# What do you think about automatic divorce for infidelity?



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.

Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


----------



## john1068 (Nov 12, 2013)

jld said:


> No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.
> 
> Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


Interesting thought. I don't have any data to support my position, but I think the single biggest contributor to affairs is the No-fault divorce laws across the US. It's just boneheaded to allow a person in a marriage to destroy the partnership and benefit financially for it.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

I suppose. Maybe. But it would ignore other constituents. Mostly young children. It's not like we are dating and you can say well OK you did something I have no interest in and so have a nice life. And that is the agony. But for the promises we made to each other, what happened in expectation and reliance, most importantly our children and what we want and for them, we could shake hands and part ways.

I don't think we should look at divorce as a form of punishment. Or deterrent. Unless, I suppose you are in a childless marriage. In which case I cannot see why you would put up with this stuff.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I am thinking of divorce as an automatic time-out. Everything split down the middle. Maybe a mandatory 6 month wait before remarrying.

I am thinking this would make each side really reflect on what happened, and what they did or did not contribute to the situation. And it would be known to the public, so there would be no way to hide. Forced honesty.

And any reconciliation would be completely voluntary. No groveling, no blaming. More of This is how I feel, How do you feel, How can we work this out, or Do we even want to?

Everybody off the hook is the idea.


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

jld said:


> No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.
> 
> Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


No, I don't, because it would make divorce just another routine and predictable action, pretty much devoid of any emotional or social cost. Get caught speeding, get a ticket, pay a fine by mail, forget about it and continue as before: get married, cheat, get caught, get divorced, continue on as before.

Plus it would deprive people who truly love each other of the chance to build a happy life despite the infidelity (like the John Adamses).


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

How about an automatic post-nup instead; if there's not a D.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

badmemory said:


> How about an automatic post-nup instead; if there's not a D.


That's intriguing. Sounds kind of scary, too. Could you explain more?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Philat said:


> No, I don't, because it would make divorce just another routine and predictable action, pretty much devoid of any emotional or social cost. Get caught speeding, get a ticket, pay a fine by mail, forget about it and continue as before: get married, cheat, get caught, get divorced, continue on as before.
> 
> Plus it would deprive people who truly love each other of the chance to build a happy life despite the infidelity (like the John Adamses).


No rule against remarrying, except maybe that 6 month waiting period idea.

And years later, John hasn't fully let go of it. I think an automatic divorce might help in situations like this. 

Each would be forced to live without the other for at least 6 months. Each could see their shortcomings and what they contributed, if anything. Since any reunion would be fully voluntary, there would be no reason to hold anything against the other. There might be reason, however, to do some deep introspection not on what the other person did, but how each wants to handle it. 

Basically, you are giving each person a fresh start.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I'll support this as soon as there's an automatic divorce after 6 months in a sexless marriage...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

PBear said:


> I'll support this as soon as there's an automatic divorce after 6 months in a sexless marriage...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

jld said:


> No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.
> 
> Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


I'd be okay with it.. the contract has terms, and you broke them. As far as I'm concerned, my marriage was nullified and I'm now just dating my wife.. but legally, it makes taxes and stuff easier.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't think it would do anything useful. You'd still have to discover the infidelity, still have to file something legally, and still negotiate the terms. How does this differ from no-fault divorce?

There is also a matter of definitions. Some infidelity is consensual (e.g., swingers) and not grounds for divorce. What you really mean is cheating, which is non-consensual infidelity.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

Had my wifes EA been a PA I would live in a refrigerator box if necessary.

Its hard enough after an EA. A PA to me is unimaginably horrible.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

jld said:


> That's intriguing. Sounds kind of scary, too. Could you explain more?


OK, how about this:

By statute, a mandatory post-nup that the BS activates by providing infidelity proof to the court. Misdemeanor if the BS fails to file for the post-nup when having documentation. That way, WS would be hard pressed to argue about it.

Post-nup would stipulate that the WS has no claim for alimony and would dictate a favorable split of assets for BS - perhaps 60/40; if there is a repeat of the infidelity (with proof) or the WS files for D.

Of course that's a pipe dream.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Thanks for the correction in terms, MbH. 

What I am really getting at is a fresh start for everybody. A wiping the slate clean. A 6 month cool off and reflection period. No hiding, so no power games. Everybody everywhere knows it, so there is some pressure to face it.

