Philosophy Why Individualism is False

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
In this essay, I will argue that the philosophy of individualism, which prioritizes the moral importance of the individual before all else, is false. Individualism is the basis for much of modern political thought, and is upheld by liberalism, both in its libertarian and egalitarian forms. Rarely is individualism contested, however. In this essay, I will argue that individualism is false for the following reasons:

1) The individual cannot exist without society.

This is a "well, duh" objection on the face of it, but it's surprising how many individualists do not consider it. People are born weak and dependent on their parents for survival. From then on, they are dependent on other people in the society to flourish as human beings. Even if they decide to leave this society and live by themselves in the jungle, Robinson Crusoe-style, they will still be forever colored by the society that left them.

Okay, the individualist says, but human beings are more than just their social classes though. Sure, but to what extent? Human beings are thrown into this world colored by various social orders (ethnicity, sex, class, culture, family, etc.) that they do not consent to. Their identities are only made intelligible by participating in these social orders. The individual devoid of these social orders is a mere abstraction. In the words of reactionary philosopher Julius Evola, to place value on the individual over their social orders "is the same as regarding as paramount the bronze found in many statues, rather than seeing each one as the expression of distinct ideas, to which bronze (in our case, the generic human quality) has supplied the working matter (Men Among the Ruins, p. 135). So not only can people not exist without previous societies, not only are people forever colored by the societies they inhabit, their very identities are unintelligible without the societies in question.

2) Private goods aren't the only thing that matter.

The idea of the common good is derided by modern individualists. As this poorly-written essay sums up, "the idea of the “common good” has always served as the moral justification for virtually every form of tyranny throughout history." This is is because, he claims, it cannot be defined. "There is no such thing as the “common good” unless one means the sum of the interests of all men and women in a particular society," he claims. Nothing, however, can be further from the truth.

But what is the common good? The common good is the good of a society, in contrast with private goods, which are the goods of individuals. Individualism holds the private goods of individuals are paramount while denying that any common goods actually exist. But surely, the individualist cannot deny that the common good of a sports team is winning the game, right? Surely, the individualist cannot deny that the common good of an army is to achieve victory in war, right? And surely, the individualist cannot deny that the common good of political society is the maintenance and moral uplift of a community, right?

The problem with individualists is that they assume that common goods do not apply to individuals. To the contrary, common goods are the goods of individuals, but they are goods that are shared by all members of the community equally without diminishing their value, yet can only be achieved collectively. Certainly, one soldier cannot win a war. And common goods must trump private goods, as the good of all is greater than the good of an individual, or even many individuals. This is different from utilitarianism because common good is truly the good of everyone in the community, not the good of a majority of individuals. And contrary to what libertarian moralizers claim, this doesn't necessitate some form of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism subsumes the lesser orders of society into a centralized state, and this is definitely not good for the individual (as we'll see below).

Individualists may respond that egoistic individual actions can create aggregate good without collective action, but the evidence for such an invisible hand being at work is questionable at best. For instance, mainstream neoclassical economic theory holds that the invisible hand of the free market only works when all the actors in a market are more or less omniscient, which has occurred precisely never. Arguments for the existence of the invisible hand are seriously lacking in evidence.

3) Individualism leads to tyranny.

One of the central reasons why people in the modern day support individualism is as a bulwark against tyranny. The libertarian thinker Ludwig von Mises best sums up this vision of the individualist state as one "devoted exclusively to the task of protecting the individual’s life, health, and property against violent and fraudulent aggression." However, when one looks at history, we see a very different story.

The Neo-Absolutist C. A. Bond's book Nemesis: The Jouvenelian vs. the Liberal Model of Human Orders goes into great detail outlining the history of the individual as a creation of absolute monarchy. Following the Jouvenelian model of human orders, he divides society into three parts:
  • The Center which occupies Power: Occupied by an institution (or a network of them) or perhaps something metaphysical; The ruling office, Monarch or God(s), etc.
  • The Subsidiary: seen as the appendages of the Center; Nobility, Church etc.
  • The Periphery: Governed by the Subsidiaries.
Bond recounts how, in times past, the Center (in the form of a powerful monarch) would smash the Subsidiaries in order to accrue more power for themselves. They would do this by raising up the Periphery, the serfs, making them "freemen." These freemen, these proto-individuals were subject only to God and King; they owed no loyalty to any feudal lord, making him a more effective foot soldier for the usurpative monarch.

