# lawsuits for adultery - legal action - make adultery illegal ? would like input from both sides



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "

I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.


two part question - and I would like to hear from people who's done the cheating too because I know what its like being the victim of it

#1 Should legal action be valid? Me? I have all the above ..... ""embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity,"" .......... and if I had a win on a court of law, a settlement, would that make me feel a bit better? Maybe it would. 

For cheaters - would such a threat of legal action have deterred you from cheating ?

#2 adultery outlawed, meaning its against the law and there will be consequences of some kind for doing it. Would that keep cheaters in check at all ??


Just curious what ya'll think. Me? I'd absolutely have taken the cheater to court and sued and did as much legal damage as I possibly could have.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> Would that keep cheaters in check at all ??


If stoning people to death, never stopped people in the past through to today (in theocracies). What you're selling, won't stop it either.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

It’s called alienation of affection and it’s very difficult to prove. The cheated spouse must prove that prior to the commencement of the affair they were in a loving marriage and that the marriage was ruined by the behaviour of the affair partner. Any past record of counselling,separation or domestic issues involving the police will of course nullify this argument. 
Not many states recognise it as a crime and to be honest the embarrassment caused by the publicity surrounding the court case is what stops most people from instigating legal action.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

First, scrap the no-fault divorce. Half-the BS will end right there.

For those who insist punishment isn't a cure, let's just stop prosecuting criminals altogether since all crimes still happen despite punishment. How does that sit?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Sigh.

You all know this is just a fantasy thread, right?

Courts have no desire or ability to sort marital and cheating **** out for the masses. Nor should they.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

My XW's cheating was the first domino that got herself put in prison. Did that help anything with the divorce or recovering from it? NO.

It would be a waste of time and money to tie the courts up with this.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

What about open marriages? Swingers? Swappers? Would that be illegal too?

How do you prove it? All a guy has to do is get his buddies to testify they slept with his wife and he can jet off with his mistress and leave his wife and kids with nothing. A woman can get her lover to testify nothing happened and we’re back to one person’s word against another. What if one spouse was abusive? Is that a mitigating circumstance? It’s impossible to prove. 

This is the same as calls to get rid of no-fault divorce. The central idea is to force people to stay in miserable marriages to lower statistics. Long marriages are not by default successful ones. This kind of thing will always fall disproportionately on women. No-fault divorce allows women to sue for divorce without having to hire an expensive PI to prove their husband is cheating only to have his pals lie in court or an abused woman to leave without having to wait until he kills her. Just like stoning, which was in reality only exacted against women, because men usually control all the money.

The closest I think we could get to what you want is to allow adultery to be used to influence things like alimony. I hate that someone can cheat and then fleece their ex for a lifetime of financial support.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

in my case, I had many letters, cards, facebook posts and texts that showed a happy marriage (or at least she was showing it was)

I had phone records, texts, emails, proof of her adultery

I think I could have called every friend and her entire family that would have testified we were a good marriage before the adultery


stoning didn't stop adultery - but I bet there was far far less of it and my point is ... if a person can sure for ""embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity,"" 

adultery and the person being cheated on, they absolutely feel ""embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity,"" 

why isn't it valid ?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

No one is saying it isn’t valid. We’re saying it’s not actionable due to its subjective nature.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Criminally it won't work, the standard for conviction is too high. Civilly it could work with a much lower standard of proof. I don't believe it would be much of a deterrent, however I do believe when contracts are broken there should be some legal recourse, as lives and resources are heavily impacted.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

There used to be laws everywhere against adultery. Most states scrapped them because they weren't effective (i.e., did not provide a deterrent), tied up the courts, were costly to taxpayers, and violations were so common that you may as well prosecute flatulence as well.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Married but Happy said:


> There used to be laws everywhere against adultery. Most states scrapped them because they weren't effective (i.e., did not provide a deterrent), tied up the courts, were costly to taxpayers, and violations were so common that you may as well prosecute flatulence as well.


At least we know how seriously some take adultery now...


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> why isn't it valid ?


Not forgetting in the big scheme of things, most people in Western nations couldn't care less about other people's adultery. From friends, relatives, workmates, celebrities, politicians and on and on.

So you're pretty much fantasising to no end.


----------



## HarryBosch (6 mo ago)

Arkansas said:


> stoning didn't stop adultery - but I bet there was far far less of it


In the Old West wearing a six gun probably held back some from doing something stupid too. If it didn't, the probability of you being on the wrong end of the six gun was a definite possibility too. I'm all for the carrying of a gun. If folks knew that you could end up dying for something as little as saying the wrong thing, let alone cheating on your wife, there would be a lot less of it... but alas, we have a more civilized society... and that IS a good thing in many ways.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

You better have *VERY *deep pockets to pursue an Alienation of Affection claim. And even if you win the case (highly unlikely a court in the US would even hear the case), what does it prove other than you are stuck on your ex and can't move on.

I think the problem is so-called No Fault Divorces most states have. If it can be proven you committed adultery, you should get nothing in the divorce. Not even the shirt on your back...which you probably aren't wearing anyway. Your spouse gets everything...house, cars, money, etc. That may make some people think twice...although people that have affairs rarely have a conscious.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

I understand there are gray areas, however some of the stories here and in our experiences are fairly horrendous and should be prosecutable be that civil or criminal.

This is particularly true in the case of repeat offenders, ie serial cheaters.

I firmly believe adultery should eliminate all alimony payments to a cheating spouse. 

I would never be empanneled on jury where an OM was killed by a BH, I would vote not guilty.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

SCDad01 said:


> I think the problem is so-called No Fault Divorces most states have.


No-divorce has allowed women to escape abusive marriages and allowed them to sue for divorce from unfaithful husbands without having to prove in court their husbands were unfaithful. Eliminating no-fault divorce would force women to stay in abusive marriages and force them to stay with unfaithful husbands. That is the whole point of getting rid of them, to force women to stay in miserable, abusive marriages. Women who have no access to money without supervision (SAHMs) can't hire PIs and gather "proof" and that proof would be undone when a man had his buddies testify they slept with his wife. The reason for no-fault divorce is to give women the ability to sue for divorce, eliminating no-fault just forces women to stay. What exactly do you think a man would do to a woman whose petition for divorce failed? Men would still be able to divorce any time they wanted, because they have all the money and power. No-fault divorce isn't the problem, human nature is. Forcing women to stay in a bad marriage does not make those marriages successful, and successful marriages aren't the goal of those of you who want to get rid of no-fault anyway.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The legislature and courts first of all want to be sure any children are taken care of, and that means both parents need money if both have custody. The legislature and courts do not want more people on welfare, so want both parties to have assets to live on. It is too complicated to prove guilt, and too complicated to sort out what is fair beyond current asset splitting in divorce. That's why such laws have largely been eliminated. 

There is a simple solution, though. Don't get married! You can still live like you're married, just keep separate accounts and have a contract on how to split major assets if you split up. So much easier!


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

Should it be illegal? I don't know. I will say that marriage is considered contract law and in basically in every contract besides marriage there are consequences for breaking the contract. I do think it would be good to have a standard legal consequence for breaking the marriage contract via adultery. Those who say it would tie up the courts to much, I would counter and say that this could actually clear up the family courts, where people fight over every little asset.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Dictum Veritas said:


> At least we know how seriously some take adultery now...


Back in the old days when fault for divorce had to be proven, couples who wanted a divorce and but did not have any faults to base it on would agree to accuse each other of adultery so they could get a divorce. By accusing each other, they could get the divorce and neither had an upper hand in things like splitting assets. Since these cases required a 'trial' to prove adultery, these divorces took months, year, and the taxpayers paid a LOT to hold these trials.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> No-divorce has allowed women to escape abusive marriages and allowed them to sue for divorce from unfaithful husbands without having to prove in court their husbands were unfaithful. Eliminating no-fault divorce would force women to stay in abusive marriages and force them to stay with unfaithful husbands. That is the whole point of getting rid of them, to force women to stay in miserable, abusive marriages. Women who have no access to money without supervision (SAHMs) can't hire PIs and gather "proof" and that proof would be undone when a man had his buddies testify they slept with his wife. The reason for no-fault divorce is to give women the ability to sue for divorce, eliminating no-fault just forces women to stay. What exactly do you think a man would do to a woman whose petition for divorce failed? Men would still be able to divorce any time they wanted, because they have all the money and power. No-fault divorce isn't the problem, human nature is. Forcing women to stay in a bad marriage does not make those marriages successful, and successful marriages aren't the goal of those of you who want to get rid of no-fault anyway.


Not sure what you mean since a no-fault divorce doesn't keep a woman in an abusive marriage. She doesn't have to prove the abuse, she can just leave and be safe. If anything, it helps the man walk away unscathed. 

No-fault divorce was created to make divorce "easier" for people in the marriage and the State. It's the primary reason the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the US and the reason for the breakdown of the family. But that's what the US has become...where nobody is held accountable for their actions.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

EleGirl said:


> Back in the old days when fault for divorce had to be proven, couples who wanted a divorce and but did not have any faults to base it on would agree to accuse each other of adultery so they could get a divorce. By accusing each other, they could get the divorce and neither had an upper hand in things like splitting assets. Since these cases required a 'trial' to prove adultery, these divorces took months, year, and the taxpayers paid a LOT to hold these trials.


There's pro's and cons to everything, but there was a lot less of "I'm not Happy" and poof goes the family as well.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Dictum Veritas said:


> There's pro's and cons to everything, but there was a lot less of "I'm not Happy" and poof goes the family as well.


In order to prove adultery a person has to just about have a photo/video of the two people having sex. The cheater & AP spending time together is not enough to prove adultery. There has to be sex and it has to be proven. The vast majority of people whose spouse is cheating do not have the funds necessary to prove adultery with evidence that prove actual sexual acts.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

SCDad01 said:


> Not sure what you mean since a no-fault divorce doesn't keep a woman in an abusive marriage. She doesn't have to prove the abuse, she can just leave and be safe. If anything, it helps the man walk away unscathed.
> 
> No-fault divorce was created to make divorce "easier" for people in the marriage and the State. It's the primary reason the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the US and the reason for the breakdown of the family. But that's what the US has become...where nobody is held accountable for their actions.


No, this isn't right. No fault divorce means a woman can divorce for any or no provable reason. If a woman just "leaves" she is still married. She cannot just "leave and be safe." He still has access to her, he controls her money, and he has the right to enter any property where she is at any time because everything she "owns" is half his. Dismissing abuse victims as having the ability to "leave and be safe" is really disgusting and shows a complete lack of concern for women in abusive marriages.

No-fault divorce was created to allow anyone to divorce for any reason. It is the reason divorce has skyrocketed, but not the reason more marriages "fail." You're equating long marriages with good ones. If a man has one girlfriend after another, gives his wife multiple STDs, neglects her, neglects his children, is physically, verbally and emotionally abusive but the marriage lasts 50 years, in your mind that is a good thing. That is a "successful" marriage.

Before no-fault divorce, a "good husband" was one who could mostly hold down a job, didn't leave his wife for his girlfriend(s) and didn't put his wife in the hospital more than a couple of times a year. Getting rid of no-fault divorce will take us back to that. Allowing women to divorce men for infidelity and abuse without dragging them through court cases and putting them in harm's way when the man won the case (what do you think the men did to those women whose bids for divorce failed? You aren't honestly going to tell me they took their wives home and became better husbands? Nonsense, you don't believe that and neither does anyone else) is the only way men ARE held accountable for infidelity and abuse. Before no-fault divorce, men did as they pleased for their entire lives, unscathed.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

My suggestion is in following thread:









My experience with my adulterous wife


Hi, everyone. I was married to a young woman eight years younger than me. We were having financial problems so I went to work in the Alberta oil patch. We had two very young children. I left and while I was gone to work sending money home to my family she wouldn’t pick up the phone for me...




www.talkaboutmarriage.com





Adultery [should be] admissible grounds for defense and arguments in a court. The law should also allow a judge to decide HOW to punish adultery when it is established in the court proceedings with incriminating information and/or eye-witnesses. Better this than nothing. 

No Fault = Default stance
Evidence of adultery presented = Judge accepts and grants relief or better settlement terms to the betrayed partner


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

EleGirl said:


> In order to prove adultery a person has to just about have a photo/video of the two people having sex. The cheater & AP spending time together is not enough to prove adultery. There has to be sex and it has to be proven. The vast majority of people whose spouse is cheating do not have the funds necessary to prove adultery with evidence that prove actual sexual acts.


Laws and the burden of proof is never static. Laws can be amended, abolished added. Laws reflect the opinions of the powerful. A pendulum has swung too far, but by all indications, that pendulum has started it's reverse swing. Unfortunately because it was pushed so far out of center, it's going to swing through that center where justice and fairness lives to a position totally the other way from where it is now.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> In order to prove adultery a person has to just about have a photo/video of the two people having sex. The cheater & AP spending time together is not enough to prove adultery. There has to be sex and it has to be proven. The vast majority of people whose spouse is cheating do not have the funds necessary to prove adultery with evidence that prove actual sexual acts.


What is the burden? It should be a "preponderance of evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt", which could be met by text or app traffic. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Laws and the burden of proof is never static. Laws can be amended, abolished added. Laws reflect the opinions of the powerful. A pendulum has swung too far, but by all indications, that pendulum has started it's reverse swing. Unfortunately because it was pushed so far out of center, it's going to swing through that center where justice and fairness lives to a position totally the other way from where it is now.


Years ago I filed for divorce because by husband was cheating and he was physically violent against me and our son. He's an MD. I did not call the cops on him for abuse because I did not want to ruin his career. I just wanted to be safe. We had a child, and I could not just leave with our child. My lawyer told me to move out with our son and she filed the divorce papers. The lawyer had consulted with other divorce lawyers (most of them men) who agreed with this action.

He got a team of lawyers who immediately called an emergency hearing with the judge. Because I had never called the police for the violence, the judge gave my husband 100% custody of our son and sealed the divorce papers because "we can't have that in public records against a physician." I cancelled the divorce and moved back in with my abusive husband because I was not going to allow him to be the sole parent of our son who he abused. His 'babysitter' was his mother who used to kick our son when his behavior annoyed her. Yea, that's who should have custody of a child.

It took me 4 more years to build a case. Again, I did not call the police. Instead, I built the case on other things. And I learned about divorce, things like getting a custody evaluation. 4 more years of abuse. 4 more years of my son being abused and seeing me being abuse. 

During our marriage he cheated constantly. But I did not have the money to get a PI to follow him around to get the necessary evidence.


While I did not want to ruin his career, I also did not trust the police to do the right thing. Look at what the judge did. One of my sisters was raped and beaten by her husband (she had just gotten home from the hospital after miscarrying their baby). She called the police. The police took the report and said that her bruises and cuts were not proof of rape. The police refused to arrest her husband or file a criminal report against him. So, yea, I didn't call the police.

The 2nd time I filed for divorce, I got the court to order a custody evaluation. The organization that did the evaluation is a father's advocacy group. Their determination was that there were serious issued with my husband having custody of our son and they suggested that he wave very little time with our son. And said that if he got into counseling with our son and worked on their relationship, he could get more time with our son. After 2 years he got more time. But when my son was 15, he refused to spend any more time with his father because of the continued abuse. 

My sister, the one whose husband raped her, could not use the rape as the basis for a divorce because the police refused to file criminal charges. (He was also cheating on her) About 3 years later she was only able to divorce him because no fault divorce laws were instituted.

Another one of my sisters was married to a guy who was not only cheating, but also pulled a gun on her and their 4- & 5-year-old sons threatening to kill them. Again, the police would not file criminal charges against him because they said it was just a domestic issue. She filed for divorce as well as soon as no-fault divorce was instituted.

I could go on with a list of women I know who were cheated on and/or physically abused by their husbands and the only way they could get a divorce is because of no-fault divorce. The burden to prove physical abuse and/or adultery is so high that it's almost impossible to prove. 

By your way of thinking, you would want all 3 of us to still be married to the cheating, abusive men we sadly married because that's what the older laws were like.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Here's another idea: have a prenup that imposes financial penalties for adultery if you divorce. This can be done, and has been done. The court still has to approve it when you divorce, but the odds are that will happen IF it is fair and proof of adultery can be provided.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

farsidejunky said:


> What is the burden? It should be a "preponderance of evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt", which could be met by text or app traffic.


