SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Just my random thoughts....

We legislate morality everyday and prosecute immorality everyday. Sexual abuse, incest, prostitution, drug use, theft, assault, battery, DUI, and so on are moral issues that society has decided to punish.

I agree, and excellent logic, Lovedumore.

Also, marriage is an implied contract which is licensed by the state, between a man and women. So that put's it into the realm of a contractual agreement, not just a moral issue.

As the former prosecuter likely knows, courts have upheld implied contracts, if their are enough people to bear witness to it.

What other willing action literally decimates coffers and is ignored because it is too common? Will the day come when date rape is too common and too much a morality call to bother with? Who said yes, who said no, who waited too long to tell? Just legislating morality?

Exactly.

An AP can come along, insert themselves in your private life, take your spouse, run through your money, break your mind and soul, cause great fear, and ruin your life, yet, you cannot even make a phone call telling them to stay away without fear of being prosecuted for harassment.

Yes, this is so true. You read about this often where the betrayed spouse contacts the OW to tell her to back off, and then the OW tries to turn the tables by going to the police to claim harrassment against a faithful spouse who simply contacts them to get the facts or tell them to stay away from their family.

Your WS can lie, libel you, take your savings, ruin your retirement, abuse you emotionally, change your children's destiny, ruin the safety of your children,

Agreed, again, at the very least there is theft of marital assets involved and a breach of implied marital contract. These issues appear to be being ignored by divorce courts today.

Not only are we not punishing Infidelity, our society has aided the proliferation of A's as well as told the BS "you are the problem". States and courts have made those left behind after an A a very low priority.

As others have mentioned, this is likely because so many men in power who legislate are themselves guilty of cheating. So why would they want it to be prosecutable.

In the past, when people who cheated were publicly shamed and the laws were stricter, there was less cheating.

Less cheating will unclog the courts by reducing the number of divorces or injunctions for protection, that need to issued due to cheating.

Also, how many wives have been killed, wounded or injured by a bunny boiler OW?

How many reconciliations ruined becaused a dismissed OW continues to stalk the affair partner and/or the affair partner's wife.

I am presently being stalked by the OW. She is clever and knows how to skirt the law just enough to avoid any type of charge being filed against her.

She drives past my home. She parks in front of my car. She walks past my home, and because she is on a public street, there is absolutely nothing I can do.

She also continually calls from spoofed numbers, or using other people to stalk by proxy to make upsetting comments from unknown numbers.

[This message edited by seethelight at 1:45 PM, July 22nd (Tuesday)]

The cost burden on society due to infidelity is astounding. Societal entities such as non profits, the government, families, friends, and churches have to step up to cover the decline in income and housing faced by mothers, fathers, and children after the family is destroyed.

I would argue changing the word, infidelity, with, separation and/or divorce, is more accurate in this sentence. The cost burden from families does not happen until the family's living arrangements change and that happens from all instances of divorce and/or separation.

I believe something needs to be done to deter these adulterers. I don't have the answer but feel there should be civil penalties and fines at the very least that the betrayed has the option to leverage during a D.

I would like to see us faithful folks be able to criminally charge our spouses and have it become public knowledge which would show up on background checks and be divulged to employers. And this would have to be divulged and emphasized as part of the marriage license process. And we should be able to name their APs in our charges so they are publicly exposed at least. Again this needs to be widely known about and prosecuted so it acts as a deterrent.

I contracted 2 incurable stds thanks to the cheating and feel that I have been physically assaulted.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^YES!!! THIS!!!

I believe the BS should have the right to have this pkaced on the WS and AP record somehow.

You wouldn't need jails as its civil not criminal

Just my random thoughts....

We legislate morality everyday and prosecute immorality everyday. Sexual abuse, incest, prostitution, drug use, theft, assault, battery, DUI, and so on are moral issues that society has decided to punish.

