There is a toast made famous by an admiral in the British navy that goes: "To our wives and mistresses, may they never meet." That line has never been more relevant.
Whether Tiger Woods, or Matt from The Today Show, having a mistress seems like all the rage. Just like owning a luxury car, or holidays in exotic spots, having a mistress seems to be the right of passage for successful men. Previously, it was men that seemed to have all the cards. They could have their cake and eat it too. Lately, given the many women that Tiger and other men have had, it seemed to be a even more of a tightrope when anyone can facebook or Youtube about celebrity gossip. But the power has lately been more in the hands of mistresses. It is the mistress that can out their dalliance, and it is the mistress that can do the Heidi Fleiss "tell all book".
All that may change with the the new trend of having disgruntled wives now suing the mistresses. Apparently in the US there is a law in many states that allows you to sue for "loss of affection". Instead of keeping things private, the whole world can watch the disolution of a union.
"The queen of all mistress-suers, Cynthia Shackelford, sued her husband's mistress, Anne Lundquist, for ruining her marriage, claiming alienation of affection and intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. She was awarded nine million dollars." (see above article for more detail on the juicy scandals)
I think that is completely catty and inappropriate. My sweetie Blaik says "studies have shown that 90% of men would stray if they got away with it, there aren't enough judges in the world to deal with those numbers of lawsuits". A mistress is never the cause of a divorce. She is a symptom alongside of men's base urge for newness. To me it is another symptom of how the institution of marriage isn't keeping up with social evolution. More on that as I write an article on "the revenge of the mistress".