Should you be FINED for adultery??

Because Sandra Day left her husband for her boss — millionaire Jerry Fitch — whom she eventually married, Mississippi courts have ruled that Day's ex-husband is entitled to $642,000 in compensatory damages and $112,500 in punitive damages.


Man!! What do y'all think?? Should adultery plus abandonment of a spouse be something that the losing party has the right to sue for in court??

My gut response is "Yeah!" Especially if the man/woman who "steals" someone else's spouse is RICH. Nothing against rich people simply for being rich, but I do feel they have an unfair advantage when it comes to romance and they use their wealth to seduce others. Just my opinion.

Please read the whole article. And then vote! :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21529255/

I say, NO. It wouldn't stop adultery or divorce. Besides, would you really want to keep a spouse who could be lured away by $$$? I say, something is wrong in the marriage if a spouse is even tempted.

The concept dates back centuries to when a wife was considered her husband’s property.

Umm....NO. For more reasons than just that one above - which is good enough by itself.

Modern day society should already be aware that a man (or woman) can't "steal" someone's spouse. It was that spouse's decision to leave and there was probably a lot wrong with the marriage before Fitch stepped in.

Maybe she should counter sue her ex for causing her alienation & breach of contract (prior to her adultery) for not being a good husband. :rolleyes:

Oh hell sue 'em all........my insurance and attorney fees aren't high enough yet LOL!

Oh hell sue 'em all........my insurance and attorney fees aren't high enough yet LOL!

Haha, TD! You sassy li'l thing! :D

No.

But instead of "No. Don't fine people for where their heart takes them", I'd have to say:

No, that's just plain stupid.

Okay, let's take the devil's advocate route...if there is a law on the book that states adultery is a misdemeanor equal to a traffic ticket (which it is in a lot of states, it's just not enforced anymore) then yes, if you break the law, you pay the fine...it's not unlike speeding, you don't have to pay the fine if you don't get caught and the majority of people who commit adultery don't usually get caught...

Some time ago, there was a law called 'Alienation of Affection'. You could bring the other party to court and sue them for breaking up your marriage.

There are times when I wish it could be used. Like when a woman is 8 months pregnant and the party girl next door is making eyes at your husband! :tongue2:

"Alienation of affection" is quite possibly the one civil cause of action that makes me laugh the most. No, actually, not "possibly", it IS.

I just hope that in my time on this earth, I actually get to be in court to hear the "evidence" of this one.

It's SO outdated, but has, in the recent past, experienced a resurgence.

I do not condone adultery, but I also believe that our divorce laws handle the "punitive" in most cases. And, if it doesn't? Dear Lord, how sad is it to come into court and air all of your laundry for some cash?

Maybe there's a reason why I've never been married. This crap that goes on is just gross.

Some time ago, there was a law called 'Alienation of Affection'. You could bring the other party to court and sue them for breaking up your marriage.



Apparently, it still can be used in some jurisdictions. Just last week, I was forced to watch Oprah...when she was talking about "the other woman". Some woman actually got quite a substantial judgment against the mistress under this law. I don't recall what state...but, apparently it's still "alive and well" in certain jurisdictions.

Because Sandra Day left her husband for her boss — millionaire Jerry Fitch — whom she eventually married, Mississippi courts have ruled that Day's ex-husband is entitled to $642,000 in compensatory damages and $112,500 in punitive damages.


Man!! What do y'all think?? Should adultery plus abandonment of a spouse be something that the losing party has the right to sue for in court??

My gut response is "Yeah!" Especially if the man/woman who "steals" someone else's spouse is RICH. Nothing against rich people simply for being rich, but I do feel they have an unfair advantage when it comes to romance and they use their wealth to seduce others. Just my opinion.

Please read the whole article. And then vote! :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21529255/
Should a person be fined for adultery?

Not if i'm allowed to watch.:D:cool:

LOL!! Good one, Mano! :tongue2:

Should a person be fined for adultery?

Not if i'm allowed to watch.:D:cool:

hey if we can watch we get half man!:tongue2:

I think a fine would be a deterrent, especially when coupled with divorce proceedings. The wages of sin will be paid.

I say hell yes, fine the heck out of cheating losers. They're lucky it's only a fine...someone needs to instill morals back into our community and since we care about our money more than our beliefs why not hit umm in the pockets?

I think a fine would be a deterrent, especially when coupled with divorce proceedings. The wages of sin will be paid.


I don't think that a fine is going to do much to deter this type of behavior, whether it has to do with following one's heart or one's libido.

The last part of your post reflects my thoughts on this subject. There will be 'fines' paid in the end. Somewhat separately but not completely is that I believe what goes around comes around.

Should you be FINED for adultery??

My wife, the mother of my children, did indeed engage in adulterey while we were married. I found this topic hard to ignore. I would like to make a comment.

I do not think that adulterers should be fined.

I have something else in mind.........

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/gp_fillmore/executioner.jpg

Slow, painful, public execution. Hah!

I remember one case of a woman who sued her marriage counselor because she seduced her husband. She sued for alienation of affection and won.

So I vote yes, depending on the circumstances if they can prove that they had a happy marriage until someone came to break them up then they need some form of justice even if it's monetary.

I remember one case of a woman who sued her marriage counselor because she seduced her husband. She sued for alienation of affection and won.

So I vote yes, depending on the circumstances if they can prove that they had a happy marriage until someone came to break them up then they need some form of justice even if it's monetary.

I agree, Strwbrries. To me, this is the civilized way of doing things. In other cultures (including within the USA) people will just bust out a shotgun to "settle matters..."

But who wants to go there?? :( I feel a court settlement is definitely very civilized. As the saying goes, "Show me the money!"

NO, only if it's part of a prenup, like it is in Michael Douglas' and Catherine Zeta Jones' prenup. That's the only way I think it can be legally enforced.

No. Wife is not husband's property. She has free will.

My wife, the mother of my children, did indeed engage in adulterey while we were married. I found this topic hard to ignore. I would like to make a comment.

I do not think that adulterers should be fined.

I have something else in mind.........

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h51/gp_fillmore/executioner.jpg

Slow, painful, public execution. Hah!

I couldn't agree with you more!!! My x husband was a serial cheater. I never knew & if I had believe me I wouldn't have stuck around and had 4 kids with the creep. His adulterous behavior caused me 17 years of misery! He knew what he was doing, but like his cake! A real man would have fessed up and let me move on with MY life; instead I am left with 4 kids, no money & gave up a career to boot! I tried to get monitary damages in divorce court they said I needed to prove that his cheating directly interfered with my making money. Duh? I was pregnant constantly & he was VERY controlling.

I say "Throw them to the wolves'!!

And HA! to following one's heart! Use your damn head (not that one, Mano) if you're not h appy in your marriage than get out & DON'T go after a married person either! Shame on you! To me it's about RESPECT.

I remember one case of a woman who sued her marriage counselor because she seduced her husband.

Umm, takes two, doesn't it? :confused:

No. Wife is not husband's property. She has free will.

And vice-versa...

Umm, takes two, doesn't it? :confused:

EXACTLY what I think about it. And, in many cases, it takes THREE. It seems to me that many people who are "cheated on" don't look within themselves at ALL.

But, it definitely DOES take at least two, and to sue the outside person is overlooking the real issue, IMO. It's almost like the "affection" is some sort of "right" that this person has once they are married. I wonder how many people could honestly say that were it NOT for this outside interference, things would have been great in their marriage. Not many, I would wager.

When I was watching the Oprah show about this, I actually had to excuse myself from the room several times, because I was getting SO angry. This one woman "won" a 50K judgment from her husband's mistress. I hardly think that's any sort of "justice". IMO, "affection" is a privilege, NOT a right...and it certainly isn't some sort of commodity to be sued over.

But, then again, we are a litigious society. Though, I do really feel sorry for those who would get some sort of vindication from receiving money from someone who gave their spouse what they wanted in the first place. Seems very hollow and shallow to me.

I say hell yes, fine the heck out of cheating losers. They're lucky it's only a fine...someone needs to instill morals back into our community and since we care about our money more than our beliefs why not hit umm in the pockets?

Hahaha.

This is really pretty offensive.

After the thread in which two regulars admit to having met their younger man while married, you post "cheating losers" like it's a catch all term and things never are shades of grey. Just black and white.

This fine would catch all the people out in abusive relationships who chose to leave, met another person while mutually seperated and their spouse decided to get vindictive after the fact.

It's yet another control device a marriage partner gone bad can hold over the head of the party trying desperately to get out of an abusive relationship.

But, it takes two to decide to commit adultery.

I'm assuming that we're talking about both parties knowing each other's marital status. Any other condition is a separate topic, I believe.


As far as suing the third party...which is something that has been in the press lately...because "they had a happy marriage until someone came to break them up"...that's crap...unless the 'injured' party is suing the cheating spouse.

To sue the third party is utterly ridiculous.

A third party cannot be responsible for the breakup of a marriage. The responsibility...the obligation...of faithful behavior is on the married party.

To blame the demise of your marriage on a third party instead of your cheating spouse...is some form of denial, if you ask me. And perhaps this denial is, in part, linked to what Mishigas73 said above, about the contribution to the demise of the marriage by the injured party.

However, to clarify my opinion, being a contributory half of a dysfunctional couple does not justify the other half committing adultery. In other words, if as a married woman I'm a paranoid jealous psycho freak or whatever I might do to make my husband unhappy, it does not justify my husband cheating on me. It does justify him filing for divorce but not cheating on me.


EDIT: Umm, just wanted to make sure that anyone here who doesn't know me doesn't think that I'm a married paranoid jealous psycho freak. I'm not married. *laugh*

However, to clarify my opinion, being a contributory half of a disfunctional couple does not justify the other half committing adultery. In other words, if as a married woman I'm a paranoid jealous psycho freak or whatever I might do to make my husband unhappy, it does not justify my husband cheating on me. It does justify him filing for divorce but not cheating on me.

