An Illinois man sued another man who he claims stole his wife. And he won. As if the phrase “stealing” one’s wife isn’t offensive enough, we now have a monetary value placed on that “stolen” possession.
Stealing someone’s heart can cost you: Just ask German Blinov. A Cook County jury ordered Blinov to shell out $4,802 last week after he was sued by a husband from a Chicago suburb for stealing the affections of the man’s wife.
Arthur Friedman used a little-known state law to mount the legal attack against Blinov. The alienation of affection law, one of eight across the country, lets spouses seek damages for the loss of love.
So technically, women could sue for a stolen husband, as well. And that would also be pretty damn gross.
The difference, of course, is that centuries of cultural precedent don’t view men as the legal and social property of their wives, whereas women have “belonged” to men for quite some time, and are routinely raped, abused, killed and socially subordinated as a direct result of that possession. Not to mention the fact that the idea of one man paying another for taking “his” woman highly alludes to dowry traditions, prostitute-pimp relationships and sex slave purchases. Precisely what has happened here is that one man has been legally ordered to pay another for “illegally” taking possession of a woman’s affection. In effect, then, the woman has no legal claim over her own feelings, and her husband does.
If that doesn’t make you nauseous, I don’t know what will.
{ 15 comments }
Between the possibility that the former husband encouraged his wife to have sex with third parties outside the marriage for his own enjoyment, and his focus on the other man wronging him instead of seeing his wife as an agent at all, this story is just adorable.
If this isn’t a case for judicial reform and cleaning defunct “Blue Laws” from the books, I don’t know what is.
I would recommend a counter-suit in which the defendant states that she went to another man because she was “denied love” by the plaintiff.
I cannot believe a judge actually heard this case. We need a major overhaul of judges in the US. Judges hear cases like this, rule rape victims were asking for it, and sentence rapists to just by a new bike for their under-age victims. Oh, and our “best”, supreme judges ban a procedure that is sometimes medically necessary for pregnant women.
How can we end this depressing trend of misogynist, evil judges?
This is pretty disturbing. That poor woman, though I’m not a fan of adultery I think I could see why she didn’t want to be with her husband.
Good lord, what do you want to bet my ex posts about this in his blog, claiming my husband owes him $4,802. He constantly acted at the time we broke up like I was a possession unable to think for itself who was stolen from him.
Uh oh. Better watch out for that subpoena in the mail, then.
“That poor woman”? How was she victimized exactly? The lawsuit only works if she screws someone else while under the marriage contract.
The only thing that bothers me about this case is that SHE didn’t get sued, not the knucklehead she ran off with. Someone breaks a contract, she should be held liable.
Aside from that, it doesn’t much bother me. Now, if/when an otherwise identical case comes up in the same jurisdiction but with reversed genders, THAT could be interesting. If it goes the same way, fine — argue about the validity of “alienation of affection.” If it doesn’t, THEN I’ll be willing to get my hackles rised. I don’t see it as de facto sexist. In civil litigation the only recourse is financial — he COULD only sue for money.
Well I’m thrilled to see that you’re not disturbed and that despite my arguments about the historical and social context of such a decision, you still think that it was made in a vacuum. Oh, and that you think it’s cool for women to be seen as property and don’t have any sympathy for women who are in relationships with men who see them that way. That’s just great for you.
I’d love it if a conversation could take place that wasn’t just full of snark. But I guess that would put me in a vacuum, too. (She’s still not a victim.)
You have no idea whether she’s a victim or not. Neither do I. And I never said that she was. So only one of us is making an assumption, here.
I’d love it if you could actually relate your comments to the post and think about what I’ve written before you open your mouth. If you’re going to say that it’s not sexist, at least bother to refute my argument, rather than saying “it’s not sexist because I said so.” Or just not comment at all.
Then perhaps I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Cara. Perhaps I was responding to someone in the comments, and asking how the woman in the article is a “poor woman” based on what we have here read. Putting words into MY mouth, though, isn’t going to do much to help me to understand — if that is at ALL what you’re after. If instead you’d like to just yell at me and accuse me of not thinking before I speak, evidently because I disagree with you, well, hooray for your right to do so. And for your podium from which to preach to the choir.
So you weren’t referring to my post then, when you stated that you don’t think the case is sexist? I’m quite sure that I’m the one who originally wrote about how sexist it was, here.
Also, it’s not my job to force knowledge upon you. You never asked for additional clarification of my or anyone else’s views about why this is a sexist decision. If you want clarification, you should ask for it and I would be happy to provide it. If you just want to express your opinion that this isn’t disturbing, don’t expect me to beg you to listen to why you should be disturbed. It’s not my job to explain to every man who passes by my blog the entire history of female subjugation, ESPECIALLY when they don’t express any interest.
“The only thing that bothers me about this case is that SHE didn’t get sued, not the knucklehead she ran off with. Someone breaks a contract, she should be held liable.”
Ah, one more reason to never get married.
“It’s not my job to explain to every man who passes by my blog the entire history of female subjugation, ESPECIALLY when they don’t express any interest.”
Oh he’s interested. Interested in pretending it doesn’t exist and this bullshit case isn’t anything but some pig trying to profit from misogyny.
I’m confused. Exactly why does Dorion think we care what he thinks?
Why, because we’re women, we’re here, and he has a penis. How could we NOT care what he thinks?
Wow. That is insane. I’m moving to Europe.
Did any of you see “A Life Less Ordinary”? Cameron Diaz’s character is kidnapped by Ewan McGregor’s. She screams at him that she would never be able to show her face in polite society again if it got out that she were “liberated by just half a million dollars!” She says “Half a million dollars is NOT a lot of money for a woman like me!”
I’m wondering what this woman had to say about $4,802. Is a human actually only worth that amount? And what is the $2 at the end?
Judges are required all the time to put dollar amounts on life. This is a particularly sickening case. Thank you (I think?) for sharing it. I’m going to go vomit now.
Comments on this entry are closed.