Since we have so frequently discussed whether Clarissa ought to have gone to court to protect her access to her grandfather's property, I have begun to wonder if a jury would have convicted Lovelace of rape. The Lawn I proposed to retire to, as soon as the happy ceremony was over. He was at times here also in earnest. Beford, I was in earnest in all this. It is a testimony to Richardson's integrity that he came back just to add footnotes and scold us into his view, and left his text for us to read, for his original conception is valid, for consider how had she agreed to charge rape, and if we could imagine a strong defense attorney, would he not have made mince-meat of Miss Harlowe.
Reciprocity is also part of a relationship.
To a certain extent we take good with bad, and expect our partner to take our good with our bad. All relationships are an unspoken contract of sorts. Thus, to take a recent famous case, when Mrs Bobbitt goes up to the bed she shares with Mr Bobbitt, a bed in which they made love 2 nights ago, and goes to sleep, she carries on a relationship. I think I would have acquitted him. So now not only did Clarissa come to live with Lovelace in London, see his friends, stay with him in an outwardly complacent manner, which I suppose the prosecuting attorney could explain away as the result of being duped, but now Lovelace has taken out settlements, begged her to name the day, gone for for a license .