The solution Arthur Friedman, 35, proposed to his wife wasn't all that unique either. According to his wife, Natalie, 35, he wanted them to start having sex with other couples and he especially wanted to watch her have sex with other men and women. I am sure that you are getting an idea of where this is heading but I'll continue. According to Natalie, while she was making the effort to please her husband, she ended up falling for one of the men she had sex with. I'm sure that not too many of us are too surprised to hear that happened but evidently, Arthur was.
"This guy ruined my life -- he backstabbed me. What he did was
wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across," stated Friedman in an interview.
Arthur denies that he had sex with anyone else but Natalie described their many "adventures" in detail, including four-way sex in a hot tub with another woman and German Blinov. Blinov is the man Natalie fell for and he doesn't deny having a relationship with her while she was married. What Arthur did to "get his point across" was surprising. Friedman sued Blinov under the state's alienation-of-affection law, claiming Blinov stole away his wife's love. Illinios is one of eight states with the archaic law and suits can still be filed but they rarely are and usually are thrown out.
Arthur's case wasn't thrown out and went to trial in the end of June. He had to prove that there was love between Natalie and himself before Blinov stole it away. Even his own attorney, David Shults stated that usually it's both people's fault when there is a breakdown in a marriage. Arthur said that he had no idea that Natalie was unhappy in their marriage and after Natalie had met German, they all became friends.
Natalie stated that German was not the cause of it, she stopped loving Arthur because of the things he had her do in his search for a renewed spark in the marriage. Blinov's attorney, Enrico Mirabelli, agreed saying that Blinov wasn't the catalyst, Natalie's affections were already adrift when she fell for his client.
"This type of lawsuit is not designed to be a vehicle for vengence or vindication. Sadly, in this case, it was used for both," stated Mirabelli.
The jury decided in Arthur's favor, though jury foreman Eric Heisig said that more than once the jurors said that the whole thing was stupid. Many of them wanted to give Arthur nothing or just $17.20, the amount they each received for each day of service. The amount he did receive, $4,802.87 was derived from a formula that considered in part, Natalie's contributions to the household for a period of time. Once again, Natalie said she was humiliated and it was the "pricetag" that the court allowed him to put on her that hurt even more than what she felt during their "adventures."
"This case was never about money. This was about vindicating Arthur for what German did to him and his family," stated another of Arthur's lawyers, David Nemeroff.
If this really weren't about the money, why sue? I'm not sure that getting a court to say that yes, you lost your wife to another man and here's a few dollars to cover your loss makes you feel "more like a man." Either way, she left him and now everyone can make up their own minds from the testimony. German and his wife Inessa have "quietly" divorced and Arthur's search for a bit of spice in his marriage has led him to divorce court as well........ I don't think Natalie will go all that easy on him now that she has had to testify this last time.