Feeds

back to article French bloke fined for failing to shag missus

A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his former wife €10,000 for failing to fulfil his marital duties in the bedroom department, the Telegraph reports. The 51-year-old's missus filed for divorce two years ago, on the grounds of insufficient sex. A judge in Nice granted the petition, declaring that libido-light "Jean-Louis B" was …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Facepalm

Sue-ing

I guess in todays PC world it works both ways, now French men can sue there wifes for not enough sex.

And what about if the cleaning, cooking or taking the kids to school is not 50/50?

8
1
Facepalm

Counter sue?

Can he counter sue for her failing to look after her looks, being too off-putting to get it up?

10
1
Pint

In Most...

...USA states, you cannot force your spouse to have sex, but not giving it up is grounds for divorce.

2
0
Happy

Outstanding

emailed to wife.

Get down or else.

Anon for obvious reasons.

2
1

Point to the dolly

> Get down or else.

Type of sex was not defined, any sexual contact may qualify as enough and not any specific acts...sadly.

3
0
Silver badge
Joke

Not Sex

Going down on a guy isn't sex in the U.S. Just ask Bill Clinton.

8
0
Facepalm

Is "precedent" a legal term in France?

Because if anything has ever screamed "dangerous precedent" at the very top of it´s lungs, it is this one....

12
1
Paris Hilton

parity

The ramifications of this are twofold. I guess the "sorry darling, I've got a headache" excuse is out of the window?

Also, can I now sue the ex missus for failing to dress up like a French maid and 'making me happy with her mouth' whilst tickling my balls with a feather duster?

I demand justice for my balls!

Paris, cos you know she would...

9
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Sensible decision

Although I'm surprised his wife didn't just do the French thing and got *ahem - satisfaction* elsewhere

0
3
Silver badge

I'm Sure She Did

But even if she did that doesn't let her out of her agreement to give it up to her hubby.

1
0
Trollface

Doobie doop da doop doop

Is she ugly then?

0
4
Facepalm

Insanity?

The French legal system should have just stayed mum and let us all think they were insane instead of drawing out attention to this and proving it.

7
2
Silver badge
Trollface

Exchange role of female and male

...see law going the other way.

6
0

goose = gander but goose != gander

Right. I'm moving to aix-en-provence

1
0
Anonymous Coward

I'm French...

And i'm hung like a baby carrot and a couple of petite pois!

12
0
Coffee/keyboard

ROFL

New keyboard please...

0
0
Paris Hilton

pictures

maybe we should reserve judgement in the absence of pictures

1
1
Silver badge

Playmobil?

I guess the reconstruction of this one is boring - a character in a saucy maid's outfit and another sat in a chair reading a newspaper and ignoring her.

1
0
Joke

Sounds like she shafted him

or not as the case may be.

2
0

Frakk me

Whatever next?

0
0
IT Angle

Umm

I thought the lack of response to "frakk me" was kind of the whole issue.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Ouch...

Well she's certainly screwed him now!

2
0
Coat

And yet

they mock G-Spot probing.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

What ?

Can you picture this the other way round.

Wife is punished for not having sex with husband.

How does it become right whenits the otehr way round.

9
1
Anonymous Coward

Counter claim

How about: "If you hadn't turned into such a boot-faced old hag, I'd have been more inclined to wield le vieux l'épée de porc"

Missed a trick there mon brave, je pense.

1
0

Pic

We need a pic of this wife, in order to judge the sanity here.

1
1
Coat

Pics plz or it didn't happen

oh - hold on, that was what she was complaining about in the first place.

I'll get my coat.

ttfn

2
0
WTF?

History repeats

Hey, it's just like Ireland in the 1940s, 50s, 40s... Except it was the other way around. Another stupid ruling from the government who brought you the infamous "not allowed mention facebook/twitter on television" ruling.

Vive la revolution!

2
0
Happy

Ireland in the 1940s, 50s, 40s...

I've always thought that that's the way that time flows in the Emerald Isle...

1
0

In these modern times

Hasn't it been drilled into everyone that we must respect a person's right to say "no"? How is this respecting that right?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

"Hasn't it been drilled into everyone"

au contraire, c'est le problème!

9
0

Exceptional case

This an exceptional case which is why it is in the news. The woman was 45 when she divorced him for lack of sex for 21 years (i.e. from the age of 24) !

This does not compare to one's wife's right to say no when one returns drunk from the pub at 3:00am.