The cost burden on society due to infidelity is astounding. Societal entities such as non profits, the government, families, friends, and churches have to step up to cover the decline in income and housing faced by mothers, fathers, and children after the family is destroyed. The entire "family" economy is wrecked by affairs and infidelity. Work place A's drag down productivity and cost businesses in actual dollars and general low morale after an A. What other willing action literally decimates coffers and is ignored because it is too common? Will the day come when date rape is too common and too much a morality call to bother with? Who said yes, who said no, who waited too long to tell? Just legislating morality? We may already be on that edge. God, I hope not.

An AP can come along, insert themselves in your private life, take your spouse, run through your money, break your mind and soul, cause great fear, and ruin your life, yet, you cannot even make a phone call telling them to stay away without fear of being prosecuted for harassment.

Your WS can lie, libel you, take your savings, ruin your retirement, abuse you emotionally, change your children's destiny, ruin the safety of your children, and leave you a hollow shell. Sometimes they get R. Sometimes they get a new shiny wife and you get a very weak divorce settlement.

Not only are we not punishing Infidelity, our society has aided the proliferation of A's as well as told the BS "you are the problem". States and courts have made those left behind after an A a very low priority.

The problem is that the fundamentals of many of the above mentioned offenses - Sexual abuse, incest, prostitution, drug use, theft, assault, battery, DUI - are all viewed universally the same. Infidelity revolves around relationships and the definition of what those are suddenly becomes a lot more important when they have legal boundaries.

To make this universally acceptable the same ways theft or assault are means everyone must universally agree on who is who. That means everyone in the country in question must universally accept that a Marriage is not a religious institution but a secular one, and must universally accept secular definitions that encompass every citizen for them to apply.

The fact that this is not currently the case in many countries and is unlikely to be any time soon means the government has now legally defined not only what a relationship is, but which relationships can be legally mediated - unless, as I said, it is universally accepted that all relationships are legally recognized in the marital sense.

If that is not the case then one of two things happen - either the depth of mental abuse is now codified and socially accepted in varying degrees: Sally's CSA experience was only a Class IV Minor Fondling, she should be over it by now, it's not like she was on the same scale as Rodney's Class I Anal Rape; OR, there is a reinforcement of who are and are not categorized as equal citizens all sharing equal rights by the law, further entrenching certain groups as secondary and less worthy of legal protection and attention.

Further, many of the laws already in place for the stated morality are seen by a great many as excessive and problematic. The cost and burden to society for what amounts to in many cases completely ineffective and often entirely out of proportion punishments is well documented and easily accessed.

I am not saying that infidelity doesn't inflict massive damage and carry a huge toll. Those are obvious, I've been there first hand.

Introducing legislature that addresses the crime without addressing the framework on which is hangs will only cause more damage. The institution itself needs fixing before it can be clearly and cleanly defended properly.

Also, the idea that punishments are somehow a deterrent to criminal activity is questionable at the very least. It's not something that can be tested because it would require nothing short of wide-range mind reading to verify the choices behind would-be criminal activity. Even in Minority Report that didn't work out very well.

People should be better protected from the damage caused by this shit. Things like alimony should not ever be awarded in an infidelity case. Infidelity should be a consideration when it comes to custody or division of property, and it should weigh heavily on legal battles when it comes to restraining orders, harassment and the like. Just slapping fines or 8 weeks of jail time on people isn't going to do that.

eta:

Additionally:

As others have mentioned, this is likely because so many men in power who legislate are themselves guilty of cheating. So why would they want it to be prosecutable.

This is a major issue as well. Entrenched ideas like this slant it to a gender problem. You have identified this as a problem not only with people in power, but specifically men. The repercussions of basing legislation on an idea like this would be devastating. Things like lifetime alimony awards are borne out of thoughts like this. There are a few BH's around here who can relay what lifetime alimony feels like.