From what I've read

_-------------------------------------_​_"Generally, you and your attorney will need to show that your spouse had both the reason or motive to commit adultery, and that they had the opportunity to do so."_​​_"Certain federal and state privacy laws can prevent texts and emails from being entered into evidence, especially if they are procured through the wrong means. Unlawfully intercepting private electronic communication can result in all of your evidence being thrown out of court._​​_If you believe your spouse is committing adultery and the proof is in texts and other private messaging, any attempts to retrieve or copy those messages without authorization will likely result in them being impermissible in court. Your attorney can go through the correct and proper steps to get access to any electronic messages so they may be admitted as evidence."_​_Can Text Messages Prove Adultery in a Divorce? - Holland Law LLC (thollandlaw.com) _​​_-------------------------------------_​_*The admissibility of text messages*_​_Some legal experts say using personal texting as evidence is an invasion of privacy and therefore should not be admissible in court. However, if your wife’s cell phone is part of a family account, you have the legal right to review her messages._​​_On the other hand, it may be a crime to attempt to extract text messages from a phone that doesn’t belong to you._​_ As in criminal cases, admissibility of evidence is often based on how the evidence was obtained._​​_Another challenge to the admissibility of a text is proving who wrote and sent it. Even though your wife’s iPhone may contain a steamy message to a strange boyfriend, there’s always a reasonable doubt that she was the actual author." Text Messages Increasingly Used As Divorce Evidence (mensdivorce.com) _​​


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I hit "post reply" before I was done with the above post.

With modern technology, it's probably easier to prove that adultery is happening. But if the divorce laws are changed to make it easier to use text and other modern electronic communication, cheaters will just get cleverer. There are already text apps that immediately delete texts and make it hard to use it for evidence.

In recent years there are a fair number of people in prison because they tried to gather evidence by hacking their spouse's cell phone, computer, etc.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Here's another idea: have a prenup that imposes financial penalties for adultery if you divorce. This can be done, and has been done. The court still has to approve it when you divorce, but the odds are that will happen IF it is fair and proof of adultery can be provided.


Many, it not most, states allow to file for cause if there is a cause such as adultery. And in these cases, the law usually penalizes the adulterer by reducing their rights to things like community assets.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

EleGirl said:


> Years ago I filed for divorce because by husband was cheating and he was physically violent against me and our son. He's an MD. I did not call the cops on him for abuse because I did not want to ruin his career. I just wanted to be safe. We had a child, and I could not just leave with our child. My lawyer told me to move out with our son and she filed the divorce papers. The lawyer had consulted with other divorce lawyers (most of them men) who agreed with this action.
> 
> He got a team of lawyers who immediately called an emergency hearing with the judge. Because I had never called the police for the violence, the judge gave my husband 100% custody of our son and sealed the divorce papers because "we can't have that in public records against a physician." I cancelled the divorce and moved back in with my abusive husband because I was not going to allow him to be the sole parent of our son who he abused. His 'babysitter' was his mother who used to kick our son when his behavior annoyed her. Yea, that's who should have custody of a child.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you went through this and no, I would not want people to be tied to an abuser. I also do not want a wobbly be an excuse to blow up a family. That is the flip side of the coin. Unfortunately, laws have swung way past justice and fairness at this stage and a pendulum swings. It's just a fact. For a time it will swing back to a more equitable position, but because it was pushed so far past the happy medium, it will swing the other way. It simply has too much energy at this point not to.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Many, it not most, states allow to file for cause if there is a cause such as adultery. And in these cases, the law usually penalizes the adulterer by reducing their rights to things like community assets.


I think all states should do this. No one should be able to cheat and take half, or cheat and abandon their kids with nothing.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Married but Happy said:


> Here's another idea: have a prenup that imposes financial penalties for adultery if you divorce. This can be done, and has been done. The court still has to approve it when you divorce, but the odds are that will happen IF it is fair and proof of adultery can be provided.


Prenups means Jack in South-Africa. So many of them have been overturned for the slightest of reasons that a precedent has been set making a prenup useless. I gather that we are not alone in that.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

SCDad01 said:


> Not sure what you mean since a no-fault divorce doesn't keep a woman in an abusive marriage. She doesn't have to prove the abuse, she can just leave and be safe. If anything, it helps the man walk away unscathed.
> 
> No-fault divorce was created to make divorce "easier" for people in the marriage and the State. It's the primary reason the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the US and the reason for the breakdown of the family. But that's what the US has become...where nobody is held accountable for their actions.


Not true that it's the breakdown of the family. It just mean's that people aren't _stuck_ in living hell marriages anymore. No fault divorce didn't cause marriages to be awful.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

I think the divorce should not be forced no-fault abd if you can prove to a preponderance of evidence that they cheated, the distribution of marital assets is greatly affected, as well as child custody to an extent.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> No, this isn't right. No fault divorce means a woman can divorce for any or no provable reason. If a woman just "leaves" she is still married. She cannot just "leave and be safe." He still has access to her, he controls her money, and he has the right to enter any property where she is at any time because everything she "owns" is half his. Dismissing abuse victims as having the ability to "leave and be safe" is really disgusting and shows a complete lack of concern for women in abusive marriages.


When I say leave a marriage, I mean divorce. Don't think for a second I condone abuse. That would be a completely incorrect conclusion on your part. Any man that lays a hand on a woman should be beaten to a pulp.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

SCDad01 said:


> When I say leave a marriage, I mean divorce. Don't think for a second I condone abuse. That would be an completely incorrect conclusion on your part. Any man that lays a hand on a woman should be beaten to a pulp.


Should be. Isn’t. It is not as simple as just “leave.” I was abused as a child. It took my parents 8 years to stop coming after me and I left when I was 20. Abusers do not let their victims go without a fight. It’s worse for wives because of the nature of marriage. Abusers generally hold very traditional views of marriage, they don’t allow their wives to just leave.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You all know this is just a fantasy thread, right?
> 
> Courts have no desire or ability to sort marital and cheating **** out for the masses. Nor should they.


Right. It's always just he said she said. Just because one person accuses the other of cheating doesn't mean the person doing the accusing hasn't done plenty of cheating themselves so it is beyond the court.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I think all states should do this. No one should be able to cheat and take half, or cheat and abandon their kids with nothing.


I have an issue with looking at cheating as the ultimate wrong that would remove a person's right to marital assets, etc,, in divorce. We don't know what goes on in a relationship behind closed doors.

Here's an example of one poster we had here years ago. A man came to TAM to complain and gain sympathy because his wife was cheating on him. At first, he got lots of support. But as he got more comfortable with the support he was getting, he started to reveal more of more of his horrible physical and emotional abuse of his wife. Basically, on a few occasions he had beaten his wife to the point of her being incapacitated for weeks at a time. After beating her he would just carry her to their bed and let her stay there for days as she recovered. By the time she was able to call the cops she was recovered and had no evidence of the abuse. I don't recall all the details, but the guy was a horrible human. Keep in mind that this guy thought that his domestic violence was just normal behavior, so much so that he posted all about it.

Well, his wife finally got a job and got close to a man at work. The man convinced her to take the children and move in with her parents. 

Now the abusive husband was looking for sympathy because his wife was cheating. It's not uncommon for a woman in an abusive relationship to have an affair that gives her the strength to leave and file for divorce. It's like the connection with a new guy breaks the emotional hold that abusers tend to have on their victim. It's a very odd but well know phenomenon. In a case like this, the affair is hardly the worst thing that happened, and his man was not a victim. I'm glad that she was able to file a no-fault divorce and get away from this horrible man. I could care less about a woman (or a man) having an exit affair in a situation this horrible.

You never know what goes on behind closed doors in marriage. Many abusers only act out in abuse and violence when they are 'behind closed doors' at home. My son's father was like this. To the rest of the world, he was a happy, well-adjusted, mild-mannered man. Nice guy. At home he was an SOB.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

EleGirl said:


> I hit "post reply" before I was done with the above post.
> 
> With modern technology, it's probably easier to prove that adultery is happening. But if the divorce laws are changed to make it easier to use text and other modern electronic communication, cheaters will just get cleverer. There are already text apps that immediately delete texts and make it hard to use it for evidence.
> 
> In recent years there are a fair number of people in prison because they tried to gather evidence by hacking their spouse's cell phone, computer, etc.


It's easier although illegal. But the fact remains that just because one person accuses the other of adultery doesn't mean the person doing the accusing hasn't also done it. I don't see any reason why proving adultery should be required to get a divorce. Two married people know if their marriage isn't working, and they should be able to file for divorce for any reason whatsoever. We are not living in the dark ages. We are not going back to it. 

Anyone would have to be an idiot to agree to even get married under those circumstances.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Livvie said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You all know this is just a fantasy thread, right?
> 
> Courts have no desire or ability to sort marital and cheating **** out for the masses. Nor should they.





DownByTheRiver said:


> Right. It's always just he said she said. Just because one person accuses the other of cheating doesn't mean the person doing the accusing hasn't done plenty of cheating themselves so it is beyond the court.


I agree. Do we taxpayers really want to put out the money to act as referees in the arguments that lead to divorce between two adults? Just let them divorce, split everything 50/50 and each goes on their way. Yes, there are children caught up in this and this is where the courts need to put their attention... how to help the children. Forcing two parents who can't get a long and hate each other to stay married does not help the children.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Should be. Isn’t. It is not as simple as just “leave.” I was abused as a child. It took my parents 8 years to stop coming after me and I left when I was 20. Abusers do not let their victims go without a fight. It’s worse for wives because of the nature of marriage. Abusers generally hold very traditional views of marriage, *they don’t allow their wives to just leave.*


This is true. Most women who are murdered are murdered by their husband/significant-other when they try to leave.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Just like speed limit signs and laws of all kinds don’t stop people from breaking the law, the same would probably happen with adultery. People would just go to greater lengths to hide their affairs.

But, if there was proof and a marriage was ending over it - I don’t see why the betrayed couldn’t sue for mental anguish or something like that.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> I have an issue with looking at cheating as the ultimate wrong that would remove a person's right to marital assets, etc,, in divorce. We don't know what goes on in a relationship behind closed doors.
> 
> Here's an example of one poster we had here years ago. A man came to TAM to complain and gain sympathy because his wife was cheating on him. At first, he got lots of support. But as he got more comfortable with the support he was getting, he started to reveal more of more of his horrible physical and emotional abuse of his wife. Basically, on a few occasions he had beaten his wife to the point of her being incapacitated for weeks at a time. After beating her he would just carry her to their bed and let her stay there for days as she recovered. By the time she was able to call the cops she was recovered and had no evidence of the abuse. I don't recall all the details, but the guy was a horrible human. Keep in mind that this guy thought that his domestic violence was just normal behavior, so much so that he posted all about it.
> 
> ...


That’s very true, I should have thought of that. My father was a pillar of the community, well-respected and big in our church. They’re expert at hiding who they are.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

my point is if a man can sue and win based on "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " because of how he was treated by a grocery store .... then why too isn't the "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " that comes from being cheated on ground for law suits?

and not suing your spouse - sue the other person, take them to court, make them pay for embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity abuse ?


oh and, I think every marriage should have a pre-nup signed that says if one cheats, the other gets 100% of everything


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Marriage is a legal and associated financial contract. 

Sadness, embarrassment, anger etc are not legal concepts and not part of contract law. 

In other areas of contract law, there’s not really much provision for someone being upset. 

In a civil suit, there can be provisions for pain and suffering and mental distress etc. 

So IMHO a divorce court involved in dissolving the legal contract of marriage should not be further complicated by trying to dole out what essentially comes down to punishment for upsetting someone and hurting their feelings.

Now if someone was spending large sums on money on the AP out of marital monies, that would be an actionable thing for divorce court as it involves an actual monetary breach of contract.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Married but Happy said:


> Here's another idea: have a prenup that imposes financial penalties for adultery if you divorce. This can be done, and has been done. The court still has to approve it when you divorce, but the odds are that will happen IF it is fair and proof of adultery can be provided.


Think about it. The only way to really prove adultery is if you get a video of them having sex. Talking dirty on the internet is unacceptable but it's not proven adultery. Having phone records of someone talking to someone of the opposite sex is not the same as proving they are having sex.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Think about it. The only way to really prove adultery is if you get a video of them having sex. Talking dirty on the internet is unacceptable but it's not proven adultery. Having phone records of someone talking to someone of the opposite sex is not the same as proving they are having sex.


And then there’s the issue of lap dances… 😉


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.


Was this lawsuit a civil suit filed by the BS in civil court against the WS and/or AP?

Or was it in the actual divorce court doing the dissolution of marriage?

If it was a civil suit in civil court, that is different than a divorce proceeding.

In civil law, pretty much anyone can sue anybody for anything. 

It’s usually more of can they afford it and can they convince the court that they were wrongfully harmed by the other party.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

EleGirl said:


> I agree. Do we taxpayers really want to put out the money to act as referees in the arguments that lead to divorce between two adults? Just let them divorce, split everything 50/50 and each goes on their way. Yes, there are children caught up in this and this is where the courts need to put their attention... how to help the children. Forcing two parents who can't get a long and hate each other to stay married does not help the children.


And all mostly because someone is that vengeful or possessive and controlling, all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Marriage is a legal and associated financial contract.
> 
> Sadness, embarrassment, anger etc are not legal concepts and not part of contract law.
> 
> ...


Legally speaking you are correct, but this is where the law and ethics part ways. Why do you think marriage is at an all time low. Running a cost benefit analysis, it's not worth getting married anymore because marriage has been reduced to what you described.

Now they are forcing people who chose not to marry because they don't want these laws to apply to be legally "married" under "common law marriage" acts for simply cohabitating. The family courts is a huge money machine that is fed by sentiments such as this.

Marriage is a union of body, mind and soul to ensure a genetic future. To distil it to a registered business to be dissolved when no longer convenient is an insult to the true meaning of marriage and the West has been insulting the concept for a long time.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Solution is a pre or postnup and for the courts to recognise it over no fault laws. However these issues have been made no fault for a reason because of how messy it is.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Legally speaking you are correct, but this is where the law and ethics part ways. Why do you think marriage is at an all time low. Running a cost benefit analysis, it's not worth getting married anymore because marriage has been reduced to what you described.
> 
> Now they are forcing people who chose not to marry because they don't want these laws to apply to be legally "married" under "common law marriage" acts for simply cohabitating. The family courts is a huge money machine that is fed by sentiments such as this.
> 
> Marriage is a union of body, mind and soul to ensure a genetic future. To distil it to a registered business to be dissolved when no longer convenient is an insult to the true meaning of marriage and the West has been insulting the concept for a long time.


Genetics will pass from one generation to the next regardless of legalities or finances so that is immaterial.

The morality aspect is for God and the saints to deal with.

The question of divorce law is do we as a citizenry and as taxpayers want our legal and court system to spend their time and taxpayers money doling out punishment in personal matters because someone’s feelings were hurt. 

Is the role of government to enforce religious and moral standards of what consenting adults do with their naughty bits in otherwise legal activities? 

Should it be the government’s job and there for use taxpayer money to punish a consenting adult that blew some guy from her yoga class that was not her spouse?

Is that what we want our legal system and our tax money to be spent on?

If marriage is such a holy and spiritual concept, then it’s the churches job to enforce their moral code.

They used to do this. They would castrate make adulterers and stone female adulterers . If it was cold out, they’d set them on fire.

Some cultures still do this. 

The reason churches stopped doing it is because people stopped going to that church and stopped giving them money. 

If people don’t want to give churches money to enforce fidelity, why do you think the government should? 

If you want to treat your marriage as something spiritual and holy and a deeper meaning than a legal and financial contract, that is your business.

But as a society we need to ask ourselves how much we want our public officials and our tax dollars to be spent enforcing other people’s marriages and what other people are doing with their naughty bits. 

And more importantly, how much do we want the government meddling into our own home and personal lives??


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Genetics will pass from one generation to the next regardless of legalities or finances so that is immaterial.
> 
> The morality aspect is for God and the saints to deal with.
> 
> ...


Okay, then the government shouldn't consider me married at all. They do because even-though my wife and myself refused to legally marry for the reason of keeping the government out of our business, the laws have changed and we are now classified as common law spouses. The same division of asset laws now apply to us in-spite of our wishes.

We wanted the government to stay out of our business, they refused. I'm not going to pick apart your whole argument since it's late here and I am tired, but that point at least is utter detritus.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> my point is if a man can sue and win based on "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " because of how he was treated by a grocery store .... then why too isn't the "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " that comes from being cheated on ground for law suits?
> 
> and not suing your spouse - sue the other person, take them to court, make them pay for embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity abuse ?
> 
> ...


Oh please spare me. 

Say a couple has been married 30 years. She never worked and had a life of leisure but he worked his ass off and they have millions saved. As the years go on she becomes a *****y ****, she is a shrew and starts fights and cuts off all intimacy. He's like, wtf happened and is reading books etc. trying to figure out what to do, to repair the marriage. Nothing is working. As he's working through his emotions and choices and getting up the nerve to file for divorce, in a moment of weakness he is with another woman. 

So in your world, he should be penniless and the horrible wife gets the millions??

And no, taxpayers aren't going to want to foot the bill for people who are destitute _because the court gave the other spouse all of the assets in a divorce_. Not. Happening.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Livvie said:


> And no, taxpayers aren't going to want to foot the bill for people who are destitute _because the court gave the other spouse all of the assets in a divorce_. Not. Happening.


This is it ^^^^^^^


The courts have their own obligations to uphold. 

One obligation is to do everything it can to not put someone on to public funding if their are marital assets that can shelter, clothe and feeds both.

