Adultery websites should be as unacceptable as race-hate websites

If we believe marriage is a social good, we must act on that belief

13 June 2015

9:00 AM

13 June 2015

9:00 AM

The website illicitencounters.com connects married people who are interested in straying, in cheating on their spouses. Or, as the website puts it, people who are ‘looking for a little romance outside their current relationship’. The site now has a million British users.

If you are old-fashioned and simplistic enough to disapprove of this, as undermining of marriage, then one of the company’s recent press releases can help you towards a more sophisticated view. Having polled 200 of its stalwart adulterers, who have been using the site for 11 years, it found that two thirds said that their extramarital adventures had strengthened their marriages. The website also claims that by helping people to stray ‘discreetly’, it makes an affair less likely to be rumbled. In other words, it saves you from seeking risky thrills with the leaky-mouthed village tart, leading to the collapse of your marriage, if it can be called a marriage. One user says: ‘I need to get my kicks from somewhere, having a secret affair is what exhilarates me the most — it’s a high you can’t experience anywhere else in life.’

Illicitencounters.com portrays adultery as sexy and natural — and it’s not alone in this. Suddenly there’s a swarm of sites advertising ‘married dating’ services: affairsclub.com, nostringsattached.com, victoriamilan.com, ashleymaddison.com (slogan: ‘Life is short. Have an affair.’). There’s even a married dating watchdog which adopts a very lofty tone of voice and claims to sort the ‘decent’ adultery sites from the rip-offs. There are films about adultery, a hit TV series (The Affair) and endless magazine features all toying with the idea that married couples can have their wedding cake and eat it.

And can they? Is this all just harmless hanky panky, another step towards liberation? I don’t think so. I think we should consider that all these websites are seriously morally wrong, just as wrong as an organisation that promoted racism.

That might sound excessive. But is it really? If we think that marriage is a morally good thing, then why shouldn’t we defend it as strongly as we defend the principle of equality? Maybe we should see Steven Lines, its founder, and Simon Francis, its CEO, as akin to fraudsters, rabble-rousing bigots or apologists for paedophilia.

On sexual morality, we seem to have two principles. One: any sort of sex between consenting adults is fine, it is one’s right, for sex is the purest realm of individual self-expression. Two: marriage is good. Its stability enables people to flourish, and is provably the best structure within which to raise children. It is an immense contributor to ‘the common good’.

Our culture believes in both principles, but it finds the first principle infinitely easier to affirm than the second. Individual rights are clear and concrete, beside the vaguer matter of a complex tradition that fosters the general good.

In practice, this tradition gets subtly sidelined by the easier appeals to individual rights. Lots of liberal people who consider themselves bravely third-wayish will say, ‘No, this is a false dichotomy: what’s so hard about affirming both principles at once?’ And they will say that gay marriage is a cause that unites the two principles: have not homosexuals nobly demanded the right to participate in this tradition that nurtures the common good? Well, no, not really. Gay marriage is an affirmation of gay rights, not of marriage. Though it speaks of marriage as a social good, its moral energy is all about individual rights. In the past few years I have not heard a gay marriage advocate saying anything thoughtful about marriage. They all say, in effect, ‘Our love is as good and pure as yours and deserves the big teacher’s tick of marriage, how dare you say it doesn’t, how dare you?’

A serious defence of marriage, which would entail an earnest condemnation of the likes of illicitencounters.com, feels preachy. But isn’t all morality preachy? Isn’t it also preachy to say that discriminating against minorities is wrong? It’s just a different sort of preachy, that happens to come more naturally to us these days. Because it’s backed up by the cultural powers of our day, from law lords to cool actors and witty hacks, it doesn’t feel like moralising, it just feels like the assertion of natural justice.

So the problem is not that we have stopped believing in the moral good of marriage. The problem is that we are losing the habit of expressing this belief. That’s a dangerous loss. Our inarticulacy will allow the belief to weaken, to fall into disrepair. This is already happening. Today’s liberal-lefties marry apologetically, as if they are slightly letting the side down. They are embarrassed to be opting in to a tradition that Tories see as morally important. I know, I know, says the sassy feminist columnist: by getting married I am vaguely associating myself with bourgeois moralising, so let me be clear that there is no social-moral significance in my marrying — I just happen to love my fella.

