Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the concept of palimony
    came about by the realization on the part of our justice system
    that there are any number of relationships that are, for all
    intents and purposes, marriages, but don't not have that little
    slip of paper that makes it a legal marriage. The idea is that
    if such a couple splits apart, that palimony is due under the
    same conditions as alimony would be if the couple had been legally
    married.
    
    As for your hypothetical situations, clearly the teenager one
    would not be applicable, unless the couple was living together
    and both were contributing to a marriage-equivalent relationship.
    
    As for the first, while I would say that it isn't *necessary* for
    sex to have taken place, I would think that it's presumed that the
    relationship includes sex. I think more important is whether there
    is an emotional (read: romantic) relationship between the two people.
    Two people of the opposite sex simply sharing an apartment or house
    would not be "eligible" for a palimony suit (of course, one of the
    two *could* sue, claiming that there *was* a marriage-equivalent
    relationship -- whether it was true or not would be up to the court
    to decide).
    
    --- jerry

    Re .0, .1, I like Jerry's reply and I think that since so many couples
    are living together these days without being legally married that
    these relationships should be covered by certain applicable laws.
     People in unmarried relationships may need to be protected just
    as much as married people.  Afterall, the only difference is a piece
    of paper.
    
    I have heard people discuss palimony as though it was unfair and
    saying things to the effect that they think it's usually a case
    of some bitch just trying to make some money off of some poor sap.
     In some cases this is probably true.  But, I think each case would
    have to be considered individually.  In most cases, if children
    are not involved I don't think that either alimony or palimony should
    be awarded to a woman.  But, I can see where there would be cases
    where the woman deserved it.  For example, if I quit my job to move
    3 thousand miles away to live with a man I was not married to, because
    he wanted me to move with him, and he offered to support me if I
    did, and then if two years later he suddenly lost interest and threw
    me out without any money, I would think I deserved some money to
    help me get an apartment and to live on while I looked for another
    job.  In other words, each case is different and I think there are
    cases where the woman does deserve palimony, others where she doesn't.
    
    Lorna
    

    The "slip  of  paper"  that people in the last notes refer to is a
    *contract*.  That  is, a formal written agreement between (in this
    case)  two people. It represents a (somewhat) permanent commitment
    to  each  other. Marriage is a rite of passage, explicitly because
    it involves that commitment.

    Consider other  cases  involving  contracts.  If I walk into a car
    dealership  and  drop  $10,000 on the floor in the hope that he'll
    give  me  a  car  6  months  later  I don't have as much chance of
    getting  the  courts to order him to deliver the car as I would if
    we  drew up a contract (signed order) specifying what car he would
    deliver  in  return for my payment. If you move 3000 miles to move
    in with someone who asked you to, you're gambling that she (or he)
    will  be both willing and able to support you while you look for a
    job.  That  requires a lot of trust and faith in the relationship.
    Or a contract.

    Palimony makes  some sense for people who have sacrificed a career
    for  their  lovers,  but  in  my  mind  is not as strong a case as
    alimony  where  a  contract existed. (As a friend's mother used to
    tell  her: "Why buy a cow when the milk is free?") Unless you have
    great faith in your relationships lasting forever you must realize
    that  sacrificing  for  someone you're not married to is more of a
    gamble than if you are married.

--David Wittenberg

    Re .3, yes, the point is that there are laws that exist to protect
    married people from using each other too much (sometimes they don't
    work too well, but at least they exist).  Now that so many people
    live together without being married there should be some laws to
    protect them, too.
    
    What I mean by marriage not meaning more than living together is
    that love, faithfulness and loyalty cannot be enforced by law. 
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .3 
    
    Good point, David.  But there is a whole gray area in between --
    the oral or implied contract. Most palimony cases involve a
    question of whether the implied contract between two people is
    enforceable and whether the injured party is entitled to redress.
    (The issue of how much redress, while interesting, is secondary.)
    
    Sharing a piece of real estate, as in a roommate situation, can
    put you under contractual obligations regarding the maintenance of
    the real estate, and if your roommates don't keep the property in
    reasonable shape, you can be liable for the damage they do. 
    
    If you purchased a piece of property jointly with someone else,
    whether friend, lover, or business partner, you have obligations
    to pay for that piece of property even if the relationship
    dissolves. 

    Palimony suits have to resolve similar issues about what sort of
    implied contract, if any, the two people entered into. The Boggs
    case mentioned in .0, as reported by AP, seems to be resting on a
    claim of an explicit oral contract.  I presume the states of
    Mass. and California both have laws regulating when an oral
    contract is enforceable -- and the laws probably conflict.
    
    But many palimony cases involve areas of law that had never been
    codified, or even thought of.  For example, there are no laws
    regulating the rights of two people in a same-sex relationship.
    Hence the very messy cases of Liberace's [male] chauffeur and the
    Martina Navritalova/Rita Mae Brown breakup. 
    
    A number of courts have held a living-together relationship that
    does not qualify as a common-law marriage isn't an enforceable
    contract because it's prostitution.  So if laws against
    cohabitation have never been taken out of your community's
    statutes, you probably can't collect because your relationship is
    technically illegal.
    
    --bonnie 

    p.s.  A historical note:  In most states a conventional marriage
    is an implied, not an explicit, contract -- your agreement to live
    together as husband and wife buys into a set of laws that say what
    a marriage is unless you specifically agree otherwise by providing
    your own marriage contract.  This was not always the case; one of
    the reasons for long traditional engagements was to allow time for
    negotiation of the specifics of the marriage contract.  The usual
    issue was how much of her own property the wife could keep.
    People who didn't have enough money to bother with didn't have
    marriage contracts.  It was only with the rise of the middle class
    that marriages became regulated by law. 

    Re .3, regarding your quaint little saying comparing marrying a
    woman to buying a cow ("Why buy a cow if you can have milk for free?")
     why allow myself to be bought like a cow when I can get somebody
    to feed me and pet me for free?
    
    Re .5, interesting.
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm confused.  I thought I'd heard several years ago about a
    couple in Washington, D.C. who were experimenting with a
    "contractual marriage."  I had the impression that the contract
    they signed was not like the "slip of paper" that means you're
    married--it was like many other contracts, which specify duration
    of the relationship, obligations of the parties to the contract,
    methods for early termination of the contract, and so forth. 

    So I thought that marriage was *not* a contract, legally speaking.
    What gives?  If marriage is really a contract, can anyone
    (possibly with a lawyer's help) draw up a contract, call it a
    marriage contract, sign it, and be legally married? If it's that
    simple, why can't gay couples get married that way? 

    -- Linda

    Re: .7
    
    Linda, the answer to your questions is yes, marriage is a
    contract, yes, it is that simple in most states, and no, there
    isn't any reason everybody can't do it that way if they want. 
    
    In most states, the laws governing marriage describe a contract
    that has no termination date, very few provisions for early
    termination [called divorce], and obligations for the man to
    support the woman and for the woman to provide sexual satisfaction
    of the man's marital urges when he wants it. 
    
    Depending on where you live, by getting married you may have
    contracted to bear a child at your husband's request or to live
    wherever he says you should live.  Other states don't require
    this.  It's highly variable. 
    
    But when you sign that little slip of paper, you bought into
    whatever your state's default marriage contract is.  That paper
    with your signatures on it is the only one that matters; you might
    have repeated your vows with a minister in front of 500 guests and
    if you didn't sign the paper, you aren't married, and you could
    sign the paper in the registrar's office with the secretary from
    the next office as witness to the contract and you'd be just as
    married. 
    
    But most states do allow you to negotiate your own contract to
    replace all or part of the state-specified contract.  You would
    need a good lawyer to draw up an enforceable contract, though. 
    
    Incidentally, most premarital contracts that say "I have lots of
    money, you don't have much money.  If we get divorced, I get to
    keep all my money and you get to keep all yours," have been held
    as unenforceable if the marriage lasted more than a few months. 
    
    --bonnie

    re .7:
    
    I'm no lawyer, but I believe "contract" is a very broad term that
    includes all types of legally binding agreements (including verbal
    and implied). As such, marriage is one type of legal contract.
    
    A couple (or any group) could, I believe, draw up a contract similar
    to a marriage contract, and would be just as bound by it as by any
    other legal contract, but I don't believe they can just call it a 
    marriage contract and declare themselves "married". I suppose that
    in the eyes of the law, they are simply contractually bound to each
    other, but not "married", per se.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
     

A few more points:  

    The problem  with  oral  contracts (such as moving in together) is
    that  the  parties  may  not  agree on exactly what they agreed to
    earlier. For this reason, many states don't enforce oral contracts
    for more than a specified amount.

    Digression: There  are  three  classes  of  contract. The first is
    illegal contracts, where entering into the contract is illegal. An
    example  is  hiring  someone to murder someone else. The second is
    unenforceable  contracts,  which  are legal, but which cover areas
    that the state like so little that they won't decide disagreements
    that may arise. An example is gambling debts (in many states). The
    third  is  valid,  enforceable contracts. Most contracts fall into
    this  category.  (Further digression: States vary so much that one
    contract  could  fall  into  each of these categories depending on
    what  state  it's  in.  A  current  example  is  surrogate  mother
    contracts.)

    So, marriage is a contract. As such it is regulated by the states,
    with  requirements for actions you must take to make it valid, and
    restrictions  on  what  you  can agree to. An example of an action
    that  some  states  require  is  a  blood  test for syphilis, or a
    "cooling  off period". Restrictions can include: Marriages must be
    permanent,  and  not  of  a  fixed  limited duration, they must be
    between  people  of  opposite  sexes,  and both people must be old
    enough or have parental permission.

    Can you  "roll  your  own"  contract? Yes, within the restrictions
    that  the  state you get married in has. The good news is that you
    can  shop  around  for a state who's rules you like, as a marriage
    that is valid where made is valid everywhere.

--David

RE: .10

   > The problem  with oral contracts (such as moving in together) is
   > that  the parties  may not  agree on exactly what they agreed to
   > earlier.

In the Margo Adams versus Wade Boggs case, David, the parties didn't even
"move in" together. It would have been kind of difficult for Boggs to have
moved in, since he already has a wife, a fact that Ms. Adams was aware of.

So, again, what becomes the basis for a palimony suit? 

Boggs has acknowledged that he and Adams had dinner dates and slept
together for two years. He is quoted as saying, "I had an affair for two
years and I tried to end it for two years. And once I did end it, this
was her course of action".        
    
More generally, does merely sleeping and dining with someone indicate an 
implied contract has been made between the parties?

