what if the third party is a woman?

[Handley_Page]

OK, so this is a bit of a strange question.
We all read /hear of the fun which a man may have with two ladies (and occasionally, she can have with two blokes, I guess). But supposing a bloke seeks a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her relationship with another woman ? Lets face it, if it was a bloke there'd be little trouble or few problems.

But a woman as the 'third party' ?

"Alienation of affection" is not universally spread round the 'States [see here], (and I have no idea about the UK - yet).

So, with the exception of the usual divorce rules, what can a bloke do in such a case ?

 

[ElectricBlue]

OK, so this is a bit of a strange question.
We all read /hear of the fun which a man may have with two ladies (and occasionally, she can have with two blokes, I guess). But supposing a bloke seeks a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her relationship with another woman ? Lets face it, if it was a bloke there'd be little trouble or few problems.

But a woman as the 'third party' ?

"Alienation of affection" is not universally spread round the 'States [see here], (and I have no idea about the UK - yet).

So, with the exception of the usual divorce rules, what can a bloke do in such a case ?

Leave his wife, if she's left him already for another woman. Why is it any different to any other breakdown of a marriage?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I wrote a story about that not long ago...Hello, a Dark Night Goodbye.

 

[jomar]

Husband: I’m bi.
Wife: I want a divorce.

Wife: I’m bi.
Husband: Can I watch?

 

[NotWise]

Husband: I’m bi.
Wife: I want a divorce.

Wife: I’m bi.
Husband: Can I watch?

I'm not sure that's right.

Husband: I'm bi.
Wife: I want to watch

Wife: I'm bi.
Husband: Can I watch?

Divorce and all comes later after the thrill wears off.

 

[Jada59]

If you are asking from a legal standpoint, it would depend on where you live and what the laws are.

 

[NotWise]

OK, so this is a bit of a strange question.
We all read /hear of the fun which a man may have with two ladies (and occasionally, she can have with two blokes, I guess). But supposing a bloke seeks a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her relationship with another woman ? Lets face it, if it was a bloke there'd be little trouble or few problems.

But a woman as the 'third party' ?

"Alienation of affection" is not universally spread round the 'States [see here], (and I have no idea about the UK - yet).

So, with the exception of the usual divorce rules, what can a bloke do in such a case ?

Laws vary from State to State, but here the stated grounds for divorce seem to be nothing but a formality. "Incompatibility" is common. It takes two to make a marriage, and only one to break it up. The law can't make that whole.

 

[Oblimo]

Husband/Wife: I’m bi.

Wife/Husband: I don’t give a shit, just don’t be promiscuous.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In poly circles there's an expression "one penis policy" referring to guys who are okay with their wives/girlfriends dating other women, but not men. It's generally considered to be a bad idea, because people who start with the assumption that a female-female relationship is less serious than a M-F one often learn otherwise, the hard way.

 

[JaneRamsey]

I know in the states you can basically get divorced for any reason without a problem (unless the spouse tries to fight it).

 

[SimonDoom]

I know in the states you can basically get divorced for any reason without a problem (unless the spouse tries to fight it).

Every single state in the United States has a no-fault divorce law. The only question that remains for dispute is the terms of the divorce -- the division of property, support obligations, child custody, etc.

 

[ArdentHemingway]

Ask Ross from "Friends".

 

[Jada59]

Every single state in the United States has a no-fault divorce law. The only question that remains for dispute is the terms of the divorce -- the division of property, support obligations, child custody, etc.

Are you sure about that? I'm in WA and have a lawyer friend in Chicago. He was worried that my now ex might complain about my spending money on someone claiming it was out of household expenses. I was buying occasion gifts and making dinner for this person. Does not apply here but my friend said it would apply there. Then again he's not a divorce lawyer so he could be wrong.

 

[Handley_Page]

My question was not intended as a point for humour; rather, the odd-ball legal problem, particularly where the action is lifted away from the 'no-fault' or 'incompatibility' reasons.
See Wiki: "As of 2016, six US states (Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah) recognize this tort.

Incidentally, there's a fair bit of expensive legal stuff going on in N.Car., or so I read.

Would "adultery" run if the third party was a woman ?

What got me thinking about it was, predictably, a story; "Joanne Sterns" by markelly.

 

[Yorkiechai]

Women are people too

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that divorce law, at least here in Canada, has to comply with the "big" laws: here that is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In it, we women are defined as people (and we can vote too, yay!). If a divorce can be predicated on sexual activity with a person other than one's spouse, surely defining a woman as a person would mean a woman in an extra-marital relationship with another woman would be grounds for a divorce. Now, an extra-marital relationship with the cat or dog on the other hand . . .

