# Alienation of Affection WIN....



## BarbedFenceRider

THIS I did not see happening....

And I love the EWW response that the "marriage" was ALWAYS troubled...Riiiight. Like having a latin lover did NOTHING to it..ROFL!!!


----------



## TJW

BarbedFenceRider said:


> the "marriage" was ALWAYS troubled...Riiiight.


And, there it is, friends..... another adulterer who is right on script, re-writing history.....

Thankfully, the judge didn't buy into that..... God knows whether the appeal judge will. Personally, I hope the decision stands, and I want to applaud all 6 states which have this statute.


----------



## Andy1001

I can take you to court and be awarded tens of millions of dollars for a real or imagined reason.
If you are broke or have a low income then what’s the point?
This was revenge and wayward wife shaming,nothing more nothing less.


----------



## sokillme

Seems about right. 

No sympathy for either cheater, none. Love that both their faces are now on national news. 

We need more of this.


----------



## BigToe

Andy1001 said:


> This was revenge and wayward wife shaming,nothing more nothing less.


I agree. The wife was willing and continued even after the husband found out.


----------



## MJJEAN

TJW said:


> Personally, I hope the decision stands, and I want to applaud all 6 states which have this statute.


This is about as stupid as allowing people to sue McDonald's because the coffee is actually hot. 

Grown adults make their own decisions and are responsible for those decisions. By allowing "Alienation of Affection" suits we're basically infantalizing adult men and women. "No, your Honor, my wife/husband isn't entirely responsible for their own behavior because, clearly, our marriage would have been fine if AP hadn't come into the picture and stole all the affection."


----------



## TheGoodGuy

While I agree that Alienation is Affection May not be the perfect way to deal with it, I’m ok with the public shaming part. Maybe if there Was a little more public shaming, the consequences would mean something to cheaters. Then again Is the fact that they were thinking about cheating in the first place enough to get rid of them anyway?


----------



## MJJEAN

TheGoodGuy said:


> While I agree that Alienation is Affection May not be the perfect way to deal with it, I’m ok with the public shaming part. Maybe if there Was a little more public shaming, the consequences would mean something to cheaters. Then again Is the fact that they were thinking about cheating in the first place enough to get rid of them anyway?


People have affairs all the time and put that shyte all over social media. No one bats an eye.

I just left a job where I knew of no less than 4 ongoing affairs. 3 of them among managers. Other than a bit of "Guess who's doing the dirty!" gossip, no one cared.

I've been a WW and I've known some WW/WH's. For the most part, family and friends had no opinion one way or the other.

For public shaming to work, the public has to give a toot and they mostly don't. We live in an age where Mike Vic can literally torture and kill defenseless animals and Tiger Woods can screw every chick who'd stand still long enough while our President can pay to play with porn stars and the general public is just happy as long as there aren't GMO's involved and everyone gave affirmative consent.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Since a marriage license and the marriage are a contract, it makes sense that there is an ability to sue. Doesn't matter who felt badly enough to go find an AP. It's not about her being bad or whether the public cares. It's about breaking signed and verbal agreements that were witnessed while details were agreed upon. 

I wish that law was reconsidered for all states in the nation.


----------



## Rubix Cubed

From that video he should have had an assault charge on the OM as well. Holding him may have been OK but when he started jerking him around that was assault. Personally, the OM would have been in intensive care if he was lucky, and I would plead self-defense.

Odd that such incriminating video actually didn't get deleted.


----------



## TJW

2ntnuf said:


> I wish that law was reconsidered for all states in the nation.


Me, too. I wish all 50 states would ratify it. I also wish the law of the state applied here would not statutize the necessity to prove that it was a "good" marriage before the cheating. This shows a lack of understanding of the reasons for adultery, which have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the marriage. It is simply a brazenly selfish choice on the part of the adulterer.

The victim of adultery should be able to seek damages to cover all losses incurred in the divorce.


----------



## 2ntnuf

TJW said:


> Me, too. I wish all 50 states would ratify it. I also wish the law of the state applied here would not statutize the necessity to prove that it was a "good" marriage before the cheating. This shows a lack of understanding of the reasons for adultery, which have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the marriage. It is simply a brazenly selfish choice on the part of the adulterer.
> 
> The victim of adultery should be able to seek damages to cover all losses incurred in the divorce.


There is a concerted effort not to understand the reasons for adultery. They don't get officials elected. I believe they fully understand the reasons. They play the blame game to their advantage. 

I don't exactly know what would be justice.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Rubix Cubed said:


> From that video he should have had an assault charge on the OM as well. Holding him may have been OK but when he started jerking him around that was assault. Personally, the OM would have been in intensive care if he was lucky, and I would plead self-defense.
> 
> Odd that such incriminating video actually didn't get deleted.


I think husbands are afraid of defending their marriage or themselves. It's not that they couldn't. It's that they know how twisted the courts are in favor of defending infidelity as the consequence of not being treated well, which is code for the BS deserves it most of the time. In fact, it seems like they encourage and protect those who have been unfaithful, and believe them to the detriment of the (betrayed)spouse. 

Sort of the same as what I posted above. An elected official, like a judge, has a better chance of being reelected, if s/he sides with the WS.


----------



## MJJEAN

2ntnuf said:


> Since a marriage license and the marriage are a contract, it makes sense that there is an ability to sue.


If we're busting it down to solely the legal, shouldn't the WS be the one sued and not an AP? AP's didn't enter into any contract with the BS. The WS did.



TJW said:


> Me, too. I wish all 50 states would ratify it.
> 
> I also wish the law of the state applied here would not statutize the necessity to prove that it was a "good" marriage before the cheating.
> 
> This shows a lack of understanding of the reasons for adultery, which have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the marriage. It is simply a brazenly selfish choice on the part of the adulterer.
> 
> The victim of adultery should be able to seek damages to cover all losses incurred in the divorce.


I believe all 50 states once did have Alienation of Affection or something similar on the books. Steadily, over time, states began to abolish it until only a few were left. My state abolished " alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry " in 1963.

I disagree. I think there should be proof the marriage was "good" and not likely headed for divorce anyway. The idea is that the affair and the stealing away of affection caused a divorce and therefore caused mental, emotional, and financial suffering for the BS. If the marriage wasn't good it could be argued that the affair wasn't the primary cause for the divorce or any undue suffering the divorce may have caused the BS.


----------



## Married but Happy

Alienation of affection has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. You can't stop someone from loving their spouse - they have to have already fallen out of love. Most likely, it was a relationship continued by a bad habit, and someone more exciting came along. Too bad, so sad. Take things for granted, and you will probably be a loser. Stupid laws not withstanding, based on antiquated ideas that your spouse is a possession, mere property. To hell with that!


----------



## 2ntnuf

Did the AP get sued in the video? I didn't realize that. 

I guess, it would be like your friend asking you to take her to the bank, where she then proceeds to rob them. Yet, it would be more like you knew what was going to happen and denied you did. 

We're only discussing alienation of affection. I don't mean this for only female WS'. Maybe some do. I don't know. This just happens to be from the male perspective, since it's in the Men's Clubhouse. I guess. 


No, the idea is that it is a breach of contract. Whether it was headed for divorce or not is not an issue. That's actually proven what I was trying to say the courts do. They figure, if s/he was cheating, it's because the marriage was bad. No, it's because s/he wanted to cheat. They didn't have to cheat. They could have divorced first. 

Rather than it proving a bad marriage, it proves the WS needed sex and decided not to do without, no matter the consequences.


