response to a dear friend
hey there rachel,
we can sign away just about all of our rights these days. now you have the ability to sign away your right to change your mind.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Relationships/Sex_contracts_040107-1.html
let me know what you think.
Bizarre.
This form would hold the same weight as a friend's witness that "she agreed to go up to his place at the bar in front of us and she was dancing with him all night," used to imply absolute consent and the impossibility of withdrawl of that consent. The legal system's place in the arena of sex is to protect individuals from unwanted invasions of their physical persons.
On one hand, contract law has a precedent for this sort of crystal-ball agreement; "I the undersigned agree that hereafter (whatever)" is common verbage. It does assume that each party will be free of the contract if either side breaks the restraints on the agreement. Stating the restrictions on sexual consent would be difficult without using vaguely defined language like "mental and/or emotional coercion," "UNWANTED physical force." This has been debated in sexual assault law since there was such a thing.
On the other hand (or maybe from a quote Feminist Philosophy of Law unquote), law must function within the mechanism of the culture it limits. If the intent of the legal system is to protect from incursion on the person and property of the individual from other individuals, then an agreement freely entered into is just that, whether dealing with sex or business partnerships. This is a system that assumes property and trade as the stuff of human interaction. If the intent of the legal system is to protect the inviolability of the individual's privacy, or dignity, or well-being, then factors other than obvious physical force or intoxication might render a contract untenable. Such a system might hold that it is not the place of a contract to determine sexual consent, especially not unconditional and continued signed-away consent for any period of time; instead, sexual assault law might err on the side of non-consent whenever one party declared said "consent" coerced in any way.
I was about to give you another "on the ___ hand," but I am not Ganesha. I would consider the proposed document letter-of-the-law tenable, but wholly unwise. This opinion does not at all diminish my lingering crush on Randite anarchy. More on this soon.
xo,
Rachel
hey there rachel,
we can sign away just about all of our rights these days. now you have the ability to sign away your right to change your mind.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Relationships/Sex_contracts_040107-1.html
let me know what you think.
Bizarre.
This form would hold the same weight as a friend's witness that "she agreed to go up to his place at the bar in front of us and she was dancing with him all night," used to imply absolute consent and the impossibility of withdrawl of that consent. The legal system's place in the arena of sex is to protect individuals from unwanted invasions of their physical persons.
On one hand, contract law has a precedent for this sort of crystal-ball agreement; "I the undersigned agree that hereafter (whatever)" is common verbage. It does assume that each party will be free of the contract if either side breaks the restraints on the agreement. Stating the restrictions on sexual consent would be difficult without using vaguely defined language like "mental and/or emotional coercion," "UNWANTED physical force." This has been debated in sexual assault law since there was such a thing.
On the other hand (or maybe from a quote Feminist Philosophy of Law unquote), law must function within the mechanism of the culture it limits. If the intent of the legal system is to protect from incursion on the person and property of the individual from other individuals, then an agreement freely entered into is just that, whether dealing with sex or business partnerships. This is a system that assumes property and trade as the stuff of human interaction. If the intent of the legal system is to protect the inviolability of the individual's privacy, or dignity, or well-being, then factors other than obvious physical force or intoxication might render a contract untenable. Such a system might hold that it is not the place of a contract to determine sexual consent, especially not unconditional and continued signed-away consent for any period of time; instead, sexual assault law might err on the side of non-consent whenever one party declared said "consent" coerced in any way.
I was about to give you another "on the ___ hand," but I am not Ganesha. I would consider the proposed document letter-of-the-law tenable, but wholly unwise. This opinion does not at all diminish my lingering crush on Randite anarchy. More on this soon.
xo,
Rachel
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home