But you can’t remove morality from marriage, or make it a merely personal matter. To marry is to side with a tradition that counteracts the nervy individualism and competitive insecurity of our world, a tradition that plants social virtues in a new generation. ‘To settle down’ is a transitive verb; one is settling the world down a bit, by settling one’s love life; one is countering chaos a bit, enabling space for good culture. And marriage’s power to spread social virtue is rooted in the trust that is established between a sexually faithful couple. To say that an affair can strengthen a marriage is like saying that a pacifist movement can be strengthened by some bombing.

Why does such talk rile the edgy liberal pundit? Because it sounds like the bragging of the privileged. Such liberals cannot deny a strong link between marriage and wellbeing, but they say it’s economic wellbeing that comes first — when that gives you stability, marriage more readily follows. So talk of the morality of marriage is just the lucky classes patting themselves on the back. They have half a point. The moral power of marriage does overlap with bourgeois values. But that does not discredit it. To dismiss the morality of marriage because you don’t want to sound bourgeois is irresponsible. It is to hide something you know to be good under a bushel, so your edgy image stays intact.

Affirming the morality of marriage is awkward. Square though it sounds, it means questioning whether we should be so tolerant of the entertainment industry’s hedonistic view of sex. It’s easy enough to criticise crass reality shows and porn; it’s trickier to admit that quality dramas such as Mad Men are part of the problem (as indeed are most novels about adultery, however highly esteemed as art). But if there is serious moral worth in marriage, then there is serious moral worth in fidelity, and we must say so, however uncool we sound. We must challenge the narrative of sex as pure self-expression, and affirm the narrative of sex as something whose ordering, in marriage, brings order.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • blandings

    “I think we should consider that all these websites
    are seriously morally wrong, just as wrong as an organisation that
    promoted racism.
    That might sound excessive.”
    Worse than that: It isn’t even comparing like with like

  • Feminister

    “In other words, it saves you from seeking risky thrills with the leaky-mouthed village tart, leading to the collapse of your marriage, if it can be called a marriage. ”

    It’s sexist attitudes like that which drive women to seek risky thrills with the generous mouthed village lothario.

    • grimm

      Really!? Have you research that demonstrates that?

      Or perhaps you just have a hobby as a feminist troll, patrolling the comments sections and keeping a careful eye out for signs of non-feminist opinion which, of course, must be challenged “in this, like, male dominated society of ours”.

      In feminist land it cannot be selfishness and lust which lead to women have extramarital affairs. The blame must lie with men.

      • Feminister


      • Feminister

        “Or perhaps you just have a hobby as a feminist troll, patrolling the comments sections and keeping a careful eye out for signs of non-feminist opinion which, of course, must be challenged “in this, like, male dominated society of ours”.”

        Hold up, Grimmboy. You’re the one patrolling the comment section. I was quoting from the article.

    • KingEric

      How you can derive a feminist rant from something that clearly applies to both sexes equally is beyond belief. It is idiotic commentary like yours that causes antagonism and resentment of feminism. Well done for setting back your cause with a rant where none was called for.

      • Feminister

        Rant? A single sentence?

        • KingEric

          Exactly how many posts from you on this article? Just one sentence? Really? And oooh, someone mentioned a village tart. Ooh, how terrible. Let’s pretend they have never existed and stop anyone mentioning reality in case the thin skinned people get upset.

    • Cyril Sneer

      Said the sexist man hater.

      • Feminister

        Said the guy with a “feminist” sense of humour.

    • Jackthesmilingblack


    • Alex

      He is a man writing from a man’s perspective, I know feminists think that is inherently oppressive but normal people don’t.

    • The trouble is that almost no man not actually married is worth even considering going to bed with. Even the vast majority of the married ones under 50 have no appeal, primitive or otherwise. I stayed married because I love my husband above all others. And I accepted the celibacy of such marriage because the men I see fill me with anti-lust (like anti-venom but without the nasty injection).