----------



## Andy1001

Rubix Cubed said:


> From that video he should have had an assault charge on the OM as well. Holding him may have been OK but when he started jerking him around that was assault. Personally, the OM would have been in intensive care if he was lucky, and I would plead self-defense.
> 
> Odd that such incriminating video actually didn't get deleted.


Yeah I was thinking the same.Its obvious the footage was shot from inside the apartment so how come it was made public.


----------



## ConanHub

I agree with it. You have to prove your case and the husband did his due diligence.

It isn't applicable in all situations of course but it was proven here and I agree with it in this circumstance.

I'm especially sympathetic to husbands in this situation as it redeems some of the financial and emotional damage that the affair and likely divorce, will inflict on him.

**** face deserves far more than monetary penalties inflicted on him and I applaud this husband for his well thought out and reasonable response.

I would have had a far less civil retaliation.

What a *****. I hope she enjoyed destroying her family and throwing her children on the alter of her all important crotch.

If her marriage was so bad, divorce.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

MJJEAN said:


> People have affairs all the time and put that shyte all over social media. No one bats an eye.
> 
> I just left a job where I knew of no less than 4 ongoing affairs. 3 of them among managers. Other than a bit of "Guess who's doing the dirty!" gossip, no one cared.
> 
> I've been a WW and I've known some WW/WH's. For the most part, family and friends had no opinion one way or the other.
> 
> For public shaming to work, the public has to give a toot and they mostly don't. We live in an age where Mike Vic can literally torture and kill defenseless animals and Tiger Woods can screw every chick who'd stand still long enough while our President can pay to play with porn stars and the general public is just happy as long as there aren't GMO's involved and everyone gave affirmative consent.


I agree that the public needs to give a toot - but I disagree that no one bats an eye. Perhaps in small circles it's well known among people who generally don't care about who's cheating with who.. But most of the time there is a "secretive" and "forbidden" portion to an affair which gets hidden from the public eye (and the spouse's eye) so that they can continue their vile behavior in secret. I would just like more of this to be surfaced to the public to make the cheater think twice about going behind the BS' back - maybe they'll divorce if the marriage is THAT bad.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

MJJEAN said:


> If we're busting it down to solely the legal, shouldn't the WS be the one sued and not an AP? AP's didn't enter into any contract with the BS. The WS did.


Agreed here. Though in this case, perhaps it makes an AP think twice if this were more prevalent.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Married but Happy said:


> Alienation of affection has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. You can't stop someone from loving their spouse - they have to have already fallen out of love. Most likely, it was a relationship continued by a bad habit, and someone more exciting came along. Too bad, so sad. Take things for granted, and you will probably be a loser. Stupid laws not withstanding, based on antiquated ideas that your spouse is a possession, mere property. To hell with that!


Yes. 

These laws take the once-uncontroversial view that your wife has no more autonomy than your livestock, which is necessary if you want to sue someone for messing w/ either.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Andy1001 said:


> Yeah I was thinking the same.Its obvious the footage was shot from inside the apartment so how come it was made public.


Same here. Perhaps in the heat of the moment the affair partners thought they had the upper hand by showing how "crazy" the BS was acting?


----------



## SpinyNorman

TheGoodGuy said:


> Agreed here. Though in this case, perhaps it makes an AP think twice if this were more prevalent.


Alienation of Affection is not about adultery, it is about someone causing your wife to stop loving you. 

That is why your spouse cannot be guilty, and it is also why the guilty party didn't have to have sex w/ anyone.


----------



## SpinyNorman

2ntnuf said:


> Since a marriage license and the marriage are a contract, it makes sense that there is an ability to sue. Doesn't matter who felt badly enough to go find an AP. It's not about her being bad or whether the public cares. It's about breaking signed and verbal agreements that were witnessed while details were agreed upon.
> 
> I wish that law was reconsidered for all states in the nation.


It actually isn't about breaking any agreement, it's about someone causing her to not love her husband any more. Even if someone did cause this, they made no agreement to do otherwise and are nonetheless being sued for it.


----------



## ConanHub

Maybe **** face could become a lawyer and petition to get the law changed in his state.

Oh, that's right, he is a degenerate who isn't capable of dating available women and thought wetting his penis in the stupid ***** was more important than the wellbeing of the betrayed husband or her children.

Not sure how long he has been thinking with his pecker but it doesn't bode well for the future of wisdom being displayed by this pathetic excuse for a man.


----------



## Married but Happy

Most likely, one spouse alienated the other spouse, which led the latter to seek out someone else, who then unfairly gets blamed for it. And when someone else actually does intentionally try to interfere in a marriage, the WS wouldn't wander if they didn't want to do so. The only parties truly at fault are the BS and WS, which is why alienation of affection laws are less widespread now, and seldom prosecuted when still on the books.


----------



## personofinterest

Eh, this is one of those things that thrills the usual cult members but makes normal people roll their eyes.

It's almost embarrassing, actually, much like the kindergarten antics I used to have to intervene in as a teacher.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> Eh, this is one of those things that thrills the usual cult members but makes normal people roll their eyes.
> 
> It's almost embarrassing, actually, much like the kindergarten antics I used to have to intervene in as a teacher.


I might see your point if it wasn't an actually enforceable law that was prosecuted and proven in court.

Everything the husband had to do was quite a lot of work to accomplish.

It would pay to look into the laws in your state before acting on the belief that your penis is far more important than a family's well being.

Let **** face prove otherwise in his appeal. He has the same rights as anyone else in that state.

I'm sure laws like this will eventually disappear and I don't any skin in whether it is a law or not.

But it is very apparently an enforceable law in a few states as recent judgments have confirmed so maybe dip ****s who are too stupid to stay away from married people, should actually pay attention to what state they are f'ing around in?


----------



## Taxman

Let me put it this way, good law, and I have been party to divorce suits arising out of infidelity, that have been massively punitive. Does my heart a world of good to see an AP and a WW literally crapping bricks because their entire net worth is about to be turned over to the betrayed partner. I hope that the AP appeals, spends the rest of his money in the appeal, and loses. The BH has a nice new life, and his WW and her AP live in a fleabag apartment and eat ramen as a steady diet. That itch between her legs, that sent her off in the direction of an affair, hope it was hives.


----------



## TheGoodGuy

Married but Happy said:


> Most likely, one spouse alienated the other spouse, which led the latter to seek out someone else, who then unfairly gets blamed for it.


Sure. The betrayed husband in this case probably deserved it, so it's all good. /sarcasm

Yuck.


----------



## Married but Happy

TheGoodGuy said:


> Sure. The betrayed husband in this case probably deserved it, so it's all good. /sarcasm
> 
> Yuck.


I didn't say anyone deserves it, so your comment is absurd. Quite often the betrayed spouse does have some fault that has already made them unloved and unlovable. Do they deserve to be cheated on? Of course not, even if they are PoS's themselves. But human nature being what it is, they _have_ made bad choices easier than they would be otherwise.


----------



## manfromlamancha

I agree with the following:

Alienation of affection should be allowed if

(a) there is a seducer (as opposed to the wayward being the aggressor);
(b) the seducer actively pursued the wayward above and beyond normal attraction;
(c) the marriage was fairly normal before the affair (no other affairs, no indications of imminent divorce);
(d) the betrayed has demonstrably tried to make the marriage work.