Basically, just a time to reflect on what do I want in my life, is this person really the one I want to spend it with, and if so, can I move forward without any kind of retribution?


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

john1068 said:


> Interesting thought. I don't have any data to support my position, but I think the single biggest contributor to affairs is the No-fault divorce laws across the US. It's just boneheaded to allow a person in a marriage to destroy the partnership and benefit financially for it.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


Yes, it's a ****ing travesty.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

badmemory said:


> OK, how about this:
> 
> By statute, a mandatory post-nup that the BS activates by providing infidelity proof to the court. Misdemeanor if the BS fails to file for the post-nup when having documentation. That way, WS would be hard pressed to argue about it.
> 
> ...


Yes. I think I am okay with an automatic rule that the cheating spouse gets no alimony or other support. But what about kids? In most cases they will spend half or more of their time with mom. Not that that should be the rule, but that is how it works out most often. So you have to worry about who is hurt. Without kids, I am with you 100%.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

jld said:


> Since any reunion would be fully voluntary, there would be no reason to hold anything against the other.


Aren't all reunions voluntary?


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

Harken Banks said:


> Yes. I think I am okay with an automatic rule that the cheating spouse gets no alimony or other support. But what about kids? In most cases they will spend half or more of their time with mom. Not that that should be the rule, but that is how it works out most often. So you have to worry about who is hurt. Without kids, I am with you 100%.


Yeah, that's why if I'm emperor, this law/pre-nup wouldn't speak to child support or custody. But I'd be open to ideas.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

If there were an automatic, streamlined divorce for adultery, I would have probably cheated just to get the divorce done faster. No dealing with attorneys and signatures and waiting periods with the added benefit of actually getting laid again. Sounds like a win-win to me!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Sounds kind of harsh, doesn't it, badmemory? It sounds like the idea is to punish someone.

I guess I was thinking this could be more like a time out, or even a game ender, and subsequently a chance for a fresh, new start in life for each, either together, or in separate lives.

The real idea is to avoid all the blaming and groveling, and make each person face reality and take responsibility. And maybe be able to move on with less wasted time and drama.

Now maybe _that_ is a pipe dream!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

How about making the marriage contract renewable every 1, 3, or 5 years (your choice), and you have to opt IN to keep it going?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> How about making the marriage contract renewable every 1, 3, or 5 years (your choice), and you have to opt IN to keep it going?


Now that is interesting . . .


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

I think we all (all of us here in CWI) should just balance the scales best we can and make our decisions as to what to do from there. I get the hurt. I get the anger. But rules about this stuff do not seem to me to make any sense. My oldest brother, God bless his soul, put off his divorce for 15 years, until his youngest son was an adult. I applaud that. And he will pay his ex-wife several hundred thousands of dollars per year for several years. Is that fair or right? No. If you knew her, and the history, you would say "Hell no!." But he looked at the situation and made his decisions based on the interests of those who were least able to look out for their own. Including his soon to be ex-wife.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

jld said:


> Sounds kind of harsh, doesn't it, badmemory? It sounds like the idea is to punish someone.


Yes it is does; and yes, it is.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Healer said:


> Aren't all reunions voluntary?


Well, I'm wondering. 

It just seems like a lot of blaming and groveling goes on, as opposed to, "Help me understand," and "How can I help?"

I guess I am just wondering how healthy all this blaming and groveling is.

And I am really wondering if, when there is an affair, if that is not in some way a sign that the marriage is over, whether anyone wants to accept that or not.

Not sure about any of this; these are just my wonderings.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

badmemory said:


> Yes it is does; and yes it does.


But how does that help? I understand the desire to punish, but does it really bring healing?

Enlighten me; there is probably something I am just not seeing clearly here.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

HB, your brother sounds like a very honorable man.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

jld said:


> HB, your brother sounds like a very honorable man.


He is an exemplary good guy. Odd. A bit quirky. But decent to a fault.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

jld said:


> But how does that help? I understand the desire to punish, but does it really bring healing?
> 
> Enlighten me; there is probably something I am just not seeing clearly here.


You call it punishment, I call it a consequence.

You say it hurts healing, I say it's a deterrent from cheating.

Don't worry. I don't think I'm going to be able to get that law passed anytime soon. lol


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

jld said:


> And I am really wondering if, when there is an affair, if that is not in some way a sign that the marriage is over, whether anyone wants to accept that or not.