  • grimm

    Those who claim illicit affairs strengthen their marriage are admitting that only by deceiving their spouse and finding pleasure with other partners are they able to continue living with a person who they have lost interest in. Doesn’t sound like a strong marriage to me.

    • MildredCLewis



    • lotta.sutinen

      Ⓒⓛⓘⓒⓚ I agree that Joanne `s remark is astonishing, I just got themselves a Jaguar E-type after having made $4694 this – 4 weeks past and-more than, 10/k last munth . it’s realy the easiest-work I have ever done . I actually started six months/ago and almost immediately started bringin home more than $69 per/hr .

      You Can see THIS..

      ➬➬ https://www.moneybucket/Alltime.com


  • BlackArrow

    Good to see this. Children go through hell from a divorce at least as much as the victim parent does.

    Promoting adultery should be criminalized.

    • cartimandua

      Divorce isn’t about adultery and there is no “victim” parent. There are immature people and there are people who find out down the line they don’t have what it takes to survive or change a bad patch.
      That can be either party.

      • BlackArrow

        And then there are the diseases that are more frequently going around … and coming around.

        • cartimandua

          Which were always and sometimes famously brought into a marriage by a man and given to his faithful wife.

          • BlackArrow

            … after he committed adultery. Thanks for making my point, c. 🙂

          • cartimandua

            But the point is men have always done it. Lots of people used to do it and yet stayed married.
            What Theo doesn’t like is it isn’t hidden and women do it too.

          • BlackArrow

            It’s more natural for men, because women need security, while men … for evolutionary reasons … typically cannot tolerate it by their wives … while wanting to sow our oats as widely as possible.

            (Nevertheless, I was never physically unfaithful to my first love or either of my 2 wives.)

            And, again, there is disease.

            Promoting adultery should be criminalized.

          • aguafiesta

            Men have not always done it. Some men have done it. Some even wished they had not done it.

          • cartimandua

            Men HAVE always done it and women were just told to put up with it.
            Divorce is a civilized option where people are not forced to put up with unhappiness.

          • Mr B J Mann

            But when a man does it, he doesn’t bring some other woman’s child into the family for his wife to nurture and support in the belief that it’s her biological offspring.
            That doesn’t excuse male adultery, but it does explain the different viewpoint of the man and the woman in a marriage.

          • cartimandua

            The convention used to be have an heir and spare and then do as you wish.
            They did have nurseries with different looking siblings in them.
            But I am talking about the upper classes here.
            What the author of this article is worried about is that women now do it too.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It also explains why maternal grandmothers take the biggest interest in their grandkids:

            They KNOW they are their grandkids.

            The paternal grandfather can only hope his children are his, never mind his grandchildren, and so he’s least likely to be involved in rearing and protecting them and nurturing them to be valuable members of society.

            That’s why female infidelity has such a destabilising effect on the immediate and extended family in particular, and on society in general.

            In “nature” the problem would be solved by the husband killing, and perhaps eating, the offspring.

            In our more liberal and civilised species it just leads to child abus3, domestic v!olence, family breakdown and society collapsing.

            No problem there then!

      • Paul B

        The use of the word “about” is sloppy but nevertheless this is all wrong in that (1) divorce is often “about” adultery”, (2) there often is a victim parent. Certainly there are other reasons for divorce but adultery plays a big part and, where it does, one of the couple is not a party to it, that person is victim of it.

    • mdj

      I wonder whether, on grounds of public policy, a court would enforce a contract to which one of these sites was a party? Until recently, they wouldn’t enforce a gambling contract – until the state intervened, interestingly!

  • cartimandua

    Perhaps Theo is complaining because now women do it too. Men have through a great deal of history done whatever they pleased.
    In my grandmothers generation the upper classes had an heir and spare and then quietly did as they pleased. They actually stayed married as well.
    As soon as you get lower middle class morality you get frequent divorces.
    How many men “visit prostitutes”?

    • Alex

      Assuming that the historical behaviour of upper-class men reflects a privilege of all men. You must be a feminist – and a revanchist one at that…

  • cartimandua

    It would be interesting to know whether those websites have reduced visits to prostitutes. They are probably about people with a sex addiction and there are likely to be far more men on them than women.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      How many of the users ARE prostitutes using these sites to advertise their availability?

