If cheating is wrong, why are there no laws against it?

[servedcold]

whether in or out of a marriage, is wrong?

 

Secondly, if you think it is wrong, and considering all the harm it can do (especially psychological), why are there no laws that punish the cheater or at least compensate the person who was cheated on?

 

PLEASE recall, servedcold, that this discussion ( as DN pointed out to you ) is NOT about penalties against the married man or woman who cheats, but rather against cheaters in any romantic relationship at all, where emotional or sexual exclusivity has been agreed upon or alluded to.

 

I responded to the topic, which was set out, initially anyway, as "in or out of marriage," and not limited to non-marital relationships. Stating again, IMO there will be growth in negotiated agreements among non-married people, those agreements will be enforced by courts and those actions will produce civil damages, which are definitely legal penalties for cheating, so the narrower question, even if limited to non-marriage, is still not as outlandish as some seem to think.

 

Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be criminal statutes aimed at non-marrieds.

 

To be frank, I am not aware that the dissolution of "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationships (i.e., non-marital relationships) has caused any financial burden upon the state.

 

The dissolution of BF-GF relationships between adults exacts the same social costs as adultery in a marriage. I've already listed several examples of such costs.

 

Of course there is no implied contract in dating, but I think you may be focusing too narrowly on relationships between young people without significant assets or children. In a social environment where more and more people are disillusioned with lifetime marriage, stating again, I believe relationships between older adults with significant assets on both sides will become more negotiated in the future, that those negotiations will include consequences for infidelity, and that courts will enforce such agreements, hence legal consequences for infidelity in or out of marriage.

 

Many non-marital relationships contain significant shared property, both personal and real; threads pop up frequently here on ENA on this very issue and the resulting complications when these relationships break up. Other threads deal with the consequences of non-marital breakups on children. Infidelity, married or not, is a major cause of such breakups.

 

How depressing. Sounds to me like you're saying "Legislating fidelity in all relationships would never achieve the desired effect, but what's another piece of useless legislation."

 

Our legislative climate, at least in the U.S., is very depressing. The reason I couched the statement as I did is that one argument that folks have raised in the thread is that legal penalties for infidelity either wouldn't work or would not provide any meaningful remedy. So what? Few of our laws work and provide any meaningful remedy, doesn't keep the legislature from passing more and more every year. But of course, you seized on the single section of the post that was meant somewhat facetiously.

 

Boy, I'd sure love to live in your world...

 

Non sequitur on several levels and such a mischaracterization of what I posted that it's not worth a specific response.

[servedcold]

I am not entirely familiar with Common Law systems, but doesn't any evidence of a mutual agreement act as a certification of "contract"? As far as I know, Common Law is also very case-specific in judging these things.

e.g. if it can be proven that, in a dialogue within an appropriate context, person A says or writes love you, and I promise you're the only one" to person B, including many other verbal/written promises of faithfulness and commitment (which may also be something banal as a "request to be in a relationship" with B on Facebook), and B writes the same, couldn't it theoretically act as a binding contract in pre-/non-marital relationships?

 

First, such contracts would most likely require a writing via statute to be enforceable.

 

Yes, theoretically such an agreement could be considered legally binding if all the contract formation elements were met. However, proving and fixing damages would be extremely difficult and courts would most likely not be willing to enforce such "informal" agreements as a matter of public policy. If the agreement were more of a formal writing, I believe courts would be more likely to enforce such in a civil action.

[Circe]

A mutual agreement is not sufficient to form a contractual relationship. You also need "intention to create a legal relationship".

[servedcold]

Yes, theoretically such an agreement could be considered legally binding if all the contract formation elements were met.

 

A mutual agreement is not sufficient to form a contractual relationship. You also need "intention to create a legal relationship".

 

...and mutual consideration/detriment that would not be considered "illegal," and probably specific terms, duration, etc., as courts would probably not infer "reasonable" terms in such arrangements. Prenuptials that tend to be formally negotiated with counsel on both sides have not been favored, nor would agreements seeking to define a relationship, but this is changing in time.

 

However, just because a contractual relationship is not present does not mean someone could not seek an equitable remedy via unjust enrichment or promissory estoppel. For example, let's say parties A and B meet via the internet. A promises B a house, car and specific financial support if B moves accross the country to A's location. B relies on these promises and moves, comes to find out that A is involved with several others romantically and suffers detriment/expenses in reliance on A's promise. B has a possible action, in contract and possibly tort, despite the fact that no legally enforceable contract may have formed.

[ResonanceTheory]

I think that , if what you're describing developed, very few people would date on any serious level, and we'd go back to arranged marriages or the courtship-style marriages of the 40's. On a case-specific level, such as the one you described about person A moving X amount of miles to live with person B, only to find they are cheating, then the ability to take legal action would be helpful. But then, I would expect similar legislation if, for example, an employer hired me, I moved out there, and then was fired in the first week. I would expect some sort of recompense.

 

However, applied on a broad level, particularly in boyfriend-girlfriend relationships where they are not living together and no equity is shared, I do not believe there should be any penalties, monetary or otherwise, imposed upon them by the government if they should cheat. Cheating on your girlfriend is immoral, but not illegal. Morality is relative. The law in your state or country is not.

 

Huzzah for you if you want your relationships to be regulated in such a manner. Keep the gov't out of my dating business...you can negotiate and make your girlfriends sign as many contracts as you want. I would never participate in or advocate such a system. What a mechanical way to live. It seems like it would leave you very little room to breathe. And what if you DIDN'T cheat, and just wanted out of the relationship? What then?

[Rabican]

Wow I always thought that adultery was simply a moral issue.. and no legality to it at all. However after googling it, it seems that it is 'illegal' in some areas.

[servedcold]

RT, we aren't that far apart in our thinking here. I surely don't want a mechanical system of contracts that govern basic dating. My points all along have been that it is not that off the wall to discuss legal penalties for cheating, as adultery statutes have been, and some still are, on the books, enforced or not, as are statutes in some states that specify infidelity torts, and that as more and more mature couples opt away from marriage, that we will likely see more agreements governing relationships that have matured into real partnerships. This is different from Doug and Suzy sitting down with a lawyer before they go to the prom together.

 

Many people have had bad experiences with marriage, and would not contemplate it a second or third time, but would want to have some binding understanding as to how mutual assets and children of the union would be governed. Such negotiated relationships likely entail provisions dealing with the possibility of infidelity. I have seen several such agreements in my practice and they are becoming more and more prevalent, so once again, a discussion of the thread topic is not a zany waste of space here on ENA.

[Raoul]

First of all, do you think cheating (= having a secret relationship with someone outside your declared/main relationship ), whether in or out of a marriage, is wrong?

 

Secondly, if you think it is wrong, and considering all the harm it can do (especially psychological), why are there no laws that punish the cheater or at least compensate the person who was cheated on?

 

Libel and slander are also punished by law. Why not cheating (which, in my personal perception, is much more grave than libel and slander)?

 

As others have said, adultery is covered under law and is a charge that can be made against the adulterer in a divorce in nearly all states.

 

The problem is that, with the success of the 'progressive law' movement beginning in the 1970s, adultery laws are essentially no longer enforced though they remain on the books. The law has been neutered. Fault is no longer important in divorce proceedings.

 

I filed for divorce and used adultery as the cause. But many states now have 'no-fault' divorce. Much like a car addident, adultery and who commited it, do not matter as to how the divorce will proceed. Divorce is considered 'causeless' (which is a joke).

 

I think that libel, slander and things like contract violations do not figure into adultery cases as divorce is handled in family court, not civil or criminal court.

 

Yes, cheating/adultery is wrong because the cheater deceives, lies, dissembles and keeps secret his or her actions from an important and significant other who has trust in and commitment to another. While not a legal matter, doing these things to others is wrong, especially if you have the other person beleiving that you're honest, forthright and in communication. How anyone could imagine otherwise is amazing.

 

Raoul