Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
Well, this could also be considered a GREAT initiative in support of fidelity in marriage, and Marriage Building.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ne...rish-men-not-prostitutes--112794329.html

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Not really. As long as only one party is treated as a criminal, one is still saying the actions of the other party is not criminal.

One cannot assume that the biggest part of the problem is married men. It sounds like you are leaning that direction.

If prostitution is on-going, then both the client and the pro are criminals. One cannot in good conscience treat one as a criminal and one not, regardless which one you deem the criminal.

Either both are, or neither are. That's the only standard that is logical.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
I was actually less enthused about the "customer only" idea than I was about the "customer at all" change in the thinking of the lawmakers.

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
But how do we avoid criminalising the women who are themselves victims of human trafficking or extreme poverty as illegal immigrants who have no way to get help or financial support elsewhere?

Its only by attacking the demand that it will change since arresting the women doesn't stop the pimps replacing them.


Me: 32
H: 35
Married 9 years, together 12.
Two little girls, 7 and 3.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
Originally Posted by Rosycheeks
Its only by attacking the demand that it will change since arresting the women doesn't stop the pimps replacing them.

This has been tried throughout history and always fails. You cannot stop people from wanting vices. People want drugs, alcohol, and yes, sex. There will always be demand. And there will always be supply to satisfy that demand. Prohibition never works. All it does it drive up the price and reduce the quality / safety / etc.

You want to protect women who are targets of kidnapping, sex slavery and the sex trade? Legalize prostitution. Then pimps won't be able to extort as much money. Demand will flow to legal brothels and away from criminals. Police can protect prostitutes from abusers. Prostitutes can get health care.

Where are women treated the worst? Where prostitutes are so socially ostracized that they get shunned by their families and even killed to save the families from shame / humiliation. Where are women treated the best? In those countries where prostitution is legal.

Everything you say you want for the women you will get if you legalize prostitution. The only thing you will get from prohibition is more crime, more misery and more broken lives.


When you can see it coming, duck!
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
I agree to a point, although even in Amsterdam there are still problems with illegal prostitutes and even the legal ones being treated badly and abused and generally leading miserable lives.

But the original irish law of it being illegal for the prostitutes but no consequences for the men seeking it was so blatantly unfair I'm very glad its changing.


Me: 32
H: 35
Married 9 years, together 12.
Two little girls, 7 and 3.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
I guess if it is going to be criminal, then it should be criminal for everyone involved. But I don't think equalizing the field to make it more criminal is going in the right direction.

My point is not that there is no suffering among prostitutes in Amsterdam or Nevada. My point is that their suffering is orders of magnitude less severe than in countries where a woman who is accused of prostitution would be stoned, burned alive, etc.

All life is risk. People die being miners, loggers, firemen, etc. Heck, people die staying home sitting on the sofa. You cannot eliminate all negative utcomes from any activity. The quesiton is how to reduce them. As regards prostitution, legalization will lead to lower risk for most prostitutes.

What it will also lead to is more prostitution. I would think that is the primary objection of most prohibitionists. They want to minimize the amount of vice, pretty much regardless of the cost. To them, the moral aspect of minimizign sin outweighs any calculation of costs and benefits of various sets of regulation.

Same with drugs. If you take into account the cost of prosecution, incarceration, crime to fund drugs, drive by shootings of innocent bystanders, and bribes to politicians and law enforcement, any cost / benefit analysis is going to show that legalizing drugs will reduce human misery. Even if more people do drugs and ruin their lives through addiction. But many people still oppose legalization. Presumably because they oppose any increase in the use of drugs, and find it morally reprehensible to engage in such a cost / benefit analysis.


When you can see it coming, duck!
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
The problem with legalizing something in one area, one state, or one small country, is that then you end up with everyone from neighbouring states/countries coming to that area. As Amsterdam is known mainly in the uk as being somewhere you can legally use cannabis and prostitutes, it ceases to be anything more and attracts the worst kind of people.

So unless we were going to go for a Europe wide legalisation, which lets be frank is not going to happen, I would not like to see it legalised just in my country.



Me: 32
H: 35
Married 9 years, together 12.
Two little girls, 7 and 3.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Rosycheeks
The problem with legalizing something in one area, one state, or one small country, is that then you end up with everyone from neighbouring states/countries coming to that area. As Amsterdam is known mainly in the uk as being somewhere you can legally use cannabis and prostitutes, it ceases to be anything more and attracts the worst kind of people.

So unless we were going to go for a Europe wide legalisation, which lets be frank is not going to happen, I would not like to see it legalised just in my country.

In the case of Nevada, they like it that way. It's the base of their economy. They have lobbyists that actively resist the changing of gambling laws in other states because of this.