Certainly was for me.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

badmemory said:


> You call it punishment, I call it a consequence.
> 
> You say it hurts healing, I say it's a deterrent from cheating.
> 
> Don't worry. I don't think I'm going to be able to get that law passed anytime soon. lol


I am re-thinking this a bit. There is infidelity and an automatic divorce. But can't people get divorced anyway for any or no reason? And maybe they should. But who gets to decide? This seems a bit like public shaming, not that I am against that. And what if the BS does not want to report? Doesn't that put us back at square one? You can get a divorce if you want one?


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

How about being able to sue the OP for damages occurred in the divorce? or maybe have them be responsible for part of the MC cost.
Marriage is already seen as disposable anything that makes it easier to split why get married in the first place. Instead of getting married why not have 2 people sign a partnership contract outlining expectations, boundaries, penalties for infidelity or early termination and have it renew every 3 or 5 years. Don't want to be with that person anymore don't renew, unhappy with some thing in the relationship just renegotiate the contract, when it's time to leave the property is divided according to the contract. No fuss, No muss.
People are just not ashamed like they used to be, there is no stigma attached to cheaters no scarlet letter, if it feels good do it you deserve it after all he/she wasn't meeting your every need.
Marriage is a dying institution easy to get in easy to get out, maybe that is better than forcing people to stay with someone forever and be miserable or maybe it would make them work harder at being happy.


----------



## Pault (Aug 15, 2012)

Good Question!
I think from an infidelity point I would like to see a more speedy, uncomplicated divorce if thats what the injured party wants.

The issue of child access should be a standard issue by now and even access provided. In the marjority Dads dont get the best outcome.
Financial support needs a big look as well. I see many a man still providing for a WW as well as his kids - I feel the kids get the financial sport and the offender needs to go and find financial support elsewhere.

The response here is bassed on a concept only and of course it would not be as easy and Caught and divorced. Unless there is no children in the frame then it makes it easier.

I guess Im the type that sees infidelity as much of a crime as assult etc.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

love=pain said:


> How about being able to sue the OP for damages occurred in the divorce? or maybe have them be responsible for part of the MC cost.
> Marriage is already seen as disposable anything that makes it easier to split why get married in the first place. Instead of getting married why not have 2 people sign a partnership contract outlining expectations, boundaries, penalties for infidelity or early termination and have it renew every 3 or 5 years. Don't want to be with that person anymore don't renew, unhappy with some thing in the relationship just renegotiate the contract, when it's time to leave the property is divided according to the contract. No fuss, No muss.
> People are just not ashamed like they used to be, there is no stigma attached to cheaters no scarlet letter, if it feels good do it you deserve it after all he/she wasn't meeting your every need.
> Marriage is a dying institution easy to get in easy to get out, maybe that is better than forcing people to stay with someone forever and be miserable or maybe it would make them work harder at being happy.


I think much of this is right. For me, the idea that I have a relationship that is less than marital commitment means I have a girl friend and I might get another one. This afternoon, maybe. And if we happen to have kids, well, we are sorry to disappoint your expectations of family. Welcome to the big leagues.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

My personal opinion is the laws are outdated. They should only take care of the children. There should be a period of mandatory counseling and pre-nups signed before any marriage takes place. If we expect equality in society, then we need to promote it.

The flip side of this is there would be more folks living together without getting married. I don't see the harm in that. Since fidelity in a marriage is an individual choice, marriage has little to do with anything, except combining incomes and properties. Things can still go awry when two split, since most attorneys will advise that possession is 9/10 of the law before divorce, where receipts and things we never think about saving are not available. 

There really is not much difference. If we say that in G/BNO situations, it's important that the spouse going out has to show the interloper they are not interested, the vows have little bearing. The contract has little bearing. The ring has little bearing and may be purchased as a secondary sign of commitment, without all the pomp and circumstance. 

Nothing can stop infidelity, but the two involved. Thoughts about equality, in terms of our modern marriage contract are laughable, in my opinion.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> My personal opinion is the laws are outdated. They should only take care of the children. There should be a period of mandatory counseling and pre-nups signed before any marriage takes place. If we expect equality in society, then we need to promote it.
> 
> The flip side of this is there would be more folks living together without getting married. I don't see the harm in that. Since fidelity in a marriage is an individual choice, marriage has little to do with anything, except combining incomes and properties. Things can still go awry when two split, since most attorneys will advise that possession is 9/10 of the law before divorce, where receipts and things we never think about saving are not available.
> 
> ...


