Adultery Law— Criminal Conversation and Alienation of Affection

Suing over defilement of the marital bed

An old court room scene with several lawyers appearing before a judge.
Photo by The New York Public Library on Unsplash

In 1999 a Duke University professor, George Gopen, sued his wife’s lover, Dr. John Breitner, in a North Carolina court for “luring” his wife away.

The claim was the plaintiff was deliberately alienated from his wife’s affection by Dr. Stud. Professor Cuck wanted $1.5 million in damages.

That’s right!

If you live in the right jurisdiction, you can sue your spouse’s lover for defiling your marital bed!

Criminal Conversation” is the name of the tort, or claim of loss, used in civil court to make a claim. When used in this context, conversation is an old-timey reference to fucking, which was criminal outside of marriage, but only in civil court.

Alienation of Affection,” roughly translates to, “he took my pussy and won’t give it back,” in court speak.

Anyone with a sibling will no doubt be familiar with this accusation from their youth, where mom was usually the judge for the lesser offenses.

So yes, just a little over 20 years ago, men were still suing other men for fucking their wives.

Would anyone be surprised that they were all Harvard graduates? Presumably, people who had better things to do with their time.

But no, they were in court, because someone stole a man’s pussy.

How was it even possible?

Well, when this tort was more popular, women were property. Referred to as a chattel-wife, she had no more rights than the chair she sat on at her husband’s table.

If you looked at the link, you’d see chattel’s root comes from cattle, and the arrangement looked a lot like slavery.

And what man is going to let someone enjoy his slave or other property without permission?

Over time, cucks worldwide were losing this option though. England dumped this idiotic tort in 1857, Australia, in 1975 and Ireland in 1981.

But wait, you say! Professor Cuck sued Dr. Stud in 1999!

How could that be?


That’s how.

Criminal Conversation is still on the books in 17ish states. And North Carolina seems like the leader in backwardness on this issue, as it races to the end of the forward-thinking line.

North Carolina updated its Criminal Conversation law in 2009 to put some limits on what action a cuck could take, but…it’s still on the books.

I want to add here that wives could always sue their husbands for this, but can you imagine a chair suing its owner for sitting somewhere else?

Besides, women don’t need a court to punish a man when they can do it themselves.

This law wasn’t written with women in mind, and the language used in Professor Cuck’s claim suggests that.

Claiming Dr. Stud “lured” Mrs. Prof Cuck, the argument is that she lost her pretty little head and followed Dr. Stud home like he was the Pied Piper of cock-starved ladies.

Lured, just like a yellow five-of-diamonds lure attracts a largemouth bass.

Give me strength.

But unlike a largemouth bass, Mrs. Prof Cuck probably didn’t swoon over a piper’s call or follow a shiny lure, as the lawsuit suggested.

It was probably more like this:

Jesus, I’m sick of my pedantic asshole husband. Fuck him, she thought, draining her glass.

“Why yes, Dr. Stud, I think I will have that second glass of wine, how sweet of you to ask!”

Dr. Stud, being a gentleman, duly poured said wine, and was no doubt rewarded for his kindness not long after.

And, if Professor Cuck was as foolish as he seems, the reward included some sexy things unknown to his marital bed.

I mean, why criminally converse if you’re going to do what you do at home?

Like all things that motivate men, Criminal Conversation torts were driven by honor and money.

But mostly money.

Alimony, to be exact.

Men who could prove their wives cheated didn’t have to support them financially following a divorce. Naturally enough, men became very interested in looking for adultery to save the lifelong expense of supporting an ex-wife.

Seriously, who wants to feed a cow you can’t milk or eat?

The idea of being fought over is romantic. But when I read those books, the idea of men dueling dampens me, with all their pistols for two and coffee for one or bare-chested cutlass scars. Phew.

But, “is the man who stole your pussy in the courtroom today?” just doesn’t light my fire.

It would be hilarious though if it weren’t still possible, and that’s the problem.

A pussy and the woman attached to it can’t be stolen.

Women aren’t largemouth bass or cows.

Women follow shiny objects because they choose to, and have exclusive domain over their bodies and the free will to use it.

A woman can give herself to a man, and if that man isn’t you anymore, ask yourself why.

You shouldn’t need a judge to figure it out.

And Professor Cuck? Of course he won and was awarded $42,800 for the damage done to his pussy.

If you liked that, try this one, but say a Hail Mary first.The Bible on Adultery, with Sister Teresa
When men write books, what could go wrong?

Join my email list for more — JOIN NOW!

© Teresa J. Conway, 2020

By Teresa J Conway on .

Canonical link

Exported from Medium on March 19, 2021.

Author of How to Cheat: Field Notes from an Adulteress, several short stories, I'm active on Medium @teresajconway where I sometimes share my blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Site Footer

%d bloggers like this: