Sunday, February 19, 2006

Marry Me, Baby...

So an Iowa fellow, currently charged with kidnapping his wife, apparently tried to get her to sign a Contract of Wifely Expectations, detailing exactly what he expected of his bride, from banning the wearing of pantyhose to the exact dimensions of permissible pubic hair. There's also an elaborate reward system* to allow the wife to earn days off of her expected wifely duties.

Insightful 2L analysis: Although the thing is labeled "Contract of Wifely Expectations" and there are some textual references to this document as being a contract, on the last page the guy writes "This is not a contract; it is a description of rules for you." This is true, as there's not really any consideration in the contract. Well, plus the lady refused to sign it.**

Consideration is something of value. When husband here tried to bargain with his wife, he tried to establish an agreement whereby she would do lots of awesome stuff for him ("Be cheerful and adoring towards me"), but she got nothing in return. He offered her no consideration. So even if she had signed the "contract", it would not be enforceable. And so, she could be dour and disrespectful with wild untamed bush all she wanted and he would have no legal recourse.

Which is precisely what's wrong with American jurisprudence.

I would like to recommend the New York Daily News discussion of these events, whence I take the following line, "Ruth Frey told Council Bluffs police her husband was angry with her for taking their two daughters to church."

*Which is quite generous. A reasonably vigorous sex life would all but eliminate the various obligations imposed under the rule set. As I read the rules, if the couple had sex a couple times a week, plus maybe she shaved her pussy, she would earn enough "good behavior days" to never follow any of the rules, except with respect to the rule situations specifically not revocable, including sleeping in the nude and keeping well shaven (in the non-pubic context).

Ok, in actuality in any relationship there's a fair amount of bargaining that goes on, isn't there? To some extent isn't this guy making literal that which many bargain for implicitly? People have different needs and wants, and no person finds in any other person the perfect embodiment of their preconceived romantic notions. Well, preferable, I would say, by far is a dialogue trying to find a common solution that will satisfy both parties because the overall love transcends the individual disagreements. omnia vincit amor, after all.

At least this blind hope that the love between people can be a kind of salvaton and its own special solution is what my fond viewing of the films of Jonathan Demme has led me to believe.


**She did marry this guy, however. Which since he's since kidnapped and abused her (allegedly), seems like a poor decision on her part.

3 comments:

Arfanser said...

Seriously, what is wrong with people.

scarletpanda said...

Wow. Wow.

warm fuzzy said...

that is messed up. messed the hell up.