Divorce is just as bad as leaving a partner and finding another. Even if you're religious, in fact ESPECIALLY if you are religious. You made a vow before god and broke it whichever way you look at it.

I'm not religious so I see ever as the same. That you made a stupid mistake, wasted years with an inappropriate partner and you BOTH messed up years of your life.

It is not POSSIBLE for a third party to break up a happy marriage. If both parties are truly happy, they don't look elsewhere.

If you made a mistake it should be rectified to avoid more unhappy years. Sticking around for the sake of loyalty, religion, laws of the land even is a ridiculous notion and is disrespecteful to yourself AND your spouse.

"Adultery" is not defined as "cheating." It is defined as being in a relationship outside marriage. Even if you broke up with the husband, he knows about it, you are seperated for months, years even, it is adultery in the eyes of the law, religion, whatever. Some countries make it take years to divorce. Do these people remain celibate for all the time it takes to sort out?

IMO it isn't cheating in any respects to tell a partner "I'm sorry, it's not working, we're finished" and then get somebody else. Marriage is just moot in this point in my mind. If you can admit to a stupid mistake then fine, but why perpetuate it?

In other words, if as a married woman I'm a paranoid jealous psycho freak or whatever I might do to make my husband unhappy, it does not justify my husband cheating on me. It does justify him filing for divorce but not cheating on me.



Nope, it doesn't justify anything but him filing for divorce. And it also doesn't justify you suing for "alienation of affection" because somehow you think that you're "entitled" to be a complete shrew and not expect him to wander. And, the idea that you can get the cash out of the person that he wandered to...

I really do have to chuckle at this cause of action. You don't want to be intimate with your husband, yet will sue someone who does.

Like you, Science Goddess, I'm not married. Never have been. And, of course, there will be those who will say that I "couldn't possibly understand". I've been around "the law" long enough to know that these causes of action are VERY tempting. You get cash and don't have to admit much personal fault. RIGHT ON!

As I've come to believe with many cases of "punitive damages", I believe that, so long as there is this cause of action, any and all damages should go to a fund. Whether it is for immediate housing for battered spouses or something else related. ANYTHING but lining the pockets of those who believe that once they get the ring on their finger, anyone who comes along to "tempt their spouse" should be paying them for the privilege.

Wait a minute. Isn't pimping illegal?

I am sorry but if someone is going to counseling and the therapist or minister engages in an affair with their client, then I think they should have the wazoo sued out of them!:mad:

People who go to therapy are vulnerable. The therapist or minister is in a position of power. Transference and other issues can make a client do things that years later they realize was not in their best interests. :(

Divorce is just as bad as leaving a partner and finding another.

Perhaps. But the topic here is suing for adultery.

"Adultery" is not defined as "cheating."
Adultery: Consensual sexual relations by a married person with someone other than his or her spouse. (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/2417C3B0-40D6-4A82-B178610A6B165D08)

Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=adultery)

Sounds like cheating to me...

[B]People who go to therapy are vulnerable. The therapist or minister is in a position of power. Transference and other issues can make a client do things that years later they realize was not in their best interests. :(

Up until several years ago, it was pretty much "ethical" for a lawyer in California to sleep with their client. It didn't surprise me when I learned this...but it also brought up the "wtf?" issue.

Perhaps. But the topic here is suing for adultery.


Adultery: Consensual sexual relations by a married person with someone other than his or her spouse. (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/2417C3B0-40D6-4A82-B178610A6B165D08)

Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=adultery)

Sounds like cheating to me...

The dictionary entry there gives the legal term, not the kneejerk, reactionary and emotionally biased definition of "cheating."

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating.

If you leave and tell your partner you are leaving for another, it's not cheating. It's more messed up, but you still laid everything down on the line.

Nobody would say it was cheating if the people were not married, yet it's suddenly cheating if they are.

Sorry but when somebody says "He cheated on me," I assume they still had a relationship and it was done in secrecy.

You can argue that it's cheating on a vow to god, but I don't take that line ever. I only got married for legal benefits, the marriage broke down and I am sick of being judged purely for the fact of marriage despite having lived with him for 10 years beforehand - I'm sure if we'd split up in that period everyone would have thought it was fine and dandy and I wouldn't be branded a cheater.

I am sorry but if someone is going to counseling and the therapist or minister engages in an affair with their client, then I think they should have the wazoo sued out of them!:mad:

People who go to therapy are vulnerable. The therapist or minister is in a position of power. Transference and other issues can make a client do things that years later they realize was not in their best interests. :(

I agree, YR, about a therapist or a minister engaging in this type of conduct, and I believe that they can be sued...at least a therapist...but I believe that there are other 'charges' that would apply. There is likely someone here that knows more about the professional ethics 'requirements' or standards of these professions. Although, I know enough to say that it's wrong!

While I do agree that those in therapy may be vulnerable, I'm a bit squirmy about the implication that they are not still responsible for making their own choices. Still, I would say that this scenario is the closest thing to justifying suing a third party for their participation in an adulterous scenario.

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating. If you are living together, married or not, and have an agreement that you both will be monogamous, then it IS CHEATING if one has an affair without the other's knowledge. ;)

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating.

If you leave and tell your partner you are leaving for another, it's not cheating. It's more messed up, but you still laid everything down on the line.

Nobody would say it was cheating if the people were not married, yet it's suddenly cheating if they are.

Sorry but when somebody says "He cheated on me," I assume they still had a relationship and it was done in secrecy.




I have to say that I pretty much disagree with all of these statements.

1. Still married but not sexually or romantically involved is still married. (And we are discussing adultery and marriage here...not being in a relationship.) Umm, there are lots of people who are married that no longer have romance, or sex. I bet most of them would still not be too happy if their spouse slept with someone else.

2. If I tell my husband that I'm leaving him for someone else, it IS messed up. And it IS cheating. I'm not sure how you can say that it isn't. Just because I tell him that I'm doing it, it's not cheating? :confused:

3. I disagree. If I'm in a committed relationship (explicitly agreed to by me and my SO) and my SO sleeps with someone else, it's cheating. Not sure what else you would call it. It's not adultery, but it's cheating.

4. Again: Just because I tell my husband that I'm doing it, it's not cheating? :confused:

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating.



If you are living together, married or not, and have an agreement that you both will be monogamous, then it IS CHEATING if one has an affair without the other's knowledge. ;)

It's cheating...it's adultery...whether the other person (the 'injured' party)knows about it or not...

If you are living together, married or not, and have an agreement that you both will be monogamous, then it IS CHEATING if one has an affair without the other's knowledge. ;)

That's really not remotely what I said.

It is cheating if the other party doesn't know.

It is not cheating if they do know, and have agreed to it.

Nor is it cheating if they know, haven't agreed to it but the relationship has already been stated by one or both to be OVER.

It is cheating if they know, do not agree to it and the relationship is NOT over however. But then you could argue that the partner being cheated on needs to be more assertive and get out. There's no need to sue in any case. Surely the monies won in divorce are enough?

But then again I don't even agree with THAT. My husband made my life a misery, he earns a decent wage and I could claim some of it. I won't however. I'm not earning it myself so why should I have a penny of it?

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating.


And, who determines THIS one? Last I heard, this is what divorce court was for, but if there's something that comes before that is the "line", I'd like to know.


If you leave and tell your partner you are leaving for another, it's not cheating. It's more messed up, but you still laid everything down on the line.


As someone who is unmarried, and as such, would be on the "other end of the line", I have to vehemently disagree.

I have been in the position where I have been with men who have been separated....I mean REALLY separated. Even so, I had qualms about it. Why? Because, the essential question is this: if you're so unhappy, why don't you just divorce before getting involved with someone else? Why should *I*, as the "other woman" be put in this situation?

There were reasons, which I find tolerable, for the particular situations that I have been in. But, otherwise? To say you're leaving for another person? That's NOT cheating? That hasn't been cheating?


Nobody would say it was cheating if the people were not married, yet it's suddenly cheating if they are.



Oh, really? Where do you get THIS brilliant revelation from?

Commitment is commitment. Paper or not. But, then again, I may have a really "out there" view of all of this....


I only got married for legal benefits, the marriage broke down and I am sick of being judged purely for the fact of marriage despite having lived with him for 10 years beforehand - I'm sure if we'd split up in that period everyone would have thought it was fine and dandy and I wouldn't be branded a cheater.

And, the reasons why you got married are purely yours. But, really, people wouldn't have thought that, if, after "being with him" for 9 years, you had a relationship with someone else, that you were "cheating".

If it makes you feel any better, I would have branded you a "cheater" LONG before you got married.

That's really not remotely what I said.

It is cheating if the other party doesn't know.

It is not cheating if they do know, and have agreed to it.

Nor is it cheating if they know, haven't agreed to it but the relationship has already been stated by one or both to be OVER.

It is cheating if they know, do not agree to it and the relationship is NOT over however. But then you could argue that the partner being cheated on needs to be more assertive and get out. There's no need to sue in any case. Surely the monies won in divorce are enough?

But then again I don't even agree with THAT. My husband made my life a misery, he earns a decent wage and I could claim some of it. I won't however. I'm not earning it myself so why should I have a penny of it?


Umm, I just want to be clear that we're talking about marriage not just 'a relationship' in this thread.

And if we're married, telling me that the marriage is over and running off and sleeping with someone else in no way changes the fact that you're cheating.

And if we're married, telling me that the marriage is over doesn't make it so until the church and/or the courts agree with you.

If I give my husband permission to sleep with someone else, then that's different...as long as he can prove that I gave him that permission! ;)

[QUOTE]1. Still married but not sexually or romantically involved is still married.

Marriage is just a piece of paper.

(And we are discussing adultery and marriage here...not being in a relationship.)

We're also discussing the morality of it, and I don't think that in a civilised nation a relationship between two people SHOULD be deemed more viable if they are married than if they are not.

We're discussing also, legal ramifications. And when people start bring in emotional arguments and using words like "cheating," it's no longer a legal argument.

