Fair enough. I don't think I've strayed from the original remark: which is that marriage as an institution was a semantically meaningful and adultery had seriou

Fair enough. I don't think I've strayed from the original remark: which is that marriage as an institution was a semantically meaningful and adultery had serious consequences. Which has nothing to do with "women in our lives" whatsover, since it easily could have been a wife who gunned down the mistress and/or husband for adultery. Everyone seemed to haphazardly latch onto "womans rights and agency", which I find particularly odd since when zero consequences for actions is some sort of fundamental (woman?) right or something to that effect. The only way I can interpret is that they desire and quite enjoy the "zero consequences" pure indulgence, hedonistic culture and are too cowardly to own up to it, instead hide behind all sorts of other excuses("but what about them women agency") which makes no sense whatsover given the context. Ie. they want to be able to fuck somebodys wife with the legal protection on their side, thus somewhat reducing the risk of their face getting mashed in with a steel pipe. The crucial part of the discussion is whether: (a) marriage as an institution should be serious and have serious consequences (b) or should it be abolished and/or remain an empty meaningless husk of it's former self, a pure old fashioned tradition/sentimentality without any real substance behind it That's all there is to it.