[ACCEPTED] The Sad State of Affairs

by **Jutsa** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:40 pm

So, I felt like writing something while I'm sick just to see how it'd turn out.

Better title suggestion's welcome, but I'm kinda happy I thought of effect lines 1 and 3, while sick yet.

I think my characters are a tiny bit more estranged? I honestly can't tell for sure. Anyhow, hope you enjoy, and all help's appreciated.

Draft 1.02

Title: The Sad State of Affairs
The Issue: An investigation into a recent spike in marriages has found that men are circumventing the ban on adultery by marrying everyone they'd like an affair with, only to part ways when they're done.
Validity: No Adultery; Polygamy

Validity: Divorce is legal
Option 1a: "These pigs are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage," says @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, hand-in-hand with his two wives. "A marriage is supposed to be a wholesome agreement between two, or more, people for life. You should make these legal-adulterers pay by having them live with their partners until the day they die; no divorce, no separation, nothing! If they don't comply, they should be charged with adultery and receive full punishment!"
[effect] marriages don't last all that long
[Flag Change] No Divorce

Validity: Divorce is illegal
Option 1b: "These pigs are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage," says @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, hand-in-hand with his two wives. "A marriage means you're supposed to support your lovers for life. You should make these legal-adulterers pay by having them live with their partners until the day they die; no separation, no vacations away from one another, nothing! If they don't comply, they should be charged with adultery and receive full punishment!"
[effect] marriages don't last all that long

Option 2: "This was bound to happen, @@LEADER@@! Having multiple spouses is no different from cheating on your one true love, in my book," cries monogamous @@RANDOMNAME@@, author of the controversial book It's 'I Do', Not 'We Do'. "You let people have more than one 'mate', and now you see their sins coming out. Make all these plygs chose one spouse, and only one spouse! That is the way to true peace and prosperity, in my book."
[effect] homelessness and loneliness are sweeping
[Flag Change] Cancels Polygamy

Option 3: "Consent," blurts out @@RANDOMNAME@@ while lounging on a sofa you don't remember being there. "Consent is the word of the day. You know why? Because if someone is to be a new member of the family, they should have full consent from every spouse immediately involved. As long as they fill out all of the legal documents, of course. Why, might as well make extramarital sex legal; as long as there's mutual consent, I think everyone will be content."
[effect] it takes at least three to tango
[Flag Change] Cancels No Adultery

by **Trotterdam** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:21 pm

Jutsa wrote:Option 3: "Consent," blurts out @@RANDOMNAME@@ while lounging on a sofa you don't remember being there. "Consent is the word of the day. You know why? Because if someone is to be a new member of the family, they should have full consent from every spouse immediately involved."

Be a bit clearer about what you mean by "immediately involved", especially since it seems like you mean the opposite - consent is needed of all current spouses in the marriage, even the ones not actually wanting to have sex with this newcomer.

by **The Free Joy State** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:32 pm

Really interesting idea.

And some truth in it, too.

I once read about a Saudi businessman who, as the traditional custom allowed him to have four wives, kept the first three and divorced the fourth every year. The number of wives he'd had numbered 58 in 2005. So, I can definitely see this being a good niche issue.

However, you either need to alter it so that this is only available for nations that allow divorce (it's much easier to marry on a whim if you can divorce them just as quick), or have a No Divorce doppelganger for option one.

A doppelganger could have the premise that, as soon as the spouse is bored, they abandon the person they wanted to have an affair with to their own devices (I have read of this happening in some polygamist Mormon communities -- unfavoured wives left to sort themselves out for food and money in rundown properties, and not visited). Rather than saying "no divorces" (which would be a given in a country that allows no divorce), it could mandate that -- once married -- the person must equally financially support all spouses and their children forever (whether they love them or not).

In option #2, that book could use a punnier title. Possible suggestions:
--> It's 'I Do', Not 'We Do'
--> A Wife is for Life, Not Just for the Honeymoon
--> Once You Do It, You Can't Undo It
--> Monogamy Forever: There's Not 'Always Room for One More'

For an issue title, something playing on adultery, or affairs. Maybe something like:
--> The Sad State of Affairs
--> Put Your Affairs in Order, @@NAME@@!

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:09 am

The Free Joy State wrote:I once read about a Saudi businessman who, as the traditional custom allowed him to have four wives, kept the first three and divorced the fourth every year. The number of wives he'd had numbered 58 in 2005. So, I can definitely see this being a good niche issue.

Ha! Shia Islam allows a form of marriage contract where you agree in advance to divorce each other after a fixed period. (Sunni Islam explicitly forbids this practice.)

Even then, I find myself confounded by the amount of doublethink that would be necessary for Iran to come up with the idea of "chastity houses".