  Alan  
                                              

    re:.11
    
    The point you have to realize is that anyone can sue anyone else
    for anything (not *strictly* true, but true enough for all practical
    purposes). Whether the plaintiff is being at all reasonable, or
    even has a legal leg to stand on doesn't matter. He or she can
    still bring suit. That's the whole point of the legal system --
    it's up to the court to decide whether the suit is justified. If
    it is, the plaintiff wins, if not, the defendant wins.
    
    Not every suit has a pre-trial hearing to decide whether there's
    enough of a case to pursue.
    
    *Does* just "dining and sleeping together" constitute grounds for
    palimony? Well, that's for the court to decide. Personally, I
    haven't followed the case, so I have no idea if a decision has
    already been reached on it or not.
    
    --- jerry

re .11

	That assumes Boggs' story is both accurate and complete. If Boggs
	promised the woman that, for example, he would divorce his wife
	to marry her, or simply that he would support her, the court may
	decide that such a promise would constitute an enforcable contract.

						Tom_K

So the default marriage contract is that of the state where the license was
purchased and the marriage was made, and not the current state of residence?

Also, what is meant by "common-law marriage"?  (I think that it was only
mentioned once in this string.)  Are all "living-together relationships"
common-law marriages or not?  (If so, it sounds like the more convenient and
accurate term, albeit a more intimidating term, because it contains the word
"marriage".)

Aside from same-sex relationships which a state would not issue a marraige
license for, if it gets to the point where marriage-equivalent relationships are
protected under the law equally with marriages, I can see the need to get a
divorce (a contract to amend/end the other, oral, contract) to ensure that no
palimony suit ensues. 

    re: .14
    
    In other states it requires only that the relationship exist for
    some time and that the partners behave as though they were married
    in front of witnesses.  (In Scotland up until the mid-1800's, you
    didn't even have to sleep together -- all you had to do was say
    you were married, and you were.  This little quirk of law became
    the plot of many romance novels.) 
    
    If you have fallen into your state's definition of common-law
    marriage, you may even have to get a divorce in order to remarry,
    even though you were never contractually married. 

    I don't know how moving around changes the implied obligations of
    your marriage contract, whether it's explicit or implied. Most
    marriage laws were written assuming you were going to be living in
    the same state. I know that if your marriage was legal in the
    state where you were married, it's legal even if you move to a
    state where it wouldn't have been legal in the first place.  For
    example, if you marry your first cousin in New York, where it's
    legal, and move to Kentucky, which doesn't allow first-cousin
    marriages, you're still married. 

    What does all this mean?  Talk to a lawyer before you make
    romantic promises . . . 
    
    --bonnie
    

    In Kansas, a couple is married under common law if they "represent
    themselves as married."  This does not apply to "marriages" which
    the state specifically excludes, such as same-sex marriages. 

    There is no such thing as "common-law" divorce, however; in
    theory, the state has a vested interest in maintaining the family
    and the marriage, however it got started.  In practice, if you are
    married under common law, split up without the legal hassle of
    divorce, and later re-marry, the state is unlikely to track you
    down for bigamy--unless your first spouse decides to claim
    inheritance on your estate or something equivalent which brings it
    to the state's attention. 

    -- Linda 

>< Note 33.13 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Non-offensive bland statement" >
>
>
>re .11
>
>	That assumes Boggs' story is both accurate and complete. If Boggs
>	promised the woman that, for example, he would divorce his wife
>	to marry her, or simply that he would support her, the court may
>	decide that such a promise would constitute an enforcable contract.
>
>						Tom_K

    I'm not  familiar with the Boggs case. (In general the only people
    whose  sexual  activities  concern  me  are  myself and anyone I'm
    involved  with.)  However, a promise (even if in writing) to get a
    divorce and marry someone else may be an illegal contract. The law
    generally  objects  to  interferring  with a valid contract. If he
    promised  to  support  her,  it  might  be  legal  if  there was a
    relationship  as well as sex involved. (If it was purely sexual it
    would  be  considered  prostitution  and therefore illegal in most
    states.  In  the  original palimony case the plaintiff has to show
    that there was a relationship.)

--David

In Colorado, common law marriage applies to a couple who represent 
themselves as married even if they don't sleep together (but who is 
going to peer in their windows to check?).  The law only specifically
forbids relatives such as uncle and neice from marrying, and does not
specifically forbid same-sex couples.

               Carol

    in mass, there is no longer any "common law" marraiges.  I know,
    because i checked to see if i could short cut some immigration b*llsh*t
    trying to bring my fiancee over here.  In NH, i believe it is 60
    days.  should've gone to scholl in NH.

    The concept of palimony disgusts me.  I don't understand why women
    can be so starry-eyed, so gullible and so trusting, ("But he SAID he
    would marry me!"), and then suddenly turn around and become self-
    protective and enlist the law to help them get "what they deserve".
    Perhaps they should have been as adamant about that "piece of paper"
    beforehand as many seem to be about "their due" afterward.  That's
    what marriage is for - the economic and social protection of women
    and their children.
    
    If a woman is concerned with "fairness" and "self-preservation",
    and "legal due", what the heck makes her run off with a man on his
    mere words?  I just don't understand it.  The language of love, as 
    in "Baby I'll neve leave you", is never to be taken literally.  
    
    If a woman is going to take an enormous risk on a man, she has a
    responsibility just like anyone else contemplating any enormous
    risk to examine ALL possible outcomes, plan for them, decide her
    chances for success and take responsibility for the choice she finally
    makes.  Our court systems are far too clogged to be legislating
    pillow-talk.  I'd rather have them dealing with rapists, murderers
    and drunk drivers than spending time slapping the wrists of men
    who were smooth enough to pull the wool over a willing woman's eyes.
    
    C'mon, women!  You want to be free?  Be self-reliant!  Palimony
    makes us look weak and ineffectual and subject to the whims and
    fancy of men.  I would die before I'd publicly admit I was gullible
    and got so "taken".

For many of the people involved in Palimony cases, the reason that they (at
least one of the parties) did not marry was because they did not want the legal
chicanery that goes on with marriage and divorce.  Yet they are forced into
it.  How Sad.

JMB 

    re: .21
    
    Unfortunately the way many of us learned this difficult lesson
    was after the relationship went sour, not before. 
    
    By then it's too late for foresight or preplanning.  Yes, maybe we
    should have seen what would happen.  But if we didn't -- and
    remember that many of us were trained for years to trust the man's
    word and believe he would take care of us -- are you going to deny
    us the right to recourse? 
    
    --bonnie

"are you going to deny us the right to recourse?"

Palimony covers a wide variety of situations, and even though I am sure there
are situations which I would not reply as follow...



Yes.  You knew what the rules were.  Learn your lesson and take your lumps like
a man.

No offense intended, but that is my feeling...

JMB 
 

    re: .24
    
    Jim, I'm trying to say that a lot of us DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE
    RULES WERE when we got involved.  We only found out when the
    rules closed in against us.
    
    This may have been stupid of us, of me, but I don't think my
    naivete or stupidity gives <some man or woman> the right to prey
    on me. 
    
    My particular situation didn't happen to involve money, or
    anything else that could have been reclaimed in court, so I didn't
    try to collect it.  I can understand perfectly, however, how
    someone might feel that money could help compensate for the
    pain of having been cheated.

    I'd agree that IF you knew the rules of the relationship when you
    got involved, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.
    But sometimes "Take it like a man" reads like "Take it like a
    victim." 
    
    --bonnie 

"But sometimes "Take it like a man" reads like "Take it like a victim.""

Perhaps you could explain why you feel that way?  I would like to know. :-|

What?  A man be a victim?  Nah... couldn't be so... (sarcasm)

Seriously the situation I imagine Palimony to be, I would expect 'a man' to take
his lumps.  That is what 'being a man' means to me (and others). There is nobody
out there to protect or take care of us when we make a mistake.  When we make a
mistake, we have to pay for it ourselves. 

I can't imagine a situation warrenting Palimony.  Perhaps you could advance a
few? 

Jim.

    re:.26
    
    �I can't imagine a situation warrenting Palimony.�
    
    Can you imagine a situation warranting alimony?
    
    If yes, than take the same exact situation, and change it such
    that the two people are not married.
    
    Or are you trying to say that if a woman is dumb enough to live
    with a man without "benefit" of marriage, that she should take
    whatever she gets? That the woman should always lose out ("Them's
    the breaks, chickee!") and the man should never suffer any hard-
    ship?
    
    Let's try a more specific example. John and Mary are in love and
    decide to live together. They pledge eternal love for each other,
    but don't feel the need to "get the state's approval", so they
    aren't actually married. Mary works hard at two jobs (on top of
    taking care of their apartment) so John can get his law degree.
    After he gets his degree and gets a good position in a well-to-do
    firm, he decides that, while Mary is a "nice kid" and all that,
    she just doesn't fit in with his new image, and so he breaks off
    their relationship.
    
    Considering what she not only put into their relationship, but
    what she put into getting John where he is today, do you really
    think that Mary is unjustified in filing a palimony suit?
    
    --- jerry

    
    	RE: .27
    
    	Okay, now what if the roles were reversed? If you believe
    	that a man should be able to then, maybe I'd consider it.
    
    	If two people don't get married, then it should be tough
    	cookies to either of them. It's getting to the point where
    	just saying a simple "hello" to a person of the other sex
    	can cost you money.....

    re:.28
    
    But of course. I firmly believe that alimony, palimony, child
    custody, etc. should be awarded to whichever person (if either)
    deserves it, regardless of sex.
    
    I also agree that the line is very fuzzy as to where the relationship
    has to be for palimony to be justified. But I feel that that it
    up to the court to decide, on a case by case basis. That *is* why we
    have judges, after all.
    
    --- jerry

    re. last few
    
    I am firmly in favour of child custody being awarded in a fair manner.
    [not by an arbitrary rule of thumb].  And I am firmly in favour
    of the non-custodial parent paying child-support.
    
    I believe that where property, shared financial liability, and other
    similar criteria are involved, the ending of a relationship should
    include some form of settlement regardless of the marital status
    of those involved.  I do believe in the concept of added-value above
    and beyond tangibles -- i.e. if one person stays home and takes
    care of "everything" from cooking to yard-work, there is value in
    this and it should be considered even though it did not generate
    income and the lack of this person may or may not have caused the
    partner to expend money to have these services performed.
    
    I do not like the idea of continued financial support.  Of course,
    if continued support was an agreed upon contingency at the outset
    of the relationship [explicitly, NOT implicitly], that is at the
    discretion of the parties involved and not my business at all.
    
    
      Ann

    re: .26 [Jim's last] 

    I don't think I've been clear that while I've been talking about
    naive women, I meant naive people of either sex, involved with
    exploitive people of either sex.  
    
    I don't mean that the majority of palimony cases are valid, or
    that the majority of breakups fall under anything but the "tough
    cookies" category.  But on the other hand, a pretty fair number of
    palimony suits have involved situations where legal marriages
    aren't a possibility, such as same-sex couples. And another fair
    number involve cases where one partner avoided marriage in an
    attempt to avoid legal and financial responsibility that's already
    occurred. 
    
    That's the kind of situation I'm talking about -- where someone
    made promises and someone else acted in good faith on those
    promises.  Agreements such as Jerry cites in .27, "I'll support
    you later if you put me through law school", even if not explicity
    stated, have been upheld.  Yeah, now it seems obvious to me that
    John in that case would dump Mary for something better -- but it
    didn't seem so obvious when I was a 17-year-old freshman. 

    And I think accepting a shafting like that would be making oneself
    into a victim, whether manly or not. 
        
    --bonnie

""I can't imagine a situation warrenting Palimony.""
    
"Can you imagine a situation warranting alimony?  If yes, than take the same
exact situation, and change it such that the two people are not married."

The problem is that these are not the same situation.  The absence of a marriage
contract means there are NO PROMISES!  Is such a thing unthinkable?

What does it take?  a NONMARRAIGE CONTRACT???

"Or are you trying to say that if a woman is dumb enough to live with a man
without "benefit" of marriage, that she should take whatever she gets?"

I am of the opinion that stupidity can be a fatal offense.

"That the woman should always lose out ("Them's the breaks, chickee!") and the
man should never suffer any hardship?"

Now who said that?  Certainly not I.  I believe that sex as irrelevent to
whether I believe palimony is warrented or not. 
 
"They pledge eternal love for each other, but don't feel the need to "get the
state's approval", so they aren't actually married."

If there is no contract or promise, then there is no contract or promise.
Part of the reason FOR getting the state's approval is to be sure that there
is a promise or contract to uphold.

The bottom line is that I feel that the situation where there is a marriage
contract, and the situation where there is no contract should be treated
seperately. 

"Mary works hard at two jobs (on top of taking care of their apartment) so John
can get his law degree. After he gets his degree and gets a good position in a
well-to-do firm, he decides that, while Mary is a "nice kid" and all that, she
just doesn't fit in with his new image, and so he breaks off their
relationship."

This is certainly a situation where Mary should get something out for all that
she has put in...  But I am not sure that I would consider this "palimony",
although I don't have a better term for it.  I expect that Mary should get out,
whatever she put in, minus 'living expenses' she used.  But I would expect this
when any relationship breaks up.

Alright... I'll admit it, you got me there... :-{  Let me propose a counter
example:

Clark, budding Public Defender falls in love with Mindy, his secretary. They
live together. Clark joins presgious law firm and starts making megabucks. Mindy
spends her time working on her skin cancer.  Three years later, one or the other
wants out; one or the other files for palimony. 

Now, the question is:  Does Clark get back all the money he spent supporting
Mindy?  Does Mindy get 1/2 megabucks?  Does Mindy get zip?

I feel the right answer is Clark should be repaid.  Where will it come from
though?  Everything Mindy has is Clark's.  Mindy never worked; maybe they even
had a maid; no kids.  Do you think Clark will ever see one red cent?  Will he be
able to hold onto his earnings?  Not a chance these days folks. 

The bottom line is that there is no protection against stupidity or laziness.

"But I feel that that it up to the court to decide, on a case by case basis.
That *is* why we have judges, after all."

Please stop, I'm getting nausious...  The court and the judge couldn't give a
fart; they just want the case outta here... 

"I don't think I've been clear that while I've been talking about naive women, I
meant naive people of either sex, involved with exploitive people of either
sex."

That is my point.  I feel that a naive man in most cases would just take his
lumps from the school of hard knocks.  He sure wouldn't get anything out of a
court, and most likely would lose. 

Perhaps I feel this way because I feel I've been in this situation, and just
took it...  I can't think of a particular situation why I should feel that way,
but that's the way I feel.

"But on the other hand, a pretty fair number of palimony suits have involved
situations where legal marriages aren't a possibility, such as same-sex
couples."

I believe that contract between people can still be written, even if they
are the same sex.

"one partner avoided marriage in an attempt to avoid legal and financial
responsibility that's already occurred."

I disagree that an obligation has already occurred.  If a person wants to avoid
legal and financial responsibility, then they should be able to do just that. If
nothing is promised, then nothing should be expected.  If something is promised,
that and nothing more should be expected; and the form of the promise does
determine it's surity.  Unwritten promises are only as good as the person making
the promise, and not a whole heck of a lot more. 

JMB

	re: .32
    
    	In English law, and others deriving from it, and unlike some
    other legal systems, a verbal contract *is* legally enforceable.
    "An Englishman's word is as good as his bond" is not just a matter
    of national pride, it is enforceable in law. Since I believe U.S.
    law tends to be based on English law rather than Roman or Napoleonic
    law I suspect this true there also.
    
    	A written contract that has been accidentally destroyed in a
    fire is likely to be less useful in an English court than a verbal
    contract with a reliable independant witness.
    
    	English law also recognises implied contracts. It requires neither
    a witness nor signatures when you put your money in a slot machine
    for a contract to exist and be legally enforceable.

    �The problem is that these are not the same situation.  The absence
    of a marriage contract means there are NO PROMISES!  Is such a thing
    unthinkable?�
    
    Yes, it is. Promises are promises, regardless of whether there is
    a signed contract. And as .-1 points out, both verbal and implied
    contracts are legally enforcible.

    �If there is no contract or promise, then there is no contract
    or promise.�
    
    Again, why does the absence of a signed contract imply that there
    is no promise?
    

    �Clark, budding Public Defender falls in love with Mindy, his
    secretary. They live together. Clark joins presgious law firm
    and starts making megabucks. Mindy spends her time working on
    her skin cancer.  Three years later, one or the other wants
    out; one or the other files for palimony.
    
    �Now, the question is:  Does Clark get back all the money he
    spent supporting Mindy?  Does Mindy get 1/2 megabucks?  Does
    Mindy get zip?�
    
    Good question. One that I would have to think about. And one a
    judge would have to think about (I'm glad I'm not a judge). But
    regardless of what the outcome is, I feel that each certainly
    has the right to sue the other.
    
    �"But I feel that that it up to the court to decide, on a case by
    case basis. That *is* why we have judges, after all."
    
    �Please stop, I'm getting nausious...  The court and the judge
    couldn't give a fart; they just want the case outta here...�
    
    Please stop, I'm getting nauseated. On what basis do you make that
    sweeping generalization. Perhaps it's because you feel that you
    got a bad deal in your situation. It's nice that you feel that
    every judge in the country couldn't give a rat's ass.
    
    If one of the women in this conference made a such a sweeping
    generalization about men based on one (or even many) man she knew,
    you'd be flaming her from here to the other side of the net and
    back again.
    
    --- jerry

Some previous replies have been using, as examples, the case where
John or Mary works to help put his/her "partner" through graduate school, 
and then gets dumped.

Within the last few years, some cases have been won by ex-"dumped-partners",
claiming a portion of the future earnings of the person he/she helped to
put through school. 

Most of the time, the people who were ordered to pay a percentage of their 
earnings were perceived as having high income potential: doctors or lawyers. 

Also, these cases involved people who were legally married to each other.

Other replies here have focused on the contractual issues of a relation-
ship: explicit (as in a marriage - but then, the term is alimony, not
palimony), or implicit.

It's defining what constitutes an implicit contract - and, thus, "worthy" of
claiming palimony - that seems to be so elusive.

I've asked this before: without any other commitments having been made by 
either party, does merely having sex with or dating someone indicate that an 
implicit contract has been made, warranting palimony?

Not necessarily relating to palimony, somebody earlier - Jerry Boyajian, I
think - stated that anybody has the right to sue anybody else; that that's
what courts and judges are for.

That's not entirely true. Judges have imposed severe sanctions on attorneys
and their clients who either bring, in legal terms, "frivolous" suits before 
the courts, or whose sole purpose in bringing suit is perceived to be a
harassing tactic against the defendant.

  Alan 

    	RE: .35
    
    	Generally, it seems that couples who have been "living together"
    	are the most likely candidates for palimony.  Living with someone
    	is perceived (by some courts) as being an arrangement that is
    	so close to marriage that some states actually *consider* couples
    	married by common law (after a period of time) whether they ever 
    	actually made that commitment to each other or not

    	So the idea is not that someone has a claim to another's future
    	income because s/he dated or slept with the person, but rather
    	that the relationship simulated marriage to such a degree that
    	the person feels that s/he should be given the same treatment
    	that s/he would have received as a divorcing spouse.
    
    	The fact that many states declare couples as common-law spouses
    	regardless of their spoken commitment to each other can be seen
    	(in some courts) as precident for the fact that a "I will be
    	with you til death do us part" kind of commitment is not always
    	necessary for there to be an alimony-type arrangement granted
    	to one of the parties when they split.

    
    	RE: .36
    
    	 Maybe so, but where does it stop?  From what I've heard of
    	the Wade Boggs case, he never lived with her. Then that implies
    	that sleep with is good enough. I still say if I date someone
    	(not live together) then if/when we split, I go my way, you
    	go yours. I owe you nothing and you owe me nothing!!!  That's
    	the way it should be.

    The first palimony case was brought on the grounds that the man
    had promised the woman ~I'll take care of you forever, honey~,
    and she had quit her job on that basis.
    
    So, it's easy to deduce that there must be the idea of a promise
    or contract for care which did not include a termination date,
    condition or escape clause.  And for palimony rather than alimony,
    I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that the judge would require
    an explicit, words spoken out loud promise rather than anything
    merely `implied' by actions.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  The term for frivolous lawsuits is barratry, and is generally
    lovingly grouped with mopery and dopery.

    re: .35, .37, .38 --

    No, sex alone is not enough.
    
    The Boggs case does involve an explicit promise. The woman in the
    case is claiming that Boggs asked her to travel with him and
    promised that he would support her, since doing all this
    travelling would cut into her income.  On the basis of this
    promise, she passed up a number of income-earning opportunities.
    Since she is a free-lance interior decorator, passing up these
    opportunities meant that she didn't build up her clientele and
    harmed her future earnings as well. 
    
    The trial will probably involve a number of issues:
    
    Whether there is a contract -- are there  witnesses to an explicit
    oral contract between her and Boggs? 
    
    Did she did, indeed, pass up income opportunities to travel with
    Boggs? 
    
    If there was a promise and if she did fulfil her part of the
    contract, did Boggs in fact fulfill his obligations?  The court
    might well feel that paying for her travel expensees and meals is
    adequate. 
    
    How much damage did she do to her future earnings?  Since it's not
    unusual for fashionable interior decorators in that part of
    California to earn half a million a year or more, this could be a
    big number. 
    
    Did she contribute to making Boggs' earnings possible?  I don't
    know if this will matter in her case, but in the "I put you
    through law school and you dumped me," the contribution to the
    spouse's earnings power is seen as producing a portion of the
    increased earning. 

    --bonnie    

    �Not necessarily relating to palimony, somebody earlier - Jerry
    Boyajian, I think - stated that anybody has the right to sue
    anybody else; that that's what courts and judges are for.
    
    �That's not entirely true. Judges have imposed severe sanctions
    on attorneys and their clients who either bring, in legal terms,
    "frivolous" suits before the courts, or whose sole purpose in
    bringing suit is perceived to be a harassing tactic against the
    defendant.�
    
    Yes, that's perfectly true, but it doesn't contradict what I said.
    Any person/entity can file suit against another for any reason.
    If the judge throws it out on the basis of it being frivolous,
    *it's still a decision of a judge*. As I said, the outcome of a
    lawsuit is what the courts and judges are there for, even if that
    outcome is that it's thrown out for being frivolous. I never said
    that any person had the right to have their lawsuit tried.
    
    --- jerry

"On what basis do you make that sweeping generalization." 

On the basis of talking to a half a dozen lawyers that the exact same thing
would happen with any other judge.

Lest you forget, it's a court of LAW, not JUSTICE.

JMB 

    All this talk about what is legal and what is right is very nice
    but it seems that everyone is operating from the implication that
    "sex changes everything".  And that's what I'm having the most problem
    with here.  I believe that's what most of the "dumped and surprised"
    women have the most problem with too.
    
    We get up in the morning and go out into the day.  We will have
    numerous opportunities to make choices during the day.  Some involve
    sex, some don't.  The ones that involve sex do not automatically
    infer any kind of "special protections" for the woman engaging in
    the deal, I'm sorry.  
    
    I know I was raised to believe that my sexuality, (and that of all
    women), was this big hoo-ha deal that I was to dole out in tiny little 
    batches only to the one man who was willing to jump through all the
    right hoops and prove himself worthy of it; the biggest hoop being
    a willingness to never sleep with any other woman again - marriage.  
    And since my sexuality was such a major big deal, the man was supposed 
    to be automatically obligated, once he got any, to realize the impli-
    cations of my "gift" and to treat me and it extremely carefully and 
    gallantly.  
    
    I think our society's sanctioning of alimony in the past and palimony
    in the present is more a reflection of this alleged "sacredness" of 
    women's bodies and favors than of legal contracts, rights and wrongs.
    
    If we were all so concerned with legal contracts, rights and wrongs,
    then Mary would know better than to put a man through college who
    had no legal obligation to her whatsoever.  It looks so obvious
    to me that this would be a set up for a let down!  But I suspect she 
    felt that her giving her body to him should be bond enough and I
    suspect he silently allowed her to think that.  Yes, naivietee is 
    dangerous, but I don't believe the law should be concerned with
    protecting the naive.  This is Capitalism, remember!  The snake oil 
    salesmen of yesterday thrived on naivetee and so does Madison Avenue 
    today.
    
    I abhor the fact that women have traditionally been raised to be
    naive, to be deferential to men, to be passive and trusting but I
    don't think that is an issue for the courts.  Things like that are
    issues for all of us to deal with silently and alone and in our
    everyday lives.  Many women have been burned by love and hope but so
    have men.  So have parents.  So have every one of us.  And we learn
    from it or we don't.  To say that the law has an obligation to protect 
    naive 17 year old girls because society raised them that way is
    a feeling I can understand and sympathize with.  But the resulting
    # of naive females who get taken for a ride because of their upbringing
    should only serve to convince us how nasty and insidious sexism
    can be.  But we need to address it as a cultural concern rather
    than a legal one.  It's something we need to think about when we
    tell little girls to "sit quietly" or tell them "you really don't
    want to do that" and begin to erode their belief in themselves.
    
    The burned women I have seen, and I've seen many, are all very
    competent and self protective in most other areas of their lives.  
    But as soon as some women give their bodies to a man they turn over 
    control as well.  It's as if they must believe themselves to be
    married, (and/or under a man's control), in order to engage in this 
    sexual relationship.  I just cannot sympathize with women who then 
    bemoan what that man has done with the power they have willingly and 
    far too easily given to him.  Let's tell ALL our daughters the facts
    of life, shall we?  Let's throw away that old tape we play for young
    girls about Sir Lancelot, Cinderella, An Officer and a Gentleman,
    Snow White, love conquering all and all that crap.  Because while
    she's waiting to bestow her fabulous charms on the prince who will
    love her forever, she's setting herself up to be used and abused
    by the promises of knaves masquerading.

    
    
    re .42
    
    You have uncovered the "real" issue.  And I totally agree.
    
    Can we now discuss this issue?
    
    _peggy
    
    

    Ah, I've got it.
    
    We're raised to trust men and to believe that we're supposed to
    give men sex in return for being taken care of.
    
    Then some man uses this belief to lie to us and use us.
    
    Then it's OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE BELIEVED WHAT WE WERE TAUGHT and
    it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD THAT WE GOT SCREWED???????????? 
    
    --bonnie

    re .45, Bonnie:
    
    I sympathize with you.  I understand your anger!
    
    At the same time, Sandy has a valid view of things.  My personal
    opinion is that I just don't think that Sandy's got the whole picture.

    Our whole culture taught us that from the day we were born.
    
    Or are you saying that when a man lies to me, promises me
    something he has no intention of carrying through on, and then
    tells me tough shit, instead of suing the jerk, I should sue my
    mother, who did her best to teach me the way the world works?
    
    You're trying to solve a serious social problem by blaming
    the victim.
    
    --bonnie 

    
    While I firmly believe that someone who participated in a verbal
    contract is entitled to sue to have that contract upheld, I find myself
    totally unable to see Margo Adams, or the various other "celebrity
    palimony" plaintiffs, as victims going all dewy-eyed to their fate.
    While it might be unfair to say that they began their affairs with
    thoughts of gain, I suspect that when the affairs ended they (or their
    attorneys, who often seem to specialize in inciting this sort of thing)
    were more interested in how much they could get than in how much they
    may have been entitled to.

    I wonder how many "palimony" cases there have been between people
    who weren't celebrities and who had normal incomes...

    -b

    Bonnie, you've said the "victim" pays - in your examples the woman
    is a victim for believing what the man has told her, and then going
    back on his word, whether it has been implicitly or explicitly given.
    
    Can you consider that it's possible that if a man has been taught his
    whole life that if he commits to a woman, is good to her, does not
    abuse her, is faithful, a good provider....and then one day she
    ups and leaves him for another man (or woman) - and by the way,
    is expecting alimony or palimony - that *he* might feel as if he's
    been victimized.
    
    There's an old aphorism: Is the screwing one gets worth the screwing
    one gets?
    
      Alan
                                                                  

    
    
    So how do we (each of us collectively and individually) stop the
    cycle from re-occurring?
    
    _peggy
    

"I know I was raised to believe that my sexuality, (and that of all women), was
this big hoo-ha deal that I was to dole out in tiny little batches only to the
one man who was willing to jump through all the right hoops and prove himself
worthy of it; the biggest hoop being a willingness to never sleep with any other
woman again - marriage. And since my sexuality was such a major big deal, the
man was supposed to be automatically obligated, once he got any, to realize the
impli- cations of my "gift" and to treat me and it extremely carefully and
gallantly."

I infer that you think this situation is disgustingly manipulative to men. I
agree strongly with that.  I have often thought of manditory monogamy as a hoop
women make men jump through.  I have known women who would get upset at men for
having anything to do with any other women after the third date! 

How do we stop?  I feel that that is two seperate questions in one. 1)  How do
we keep this from happening in the future?  2) How do we finish dealing with the
past?  Odd how what we want in the present gets split into the past and the
future...

JMB 

 

    	RE: .53
    
    	> I infer that you think this situation is disgustingly
    	> manipulative to men.  
    
    	Very humorous twist of Sandy's words, but I think what she was
    	really trying to say was that women were taught that sleeping
    	with a man would be enough of a bond with him to insure that
    	he would always do the right thing by her.  Sandy seems to feel
    	that it is this belief that causes women to put men through
    	Law School, or that causes a woman to give up substantial amounts
    	of future earnings in her own career (cuz "he asked her to")
    	in exchange for what she THINKS is a secure commitment because
    	she slept with the man (while he considers it a promise that
    	doesn't HAVE to be kept because he didn't make it a LEGAL
    	commitment or that he SHOULDN'T have to keep, sometimes, even
    	if he DID make it legal.)
    
    	What I think Sandy is trying to say is that women should stop
    	being naive enough to give up their own security based on promises
    	of getting it from a man (and that if women *are* that naive,
    	then they shouldn't ask the courts to help compensate for their
    	mistakes in judgment.)

    re:.54
    
    Except that any number of court cases on any number of subjects
    are based on the idea that the plaintiff is asking the court
    to compensate them for mistakes in judgement.
    
    Try watching THE PEOPLE'S COURT some time, and you'll see what
    I mean. :-)
    
    --- jerry

	OK, flame warning...

	You all(I know I'm generalizing, but tough, It's how I feel right now)
	act as though marriage is some sort of protection against getting
	the bad end of the deal. Not so by a long shot. I helped put my husband 
	through his entire college career and now just when he's about to get 
	his masters, I'm alone. No court in the world can give me what I want
	which is his love and companionship. I stayed through all the hard
	times and thought we'd grow old together. Now he has a girlfriend that
	is 17 years his junior.

	I don't know how many times people have said "he owes you this or he
	owes you that" take him to court, fight for the house, etc and so on.
	What does that get me? Does it hurt any less if you take revenge on
	someone you have loved half your life? 

	The words life and fair have no connection. I'm not too sure that
	justice and law come any closer. liesl

    re: .56
    
    I agree with you, and I made the same decision when a non-marital
    relationship ended.
    
    But that doesn't change the fact that if either of us had felt we
    had been financially cheated as a result of promises made during
    the relationship, we had the RIGHT to go to court to try to get
    our money back. 
    
    --bonnie    

    I think a lot of the problem is an economic one.  If women had always
    been equal with men as far as choices in professions, education,
    and pay, I don't think that palimony and alimony cases would be
    so common.  There's also the problem with childcare, which has always
    hampered women from working.  I agree with Sandy that the females
    being raised now should be brought up with the belief that they
    can't look to a man for support.  But, I also have strong sympathy
    with the comments Bonnie has made.  Most of the women who are grown
    up today were not raised to be that independent.  The problem is
    that up until now, and maybe even still, one of the easiest ways
    for a woman to better herself financially has been to "give men
    sex in return for being taken care of."  As far as I can see a lot
    of men are still buying.  Just because a woman is naive doesn't
    mean that it is right for a man to lie to woman and then dump her.
    
    Lorna
    

   
    .0>   Is it (palimony) a form of legalized (and well-rewarded) "pros-
    .0>   titution" in the broader sense of the word: "to sell (one's
    .0>   talents) to an unworthy cause"?
    
    .60>                                             The problem is
    .60>  that up until now, and maybe even still, one of the easiest
    .60>  ways for a woman to better herself financially has been to
    .60>  "give men sex in return for being taken care of." 
    
       Alan

    Ever hear "have the cake en eat it too?"

    	In general, on the subject of being supported...  (Addressed
    	to no one in particular...)
    
    	Several months ago, I saw part of a talk show (Phil Donahue,
    	I think) where the guests were women who lectured on the value
    	(or necessity) of women being able to support themselves
    	regardless of their marital status.  The message seemed to be
    	that one never knows how things will turn out, so it is best
    	to be prepared to support oneself completely in the event of
    	widowhood, divorce, etc.
    
    	While the speakers were talking, I thought that it made a lot
    	of sense (and that the underlying message was that women should
    	*not* seek things like p/alimony, etc. but should be ready and
    	able to stand on their own two feet after marriage instead of
    	relying on their ex's for the rest of their lives somehow.)
    
    	Well, oddly enough, the people in the audience were FURIOUS
    	at the speakers!!!  The women who spoke out felt that it was
    	incredibly INSULTING TO MEN to say that married women ought
    	to be prepared to support themselves.  The audience all but
    	booed the speakers off the stage for having such cynical
    	views of love and marriage (and for acting as though men could
    	not be TRUSTED to do the right thing.)
    
    	One woman in the audience stood up and said, "My husband is
    	my best friend!!!" and she looked like she wanted to kill the
    	people on the stage for implying that she should doubt her
    	marriage or her husband's honorable intentions toward her.
    
    	That leads me to believe that the idea of giving up one's future
    	security and earning potential in favor of being supported is
    	less an attempt at a "free ride" than it is a show of trust
    	in both the relationship and the man.  It seems that many women
    	deliberately put their whole futures in one man's hands as a
    	way to show how much they love him, trust him, and as a show
    	of faith in the stability of the marriage/live_in_relationship.
    
    	As for me, I've never given up my future for anyone (and I never
    	will.)  I still believe *deeply* that people can love each other
    	and that money doesn't really matter (meaning that I would share
    	ALL my money with my SO in a heartbeat, even if I made a lot
    	more than he did) -- but I'd never put myself in the position
    	of having to count on someone that was no longer married and/or
    	living with me.  I just wouldn't do it (and most of the other
    	women that I know in the 80's wouldn't do it either.)
    
    	People who sue for p/alimony are doing something that I would
    	never ever consider doing, but I don't judge them badly for
    	it (nor do I judge women or men badly on the *whole* because
    	these situations happen sometimes.)
    
    	Palimony is just another lawsuit in a sue-happy culture.  I'm
    	never really shocked at anything that makes it to a court of
    	law these days, so I say that if a man or a woman thinks he
    	or she has a case for palimony, then let them take their fair
    	shot at it in court (like everyone else does with all the other
    	lawsuits in this country) and let the chips fall where they
    	may.  
    
    	(By the way, I want to address one more general item here. 
    	When a man offers to support a woman and she agrees to it, I
    	don't consider the woman's decision as some sort of "out" for
    	her.  I think it is a terribly risky thing to do with some
    	men, and is often a *lot* of hard work for very little respect.
    	The idea of staying home fulltime has never appealed to me,
    	although I *have* actually supported men who stayed home fulltime
    	for months at a time and I had no problem with their doing that.)

    	To me, it is still a part of the misogynist culture that we
    	live in to consider women as evil/lazy/opportunistic if they
    	*do* stay home (and yet, greedy/unmotherly/selfish if they
    	do *NOT* stay home with their young children.)  
    
    	Let's face it, either way we get the criticism for both sides
    	(no matter which way each of us as individuals chooses to live
    	her life.)
    
    	That is misogyny in action, and is pretty sickening to see.

    Let's try a new (old?) scenario
    
    A well established engineer at a good company,  say Digital, expects
    to date several people untill reaches the mid-thirty's.  At that
    time,  this engineer, (principle or mgt level) will look around
    for a SO, who's several years younger, conventionally attractive,
    but with a solid college education (must be able to hold an intelligent
    conversation, you know!).  If they get married, this SO is expected
    to remain at home, and be a good cook, housekeeper, child-carer,
    etc.   Sound familiar?
    
    
    a few questions,
    
    If they don't marry at first, but the SO still fills all the
    requirements, but they break up after 3-5 years, does the SO deserve
    palimony?
    
    What if they did marry, should there be alimony?  Remember, the
    SO is chosen specifically to tend to the house, kids, and the engineers'
    needs, does have a college (perferably engineering) degree, but
    has by-passed a carreer outside the home at the express wishes of
    the (hiring?) engineer.  
                                                                            
    What if the SO is male?
    
    What if the SO is female?
    
    If you don't believe this doesn't happen anymore,  I know at least
    3 engineers that are actively following this game plan,  and they
    are in their mid-late twenties.  (Yes, this is 1988, not 1966).
    
    My personal feelings are,  I'd never want to be on either side of
    that relationship,  but definitely not on the "stay home and tend
    to my mate's needs."  Personally, neither side would be very
    fullfilling.  However, if both agree to this, either implicitly
    or explicitly, (and I don't see how either party could not see what
    was happening, being college educated and not working outside the
    home) then they deserve support in re-establishing self-sufficiency
    when the relationship breaks down.  (either alimony or palimony,
    either way, one party gave up the right to establish a working/wage
    earning history and adversly affected their ability to earn $$ in
    the future)
    
    What do you think?  Both parties enter with their eye's open.
    
    By the way,  the people who are looking for this?  Two males, both
    engineers,  planning to have a stay at home wife,  and one woman,
    a well-established engineer, who'd like to change her career to
    mother/ housewife and get out of industry.  I had thought this kind
    of attitude was extremely rare today,  Is It?

    re-reading my previous reply, I noticed that it seemed to put-down
    the choice of staying at home.  That was un-intended.  I admire
    anyone who know's what they want to do and goes after it.  Tending
    children/spouse/house is an extremely hard job in my opinion, (I
    can barely take care of myself & 1 small house) and I don't mean
    to say otherwise.  
    
    However,  many reply's in this note seem to say that anyone who
    neglects their own wage-earning ability to further another's
    deserves anything they get.  I don't agree.

"anyone who neglects their own wage-earning ability to further another's
deserves anything they get.  I don't agree."

I think we need to take a closer look at the factors involved in staying home: 

1:  - not earning money
2:  + being supported
3:  - caring for the wage earner

Not earning money means that they cannot financially support themselves.  But
should the blame, and the responsibility for restitution necessarily go to the
necessarily go to the person who does support them? Somehow, I don't think that
follows.   If a person *plans* to stay at home, can the blame for their loss
necessarily be placed on the wage earner?  Does that make a difference?

It seems to me, that that factor may be irrelevant, and that the sole factors
are what did the homeworker give to the wage earner, and what did they recieve
from the wage earner, and attempt to balance those factors out evenly when the
relationship ends. 

JMB

    Sometimes I get the impression that some men are jealous that women
    have traditionally been the ones who get to stay home and take care
    of the kids and house instead of having to go out in the world and
    work at a job for pay.  With that in mind, I would like to point
    out what I consider to have been some of the drawbacks of having
    to be the one who stays home.  First, since you are not the one
    earning the money you may not be the one with any say in how it
    is spent.  I know there are exceptions to this where the woman stays
    at home but still seems to control the finances.  But, I have known
    women who stayed at home who had to ask for money to get bread,
    milk, toilet paper, or sanitary napkins.  I once knew a woman whose
    husband made good money at DEC who hadn't had any new clothes or
    new items (towels, sheets, curtains, etc.) for the house in years
    because since he earned the money he did whatever he wanted to with
    it.  (They are now divorced and the last I knew *she* was making
    good money at DEC :-)  )  A person who is supporting another person
    can use that power to exert a great deal of control over the person
    they are supporting.  I don't think I'd want anybody to have that
    much control of me.  Another drawback is that if you let somebody
    support you you can easily get trapped in an unhappy situation forever.
     I wonder how many women in the past have lived out miserable lives
    married to some man who neglected them, verbally and/or physically
    abused them, with romance and exciting sex long gone from the
    relationship, because they had nowhere to go, no money to go with,
    and no skills to support themselves on their own.
    
    Can you imagine what it would be like not to have any spending money
    of your own to buy a book, or record, or new outfit if you wanted?
     If you had to ask, like a child, every time you needed money for
    something.  I really can't imagine it.  I've never made much money,
    but I've always made *some* money, and I can't imagine having to
    ask my husband for money for everything I ever wanted.
    
    Men who are jealous of a life of dependence are, in my opinion,
    idealizing that life out of all proportion.  Wouldn't it be wonderful
    to have somebody support me, then give me all the money I wanted
    for whatever I needed, while I did whatever I pleased all day long?
   (I would also, of course, need to be madly in love with this person
    in order to make the scenario complete.) 
    Wouldn't it be wonderful to be independently wealthy?  But, that
    isn't the life of the average housewife of the past or present.
    
    In fact, today, that option is not open to many women either.  I
    was married for 12 years, but worked the entire time.  A woman has
    to marry someone who earns quite a bit of money before she can just
    stay home and take care of the kids today.  Two incomes are needed
    for most families to live comfortably today.
    
    Some men talk as though staying home and taking care of the kids
    and the house is an option for any woman.  It isn't.  Not any more.
     It's true, I was conditioned for this type of life as a kid.  But,
    I have never actually had the opportunity to take advantage of this
    option.  In order for a woman to stay at home and take care of the
    kids and house and not work, she must first find a man who makes
    enough money to support this set-up and is also willing to do so.
     Not an easy situation for most women to find in 1988, even if they
    wanted to.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE:  .75
    
    	Very true, Lorna!
    
    	That reminds me of something else (along the lines of being
    	supported when there is no marriage involved...)
    
