The more convincing part of Filippa’s argument follows her general dismissal. Medieval theology considered sexual satisfaction an important part of marriage and held both a husband and wife responsible to fulfill each other’s sexual needs within the bounds of reason and respect for social conventions. This concept is called the marital debt. Frequently in the tales, the combination of sexuality and commercial language indicates an objectification or commodification of women, but in the case of the marital debt, responsibility extends to both partners. In this context, Filippa claims that she would be cheating on her husband only if she deprived him of something she owed him, and since she meets his sexual needs, she hasn’t wronged him in this way. While her argument is connected to misogynistic ideas about excessive female sex drives (since she has enough to satisfy her husband
and her lover), this tale avoids engaging in those fears. Instead of punishing Filippa, it rewards her for her cleverness and bravery in the face of an unjust law. In contrast, Rinaldo is punished for making their private quarrel public. This makes him more like Roussillon (IV, 9) or Arriguccio Berlinghieri (VII, 8) who bring scorn on themselves for their attempts to punish their wives’ infidelity, than like the wise King Agilulf (III, 2). Finally, it’s notable that the changed statute retains the death penalty for women engaged in prostitution (trading money for sex). While this generally aligns with fears about prostitution expressed in other tales (see, for example, VIII, 1 and 2), it’s also a class-based distinction, since well-off noble and middle-class women were less likely to be engaged in prostitution than common, low-class women.