1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 202:
Line 202: + +
→Historical/Cultural Bias: The article says that adultery isn't punished under the law anymore
The article at present concentrates too much on adultery as it was defined around the Mediterranean a couple of millennia ago. Social mores have evolved a little bit since then, being codified in various law codes and settled in common usage. For instance, we no longer curse suspected adulteresses with dirty holy water (Numbers 5). The introductory paragraph should address the phenomenon of adultery as it exists within the USA (see the site logo) and move the Greek, Israelite, Hammurabian, etc. adultery rules to a section on history, or sources of adultery traditions if you prefer.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 07:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
The article at present concentrates too much on adultery as it was defined around the Mediterranean a couple of millennia ago. Social mores have evolved a little bit since then, being codified in various law codes and settled in common usage. For instance, we no longer curse suspected adulteresses with dirty holy water (Numbers 5). The introductory paragraph should address the phenomenon of adultery as it exists within the USA (see the site logo) and move the Greek, Israelite, Hammurabian, etc. adultery rules to a section on history, or sources of adultery traditions if you prefer.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 07:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: The article says that adultery isn't punished under the law anymore. Hardly ever, anyway. I don't know about the Hammurabian rules. Yes, the article does have a bias towards the Judeo-Christian traditional definition. Isn't that what the reader expects? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:53, 23 April 2007 (EDT)