This was how it went: in response to the invocations of Plenitudo Potestatis by the Catholic papacy against secular authorities, the idea of Divine Right of Kings was developed as a counter-justification by the secular princes. In response, the Papacy promoted the likes of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine who asserted the consensual nature of monarchy. Bellarmine's argument was challenged by Sir Robert Fillmore and the British Tories. In response to that, the Whig oligarchs of England promoted John Locke, who defended St. Bellarmine's idea of "consent of the governed." The rest, as they say, is history.

In fact, throughout European history, we see how various dissidents were raised up by the princes of Europe against the Church: the Duke of Lancaster promoted John Wycliffe; the Bohemian royalty promoted the Hussites; the Elector of Saxony, Frederick III promoted Martin Luther; and Michael of Cesena promoted William of Ockham. All of these dissidents would be used to smash the Catholic Church's authority while the liberalizing monarchy smashed feudalism to create a more absolute state centered on themselves. At the end of this process, once the king had destroyed the power of these Subsidiaries, the Whig oligarchy would take his power for themselves. At the end of the day, you had a powerful state and a bunch of "freemen."

The sociologist Robert Nisbet saw this process as being what led to the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century. He argued that there were two central elements of totalitarianism: the existence of the masses and the ideology of political community. "What is crucial in the formation of the masses," he writes "is the atomization of all social and cultural relationships within which human beings gain their normal sense of membership in society. The mass is an aggregate of individuals who are insecure, basically lonely, and ground down, either through decree or historical circumstance, into mere particles of social dust. Within the mass all ordinary relationships and authorities seem devoid of institutional function and psychological meaning. Worse, such relationships and authorities come to seem positively hostile; in them the individual can find not security but despair." Masses are not united by any common consciousness, so they can be easily manipulated and swayed by any power-hungry political ideology. And, wouldn't you know it, we have a very powerful state right there, waiting for the right people to take it over.

Libertarians might respond that they support "negative rights" against the state, so they can't be for a powerful state! But the liberal state, in order to enforce negative individual rights, has to 1) be powerful enough to prevent any individual with more coercive capital than another individual from violating the other individual's rights and 2) has to be powerful enough to destroy Subsidiaries such as the Church, aristocracy and other privileged groups, such as corporations chartered by the state, independent towns, banks, and guilds. That modern people don't realize how powerful these groups were in their time is a testament to how thoroughly destroyed they were by the emerging liberal state. Even something as basic as your right to bear arms or your right to freedom of speech requires a higher authority (e.g. the federal government) forcing a lower authority (e.g. some state official) to respect your rights, which is necessarily involving the Center of Power in your private life!

This necessary violence against the Subsidiaries to defend the individuals leads me to my next and final point:

4) Individualism is necessarily anti-social.

The individualist sees themselves as they are as the center of attention, with as many qualifications as possible obscured. Individualists define themselves in opposition to the various institutions and dependencies that surround them. The more against them you are, the more self-actualized you are as individual. "Don't look at me as a _____, look at me as an individual!" Individualists are necessarily in a perpetual state of mutiny against whatever form of order threatens to define them as something other than an individual.

"What's the problem with this?" The individualist may ask. Certainly, we don't feel like we're in a constant violent mutiny because we are so habituated to it in our modern day climate. We don't have any feudal lords or guilds or Churches that can stand up to the individualizing state, though we are always on the lookout for them. But what would happen if we were able to become consistently individualistic? What if we were to define ourselves indiscriminately against every social dependency - against your friends, your families, your colleagues, your acquaintances, etc. - and sought to free ourselves from them? Such behavior would be psychopathic. The individualistic society is, therefore, a society that promotes a mild form of psychopathy. It's no wonder, then, that mental illness is so rife in our society!

In short, these are the reasons why individualism is, I believe, a necessarily false belief. It calls for rights against the State while simultaneously empowering the State. It promotes egoism by denying that any higher good than the private good exists and psychopathy by denying the importance of social orders. It is rife with contradictions. I have no doubt that it is at the heart of the problems of our society. Only by rooting it out will we have a chance of restoring sanity.
 
