Sexual Easements

In my continuing quest to develop a more legally minded blog, I present the following idea:

Let's say there's a nasty break-up in some sort of developing world in which women (or for you left-wingers out there, men) are considered property. Now let's say the dominant individual sells the servient individual, is it possible for the dominant individual to maintain a sexual easement and then SELL or testate that sexual easement to an uninvolved individual?

There are two methods in which I see this as being, at least conceptually, possible. The two rules of law we need to consider are Easement by Necessity and Easement by Implication. Let's consider each one.

Necessity:

1. Original unity of ownership:

I think we can all agree that at one time, in owning the servient individual, the dominant individual owned the sexual rights in addition to all other rights.

2. Necessity NOW, not a mere convenience

Here things get a little tricky. Unless we're talking some kind of "deepthroat" rule, or perhaps a lack of fertile men or women, it seems pretty unlikely that a necessity can be proven. And even in the second case, SOME other fertile individual of the opposite sex would destroy the necessity possibility. Othen v. Rosier. 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950).

3. Necessity existed at the time of severence.

I figure this one is also tricky and depends on how poor the dominant individual was. If the dominant individual had only one husband or wife, then I don't see a problem claiming necessity at time of severance. That said, it's possible that the dominant individual still had other viable sexual options.

Implication

1. Unity of ownership

Still no problem.

2. Apparent and continuous quasi-easement

If the dominant individual maintained an open sexual relationship with the servient individual (maybe some threeway action? Sweet), and that open relationship was somehow sold to the next dominant individual, then this category may well be satisfied.

2.a.

It's worth pointing out that the new owner of the servient individual would have to KNOW about the open relationship, thereby eliminating the bona fide purchaser issue.

3. Necessity at the time of severance.

See above.

So there you go. My conclusion, based upon our limited set of facts, is that an Easement by Implication would be the new Dominant individual's best hope, as an Easement of sexual Necessity would be very difficult to prove, unless we lived in some sort of post-apocalyptic world.

Note: It is worth pointing out that easements of this time are only applicable to real property (i.e. land). Take that as you will.