Mind you, there are still some limits - Islam stipulates a minimum period after a woman is divorced before she's allowed to marry again (men obviously have no such restriction, what with being allowed to marry again even if they're still married), so she can't sleep with more than four men in a year, tops.

The Free Joy State wrote:A doppelganger could have the premise that, as soon as the spouse is bored, they abandon the person they wanted to have an affair with to their own devices (I have read of this happening in some polygamist Mormon communities -- unfavoured wives left to sort themselves out for food and money in rundown properties, and not visited). Rather than saying "no divorces" (which would be a given in a country that allows no divorce), it could mandate that -- once married -- the person must equally financially support all spouses and their children forever (whether they love them or not).

This sounds like it would be a good subject for an issue that's just about having polygamy but no divorce, without the stigmatization-of-extramarital-affairs angle.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:34 am

Trotterdam wrote:Ha! Shia Islam allows a form of marriage contract where you agree in advance to divorce each other after a fixed period. (Sunni Islam explicitly forbids this practice.)

For sure, though interpretations on divorce are very much divided more on national lines than on Sunni/Shia lines. Would definitely be incorrect to characterise Sunni Islam as being less keen on divorce, especially given things like the infamous triple talaq.

by **The Free Joy State** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:43 am

Trotterdam wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:A doppelganger could have the premise that, as soon as the spouse is bored, they abandon the person they wanted to have an affair with to their own devices (I have read of this happening in some polygamist Mormon communities -- unfavoured wives left to sort themselves out for food and money in rundown properties, and not visited). Rather than saying "no divorces" (which would be a given in a country that allows no divorce), it could mandate that -- once married -- the person must equally financially support all spouses and their children forever (whether they love them or not).
This sounds like it would be a good subject for an issue that's just about having polygamy but no divorce, without the stigmatization-of-extramarital-affairs angle.

Well, that's up to Jutsa at the end of the day (it's his issue, after all).

The point I was making was that this issue doesn't really work in nations that doesn't allow divorce, as it stands.

The "no divorce" option is a lot easier pick for nations that already have "no divorce" -- because it doesn't change anything. So, this issue either needs to be locked out for nations that don't allow divorce, or there needs to be a doppelganger (the above was just an idea to keep it in the same milieu, but Jutsa can -- needless to say -- have whatever option he wants) that takes into account the specific circumstances for separations without divorces, and has something that would impact a nation.

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:13 am

Why is it only men doing it? Wouldn't women be doing it too? Unless, you're talking about Islamic law, where divorced women can't remarry. That would have its own consequences

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:34 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Why is it only men doing it? Wouldn't women be doing it too? Unless, you're talking about Islamic law, where divorced women can't remarry. That would have its own consequences

Women might be doing it too, it's just men being caught doing it that has brought the issue to public attention this time.

The more pragmatic reason for this is that some of the issue options which enable the Polygamy flag only legalize polygyny, while others also legalize polyandry (most notably in #32, where option 3 explicitly distinguishes itself by also allowing polyandry, in response to option 1 presumably not doing so), but I do not believe the distinction is actually tracked as a flag. #943 also highlights this, with the less-sympathetic portrayal of polygamy depicting it as only polygyny and treating it as a gender dynamics issue, while the more-sympathetic portrayal of polygamy also mentions polyandry (if only in passing), despite not actually changing policies (except ones related to homosexuality, which is also seen in #32, but isn't really the point here). However, there is no issue in the game that allows you to legalize polyandry without polygyny, so assuming that polygyny is legal is reasonable in any nation with the Polygamy policy, whereas it is never possible to conclusively determine a nation to practice polyandry.

If polyandry is illegal, then women obviously wouldn't be able to exploit this loophole - at least not for adultery. Quickie marriages for the sake of having premarital affairs when you don't have any serious marriages yet would be a possible loophole even in a monogamous nation (but note that, in addition, the game also doesn't track a policy for encouraging/discouraging premarital sex, only extramarital sex once you're married).

by **Jutsa** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:00 pm

My word, this thread really lit up... :blush:

I'll take a look at everything going on in a bit; gotta rest a little after wacking stuff around in the issues list.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:16 pm

Trotterdam wrote:consent is needed of all current spouses in the marriage, even the ones not actually wanting to have sex with this newcomer.

That's what I meant. :lol:

You think it'd be better if it were something else?

Trotterdam wrote:This sounds like it would be a good subject for an issue that's just about having polygamy but no divorce, without the stigmatization-of-extramarital-affairs angle.

Indeed, I thought Fauxia was going to work on something like this but evidently he hasn't. Was hoping to write up a draft about this too, at some point.

Trotterdam wrote:some of the issue options which enable the Polygamy flag only legalize polygyny, while others also legalize polyandry [...] but I do not believe the distinction is actually tracked as a flag.