Last edited:
It's ultimately going to come down to the question of do you have faith in your fellow man, do you trust them enough to believe that they won't gut you at thier earliest convince? and if somthing happens are you willing to put the blame on circumstances as oppsed to people? To both these I say for myself no. Those with the power to give you life also have the power to take it away. We've seen this time after time after time.

The streets of history flow with the blood of murder and death brought about by leaders who saw it fit to kill for whatever reason be it power grabs, political self righteousness, resources ect, but it's oft written as good because history is written by the survivors. Nobody thinks about the dead until those last few moments right before they join them. Heck even america is no exception to this. When the rebels won the revolutionary war, the colonist who did not join in the insurgancy were exciled back to englend with nothing but the shirts on thier back while thier homes and property were confiscated, but notice how the Whiskey rebellion is labled as simply that, a rebellion even though it had many of the same motives as the orginal colonist during the revolutionary war. Let's not forget the american-indian conflicts, the civil war ect.

And if you a person that has no people, if your part of a people that are always outcasted for little more than superficial reasons then what? Who do you trust? GIve strangers power over you, and they will kill you at their earliest convince. It's just a matter of if your aware of it or not.

Your mistake here is assuming a nation is the same thing as your tribe. It's not your tribe is the people you have close contact with they are the people that have similar likes and dislikes with you, they are the people that live in the same vicinity as you, they are the people that have put a bit of themselves into you. People on the other side of the country especially those in a high tower, they don't care about you. They don't even know ypu exist beyond a statistic.

Let me let you end on a little secret, there is no such thing as a golden age, all nations have been in a constant state of infighting from the time of thier conception. It's just a matter of how good are they at hiding the skeletons in the closet. Heck romes "Golden age" was a time when people of the upper class got into duels with each other. Same thing in the clonial time period. Remember Alexander Hamilton?

Funny enough the times were we as humans have been the most peaceful is when we are in a constant state of cold war. My guess it's because both sides no that the other has a knife behind their back, and so to draw theirs would be suicide.
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
@Hastur of Carcosa

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really understand how any of what you said even relates to what I am saying. Most of what you said sounds platitudinous and when you say this:

Your mistake here is assuming a nation is the same thing as your tribe. It's not your tribe is the people you have close contact with they are the people that have similar likes and dislikes with you, they are the people that live in the same vicinity as you, they are the people that have put a bit of themselves into you. People on the other side of the country especially those in a high tower, they don't care about you. They don't even know ypu exist beyond a statistic.

My thought is "how does this even apply to anything I said"? I never even mentioned nations or tribes in the piece. I simply said that individualism leads to atomization by destroying the social orders that help define us.
 
My thought is "how does this even apply to anything I said"? I never even mentioned nations or tribes in the piece. I simply said that individualism leads to atomization by destroying the social orders that help define us.


Ah see I say the opposite it is the indiviudal atoms that make up the larger social order people who share the same interest and goals tend to group together. It's when things get bigger and individual intrest vary too much that the tribe falls apart. the individual defines the society not the other way around. If your fracturing to the point of infighting, it probably means your society is too fat and it needs to split apart. Even cities are separated into district. the only other option is culling, and in that case, who gets culled.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Ah see I say the opposite it is the indiviudal atoms that make up the larger social order people who share the same interest and goals tend to group together. It's when things get bigger and individual intrest vary too much that the tribe falls apart. the individual defines the society not the other way around. If your fracturing to the point of infighting, it probably means your society is too fat.
Well, perhaps. But do you deny that the forces of individualism have led to the atomization of individuals, such that they become desperate to become part of something greater, and thus, creating the necessary conditions for totalitarianism?
 
Well, perhaps. But do you deny that the forces of individualism have led to the atomization of individuals, such that they become desperate to become part of something greater, and thus, creating the necessary conditions for totalitarianism?


and some animals eat each other. it's called envy, and just because it's human nature to want to become part of something greater doesn't mean it's a good thing. In fact in many cases it ends up being a self destructive bad thing.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
and some animals eat each other, just because it's human nature to want to become part of something greater doesn't mean it's a good thing.
The desire to be part of something greater isn't inherently evil. It's only a problem when the only people that can fulfill this desire are totalitarians. And that's exactly the problem with individualism. It has the state mow down anything that threatens to define the free individual, leaving them with nothing else.
 