Agreed on all points. Except that marriage is more than contract. It is the single most commitment you will make in your life, all goes well. And how it goes reflects on your character.


----------



## Thorburn (Nov 23, 2011)

love=pain said:


> How about being able to sue the OP for damages occurred in the divorce? or maybe have them be responsible for part of the MC cost.
> Marriage is already seen as disposable anything that makes it easier to split why get married in the first place. Instead of getting married why not have 2 people sign a partnership contract outlining expectations, boundaries, penalties for infidelity or early termination and have it renew every 3 or 5 years. Don't want to be with that person anymore don't renew, unhappy with some thing in the relationship just renegotiate the contract, when it's time to leave the property is divided according to the contract. No fuss, No muss.
> People are just not ashamed like they used to be, there is no stigma attached to cheaters no scarlet letter, if it feels good do it you deserve it after all he/she wasn't meeting your every need.
> Marriage is a dying institution easy to get in easy to get out, maybe that is better than forcing people to stay with someone forever and be miserable or maybe it would make them work harder at being happy.


There are some states that still allow for law suits against the OM. In my state that law allowed a tort claim for lawsuit for "Alienation of affections". Most states abolished these types of suits by 1999.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

Also, contract implies remedies and an expectation or at least anticipation of breach, which I think is where this thread started. I just think you have to throw all the beads on the scale and sort out as best you can what to do next. Maybe that is my bent towards equity and jurisprudence over law speaking. Life is messy. That we have to accept. But not much more. The rest we mostly get to decide.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

badmemory said:


> You call it punishment, I call it a consequence.
> 
> You say it hurts healing, I say it's a deterrent from cheating.
> 
> Don't worry. I don't think I'm going to be able to get that law passed anytime soon. lol


I honestly wonder if ANYTHING would act as an effective deterrent when it comes to cheating. I mean, the prospect of losing one's family doesn't work. Short of "the government will chop off your legs if you commit adultery"...I just don't see anything at all being a deterrent for someone who decides to cheat.

Everything else falls to the wayside, and the only thing the cheater cares about is fulfilling that "need".


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

Harken Banks said:


> Agreed on all points. Except that marriage is more than contract. It is the single most commitment you will make in your life, all goes well. And how it goes reflects on your character.


Years ago I think this was true now I really don't think so and that's the problem. Marriage is viewed as a forever commitment if, if someone better doesn't come along, if I get everything I want, if I don't have to work very hard at this relationship, the days of til death do us part are long gone.


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

Healer said:


> I honestly wonder if ANYTHING would act as an effective deterrent when it comes to cheating.


Honestly, my idea about the mandatory pre-nup was more "tongue in cheek". I realize it would be impossible to enforce.

But I do think that BS's should be more protected from getting hosed after their spouse has cheated on them. And I don't think the loss of alimony is unreasonable.

As far as it being a deterrent. Maybe you're right, but it might make some spouses think twice before taking the leap.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

love=pain said:


> Years ago I think this was true now I really don't think so and that's the problem. Marriage is viewed as a forever commitment if, if someone better doesn't come along, if I get everything I want, if I don't have to work very hard at this relationship, the days of til death do us part are long gone.


That may be right but not universal. I sure as hell do not want a marriage that has an expiration or renewal date. What is the point of that? Isn't that what we all had when we were single? I guess if the idea is that we should not encourage unrealistic expectations, OK. I suppose I just always thought that marriage was an important institution and that people who were married should act like they were married and try to stay married. Though, at this point I am pretty open to the boyfriend/girlfriend stuff.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

Healer said:


> I honestly wonder if ANYTHING would act as an effective deterrent when it comes to cheating. I mean, the prospect of losing one's family doesn't work. Short of "the government will chop off your legs if you commit adultery"...I just don't see anything at all being a deterrent for someone who decides to cheat.
> 
> Everything else falls to the wayside, and the only thing the cheater cares about is fulfilling that "need".


In the Muslim world if someone steals they get their hand cut off, so while the theft rate may be low(I honestly have no idea if it really is) there are still people who risk it and lose a hand some have even lost both hands. I wonder how a man who cheats on his wife or with another's wife would feel if his balls were removed..................... now wouldn't that be interesting.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

There's no such thing as a quickie, simple divorce. If marriage were only about vows (religious or otherwise), yes. But legal marriage, and divorce, is actually about property and financial rights. It's not even about child custody or child support, as both partners need to provide for that whether they are married or not.

