[tbrownaw]

Pictures don't hurt anyone (except sometimes in the libel/slander sense).

But don't stolen credit cards get traded online? Or other impersonation / "identity theft" information? Maybe a marketplace for one of those would be a good example.

.

The trick is probably making sure that "something that we all agree is wrong" matches with things that actually harm people who didn't freely agree to it. Things like murder, coercion, kidnapping, breach of contract, ...

[Lawtonfogle]

Infidelity harms some, unless we aren't counting emotional harm.

[the_af]

Infidelity is certainly harmful to someone (emotional harm is a real thing, not to be discounted) but so is exposing people's private lives and peccadilloes. Infidelity is something that should be resolved in private by the parties involved.

Whatever you do, someone will find it offensive or harmful to them, for some definition of "harmful" -- even the way you dress, or the music you listen to, or the books you read, or who you have sex with. This isn't a good enough reason to humiliate you in public.

I'd say you cannot compare infidelity with things like murder, extortion, or someone in public office engaging in corruption or grossly misleading the public. Those things do need exposing.

[littletimmy]

Why? Surely their commitment was public, if the person in question was married. If the state sanctions a contract, in this case marriage, and one party does something to offend that contract, then why not make it public?

[the_af]

Infidelity can be just as serious, morally speaking, if the person in question is not married but in a long-term monogamous relationship. Is this simply a question about the law? I thought people were arguing about moral outrage.

In any case, not every breach of contract must be made public for all to see and humiliate you.

[Lawtonfogle]

Considering infidelity can lead to non-consensualy exposing people to STDs and possibly lead to rape (depending upon how you define consent).

[FireBeyond]

No. Rape is not "I wouldn't have had sex with that person if I was better informed".

Where does that end? "He has an STD"? "He is unfaithful"? "He cheats at poker"? "He is a bad father"? "If I'd known that, I wouldn't have had sex, therefore it wasn't consensual".

(edited for grammar)

[Lawtonfogle]

>No. Rape is not "I wouldn't have had sex with that person if I was better informed".

I never said it was. I said that under some definitions that people use it is. Especially when it involves disclosing use of birth control (all cases I know of involve men lying, as that increases the biological risk of the woman, while the woman lying doesn't make the man more likely to get pregnant) and when it involves lying about having STDs.

I'm not saying which definition is right, only pointing out that some people (and I believe some legal systems) do use such definitions (and as such this influences other moral decisions they make).

[FireBeyond]

I think that knowingly lying about STDs is morally wrong (and in some cases, for some STDs, it -is- a crime to do so).

"Disclosing use of birth control" All the cases you know of involve "men lying"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. I just don't see 'putting or pretending to put on a condom and then sneaking it off unknowingly before intercourse' as being a common concern in sex/pregnancy. If I understand you correctly?

[the_af]

What the... How can you conflate rape with infidelity? They are completely unrelated things! Rape is definitely a crime and an act of violence worthy of moral outrage. If you are forcing someone to have nonconsensual sex, that's terrible and totally unrelated to cheating. And you can have forced nonconsensual sex within a marriage. Seriously, rape is a completely different issue.

Exposing people to STDs is a problem which can also happen regardless of infidelity. Besides, are you saying if you practice safe sex while cheating then it's morally ok? Is it simply an issue of safe sex?

[moosey]

I'm not defending this position, so please don't pull out pitchforks or anything, just making an argument where this could be expanded into rape charges somewhere:

There are countries where having sex under false pretext is considered rape. For instance: saying that you are going to use a condom then removing it without the knowledge of your partner would be rape. One could argue that being in a marriage with the promise of monogamy, but failing to keep that promise, would mean that all instances of sex with your partner are then rape.

I repeat: I don't agree with this and I think that it belittles people that have actually experienced the horrors of forced rape. Perhaps there should be things protecting the victims of this situation, but calling it rape waters down the word and act. "Sexual Intercourse under False Pretenses" should have it's own set of laws and punishments around it if it should be punished, IMHO.

[the_af]

I hear what you're saying and I'm not pulling out any pitchforks, don't worry.

Having said that,

> For instance: saying that you are going to use a condom then removing it without the knowledge of your partner would be rape.

In which country is that rape? I think pretending to use a condom and secretly removing it is morally deplorable, and the mark of a terrible person, but it's insulting to actual rape victims to consider it rape.

> One could argue that being in a marriage with the promise of monogamy, but failing to keep that promise, would mean that all instances of sex with your partner are then rape

I can't think of any universe where this makes sense. It's an act of dishonesty, and a pretty serious one depending on your upbringing and personal convictions, but rape? Sorry, that sounds seriously fucked up to me. I wouldn't want to live in a place where being unfaithful is equated to being a rapist.

[Lawtonfogle]

>There are countries where having sex under false pretext is considered rape.

Exactly. And I'm not saying that is right or wrong. That is why I said 'possibly', because it depends upon if you agree with such a definition or not and if the legal jurisdiction you live in operates with such a definition or not.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Pictures don't hurt anyone (except sometimes in the libel/slander sense).

The hell they don't. Talk to someone who was not only abused, but knows that there are unwilling photos of their abuse circulating online for sadists to jerk off over. Psychological trauma is a real thing.

[antillean]

I don't think that's the trick.

I'm talking about greater goods than privacy and order, goods that make privacy and order good.

And I'm not just talking about things that one group or another really thinks should be illegal. I'm also talking about things that we've decided to tolerate as legal, but which we think are wrong -- maybe even grossly wrong -- and therefore (strongly) disapprove of and want to (strongly) discourage. I don't think things are so simple in those cases, either.