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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I would think more people would use Nevada, less chance of STDs, right? Aren't the workers tested?

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?

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.

EE< what happened here? Are those your personal details in the post?

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.


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


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.

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.

It was edited, thanks...

Is it the reduction of negative outcomes or more steering the negative outcomes in a certain path?

I.E. one cannot do away with negative outcomes because if one does, one eliminates consequences and without consequences, negative behaviors will continue.

If one things being a prostitute is bad for society, then the consequence of such an action should be a painful consequence. (Painful doesn't mean stoning, so perhaps costly would be a better term.)

Likewise, if being a patron of such services is also deemed bad by the society, then that too should have a costly consequence.

Unfortunately, we seek to remove more and more consequences and then, as a society, wonder why we have more bad behavior and not less.

No fault divorce wasn't designed to make divorce easier, it was designed to make it more honest. Sadly, by removing some of the societal costs to divorce, you end up with more divorce and the unintended consequence is more broken families.

So it's no wonder that banks don't feel they should be held accountable and they should be bailed out if things go bad. So by bailing them out, you shield bankers from the consequences of their choices. Ditto with car makers, or folks who choose to become addicted to drugs, or who don't do their best in school.

What are the unintended consequences of legalizing prostitution? Because if prostitution has a social cost, making it legal will not eliminate that cost. It will simply shift it from one part of society to another.

I for one and getting tired of having to shoulder the costs for other peoples bad behavior. If you want to know why you have less good behavior and more bad behavior, of any sort of behavior, it's likely because the benefits of participating in the good behavior appeal to few than the benefits of participating in the bad behavior. So if the consequences of bad behavior are shifted from the individual to a society as a whole, you end up with a society that drops it's social standards to the lowest common denominator.

You discount good and remove the consequences for the bad, you are going to get more bad and less good.


It's because of that cost shifting. If you could guarantee that the costs of such a decriminalization are only paid by those who engage in prostitution or whatever activity, then I think more would be for it. Not all, as there are some who don't look at it this way.

But there are those like myself who are getting fed up with the costs of other people's choices being shifted to me. I'm tired of paying for the drop-out, the baby-mama with a dozen baby-daddy-drama's in her life, or the health care for the one who chose to buy a new car every other year instead of paying for insurance, or any number of other personal decisions that folks expect others to fund.

Or because they see that once you legalize it, you further add to the costs that are being shifted to society as a whole. Wanna smoke dope, fine. But if you get someone killed, or lose your job, or whatever, you are on your own.

I have no problem with making things legal. What I dislike is the lack of responsibility for those decisions.

Bringing it back to MB, if you want to either be a prostitute, or use one and are married, then you understand that if your spouse catches you, he/she can have everything associated with the marriage due to your participation in bad behavior.

If you turn tricks while married, you can lose your house, your kids, your retirement funds, everything that was accumulated during the marriage. If you visit a prostitute while married, the same applies.

But few want any sort of accountability on marital behavior or any real consequences for the victims of marital misconduct.

EE, I think your cause/effect conclusions are seriously flawed.

Given that:

- Most divorces are initiated by women.
- Most (almost all?) divorces are driven, or at least partially caused, by infidelity,
- Divorces would be initiated by the injured party

I come to the conclusion that terminal marital issues predominently are caused by male infidelity.

You, for some reason decide that divorces are planned, like military campaigns, to be implemented at the moment the attacker is stongest, and the defender weakest. Trust me when I tell you that Sun-Tzu was a military leader, not a marriage expert, but people, as you note, will tend to act in their perceived best) interest.

So........

Young couple, young children - husband fools around - wife decides she can't envision staying with proven slimeball - young enough to make alternative life - wife files.

Older couple - no dependent children - husband fools around - wife doesn't like her alternatives - HUSBAND enjoys younger AP, chance for second family - husband files.

I do enjoy your proposal about "the unfaithful spouse loses everything", if only for the naivete that you exhibit. It will not be implemented legally because the lawmakers (male and female) are the dominant partners in their own marriages, and are the most likely to stray. In their own self-interest, and to protect their colleagues, they'll never institute draconian punishment against themselves.

I'm curious as to what options you're leaving open for someone who is in an unhappy marriage with a person who refuses to meet their needs? Aren't we always telling waywards who come here that if their marriages were unhappy and not fulfilling, then they should have gotten a divorce instead of having an A? If the unhappy person can do neither, then what would you have them do? They can't have an A, because it's morally wrong, and under your scenario, they would lose everything if they did. But they also can't leave their spouse, because they would also lose everything if they did that. So their only choice is to stay in a perpetually unhappy marriage, never have their needs met, and be miserable for the rest of their lives.

