Some women are just completely oblivious to their husbands cheating on them. I do not know if it is denial or if they legitimately do not know but I cannot tell you the numerous occasions I have been in where men try to check me out or talk to me around their wives. It's insulting to me and their wives.

I worked at a restaurant and I even had a man run back in after seeing his wife to their car and try to talk to me and ask for my number. For what?!

It just becomes worse when I read things like this, "We had a great marriage. He was very affectionate. We have two wonderful children. I mean, this is all a shock to me." I think this woman might have some misconceptions of a good marriage. Especially the children part. Did she really think two adorable children would stop a man from dropping trou for some extramarital activity?

There are also those women who could careless if a man was married or had children. They didn't have to hold those men at gun point just so that they would sleep with them once, twice, or even for years.

Yet another example of how willing we all are to blame men's sexual behavior on women. The husband? HE couldn't help himself, that harlot seduced him! Ick. I can see why it might be easier for a wife whose husband cheats to blame the other woman, but it just perpetuates this patriarchal crap. Besides, how many husbands whose wives cheat solely blame the "other man"? Certainly the majority I know of don't.

Lisa and Gwen: This is absolute hackery. You should be ashamed for posting it. I'm calling you out on this one.

How many posts has this blog done about social frameworks and institutions (of which marriage is one) and yet when this article comes along we're low-roaded to some armchair analysis of two squabbling plebes abetted by an oddly presented male/female dichotomy (again!) and topped off with some legal hucksterism for flavor?

What was surprising/noteworthy here? That the institution of marriage continues to be an inappropriate arrangement for more than half of our adult population? Are we to discuss the implications of a legal structure that reflects an ingrained belief in marriage as a "sacred" one? That a consenting adult is being held legally liable for *consent?*

Nope - none of those conversations are even suggested. Instead, it's "catch the twist at the end!"

Indeed.

For shame, Gwen and Lisa. You're better than this.

My husband and I frequently debate this sort of issue. His point of view is that there is nothing at all wrong with a single person trying to seduce a married person or person in a long-term relationship. He says the single person is not breaking any vows, and if the married person is monogamous and faithful, then nothing will come of it, so no harm no foul. If something does come of it, then the responsibility lies entirely on the married person.

He thinks that if the spouse/partner is angry towards the "interloper", this is wrong, because the spouse is treating their partner like an object in danger of being stolen, and disregarding the fact that the partner has free will and the ability to say no.

I can see his point, but I still disagree. And particularly so when the "interloper" is friends with both spouses/partners. Then I think that an attempt at seducing one is risking the happiness of the other, who is supposedly their friend.

And when a colleague of my husbands (who I barely knew) made a pass at him a while ago (and which he declined), I was angry at her, not at him. (Hey, he turned her down: he did nothing wrong. But by his logic, I shouldn't be angry at either of them.)

I had no idea that alienation of affection is still on the books in some states. It's so... anachronistic, to put it kindly.

I'll make a comment in response to you saying that sleeping with a married man would be a shitty thing to do for the third person:
You understand that it was the husband that broke vows, not the mistress, but a moment before you say it is a shitty thing to do to sleep with a man you know is married.
I disagree with all that. I don't care about marriage and I'm not responsible for vows that other people choose to take. If I want to be intimately involved with a consenting woman who happens to be married, it will be her own problem to deal with her vows, and I'll even be open to helping her deal with that, if I am needed, even as if they were my own vows broken, in cumplicity and partnership, but we can't be bound by everyone else's vows and agree to this social contract to protect "the sanctity of marriage".
To me, marriage is nothing but a way that was invented for men to own women, legally or religiously so that they have both religious and legal authority to help enforce their ownership of the woman they're married to. As classic romantic relationships very often feature some level of oppression, physical if nothing else, on the man's part toward the woman, the "sanctity of marriage" would only amount to further sophistication to this oppressive relationship. That all of society must protect the sanctity of this is something like a "gentleman's agreement", like a trust... Shameful...

The concept of "intentional interference with contractual relations" as well as "inducing breach of contract" are all well known aspects of law. This is no different. Before the original poster cries "boo hoo sexism", perhaps a general knowledge of law would be helpful.

It sounds like the one who's really at fault here is the wife.

Several sources have confirmed that everyone, including (until it was time to sue) the wife, knew the marriage was over. They were separated. They had initiated a divorce.

There is a legal concept called "interference in a contract" which could apply to a single third party who knew they were breaking up a marriage and the wife was unaware. So in the hypothetical ideal test case, where a happily married couple who held an expectation of monogamy as a part of their contract suddenly divorces solely because the husband cheated, the other woman might be considered to be interfering in the legal marriage contract because she knew she was assisting him in violating the terms (ie fidelity) of a contract he signed. Of course, the ex wife should then have to prove a) the marriage was not headed for dissolution before the affair (pretty damn unlikely), b) the other woman knew about the marriage and knew she was interfering in the contract, and c) the other woman knew there was an expectation of fidelity within the relationship, and wasn't misinformed by the husband that it was an open marriage. Even in the hypothetical test case, I can't really foresee a scenario where that would work except in a case of a woman deliberately and maliciously breaking up a marriage. That can't happen too often.

