Fairness in Life-Long Support for Fidelity: Revisiting Agreements and Expectations
The question of whether it is fair to pay someone for all of their life expenses, in exchange for their fidelity, is a complex and multifaceted issue that has generated considerable debate. This article delves into the nuances of such agreements, considering historical, legal, and societal contexts.
Introduction
The core of the question revolves around the legality and fairness of agreements where one party receives lifelong support in exchange for sexual fidelity. However, it's important to distinguish such agreements from traditional marital contracts. A true marriage contract, while often accompanied by promises of fidelity, is not strictly enforceable under common law.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Enforceability and Definition: Under common law, an agreement that excludes sexual relations with others in exchange for lifelong support could be considered valid. However, the enforceability hinges on the mutual consent and understanding of the parties involved. Such agreements are not as straightforward as they may seem, given the complex nature of human relationships and the legal framework governing them.
Patriarchal Societies: In patriarchal societies, the dynamics between men and women significantly influence the fairness and enforceability of such agreements. For instance, women who lack alternative options may be more susceptible to exploitation. This highlights the importance of social and economic equality in assessing the fairness of any agreement.
Societal Context and Fairness
Sweden as a Case Study: In Sweden, a relatively egalitarian society with a strong social safety net, a high proportion of women opt not to get married, even if they have children. This phenomenon suggests that the system, rather than individual choices, may play a significant role in determining the fairness of such agreements. The social safety net and alternative options for women contribute to a more balanced view of the situation.
Coercive Offers and Fairness: The fairness of coercive offers is a complex topic. While such agreements might seem exploitative, offering someone a better option than what they currently have could be seen as an improvement. However, if the person is trapped in a situation with no viable alternatives, the offer might not simply reflect fairness but a recognition of their constrained circumstances.
Work and Exploitation
Comparison with Wage Labor: An interesting parallel can be drawn between the agreement to pay for lifelong support and wage labor. In both cases, the individual is often left with few choices, creating a coercive environment. An employee may accept a job because it is better than no job at all, but this does not necessarily make the agreement fair. The capitalist, in this analogy, is not creating the system that forces this choice, just operating within it.
Socialism and Exploitation: From a socialist perspective, as noted by Joan Robinson, the only worse situation than being exploited is not being exploited at all. Therefore, while exploitation is a significant issue, it is crucial to recognize that not all individuals or systems are responsible for creating the conditions that lead to such agreements.
Conclusion
The fairness of agreements involving life-long support for fidelity cannot be addressed with a one-size-fits-all answer. Factors such as the social and economic context, the legal framework, and the nature of the relationship between the parties all play critical roles. While there is no definitive solution, this discussion provides a framework for understanding and evaluating these complex agreements.