In general, I believe that infidelity in a marriage (contract) should be punishable.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> I might see your point if it wasn't an actually enforceable law that was prosecuted and proven in court.
> 
> Everything the husband had to do was quite a lot of work to accomplish.
> 
> *It would pay to look into the laws in your state before acting on the belief that your penis is far more important than a family's well being.*
> 
> Let **** face prove otherwise in his appeal. He has the same rights as anyone else in that state.
> 
> I'm sure laws like this will eventually disappear and I don't any skin in whether it is a law or not.
> 
> But it is very apparently an enforceable law in a few states as recent judgments have confirmed so maybe dip ****s who are too stupid to stay away from married people, should actually pay attention to what state they are f'ing around in?


You might want to do the same before you suggest someone leave their spouse in a forum such as this one, since people have been successfully sued for suggesting divorce under this law.


----------



## SpinyNorman

manfromlamancha said:


> I agree with the following:
> 
> Alienation of affection should be allowed if
> 
> (a) there is a seducer (as opposed to the wayward being the aggressor);
> (b) the seducer actively pursued the wayward above and beyond normal attraction;
> (c) the marriage was fairly normal before the affair (no other affairs, no indications of imminent divorce);
> (d) the betrayed has demonstrably tried to make the marriage work.


Thanks for explaining, but I am still in favor of keeping the govt. out of the bedroom.


> In general, I believe that infidelity in a marriage (contract) should be punishable.


Of course under these laws, the contract only affects people who had no part in it. I find that perverse.


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> You might want to do the same before you suggest someone leave their spouse in a forum such as this one, since people have been successfully sued for suggesting divorce under this law.


It would be a very interesting case and a real stretch but I would be interested in seeing it play out.

I have very well founded doubts about any prosecutor or judge willing to entertain such a procedure against a member of an anonymous forum.

I'm actually very curious if anything remotely close to what you suggested has even been attempted?

I have advocated for divorce in abuse and fairly callous infidelity situations. It would be extremely hard for a proven abuser and cheater to prove their marriage was happy and healthy and I caused the loss of their spouses love even if I were to reside in a AOA state, which I don't, much less by offering said advice on an anonymous forum.

Thoughts?


----------



## manfromlamancha

SpinyNorman said:


> Thanks for explaining, but I am still in favor of keeping the govt. out of the bedroom.
> 
> Of course under these laws, the contract only affects people who had no part in it. I find that perverse.


I was just offering my opinion. This does not involve just the bedroom (although that is part of it). It also involves the lives and wellbeing of people, children, extended family and even friends. It might also impact work and work environments. So there is quite an extended network of impact sometimes.

I did not understand your comment about the contract affecting people who had no part in it.

Note that Alienation Of Affection has quite often been applied to work environments that enabled and even encouraged infidelity amongst employees and many have sued (and won) work places for this. This is true of the UK too.

I understand that these things happen but (like with most other parts of civilized society) there should be a prescribed way forward to deal with it starting with full disclosure early on by the wayward and a process involving fair division of assets, putting the needs and welfare of children first, and a quick divorce process while being respectful throughout (i.e. no rubbing the betrayed's nose in it, no introduction of APs to children early on, no badmouthing the marriage and rewriting history where it is not merited etc). Hence if one enters into a marriage contract there should be penalties for breaking that contract.

In this case I think that the POSOM and the POSWW should be held accountable and penalised. In any case, the POSOM has no way of paying this amount and deductions from earnings should be applied immediately on an extended basis.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> It would be a very interesting case and a real stretch but I would be interested in seeing it play out.
> 
> I have very well founded doubts about any prosecutor or judge willing to entertain such a procedure against a member of an anonymous forum.


Why? The expectation you won't get caught doesn't absolve you of anything. Of course there is the problem of finding your real identity, but I never assume mine won't be found, and unlike some posters I don't leave a lot of details people who know me would recognize.[/QUOTE]


> I'm actually very curious if anything remotely close to what you suggested has even been attempted?


Successfully sued for advocating divorce, yes. From an internet forum, not that I know of. I don't know of any legal principle that makes this privileged communication, but I Am Not A Lawyer.


> I have advocated for divorce in abuse and fairly callous infidelity situations. It would be extremely hard for a *proven* abuser and cheater to prove their marriage was happy and healthy and I caused the loss of their spouses love even if I were to reside in a AOA state, which I don't, much less by offering said advice on an anonymous forum.
> 
> Thoughts?


What you were told and what can be proven are often two different things. Anyway, even if you're on the right side of this law I think a lot of people on this forum aren't.


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> Anyway, even if you're on the right side of this law I think a lot of people on this forum aren't.


Extrapolate? I don't, and likely never will, have a dog in this fight but I think it is hilarious that this jackass was successfully prosecuted.

He seriously should have examined his opponent more carefully before declaring war, no?


----------



## SpinyNorman

manfromlamancha said:


> I was just offering my opinion. This does not involve just the bedroom (although that is part of it). It also involves the lives and wellbeing of people, children, extended family and even friends. It might also impact work and work environments. So there is quite an extended network of impact sometimes.


Sure, it is fine to offer opinions. "Bedroom law" was sloppy on my part, this law doesn't need to involve sex at all. The phrase "bedroom law" came about as a criticism of the govt. trying to legislate/litigate subjective, emotional things that shouldn't be any of the govt's business. You are right that a divorce affects a lot of people, but trying to litigate who is to blame for something as complicated and subjective as the failure of a marriage is not a task for the govt, IMO.


> I did not understand your comment about the contract affecting people who had no part in it.


Marriage is a contract btw the 2 married people. AOA laws affect third parties.


> Note that Alienation Of Affection has quite often been applied to work environments that enabled and even encouraged infidelity amongst employees and many have sued (and won) work places for this. This is true of the UK too.


Afraid I don't see your point.


> I understand that these things happen but (like with most other parts of civilized society) there should be a prescribed way forward to deal with it


There are things the govt. needs to get involved in, and a whole bunch it does not. Prescribing ways to deal w/ personal relationships is, IMO, the latter. 


> starting with full disclosure early on by the wayward and a process involving fair division of assets, putting the needs and welfare of children first, and a quick divorce process while being respectful throughout (i.e. no rubbing the betrayed's nose in it, no introduction of APs to children early on, no badmouthing the marriage and rewriting history where it is not merited etc). Hence *if one enters into a marriage contract there should be penalties for breaking that contract.
> *
> In this case I think that the *POSOM and the POSWW should be held accountable and penalised.* In any case, the POSOM has no way of paying this amount and deductions from earnings should be applied immediately on an extended basis.


There seems to be a discrepancy here, on one hand it is the spouse who should be penalized and on the other it is the 3rd party.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> Extrapolate?


What do you wish me to extrapolate from? The law has been successfully used to sue those who recommend dissolution of a marriage. We see that here often, do you agree?

EDIT: I don't know if it has been used SUCCESSFULLY, only that lawsuits have been brought.


----------



## personofinterest

ConanHub said:


> SpinyNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, even if you're on the right side of this law I think a lot of people on this forum
> 
> 
> 
> Not just this forum
> There is one forum that I am waiting with busted breath to be sued for their legally questionable suggestions.
Click to expand...


----------



## manfromlamancha

SpinyNorman said:


> Sure, it is fine to offer opinions. "Bedroom law" was sloppy on my part, this law doesn't need to involve sex at all. The phrase "bedroom law" came about as a criticism of the govt. trying to legislate/litigate subjective, emotional things that shouldn't be any of the govt's business. You are right that a divorce affects a lot of people, but trying to litigate who is to blame for something as complicated and subjective as the failure of a marriage is not a task for the govt, IMO.
> Marriage is a contract btw the 2 married people. AOA laws affect third parties.
> Afraid I don't see your point.
> There are things the govt. needs to get involved in, and a whole bunch it does not. Prescribing ways to deal w/ personal relationships is, IMO, the latter.
> 
> There seems to be a discrepancy here, on one hand it is the spouse who should be penalized and on the other it is the 3rd party.