    • Gilbert White

      Do I have sex addiction, I really like it? Can the NHS. help?

  • Partner

    It is depressing that the Speccie seems to be awash these days with people (mainly young) wanting to ban things. The sad truth is that once the way was opened for the banning of ‘racism” (defined as disagreeing with the liberal establishment) by law, then the floodgates began to open for the tide of people who spend their time being outraged and objecting to things and campaigning for bans. Tobacco his virtually there and most of the freedoms associated with it have gone.

    • lucysdad01

      The ‘professionally outraged’ always need something to be outraged about, it keeps their funding coming in and them in a non job.

    • Gilbert White

      We should ban young people wanting to ban things perhaps?

      • Amgine

        I demand the right to ban myself from demanding the right to ban myself.

        • Paul B

          That’s not so daft as it seems at first reading: Already one is not allowed to sell oneself into slavery.

  • Garnet Thesiger

    Where do people find the energy for all this hanky-panky? Early to bed, sure but it’s with a book that falls onto my head 5 minutes after I start to read….

    • Amgine

      I did that with a glass of water once. I was so tired I fell asleep whilst drinking.

      • Garnet Thesiger

        The very reason why I no longer take a glass of red wine to bed – the laundry costs were killing me!

        • Amgine

          Stick to wine gums.

          • Tellytubby

            Imagine if it was a cigarette. Good thing we’re not allowed to smoke anymore I guess….

  • commenteer

    These websites are used by predatory divorced women, among others, to wreck families.

    • Gilbert White

      Absolutely spot on a snatchet of divorced predatory women have wrecked me this week and it is only Thursday.

    • mdj

      I’ll bet that most subscribers are single people looking for an ‘insignificant other’ who won’t cling. What the consumer rights would be for the deceived, I wouldn’t care to speculate.

    • RockySpears

      “Predatory divorced women”, sounds great, where do I, Oh it is OK I see the sites listed,

  • Bonkim

    Some are also run by criminals intent on blackmail.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Thanks for the heads-up, Bonk.

  • davidofkent

    All websites have one thing in common. You do not have to go to them. The same is true of being abused on Twitter – don’t use Twitter.

    • SP_UK

      You don’t have to be on Twitter to be abused on Twitter. There’s a man called Sir Tim Hunt you might have heard of recently…

  • Muttley

    Marriage doesn’t hold the sacrosanct position in society it used to. It has been eroded by left-wing PC support for the state of unmarriage. The recent legislation to allow marriage between two men is a case in point. Gay marriage did not undermine the institution of marriage, it was just a reflection of how marriage has been reduced to a meaningless gesture, often barely surviving the nuptial partying. That’s why websites like the one Theo Hobson so objects to are able to exist without sanction.

  • Precambrian

    A large proportion of the populace are degenerates who think nothing of infidelity and promiscuity.

    • Paul B

      But they do laugh at you, and that’s a redeeming feature of the fornicating masses.

      • Precambrian

        Being laughed at by a degenerate does not overly concern me.

        • Paul B

          No, but it reassures me.

  • Giuseppe Cappa

    So should we ban everything the society or the state considers immoral? What about prostitution or masturbation? One good thing would be allowing brothels, where a gentleman (or, why not? a lady) could wind down without wrecking his marriage and family. The state should not legislate on citizens’ private matters, nor imposing what is moral. If even God does not stop a person from committing sin, I do not see why the state should.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      The pragmatic approach; I like it.
      See whoring in the same light as getting the car serviced, potentially cheaper. Have you seen what those Porsche dealers charge for a major service?

