First, I certainly don’t think the guy is any kind of innocent. Second, my point would work whether it was a tart interfering with the husband, or the milkman interfering with the wife.
Adultery is bad enough, and it is less likely to happen if there are enforced penalties against those who approach marriages and break them up.
It is also understood that there is a special onus on those who initiate the temptation. The tort is on the books, the perpetrator of the tort is found liable, and the only innocent party gets compensated by one of the guilty parties. It would probably do no good to fine the fellow who is guilty as well, since he is supposed to be supporting the household in the first place.
You know what, I was coming back to this thread to doublecheck something and just saw this post. For some reason I missed it before. I’d like to comment since I think it’s important. You said that the onus is on the one doing the tempting which is why this tort exists - to be able to sue the tempter. Well, this is very similar to the liberal stuff about hate crimes or some way-out-there stuff I’m even hearing about penalizing people who “might” do a crime.
What I’d really like to know is how does one prove who is tempting who? People make eye contact so who is at fault. A lot of times, the “other woman” might be giving a man THE look but who walks over to her and buys her a drink? It could be the man, so he is inviting temptation. God gives everyone a chance to turn away. Like I said before, nobody involved in an affair is innocent so I find it very interesting when people try to heap all the blame on the person who is outside the marriage. Nobody has once talked about a man invading a marriage by cheating on the wife. Everyone on this thread keeps talking about women.
I assume you are a man, Dr. Sivana. Maybe you are a woman, but I am always amazed how two women will scratch each others’ eyes out over some man while the man gets off scott-free.