Page 1 of 1
#1 LESBIAN AFFAIR NOT CONSIDERED ADULTERY
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:12 am
by frigidmagi
Will somebody please disprove this story?
Bi-curious housewives all over this nation breathed a sigh of relief last week. They have just been given the freedom to explore their blossoming sexuality in a guilt-free, consequence-free environment. No, this isn’t the plot to some late-night Cinemax flick. On November 7, in a move that Bill Clinton could be proud of, the New Hampshire Supreme Court voted 3-2 that when a woman cheats on her husband with another woman, it is not considered adultery.
According to an article in New Hampshire’s Union Leader, "The decision reversed a Lebanon Family Court’s finding allowing David G. Blanchflower of Hanover to allege fault against his wife, Sian Blanchflower, for carrying on a ‘continuing adulterous affair’ with a woman… The ruling may have monetary consequences for David Blanchflower because he cannot use adultery to prove fault against his wife in the divorce." New Hampshire state law defines "adultery" as "sexual intercourse outside of marriage."
Webster’s Dictionary defines "sexual intercourse" as requiring a male and a female organ. Justice Joseph P. Nadeau backed up the court’s decision, stating that according to the law, adultery "clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender.
Rest of the story is thick on opinon, so I cut in order to voice my own. This is loony and I'm praying that one of y'all can tell me it's a bullshit story. Look, it doesn't matter if you have sex with the opposite sex, the same sex or another specis, if you're in a reationship it's cheating and it's wrong! This is bullshit and frankly political crap. I hope this can get dragged to a higher court and overturnned because this gives people special privileges and I gotta ask if the hubbie was sleeping with another guy if they would be so supportive? Yeah that's right I'm asking if this is meant to just knock straight guys and girls or if the gay dudes are getted gipped to?
#2
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:32 am
by Narsil
Or, alternately, this could pave the way for true sexual freedom;
Sex is sex and love is love.
Could people please stop confusing the two for Christ's sake.
#3
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:37 am
by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
Well, I actually agree with frigid: cheating is cheating. In fact, I would be really hurt if my girlfriend is having sex with another girl on my back and NOT dragging me into a threesome.
#4
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:40 am
by Narsil
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Well, I actually agree with frigid: cheating is cheating. In fact, I would be really hurt if my girlfriend is having sex with another girl on my back and NOT dragging me into a threesome.
I'd merely shrug with the words; "There's always next time."
#5
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 4:47 am
by frigidmagi
True sexual freedom my ass. It's not "sexual liberation" to cheat on someone behind their back, it's a betrayl of trust and it's lying to the person you're suppose to hold most dear in your life and for what? 45 minutes of sweat and grunting?
If never being able to trust my wife to be loyal to me and not being able to break it off if I find her to be disloyal just cause the person she chose to cheat on me with has the same sexual equippment then you can take your sexual freedom and shove it up your ass sideways.
Freedom does not mean a blank check to behave in a dishonest and disloyal fashion and demand that soceity consider it worthwhile and adult behavior. That's the belief of a overly spoiled person no matter where or when they are.
#6
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 4:56 am
by Narsil
What I'm trying to say is;
That people put way too much emphasis on the importance of sex, whether good or ill. Sex is sex is sex is sex. Love is love. Let them be seperate as you don't need sex for love or love for sex. Now I did not, at all, say that dishonesty is the way to go about it. In fact; I'd be pretty damn insulted if someone were to be dishonest towards me about this stuff.
#7
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:05 am
by frigidmagi
That is entirely not the issue here Narsil. The issue here is that a court has ruled that is okay for a spouse to go behind the back of the person they have married and sworn fedeity to, commit behavior they know will hurt and offend their parnter, who they sworn oaths to by the way. That may not mean much to some of you, but a couple of us believe that an oath is sacred and not to be lightly thrown aside. But it's alright as long as you do it with someone of the same sex.
This is a balent double standard and has nothing to do with open relationships or threesomes. Those occur with all parties aware of what is going on and not having a problem with it. This is out and out cheating and it's never right, you can chant your little PC slogans til Osama crawls out of his cave, puts on a pink tutu and declares his support for woman's lib, gay rights and democracy!
