child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 All of this "law talk" going on around here, got me thinking...(oh no)... what law could an OW use to sue a MM who lied to her about being married? Has anyone ever heard of such a case? I think this should be explored as well. Maybe it could expand into lying in general. Some OW's are lied to and hand walked into an emotional prison the size of Texas. In another thread, someone mentioned "cult". I do firmly believe that some MM begin a brainwashing of sorts. Surely this could be proven? The emotional trap usually begins with the lies of "my wife is cold", or "sexless marriage" "emotionally unavailable" "suicidal psycho bitch", "money grubber"...and on and on and on. Usually this turns out not to be the case at all. Just something MM tells himself and others to justify his behavior. While I do understand that lying is not illegal, there surely is a loophole for intentionally crippling someone emotionally for one's own selfish agenda. Let's not turn this into "OW knew what she was getting into and deserves blah blah blah"....the majority of these threads say otherwise. Most of the OW's are intentionally convinced that MM is miserable with said psycho W (some MM throw in 5 or so years for a better hook) and has full intention of leaving the M.
OWoman Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 There've been some cases over the years in my country of OW who didn't know their MM was married laying charges of fraud, and suing for various things (often to reclaim material losses suffered - interrupted career paths, weddings planned and catered, etc, but also for emotional suffering) but I don't recall many where the OW knew the guy was married. One did sue for breach of contract after he faked a divorce order and promised marriage, and she'd gone to the expense of organising it, but that was also fraudulent. But then not too many single guys who get cold feet before weddings get sued either, so I suppose the embarrassment factor is inhibiting in any circumstances.
Woggle Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 If a person bangs their head into a wall repeatedly they don't sue the wall for giving them a headache. The same concept applies to dating married men.
LucreziaBorgia Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 There isn't any legal recourse for that in my state. If you have sex with a married person, you are in the wrong: period. You can be taken to court, sued, and you will be forced to pay damages to the BS. It does not matter if you did not know he was married, or if he lied to you about being married.
whichwayisup Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 . Most of the OW's are intentionally convinced that MM is miserable with said psycho W (some MM throw in 5 or so years for a better hook) and has full intention of leaving the M. But if the ring is still on the finger, he is still living at home and says he is leaving, but isn't, he's still married. And - Honestly, it's up to the OW to decide if she wants to stick around and believe him.
Author child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 This is assuming that all OW's are serial OW's. This also shows intent on the part of the OW...from what I see in here, that is not always the case either. Which is really not the subject of my thread.... If a person bangs their head into a wall repeatedly they don't sue the wall for giving them a headache. The same concept applies to dating married men.
Author child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 Wow LB...that is a scary state that you live in. Even more so if OW was unaware of the circumstances. They may have to eventually have single people carrying papers proving that they are single. ...as it sounds like WS is never at fault. I could see this being abused...get spousy to find a wealthy lover, then sue the pants off of him or her. But, back on topic. I still think OW deserves some legal recourse in some of these cases. My thought is that one would only have to prove intent. There isn't any legal recourse for that in my state. If you have sex with a married person, you are in the wrong: period. You can be taken to court, sued, and you will be forced to pay damages to the BS. It does not matter if you did not know he was married, or if he lied to you about being married.
Je Ne Regrette Rien Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 No I don't think there should be legal recourse for an OW. But I dont think there should be legal recourse in suing for alienation of affection either. I don't believe suing people because a relationship has been going up. And if I had, it would be some of the single guys I've been out with that I'll focus on first! Lol, I'd LOVE to watch the court case if it was televised though. I can see it now: OW: Your honour he didn't get enough love at home, she's also at fault for not meeting his needs. All she does is shop and wait for his paycheck! She's crazy too! My married man told me this! BW: Your honour, she pursued him so hard he didn't know if he was coming or going! She's obsessed with him. And they never had sex! He was just going through a bad patch. My husband told me this! MM: Sharply exits the room and hides
bluebluesky Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 what law could an OW use to sue a MM who lied to her about being married? Has anyone ever heard of such a case? I'm sure some have tried, but I would be surprised to find if any have been successful. If you have sex with a married person, you are in the wrong: period. You can be taken to court, sued, and you will be forced to pay damages to the BS. It does not matter if you did not know he was married, or if he lied to you about being married. I'm not familiar with the laws where you live, but they sound harsh. You will be convicted with no burden of proof? I guess I'm surprised to find something so cut and dry (but my knowledge is based on my lay knowledge of U.S. law). I assume you must be someplace outside the U.S., so maybe it is possible.
KATANYA Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 There isn't any legal recourse for that in my state. If you have sex with a married person, you are in the wrong: period. You can be taken to court, sued, and you will be forced to pay damages to the BS. It does not matter if you did not know he was married, or if he lied to you about being married. __________________ How could this be???? I'm not familiar with laws in the US but how can a person who does not have knowledge about the marriage or the marital status of the person, and who believes the person when they say they are single be held accountable for sleeping with a married person? Does this type of lawsuit happen often and are the married couple/spouses who file the suit often successful? IMO I think this is just awful!!! It's one thing to know a person is married and enter into a relationship with that knowledge but in this case you are literally being decieved into entering a relationship. If anything, the single person is a victim, not an accomplice!