  • Peter Stephenson

    It used to be a legally actionable offence to break off an engagement. The understanding was that it was a breach of contract and caused the other party very real social harm. That would be going too far these days but once someone has entered into a love and sexual union in a promised exclusive relationship which causes the other person to open themselves up to physical, psychological, emotional and yes, spiritual vulnerability then the other party has a duty of care if they have indicated faithfulness; this is doubly so if they have legally bound this in marriage.
    If the person, man or woman, then betray their partner and so by put them through the ordeal of physical risk (disease transition or even possible disease transition), very considerable psychological and emotional suffering and spiritual degradation then this should be considered to be criminal behaviour. Frankly, people should face criminal prosecution for adultery.
    Naturally this would be a nightmare to prove as a couple could have already agreed to end the relationship then one party could accuse this later out of spite but the fact remains that such betrayals lead to years of pain and psychological degradation so why do the guilty party get to walk away free when had they punched someone in the face they would be up before a judge? Which causes more suffering, a punched face or a destroyed heart?

    • Paul B

      An invasive controlling state. That’s what causes harm.

    • mdj

      What you say is true, and deeply unpleasant; on the other hand, it is generally accepted that thousands of people in society should be gainfully employed in part to get people out of any other obligations they have freely undertaken. They’re called lawyers.

  • erikbloodaxe

    “Why don’t more people object to online promotion of adultery?”
    Because there are only so many sanctimonious control freaks.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    In the immoral, hedonistic West, marriage is no longer an essential concomitant in order to plug into the home comforts. Even starting a family doesn’t bring this issue front and centre. However, here in Japan a Japanese spouse (hardly the ultimate sacrifice) is seen as the fast track to permanent resident status; children made this a racing certainty. Which some decades ago was considered the Holy Grail, essentially winning the lottery. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

  • Paul B

    Perhaps adulterers should be stoned? Whatever illiberal measures are being suggested here, and for whatever “good” intention, one thing is for sure: The state should leave people alone.

    • Tellytubby

      It can be argued that the state has a duty to foster the institution of marriage because that institution is shown to be the best way for people to bring children up in a secure, emotionally stable environment, that it is the bedrock unit of a good society and that traditional family values, fostered and engendered in the next generation encourage hard working, loyal and productive citizens. That’s one argument anyway (lets just say for arguments sake – I’m not necessarily saying its true). If you acknowledge that, what the author is saying is when you take it to its natural conclusion, we should, as a society that favours marriage, be unhappy at people encouraging adultery as something that ruins marriage.

      • Paul B

        It’s one thing to be in favour of thrift, lettuce and chastity: its another entirely to legislate.

        • Tellytubby

          Again I agree – but if the state has an aim that it is seeking to pursue, legislation is a tool it has to help further those aims. Whether it should do so or not is a debate that needs to be had – but the “permissive society” that we have now suggests government and legislation should keep its nose out of peoples personal lives. This means we end up with a free, but broken society – as opposed to an ordered but effective one.

          • Paul B

            Two responses (1) On the local high street there is a choice of two broadly similar pubs. One is policed by doormen-bouncers, the other not. I prefer the second. The risk of violence and hassle from my fellow drinkers being much preferable to that of officialdom, the occasional paternal eye of the landlord much better than the constant surveillance of “police”. (2) Fascist states are ordered but effective. Even if you don’t like my use of the “F” word, do you really find the authoritarian sterile orderliness of Singapore preferable to the permissive “broken” London?

          • Som Trivedi

            Well said!

          • Tellytubby

            No. I believe in liberty. But I believe that in a liberal, permissive society, we also have responsibilities, and a duty to the state and to our neighbours and countrymen to make this permissive society as good, as effective and as prosperous as we can. Not everyone agrees, and that’s where a part of the problem comes from – the so called “me” generational attitude of what can the state do for me! That’s an interesting discussion to be sure Paul!

          • Paul B

            “Not everyone agrees”, you say.

            I think everyone agrees about wanting a society “as good, as effective and as prosperous” as possible. Where they disagree is what constitutes “good” and “effective” and just how much being “prosperous” counts for anything.

            Those of a more traditional bent would consider an “effective” society to be one where everyone went to church and measured “good” against the Ten Commandments, and that women stayed at home to give their children a proper home life, sacrificing being quite so “prosperous” at least in monetary terms.

