Finnish judge says breast fondling should be cheaper

Comments

21 comments posted
I guess the key word here is

I guess the key word here is demented. Apparently the man could not even tell what month it is so charging that much probably constitutes fraud.

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 23 September 2006 - 9:06am
How much is too much?

If the man is "demented," then the issue isn't the money, it's the fact that the man has control over his own money, perhaps? As it is, the judge placed a value on fondling, which is an interesting role of the State.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 September 2006 - 8:03am
A couple thoughts ...

I'm not familiar with Finnish law either, but a few things occur to me.

First, this sort of thing is a prime example of what happens when a government is given too much leeway to meddle in the marketplace. A government allowed to set maximum allowable fees for one sort of service (editing, Web design, legal services) will inevitably be invited to set maximum allowable fees for ANY sort of service, including breast-fondling, unless that government is restrained.

Which leads me to my second, related point. It seems to me that breast-fondling, if it is being offered as a service, should be subject to the same regulation as any other service. Meaning that, for example, antitrust regulation would bar people in the industry from price-fixing, collusion, and other anticompetitive behavior. I don't really don't see why this particular service should qualify for an exemption from a nation's business laws.

Third, you put forward this point:

[I]t seems to be a pretty clear indication of Patriarchy when a government official in a trusted position having power over the citizenry -- a man -- passes official judgment on some sort of maximum value a woman's breasts can have even to other men.

Would this ruling be more acceptable if the judge were a woman?

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 24 September 2006 - 7:38pm
Does Finland regulate all that?

Interesting the logic behind the idea that certainly there must be some limits on what kind of barriers (or price) a woman can erect before a man can fondle her.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 September 2006 - 8:31pm
Finnish regulation

Honestly, I'm not sure what Finnish law regulates. The thing is, though, once the right to fondle breasts enters commerce, the transaction is subject to the usual business rules in its jurisdiction.

On the flip side of the Finnish precedent, most American jurisdictions, as far as I know, criminalize this sort of transaction, as sexual services are not considered a legal trade.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 25 September 2006 - 7:36am
The courts put a price on

The courts put a price on human life so why not breast fondling?

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 2:39am
Human life for sale

Umm, yeah, Finn, you do have to put a price on human life. That's the whole point behind your average wrongful death suit.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 25 September 2006 - 7:37am
And the point behind the

And the point behind the breast fondling case is to determine a price for breast fondling. Example (no tits involved, sorry), I am a 74 yo. medically-diagnosed demented man who has a house that is worth a million and I sell it to you for 100 000. I am subsequently told by my kids that I´ve made a big mistake and I have sold my house to the detriment of me and my kids to the tune of 900 000. I can probably then sue you in court and seek a remedy

or demand the deal is declared void. I would likely win the case if and when it is determined that you have used my diagnosed medical condition to your advantage. In this case it was also thought that the man could not distinguish between the earlier Finnish currency and the 2002 introduced Euro. It is quite funny that some people (that´s not necessarily you PW)would make this and others a gender issue when none needs exist.

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 9:33am
There's a big difference here

Real estate has resale value, and a market against which value can be measured.

Where is the resale value of breast fondling? Who's to say that the woman charged too much to have an old man fondling her? You? Who's to say the man did not get his money's worth? Would any old breast do?

If he's medically diagnosed, then the time to claim he's incompetent to handle is own affairs is before the transaction, not after, imho -- especially when you have such an unquantifiable value as the fondling of the breasts of one particular woman.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 September 2006 - 10:02am
Considering many men do

Considering many men do that(practically)for free and others can (if they wish) go visit a prostitute where the going rate probably isn´t $32 000 for fondling breasts, the court, if and when asked and when it is within their jurisdiction to do so probably do not value the service quite as high. It was determined that the man was and is incompetent to understand the monetary value of the this particular transaction whether before or after.

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 10:49am
So you're saying

...that this woman should be measured on the basis of any old prostitute, or have her breasts ruled men's property by default, since men fondle women's breasts all the time?

The assumption behind this is that men are somehow entitled to purchase breast-fondling services from any woman, and that any woman must sell breast fondling at some price deemed "reasonable" by the State.

How is that not Patriarchy codified?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 September 2006 - 11:39am
The question ...
How is that not Patriarchy codified?

The question here, I think, is not whether breast-fondling is subject to regulation, but whether it is suject to the same regulation as similar transactions.

If you give this particular transaction special status, making it immune to, for example, rules against price-gouging and fraud, then you're creating a special status for transactions involving the fondling women's breasts. Is that what you're after here?

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 25 September 2006 - 6:16pm
So what are similar transactions?

How much is a painting worth? How much is a joke that makes you laugh all day?

How do you value one woman's breasts? Or are you establishing a class for all women's breasts, and establishing some sort of value that men can reasonably expect.

"I want to fondle your breasts."

"Ha, you perv! Okay, fine, you can touch my breasts for a million dollars!"

"I'm going to sue! You are exploiting me!"

What kind of Communistic state forces this woman to lower the price for some old man to fondle her? As others have pointed out, the old man could have gone to some prostitute. Is the ruling saying that the man was demented for not doing so? Is this woman being compelled by the State to never charge more than some State-established rate of fondling for such "services"?

Really, this is pretty absurd.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 September 2006 - 7:53pm
Again I´m referring to the

Again I´m referring to the fact that the man suffers from dementia and could not tell what month it is or the difference between the two currencies. It is therefore not a question of what he wants to do with his money but rather whether his medical condition has been exploited. You know as well as I do that the example above is absurd and no court in the world would consider a case like that (so why give that as an example. You know it´s absurd, that´s why you gave it as an example!). Rather than standing for the woman´s right to prostitute(wikipedia says prostitution is the sale of sexual services for money or other kind of return)herself, you may want to consider the right for mentally ill people not to be taken advantage of.

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 26 September 2006 - 12:50am
Actually ...

I'm not talking about a value for the woman's breasts, but for the right to fondle them. Honestly, I wasn't looking at this through the prism of the man's dementia, but rather through a more general business-regulation paradigm. More TK.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 26 September 2006 - 8:24am
Something to keep in mind ...

Land is real property, while breast-fondling is a right or service; often, different standards apply.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 25 September 2006 - 6:14pm
Semantics aside, but what

Semantics aside, but what would you call a woman who allows a man to fondle her breasts for money? Apparently there was no coercion involved from either side so the woman did not have to sell breast fondling but chose to do so. Considering the high price and the man´s mental state, this transaction was a little unusual. Finally, courts are forever asked to put a value on an infinite number of things, including spilling coffee on your lap at Mcdonalds.

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 12:23pm
What was the harm?

Product liability is a bit different from a business transaction of mutual consent, where neither party is harmed.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 September 2006 - 12:42pm
And a woman who sells sexual

And a woman who sells sexual favors, what would you call her?

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 12:52pm
Well, maybe Mcdonalds is not

Well, maybe Mcdonalds is not the best example but take small claims court where personal disputes like this are solved to know who owes what and to whom (that´s not unlike that Judge Judy on TV if that´s what her name is)

Finn's picture
Posted by Finn (not verified) on 25 September 2006 - 1:09pm
Female Fat Pads

Just another freaky Finnish fetish fondler....

Personally, I draw the line at $11,476...

Won't say who, though ...

John Stone's picture
Posted by John Stone (not verified) on 28 September 2006 - 2:35am