Umm, there are lots of people who are married that no longer have romance, or sex. I bet most of them would still not be too happy if their spouse slept with someone else.

So if they left the marriage for this reason, it's cheating. BUt if they aren't married, then it's not?

These people who no longer want any sex or romance should be able to sue the partner who leaves, and the partner who leaves should be branded a cheater? But only if they are married - it's fine if not? That's pretty crazy.

2. If I tell my husband that I'm leaving him for someone else, it IS messed up. And it IS cheating. I'm not sure how you can say that it isn't. Just because I tell him that I'm doing it, it's not cheating? :confused:

If the relationship is OVER, how on earth are you cheating? Whether you left by disrespectful means or not, if you say it's over you aren't cheating.

My husband told ME it was over by the way. I'm a cheater for finding a boyfriend a good 6 months after the fact?

3. I disagree. If I'm in a committed relationship (explicitly agreed to by me and my SO) and my SO sleeps with someone else, it's cheating. Not sure what else you would call it. It's not adultery, but it's cheating.

It's IS cheating, but I can't see where on earth I ever said otherwise? All I said was that adultery as defined by LAW is not always cheating. It's not cheating if the husband and wife are swingers (nothing I would do, but nevertheless it's not.) It's not cheating if the husband and wife are seperated and have no relationship. It's not cheating if one or both says it's over and leaves.

It's not cheating if they are not married and the same applies.

It is cheating if a person has an affair without the consent and knowledge of the significant other in an existing relationship. That is the definition of cheating, whether the parties involved are married or not.

Adultery on the other hand, is a legal term (not even a CRIMINAL term either) for a person engaging in relations outside of their existing marriage. Whether it is at the consent, non consent, participation, non participation of the other married partner. It makes no distinctions in individual cases, it is black and white, clean cut. Therefore nobody should be able to sue for it.

Adultery is not synonymous with cheating.

4. Again: Just because I tell my husband that I'm doing it, it's not cheating? :confused:

If you broke off the relationship, then no. It might make you a bad person (depending on how you do it) but it's not cheating.

Oh, really? Where do you get THIS brilliant revelation from?

I was being sarcastic, I never said that. But most other people seem to.



And, the reasons why you got married are purely yours. But, really, people wouldn't have thought that, if, after "being with him" for 9 years, you had a relationship with someone else, that you were "cheating".

If it makes you feel any better, I would have branded you a "cheater" LONG before you got married.

You would have branded me a cheater pre-emptively for being utterly commited to this man for 11 years before he broke it off (after 2 years of us both knowing it was failing, and me trying desperately to fix it) and I got a boyfriend 6 months later?

What?

That would involve some degree of precognition as well as complete irrationality.

I want to be especially clear, because some people seem to misunderstand.

My positions:

Marriage is moot to me. Reｌationships are relationships. If you cheat in marriage, it's as bad as cheating on a significant other that you are not married to.

Adultery is a legal definition. It is always clear cut - having sex outside marriage at the consent or non consent of your partner. It also doesn't recognise whether or not your relationship is over.

Cheating is not a legal definition. People differ on the meaning, but my personal definition is having sex or romance with another person outside your relationship without the knowledge and/or consent of your partner.

If the relationship, marriage or not is over, it is not cheating. Yet the law will say that it is adultery if you are married.

Adultery is not the same as cheating therefore. There are too many grey areas, and that is why nobody should be able to sue for it.

Bringing the non married couples back into the argument, is it fair that marriec ones can sue for adultery even if mitigating circumstances might have been involved, but non married partners cannot sue for absolutely clean cut cheating?

You would have branded me a cheater pre-emptively for being utterly commited to this man for 11 years before he broke it off (after 2 years of us both knowing it was failing, and me trying desperately to fix it) and I got a boyfriend 6 months later?

What?

That would involve some degree of precognition as well as complete irrationality.

Oh geez.

Let me reiterate for the benefit of those who are a bit slow on the uptake.

Here's what I was responding to.

"I'm sure if we'd split up in that period everyone would have thought it was fine and dandy and I wouldn't be branded a cheater."

Yes, if say, you found another lover during the time you were together, regardless of your marital status, I would sure as hell have labelled you a "cheater".

Whether or not you "married for the benefits" is irrelevant. You cheated. And the "paper" doesn't make a difference.

But, you're trying to "make a point". So, have at it. I'm sure that others may actually "get it".

Oh geez.

Let me reiterate for the benefit of those who are a bit slow on the uptake.

Here's what I was responding to.

"I'm sure if we'd split up in that period everyone would have thought it was fine and dandy and I wouldn't be branded a cheater."

Yes, if say, you found another lover during the time you were together, regardless of your marital status, I would sure as hell have labelled you a "cheater".

Whether or not you "married for the benefits" is irrelevant. You cheated. And the "paper" doesn't make a difference.

But, you're trying to "make a point". So, have at it. I'm sure that others may actually "get it".

I still don't think you understand my point.

What I am saying is that people tend to think that if you or your partner end a relationship as in it is OVER and you get a partner later on, that it's cheating if you are still married but not so if you aren't.

I say that neither is cheating.

What I was NOT saying was that I consider actually cheating on a partner you are not married to to NOT be cheating.

If you are saying however that if I was broken up with my boyfriend, still living with him and got another boyfriend that would mean it was cheating then I would have to strongly disagree. I've had friends who broke up in university, stayed friends, shared accomodation and both had partners after. That's really not cheating either.

Many would roll their eyes and say that they wouldn't believe there was any lack of involvement between the people still living together, but I would also say it was none of their business. If you know in your heart you are not cheating, no amount of outside opinion will make it the case.

If you are saying however that if I was broken up with my boyfriend, still living with him and got another boyfriend that would mean it was cheating then I would have to strongly disagree. I've had friends who broke up in university, stayed friends, shared accomodation and both had partners after. That's really not cheating either.

Jesus, here we go again. Let's define "living together" as we had to define "sex" during the Clinton era. This is an asinine example.

You're pressing this one WAY too much.

You brought up the issue about how people view "cheating" in a marriage as different than cheating during a LTR. I told you that I don't see it as ANY DIFFERENT.

Commitment, is commitment, is commitment.

Apparently you're unable to accept the fact that I see things differently than you do. Meh, it happens.

**shrug**

Well, I didn't come up with the topic myself but the topic is:

Should you be FINED for adultery??


Should adultery plus abandonment of a spouse be something that the losing party has the right to sue for in court??


within the context of:

Because Sandra Day left her husband for her boss — millionaire Jerry Fitch — whom she eventually married, Mississippi courts have ruled that Day's ex-husband is entitled to $642,000 in compensatory damages and $112,500 in punitive damages.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21529255/


The topic is not whether marriage is just a piece of paper in your opinion.

The topic is not whether you think that "in a civilised nation a relationship between two people SHOULD be deemed more viable if they are married than if they are not".

The topic has nothing to do with your views on marriage vs. a different type of committed relationship, or spouse vs. boyfriend.

The topic is:

Should you be FINED for adultery??


Should adultery plus abandonment of a spouse be something that the losing party has the right to sue for in court??



I saw the couple in the story on television. I don't recall either of them denying that they were committing adultery (although I may have missed it), and I'm not finding such a denial in the msnbc story provided by Harrison.


Perhaps you might want to start a separate thread discussing your views on what constitutes adultery and what does not.

If you are already broken up sexually and romantically, it is not cheating.
That's really not remotely what I said.

That is EXACTLY what you said. :p Since you line itemed your points, I just wanted to clarify what I thought and see if you agreed with it. :)

That is EXACTLY what you said. :p Since you line itemed your points, I just wanted to clarify what I thought and see if you agreed with it. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowrose View Post
If you are living together, married or not, and have an agreement that you both will be monogamous, then it IS CHEATING if one has an affair without the other's knowledge.

This is what I was responding to.

You were acting as if you needed to tell me that it is cheating if you are in a monogamous relationship and have an affair.

I was not saying anything to the contrary, which is what I was referring to.

You really think I'm stupid, you're acting on your emotions and you think I'm immoral for having a relationship while still living with my very much estranged husband. (Oh and by the way, he's left.) Therefore you think you need to tell me the absolute definition of cheating like I don't know it already. It's really patronising of you.

Either you have misunderstood my posts - as Mishigas misunderstood me when I was being sarcastic and you quoted me and disagreed, making a counter argument I AGREED WITH in response, or you just think I'm completely immoral and need the laws laid down. And I really, REALLY STRONGLY, AND PASSIONATELY, to the point I just lost my temper, disagree with you on this point.

Either way you're causing me too much stress to be bothered with so I am putting you on ignore.

edit: Actually it was Mishigas who misunderstood the sarcasm, but this is exactly why I felt people weren't understanding me at all so I think I'll just put everyone who thinks I am a cheater on ignore and I request that they do likewise for me, after all why would you want to read the opinions of an immoral cheater?

My point on this thread is that people should not be able to sue for adultery, because adultery is not always clean cut cheatring.

Whether you disagree or not about the cheating aspect is moot. That is my position, I didn't want this to turn into an argument over the definition. I simply wanted to state why I thought it shouldn't be the case.

You really think I'm stupid, you're acting on your emotions and you think I'm immoral for having a relationship while still living with my very much estranged husband. Hang on there... You are WAY out of line with me. I have no idea what your life is about. I just wanted to clarify your post. You need to definitely chill... okay? :)

Hang on there... You are WAY out of line with me. I have no idea what your life is about. I just wanted to clarify your post. You need to definitely chill... okay? :)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, I got very confused as to who agreed, didn't agree and who was reading my posts wrong (I am trying to curb the sarcasm) after Mishigas misunderstood that one thing I said, so I think I'll just leave this thread and take people off ignore as I lost track of who said what, it made me angry and I'm too hassled to sort it all out. But if you really think I'm a cheater PLEASE put me on ignore. I can do without the judgement, I came here for support in a very hard situation.