The point on AOA is that it is a very real and enforceable thing.

The spouse (or wayward) should be penalised for breaking contract and the third party as you put it, should be penalised for alienation of affection or knowingly destroying a marriage persistenly.


----------



## manfromlamancha

Also I am not entirely sure that the government shouldnt be responsible for adminstering such penalties. They after all, are responsible for the legality of marriages.

As for being able to ascertain blame - that is generally difficult no matter who is responsible for doing it. In many cases of infidelity it is pretty straightforward.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just this forum
> There is one forum that I am waiting with busted breath to be sued for their legally questionable suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> You really want TAM sued?
Click to expand...


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> What do you wish me to extrapolate from? The law has been successfully used to sue those who recommend dissolution of a marriage. We see that here often, do you agree?


I would agree with a professional being prosecuted if it could be shown that the professional had anything other than their patients health and best interests in mind when recommending divorce.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Extrapolate? I don't, and likely never will, have a dog in this fight but I think it is hilarious that this jackass was successfully prosecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> He seriously should have examined his opponent more carefully before declaring war, no?



No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

manfromlamancha said:


> In many cases of infidelity it is pretty straightforward.



No it’s not. It’s never straightforward.

This must be one of the stupidest news items i have come across so far.
So the woman has no say in anything? The poor poor woman, who loved her husband so very much, had no choice but be seduced by a male predator? 
This law sounds like something from 300 years ago.
Laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I bet husband and wife set the whole thing up.
It’s such an obvious law to be open for abuse, it’s not actually that funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm ok with the dip **** not checking out the husband he is cuckolding to see the potential risk.

It shows how truly stupid he is but I am fine with morons starting a knife fight with a gunslinger.:grin2:


----------



## BarbedFenceRider

I think most here have a point or two. But what I do agree with whole heartedly is that marriage brought out of the privacy and into public court and contract DOES allow one to sue for damages recieved. Most of the western world believes in this as well. 

As for the AP getting sued. Just look at it from personal injury courts.... You spill hot coffee on your pants in a McDonalds. You gonna sue the coffee cup maker? NOPE. You sue the establishment that the business contract as a bill of sale was signed. 

Thats why in most cases, sueing in marriage is a TORT law. Not criminal. Now mind you, with some of the mud that goes around here day in and day out.....I would venture that we would need more criminal cases, not fewer. Hence the call for public shaming. 

But I do think that with walk away wife , infidelity, or abuse and harm....There is case for lawsuit in general. And it should be equal for both genders and spouses.

But is misandry and rampant feminist agendas, the man in general cannot get a fair shake. In this case, AOI law makes sense and gives parity for the BH...


----------



## manfromlamancha

BarbedFenceRider said:


> I think most here have a point or two. But what I do agree with whole heartedly is that marriage brought out of the privacy and into public court and contract DOES allow one to sue for damages recieved. Most of the western world believes in this as well.
> 
> As for the AP getting sued. Just look at it from personal injury courts.... You spill hot coffee on your pants in a McDonalds. You gonna sue the coffee cup maker? NOPE. You sue the establishment that the business contract as a bill of sale was signed.
> 
> Thats why in most cases, sueing in marriage is a TORT law. Not criminal. Now mind you, with some of the mud that goes around here day in and day out.....I would venture that we would need more criminal cases, not fewer. Hence the call for public shaming.
> 
> But I do think that with walk away wife , infidelity, or abuse and harm....There is case for lawsuit in general. And it should be equal for both genders and spouses.
> 
> But is misandry and rampant feminist agendas, the man in general cannot get a fair shake. In this case, AOI law makes sense and gives parity for the BH...


Agree with the above!


----------



## 269370

Can a woman sue the OW if her husband is having an affair? Is that fair on the other woman’s husband? Should he be held liable for her promiscuous behaviour?

What about if her husband is having an affair with a dude? Can she sue the other dude for turning him gay and luring him with his magnificent cork?
What if they decided to have a non monogamous marriage and swing with people but then one of them changed their mind and decided to teach their partner a lesson?

Lots of loopholes. Or just holes. What an amazingly ridiculous law. You can’t make it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manfromlamancha

inmyprime said:


> No it’s not. It’s never straightforward.
> 
> This must be one of the stupidest news items i have come across so far.
> So the woman has no say in anything? The poor poor woman, who loved her husband so very much, had no choice but be seduced by a male predator?
> This law sounds like something from 300 years ago.
> Laughable.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Never said that the woman has no say in anything. It really is not that complicated. You sign up for marriage (religious and government construct leading to contract). You break the contract in a most despicable way, you pay for it. That is from the woman's point of view.

You see a married woman. You fancy your chances with her. You go after her. You persevere at destroying this marriage for your own pleasure. The marriage was not necessarily doomed before you (you do not know either way but proceed anyway). You succeed in destroying what might have been a perfectly good marriage and what is more, children are involved. You pay the price (alienation of affection and all the other stuff). That is from the POS OM's point of view.

So far we have penalties for the POSOM but none really for the POSWW. That is what needs work on (in the good ole days, it was an offence).

Now all this could and should be reversible in terms of gender.

About the straight forward part - how do you know if the woman broke her contract. If there is evidence of infidelity, than that is the part that is straightforward. To say anything else in this case would justify cheating and as we all know there is never any justification for cheating. 

I do not understand what all the fuss is about. 

As others have said - there ought to be more prosecutions to discourage bad behaviour (and in some cases potentially criminal behaviour). Else dont get married. Dont sign contracts. Dont make official promises.

You also seem to imply that I am saying the woman should get off easily. That is not what I am saying - we need tighter laws on spouses engaged in infidelity. Hit them where it hurts - could be financial, custody rights, property or just good old fashioned shaming.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

The alienation of affection law is not new or novel. Came over from England and was quite popular in the 19th century here. Pretty much removed from the books everywhere here except 6 states. I believe one of the reasons it was removed was because one of the foundations of the statute was that women ( and their affections ) were property (chattel) and offenders interfered with that property. 

But where it has survived the law works both ways now. For example, there was a 30M award in total in NC to a women from another women who stole her husband.


----------



## 269370

manfromlamancha said:


> Never said that the woman has no say in anything. It really is not that complicated. You sign up for marriage (religious and government construct leading to contract). You break the contract in a most despicable way, you pay for it. That is from the woman's point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> You see a married woman. You fancy your chances with her. You go after her. You persevere at destroying this marriage for your own pleasure. The marriage was not necessarily doomed before you (you do not know either way but proceed anyway). You succeed in destroying what might have been a perfectly good marriage and what is more, children are involved. You pay the price (alienation of affection and all the other stuff). That is from the POS OM's point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> So far we have penalties for the POSOM but none really for the POSWW. That is what needs work on (in the good ole days, it was an offence).
> 
> 
> 
> Now all this could and should be reversible in terms of gender.
> 
> 
> 
> About the straight forward part - how do you know if the woman broke her contract. If there is evidence of infidelity, than that is the part that is straightforward. To say anything else in this case would justify cheating and as we all know there is never any justification for cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand what all the fuss is about.
> 
> 
> 
> As others have said - there ought to be more prosecutions to discourage bad behaviour (and in some cases potentially criminal behaviour). Else dont get married. Dont sign contracts. Dont make official promises.
> 
> 
> 
> You also seem to imply that I am saying the woman should get off easily. That is not what I am saying - we need tighter laws on spouses engaged in infidelity. Hit them where it hurts - could be financial, custody rights, property or just good old fashioned shaming.