Because not only does basing laws off of anger not effectively deal with a problem as a whole, it conveniently overlooks the fact that people who are innocent suffer these effects also. Lifetime alimony was instituted for (incredibly stupid and brainfuckingdead) reasons dating back to anachronistic ideals that never actually existed anywhere outside the imaginations of a few as to what the average family unit was. It's 2014 and it's still around in some places, and the only guys who really pay it regularly are the honest ones. Guess who probably didn't cheat in that relationship?

In the past, when people who cheated were publicly shamed and the laws were stricter, there was less cheating.

No, they weren't, no there weren't, and no there wasn't. This is an unfortunate non-reality like the wild west and Santa pre 1950s.

People have always cheated. before this modern era you would have no say whatsoever in it because you're a woman. In the past you'd have been shit out of luck because unless you were wealthy enough or important enough to piss off other wealthy and important men in your family, you were someone with no rights and easily dismissed.

Looking backwards is the LAST thing we should do.

[This message edited by StillGoing at 7:33 PM, July 22nd (Tuesday)]

Simply put....I think infidelity should a matter for the courts. Today we have no fault which just gives the OK to wound and break a heart. Infidelity goes far past that my friends. It lends promise to financial siphoning to prepare an exit. It is mental and emotional anquish of the worse kind. We have laws that protect the WS as a person seeking freedom from an abusive relationship but that is not always the case and shouldn't hold water unless proven.

I am sure that i am not the only person here that if given ten minutes in a room with OP may go a little overboard. Hell, i would give up any settlement for the pleasure. And although our intention may not be to cause serious physical harm. The wrong words spoken may lead to just that. Like many others have found out that in some ways they bank rolled the A without knowledge of the seedy happenings.

Well i tell you my friends that i want a refund. Then we can talk about the pain and suffering. It may not end the sad A but it wouls at least put something in my pocket.....for the next worthy love.

They exposed me to STD's. I think that should be actionable in my opinion.

[This message edited by scared&stronger at 9:00 PM, July 22nd (Tuesday)]

At the very least, an affair partner should have to reimburse her/his part of monies spent from marital funds. I've always thought that.

Seethelight so sorry you are going through that.

Y

es, this is so true. You read about this often where the betrayed spouse contacts the OW to tell her to back off, and then the OW tries to turn the tables by going to the police to claim harassment against a faithful spouse who simply contacts them to get the facts or tell them to stay away from their family.

That always gets me hissing like a cat. Sure, they can insert themselves into your marriage and cause mental anguish, stress, and all the damage that has been discussed. But, all be damned if we are allowed to simply tell them to fu!k off without being threatened with harassment. I confronted my M's OW in her work environment (where the A started and was conducted) and was banned from the store.

lol- now I know where to focus all my angst ridden hours when they come.

Equal rights for BS's. Bet, my fWH never saw that as a consequence either. Real life Roseanne Barr She-Devil shit.

Anyway, like I said...nothing is set up for it so BS's have taken it into their own hands and now there are revenge sites. So sad that it came to that.

[This message edited by hopefulmother at 11:21 PM, July 22nd (Tuesday)]

@ still going

your post is well thought out but i disagree.

not everyone does have the same sense of right and wrong nor does everyone have to agree with what is legally acceptable and what is not.

an easy example is marijuana. many believe its no big deal. others believe its a serious problem. yet, no matter what anyone believes their state has laws that must be obeyed. the federal government also has laws that must be obeyed regardless of a given opinion of said law. however, if a solid majority have a given opinion than there is a distinct possibility that their wishes become "the law".

"the law" is nothing more or less than an attempt to legislate morality. those involved in the banking crisis didnt think they were doing anything wrong. yet everyone paid a price for their actions. neh? the average person out there doesnt comprehend exactly what happened or why much less being capable of explaining it. yet, we now have laws in place to prevent such from occuring again (in theory).

you believe that punishment for crimes as a deterrent is questionable at best. again, every single code in the us criminal law outlines crimes, punishments, etc that are designed to be deterrents. drive drunk and lose your license. kill someone and go to jail. etc, etc. those are deterrents. they dont work perfectly BUT they definitely work better than a "mad max" type of world (with no laws, no deterrents, etc) where anarchy rules with predictable results.

