ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (10/29/84)
From: Mike Ciaraldi <ciaraldi> There's been a lot of talk about people's rights over their own bodies in this newsgroup lately. We accept many limitations on our personal freedoms already, some out of a realization that exercising certain rights can infringe on others' rights. There are also examples of times when we voluntarily give up certain rights, usually in exchange for someone else giving something up. For example, if you run a bakery, you have a right of property to all the loaves of bread in it. If someone comes in and you agree to sell him some bread, and he then gives you the money and you DON'T give him the bread, he can go to court and force you to give him either the bread or a refund of his money. He would not ordinarily be considered to have the right to kill you to get the bread, since the matter is not important enough for his right to that bread to be greater than your right to your life. We have probably all heard of situations where people are forced into doing things they don't want to do, because they had made a business agreement and then tried to back oout of it. There have been actors and actresses who were forced to perform to fulfill a contract (Suzanne Somers had to put in at least cameo appearances in some episodes of _Three's Company_ at the end of her contract); baseball players have been ordered by courts to play for particular teams, and so on. How about this for a situation where someone has to give up his or her right to the sexual use of his or her body?: Suppose a woman ins in a place such as Nevada where prostitution is legal. She goes to a brothel staffed by men (No, let's make it a one-man operation to make it even simpler--she goes to a brothel so small that the owner is also the sole employee) and, obeying all local ordinances, pays the requested fee for a night of making whoopee. The proprietor then says, "Tough luck, sister" and throws her out. She goes to court, producing her Mastercard receipt, and demands that she be given what she paid for. Might not a court rule that she be given legal satisfaction, by receiving either a refund or the specified sexual emncounter? And, if for some reason she couldn't get the refund (e.g. the man didn't have the money), could not the man be compelled by law to engage in sexual acts with her? If anyone sees the legal shortcomings of this argument I would like to hear them, as I am certainly not a lawyer. Now that that's out of the way, what's the point of it? This sort of business arrangement doesn't apply in the cases we have been discussing, e.g. rape, person changing his or her mind, within a family, etc. I present it merely as a sample of the ways in which some of the rights we like to think we have are not as absolute as we might think. at first glance. Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochester seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot) (11/01/84)
Mike Ciaraldi == > > How about this for a situation where someone has to give up his or her right > to the sexual use of his or her body?: > > Suppose a woman is in a place such as Nevada where prostitution is legal. > She goes to a brothel staffed by men (No, let's make it a one-man operation to > make it even simpler--she goes to a brothel so small that the owner is also > the sole employee) and, obeying all local ordinances, pays the requested fee > for a night of making whoopee. The proprietor then says, "Tough luck, sister" > and throws her out. She goes to court, producing her Mastercard receipt, and > demands that she be given what she paid for. > > Might not a court rule that she be given legal satisfaction, by receiving > either a refund or the specified sexual emncounter? And, if for some reason > she couldn't get the refund (e.g. the man didn't have the money), could not > the man be compelled by law to engage in sexual acts with her? > > If anyone sees the legal shortcomings of this argument I would like to hear > them, as I am certainly not a lawyer. There's a good deal wrong with this situation. Considering the case is about money paid and services left unrendered, and the probably amount of money involved, this would most likely end up in small claims court. If it was determined that she had paid money and was entitled to service (which would get a lot of giggles in court, I'm sure) or a refund, the judge would likely ask the proprietor what he intended to do about it. If the proprietor said he would provide the paid-for service, then that would probably take care of that, unless for some reason the woman decided that service was no longer timely or needed. If the proprietor said he is not willing or able to provide the service, then the judge would probably prompt for a refund, and if the proprietor expressed an inability to come up with the moolah, then the judge would ask him what he intended to do about it--scheduled gradual repayment of the debt, or whatever. To avoid payment, the proprietor would have to either win the case or die or declare bankruptcy. If the proprietor, after the case is decided against him, continues to refuse to refund the money, the woman can take him to court again. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had experience in small claims court in Massachusetts. A former employer who was not fond of paying his employees gave me a promissory note upon my terminating my employ with his company. When he didn't pay by the time promised, I took him to court. I won. He refused to pay. I had him called to court again, he refused to show, the court sent me a nifty little piece of paper which I paid a marshall to deliver in person. The employer coughed up the "unavailable" money quickly (although it took some time and stubborness to get the court fees and marshall fees legally due me out of him too). Lest you get snickery about just what I was employed to do, and why I was reminded of it by the hypothetical example above, let me say that sometimes programming feels like prostitution. It was a programming job, for a company whose sole product is a piece of software, but the president was too cheap to hire a full-time professional--he got me, then a student and offering to work up to 30 hours a week, and a high school student without transportation and some distance from the office, who wanted to do anything as long as it was Real programming. The company was just starting to try to sell its product, which needed a lot of improvements and support, so it didn't have a lot of money, and an economy measure of the president's was to not pay employees. Considering the programming staff, he had it made--a high school student, who's working more for the joy than for survival, and since he was under 18, "knows" he's lucky just to get a job and so he isn't going to make a big fuss to superiors; and a woman, and everybody "knows" that women don't really need to work, don't really want to, don't make careers. I was also a student, and everybody takes advantage of college students, for the same reasons as they take advantage of their high school student employees--it's not a real job. And I was a woman, so the president could pull his poor-little-boy routine on nurturing-little-me, right? (it used to be so awful, I would get bored and run away as soon as possible) And I was (oops, I still am!) a woman, and therefore a member of an inferior class, and also passive and not likely to cause trouble, disagree, work on promises not pay, and if the poor-little-boy didn't work, sternness would. Right? These things were often bluffs, but sometimes it's tiring to have to put up with them. Well, it didn't last very long, but a lot longer than it should have (6 weeks? I think). The reason it's here is because I want somehow to express to those of us in danger of being taken advantage of to WATCH OUT for such work situations--where you're being underpaid because of your "inferior" status or because of your love of your job. Hackers beware! I also worked as a student consultant, and we consultants were paid less than unskilled student labor (dining service workers)--the excuse was that we got a free account (and a whole 500 vms blocks!!!)(also, a completely ludicrous excuse these days at MIT, when any course 6 major should be able to get more accounts than it knows what to do with), the excuse was that this was a prestigious job and we should be glad we got it, the excuse was that they couldn't afford to pay us more, the excuse was oh gee we forgot. Best wishes, and hope you don't have to learn it the hard way. L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752 shadow: [ISSN 0018-9162 v17 #10 p7, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/01/84)
In article <2644@rochester.UUCP> ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP writes: || There have been actors and actresses who || were forced to perform to fulfill a contract || (Suzanne Somers had to put in at least cameo appearances in || some episodes of _Three's Company_ at the end of her || contract); baseball players have been ordered by courts || to play for particular teams, and so on. || Are you sure? "our Courts will not enforce a positive covenant of personal service" Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v. Nelson, [1937] 1 K.B. 209 (the Bette Davis case) The general common-law rule on contracts is as follows: the party in breach of contract must put the other party in as good a position as if the contract had been fulfilled (Lord Atkinson's Rule). Specific performance will be ordered if money cannot replace what is being lost. However, the courts will not force an individual to provide specific performance in services, precisely because we *are* free to do as we wish with our bodies. This is true in British and Canadian common law, and I would be surprised if it is not true in the U.S. also. Note that there is a difference between a baseball player being ordered not to play for any team other than X (which does happen) and a player being ordered to play for team X (which I believe does not happen). While the court will not force you to do <xyz> with your body, it may prohibit you from doing certain things (which, if you are a baseball player and want to play pro ball, may effectively have the same result). || || How about this for a situation where someone has to give up || his or her right to the sexual use of his or her body?: || ... could not the man || be compelled by law to engage in sexual acts with her? I don't think so. See the analogy above. The law on surrogate mothers is developing along the same lines. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave
hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William ) (11/04/84)
There was a case about a 1/2 to a year ago in which a man agrees to 'sell' his car to a lady for, I think, 50 sexual encounters, and I think some money. The numbers may not be correct, but the idea is the same. The female (after fulfilling some of the contract) refused to go to bed with him anymore. He took her to small claims court, and the judge threw it out. Ken Hollis