    	When I was 18 years old, some friends took me to the penthouse
    	apartment of this man they knew (who was in his early 30's.)
    	He was very well-to-do (successful in business) and had this
    	incredible apartment.  It looked like the typical bachelor pad
    	-- with every modern convenience, cool-looking art, lots of pillows
    	and stereos everywhere you looked.  We were enthralled!!
    
    	In his penthouse was a young woman (not much older than I was
    	at the time) who was his live-in lover.  She was very nice-looking,
	but didn't say much.  She mostly just waited on us.  She brought
    	us softdrinks, and brought us snacks later (we were all
    	hungry teenagers, so we kept her busy waiting on us all evening,
    	in fact.)  The man of the house never EVER looked her in the
    	eye during the whole evening.  She lingered in the kitchen most
    	of the evening, and he seemed to be able to signal to her when
    	she was needed because she would suddenly materialize with food
    	or drink for the man (or for his hungry teenage guests) but
    	she never actually took part in any of our animated conversations.
    	In short, she was more like a very cute servant than a hostess.
    
    	As we were leaving, one of my friends said to me, "Wouldn't
    	it be GREAT to meet someone like that so that you could live
    	in a Penthouse for free and have someone buy you anything you
    	wanted??"  I said, "No, I think it would be terrible to be
    	treated the way she was.  If I ever live in a Penthouse, *I*
    	will be the one who owns it, and *I* will have someone cute
    	to wait on me."  :)
    
    	In all seriousness, though, I wouldn't want *any* kind of lover
    	of mine to feel the way this young woman must have felt in that
    	Penthouse with her employer/lover.  Even if I supported someone
    	again completely, I would never treat anyone like that.  Not
    	ever!
    
    	Luckily, my SO is a peer at DEC (here in the Springs) and he
    	lives just 5 mins from my house (3 mins in a pinch :-)) so if/
    	when we start living together, we'll be equal partners all the
    	way (which is the BEST, as far as I'm concerned!)  ;)
    
    	I don't think I would personally enjoy being on either end of
    	a supporter/supportee union, but if I had to pick one or the
    	other, I'd rather be the supporter.  I happen to think the
    	supporter has the better deal than the supportee (for many
    	of the reasons you mentioned, Lorna) and I would consider
    	the supporter-type advantages well WORTH the cost of taking care
    	of someone financially (and then some!)

    It would seem to be that the traditional system requirement of
    one wage earner + one destitute care giver = marriage.  
    
    For a large percentage of the population from what I see and read
    this system of one up/one down organization appears to result in
    divorce = one wage earner with burden of debt and a lot of
    resentment and one destitute care giver with worthless work history
    and a lot of resentment.
    
    The result of this system is two victims/no winners.  It would 
    seem that intelligent beings that we are the solution is a revised
    system with the result of two winners.

>< Note 33.77 by AQUA::WALKER >
>
>    The result of this system is two victims/no winners.  It would 
>    seem that intelligent beings that we are the solution is a revised
>    system with the result of two winners.

Marriage:
    A union consisting of a Master, a Mistress, and two slaves, making
    in all two.
			--Ambrose Bierce (In "The Devil's Dictionary")
			   (written in the late nineteenth century)

--David

    
    re:.77
    very profound!!
    

    re:.77
    
    Of course, the reason for the "traditional system" is the idea
    that the couple will "of course" have children and thus one of
    the two will have to stay home to take care of the children.
    That idea is being challenged on both fronts (that a couple
    will necessarily have children and that if they do, one has to
    forego a career in order to care for them), but it is neverthe-
    less the reason.
    
    --- jerry

    I have been working since my teenage years and I have always decided
    that I was the only one who was to take care of me financially when
    I got older.  It may have been because my mom worked when all of
    us got old enough because he could not live on just dad's pay. 
    I guess I understood that I could not stay home and be able to afford
    to raise a family.  
    
    When I got marry my husband did not work. I supported him.  He was
    always trying to come up with schemes to make money. Never happened.
    I have always depended on me to take care of me because life is
    uncertain and you will never know if you will have to lean on yourself
    for whatever.  
    
    I feel if you get involve with someone and you go along for the
    ride you better protect yourself because lots of promises can be
    given in the heat of passion.  If you really want to make sure that
    what is said is going to happen I would make it legal. 
    
    Denise
    
    
    

So, Peggy (yeah, remember Peggy's question), how _do_ we change it? Darn
good question. I think I came out all right on this scale 'cause I read
lots of really good books. Classics. Where life sucked. When I purchase
books for the children in my life, I buy them at a woman's bookstore (they
even have Make Way For Ducklings!). Or I buy them a book I know and love
(is Pat The Bunney setting them up for a life of subservience/dominance?).

Other ways? All you folks who came out splendidly, how _did_ you do it?
	Mez

    There are so many responses in here that give little/no consideration
    to the real important issue... Why is it such a big deal to sacrifice
    some of ones valuable time to make sure the pre-school years of
    a childs life are spent with their parents and not the baby sitter,
    grandperents, friends, etc. My wife and I believe that our children
    are a bit more important than egos, status, the "Womens Movement",
    and dare I say - even money. How much money is required to ensure
    your children grow up with the values that YOU feel are most essential?
    How does the Womens Movement get advanced when a child can't count
    on his mother being there to comfort? Forget about everything else
    and take some time to listen to your childs cries for YOUR love.

    Re .84: Your comments about the welfare of the children are valid, but
    keep in mind that most of the well-publicized "palimony" cases do not
    involve children at all. In fact, I believe that child support was
    specifically excluded from the definition of palimony. 
    
    -b

"Fulltime homemakers are often overworked"

I believe that that depends very much on the individual situation.  Certainly a
stay_at_home may be busy & productive or may be lazy and accomplish little.

"Sometimes I get the impression that some men are jealous that women have
traditionally been the ones who get to stay home and take care of the kids..." 

Yep, you got that right!

All of the points you make about the disadvantages about staying at home are
true only IF the work that is accomplished by staying at home is not valuable or
is not valued. 

"Men who are jealous of a life of dependence are, in my opinion, idealizing that
life out of all proportion." 

I don't believe that all wage earners do not value their stay at home spouses
and make them overly dependant on them. I think that many value the work that is
accomplished at home, and wish that they had the freedom to stay at home and
accomplish valued work.  I think that this is certainly possible; I don't think
this is "idealizing life all out of proportion".

"Some men talk as though staying home and taking care of the kids and the house
is an option for any woman.  It isn't.  Not any more." 

maybe you should make that "any woman" into "many women".  It is still an option
for some...  I know that it was possible in my situation, because I did it, and
I don't make too much money for my own good.

"I wouldn't want *any* kind of lover of mine to feel the way this young woman
must have felt in that Penthouse with her employer/lover.  Even if I supported
someone again completely, I would never treat anyone like that.  Not ever!"

Agreed.  Neither would I.

"I'd rather be the supporter.  I happen to think the supporter has the better
deal than the supportee (for many of the reasons you mentioned"

Most of the reasons applied to a devalued and overly dependant situation.
Staying at home does not automatically mean that.  A lot depends on the
situation.

JMB

re: .84

I think it's wonderful that you're so sensitive to your children's
needs.  Are you planning to quit your job entirely to stay home with
your children, or are you only working part-time? 

    	RE:  .84
    
    	Hmmm...  I think it is interesting that whenever the subject
    	comes up about women staying at home (or not staying at home,)
    	there are always those who condemn women for *staying* at home
    	(because they think it is an unfair advantage to have the option
    	of staying home) and there are those who condemn women for *not*
    	staying at home (because they think we are being selfish for
    	assigning value to our wage-earning abilities.)
    
    	At some point, I would find it highly interesting (and most
    	enlightening, I'm sure) to hear two vocal male members of the
    	opposite camps (on this issue) debate the pro's and con's of
    	fulltime homemaking among each other (as two male parents/
    	husbands discussing what they think their roles ought to be.)
    
    	I'll bring the popcorn.

    
    
    As a response to my own question - What do we do to change the way
    women are set-up in lose-lose situations?  (or something like that)
    
    I think this may be the only answer that is really under our control,
    and that is to set the best example possible for all women we come
    in contact with - young, old and in between.
    
    But this is also the most difficult to do (I think).
    
    In V1 of this file I asked the question What is the single most
    important thing we can teach the next generation? and the answer
    came back as to believe in/value themselves and the most effective
    way to do this was by example.  (This is my synopsis.)
    
    I think that this means that we, as women, have to learn to treat
    ALL women with respect and value them as individual humans (even
    it they do not return these feelings).
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			By looking/knowing the Goddess within
    			one finds/see the Goddess in others.
    
    

re: .84

>>    on his mother being there to comfort? 

don't you mean "his or her mother or father being there to comfort"?

    I agree Peggy. I think women need to be positive role models for
    kids by respecting other women, and SHOWING EQUAL RESPECT FOR
    OURSELVES.
    
    ...by verbalizing and respecting each other's strength
    ...by verbalizing and reinforcing each other's ability to be
    independent and confident
    ...by verbalizing and showing our abilities to  trust ourselves
    and each other
    ...by always treating ourselves with the respect and caring we show
    to others
    
    --DE
    
    

    Re .87, Jim, but the point is that if somebody supports you, you
    are *dependant* upon the situation, and upon how the wage earner
    feels like treating you.  If he/she treats you with love and respect
    and values your work at home, you may have a very happy life.  If
    he/she decides that you are a burden, doesn't appreciate or realize
    half of what you're doing at home, and doesn't let you have any
    personal spending money, you may have a very miserable life.  I
    would rather that my life's happiness not be dependant upon the
    way another person chooses to treat me.
    
    Re .84, you talk as though money doesn't matter at all.  What if
    the difference between two paychecks is the difference between living
    in a tenement building in a slum neighborhood or owning your own
    home, which also usually means a difference in the quality of the
    school system?  I think that if someone chooses to have one parent
    (either mother or father) stay home full time with their children
    that is their business.  But, if another couple chooses to both
    work so that they can better get ahead in life to benefit themselves
    and their children then that is their business, too, and I don't
    think it means they are selfish.  I don't think it hurts kids to
    spend time in good daycare centers getting used to interacting with
    other kids, or to be with grandparents a few hours a day.  I don't
    think that just because a child has one parent stay home with them
    full time for the first 5 years of their life, that that is any
    magic formula that means they will have a better life.  In fact,
    depending on the parent, it could mean just the opposite.  Too many
    other factors come into consideration.
    
