Coworker...Her husband and kids are out of town.

I can't speak for other systems, but here in the military infidelity is against the law.

What? The military isn't a place that I am aware of. And, assuming you are talking about the United States, infidelity is not a crime. It is a violation of the military code of conduct--that is not the same thing. Smoking in uniform is also a violation, but it isn't illegal. It isn't a crime.

If it isn't binding, why the need for divorce to end the contract?

I didn't say marriage wasn't binding. I said the vows aren't the part that is binding. You can't sue somebody for breaking their vows (i.e., you couldn't sue someone because 'they said they would love me and be with me forever and now they want a divorce, that is a breach of contract!).

Just like slaves sometimes have to pick cotton, right?

Having some obligations that can't be shirked (i.e., taxes) is not the same as being owned by someone else who can make you do whatever you want. You have to pay taxes, but you still have agency. This is not a serious point you are trying to make.

Really? Where did they abolish taxation and market coercion?

Like I said. This is an absurd conflation. Being a part of a society is always going to mean some obligations and unavoidable things you don't like--that isn't the same as being a slave. That is a really bad argument. And kind of offensive, is that really what you think being a slave was like, having to pay taxes and being a part of an economy you don't like? I mean...

The only reason you believe that is because you have a skewed perception on what property is. If they exert authority over you, you are theirs.

Nope. That is just wrong. Government always exert some authority over you (i.e., you can't murder someone and if you do they will confine you against your will; you have to pay taxes, etc). Being subject to government authority is not the same thing as being owned by another person. That is absurd.

I'd need an example.

Sure. Executors, officers of corporations, agents, etc. all have authority over things they have no ownership rights to. And beneficiaries of trusts have ownership over things they often have no authority over. Ownership and authority are distinct and separate legal rights, having one does not mean you have the other.

Really? It seems fairly universal.

What, the only mention I see of theft in there is from a 1700s treatise. That supports my point, not yours. The problem is that they considered it theft because wives were property. It is also why it was generally only adultery to sleep with a married woman. Married men were not property of their wives, they were fully independent citizens with their own agency.

That is what I am objecting to. The medieval idea that wives are property and sleeping with them is theft. I am not denying it was once common thought. This twist you are trying to make--that husbands are also property, is something from your own mind. That has no basis in history or law.

/r/Cuckold Thread Parent Link -