possible. The deck is decidedly stacked against us. As I do not believe in divorce outside of repeated physical abuse, I'm not certain this is a bad thing, all in all.

[A.Saturnus]

In my opinion a conscious will to divorce is enough grounds for divorce and I don´t think such things as cybersex should have an influence on the financial and social decisions involved.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In my opinion a conscious will to divorce is enough grounds for divorce and I don´t think such things as cybersex should have an influence on the financial and social decisions involved.

In terms of the spiritual union of two people, you are correct. Conscious will to divorce ends the "joint" characteristic of the relationship.

However, marriages are also a legally binding financial contract. It is common practice to penalize the party who is in default on fulfilling their contractual commitments as part of the dissolution of any business contract. On this level, marriage is treated as would be any number of other legal partnering arrangements. The party at fault for breach of contract is expected to shoulder the largest burden of the costs therefrom.

Seamus

[bmolsson]

Isn't the risk for getting virus very high at Cyber sex ???

[Sjakihata]

Isn't the risk for getting virus very high at Cyber sex ???

Not if you use the right kind of protection. And Im pretty sure those I have in mind are allowed by the Pope, so don't be afraid.

[A.Saturnus]

In terms of the spiritual union of two people, you are correct. Conscious will to divorce ends the "joint" characteristic of the relationship.

However, marriages are also a legally binding financial contract. It is common practice to penalize the party who is in default on fulfilling their contractual commitments as part of the dissolution of any business contract. On this level, marriage is treated as would be any number of other legal partnering arrangements. The party at fault for breach of contract is expected to shoulder the largest burden of the costs therefrom.

Seamus

Then the terms of the contract have to be explicit apout what behaviour is acceptable. Having cyber sex is in itself no hinderance for continuing the marriage. The profitable financial and social qualities of the contract are not endangered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then the terms of the contract have to be explicit apout what behaviour is acceptable. Having cyber sex is in itself no hinderance for continuing the marriage. The profitable financial and social qualities of the contract are not endangered.

But they are. "Forsaking all others..." is not commonly construed to mean "except if there is no physical real-world contact then it's no biggee."

Seamus

[Navaros]

absolutely it's grounds for divorce - that is common sense

in fact that is so obviously common sense that i am bewildered that some people even have to ask about this

fooling around with other people is cheating, doesn't matter where/how it occurs. end of story.

[English assassin]

Nav surely there are NO permissible grounds for divorce? You mean its grounds for a stoning to death, surely?

[solypsist]

asking for a divorce is grounds for divorce. the reason why is basically irrelevant.

[doc_bean]

absolutely it's grounds for divorce - that is common sense

in fact that is so obviously common sense that i am bewildered that some people even have to ask about this

fooling around with other people is cheating, doesn't matter where/how it occurs. end of story.

I guess I don't feel that cybersex is much worse than looking at another woman. Apparently my girlfriend disagrees, good thing I don't my kicks that way ~D

[A.Saturnus]

But they are. "Forsaking all others..." is not commonly construed to mean "except if there is no physical real-world contact then it's no biggee."

Seamus

Is "forsaking all others... " part of a legally binding document? Where I´m from it is not even part of the legal procedure.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Saturnus, surely monogamy is implied in German marriage?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is "forsaking all others... " part of a legally binding document? Where I´m from it is not even part of the legal procedure.

Not sure of your abode, but here it forms part of the oral pledge exchanged by the marrying couple who are then married through the oral declaration of the presider.

Seamus

[bmolsson]

Not if you use the right kind of protection. And Im pretty sure those I have in mind are allowed by the Pope, so don't be afraid.

I am sure the Pope have banned the use of McAffee on Saturday evenings....... ~;)

[Kraxis]

Not if you use the right kind of protection. And Im pretty sure those I have in mind are allowed by the Pope, so don't be afraid.
Well isn't his viewpoint that sex is supposed to be carried out for the sake of getting children or at least not be objected from concepting children? Would that not in itself bar cybersex as it obviously never would result in children.