But if you really think I'm a cheater PLEASE put me on ignore. I can do without the judgement, I came here for support. Sweetie... if this is still directed to me... my 'senior moments memory' can't remember what I had for breakfast, much less what is going on in your life. :)

edit: Actually it was Mishigas who misunderstood the sarcasm, but this is exactly why I felt people weren't understanding me at all so I think I'll just put everyone who thinks I am a cheater on ignore and I request that they do likewise for me, after all why would you want to read the opinions of an immoral cheater?

If THIS is causing you to lose your temper and have a breakdown, by all means put me on ignore.

Actually, you should probably just take a step or two away from the computer altogether and reprioritize. Neither I, nor yellowrose, or anyone else for that matter has "judged" your circumstance. We think what we think, as you do.

A little bit of perspective...it's a wonderful thing.


My point on this thread is that people should not be able to sue for adultery, because adultery is not always clean cut cheatring.


And, from your responses to me and others, it's quite apparent that you're defensive about this.

Maybe this is a time to look within, rather than villifying others? Don't get me wrong, I can take it. I've done it before, and definitely can do it again. But, where does that get YOU?



I simply wanted to state why I thought it shouldn't be the case.

And, from your reaction, I "simply" want to state again that maybe you should take a good look within yourself. Meh...I "didn't get your sarcasm"....ok. Why aren't you at all comfortable with your position here?

Oh, yeah, I KNOW you are. But, REALLY, why aren't you comfortable with your position?

I can do without the judgement, I came here for support in a very hard situation.

Erm...from all I know of you, you came onto a "discussion thread" and put out a position that I disagree with.

You may have WANTED support, but I'm not a mind-reader. I know NOTHING of your situation, other than you want the rest of us to somehow "accept" it.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, I got very confused as to who agreed, didn't agree and who was reading my posts wrong (I am trying to curb the sarcasm) after Mishigas misunderstood that one thing I said, so I think I'll just leave this thread and take people off ignore as I lost track of who said what, it made me angry and I'm too hassled to sort it all out. But if you really think I'm a cheater PLEASE put me on ignore. I can do without the judgement, I came here for support in a very hard situation.

Maybe it's time for a time out, ladies.

I don't think that YR was passing any judgement on anything that has to do with you, Ariadne.

I thought we were all having a friendly, or at least civilized, discussion about the topic at hand.

Are people really getting so very angry at being disagreed with during general discussion that they're putting each other on ignore?

I guess this happens more than I realize..? (Heh...I wonder how many people have me on ignore. Oh, wait...no I don't. :rolleyes:)

I guess this happens more than I realize..? (Heh...I wonder how many people have me on ignore. Oh, wait...no I don't. :rolleyes:)

Is there really an "ignore button"? (seriously)

Even in my tumultuous time on here, I never even thought of that. But, that's what makes this so great. Different strokes for different folks.

...I came here for support in a very hard situation...

Ariadne, sweetheart. You've wandered into the chit chat forum, where people can be less serious, debate, etc. The original topic is "should cheaters be fined"? It wasn't posted to offer support for folks in that situation, it was posted to create debate.

There are two forums titled relationship support, you'll find the support you need there. Those same people are here too, but they were not anticipating your need. After all, this is a topic geared for debate.

I could tell from your earliest post in this topic that you had deep feelings about the subject. Frankly, this topic brings up a lot of pain for me.

there are no easy decisions in life, no black and white. No good guys and bad guys. Just people trying to have their needs met, trying to make good decisions. Decisions that can often be clouded by emotional issues from our past or present. Even when we make bad choices and do things we regret, we still deserve respect and kindness. After all, when we are at our lowest, that's when we need the most support. In our lowest moments, the only way we know we are forgivable, is when others forgive us. The only way we know we are lovable, is when others are kind to us.

I know you're going through a tough time, but there are people here who care about you. Deeply.

Is there really an "ignore button"? (seriously)

Even in my tumultuous time on here, I never even thought of that. But, that's what makes this so great. Different strokes for different folks.

Rumor has it that there is a way to put people on ignore.

But I don't know how.

Sometimes I LIKE reading posts by people who tick me off! :tongue2: Then, when my eyes hurt from rolling them back so much, I quit reading.

Umm, I can't be the ONLY one...:bgrin2:

Just jumping in here....

I think perspective is everything on this issue. Twenty years ago when I was married to a serial adultering husband, I would have sued the crap out of anyone involved if I'd had the opportunity. I was one angry person.

Later, when I took responsibility for staying with him despite knowing, both intuitively and sometimes consciously what was going on, I became less angry and more realistic about human behavior.

Today my answer is "no." You shouldn't be able to sue another person for cheating with your spouse. People are messy. People make mistakes. People act out of their own pathology. I don't think the law should allow a person to claim financial reward for behavioral wrongdoing.

But most definitely, if children are involved, the cheating spouse should support those children if the cheating leads to the demise of the marriage.

I think anyone who enters a marriage these days expecting it to last until the end of time is living in a fairy tale. Of all the friends and family I've known in my lifetime who are around my age or younger, only one marriage has lasted over 30 years.

Is there really an "ignore button"? Just click on the profile of the person that you want to ignore. That is where one can select 'IGNORE'. :)

Remember, not only will you not see their posts, but you will NOT receive any PM's that the 'ignored' poster sends to you. :cool:

Of all the friends and family I've known in my lifetime who are around my age or younger, only one marriage has lasted over 30 years.

Every chance I can, I tell my parents and their friends (who were my "family" when I was growing up) that they REALLY screwed me up. My parents just celebrated their 45th anniversary, and I think that the most junior of the others is about 40.

I've known a LOT of couples that have lasted a long time. My grandparents lasted about 70 or 71.

I'm 34, and have never been married. Not that I couldn't be, within a relatively short amount of time. But, for better or worse (ha ha), I DO believe in the fairy tale.

And, this is what I was trying to get through early on in this thread. My last two serious relationships were with people who were "married". The first guy, when he told me that he was still married, you could have bowled me over with a feather. I was SO ready to leave. Up until I KNEW that his wife had left years earlier. They were "so separated" in fact, that he didn't know that she had died until about 7 months after the fact.

My current man was still married when I got involved. And, it took me until my first visit to his place to actually "believe" in this separation, and accept it. There are, in my mind, some *very* valid reasons why an OM would remain married.

I know that many people wouldn't agree with me. And, that's cool. Really.

Whether or not others agree, it really doesn't make a difference to me at this point.

But, I do "get" the defensiveness that's happened here. I went through it, and probably still will.

Every chance I can, I tell my parents and their friends (who were my "family" when I was growing up) that they REALLY screwed me up. My parents just celebrated their 45th anniversary, and I think that the most junior of the others is about 40.

I've known a LOT of couples that have lasted a long time. My grandparents lasted about 70 or 71.


That's my point actually. The only long term marriages I've seen in my lifetime were my parents and grandparents generation.

My generation and younger, I don't see lasting much. In my family alone, I have 21 cousins. Out of all of us, only two have marriages that have lasted, and one of those marriages has been very shakey for the past year. The rest of us are either divorced or never married. Some have remarried.

Of all my good friends over the years, only one couple has lasted more than 30 years. The rest, again, have either never married or are divorced.

My advice to you is to make a life for yourself independently. If men come in and out of it, great. If one stays, even better, bonus time! But don't count on it. The odds are stacked against it.

But I understand believing in the fairy tale. I just don't believe it anymore. Reality has turned out to be a better approach.

First off, to the actual question...

NO! Sue for adultery/cheating? Now, I understand that it's a horrible experience for someone to have to go through, but to get money from it as some form of compensation is (to me) bizarre. How do you quantify the distress involved? The way to get 'compensation' is to divorce and use the adultery as the reason for it. That should effect the outcome of the divorce, any money for support, etc. None of that should be based on 'emotional trauma' though... where are we going to stop if we can sue people because, basically, our feelings have been hurt?

I see where Ariadne is coming from (and, SG, she is still on topic ;) ) because people are still committing adultery when getting a divorce whilst not necessarily 'cheating'. How is someone 'cheating' when divorce proceedings have been going on for months, both parties have acknowledged that the relationship is over, and BOTH have new partners? Technically, they are committing adultery. Some people might consider them 'cheating', but that seems bizarre since it must surely involve some kind of deception?

What Ariadne is putting into the discussion is that in the above example, it would appear both parties could sue each other for adultery. Now THAT would be bizarre. Also, imagine if a married couple split up (both agree to) and start divorce proceedings that go on for months and years, THEN one of them start a relationship... say 3 years into the divorce proceedings. Can the other somehow sue them for affecting their happiness? Purely because they have technically committed adultery? And how is that also 'cheating'? You might say that they have made a commitment before god that has been broken, but does that make it 'cheating'? I don't believe it does, it means you've broken a commitment! Nevermind the fact that I'm married and it has sod all to do with any god of any kind. 'God' isn't mentioned in our vows to each other, and religion should have nothing to do with the law, which is what marriages are bound by. Aren't they?

Also, when it comes to a counsellor 'seducing' someone in therapy who is married... well, they should be punished of course because they should be accountable for there actions and they are clearly NOT doing their job very well! But sued? No chance.

And if anyone disagrees with anything I've said then watch out, I might sue you for upsetting me. :p

Hahaha.

This is really pretty offensive.

After the thread in which two regulars admit to having met their younger man while married, you post "cheating losers" like it's a catch all term and things never are shades of grey. Just black and white.

This fine would catch all the people out in abusive relationships who chose to leave, met another person while mutually seperated and their spouse decided to get vindictive after the fact.

It's yet another control device a marriage partner gone bad can hold over the head of the party trying desperately to get out of an abusive relationship.

LOL...now it's become "offensive" if someone condemns cheating/cheaters? AWESOME!!!

So, if cheating is carried out by a "regular" on this board then it's ok? Everyone has their own set of circumstances that only they are truly aware of, however that doesn't make it ok to have sex with someone while you are married to someone else. Period, regular or not.