            I have a lot of sympathy for that POV but trumping it all is my strong belief of people being able to act as they wish, my belief in a truly permissive society as opposed to a proscriptive (or prescriptive) one. The thrust of the article to which we comment is that the state should actively set out to forbid or strongly discourage certain behaviour. Many here seem to agree. I think you do too despite your use of the term “permissive” by which I think you mean “allowed according to me”.

  • Amgine

    This is just business catering to a market. At best, the adultery and affair sites ought to be regulated like any other dating site. However, these kinds of sites are like a form of prostitution, the site owners could be accused of pimping if they are making any money from selling actual sexual encounters, perhaps.

    I wonder how many of the registered users are participants or just voyeurs. I also wonder how many of the registered participants are couples who joined together.

  • jennybloggs

    If adultery is criminalised might marriage not become even less popular than it is now?

  • Dan O’Connor

    ” just as wrong as an organisation that promoted racism ”

    Well obviously any organisation that promoted the reinstatement of slavery, the recolonisation of Africa and genocide, or did not object to an ideology that glorified the selectively enforced demographic policies and weaponised neurolinguiistic speech codes that would lead to an entire people’s dispossession and the handing over of their homelands , heritage, social capital , and identities to competing alien peoples and cultures and lay the ground work for societal collapse, pain suffering and conflcit for centuries to come …would be sociopathic and wrong
    There now, I have supplied the missing definition of ” racism ” .
    Next step, is to go look in a mirror to see if one conforms to that defintion .

    • Mr B J Mann

      Yeah, isn’t it terrible.

      What have the Romans done for the Brits, except for all of that!?!

      And all those Norsemen of various Ilks.

      Including the Normans.

      And wasn’t Dublin a major Viking slaving city?!

      And what about all those Moors, or whoever, who used to raid the South for slaves (that’s Cornwall, not Carolina).

      Isn’t it about time the Swedes and the Danes, not to mention the Italians and all those Africans were thrown out of the UN?!?!

      And we still seem to have Romanian, and Arab, and Irish, and Asian……..
      Slavers operating here.

      Whether it be importing slaves.

      Or just enslaving people as domestic chattels, farm labour, construction labour……

      Not to mention the s-x industry……

      Did someone mention a mirror?!

  • Ambientereal

    Adultery is the future of marriage. If we take for instance gay marriage and its main encouragers, LGTB (where B stands for bis….), then to have a faithful marriage one needs 4 persons in it, also 2 women and 2 men. Adultery in a Marriage is like the cream in a dessert, it can improve the taste but it can also fall heavy in the stomach.

  • Howard

    “Adultery is wrong because racism”

    While there’s an interesting moral conversation to be had on the subject, this isn’t it.

  • J K

    Why don’t more people object? I don’t know – maybe you should ask Rod, Boris and Petronella.

    • GraveDave

      The elite all over again warning the plebs away from cheap thrills and lack of morals.

  • jim

    I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you just butt out and let people make their own choicesmistakes. You people always have an opinion on everything.Is there anything you don’t know?

  • valaismec

    Where does The Spectator get these journalists? They come out with silly, banal ramblings. What’s happened to considered, well-researched discussion? For example, anyone who has actually seen The Affair will know that it hardly presents a rosy picture of adultery. Lazy, pompous, dull journalism.

    • Alex

      St Paul’s School; Hughes Hall, Cantab.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    It would make sense for people to get married after they had ” settled down”..if settled down means contented with oneself. If it were not for the usual stories about having babies before one is supposed to be past it, I suppose lots of people would leave marriage till much later in life.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Adultery websites should be as unacceptable as race-hate websites”
    Why not combine the two? “Asian bimbos stealing our men.”

  • Kaine

    Is the author suggesting the previous version, where everyone said marriage was right, adultery was wrong, but men could sleep with any woman of lower social status and get away with it, was somehow morally superior?

  • cromwell

    Who really cares whose shagging who unless your a Muslim or some other kind of religious nutter.

    • GraveDave

      It’s not about that, it’s about betraying your family and what you swore to love and protect. But it’s none of our business. Seems though the web is getting certain parties wanting to return to some mythical puritanical age.

