Genderiffic #4- Contracts

If contracts had a gender, what would it be?

From what I remember about contracts, you need to have an offer, an acceptance, and consideration for there to be a valid contract. Let’s figure out the gender of this rule by examining a common transaction: me trying to pick up a girl in a bar.

1. Offer: seems to be clear. I buy her a few drinks, compliment her, and make thinly veiled sexual references. Plus I’m a guy.

2. Acceptance: never clear. However the UCC says that any expression of acceptance can be enough, even if there are additional terms. So in my book, the return flirting and accepting the drinks are sufficient.

3. Consideration: must bargain together and there must be some legal detriment. I submit that the $30 I’ve just shelled out for 3 Cosmos, and the time spent listening to stories about her high school escapades, are sufficient. Her legal detriment? A night with me of course.

However, would this ever be considered a contract? Of course not. There are all these defenses that would shut me down (instead of the usual "casual mention" of her "boyfriend").

-Unconscionability (contract is so lopsided as to be unfair)
-Constructive condition (there was implicitly a 3 date minimum involved)
-Illegality (she’s only 17)
-Misrepresentation (I told her I was a race car driver)

So I suppose that contracts is female. Rigid rules for creating relationships, but lots of escape hatches for when they've realized the huge mistake they've made? Yup, female. Guys are about the easy in, easy out.

[Edit.] This is the end of the genderiffic series. I've just realized that this is the lame kind of law humor that makes me hate my life so much. Sorry to inflict this on you.