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Well,gee, why don't the BS or the MM sue the OP then for giving them an STD, etc.? If you want to get indepth with all the suing...
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Wow LB...that is a scary state that you live in. Even more so if OW was unaware of the circumstances. They may have to eventually have single people carrying papers proving that they are single. ...as it sounds like WS is never at fault. I could see this being abused...get spousy to find a wealthy lover, then sue the pants off of him or her. But, back on topic. I still think OW deserves some legal recourse in some of these cases. My thought is that one would only have to prove intent. Well, isn't it tradition for a MP to wear a ring? That doesn't seem to stop OP from having As, just like it doesn't stop a MP from having an A.
GreenEyedLady Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Well, isn't it tradition for a MP to wear a ring? That doesn't seem to stop OP from having As, just like it doesn't stop a MP from having an A. Just FYI: LOTS of MP don't wear their rings...
Cobra_X30 Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Just FYI: LOTS of MP don't wear their rings... FYI.... That ring has to be in your heart or its meaningless!
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Just FYI: LOTS of MP don't wear their rings... Most I know do and for any who don't (and I do know a few of them,btw)aren't committed enough to wear it because it has the meaning of being "taken" or "spoken for". The latter ones, ironically, ended up cheating on their spouses. No joke. My own H didn't think wearing one was a big deal the first part of our M. (yes, I know, ironic) He only wore one later in our M because I bought him one. I've always wore my wedding set. Also, ironically, he wore his during his A. He didn't even bother to take it off while at her home. Why should he? She knew he was M and didn't have a problem with it. Now, he hates to take it off for anything. He says he doesn't want anyone thinking he's single. I reminded him he did have one on during his A. But, I'm getting sidetracked....
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 FYI.... That ring has to be in your heart or its meaningless! That does help. LOL
Author child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 I think a lot of OW's are literally being deceived into entering a relationship when MM starts the "my wife is crazy, lazy, and after my paycheck (and I have been miserable for a gazillion years)" mantra. That is really the basic premise of my thread. I know most want to believe OW chased MM down until he turned blue and tripped. From what I have been reading on this forum, that is rarely the case. Sometimes yeah....but that is not the issue here. It's one thing to know a person is married and enter into a relationship with that knowledge but in this case you are literally being decieved into entering a relationship. If anything, the single person is a victim, not an accomplice!
Author child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 Most likely a ring means as much to a cheater as the vows they took before putting the ring on. Those who lie about being married are definitely going to take their ring off.Well, isn't it tradition for a MP to wear a ring? That doesn't seem to stop OP from having As, just like it doesn't stop a MP from having an A.
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 I think a lot of OW's are literally being deceived into entering a relationship when MM starts the "my wife is crazy, lazy, and after my paycheck (and I have been miserable for a gazillion years)" mantra. That is really the basic premise of my thread. I know most want to believe OW chased MM down until he turned blue and tripped. From what I have been reading on this forum, that is rarely the case. Sometimes yeah....but that is not the issue here. Well, this is true, in some cases. Not all, but yes, a good #. It boils down to the fact that both the MM and the OW make a conscience choice to have an A. Both should wait till the MP is D. That's the bottom line. I mean, if you're interested enough in a person, then what's waiting a few extra months till the D, then you can go at it without that whole M thing hanging over your head.
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Most likely a ring means as much to a cheater as the vows they took before putting the ring on. Those who lie about being married are definitely going to take their ring off. That's a given. But, if the OP doesn't care and already knows, it's no biggy. Personally, I'd feel creeped out to be with a guy, who's M and keeps his ring on during our time together. Tha says WIFE right there. She might as well be sitting next to the cheating couple.
GreenEyedLady Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 To the OP: I was one of those who was told that the love of my life was single (divorced to be exact)... And I just find it to degrading to the R that you would sue someone else because your life didn't go the way you planned it... I am using "you" here to encompass everyone, not anyone in particular...
OWoman Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Well, isn't it tradition for a MP to wear a ring? That seems to be a cultural thing. In my country it's very unusual for men to wear wedding rings. Unless they're gynaecologists, who wear them whether or not they're married, to signal to their patients that they're not available, as some kind of insurance. But that's probably off-topic?
Author child_of_isis Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 I think that would be possible. Especially if one were able to prove that an OP was asked about any possible STD's and knowing that they had one, said that they did not....even more so, if the infected OP insisted on NOT using protection on the sole intention of giving the MP an STD. I think there were some cases in the states concerning folks having aids. But again, we are back to intent. Which if my memory serves me correctly, was proven. Which goes back to my earlier premise.... Well,gee, why don't the BS or the MM sue the OP then for giving them an STD, etc.? If you want to get indepth with all the suing...
Cobra_X30 Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 That does help. LOL Metaphorically speaking... yes it does. Because if you are not married in your heart... no ring on earth will make it so! Do you know what I mean?
Havn_a_life Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Metaphorically speaking... yes it does. Because if you are not married in your heart... no ring on earth will make it so! Do you know what I mean? Definitely!
Recommended Posts