Since there is no way to split assets quickly, you wouldn't be able to have an "automatic" divorce.

Oh, and men cheat, too, btw! Reading this thread, you'd think it's only WW's who shack up with OM's while the BH supports them both. 

If people are THAT worried about cheating and losing assets in a divorce, they shouldn't marry in the first place. It's not like it's a big secret what marriage and divorce entail.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

norajane said:


> There's no such thing as a quickie, simple divorce. If marriage were only about vows (religious or otherwise), yes. But legal marriage, and divorce, is actually about property and financial rights. It's not even about child custody or child support, as both partners need to provide for that whether they are married or not.
> 
> Since there is no way to split assets quickly, you wouldn't be able to have an "automatic" divorce.
> 
> ...


I think this is right. We throw all our eggs in the same basket.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

Harken Banks said:


> That may be right but not universal. I sure as hell do not want a marriage that has an expiration or renewal date. What is the point of that? Isn't that what we all had when we were single? I guess if the idea is that we should not encourage unrealistic expectations, OK. I suppose I just always thought that marriage was an important institution and that people who were married should act like they were married and try to stay married. Though, at this point I am pretty open to the boyfriend/girlfriend stuff.


I hear you one of the reasons I have stayed with my WS is the commitment I made, even though she broke her's doesn't mean mine is null and void. Just seems how the world is turning probably 6 out of 10 people I know or know of are divorced and on their 2nd or 3rd marriage it is crazy.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

love=pain said:


> I hear you one of the reasons I have stayed with my WS is the commitment I made, even though she broke her's doesn't mean mine is null and void. Just seems how the world is turning probably 6 out of 10 people I know or know of are divorced and on their 2nd or 3rd marriage it is crazy.


It's funny. I look around and most of the people I know have divorced. Not all, but most, by a comfortable margin. A big one. Eye opening when I look at it. Some are happier, some are not. Some are so much better off and happy. The ones who seem not to be happy I mostly doubt would be happier in their old marriages. It's a crap shoot. And what you make of it. You can only play your part.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

Instead of ‘automatic divorce’, I’d propose instead of a marriage certificate, there should be a marriage contract. That’d have the terms for ‘dissolution’ clearly called out for various reasons the contract could be terminated and what happens to the assets. Sort of a mandatory pre-nup. 

Oh, and no fault is around because of how it used to be. You used to have to prove there was a good reason for the divorce to get a decent settlement. That meant tons of legal fees making a case. That is a big problem in single income families (where one spouse doesn’t have the paycheck) or those who are already barely making ends meet. Can you imagine not only having to prove your spouse had a affair, but also prove it wasn’t ‘justified’? EA’s would be particularly nasty... Remember that a ton of folks still think for whatever reason that the BS failed at the marriage if their spouse strayed and just might support the WS for what they did. Happens all the time.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Just put it in the form of a "prenuptial agreement/prenup," whereby the spouse that initiates the affair would be held accountable for all legal fees, all court costs, would forfeit child custody, be responsible for child support, as well as alimony, if applicable in that state.

And done with the legal standard of "preponderence of the evidence."

It would make lawyers a hell of a lot more money, but at the same time, would probably send a plethora of cheaters to the poor house!*


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

Racer said:


> Instead of ‘automatic divorce’, I’d propose instead of a marriage certificate, there should be a marriage contract. That’d have the terms for ‘dissolution’ clearly called out for various reasons the contract could be terminated and what happens to the assets. Sort of a mandatory pre-nup.
> 
> Oh, and no fault is around because of how it used to be. You used to have to prove there was a good reason for the divorce to get a decent settlement. That meant tons of legal fees making a case. That is a big problem in single income families (where one spouse doesn’t have the paycheck) or those who are already barely making ends meet. Can you imagine not only having to prove your spouse had a affair, but also prove it wasn’t ‘justified’? EA’s would be particularly nasty... Remember that a ton of folks still think for whatever reason that the BS failed at the marriage if their spouse strayed and just might support the WS for what they did. Happens all the time.


Right. It would be a mess. Get married if you mean it. And if you don't or discover later that you didn't, well that is for you to live with. Yourself.