It's not all "human" behavior, though;

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/02/economics.monkey.business/index.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071113-monkeys.html


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
HOTI and RC -
Man, I love debates (like yours) which are based on reasoned logic and careful presentation of positions.

I almost hate to add what will probably blow this discussion into the realm of doctrine and dogma, but

What would be the effect on marriage, and infidelity thereto, if prostitution were widely legalized?

I'm going to go two ways here, and if there is anyone out there who can attest to the effect of legalized hooking in a culture such as Amsterdam (not Nevada, their entire industry is really tourist-driven), please join in.

A) The legalization of prostitution, most severely in the immediate aftermath of the change, would put incredible pressures on the already weakly-committed male members, with a sizable number succumbing to the "easy" way to acquire sex. (Almost as a side-note, would a certain subset of wives accept hubby going out to buy a portion of sex with equanimity, since it wouldn't NECESSARILY have to be done secretly? Better leave this one for the next debate......)
B) LONG TERM (as in at least one full marriage-generation in) it may actually reduce the amount of marital infidelity by males, since an unknown portion of matrimony-aged fellows would make the conscious decision that that part of the impulse to marry, driven by desire for regular sexual activity, is no longer as pressing, analogous to the lease-vs-buy decision in acquiring automotive transport.

Thoughts? Responses?

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
So;

a) an immediate rise in infidelity followed by

b) a lower marriage rate and lower infidelity rates?

Interesting hypothesis. Partially follows the ease-of-access-increases-use model.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,836
Originally Posted by Rosycheeks
Amsterdam is known mainly in the uk as being somewhere you can legally use cannabis and prostitutes, it ceases to be anything more and attracts the worst kind of people.

The Amsterdam metropolitan region has a population of over 2 million. I would imagine the vast majority take no part in either the cannabis or prostitution industries. I would imagine the same is true even among tourists. The red light district is fairly compact. The museums, canals, windmills and history attract many people. I have been to Amsterdam more than once. As a teenager and again in my 20s. I partook of neither vice. I cannot imagine I am alone in that.

As for the impact of legalized prostitution on marriage, if it lead to fewer marriages, isn't that something we at MB should support? Self-selection of Renters from Buyers would be a good thing, no?


When you can see it coming, duck!
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 734
I've been to Amsterdam too, my hubby stayed there for 3 months without me while he was training and he didn't partake in either vice. I joined him for one month in the middle. We wandered together down through the red light district partly because we got lost and partly out of interest.

I totally agree that the city is a whole lot more than prostitution and drugs, it is incredibly beautiful in parts, has wonderful architecture, history and a whole lot going for it.
Unfortunately in the uk the only thing it is known for to the wider population is somewhere you go to do the things you can't do at home. When I said it ceases to be anything more, I meant in reputation because that one thing overshadows all to such an extent.

Last edited by Rosycheeks; 01/04/11 01:55 PM.

Me: 32
H: 35
Married 9 years, together 12.
Two little girls, 7 and 3.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22
G
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22
I really don't think Marriage Builders is an appropriate or useful forum for discussing this topic. I have nothing against the discussion itself. It's just that the concept of "prostitution" is too ill-defined and potentially broad-sweeping for any one solution to make sense. If you define it narrowly as those examples involving human trafficking, perhaps it's a simpler issue. But in the broader sense, it would have to include HBO's Moonlight Bunny Ranch, and the resulting thousands of women who applied to work there after the show first aired. Clearly, they are not "human trafficked". And what about Anna Nicole Smith and Hugh Hefner's new bride-to-be? Many would argue they are doing it JUST for the money... but, oh, the marriage contract makes it legal I suppose. And what about the paraplegic who contracted a sex surrogate to initiate him into something he had little chance to ever experience otherwise?

But bottom line as far as this forum is concerned, I don't see that controlling, stopping, or permitting prostitution has ANYTHING to do with maintaing a good marriage.

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22
G
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
A) The legalization of prostitution, most severely in the immediate aftermath of the change, would put incredible pressures on the already weakly-committed male members, with a sizable number succumbing to the "easy" way to acquire sex. (Almost as a side-note, would a certain subset of wives accept hubby going out to buy a portion of sex with equanimity, since it wouldn't NECESSARILY have to be done secretly? Better leave this one for the next debate......)
B) LONG TERM (as in at least one full marriage-generation in) it may actually reduce the amount of marital infidelity by males, since an unknown portion of matrimony-aged fellows would make the conscious decision that that part of the impulse to marry, driven by desire for regular sexual activity, is no longer as pressing, analogous to the lease-vs-buy decision in acquiring automotive transport.

Thoughts? Responses?