[A.Saturnus]

Saturnus, surely monogamy is implied in German marriage?

Monogamy and sexual exclusiveness are not the same. An open marriage is in no way less a marriage than a traditional one.


Not sure of your abode, but here it forms part of the oral pledge exchanged by the marrying couple who are then married through the oral declaration of the presider.

Well, I guess it takes a lawyer to decide whether that´s legally binding or not.

[Papewaio]

So how do you test fidelity in an open marriage?

And what is the point of getting married if it is going to be an open one? Why not just stay single?

As a society that is expected to support marriages, why should we be expected to finicially and socially and emotionaly support sham marriages?

[Byzantine Prince]

For now I strongly dislike marriage. It's sematically confusing unless you and your spouce decide to live by yourselves in some hut in northern Canada. ~:eek:

I think if you love the person no level of social commitment makes any difference, so why even bother?

[Del Arroyo]

Personally if I were ever to get married, then be forced into a divorce, and then ordered to pay outrageous alimony and child support, I'd be 2 steps ahead of the game, leave the country and send back a big f you to my ex and the courts.

It is my hope that my strong determination and my clear ability to carry out this threat will serve to prevent problems ~D

DA

[A.Saturnus]

So how do you test fidelity in an open marriage?

And what is the point of getting married if it is going to be an open one? Why not just stay single?

As a society that is expected to support marriages, why should we be expected to finicially and socially and emotionaly support sham marriages?

I´d define fidelity as the chance that promises are kept.
I find it offensive to call open marriages "sham marriages". There are a lot of people who have an open marriage that is worth at least as much as any traditional one. Sexual exclusiveness doesn´t provide any moral highground.
A more reasonable question seems to be why should society support sexual exclusiveness? Ever thought about that? What is the social function of having only one sex partner? Ok, less STDs maybe, but that´s easily remedied by adequate protection. I don´t know what your marriage is about, but I always thought there´s more to a relation than not having sex with other people. Love and friendship for example. For that, you do not need marriage, nor sexual exclusiveness.
In my opinion marriage itself has no value for society. Marriages may have a socially beneficial role if they provide a framework for children to develope in. Open marriage can do that as well as traditional ones. Society should support marriage on the basis of this social role and not whether it includes sexual exclusiveness.

[sharrukin]

I´d define fidelity as the chance that promises are kept.
I find it offensive to call open marriages "sham marriages". There are a lot of people who have an open marriage that is worth at least as much as any traditional one. Sexual exclusiveness doesn´t provide any moral highground.
A more reasonable question seems to be why should society support sexual exclusiveness? Ever thought about that? What is the social function of having only one sex partner? Ok, less STDs maybe, but that´s easily remedied by adequate protection. I don´t know what your marriage is about, but I always thought there´s more to a relation than not having sex with other people. Love and friendship for example. For that, you do not need marriage, nor sexual exclusiveness.
In my opinion marriage itself has no value for society. Marriages may have a socially beneficial role if they provide a framework for children to develope in. Open marriage can do that as well as traditional ones. Society should support marriage on the basis of this social role and not whether it includes sexual exclusiveness.

Well one benefit of sexual exclusiveness is fewer dead bodies!

Adultery, jealousy and the resulting violence account for half of all domestic murders. There are not many people who would care to have their personal lives being reported in detail to someone else. If an individual is in fact truly intimate with another, they will share their life experiences with them.

The issue of them sharing the secrets that most couples have, with others would be fatal to trust IMO.

Every society in history, that has advanced beyond the tribal state has a moral proscription on adultery. There is a reason for that. Adultery is destructive to society as a whole and most individual marriages as well.

Open marriages are a sham and for those who wish to evade responsibility.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BP:

Having done so, I can assure you that exchanging vows in public (and before God), does carry a qualitative sense of difference for most of those who have done so.

This does not preclude successful long term relationships that lack the binding character of vows, but should not be dismissed.