The other is to try to keep people OUT of court and keep them from coming back. 

If judges went around trying to “punish” adulterers and were taking all of their assets, all that would do is give them cause to appeal and keep filing motions and dragging things out and running up the costs to the taxpayers.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> This is it ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> The courts have their own obligations to uphold.
> ...


Let's apply this same logic to any crime. Let's just abolish the concept of crime and justice all together and all the court's problems are solved. Courts are a business these days they only cater to what is lucrative and/or politically expedient. E.g. it would be a political disaster to stop prosecuting murder.

So what else do we just let slide because it's costly and people can be manipulated to overlook it? How far do we move that Overton Window? Maybe if courts stop prosecuting [insert "hate" crime / minority group inconvenience] they would have free capacity to deal with matters that really destroys lives on a far wider scale.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Let's apply this same logic to any crime. Let's just abolish the concept of crime and justice all together and all the court's problems are solved. Courts are a business these days they only cater to what is lucrative and/or politically expedient. E.g. it would be a political disaster to stop prosecuting murder.
> 
> So what else do we just let slide because it's costly and people can be manipulated to overlook it? How far do we move that Overton Window? Maybe if courts stop prosecuting [insert "hate" crime / minority group inconvenience] they would have free capacity to deal with matters that really destroys lives on a far wider scale.


Well that IS kind of what takes place and is how it is.

Crimes and punishments are ultimately decided by the society in which they exist. 

In days of yore, infidelity was punished via castration and stoning etc. in some countries in the world today, it is still the case. 

In early-mid 20th century Germany it was legal to kill Jews and illegal punishable by death to hide them. 

In 19th century America it was punishable by death to steal a horse (or at least looked the other way) 

Racial Hate crimes are punishable by imprisonment in America today where as were accepted as common social order by polite society in the American south 75 years ago. 

At this point in time in western cultures, society has kind of decided it would rather commit adultery than have the government spend it’s time and resources punishing it. 

Much has to do with whether society as a collective believes adultery to be an offense against society or a personal matter between 2 people where one gets upset and their feelings hurt but no actual offense to the collective. 

What consenting adults do with their genitalia with other consenting adults in private is no longer considered a crime against society. 

Can that again change over time? Yes it can. 

If society as a whole decides that having sex with the wrong consenting adult rises to the level of harmful to the greater society and wants their tax dollars to be spent on investigating and punishing it by the government, it may be punishable again. 

But as people (and people of influence and power) would rather commit adultery than be punished for it, it probably won’t be for a long time.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


No I wouldn't take anyone to court to get vengence especially if that person was the other parent of the children. I honestly can't see how that would help or make things better. 

One of my pet hates is the whole sueing culture so no it's not for me.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


I remember seeing a story about a guy winning a lawsuit against his wife's AP. I think the claim was spousal estrangement or something like that.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I have an issue with looking at cheating as the ultimate wrong that would remove a person's right to marital assets, etc,, in divorce. We don't know what goes on in a relationship behind closed doors.
> 
> Here's an example of one poster we had here years ago. A man came to TAM to complain and gain sympathy because his wife was cheating on him. At first, he got lots of support. But as he got more comfortable with the support he was getting, he started to reveal more of more of his horrible physical and emotional abuse of his wife. Basically, on a few occasions he had beaten his wife to the point of her being incapacitated for weeks at a time. After beating her he would just carry her to their bed and let her stay there for days as she recovered. By the time she was able to call the cops she was recovered and had no evidence of the abuse. I don't recall all the details, but the guy was a horrible human. Keep in mind that this guy thought that his domestic violence was just normal behavior, so much so that he posted all about it.
> 
> ...


Nothing like hearing of women talking about those strength giving AFFAIRS.
Could be the women having these affairs are painting their husband to be an abuser just to escape any kind of guilt for their own misdeeds.
Yea, one never knows what the whole truth really is. But I think this “affair strength” spoken of is all a bunch of hooey.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> In civil law, pretty much anyone can sue anybody for anything.


I'm not certain .... but in many lawsuits suffering embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity etc are grounds for payouts from companies etc who have done people wrong

In my case, adultery was 100% provable, and I felt all that and more and still do ..... if the AP had been wealthy, why couldn't I have sued for $$$$ ??? he done irreparable damages to me with his actions, right ?


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Oh please spare me.
> 
> Say a couple has been married 30 years. She never worked and had a life of leisure but he worked his ass off and they have millions saved. As the years go on she becomes a ***y **, she is a shrew and starts fights and cuts off all intimacy. He's like, wtf happened and is reading books etc. trying to figure out what to do, to repair the marriage. Nothing is working. As he's working through his emotions and choices and getting up the nerve to file for divorce, in a moment of weakness he is with another woman.
> 
> ...



That's exactly what I'm saying - he should have divorced her , he had no grounds morally or ethically to break his vows and promises with adultery. 

Trying to justify his adultery doesn't work in my world - sorry


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Arkansas said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying - he should have divorced her , he had no grounds morally or ethically to break his vows and promises with adultery.
> 
> Trying to justify his adultery doesn't work in my world - sorry


I'm on the husband's side on this one. The wife broke her vows LONG before he did.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Arkansas said:


> I'm not certain .... but in many lawsuits suffering embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity etc are grounds for payouts from companies etc who have done people wrong
> 
> In my case, adultery was 100% provable, and I felt all that and more and still do ..... if the AP had been wealthy, why couldn't I have sued for $$$$ ??? he done irreparable damages to me with his actions, right ?


You can sue anyone for anything. You just need a lawyer to take the case and present it to a judge, if the judge decides it has merit it will go forward. So if you want to sue the OM, go ahead. You can absolutely sue people for things that aren’t illegal, being able to sue for damages doesn’t make adultery illegal, and it’s not necessary to make adultery illegal to sue someone for pain and suffering.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Numb26 said:


> I'm on the husband's side on this one. The wife broke her vows LONG before he did.


Morally to me, the marriage is over the moment the adultery occurs. There is no adultery when there is no more marriage. That's why I don't consider so called "revenge affairs" as much of a muchness myself. You cannot have an affair if by sharing their body with another, they have already divorced you.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Morally to me, the marriage is over the moment the adultery occurs. There is no adultery when there is no more marriage. That's why I don't consider so called "revenge affairs" as much of a muchness myself. You cannot have an affair if by sharing their body with another, they have already divorced you.


In that scenario I believe the marriage was over long before the adultery started but I see your point


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> I'm not certain .... but in many lawsuits suffering embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity etc are grounds for payouts from companies etc who have done people wrong
> 
> In my case, adultery was 100% provable, and I felt all that and more and still do ..... if the AP had been wealthy, why couldn't I have sued for $$$$ ??? he done irreparable damages to me with his actions, right ?


I agree with you, but it just won’t happen. Politicians screwing themselves by making adultery have financial consequences? Lol
Never going to happen. Politicians want YOU taking care of that ex wife so the government isn’t, and they have more tax money to steal.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Evinrude58 said:


> I agree with you, but it just won’t happen. Politicians screwing themselves by making adultery have financial consequences? Lol
> Never going to happen. Politicians want YOU taking care of that ex wife so the government isn’t, and they have more tax money to steal.


Which brings me back to what I said earlier. Laws are simply the opinions of the powerful. Powerful people fall and laws change. The pendulum swings back and the reverse of this "liberal" insanity is due. The further they push the pendulum, the further it is bound to swing to the other side.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Arkansas said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying - he should have divorced her , he had no grounds morally or ethically to break his vows and promises with adultery.
> 
> Trying to justify his adultery doesn't work in my world - sorry


This, though, is an argument to keep government out of it. It's easy to say, "there oughtta be a law!" when the assumption is that whoever makes that law will write it so that it reflects YOUR values. But what constitutes cheating is very different for different people, and there are a lot of nuances to it. In the US, our politicians change periodically. If you give the government the power to make adultery illegal, what happens when someone with whom you disagree gets into office? You've already ceded your right to make sexual decisions to the government. You may end up with new laws you don't like. Gotta be careful what you wish for...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Arkansas said:


> In my case, adultery was 100% provable, and I felt all that and more and still do ..... if the AP had been wealthy, why couldn't I have sued for $$$$ ??? he done irreparable damages to me with his actions, right ?


In a civil suit, you probably can sue. 

All you have to do is show with the preponderance of the evidence (which means 51% chance) to a judge and jury that his wrong doing caused you demonstratable harm.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying - he should have divorced her , he had no grounds morally or ethically to break his vows and promises with adultery.
> 
> Trying to justify his adultery doesn't work in my world - sorry


Splitting life assets so inequitably that one person is left destitute and taxpayers have to help fund that person doesn't work in anyone's world, sorry 😆

Thankfully, taxpayers aren't gonna pony up their $$$ to help you, or anyone, financially punish your spouse for cheating. 

Also, cheating isn't the only marital crime. There are many others, including physical abuse. The general public isn't interested in paying to support grown adults who are left destitute so someone can get revenge, financially, for marital wrongs.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Splitting life assets so inequitably that one person is left destitute and taxpayers have to help fund that person doesn't work in anyone's world, sorry 😆
> 
> Thankfully, taxpayers aren't gonna pony up their $$$ to help you, or anyone, financially punish your spouse for cheating.
> 
> Also, cheating isn't the only marital crime. There are many others, including physical abuse. The general public isn't interested in paying to support grown adults who are left destitute so someone can get revenge, financially, for marital wrongs.


Who ever suggested a person who is on the streets has to have any tax funding? "Cheating", which is the euphemism for adultery, may not be the only marital crime, but it is by far the most destructive, short of spousal homicide and even you subconsciously put it in the box where it belongs. It is indeed a crime.


----------



## Zedd (Jul 27, 2021)

Arkansas said:


> two part question - and I would like to hear from people who's done the cheating too because I know what its like being the victim of it
> 
> #1 Should legal action be valid? Me? I have all the above ..... ""embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity,"" .......... and if I had a win on a court of law, a settlement, would that make me feel a bit better? Maybe it would.


None of those things are actually crimes to make someone feel. They may be the outcome of something illegal, but there's nothing illegal about embarrassing someone.



Arkansas said:


> #2 adultery outlawed, meaning its against the law and there will be consequences of some kind for doing it. Would that keep cheaters in check at all ??


No. It didn't in the past, and it wouldn't in the future. There's a reason younger people aren't getting married as young, or aren't getting married at all. Something like this would keep people in abusive relationships. It's a horrible idea. It's a moral issue, not a legal one. Moral issues are fluid, at best - always a lot of circumstance to right or wrong there.



EleGirl said:


> You never know what goes on behind closed doors in marriage. Many abusers only act out in abuse and violence when they are 'behind closed doors' at home. My son's father was like this. To the rest of the world, he was a happy, well-adjusted, mild-mannered man. Nice guy. At home he was an SOB.


Yeah, in the decade or so I've been here, there are quite a few posters like what you'd mentioned in the rest of this post where if you read between the lines, or watch how they post outside of their own thread, it's pretty obvious they're probably the villain in their story.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Arkansas said:


> #1 Should legal action be valid?


Yes. But not in the form of jail time or such. It should be factored into the divorce and considered for things like custody, marital asset division, and which spouse should get a little more consideration than the other.

One thing for sure I think should happen is no cheating spouse should be entitled to alimony, period.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I'm not a lawyer so my input is worth the amount I am charging for it, but we need to differentiate between criminal law, contract law, tort law, civil law etc etc etc

In most states in America today there are no laws or possibly some archaic old laws that are no longer enforced, that outlaw adultery or any kind of mutually consensual sexual activity between mentally competent consenting legal adults. So it is not prosecutable in criminal law. 

Marriage is a legal and defacto financial contract so the dissolution of marriage involves ensurring the continued care of the minor children and division of marital assets, properties and financials. As such there really is no provisions for hurt feelings or sadness or anger etc. Sometimes if it can be shown that significant marital funds were being wrongfully diverted to the affair or the affair partner, that amount can be compensated towards the BS in the settlement out of the remaining marital assets. But again, things like sadness, anger, hurt feelings etc rarely come into play. 

However in civil law, if a BS can show via preponderance of the evidence that an AP knowingly and willfully caused them actual harm, suffering and hardship,,, they may be able to get some kind of monetary compensation. 

The catch is not whether it is legal to do it or not, as I said, for the most part anyone can sue anyone for anything. 

The real question is will they be able to show a 51% chance that it was the AP that caused them mental anguish, financial hardship, loss of productivity, loss of standard of living, alienation of affection of their spouse etc. 

So let's put this into a case study example. Let's say a WS leaves a BS for the AP. The BS suffers anguish and depression, is distracted to the point his/her productivity at work sufferes and he/she gets fired, The WS was the primary breadwinner and hired a shark lawyer maximize their settlement leaving the BS with little. The BS's depression spirals out of control and they end up making threats to harm WS/AP and themselves so they end up in a mental facility. 

So the BS wants to seek compensation for their issues and they hold the WS/AP responsibile. He/she files a civil suit seeking damages for the pain and anguish and loss of productivity and reimbursement for medical/mental expenses. 

That all sounds fine and dandy - HOWEVER -

They will have to hire lawyers (there are no county prosecuters or public defenders in the civil system) accountants, call expert witnesses that charge $100s/hr, court costs and fees etc. 

But more importantly, the WS/AP will also hire lawyers and their case will be based on that the BS had a bunch of screws loose BEFORE the affair and that they are not only crazy but also vengeful and vindictive and are intentionally assailing their characters because they choose someone else over them BECAUSE of their crazy, scornful and greedy behavior. 

And they will likely counter sue for assasination of character and counter sue for compensation for legal expenses in the event they win the court case which will place the BS paying for not only their own lawyer and legal expenses but for the WS/AP's as well if they don't win. 

So while it sounds great to sue WP/AP for pain and suffering. The reality is it is a minefield and quagmire and extremely high risk in a variety of ways.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I need to make a mention of jury selection as well should there be a civil suit against WS/AP. The judge jury will need to be convinced that wrongful actions of the WS/AP directly caused real harm to the BS. 

That jury is made up of people from the community............ about 50% or more that have experienced adultery themselves as either the BS, WS or AP. Sometimes all 3. 

During jury selection, the first question they will be asked if they have ever experienced adultery. The BS's will say yes and they will promptly be dismissed as they will be assumed to be biased. 

The WS's and the AP in the jury pool will say no even though they are under oath. They will say no because it is of public record and the chances of them being investigated for a civil suit between warring spouses is nill. 

So the chances of a WS or an AP in the jury is very high, probably even likely. 

They are most likely going to see the BS as crazy, vengeful and vindictive.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

drencrom said:


> Yes. But not in the form of jail time or such. It should be factored into the divorce and considered for things like custody, marital asset division, and which spouse should get a little more consideration than the other.
> 
> One thing for sure I think should happen is no cheating spouse should be entitled to alimony, period.


Disagree a million percent. 

Cheating isn't the only marital wrong people commit. 

What about physical abuse? If cheaters don't get spousal support, then physical abusers shouldn't either!!!!! What about extreme mental abuse? If cheaters and physical abusers don't get support, then an extreme mental abuser shouldn't either. And the list goes on. There are many awful ways to be betrayed. 

But all of the above is ridiculous. Courts aren't going to litigate all of the heinous things people do to each other so it can deny spousal support to someone, and some things are just as damaging as cheating.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

It’s pretty crazy that someone would say that a wife cheating is more damaging to the marriage that physical abuse. But it does illustrate the danger of putting these things into law: people have such varied ideas about what is truly “bad” for a marriage, there’s no way to reach a consensus about what constitutes a marital “crime” that justifies withholding spousal support.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

At least this thread is sorting the adultery apologists from the rest. Like a breeze that blows the chaff from the wheat.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> At least this thread is sorting the adultery apologists from the rest. Like a breeze that blows the chaff from the wheat.


Kind of like sorting the wife beater apologists.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Kind of like sorting the wife beater apologists.


I can only control me. I've never been a wife beater, my ex wife beat the snot out of me in my sleep with an ashtray to name but one incident. However that just split my lip. It healed relatively quickly and left a slight scar. Her adultery killed a part of me that I never got back. I still prefer a husband beater to an adulteress, but I am waiting to be told how beating a man in his sleep with a heavy ashtray is no big deal since he's not a woman somehow. Sorry ladies, your SH stinks too.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I can only control me. I've never been a wife beater, my ex wife beat the snot out of me in my sleep with an ashtray to name but one incident. However that just split my lip. It healed relatively quickly and left a slight scar. Her adultery killed a part of me that I never got back. I still prefer a husband beater to an adulteress, but I am waiting to be told how beating a man in his sleep with a heavy ashtray is no big deal since he's not a woman somehow. Sorry ladies, your SH stinks too.


