Given the excessive misogyny found in almost all religions and Christianity in particular, for the life of me I never understood why any women would go along with it

And after the first three rocks were thrown, Jesus said, "Let me rephrase that"!

For the same reason that Hermey the Elf is practicing dentistry instead of building Santa's toys... both are fiction.

In other news, the Bible was written and edited by men who were a wee bit misogynistic.

What if Harry Potter had grown too big to fit in the cupboard under the stairs? Would he have gotten a bedroom?

The story is a very late addition to the bible, possibly only added in the middle ages, and even if the bible is not total fiction, this story almost certainly is. And in any case the woman is not the point of the story but only exists to show up the falsehood of her accusers, it would work just as well if she were a man or a thief or a murderer the details are trivial.

There is a very common hypothesis among historians that most of the more liberal of the Jesus teachings are the later additions, and that the hard line old testament preachings were the only ones in the earliest lost copies.

Garbage book, trash ideas!

It's a book that is supposed to be filed in the fiction aisle. The writers could make the story go any way they wanted it to go.
Asking why something in the bible happened is the same as asking why something happened in Game Of Thrones.
A ridiculous question.

Why did she cheat? Who knows? The man she cheated with is not considered wrong in any way because it is a man's world both then and now. If this was a real situation at all maybe Jesus found her attractive and wanted her for himself. Who knows?

In many countries, women are still punished for adultery even if they are raped.
I have read one version of the story that the woman had a forced marriage and had been 'unfaithful' with her original lover.

1. She wanted some dick
2. He was probrably a politician and paid some hush money

Pretty sure I’m right on both answers

Nobody wonders why he didn't just insist NOBODY should be throwing stones? By leaving the criteria open to personal subjective interpretation, he's still endorsing a situation in which it's ok to throw stones. Typical religious hypocrite. Violence is still an acceptable solution when and if I determine it is.

It doesn't matter. The point is that everyone had sinned so no one was qualified to stone her.

In that passage it makes a big point of saying Jesus was writing on the ground with a stick in the dust, I'm guessing some kind of warning to back the fuck off maybe?
Pretty obvious if this was a prostitute they were her clients and they did not want to pay then perhaps their wives might have had an opinion on the matter, and under Jewish law a woman could divorce and demand recompence from an adulterous spouse.
It begs the question how Jesus knew all her clientele and her profession, but friend of whotres and money lenders and all that, makes for some juicy blackmail fodder.

Because men in that holy text are not held to any responsiblilty. They can rape women and its the womens fault if she doesnt scream loud enough during the raping.

I think you are on the wrong website to be quoting he bible ?

Which Jesus? The White one, the Black one, the Korean one or the one cobbled together from a bunch of minor prophets to make the early Xstian religion?
He who is without sin, cast the first stone/
I don't do sin, I try to be good but I want to be bad, that's not a sin, it's just human nature.

The authors of the book and the rules were garden-variety misogynists.

That's the way there society worked back then and now. Women in middle eastern countries are treated like shit. They are almost second class citizens. Heck look at our own country back in the 16th centuries and still into the 21st century. They still are not paid the same as men in big businesses. In the military and government offices, it is a different story, but out in the business world, well hmmmf.

All the New Testament is mostly fiction but that particular story is even more questionable as it is not in the most ancient documents therefore to take it into consideration is a waste of time.

It was all a setup, if they had been caught committing adultery both the man and woman would have been exposed, so Jesus just kinda looked at them, did some doodling in the sand (do you have any idea how much it has been discussed what Jesus was writing in the sand??), he was just messing with them, he knew the laws of adultery, he was a jew after all and knew their over 740 + laws, these are the laws that Jesus hated, so he told them go ahead and throw the stones and kill her but a caveat: that is if you have not committed any sins yourselves, just go ahead a do it He knew it was a set-up but also how stupid they were doing it that way!

Any 'Jesus says' question is a non-sequitur

There is a third question. Who gives a shit?

Always liked that story. It's one of those that really illustrates the fairy tale quality of the bible, even without the magic parts.
An angry mob of self-righteous religious men, and not one of them believed he was without sin?

To answer your second question: Some men hate women and will take any chance to "legitimately" punish one.

Society progresses; Religion doesn't.