undead
March 16th 2003, 07:21 PM
Its time to take the blindfold off. Seems Italy has consigned the marriage concept to the dustbin of history.
From http://www.bharatnet.com/teenagefunda/italianhusbands_india.htm
Indian husbands are far better than their Italian counterparts for it is certain that their wives will remain faithful to them for years to come. However the Italians can't boast the same for their marital life is doomed forever.
Poor Italian husbands will now have to take care that they love their wives to the maximum to prevent their wives from dating other men. For now it is the law which makes it legal for an Italian wife to date other men, but during the daytime.
Incidentally, adultery or having an extra marital affair during the daytime in not a crime according to the Italian law. Adultery was a criminal offence in Italy till 1968.
The Italian Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark verdict in favour of Italian women. According to the judgment an Italian wife, though she has a place in the home yet she is free to "take a lover by the day".
This judgment give the Italian wives a legal right to indulge in adultery but she must restrict such an affair to daytime so that her husband’s honour is not wounded in any manner.
The judgment was passed after a case came up for hearing in the Italian apex court where a suspicious husband had hired a detective to keep an eye on his wife's whereabouts.
Incidentally, the husband was not wrong in his suspicion, as his wife had gone out with her office boy friend on a holiday. The husband had accused that his wife was "cultivating a different sentimental relationship" outside the marital relationship.
The court ordered the wife to pay her husband the cost incurred in the legal proceedings and to make up for his "honour".
"Cheating is all right but in moderation. Or rather it is all right to be unfaithful to your husband for a few hours, but in the evening you must return to the conjugal roof," according to a report published in the La Repubblica about the case.
Marriage is [only] a human-legal term, as opposed to being "one in flesh" which is a divine concept. Of course the two ought to go together in a Christian society. But, it seems not any longer.
"Marriage" now carries with it no enforceable legal right to conjugal fidelity, not only in Italy, but in most occidental countries, I guess, and a substantial risk of serious asset/wage/pension depreciation consequent on infidelity by the wife. So just what is the point of submitting to a legal ritual which seems to be mainly geared to transferring large amounts of assets from men into the hands of unscrupulous women?
Think of it this way. What would the shareholders in a business do if some law was created which put the assets of their business at risk of confiscation at the whim or option of the business's employees? They would sack all the employees immediately, of course, and get in contractors. No-one would expect them to do anything else.
Similarly there does not seem to be any good reason under law why men should not pursue usual risk-minimization business principles in respect of their relationships with women, by simply refusing to get legally married.
Women need to realize that the "wife" may be a concept of the past for reasonably wealthy businessman, and likely to be indulged in, in the future, only by those on low incomes, or with an overly sentimental attachment to legal forms.
Here's the bit about asset depreciation:
From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-610899,00.html
The Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest appeal court, yesterday found that a woman, named as Tiziana, from the Adriatic resort of Vasto, near Pescara, was justified in seeking a divorce from her husband, Luzio, because his mother had “persecuted” her.
Tiziana told the court that her mother-in-law had repeatedly accused her of being interested only in her figure and make-up. “She said all I thought about was attracting men and I was not fit to bring up our daughter.” Luzio, a shoemaker, had appealed against a lower court ruling granting Tiziana a divorce and giving her custody of their daughter.
The Court of Cassation not only upheld the sentence but awarded the marital home to Tiziana and ordered Luzio to pay her “substantial” maintenance because he had persuaded her to give up working after their marriage in 1996.
(I'm not saying I agree with the doings of the Italian court - no, I would execute the lot of them if it was in my power.)
From http://www.bharatnet.com/teenagefunda/italianhusbands_india.htm
Indian husbands are far better than their Italian counterparts for it is certain that their wives will remain faithful to them for years to come. However the Italians can't boast the same for their marital life is doomed forever.
Poor Italian husbands will now have to take care that they love their wives to the maximum to prevent their wives from dating other men. For now it is the law which makes it legal for an Italian wife to date other men, but during the daytime.
Incidentally, adultery or having an extra marital affair during the daytime in not a crime according to the Italian law. Adultery was a criminal offence in Italy till 1968.
The Italian Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark verdict in favour of Italian women. According to the judgment an Italian wife, though she has a place in the home yet she is free to "take a lover by the day".
This judgment give the Italian wives a legal right to indulge in adultery but she must restrict such an affair to daytime so that her husband’s honour is not wounded in any manner.
The judgment was passed after a case came up for hearing in the Italian apex court where a suspicious husband had hired a detective to keep an eye on his wife's whereabouts.
Incidentally, the husband was not wrong in his suspicion, as his wife had gone out with her office boy friend on a holiday. The husband had accused that his wife was "cultivating a different sentimental relationship" outside the marital relationship.
The court ordered the wife to pay her husband the cost incurred in the legal proceedings and to make up for his "honour".
"Cheating is all right but in moderation. Or rather it is all right to be unfaithful to your husband for a few hours, but in the evening you must return to the conjugal roof," according to a report published in the La Repubblica about the case.
Marriage is [only] a human-legal term, as opposed to being "one in flesh" which is a divine concept. Of course the two ought to go together in a Christian society. But, it seems not any longer.
"Marriage" now carries with it no enforceable legal right to conjugal fidelity, not only in Italy, but in most occidental countries, I guess, and a substantial risk of serious asset/wage/pension depreciation consequent on infidelity by the wife. So just what is the point of submitting to a legal ritual which seems to be mainly geared to transferring large amounts of assets from men into the hands of unscrupulous women?
Think of it this way. What would the shareholders in a business do if some law was created which put the assets of their business at risk of confiscation at the whim or option of the business's employees? They would sack all the employees immediately, of course, and get in contractors. No-one would expect them to do anything else.
Similarly there does not seem to be any good reason under law why men should not pursue usual risk-minimization business principles in respect of their relationships with women, by simply refusing to get legally married.
Women need to realize that the "wife" may be a concept of the past for reasonably wealthy businessman, and likely to be indulged in, in the future, only by those on low incomes, or with an overly sentimental attachment to legal forms.
Here's the bit about asset depreciation:
From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-610899,00.html
The Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest appeal court, yesterday found that a woman, named as Tiziana, from the Adriatic resort of Vasto, near Pescara, was justified in seeking a divorce from her husband, Luzio, because his mother had “persecuted” her.
Tiziana told the court that her mother-in-law had repeatedly accused her of being interested only in her figure and make-up. “She said all I thought about was attracting men and I was not fit to bring up our daughter.” Luzio, a shoemaker, had appealed against a lower court ruling granting Tiziana a divorce and giving her custody of their daughter.
The Court of Cassation not only upheld the sentence but awarded the marital home to Tiziana and ordered Luzio to pay her “substantial” maintenance because he had persuaded her to give up working after their marriage in 1996.
(I'm not saying I agree with the doings of the Italian court - no, I would execute the lot of them if it was in my power.)