Diderot's defense of her psychopathic vengeance, about the middle of the book, presupposes both that adultery in her husband's favor would be accounted a good thing by the general reader and by the CMW and that, at any rate for a young virgin, getting laid is a huuuuge sacrifice.
Neither is true, today, I think.
And in 1796?
I think not.
And, of course, that psychopathic people and behavior are extreme but on the spectrum of normal.
Come to that, it includes a defense of her specific psychopathy.
Oxford World Classics, 2008, p 136 and thereabouts.
Reading Jacques the Fatalist.