since adultry wouldnt be punished by jail terms there is no need to increase our cottage industry of jails.

there is is no need to codify who is and who isnt legally included. leave that up to the people getting married. if they check box A then adultry is legally a crime adn they both agree to that. check box B and it isnt. that solves the problems for "open marriages" and other non traditional marriages.

but check box A and commit adultry later would be illegal and the proof level required for conviction could be (perhaps) beyond a reasonable doubt rather than some higher bar. get convicted and you must get tattooed with the A (no personalization allowed, must follow "the template") with 30 days and return to court with the certification from the tattooist and to show the tattoo. perhaps, with good behavior one could have the tattoo removed after 5 years and another court appearance. commit the crime again and get a permanent "A" ... maybe with a "star" symbol next to it to symbolize multiple offender.

id imagine that it might be interesting to hear the discussion over which box to check between a couple as they prepare to marry (hey honey, do box b. i dont plan to cheat but ...).

i dont believe that we should punish the affair partner. what they did is wrong. yes. however ... they are NOT the one that entered into marriage and then betrayed their vows. the one that did is the one that should be punished.

adultry SHOULD be a major factor in determining alimony, custody, fault, etc in a divorce. its not because the courts dont want to be involved in who is right and wrong, they just want to get it done and over with. but if they viewed marriage as a contract with adultry being breach of contract then it would be relatively simple to ask "do you have proof of adultry and if so please submit it..." to the proceedings.

the "you cant legislate morality" is a refrain thats become popular because people think judging others is wrong. its not. judging is nothing more than judgement. judgement is "the ability to make considered decisions or to come to sensible conclusions". i use judgement in every facet of my life. i buy a car after reviewing information on it and other cars. i buy food based upon its taste, how healthy it is, how much it costs, etc. all of those are judgements. i judge.

i also judge people. leaning over and hitting a small child in the face because its screaming is wrong. driving your car at full speed down the sidewalk is wrong. standing up so a handicapped passenger can sit in your seat is the right thing to do.

the fact that society is scared to make these judgements is partly why our society has these problems.

The OW in my situation knew she had an STD, never told my fwh. Now I also have it. I'm sorry...but I believe that should be a prosecutable offense. This person also purposefully sought out an A with a man she knew to be married...therefore messing with a legal contract. I could go on and on with laws the OW skirted around...but you get the point.

There needs to be SOME consequences to these lowlifes. There is talk in the news daily about how other things are "undermining marriage" , but this is always left in the dark in those conversations.

I would like to see us faithful folks be able to criminally charge our spouses and have it become public knowledge which would show up on background checks and be divulged to employers. And this would have to be divulged and emphasized as part of the marriage license process. And we should be able to name their APs in our charges so they are publicly exposed at least. Again this needs to be widely known about and prosecuted so it acts as a deterrent.

I agree.

My husband is hiding his affair from clients and family.

My husband needs to project an honest image for his work, and he always liked to project an honest image of himself to people. In fact, even in our social life, it was very important to him that other wives saw him as a good husband and nice guy.

He is not.

He would lie to the other wives about the way he treated me in the marriage, but the reality is that he was not a very nice husband.

It is so emotionally harmful to me to have to pretend along with him and his delusion of himself.

I really wish there was some way I would be force to expose him and his affair partner.

I do seriously think that if some of his clients learned of his affair, they would no longer be his clients. Trust and honesty are important elements of his relationship with his clients.

Sadly, I do think he was more honest and trustworthy with his clients than he was with me, and that really hurts.

No, they weren't, no there weren't, and no there wasn't. This is an unfortunate non-reality like the wild west and Santa pre 1950s.

People have always cheated. before this modern era you would have no say whatsoever in it because you're a woman. In the past you'd have been shit out of luck because unless you were wealthy enough or important enough to piss off other wealthy and important men in your family, you were someone with no rights and easily dismissed.

Stillgoing:

Actually, if you do a simple google search for infidelity studies, you will easily see that although women are starting to cheat at the same rate as men, the rate of men cheating is higher, still.

Also, you will see that high status, powerful men are more likely to cheat.

Yes, high status powerful women are catching up, but studies still show that powerful men as of today, still cheat at a slightly higher rate.

In the end I have no gender bias, My thoughts apply to both men and women to cheat. I only mentioned men because I am a women and my husband is male.

But, the men have to find someone to cheat with, right, and if the man is heterosexual that would be a women.

So there is no gender bias in my mind, despite the studies. Sorry if it was worded that way.

It seems to me that most "legal" punishments for the WS and/or AP would also hurt the BS (and children), especially if the BS was going to reconcile with the WS.

I wouldn't want to walk around with a spouse with an "A" tattoo. How humiliating for the whole family. Children would and could be teased. Ways in which the WS would be financially hurt, hurts the BS and children.

the idea that punishments are somehow a deterrent to criminal activity is questionable at the very least.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The countries that impose the death penalty on adulterers, if caught, still have people committing adultery. The number one lie most Wayward's tell themselves is "I am not going to be caught."

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 10:31 AM, July 23rd (Wednesday)]

I am pretty sure that studies have found that the severity of the punishment is not the deterrent to crime – probability of being caught is the deterrent.

Because of the basic dishonesty in many of the people who knowingly make choices to cheat, I feel that they would be influenced by a law only if the probability of being caught and prosecuted was very high.

On the other hand, who would want a marriage in which your spouse stayed faithful to you only because he/she did not want to go to jail?

[This message edited by WhatsRight at 10:34 AM, July 23rd (Wednesday)]

an easy example is marijuana. many believe its no big deal. others believe its a serious problem. yet, no matter what anyone believes their state has laws that must be obeyed. the federal government also has laws that must be obeyed regardless of a given opinion of said law. however, if a solid majority have a given opinion than there is a distinct possibility that their wishes become "the law".

This is very much not the case and should not be. What happens when a majority voice is the rule of law is a codified mob rule. There is the very real likelihood that the wishes of the majority are not parallel to the best interests of everyone.

"the law" is nothing more or less than an attempt to legislate morality. those involved in the banking crisis didnt think they were doing anything wrong. yet everyone paid a price for their actions. neh? the average person out there doesnt comprehend exactly what happened or why much less being capable of explaining it. yet, we now have laws in place to prevent such from occuring again (in theory).

Laws are not morality in the sense that they define personal measures of right and wrong - they are rules for governing society. They are only right and wrong in the sense of consequences.

Not everyone paid the price for that incident at all. In fact very, very few people responsible for causing those issues appear to have suffered much if at all and there's not much in place to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Some people got slapped on the wrist, some companies were dissolved, but people who got rich from it are still rich.

you believe that punishment for crimes as a deterrent is questionable at best. again, every single code in the us criminal law outlines crimes, punishments, etc that are designed to be deterrents. drive drunk and lose your license. kill someone and go to jail. etc, etc. those are deterrents. they dont work perfectly BUT they definitely work better than a "mad max" type of world (with no laws, no deterrents, etc) where anarchy rules with predictable results.

This is a false dichotomy. it isn't either/or. It isn't Shitty, Fucked-Up, Ineffective And Useless Laws or No Laws At All.

Originally the legal system was designed with the aim of protecting citizens as the priority over punishing criminals. The whole argument against debtors prisons was a well defined example of what happens when a legal system is designed to punish.

The same argument for not working perfectly but better than nothing can be applied to any system in relation to an inferior system. Fascism is better than Cannibalitic Theocracy in certain respects but that doesn't make an argument for the state establishment of genocide an acceptable one. Flaws in a system are flaws, period.

