What does? That if the law against adultery prescribes punishment for the man involved in, well, an adulterous relationship, the law should be amended to prescribe punishment for the woman too. What does not stand to reason is the fact that adultery is a punishable ‘offense’. The only (partly) sane voice on the issue, as raised in this front page TOI article is this one-
But women’s rights activist and lawyer Flavia Agnes said, “Adultery should be deleted as an offence. Making wives and single women criminally liable for adultery would be a retrograde step at cross-purposes with Domestic Violence Act, and will only make life miserable for women who may have got into an illicit relationship as victims of circumstance or inducement.”
The insane voices as always, belong to our politicians and our courts-
The Supreme Court upheld Section 497 in 1985, saying “the wife involved in an illicit relationship with another man is a victim and not the author of the crime…adultery is an offence against the sanctity of the matrimonial home, an act which is committed by a man, as it generally is. Those men who defile such sanctity are brought within the net of the law…”
Morality is outside the purview of law – at least in civilized societies. But since we are essentially a tribal society full of pretentious barbarians prone to voyeurism, it stands to reason that the State will peep into bedrooms. That explains IPC S497, and IPC S377. Actually it explains most of the Indian Penal Code.
Aristotle The Geek 
Comments
They should be worried about decriminalizing adultery not making more criminals out of normal people. The biggest criminal is the state but it has no laws or boundaries.
Seriously does these lawmakers even understand the complexity of a long term relationship(s) between two people.
Here’s the hypocrisy:
The amendment recomended:
“Whoever has sexual intercourse with the spouse of any other person guilty of adultery.”
What about the possibility that a married man or woman could initiate such a relationship with someone who is single.
And some call this land free.
“What about the possibility that a married man or woman could initiate such a relationship with someone who is single.”
Basically, their whole idea is to perpetuate the institution of monogamy – so if either party to a relationship is already married, both are committing an ‘offense’. They so obviously haven’t read either the Mahabharata or Ramayana. A Victorian hangover – we should send all our bureaucrats and Hindutva-vadis to Britain – they will flourish there.
I guess they missed the ‘adult’ in adultery.We are a massive mai baap sarkar ie nanny state on steroids
Hi I like your blog and I just recently discussed adultery but I’ve stuck at one point.
Rothbard in his Ethics of Liberty says:
“Adultery, in the libertarian view, is not a crime at all, and neither, as will be seen below, is “defamation.””
But why? I cannot find it out, what if both man and women agreed on a contract which obligate them to avoid sexual relationship with other people and what if they both agreed on a punishment (death penalty) … how this can be anti-libertarian?
Thanks for answer in advance.
# I cannot find it out, what if both man and women agreed on a contract which obligate them to avoid sexual relationship with other people and what if they both agreed on a punishment (death penalty) … how this can be anti-libertarian?
Rothbard writes, in the chapter “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts”-
He writes in the footnotes to one of the chapters in MES-
Therefore, under (Rothbardian) libertarian law, such a marriage contract would be legally unenforceable. The parties could, however, have financial penalties built into the contract, what Rothbard describes as performance bonds. That, will be enforceable. A contract “alienating” “will”, will not be.