1
3
Silver badge

Marriage and sex

You can still say no during marriage, but say no too many times and it's grounds for divorce, sometimes even annulation. Some immigrant jackass got himself deported in the US because of this; he married a fat chick (to get legal migration status, it seems) but delayed *any* kind of sex for years before she filed for divorce.

Sounds about right; if you aren't getting any sex, why keep the marriage? And 21 years w/o shagging???

0
1

Yes, but No

I think the idea here is that if you don't want to have sex with a woman, don't marry her!

Same for those marrying men, of course.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Say no if you want...................

but you dare not say, "Non."

Paris, because she allegedly doesn't say no.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So, she's talking 476€ a year or less than 10€ a week.

She may just be opening herself up to accusations of being a cheap shag.

1
0
Gold badge
Devil

Re: a cheap shag

I wondered about that, too. I don't want to come over all PC and everything, but putting an exact price on the value of marital sex strikes me as an "interesting" thing for a court to do.

This road leads somewhere and is doubtless paved with good intentions, but I don't intend to follow anyone down it to find it.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

What?

"couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other"

Presumably that made more sense in French.

6
0
Facepalm

Double what?

It is so English to think that marriage implies not having sex with each other.

2
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

No, Bob ...

... it is English to think that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex at all. Marriage *is* about "sharing a life together", but that does not imply anything to do with exchanging bodily fluids or producing offspring. We have the good sense to realise that living together has nothing to do with sex, which probably boils down to the fact that we lost the Catholic notion of "marriage is about nothing other than sex (but you must not enjoy it)" some time ago, and, to my mind, we are better off without it.

2
0
WTF?

Body parts

Surely it wasn't his arse that she hauled into court ...

Icon, because ...

0
0
Silver badge

Call in an expert

Sounds like a job for Dominique If-it-breathes-I-shag-it Strauss-Khan.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Judge D. Strauss-Kahn presiding ...

Good to see him back in employment

2
0
Facepalm

Rule1

From another place.

This story is worthless without pictures.

0
0
WTF?

Baffled by responses

I'm baffled by most of the responses here.

Marrying someone does indeed imply a sexual relationship. Apart from anything, the marriage is not valid (in English law and the eyes of the Catholic Church) until it is consummated so having some sex is an absolute necessity for a married couple.

It is not reasonable on a specific occasion to say "You married me, you must have sex with me now" but it is perfectly reasonable to expect to have an active sex life and by the same token, it is a perfectly valid reason for a divorce if there isn't one.

After all, what sort of a relationship between a man and a woman is it if there is no physical expression of love. A piss poor one in my view.

6
8
Silver badge

Did you read the same article?

Or the same comments? I don't think anyone say it was unreasonable to divorce for lack of sex. The crazy part is suing for 10,000 euro on top of that.

6
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Iotus49...

... I have many relationships with women that do not involve "physical expression of love" - my mum and my sister and several female friends spring to mind. Your statement seems to regard the only relevant relationship between a man and a woman as either a) a marriage or b) sexual. You are wrong on several counts:

1. "Sexual relationships" and "marriage" are not synonymous.

2. "Loving relationships" and "marriage" are not synonymous

3. "Sexual relationships" and "loving relationships" are not synonymous

The only way your post is accurate is in the mutual expectations of the two (or more) partners in a relationship - a breach of those expectations may lead to breakdown.

It is beyond time that it is accepted that there are people who do not especially like sex, or consider themselves to be asexual. This does not make them bad, ridiculous, or worthy of moral and legal punishment.

0
1

Meh.

One simple answer. Outsource.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

The Lotus says

In the same part of the marriage service as it talks about "forsaking all others" the couple also promise to "have and to hold".

Sure you have no right to force your partner to have sex, but by the same token, if they are no longer interested in having a sexual relationship then they are just as much cheating on their marriage vows as someone playing away from home. They should therefore no longer have the right to consider themselves married.

4
4
Trollface

re: "forsaking all others" and "have and to hold".

The traditional vows in the English Christian service pretty much tell you what to expect and what your obligations are. It isn't small print, it's spelled out clearly at the time. Read and listen before agreeing to the contract!

Also for Christians, I think Corinthians mentions that if you are depriving your spouse of sex for more than a short time (while you concentrate on other things), then yes, you are robbing them of their rights and God will hold you accountable.

Atheists (and the french did make a good go of becoming the first atheist nation) of course can do what they want and so can their spouses because morality is just something we put together to help with the survival of the species. In this case morality isn't working for the continuation of the species, so she should probably "dispose" of him and hide the evidence, then she'd have lots of resources, allowing her to mate at will and do her bit for humanity. As long as she doesn't get caught, its all good.

2
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.