 

[SimonDoom]

Are you sure about that? I'm in WA and have a lawyer friend in Chicago. He was worried that my now ex might complain about my spending money on someone claiming it was out of household expenses. I was buying occasion gifts and making dinner for this person. Does not apply here but my friend said it would apply there. Then again he's not a divorce lawyer so he could be wrong.

No-fault divorce simply means one has the right to get a divorce without having to accuse one's spouse of wrongdoing. But it doesn't preclude the possibility that a state may recognize claims of wrongdoing by one spouse against another.

 

[8letters]

No-fault divorce simply means one has the right to get a divorce without having to accuse one's spouse of wrongdoing. But it doesn't preclude the possibility that a state may recognize claims of wrongdoing by one spouse against another.

I'm not a lawyer, but I could possibly see the point the lawyer was making. Let's say a couple has assets worth $20K. Normally, each spouse would get $10K. But if he's spent $5K of their joint money on his mistress before the divorce, then I could see the judge saying that the couple really had assets worth $25K and he gets his half less the $5K he's spent on his mistress, or $7.5K.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not a lawyer, but I could possibly see the point the lawyer was making. Let's say a couple has assets worth $20K. Normally, each spouse would get $10K. But if he's spent $5K of their joint money on his mistress before the divorce, then I could see the judge saying that the couple really had assets worth $25K and he gets his half less the $5K he's spent on his mistress, or $7.5K.

Yes, that's true. But that's related to what the parties get out of the divorce, not to whether they can get a divorce or not, and that's what no-fault divorce is all about.

Some states, like California, minimize the role of fault in deciding who gets what after the divorce, while other states put more emphasis on it, but they're all no-fault divorce states (that wasn't true in the past, when it was much harder to get a divorce and spouses would have to gin up fake grounds for finding fault with the other spouse to get the divorce).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

My question was not intended as a point for humour; rather, the odd-ball legal problem, particularly where the action is lifted away from the 'no-fault' or 'incompatibility' reasons.
See Wiki: "As of 2016, six US states (Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah) recognize this tort.

Incidentally, there's a fair bit of expensive legal stuff going on in N.Car., or so I read.

Would "adultery" run if the third party was a woman ?

What got me thinking about it was, predictably, a story; "Joanne Sterns" by markelly.

Just my opinion...cheating is cheating no matter who the 3rd party is.

 

[Handley_Page]

Just my opinion...cheating is cheating no matter who the 3rd party is.

precisely

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh, wow... HP, what did you know about this?

2 hours ago:
A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.

You do need a third party in the UK...

I had no idea this was still the law in the UK. I'm surprised. In the U.S., the last state to adopt no-fault divorce was (surprisingly, because it is a liberal state) New York, which did so in 2010.

 

[Handley_Page]

Oh, wow... HP, what did you know about this?

2 hours ago:
A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.

You do need a third party in the UK...

Well, it's not quite that simple, although a great many divorces find 'mutually-agreed separation' works well enough (it did for me, anyway).
Personally, I'm rather surprised that her lawyer let it get this far.

Can a woman commit adultery - with another woman ?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, it's not quite that simple, although a great many divorces find 'mutually-agreed separation' works well enough (it did for me, anyway).
Personally, I'm rather surprised that her lawyer let it get this far.

Can a woman commit adultery - with another woman ?

I haven't checked statutes, but [url="http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html]this law site[/url] says that same-gender dalliances are not "adultery" for purposes of UK law, although it could come under "unreasonable behaviour".

If UK law is as stated, then the law is an ass, but nothing new there.

Edit: see also https://www.gov.uk/divorce/grounds-for-divorce

 

[SimonDoom]

I haven't checked statutes, but [url="http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html]this law site[/url] says that same-gender dalliances are not "adultery" for purposes of UK law, although it could come under "unreasonable behaviour".

If UK law is as stated, then the law is an ass, but nothing new there.

Edit: see also https://www.gov.uk/divorce/grounds-for-divorce

That's a bizarre loophole in UK law. But great fodder for a story!

 

[Yorkiechai]

I haven't checked statutes, but [url="http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html]this law site[/url] says that same-gender dalliances are not "adultery" for purposes of UK law, although it could come under "unreasonable behaviour".

If UK law is as stated, then the law is an ass, but nothing new there.

Edit: see also https://www.gov.uk/divorce/grounds-for-divorce

Why is that? Only a penis in a vagina constitutes sex? Ergo, the owner of the penis and the owner of the vagina in question must not be married under the law in order to qualify as adultery?

The House of Lords needs to take a Literotica reading break.