However, in this case, where the marriage was basically dissolved prior to the extramarital relationship, he may have violated his marriage contract but it wasn't because of her and she should absolutely not be held responsible.

In any case, $9 million is absurd.

"Alienation of affection" is goddamned ridiculous and archaic, I can't believe people still consider this suit-worthy. I don't support mistresses, but this is such an absurdly regressive situation.

Too bad there's so much legal analysis and rhetorical gymnastics about how one might justify boinking whoever they want (married or not) and no mention of such laughably-obsolete concepts as integrity, honor, and respect. What about making and keeping your word? And if we so choose, along with keeping our word we can honor and respect other people's commitments by refusing to get involved with anyone in a committed relationship that's ostensibly monogamous. People who have that kind of integrity and respect make much better quality friends and associates (and lovers) than those who don't, plus there's the added benefit of considerably less personal drama to deal with when lies come back around (and they always do).

These issues only exist (just like with marriage itself) because most people are emotionally immature to the point of solipsism. Conscious and thoughtful empathy combined with a modicum of honesty and integrity would make all of this moot, and the dog-and-pony show known as "marriage" would become pointless (plus it would put Jerry Springer out of business!).

While I agree with the general thrust of this guest post, I think by how Ms Hartmann used terminology that inadvertently reinforced the attitudes she was criticizing.

First, can we purge our dialogue on marriage and monogamy of the word "mistress"? It's inherently sexist (hence no commonly-used male equivalent), a fundamentally degrading scarlet-letter that negatively defines a woman's public identity purely as an object of the man with whom she has sex. The word is loaded with connotations of moral judgment, and erases a woman's humanity purely on the basis of a personal choice that's none of our business.

Next, can we give a second thought to this knee-jerk impulse to brand every act of extramarital sex as "cheating"? In doing so, we perpetuate the myth that monogamy is the default and natural state for all marriages and relationships, and we overattribute the failure of a relationship to a genital transgression when it's clearly the emotional context of that act that was responsible.

Both notions seem really counterproductive to me, but the latter seems particularly naive. If your partner's affection is alienated by feelings for another that he/she doesn't act upon sexually ("cheat") , are those feelings magically less hurtful? Does violating one agreement you made of your genitalia 32 years ago morally negate all the behavior of your supposedly-monogamous partner which may have contributed to the conflict. And most importantly, is it really in our culture's and judicial systems' best interest to police the supposed psychosexual "norms" that few people manage to adhere to, or to hold any individual accountable when a relationship - a far more delicate and complex thing than any contract could possibly account for - simply doesn't last until death?

These topics come up alot between my partner and me, as we are happily married and also polyamorous. We chose each other as companions, rather than as property, and each accept full responsibility for honestly, openly affirming and discussing our commitments to each other and to any others whom we love. Like any other marriage, its shape changes over the years, its boundaries shift, and it requires constant and mutual effort to sustain, but it remains the most fulfilling and wonderful part of my life regardless of who sticks what into whom. Unfortunately, though, I think the way frame marital commitments as a culture makes it really difficult for much of our community to appreciate that our partnership is as valid and meaningful as any other. We're accustomed to hearing constant, damning reports of celebrity infidelities and consuming thousands of pop narratives about the moral imperative of monogamy but are almost never shown how many other variations or interpretations of commitment exist. Mainstream culture has utterly failed to acknowledge these alternatives in any meaningful way, writing the real diversity of relationships out of the narrative and replacing it with sordid, life-destroying morality parables like the one Jezebel and SocImages are inadvertently helping propagate here.

If you are not one of those rare people who wants to try out more than one person in a lifetime, don’t spend years swearing up and down that you totally really are.

Er, that is, "If you are not one of those rare people who doesn't want to try out more than one person in a lifetime"

I'm not a fan of "alienation of affections" as a tort, but I've got to vehemently disagree with the moral viewpoint expressed in this point. If you're a participant in helping someone else's spouse cheat, and the relationship fails, you absolutely deserve some of the blame for the failure of the relationship.

Sure, people whose relationships are going spectacularly well generally don't cheat, or so I hope, but when you have an affair with someone else's spouse you're taking someone else's bad situation and making it worse. You're actively participating in making it much harder for their marriage to improve, as well as helping to ensure that the breakup, if and when it comes, will be nastier than it would have been otherwise.

Of course, this is all a set of broad generalizations that doesn't describe every possible set of circumstances, just like everything else we can say about human behavior and social interactions. But I absolutely cannot agree with this post's viewpoint that someone who's been cheated on shouldn't attach any blame to the cheater's "accomplice."