Let me make it clear again: I am not arguing that infidelity should be ignored by the legal system. I am arguing against the idea of slapping fines and jail time on it. Someone back there got an STD. How would a fine of 500 bucks and a year of jail time for the OP or WS help that? Rather than setting a goal of retaliation and punishment, enforcement of reparation and rehabilitation - enforcing the medical bills be paid by the offender, even if wages must be garnished to do so - that nets a benefit. It can be seen as punishment but what it ends up being in reality is enforcing responsibility.

People think about their actions when they have no choice to be responsible for them. They think about gaming the system when they see an array of consequences and how they can min/max the benefits and risks.

since adultry wouldnt be punished by jail terms there is no need to increase our cottage industry of jails.

Wouldn't it? How do you know it wouldn't? Look at how many people are in or have been in jail for possession of less than an ounce of pot. This is a pandoras box. You have no idea what route that will take. Yes, it would be nice if things worked at an idealistic level but if they did, we would be better off aiming for the idealistic framework. Otherwise we end up with the Augustine reforms, sewing cheaters together, tying them in sacks and dumping them in the Rubicon. Which sounds all well and good to some folks until you get into the legal details of what infidelity consisted of and that it wasn't cheating if you were fucking a non-citizen, or this, or that. The legal system is even more complex now.

there is is no need to codify who is and who isnt legally included. leave that up to the people getting married. if they check box A then adultry is legally a crime adn they both agree to that. check box B and it isnt. that solves the problems for "open marriages" and other non traditional marriages.

That's not how it works at all. People can't get married legally in certain states unless they meet certain criteria. Every non-heterosexual relationship in the United States on this site is excluded from any laws you make, for example, unless they happen to get involved with a legally married couple in an infidelity situation - and the BS in the legally married couple may be able to sue, but not the BS in the other relationship.

If it were as simple as checking boxes it wouldn't be a massive issue already in regards to other issues like insurance, inheritance, etc.

i dont believe that we should punish the affair partner. what they did is wrong. yes. however ... they are NOT the one that entered into marriage and then betrayed their vows. the one that did is the one that should be punished.

So in my situation where the AP was unmarried and I chose to R with my wife, the only person legally punishable according to your concept would be my wife, rendering me helpless to take action against the OM legally anyway.

Further, I completely and totally disagree with your position on who is culpable. The OM is equally culpable to the invasion of my life. If I wandered in and fucked your wife, knowing she was married, that responsibility isn't suddenly abrogated because I didn't explicitly say "I won't fuck your wife." The social contracts you are talking about are public. That means anyone involving themselves in a relationship with a married individual is well aware of what they are doing (unless they've been lied to and extricate themselves on discovery of truth, which does happen) - in legalistic terms just because one owner of a lot invites me to come and chop down all the trees there doesn't give me the legal right to do so, if there are other owners who are unaware of the deal with no legal contracts signed, etc.

adultry SHOULD be a major factor in determining alimony, custody, fault, etc in a divorce. its not because the courts dont want to be involved in who is right and wrong, they just want to get it done and over with. but if they viewed marriage as a contract with adultry being breach of contract then it would be relatively simple to ask "do you have proof of adultry and if so please submit it..." to the proceedings.

I agree, though I think I already said this.

the "you cant legislate morality" is a refrain thats become popular because people think judging others is wrong. its not. judging is nothing more than judgement. judgement is "the ability to make considered decisions or to come to sensible conclusions". i use judgement in every facet of my life. i buy a car after reviewing information on it and other cars. i buy food based upon its taste, how healthy it is, how much it costs, etc. all of those are judgements. i judge.

No, it is not. It is a phrase used to put a stop to enforcing morality. It is precisely because defining marriage in a specific way means others are forced to be excluded.

Judgements are decisions made based upon available information, and often only done so in the self-interest of selected parties. You may judge a food choice reasonable on its health benefits, someone else may judge a food choice on its connections to the color Red and the implications of that on their internal logic, whether it has to do with faith or the study of vegetables.

There are plenty of people in history that thought it was a reasonable decision to use other humans as cheap labor. Those judgements were not in the best interests of all involved.

the fact that society is scared to make these judgements is partly why our society has these problems.

