Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
After The Flood
Stolen Booze Truck Found
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
All Arthur Friedman wanted to do was liven things up in the bedroom. He and his wife, Natalie, had been married for ten years, and things were getting a bit, ahem, stale. Instead of the usual suspects — lingerie, porn, toys, weekend get-a-ways — Arthur had one tiny request: he wanted to watch his wife engaging in sexual acts with other men and women. (We imagine her response was something along the lines of, "oh honey, how romantic!")
In the name of love, Natalie obliged, and somewhere betwixt the twosomes and threesomes and foursomes (oh my!), a man named German Blinov was thrown into the mix. He and Natalie found that their interest in one another went further than the mere satisfaction of her husband's voyeuristic desires; they fell in love. Blinov divorced his wife, and Natalie ended things with Arthur, who then set out for a little retaliation.
Friedman sued Blinov using an archaic law, alienation of affections, arguing that Blinov was the direct cause for the alienation of Natalie's affection toward Arthur. This absurd law, dating back to 1864, is only currently recognized in 7 states (unfortunately for Blinov, Illinois is one of those). Usually these cases are thrown out because it is too difficult to prove that the defendant was the sole cause of the dissolution of the marriage. And because, in our opinion, the law itself is completely ridiculous.
In court, Natalie stated that her love for Friedman had started to cool before she met Blinov, and quickly dropped to subzero when Friedman asked her to start sleeping with other people. A valid argument, which is why it's so surprising that Friedman was somehow able to successfully prove that Blinov was indeed responsible for the alienation of affection. The judge, using bizarre calculations we hope we never have to make, ruled that Blinov owes Friedman $4,802. Who said you couldn't put a price on love?
It seems pointless to mention the obvious insanity wherein a man asked his wife to sleep with other people and was then shocked (shocked!) when she fell for someone else and he ultimately got what he deserved. But, surprisingly, that's not the most bewildering aspect of this twisted tale: the same jurors that decided in favor of Friedman also repeatedly referred to the case as "stupid" and called the alienation of affections statute "ridiculous." Don't worry, it makes our head hurt too.
Image via Soup de S.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In addition to the $4800 Arthur Friedman won, he also has the privilege of being labeled toxic to any women who might find him even remotely attractive.
Spend those damages wisely.
wow, all I can say is wow.
maybe someone should think about taking those weird old laws off the books? I know its often easier just to leave them there and not enforce them, but then this stuff happens, and damn. Stupidity reigns.
Right on, Chuck. This just goes to show that stupidity has no bounds.
Maybe i'm too slow to pick up on the connection, but what does a picture of a half-eaten cake with two forks have to do with this story?
Half eaten cake = "Having your cake and eating it too."
The picture serves 2 purposes. The "having your cake and eating it too" as well as making a wish before you blow out a candle on a cake ("wish" is in the title...get it?)
As a juror, you're not at liberty simply to ignore laws you consider ridiculous. It's quite possible that every member of the jury thought the concept of alienation of affections to be chauvinistic and antiquated; they would still have had to render a verdict based on the application of that law with regard to the plaintiff's claim.
Not that the guy isn't at fault for making the request and then being surprised when it backfired, but shouldn't Natalie have just said no? Granted, he DID give her a free pass to cheat on him, which it seems she wanted to do anyway.
oh, in that case the picture makes all kinds of sense....
Actually, the picture serves no purpose.
Signed,
The Grey Guest
guest 7: I couldn't agree more, just highlighting the absurdity of the case.
guest 8: I wondered the same thing myself ... how could she claim after the fact that she was hurt by his request if she willingly obliged?
I understand why everyone thinks this is so freaky. I mean, lots of people enjoy sharing their wives, or watching their wives fuck other guys because they aren't man enough to satisfy her. Lots of people do it, way more than you think. There are probably ten cuckolds in your office right now, and a hotwife sitting on the Metra back home with you this evening. The only difference between them and this couple is that they have the presence of mind to actually do what they want sexually, rather than try desperately to please their spouse, against their own will and self-esteem.
They both got what they deserve, and a pox on all three of them for giving kinky freaks a bad name.
Please note sarcasm in Guest #9 comment.
Uh, that is a piece of cake.
What else do people think of as a piece?
There are two forks.
Two people, sharing the same piece.
I mean, lots of people enjoy sharing their wives...
I would never share my girlfriend/wife-to-be, Kevin--especially since I am more than man enough to satisfy her. I would, however, still be more than happy to be on the receiving end of a rusty trombone from yours. Whaddya say?
what's a rusty trombone? is that like a dirty sanchez?
Geez. Do those people have kids?
do you have to pump your blog so full of opinionated words...
And because, in our opinion
pointless to mention
obvious insanity
Its not something new, but can be explored by most people who have a curiosity, just check out Amateur Swingers