There may be no justification for cheating but there often are reasons. Cheating is by far not the ‘ultimate evil’ or ultimate wrong one can commit in a marriage.

The ‘marriage contract’ is not a real contract. It’s just a promise to do or not do some ****. It’s completely symbolic (though has meaning for the two people involved).

You do understand what would happen if it was ‘enforceable by law’?
It’s non-sensical. You’d hold a partner ‘hostage’ in a partnership against their will, because they would be contractually obliged to remain in a ****ty marriage.

I can see how this would be appealing for people who have been cheated on but it would do more harm than good unfortunately. 

And in this particular case, if this is to be taken seriously (big If): the wife needs to prove that she she was ‘seduced against her will’ (impossible, unless she was raped in which case the OM would be prosecuted anyway) otherwise she should be liable to pay the same penalty (which would come out of betrayed husband’s pocket presumably). All in all a huge waste of time and resources for something ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Here some more info:

“Marriage is not, legally, a contract. That’s because in a contract, the parties can meet and confer to negotiate on the terms, as they see fit within an extremely broad range of options. Once they’ve agreed to the terms, they cannot be changed except by their mutual consent (which may have been delegated by prior mutual consent to one party or the other, or to a third party); at the same time, the contract can be terminated by the mutual consent of both parties at any time.

Marriage isn’t like that. In marriage, all of the terms are dictated by the state, and the parties to the marriage must agree to all of them exactly as the state has laid them out with no exceptions whatsoever, or no marriage ensues. Furthermore, the state can vary the terms of a marriage however and whenever it wants, even after the marriage has commenced, without obtaining the consent of the parties. Finally, a marriage can only be terminated by the state; the mutual consent of the parties is neither sufficient nor required to terminate a marriage.

Marriage really has very little in common with a contract.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

Marriage actually is a contract. A special one with it's own legal foundation and case law in terms of property, expectations, etc. It was a contract that was somewhat difficult to break in the past (proving cruelty, adultery, abandonment, no sex etc).

But now it is a contract that is simple to break with 'no fault' divorce.

Crappy spouse, unhappy, get a divorce. But as cheaters always claim after they meet someone else they were always unhappy. That might fool the betrayed spouse for a while whose head is spinning but it does not work with mature adults who see through the rewrite nonsense. When it comes time to prove their unhappiness with compelling tangible legal evidence they have nothing. 

So don't mess around with married people in those 6 states. Might cost you.


----------



## 269370

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> Marriage actually is a contract. A special one with it's own legal foundation and case law in terms of property, expectations, etc. It was a contract that was somewhat difficult to break in the past (proving cruelty, adultery, abandonment, no sex etc).
> 
> 
> 
> But now it is a contract that is simple to break with 'no fault' divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> Crappy spouse, unhappy, get a divorce. But as cheaters always claim after they meet someone else they were always unhappy. That might fool the betrayed spouse for a while whose head is spinning but it does not work with mature adults who see through the rewrite nonsense. When it comes time to prove their unhappiness with compelling tangible legal evidence they have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> So don't mess around with married people in those 6 states. Might cost you.



No, just drive out to the neighbouring state and **** like rabbits there  . Problem solved.
(It’s not a contract).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I also guarantee this is all set up. The couple is laughing all the way to the bank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> No, just drive out to the neighbouring state and **** like rabbits there  . Problem solved.
> (It’s not a contract).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually no, NC judgement is enforceable in all 50 states. So even if she ( in this particular case ) ran away the divorce would take place in NC as well as the Alienation lawsuit. Because that is where she lived for quite a few years 'being unhappy married'. Divorce in the state of the marriage domicile. Unless she moved out of state and he ( the betrayed spouse) did not file in the meantime, for like a year. That's how this type of contract works. 

And as much as you might not like the phrase 'marriage contract' the phrase has actually existed for thousand of years. TAM did not make it up.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Being that vows are allowed to be made up by the couple, and there is little prohibition on the wording, it is actually a choice for the couple to use the governments vows. So, there are many choices and the couple could say, "until a hint of infidelity" or whatever they wish. Their vows may be written, signed and dated. Once spoken in front of a justice of the peace, it is legal, with a witness there and a couple of "I do's", as well.


----------



## manfromlamancha

inmyprime said:


> There may be no justification for cheating but there often are reasons. Cheating is by far not the ‘ultimate evil’ or ultimate wrong one can commit in a marriage.
> 
> SUre there are reasons for being unhappy in a marriage - this is why you have divorce. Not a reason to cheat however. So I still stand by my statement - there is no justification for cheating.
> 
> The ‘marriage contract’ is not a real contract. It’s just a promise to do or not do some ****. It’s completely symbolic (though has meaning for the two people involved).
> 
> You do understand what would happen if it was ‘enforceable by law’?
> It’s non-sensical. You’d hold a partner ‘hostage’ in a partnership against their will, because they would be contractually obliged to remain in a ****ty marriage.
> 
> I really dont know where you are getting all this from. Marriage is a real contract. If you have any doubts about this, just ask local or central government in the UK. And I cannot understand the hostage comment. Nothing wrong with divorcing if you do not like the contract or if your spouse is breaking the contract. Again there are laws for this too - alimony, child support, spousal support etc.
> 
> I can see how this would be appealing for people who have been cheated on but it would do more harm than good unfortunately.
> 
> And in this particular case, if this is to be taken seriously (big If): the wife needs to prove that she she was ‘seduced against her will’ (impossible, unless she was raped in which case the OM would be prosecuted anyway) otherwise she should be liable to pay the same penalty (which would come out of betrayed husband’s pocket presumably). All in all a huge waste of time and resources for something ridiculous.
> 
> Wow!! Once again - I dont know where this is coming from. Raped!!! Seduced against her will!!! What on earth are you on about. If a wife cheats and is caught cheating - she is clearly in the wrong. And I agree that she should face a penalty - not out of the betrayed husbands pocket!!! Just as if a POSOM goes after a married woman with the intent of breaking up her family and marriage. He deserves to be punished for this behaviour. At the very least, it is anti-social.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpinyNorman

manfromlamancha said:


> The point on AOA is that it is a very real and enforceable thing.


I don't think anyone has denied this.


> The spouse (or wayward) should be penalised for breaking contract and the third party as you put it, should be penalised for alienation of affection or knowingly destroying a marriage persistenly.


Trying to establish fault in a bad marriage has shown its share of problems, but at least you're dealing w/ the people who made the contract. The third party did not make any contract, so it seems ridiculous to hold them accountable for its failure.


----------



## SpinyNorman

manfromlamancha said:


> Also I am not entirely sure that the government shouldnt be responsible for adminstering such penalties. They after all, are responsible for the legality of marriages.
> 
> As for being able to ascertain blame - that is generally difficult no matter who is responsible for doing it. In many cases of infidelity it is pretty straightforward.


Yes, the govt. establishes the legality of marriages, but that is a lot more straightforward than establishing why one failed. Also a lot more necessary, considering the system we have.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> I would agree with a professional being prosecuted if it could be shown that the professional had anything other than their patients health and best interests in mind when recommending divorce.


If it can be shown that a professional was not serving their client's best interest they can be sued/de-licensed even in the absence of AOA laws. 

But AOA laws are not there to protect the spouse who leaves, it is to "protect" the spouse who stays.


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> If it can be shown that a professional was not serving their client's best interest they can be sued/de-licensed even in the absence of AOA laws.
> 
> But AOA laws are not there to protect the spouse who leaves, it is to "protect" the spouse who stays.