I don't think it would make much difference today. The Internet has effectively "legalized" it by making it too easy to "hook up" in almost any town in the country. Everything from the casual dating sites, no-strings-attached dating sites, craigslist, backpage, etc. have some young men (and some young women too) just doing casual sex all the time and never finding real relationships. As for Nevada, anybody can get on a plane and spend a weekend there (what, the cost of the ticket shouldn't be a problem by comparison to the cost there, no?). In fact, I would guess that business at the Nevada establishments is sluggish these days because of the local competition facilitated by the Internet.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,686
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,686
I would think more people would use Nevada, less chance of STDs, right? Aren't the workers tested?


One year becomes two, two years becomes five, five becomes ten and before you know it, you've wasted your whole life on a problem you can't solve. That's one way to spend your life. -rwinger

I will not spend my life this way.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
HOTI and RC -
Man, I love debates (like yours) which are based on reasoned logic and careful presentation of positions.

I almost hate to add what will probably blow this discussion into the realm of doctrine and dogma, but

What would be the effect on marriage, and infidelity thereto, if prostitution were widely legalized?

I'm going to go two ways here, and if there is anyone out there who can attest to the effect of legalized hooking in a culture such as Amsterdam (not Nevada, their entire industry is really tourist-driven), please join in.

A) The legalization of prostitution, most severely in the immediate aftermath of the change, would put incredible pressures on the already weakly-committed male members, with a sizable number succumbing to the "easy" way to acquire sex. (Almost as a side-note, would a certain subset of wives accept hubby going out to buy a portion of sex with equanimity, since it wouldn't NECESSARILY have to be done. secretly? Better leave this one for the next debate......)
B) LONG TERM (as in at least one full marriage-generation in) it may actually reduce the amount of marital infidelity by males, since an unknown portion of matrimony-aged fellows would make the conscious decision that that part of the impulse to marry, driven by desire for regular sexual activity, is no longer as pressing, analogous to the lease-vs-buy decision in acquiring automotive transport.

Thoughts? Responses?

My first thoughts are around what I believe is an unbalanced approach. Everything I've read indicates that 2/3rds to 3/4's of all divorces are sought by women, so calling into question the commitment of males seems to focus on the smaller of two issues.

Since Dr H says the women leaving are seldom those abused or betrayed one can not credibly view the issue without putting an emphasis on the problem that matches the facts regarding who are choosing to end their marriages.

Based on what I'm reading, male marital misconduct is not present in the majority of divorces. Therefore, I must ask why you continue to lead with the notion there is a problem with male commitment?

Last edited by Enlightened_Ex; 01/05/11 03:30 PM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,352
Quote
Everything I've read indicates that 2/3rds to 3/4's of all divorces are sought by women

Okay, you're probably fairly accurate with that? Now, WHY?

I saw a quote from a lawyer saying that in ten years of practice, he's seen ONE case of a divorce action in which infidelity played no role. (He went on to say, he formerly thought the number was two, but years later, was informed of the cheating in that case as well.)

So, if the large number of divorces are initiated by females, and infidelity is almost always involved..........

Therefore my hypothesis that if poorly (inadequately? insufficiently?) committed males are less likely to marry if sexual alternatives are more legally available, would POSSIBLY result in the overall improvement in average marital quality (factoring out the failure-prone, as it were), is supported by your comment.

Thank you.

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,457
Likes: 9
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,457
Likes: 9
EE< what happened here? Are those your personal details in the post?

Originally Posted by Enlightened_Ex
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
HOTI and RC -
Man, I love debates (like yours) which are based on reasoned logic and careful presentation of positions.

I almost hate to add what will probably blow this discussion into the realm of doctrine and dogma, but

What would be the effect on marriage, and infidelity thereto, if prostitution were widely legalized?

I'm going to go two ways here, and if there is anyone out there who can attest to the effect of legalized hooking in a culture such as Amsterdam (not Nevada, their entire industry is really tourist-driven), please join in.

A) The legalization of prostitution, most severely in the immediate aftermath of the change, would put incredible pressures on the already weakly-committed male members, with a sizable number succumbing to the "easy" way to acquire sex. (Almost as a side-note, would a certain subset of wives accept hubby going out to buy a portion of sex with equanimity, since it wouldn't NECESSARILY have to be done ****EDIT****
B) LONG TERM (as in at least one full marriage-generation in) it may actually reduce the amount of marital infidelity by males, since an unknown portion of matrimony-aged fellows would make the conscious decision that that part of the impulse to marry, driven by desire for regular sexual activity, is no longer as pressing, analogous to the lease-vs-buy decision in acquiring automotive transport.

Thoughts? Responses?

My first thoughts are around what I believe is an unbalanced approach. Everything I've read indicates that 2/3rds to 3/4's of all divorces are sought by women, so calling into question the commitment of males seems to focus on the smaller of two issues.

Since Dr H says the women leaving are seldom those abused or betrayed one can not credibly view the issue without putting an emphasis on the problem that matches the facts regarding who are choosing to end their marriages.