The desire to be part of something greater isn't inherently evil. It's only a problem when the only people that can fulfill this desire are totalitarians. And that's exactly the problem with individualism. It has the state mow down anything that threatens to define the free individual, leaving them with nothing else.

it's not inherently good either. also who do you think are the kind of people who end up in positions to form a state? Especially the larger ones that consist of more than 1000 people? Those people are typically totalitarians with delusions of grandeur. Hence why they make empires.

Edit: Question: are you used to dealing with nomads and anarchist or somthing? Cause I don't think we neccisarly disagree, but I think we maybe concerned over two different things.
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
it's not inherently good either.
Yes, it is inherently good to want to be a part of something larger than yourself. It helps you flourish as a human being.

also who do you think are the kind of people who end up in positions to form a state? Especially the larger ones that consist of more than 1000 people? Those people are typically totalitarians with delusions of grandeur. Hence why they make empires.
Well... yes. Exactly. But there are key differences between the old empires and 20th century totalitarian states. The latter were far more brutal and nasty to their own people, while the old empires limited their violence to the outsiders that they conquered. This is because individualism causes people to become completely atomized from society.

Edit: Question: are you used to dealing with nomads and anarchist or somthing? Cause I don't think we neccisarly disagree, but I think we maybe concerned over two different things.
I'm used to dealing with libertarians, who are a kind of quasi-anarchist. And I consider individualism in itself to be an anarchistic philosophy insofar as it treats anarchism as man's natural state.
 
Yes, it is inherently good to want to be a part of something larger than yourself. It helps you flourish as a human being

define "good," define "Being a part of something greater than yourself," and define "flourishing"

Well... yes. Exactly. But there are key differences between the old empires and 20th century totalitarian states. The latter were far more brutal and nasty to their own people, while the old empires limited their violence to the outsiders that they conquered. This is because individualism causes people to become completely atomized from society.

I think your being a bit of a romantic. The history of Chivalry was not with the good of society in mind.

I'm used to dealing with libertarians, who are a kind of quasi-anarchist. And I consider individualism in itself to be an anarchistic philosophy insofar as it treats anarchism as man's natural state.

fair enough.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
define "good," define "Being a part of something greater than yourself," and define "flourishing"
Goodness itself is a perfection of some kind, and evil is a privation.

Being a part of something greater than yourself means a rejection of egoism. It means recognizing that your loyalties are higher than your self and what it wants, that your goodness is not found in simply satisfying your animal desires, but in achieving the common good.

Human flourishing is when the telos (or purpose) of man's existence is fulfilled. Man's telos is theosis - unity with God. This unity requires a cultivation and union of goodness in our lives. In other words, living a life of virtue. All human institutions ought to be subordinate to this end, and this end must be promoted as much as it is possible.

Individualism promotes privation in several ways, many of which I didn't cover, but the main way it does was identified by Robert Nisbet. Namely, that it destroyed intermediary social orders that stood between the State and the Individual. This both created confusion, frustration, and despair on the part of the people while creating a more powerful state. And right there, you have all the fuel you need to create totalitarianism. All that's needed is the spark - a totalitarian ideology ready to work its way into the minds of the leaders.

I don't see how this is an argument against my position.
 
Goodness itself is a perfection of some kind, and evil is a privation.

Being a part of something greater than yourself means a rejection of egoism. It means recognizing that your loyalties are higher than your self and what it wants, that your goodness is not found in simply satisfying your animal desires, but in achieving the common good.

Human flourishing is when the telos (or purpose) of man's existence is fulfilled. Man's telos is theosis - unity with God. This unity requires a cultivation and union of goodness in our lives. In other words, living a life of virtue. All human institutions ought to be subordinate to this end, and this end must be promoted as much as it is possible.

Individualism promotes privation in several ways, many of which I didn't cover, but the main way it does was identified by Robert Nisbet. Namely, that it destroyed intermediary social orders that stood between the State and the Individual. This both created confusion, frustration, and despair on the part of the people while creating a more powerful state. And right there, you have all the fuel you need to create totalitarianism. All that's needed is the spark - a totalitarian ideology ready to work its way into the minds of the leaders.


