Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumYou cheat, you pay: How new contracts are changing love and religion forever
Last edited Tue May 26, 2015, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/you_cheat_you_pay_how_new_contracts_are_changing_love_and_religion_forever/MONDAY, MAY 25, 2015 06:00 PM
Love and contracts aren't strange bedfellows at all -- and sometimes it's the deals we make that keep us together
MARTHA M. ERTMAN
Law as It Is Re Sexual Agreements
Family law has fumbled when asked to value fidelity in reconciliation agreements. While the vast majority of reported cases on prenups focus on money, a strand of cases addresses topics like sex and religion. If its surprising that courts get involved with that, the results of the cases are more surprising still. Ill start with sex.
For centuries, family law interpreted a womans yes in her wedding vows to imply a blanket consent to sex any time her husband wanted it. Accordingly, the traditional definition of rape was forcible intercourse with a woman not the defendants wife. Marital rape was not a crime until the 1970s, when feminists fomented rebellion and won significant reforms. Today, spouses might make a number of deals about sex: agreeing to frequency, say, or techniques. The law wont get involved with any of them unless the sex is nonconsensual or other interests are triggered, like bans on public sex. The type of sexual agreement that shows up in case reporters is a reconciliation agreement entered to induce a cheated-upon spouse to take the cheater back.
Case study: Investing in Fidelity: Diosdado v. Diosdado (2002)
After Manuel Diosdado had an affair in 1993, he and his wife, Donna, separated. However, they managed to reconnect and used a signed writing to formalize Manuels promise never to cheat again if Donna would take him back. That agreement, they hoped, was an alternative to divorce. Manuels attorney wrote its Obligation of Fidelity clause, which provided that the couple intended to be in an exclusive relationship premised on emotional and sexual fidelity and mutual trust. It also precisely defined breach as any act of kissing on the mouth or touching in any sexual manner anyone outside the relationship and set out the consequences of breach: the cheater would immediately move out of the house and also have to pay the other spouse $50,000 off the top of any property settlement if they divorced.
The Diosdados signed the agreement, moved back in together, and things were fine for five more years. Unfortunately, Manuel had another affair, a breach that landed the Diosdados in divorce court.
more at link
Warning: Picture of Glenn Close try to stab Michael Douglas from Fatal Attraction at link
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 717 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You cheat, you pay: How new contracts are changing love and religion forever (Original Post)
cbayer
May 2015
OP
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. Um, trigger warning on your lede photo?
I presume it's from a movie, but still.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)2. Fixed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)4. Thank you.
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)3. It seems advice from a lawyer is still a good idea for some contracts
cbayer
(146,218 posts)5. As I have sadly found out, it's a good idea for pretty much all contracts.