Talk:Adultery

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

Illustration

I don't think the current illustration is at all appropriate, or rather not as the first/main one. It is a hurtful caricature portraying the betrayed spouse as some kind of grotesque oaf (and its title labelling him a "cuckold"), thus communicating a particular and contentious judgment and stereotype rather than a general representation of the subject of adultery. 204.112.199.29 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Section "Biblical sources"

New text was added in the section "Biblical sources" by Al-Andalus, but absolutely no sources were cited. It reads like an essay presenting the personal thoughts of the author, rather than an encyclopedic analysis of the religious doctrine; and the tone is also unencyclopedic. Given that the section deals with the bible, it has to cite text from the bible and add scholarly interpretations from reliable sources for that text in order to explain the biblical concept of adultery; otherwise it's simply WP:OR and violates WP:V. I suggest the new text be cut until the problem is fixed. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:DD53 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I have edited many of the sections of text referred to to make them read more accurately in English, I agree about their removal until they are replaced with properly referenced material.

Current lede

The current lede (recently changed) reads:"Adultery (from Latin adulterium; ad- +‎ alterō, “I change/alter [one lineage for another”]) is extra-marital sex partaken by a spouse, or premarital sex partaken by a betrothed person, that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds."

The paragraph is unsourced. Although the definitions of adultery vary, it is not commonly understood to include premarital sex, except in Islam (where it includes all premarital sex, regardless of the existence or not of betrothal). (John Calvin had a similar interpretation, but this is not mainstream in Christianity).

Please see the dictionary definitions of adultery.[1] [2] [3] [4]. Also note that the lede should focus on the current understanding of the concept of adultery, rather than on historical ones.

As for etymology, the (Latin) etymology of the word is: "adultery is from adulterāre (“to pollute, defile, commit adultery”), a word formed ultimately from the Latin elements ad- “to, near” and alter “other.”).[5].2A02:2F0F:B205:E200:5459:82A1:28DF:5830 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Meaning: betrothed to someone else. You see, in the Bible there was no betrothal. Ancient Jews did not have betrothals. They had two ceremonies: marriage and consummation of marriage. That's why St. Joseph was Virgin Mary's husband. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The current lede implies that adultery includes infidelity where neither party is legally married. Not only that adultery is not usually understood to include this today, but even in a historical context, the concept of adultery often required the existence of a lawful, valid marriage. For example, sexual intercourse between an unmarried girl/woman, who was in an arrangement where a future marriage was to be expected (ie. betrothal, engagement, promised into marriage etc) but where such marriage had not yet taken place, and a man other than the one she was supposed to marry, was not usually adultery (obviously it varied by culture). This does not mean that such behavior was not punishable, but often it was punished differently (less severally) than adultery. The very concept of adultery often relied on the proof that a valid marriage had been contacted. (And most contemporary definitions of adultery are sex between a married person and a person other than their spouse).2A02:2F0F:B205:E200:104B:E29F:EA3A:E762 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Srimad Bhagavatam chapter and manusmriti verse quoted from news article

Regarding the srimad bhagavatam chapter, as editor wrote in the subsection that said chapter of srimad bhagavatam related to the adultery. However primary sources doesn't state that anywhere as we have more than the forty four commentaries on said passage but editor chose to used wendy doniger who is controversial scholar however even we look into her book's passage she didn't citated any scholars and not even primary source. We need to be objective in this as using such radical opinion result in misinterpretation and increasing in hinduphobia.

https://archive.org/details/Bhagavata_Purana_With_Multiple_Commentaries_TTD_Critical_Edition/Srimad%20Bhagavata%20Mahapuranam%20Skandha%2010%20Part%202%20alt/page/n99/mode/2up?view=theater

Regarding the manusmriti verses, edictor cited wire's news article which was not even wrote by the scholars and not even cited the commentaries over quoted verses.I don't why editor chose to cite the wire's article.

For manusmriti verse 5.154 I am citing the Manusmriti With 9 Commentaries ed. by JH Dave https://archive.org/details/manusmriti-with-9-commentaries-combined-file/page/n1189/mode/2up?view=theater Trika Shaivism (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable, opinionated news articles are used as references regarding the Manusmriti verse.

In this paragragh ["The verse 5.154 of Manusmirti says a woman must constantly worship her husband as a god and be completely faithful even if he commits adultery."] of wikipage verse 5.154 cited regarding the adultery on contrary in actual primary source verse is not even related to adultery.

पाणिग्राहस्य साध्वी स्त्री जीवतो वा मृतस्य वा ।

पतिलोकमभीप्सन्ती नाचरेत् किं चिदप्रियम् ॥ १५४ ॥

pāṇigrāhasya sādhvī strī jīvato vā mṛtasya vā |

patilokamabhīpsantī nācaret kiṃ cidapriyam || 154 ||

The good wife, desirous of reaching her husband’s regions, should never do anything that may be disagreeable to her husband, alive or dead.—(154).

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200540.html

Can anyone please enlight me on which basic above verse related to the adultery. It's clearly related to vidhava-vrata which mentioned in another smritis. Before I am going to edit it if anyone has any objection regarding it please highlight it. ReckoningOfIgorance (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Cool your jets. It's a simple error. The correct verse is 152, not 154. I've made the correction. PepperBeast (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

But the cited news article quoted verse 154, and even if we take verse 152, it is not regarding adultery. Even article doesn't claim that, then how did the editor draw the conclusion from it? However, Madhaditi's commentary on verse 152 is not regarding the adultery but regarding the nature of the husband. Can a news article written by a member of the Communist Party who is not even a scholar on the subject be considered reliable? Can you cite scholarly studies on Manusmriti that draw the same conclusion?

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ill-mannered.’— Addicted to gambling and other evil habits.

‘Of licentious habits’— whose nature is prone to be voluptuous.

‘Destitute of good qutalities’—devoid of learning, wealth and other good qualities.

‘Should he attended upon’— served.—(152).

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc200538.html ReckoningOfIgorance (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)