Sharru':

Saturn will likely tell you that "open" marriages would serve to decrease violence by removing the jealousy component. Your point about intimacy -- which does indeed take forms other than the sexual but often IS shared as part of or in consequence of a sexual liason -- should have been reinforced more. Ultimately you are arguing that "open" marriages are a sham because the vast majority of people cannot simply interact on a physical level sexually without some emotive component -- intimacy -- also edging into the interaction. Those who can, such as prostitutes, often seem to be emotionally "damaged" or "stunted" to those of us looking in.


A. Saturn:

As a Catholic, I disagree with you as to your views of marriage.

Setting religious concerns aside, however, I think you bear the greater burden for proof if you wish to contend that marriage is either unnecessary or counterproductive for society. Marriage, almost always emphasizing fidelity and very often monagamous rather than polygamous or polyandrous, has been a basic building block of society for millenia. The stable family as an environment for raising children has yet to be bettered. Multiple adults acting as parents or temporary parents sleeping with the two primaries in an open arrangement would be, I suspect, a less conducive environment to child-raising. To the extent that biology dictates roles for men and women, the pairing of one each to complement one another's strengths and weaknesses has always had value.

I will not argue that an open marriage obviates all of these characteristics. Philanderers are not necessarily bad parents etc. The "open" couple may be farming the kids out to visit grandfolk while they indulge in a "Westchester weekend." They may be truly happy with one another and such an arrangement, but I suspect that the individuals who can successfully take this stance are few -- else more traditional societies would have developed such arrangements as a societal norm.

I do not view western traditional marriage as an anachronism perpetuated SOLELY to keep people in control. I see it as a successful cultural evolution with a long history to support it. Your opposition to marriage as an institution assumes a level of individual rationalism and pusuit of personal satisfaction which trends toward the anarchistic. However noble the goals of would be anarchist utopians, I believe that they fail to connect well with demonstrated human/social realities and practices.

Seamus

Seamus

[Papewaio]

I´d define fidelity as the chance that promises are kept.
I find it offensive to call open marriages "sham marriages". There are a lot of people who have an open marriage that is worth at least as much as any traditional one. Sexual exclusiveness doesn´t provide any moral highground.
A more reasonable question seems to be why should society support sexual exclusiveness? Ever thought about that? What is the social function of having only one sex partner? Ok, less STDs maybe, but that´s easily remedied by adequate protection. I don´t know what your marriage is about, but I always thought there´s more to a relation than not having sex with other people. Love and friendship for example. For that, you do not need marriage, nor sexual exclusiveness.
In my opinion marriage itself has no value for society. Marriages may have a socially beneficial role if they provide a framework for children to develope in. Open marriage can do that as well as traditional ones. Society should support marriage on the basis of this social role and not whether it includes sexual exclusiveness.

Sorry, not all of us are so PC as not to call a spade a spade.

Open marriage is an oxymoron for morons who think that sleeping around is somehow going to make their marriage better. Show me an open marriage and I show you a desparate idiot trying to hold onto someone by letting themselves be walked over. Open marriage is based on self indulgence and the inability to pull ones finger out of their arse and work on a relationship.

Open marriage is a pathetic excuse for people who cannot keep a promise of fidelity. In no way do I want to support such an arrangement, nor do I want my tax dollars wasted on such a lie. Nor do I want my children around those who are so morally craven. On the other hand gay men who are sexually exclusive should be allowed all the benefits of a marriage.

Marriage is based on Love. Love is based on trust and respect. You do not respect someone by sleeping around with others, nor can you trust a partner that does.

Marriage has a value for society. Anyone who is not PC can see the effect that divorce or being raised by a single parent has a negative effect on a child. The children can rise above it, but more often then not I can quite clearly remember seeing the kids who had problem homes spiral down socially, emotional and academically.

Fidelity extends beyond sex and encompasses Love, emotional fidelity and other forms of trust relationships.

[Strike For The South]

Cybersex and a divorce what happend to working stuff out granted if they had tried and tried agian its diffrent but divorce should always be a last resort of course there are always exceptions:dizzy2: