Ask Scaebolah! #1
(Legal Solutions to Life’s Real Problems)
Dear Scaebolah,
My boyfriend is pressuring to have sex with him. I’m really in love with him but I’m not sure I’m ready for this. What shall I do?
- Juris Prudent
Dear Juris Prudent,
Many say that there is no love in law: only marriage, property, parental authority, and succession. This is error. The juristic arts may come to the aid of persons like you who wish to look to the guiding light of time-tested legal principles to solve the deepest problems of heart and soul.
The law of contracts is of doubtful application, under the given facts. Marriage (as a special contract) obviously does not apply, and your boyfriend cannot assert the right to consortium (or anything analogous thereto). No form of contract, nominate or innominate covers the prestation he desires. It can be argued that it is a species of facio ut facias, that is, he does (you) and you do (him), but no authority supports that assertion.
But even if specific performance arising from a contractual obligation is not due your boyfriend, your correlative rights and obligations may still be determined by custom.
The Civil Code, through Articles 11 and 12, implicitly recognize the validity of custom as a distinct normative system. As long as the custom is sufficiently proven and not contrary to positive legislation, it subsists as a form of social regulation. As to the question of the source of custom, there is no need to quibble: Custom is handed down by learned jurists like myself. Just ask any student of International Law.
As a starting point, I invite you to browse The Restatement of Love (104 Yale L.J. 707), an attempt to codify the common law rules on love and romance. On the subject of “Sex” it states:
i. Sex within an established relationship. The most common context for sexual intercourse is between two parties to an established relationship. While sexual intercourse is commonly considered a medium by which the parties advance the relationship, this perception is false; sexual intercourse merely reflects the bona fides of the relationship. Sex cannot remedy or compensate for the weaknesses in a flawed relationship, nor can it be used to circumvent the laborious process of establishing emotional intimacy. A fortiori, the introduction of sex into a strong relationship simply reinforces the parties' established emotional attachments.
This seems to suggest an a priori right to sex in established relationships, the way it is with those trashy American shows you kids watch. Whether or not this is applicable to our jurisdiction is doubtful. This is because American girls are sluts. The typical Filipina, on the other hand, is by nature shy and naïve when it comes to worldly things (see People v. Molina, GR No. L-30191 October 27,1973; People v. Ramos, GR No. 50450 March 16, 1984). Our jurisprudence (see for example People v. Campuhan, GR No. 129433 March 30, 2000) has compared the female virtue to a “citadel of passion”, and you must not so easily let anyone, including your boyfriend, bombard your drawbridge. The more apposite rule is based on the principle quum virginitas, vel castitas, corrupta restitui non potest (1 Viada, 301, 5th edition). Or, simply stated: just say no. for true love waits.
Yours,
Scaebolah
Looking for advice? Just Ask Scaebolah! Send your questions to askscaebolah@gmail.com.
Dear Scaebolah,
My boyfriend is pressuring to have sex with him. I’m really in love with him but I’m not sure I’m ready for this. What shall I do?
- Juris Prudent
Dear Juris Prudent,
Many say that there is no love in law: only marriage, property, parental authority, and succession. This is error. The juristic arts may come to the aid of persons like you who wish to look to the guiding light of time-tested legal principles to solve the deepest problems of heart and soul.
The law of contracts is of doubtful application, under the given facts. Marriage (as a special contract) obviously does not apply, and your boyfriend cannot assert the right to consortium (or anything analogous thereto). No form of contract, nominate or innominate covers the prestation he desires. It can be argued that it is a species of facio ut facias, that is, he does (you) and you do (him), but no authority supports that assertion.
But even if specific performance arising from a contractual obligation is not due your boyfriend, your correlative rights and obligations may still be determined by custom.
The Civil Code, through Articles 11 and 12, implicitly recognize the validity of custom as a distinct normative system. As long as the custom is sufficiently proven and not contrary to positive legislation, it subsists as a form of social regulation. As to the question of the source of custom, there is no need to quibble: Custom is handed down by learned jurists like myself. Just ask any student of International Law.
As a starting point, I invite you to browse The Restatement of Love (104 Yale L.J. 707), an attempt to codify the common law rules on love and romance. On the subject of “Sex” it states:
i. Sex within an established relationship. The most common context for sexual intercourse is between two parties to an established relationship. While sexual intercourse is commonly considered a medium by which the parties advance the relationship, this perception is false; sexual intercourse merely reflects the bona fides of the relationship. Sex cannot remedy or compensate for the weaknesses in a flawed relationship, nor can it be used to circumvent the laborious process of establishing emotional intimacy. A fortiori, the introduction of sex into a strong relationship simply reinforces the parties' established emotional attachments.
This seems to suggest an a priori right to sex in established relationships, the way it is with those trashy American shows you kids watch. Whether or not this is applicable to our jurisdiction is doubtful. This is because American girls are sluts. The typical Filipina, on the other hand, is by nature shy and naïve when it comes to worldly things (see People v. Molina, GR No. L-30191 October 27,1973; People v. Ramos, GR No. 50450 March 16, 1984). Our jurisprudence (see for example People v. Campuhan, GR No. 129433 March 30, 2000) has compared the female virtue to a “citadel of passion”, and you must not so easily let anyone, including your boyfriend, bombard your drawbridge. The more apposite rule is based on the principle quum virginitas, vel castitas, corrupta restitui non potest (1 Viada, 301, 5th edition). Or, simply stated: just say no. for true love waits.
Yours,
Scaebolah
Looking for advice? Just Ask Scaebolah! Send your questions to askscaebolah@gmail.com.
posted by emerson banez at 9:13 AM
13 Comments:
margie holmes better watch her back emer, you just might steal her job away :p
the restatement of love
i'd look up the links to all the other things cited pero tinatamad na ako :P
it sounds like you really enjoyed our class with dannycon this sem.
i wish i could take full credit for this one. but just as the scaevola was actually 5 civilists, scaebolah is actually a dozen law students. boys and girls ;)
from UP Law?
of course from UP Law :)
emer: all from the wonderful class of 3c i bet :p
ang kulit talaga ng block niyo :)
the reference to campuhan made my day.
sikat ka na Scaebolah!
I want more!
i bet kasama si remir dyan!!!
submit questions din! let's see if we can stump scaebolah :)
Okay, may suggestion dito sa bahay namin:
In a contract of sale, will this provision be a determinate or indeterminate thing:
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Hehehe.
give us some time to answer your questions (there are a couple of interesting ones submitted). have no doubt that the guiding light of the law will show us the way :)
Hi. I hope the guiding light of the law will shine brighter. These are funny and yet informative takes on law. More power.
Post a Comment
<< Home