----------



## john1068 (Nov 12, 2013)

jld said:


> No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.
> 
> Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


I think for me divorce would be absolute in such circumstances...in my view, the marriage that existed when the cheating occurred is over. Reconciliation would be post-divorce with a possible re-marriage, with new vows to establish a new marriage. Don't know if that's foolish or not. Just what I think.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

One problem with the repeal of alienation of affection laws was more rise in predator players. (AKA friending players) who specifically target attached women.

There are numerous cases of these here. It does not excuse the women who cheated, nonetheless I can think of three where had those men not specifically targeted the wives, there would likely have never been any affair on their part.

No it does not make the wives less guilty. Hell there are places where people learn to be the friending player.


----------



## Refuse to be played (Jun 7, 2013)

Personally I feel no judge should be able to tell someone they can't get a divorce so I like 'No fault' for that. If you want you should be able to get a divorce simply because it isn't working out or not right for each other, or whatever. But things like adultery, abuse, abandonment, gross financial recklessness should carry a lot of weight when it comes to asset division, spousal support, and custody. 

And you should be allowed to sue AP's as well. In this day and age where you can sue just about anyone for anything I don't see how it is so uncommon for a BS to sue the OM/OW.

And there will never be any big anti-infidelity laws being passed anyway. Lawmakers are some of the biggest adulterers there are.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Refuse to be played said:


> And you should be allowed to sue AP's as well. In this day and age where you can sue just about anyone for anything I don't see how it is so uncommon for a BS to sue the OM/OW.


Since many OM/OW are also married, their BS's can sue right back. That would leave both BS's stuck with NO assets from their WS's because they will be sued away.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Reformation of alimony laws would be a big improvement. Keep the no-fault divorces but allow fault to be a consideration in alimony. If you cheat you don't get alimony. Period. If you are the higher earner and the cheater, you do pay alimony (within some framework of fairness).

From what I have seen, it is almost always a better outcome for the BS to divorce the cheater. So on a voluntary basis I support the guideline of a bias towards D.


----------



## Refuse to be played (Jun 7, 2013)

norajane said:


> Since many OM/OW are also married, their BS's can sue right back. That would leave both BS's stuck with NO assets from their WS's because they will be sued away.


Fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of a single OM/OW. I don't think to many BS would do it though if the other BS was able to nuke them right back. But yeah you're right.


----------



## illwill (Feb 21, 2013)

Most people who cheat never believe they will get caught or divorced.

Immediate divorce filing would curb the trickle truth and false R`s.

Then watch how they respond. But it cannot be a bluff. If they cut the crap then maybe stop divorce.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Wisconsin kind of has that in place right now. The date your divorce is final you cant remarry anyone for 6 months. During that time if you happen to reconcile the court tosses the divorce like it never happened. 
Problem with automatic divorce, just like no-fault states divorces it holds no one truly accountable for actions. At the end of the day its not the divorce that most people contest it the ridiculously slow legal process that drags it out further creating bad feelings and hatred. By the time most get divorced they don't even care why anymore, just relieved its over.


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

jld said:


> No blaming anybody, nobody groveling, nobody obliged to do anything, just automatic divorce, known to the whole world.
> 
> Do you think this would encourage people to take more responsibility for their choices, including the one to invest in the marriage?


I can think of many more things in life that should get the automatic card, but it doesn't matter because we both know that will never happen.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> I am thinking this would make each side really reflect on what happened, and what they did or did not contribute to the situation.


Even if you had court-mandated counseling, in the end you can't force anyone to think. And some people are so far into denial they'll never realize what they contribute to the situation. 

Just look at TAM as a sampling. People post all the time telling stories about what went wrong and ask for insight. But in the end, how many are obviously in denial?

So, you might get leeway in financial concerns or child custody, but expecting to write law that will force people to think, not sure I agree that's really possible.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

I believe in something similar. I think the emotional and sexual exclusivity commmitment of the marriage should end, on the spot, on DDay. meaning that legal divorce might be long and complex, perhaps should not be done until R is ruled out. the commitment to love and cherish the WS, or to love ONLY them, becomes null and void. the BS should make that clear to the WS and, when inclined to do so, start seeing other people...and evaluating whether to try R or go through with D. but the BS should really see what else is out there before deciding to recommit to the WS or D them.

if possible it is best to separate while in this phase. but if that is not possible, better the BS opens themselves up to others than practice a monogamy that has been totally discredited by the WS.


----------

