"She says she abandoned her other work to focus on providing ''sexual and other services for Pratt'' as his ''permanent mistress''. But Ms Ashton claims he did not follow through on his promises, and she is suing his widow, Jeanne, for damages," wrote Kim Arlington Courts.
One of Australia's richest men, Pratt died in April last year from prostate cancer. In the battle for the $5 billion fortune he left behind, the Pratt camp made its position clear. Mrs Pratt, the sole executor of her husband's estate, wants the proceedings struck out. Pratt allegedly offered to establish a $5 million trust fund for her two children, pay the $36,000 annual rent on her apartment and give her $30,000 annually in travel expenses, plus $500,000 a year for her upkeep.
Ms Ashton says she did not receive ''the full benefits the subject of the offer'' and suffered loss and damage as a result of Pratt's alleged breach of contract. Even the Mercedes-Benz he transferred to her fell short of the $100,000 value he promised, she says. The Ashton matter returns to court next month. (SMH article)
Having served as an industrial chaplain for a period of twelve years, I witnessed many heart broken men who felt that the system 'did them in'.
So my question states: Is there a principle in this case cited above, or some kind of parallel?
Many men who 'feel done-in' affirm their emotional claim, that "he who gets the sex, pays the bills". Although this sentiment places women as an emotional and sexual product to be bought and sold, for many men, it carries with it a very powerful sense of fairness and justice.
The thinking, the sentiment, goes something like this:
As sex is such an enormous factor for men (ie, the history of prostitution illustrates the need for men to have sex with a woman), that should someone take his place in the 'bed of convenience' then that person pays the household bills and maintenance of whose-ever children are in the house.
This 'sentiment' of these men (and one which many women recognise) is that, she provides the comfort for whoever is in her bed. In the exchange, he provides the where-with-all.
The question is: Is this vague '50's idea, returning in a different way, and will the court endorse it? (ie: when the man is dead, it seems).
No simple formula covers anything like all the contingencies of a relationship, and moreover children makes it all the more complicated. Nonetheless, the Ashton case will create a great deal of interest, in that, a case may be made, that after death, sex has a greater value than when the man was alive.