I think it's pretty pathetic that abusive relationships should even be mentioned in this thread. If someone is in an abusive relationship they need to get out of it, cheating is not the solution...abusive relationship or not, if you cheat you should be punished (and so should her abuser of course). If a woman who is getting the crap beaten out of her has the time and guts to cheat then she should have the time and guts to get a divorce.

That is from a religious point of view Amina, but what about people who are not religious and consider marriage only an administrative procedure ?

When 2 people can no longer live under the same roof, or even continue to do so but decide to lead seperate lives, I consider them to not have any ties to each other anymore, except for the children.

If one of the spouses or both have met other people, I wouldn't consider that adultary. Allowing the administration to decide who screws with whom is totally ridiculous. It is NOT their business.

My husband and I did not get on at all. He went away with his girlfriend. Six years later I met Peter, who lived with his wife and children under the same roof only for financial reasons.

Now both Peter and I have filed for divorce but we might have to wait for over a year. Are we supposed to play dominos when he comes over to visit ? Or maybe even better, he should be staying at a hotel and we should go out for walks around sunset ?

Well, I suppose technically, I'm cheating.....ack!
Griff and I have filed for divorce but b/c of differences of opinion on what he should pay back to me, it is dragging out.
He is in Idaho, I am not lol, I want nothing more to do with him.....ever!!!!!!!!
He became abusive (mentally) and I threw his ***** to the curb......where he belonged.
I wasted enough of my life praying that he'd come to his senses..........not going to worry about a damned piece of paper before I continue on my life's journey!
I in no way consider myself as cheating though and am sure, he doesn't either.
Blessings, TD

Aline it's not about religion, deception is wrong regardless of one's religious views.

Like I said, there are different circumstances for different people...

Cheating involves deception...Aline, you are not deceiving Paul and he is not deceiving you, the marriage is over and you both have openly moved on to different people. The same with you TD, your ex is not living in your home thinking that you are being faithful to him, the marriage is over...

I am speaking about deception. Just b/c people are in "bad" marriages doesn't give them a right to cheat - to deceive.

Yup Amina...........deception is just plain evil!!!!
Don't want any part of that in ANY area of my life.
One way or the other, it'll come back to that person!

I am speaking about deception. Just b/c people are in "bad" marriages doesn't give them a right to cheat - to deceive.

Respectfully, disagree, Amina - on this narrow point. You're speaking from a postion of relative affluence, power and privilege.

You don't know what it's like to be an undereducated, semi-literate, poor and/or minority spouse, regularly beaten like a gong, and clueless about her options. Some women may have no experience with putting trust in "The Man" as represented by the police, the courts and other government agencies. A lover may be the ONLY man she feels she can trust

After all, in minority neighborhoods, when people testify agaisnt drug dealers and gangsters, they often wind up shot dead. I can see why The Man is not someone that poor people feel they can count on.

Now, obviously cheating is still wrong - but in an physical-abuse-related case, I think the grounds for a lawsuit would quickly evaporate

Some time ago, there was a law called 'Alienation of Affection'. You could bring the other party to court and sue them for breaking up your marriage.

There are times when I wish it could be used. Like when a woman is 8 months pregnant and the party girl next door is making eyes at your husband! :tongue2:

It still would be the HUSBAND'S fault for acting on her "making eyes." HE is the one who is breaking the marriage contract. The girl next door can't force him to cheat.


I remember one case of a woman who sued her marriage counselor because she seduced her husband. She sued for alienation of affection and won.

I would say that the HUSBAND should sue because the therapist crossed a different line. But I agree with SB that in this case the wife might have a good argument because therapists know that the opening up in therapy and making progress often results in the patient having love-like feelings for their therapist. The therapist has to be responsible & professional in those cases. She should also lose her license.




I see where Ariadne is coming from (and, SG, she is still on topic ;) ) because people are still committing adultery when getting a divorce whilst not necessarily 'cheating'. How is someone 'cheating' when divorce proceedings have been going on for months, both parties have acknowledged that the relationship is over, and BOTH have new partners? Technically, they are committing adultery. Some people might consider them 'cheating', but that seems bizarre since it must surely involve some kind of deception?


Well, I suppose technically, I'm cheating.....ack!




Cheating involves deception...Aline, you are not deceiving Paul and he is not deceiving you, the marriage is over and you both have openly moved on to different people. The same with you TD, your ex is not living in your home thinking that you are being faithful to him, the marriage is over...

I am speaking about deception. Just b/c people are in "bad" marriages doesn't give them a right to cheat - to deceive.

This is the point that Ariadne was trying to make!! There is a big difference between the legal definition of adultery and "cheating." You can be committing adultry and not be technically cheating.

For example, if you are separated from your husband and living apart, you both have another SO and you are each aware of that and OK with it, you are not cheating (because nothing is secret and evryone is OK with it) but you ARE technically committing adultery until you are legally divorced.

And Ariandne's point was that it ISN'T the case if you were just living together (no marriage contract) and you both go your separate ways. The only difference is that piece of paper you have to wait for that says you are "legally" broken up. Even though you are doing the exact same thing as the non-married people (breaking up and living elsewher) until you get that divorce paper, you are an adulterer and, apparently in some states, can get sued.

So, while Tiny and Aline ARE committing adultery LEGALLY, they are not "cheating" because there is no deception to their partner.

So there IS a difference between legal adultery and "cheating." Which is why Ariandne was saying that you shouldn't be able to sue for adultery. Because, what if you are still legally married yet have been living apart for a year, your spouse is dragging out the divorce, you start dating someone and your new SO suddenly inherits a lot of money? Then the spouse claims, because you were still legally married and started a new relationship, that they now have the right to sue your new SO (and get some of that inheritance) because you committed "adultery" and the SO alientated your affections." :rolleyes:

See how crazy that gets???

Here's a question,

How many people who think that there shouldnt be a law where people are fined for adultery, have actually cheated or commited adultery or technically commited adultery?

I for one have "technically commited adultery" since I was seperated for over a year and in the middle of my divorce when I met my exbf. I think however, that if it can be proven that it was a happy home until someone else came in and actively tried to seduce a partner then both parties should be sued. If not for alienation of affection then for pain and suffering and the need and want to get a shot gun.

Edited to Add: that woman did lose her license and Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.

Here's a question,

How many people who think that there shouldnt be a law where people are fined for adultery, have actually cheated or commited adultery or technically commited adultery?
Why do you ask?

Respectfully, disagree, Amina - on this narrow point. You're speaking from a postion of relative affluence, power and privilege.

You don't know what it's like to be an undereducated, semi-literate, poor and/or minority spouse, regularly beaten like a gong, and clueless about her options. Some women may have no experience with putting trust in "The Man" as represented by the police, the courts and other government agencies. A lover may be the ONLY man she feels she can trust..you stick up for them you defend them you think its YOUR fault.

After all, in minority neighborhoods, when people testify agaisnt drug dealers and gangsters, they often wind up shot dead. I can see why The Man is not someone that poor people feel they can count on.

Now, obviously cheating is still wrong - but in an physical-abuse-related case, I think the grounds for a lawsuit would quickly evaporate

you are right on that. I was beat for ten years and got the scars to prove it. Let me tell you when you have no self esteem left from being beaten you do think that the person you are with is the only one who wants you and you trust them. You become so brainwashed...you think its NORMAL..then one day YOU SNAP

Oh i know I have heard the WELL WHY DID YOU NOT LEAVE. Well you try to leave when he has hired a Private investigator to watch your every move. But a two way lock on the doors and bars on the windows so you can't escape. You can't visit your family without him. Friends are out of the question. My story is long and many women and men know what its like to be abused.
So if you do find someone man or woman who shows you one ounce of affection during that time ..its like a lifeline to the outside world. Had it not been for a neighbor who showed me a tiny bit of affection I would have been dead as he helped me escape along with sending messages to my family to let them know the truth.

So to some cheating is horrible but if it helps to save your life and get you out then so be it. I feel horrible that this person got hurt in the process of all that but it was either him or the kids and I dying.

just my two cents

Why do you ask?

Because Im interested in seeing if the slant is because people have actually cheated and would be the ones getting sued so theyre saying no out of self interest.

I think however, that if it can be proven that it was a happy home until someone else came in and actively tried to seduce a partner then both parties should be sued. If not for alienation of affection then for pain and suffering and the need and want to get a shot gun.



Well, then I think a lot of these cases will lose and waste a lot of taxpayer money in the court system.

Happily married people just don't get lured away from their spouses, unless there is some kind of brainwashing involved or a person in a position of authority or trust misuses their position ie. a psychologist abusing a patient's vulnerability or a boss threatening firing.

Well, then I think a lot of these cases will lose and waste a lot of taxpayer money in the court system.

Happily married people just don't get lured away from their spouses, unless there is some kind of brainwashing involved or a person in a position of authority or trust misuses their position ie. a psychologist abusing patient trust or a boss threatening firing.

Theyre very hard to prove but when they are proven people usually get granted big monetary awards.

An action for alienation of affection does not require proof of extramarital sex. An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and there are several defenses. To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeably impact on the marriage. Thus, defendant has a defense against an alienation claim where it can be shown that defendant did not know that the object of his or her affections was in fact married. It is not a defense that the non-innocent spouse consented to defendant’s conduct. But it might be a defense that the defendant was not the active and aggressive seducer. If defendant’s conduct was somehow inadvertent, the plaintiff would be unable to show intentional or malicious action. But prior marital problems do not establish a defense unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.

Because Im interested in seeing if the slant is because people have actually cheated and would be the ones getting sued so theyre saying no out of self interest.

That's what I thought.

Self interest has no bearing on my vote. I think I pretty much explained why I thought it was stupid and it has nothing to do with my scenario. I've been cheated on, so I am mature enough to see both sides.

Theyre very hard to prove but when they are proven people usually get granted big monetary awards.

That's what I mean. Do you want your taxes to go up so some jilted person can try to take this stuff to court?