I’m addressing the fallacy that not wanting to start stoning women for adultery is somehow being an “adultery apologist.” Two things can be true at once: adultery can be wrong and the government can have no business in it. Assault is an actual crime that affects more than your ego, it’s interesting that ego is more important than physical safety.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I’m addressing the fallacy that not wanting to start stoning women for adultery is somehow being an “adultery apologist.” Two things can be true at once: adultery can be wrong and the government can have no business in it. Assault is an actual crime that affects more than your ego, it’s interesting that ego is more important than physical safety.


The only thing I said is to get rid of no-fault divorce. Yes, make the reason for the divorce public record too. No alimony for the at fault party. Where are the stones there? I used stoning in another thread to highlight that a sever punishment for adultery would curb the crime. I wasn't advocating for picking up rocks, however, I would have found some solace in the mental image of my ex-wife and her POS paramour thus executed in the town square some years ago, I won't lie.

I've been a soldier in active combat, I've been a betrayed husband. in combat I wished to live, in betrayal I longed for death. Wishing for live under threat of death left me less scarred than wishing for death with every breath, memory and discovery another dagger to the soul.

I saw terrible things in combat, but I only really felt a part of me die in betrayal. So yes, to me at least adultery is worse than physical combat even with the real chance of death in the latter.

Then again, I've always stood as a shield between the women in my family and the world, right up to the point they betray me and fire me from the position.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Livvie said:


> Disagree a million percent.
> 
> Cheating isn't the only marital wrong people commit.


If you disagree a million percent, then you actually think a cheater should skate without consequence.

I get that there may be other "wrongs' in a marriage, like spousal abuse, etc. But lets say in the sake of this argument it is a simple matter of one spouse cheated, the other blindsided, and they committed no "wrong" against the other spouse. 

Would you in this instance agree there should be some legal consequence to pay some sort of damages to the betrayed spouse?

Case in point. I never raised a hand to my x-wife, never cheated on her, even watched our kids to let her have her time out with the girls...only to be paid back by being cheated on. Shouldn't I have gotten some consideration in the divorce? I think I showed who the better parent was, but alas, being the man, the courts don't care unless she was out doing drugs or physically abusive to them(even though she neglected them so she could party)



> What about physical abuse?


Then I'd say the abuser definitely doesn't get custody, and if they both did damage to the marriage, then it's a wash. No consequences for the cheater, and the abuser shouldn't be getting custody.



> If cheaters don't get spousal support, then physical abusers shouldn't either!!!!!


Well usually the physical abusers(not always) are men and they typically don't get spousal support historically anyway.



> What about extreme mental abuse? If cheaters and physical abusers don't get support, then an extreme mental abuser shouldn't either. And the list goes on. There are many awful ways to be betrayed.


If it can be proven, then I agree. But here again, my X countered my grounds for divorce on mental abuse. The only tongue lashings I ever gave her was for f***** other men. So if there is proven mental abuse, again, I agree. But sometimes it's nothing of the sort.



> But all of the above is ridiculous. Courts aren't going to litigate all of the heinous things people do to each other so it can deny spousal support to someone, and some things are just as damaging as cheating.


Nobody said they would. It was asked what we THINK should happen. And IMO, I think cheaters should lose some concessions or privileges....again, being offset in the chance the other spouse has displayed some sort of abuse, as you pointed out.

But hey, what I said is "ridiculous", so not sure why I'm even responding to you.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> No one is saying it isn’t valid. We’re saying it’s not actionable due to its subjective nature.


I don't think anyone thinks that it can be actionable. Just a "what would you like to see happen" thread. I know what I'd like to see knowing it wouldn't happen.

Just some wishful thinking and dreaming.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> The only thing I said is to get rid of no-fault divorce.


Well, that's a tricky one too. I think you can keep no-fault divorce, yet still bring evidence into the court of infidelity to prove a case for some concession. And before any of the "this is ridiculous, courts won't consider this" crowd chimes in...yes.....WE KNOW. This is a wishful thinking thread, IMO.

Reason I like no-fault is the bulls*** that goes on by making people declare a reason. Out of the list of reasons I had to pick from, I picked a legit one. Mental cruelty since she was a serial cheater. She countered under mental cruelty as well. Now the courts don't care one way or the other. But in our negotiations with the lawyers, my lawyer, just as a matter of record, not that it means anything in the end, just for my benefit, asked about what mental cruelty I bestowed upon her. The only thing she could come up with was arguments that ensued about her cheating. So my attorney simply told them, "well, it won't matter in a court of law, but I'm simply getting it on record that her filing under mental cruelty is a joke and a load of sh**" Yes, he used those words and I couldn't hardly contain myself from busting up.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> I don't think anyone thinks that it can be actionable. Just a "what would you like to see happen" thread. I know what I'd like to see knowing it wouldn't happen.


Ah. That’s fair. I would ideally like to see people be able to divorce for “cause,” citing adultery, and have that nullify pre-nups and depending on extenuating circumstances have an effect on spousal support. It’s an impractical ask for all the reasons that different people have outlined, but in an ideal world it would be nice if cheaters didn’t profit.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Ah. That’s fair. I would ideally like to see people be able to divorce for “cause,” citing adultery, and have that nullify pre-nups and depending on extenuating circumstances have an effect on spousal support. It’s an impractical ask for all the reasons that different people have outlined, but in an ideal world it would be nice if cheaters didn’t profit.


Funny you should mention citing adultery as a cause. I had to choose from a list. Adultery wasn't on there. So I chose mental cruelty, which, IMO, adultery definitely qualifies.

And I realize setting monetary punishments would be virtually impossible. But when it comes to custody, IMO it shows that the adulterer/adulteress had a complete disregard for their children to risk their happiness of an intact family. Again, assuming there were no other issues from the betrayed spouse like physical/mental abuse, the adulterer shouldn't be considered for being the custodial parent. If they had that much disregard for their children's home life and situation, they shouldn't get to have custody and force their victim to pay for it.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I can only control me. I've never been a wife beater, my ex wife beat the snot out of me in my sleep with an ashtray to name but one incident. However that just split my lip. It healed relatively quickly and left a slight scar. Her adultery killed a part of me that I never got back. I still prefer a husband beater to an adulteress, but I am waiting to be told how beating a man in his sleep with a heavy ashtray is no big deal since he's not a woman somehow. Sorry ladies, your SH stinks too.


FFS, damn. I hope your wife didn't get custody! Nobody that violent should have custody of their kids. Hell, she shouldn't even have visitation. (I'm just going by the assumption that maybe kids were involved without knowing for sure)


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> I agree. Do we taxpayers really want to put out the money to act as referees in the arguments that lead to divorce between two adults?


As I've said before, this is a wishful thinking thread....things we'd like to see happen even if not practical.

However, what I DO think what should and can happen practically is, absent of any other abuses in a marriage, is a cheater who had so little disregard for the well being of their children, should not be considered for custody.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Zedd said:


> None of those things are actually crimes to make someone feel. They may be the outcome of something illegal, but there's nothing illegal about embarrassing someone.


I wouldn't be so sure. Times are changing, definitions have a different meaning under the current political environment, and laws are being created to criminalize such things as "misgendering".

Ok, not that I want to go off on another topic, but liberals are starting to make laws against hurting their feelings.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s pretty crazy that someone would say that a wife cheating is more damaging to the marriage that physical abuse.


Who said that? Tell us, and I'll give 'em the evil eye.













Evinrude58 said:


> Could be the women having these affairs are painting their husband to be an abuser just to escape any kind of guilt for their own misdeeds.


Yup, happened to me.



EleGirl said:


> I have an issue with looking at cheating as the ultimate wrong that would remove a person's right to marital assets, etc,, in divorce.


I don't think cheating trumps things like physical abuse. Not at all.

In this thread I am operating under the assumption of someone who doesn't abuse their spouse that is blindsided by infidelity. Marital assets? No, I don't think cheating should factor into that. 

Custody though? Yup.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> FFS, damn. I hope your wife didn't get custody! Nobody that violent should have custody of their kids. Hell, she shouldn't even have visitation. (I'm just going by the assumption that maybe kids were involved without knowing for sure)


Luckily we didn't have kids. Something always stopped me from taking that next step of commitment with her. As they say, listen to your gut. I should have listened to it earlier. Before the wedding I got physically ill, I knew it wasn't nerves, but I blamed it on nerves just to convince myself. I blew past so many red-flags with that one, but I'll be honest, she was a looker and I was thinking with the wrong head.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> I wouldn't be so sure. Times are changing, definitions have a different meaning under the current political environment, and laws are being created to criminalize such things as "misgendering".
> 
> Ok, not that I want to go off on another topic, but liberals are starting to make laws against hurting their feelings.


They sure are pushing that pendulum with all the power they can muster. That pendulum is going to swing a far way to the other side once they fumble and lose control of it.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> How do you prove it? All a guy has to do is get his buddies to testify they slept with his wife


In this fantasy scenario there needs to be more proof than that. Video? Audio perhaps? Emails. Texts.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

drencrom said:


> However, what I DO think what should and can happen practically is, absent of any other abuses in a marriage, is a cheater who had so little disregard for the well being of their children, should not be considered for custody.


Lessee....

A guy in a sexless marriage with 2 little kids and a wife who has issues with alcohol or some other issues that would render her a lousy parent as a couple and a *really* lousy parent as a divorced single mom, should be awarded full custody, because her sexually frustrated husband decided to start banging some woman at his job?

I mean, you can create a legion of different scenarios that would make what you are saying illogical...but I do understand why the betrayed would want some kind of "pound of flesh"....Its just not that simple, and that's why I believe the courts want nothing to do with it...


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

hamadryad said:


> Lessee....
> 
> A guy in a sexless marriage with 2 little kids and a wife who has issues with alcohol or some other issues that would render her a lousy parent as a couple and a *really* lousy parent as a divorced single mom, should be awarded full custody, because her sexually frustrated husband decided to start banging some woman at his job?
> 
> I mean, you can create a legion of different scenarios that would make what you are saying illogical...but I do understand why the betrayed would want some kind of "pound of flesh"....Its just not that simple, and that's why I believe the courts want nothing to do with it...


This is exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> In this fantasy scenario there needs to be more proof than that. Video? Audio perhaps? Emails. Texts.


All easily fabricated. Or just get a couple of “pillars of the community” like say, my dad, to testify under oath they saw it. Easy peasy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> All easily fabricated. Or just get a couple of “pillars of the community” like say, my dad, to testify under oath they saw it. Easy peasy.


Hearsay.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Hearsay.


Today, sure. In say, 1955? No problem.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Disagree a million percent.
> 
> Cheating isn't the only marital wrong people commit.
> 
> ...


I think one of the most heinous things people do that lead to divorce is fail to do their part in the household and child duties. 

I think neglecting children or pets, not doing their part of domestic chores, violence, and addiction all are more critical than cheating.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

The catch to of this is there are countries today that do castrate and stone and set adulterers on fire and such and guess what?? - There is still adultery there.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

hamadryad said:


> Lessee....
> 
> A guy in a sexless marriage with 2 little kids and a wife who has issues with alcohol or some other issues that would render her a lousy parent as a couple and a *really* lousy parent as a divorced single mom, should be awarded full custody, because her sexually frustrated husband decided to start banging some woman at his job?
> 
> I mean, you can create a legion of different scenarios that would make what you are saying illogical...but I do understand why the betrayed would want some kind of "pound of flesh"....Its just not that simple, and that's why I believe the courts want nothing to do with it...


Try reading again. I said: "absent of any other abuses in a marriage"

In other words, a cheater that betrays someone who didn't abuse them or has any other problems such as what you put forth above. If a person is a great parent, doesn't have issue with alcohol, violence, or any other abuse you can think of, is blindsided by cheating and that spouse didn't give enough of a crap about their kids to refrain from cheating....they shouldn't get custody IMO. They didn't care about their well being before going out and gratifying themselves with someone other than their mother/father.

And the courts will not want anything to do with considering cheating with regards to marital assets, and honestly, they shouldn't.

But when it comes to cheating, a judge sure can decide that the person that left their kids at home with their spouse while they went out and F'd someone else shouldn't get to be the custodial parent.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> All easily fabricated. Or just get a couple of “pillars of the community” like say, my dad, to testify under oath they saw it. Easy peasy.


No, not easily fabricated.

Video...proof is in the pudding.

Audio...meh, maybe, but an audio expert can verify authenticity.

Emails, an IT expert can check message headers to determine the original message came from the alleged source.

Texts, same principle.

And again, I already said more proof is needed than simple testimony from people.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think one of the most heinous things people do that lead to divorce is fail to do their part in the household and child duties.
> 
> I think neglecting children or pets, not doing their part of domestic chores, violence, and addiction all are more critical than cheating.


But cheating IS neglecting their children. Case in point. I took care of my kids while my x-wife was out spreading them. She neglected them for her own gratification and told lies about staying with friends and not coming home until the next day.

Is leaving your kids at home with the betrayed spouse not neglecting them?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> No, not easily fabricated.
> 
> Video...proof is in the pudding.
> 
> ...


All of that is available now. For most of history they weren’t. Testimony has a lot of weight, but in the past it had even more. And yeah, it’s all easily fabricated.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

drencrom said:


> But when it comes to cheating, a judge sure can decide that the person that *left their kids at home with their spouse while they went out and F'd someone else shouldn't get to be the custodial parent.*


OK....Great...

Wife wants to be a SAHM and live in a fancy house and drive a new Land Rover....Guy agrees, cause "if moms not happy, no one is happy", right?

So now to afford all that, guy has to work 2/3 jobs...Never home, so busy working, and when he does get home, he's so tired he falls asleep in his "dinner' at 11pm...Of course, he's "left the kids at home with the spouse" and missed out on all of those things too, same as the other guy...

BTW, this ^^ situation is VERY common....

It sucks, I get it....but using the logic you are using really makes no sense, because the same can be said for any number of conditions...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

drencrom said:


> But cheating IS neglecting their children. Case in point. I took care of my kids while my x-wife was out spreading them. She neglected them for her own gratification and told lies about staying with friends and not coming home until the next day.
> 
> Is leaving your kids at home with the betrayed spouse not neglecting them?


Funny. If you go to work and leave the kids with your wife, a SAHM mom, by your definition you're neglecting the children. Going to play golf with your buddies is child neglect, too. Absurd!


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

hamadryad said:


> OK....Great...
> 
> Wife wants to be a SAHM and live in a fancy house and drive a new Land Rover....Guy agrees, cause "if moms not happy, no one is happy", right?
> 
> ...


LMFAO, all of that was irrelevant to what I said. Keep reaching. Has nothing to do with the situation I laid out. And you can keep "what iffing" all day long, it doesn't change the situation I was talking about.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Married but Happy said:


> Funny. If you go to work and leave the kids with your wife, a SAHM mom, by your definition you're neglecting the children. Going to play golf with your buddies is child neglect, too. Absurd!


Going to work and leaving kids home with SAHM is doing something FOR their well being. Cheating is the exact opposite. Going to work is FOR the marriage and family life. Cheating harms the marriage and puts their kids at risk of losing the happy life and familiar home they know. Please.

So no, that is not my definition and I can't even believe you tried to equate the 2 as even being remotely close.

Going to work to make sure your kids are taken care of vs. leaving them home with the other parent so you can go out and get laid....gee, I can see how you think they are the same  Now that is absurd.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

drencrom said:


> Going to work and leaving kids home with SAHM is doing something FOR their well being. Cheating is the exact opposite. Going to work is FOR the marriage and family life. Cheating harms the marriage and puts their kids at risk of losing the happy life and familiar home they know. Please.
> 
> So no, that is not my definition and I can't even believe you tried to equate the 2 as even being remotely close. Now that is absurd.


Perhaps, but are you a golfer? I'm not advocating affairs, but I'd bet that many having them find it recreational and stress-relieving, maybe even better than golf.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Married but Happy said:


> Perhaps, but are you a golfer? I'm not advocating affairs, but I'd bet that many having them find it recreational and stress-relieving, maybe even better than golf.


No I don't golf. And again, you are trying to equate some leisure time that isn't detrimental to a marriage to cheating, which is, whether the marriage ever dissolves or not. Of course barring a golfing addict who spends every day golfing and all of the family money to do so.

But again, barring an addiction, the two aren't equal by any stretch of the imagination.

Now if you want to equate something, try being a drunk and going to the bars all the time...drug use...something like that which puts a marriage at high risk. There are all sorts of scenarios that would deem a parent less better than the other to gain custody in the event of a divorce.

And in this particular scenario, which for some reason is pissing people off in an effort to come out in defense of cheaters, of a spouse that isn't abusive, has no addictions, who is taking care of the kids while the other goes out and commits adultery is what I am talking about. Not the never ending "what if" scenarios which you would find I'm in agreement if the "if" is a factor.

If you and hammy want a discussion on other types of neglect, abuse, whatever that would make one parent better fit to gain custody than the other, hey, start a thread and I'll chime in. This thread is about adultery, and yes, of course there can be factors that make a betrayed spouse less fit to gain custody, but that isn't what I'm talking about here.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

drencrom said:


> But cheating IS neglecting their children. Case in point. I took care of my kids while my x-wife was out spreading them. She neglected them for her own gratification and told lies about staying with friends and not coming home until the next day.
> 
> Is leaving your kids at home with the betrayed spouse not neglecting them?