Exactly why I wrote it this way. :lol:

Joy wrote:The point I was making was that this issue doesn't really work in nations that doesn't allow divorce, as it stands.

Fair enough, yah. I tried to make option 1 also ban separation and such, but I'm agreeing that an issue about polygamy and no divorce would be better separate from this one,
and have this draft be restricted to "divorce is legal". (Funnily enough I'd actually qualify for this one, myself)

Actually, an issue about people not divorcing, but still getting separated/not doing financial stuff, could still be quite interesting too.... o_o
Anyone wanna take a wack at that, or is it safe to assume that no divorce already means no separation? And... hmm, that could be kinda interesting for people overseas or something.

... hmm, actually, monogamy could also be interesting if a spouse dies. Could be... very interesting, actually.
Aagh, too many ideas >__<

Joy wrote:It's 'I Do', Not 'We Do'

yes.

Joy wrote:The Sad State of Affairs

yes.

New draft's up. Small, small edits.

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:37 pm

Jutsa wrote:That's what I meant.
You think it'd be better if it were something else?

I think that "immediately involved" is not the best way to word this concept, as the point is in fact the people who are not "immediately" involved (in the sense that they're not the two actually wanting to have sex with each other and sparking the issue), but rather indirectly so (in the sense of being married to the people who are directly involved).

Make it something like "every current member of the marriage" or "all existing spouses". Also maybe replace "full consent" with "unanimous consent" to emphasize that a bunch of people might be asked and they all need to be onboard thing.

Jutsa wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:This sounds like it would be a good subject for an issue that's just about having polygamy but no divorce, without the stigmatization-of-extramarital-affairs angle.
Indeed, I thought Fauxia was going to work on something like this but evidently he hasn't. Was hoping to write up a draft about this too, at some point.

Cool.

Though on further consideration, I wonder about the implications of option 1 in a nation that does allow both polygyny and polyandry. If you allow only polygyny, then banning divorce is still a serious disincentive for women to marry anyone they're sure isn't The One (and vice versa if you allow only polyandry, but that can't currently happen in NationStates), and so men might try and simply not be able to find any women willing to go along with them. If you allow both, then what exactly is the penalty to either gender of having a forgotten spouse on paper that you just never see again? Even the whole "financial support of discarded spouses" angle isn't an entirely convincing disincentive, since why would the two need to support each other if both of them already have other spouses for that? Maybe have the first speaker subtly imply that he considers a proper marriage to be only between one man and one or more women, therefore implying the abolition of polyandry even if it was previously practiced (even though it can't be tracked).

Another question regarding the "financial support of discarded spouses" angle is, why do we have so much income gender disparity that we expect women to be financially supported by their husbands anyway...

Jutsa wrote:... hmm, actually, monogamy could also be interesting if a spouse dies. Could be... very interesting, actually.

I actually submitted a draft on that one once, inspired by the Hindu practice of sati, but it was rejected. Not sure if that's because the subject was deemed too edgy by the editors or just because the writing was bland.

Jutsa wrote:"Why, might as well make extramarital sex legal; as long as there's mutual consent, I think everyone will be content."
[Flag Change] Cancels No Adultery

So the interesting thing is, does this count as "adultery"?

I tend to define "adultery" as meaning "illicit extramarital relationship", hence if you actually have your spouse's permission to have sex with someone else (either due to specifying in the marriage contract that it's an open marriage, or due to explicitly receiving case-by-case permission for this person) in a nation where such permission is legally recognized, then it wouldn't be adultery, even if religious authorities with more inflexible views on marriage would disagree. However "adultery" would continue to have a relevant meaning in this context as having an illicit affair without your spouses' consent, which would presumably continue to be criminalized under this option.

I guess that's up to the editors' interpretation of the flag.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:39 pm

Make it something like "every current member of the marriage" or "all existing spouses". Also maybe replace "full consent" with "unanimous consent" to emphasize that a bunch of people might be asked and they all need to be onboard thing.

Ah, fair enough. Will change. :lol:

If you allow both, then what exactly is the penalty to either gender of having a forgotten spouse on paper that you just never see again?

I thought about a "live together forever" kind of thing, but that doesn't work that well with people who have jobs abroad or go away on business a lot.
Indeed, this is a bit of a tricky option. Abolishment of polyandry wouldn't really work here, either, since the premise is focused on polygyny.
Got any other suggestions? Doesn't have to be a "no divorce" option (would possibly loosen the criteria a bit).

So the interesting thing is, does this count as "adultery"?

I thought it was illicit too, but according to google and the wikipedia (#reliablesources), adultery is more of a negative connotation for "extramarrital sex"
and is not always viewed as criminal (heck, otherwise the no adultery flag wouldn't exist, I guess?)

by **Sacara** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:45 pm

I love the name, Jutsa.