They should just accept that it is just life that people break up and marriages fail and move on. Not waste my tax dollars to get money that isn't going to bring their spouse back and is most likely going to cost even more emotional heartbreak & anger for everyone involved.

we could go back to public hangings:tongue2: rope is CHEAP!! JUST KIDDING!!

That's what I thought.

Self interest has no bearing on my vote. I think I pretty much explained why I thought it was stupid and it has nothing to do with my scenario. I've been cheated on, so I am mature enough to see both sides.

Maturity has nothing to do with it and it is mostly a matter of perception. Perception that can take into account many different factors individual to other people that age would have nothing to do with.

Alienation of affection can have NOTHING to do with adultery or cheating, ministers and marriage counselors and friends have been sued for advising the spouse to leave a marriage either due to problems or because a friend didnt like the the other spouse. In these cases I think that suing would be pointless.

I think primarily the other spouse has to show "malicious intent"on the part of the person trying to break them up. It doesnt mean that the spouse had sex or actually cheated but that the other party is actively seeking to break them up or tried to.


The people who are seperated and living apart or already filing for divorce would not be sued since they are not actively living in the marriage and trying to make it work. This law would only apply to couples who are actively living as husband and wife.

we could go back to public hangings:tongue2: rope is CHEAP!! JUST KIDDING!!

Flogging my dear, flogging, death is too quick. lol :p

I've been on all sides of this scenario at one time or another.

From the vatage point of someone who could have been sued:

I was dating a guy for 2.5 years. He was legally separated for TEN YEARS and wasn't living with his wife. He was saving the money to get a lawyer for the divorce. (He thought he WAS divorced until I found out otherwise.)

After he died, his legal wife (who had been dating another man for over a year) and his mother called me all sorts of horrible names like adulterer and Jezabel because I "stole" him. I even got a email from his neice saying how horrible it was that I made him cheat and caused his death (we were mugged outside his house) and I took him from his true love - he was meant to be with his wife.

HUH???? They were separate for a loooong time, yet everyone was so emotional after his death, they blamed ME.

So, they could have taken me to court and sued me for alienation of affection (and I made more money than either him or her, so Harrison's comment that "rich" people should pay was double ridiculous to me.)

Even though it would probably be thrown out because he had left before I came into the picture, it still would have wasted a lot of taxpayer money (and MY money for a lawyer) because these people were suing for their "hurt."

So, yes, I think it is a stupid law and should not even be there for the abuses it would most likely inspire.

I've been on all sides of this scenario at one time or another.

From the vatage point of someone who could have been sued:

I was dating a guy for 2.5 years. He was legally separated for TEN YEARS and wasn't living with his wife. He was saving the money to get a lawyer for the divorce. (He thought he WAS divorced until I found out otherwise.)

After he died, his legal wife (who had been dating another man for over a year) and his mother called me all sorts of horrible names like adulterer and Jezabel because I "stole" him. I even got a email from his neice saying how horrible it was that I made him cheat and caused his death (we were mugged outside his house) and I took him from his true love - he was meant to be with his wife.

HUH???? They were separate for a loooong time, yet everyone was so emotional after his death, they blamed ME.

So, they could have taken me to court and sued me for alienation of affection (and I made more money than either him or her, so Harrison's comment that "rich" people should pay was double ridiculous to me.)

Even though it would probably be thrown out because he had left before I came into the picture, it still would have wasted a lot of taxpayer money (and MY money for a lawyer) because these people were suing for their "hurt."

So, yes, I think it is a stupid law and should not even be there for the abuses it would most likely inspire.

But you wouldnt of been sued, because he was seperate from his spouse for 10 years. So they were not actively living as husband and wife and trying to make their household work. So the law would not have been applied to you. It wouldnt of made it court.

I think that anything between a husband and wife should be kept between them.........free will and all!
If two people, or one of them, chooses to end their marriage, the courts will decide who should get what if the two cannot agree.
If one of them has money, usually the other will get some of it in the settlement.
No reason to drag anyone else into it..period!

When I first voted I thought..."heck ya let them sue".

But having stepped back, I realize that it's the emotional part of me that responded.

Of course I'd want to right this wrong, but I'd like to believe as a society we should be able to govern most things by ourselves.

I think the government/religion has enough control over my life. I'd like to retain a bit of free thinking, especially with matters of my heart.

I think at the end of the day we want to believe that we can fix everything by taking money from another person, but you just can never fix what has been done even with money. It may cushion the fall but it will never repair the damage.

I believe alimony should always exist if one partner needs help establishing themselves after the other leaves. But I don't believe in the right to sue for adultery even if I sympathize with the reasoning.

I have never cheated on a mate, but I've been cheated on plenty. So my no vote comes with a need to preserve my ability to freewill and not some ulterior motive. My mentality would actually benefit the jerks that did me wrong. But I'm okay with that because divorce costs quite a bit of money and I don't see that slowing people down regarding adultery (which is still the most common reason for divorce though we like to catch it under irreconcilable differences now).

But, I don't agree with the 'no' option on this poll, because I don't believe in many cases it's a matter of the heart leading us somewhere else as much our selfishness.

It should say, "No don't fine people" and leave it at that. Honestly I wouldn't have voted no because I don't agree with the rationale of that option.

I don't believe the heart usually leads people anywhere. I think we go because we want something the other person provides and if we're lucky love develops out of mutual needs being met.

Rarely the heart leads us anywhere, though we'd like to blame it for everything we chose to do with our minds.

I also believe it is possible to be married and no longer together. Even sharing the same house while living separate lives. I know because I did that for 3 years.

But you wouldnt of been sued, because he was seperate from his spouse for 10 years. So they were not actively living as husband and wife and trying to make their household work. So the law would not have been applied to you. It wouldnt of made it court.

She could claim that they were trying to reconcile and I kept them apart. Obviously, his own mother and neice would have testified on her behalf, because they believed that he was meant to be with her, too.

I see nothing in your definition that says they have to be living together.

That is why this is too grey. If the jilted spouse claims that they were happily married but the spouse who leaves say that they were not, what then?

In the case that Harrison used, the wife said that the marriage was dead. They obviously took the word of the husband over her word.

So my case COULD have gone to court.

Damn, why'd I have to go and marry a y/m with no money lol???
Technically, due to my injuries, he would have to pay alimony.
The way he treated me would just cement the deal.
On the other hand..........he'd still be in my life, if only a monthly check.......ack!
I'd rather be on the streets!

She could claim that they were trying to reconcile and I kept them apart. Obviously, his own mother and neice would have testified on her behalf, because they believed that he was meant to be with her, too.

I see nothing in your definition that says they have to be living together.

That is why this is too grey. If the jilted spouse claims that they were happily married but the spouse who leaves say that they were not, what then?

In the case that Harrison used, the wife said that the marriage was dead. They obviously took the word of the husband over her word.

So my case COULD have gone to court.

But prior marital problems do not establish a defense unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.

That's part of the law, his seperation 8 years prior to your involvement with him would have made any attempt to sue you ineligible. As for the rest it is on the part of the spouse suing to PROVE that it was a happy marriage. hard to do in my opinion unless they have a stack of letters and emails stating otherwise.

__________________

But, I don't agree with the 'no' on this poll, because I don't believe in many cases it's a matter of the heart leading us somewhere else as much our selfishness.


I agree. I would have preferred something like "No. It is between the married couple only. A third party is not accountable for another person's decisions."

That's part of the law, his seperation 8 years prior to your involvement with him would have made any attempt to sue you ineligible.

__________________

S, your own quote says "prior marital problems do not establish a defense" and she could claim that they still loved each other and were working it out.

S, your own quote says "prior marital problems do not establish a defense" and she could claim that they still loved each other and were working it out.


For 8 years? lol Most states have a seperation law of 7 years in order to divorce with no contest. I believe that the second part of that quote would have applied to your situation. Since he was actively seeking a divorce

unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.

For 8 years? lol Most states have a seperation law of 7 years in order to divorce with no contest. I believe that the second part of that quote would have applied to your situation. Since he was actively seeking a divorce

But not legally seeking the divorce. He didn't have the funds. One thing I didn't mention was that even though they were legally separated, they had reconciled off and on over those ten years because of the kids. She could claim that they were still in love and trying to work things out. (She actually DID claim that after he died.)

I'm just saying that people still sue even if it looks like things are stacked against them. Look at that guy who sued his drycleaner. :rolleyes:

He lost the case and got fired!
I think he may have even been disbarred......karma baby!

It still would be the HUSBAND'S fault for acting on her "making eyes." HE is the one who is breaking the marriage contract. The girl next door can't force him to cheat.


From my understanding, it's hard for some men to control their sexual urges when the situation presents, althought he may not love her.

...Happily married people just don't get lured away from their spouses...

I am on my lunch hour and want to make a quick comment.

This statement is chocked full of deflection.

First the choice of words, "lured away" is wrong. As if the adulterer or adulteress is being "fooled" or "tempted" into committing adulterey, and is therefore somehow less culpable? No, no, no, adulterey is a conscious decision, nobody is lured away.

Second, the concept that only unhappily married people commit adulterey is off base as well, as if to put the blame on their spouse for their decision.

Adulterey is a symptom, not a problem. The problem is in the mind and emotional state of the adulterer or adulteress. Being happily or unhappily married is not a basis for justifying the action, because a person can be unhappy in a fine marriage, due to their emotional state. Or they can be plain old selfish and allow personal gratification to cloud good judgement.

The mother of my children had a husband who loved and adored her. There was no abuse, either physical or emotional. There was no emotional distance on my part. On the surface everyone thought we had a beautiful marriage. But her emotional demons prevented her from appreciating what she had. I became her fall guy for all of her unhappiness, because I was safe for her to blame.

To have been the victim of an adulterous spouse is very painful. I did nothing to warrant her decision. and later I forgave her for the sake of the kids and our marriage. Her disrespect of me continued even after that.