Based on what I'm reading, male marital misconduct is not present in the majority of divorces. Therefore, I must ask why you continue to lead with the notion there is a problem with male commitment?

Last edited by JustUss; 01/05/11 03:54 PM. Reason: edit quote

BW
Married 1989
His PA 2003-2006
2 kids.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
Quote
Everything I've read indicates that 2/3rds to 3/4's of all divorces are sought by women

Okay, you're probably fairly accurate with that? Now, WHY?

I saw a quote from a lawyer saying that in ten years of practice, he's seen ONE case of a divorce action in which infidelity played no role. (He went on to say, he formerly thought the number was two, but years later, was informed of the cheating in that case as well.)

Just a trip around here shows you at the very least the numbers are even. What you say doesn't mean that only men are having affairs.

Logically, unless 99.44% of the men being divorced were having affairs with other men, it's more likely that the men were indeed having affairs with women.

Now you may be inclined to give the women a pass because they weren't the ones who said the vows. However, you really have no way of knowing if they were also married or not.

Further, the lawyer you mention doesn't indicate WHO is having the affair. It could just as easily been like my case, where it was the wife having an affair. (With another married man, BTW.)

So I think both men and women are pretty evenly represented in affairs.

Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
So, if the large number of divorces are initiated by females, and infidelity is almost always involved..........

But that's not what Dr Harley has found. Remember, it's him that says:

Originally Posted by Dr Harley
When all forms of spousal neglect are grouped together, we find that it is far ahead of all the other reasons combined that women leave men. Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.

That's found in the article, Why Women Leave Men http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8111_leave.html

So I'll go with the MARRIAGE expert who looks at marriages and why they are ending vs looking at the LAW expert.
Originally Posted by NeverGuessed
Therefore my hypothesis that if poorly (inadequately? insufficiently?) committed males are less likely to marry if sexual alternatives are more legally available, would POSSIBLY result in the overall improvement in average marital quality (factoring out the failure-prone, as it were), is supported by your comment.

Thank you.

It's not just sexual alternatives, it's the perception, real or not, that marriage is a bad deal for men. After all, if men can get their needs met without marriage, and have far more to lose should the marriage end, what is the benefit of getting married for the typical man?

There are many men, like myself, who did not engage in marital misconduct who still didn't get custody of his child, had to split the marital assets as well as custody with a spouse who was both emotionally and sexually unfaithful.

Marriage no longer offers any protection against bad behavior for men if unfaithful wives can take their children and a percentage of assets from the marriage.

As long as the perception of marriage is that if it ends the man loses, regardless his behavior, there is little incentive for the rational man to marry.

If I end up divorced again, there is no way I'd ever consider marriage again. Especially if the misconduct is on the part of my wife, and there are no consequences for her breaking her vow. I pray it never happens, but then I did that with my first wife and look how that turned out.

The problem is not gender based. I'm not saying women are worse than men, or vice-verse. we are all sinners. Therefore there is no moral high ground based on gender.

Perhaps your lawyer represents older folks, who are more established. If that's the case, then chances are, he will have many more betrayed clients. Men typically leave when the children are gone. That's when men statistically choose to divorce. Why? They perceive it's a better deal. No children to lose custody of, and older men tend to do better in the dating market compared to older women.

But since most marriages don't last until the children are mature, most divorces occur in the first 5-7 years. That's when women are far more likely to file. Why? Again, it's relative value and benefit. These women believe they will do well in the courts. They will probably get custody, child support and are more marketable in the dating marketplace than if they waited until after their children are out of the nest.

People behave "rationally." I'm not saying men are morally superior to women or vice-verse. I'm saying the game is rigged so that women think it's advantageous to divorce FAITHFUL husbands and men find it advantageous not to marry, or to choose divorce after their children leave the nest.

My solution is that the unfaithful spouse loses EVERYTHING to the faithful spouse, regardless of gender. Further, if there is NO misconduct, but a spouse simply isn't happy anymore, the desire to divorce a FAITHFUL spouse is in fact treated as an act of marital misconduct and that spouse loses everything as if they had betrayed their spouse. Which they are betraying them if they say, I'm not happy, I no longer want to be married to you.

It is in societies best interest to do away with No Fault Divorce. Allegations of infidelity or other abuses should be proven and the perpetrators face the consequences of those actions. To allow easy divorce just passes along bad spouses to others without warning. Those bad spouses being the ones engaged in their particular misconduct be it infidelity, other abuses, or simply abandoning the vows for personal happiness.

Divorce should be costly for those who choose to misbehave, and should be cheap for the victims of their misbehavior.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 127 guests, and 48 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
cbm800, Dodo M, Kingpin, MikaylaVaux, I.P.
71,728 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,546
Posts2,322,789
Members71,729
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5