Currently in between refereeing basketball games so I’ll have to take a deeper look into it later tonight, though.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:35 pm

Honestly, the name was Joy's idea, so you have her to thank for it.

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:00 pm

Jutsa wrote:I thought about a "live together forever" kind of thing, but that doesn't work that well with people who have jobs abroad or go away on business a lot.
Indeed, this is a bit of a tricky option. Abolishment of polyandry wouldn't really work here, either, since the premise is focused on polygyny.
Got any other suggestions? Doesn't have to be a "no divorce" option (would possibly loosen the criteria a bit).

Not explicitly abolishing polyandry, just subtly implying that polyandry is wrong in a way that wouldn't sound out of place in a nation where it already isn't happening and so the speaker has nothing to complain about, but that could be reasonably interpreted as a call to ban it if it is currently legal.

Otherwise, forcing spouses to live together or otherwise remain in touch in some way isn't out of the question. We've had weirder.

I do think that the "ban divorce" option is a logical enough response to this problem - that least in nations that don't allow both polygyny and polyandry - that it should be retained somehow. (There are lesser versions that would also have a similar effect, but with the same problems, so they don't really address anything.)

Jutsa wrote:I thought it was illicit too, but according to google and the wikipedia (#reliablesources), adultery is more of a negative connotation for "extramarrital sex"
and is not always viewed as criminal (heck, otherwise the no adultery flag wouldn't exist, I guess?)

There's a difference between what's criminal and what's immoral. Doing some things just makes you kind of a jerk, but aren't serious enough for the government to get involved.

I define "adultery" as "extramarital sex without the consent of the person you're married to". Religions would generally define "adultery" as "any form of sex with someone our holy scriptures don't approve of". The No Adultery flag means that your government has also entered its own personal opinion on what constitutes adultery, which may or may not match either of the above.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:57 am

The Issue: An investigation into a recent spike in marriages has found that men are circumnavigating the ban on adultery by marrying everyone they'd like an affair with, only to part ways when they're done.

Should be "circumventing" rather than "circumnavigating".

by **Jutsa** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:24 am

Not explicitly abolishing polyandry, just subtly implying that polyandry is wrong in a way that wouldn't sound out of place in a nation where it already isn't happening and so the speaker has nothing to complain about, but that could be reasonably interpreted as a call to ban it if it is currently legal.

Eh? If it's tracked, I could consider it, but I'm suspecting it isn't tracked. Besides, I don't think it really adds to the option, myself,
though I might be able to try and make something work for nations with permanent marriage and no divorce... idk.

Otherwise, forcing spouses to live together or otherwise remain in touch in some way isn't out of the question. We've had weirder.

Alrighty, I'll eventually come round and implement this. Kinda feeling out of it today though; that extra "nap" did diddly squat.

There's a difference between what's criminal and what's immoral. Doing some things just makes you kind of a jerk, but aren't serious enough for the government to get involved.

Fair enough, though again, all I can find on "adultery" is that it's extramarital sex and tends to be the negative connotation of it.
I guess I could leave it up to the editor, should the draft come to that stage, as to whether this one'd actually reverse it.

Should be "circumventing" rather than "circumnavigating".

thank you

by **Jutsa** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:24 am

Fixed "Circumventing". Didn't change option 1 much, though I did make a version for nations where divorce is legal.

Also fixed some grammar in the last sentence that was really bothering me.
I really, really could do a better job proof-reading. Thing is, I never use a spellcheck or grammar-checker. :blush:

ed: OK I do use NS's built-in spellcheck but that's about it.

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:06 pm

Jutsa wrote:[effect] marriages don't last all that long
[Flag Change] No Divorce

Huh?

Jutsa wrote:ed: OK I do use NS's built-in spellcheck but that's about it.

...NS has a built-in spellcheck? It's probably in your browser, not the forum.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Trotterdam wrote:NS has a built-in spellcheck? It's probably in your browser, not the forum.

Oh

Trotterdam wrote:
Jutsa wrote:[effect] marriages don't last all that long
[Flag Change] No Divorce
Huh?

Really think about it for a moment...

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:32 pm

There are two ways a marriage can end: in divorce or in death. (Or annulment, which is basically a discount divorce.) So are you saying lots of people are killing their spouses / committing suicide to get away from their spouses? In that case, (A) we already have that in #236 3, and (B) it still wouldn't make the marriages shorter if they were going to divorce anyway had that been legal.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:36 pm

Never said it was shorter, just said they didn't last long.

I quite like the effect lines myself, but if you'd prefer something else, I'm all ears.

by **Jutsa** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:25 am

Guess I'll put this one up or "last call".

by **Sacara** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:45 pm

Looks good.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:16 pm

And submitted! Thank you, everyone.

[ACCEPTED] The Sad State of Affairs

[ACCEPTED] The Sad State of Affairs

Who is online