That's a lot of pressure put on people to conform to a norm that I really don't think we were built for. I think there's a reason marriage is considered a religious institution: It's a way of controlling people via societal pressure.

And this also brings into question the question about what is 'cheating'. I would be upset if the person I loved had sexual intercourse with another person one time and never had contact with them again. I think I would be more upset if the person I loved spent all their free time with another person to the exclusion of spending time with me. Granted, these are two extremes and most infidelities lie somewhere in the middle, but it does question what is more morally wrong. I would argue the latter example is worse infidelity, and the only reason the first is actionable on is due to screwy societal more about sex. There are probably rational reasons for it (pregnancy, assurance of parental lineage, transmission of disease), but there doesn't seem to be any moral reason.

I had to do a lot of research on NC divorce law recently. And so, I'd note:

1. The source of the post indicates that the wife was awarded $5,000 per month in alimony. NC has compulsory alimony for adulterers. Very weird and archaic, but the husband was a lawyer. He knew he could be held financially responsible for adultery, and he was. So the mistress is not being held solely responsible.

2. The source also indicates that alienation of affection suits are uncommon, but only because defendants aren't worth suing. Having an affair with a married person in NC means you risk civil liability. It was a jury verdict, y'all. The defendant could have settled.

3. Of the three parties here, the wife is the weakest one. The patriarchy makes it so, which is why (to my mind) the law usually isn't on her side. This once, she is able to recoup economic damages inflicted intentionally upon her by the other two stronger parties. Symbolically recoup, anyway. The defendant mistress will declare bankruptcy and never pay a dime.

And the husband's self-serving blather about how the marriage had been over since it began doesn't explain why he waited 33 years to leave. NC allows divorce after a year of separation, no muss, no fuss. He was getting plenty of benefits out of the marriage.

Yeah, all this suing and alimony is evidence of and probably perpetuates the patriarchy. But the victims have the fewest options; it's deeply unfair to criticize them for participating in a system that offers them only bad choices.

If you had to live underwater for 2 years, what would you be and why?

You know... Marriage is the worst thing to happen to a relationship.

I read through these posts and it seems a lot of people assume marriage should protect their relationship. So much so, that anything bad that happens must be the fault of an outsider. Like an alarm system, anything that comes in is an unwelcome intruder.

I often tell people when they ask why my boyfriend of 10 years and I never got married, because we don't ever want to be lazy in our relationship. I know he can leave at a moments notice. No messy courts, no expensive divorce. He packs his stuff and goes and I have little recourse (I like in a non-common law state. Most people do, they just don't know it).

Every day I work at our relationship. I am always aware of the fragility of love. I don't have any security blanket of a marriage certificate to fall on. But, I also never doubt his love for me. He could leave, easy!

And sex? Meh. We both know it isn't what a relationship is about. If he finds someone that he can enjoy having sex with, awesome. Same for me. But we spend our lives together, the truly important parts of it. Not just the sex, but the excitement of buying a new house, the relaxation of a vacation, the tears at a lost loved one.

Too many people think marriage means a lot more than it really does. And, many of those people get lazy once that certificate is signed. I guarantee everyone here who was slept with a married person (or the married persons that sought comfort elsewhere) was aware that the spouse was unhappy at something in the relationship. No one in a perfectly happy, wonderful relationship seeks to break that contract unless their needs aren't fully met. Even if that need is simply, "I enjoy that first kiss with someone, or the thrill of making love to someone for the first time" - a need that will never be met inside of a closed marriage.

Personally, I blame the conscious effort our society makes to ignore basic human behavior.

I happened upon this forum researching people's experiences with infidelity. I just had to say kudos to all of you. I have not seen more philosophically provoking and enlightened exchanges on any other forum. I am having a relationship with a married man, and battle these opposing views within my own psyche. A thinking person knows the institution of marriage is loaded with contadictions, romanticized notions, and patriarchal roots. The heart, the egos of those involved, however are front and center when this happens and create all sorts of emotions. Bottom line is that this ruling is sexist, and does simply blame the woman. It does not benefit the wife in this case, or women in general to have financial restitution paid to the wife, or "wronged" spouse. No matter what your moral opinion is on this issue. Be adults and deal with the fall out. Getting courts involved for this is criminal in and of itself. Just my two cents.

If you know that you are not ready to be committed to one person for the rest of your life, for better or for worse DONT GET MARRIED. Its as simple as that. All of the money and time spent, the devastating effects divorce will have on you, your spouse, your children and family members is not worth it. Just stay single and mingle. Instead of deceiving someone into making life changing decisions and entering into a marriage you know in your heart is going to fail because you know you're not ready! Who knows you better than YOU? Honesty is the best policy.Stop blaming society and take a good look in the mirror. Save the tax payer some money because when you divorce your spouse & leave your children they'll probably have to file for assistance and stop wasting the courts time with this crap. The court is not here to play mommy and clean up your crap when you make a mess of your life. Accept responsibility for your own actions and decisions. That's what being an adult is all about.