I acknowledge the other circumstances mentioned in this thread, and can understand for instance why someone involved in an abusive relationship would find solace elsewhere, but that circumstance does not define every act of adulterey. Earlier comments in this thread alluding to the concept that behind the decision of each adulterer or adulteress is a spouse driving them to make that decision is way off base, and personally very painful for me.

respectfully George

I think however, that if it can be proven that it was a happy home until someone else came in and actively tried to seduce a partner then both parties should be sued. If not for alienation of affection then for pain and suffering and the need and want to get a shot gun.


How are you going to quantify how much money you should get for the 'pain and suffering'?

As I've said already, if someone cheats on their spouse, causes that pain and suffering, and they then get a divorce, then it should be part of the divorce proceedings. They should be found culpable for the divorce happening and only open to alimony, etc, if they cheated. If someone cheats on their spouse, then tries to claim alimony then perhaps they should be told to take a hike because they don't deserve it?

Being sued for 'alienation of affection' is too difficult a concept to be anywhere near fair. IMO, of course.

First the choice of words, "lured away" is wrong. No, no, no, adulterey is a conscious decision, nobody is lured away.

Second, the concept that only unhappily married people commit adulterey is off base as well, as if to put the blame on their spouse for their decision. George
No, "lured away" is exactly the right phrase because that is what the people who are for these laws are trying to claim - that the third party "lured away" the spouse and are therefore subject to being sued.

Secondly, no one said an unhappy marriage was the fault of the spouse. At least I didn't read that. Just that someone who is unhappily married is the sole guilty party for cheating - not the third party just because they made themselves available. And if the cheating spouse was unhappy, whether it was their spouse's fault or not, there was no affection for them to be alienated from, so no grounds to sue the third party!

Flogging my dear, flogging, death is too quick. lol :p

yes BUT some people love that...maybe superglue and ducttape???:tongue2:

yes BUT some people love that...maybe superglue and ducttape???:tongue2:

HeeHee! This thread could be all gloom and doom if we let it, GG. I'm glad you keep piping up! :D :p

How are you going to quantify how much money you should get for the 'pain and suffering'?

As I've said already, if someone cheats on their spouse, causes that pain and suffering, and they then get a divorce, then it should be part of the divorce proceedings. They should be found culpable for the divorce happening and only open to alimony, etc, if they cheated. If someone cheats on their spouse, then tries to claim alimony then perhaps they should be told to take a hike because they don't deserve it?

Being sued for 'alienation of affection' is too difficult a concept to be anywhere near fair. IMO, of course.

I would think the judge would figure it out. I agree if a spouse cheats and then wants alimony, I say tough breaks kids no alimony for you.

What everyone seems to be missing or ignoring is the "malicious intent" to break up a marriage.

A person who purposefully is going above and beyond trying to break a marriage up, this goes beyond just making themselves available for a roll in hay. We are talking about someone who has been told stay away we are working fixing our marriage, or Im married and they still go after the other person, either because they see it as a conquest or they are "so in love" that they just cant stay away.

I read one story where a woman was actually arrested for harrasement in California but lets say that we had that law still on the books in this state. Take this scenario and apply the alienation of affection law.

This woman went online and created emails and profiles as this guys wife. She put up want ads asking for hook ups then posted this man's wifes name and phone number. She was actively trying to break up this marriage or cast doubt in his marriage so that they would break up. In the end he found out that it wasnt his wife but this woman.

This would be a prime example of a woman who had malicious intent to break up a marriage and could be sued but since we dont have that law she was arrested for harrassement.

I also think that it is a very hard concept to prove in court which is probably why the cases that do occur are rare.

yes BUT some people love that...maybe superglue and ducttape???:tongue2:

Only if theyre HAIRY...bwahahaha

Only if theyre HAIRY...bwahahaha

Well this an interesting thread to find myself with a weird movie throwback.

I'm thinking Breakfast Club...Emilio Estevez...reason of suspension. :p

Well this an interesting thread to find myself with a weird movie throwback.

I'm thinking Breakfast Club...Emilio Estevez...reason of suspension. :p

LMAO! great THANKS alot NOW i am giong to watch that movie AGAIN HAHA

I cheated and the punishment was that I had to wear this
http://lonewacko.com/images/midget_in_bondage_half_height.jpg
My life has never been the same

I would think the judge would figure it out. I agree if a spouse cheats and then wants alimony, I say tough breaks kids no alimony for you.

What everyone seems to be missing or ignoring is the "malicious intent" to break up a marriage.

A person who purposefully is going above and beyond trying to break a marriage up, this goes beyond just making themselves available for a roll in hay. We are talking about someone who has been told stay away we are working fixing our marriage, or Im married and they still go after the other person, either because they see it as a conquest or they are "so in love" that they just cant stay away.

I read one story where a woman was actually arrested for harrasement in California but lets say that we had that law still on the books in this state. Take this scenario and apply the alienation of affection law.

This woman went online and created emails and profiles as this guys wife. She put up want ads asking for hook ups then posted this man's wifes name and phone number. She was actively trying to break up this marriage or cast doubt in his marriage so that they would break up. In the end he found out that it wasnt his wife but this woman.

This would be a prime example of a woman who had malicious intent to break up a marriage and could be sued but since we dont have that law she was arrested for harrassement.

I also think that it is a very hard concept to prove in court which is probably why the cases that do occur are rare.

But no matter how hard she tried, he loved his wife and didn't cheat with her, right? I mean, HE had just as much right to sue her as his wife did.

Now, if all of the stress of her stalking caused a breakup, I can see suing her for destroying or adding to the distruction of the marriage, but not alienation of affection.

So, obviously, someone cannot break up a marriage that didn't already have one unhappy partner. "alienation of affection" is just stupid and implues that the s=cheating partner can't think for themselves.

People simply cannot break up a happily married couple and steal away one partner. There is nothing in the world some guy could do or say or have that would make me want to leave Jeremy. I'd have to be pretty unhappy already to even consider leaving him and going with another man.

I simply cannot imagine that other happily married people are that much different than I. Maybe there is a guy/woman who is a sex addict or whatever, who is happily married and cheats, but "can't" control his urges, but they rarely leave their spouses for the sexual conquest.

It's just too difficult to prove and too rare to allow a loaw on the books that people would be bringing all sorts of stupid stuff before a judge that has to rule it unsubstantial or whatever. I know they would lose the case, but it would still be a waste of taxpayer money all of the losing cases that will come before a judge because they are hoping the antiquated law will help them win big bucks like this guy in Harrison's story.

Think of how many people fake bugs and stuff in fast food and fake slips etc to try and sue because they've seen other people win a rare lawsuit. They have no chance of winning, yet they still try and waste our tax dollars.

Purely and simply...

I cannot understand the focus on money as recompence. As if it's going to heal the hurt. :confused:

Do you give a standard amount for the break-up of a marriage, or is one marriage worth more than another?

It just doesn't make sense to me, it seems more like a way of punishing the other person by taking away their money.

Purely and simply...

I cannot understand the focus on money as recompence. As if it's going to heal the hurt. :confused:

Do you give a standard amount for the break-up of a marriage, or is one marriage worth more than another?

It just doesn't make sense to me, it seems more like a way of punishing the other person by taking away their money.



Well it IS a very old law from back when women didnt work, which is why I would think so many states have phased it out of the law books. It was a way for married women who were about to be divorced to end up being financially taken care of. There was a social stigma with divorce back in those days, I guess it also was a way to save face and to show that the marriage did not end because of you.

California is a community property states, which means everything during a divorce is split 50/50 and a woman or a man can receive alimony. SO I can see why we wouldnt need the law anymore. In addition, we have no fault divorce so it doesnt matter if a spouse cheated it wont get taken into account during the division of the property because it is already going to be split 50/50.

Not all states are like that, some are not community property states and some dont have alimony, I believe texas is one of the states where neither spouse can apply for alimony but I could be wrong. I wonder if the states that do still have this antiquated law on the books are states that have a no alimony law?

States with law still on the books: Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.

As for taxes, there are loads of things that my taxes get applied to that I wish they didnt. This would just be one more. I personally would love to pick and choose what portion of my taxes go to what services but then that's a topic for another thread. lol

You don't know what it's like to be an undereducated, semi-literate, poor and/or minority spouse, regularly beaten like a gong, and clueless about her options. Some women may have no experience with putting trust in "The Man" as represented by the police, the courts and other government agencies. A lover may be the ONLY man she feels she can trust

After all, in minority neighborhoods, when people testify against drug dealers and gangsters, they often wind up shot dead. I can see why The Man is not someone that poor people feel they can count on.

Now, obviously cheating is still wrong - but in an physical-abuse-related case, I think the grounds for a lawsuit would quickly evaporate

No offense Harrison, but you seem to act like your skin color makes you the expert on all issues related to poor, minorities. If I remember correctly you lived a pretty "uppity" life by many people's standards yourself...

You don't know much about my life, so I'd really caution you in speaking about where I do or do not come from. I have a wonderful family but I also grew up in a town that had lots and lots and lots of people in situations like the one you described above...when I was older I lived in the poorest section of Philadelphia surrounded by nothing but drug addicts/dealers/wife beaters/prostitutes, etc. Amid of all that mess I STILL found people with exactly the SAME socio-economic/educational background as the rest of the folks in the ghetto who managed to live very respectable, morally driven lives.

Poverty and race are absolutely no excuse...if that's the case then why does cheating occur with equal frequency on the "highest" levels of our society???

Give me a break.

you are right on that. I was beat for ten years and got the scars to prove it. Let me tell you when you have no self esteem left from being beaten you do think that the person you are with is the only one who wants you and you trust them. You become so brainwashed...you think its NORMAL..then one day YOU SNAP

Oh i know I have heard the WELL WHY DID YOU NOT LEAVE. Well you try to leave when he has hired a Private investigator to watch your every move.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience...however there are women who have been in abusive relationships who did leave and who did not use the abuse as an excuse to cheat. In many cases women are as much to blame as the men who abuse them...hit me once, shame on you...hit me twice, shame on me. And yes, with out going into details of my private life, I absolutely do have the right and experience to speak about this issue...

