Posted by Steve/Tim/Mike/Bob on September 5, 2005, 9:19 pm, in reply to "Before marrying, prepare your prospective wife for your involvement with naturist groups" If I had been him—well, to begin with, that whole situation wouldn’t even have existed—but just taking it from there, if I had been him, at the first ultimatum from her I would have started looking for every excuse to get rid of her, maybe because of supposedly not doing her job well enough—or any little thing I didn’t like about her work. How would you explain it to your wife, why you wanted to fire the maid, if the woman you’ve married is like that? I don’t know. Maybe hire another maid before you get rid of her and maybe tell your wife you want to try out having both, a cook and a housekeeper. It would cost more? Yes, but like David said, sometimes you have to spend more money to compensate for your addiction. Then after you have the new cook, decide that you only need one employee to do both jobs, and explain to your wife that the new maid does such a better job than the old one, that the old one should go. Or maybe just say she stole some money from you—several times. Say she took it out of your wallet, maybe, whatever and fire her for that reason. Maybe tell your wife you came home one day and caught her in the act of stealing something from you. But you’ve got to get rid of her. You can’t have conflicts like that erupting in your house and coming between you and your wife. When you dismiss her, will she complain that it’s cruel and it makes life hard for her? Then your answer could be that life is hard for you too—harder for you in ways she doesn’t imagine. It’s your right to hire or fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want. And it would be better for her too, for her to be gone from the situation, if she’s only going to be getting upset from your lifestyle, and her getting upset is going to be causing tension on your marriage. Yes, a good choice of a wife and a good choice of a maid could help out from the beginning on that one. _________________________ The columnist said above that perhaps the maid could still press charges against him for indecent exposure, but I think he’s mistaken about that. I can’t speak for the laws everywhere because they vary from place to place, but according to my understanding, in most states the laws governing indecent exposure don’t cover situations involving members of one’s own household, if that’s where it took place. And a live-in maid would be considered a member of one’s own household. What did lawmakers have in mind when they stipulated that exception? Members of one’s own family? (Who would want to do that anyway? Sick!) Maybe it was for the purpose of cases dealing with siblings getting into arguments or fights and wanting to use that for revenge, the fact that somebody was undressed sometime in front of somebody, when the real conflict was something else, and the lawmakers didn’t want the law being abused that way. I don’t know. Whatever the case, I guess they decided that members of one’s own family, within one’s own house, goes under the category of domestic disputes, and if it involves nothing more than nudity, then the police can’t be expected to respond to a charge like that. But it doesn’t specify what kinds of relationships the persons involved have to be to each other. It just says “members of household.” I have no doubt that a live-in maid therefore would fall under the same category. So even if she were to report it to the police, in that situation, it appears to me that the police would not be able to respond to the charge. (But, as I said, the laws can vary from locality to locality, so who knows?) _________________________ In my case, in addition to it being in the same household, I asked her about it at the beginning, and she clearly gave me her consent—and she is of legal age; so, legally, in our case, it would be an act between consenting adults. In the Brotherhood at the U, since a long time back, we’ve arranged situations with female friends we make, when we get together, that legally qualify as nothing more than circumstances between consenting adults, so there’s no legal danger from them. The only legal danger I might possibly have in Araceli’s case would be for hiring an undocumented worker, but it’s not very likely the INS is going to come busting in on us demanding documents. (And I pay her in cash, so how would they be able to prove it, anyway?) _________________________ I pay her in cash, so how would they be able to prove it, anyway? I don’t know, but when George W. Bush was first elected, I remember because the election results had dragged on for a whole month or so, when it was decided that he was the winner, he had to hurriedly pull together a White House team, and then it was found that one of the women he appointed to some position had hired a maid some years back who was an illegal alien from Guatemala, and because of that, he had to dismiss her. I don’t know, but they found out somehow.
Link: Post a response
Message modified by board administrator September 5, 2005, 9:26 pm
The maid’s got to go
Posted by Steve 10/3/2002, 6:28 pm
“Members of household” legal exception
Posted by Tim 10/10/2002, 9:28
Posted by Mike 10/14/2002, 4:05 pm
Posted by Bob 12/28/2004 7:09 pm
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