    Re .92, .91, one way that I have tried to help my daughter is to
    explain my mistakes to her so that she, hopefully, won't make the
    same ones.  Ever since she was very small I've pointed out the fact
    that secretaries don't make much money and that's why I can't buy
    her and I a lot of the things we'd like to have.  I've pointed out
    that I didn't go to college and that's why I'm a secretary, and
    that one of the reasons I didn't go to college is that nobody ever
    explained to me that I would have to support myself.  I thought
    that if I got married I wouldn't have to.  I've also pointed out
    that I didn't get high enough grades in high school.  I've pointed
    out recently that since I've been divorced from her father I've
    had a hard time financially because of these factors.  So, hopefully
    having this type of thing continually pointed out to her during
    her 14 years will have some sort of positive effect towards making
    her an independent woman someday.
    
    Lorna
    

    Jim, 
    
    Do you think it is impossible for you to get what you want?  I think
    if I were you I would start doing some creative visualizations about
    meeting a woman who either had a lot of money or makes a lot of money
    (perhaps even enough to cover your child support) and who sincerely,
    from the bottom of her heart, wants a "house-husband" who will stay
    home with the children, take care of the house, and do the major
    share of the homemaking.
    
    Can you get in touch with what it will feel like in 10 years?  20
    years?  What do you see yourself doing in the role in 20 years?
    
    It's not common, but it's not impossible.  If that's what you really
    want, more than anything else, go for it.
    
    This sounds like a snide question, but it absolutely is not.  Do
    you have all the necessary skills to be happy and productive in
    that role?

    re: .93
    
    Lorna, obviously I can't tell you how your daughter will react to
    the things you have been telling her, but I can tell you my story.
    
    My parents were divorced when I was 8. My mother hadn't finished
    college, I think she had one year before she got married. All of
    a sudden, she had to go to work and support two kids (my sister
    was 5). 
    
    I remember her saying, many times, that you can't ever count on
    getting married and being supported and taken care of for the rest
    of your life. Hearing so often how important a good education is 
    made an impression on me. I went to WPI and now have a degree in EE. 
    And, most importantly I can and do support myself. (I sure did have
    a great role model! I'd better call her up and tell *her* all of
    this!)
    
    So, if I am any example, then "having this type of thing continually
    pointed out to her during her 14 years" should most certainly "have
    some sort of positive effect towards making her an independent woman
    someday."
          
    -Amy.

"those who condemn women for *staying* at home (because they think it is an
unfair advantage to have the option of staying home) and there are those who
condemn women for *not* staying at home (because they think we are being selfish
for assigning value to our wage-earning abilities.)" 

I think you have the reason for the latter wrong for one thing.  I don't think
the reason is "because they think we are being selfish for assigning value to
our wage-earning abilities", but because they VALUE them more at home.  You are
assuming that anyone who stays home is automatically not valued. 

"I would rather that my life's happiness not be dependant upon the way another
person chooses to treat me."

First off, there are more possible different situations then you enumerated...
there's valued and unvalued, and there is also being productive and being
nonproductive, etc, etc, etc.  Second, I can't imagine a situation other then
being a hermit where my happiness was not dependant on how people chose to treat
me. 

"Do you think it is impossible for you to get what you want?  I think if I were
you I would start doing some creative visualizations about meeting a woman who
either had a lot of money or makes a lot of money (perhaps even enough to cover
your child support) and who sincerely, from the bottom of her heart, wants a
"house-husband" who will stay home with the children, take care of the house,
and do the major share of the homemaking." 

I have thought about that...  and I've concluded that even that could not erase
the wrong.  I don't know...  two wrongs don't make a right.  Do you think a
wrong and a right makes everything all right?

I don't know how to apply creative visualizations to correct an ongoing wrong;
It's hard to get over something that keeps happening.

Then there is the value that I place on myself.  Unless I were able to feel that
I was giving to my partner as much as she was getting from me, I would have a
problem with it.  It would depend a lot on the issue of 'dependancy' as
discussed earlier.  I am sure I could value it; I am not very sure my partner
would value it.

Then again, most such women ($$$) do not like children, or are hung up on money
so that me not having $$$ is an issue, and I could not live with that. 

"Do you have all the necessary skills to be happy and productive in that role?"

Yes, I am sure that I do.  What I do not know how to do, I can learn.  That is
all the skills I need.

JMB 

    re .96
    
    Jim, I'm confused.  I suggested visualizing something (and thus
    creating it) that sounds like it would meet your needs.  You have
    sounded personally angry many times that such a solution (one that
    was traditionally open to or required of women) was not available
    to you because you are a man.
    
    But your response to me was along the lines of wrongs not making
    a right.  I don't get that.  A solution that meets the needs of
    2 people without exploiting either is not a wrong in my book.
    It's only when courageous individuals and couples are able to stand
    up and say "She works and he stays at home with the kids and we're
    happy and it's OK" that the norms will ever change.  
                                                                    
    (I feel that all roles should be open to all adults, by the way.)
    
    A few years back one rarely if ever heard of lesbian couples having and
    raising children jointly as a family.  Now it's more common -- we even
    have someone in this file who regularly shares her experiences doing
    that.   But I'm sure there were lesbian couples a few years ago who
    said "We want children but society would not treat us or them right, so
    we can't raise a family together.  Isn't it awful.  I guess we'll just
    resign ourselves to being unhappy about it since we can't actually do
    it." 
                                       
    >Then there is the value that I place on myself.  Unless I were able to
    >feel that I was giving to my partner as much as she was getting from
    >me, I would have a problem with it.  It would depend a lot on the
    >issue of 'dependancy' as discussed earlier.  I am sure I could value
    >it; I am not very sure my partner would value it. 
     
    Lots of women who have stayed at home could relate to this!

    	Well, enough of that nonsense...
    
    	Getting back to the subject of palimony, I guess it is predictable
    	that the "usual people" (who have the "usual general complaints
    	about women") jump on things like palimony no matter how rare
    	these cases really are.
    
    	When Joan Collins' husband soaked her for their 1 year marriage,
    	I guess I could have criticized him for it (but I can just imagine
    	the barrage of "OH, it's ok for women to do it to men but it's
    	wrong for men to do it to women!!")  Had it come up in the note
    	somewhere to any large degree, I'm sure that I would have found
    	myself saying "Oh, no, I think it's *real good* that her husband
    	got a huge settlement from her after one year of marriage. REAL
    	good!"  (And then I would have wished myself into the cornfield
    	quietly after that...)

    	Which is what I think I will do now (before this topic makes
    	me any sicker than I already feel...)

    Re: .100
    
    No need for you to criticize Peter Holm for "soaking" (or trying
    to soak) Joan Collins - the media did it for you, making him out
    to be a big joke.  Johnny Carson's taunting was particularly
    vicious (amusing, as Carson has been soaked by several ex-wives).
    When women want alimony or palimony from men, it's at least
    acceptable for them to ask, but it appears unthinkable for men
    to ask for money from women.
    
    Rather than concentrate on the personalities of the people who
    are on one side of the issue or the other, I think it would be better
    to be objective about it.
    
    Alimony has quite a base in our legal and social structure, though
    a lot of people exploit it beyond the original intention.  Palimony
    cases should be considered just like any other contract dispute
    - one has to make a convincing case that there WAS a contract.
    At least that's how I'd view it if I were on a jury.
    
    					Steve

	See?  What did I tell ya?  (It's a good thing that I had already
    	written what I *would* have said had this come up earlier.):-)

    	In reality, I actually don't think that Peter Holms' suit for
    	money from Joan Collins was any better nor any worse than any
    	other suit of its kind filed by parties of either sex.
    
    	There's no way that I can take blame for what Johnny Carson
    	said.  He is funny, but he can be very mean sometimes.  Jokes 
    	about Peter Holms is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from him.
    
    	To me, it seems a lot closer to the interests of equitable treat-
    	ment if I take the stand that both sexes are completely entitled to
    	have their day in court if they so choose (and that I refuse
    	to judge either sex in a negative way if they go for it.)
    
    	Women in palimony suits take a lot of mocking in the press,
    	too, you know.  Even here in Digital, we have the same note
    	about this one case entered in four conferences (with questions
    	about whether or not it constitutes prostitution?)
    
    	Do you think that Peter Holms' prostituted himself?  I don't.
    	So what is the problem?

    
    I really think the entire concept of raiding someone, male
    or female, because they have deep pockets is utter dispicable
    and repugnant.  
    
    The only reason they do this is because of the wealth.
    Principle does not seem to figure into it. 
    
    Of course this does not stop the greed of either sex from going
    for it. 
    
    Silly me for expecting honor to come forth in the presence of an
    opportunity for enrichment...
    
    

    
    	What about honor coming from the other side...?
    
    	If I were a millionaire and had married someone whose lifestyle
    	I had changed drastically, I would personally consider it a
    	point of honor to be generous with the person if we split up
    	(knowing that the loss of the lifestyle to which I had introduced
    	him would make the divorce even more difficult than it had to be
    	for him.)

    	If he had turned out to be a total snake, I'd be *less* inclined
    	to be generous, I suppose (but I'd still feel some sort of
    	obligation to help him start a new life of some kind.)

    	Many people see the person with the money as having power over
    	the other, and although I wouldn't be crazy enough to turn the
    	whole fortune over to someone else, I don't see a problem with
    	generosity if I'm in a position to afford it far, far, far more
    	easily than he would be.

    	When it comes to hearing about others who seek the kind of
    	generosity (through the courts) that I would feel compelled
    	to *offer* if I were wealthy, I don't consider myself in a
    	position to judge what other people do (or why.)  I don't
    	automatically assume that such people are "raiding" others.
    	There may be more involved than that, which is why I don't
    	consider it my business to pass judgment on such things
    	(whether the plaintiff is male or female.)

    This note has drifted from the base topic. I've set it nowrite for
    the time being. If someone would like to continue discussing Palimony,
    please contact one of the moderators so that the note can be re-opened.
    
    Thanks
    Liz Augustine
    womannotes comoderator

    And I've hidden the slanging match.  I would be glad if the three
    authors would give permission for their notes to be deleted so that
    we could restart without a great gap.
    
    						=maggie

    This note has been re-opened so that we can continue to discuss
    the topic of "Palimony".
    
    Liz Augustine
    Womannotes comoderator
    

    
                 Reprinted From 13 August 1988 Boston Globe
                     (Without permission, naturally)

         
             California Court Rejects $6m Suit Against Boggs 

      Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court Commissioner Eleanor Palk
      yesterday rejected a suit filed by Margo Adams seeking $6 million
      in punitive damages and compensation for lost wages for time she
      spent on road trips with Red Sox third baseman Wade Boggs.

      Palk also said the suit could be refiled if amended within 30 days.