One possible solution would be to get their spouses onboard with MB and get them to meet the needs of the unhappy spouse, but we all know there are a lot of reluctant spouses out there who just aren't willing to do that.

That's an interesting question. Perhaps there should be a provision for an unbiased party to examine the marriage and see if there really is a problem with one or both spouses.

After all, apparently many folks can be happy without a great deal of their needs being met, others, not so much. Ask any betrayed spouse and they will almost always tell you the things they were doing to show love to their spouse, so I wonder how much of the unhappiness is simply the spouse not doing the right things.

There has to be some value assigned to the vow. If someone says they'll stay through sickness and health, riches or poor, good times or bad, I don't see how leaving because you are unhappy is honoring that vow. But one promises to love, honor and cherish, and if someone refuses to meet someone's needs, then a case can be made they are not loving, honoring, or cherishing.

The problem I have with the current system is there is no impartial examination of the facts surrounding the case. If someone says they are unhappy, that's good enough for the system.

That's certainly not sufficient and doesn't foster strong family bonds.

I tend to believe that the vow is more important than any individual's happiness because the choice to end the marriage impacts more than just the person choosing to end the marriage. If they knew they would lose everything, would their calculus to determine if leaving was a good move may change.

They may be more motivated to do a better job at working on their marriage. We cannot assume that just because they want to leave that it means their spouse is the largest problem. It could just as likely be unrealistic expectations. Too many Disney movies or Hallmark Channel movies, and not enough living in the real world.

You know, the emotional porn that sets up the same sorts of unrealistic expectations as does the sexual porn that distorts the thinking of many men.

So I think you set the costs high, and folks will pick more carefully, and/or work harder because they have so much to lose if they simply want out without there being any marital misconduct.

Especially when there are children involved. The happiness of one of the adults shouldn't be the primary factor in determining if the family stays together. That simply send the message to the young children that you are entitled to your happiness at all costs, including costing your spouse his place in the life of the child.

Marriage is such a critical aspect in raising good children that it should be treated special, and above the individual happiness.

Dr Harley says nothing should be done with the joint agreement of both spouses. So I believe we apply that to any marriage where there is no abuse, adultery or addiction. If one wants out, but the other doesn't, the POJA says nothing changes until both agree to the change. You do nothing, which means no divorce.

I'm sure that's tough for some to swallow. However, I take my vows seriously, and they are not about my happiness, but what I am to offer my wife.

For me to say I'm leaving for me is to indeed betray my wife, and is in fact an act of marital misconduct. It is breaking the vow, and I believe should be treated as so.

I would concede that the abandoned spouse could offer assets, more parenting time, or whatever, should he want to. But in no way should an abandoned spouse be compelled to offer the runaway spouse anything other than a suitcase full of clothes and their 1/2 of any marital debts.

Any typos you find above are yours to keep. There are many

EE,

Did you know that you can edit your own posts for about a day after you post them?

There is an edit button at the bottom of your own posts. I just mention it because I saw that JustUss edited the post I mentioned above.

Yes, I changed mine seeing that I could still edit. The moderators edited the post that quoted that information.

I was thinking of a different board that gave you about 15 minutes before the edit timed out and/or you only had so long before you could delete the post.

Agree
Debateable, Dr Harley says marriages can survive infidelity and I'd like to politely remind you that he is surprised by the fact that most of those who suffer such abuses don't file. Most of those filing are NOT victims of such, so I'm not sure how you can cling to your thinking here.
I think that's where you are missing the boat. You are excluding what Dr Harley is saying, that the majority of divorces filed by women are filed by those who are NOT the injured party.

In fact, it's more likely that the injured party is further victimized by a divorce he never wanted.
And you say I'm naive and misguided. OK

writer1,

That's easy to solve. The unhappily married person divorces. They simply walk away with the clothes and minor assets and start over. No alimony, child support or splitting house $. Also, you pay child support.

If women waited until the kids were grown like men, the divorce would most likely be more amicable. Would it feel like you are in prison for years? Possibly, but you at least have integrity being faithful and grinding it out until the kids are gone. Most marriages can be put on sort of a coast mutually agreeable term. People who say they are miserable with their S might find it interesting that their spouse might be feeling the same way.

This is not pointed at you writer, and by all means my W might be miserable as H---, but she seems to want this M more than I. I use to want the M more than she did, so the table has turned in our M, I just wish it would've turned sooner.