      • jonathan

        Maybe its more the case that people are inceasingly sceptical of a web that still thinks there is legitimate mileage in a mythical, utopian, morally relative, culturally pwogwessive society

  • blandings

    “Adultery websites should be as unacceptable as race-hate websites”

    Adultery is not illegal – thank goodness – so what you find unacceptable is of no concern to others. I suggest that you indulge in an old-fashioned English virtue that is fast falling out of favour: Minding your own business.

    • GraveDave

      Quite right. Disapproval is one thing and something to which everyone is entitled. I think these sites are sordid and the people who use them sc*mbags.But I wouldn’t seek to ban them.

  • TrueNorthFree

    “Racism” is terminology created by cultural marxists to enable the spread of ant-white policies in our own traditionally white countries. If you look at what is called “race hatred”, often it is as innocuous as stating that that if immigration is allowed to continue at current rates, whites will be minorities in their own countries by 2040.

  • GraveDave

    Today’s liberal-lefties marry apologetically, as if they are slightly letting the side down. They are embarrassed to be opting in to a tradition that Tories see as morally important.

    And how many ‘traditionally married’ Tories have betrayed their traditional marriages by seeking illicit thrills with boys and men or even come out as gay years later?

    You need to get over it: The 1950s and all it was is finished.

    • tolpuddle1

      Monogamous marriage existed long before the 1950’s, long before the middle-classes.

  • John Byde

    Because most people don’t object to adultery.

  • Max Permissible

    I’m intrigued by the stock photo used – what is the significance of a Turkish keyboard?

  • Corbus

    Thoroughly agree. Civilization’s standards are continually chipped away at. The accumulation of which makes it less decent. There is a structural argument for society’s survival. There is the counter argument that modern mankind obsesses over: my individuality and right to do whatever I want. A form of diffusion from community to the individual has been in process since the beginning of the 20th century. We are now at a point that virtually any thought which passes through an individual’s mind should be expressed, acted upon and out.

    Society will change and encouraging the breakdown of the nuclear family is likely to have a negative impact. Humans by nature want others to be loyal and faithful to them on the whole. But their own individual desires pull in the opposite direction. You make a decision to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    A future lies in wait of a society that struggles to achieve meaningful relationships. Individuals gratify themselves as they please. Neglect of children continues to climb and each generation in turn creeps towards a form of nihilism and pointlessness.

  • tolpuddle1

    Adultery destroys marriage. You can’t applaud both.

  • tolpuddle1

    Families are the building blocks out of which society is made.

    Society is only as good as the families comprising it, therefore.

    It is proven fact that the best type of family is that built on faithful, heterosexual monogamy.

    To oppose marriage or applaud adultery is, therefore, to be a revolutionary anarchist (nihilist ?) – or, perhaps, just an overgrown teenager.

    Britain and the West generally are far closer to social collapse than people seem to imagine.

    Why ? Because over the last 60 or so years, there has been a constant – and very successful – artillery barrage (from politicians, lawyers, commentators, intellectuals, libertines etc etc) to destroy traditional marriage.

    • Kanaris

      “It is proven fact that the best type of family is that built on faithful, heterosexual, monogamous marriage.” Is it? Any source for that?

      • tolpuddle1

        Many sources for that, though as I’m not carrying round a reference library, I can’t give specific sources, any more than you can.

        The marriages I praised are proven to be stabler and to produce happier, more successful children.

        • Apostaste

          Nope, there is no such fact, you just made it up.

          • tolpuddle1

            No, I’m quoting The Observer, for one source.

            Stop living in a fantasy-world.

            In the world of reality, divorce is rocketing, non-traditional marriages are unstable, mental illness among even young children is rocketing (along with drug-taking) – in fact, Western society is collapsing.

            Thanks to social liberals like you.

          • Apostaste

            Nope you are plain wrong on this one, don’t try to change your claim now.

  • disqus_9I6C4azbIA

    However it seems women are more likely to commit adultery than men because they can, in a way that men cannot. Romantic love is a male invention and women are too pragmatic to believe in such nonsense.

  • Kanaris

    Has you considered the fact that it’s actually the concept of long-term monogamy that’s at fault? Maybe that it’s completely unrealistic?