I have always found this passage to be troubling and perplexing because of its inherent misogyny and patriarchy. However, it is also troubling because I have always believed (as have others) that no woman would have ever been found guilty since the waters would probably do nothing other than make her a little nauseous. However, I think there is another way to re-read the ritual through a modern lens that almost (and I emphasize "almost") makes it seems like perhaps this was actually a way to protect and not denigrate the women involved. That was the basis for my first the poem/d'var on this passage, The Sotah's Lament.
As a man, I have also tried to imagine, through a modern lens, what her husband might have been thinking as he accused her. I was quite aware that this might be interpreted as a man's apologetic response to a clearly misogynistic text, but I still felt in my heart that the man's voice needed to be imagined as a way of trying to perhaps find some way to reconcile ourselves with the text in this particular moment in time. It was written in another moment and one can only imagine what was in the minds and hearts of the authors at that time. I can only try to look into my own soul in this particular moment and see what response arises.
In writing this "response" I tried to give the man a voice while also realizing that he is clearly the one who has all the power in this patriarchal society, and that the woman is clearly under his control (not to mention that of the priest). Yet to reduce the man to anonymity also means that he becomes objectified (though certainly not to the same degree as the woman). Both the husband and the wife are objects of the author that were used to send a specific message at that time. Objectification of a human being, no matter what gender, is destructive.