California Family Code § 6210:
“Dating relationship” means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.
I find this to be:
a) strangely hilarious
b) a rather accurate description of what I may be looking for. Especially the “independent of financial considerations” part. Because, you know, I’m a po‘ student.
6 Comments
what about sugar mommas or daddies?
I suppose it depends…
I haven’t done much research on it, but I suspect that “Sugar Daddy” might come close to “Pimp” in the eyes of The Law (see 647(b))
Or were you asking if I would also be interested in a Sugar Momma?
I second that emotion, or lack thereof. Being po’, you need a sugar momma, which would fall under the category of “financial consideration” though it would definitely not be “financial obligation” which might be what they really mean. There hardly is a circumstance of dating where there are no financial considerations. After all, someone has to pay for dinner before you sleep together, right?
So maybe the question I need to ask my criminal law professor next semester is where the line is drawn between buying dinner and paying for sex.
I think it depends on the dinner.
What if you make dinner? Is that barter? Is barter a financial consideration?
If I wasn’t sick of the library, I’d consider looking for case law on the subject, but let’s be honest, that’s not going to happen.
Post a Comment