"Alienation of Affection" Laws

[Julius_Seizeher]

In reading through another thread, I saw a reference to a legal statute in South Dakota called "Alienation of Affection" Laws wherein the man who breaks up a marriage can be sued by the original guy.

wtf is this, how can it possibly be legal? Has anybody bothered to take this to the state supreme court in South Dakota?

This is ridiculous, do you realize the absurd premise of this law? It is nothing less than a supposedly legitimate court of law where you can sue somebody for someone else's actions, ie: "My wife banged that guy, I'd better sue him." This is horrible, it makes my blood run cold, do you realize the kind of legal precedents this paves the way for?

In addition to the normal bullsh!t that we've come to expect from the pc/neoliberal/feminazi apparatchik that our courts have become, this takes it to the next putrid level: Not only is a woman never to be held responsible for her own decisions and behavior, but now we are going to place the full responsibility for her decision to cheat on the man she cheated with.

So loud and clear, the message is: women are independent until it comes time to bear the responsibilities that independence requires. This notion of the "independent woman" is a stinking crock of ****e; independence is not a fashion statement, an attitude, or a stoic big city ice queen who could not bear 1 hour of existence as a truly independent, sovereign, self-reliant being.

 

[Jitterbug]

There's no kangaroo in America, but for some reason, you end up with plenty of kangaroo courts and laws.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Julius,
The old crime of enticement is still on the statute books in England,and I whould not be surprised that similar crimes exist in your Older States,particularly Virginia,but South Dakota?

 

[zekko]

I actually don't think the idea of suing a guy for having sex with your wife is all that crazy. I mean, I don't agree with it. But if you look at marriage as a legal contract you make with the government, it's not so far-fetched to say that a guy should bear some responsibility for inerfering with it.

Even if you're a hard core macho chauvinist type and think your wife is your property, then it's like a guy coming onto your property and fvcking your sheep, right?

Of course, the woman should have to bear responsibility too. But most states have non-fault divorces these days, don't they?

So loud and clear, the message is: women are independent until it comes time to bear the responsibilities that independence requires

So true. Like the "It's rape if the girl was drunk/judgement impaired" law.
Seriously, WTF? I could see this if she was practically unconscious. But where are the "I was drunk so I get out of it" laws for men?

 

[sodbuster]

Not sure he made more than the divorce cost him[between attorney fees and what he had to pay in property settlement],but hell; I'd take even.... A law I'd like to see is paternity testing,so we only pay for the kids we fathered. Be hard to get that one through though.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Zecko,
"I actually don't think the idea of suing a guy for having sex with your wife is all that crazy. I mean, I don't agree with it. But if you look at marriage as a legal contract you make with the government, it's not so far-fetched to say that a guy should bear some responsibility for interfering with it."...I don't know if the Hindus aren't right in thinking Reality is a Wheel,or maybe Hitchins is right,Time is starting to run backwards.

 

[Burroughs]

Even if you're a hard core macho chauvinist type and think your wife is your property, then it's like a guy coming onto your property and fvcking your sheep, right?

Yes but sheep are valuable...wool etc.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

"Even if you're a hard core macho chauvinist type and think your wife is your property, then it's like a guy coming onto your property and fvcking your sheep, right?"

And this is the other side of the coin that absolves women of liability: traditional chauvinism.

If we decide that women cannot think for themselves, that their powers of volition are somehow innately compromised, then how could we ever hold them responsible for anything? This "traditional" sense of chauvinism that regards a woman as physical property--is the handmaiden of the excuse that we have allowed them to get away with.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too, boys. It is a basic axiom of existence, first laid out by Aristotle in his Law of Identification: the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.

And in this context, it means that we cannot regard women as mindless property and hold them responsible for their decisions at the same time. We have all seen so much bullsh!t behavior from women that I am more than willing to give up the idea that I "own a woman" in order to hold her responsible and maybe, someday, live on a planet where women do not get blank checks on their existence.

I know I'm not givin' any blank checks to em, anyway.

But you have to ask yourself, why would you ever want to own somebody anyway?

To own something (or someone) is to assume complete and total responsibility for it's condition and actions--and so as long as you "own" a woman, you'll have only yourself to blame if she cheats on you or doesn't love you anymore.

Victorianism isn't dead, it's just mutated to its only possible conclusion: women are free without being responsible and men invest far too much of their self-worth into counterfeit securities: "ownership" of women.

 

[zekko]

"Even if you're a hard core macho chauvinist type and think your wife is your property, then it's like a guy coming onto your property and fvcking your sheep, right?"

And this is the other side of the coin that absolves women of liability: traditional chauvinism.

I don't think you got my point. I did say the woman should bear responsibility. I'm just saying I don't think it's far-fetched to say that the guy should bear some responsibility too.

