The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
KyleLumsden
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Only affaires de coeur should be considered adulterous

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,346 times Debate No: 6669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

We all know men and women are built differently, both physically and emotionally. One of the emotional differences is our respective attitude to sexual relations.

Usually, sex will be a physical expression of the love a couple feel for each other. However, sex can sometimes be based solely on physical attraction, with no emotional attachment between the sexual partners whatsoever.

This decoupling of physical desire from emotional attachment that we sometimes call "lust" is more commonly associated with men than women. Men are far more likely to seek casual sex than women, which is why men wearing tight-fitting clothes do not tend to stand on street corners waiting for female punters to pull up, wind down the window and ask "how much, darling?"

It is perfectly possible for a caring and honourable husband to be head over heels in love with his wife and still have sex with her best friend on ad-hoc basis because he has no inappropriate feelings of affection for the girl.

Furthermore, he might only keep this extra-marital activity confidential for fear that his wife would not view the matter in the correct light and become upset as a result, and it should be considered very thoughtful of him to protect her in this way.

It is my contention, therefore, that only when it can be proved that someone has become emotionally involved with a third party that they should, for example in divorce proceedings, be adjudged to have committed adultery.

To put this issue in perspective, I invite any voters that are not currently having an extra-marital affair (or have not had one in the past) to take the following interactive test to see how likely it is that they will in the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Thank you.
KyleLumsden

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate on the definition of adultery. Creating and adjusting definitions is one of the ways we carry on mankind's ancient endeavor of imposing order onto chaos. A necessary side effect of this ordering is that we limit our reality, and we must evaluate our definitions carefully to ensure that we are okay with exactly who or what we are limiting. I will make the case that my opponent's definition of adultery gives more freedom to husbands while limiting the freedom of wives.

Put aside for a moment the absurdity of trying to prove emotional involvement in a courtroom, for the problem is far more serious than this simple practical impossibility. Reading my opponent's argument, a person might come to the conclusion that married women have little or no desire to engage in their own extramarital couplings. However, "14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives" (http://www.menstuff.org...). More staggering, 68% of women say they *would* have an affair if they knew they would never get caught (http://www.infidelityfacts.com...). Clearly, men are not the only ones who believe sexual fulfillment is to be found outside the confines of marriage.

As my opponent asserts, men generally are more interested than women in having *casual* sex. His examples of clothing choice and prostitution offer two clear instances of the lopsidedness of skin-deep lust. It does not follow, however, that women are less interested in having sex. Rather, women are more likely to desire an *emotional context* for sex, which explains why they are the nearly exclusive consumers of romance novels.

Consider also the hard-wired biological differences between the sexes. A woman's post-coital responsibility is to carry and feed a baby for nine months and then to give birth to and rear the baby for several years (because humans are, compared to other species, helpless for an awfully long time after birth). The man's responsibility, in contrast, is to find another woman to mate with to increase the local population's chances of survival. Contraception, overpopulation, and the luxury to value the quality of their relationships over the harsh requirements of simple survival have inspired men and women alike to reevaluate their roles in the sex process, but the biological underpinnings remain widely disparate for the two sexes: hit it and quit it for men, and emotional involvement for women.

Therefore, when my opponent proposes that a divorce court should view an affair de coeur as a more serious offense than a meaningless fling, he is arguing that women should be punished for adultery while men should not. Just as tougher sentencing guidelines for crack possession than for cocaine possession are implicitly racist, a definition of adultery that includes sex with emotional involvement but excludes the satisfaction of simple lust is implicitly sexist.

To any male voters who took my opponent's quiz at the BBC and worry about their ability to live a married life free of infidelity, let me remind them that adultery is no longer a crime in most of Western Europe (de jure) or the United States (de facto). The definition of adultery only matters in divorce court, and a man only goes there at his own request or at the request of his spouse. If husband and wife agree to allow each other to engage in extramarital acts of simple lust, affaires de coeur, or even affairs de sheep, the state does not care.

Rather than encourage husbands and wives to determine for themselves the extent to which they will allow extramarital sex, however, my opponent proposes a state judgment that clearly favors men and punishes women. Instead of requiring men to negotiate with women as equal parties, he wants to use the law to cater to men and oppress women, which has been the strategy of patriarchy for about 6,000 years too many.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I should like to thank my opponent for his most eloquent reply which duly exposed my position as utterly indefensible.

In the light of this, I hereby concede defeat and apologize most abjectly for wasting his time.

Please vote Con.

Thank you.
KyleLumsden

Con

You certainly didn't waste my time, Mr. Eggleston. I enjoyed the opportunity to be a part of one of your (in)famously saucy debates. Next time, I hope we can go three rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
KyleLumsden

Con

Thanks again for the debate, Brian.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
All points Pro

( Just to make you mad Mr. L )

Plus, mr eggleston is a cop and he carries a gun. He might shoot me with his gun, because i voted for him instead of you. Or he can rob a bank, and a cop can miraculously stop it.

o wait
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Yes, Mr. Blake, you discern correctly, but I remain impartial!
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Yes, Mr. Blake, you discern correctly, but I remain impartial!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Scored 8.

Test doesn't look like much tho :)
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
4 out of 20 for me.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Sounds like someone is speaking from experience (in divorce proceedings).
Posted by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
Your scored 5 out of a possible 20.

You rate as: Low risk promiscuity - 0 to 6 points

Responsible, dependable, caring and happy with their own lot. They will not look outside of the relationship for their thrills and do not rely on novelty to give themselves the high of being in love. They have greater satisfaction, a greater degree of investment in the relationship and a lack of perceived alternatives - they look only to their partner for all the benefits of a loving relationship.

You do not rate as: Medium risk promiscuity - 7 to 14 points

This group have promiscuous tendencies though they have control over these impulses. They might be more self-absorbed than average, can tend to ignore the feelings of others and will have limited social and personal conscientiousness. However they value and rely on their partner and are aware of the risk of giving up all they have in their relationship by succumbing to their desires.

You do not rate as: High risk promiscuity - 15 to 20 points

People in this bracket will have a tendency towards excitement, novelty and risk-taking, seeking these out through high-octane activities (from skydiving to working on the trading floor) as well as meeting new people. They will seek arousal and pleasure as a result of brain chemistry: dopamine (the pleasure chemical) is released when faced by a novel or challenging situation. They might be impulsive, responding easily to external stimuli and tend to view others as play things, generally not taking life very seriously. They might also have high testosterone levels which would account for an elevated sexual drive - testosterone also makes people more determined which can explain why so many politicians and people in power have affairs.

There you go. I'm pulling for Con - assuming they actually put up a good defense.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Brock757 8 years ago
Brock757
brian_egglestonKyleLumsdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
brian_egglestonKyleLumsdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
brian_egglestonKyleLumsdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
brian_egglestonKyleLumsdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
brian_egglestonKyleLumsdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07