Britain is way ahead of you there - there was a law relating to "Breach of
Promise", repealed many years ago. It was intended to protect the female
from becoming engaged, or even an understanding that there will be a future
engagement, only for the man to change his mind many years later. Under
such circumstances the female would be seen to be 'second-hand goods' or
beyond marriagable age. It was repealed (1960's?) when it was realised that
women were as capable of breaking an 'understanding' or engagement just as
easily as men.
PaulH.
-----Original Message-----
From: dresden@tiac.net <dresden@tiac.net>
To: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: 13 February 1999 06:14
Subject: Understatement...WAY off topic
>
>I thought you all might find it interesting (if you haven't heard about it
>already) that Jane Larsen, a Univ. of Wisconsin law professor, has proposed
>a novel concept, the "tort of sexual fraud", which would allow people to
>sue each other over broken romantic promises. I guess my immediate question
>is whether anyone is ever competent to form a romantic contract.
>
>Here's the obligatory MG content, in the form of advice to all single
>people: don't give any Andrea Dworkin types a ride in your MG...if you hurt
>her feelings with an implied promise, she might be driving it instead of
>you.
>
>The understatement of the year, from a book Larsen co-authored with another
>law professor: "History gives strong evidence that, however culturally
>constructed and malleable sexual desire may be, there is some minimum of
>heterosexual desire within the human population...In most eras of Western
>(not Eastern? My comment) History, both women and men have been recognized
>as feeling powerful sexual drives, very often for each other." It's a good
>thing we have sociologists, now isn't it?
>
>How's that for a Valentine's Day quote? This article I'm reading is in this
>month's Playboy, by the way. See, some people do read the articles.
>
>Cheers, safety fast, and all that,
>
>Nevin
>
>
>
|