I don't see how this is an argument against my position.

and what happens if my god is different than your god? what if I find your god a perversion of the one true God and ultimatly vice versa, and since we ultiamtly won't know the truth till the people are wrong are dead and condemned to hellfire, then what? We still have a rock in the middle of nowhere to worry about in the meantime. How are you going to enforce your worldview onto others or "Convert them."
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
and what happens if my god is different than your god? what if I find your god a perversion of the one true God and ultimatly vice versa, and since we ultiamtly won't know the truth till the people are wrong are dead and condemned to hellfire, then what? We still have a rock in the middle of nowhere to worry about in the meantime. How are you going to enforce your worldview onto others or "Convert them."
That's not a problem with my philosophy in particular. That's a problem with pluralism. The modern day liberal solution is to force liberalism onto everyone and then lie and claim that liberalism is "neutral" between competing views of the good. Do you think that's a good solution?

But for people who have different religious views in my ideal society, I can imagine a socially conservative communitarian state that tolerates those faiths that don't disrupt the social order. Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, and all the rest can be sitting around discussing theology while agreeing to pay their taxes and not have sex outside of marriage.
 
That's not a problem with my philosophy in particular. That's a problem with pluralism. The modern day liberal solution is to force liberalism onto everyone and then lie and claim that liberalism is "neutral" between competing views of the good. Do you think that's a good solution?

But for people who have different religious views in my ideal society, I can imagine a socially conservative communitarian state that tolerates those faiths that don't disrupt the social order. Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, and all the rest can be sitting around discussing theology while agreeing to pay their taxes and not have sex outside of marriage.

If those are your only two pet peeves your barking at the wrong trees Though good luck enforcing not having sex outside of marriage the necessary means to enforce it would create far more problems than it would solve.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
If those are your only two pet peeves your barking at the wrong trees Though good luck enforcing not having sex outside of marriage the necessary means to enforce it would create far more problems than it would solve.

If you're against murder? "Good luck enforcing that!"

If you're against theft? "Good luck enforcing that!"

If you're against rape? "Good luck enforcing that!"

Your argument can be used against all prohibitive laws. Rather, we must take this on a case-by-case basis while not expecting perfection.
 
If you're against murder? "Good luck enforcing that!"

If you're against theft? "Good luck enforcing that!"

If you're against rape? "Good luck enforcing that!"

Your argument can be used against all prohibitive laws. Rather, we must take this on a case-by-case basis while not expecting perfection.


we have laws against those to prevent VIOLENCE not inact purity laws. Your comparing apples and oranges and fundamentally misunderstanding why those are prohibited in the first place. what is the point of prohibiting wedlock beyond " abomination." and more importantly how? Stone people, cut out their productive parts? Imprisonment? Those things are not going to go over well.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
we have laws against those to prevent VIOLENCE not inact purity laws. Your comparing apples and ornages and fudamentally misunderstanding why those are prohibited in the first place. what is the point of phorhibiting wedlock beyound "Muh abomination." and more importanly how? Stone people, cut out thier productive parts? Imprisonment? Those things are not going to go over well.

Why should it be different? Banning murder doesn't get rid of murder. Banning theft doesn't get rid of theft. By the libertarian logic, since it doesn't get rid of the problem, we shouldn't ban it to begin with.

You kind of need families in order to maintain a society into the future, and you can't expect families to be stable without traditional marriage being a norm. It's therefore perfectly reasonable for the state to take an interest in maintaining healthy marriages.

In order for your argument to work, you'd have to actually demonstrate why banning adultery is bad but banning murder isn't. You can make an argument for your personal moral system, that we ought not ban adultery because adultery is moral. You can make an argument as to why prohibiting adultery won't prevent adultery the same way prohibiting murder prevents murder. Or you can make an argument that prohibiting adultery will cause some greater evil, so it'd be better if we tolerated this lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. Any of those arguments could work if you made them, and I'd be happy to discuss them. But this sort of finger-wagging liberalism isn't going to fly.
 
Why should it be different? Banning murder doesn't get rid of murder. Banning theft doesn't get rid of theft. By the libertarian logic, since it doesn't get rid of the problem, we shouldn't ban it to begin with.