It can be but it usually isn't.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

DownByTheRiver said:


> It can be but it usually isn't.


The cheating parent is literally on a path to destroy the soul of the betrayed parent and blowing up the marriage and family where the children find safety. Forget about the time and attention taken away from the kids and the family. How the F is that not child neglect unless people would rather concede to my premise that it's out and out child abuse?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

HarryBosch said:


> In the Old West wearing a six gun probably held back some from doing something stupid too. If it didn't, the probability of you being on the wrong end of the six gun was a definite possibility too. I'm all for the carrying of a gun. If folks knew that you could end up dying for something as little as saying the wrong thing, let alone cheating on your wife, there would be a lot less of it... but alas, we have a more civilized society... and that IS a good thing in many ways.


I would not say it is more civilized. Cheating on a spouse is not civil.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

TexasMom1216 said:


> No, this isn't right. No fault divorce means a woman can divorce for any or no provable reason. If a woman just "leaves" she is still married. She cannot just "leave and be safe." He still has access to her, he controls her money, and he has the right to enter any property where she is at any time because everything she "owns" is half his. Dismissing abuse victims as having the ability to "leave and be safe" is really disgusting and shows a complete lack of concern for women in abusive marriages.
> 
> No-fault divorce was created to allow anyone to divorce for any reason. It is the reason divorce has skyrocketed, but not the reason more marriages "fail." You're equating long marriages with good ones. If a man has one girlfriend after another, gives his wife multiple STDs, neglects her, neglects his children, is physically, verbally and emotionally abusive but the marriage lasts 50 years, in your mind that is a good thing. That is a "successful" marriage.
> 
> Before no-fault divorce, a "good husband" was one who could mostly hold down a job, didn't leave his wife for his girlfriend(s) and didn't put his wife in the hospital more than a couple of times a year. Getting rid of no-fault divorce will take us back to that. Allowing women to divorce men for infidelity and abuse without dragging them through court cases and putting them in harm's way when the man won the case (what do you think the men did to those women whose bids for divorce failed? You aren't honestly going to tell me they took their wives home and became better husbands? Nonsense, you don't believe that and neither does anyone else) is the only way men ARE held accountable for infidelity and abuse. Before no-fault divorce, men did as they pleased for their entire lives, unscathed.


🐂 💩!


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

DownByTheRiver said:


> It can be but it usually isn't.





Dictum Veritas said:


> The cheating parent is literally on a path to destroy the soul of the betrayed parent and blowing up the marriage and family where the children find safety. Forget about the time and attention taken away from the kids and the family. How the F is that not child neglect unless people would rather concede to my premise that it's out and out child abuse?


Precisely. Whether or not the cheating is found out, or even if found out the marriage stays intact for whatever reason, fact remains, the cheating spouse didn't give 2 s**ts about the well being of their children to risk upending their lives. Sounds like neglect to me. No way I'd neglect my kid's well being to risk doing something that has the potential to be that detrimental to them.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Arkansas said:


> my point is if a man can sue and win based on "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " because of how he was treated by a grocery store .... then why too isn't the "embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity " that comes from being cheated on ground for law suits?
> 
> and not suing your spouse - sue the other person, take them to court, make them pay for embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity abuse ?
> 
> ...


I think the injured spouse should get 2/3 and WS 1/3. If contribution to everything is equal. BS gets primary custody of kids, WS gets visitation. No matter if the WS deserves to loose it all, if there are kids, should not leave WS destitute, no matter how much it is deserved.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> Precisely. Whether or not the cheating is found out, or even if found out the marriage stays intact for whatever reason, fact remains, the cheating spouse didn't give 2 s**ts about the well being of their children to risk upending their lives. Sounds like neglect to me. No way I'd neglect my kid's well being to risk doing something that has the potential to be that detrimental to them.


I agree with you, but it seems in the eyes of some:

Let's go play in potential toxic, viral and bacteriological waste, sharing it with the other parent without their knowledge while demeaning the other parent with the most disrespect that we can show them and while taking the time to plan and execute these actions while lying to everyone as well as the kids and being so tired of leading a double life that our expressed love for our kids is a forced act at best. Potentially leaving the kids parentless through disease or shared parented by divorce or with one parent because the betrayed parent may commit suicide, but don't worry, there'll be people who will make excuses for our actions and even say what we are doing is not even child neglect.

Life's a party, let's go, WHOHOO!


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> No-fault divorce was created to allow anyone to divorce for any reason. It is the reason divorce has skyrocketed


I can't find any statistics that bears this out. You may be right, I just can't find anything.

However, there should be no correlation with no fault divorce and skyrocketing divorce rates. You don't need a reason whether you are in a fault or no fault state. You just pick a reason. 

I'm in Illinois. It's a "fault" state. I picked from the list. Mental cruelty was mine. Even if someone just gets bored and wants to divorce, they can still pick whatever reason they want and proceed with a divorce, even if boredom isn't on the list. 

Here is a list of things to choose from:

Adultery
Cruelty
Abandonment or desertion
Mental Illness
Criminal conviction
Financial backing
Sexual issues

So for someone that just wants it ended, they could pick, say, Cruelty. Could simply make a case that the other spouse yells at them too much. Their word against the other.

My attorney, for example, asked me why I want the divorce. Of course I said adultery. He asked me if I could prove it. I told him possibly. He said it doesn't really matter, even if she contests or denies it that he has never seen any judge stop the divorce without any proof. So he said just to be sure, make it Mental Cruelty and document mean things she ever said.  He said it won't be necessary though.

So when the time came, I filed for MC, she and her attorney came back and denied it...and the divorce simply proceeded.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

Zedd said:


> None of those things are actually crimes to make someone feel. They may be the outcome of something illegal, but there's nothing illegal about embarrassing someone.


actually it very much IS a crime to treat someone a certain way - they CAN take you to court and win

like a racial profiling case where a man is suspected of a crime when he's innocent - he can sue for millions on the grounds of being embarrassed and shamed and feeling degraded etc

the same feelings a man has when he's cheated on, his heart broken, marriage destroyed .... the mental anguish, the physical toll etc


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> I can't find any statistics that bears this out. You may be right, I just can't find anything.


In the 50s, less than 20% of marriages ended in divorce. Not because people were more moral or better spouses, because divorce was difficult to get. Now it's over 50%. No-fault made it easier to get a divorce, especially for women. If you have to have cause to divorce, you have to PROVE it if the other party objects. If one spouse is cheating and doesn't want to divorce, they can just say "no." Then the other person has to PROVE they were cheating. If you are a woman who has never had a job or any money of her own and has no way to get money without asking her cheating husband for it, you can't hire a PI to get pictures of your husband having sex with his mistress. As others pointed out, it's not enough to have pictures of them together. That proves nothing, you need pictures of them having sex. Divorce is more prevalent because the party with no fiscal resources now has the ability to sue for divorce without the expense of an investigator or the expense of a legal battle. 

Marriages weren't better back then, people were trapped back then.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Morally to me, the marriage is over the moment the adultery occurs. There is no adultery when there is no more marriage. That's why I don't consider so called "revenge affairs" as much of a muchness myself. You cannot have an affair if by sharing their body with another, they have already divorced you.


Right...my wife said she considered her 1st marriage over when he cheated, she filed and 4 mo later we met, 2 mo after that the court finalized it. 2 mo later she moved in with me, 5 month till wedding. 5/1997. From time she filed till remarried was 13 months, 7 mo from divorce final till married.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Marriages weren't better back then, people were trapped back then.


I can go with that explanation. But it was only because they didn't know they could simply pick a reason with a simple his word against hers afterwards. There was always mental cruelty that could be picked or anything that would be hard for the other spouse to prove didn't happen. Again, as in Illinois, just pick a reason and the divorce will proceed.

If no fault divorce is responsible for divorces skyrocketing, it was only because those wanting the divorce didn't realize they just pick a reason and move on. Like I said, I picked mental cruelty, she and her attorney denied it in their response, and the divorce went on. Why? Because nobody cares and no way to prove one way or the other unless there are witnesses.

But your explanation makes sense as far as the mindset of someone in the 50's wanting a divorce not realizing the list of grounds pretty much gives them at least one they can use.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Kind of like sorting the wife beater apologists.


Why I always say women should be well versed in use of firearms and be armed in public for safety reasons.

People who are not in criminal justice field are oblivious to the threats that are out there. I bought my wife her Crossbow, Smith 9mm and AR-15. She killed more deer last year than I did! Little lady is bringing home the venison to feed the family.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> In the 50s, less than 20% of marriages ended in divorce. Not because people were more moral or better spouses, because divorce was difficult to get. Now it's over 50%. No-fault made it easier to get a divorce, especially for women. If you have to have cause to divorce, you have to PROVE it if the other party objects. If one spouse is cheating and doesn't want to divorce, they can just say "no." Then the other person has to PROVE they were cheating. If you are a woman who has never had a job or any money of her own and has no way to get money without asking her cheating husband for it, you can't hire a PI to get pictures of your husband having sex with his mistress. As others pointed out, it's not enough to have pictures of them together. That proves nothing, you need pictures of them having sex. Divorce is more prevalent because the party with no fiscal resources now has the ability to sue for divorce without the expense of an investigator or the expense of a legal battle.
> 
> Marriages weren't better back then, people were trapped back then.


If marriages are such a bane where more than 50% of people by statistics bail because they might feel trapped, let's just send the whole concept of the nuclear family to hades. Let's just send the the entire West to Hades with it, since the family is the cornerstone of the civilization.

Everyone feels trapped and unhappy at some stage. Perhaps the person who wants to blow the family apart because of their feelings should be assigned fault, because they do have fault there.

When I got divorced my grand-mother sat me down with a tale of woe I could scarcely believe. She told me how for a couple of years she just wanted to run away, but she didn't and she counted her blessings for staying in the marriage, raising her kids and later us grandchildren. She told me how feelings change all the time and how she fell in love with my grandfather all over again. She said she had a couple of years of madness. She begged me to reconsider my divorce. It was only when I told her my wife was an adulteress that she greenlit my choice to divorce.

It's just way too easy to blow up a marriage for the sake of a wobbly these days and vows means jack. We are doing this all wrong. We have gone off the rails. We have lost our sense of honor as a society and in that, we have lost our society.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Kind of like sorting the wife beater apologists.


Who is defending wife beating here?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> Who is defending wife beating here?


Another poster was saying that not believing adultery should be a crime is defending adultery. That same poster says that adultery is worse than physical abuse. (Better to beat your wife than cheat on her) Those of us who do not believe adultery should be codified into law are not defending adultery, we are recognizing the limitations of the law and the slippery slope of allowing the courts to get involved at that level. When he said it was better to beat your wife than cheat, was he saying you should beat your wife? Not specifically in that instance, no. He was twisting words to misrepresent the opinion of others, and I was trying to illustrate that. Perhaps less artfully than would have been ideal. It's frustrating dealing with the red pill crowd sometimes.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> Who is defending wife beating here?


Anyone who says it shouldn't be as easy to divorce without blame as it is to toss your French toast in favor of a marmalade toast in the morning just because you felt like it or the French toast was a bit too hot.

That puts us squarely on the level of wife-beater apologists.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Another poster was saying that not believing adultery should be a crime is defending adultery. That same poster says that adultery is worse than physical abuse. (Better to beat your wife than cheat on her)


Well that would be wrong. What was the exact quote? (copy and paste?)


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> Well that would be wrong. What was the exact quote? (copy and paste?)


I know that you know that calling out a specific poster is against the rules and a bannable offense. What exactly is your goal here?


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Another poster was saying that not believing adultery should be a crime is defending adultery. That same poster says that adultery is worse than physical abuse. (Better to beat your wife than cheat on her) Those of us who do not believe adultery should be codified into law are not defending adultery, we are recognizing the limitations of the law and the slippery slope of allowing the courts to get involved at that level. When he said it was better to beat your wife than cheat, was he saying you should beat your wife? Not specifically in that instance, no. He was twisting words to misrepresent the opinion of others, and I was trying to illustrate that. Perhaps less artfully than would have been ideal. It's frustrating dealing with the red pill crowd sometimes.


I believe that poster was myself, but I also believe my words were twisted beyond recognition. I personally would rather walk naked through one of the slums in South-Africa with a fat wallet strapped to my back and pick a knife fight with the biggest gang than go through the pain of being the victim of adultery again. I'd prefer my wife stab me in the heart and get it over with, it's less cruel. I'd take a beating daily rather than face that pain again.

So this makes me a wife beater apologist then? M'Kay.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I know that you know that calling out a specific poster is against the rules and a bannable offense. What exactly is your goal here?


No, quoting what they said is not against the rules. My goal is trying to read it for myself, because I have gone back through this thread and can't find it. I may have missed it.

You can most certainly quote someone an discuss what they said. Not against the rules at all. 

My goal? You are accusing someone of something I do not think they said or even insinuated. Giving you the opportunity to prove you were right.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

My exH was a serial cheater. No, I would not have wanted to sue him for it. 
I didn't need all of the sketchy things he'd done to me aired for anyone weeks to hear. We're divorced, and I don't have to put up with him anymore. That's all I wanted; my freedom. The divorce took long enough without dragging all of his misdeeds into it, and reliving every one of them for me. No thanks!


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> believe that poster was myself, but I also believe my words were twisted beyond recognition. I personally would rather walk naked through one of the slums in South-Africa with a fat wallet strapped to my back and pick a knife fight with the biggest gang than go through the pain of being the victim of adultery again. I'd prefer my wife stab me in the heart and get it over with, it's less cruel. I'd take a beating daily rather than face that pain again.
> 
> So this makes me a wife beater apologist then? M'Kay.


You're accidentally making my point. To say that because I feel that making adultery illegal and involving the courts is being an "adultery apologist" is every bit as absurd as saying that because you'd rather get stabbed in the heart by your wife than cheated on again makes you a "wife beater apologist." 

That was my point. I made it poorly, it was clumsily presented and not explained. But it still stands. One can be against adultery and not want it to be against the law.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I believe that poster was myself, but I also believe my words were twisted beyond recognition.


Which post do you suspect you made that condoning "wife beating" was attributed to you?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> You are accusing someone of something I do not think they said or even insinuated. Giving you the opportunity to prove you were right.


No, that's not what I'm doing. What I did was make a point which I still believe is valid, but did it poorly and so you are all tearing it apart for that reason. I didn't say he condoned it, I said if I applied the same logic he was using against those who don't want to make adultery illegal to his point, that could be inferred, because his logic was flawed. 
Doesn't matter what I meant at this point, does it?


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> You're accidentally making my point. To say that because I feel that making adultery illegal and involving the courts is being an "adultery apologist" is every bit as absurd as saying that because you'd rather get stabbed in the heart by your wife than cheated on again makes you a "wife beater apologist."
> 
> That was my point. I made it poorly, it was clumsily presented and not explained. But it still stands. One can be against adultery and not want it to be against the law.


Then why bring up all the scenarios where adultery may be "excusable"?


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> Which post do you suspect you made that condoning "wife beating" was attributed to you?


It was in this train of thought:



Dictum Veritas said:


> I can only control me. I've never been a wife beater, my ex wife beat the snot out of me in my sleep with an ashtray to name but one incident. However that just split my lip. It healed relatively quickly and left a slight scar. Her adultery killed a part of me that I never got back. I still prefer a husband beater to an adulteress, but I am waiting to be told how beating a man in his sleep with a heavy ashtray is no big deal since he's not a woman somehow. Sorry ladies, your SH stinks too.


As well as my post just following that one.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Then why bring up all the scenarios where adultery may be "excusable"?


I don't recall bringing up any instances where I said adultery is excusable.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> Which post do you suspect you made that condoning "wife beating" was attributed to you?


Oh, this one may have started it:



Dictum Veritas said:


> Who ever suggested a person who is on the streets has to have any tax funding? "Cheating", which is the euphemism for adultery, may not be the only marital crime, but it is by far the most destructive, short of spousal homicide and even you subconsciously put it in the box where it belongs. It is indeed a crime.


And



Dictum Veritas said:


> The only thing I said is to get rid of no-fault divorce. Yes, make the reason for the divorce public record too. No alimony for the at fault party. Where are the stones there? I used stoning in another thread to highlight that a sever punishment for adultery would curb the crime. I wasn't advocating for picking up rocks, however, I would have found some solace in the mental image of my ex-wife and her POS paramour thus executed in the town square some years ago, I won't lie.
> 
> I've been a soldier in active combat, I've been a betrayed husband. in combat I wished to live, in betrayal I longed for death. Wishing for live under threat of death left me less scarred than wishing for death with every breath, memory and discovery another dagger to the soul.
> 
> ...


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Oh, this one may have started it:
> 
> 
> 
> And


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I don't recall bringing up any instances where I said adultery is excusable.