It's kind of strange how women are allowed to be horrible mothers and expose their children to abuse (thus creating a next generation of abusers/abused) because we give them the "you're just a weak, helpless woman" pass...yet in the next breath we're screaming about how women are equally as strong, independent, and capable as men. Which one is it???

Purely and simply...

I cannot understand the focus on money as recompence. As if it's going to heal the hurt. :confused:

Do you give a standard amount for the break-up of a marriage, or is one marriage worth more than another?

It just doesn't make sense to me, it seems more like a way of punishing the other person by taking away their money.

So, if a doctor is negligent and kills someone, money will not bring that person back/heal the pain...so does that mean the victim's family should not be allowed to sue? If I get run over by a drunk driver and lose my legs, winning money will not bring my legs back/heal the pain...so should I not sue?

It has nothing to do with healing the pain, it is a punishment for the one who committed the crime (yes I said crime). If a punishment is stiff enough, less people will commit the crime. Also, many people stay in marriages for financial reasons..even if the spouse is cheating on them, this would provide the innocent party with a way out of a bad marriage.

In many cases women are as much to blame as the men who abuse them...hit me once, shame on you...hit me twice, shame on me. And yes, with out going into details of my private life, I absolutely do have the right and experience to speak about this issue... While you do have the experience to speak about the issue, remember, not every woman has the same psychological makeup as you do, Amina. Some are able to 'rise' to the occasion and leave. Some are pushed further into the abyss and become even more powerless.

Women who get themselves into these situations are usually blind sighted at first. The offender comes across as Prince Charming to the rescue. Then the mask comes off.

By that time there is a baby and the woman has no income. It is a more complicated situation for some women than for others.

I have also been on both sides of the fence, as well as on top of and under it. :D I have to say that even though I have transgressed, I think there are some situations where alienation of affection might wake some people up.

Amina, boy don't I wish that all people were mentally stable and strong......sadly, this is not the case.
I agree with using the court system, if there is no other route to take.
I am just more of the mindset that when it comes to matters between a husband and wife, other than children and dividing all things acquired during the marriage.........it is not an issue for the courts.
A much higher authority will be the one to judge it all one day.
Personally, I'd rather not tie up the courts with messy couple problems..........too many other crimes are not being addressed b/c of all of the back up!
Blessings, TD

I just don't believe in a world where more and more things can be measured with money.

I am not at all religious, so I don't believe in a higher authority either.

However, I strongly believe in individual concience, and as much as we would like to believe otherwise, a person who has done wrong or hurt other people, their concience will catch up with them sooner or later.

I really do not think that people who have harmed, can ever find genuine happiness, if they say they're happy, they are lying to themselves and to others.

(Now please, don't anyone tell me about thieves and rapists and murderers. That's NOT the subject of the thread, even though my logic extends to them as well, but that's a whole different story)

Well it IS a very old law from back when women didnt work, which is why I would think so many states have phased it out of the law books. It was a way for married women who were about to be divorced to end up being financially taken care of. There was a social stigma with divorce back in those days, I guess it also was a way to save face and to show that the marriage did not end because of you.

Actually, the alienation of affection laws were passed because women were considered "property" of their husbands and therefore the person who "stole" the woman needed to pay for the stolen goods. :rolleyes:

It was meant to benefit the man, not the woman.

No offense Harrison, but you seem to act like your skin color makes you the expert on all issues related to poor, minorities. If I remember correctly you lived a pretty "uppity" life by many people's standards yourself...

I prefer to think it's my reading plus observational skills in concert with my minority status that gives me insight. Take theory + observation + field experience and you see amazing things. And, no, insight is not equal to "expertise on all issues."

"Uppity" is relative. My father's highest-value, unencumbered liquid asset is probably a 20-something year old BMW sedan. Bunch of high rollers, huh? :D

You don't know much about my life, so I'd really caution you in speaking about where I do or do not come from. I have a wonderful family but I also grew up in a town that had lots and lots and lots of people in situations like the one you described above...when I was older I lived in the poorest section of Philadelphia surrounded by nothing but drug addicts/dealers/wife beaters/prostitutes, etc.

You've taken the time to explain to all of us where you are today as a married woman, which is what I was referring to. My point was not who you were surrounded by as a youth or in college - that's almost irrelevant in an upwardly mobile society like the USA.

Probably 90% of the sistas back in the hood would kill for what you have today.

Nonetheless, they are NEVER gonna be in a position to have your privileges. Hooking up with a MENSA-caliber, highly-skilled professional is not in the cards; that's one key difference. People who are forced to do without will act out in ways that are unthinkable for those of us who aren't forced to do without. Have you ever consciously stopped to think about how nice it is to have loaded relatives who really count for something?? How nice it is to know that whenever your financial stress starts to feel overwhelming, help is just 10 digits away, using your phone? Trust me, I appreciate this. Loaded relatives - whom I have on both sides of my family - are a blessing indeed.

Amid of all that mess I STILL found people with exactly the SAME socio-economic/educational background as the rest of the folks in the ghetto who managed to live very respectable, morally driven lives.

Amina, you've just perfectly laid out the foundation for the infamous "There are black people and then there are 'niggers'!" quote. I know YOU don't use that nasty quote, nor am I accusing you of it; I'm just pointing out where your observation will take other less intellectually-capable or less rational people when they make "field observations" of the ghetto lifestyle....

In reality, while citing the exception to the rule may feel empowering or uplifting to those of us who champion the mores of the 'exceptional,' it does nothing to help understand the plight of those who make up "the rule."

Poverty and race are absolutely no excuse...if that's the case then why does cheating occur with equal frequency on the "highest" levels of our society???


Straw man, Amina.

I wasn't saying that poverty and race are an "excuse" for cheating. I just said that profoundly deprived women - those with no chance in hell of finding the marital bliss that you enjoy, and who are also physically abused (marital rape, beatings, threats, psychological abuse) are not in a position to rationally sort things out in a tidy, orderly bourgeois fashion - with attentive, supportive police officers; lawyers; restraining orders; a credit-card purchase of a Glock; and divorce settlements. Therefore suing them is not helpful.

Have you ever had to make rational, sound financial/personal decisions while your head was ringing from multiple pimp-slaps from an abusive husband? Or while holding an ice-pack against a black eye, while your body is sore from repeated sessions of "marital rape" from a sick-***** husband? Hopefully NOT!! :eek: But if not, why look down on those who DO come from that background???

That's all I'm saying. Hope I clarified somewhat! :)

So, if a doctor is negligent and kills someone, money will not bring that person back/heal the pain...so does that mean the victim's family should not be allowed to sue?

Punish the doctor by getting them struck off so they can't do it again, for a start. Money won't bring the person back, will it.

If I get run over by a drunk driver and lose my legs, winning money will not bring my legs back/heal the pain...so should I not sue?


Completely different. By losing your legs you've lost the ability to do a lot of different things, including to work. You'll also have added health costs for the duration of your life. You should receive compensation for it, yes.

It has nothing to do with healing the pain, it is a punishment for the one who committed the crime (yes I said crime). If a punishment is stiff enough, less people will commit the crime.

So, as I said, it IS about punishment, not compensation. Is it a crime when someone cheats on another, but they're not married? That can be as (more even) hurtful as it is for people who are married, but there is no law against it, so no crime.

What you're saying is that there needs to be some sort of deterrant, which I do agree with. What I don't agree with is making money the heart of it, because that just fits in with the idea that money will solve everything, which is something I do not believe. I would say jail/prison time would be more effective for the doctor in your example. I also would say that linking the cheating to claims for alimony is one way you could go.

Actually, the alienation of affection laws were passed because women were considered "property" of their husbands and therefore the person who "stole" the woman needed to pay for the stolen goods. :rolleyes:

It was meant to benefit the man, not the woman.

Yes and historically the law was mostly used by women to sue their husbands for an having affair. The law is still used by women to sue the "other woman".

I believe that it wasnt so much about a woman being the property of another man that was the issue in those days as much as the fact that once a woman married everything that she owned was owned by her husband. We as women had no property rights.

Her money, property and even wages if her husband could not properly support her belonged to her husband because women were not considered capable of taking care of anything having to do with money.

So it was not so much that SHE was his property as her property was now his and if they divorced her property remained his and she in turn was now penniless. The law wasnt so much about suing the third party involved but about suing your husband for property or money. I think later once women started working and earning their wages and buying property that it became about suing the other woman.

Here is a quote from a judge in 1881 explaining Alienation of Affection as they saw it in those days:

"The wife ... is purer and better by nature than her husband, and more governed by principle and an sense of duty and right, and she seldom violates her marriage obligations, or abandons her home. ... With the husband the case is different. ... He is exposed to the temptations, enticements, and allurements of the world, which easily withdraw him from her society, or cause him to desert or abandon her. ... The wife had reason to expect all these things when she entered the marriage relation. ... For these reasons, ... actions by the wife for the loss of his society would be numberless. This right of action in the wife would be the most fruitful source of litigation of any that can be thought of."14

Edited to Add: Ironically this was an argument against women being able to sue for alienation of affection because it would be too expensive for the man. lol

Her money, property and even wages if her husband could not properly support her belonged to her husband because women were not considered capable of taking care of anything having to do with money.


That's the part that women should be very careful. If the woman doesn't know how to protect herself, how can she expect the court protects her later?

[QUOTE=Strwbrries;525350]
So it was not so much that SHE was his property as her property was now his and if they divorced her property remained his and she in turn was now penniless. ...............................
The wife ... is purer and better by nature than her husband,[QUOTE]

The wife may not be purer and better by nature than her husband. For example, she may be in marriage ONLY FOR FINIANICL REASON, while the husband financially supports her, he goes out to fullfill his sexual needs b/c the wife refuse to satisfy him.

As for the combined property, the wife will get roughly half of it, not penniless, right?