I actually don't really care about AOA one way or the other.

I just thought it was funny that the jackass in this situation didn't understand the arena or the opponent he was dealing with when he went to cuckold.

I believe AOA will continue to go the way of the dodo but until it does, dip ****s better pay attention in what state they are f'ng married folks.


----------



## frusdil

Haven't read all the comments, but I wholeheartedly believe there should be consequences for deliberately destroying a family/marriage via infidelity. Both for the wayward spouse via much smaller property settlement, and the affair partner.


----------



## personofinterest

ConanHub said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just this forum
> There is one forum that I am waiting with busted breath to be sued for their legally questionable suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> You really want TAM sued?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread my post and see if you comprehend it better this time.
Click to expand...


----------



## personofinterest

I'm laughing at all the people who want to use the legal system to punish infidelity but screech about how "you cant legislate morality!!" About other things


----------



## 2ntnuf

personofinterest said:


> I'm laughing at all the people who want to use the legal system to punish infidelity but screech about how "you cant legislate morality!!" About other things


Breach of contract isn't about morality. If marriage is not a legal contract, what is the legality behind the courts getting involved? If it's to split up possessions fairly, that's the moral issue and they have no business getting involved. So, they are already involved, immorally.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.






> Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious
> covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.





> He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself - the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along - even though the husband and wife didn't realize that.





> He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.






> In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for
> parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.
> 
> Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]





> The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans,
> home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.





> Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.
> 
> That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.


Marriage Licenses

I don't own the above. I did not write it. Any risk is on the reader.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I suppose, if the state wants, it can say you are again married. It can take your children for war. It can say you are no longer married. It can do as it will with the marital couple.

The state owns you. 

You thought you were free? 

hahaha


----------



## personofinterest

I'm also laughing at the ridiculous WAW comment. 

Maybe the reason she walked away is because YOU are a crappy husband???

But by all means, reinforce your crappiness by doing her like a petulant baby.


----------



## 2ntnuf

personofinterest said:


> I'm also laughing at the ridiculous WAW comment.
> 
> Maybe the reason she walked away is because YOU are a crappy husband???
> 
> But by all means, reinforce your crappiness by doing her like a petulant baby.


Men are visual creatures. Evolution created women with protruding breasts to show men that they were able to feed offspring. No other primate has them.

If a man is unable to summon that genetic desire to reproduce or at least go through the motions, what does that say?

Edit: No, it doesn't mean her breasts are too small.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reread my post and see if you comprehend it better this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Your tone just clarified the question oh yea of busted breath!:wink2:
Click to expand...


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I'm laughing at all the people who want to use the legal system to punish infidelity but screech about how "you cant legislate morality!!" About other things


I'm simply laughing at the dip ****s stupid enough to pull this crap in states that allow their opponents to butt rape them in court.

You have to admit the amazing hubris of these, would be spouse stealers, is somewhat funny?

There are 44 other states that would represent a far lesser threat for not being able to keep the proper penis in the right vagina.

I don't think infidelity should get rewarded ever but I do think awarding draconian settlements is wrong as well.

That being said, any idiot who teases lions that aren't in cages deserves to be eaten.

Theses laws are still very real and very enforceable in said states and dumb asses like the one in this story do not elicit anything besides a good belly laugh from me for being such a fool.

I do believe in making home wreckers pay. Destroying families to get your rocks off insults me on far too primal a level to allow without repercussions.

I'm not for state involvement with marriage at all, to be clear.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> I'm simply laughing at the dip ****s stupid enough to pull this crap in states that allow their opponents to butt rape them in court.
> 
> You have to admit the amazing hubris of these, would be spouse stealers, is somewhat funny?
> 
> There are 44 other states that would represent a far lesser threat for not being able to keep the proper penis in the right vagina.
> 
> I don't think infidelity should get rewarded ever but I do think awarding draconian settlements is wrong as well.
> 
> That being said, any idiot who teases lions that aren't in cages deserves to be eaten.
> 
> Theses laws are still very real and very enforceable in said states and dumb asses like the one in this story do not elicit anything besides a good belly laugh from me for being such a fool.
> 
> I do believe in making home wreckers pay. Destroying families to get your rocks off insults me on far too primal a level to allow without repercussions.
> 
> I'm not for state involvement with marriage at all, to be clear.




I don’t get it; of all the people you slept with, none of them were married or in a relationship? I seem to remember differently...
Judge yourself before you judge others, innit? as Jesus, Ali G or one of the other prophet dudes said. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2ntnuf

Relationships aren't marriage, no matter what folks think.


----------



## 269370

Moral of the story: never cheat without a lawyer present at all times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2ntnuf

I think the moral of the story is, "Don't get married unless you want the state to own your income, property, and children"... or simply put, "Only a sucker signs a contract with the state". 

Yes, I did, too.


----------



## ConanHub

inmyprime said:


> I don’t get it; of all the people you slept with, none of them were married or in a relationship? I seem to remember differently...
> Judge yourself before you judge others, innit? as Jesus, Ali G or one of the other prophet dudes said.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Incorrect information you gleaned.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> I'm simply laughing at the dip ****s stupid enough to pull this crap in states that allow their opponents to butt rape them in court.


Do you also laugh at the dip****s stupid enough to recommend divorce to people living in states that allow the other spouse to butt rape them in court?


----------



## SpinyNorman

BarbedFenceRider said:


> THIS I did not see happening....
> 
> And I love the EWW response that the "marriage" was ALWAYS troubled...Riiiight.


What convinces you the marriage was healthy before the other man came along?


> Like having a *latin* lover did NOTHING to it..ROFL!!!


What does his ethnicity have to do with anything?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pretty clear who has been an AP. 

You can see the attitude. Make sure you notice them and how your significant reacts. That will tell you what to do. 

It's pretty clear presently, that divorce doesn't help anyone, but the one who wants to leave. I can't believe anyone, but someone without a watertight prenup and a pile of assets would be concerned about losing. 

Don't be fooled people. Ambulance chasers want your money and it doesn't help them much when they fight hard for the husband. Great prenups are helpful to men or women with plenty of assets. It makes those ambulance chasers look like good people who are just interested in the law and justice. Don't believe them. They all lie. It's tough to find anyone who isn't concerned about themselves.

You can find decent ones. 

In any thread like this, you can tell who is a fearmongering affair partner or has been, and see their selfishness. It's very easy to seduce a woman or man who believes they have issues and is upset about their marriage. That's why these sleazes go for those women and men, and that's why they don't want consequences.


----------



## personofinterest

"Pretty clear who has been an AP."

Pray tell do share oh wise one.

I've never been an AP


----------



## 2ntnuf

personofinterest said:


> "Pretty clear who has been an AP."
> 
> Pray tell do share oh wise one.
> 
> I've never been an AP


Have you been unfaithful? That was also a part of what you did not quote. Have the guts to tell the truth when quoting, by quoting the whole message.


----------



## personofinterest

2ntnuf said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pretty clear who has been an AP."
> 
> Pray tell do share oh wise one.
> 
> I've never been an AP
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been unfaithful? That was also a part of what you did not quote. Have the guts to tell the truth when quoting, by quoting the whole message.
Click to expand...

I quoted the entire sentence. I'll be honest, I didnt even read the rest of the post.

The fact is, cheating is selfish, immoral, destructive, and unjustifiable. Period. No matter the state of the marriage.

Another fact is that anyone who would knowingly sleep with another person's spouse is crappy as eell.

