Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a little more info on the law itself and if you scroll down there are links to other laws that have a similar flavor to them. Alienation of Affection
...What if the OW actively pursued the husband, knowing he was married and let's say the husband's penalty is the divorce and a more punitive divorce settlement, should she be penalized as well?
Good heavens. My husband is a tasty little treat who gets "actively pursued" a lot. No one can stop the minxes in heat from "actively pursuing" - it's up to him to keep his pants on. Well . . . at least until he gets home
Here's a little more info on the law itself and if you scroll down there are links to other laws that have a similar flavor to them. Alienation of Affection
Thanks for the link.
It says that this archaic law exists on the books only in Hawaii, South Dakota, Illinois, North Carolina and Mississippi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgfurman
I would imagine that the lover will appeal, and let's see if she actually will have to pay anything. That's pretty ridiculous, imho.
I think she is appealing: NY Woman To Appeal $9M Judgment In NC Court - wcbstv.com (http://wcbstv.com/wireapnewsny/Former.NC.woman.2.1574653.html - broken link)
Good heavens. My husband is a tasty little treat who gets "actively pursued" a lot. No one can stop the minxes in heat from "actively pursuing" - it's up to him to keep his pants on. Well . . . at least until he gets home
Utterly ridiculous. Wifey is putting the entire fault of the marriage breakdown on the "other woman." That's never the reality of the situation. Her husband is equally at fault, at the very least. And if she was a cold wife who decided she didn't want to have sex anymore or was a mean and nasty woman, then she has to bear some responsibility, too.
This could set a disturbing precedent in the states that would permit it -- you could be a lazy, mean, uninterested wife and cash in BIG if your husband slips up before divorcing you. (And, of course, the husbands already lose big in divorce and custody settlements.) Just more proof that marriage is more about finances and feathering your nest than anything else.
Hahahaha, I'd like to see the "other women" turn the tables and sue the wifeys for the cost of "services rendered," for all of the sex they provided when the wifeys wouldn't and all of the times they listened and consoled. They should also be reimbursed for the nice clothes they bought to look good for the men, gym memberships, spa trips, hair and nail salons, etc. if the wifeys let themselves go and became fat, unappealing hags. The wifeys could be accused of "alienation of affection" if they don't care enough about their marriages to take reasonable care of themselves and be loving, affectionate partners.
I agree if you can't keep your genitals in your pants, you shouldn't be married. It's not the "other" persons fault. If the married person kept their vows, affairs would never happen in the first place..
Really? Proof? Nah - I think that is a bit of a leap . . .
Sure it is. Otherwise, why not just live together without a "license?"
And the reason marriage came into being way back in the day was to join families/property/wealth. It didn't even become a religious thing (or sacrament in the Christian church) until MUCH later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.