Now I am definitely not saying I'm in favor of the guy being sued or whatever, but I don't think it's a completely crazy idea that the man in question is guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

I know most of you pickup types want to be able to screw any married woman you want, and put all the blame on her. Maybe men should be accountable for their actions too, no?

Under Islamic law, both the male and female are flogged 100 stripes.

 

[Radharc]

Well, historically in Europe women were considered inferior because they were not seen as being able of acting within reason, of being reliable, of telling and seeing things as they were. Thus they had no political rights, why would you want someone uncapable of clear reasoning calling the shots?

Which makes some sense on account of women being much more prone to act on emotion than on reason, compared to men. Actually, the root of the word "virtue" is quite interesting, it comes from the latin "vir" which means "man". And virtue is virtus, meaning: manliness, excellence, character, worth, courage.
"Virility" comes from the same root. It was all a lot about character and not just physical atributes. It´s also interesting if you consider the expression "a woman keeping her virtue".
Anyways, a lot of times the ancients were more alert to stuff we lost sight of.

 

[Burroughs]

Well, historically in Europe women were considered inferior because they were not seen as being able of acting within reason, of being reliable, of telling and seeing things as they were. Thus they had no political rights, why would you want someone uncapable of clear reasoning calling the shots?

Which makes some sense on account of women being much more prone to act on emotion than on reason, compared to men.

Yes

This is a simple fact that humanity has acted on for 2 million years,...its been ONLY THE LAST 100 YEARS (including the rise of British feminism before its export to the US) that women have been regarded as man's equal.

A huge folly.

And Julius you are correct, there is no OWNERSHIP of women in western society..it is not permitted under law or polite company...

It is as a historical truth and future inevitability that man must rule woman.

But as always we must drink our wine in the present

 

[Zarky]

LOL you guys just don't get enough b1tching about chicks eh?

These types of threads should be locked. They're pathetic. OP is taking a little-used law in one state (only a handful of states have AOA laws and they're almost never used) and using it bash women. Guess what, women can sue mistresses for the same thing, it has no gender bias.

See a shrink.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

I don't think you got my point. I did say the woman should bear responsibility. I'm just saying I don't think it's far-fetched to say that the guy should bear some responsibility too.

Now I am definitely not saying I'm in favor of the guy being sued or whatever, but I don't think it's a completely crazy idea that the man in question is guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

I know most of you pickup types want to be able to screw any married woman you want, and put all the blame on her. Maybe men should be accountable for their actions too, no?

Under Islamic law, both the male and female are flogged 100 stripes.

I'm saying it's a private issue, and it has no business in a court of law.

Do we seriously need the government to assign blame in cases of "who fvcked who"?

But this is the kind of law I would expect from some backwards liberal feminist state like California or New York, for a state like South Dakota to produce trash like this, is offputting.

I suppose you could try to twist the Commerce Clause (as it's already been twisted enough) to include marital infidelity as a breach of contract, but that's too much big brother bullsh!t. I want the government out of my life, and I sure as hell don't want to see men getting sued for engaging in a mutual transaction. It's only a crime if it's a rape, establishing a precedent where men can be sued for having consensual sex is a ridiculous and immoral trespass of the government into our lives.

 

[zekko]

I'm saying it's a private issue, and it has no business in a court of law.

And I agree with you. The less the government is in my life, the better.

But I don't think the idea is a far-fetched as you might think, when you consider that marriage is a legal contract. The government certainly has its hands in that. Especially if there is a divorce, the government decides how the property is divided up. It's definitely not a "private issue" in that case.

 

[sodbuster]

It does have some effect on protecting the "sanctity of marriage"... a guy with money will think twice before tapping married. Like I said, I'd like them to pass a law about DNA testing kids and disallowing child support if they aren't yours. We'd all like to think we are "all alpha,all the time",but a guy can fake it long enough to get in your wife's panties...seen MD's, Business men, etc be cheated on by their wives with the handyman. None took the little darling back,Why would they?[they had women tripping them and beating them to the floor] Hard when kids are involved though.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

LOL you guys just don't get enough b1tching about chicks eh?

These types of threads should be locked. They're pathetic. OP is taking a little-used law in one state (only a handful of states have AOA laws and they're almost never used) and using it bash women. Guess what, women can sue mistresses for the same thing, it has no gender bias.

See a shrink.

Thanks, Snarky.

But you'll have to show me where I "bashed women"? As if the notion of holding women responsible for their behavior (as any legitimate concept of equality would) is somehow "bashing" them...

You also forgot to tell me how bitter I am, you liberal symps are slacking off (but what else is new?).