But let's not kid ourselves. Having the government financially bully people into being technically faithful is not gonna solve the problem. It's a character problem.

And when a BS responds by displaying character problems of their own, using some of the tactics I have seen talked about and recommended on some forums....

All three are just fighting in the same nasty pigpen.

I say walk away from the pen altogether and find a better farm.

Public shaming and outing by third and 4th parties is just silly and, thanks to the progression of various types of laws, legally and civilly inadvisable in 2018.


----------



## 2ntnuf

personofinterest said:


> I quoted the entire sentence. I'll be honest, I didnt even read the rest of the post.
> 
> The fact is, cheating is selfish, immoral, destructive, and unjustifiable. Period. No matter the state of the marriage.
> 
> Another fact is that anyone who would knowingly sleep with another person's spouse is crappy as eell.
> 
> But let's not kid ourselves. Having the government financially bully people into being technically faithful is not gonna solve the problem. It's a character problem.
> 
> And when a BS responds by displaying character problems of their own, using some of the tactics I have seen talked about and recommended on some forums....
> 
> All three are just fighting in the same nasty pigpen.
> 
> I say walk away from the pen altogether and find a better farm.
> 
> Public shaming and outing by third and 4th parties is just silly and, thanks to the progression of various types of laws, legally and civilly inadvisable in 2018.


Quote the whole post or don't bother. Appreciate your honesty about what you read. It helps when you read the whole thing, even though you may have to come back after you calm down. 

Financially bully them? I disagree that it is financial bullying, unless you consider a ticket for speeding, illegal parking, or any other crime that might force financial responsibility to be of little deterrence. 

If you are saying that, "locks only keep honest people honest", I agree. There will be many who will not be unfaithful that otherwise would. So, those APs are only getting the trash anyway. 



You'll have to give examples of what you are talking about that you have seen on other forums that disturbs you.

You'll have to post the laws for me to comment. My personal opinion of them will be inaccurate, otherwise. 

I believe you have said you cheated before in a post. Am I correct? 

For those of us who do not want to associate with unfaithful cheaters in the real world, how do you suppose we might protect ourselves? Or is it so important that a previously unfaithful person, who must lie to their spouse to be able to carry out their plans without having consequences, be able to easily dupe another potential partner at will? 

Isn't that the same as the state condoning any other potential crime? 

Doesn't a potential partner deserve to know what they might be getting themselves into? Is this simply a way for businesses who do background checks to force all folks to pay them to do the work, rather than find out through sources that know the individual personally? 

How can anyone be a trusted friend? 


Do you also believe in no public shaming for child molesters, murderers and rapists? These are all heinous actions which destroy families. Though infidelity isn't illegal in some states, why isn't it treated with the same disdain as these crimes, when we are married through a contract with the state that looks upon us as an investment? When there is divorce, the state loses on it's investment. Obviously, they have an interest, or they would not issue licenses, nor marry individuals. 

You, the state and others simply prove that it is not a good idea to get married, ever. Only those who have something to hide will be concerned about these laws staying on the books.


----------



## personofinterest

Actually, I dont "have to" do anything except follow forum rules.


----------



## personofinterest

"I believe you have said you cheated before in a post. Am I correct? "

No, you are nor correct. So you should probably control your verbal diarrhea sweetie.


----------



## 2ntnuf

personofinterest said:


> "I believe you have said you cheated before in a post. Am I correct? "
> 
> No, you are nor correct. So you should probably control your verbal diarrhea sweetie.




Don't get nasty with me and start calling me names. I only asked you a question. You can tell me it's none of my business, but don't verbally abuse me. 

I'm not your husband or ex. They don't deserve it either. If you don't like being asked questions that prove honesty, do what you posted and walk away. 

You don't get license to harass and shame me.


----------



## personofinterest

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So "sweetie" is that offensive?

Oh lord.....

I've been cheated ON. It hurt horribly. I moved on, and I didnt need a billboard or settlement to do so.

Have you considered counseling?


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> Do you also laugh at the dip****s stupid enough to recommend divorce to people living in states that allow the other spouse to butt rape them in court?


That would seriously depend on the situation. I have already made clear that I don't have a dog in this fight and giving someone advice to divorce is certainly different than not keeping it in your pants.

I fully understand your argument and I do believe this law is becoming extinct for solid reasons.

Do you know if anyone has been successfully prosecuted for simply giving an opinion about divorce being advisable?


----------



## personofinterest

I know of no one who has been prosecuted for recommending divorce.

But putting spyware on someone else's personal computer, secret recording devices, and the recommendation to plant drugs in a traveling WS's luggage are certainly legally dubious.

As are cyber harassment and doxing.

Vigilantes would be wise to use caution.

LOTS of caution.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

The defendant who lost can always express his outrage via the internet at being found responsible for interfering in the plaintiffs marriage AND ruining the plaintiff's business.

He could crowd source a plea for financial help on the outrageous of it all. Because he is an innocent victim of government overreach I'm sure money will role in and soon the debt will be cleared.


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> That would seriously depend on the situation. I have already made clear that I don't have a dog in this fight and giving someone advice to divorce is certainly different than not keeping it in your pants.
> 
> I fully understand your argument and I do believe this law is becoming extinct for solid reasons.
> 
> Do you know if anyone has been *successfully* prosecuted for simply giving an opinion about divorce being advisable?


Wikipedia states "family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. " but that doesn't say "successfully" so I have to say I don't know. 

I was able to find one specific lawsuit against a counselor and another against clergy that were dismissed, but that doesn't reach the bar.

EDIT: Since AOA is a tort, and not criminal law, no one will be _prosecuted_ but people have been sued, but I don't know if successfully.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I know of no one who has been prosecuted for recommending divorce.
> 
> But putting spyware on someone else's personal computer, secret recording devices, and the recommendation to plant drugs in a traveling WS's luggage are certainly legally dubious.
> 
> As are cyber harassment and doxing.
> 
> Vigilantes would be wise to use caution.
> 
> LOTS of caution.


I am actually pro recording devices but definitely agree that the operator of such a device better know the laws in their state about it.

I'm actually far more into confrontation, with legally obtained proof, public shame and humiliation which is simply exposure.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I know of no one who has been prosecuted for recommending divorce.
> 
> But putting spyware on someone else's personal computer, secret recording devices, and the recommendation to plant drugs in a traveling WS's luggage are certainly legally dubious.
> 
> As are cyber harassment and doxing.
> 
> Vigilantes would be wise to use caution.
> 
> LOTS of caution.


Haha. Has anyone been prosecuted for threatening people? :wink2:
Why not take it down a notch or two. What's the point?


----------



## ConanHub

SpinyNorman said:


> Wikipedia states "family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. " but that doesn't say "successfully" so I have to say I don't know.
> 
> I was able to find one specific lawsuit against a counselor and another against clergy that were dismissed, but that doesn't reach the bar.
> 
> EDIT: Since AOA is a tort, and not criminal law, no one will be _prosecuted_ but people have been sued, but I don't know if successfully.


Yeah. Just did a little research and initial results would seem to indicate that this law has been successfully used where affairs were involved, surprisingly not always with the AP as the defendant.

It looks like it is pretty difficult to get any action regarding divorce advice.


----------



## 269370

In US, it seems you can sue for anything. I’m going to sue the postman for making me be in a sh1tty mood today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> In US, it seems you can sue for anything. I’m going to sue the postman for making me be in a sh1tty mood today.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No. You cannot sue for 'anything. You have to show a damage. The threshold for emotional harm ('your mood') is quite high. The postman simply existing does not cut it. 