      What does it mean? Boggs said he planned to pop champagne corks when
      he got home. His attorney, Jennifer King, said it was "a major vic-
      tory" for her client. James McGee, Adams' attorney, said it "was
      merely a bump in the road."

      "The argument the court refused to accept was the allegations by Ms.
      Adams that she offered emotional aid, support and benefits to Wade
      Boggs," said King. "Those type of things are usually associated with
      a wife-and-husband relationship. Since the suit makes no mention of a
      sexual relationship, then what we are talking about are the type of
      things two friends share. Obviously, there is no monetary compensation
      for friendship."

      McGee intends to proceed with the suit and said his client could seek
      as much as $12 million in damages because of Adams' new charge that
      Boggs asked the FBI to harass her just before she filed suit in June.
      "The court merely indicated it wants further clarification of our mot-
      ion," he said. "The lawsuit is still pending, and we are moving forward
      with the deposition. And we believe once we present some of the speci-
      fics, there will be no further ability on the part of the defendant
      to stall this lawsuit."

      McGee said the suit seeks to show that Adams offered Boggs emotional
      aid, companionship and support during Red Sox road trips, and when
      Boggs broke off his relationship with the Costa Mesa, Calif., woman,
      he broke an oral contract.

      "The court wants us to be less vague about that, so we will show Ms.
      Adams traveled with Mr. Boggs, arranged his transportation, arranged
      his laundry, things of that nature," said McGee. "She took 100 per
      cent care of the personal matters of Mr. Boggs so he could devote
      100 percent of his life to baseball.

      "She had to get on certain planes at certain times. She had to wear
      certain outfits because it was lucky. There was a laundry list of
      superstitions she catered to.

      "Mr. Boggs let the mundane tasks of his daily life be handled by
      Ms. Adams, much in the same way an executive secretary relieves her
      bosses of his daily duties."

      McGee indicated that if the case goes to trial, he might call as many
      as 24 witnesses, including Red Sox players, coaches, and members of
      Boggs' family.

      Boggs admitted having an affair with Adams and bringing her along for
      most of the team's trips for two years. That affair, according to
      King, ended two years ago.

      When asked if the particulars of the duties Adams alleges she performed
      for Boggs would satisfy the court, King answered, "If Wade Boggs was in
      LA and he hired an escort service to handle his laundry or to pack for
      him or to drive him to ballgames, and then when the time came for
      payment he refused, he would be breaking a contract.

      "But I don't believe (Adams) ever said she was an escort service,
      and that's something you would have to say up front."

      King argued in court yesterday that if the alleged oral contract ex-
      isted, it necessarily would have included sex. A contract for sex is
      illegal, which would invalidate any claim for compensation, she said.

      The court did not reject the suit for that reason, since Adams and
      her attorney have not included any alleged sex in their complaint.

      "They are just trying to get the case into court," said King. "They
      can't if they mention sex."

      
    
      Alan

    And the sure winner will be. . .
    
    . . .the lawyers.
    
    Steve

    I looked up some numbers on palimony suits in the library and was
    going to post them the day the note got closed down, and now I
    can't find the sheet where I copied the information. {Several
    expletives deleted.}  So the following information is from memory: 
    
    I couldn't find any nationwide statistics, but I did find some
    from Pennsylvania in 1984 -- of lawsuits involving unmarried
    couples:
    
    *  over half involved the custody of children
    
    *  a bit less than half contested how jointly-owned real estate
       should be divided 
    
    *  a third involved division of business assets 
    
    *  about 20% asked the court to settle who got the family pet[!!!!] 
    
    *  15% involved "other issues" including breach of implied
       contract and requests for alimony 
    
    [Obviously each case could fall under more than one category.] 
    
    The average amount contested was about $10,000.  The average
    settlement, excluding real estate, was about $4,000.

    The article (which was in some law review journal, whose name I
    have forgotten...) said these numbers "roughly parallel" the
    numbers for divorces in Pennsylvania, but it didn't cite any
    actual statistics to compare. 
    
    --bonnie 

    re:Margo Adams/Wade Boggs
    
    	In my opinion, Margo Adams takes the equality movement backward
    and hurts every woman who has legitimately worked hard to earn her
    place in every aspect of life. Whether or not she was in fact promised
    anything, most men will view her as a parasitic pain in the rear,
    who got dumped is out to get revenge. She apparently does not care
    who she hurts in her quest for money. 
    	I've seen her on a couple of TV spots and she claims to have
    pictures (says she won't use them) of other players in compromising
    positions. She also shines around a diamond necklace with the number
    "26" (value = $10,000). 
    	It's been quoted that she was a baseball "groupie" and loved
    traveling and being treated highly because she was on Boggs' arm.
    When she was with him she always went first class. 
    	I see this type of issue being one that men say "that's a woman
    for ya" and women suffering for it.
    
    Ken

    RE: .122
    
    But Ken, the men who say "that's a woman for ya" are stereotyping
    women, and not looking at us as individuals. Why should we modify
    our behaviour because of those idiots?
    
    She had a right to sue. She sued. The judge threw it out.
    
    *Men* make as many (if not more) stupid suits than women. I know
    very few women who say "Well, that's a *man* for ya." when they
    hear about these suits.
    
    (Palimony as an issue being separate from stupid lawsuits in general)
    
    --DE
    

    About a week ago I heard a commentary by a woman who is
    a consitutional lawyer on the palimony case. I no longer
    recall everything that she said. The gist of her remarks,
    however, was that palimony between a married man and his
    mistress would abrogate the contract of marriage and make
    adultery and multiple partners in marriage legal. She said
    that while society winks at or ignores most private sexual
    behavior (i.e. when was the last time someone was prosecuted
    for adultery for example) that society in general was
    not prepared to give legal sanction to voiding the marriage
    contract.
    
    I thought her comments were quite interesting. I only wish I
    could have recalled more of them.
    
    Bonnie

I had trouble deciding whether to put this here, or feminist humor. 
	Mez

         <<< HYDRA::DISK$USERPACK02:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DAVE_BARRY.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 507.0          There's More to Adams Than Meets the Eyes         No replies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Miami Herald 3/9/89
By Dave Barry
                   There's More to Adams Than Meets the Eyes


You read so many negative stories in the sports pages these days about money, 
broken contracts, lawsuits, racism, cheating, drugs, George Steinbrenner, 
etc., that it's a real breath of fresh air when along comes a sports story 
about good old-fashioned extra-marital sex.

That was the topic Wednesday when Margo Adams came to South Florida as part of 
a national publicity tour to promote her interview in the popular sports-
oriented magazine Penthouse, available at newsstands everywhere and also 
probably under your 12-year-old son's mattress.

For those of you who don't follow major-league baseball, I should explain that 
Margo Adams is a mortgage banker from California who for four years was an 
extremely close personal friend of Wade Boggs, a famous married baseball 
player for the Boston Red Sox. Wade and Margo met one enchanted evening in a 
bar in 1984, and soon she was accompanying him on road trips and even helping 
him out with his batting average by various proven baseball techniques, 
including not wearing undergarments.

"One night," she explains in the interview, "I went to the game and he went 
four for five.  He found out that I hadn't worn panties underneath my dress.  
So for the next couple of months when he went into a slump, he'd ask me not to 
wear panties to the game."

I hope you Little Leaguers out there are paying attention.

So anyway, Wade and Margo became a major item and engaged in numerous acts of 
explicit friendship, which are described in Penthouse, and everything was 
going very well until Margo began to suspect that -- get ready for a shockeroo 
-- Wade was seeing other women. Yes! You think you know a person!

And so Margo decided to break it off and ask Wade for $100,000, which she 
claims he promised he'd give her to compensate for the mortgage banking income 
she lost when she was being his friend and helping his batting average and 
sheering him up by, for example, serving him double-anchovy pizza ("our 
favorite") while dressed in a garter belt and stockings.  And so Wade called 
the FBI and said Margo was extorting money.  And so Margo sued Wade for $12 
million.  And naturally it immediately became a national news story getting 
much more media attention than the Greenhouse Effect, with both sides making 
accusations and offering explanations, the best one so far being when Wade 
announced that he had discovered, while watching Geraldo - I'm not making any 
of this up -- that he had this disease wherein he was addicted to sex. Yes! It 
was scientific!

"Geraldo had psychologists on there and everything," noted Wade. So then along 
came good old public-spirited Penthouse magazine, offering Margo a reported 
$100,000 to:
  1. Tell her side of the story, in hopes of making the public more aware of 
     the extent to which women in our society are victimized by men, and

  2. Pose naked.

And even though the naked pictures will NOT appear (Little Leaguers, take 
note!) until next month's issue, Miss Adams aroused a fair amount of interest 
during her visit here Wednesday.  I caught up with her at 7 a.m. at radio 
station Y-100, where the members of the Morning Zoo radio program were, I 
thought, doing a highly professional job of pretending not to look down the 
front of her dress.  Disc jockey Bob Mitchell kicked off the interview with a 
thoughtful and probing question.

"So," he said. "What was Wade like in the old sack?"  "He doesn't get up this 
early," replied Adams, who as you can imagine gets a whole lot of extremely 
clever "double-entendre" style questions such as how big is Wade's bat 
heheheheh.  She handles it pretty well.  She knows that most people are 
expecting Bimb-O-Rama, but she in fact comes off as articulate and 
intelligent, even though she does seem to favor dressed that you can look down 
the front of, not that I did.  If you just listen to her, she sounds less like 
Penthouse that Ms, talking about how women need to stop letting themselves be 
used how men need to be held to the same standards of accountability as women, 
how a relationship needs commitment, etc.

"My new motto," she said, "is just say no to adultery."

She also said: "I'm supposed to look sexy, but it's hard to look sexy when you 
haven't had sex since April."

She also said: "Whenever I smell jet fuel, it reminds me of Wade."

She also said that Boggs objected to the term "mistress," and once told her: 
"From now on I want you to be called my 'buddy.' Like the kind of person you'd 
take to a boat show."

She also said, in comparing Boggs to Steve Garvey, whom she also dated: "Wade 
has a bigger batting average and Steve has bigger forearms."

I asked her about posing nude, and she said she was embarrassed at first, but 
she did better after the photographer (Shutterbugs take note!) gave her some 
champagne. She said she was somewhat alarmed to learn that whereas the 
pictures in Playboy are airbrushed, the ones in Penthouse aren't.  But she's 
reasonably pleased about how the pictures came out.

Not that I would look at them.  I am a serious media person, and therefore I 
am frankly not interested in the tawdry, soap-opera details of somebody else's 
personal life.  I prefer to focus on the issues.  Such as John Tower.