Police say a 41-year-old woman was caught having sex on a picnic table in Farrell Park in Batavia, and now she's been charged with adultery.
Police say the Batavia woman and the 29-year-old Oakfield man were engaged in sexual intercourse in full view of adults and children utilizing the park.
Both are charged with public lewdness, but the woman faces the additional charge of adultery.
Police say the 29-year-old does not face adultery charges because he was not aware the woman was married.
10 comments:
What a backward place. The people of Batavia, New York should be thoroughly embarrassed by the fact they still have a law against adultery, and that it is still enforced.
She broke the vows of her marriage and betrayed her husband. It's like breaking a contract. That should be a crime.
Nonsense. The government has no business in people's private sex lives. Plus I doubt you would want to make divorce illegal, even though it is also breaking your marrige vows.
'<span>Without the will, marriage is a mockery; without emotion, it is a drudgery. You need both. '</span>
Monkey, it's not illegal to break a contract, it simply sets you up for possible civil litigation - like divorce. 'Adultery' as a crime is assinine.
Mike: Nice explanation, thanks :)
Also, given the kinds of promises people include in their wedding vows -- "I will try every day to make you happy," "I will love and respect you for the rest of my life," etc. -- it's not just adulterers who break their marital contracts.
That is a statute that is rarely enforced in NY. She was charged because of the public nature of the incident.
If you have sex on a picnic table in a public park, I think you want to get caught!
now if i said to you to , love is to be cherished or love must be grown or some other line about love im sure you would agree yet you make it sound like our feelings are totally detached from our ourselves. Yes we do have control of our feelings, yet to our dissatisfaction and inpatients they are not at hand like our mp3 s , tv and other electronic that can be turned on and off at our whims , rather they take time and commitment to influence and change them.
The "public nature of the incident" was addressed in the charge of public lewdness, which was applied to both of them. I have no problem with that. But the fact is that she faces an extra penalty specifically because she was married, and that's the bit thats backwards. (Non-)Adherence to marriage vows should be a private or civil matter, not a criminal one.
Post a Comment