However, if the postman decapitated your kittens while sneering at you, that would cut it. Case law recognizes emotional attachments to pets, sort of like marriages.


----------



## 269370

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> No. You cannot sue for 'anything. You have to show a damage. The threshold for emotional harm ('your mood') is quite high. The postman simply existing does not cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> However, if the postman decapitated your kittens while sneering at you, that would cut it. Case law recognizes emotional attachments to pets, sort of like marriages.




Explain to me how it is possible to prove that the OM is solely responsible for ‘alienating’ wife’s affection towards her husband. It makes no sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpinyNorman

ConanHub said:


> Yeah. Just did a little research and initial results would seem to indicate that this law has been successfully used where affairs were involved, surprisingly not always with the AP as the defendant.
> 
> It looks like it is pretty difficult to get any action regarding divorce advice.


I originally misread the wiki page and thought it said successfully sued, as opposed to sued. 

In post #40 I said "successfully" so I went and edited it. I am a stickler for facts, so I feel like when I mess them up I need to eat my crow. If anybody sees other posts where I said "successfully sued" let me know and I will edit them.

There may be successful cases, but I haven't found them.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> Explain to me how it is possible to prove that the OM is solely responsible for ‘alienating’ wife’s affection towards her husband. It makes no sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


She and the defendant claimed the marriage was already in trouble. But were not able to offer a shred of believable evidence backing that claim.

The plaintiff however was able to show that his marriage was happy one until the defendant started sleeping with his wife. 

The wife, instead of immediately divorcing the husband when she 'met the true love her life' strung her husband along. The defendant followed the wife around, even on family vacations. The wife even used hubby's money to pay for her lovers dig on family vacations. 

Three was more damage in that hubby and wife owned a successful business together which contracted 90% after the lovers interference.

Is that clearer?


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Broken_in_Brooklyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You cannot sue for 'anything. You have to show a damage. The threshold for emotional harm ('your mood') is quite high. The postman simply existing does not cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> However, if the postman decapitated your kittens while sneering at you, that would cut it. Case law recognizes emotional attachments to pets, sort of like marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how it is possible to prove that the OM is solely responsible for ‘alienating’ wife’s affection towards her husband. It makes no sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not. This is akin to a financial temper tantrum.

Adultery is HORRIBLE. But the cheating spouse is responsible for their terrible choice. 

I think adultery should matter in divorce settlements. THAT would make more sense.


----------



## 269370

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> She and the defendant claimed the marriage was already in trouble. But were not able to offer a shred of believable evidence backing that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> The plaintiff however was able to show that his marriage was happy one until the defendant started sleeping with his wife.






Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> The wife, instead of immediately divorcing the husband when she 'met the true love her life' strung her husband along.


Meaning that she had a choice in this matter. So why is the OM the only guilty one?



Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> The defendant followed the wife around, even on family vacations. The wife even used hubby's money to pay for her lovers dig on family vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> Three was more damage in that hubby and wife owned a successful business together which contracted 90% after the lovers interference.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that clearer?



No. The burden of proof should ALWAYS lie with the accuser, especially in a stupid case like this. 
I can successfully show that the postman caused me bad moods too. 
And if he then had to ‘successfully prove’ why he didn’t cause me bad mood, what world would we live in?
None of it makes sense. The fact that she is on the defendant’s side, is proof enough that it was HER CHOICE to end the marriage with the affair. What’s there to even argue about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"Haha. Has anyone been prosecuted for threatening people? 🙂
Why not take it down a notch or two. What's the point?"

Seriously? 

Who has been threatened? Or is the word "sweetie" also a threat now too? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> It's not. This is akin to a financial temper tantrum.
> 
> Adultery is HORRIBLE. But the cheating spouse is responsible for their terrible choice.
> 
> I think adultery should matter in divorce settlements. THAT would make more sense.



That would be opening a can of worms that nobody wants to deal/waste resources on. If adultery should matter then so should financial infidelity, bad habits, anger issues, emotional abuse etc.
What makes adultery so special? I know on these boards people think nothing is worse. I don’t agree. There are MANY ways to ruin a marriage and it’s between the two people. No fault (but fair) divorces are really the only reasonable compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I know of no one who has been prosecuted for recommending divorce.
> 
> But putting spyware on someone else's personal computer, secret recording devices, and the recommendation to plant drugs in a traveling WS's luggage are certainly legally dubious.
> 
> As are cyber harassment and doxing.
> 
> *Vigilantes would be wise to use caution. *



Sorry, are the insinuations that people on these boards might be committing criminal offences not implied threats?
(I don’t mind either way - I think it’s funny - but maybe we should chill out a bit? It’s Friday night after all. Time to wind down and sh1t . There’s no need to fight EVERY fight, no matter how tempting that might be).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I listed things I had seen on other forums.

Is making a list a threat?


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I listed things I had seen on other forums.
> 
> Is making a list a threat?



Not to me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I listed things I had seen on other forums.
> 
> Is making a list a threat?




Though to be fair, leaving a VAR in people’s cars: I don’t understand why this is legal and not in ‘breach of privacy’.
Why not also hide a camera in the toilet while you are at it? (The proverbial you).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> Meaning that she had a choice in this matter. So why is the OM the only guilty one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The burden of proof should ALWAYS lie with the accuser, especially in a stupid case like this.
> I can successfully show that the postman caused me bad moods too.
> And if he then had to ‘successfully prove’ why he didn’t cause me bad mood, what world would we live in?
> None of it makes sense. The fact that she is on the defendant’s side, is proof enough that it was HER CHOICE to end the marriage with the affair. What’s there to even argue about?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"ALWAYS" ? The jury followed the judges instructions. The plaintiff met his burden of proof. He proved interference. The defendant and the cheating wife were not convincing otherwise as the jury decided.

Good luck finding a lawyer willing to sue the post office because you have a bad mood. 

She did not end the marriage by the way. She strung her husband along including using his company as income for the affair until the cuckolded husband had enough and divorced her. 

She wanted her cake and to eat it too. She could have simply divorced her husband (no fault!) at the very beginning and non of this would have happened. Her boyfriend could have been a stand up guy and told her I can't be involved with you while you are a married women living with your husband and 5 year old. He could have demanded she separate and divorce legally and this lawsuit would not have happened. He choose not to. Now he pays.


----------



## personofinterest

The latest post illustrates what ththis is really all about


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

personofinterest said:


> The latest post illustrates what ththis is really all about


Care to elaborate?


----------



## 269370

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> Care to elaborate?




It’s all about retribution and not about the law...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> It’s all about retribution and not about the law...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That 'law' exists for real in NC. If the 'law' was erroneously applied or the verdict unreasonable that would be grounds for appeal. The defendant said he would appeal. Good luck. 

As far as retribution, yes law is used for retribution sometimes. So what? That is one of the reasons why laws exist. So people don't take retribution in their own hands...

The defendant is actually lucky the husband is not one of the enraged few who go off the rails and do just that. 

Mess around with someone's spouse, you are asking for trouble.


----------



## 269370

Broken_in_Brooklyn said:


> Mess around with someone's spouse, you are asking for trouble.



You keep forgetting the bit where nobody (usually) forces someone’s spouse to open their legs. They tend to do it willingly. Agency and all..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

inmyprime said:


> You keep forgetting the bit where nobody (usually) forces someone’s spouse to open their legs. They tend to do it willingly. Agency and all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Her testimony as a witness was taken into consideration, and ignored. 

She was not sued. He was. Now she can help pay the verdict. 

Their love is so pure and strong I'm sure it will withstand a financial set back.


----------