I disagree. Our society is happy to make these judgements. They just never end up the way people want them to.

Stillgoing:

Actually, if you do a simple google search for infidelity studies, you will easily see that although women are starting to cheat at the same rate as men, the rate of men cheating is higher, still.

There are a lot of studies and if we want to pick and choose we can cheerfully build a case for anything we want.

The reality is that unless men have been fucking each other for the last 10,000 years then the rate of infidelity is roughly equal between genders and the explanation for shitty study numbers is the failure to accommodate the fact that people lie. We're all of us here familiar with how well and often people lie.

Also, you will see that high status, powerful men are more likely to cheat.

Maybe, but the correlation is not the causation. Powerful people tend to lack empathy for others. Lack of empathy is found across the socioeconomic spectrum. Wealthy men have options to cheat. Bored, poor housewives have few options for entertainment. So while their hard working husbands are out in the mines for 11 hours a day, Mrs Robinwhore is fucking the neighbor because she has nothing else to do.

The insulting nature of that gender generalization is meant to be illustrative, not rational. I don't think of women that way any more than I think just because a powerful individual is going to cheat because he has a cock instead of a pussy.

Yes, high status powerful women are catching up, but studies still show that powerful men as of today, still cheat at a slightly higher rate.

In the end I have no gender bias, My thoughts apply to both men and women to cheat. I only mentioned men because I am a women and my husband is male.

But, the men have to find someone to cheat with, right, and if the man is heterosexual that would be a women.

So there is no gender bias in my mind, despite the studies. Sorry if it was worded that way.

I apologize for saying that then. The studies you're talking about are factually wrong, and I can probably demonstrate with elaborate diagrams how they're wrong, but the truth is most commonly accepted wisdom like this traces back to a handful of fabricated or misunderstood statements.

Women 'catching up' - if there is a study that somehow managed to account for every possible variable and come out somewhere in the range of remotely related to a real number - would be more in line with the fact that it is only recently that women have been considered Actual Human Beings because In The Good Old Days women stayed home, fucked their husbands, popped out kids and cooked meatloaf. Some of them anyway. Most of them suffered the same shit women do today, just with little or no legal recourse to follow. Which has caused additional problems as the legal system has rubber banded the other direction trying to accommodate that.

IOW, for every 6 billion dollar CEO out there that doesn't have a penis attached, there are about ten thousand more who do. If you think about that ratio, the % rate of powerful women against powerful men broken down equally would skew it to a near certainty that a woman that gained the same measure of power is almost certain to cheat.

I don't believe that either.

Again, I am not saying infidelity should be ignored. I am saying there are better ways of dealing with it legally.

On the other hand, who would want a marriage in which your spouse stayed faithful to you only because he/she did not want to go to jail?

Well, good point.

Still, one of the reasons my husband said he cheated was because he met the OW, and she was easy and eager, and available.

I read the emails and texts. She was not only easy eager and available, she suggested the affair, and when he tried to back off, she started sending porn videos of herself.

If there were more serious consequences to cheating less people would make themselves so available.

Because the OW feared no consequence, and pushed for an affair and my husband eagerly too the sexual bait, my life, has been turned upside down.

Perhaps there could be some prosecution for her sending the porn video over the internet.

Right now my young children have been protected form the turmoil by me.

But, If I should choose to divorce, it will bring some turmoil.

Right now there is absolutely no consequence for a cheater.

Even the divorce settlement seems to be unfair. Even the fact that I have agreed to reconcile, seems to show a lack of consequence, IMO.

IMO, in a divorce due to betryal, the faithful spouse should get all the assets because they did not choose to break their implied contract.

The cheating spouse ALWAYS had the option of doing the right thing and divorcing prior to dating, but they chose not to.

My husband claims he did not choose divorce because he did not want one. He just wanted sexually variety and when it was shoved in his face, he was too weak to turn it down.