#8
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:40 am
by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
frigidmagi wrote:That is entirely not the issue here Narsil. The issue here is that a court has ruled that is okay for a spouse to go behind the back of the person they have married and sworn fedeity to, commit behavior they know will hurt and offend their parnter, who they sworn oaths to by the way. That may not mean much to some of you, but a couple of us believe that an oath is sacred and not to be lightly thrown aside. But it's alright as long as you do it with someone of the same sex.
Alright, seriously, it seems the Court ruling is based on the assumption that men generally don't mind to see their wife having sex with another woman (or women. A lot of naked women.
), as opposed to having sex with another man.
Mind you, there
are couples who don't even mind having a foursome with another couple. However, they are by no means a majority. So even the Court's assumption (if that's the case) is incorrect; they assumed that all and every husband should have such fetish.
Moreover, the Court's decision completely overlook the fact that a cheating is still a cheating. Let's suppose I have a wife, and I don't mind seeing her having sex with another woman (especially when I'm in the middle). However, if she starts having sex with another woman
behind me; trying to hide the fact from me, then it is totally different. It is cheating nonetheless and I won't be happy.
frigidmagi wrote:you can chant your little PC slogans til Osama crawls out of his cave, puts on a pink tutu
So after starting a thread that makes us fantasizing about lesbian sex, now you have to close it with a mental image of Osama Bin Laden wearing pink tutu. Thank you, frigid. Thank you for killing our boner!!
#9
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 9:32 am
by Comrade Tortoise
While it is morally wrong to cheat with another woman, legally the judges were right. They were constrained by the language of the law (which specifies a mode of sexual congress lesbians by definition cannot engage in), and they didnt attempt to go with the spirit of the law or adapt it to the changing way of life americans have seen since the original law was written.
Or in other words, they werent activist judges.
(Note: I do not agree with the decision, my tongue was planted firmy inside the proverbial cheek. You know my judicial philosophy)
#10
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 10:49 am
by B4UTRUST
So if sexual intercourse has to involve the sexual organs of both a male and a female does that mean that no man can now rape another man because it didn't involve a vagina?
#11
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:27 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
B4UTRUST wrote:So if sexual intercourse has to involve the sexual organs of both a male and a female does that mean that no man can now rape another man because it didn't involve a vagina?
No. The law for rape generally has specific exeptions for that (though you WILL have to look in the New Hampshire penal code). But as far as adultery in New Hampshire is concerned.. the legal definition simply does not cover it.
Even if, however RAPE was excluded, forcible sodomy, which carries imilar penalties, would be prosecutable.
#12
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:44 pm
by B4UTRUST
But if sexual intercourse is defined as sex between two genders... *shrugs* Just saying. Someone might say something similar based on that definition and decision backing it
#13
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 6:20 pm
by Shark Bait
I have to call bull shit on all of this and side with frigid.
1. Sex is not just male with female that is why someone can be convicted of having sex with a manatee (yes I saw that headline not to long ago, I gotta get the hell out of Florida).
2. As KAN said cheating is not just having sex, its going behind the back of your spouse or insignificant other. Look if you fleshies want to have a three some in your relationship fine with me (not what I want but thats a side issue), but when you have sworn comitment like magi said and you CHEAT then you are wrong. To be blunt you are in breach of both a verbal and a written contract, and are there for subject to resulting legal action.
3. You can not totally seperate love and sex trust me on this, being someone who does not even want sex I can tell you that the two cannot be seperated entierly. You can look at this from a biological perspective as well and see that we are wired to behave certan ways about sex because it deals with the survival of our species, and young have better odds of survival in a biparental environment.
#14
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 6:31 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
I am well aware of this, and do side with Frigid in the sense that the decision was bullshit. HOWEVER, it is within the wording of the law.
Basically I am making a jab at those who bitch and complain about "activist" judges.
The simple fact is, morally, I agree with everything you folks are saying, but the law has not caught up with the times. WHich is exactly why we have Case Law and law made from the bench, called common law IIRC