Comments

  1. MikeBoston says

    How quaint! There are still grounds for divorce other than irreconcilable differences. Ditto Eric’s comment – just remove consummation from the laws for everyone. They seem to miss that irony in that if my partner ‘consummated’ a roomful of women wouldn’t bother me nearly as much as him on his knees in front of another man. But I’m an old fashioned kinda guy.

  2. Steve says

    They just need to get away from the silly penis-in-vagina definition of sex and have a more inclusive definition of sexual activity. There is so much more people can do. They could include any genital contact for example.

  3. GregV says

    @Johnagj: Your definition may work in your own relationship, but it’s too narrow to apply to everyone for the same reason that the penis-in-vagina definition is.
    There would be mixed-sex couples in which one spouse would argue that they have had the kind of sex you referred to but not penis-in-vagina sex, snd that they should be considered just as consommated as any same-sex couple.
    There would be same-sex couples in which one partner would argue that they had other kinds of sex but not the two types that you referred to, and thry should be considered consommated.
    I think whatever one partner in any marriage does that breaks whatever deal they have is ehat constitutes cheating.
    If a husband and wife decide that since intercourse is painful for her, “you can have intercourse with other people, but kissing is between us only,” then for their relationship, kissing others is what would constitute cheating on the relationship.
    I’ve always thought all these arbitrary definitions of “sex” and “virginity” and “consommation” and “what the definition of ‘is’ is” were ridiculous, anyway.
    When a couple has called off their relationship and moved on, it’s a fact that they are not functioning as one family unit anymore, regardless of whether you or I approve and regardless of whether or not the government likes the reason they explained for the break-up. I also don’t think it should be the business of a court to hear the details of how a coupke chose to arouse each other.

  4. Kevin_BGFH says

    While I think it should be fairly simple to include anal and oral sex in the definition of “consummation” (as it always should have been — since more people engage in opposite-sex sodomy than same-sex sodomy), the best solution is “no fault” divorce or irreconcilable differences. I’m not saying that divorce should be a simple thing, as there are lots of legal entanglements that need to be untangled, but the state should not be deciding whose reasons for divorce are and are not valid.

  5. ratbastard says

    The UK especially England just needs complete separation of church and state first and foremost. The adjust the some of the dated language of laws. In my state,we still have laws on the books that date from when we were a British crown colony over 300 years ago. The language is arcane, and many of the laws are hilarious. But technically they’re still on the books.

  6. Diogenes Arktos says

    I find it hilarious that the legislation is not as concerned about the mechanics of gay sex as certain other people we all know.

    I know it is popular among some straights to define “real” sex as penis-in-vagina. That way, they can have all the anal and oral sex they want and still be virgins. (Some do consider this abstinence;-)) Some guys also believe they are not cheating on their female partners if they have sex with a male.

    I thought it was decided by the courts quite some years ago that adultery alone was not considered sufficient grounds for divorce.

Leave A Reply