I was talking with a female friend, and I made the comment that people of good intentions make promises, but people of good character keep them. We should expect people to do what they agree to do, otherwise society will fall apart because people will be afraid to enter contracts if they know they will have to try to get the courts to enforce the contract to obtain a judgement for damages (and collecting is even harder) which costs you even more time and money.
The girl said that you shouldn’t always expect people to keep their word. She used this example. A guy and girl go out on a date, and end up together in bed making out. The girl decides she’s too tired for sex. The girl promises the guy she will make it up to him, and they will have sex the next time they go out. The next time they go out, the girl decides she still doesn’t want to have sex.
The girl’s rationale was that if a girl decided she didn’t want to have to keep her word, she shouldn’t have to. It shouldn’t matter how much the guy had invested in the girl in time, emotions, money, etc. Her side of the agreement was more important than the guy’s side of the contract, but she couldn’t give me a reason why other than it was a girl’s choice.
I told her the girl is just playing games with the guy, and he should kick her to the curb. But in today’s society, would a jury convict the guy of rape if he enforced the contract? I don’t know. Legally it’s wrong, but it could be argued that it was justifiable. (I can’t murder someone, but if they break in my house, I am allowed to defend myself with lethal force.)
I asked her about a sugar daddy arrangement, if a girl refused to have sex after she had been paid. What if the guy paid her bills for her, and she could not refund the daddy the money? Is it ok for the sugar daddy to enforce the contract? If a girl promises sex in exchange for money/shopping/etc., but can’t refund the money and won’t have sex….that’s deception and theft.
Used to, a husband could not legally rape his wife because sex was an expected part of the marriage contract. It’s only within the past few decades that courts have adopted the opinion that a wife’s rights to withdraw consent are higher than a husband’s rights to marital sex with his wife.
Legally, if a girl decides to flake out and say no at any time, the guy can be convicted of rape. (Sometimes even after it is done, if a girl has regret sex, she still claims rape.)
So what do you all think? I’m not asking so much about the legality of it, but the morality of it.
If you own your body, you should have the right to contract it out. Should sexual favors be considered property rights, even if courts don’t view them that way?
While most courts only allow you to recover monetary damages for breach of contract, when it comes to property, courts will sometimes order the delivery of property to satisfy the contract. (And there is no arguing that sex will be unique to each and every person, just as each piece of real estate is unique. It’s virtually impossible to find an equal replacement.)
In some of the BDSM sex fetish stuff, there is something known as consensual non-consent. The girl agrees to do things she really doesn’t want to do. (And some girls get off on a guy dominating them completely.) Is consensual non-consent rape?
If a girl agrees to sex, and then says no at the last minute, is that consensual non-consent? Where do you draw the line?
This should make for an interesting discussion.