You have my apologies, you merely liked the posts by another user who brought up the "excusable" scenarios. I was wrong to state that you stated so directly.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> You're accidentally making my point. To say that because I feel that making adultery illegal and involving the courts is being an "adultery apologist" is every bit as absurd as saying that because you'd rather get stabbed in the heart by your wife than cheated on again makes you a "wife beater apologist."
> 
> That was my point. I made it poorly, it was clumsily presented and not explained. But it still stands. One can be against adultery and not want it to be against the law.


I don't know if you were apologizing for adultery here, but others, IMO were. 

Here is how it went down. This thread is about adultery and legality. Some of us here, and my points that were taken to task, is that it is simply wishful thinking...*not to make adultery against the law, but for adultery to be considered in divorce court for the purposes of custody and assuming the betrayed spouse wasn't wrong in terms of doing anything detrimental to the kids' well being.* My scenario was that of someone, myself, who didn't beat his wife, never raised a hand to her, never denied her anything ever really, and tried to be an understanding husband by letting her blow off steam while I sat at home alone with the kids, many times overnight because I knew she needed adult interaction with her friends.

And then what happens? A few people come in here with there "what if" scenarios and immediately ignore the fact that my scenario didn't include any of what they wanted to inject into the discussion, and immediately threw out insults.

So ignoring the fact that I was talking about a loving husband that was doing about as right by his wife as any man could, only for that man to get played a fool....that a man in THAT situation should be given a little more consideration if he (or the reverse scenario if it is a woman) would want to go for custody. So by trying to inject things into the scenario of which I was talking that were not there, then immediately getting all insulting and snippy about it...yes....somehow they felt the need to defend the cheating in an instance void of wrongdoing by the betrayed spouse, by doing a "but....but.....but....what if...."

Their "what if" injections are fine, and valid....but it wasn't what I was talking about and the fact they couldn't read what I said and get all snippy tells me I hit a nerve even though they got it wrong.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Those are quotes of what you said, not what I said. I do not want to get rid of no-fault divorce, because the result will be to trap women in abusive and unfaithful marriages. I mean, if your goal is that no one can get out of marriage without proving to the court it's necessary, that means the wife has to have video evidence of the man having sex with someone else. That's hard to get when you have access to money. Same for men, if the woman is cheating. It can't be lunches or being caught together, you have to PROVE infidelity. So basically, cheating becomes for all practical purposes allowed because no one can prove it. Same with abuse. Can you prove that you didn't fall down the stairs? It's already a crime to assault someone, where is the woman supposed to live while she's going to court to prove the man actually hit her? Women are abusers too, but in truth women are less likely to kill a man through abuse. No fault divorce isn't why marriages fail. Marriages fail because people are flawed. Forcing people to stay together no matter what doesn't lead to successful marriages. 

But this thread isn't about no-fault divorce, it's about if adultery should be a crime. I don't think it should. You do, but I encourage you to really think about whether you want that, because in this day and age it would be likely that it would be illegal for men too, and also give some thought to what you personally think counts as cheating for men and for women, because if lap dances are cheating, lots of men are going to jail. I believe it's a slippery legal slope. It is significant though that I am an American, our cultures are different and we have different ideas about the function of government. I do not care for totalitarianism.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> I don't know if you were apologizing for adultery here, but others, IMO were.


I share your opinion on that. Some of those posts were long, and while I may not have agreed with the entire post there was aspects of it with which I did agree.

I think that you should be able to sue for divorce for cause, but you should also be able to get a no-fault divorce.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> It was in this train of thought:
> 
> 
> 
> As well as my post just following that one.


So basically you weren't even talking about a man that beats his wife, but rather the fact you were beaten by your wife and you'd simply have rather suffered some physical abuse than being cheated on.

Not sure how that correlates to saying beaten wives are better off than betrayed wives. It was YOUR personal preference.. I think beating a wife is far worse than cheating. But like you said, for you, and for me, I'd rather she had slapped me across the face a few times instead of cheat on me. That's just us.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> But this thread isn't about no-fault divorce, it's about if adultery should be a crime. I don't think it should. You do, but I encourage you to really think about whether you want that


No, I don't. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL, and have said this more than once in this thread.

But I think you meant Dictum here, not me.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> So basically you weren't even talking about a man that beats his wife, but rather the fact you were beaten by your wife and you'd simply have rather suffered some physical abuse than being cheated on.
> 
> Not sure how that correlates to saying beaten wives are better off than betrayed wives. It was YOUR personal preference.. I think beating a wife is far worse than cheating. But like you said, for you, and for me, I'd rather she had slapped me across the face a few times instead of cheat on me. That's just us.


I have never beaten a woman, but I've taken a beating, I've also been betrayed. I'd rather handle that pain than the pain of being the victim of an adulteress wife any-day. Physical pain heals quickly, but the soul dies of in chunks.

That being said, I will neither beat my wife nor betray her through adultery.

My mind comprehends your point, but my heart is on a different plain than yours there.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I have never beaten a woman, but I've taken a beating, I've also been betrayed. I'd rather handle that pain than the pain of being the victim of an adulteress wife any-day. Physical pain heals quickly, but the soul dies of in chunks.
> 
> That being said, I will neither beat my wife nor betray her through adultery.


So you didn't support wife beating

You supported husband beating  



> My mind comprehends your point, but my heart is on a different plain than yours there.


Huh? What you mean? If you mean my comment that you'd rather take a beating than be betrayed, I'm just going by what you said here:



> I still prefer a husband beater to an adulteress


Again, the point I made was not that you say physical abuse is better than cheating, but for you and I personally, we'd rather have taken a hit or two as opposed to being cheated on.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> Here we go again. Where did I say that? I said quite plainly, which seemed to be glossed over, that even in a fault divorce, you can claim anything you want...the other spouse can deny it, and the divorce proceeds. If you are in a fault state, then pick one and get your divorce. It's the way it should be. If people should have to proof without a doubt that the other spouse is at fault, then that is garbage.


Actually I think she was addressing me here. I am advocating for the abolishment of no fault divorce. Too many marriages end with a "I'm not happy" which blows a family apart and we all know feelings are fluid and tidal. The one to blow up a marriage without cause should at least have that as a recorded strike against them.

I'm not saying force them to stay, but the fault should be recorded. Even if it states "Disillusion of marriage without cause." There should be cause or shame for walking out of a marriage because as it stands now, the one who leaves the marriage without cause ("I'm not happy") often gets rewarded by the system for breaking their solemn oaths.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> No, I don't. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL, and have said this more than once in this thread.
> 
> But I think you meant Dictum here, not me.


I did.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> So you didn't support wife beating
> 
> You supported husband beating


What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment. 🤣


----------



## Zedd (Jul 27, 2021)

Arkansas said:


> actually it very much IS a crime to treat someone a certain way - they CAN take you to court and win
> 
> like a racial profiling case where a man is suspected of a crime when he's innocent - he can sue for millions on the grounds of being embarrassed and shamed and feeling degraded etc
> 
> the same feelings a man has when he's cheated on, his heart broken, marriage destroyed .... the mental anguish, the physical toll etc


I said embarrassment could be the result of something illegal. Causing someone embarrassment itself, is not illegal, or should we open it up to all sorts of things that cause embarrassment. "My kid made X team and yours didn't." - f-it, I'm embarrassed by that, it's a crime. Clearly, not.

Your example is defaming someone's character and/or accusing them of a crime. While that may cause embarrassment, the resulting suit wouldn't be due to the embarrassment or agony, it's a result of defaming their character and/or accusing them of a crime.

Plus, those are more likely civil cases (impossible to say without a specific example), not criminal ones.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Actually I think she was addressing me here. I am advocating for the abolishment of no fault divorce. Too many marriages end with a "I'm not happy" which blows a family apart and we all know feelings are fluid and tidal. The one to blow up a marriage without cause should at least have that as a recorded strike against them.
> 
> I'm not saying force them to stay, but the fault should be recorded. Even if it states "Disillusion of marriage without cause." There should be cause or shame for walking out of a marriage because as it stands now, the one who leaves the marriage without cause ("I'm not happy") often gets rewarded by the system for breaking their solemn oaths.


I see your point, and it is undeniable that "no fault" does get abused.

When a divorce is filed (at least in the US), there is record of who filed and what their reason was. "Dissolution of marriage without cause" is the same as no fault. It's semantics. So that is recorded. Sounds like what you're really looking for is a societal shift to make divorce less acceptable. Whether one agrees with that or not, that isn't something that is accomplished with government. Or, IMO, it isn't something that _should_ be accomplished with government. But again, not just American, Texan. Very into freedom, which means I don't want anyone in my business.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment. 🤣


There are moments when I am in favor of husband beating. 🤣 

DISCLAIMER: This is a joke, I am in no way in favor of beating your husband nor do I wish to offend male victims of spousal abuse, it is a serious issue and violence is rarely the answer. Unless someone constantly forgets to close the pantry door and the dog keeps getting in the snacks and making a huge mess. Then violence is the answer. Again, joking. Mostly.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

drencrom said:


> So you didn't support wife beating
> 
> You supported husband beating
> 
> ...


I think we cross posted through edits, we are actually in accord.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Actually I think she was addressing me here.


Yes, I edited my post because I realized that.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> There are moments when I am in favor of husband beating. 🤣
> 
> DISCLAIMER: This is a joke,


I think we know you were joking. I don't get a sense of unfairness about you. All good. I think I can speak for Dictum here to when I say we love ya!. I think all 3 of us have more in common on our ideas of infidelity and cheating than not.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I see your point, and it is undeniable that "no fault" does get abused.
> 
> When a divorce is filed (at least in the US), there is record of who filed and what their reason was. "Dissolution of marriage without cause" is the same as no fault. It's semantics. So that is recorded. Sounds like what you're really looking for is a societal shift to make divorce less acceptable. Whether one agrees with that or not, that isn't something that is accomplished with government. Or, IMO, it isn't something that _should_ be accomplished with government. But again, not just American, Texan. Very into freedom, which means I don't want anyone in my business.


I'm all for less government and less law. To a certain extent we are in agreement. Let's just say it's not always about the laws because even a rule made by a saint can be misrepresented and bent by a demon in power.

Our courts, just like yours is flooded by Soros appointees and School of Frankfurt dogma entrained puppets who tend to rule in favor of the immoral under the guise of fairness and rule in diametrically opposing ways depending on who is ruled upon. If you break a contract with a corporation without cause or through fault, you WILL get nailed to the wall, no matter if it bankrupts you and puts you on the streets. If you break a marriage contract without cause or through fault, you "deserve an equitable slice of the pie". See the discrepancy?

It is a fundamental breakdown at the very core principles of contracts and delicts. Why is a betrayed spouse or at least an innocent one that kept the promises not at least given the same consideration under the law as a corporation is?

Because the courts have no interest in justice. The courts are political and business instruments and all new laws are written to support just that.

We can feel a change in the breeze however, but the change is long overdue and still a ways off.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I'm all for less government and less law. To a certain extent we are in agreement. Let's just say it's not always about the laws because even a rule made by a saint can be misrepresented and bent by a demon in power.
> 
> Our courts, just like yours is flooded by Soros appointees and School of Frankfurt dogma entrained puppets who tend to rule in favor of the immoral under the guise of fairness and rule in diametrically opposing ways depending on who is ruled upon. If you break a contract with a corporation without cause or through fault, you WILL get nailed to the wall, no matter if it bankrupts you and puts you on the streets. If you break a marriage contract without cause or through fault, you "deserve an equitable slice of the pie". See the discrepancy?
> 
> ...


I agree that our courts are broken. Especially the family courts, which treat husbands and most specifically fathers unfairly. As is always the case with extremist movements, feminist judges seek to punish men instead of work towards equality. It is appalling to me that someone can cheat on her husband and then sue him for spousal support and take half his wealth. I also don’t believe a husband should be allowed to abandon his wife and children and leave them destitute. It seems like it would be a simple balance to strike if we could get politics out of it.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I agree that our courts are broken. Especially the family courts, which treat husbands and most specifically fathers unfairly. As is always the case with extremist movements, feminist judges seek to punish men instead of work towards equality. It is appalling to me that someone can cheat on her husband and then sue him for spousal support and take half his wealth. I also don’t believe a husband should be allowed to abandon his wife and children and leave them destitute. It seems like it would be a simple balance to strike if we could get politics out of it.


In this we stand united in the same opinion.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In some ways it’s kind of like the zero tolerance policies schools have adopted with kids fighting. 

Instead of taking the time and energy to see if someone was being a bully and started vs who was defending themselves, the schools have basically said that each will be punished equally. 

Now they know darn well who the problem children are, but they don’t want to spend their time, energy and resources playing He/she said vs he/she said - two kids get caught fighting they both get sent to the principals office, both sets of parents called, both get detention/suspension etc. 

The stated hope of the school is that since everyone knows they will be equally punished, that all kids will use their words and employ conflict resolution skills and avoid physical confrontation.

…….but we all know that ain’t gonna happen. 

Not only does it not deter the bullies but it actually emboldens them because it makes the good kids more passive and fearful of being punished by the higher authority and they get the satisfaction of not only kicking their ass in the fight, but then they get the added bonus of seeing the other kid hauled off to the principals office and getting equally punished with them.

Much the same can occur in divorce. Both will get equal treatment by the court and assets and custody etc will get split down the middle whether one is the adulterer/abuser/abandoner/addict or not. 

If someone is doing their due diligence and being on the good behavior, they are going to be the one choking down the turd sandwich the most. 

But the reason we’ve come to this is society as a whole has decided we don’t want our public officials time, money and resources going to play referee for what goes on in a married couple’s personal life. 

We collectively don’t want to listen to he said/she said. We don’t want to have to make moral judgements on whether the adultery was justified due to 5 years of dead bedrooms or because the other person was gone out of the house 95% of the time or whether the other person was mean and nasty.

Nope. It’s either use your words and conflict resolution skills or we will split your assets and your custody down the middle and send you on your way.

Society no longer wants to judge if someone was a bad guy/gal or if someone was a victim.

Work it out before you get sent to the principal’s or both pay an equal price.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think one of the most heinous things people do that lead to divorce is fail to do their part in the household and child duties.
> 
> I think neglecting children or pets, not doing their part of domestic chores, violence, and addiction all are more critical than cheating.


Wow. I’ll go with violence, but household chores more critical than cheating? Hmmm
Interesting


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Dictum Veritas said:


> The cheating parent is literally on a path to destroy the soul of the betrayed parent


That really depends upon who the betrayed person is and their inherent resilience.

Since my soul (not that their is any evidence such a thing exists), wasn’t destroyed at all.

Sure it sucked and felt pretty awful at the time, when I found out my ex-wife cheated on me. Yet it really wasn’t that bad, as far as experiences go for me.

At the end of the day, my response to her poor behaviour was to end our marriage. Since her actions forfeited her opportunity to remain in a marital relationship with me.

That said although you may find having a spouse cheat on you, is the most awful of life experiences. Not everyone is affected by such things anywhere near as badly.

When my ex-wife did it to me, I dumped her as a consequence, then got over it following some reflection (since it wasn’t that terrible) and then moved on.

So it isn’t a given at all that a cheating spouse is going to destroy the soul of their betrayed spouse at all. The fact is some people are terribly hurt by such things and never get over it. While some others aren’t hurt anywhere near to the same degree and bounce back quite easily afterwards.

As for myself I felt it was better to get on with life positively. Instead of holding on to being butt hurt and nurturing my own pain, interminably into the future.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Personal said:


> That really depends upon who the betrayed person is and their inherent resilience.
> 
> Since my soul (not that their is any evidence such a thing exists), wasn’t destroyed at all.
> 
> ...


Some people love, some people form a reasonable attachment. People capable of real love get deeply wounded, people incapable of such deep love call them BUTT-HURT for walking away marred and scarred after having that love and life set afire by adultery.

It's all a question of the capability to love. Resilience is required only by the soldier that is wounded on the active battlefield to recover, not by the guy who watched the battle on I-Max in 3D that escaped service due to flat-feet for dropping the hot pop-corn in his lap when the violence shocked him.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Completely Opposed to making it any more of a legal issue than it already is. Way too much nuance, way too many potential variables. Way too much potential to exploit, corrupt and weaponize that system in personal relationships.
Let’s not give the state/legal system any more power over our personal lives than it already has. It’s a very bad idea.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

DudeInProgress said:


> Completely Opposed to making it any more of a legal issue than it already is. Way too much nuance, way too many potential variables. Way too much potential to exploit, corrupt and weaponize that system in personal relationships.
> Let’s not give the state/legal system any more power over our personal lives than it already has. It’s a very bad idea.


The problem is that the state already inserts itself where it's not wanted.

Case in point, my (current) wife and myself decided from the start that we were not going to legally marry because we refused state involvement in our marriage (vows were publicly exchanged, but no papers signed).

The state then unilaterally inserted themselves in our lives by changing the laws to declare us common law spouses for co-habiting and having children. Now, against our express will, we are subject to the same laws had we signed the marriage certificate.

Our formal appeal to this was denied.