You kind of need families in order to maintain a society into the future, and you can't expect families to be stable without traditional marriage being a norm. It's therefore perfectly reasonable for the state to take an interest in maintaining healthy marriages.

In order for your argument to work, you'd have to actually demonstrate why banning adultery is bad but banning murder isn't. You can make an argument for your personal moral system, that we ought not ban adultery because adultery is moral. You can make an argument as to why prohibiting adultery won't prevent adultery the same way prohibiting murder prevents murder. Or you can make an argument that prohibiting adultery will cause some greater evil, so it'd be better if we tolerated this lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. Any of those arguments could work if you made them, and I'd be happy to discuss them. But this sort of finger-wagging liberalism isn't going to fly.


the stuff you just mentioned are why libertarians wag their fingers to begin because as far as we can see alot of the whole "Oh if only society was like I think it should" is what lead to a lot of these greater evils in the first place. Heck prohibiting murder exist, because a lot of people would rather not wind up with the case of dead, and to be fair dude. If places with bigger populatins are anything to go by, the effectiveness of outlawing murder is kind of debatable at best, Chicago, new york, seatile new Orleans, Orlando.

as far as your adultery thing goes, the amount of surveillance and extreame punishments needed to enforce such a law on a phisical level, gives way to far FAR greater evils than it would fix. It'd be asking for all kinds of abuses. Not to mention what defines a healthy family and what do you do when the states expectations aren't met which is a whole other can of worms in it's own right.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
the stuff you just mentioned are why libertarians wag their fingers to begin because as far as we can see alot of the whole "Oh if only society was like I think it should" is what lead to a lot of these greater evils in the first place.
Yet here you are, wagging your finger at me, wanting society to think as you want.

Heck prohibiting murder exist, because a lot of people would rather not wind up with the case of dead, and to be fair dude. If places with bigger populatins are anything to go by, the effectiveness of outlawing murder is kind of debatable at best, Chicago, new york, seatile new Orleans, Orlando.
Well you should get rid of the government then. Defund the police. Have total anarchy. See what happens.

As for me? I'd rather live under the rule of someone who didn't agree with everything I believed than have no rule at all. Even something like Sharia law is more tolerable than anarchy.

as far as your adultery thing goes, the amount of surveillance and extreame punishments needed to enforce such a law on a phisical level, gives way to far FAR greater evils than it would fix. It'd be asking for all kinds of abuses. Not to mention what defines a healthy family and what do you do when the states expectations aren't met which is a whole other can of worms in it's own right.

But Christian countries have had these laws for most of their history. Heck, even in America, we have several laws against adultery being enforced. I don't see any evidence that adultery requires some kind of surveillance state. Think of it like contract law: when you married your spouse, you promised them that you'd be together until death. By breaking that promise, you're breaking that contract, and some kind of punishment must ensue from that. Alternatively, we could do things like in Hawaii, where it's a part of tort law. The aggrieved spouse can sue the cheater to pay for the damages done to their marriage.
 
Yet here you are, wagging your finger at me, wanting society to think as you want.

I'm telling you how I think your wrong and your telling me I don't see the problem.

Well you should get rid of the government then. Defund the police. Have total anarchy. See what happens.


So if I don't have the values YOU want then I must want total anarchy.....okayyy. Look dude I don't think government should be as big as you want it to be nor do I think it's the governments job to enforce the values you want to enforce, that's it. I'm not roadhog, I'm not the physco from borderlands.

Even something like Sharia law is more tolerable than anarchy.

if that's how you click then you and I belong in two totally different worlds.

But Christian countries have had these laws for most of their history. Heck, even in America, we have several laws against adultery being enforced. I don't see any evidence that adultery requires some kind of surveillance state. Think of it like contract law: when you married your spouse, you promised them that you'd be together until death. By breaking that promise, you're breaking that contract, and some kind of punishment must ensue from that. Alternatively, we could do things like in Hawaii, where it's a part of tort law. The aggrieved spouse can sue the cheater to pay for the damages done to their marriage

I don't think those were as effective as you think . A LOT of young people were having sex outside of marrige especially by the time the 60s and the 70s came about. You just heard about it more.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top