Apparently oral sex is not considered grounds for adultery. The decision is non-legally binding, but decided upon and announced by of a bunch of judges (mostly male, I would imagine).
So despite openly admitting to ‘frequent sexual contact’ and ‘active sexual play’ for eight months with his girlfriend, apparently he has not committed adultery, and there’s nothing his wife can do about it. I’m not a legal expert, but I’m guessing that actual evidence of intercourse (ie photographs) would be required to ‘prove’ anything beyond oral sex had occurred.
Let’s hear it for these judges, eh? This will certainly help keep families happy and healthy.
Mistresses are legal? Well, I have nothing to fear anymore… Where do I sign up to get married?
I’d say you’re right on the money with that statement.
But to clarify, the law hasn’t been changed… rather some consensus has been reached most likely among a bunch of men regarding an ambiguity in an existing law. But if women begin to take advantage of this, then I think a new consensus will be forthcoming, lickity-split!
BTW,
Curious about your psuedonym… There is an old Marty Robbins cowboy song entitled “Big Iron” about a Texas ranger who quietly goes into a small town to deal with a notoriously nasty outlaw. “Big Iron” in the song refers to the ranger’s six-shooter. I don’t suppose your name has anything at all to do with that song?
littleiron: good post. i saw that news info and was amazed, but missed the latest piece on the man being sued. on a somewhat related topic, did you happen to see the results of the sexual satisfaction survey of women? the story was that 80 percent of women in taiwan are satisfied with their sex life but that 24 percent had never had an orgasm…i still can’t get over that, and the doctor’s interpretation of the survey results. He said simply that men should feel encouraged and more confident:-) guess guys pretty much have it made here: oral sex is not adultery and never mind about helping your partner to orgasm cuz she will be happy anyway:-)
How widely or narrowly “adultery” is defined should depend on the nature of the court proceedings in which the definition is to be applied. If it is in divorce proceedings, where proof of adultery is required to establish grounds for divorce, then it should be defined as widely as possible, so that the injured party has the maximum opportunity to end a marriage in which his or her spouse has been sexually unfaithful. But if it is in criminal proceedings, where proof of adultery is required for the imposition of criminal sanctions on the alleged perpetrator, then it’s better that it be defined more narrowly. Of course, many people (including me) would argue that adultery should not be a criminal offence, as it still is here in Taiwan.