The notion that the government should decide culpability in any consensual transaction is ridiculous and impossible; in a transaction between two consenting adults, whether it's business or pleasure, how can you point at one of them and say, "That's the one responsible for it." In business contracts you introduce the possibility of fraud or default, for which you would obviously have a criminal and a victim; but in private affairs (like sex), this statute provides a legal precedent for "sexual defraudment" lawsuits, ie: "That guy told me he was a billionaire astronaut, but it turns out to be a lie; therefore, I have been defrauded in a sexual transaction." Ridiculous, and especially something the PUA and MRA movements should pay more attention to.

Hello, it takes two people to screw, so you can't pick and choose which one of them to hold legally responsible for it. It's the same kind of twisted and backwards laws that made the USSR such a utopia of justice in human history. Oh wait...

The issue is a matter of political philosophy, not "women bashing".

 

[zekko]

These types of threads should be locked.

Let there be free speech!

 

[Die Hard]

Look, Julius... It's wrong and everything but who cares about some law used in some small part of the world? Unjust and unfair things happen any day, anywhere but I don't see you writing threads about all of them. Yet, about this one you do...

It seems you feel the need to write about this topic coz it is examplary of a bigger issue, which would be: a general injustice in the world, giving women an unfair advantage over men.

I think that's the underlying issue here, the stupid South Dakotan law merely triggered it for you. THis is just another opportunity for you to say "See? ANOTHER example which proves that women are being given unfair advanteges over men, ANOTHER example of men getting fvcked over to the benefit of women!"

I'm just reaching here, I might be wrong of course. But if this is the case, then I feel I need to tell you: Stop getting so worked up over it!

Yes, women fukk men over! There's new threads being opened here everyday by guys telling stories about bytch doing incredibly unethical things to them! You've experienced it personally, I have too, all of us have.

Each of our individual experiences are examples of injustice on a microlevel, while the more general examples like this law you're talking about are examples of the same injustice on more of a macrolevel. And whenever we hear about examples on the macrolevel, we get reminded of our own personal frustrations at the microlevel. You got nothing to do with that law, you don't live there. You got nothing to do with the men suffering from this law, either. There is no personal interest at play here, which would motivate you to post about this issue and spend energy on it.

Yet you do...coz it reminds you of your personal experiences of injustice.

The way you respond to these examples on the macrolevel says something about the way you respond to your personal experiences on the microlevel. If you get heated up about examples like this law, which do not affect you personally, I can only imagine how you respond to your own personal experiences of injustice by women.

When women fukk you over, you shouldn't get all heated up, you shouldn't get consumed by the "See what this bytch did to me?! It's unfair!! I want retribution!! She should at least admit her injustice or something!! WTF, AAARRRRGGHHH!!! " -attitude.

No, you be unfazed. You be above it. You just NEXT her ass, realize that you're better than her, that you're above her, that you're above whining about it. You got better things to do than let this experience of injustice consume you. Onto the next girl!! Women will be women, you shouldn't allow them to fukk with your emotions. They will if you let them, you've known this for a long time, no more use dwelling about it. Women will fukk you over, they will treat you unfair and everything, no big revelation there. So no use in getting caught up with this TRUTH about women.

Oh look, there's another example of women fukking men over (whether it's a more general example, on the macrolevel, or just some personal field report from some guy, on the microlevel). And another one, and another one, and another one. Come on, let's go search the internet for as much examples as we can and tell each other "See!! It's true!! No can can deny it, there's too much evidence!!"

Nice... But now what are we gonna DO about it??? The DOING starts where the WHINING ends. And the doing should be done on a personal level, everyone of us has to do it for himself. We can come here and cheer each other on, but in the end, each of us simply has to deal with his own love life as best as he can.

Creating threads like these is not a bad thing at all. But given what I just said about each of us individually having to handle his own love life the best he can, why don't you focus on that? If I came across an article about this law, I would not feel any need to post about it on SoSuave. I would just think to myself: "Yep, the world's unfair and women will fukk you over if you let them". And then I would just move on and worry about this 19 year old chick that I'm currently after, who seems interested in me but has a boyfriend and is holding me off... That's what matters to me, that girl and my wish to make her mine. That's my love life at the moment and that's what I should be dealing with. Not some stupid law somewhere in the world...

Again, I have no idea if you should feel addressed by any of the above, Julius. You might be aware of everything I just wrote and not need my opinion at all. Still wanted to put this out there coz if it's of no use to you, I'm sure it will be to some other member reading it

 

[zekko]

Let us not do the feminists work for them by bashing people who point out said anti-male laws. Nor should we bash the MRA's when they are more interested in Men's Rights points as opposed to laying pipe on every girl they see.

Some of us have laid plenty of pipe and are more interested in the bigger picture. Making the world a better place for my Son is one of them.

Well said, Danger.