You see, the "justice" system would shape policies to make themselves the most amount of money and grease the corporate wheels, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## BootsAndJeans (4 mo ago)

I think that no-fault divorce is best. However, in my opinion, in a divorce, if one spouse can be proven to have committed infidelity, it would automatically negate (1) spousal support (2) child custody & require the cheating spouse to pay child support and (3) Loss of shared assets. Some countries have this in place. I have no idea how it impacts the rate of infidelity or divorce, but it would tend to protect the faithful spouse, home and children a bit better. In the US especially, men get the short end of stick in general, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


If the death penalty doest stop people from committing heinous acts of violence, the threat of being sued for adultery is not likely to deter cheaters. 

Most states stopped allowing it as grounds for divorce, because it involved exposing the AP (if they were unaware their AP was married, they were victimized, as well, and are often stigmatized in court.) As well as exposing private details of parties not involved directly in the divorce (ie: friends and family forced to testify).

Adultery is morally wrong, but not illegal, in most states. Being able to sue a WS for cheating would only hurt the innocent people, like the children, and other family members. Why isn't just divorce enough? Petty revenge has no legal bearing on a case, and needs' to stay out of the courtroom. Wanting to hurt a WS in understandable, but at what cost to people not involved in the divorce proceedings?

I was the one cheated on, and at no time did I want to drag our personal and private lives through the court system for anyone to see.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

My first wife cheated on me with several men while I was at work unbeknown to me and she had a lover that 2 children and 7 years later she dumped me for.
Strangely 8 years later the lover dumped her and she asked me to marry her again. By that time I had moved on and my response to her ended with the word, off.
I believe cheating in a marriage is in the top list of domestic abuse, second only to extreme physical domestic abuse and should be recognised as such, because for the cheated on partner it can be devastating.
Yes, there should be consequences for partners who commit adultery.


----------



## BoSlander (6 mo ago)

@Arkansas I don't think it should be illegal, but it should definitely be monetarily penalized and give the cheat-ee the upper hand in any divorce negotiations.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

BoSlander said:


> @Arkansas I don't think it should be illegal, but it should definitely be monetarily penalized and give the cheat-ee the upper hand in any divorce negotiations.


Oh please.

Cheating isn't the worst, or only, awful thing a person can do to a spouse (unfortunately there are many terrible mental, emotional, dangerous, and physical things people do to each other).Will those be added to your list of things that should be proven in court and _monetarily penalized for_ in a divorce proceeding? If not, WHY??????????

Cheating isn't the only heinous act that exists. Singling it out and suggesting that courts should have to litigate it and then determine some sort of monetary penalty is absurd.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Cheating isn't the worst, or only, awful thing a person can do to a spouse (unfortunately there are many terrible mental, emotional, dangerous, and physical things people do to each other).Will those be added to your list of things that should be proven in court and _monetarily penalized for_ in a divorce proceeding? If not, WHY??????????
> 
> Cheating isn't the only heinous act that exists. Singling it out and suggesting that courts should have to litigate it and then determine some sort of monetary penalty is absurd.


I respectfully disagree 1000000000000000000%. More people commit suicide because of infidelity than any other marital abuse. There is NOTHING worse a spouse can do to another and speaking as a man a wife in particular can do to her husband. PERIOD. Murder is instantaneous and I'd rather be dead than suffer that pain again. PERIOD. No drama, I mean it.

It should be a crime with heavy criminal penalties. PERIOD.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I respectfully disagree 1000000000000000000%. More people commit suicide because of infidelity than any other marital abuse. There is NOTHING worse a spouse can do to another and speaking as a man a wife in particular can do to her husband. PERIOD. Murder is instantaneous and I'd rather be dead than suffer that pain again. PERIOD. No drama, I mean it.
> 
> It should be a crime with heavy criminal penalties. PERIOD.


And I a billion percent disagree. Men have done horrible things to their wives for thousands of years that are worse than cheating. 

Cheating doesn't get to take the prize as the worst and shouldn't be something that is SINGLED OUT to be litigated in a divorce. Because if society is going to do that, it also needs to try in court every other heinous marital act. Impossible.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Livvie said:


> And I a billion percent disagree. Men have done horrible things to their wives for thousands of years that are worse than cheating.
> 
> Cheating doesn't get to take the prize as the worst and shouldn't be something that is SINGLED OUT to be litigated in a divorce. Because if society is going to do that, it also needs to try in court every other heinous marital act. Impossible.


We will never see eye to eye on this. I have too much passion on this point. It's from my brain, gut and heart. The adulterous should be handled like the criminals they are.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I respectfully disagree 1000000000000000000%. More people commit suicide because of infidelity than any other marital abuse. There is NOTHING worse a spouse can do to another and speaking as a man a wife in particular can do to her husband. PERIOD. Murder is instantaneous and I'd rather be dead than suffer that pain again. PERIOD. No drama, I mean it.
> 
> It should be a crime with heavy criminal penalties. PERIOD.


I disagree!!

Having been cheated on many times, and mentally, and physically abused, I disagree that cheating is the worst thing that can happen in a marriage. I never worried about him killing me because he cheated on me. When I was pinned to the bed with his hands wrapped around my throat as he was choking me, dying was all I did think about. 

I don't have PTSD from him cheating, but I do have it from being severely beaten. 

I've known someone who committed suicide because every time she tried to leave he'd find her, and beat her within an inch of her life, and take her home. She saw no other way out. 

So, please show me where you got the statistic that cheating causes more suicides than any other form of marital abuse. In 10+ years of studying psychology, I don't ever recall seeing that statistic.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Mystic Moon said:


> I disagree!!
> 
> Having been cheated on many times, and mentally, and physically abused, I disagree that cheating is the worst thing that can happen in a marriage. I never worried about him killing me because he cheated on me. When I was pinned to the bed with his hands wrapped around my throat as he was choking me, dying was all I did think about.
> 
> ...


I personally knew 2 guys who committed suicide due to their wives cheating on them, I know 0 who has killed or abused their wives. I speak from life, not surveys.

Every wife who's ever been abused will disagree with me and I'm sorry for you, but there was no love there to start with, therefore you would disagree with me since you were perhaps relieved by the adultery since he has become someone else's problem for a while, giving you a while of respite.

Any man who really loved and was betrayed will side with me. Life offers different perspectives through different traumas, since the lenses we see life through is grinded by the nature of our pain.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I personally knew 2 guys who committed suicide due to their wives cheating on them, I know 0 who has killed or abused their wives. I speak from life, not surveys.
> 
> Every wife who's ever been abused will disagree with me and I'm sorry for you, but there was no love there to start with, therefore you would disagree with me since you were perhaps relieved by the adultery since he has become someone else's problem for a while, giving you a while of respite.
> 
> Any man who really loved and was betrayed will side with me. Life offers different perspectives through different traumas, since the lenses we see life through is grinded by the nature of our pain.


It's just not true that _every man who has been cheated on will agree with you_ that cheating is the worst thing people do to each other and that it's the only heinous act that it should be litigated in court during a divorce 🙄 with monetary penalties. Both the litigation and the monetary penalties are not broadly feasible nor broadly beneficial to families or society generally.

Thank goodness the family law statutes in the US are not as laser focussed on only one single act and set on spending untold time and $$ on punishing one kind of act because someone had an emotional ax to grind to the exclusion of other acts. 

Imagine. Man regularly physically and mentally abuses his wife. She cheats on him once. In the divorce the cheating only is litigated and she alone is shafted in the division of assets. 

NO.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

Livvie said:


> And I a billion percent disagree. Men have done horrible things to their wives for thousands of years that are worse than cheating.
> 
> Cheating doesn't get to take the prize as the worst and shouldn't be something that is SINGLED OUT to be litigated in a divorce. Because if society is going to do that, it also needs to try in court every other heinous marital act. Impossible.


IMO the best thing that could be done is layout in a prenup contract t&c for termination and define asset division ahead of marriage. Consequences for contesting spelled out. Notarized and filed with county records. Take all the emotion out of termination, get it out of courts and away from attorneys.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We will never see eye to eye on this. I have too much passion on this point. It's from my brain, gut and heart. The adulterous should be handled like the criminals they are.


I disagree only because proving adultery is so hard (even using a VAR that could prove an affair is illegal in many instances and can backfire and land the BS in hot water).

Then if you have children together, it's a **** show for them. Best just to cut your losses and dump the cheater. I've been through it, life's not fair, but you just gotta move on.


----------



## Tiddytok5 (8 mo ago)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...



People will always find a way to truly do what they want.

People who refuse to leave a relationship full of cheating, bring the embarrassment, shame, unhappiness and emotional turmoil on themselves.


it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "


The above could never be proven. It could never be proven that the spouse is responsible for all these things.


This other person could have and been experiencing all of these things from lifelong traumatic experiences, that had been happening all their life..prior to marrying.


I'm inclined to believe that 94% of people know beforehand who they are about to marry.. which means they ignore the cheating just to have the title of being married.




Why should people fully aware of who their partners are beforehand be allowed to sue?



Why should people who have been tolerating cheating for years or as long as their relationships be allowed and awarded?


Both partners could be cheating on one another.



How can you actually produce substantial evidence that would hold up in a court of law? 

Alot of things can be manipulated, and fabricated. 

I don't understand how the case you described wasn't dismissed.


Just leave the relationship if someone's cheating on you.

Never let it progress into marriage.

If you find out they're cheating while dating , even if it's a few weeks or months...end things.

Don't keep accepting it.
Staying is making yourself continue to be the fool.



Even if you can't realize it,

Leaving is the ultimate reward.



No there shouldn't be any laws.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


I think that it is a bad idea. There is already too much lying that goes on in divorce court filings. I think that "no-fault" divorce is a better approach. It really takes two people committed to a marriage to make a marriage. If there are not two, then the marriage is on shaky ground at best.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

Dictum Veritas said:


> I personally knew 2 guys who committed suicide due to their wives cheating on them, I know 0 who has killed or abused their wives. I speak from life, not surveys.
> 
> Every wife who's ever been abused will disagree with me and I'm sorry for you, but there was no love there to start with, therefore you would disagree with me since you were perhaps relieved by the adultery since he has become someone else's problem for a while, giving you a while of respite.
> 
> Any man who really loved and was betrayed will side with me. Life offers different perspectives through different traumas, since the lenses we see life through is grinded by the nature of our pain.


I've known many men who have been cheated on, and they didn't end their life over it. I doubt most men who love their wives would opt for suicide over divorce due to infidelity. It doesn't mean they didn't love her enough to take their own life. It means they got help if they needed it, and moved on with their life.

Bottom line: I'd rather be cheated on than killed by a partner. I can get a divorce for infidelity. I did once already, and even though he said he'd die without me, he didn't. He remarried, and cheats on her now.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

Mystic Moon said:


> I've known many men who have been cheated on, and they didn't end their life over it. I doubt most men who love their wives would opt for suicide over divorce due to infidelity. It doesn't mean they didn't love her enough to take their own life. It means they got help if they needed it, and moved on with their life.
> 
> Bottom line: I'd rather be cheated on than killed by a partner. I can get a divorce for infidelity. I did once already, and even though he said he'd die without me, he didn't. He remarried, and cheats on her now.


Obviously your bottom line differs from those dead men then.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Cheating isn't the worst, or only, awful thing a person can do to a spouse (unfortunately there are many terrible mental, emotional, dangerous, and physical things people do to each other).Will those be added to your list of things that should be proven in court and _monetarily penalized for_ in a divorce proceeding? If not, WHY??????????
> 
> Cheating isn't the only heinous act that exists. Singling it out and suggesting that courts should have to litigate it and then determine some sort of monetary penalty is absurd.



I believe it is the worst


I can get over a physical beating .... but I'll never get over the emotional one I took ... those scars remain just under the surface every waking minute and its been 4 years plus the destruction of family unit etc


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Cheating isn't the worst, or only, awful thing a person can do to a spouse (unfortunately there are many terrible mental, emotional, dangerous, and physical things people do to each other).Will those be added to your list of things that should be proven in court and _monetarily penalized for_ in a divorce proceeding? If not, WHY??????????
> 
> Cheating isn't the only heinous act that exists. Singling it out and suggesting that courts should have to litigate it and then determine some sort of monetary penalty is absurd.



I believe it is the worst


I can get over a physical beating .... but I'll never get over the emotional one I took ... those scars remain just under the surface every waking minute and its been 4 years plus the destruction of family unit


Tiddytok5 said:


> No there shouldn't be any laws.


I don't think you've suffered then at the hands of someone else


if someone beat me badly and I had the scars years later - they'd be held accountable in a court of law
if someone stole my wealth and I suffered financially they could be caught and held accountable
if I were kidnapped and mentally abused - they'd be held accountable

if they broke my heart, trust, faith, family unit, pushed my mind to mental collapse ..... they get 50% of everything for the spouse and the adutlery partner pays no price at all


nope, I don't believe that's fair at all


----------



## Gabriel (May 10, 2011)

The only law I can see working is if in a bona fide proven case of adultery, that person forfeits their rights to any marital assets that the spouse contributed to the marriage. I.e. no 50% of their 401k, no 50% of the asset in the other spouse's name. Only 50% of JOINT assets. Certainly no alimony. I'd support that. But it would have to be proven beyond any doubt. 

Anything outside of this is too subjective. And you can't even attack joint assets - because they both played their part in acquiring them. 

The other thing that's hard to prove is extenuating circumstances. What if the husband was beating the wife, and she ran out, found a friend for help, and they ended up getting attached before the divorce?


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Arkansas said:


> I'm not certain .... but in many lawsuits suffering embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity etc are grounds for payouts from companies etc who have done people wrong
> 
> In my case, adultery was 100% provable, and I felt all that and more and still do ..... if the AP had been wealthy, why couldn't I have sued for $$$$ ??? he done irreparable damages to me with his actions, right ?


Some states allow you to sue for spousal estrangement. There have been some successful cases.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Change the divorce laws where men or women that work and support their family aren’t victimized. Don’t have a system that offers cash and prizes for breaking the marriage contract. 
prenuptial agreements should become standard and should be followed by the courts.

also, wealthy spouses shouldn’t be forced to provide a “standard of living that kids are accustomed to”, to the other spouse. That’s ridiculous. We all know that the money given in child support is spent how the spouse receiving it wants it spent vs spent on the kids, and in many cases it’s used to buy the new bf or affair partner a new pickup (for example).

The system should be about justice. There’s rarely justice in courts nowadays, from family courts to civil courts, to plea bargains in criminal ones.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


Personally, I would pass on airing my personal business in court just to get even with a cheating spouse. Financial compensation won't take away the pain, and other feelings of being cheated on. 

My ex was a serial cheater. When I divorced him I just wanted it over and done with so that I could move on with my life. Instead, he disputed every minor detail, and our divorce took 5 years. U don't want to imagine reliving his affairs for an tea 5 years, just to make him financially or legally liable. Would I have to see the women he cheated on flagging across a screen, as my lawyer went into detail about how long each affair lasted? Is not worth it to me. 

My freedom was more important than money, or him sitting in a cell. I didnt want our son to grow up with his father in jail for cheating. To me, it woukd just keep the pain fresh, and if have to relive what he had done if he filed an appeal, or during a parole hearing. No thanks!! My divorce being finalized was my reward, and all that I wanted. 

Making cheating illegal would not stop it from happening. Just look at the countries that is illegal in. People still cheat, and in some countries women (and some men,) die for their indiscretions, even for perceived indecency. 

The best thing to do is to get away from the cheater, and just move on with your life. Dragging it out in court only victimizes the victim of the infidelity more. They deserve the chance to stay over, without being humiliated in front of a jury, or turning their b life into the next headline news story.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

My ex kept his ex gf around our entire relationship, but while I consider that the final straw it still ranks beneath the ****ty way he treated me on a regular basis. 

As as been pointed out people do all kinds of ****ty things to each other. Marriage is essentially a business contract and if you want to penalize people for breaking it lay it out in the written contract. 

But I'm also not a believer in spousal support. The days when women were prevented from supporting themselves are gone, so support your damn self if the marriage ends. I had been a sahm when I left my kids asshole father and I never asked for alimony......I got a job and got on my feet. He did pay CS, which was appropriate because he was military and did ZERO to help raise them (even when he wasn't deployed). I had to pay day care, had them 100% of the time, and payed for everything.....the least he could do was help pay. And he stopped once he retired.....I didn't see a dime for about 5 years before they were adults.

Put stuff in a contract, then you have no arguments.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Some states allow you to sue for spousal estrangement. There have been some successful cases.


if I could have, I would have

I'd have wanted any kind of win I could get ..... in my mind, I was losing my wife, my family unit, I'd certainly lose a lot of my in-laws .......... all because someone wanted to be a partner in adultery and a financial win is a win absolutely and knowing that the other side didn't get win/win/win/win on everything

maybe that's not the right way to see it - but it sure is hard not to in the situation I was in

as it turns out, I got 80% of our assets, so yeah, the adulterer got my wife, but the two of them didn't get but a small % of my life long earned assets .... and that was a huge win for me


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

Mystic Moon said:


> Personally, I would pass on airing my personal business in court just to get even with a cheating spouse.


I did nothing wrong - and my ex HATED me talking about her infidelity to anyone

Originally I was ashamed, felt like I was less of a man for it, etc but my situation? was ALL her fault really, I had nothing to be shameful on, to air my business wasn't any big deal for people to know about my life/business 

I'd have had no problems with the world seeing my adultery wife and her lil boy lover and them knowing exactly what they did


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We will never see eye to eye on this. I have too much passion on this point. It's from my brain, gut and heart. The adulterous should be handled like the criminals they are.


If not then it should be a negating defense to any physical retribution the BS takes out on the WS and AP. BS is free to level up how they see fit.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Arkansas,
The sad fact is that even if the courts held your ex and her AP accountable, it wouldn’t level the scales of justice. Your pain would still be there. Just know that eventually you won’t care at all. It’ll still make you scream from time to time if you let your mind wander to what she did to you, but otherwise it won’t hurt.
Yes there should be consequences to breaking the marital contract. I think there needs to be a new legal document which would basically be a Prenup that everyone fills out and is followed by the judge unless criminal activity occurs by one spouse.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Arkansas said:


> I believe it is the worst
> 
> 
> I can get over a physical beating .... but I'll never get over the emotional one I took ... those scars remain just under the surface every waking minute and its been 4 years plus the destruction of family unit
> ...


But the ''argument'' could be that no one is held hostage in a marriage. If we live in a free society, we are free to leave bad relationships. We don't have to wait until our lives and mental health have been so seriously compromised, before we leave. 

And what Evinrude said.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We will never see eye to eye on this. I have too much passion on this point. It's from my brain, gut and heart. The adulterous should be handled like the criminals they are.


I think adultery is deplorable, but where would you draw the line, if you were creating laws around it?

Suppose a husband frequents strip clubs and his wife thinks that's cheating? Or a wife is sexting her personal trainer? Or a spouse starts having an emotional affair with his/her ex from college? Suppose a wife thinks her husband's viewing of porn is cheating?

Would it only be for physically crossing the line, or would it include betrayals of all kinds?

That's the challenge - if anything can be considered an adulterous betrayal depending on the spouse's idea of it, we need to start building A LOT of prisons. The only ones who will really stand to gain, are the lawyers who will take on all of these cases.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

*Deidre* said:


> I think adultery is deplorable, but where would you draw the line, if you were creating laws around it?
> 
> Suppose a husband frequents strip clubs and his wife thinks that's cheating? Or a wife is sexting her personal trainer? Or a spouse starts having an emotional affair with his/her ex from college? Suppose a wife thinks her husband's viewing of porn is cheating?
> 
> ...


Come on, we all know exactly what adultery is. Antifa splits hairs like this, rational people know where the lines are drawn.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Dictum Veritas said:


> Come on, we all know exactly what adultery is. Antifa splits hairs like this, rational people know where the lines are drawn.


I know what it is, but adultery is defined differently from couple to couple. Generally, it's a physical and emotional affair, but it can be emotional without the sex. So, who decides? 

Unless you're saying that you'd like to at least see adultery be a criminal offense, based on a physical affair. As a starting point.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> I know what it is, but adultery is defined differently from couple to couple. Generally, it's a physical and emotional affair, but it can be emotional without the sex. So, who decides?
> 
> Unless you're saying that you'd like to at least see adultery be a criminal offense, based on a physical affair. As a starting point.


Yep. Adultry is definitely physical but also if wife was sexting and carrying on with another and sending nudes it is considered adultry to Christians.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Yep. Adultry is definitely physical but also if wife was sexting and carrying on with another and sending nudes it is considered adultry to Christians.


Some of the threads on here are posted by women and men who are ending their marriages over emotional affairs. So, that's why I asked where we draw the boundary line.

I think some who want adultery to be a crime don't realize that it won't stop adultery. Just like murder being a crime, hasn't stopped murders. The only difference will be - the adulterer will just be more cautious to not get caught. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> Some of the threads on here are posted by women and men who are ending their marriages over emotional affairs. So, that's why I asked where we draw the boundary line.
> 
> I think some who want adultery to be a crime don't realize that it won't stop adultery. Just like murder being a crime, hasn't stopped murders. The only difference will be - the adulterer will just be more cautious to not get caught. 🤷‍♀️


What should happen is if cheating is involved any support, division of assets and child custody should swing decidedly in the betrayed's favor. Not go to prison per say. 

But if paternity fraud is involved....yeah lock her azz up for it. No different that robbery in my book.

Also if BS goes sideways and assaults the WS or AP due to their mental distress, I do not feel the BS should be charged. If I was on a jury, I would refuse to convict the BS, even if they are on record admitting it. It is called Jury Nullification, ashamed more people do not realize they can do that.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> What should happen is if cheating is involved any support, division of assets and child custody should swing decidedly in the betrayed's favor. Not go to prison per say.


 Agree, that would make sense.



> But if paternity fraud is involved....yeah lock her azz up for it. No different that robbery in my book.


 Agree, and I wonder how often this actually happens. 😬



> Also if BS goes sideways and assaults the WS or AP due to their mental distress, I do not feel the BS should be charged. If I was on a jury, I would refuse to convict the BS, even if they are on record admitting it. It is called Jury Nullification, ashamed more people do not realize they can do that.


Well, you lost me on that one. That sounds extreme. I don't believe anyone should be going to these crazy levels to assault their spouse, even if cheating happened. Unless it was self-defense of course.

I don't think people should repay wrongs with more wrongs. Move on, break free, and live your best life without that person. ✌


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deidre* said:


> But the ''argument'' could be that no one is held hostage in a marriage. If we live in a free society, we are free to leave bad relationships. We don't have to wait until our lives and mental health have been so seriously compromised, before we leave.
> 
> And what Evinrude said.


mine was different, I was 100% blindsided, and when I found out how used and manipulated and played I was ... devastating to be honest

my ex once told me I was trying to put a financial value on an emotional pain and I said you damn right I am

and I did, and I got 80% of everything if not 90% and I left her with $37,000 worth of debt, $100,000 cash .... she had $63,000 and he lil boy toy and nothing else 

and that was a win for me, I kept maybe $350,000 in assets if not $400,000

that was a win, and I'll always have that .... if she'd have gotten he lil boy toy AND 1/2 of what I earned I'd have lost, lost and lost again



and that's where suing/legal action for adultery can make a difference for the innocent people who are victims of it, like I was


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

BootsAndJeans said:


> I think that no-fault divorce is best. However, in my opinion, in a divorce, if one spouse can be proven to have committed infidelity, it would automatically negate (1) spousal support (2) child custody & require the cheating spouse to pay child support and (3) Loss of shared assets. Some countries have this in place. I have no idea how it impacts the rate of infidelity or divorce, but it would tend to protect the faithful spouse, home and children a bit better. In the US especially, men get the short end of stick in general, regardless of the circumstances.


There's never a way to prove that the other spouse didn't also commit adultery so that's never going to happen. You can't prove a negative.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

What a foolish thought.

Young people today are holding off marriage as long as they can.

If they pass a law like this, whereby even more punishment will be delivered if things go awry?
Oh, my....

Only a fool would chance it.

Fear is a societal game-changer.
Marriage would thus be abstained from.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> Agree, that would make sense.
> 
> Agree, and I wonder how often this actually happens. 😬
> 
> ...


Sometimes it is traumatic to the point they are not thinking straight. I am not talking about a BS that plots a month before they do something drastic, I'm talking like a BS just caught them. If the BS looses it and whips some azz, that is on the cheaters and should remain with them.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> Sometimes it is traumatic to the point they are not thinking straight. I am not talking about a BS that plots a month before they do something drastic, I'm talking like a BS just caught them. If the BS looses it and whips some azz, that is on the cheaters and should remain with them.


Kinda like the guy in Texas that caught the dude raping his young daughter and beat the guy to death. Declined to prosecute.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Arkansas said:


> mine was different, I was 100% blindsided, and when I found out how used and manipulated and played I was ... devastating to be honest
> 
> my ex once told me I was trying to put a financial value on an emotional pain and I said you damn right I am
> 
> ...


In civil cases, like between complete strangers, people sue all the time for “mental anguish,” so to be honest, that’s what you suffered. 

So to me, it’s definitely more than fair to receive compensation for those “damages.” I hope you’re doing better now after all you’ve been through.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Kinda like the guy in Texas that caught the dude raping his young daughter and beat the guy to death. Declined to prosecute.


But that’s different, I think. The father was defending his daughter and that guy was committing a heinous crime.

But, assaulting your spouse or their AP? That’s not the same thing but…they say…that those crimes are crimes of passion. There are quite a few stories like that, actually. Good people can make bad decisions sometimes, when emotions take over.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> But that’s different, I think. The father was defending his daughter and that guy was committing a heinous crime.
> 
> But, assaulting your spouse or their AP? That’s not the same thing but…they say…that those crimes are crimes of passion. There are quite a few stories like that, actually. Good people can make bad decisions sometimes, when emotions take over.


Guy was no longer a threat to the daughter when he was unconscious though.....legally the beating should have ceased. 

But at the same time Adultry is likewise a heinous act that can have deadly results. Why I also consider those that commit adultery as sex offenders. Same as rapist that uses date rape drugs. Neither victim knows they are being exposed to possible STDs and bodily fluids from someone they did not consent to have sex with.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Arkansas said:


> I was reading about a lawsuit that was won ... it said ""suffered, continues to suffer, and may permanently suffer from embarrassment, fear, humiliation, anger, and indignity," the complaint said. "
> 
> I remember doing some research and some states do allow legal action for adultery.
> 
> ...


There did use to be more negative repercussions for adultery and it did reduce the number of instances.

Justified homicide was one. It was basically legal for a betrayed husband to straight up kill his wife's AP.

That could take some of the frisk out of a lothario's tail.😉

You have to be really committed to put your life on the line just to stick your pecker where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deidre* said:


> In civil cases, like between complete strangers, people sue all the time for “mental anguish,” so to be honest, that’s what you suffered.
> 
> So to me, it’s definitely more than fair to receive compensation for those “damages.” I hope you’re doing better now after all you’ve been through.



better certainly .... but it was life changing, my views are so different now on so many things


----------



## Arkansas (Jan 30, 2020)

ConanHub said:


> There did use to be more negative repercussions for adultery and it did reduce the number of instances.
> 
> Justified homicide was one. It was basically legal for a betrayed husband to straight up kill his wife's AP.
> 
> ...



I totally understand now a person finding out what I did and snapping and becoming violent if its anywhere in their nature at all .... that kind of event would spark and ignite an explosion

Ya'll have to understand from the victims point of view, they're losing EVERYTHING .... its additional trauma for the cheating spouse to get 1/2 of everything, with the one who did nothing wrong watching their life being shattered in every way

Legal action would be a way the victim could get SOMETHING


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Guy was no longer a threat to the daughter when he was unconscious though.....legally the beating should have ceased.
> 
> But at the same time Adultry is likewise a heinous act that can have deadly results. Why I also consider those that commit adultery as sex offenders. Same as rapist that uses date rape drugs. Neither victim knows they are being exposed to possible STDs and bodily fluids from someone they did not consent to have sex with.


Yea, I think that adultery can have devastating effects on the betrayed spouse and kids. The kids suffer the worst, imo...and I think there needs to be better protections in place for them. I also don't think betrayed spouses should receive any spousal support if they cheated. That is what makes me really sick, seeing spouses who PROFIT off divorce. Ugh. 

But, incarcerating people for cheating? Idk. I could see how that would make the betrayed feel vindicated, but adultery is more of a moral issue, that can destroy lives, but so can a ton of other things that we don't deem as crimes. Gossip, online bullying, lying, stealing ideas from people at work and passing them off as your own, etc...

If anything, society in the West makes cheating look like a perfectly fine thing to do, because ya know...''you do you.'' ''Live your best life.''  

Maybe that's part of the problem.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

*Deidre* said:


> Yea, I think that adultery can have devastating effects on the betrayed spouse and kids. *The kids suffer the worst, imo...and I think there needs to be better protections in place for them. I also don't think betrayed spouses should receive any spousal support if they cheated. That is what makes me really sick, seeing spouses who PROFIT off divorce. Ugh.*


I came from parents(primarily my dad) who were horrendously neglectful... My mom was just a kid, with nothing, did not even have a drivers license, formal education or even parents of her own that cared...There was no infidelity, but ask me or any of my siblings if we would have cared who they had sex with as opposed to being basically left to fend for ourselves, well....I don't have to tell you what is worse...We were "cheated" on by not getting proper care as kids..

at the end of the day, sex between two consenting adults is legal.. The morality of what people do in the contexts of relationships is not, IMO, anything the law should be involved in...Is it hurtful? Of course,,,,Is it damaging? sure.. SO are conventional divorces and garden variety breakup where one person get dropped on their head...I guess the only way to avoid it is to not participate in it, as opposed to trying to get a pound of flesh somehow...


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

hamadryad said:


> I came from parents(primarily my dad) who were horrendously neglectful... My mom was just a kid, with nothing, did not even have a drivers license, formal education or even parents of her own that cared...There was no infidelity, but ask me or any of my siblings if we would have cared who they had sex with as opposed to being basically left to fend for ourselves, well....I don't have to tell you what is worse...We were "cheated" on by not getting proper care as kids..
> 
> at the end of the day, sex between two consenting adults is legal.. The morality of what people do in the contexts of relationships is not, IMO, anything the law should be involved in...Is it hurtful? Of course,,,,Is it damaging? sure.. SO are conventional divorces and garden variety breakup where one person get dropped on their head...I guess the only way to avoid it is to not participate in it, as opposed to trying to get a pound of flesh somehow...


Oh, hamadryad, that’s so sad. 

Yea, I understand the motivation but policing who people have sex with if they’re consenting adults, it just seems draconian. (Although, the betrayed spouse didn’t give consent to live under an illusion that their spouse was being faithful.)


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> Oh, hamadryad, that’s so sad.
> 
> Yea, I understand the motivation but policing who people have sex with if they’re consenting adults, it just seems draconian. (Although, the betrayed spouse didn’t give consent to live under an illusion that their spouse was being faithful.)


Don't have to police, let the BS provide evidence and then give everything to the BS...simple enough. More just that the alternative.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Don't have to police, let the BS provide evidence and then give everything to the BS...simple enough. More just that the alternative.


Are you talking criminal prosecution? If it's just for financial gain after the divorce, I'd be all for that, in favor of the BS.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

*Deidre* said:


> Yea, I think that adultery can have devastating effects on the betrayed spouse and kids. The kids suffer the worst, imo...and I think there needs to be better protections in place for them. I also don't think betrayed spouses should receive any spousal support if they cheated. That is what makes me really sick, seeing spouses who PROFIT off divorce. Ugh.
> 
> But, incarcerating people for cheating? Idk. I could see how that would make the betrayed feel vindicated, but adultery is more of a moral issue, that can destroy lives, but so can a ton of other things that we don't deem as crimes. Gossip, online bullying, lying, stealing ideas from people at work and passing them off as your own, etc...
> 
> ...


Maybe not jail but a public spankin? 😁


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> Are you talking criminal prosecution? If it's just for financial gain after the divorce, I'd be all for that, in favor of the BS.


Referring to divorce court, BS gets 75% and primary residential custody of kids.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Maybe not jail but a public spankin? 😁


I'd go for standing in the town square with scarlet letter ,or 304 tattoo, for all to throw rotten fruit and vegetables at.


----------



## Mystic Moon (6 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> Sometimes it is traumatic to the point they are not thinking straight. I am not talking about a BS that plots a month before they do something drastic, I'm talking like a BS just caught them. If the BS looses it and whips some azz, that is on the cheaters and should remain with them.


So, if a man finds his wife cheating on him he should be able to ,"whip some azz" including hers? 

I thinking cheating is deplorable! I have to disagree with assaulting one's partner for cheating though, as tempting as it may be. There are better ways to get even than assaulting a WS.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Mystic Moon said:


> So, if a man finds his wife cheating on him he should be able to ,"whip some azz" including hers?
> 
> I thinking cheating is deplorable! I have to disagree with assaulting one's partner for cheating though, as tempting as it may be. There are better ways to get even than assaulting a WS.


I'm saying it would not have happened if they had not been committing adultry. Their actions triggered a response they should have expected, or worse.

If I go up and slap some dude, even if it was just once, I expect to be hit back. That is on me. My injurious actions caused his reactions.

Just saying , when one is cheated on I would expect a bad visceral reaction from a BS and don't really give 2 shyts if it occurs.


----------



## Frithy (May 6, 2020)

I think the Muslim countries have the right response to women adulterers.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Why make it a civil matter when it could be criminal.









Indonesia set to make sex outside marriage punishable by jail


MPs expected to pass new criminal code that will also make insulting the president a crime




www.theguardian.com


----------

